Costing Through an Equity Lens: A Social Media Series Overview

Costing and equity are critical considerations when scaling the impact of education innovations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Yet too often, these two areas are addressed in isolation. Recently, a group of researchers and practitioners—who were involved in the GPE KIX learning event on scaling—ran an eight-part social media series to share their perspectives on what it means to approach costing in education through an equity lens. The series explored why costing matters, what makes it challenging, and how it can serve as a tool for inclusion, accountability, and informed decision-making. Below, we summarize key insights from the series and encourage you to review individual posts for a deeper understanding of the conversation.  

Defining key concepts 

In the introductory post, Christine Harris-Van Keuren—a founder of SALT Analytics and an organizer of the series—provides definitions of equity and costing as a starting point for discussing costing through an equity lens. According to her, this approach combines both concepts by examining what resources are needed for specific groups and communities to thrive and succeed. It also raises critical questions such as: Who bears the greatest burden in delivering programs? Who may be excluded when an intervention is considered “affordable”? What differentiated investments are necessary for equitable outcomes? (See the full post here)  

Added costs in scaling for lasting impact 

In the next post, Brad Olsen of the Brookings Institution emphasizes that pursuing costing through an equity lens introduces additional and distinct costs, but these costs are necessary for lasting impact towards a more inclusive world. Drawing on GPE KIX’s ROSIE research on equity when scaling for impact, he notes that including equity considerations in scaling requires additional time, sensitivity, and resources and that this approach is not always incentivized by existing norms, structures, and constituencies (including governments). To address this, he offers in his post a few practical and useful steps project implementers can take to think about costing through an equity lens when scaling education initiatives. (See the full post here) 

Scaling and costing smart through government systems 

In the following post, Patience Derera—Finance and Administration Senior Manager at Youth Impact—highlights that when scaling through government systems, costs must be central to program design. If models are too expensive or complex, they will not sustain or reach all learners. She notes that when being intentional about costs, programs become more effective as they scale, challenging the common fear of “dilution at scale.” In the post, Derera provides suggestions on how costing through an equity lens can be considered at different stages of the scaling process drawing on the experience of Youth Impact. (See the full post here)  

Equity in scaling and costing in education in emergencies 

In her post, Carmen Moreno of Can’t Wait to Learn addresses the unique challenges of delivering education in emergencies and protracted crises, where resources are limited but needs are immense. Approaching costing through an equity lens in these settings means examining not just what education costs, but what value it delivers and for whom. In emergencies and protracted crises, the challenge is clear: how do we deliver quality education at scale, with limited resources, without leaving the most vulnerable children behind? The post outlines key ingredients of cost-efficient, scalable, and inclusive learning solutions and provides examples of what equity-focused investment can look like in practice in conflict-affected contexts. (See the full post here) 

Linking investments to results 

Elena Walls, a former USAID education specialist, argues for linking investments to results in her post. She emphasizes that costing can be a powerful tool for attracting and sustaining investment by clearly showing the relationship between spending and outcomes. Cost data enable stakeholders to make evidence-based decisions and move beyond broad funding appeals. For example, instead of saying “let’s fund education,” costing can specify how much it takes to educate a refugee child in a given context or what investment is needed to bring an out-of-school child back to class. This level of transparency builds confidence among donors and policymakers and strengthens the case for equity-focused investments. Walls notes that both philanthropy and policymakers respond better to specifics than generalities—such as knowing the exact cost to provide education for a child with disabilities or to offer a scholarship for a disadvantaged youth to attend college. (See the full post here)  

Trade-offs, priorities, and transparency in costing 

Towards the end of the series, Christine Harris-Van Keuren, drawing on nearly a decade of experience developing costing models, reflects on the inherent challenge of inclusion. She notes that cost models are rarely fully inclusive; every model reflects priorities, trade-offs, and tensions. If equity discussions are incorporated, it is essential to consider whose definition of equity is being applied and who is included—or excluded—in the process. Christine emphasizes that defining the “best use of resources” always depends on who makes the decisions. She calls for more dialogue in costing exercises around voices, trade-offs, and transparent decision-making. In her post, she offers practical suggestions for integrating equity and transparency into costing and raises a critical question: How can we balance the need for disaggregated, equity-focused costing with the practical need to keep costing models simple and usable? (See the full post here) 

Counting costs fairly 

The final post in the series reflects on how various stakeholders approach equity differently and the implications of failing to account for education costs through an equity lens. Non-governmental organizations often have the flexibility to target specific populations, showing what is possible when resources are tightly aligned. Governments, by contrast, must serve all learners within finite budgets and political constraints. The underlying challenge, however, is shared: if the same investment produces different learning gains for different groups, equity requires us to reconsider where and how resources are allocated. The post presents key questions for researchers and practitioners to consider as they commit to costing through an equity lens. It emphasizes that if education costs are not analyzed through an equity lens, inequalities will persist or even deepen. By integrating equity into expenditure planning and analysis, we can move closer to building education systems that are both just and sustainable. (See the full post here) 

To learn more about this topic and continue the conversation, join us for the 6th GPE KIX Global Symposium, which will explore key issues related to scaling, costing, and education financing.