The past grim, difficult year challenged our nation and schools like few others, so it’s important to take the time to appreciate good news when we hear it. New research from EdReports provides just such an opportunity. Titled State of the Market 2020: The Use of Aligned Materials, it explores the availability of high-quality, standards-aligned instructional materials today, and more importantly, to what extent they are actually being used by educators.

The findings are based on data from two primary sources: EdReport’s own instructional materials reviews, conducted by experienced classroom educators, principals, district leaders, and state administrators; and the RAND Corporation’s American Instructional Resources Survey, which yielded data on mathematics and English language arts (ELA) curriculum use during the 2018–19 and 2019–20 school years.

In terms of the availability of high-quality instructional materials, after reviewing a whopping 90 percent of the known materials available for K–12 mathematics and ELA, EdReports concluded that “aligned instructional materials are increasingly available.” For example, in 2020, 41 percent of mathematics materials were found to meet expectations, up from just 28 percent in 2018. For ELA, the percentage of materials meeting expectations crept up from 49 percent to 52 percent over the same period.

Of course, the availability of high-quality, standards-aligned materials really only matters if teachers are using them. Encouragingly, EdReports found that educators are increasingly doing so, noting that, “In 2019, 30 percent of mathematics teachers used at least one aligned curriculum. That number grew to 40 percent in 2020. The increase is similar for English language arts teachers. From 2019 to 2020, an 11-percentage-point increase in teachers using aligned ELA programs occurred.” Overall, based on RAND survey data, they estimate that teachers are using high-quality materials “at least 50 percent of the time, especially in math,” and that fewer teachers today are using self-created materials than in prior years.

This is especially good news, as prior research has found those to tend to be lower quality than materials vetted and recommended by districts or states. As cited in EdReports’ report, a 2019 study conducted for our organization by University of Southern California associate professor Morgan Polikoff and educational consultant Jennifer Dean similarly found that the majority of supplemental instructional materials teachers create, share, and download from popular websites were “mediocre” and deemed “not worth using.”

As the report’s authors conclude, “Instructional materials matter for student success. They mattered before the Covid-19 health crisis, and they will matter even more as schools begin to understand the impact of closures on student learning.” And while it’s encouraging that teachers are using high-quality materials at least 50 percent of the time, that still leaves much room for improvement. Among the author’s recommendations to state and district policymakers is to offer professional development for teachers tailored to curriculum, leverage high-quality curriculum to accelerate student learning, and invest in high-quality, coherent, and standards-aligned instructional materials.

In the coming year, many schools will likely, and rightly, be working to provide students with expanded mental health supports, high-dosage tutoring, and extended learning time. But as we at Fordham recently argued, these efforts should never come at the expense of schools’ core academic programs, including the adoption and use of high-quality curricula. With so many organizations now providing impartial reviews regarding the quality and alignment of instructional materials today—such as EdReports, the Louisiana Department of Education, and the California Curriculum Collaborative—there’s no shortage of information about great offerings out there. And there’s simply no excuse for not separating the wheat from the chaff.

SOURCE: “2020 State of the Market: The Use of Aligned Materials,” EdReports (March 9, 2021).

Editor's note: To learn more about EdReports and this report, tune into this week’s podcast.

• How can we do more to prevent teen suicides? —New York Times
• Pandemic pods are less sustainable and are harder to run than many parents thought. —Good Housekeeping
• Teacher unions inherently oppose reform, even when a crisis demands change. For transformative innovation, look to school choice. —Terry M. Moe
• Wealthier parents in Philadelphia, tired of the school board’s reluctance to reopen, are turning to private schools or moving away. —WHYY
• How school systems can overcome the rigidity caused by Covid fears to improve learning. —Michael B. Horn

Cheers

• “Some states were still hoping to cancel testing. The Biden administration just said no.” —Chalkbeat
• The late children’s author, Beverly Cleary, captured the imagination and experience of childhood like no other. —David Von Drehle
• In a momentous settlement, Oklahoma’s charter schools gained access to local tax revenues they had long been denied. —The Oklahoman
• West Virginia has just instituted the least-constrained education choice program in the country, offering it to families regardless of income. —Herald-Dispatch
• “Why perfect attendance awards should be the next pandemic victim.” —Washington Post
• Kentucky’s governor vetoed a bill to create a tax credit for organizations that help families fund educational expenses. Then the legislature overrode him. —Courier Journal
• A “moratorium on charter schools makes no sense.” —Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee

Jeers

• Illinois legislators are pushing for a union-backed bill to establish a twenty-one person (!) elected school board in Chicago. —Chalkbeat
• “More than half of teachers are declining to return to the classroom, and so most of Oakland’s schools will not reopen as scheduled.” —National Review
• Vested political interests in San Francisco blocked a philanthropist from giving billions of dollars for free summer programs. —Vox

In early March, President Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress kept the fiscal faucets open by passing the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP). For Ohio, this means that more financial help is on its way. The Buckeye State will receive a whopping $4.5 billion in ARP funds for K–12 public schools, averaging about $2,800 per pupil, to be spent over the next few years. This is atop the roughly $2.6 billion for primary-secondary education that the state has already received via earlier federal relief programs. Altogether, Ohio schools will receive somewhere north of $7.0 billion in aid—equivalent to about one third of total annual education spending in the state. Wow!

Like the previous packages, at least 90 percent of those dollars must be disbursed to school districts and public charter schools via Title I formulas that steer the lion’s share of funds to high-poverty schools. Districts such as Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton will collect more than $5,000 per pupil in ARP money, while wealthy districts will mostly receive under $1,000 per pupil. Districts and charters will enjoy broad spending flexibilities, though the ARP does require that at least 20 percent of the funds be used to meet academic and social-emotional needs arising from the pandemic. The ARP also sets aside additional monies for the state education agency, for private schools, and to support homeless children and students with disabilities. Though not designated for schools, the ARP will also send Ohio more than $10 billion for state and local governments which could use a portion for educational purposes.

A wealth of commentary has offered advice about how to put these dollars to good use. The most popular—and commonsense—ideas have been extended learning time and intensive tutoring. Other worthy uses include efforts to reengage disaffected pupils, support learning pods, strengthen information systems, give students opportunities to repeat a grade or redo coursework, and assist parents with special-need children. Moreover, schools could leverage these federal funds to make serious improvements to their pre-pandemic approaches to instruction (see Fordham’s new how-to guide).

While wisely putting these funds to use is critical, a less discussed issue is whether the flood of federal money will affect state education policy. Although the feds haven’t explicitly tied aid to policy changes, the dollars could alter the dynamics of ongoing debates. Here’s a few questions that might arise:

Will the influx of federal money change Ohio legislators’ appetite to spend lots more on education? We must realize that, despite the economic challenges of the past year, Ohio lawmakers are not currently discussing budget cuts. Rather—and perhaps surprisingly to those outside of Columbus—legislators are seriously contemplating major increases in state education outlays. The vehicle garnering the most attention is the Cupp-Patterson school funding plan, as laid out in House Bill 1. First unveiled prior to the pandemic, the plan would rework the funding formula and increase state spending on K–12 education by an estimated $2 billion per year. While that increase might’ve made sense before the federal efforts, it’s possible that some legislators won’t see as urgent a need to push more state money into public schools. What is the argument for more state expenditures—at least right now?

Will the funds allow legislators to address other priorities in K–12 education? As mentioned above, the federal relief programs direct far more aid to high-poverty urban districts. For instance, Cleveland will receive an eye-popping sum of roughly $12,000 per pupil across the three packages. While these funds will be spread over multiple years, they will be added to the $17,600 per pupil the district already spends per year, well above the statewide average of $12,700 per student.

To be sure, funneling more dollars to Ohio’s poorest districts makes sense. Students in those places have likely struggled most during the pandemic. However, state legislators may start to rethink plans to ratchet up funding for high-poverty districts. The Cupp-Patterson plan, for instance, proposes a boost through the economically disadvantaged funding stream. Governor DeWine’s budget proposal directs additional money to poor districts via the Student Wellness and Success Fund. In normal circumstances, these would be commendable moves. But with money pouring into low-wealth districts, some creative legislators might begin contemplating ways to reroute funds within the state budget to help support other worthwhile initiatives such as removing funding caps, addressing charter facilities, or strengthening gifted, STEM, and AP/IB programs.

Of note: Legislators need to be mindful of an ARP provision called “maintenance of equity” that prohibits disproportionate cuts in state funding to poor districts. That said, this doesn’t seem to disallow them from reining in planned increases.

Will the dollars create more demands for transparency and accountability? Given the anti-accountability mood around the statehouse, this one might be a longshot. But the influx of funding could shift some attitudes about school accountability. Taxpayers certainly deserve some assurances that the dollars are being used effectively and that students are getting back on-track. Will lawmakers see to it that there continues to be transparency around school spending and student outcomes? Will they start being more demanding about results? One might argue that accountability for federal funds isn’t Ohio’s responsibility. But just as the state has oversight responsibilities for federally subsidized programs like unemployment compensation, policymakers should demand evidence that these education dollars are being used to benefit students.

* * *

In normal times, the relatively modest amount of federal support—about 10 percent of overall K–12 education funding—usually flies under the radar. But will the billions in federal relief aid go unnoticed by state legislators? Maybe it won’t make any waves in the statehouse and schools will quietly enjoy spending the extra money. But it seems more probable that this unprecedented injection of funds will influence the shape of Ohio’s education debates.

1. In case you didn’t know, dedicated Gadfly Bites subscribers, your humble clips compiler is the quintessential “old dog”. As such, acquisition of “new tricks” is something of a challenge. Following the successful use of hip and current lingo “YMMV” earlier this week—much remarked-upon by a shocking wholly reasonable number of you—I am pleased to add another new piece of blazing hot cred to my repertoire today. To wit: the term “upstairs brain” features in this story about the Peaceful Solutions counseling program being used to address student misbehavior in one elementary school in suburban Cincinnati. I don’t know what it means, even in context, but I’d love to know what the opposite of it might be. Because I think it could refer to me. (WCPO-TV, Cincinnati, 3/29/21)
    
2. We get a little glimpse of the Covid learning loss remediation plan going on in Warrensville Heights City Schools in this piece. And by “going on”, I mean that the district is planning to start now, as soon as state testing is over, and to spend the entire fourth quarter (including an additional three weeks added to this school year) as remediation time. No new material: just catch up. And while that is interesting and worthy of further discussion, the district supe has got other things on his mind. Specifically: the scourge of school choice. “We understand how school choice goes,” said the supe, immediately casting doubt on that statement by elaborating, “We understand that they use three years of data to determine who gets school choice.” What on earth is he talking about?! “The 2021 year will be part of the equation,” he went on, “which is a very serious concern of ours, because there was a pandemic. We were not in school because of health reasons, so to use data when it was a pandemic is unfair to districts like ours who fight school choice on a yearly basis.” (WKSU-FM, Kent, 3/29/21) Remediation ideas are said to be “bubbling” in the headline of this piece from Richland County, but other than some short voluntary summer camps, I don’t really see anything substantial from districts and a whole lot of vague DIY suggestions that might not even be available to the majority of students in the county whether they need them or not. The director of education in Ontario Local Schools took time to bash state testing (blah blah blah “snapshot” blah blah kids are more than a test score blah blah) even as those test scores, quoted by the reporter, looked pretty dire. (Richland Source, 3/30/21)
   
   

3. There is absolutely no talk of remediation in bougie Solon City Schools. But there is a lot of discussion about what next year might look like, including a reference to the General Assembly and what they will do to “help” districts out in this regard. What these guys are talking about is that districts’ emergency ability to offer remote instruction during the pandemic currently ends with this school year. Unless the legislature extends it for 2021-2022, they will not be able to offer the same type of remote learning options should families want them in the fall. (Cleveland.com, 3/29/21) The same discussion occurred in Orange City Schools (Bougie or just stereotypically exurban? You decide!) this week, including some important detail. It seems that districts could offer a remote education model that is the equivalent of having some students participate remotely and synchronously in live-taught classes without any change in law. The change in law is required to allow the offer of third-party, asynchronous courses from Florida Virtual Academy and the like. Both Solonites and Oranginas (for surely that is what they are called) seem confident that the General Assembly will come through for them. (Cleveland.com, 3/30/21)
    
4. Beacon Journal editors want to know how the “mind-boggling” amount of third-round federal stimulus funds will be used by Akron City Schools. And they have some suggestions to boot. (Akron Beacon Journal, 3/27/21) Dayton City Schools, who were already struggling to spend a huge cash surplus before anyone ever heard of SARS-CoV-2, is not even thinking about the third round of federal funds. They are, as you might imagine, still trying to spend down earlier rounds. They have decided to put out the Help (Really Really) Wanted sign, with a goal of getting at least two teachers in front of every class of students next year. Of course, that may work out to less teachers than originally accounted for if student enrollment continues to decline. But it’s only money, right? Tons and tons of money. (Dayton Daily News, 3/31/21)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

School attendance is compulsory for K–12 students, but getting kids to school every day is often difficult for families. Most parents want their children to attend school. But for those living in poverty, competing needs like jobs, medical appointments, and sibling care sometimes render school a lower priority. This conundrum is on clear display in a new report from researchers at Wayne State University. The university is part of a citywide collaborative effort called the Detroit Education Research Partnership that focuses on K–12 student absenteeism as part of its ongoing work. Their latest report takes a close look at the barriers to attendance faced by students in Detroit—particularly those who are chronically absent.

It’s important to note that even before the coronavirus pandemic, absenteeism was rampant in Detroit Public Schools (DPS). Over half of the district’s students were considered chronically absent in 2019–20, missing more than 10 percent of the school year. The data in this new report come from interviews conducted before Covid-related school closures in early 2020. Researchers interviewed thirty-eight parents or guardians with students in seven DPS elementary-middle and high schools. About one quarter of those parents had children who were not chronically absent that year, and the remainder had children who ranged from moderately (missing 10–20 percent of days) to severely chronically absent (missing more than 20 percent). A second round of interviews consisted of twenty-nine high school students attending five district high schools. About a third of those were children of parents interviewed in the first round and the remainder were new participants. About a third of all the high schoolers interviewed were not chronically absent, and the rest ranged from moderately to severely chronically absent.

Transportation emerged as the most frequent and pervasive barrier to attendance. Previous research found that only 31 percent of K–8 students in DPS had access to traditional yellow bus transportation, eligibility requirements for which leave out most students living too close to their neighborhood schools, who must walk or take personal transportation instead. Also excluded are most students utilizing intradistrict school choice, who are denied transportation once they have opted for a school outside their neighborhood unless they are receiving certain services for special needs. No DPS high school students are eligible for yellow bus transportation, but they are able to ride city buses to school for free using their student IDs. Additionally, six individual schools operate their own supplemental shuttle-type bus services to transport those students denied yellow buses due to their proximity to school.

This patchwork of transportation eligibility and service—idiosyncratic down to the building—seems to have dissuaded families from relying on it even when eligible. Safety, reliability, and weather concerns combined to similarly dissuade families from using city buses or walking. Most parents and students surveyed relied upon personal vehicles. But more than a third of all Detroit families reported not owning a car in 2017, and respondents to the Wayne State survey reported very few backup options among their personal networks. If the family—or community—car broke down or was needed for another purpose, the value of school essentially dropped and an absence would typically result.

Students’ acute and chronic physical health issues, along with mental health and parental health issues, also created barriers to attendance. Surveyed parents expressed a strong understanding of the costs of missing school, but as in many cases of competing priorities, health seems to have won out over school. The researchers posit that post-Covid considerations will add a new wrinkle to this calculus. If classrooms are not considered safe enough, even the smallest roadblock could result in an absence.

The realities expressed by families resist easy solutions, especially school-focused ones. The researchers rightly call for more resources and creativity around student transportation. There are also likely lessons to be found outside of DPS—perhaps in Detroit’s robust charter sector or in Chicago’s “Safe Passages” program—but such efforts won’t fix all problems. A second recommendation to “strengthen neighborhood vitality” is a far heavier lift, as no concrete resources or avenues to success were identified.

Interestingly, the Wayne State researchers recorded but decided to omit a number of school-based reasons for absenteeism that were reported by respondents. They include unengaged students, teacher-student conflict, and conflicts between students. While the researchers argued that the out-of-school barriers were more prominent in their data, such in-school issues should not be overlooked. Motivated families and students will strive to overcome many difficulties to obtain what is valued. But if a long walk or an unsafe bus ride leads to a low-quality classroom experience or a schoolyard fight, staying home is a reasonable decision. Anything that can be done to boost the value of attending school could be enough to change the daily calculus. And let us not forget that the Covid era could be a silver lining for students: Increased access to the internet and one-to-one devices, along with a permanent online education option, could solve many of the absenteeism barriers identified in this report. But that, too, must be of high quality before families will value it.

SOURCE: Sarah Winchell Lenhoff, Jeremy Singer, Kimberly Stokes, and J. Bear Mahowald, “Why do Detroit Students Miss School? Implications for returning to school after Covid-19,” Detroit Education Research Partnership at Wayne State University (March 2021).

1. Perhaps Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock had it wrong all those years ago? Because this, by my count, is the third school and district report card revamp proposal put forward so far this year. We don’t get much detail on the Urban Network group—the folks pushing this proposal—in the piece. (A quick internet search should help you out on that point. Sure opened up my eyes.) But the one voice we do hear from regarding the new proposal comes from the highest echelons of Lorain City Schools. Specifically, a dude who followed the current “CEO” from Canton back to Lorain last year. Personally, I don’t think anyone currently in charge in Lorain—nor indeed in charge of Canton in recent years—would recognize a quality school even if it were wrapped up in a big orange bow and dropped in the center of town by flying hippos. YMMV, of course. (Dayton Daily News, 3/29/21)
    
2. We have discussed the program Move to Prosper in these Bites several times before. It is an effort to help improve the lives of low-income families by supporting their move to “better-resourced” neighborhoods. And they’ve had a lot of demonstrable success over the three-plus year pilot effort, even with a Covid kicker. You can check out some of those successes in this piece, along with the great news that the pilot will now be expanded to a full 100-family program. While the folks who run the program are careful with their words—for very good reason—the true focus of the work is pretty obvious. Check out the story of Bessie Jackson’s son if you aren’t sure what I’m talking about. (Columbus Dispatch, 3/25/21)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

In part I of this two-part series, I wrote about three of the most common practices teachers implement in elementary schools that successfully personalize learning: giving each child a learning plan, organizing instruction around class-level and individual mastery, and using grouping and rotation models to provide targeted, relevant opportunities and interventions. Any of these practices can usually be used well by a single teacher in any school, with an exception being one where instruction is rigidly prescribed to the minute and teachers don’t have flexibility to try them out. But scaling these practices consistently and with quality across many classrooms or schools relies more heavily on the common conditions leaders put in place, such as those related to policies, financial and people resources, and supporting partnerships.

As we’ve often seen The Learning Accelerator, where I’m CEO, when individual teachers are forced to go it alone, they “drive with the brakes on,” working against friction that can disempower if not disable personalization efforts. But these conditions can “put gas in the tank” when set correctly. The more aligned they are to schools’ learning models, the better. And at a minimum, leaders in personalized learning schools can do the following to grow the work:

Invest in high-quality instructional materials, including technology. We’ve seen classrooms where teachers have figured out how to personalize some amount of learning using a combination of binders, printed materials, wall trackers, and far too many hours of Sunday-night planning. Technology is the major accelerant that helps teachers assess, plan, and offer individual supports and options. Access to quality, standards-aligned curricular materials that can be used in concert with tech is what makes these individual supports and options effective. Leaders work with teachers to create “suites” of materials that support personalized instruction while maintaining rigor.

The good news on this front is that remote learning during the pandemic has rapidly advanced access to the basic technologies students and teachers need, as well as significantly increased comfort and experience with them. It’s also improved the availability of curricular materials through Open Educational Resources initiatives and quickened the development of better, interoperable tools for assessment, independent learning, and practice. Teachers are increasingly turning to these resources rather than DIY-ing the curriculum. We have momentum on our side.

Have teachers work in teams, rather than alone. Meeting the needs of twenty-five students with heterogeneous needs at once is a yeoman’s task for an individual teacher. Meeting the needs of seventy-five students in a team of three can be considerably easier because students with similar needs can be grouped together more efficiently. In schools where personalization is the norm, teachers work in groups to plan and execute, dividing and conquering more dynamically to meet needs. Colleagues at Public Impact have done a terrific job exploring different innovative staffing models, but one I’ll point to specifically as a common convergence point with our work at The Learning Accelerator is multi-grade teams. While it’s important that students still have a home-base classroom (relationships matter!), we’re seeing many schools bring together second/third and fourth/fifth grade bands to tackle learning needs that span multiple levels.

It’s important to note that, perhaps in contrast to typical Montessori early-learning models, we often don’t see cross-grade teaching at the kindergarten and first grade levels. Leaders who have experimented with this note that these younger learners often need deeper consistency in structure, classroom environments, and relationships with adults. In many cases, teaching teams at these levels consist of a lead teacher and aid, who divide and conquer in much the same way that teams at older levels do to support differences in pacing.

Use time and space more flexibly to support planning around and instruction aligned to data. Leaders figure out ways to put slack into the system to give educators time to plan together and use classroom spaces to accommodate different configurations. Doing this often doesn’t require negotiating a new contract with the unions or making radical changes to physical buildings. On the time front, schedules can cluster lunch and specials, freeing up grade-level teams to meet more often, for more time to look at data and plan. Many schools offer tutoring “flex” blocks or interdisciplinary enrichment blocks, where students work on passion projects or in larger groups, creating more time for educators. On the facilities side, solutions are as simple as creating multiple flexible zones for learning by opening doors between classrooms, using hallways for additional space, and/or moving furniture.

Offer professional learning that models personalization. Teachers are learners, too, and professional development is often unengaging, not relevant or targeted, and focused on units of time. Does that sound familiar? It should because it’s the same set of challenges we face at the student level. What we model in training and what adult learners experience matters. The same practices that support personalization for elementary students—developing and supporting individual plans, differentiating learning experiences, and organizing for group and individual mastery—are core places to start. (As my former professor and advisor Richard Elmore frequently noted, system problems are fractal; they show up in different scales, everywhere.) Luckily, we have many examples and research-based starting points for the personalization of adult learning if we only look for them.

—

As Mike Petrilli said in the Fordham essay that motivated my two-part series, no, pushing personalization isn’t for the faint of heart. But candidly, neither is the entire enterprise of American schooling, which boldly envisions systems that prepare every student, regardless of demographics like income or race, to participate and flourish fully in our democratic society. With greater understanding, training, and aligned conditions, educators can pursue personalization as one aim in our efforts to stabilize and recover from everything Covid-19 took from us, as well as advance towards better approaches over time. With a belief and commitment, I hope they will.

In the last year, Congress has now invested nearly $200 billion to support K–12 education. It’s an unprecedented federal infusion of money, but will it lead to an unprecedented recovery effort? It’s worth taking a moment to pause and consider the range of possibilities.

Best case

Under the best-case scenario, the stimulus funds would spur districts to help students recover from learning gaps that accumulated due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Districts would identify individual student academic needs and use the one-time stimulus money to design a set of supports responding to those needs, such as those outlined by the crowd-sourced The Acceleration Imperative. For example, they might create a new tutoring program or find other ways to deliver extra learning time for students.

The stimulus funds are sufficient to accomplish many of these things. With a total investment now equal to about $3,750 per student, districts can afford to buy every student a Google Chromebook; follow the CDC’s guidance for masks, plexiglass shields, cleaning supplies, and additional personnel costs; and still have money left over to provide a year of one-to-one tutoring for all low-income students.

New staffing structures or school calendars would also benefit teachers by reducing their burdens or offering them a new way to earn more money. Teachers have always faced classrooms of students with widely disparate needs, and the pandemic only heightened those disparities. But a tutoring program would help lighten those burdens placed on individual teachers. And while average teacher salaries have remained flat over time, other ways to extend student learning time could give teachers a path to boost their take-home pay. 

District leaders would see the value of these reforms and find ways to make them permanent. As the pandemic eases and the recovery efforts successfully get students back on track, districts could scale back and focus on fewer and fewer students who continue to need extra support. By focusing their efforts on high-need students, districts wouldn’t need to worry about the “maintenance of equity” provision included in the latest round of federal funding because the new dollars would naturally flow to students and schools who need the most support.

State leaders would use their 10 percent of the money to invest in improvements to the old systems, not merely returning to normal. That might include modifying assessment systems to be delivered remotely, with results delivered instantaneously; matching district investments in high-quality curriculum materials; enhancing data systems to monitor performance and give better feedback to parents and educators; or creating or expanding new delivery models to provide families with more educational options. 

In this scenario, parents, voters, and policymakers would be able to point to solid evidence of where the money was spent and what was most effective. Districts would be able to convince their communities to keep paying for successful interventions out of their ongoing operating budgets.

Worst case

Under the worst case scenario, the stimulus funds might allow more schools to reopen, but many districts would continue to deliver less-than-full-time instruction. Due to ongoing concerns about spacing, only a portion of students would be allowed on campus. With instructional time limited and widespread variation in how much live instruction students receive, schools would be unable to assess student academic needs in any systematic way. As a result, they’d offer the same services to all students, regardless of student need.

Teachers, for their part, would see no direct benefits from the stimulus funds. Students would arrive in classrooms with widely disparate needs, but teachers would be left to find their own professional development and attempt to tailor their instruction accordingly.

District leaders would be mainly focused on yes/no decisions around reopening rather than anything to do with the content or amount of instructional time students receive. Without proactively planning how to allocate the funding across years to address student needs, districts would use the stimulus funds to hire back full-time staff and pay agreed-upon raises, and the money would trickle away.

States, for their part, would use their share of the stimulus funds to backfill budgets and deploy “hold harmless” provisions that allow districts with declining enrollments to continue receiving the same funds. Instead of targeting spending on students and schools who need it the most, states and districts would avert the maintenance-of-effort provisions by enacting across-the-board percentage cuts.

In this worst-case scenario, policymakers would not be able to show how the stimulus money was spent or whether it was effective. Districts could face a fiscal cliff due to the staff they hired, and may be forced into a round of disruptive layoffs without an additional infusion of funds.

Choose wisely

Realistically, we’re likely to see a mix of these scenarios. Some of that will depend on the shape of state and district budgets in the years to come. In theory, it could also depend on the continued evolution of Covid-19. But in practice, school reopening decisions—and thus district budget and remediation decisions—have been more influenced by local politics and the power of teachers unions than Covid case counts.

Still, with fifty states and 13,000 school districts, we’re likely to see pockets of innovation rather than an immediate large-scale adoption of any one change. That’s probably a good thing. And let’s hope we can learn from those efforts over time. How this plays out, and whether we end up with more districts closer to the best-case than the worst-case scenario outlined here, will ultimately depend on state and local leaders making smart decisions on how to make the most of the federal investments.

Written and published while the author was with Edunomics Lab at McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

Two years ago, during his first budget cycle in office, Governor DeWine shepherded through the legislature a first-of-its kind initiative known as the Student Wellness and Success Fund (SWSF). As its name suggests, it was an effort to help public schools improve student wellness by addressing non-academic needs. The state allocated a total of $675 million over the course of two years, with funding awarded on a per-pupil basis according to the percentage of low-income children residing in a district.

Now, in the midst of his second budget cycle, Governor DeWine has recommitted to supporting these efforts in a big way. His recently released executive budget proposes increasing the SWSF payments made to public schools, and guarantees that no school will receive less funding than it did during the 2021 fiscal year. In total, the new allocations add up to a whopping $1.1 billion—$500 million for FY 2022 and $600 million for FY 2023.

The governor’s continued support for SWSF shouldn’t be a surprise. Several of his biggest education initiatives from that first budget—like the Quality Community Schools Support Fund and TechCred—also saw increased funding in the most recent budget proposal. But the renewed support for SWSF comes with several noteworthy changes to the program’s implementation guidelines, likely drawn from on-the-ground experience over the last two years.

Changes to spending rules

A defining aspect of the first round of funding was that schools were required to spend their allocated money on programs and initiatives that fell within certain categories. The categories themselves were relatively broad. For example, “family engagement and support services” can mean any number of things, from parent-teacher conferences to chronic absenteeism interventions to the kinds of services that the I Promise School in Akron offers its families. The recently proposed budget generally maintains the same allowable uses but also makes several tweaks.

First, it explicitly allows telehealth visits to be used under both the mental and physical health categories. This adjustment is likely a response to Covid realities. But just like with broadband expansion, this pandemic pivot could also make vital services available to a much broader population of children during more normal times—including those who don’t have reliable transportation and may need support outside of traditional school hours.

Second, it adds an entirely new spending category. Schools can now use their SWSF dollars on “culturally appropriate, evidence-based or evidence-informed prevention education, including youth-led programming and social and emotional learning curricula to promote mental health and prevent substance abuse and suicide.” Given the severity of Ohio’s opioid crisis and concerns about the rise in suicide among youth during the pandemic, this seems like a wise addition. So, too, is the stipulation that funded programs must rely on evidence.

Third, it expands a current allowable spending category to include a broader set of partners. Under current rules, schools can spend money on community liaisons or City Connects, which is an initiative that works to address non-cognitive barriers to student learning. Per the governor’s budget, schools will still be able to spend money on community liaisons or City Connects, but they will also have the state’s explicit approval to seek out similar programs, such as Communities in Schools.

Fourth, it removes spending categories related to adult training. Under current law, schools can spend their funding on professional development efforts for trauma informed care or cultural competency. The proposed budget removes these options entirely and doesn’t replace them with alternatives, which means schools would no longer be permitted to spend these funds on staff development. Given that the vast majority of professional development for teachers has historically been labeled as unhelpful or inadequate, and that there was little to no guidance from the state about what type of development qualified, this seems like a smart move. Plus, plenty of other state and federal funding streams could be used for this purpose.

Changes to partnership requirements

Current policy requires schools to coordinate with a local community partner when developing a plan for spending their SWSF dollars. The proposed budget, however, calls for schools to collaborate with two community partners instead of just one. For their first partner, schools must coordinate with either their local board of alcohol, drug, and mental health services or a community-based mental health treatment or prevention provider. For the second, schools can choose from a list included in the original legislation. In both cases, prevention providers are a new addition. Upping the number of required community partners is likely an attempt to ensure that schools are working with well-trained folks who have knowledge, experience, and expertise that school staff may not.

***

Overall, these changes are smart improvements. But as we discussed two years ago when SWSF first became law, implementation matters. In the wake of a disruptive pandemic, it’s wise for the governor to set aside money to help schools address the non-academic needs of their students—not just because meeting these needs matters, but because addressing them could boost academic learning as well. That being said, dollar amounts often matter far less than how dollars are spent. It’s imperative that schools use these funds wisely. Otherwise, SWSF could become a giant missed opportunity.