But federal pandemic relief money that helped fuel the expansion of such programs dried up in September, and recent research has sparked debates about the high-impact tutoring’s effectiveness when implemented at scale. This includes an evaluation of Metro Nashville Public Schools’ tutoring program that reported small gains for students and a meta-analysis of large high-impact tutoring programs that showed challenges in maintaining evidence-based practices. 

Still, our experience in implementing and evaluating high-impact tutoring programs shows that if states and school districts get creative with funding and focus on implementing key evidence-based practices, they can achieve the positive outcomes for students that research shows are possible. 

This summer, our organizations hosted a learning sprint to help 10 geographically and demographically diverse school districts build and sustain these kinds of programs. It was inspiring to see their commitment to overcoming barriers and seeking innovative solutions. Here’s what some school districts are doing this year:

Being creative with funding and committing their own resources. Recent estimates suggest it would cost $15 billion annually to provide intensive tutoring for 20% of students. Cutting-edge technologies, like AI-assisted tutoring, may eventually help reduce costs, but securing sustainable funding for high-impact tutoring is challenging. To fill budget holes, school districts are investing their own taxpayer dollars and exploring other federal funding streams, including grant money for specific student populations, such as children from low-income families or with special needs; Americorps; and the federal work-study program. 

For example, Lincoln Parish Schools in Louisiana combined local money with Title I and IDEA — Individuals With Disabilities Education Act — funding to pilot high-impact tutoring in its schools in 2021. A state grant and federal pandemic relief funds helped continue the program. For the 2024-25 school year, it’s using a per-pupil allocation from the state, as well as Title I and IDEA funds. 

Ector County Independent School District in Texas made significant cuts to its 2024-25 budget to close a $24 million deficit but decided to maintain funding for high-impact tutoring, based on ts positive results. During the 2022-23 school year, half of the students who had scored below grade level on the previous state assessment and received at least 20 hours of tutoring scored at grade level or higher after one year. This year, the district is using $2 million in Title I funds to pay for this service in elementary and middle schools, and state compensatory education funds for its high school programs.

The Office of the State Superintendent of Education in Washington, D.C., is paying for high-impact tutoring with a $5 million local investment, philanthropic dollars and by partnering with local colleges and universities for tutors funded through the federal work-study program. 

A number of states are helping with funding, including by building high-impact tutoring into broader initiatives. Oregon is using its state-funded early literacy initiative to require district grantees to use the approach to improve reading skills. Tennessee is including it in its funding formula. Districts have also found ways to incorporate it into existing school programs. For example, Baltimore City Public Schools has included it as one of the interventions for students in need of extra support.

Investing in evidence-based programs to maximize funding. States and school districts can increase the impact of their funding by directing it toward evidence-based practices. Our organizations have developed a template showing school districts how to prioritize evidence in grants and contracts. After participating in our sprint, Florida created a new high-impact tutoring initiative and required providers to meet certain criteria in order to qualify for state funding. The Louisiana legislature required that programs funded through a $30 million state investment follow evidence-based practices and gather data on student outcomes, broken out by demographics. Another sprint team is exploring a contracting approach that focuses on the performance of its tutoring provider – paying for outcomes rather than services. 

Making informed implementation decisions. Evidence-based high-impact tutoring that incorporates key features, such as one-on-one or small-group sessions held at least three times a week during school hours, can increase learning across all grade levels. But districts sometimes deviate from these principles due to local needs and resources. For example, many districts struggle to fit high-impact tutoring into the school day, opting instead to hold sessions outside regular hours, which can reduce attendance and effectiveness. Implementation choices must remain research-based to ensure strong outcomes.

Focusing on continuous improvement. Less than half of the teams participating in our summer program entered with a strong understanding of best practices for evaluating programs. Planning for data collection from the start is essential for assessing and improving program effectiveness. While this can be intimidating, it is a vital part of any new learning approach. For example, based on the findings from its recent evaluation, Metro Nashville Public Schools improved elements of its high-impact tutoring program, including improving communications with tutors.

The funding and implementation challenges of the current moment must not become an excuse for sidelining high-impact tutoring. We encourage students to persevere in the face of challenges and to learn from feedback. The education community must do the same regarding high-impact tutoring. It will take time and hard work to get this right at scale, but with high-impact tutoring, schools can give students the support they need to thrive.

Community-based organizations may be eager to jump in to tutor students, recruit volunteers and hire staff to work in schools. But they’d be doing a disservice by not first taking a step back to consider the challenges and requirements to do this work well.

I’ve worn many hats in education: classroom teacher, district office leader, community organization leader and now as a managing director at Accelerate. When these groups work together to serve students, magic can happen — creating opportunity and access for those most in need.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

But simply placing extra adults in the building is insufficient. An organization’s support must be grounded in research-backed, academically driven strategies. Good intentions, though a necessary starting point, aren’t enough to change academic outcomes.

In 2023-24, Accelerate invested in organizations providing tutoring during the school day. Of the students served, 97% qualified for free and reduced-price school lunch, 1 in 4 were English learners and 90% identified as Hispanic, Black or Native American. Here are six hard truths for community-based organizations about what it takes to make a real impact on student outcomes:

An impressive, longstanding record of youth service and/or family engagement doesn’t guarantee academic success. Just because your organization excels at mentoring, character development or after-school activities, that doesn’t mean you’ll seamlessly transition to in-school support. Consider things like legally required accommodations for students with documented disabilities, the constraints of schools’ master schedules and interpretation of complex academic data.

Schools need you now more than ever — don’t try to wing it. The learning loss crisis is real, and students need support that works. Start by identifying local schools’ specific needs, such as early literacy or middle school math. Then, follow the evidence on program design for effective high-dosage tutoring. Factors like subject areas, number of students served, grade level and a tutor’s training and experiences should inform your approach. This clarity is essential for realistically assessing your ability to determine which proven programs or academic partners best meet student needs and align with existing school interventions.

Be ready for accountability. It’s great that your work feels good, but does it actually do good? Be prepared for schools and funders to demand accountability for academic outcomes. Identify metrics for gauging your progress, execute necessary data sharing agreements with districts and then regularly analyze the data to mine for students’ individual skill and knowledge gaps in order to continuously advance their learning. Even better, agree upon specific academic targets with districts and schools in advance and use them to guide decisions about the model.

For example, Accelerate partner Read USA implemented an in-school tutoring program using a sophisticated progress monitoring and data collection system to set individual student objectives and provide tutors with with explicit next steps to address the specific skills (e.g., phonics, comprehension, fluency) in which their student needs extra practice. This real-time data formed the basis for a small-scale randomized controlled trial to measure impact on learning.

You need time to plan — more than you think. School support for a tutoring initiative can ensure a strong implementation. So build in a planning year, or at least a full semester, to get principals, teachers and other staff on board. Many critical decisions will need to be made: the students to be served, subject area(s), scheduling, tutor selection, etc. To guarantee success, these conversations must happen early and often.

For example, Accelerate grantee Compass spent a full school year planning a tutoring program for predominantly Native American elementary school students in Rapid City, South Dakota. They retained a coordinator with deep educational experience and ties to the local school system and identified a proven model that could be easily implemented by a diverse set of tutors. In the first year, Compass’s program reached some 200 students across four schools, with 85% receiving at least 90 minutes of English Language Arts tutoring a week from October 2023 to May 2024. This is more than many for-profit vendors provide.

Leverage your strengths and acknowledge your weaknesses. Build on what you’ve got: expertise with specific age groups, relationships with schools, families and neighborhoods or a pool of capable tutors. But don’t assume your skills are enough. Just because your organization successfully mentors children, that doesn’t mean you can teach them algebra. You need genuine academic expertise, if your organization doesn’t already have it. Consider hiring a coordinator with intervention experience or purchase a proven program or curriculum that comes with robust training for tutors. Hire academic experts, pay for professional development and commit to serious learning. There’s no shortcut to understanding how to teach core academic content.

Start small, prove your worth, then grow smartly. Begin with a manageably sized program, demonstrate your value by using data and grow by using digital tools to track both student progress and tutor attendance, while maintaining what works. When word spreads that you are improving outcomes, more schools will come knocking. But if their goals diverge from your organization’s — aka mission creep — you should pass on the opportunity to scale for scaling’s sake.

High-dosage tutoring is a serious academic intervention with specific guardrails. Schools and students need community-based organizations to come armed with enthusiasm and equipped with content knowledge, best-practice implementation, proven models and preparedness for challenges. The path isn’t easy, but the potential impact is immense. Accelerate’s newly republished report and playbook can help organizations plan and bridge the gap between community support and academic success. It’s time to turn good intentions into great results.

In a signed letter attached to today’s “Ours to Solve, Once — and For All” report, the six-member council (Jean-Claude Brizard, Mitch Daniels, Chris Howard, Andrew Luck, Frances Messano and Condoleezza Rice) writes that it identified “fundamental barriers” to student equity and success within the current school system. “Despite our national commitment to the issue, steep increases in funding, and decades of reform efforts, our current system has been unable to offset poor student outcomes – particularly for minority and low-income students,” the introduction to the report says. “This failure goes against who we profess to be as a nation.”

Hoover Institution Director and Council Co-Chair Condoleezza Rice went a step further in a Tuesday statement, framing the issue through the lens of national stability: “Education excellence is critical to the societal contract supporting our democracy and is inextricably tied to the success — or failure — of our nation.”

Today’s report is unique in its focus on broader, system-level reforms. The council criticizes the existing structure of the nation’s education landscape, noting that the local school boards and state and federal agencies that run today’s schools “are not the product of coherent and thoughtful design. Rather, they evolved over decades to a point where they hinder more than help the cause of improved outcomes for all students.”

The group also highlights the “perplexing contradiction” of today’s public schools, where the current system boasts strong community support, superior research and dedicated teachers and staff, but students’ academic outcomes vary widely — and many of these results are underwhelming. 

“According to virtually every available metric, the overall quality of American schools has either declined or remained stagnant since the 1970s,” the council writes.

On a per-student basis, the U.S. spends 40% more than the average spent by member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the council notes. At the same time, the U.S ranks 34th in math globally on the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluations.

“Changing the way these institutions are organized and function ― what we call the ‘operating system’ of public education ― will raise trust, respect, agency, and empowerment for teachers and principals and will provide essential support from other education leaders,” the group says in the report.

The council recommends four core commitments that they believe will help improve the educational “operating system”: Re-organizing the current system toward a new “true north”  that focuses on student outcomes; minimizing regulations and mandates in favor of embracing incentives; cultivating and rewarding professional mastery in the education workforce; and flipping the system “from top-down to bottom-up.”  

“In the flipped system hierarchy, schools are the apex organization,” writes the council. “They need sufficient discretion to make decisions in situ to manage their own operations and to adapt their efforts to address the needs of their students.”

A Hoover Institution spokesperson said that a dedicated website will accompany the report. Set to launch next month, the hub will offer readers and policymakers additional resources and details. 

A summit is also being scheduled for January at Stanford University, which will aim to bring experts together from across the country to discuss  and debate the findings of the report. 

“We hope this report builds motivation and commitment for change,” the council members write in their introduction. “Together, we can launch a new approach to address the current state of public education in America, and provide every child the foundational opportunities they deserve.” 

Disclosure: The Hoover Institution provides financial support to The 74.

The 2024 State of the American Student report, published by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, echoed findings from our 2022 New America report: English learners were disproportionately impacted — often negatively — by the remote learning caused by pandemic school closures. The CRPE report also underscores the troubling reality that English learners are experiencing a much slower, if not stalled, recovery. And through CRPE’s focus on academic recovery as measured and defined by standardized assessments, the report illuminates the incomplete picture researchers and the general public have of English learner outcomes and learning opportunities.

Using standard English language arts assessment data, CRPE’s report shows proficiency rates ranging from a dismal 1% to 9% for students identified as English learners in four major urban districts. And while these numbers are alarming, they do not tell the whole story. 

First, the use of standardized assessments to measure English learners’ academic performance is fraught with limitations, and data they produce should be interpreted with caution. As the report astutely mentions, English learner status is supposed to be temporary, and the composition of this subgroup changes annually as young students gain and shed the label. This revolving door constantly weeds out high scorers because, as language proficiency grows, these students not only do better on exams, but get closer to leaving the group. And, as the report states, “longitudinal data generally does not include categories for students who were once classified as, but no longer are, English learners.” Thus, it is difficult to make assumptions about the potential and capabilities of linguistically diverse students on the whole. 

Secondly, the English learner subgroup used in data reporting and accountability treats all these students as if they are the same, with identical needs, backgrounds and academic capabilities. In reality, English learners are a diverse population. Some are U.S.-born, while others may have just arrived from abroad. Some may have been recently identified, while others may be considered long-term English learners because they have not been reclassified after a certain number of years — often six or seven. English learners’ needs also vary by age, grade and even language proficiency level. It is unrealistic to expect one data point to capture the wide range of linguistic and academic experiences these students have had. Doing so masks their outcomes and hinders educators from offering targeted and differentiated supports. 

Lastly, the academic challenges English learners face are only part of the picture. Their opportunity to learn — a term that shifts the focus from student outcomes to systemic barriers — has also been disproportionately impacted since the pandemic began. 

As CRPE noted, chronic absenteeism has been rife among English learners, and staffing challenges have reduced the number of qualified teachers who specialize in bilingual education and/or English as a Second Language. The availability of these educators is a common opportunity to learn measures, and although English learner-specific indicators are unusual, they do exist. For example, a more complete picture of what opportunity to learn looks like for these students could include the number of long-term English learners; participation and successful completion of coursework; and school discipline data, such as expulsion rates and then number and length of in-school and out-of-school suspensions. Recent research by the Migration Policy Institute also explored how certain information about the instructional programs available for English learners could help refine the accountability systems used to monitor their success.

By looking beyond the average student and collecting nuanced data on English learners, state and local leaders can begin to fill in their incomplete and overly broad understanding. The work of pandemic recovery begins by unraveling this subgroup to shine a light on the diversity within it. Doing so is imperative for the long-term academic and personal growth success of English learners in America’s K-12 schools. 

By one estimate, ESSER had made available $40 billion to $60 billion in new government funding to education contractors by 2023, with 40% spent on vendors and the rest on personnel and labor. The amount spent by states and districts to cover COVID contracts could be much higher. Anticipating the end of their ESSER funding, districts such as Boston Public Schools have moved contracting expenses once covered by federal relief funds onto their general budgets.

With the help of a contract database called govspend.com, I have been tracking national and regional patterns in what districts paid vendors to do before, during and after the pandemic.

In my forthcoming book, Private Ends, Public Means: Contemporary Dynamics in Educational Privatization, I identify several lessons from this large-scale experiment in federally subsidized education contracts.

First, ESSER-funded vendors helped school districts meet unique conditions but sometimes overlooked equitable access. At one level, vendor contracts supported public schools under emergency conditions in their mission of equal educational opportunity. One example is food service contracts that provided free lunches for pick-up when school cafeterias were closed. Contracts also arguably helped with continuity of instruction, which is another core responsibility of states and districts. Seven out of 10 traditional school districts used ESSER funds to purchase software during the pandemic and 9 out of 10 bought hardware, according to a study conducted by the Office of the Inspector General.

These purchases made sense, given the quick pivot to remote learning. However, the pressure to spend quickly and with limited oversight may have contributed to redundancies (too many devices) and equitable access issues (wifi hotspots that did not function in areas without broadband or were not strong enough to provide students with stable video and audio). When the next emergency hits schools, public money will presumably once again be up for grabs, particularly for those with the fastest hands. What mistakes were made in areas of educational equity? How can the private sector do better when the next emergency hits?

Second, with physical schools closed, large urban districts spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technology such as iPads, Chromebooks, laptops and software licenses to keep classes in session. Then, they used ESSER funds for repairs, upgrades and parts to keep the devices running. The spending spiked at the outset of the pandemic but still remained higher than pre-pandemic levels once schools reopened. Post-pandemic, vendors are looking for ways to get resource-strapped districts to buy more devices, simply to maintain profit margins. It’s up to districts to exercise good management by pressing pause and reassessing.

There are at least two ways to approach this. First, districts should reassess whether vendor contracts are based on evidence of impact. During the pandemic, companies with minimal track records increased sales at record pace. For example, one small, relatively unknown business specializing in chat-based tutoring saw its annual revenues explode from less than $100,000 before COVID to nearly $3 million by March 2022. This company signed contracts in nearly half the states and showed little sign of slowing once schools resumed in-person instruction. But the strong evidence base around high-impact tutoring specifies that services must be delivered in person, not remotely. The bar should never be lowered for public school students when it comes to equal access for quality instruction. 

Third, it’s time to commit to transparency and ensure that the public has the information about and input into vendor contracts — particularly those addressing learning loss post-pandemic. That may mean reining in the use of noncompetitive bidding that state and local procurement policies allow during emergencies. In cities such as San Diego, noncompetitive bidding may have helped questionable vendors get contracts without proper vetting.

It also means requiring potential bidders to provide evidence of impact for high-needs student populations. I have been analyzing school board meetings across disparate regions of the country and found limited opportunities for public comment even on million-dollar purchases. Materials required by state or local law to help the public and school board make informed decisions, such as descriptions of how a digital product or service works, often are missing from the public record. Contracts commit taxpayer resources and are pivotal in shaping the quality of government-funded services. All stakeholders in education have the right to adequate and accurate information in all stages of contracting, from the bid to the contract to the decision on whether to renew. These are principles of performance-based contracting to which districts across the country have committed.  

Fourth, account for the hidden costs for families of maintaining or eliminating certain types of vendor contracts. In my conversations with purchasing officers, I keep hearing that connectivity  — which districts made significant investments in during COVID — is on the chopping block. Further, there are no plans to upgrade or replace older laptops and iPads that were loaned to students. It’s the lower-income kids whose families will bear these costs. As districts assess which contracts to renew and which to ditch, they must be guided by principles of equitable access to high-quality digital content. Low-income families may not be at the table when ed tech contracts are cut, but they shouldn’t be expected to absorb costs interpreted narrowly as district savings. 

During the pandemic, districts and states contracted with vendors to meet the unique needs of this emergency. Now that the public health crisis has passed and COVID funds are largely spent, it’s time for districts to reassess how vendor contracts support public schools in their core mission and to raise the bar for ensuring that purchased services and products directly address widening educational inequalities.

The flood of resources was backed by an extensive body of evidence. Dozens of studies conducted before the pandemic showed that the positive effects of tutoring were among the largest ever seen in education policy. To help a generation of young learners return to their pre-COVID trajectory, advocates argued, there appeared to be no strategy more effective than recruiting thousands of tutors to provide regular supplemental instruction. 

But a report shared exclusively with The 74 raises doubts about whether the remarkable learning gains measured in prior studies can actually be produced by the kinds of large-scale initiatives that have been launched since 2020. Released Monday, the wide-ranging overview of over 250 high-quality studies finds that as tutoring programs grow, their impact steadily shrinks. 

The findings, which are predominantly drawn from pre-COVID papers, dovetail with disappointing results of some local efforts that have been undertaken in the pandemic’s wake. They also reflect the well-acknowledged reality — observed throughout education research and the social sciences more generally — that the enormous benefits sometimes seen in highly controlled settings are seldom if ever carried over to larger populations. 

Study author Matthew Kraft, an economist at Brown University who has enthusiastically supported the spread of tutoring, said that the promise of the approach should not be eclipsed by the “high, and sometimes outsized, expectations” attached to it.

“We have to be realistic about how hard it is to do anything well in education out of the gate, let alone make fundamental changes to the core structures of teaching and learning,” he said.

Prior estimates of the boost stemming from “high-impact” tutoring, which emphasizes one-on-one or small-group instruction in large doses, have been sizable — about as much as an entire year of reading growth for elementary schoolers, and twice that seen by high school freshmen, as quantified through standardized test scores. By comparison, the advantages conferred to students in larger interventions ranged from one-third to one-half that magnitude.

University of Virginia Professor Beth Schueler, Kraft’s co-author, argued that those outcomes remained “pretty impressive,” if not the equal of what had been measured previously. 

“Even though the large-scale programs weren’t replicating the enormous effects that you find with small-scale trials, the size of the impact that we find for these more policy-relevant studies are still quite meaningful.”

Notably, the 265 studies included in Schueler and Kraft’s analysis are all built around randomized control trials, seen as the empirical gold standard in quantitative research. They were all conducted in the countries making up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of wealthy, industrialized nations whose education systems are often compared against one another. 

Across the entire sample of studies, average effects from tutoring were roughly equivalent to those found in earlier research reviews. But improvements to test scores shrank substantially when the authors looked only at programs enrolling between 400 and 999 pupils; they grew smaller still when restricted to those enrolling more than 1,000. 

Robert Balfanz, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Education, observed that the early hype promoting tutoring as a “silver bullet” for COVID-related learning loss was destined to be deflated when school districts began leveraging them to reach thousands of struggling students. Still, he added, even high-enrollment efforts delivered important growth to children.

“This study just shows the reality that [tutoring] is a very effective intervention, but it’s going to take a lot of time and patience and learning to get it to work at scale,” said Balfanz, who has contributed to the U.S. Department of Education’s effort to recruit 250,000 tutors and mentors to work in schools. “Even then, scale is always going to diminish what you can do for a smaller group.”

An issue of scale

Emerging research on COVID-era tutoring initiatives has attested to the complexities facing state and district leadership. 

Kraft himself released a study last month of Nashville’s program, which was established in 2021 and has grown to incorporate about 10 percent of the district’s total students. Over its first two years in operation, students’ reading performance has improved only modestly, with no corresponding gains in math. Another low-touch experiment, targeting middle schoolers in suburban Chicago, detected only a slight upturn in standardized test scores from a handful of tutoring sessions offered over Zoom.

But some advocates caution that it may be premature to measure the influence of tutoring systems that only got underway during a public health emergency. Buffeted by school closures and an uncertain budgetary picture, the initial transition to tutoring was rocky in many areas. Districts found it challenging to coordinate with families who had disengaged from schools, and an ultra-hot labor market made tutoring recruitment especially difficult.

Ashley Bencan is the chief operating officer of the New Jersey Tutoring Corps, which launched as a pilot in the summer of 2021. Since then, the organization has grown to partner with 10 district and charter school partners in over 30 locations. But even buoyed by federal and state funding, Bencan said, local schools have struggled to build up tutoring systems on top of their typical organizational demands. 

Even collecting data on which students participate in tutoring — a vital step in determining whether the efforts actually work, Bencan said — can test the capacity of both school districts and state education agencies.

“If you’re juggling all the different things you have to work on to kick off the school year — reviewing data, grouping kids, filling positions — they have to meet those basic needs first, and only then think of what else they can do,” she said. “Tutoring isn’t designed to meet those basic needs, and we need to think about how we make it part of a school’s model.”

The logistical challenges of shoehorning tutoring into already-packed school schedules, finding sites where sessions can occur, and connecting families with tutors, can be considerable. Though Kraft and Schueler write that the design of successful tutoring programs can be effectively duplicated at a larger scale, they also find that implementation quality sometimes suffers in the course of expansion. Polls of district leaders have revealed that larger schools consistently saw lower participation rates from students, and only about one-sixth of principals in one survey reported that they had faced no barriers in providing tutoring.

Encouragingly, Kraft and Schueler’s analysis suggests that some program structures can withstand the pressures of scale. If the programs conducted in-person tutoring during school hours, featuring a student-tutor ratio of no more than 3:1, and met at least three times each week (along with other conditions), their effects were more robust with larger numbers of students. While the average impact for a program serving 100–399 pupils was 42 percent smaller than one serving less than 100, those employing the high-quality practices listed above saw their effects diminished by just 18 percent.

Schueler said the diminished, though still significant, effects of scaled-up tutoring may simply suggest that policymakers have underestimated both the scale of learning loss and the hurdles to manufacturing new learning assets from scratch.  

“We are finding suggestive evidence that those implementation challenges are real, and policymakers need to think about how to get that stuff right.”

School districts had to make similar calculations with the financial windfalls they received in the wake of COVID-19. Known officially as the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds — ESSER — $190 billion was disbursed by Congress to schools and districts in three installments from March 2020 to March 2021.

It was the largest one-time infusion of federal funds ever, and the money officially expires at the end of September. So what have researchers learned about ESSER, and what should it mean for future federal investments?

Any evaluation of the ESSER funding has to start by defining its purpose. Was it intended as a financial lifeline for a large and important public-service sector in the midst of a turbulent economic climate? Was it supposed to nudge schools to reopen their doors for in-person instruction? Or was it meant to help re-engage students and help them address learning loss?

Congress essentially took an “all of the above” approach. It did specify that 20% of the last round of ESSER funding be directed toward addressing learning loss, but the allowable activities were extremely broad and inclusive. Without a clear purpose or goal, districts could — and did — spend their money in wildly different ways.

The result is that no one really knows how districts spent their ESSER money. Marguerite Roza and the team at Edunomics Lab did yeoman’s work of collecting what spending data they could find from state reports, but it’s far from a comprehensive story.

When AASA, The School Superintendents Association, surveyed its members recently, it concluded that the wide diversity of investment strategies with the ESSER money “does not illustrate or support any additional trends within specific categories.” They found that districts spent the funds on tutoring, summer and afterschool programs, facilities, professional development for teachers, supports for English learners and students with disabilities, early-childhood programs and a host of other activities. At an event marking the survey’s release, the superintendent from Umatilla, Oregon, highlighted her district’s choice to invest in a cadre of substitute teachers who could be deployed as needed. The superintendent of schools in Fargo, North Dakota, emphasized the large number of initiatives his district launched and cautioned that those should be evaluated one by one rather than as a group. 

Congress could have set clearer priorities and set aside funding dedicated to specific initiatives, such as tutoring. But it may have been justified in deferring to local communities. Research on school finance has found that, in general, additional money helps boost a variety of student outcomes, but there’s still an open debate about how funds should be distributed and spent. So flexibility was probably the right bet during a period like COVID.

But without greater clarity on goals, the question of whether ESSER funding worked is hard to answer.

Did the program provide a financial lifeline to schools and districts in an uncertain economic climate? That answer is an unequivocal yes. The early rounds of funding helped districts pay for personal protective equipment like masks, upgrade their technology and begin to re-staff schools after COVID layoffs and hiring freezes.

Did ESSER convince districts to reopen their schools? That’s less clear. The first round of funds, which were approved in March 2020, wasn’t enough to help most schools reopen their doors to in-person learning the following fall. And the last round, approved in March 2021, probably came too late to have an effect. According to the AEI Return to Learn tracker, only 7% of districts were fully remote by the time the last round of ESSER passed, and half of all districts remained fully remote or hybrid through the end of that school year.   

Did ESSER boost student outcomes? The early answer to that question appears to be yes, it did lead to meaningful improvements. By identifying districts that happened to get more or less money, two separate research teams found that the ESSER funds helped boost outcomes by a similar amount as past financial investments did.

But did ESSER provide the right amount of money? The answer here is yes and no. The “no” side is dominated by practical realities. One-time windfalls are hard to handle, especially in an industry like education, where 85% to 90% of expenditures are tied to salaries and benefits. In a detailed report on the ESSER funds, New America’s Zahava Stadler quoted a school business official as saying, “While [it was] fantastic that schools had these resources to be able to get through COVID and then try to recover … those big Title I districts got so much money in such a short amount of time. [It’s] really hard to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on one-time expenditures within that window.”

It’s also hard to ignore the fact that the expiration of the money will likely lead to a fiscal cliff as districts scale back. How bad will that be? One way to estimate it is to note that, according to data compiled by FutureEd, districts had about $67 billion in ESSER funds left to spend as of one year ago. That money is now all about gone, and the states are not in a position to fill the gap. This is likely to lead to potentially large program and staffing reductions, which would be destabilizing for schools and bad for kids.

But the other way to look at this question is from the student perspective. It’s fair to conclude that students would likely be far worse off in the absence of the ESSER funds, and they remain so far behind pre-COVID performance levels that researchers estimate it would take an additional $450 billion to $900 billion to get kids fully back on track.

No policymaker is seriously talking about making additional investments on anything close to this sort of scale. But focusing on student learning needs should be the ultimate goal, and that’s a discussion policymakers should be having as the ESSER funds wind down.

In both cases, we collaborate with programs across the country that help bring additional people into schools — beyond traditional staffers — to meet the scale and intensity of students’ post-pandemic needs. 

AmeriCorps has been a critical asset to this work, providing committed and engaged citizens willing to serve their schools and communities in a time of enormous need. If Congress does not act, though, AmeriCorps’s participation could drop significantly — or even go away altogether. This would impact hundreds of thousands of students at a critical time.

AmeriCorps provides funding to nonprofit organizations and stipends to volunteers, allowing them to work full time in communities. Thousands of them assist schools with tutoring to help address learning recovery and develop relationships with students and their families to take on chronic absenteeism.

In Philadelphia, for example, Joyful Readers recruits, trains and coaches a racially and generationally diverse cohort of AmeriCorps members who work full time delivering daily, 30-minute, in-person tutoring to pairs of students in grades K-3. Joyful Readers’ AmeriCorps tutors utilize a multi-sensory, structured language program that provides research-based materials and strategies that are essential to a comprehensive reading, spelling and handwriting program. They served approximately 1,120 students during the 2023-24 school year.

In Minnesota, Mississippi and New York, Math Corps delivers high-dosage math tutoring to K-3 students using AmeriCorps members, providing early intervention. Math Corps AmeriCorps tutors also track students’ progress and regularly meet with coaches to assess data and work toward learning targets. To date, Math Corps has served 55,451 students across urban, rural and suburban schools, with the goal of using evidence-based math curriculum to set students on a STEM career trajectory.

Minnesota Alliance With Youth implements the Minnesota Promise Fellows program, deploying AmeriCorps members as success coaches in schools and districts statewide to address chronic absenteeism. Promise Fellows serve on district attendance teams and assist school and district staff by collecting data; sharing information on health care, mental health, housing and other resources with students and families; and forging strong relationships with young people to support engagement, attendance and academic success.

AmeriCorps has been around since the 1990s, with support from both Democratic and Republican administrations and congressional leadership, and in that time has grown to recruit around 70,000 members each year. The House has now proposed gutting AmeriCorps. The Senate should reject that proposal and fund AmeriCorps at a level that ensures that service will continue uninterrupted. In fact, schools and communities — especially those that have been historically underserved — need more AmeriCorps members to act as tutors, mentors and student success coaches to meet this moment. 

Schools and communities are working hard to get kids back to where they should be. Progress has been made, but gaps remain. Absenteeism is a massive challenge facing schools, and they want help in addressing it. Effective strategies exist, but schools need additional adults – with robust training and ongoing guidance from leadership — to help schools, families and students address various obstacles to regular school attendance. When schools have a majority of students behind grade level in reading and math, as is true in many high-poverty areas, they need to employ high-dosage tutoring. These initiatives require people — and AmeriCorps each year identifies precisely the kind of people the nation’s students need. 

This is a key moment to help schools and children across the country. There is broad bipartisan agreement about the urgency of addressing learning gaps and absenteeism, and there is enormous public support for initiatives like tutoring that reach the most vulnerable kids. Congress needs to ensure that AmeriCorps can deploy the tens of thousands of dedicated individuals willing to serve in schools and communities at this crucial moment.

AmeriCorps works in all 50 states — one of the rare programs that benefits both red and blue America. The cost of restoring AmeriCorps program levels and helping hundreds of thousands of kids is modest. But the cost of inaction is high. Unaddressed learning loss and absenteeism will lead to fewer students graduating prepared for adult success, resulting in social and economic costs to communities and the nation. We urge Congress to support AmeriCorps, its members working in schools across the country and the students they serve.

According to new research, that’s the reality facing millions of middle-schoolers in reading. Confounding hopes for a quick recovery from COVID’s disruptions to learning, sixth- through eighth-graders are projected to need from five to nine additional months of school to catch up to pre-pandemic achievement levels. Many middle-schoolers were struggling to read even before COVID, and because most foundational reading instruction takes place in elementary school, if a student is not a proficient reader by the end of fifth grade, catching up becomes nearly impossible. Now, the larger-than-usual number of students struggling to read effectively is placing an immense strain on middle schools.

But there is hope and a path forward. Reading science points to several solutions, and it’s imperative that education leaders and policymakers make them a priority to help middle schools support students who are struggling to read. This must happen in and beyond the language arts classroom, specifically in terms of data, vocabulary and writing.

First, schools and districts must ensure that teachers have access to individualized, reliable and timely data on their students’ reading skills, especially from assessments that screen all students for potential difficulties. This key data, alongside consistent monitoring of academic growth to track student progress during the school year and frequent checks inside the classroom, provide teachers with vital information as they plan their next instructional steps. 

Second, there must be an emphasis on vocabulary. Words do not exist in a vacuum; vocabulary is part of a complex system that includes words’ explicit and figurative meanings and their relationship to other words. Middle school teachers — and not just English teachers — can elevate their vocabulary instruction by including morphology instruction, in which students learn to dissect words into their prefixes and suffixes to help get at the word’s meaning, and multisyllabic word decoding — using phonics to break apart long words. Middle school texts are longer and have more complex vocabulary than what elementary school students encounter. Understanding how to break down a word into its key parts helps middle schoolers navigate new words they encounter in science, social studies, even math.

Third, students must be given dedicated instructional time set aside to practice reading out loud, so they can strengthen their reading fluency skills. Fluency is the ability to read with accuracy, speed and expression, and is tied to comprehension. Students who have a large vocabulary can read without conscious effort or attention, which frees up working memory to focus on comprehension instead of word recognition or definition. A 2023 NWEA study found that sixth-graders who were below grade level in reading showed significant improvements in literacy after receiving targeted fluency intervention.

Lastly, writing is the unsung hero of reading development. When students write about what they have read, they deepen their comprehension of the text and illuminate areas they are still wrestling through. Writing provides important, real-time data for teachers, offering insight into students’ thoughts, highlighting areas that require additional instruction and showcasing new, fresh ways of thinking about content. Middle school teachers can rethink their instructional approach by considering that writing is both a process and a product. Daily practices like quick writes are good for capturing students’ initial grasp of a text, while complex writing assignments developed over time lean into the most challenging parts of a text, allowing students to wrestle with ideas and gain a deeper, more nuanced understanding. In addition, an assignment may ask students to pay attention to the specific purpose for writing and the audience they are writing for.

Longer writing tasks can also give teachers an opportunity to model the writing and revision process, for example, explaining out loud how to edit a section of text for word choice, tone or grammar. And they allow teachers to give detailed feedback, so students learn how to revise their own writing when the teacher is not around.

The data make it clear: Middle school students need ongoing literacy instruction throughout the school day if they are going to overcome COVID’s lingering effects and meet the reading and writing demands of science, social studies and other interdisciplinary subjects. It must be rooted in useful assessment data, so educators have a clear and ongoing understanding of student strengths and areas of growth. It must provide many opportunities for students to practice reading fluently, so their working memory frees up space for deeper comprehension and thinking. And a new vision for literacy must rethink writing, too, as a tool to teach reading.

The findings stand in stark contrast to older elementary-school students, who appeared to show accelerated growth and were making up for lost learning over time, and have prompted concerns over the enduring impact of disrupted foundational years.

“We were shocked when we first saw the data. The toll that the pandemic took on these young learners is striking, and we need to pay more attention and prioritize them,” says Kristen Huff, vice president of assessment and research at Curriculum Associates.

“The data show that these students – these second-graders who were in preschool or were just toddlers during the pandemic – their learning was disrupted and now they are having a harder time recovering and, in some cases, are falling even further behind.” 

The Curriculum Associates report focused on how students who entered kindergarten through fourth grade in the fall of 2021 performed in math and reading over three years, and compared those scores against students who started prior to the pandemic. In doing so, researchers analyzed results from roughly 4 million students. The dataset is unique in that it includes younger children who don’t yet participate in federally-mandated state testing or the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which accounts for why most academic achievement data focuses on older grades. 

While the researchers found that younger students were either falling behind or consistently hovering below pre-pandemic levels in both subjects, they were most challenged by math. Students who were in second and third grade during the 2021-22 school year had bottomed out in their recovery, hovering below pre-pandemic achievement levels. Meanwhile, students who were in kindergarten or first grade at that time had been dropping further below historical trends. 

Even the younger students who were on grade level prior to the pandemic – a subgroup that generally showed less learning loss and quicker recovery times, including for the younger students in reading – were lagging significantly behind. And notably, they made less progress compared to their pre-pandemic peers regardless of whether they attended urban, suburban or rural schools. 

The same is not true of older elementary-school students in reading or math. Students who were in fourth grade during the 2021-22 school year, for example, were hitting pre-pandemic levels in reading and approaching them in math three years later in the spring of 2024.

Why younger students may be struggling 

“Our data don’t speak to the why,” Huff said. “But they do suggest that somewhere along the way these [younger] students did not pick up the foundational skills, the building blocks for reading and math – and especially math – that are crucial for their learning trajectory.”

Though the study was designed to show correlation and not causation, Huff and her team have a handful of working theories.

The pandemic wiped out a decade of progress in increasing enrollment in public preschools and kick-started a chronic absenteeism problem that continues today. Given that so many students missed out on pre-K or kindergarten – or received instruction virtually during those years – they may have missed a critical window of learning and development. And, research has long shown, less developed foundational skills can lead to the types of learning gaps the researchers found. 

Research also shows that certain moments in a child’s development are more sensitive to change than others. Children undergo significant brain growth between birth and age five, for example, but it can be negatively impacted by disruptions and stressors. The pandemic was a once-in-a-lifetime disruption. 

“For student learning, periods during which students build foundational skills – the skills most needed to advance learning – may be especially sensitive,” the researchers noted in their published findings. “Thus, disruptions during foundational skill development could create a compounding effect, making recovery a slow endeavor.”

Alongside that hypothesis is another: that the academic recovery efforts used by districts targeted students who were either further along in elementary school, or in middle and high school, or in grades participating in state exams. If that was the case, younger learners may have received less intervention support.

Of course, that’s virtually impossible to track given that districts allocated their state and federal pandemic recovery spending based on needs – staffing, tutoring, summer learning, social-emotional development, etc. – and not by grade-level. 

‘Math is a whole different story’

Angie Rosen, the director of curriculum and instruction at Little Silver Boro School District in New Jersey, says she knew right away that the small, high-performing school district had a problem when they brought back kindergarten and first grade students in November 2021. 

“Reading is one thing. Parents can read with kids. But math is a whole different story,” she says. “It’s more about understanding number sense, manipulating numbers and understanding why you’re doing what you’re doing.”

To blunt the pandemic’s impact, Rosen organized intense professional development for math instruction for first and second grade teachers. 

“We knew that parents wouldn’t teach math like we were teaching math, so that’s where we started,” she says. “We worked hard at it.”

Rosen says the key to getting their students back on track has been to obsess over their benchmark data to figure out where students have stopped making recovery and plug those holes.

“You have to look at where the gaps are, look at where it’s not measuring up, and then target it and address it,” she says. “You can’t do every grade level and every year in every subject. But I think that’s our success – we pay attention to the data and use it.”

To be sure, the Curriculum Associate data is the first of its kind to suggest that the county’s youngest learners are uniquely stalled out and, in some cases, falling further behind. Some researchers caution that the doomsday finding hasn’t been replicated by other robust analyses of post-pandemic academic loss and recovery – though that’s due to the fact that standardized testing data does not exist for such young students. 

Researchers from Curriculum Associates acknowledge at least some limitations to their methodology and findings, including that despite the large sample size, the data is not nationally representative, they did not use matched samples and did not track the same students pre- and post-pandemic. 

Huff says the data should be a shot across the bow for school districts to invest more recovery resources on their youngest learners.

“We now know their growth trajectory is very much dependent upon how prepared they were when they come into school,” she says. “We want these data to inform helpful, targeted policies and practice. These are data based on millions of students and we know that there are educators, districts and students out there who are bucking the trend.”

And here’s a twist: The same core difficulties are bedeviling teachers too.

The findings, contained in a new working paper, are believed to be the first to identify brain changes as an explanation for why students have suffered, both inside and outside the classroom, since the pandemic drove millions out of the classroom. 

Nancy Tsai, a Harvard University psychologist who studies the effects of stress on executive functions and who is the study’s lead author, said the new findings offer the first evidence to help us “understand the ‘why’” of the pandemic downturn — “what is actually causing all these issues that we’re seeing and talking about in the news.”

The paper, from the educational assessment and services company“MindPrint Learning, examines the cognitive skills of students nationwide and finds that, simply put, over the past several years, kids’ famously ever-changing brains have changed for the worse. 

Since the pandemic’s onset, students across all ages and economic levels have begun to demonstrate weaker memory and “flexible thinking” skills — those represent the mental bandwidth needed for multitasking, shifting from one activity to another and juggling the day’s demands. But for a few groups, such as younger and lower-income children, the changes have been more profound.

They also show that their teachers’ brains are weaker in almost identical ways, which could help explain high rates of frustration and burnout. They suggest school districts have their work cut out for them if they want to keep their best employees on the payroll and returning to the classroom each fall. 

Understanding the ‘why’ of pandemic downturn

The data come from a large, widely-used assessment, the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery, developed in 2013 at the University of Pennsylvania. It consists of a series of cognitive tasks that measure subjects’ accuracy and speed in several major cognitive domains, including working memory, abstraction, sustained attention, episodic memory and processing speed. 

MindPrint has administered the assessment periodically to its clients over the past decade. The most recent rounds totaled 35,000 students and 4,000 teachers in 27 states.

By most measures, U.S. students are suffering. Last year, NAEP scores showed the average 13-year-old’s understanding of math dropping to levels last seen in the 1990s and reading levels dropping to 1971, when the test was first administered.

More recent research has shown that while older children are showing encouraging signs of academic recovery, younger kids aren’t making the same progress. Many students who weren’t even in a formal school setting when COVID hit are already falling behind — especially in math.

The Penn assessment found that children who attended elementary or pre-school during the pandemic and who are now 8 to13 years old showed the largest declines in memory. 

“Younger kids haven’t really developed a lot of these core cognitive skills,” Tsai said. “It hasn’t solidified for them, either through development or just through practice in the classroom. And so younger kids are more vulnerable to these pandemic shifts.”

But students across all age groups showed worse flexible thinking, which researchers now theorize contributes to lower academic performance — as well as challenging behaviors.

Tsai said kids from lower income backgrounds were more vulnerable to these changes, specifically in verbal reasoning and verbal memory, than their higher income peers, with bigger declines in verbal scores, which are highly correlated with academic achievement in all subjects.

Adults in the study had similar declines in both memory and flexible thinking, possibly explaining higher reported levels of teacher dissatisfaction and low morale.

Nancy Weinstein, MindPrint’s CEO, said weaker flexible thinking isn’t necessarily a problem for experienced teachers who have developed strategies to cope with stressful situations and can modify plans on the fly. But those with less experience may be unable to change gears when lessons go astray or students act out in class. That may lead to higher teacher burnout.

Across the board, teachers’ skills suffered in areas such as verbal and abstract reasoning, spatial perception, attention and working memory, but they saw the greatest losses in verbal memory and flexible thinking.

“If we care about that, we need to know how to help them,” Weinstein said. “And there are some tried and true things you can do.”

She said schools should consider sharing data like this with teachers so they can understand that their frustration in class might not be due to students alone. That could make a big difference, she said, in “their willingness to put in the effort to change, as opposed to saying, ‘Why bother?’”

For students, Weinstein said, offering them more opportunities to practice skills with breaks and rest between study sessions could help. Schools should also consider “scaffolded memorization” techniques that break learning into chunks and address each individually.

Could such techniques help students — and teachers — regain a measure of pre-pandemic skills? Weinstein suggests the answer is “Yes.”

“The environment will matter, but certainly we can regain some of that if we do the right things,” she said. “And we know what the right things are to do.”

Crystal Green-Braswell, coordinator of staff wellness and culture for the Little Rock School District in Arkansas, said offering the Penn assessment to teachers and staff has helped many think more deeply about their work — and about their own thinking. 

“People who have had the assessment will say, ‘Now, you know my processing speed is slower — y’all are going to have to give me a moment,’” she said. 

That’s a huge change in a profession in which most workers have been asked “to take ourselves out of the equation and just get the work done,” Green-Braswell said. 

She sees offering such insights to educators as part of “rehumanizing” teaching. “When we provide this kind of assessment and we provide this kind of space for folks to actually get to know themselves, we are humanizing this profession and helping people to realize, ‘You play a role. You play an active role. You matter.’ ”

The warning signs are unmistakable. Younger students, who were in their formative years when schools shut down, are not catching up as quickly as their older peers. Chronic absenteeism remains alarmingly high, creating a vicious cycle of missed learning and disengagement. Meanwhile, teachers are stretched to their limits, grappling with the dual pressures of addressing learning loss and managing their own burnout. These are not just temporary setbacks; they are harbingers of long-term consequences that could define a generation.

The situation is even more dire for students with disabilities, English learners and others facing unique challenges. The nation’s schools underserved these students even before the pandemic, and now the gaps have widened. Americans are witnessing a deepening of educational inequities that could have devastating effects if policymakers and educational leaders do not intervene.

Perhaps most concerning is that politicians and government agencies aren’t being open and honest with parents and advocates about these problems — or about potential solutions. In a recent analysis, CRPE found that only seven states made it easy for the average parent or website user to see the pre- and post-COVID educational data that every state is required to provide.

The path forward is clear: Educators must urgently expand the use of proven strategies that are already showing results, such as targeted tutoring, high-quality curricula and extended learning time. But these alone will not be enough. The pandemic has laid bare the fact that the nation’s education system was never designed to meet the needs of every student, particularly those with the most complex challenges. Truly supporting all students will mean reinventing the system itself.

This means moving beyond the traditional, one-size-fits-all model of education. Schools must become more flexible, adapting to students rather than forcing them to conform to outdated norms, such as a single teacher per classroom and ineffective special education programs. School superintendents and principals must embrace new staffing and scheduling approaches, such as team teaching, that allow for more personalized instruction and support. Further, schools must harness the power of technology, including artificial intelligence, to provide real-time insights into student progress and tailor learning experiences to each child’s individual needs.

Students who have fallen behind developmentally or academically during the pandemic are being placed at very high rates in special education or language programs that the parents we interviewed for our report described as rigid, unresponsive and fundamentally lacking in high expectations for their children. Students who do not fit neatly in programmatic boxes, such as “twice exceptional” children who are both academically gifted and in need of disability accommodations, exemplify why such boxes too often fail to meet individual needs. 

In the pandemic’s wake, it is critical for schools to abandon flawed and outdated approaches. This will mean redeploying staff and reconfiguring schedules to avoid pitting academic tutoring against special education services and supplemental pullout services against core instruction. It will also mean giving parents more options and power if their child is failing to thrive in the assigned program or school. 

But systemic change requires more than just innovative ideas — it takes political will and a commitment to evidence, equity, accountability and a relentless focus on innovation. Policymakers, advocates and philanthropists must work together to ensure that the most vulnerable students receive the targeted support they need. This includes providing honest, transparent data on academic performance so parents and educators can make informed decisions and ensuring that resources are directed where they are most needed.

The stakes could not be higher. If the current state of affairs continues, COVID-19 will leave its indelible mark on yet another cohort of students — young people whose potential will go unrealized and whose futures will be constrained by the failures of adults to act. The time for incremental change has passed. Those with the power to make these critical shifts must act with urgency, creativity and a deep sense of responsibility to all our students. The future of our society will be shaped by decisions and leadership actions in the coming year.

The scores, released Tuesday by the nonprofit testing group NWEA, serve as more evidence of a trend that has stood out in earlier data: Students who were still in elementary school when the pandemic began are experiencing particularly worrisome setbacks as schools try to chart a path to academic recovery. Meanwhile, today’s elementary schoolers have nearly returned to the levels of learning last seen in 2019.

This summer, NWEA circulated scores from their widely used MAP Growth assessment of math and reading. The results, which included the performance of nearly eight million American students from grades 3–8, revealed that today’s eighth graders were a full year behind 2019 learning in both subjects. By contrast, learning delays for third graders were only about one-quarter that size. 

In general, learning loss in science has been less significant than for core disciplines like math and reading because STEM instruction is comparatively limited in the early grades. In a 2018 survey, elementary teachers said they spent only 18 minutes each day focusing on science, compared with about an hour on math and 1.5 hours on reading. 

Susan Kowalski, an NWEA senior researcher who worked on the report, said the scores showed that students who experienced their foundational years of STEM instruction in 2020 and 2021 were now struggling to cope.

“If science is taught at all in elementary school, it’s in the fourth and fifth grades,” Kowalski reflected. “So in 2021, those were the kids who were hardest hit in science, and they are now seventh and eighth graders who have never really rebounded.”

The latest data is drawn from 621 public schools that consistently administered the MAP Growth Science test to the same grade levels between 2017 and 2024. This ongoing sample allowed the research team to measure students this spring against not only those in the pre-COVID period, but also during the initial phases of the pandemic, when tens of millions of students were receiving virtual instruction. 

Those results show that, by the spring of 2021, students across all tested grades had fallen significantly behind in science, with especially sizable learning losses mounting in grades 4 and 5. But elementary schoolers have since recovered the most ground compared with their same-age predecessors of three years ago, with learning gaps reduced by 50% for third graders, 82% for fifth graders, and 33% for sixth graders. Fourth graders, whose performance dropped the furthest during the early stages of the pandemic, have now fully returned to their 2019-era achievement levels in science.

But the gaps for older students — essentially, those who saw the biggest dips three years ago — have grown with time. In 2021, NWEA estimated that seventh and eighth graders would require 0.9 and 1.7 months of additional science instruction, respectively, to catch up to where similar students had been in 2019; by 2024, the projection for students in that grade had grown to 1.7 and 3.2 months of supplemental learning, respectively. 

In other words, kids’ whose initial encounters with science were thwarted by the COVID shock appear to be falling further behind, even as state and federal leaders have provided school districts with billions of dollars to lead recovery efforts. 

Heidi Schweingruber, the director of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board of Science Education, said that students’ halting progress in science could constrain their life chances in the future. Adolescents begin to develop aspirations for college and career only a few years after they receive their first lessons in science.

“If they’re missing that foundation and can’t follow a strong pathway into high school science, are we closing doors for them in terms of what they might consider after graduation?” Schweingruber asked. “Middle school is the time when kids are starting to develop an identity of who they want to be.”

As other testing data have indicated previously, the pandemic also significantly widened achievement gaps separating students along racial lines. While middle schoolers of all racial and ethnic backgrounds had fallen behind in science by the spring of 2021, Hispanic students lost more ground than their white classmates. Among eighth graders, Hispanics required a projected 3.4 months of academic recovery in 2021 and 6.3 months in 2024; whites in the same age cohort needed 0.5 months of recovery in 2021 and 1.6 months now.

Black students, who have mostly bounced back from the science losses sustained in 2020 and 2021, are still, on average, between 10 and 15 months behind the average achievement levels for children in their grades. Hispanic students, whose progress has only stalled further since 2021, are almost as badly off. 

Erika Shugart, CEO of the National Science Teaching Association, said in a statement that she wasn’t surprised to see negative impacts concentrated among middle schoolers, though she added that persistent gaps in STEM instruction could prove economically and socially destructive in the long run.

“The U.S. is already facing significant challenges producing a STEM-ready workforce,” Shugart wrote. “Science literacy is crucial for making informed decisions about health, the environment, and technology. Falling behind in science education can impair individuals’ ability to engage with and understand complex issues, affecting personal and societal well-being.”

To combat lost science learning, NWEA’s authors recommended different strategies to curb chronic absenteeism, entice students to participate in summer learning opportunities, and weave science instruction into middle school reading instruction, which research suggests could improve performance in both subjects.

Kowalski said that, more than any particular approach, educators needed to embrace a “mentality shift” away from remediation and toward learning acceleration. A former high school physics instructor, she argued that schools can’t get their pupils back on track simply by offering them what they missed four years ago.

“They can’t succumb to low expectations and say, ‘These students are behind, so I need to slow down.’ It’s more like, ‘These students are behind, so I need to accelerate.’”

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released A Nation at Risk (ANAR), which issued a wake-up call, named the state of US education a crisis, and presented thirty recommendations for action. It bears noting that the Commission’s recommendations were targeted in focus and scope, leaving the prevailing “one best” district-based education model intact. We will never know whether larger-scaled interventions were considered or not. Whatever the genesis, the final recommendations left education policymakers with an organizational checklist, and as the essays in this series have demonstrated, they responded accordingly.

A Nation at Risk + 40 brought together twelve exceptional scholars and thought leaders to review the nation’s response to the Commission’s challenge. At the outset of this research collaboration, compiling the record of forty years of school improvement efforts and summarizing the available evidence of their respective impacts on student outcomes appeared straightforward, if even a bit tedious. It turned out to be anything but that.

Each of the twelve essays fulfilled its assignment. In each strand of investigation, the authors documented the evolution of improvement activity and —where it exists — described the degree to which the efforts paid off. On its own, every one of the essays makes an important contribution to our ongoing national conversation about the critical state of the public K–12 education sector. While we make no claim that the scope of inquiry was definitive, the separate reviews cover billions of dollars in major programs and initiatives pursued by districts, states, and philanthropy. Many of these initiatives were incentivized by Congress and span Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. Our authors offer their own recommendations that, if followed, hold promise to improve conditions in the spheres they examined.

The research collaborative delivered an even more valuable asset, as the result is far more than the sum of the parts. Until the essays were gathered into a collection, the aggregate record of attempts to improve the K–12 education system in the United States was uncharted and unrecognized. We know of no other compilation that illuminates the sheer breadth of reform activity.

For the first time, we can compare the impacts across different areas of investment. Beyond this, taking the full collection as a whole augments the strand-specific recommendations with several crosscutting observations to inform future action.

What did we do?

There can be no dispute that, as a nation, we certainly tried hard to fix the problem. Practically speaking, we addressed every node that was mentioned by the Commission and several that weren’t. It is remarkable how doggedly educators, policy leaders, advocates, and funders have augmented policy and practice with interventions. The sheer volume and spread of reform efforts are worth examining, as they begin to shed light on the situation we currently face in public K–12 education.

Other scholars (Hattie 2023) have used evaluations and other research to rank the impact on student performance of various reforms. The impact estimates are drawn from a vast collection of meta analyses, yielding a super-meta-analysis that rank-orders reported results across different interventions. The rankings are widely interpreted as the definitive, adjudicated, and authoritative guide to improving student performance. In statehouses, state education agencies, and school districts, the rankings have taken on mythic proportions in guiding policy decisions about school improvement.

It is easy to see the appeal. The aim is noble, and the appetite is intense. Sadly, deeper inquiry into the rankings shows significant problems with the work: the desire to be expansive sits in tension with the need to apply stringent criteria about which meta-analyses are fed into the rankings. We learned that the underlying quality of the reform interventions themselves and the rigor of the research about their effects varied widely. To illustrate with a hypothetical: in the rankings, one thousand low-quality interventions with medium-strength evidence receive higher weight than one hundred high-quality interventions with a high-quality evaluation.

The concerns go beyond the problem of the quality of evidence. The implication for policymaking and educator practice is that the rankings encourage devotion to one or two marginal adjustments to schooling at the expense of lower-ranked options. The greatest risk lies in overlooking emerging successes for years until the next update to the rankings occurs.

Wishing to avoid a similar result, we chose a different approach to exploring the body of evidence. Beyond the notable volume of reform efforts attempted over the past forty years, it is useful to consider the points of the system that the various reforms were designed to change. This is important because many of the checklist items from ANAR’s recommendations aim at strengthening only one facet of the K–12 system, and the Commission did not offer recommendations on mixing, matching, or stacking multiple reform efforts.

The stability of the basic model of US K–12 public education over four decades is advantageous for our purposes because it supports a generalized theory of action, sometimes called a “logic model.” Theories of action specify the types of capital, staffing, and other resources that are needed to provide K–12 education. Theories of action also detail the policies and practices that are followed. Inputs and processes combine to produce a near-term result referred to as “outputs.” The eventual value of the results is identified as “outcomes.” With this lens, we classify the policies, programs, and initiatives discussed by the essay authors in order to learn about the targets and yields of reform activity. To be clear, some improvement efforts span our classification categories (e.g., some professional development includes input and process features); these are assigned by their most prevalent attributes.

Our authors are highly sensitive to the availability and caliber of research and evaluation. In many areas, such as public school choice and inclusion of master teachers in educator preparation programs, no evidence exists. In other areas, impact information is hindered by studies involving few examples, fuzzy specifications, or weak counterfactuals. Evaluative studies of school-based health centers and socio-emotional learning are examples where evidence of impact is lacking. The field of impact studies has evolved in constructive ways, but it still hinges critically on a weak commitment to objective assessment of impacts and the discipline to incorporate the insights into practice.

Inputs

A preponderance of the improvement efforts identified by the authors sought to adjust the inputs used by the education system. These include teacher-focused efforts such as alternative certification and incentive pay arrangements, adding school-based health centers, strengthening early childhood programs, and overhauling curriculum. System-focused input changes seek to expand the variety of inputs or the overall structure of the system, whereas marginal input reforms seek to improve the quality of the selective resources within the existing stock.

Taken together, these efforts aimed to enrich the ingredients in the “recipe” for K–12 education. Focusing reform attention on adjusting the quantity, quality, or intensity of a factor before it is used keeps the reform at arm’s length from the actual production of education. Think of upgrading tires on a race car — the improvement to the equipment takes place offline and then is brought online in the hopes of improved performance.

The evidence shows that the range of impacts for inputs-focused reforms run from zero to as much as three-quarters of a year of additional achievement for students. About half the input reforms have negligible or no effect on student academic achievement. The options that show no impact share the attribute of shallow or isolated treatment—a few hours of professional development or play-based preschool. For both system-focused and marginal input reforms, positive results point to interventions that have significant weight, scale, and duration to create and sustain the momentum for change. As examples, we see this in the small-schools movement (systems focused) and in laser-focused teacher professional development (marginal adjustments).

Input reforms assume that the rest of the system will respond organically to the change in the treated input. As the evidence shows, many efforts provided too little leverage to lift the rest of the operation. Worse, an exclusive input focus ignores the possible interactions with other components that may react in different ways than expected.

Processes

Process reforms aim to change the way education is created, delivered, and monitored by schools and their oversight bodies. To extend the recipe analogy, processes are the mixing and cooking instructions. Marginal process reforms attempt to mix inputs in new ways or interact inputs with new policies or protocols. Systemwide process changes try to ubiquitously reengineer old ways of doing things to produce better results, such as the experience of adopting the IMPACT teacher evaluation and compensation initiative in Washington, DC, or implementing a digital learning platform across all the middle schools in a district.

Given the challenges of designing and implementing new programs, it is little wonder that our authors found fewer process reform examples in their scans. Across the essays, the authors identified three general areas of process reforms.

Teacher professional development falls largely into the process category—selected areas of knowledge and skills are targeted to expand the capacity of teachers to perform their duties. This differs from input reforms, which are directed toward improving the number or quality of candidates at the point of hiring. The available evidence suggests that for much of the past forty years, there was little or no effect from a large proportion of professional development. Recent evidence, however, shows positive impacts when the programs are strictly focused, multifaceted, and sustained, producing between one and four months of extra achievement.

Incentive programs for higher teacher performance have strong impacts on student academic achievement for their duration, from about two months to an extra year of added achievement. However, these impacts are largely one sided; they did not induce low-performing teachers to move up or move out. Rather, they provided financial and work assignment flexibility incentives for teachers. Similar programs that trade extra compensation for teaching in the most challenging settings also produce strong student gains of similar magnitudes. Both types of reforms are highly vulnerable to political disruption at all points of the program, especially if teachers’ participation requires evaluation of their performance.

Technology adoptions can also be classified as process reforms. Once technology has been purchased and distributed, it serves a process function. The evidence of impact from the broad provision of education technologies has, for the most part, been disappointing, showing no impact and substantial stranding of investments. Despite that general trend, however, a number of significant and strongly positive examples of technology-supported education have emerged as promising proof points.

The third area of process reforms occurs at the governance level of the system. Since ANAR’s release, states have changed the way they fill key positions on their boards of education and within the Council of Chief State School Officers. The change in appointment mechanisms is a process change whose influence is systemwide. Likewise, changes in district school boards to a portfolio management model also flow across the district system. The evidence on these governance changes has been mixed.

It is clear that important differences exist between systemwide process changes and those that are marginal in nature. Some process reforms can work only if introduced systemwide, such as adoption of student safety protocols or school-based disciplinary programs; a “half a loaf” approach won’t work. Alternatively, marginal process change can be narrow in scope, in terms of either the focus of the reform or the organizational level that is targeted. Pilot programs are a clear example. In marginal process reforms, the rest of the schooling equation remains untouched. The balance between systems and marginal processes can shift either way depending on the interplay of cost, the scope of the planned innovation, friction with adjacent policies or practices, and political resistance.

Moreover, estimating the effects of process changes is technically and practically more difficult than measuring the effects of input shifts. The interactions of new processes with other factors and their dynamic nature over time create complexity that is difficult to measure. The body of evidence is therefore smaller than exists for input-focused changes. New instructional models such as discovery or expeditionary learning are process changes. The evidence on these is thin, except for personalized learning modalities, which show strongly positive effects on learning gains and graduation rates.

Likewise, the expansion of technology — equipment, connectivity, and content—in schools is a process change that has altered the way curriculum and instruction are organized and deployed. The impacts are sobering: unused resources cannot advance learning, but where strong implementation occurs, we also see improved student academic achievement.

The final set of process changes can be grouped as “infusion” efforts. Extended school years appear not to improve student results, but additional time in focused instruction helps; the extra time matters only if it is used well. Similarly, teacher and leader professional learning programs are seen as a mixed bag. As with extra time in school, the evidence shows that focused and targeted experience can produce positive impacts on student learning, but those conditions do not appear to be the norm.

Although they have a smaller evidence base, process reforms deal with larger segments of the education enterprise than inputs. Those that work share the attribute of internal design coherence, even if they do not fit well into the rest of the system. Finally, the larger the process reform, the more of a political target it offers to opponents.

Outputs

When we consider the near-term results of elementary and secondary education or the milestones on the way to reach these results, we are discussing outputs. These are the immediate products that reflect the end state that inputs and processes have created. In K–12 education, common outputs include meeting learning benchmarks for grade promotion, satisfying graduation requirements, and implementing performance measures for teachers and leaders. It bears noting that outputs are agnostic to inputs and processes: many combinations are possible to create a particular output.

Systems-oriented improvement efforts have been judged by both outputs and outcomes. In Cami Anderson’s essay on the results of districtwide reform strategies in Newark, New Jersey (chapter 12), early childhood enrollment increases of 35 percentage points were one output. Another was the rise of 20 points in the percent of Black students enrolled in above-average schools, followed by significant early gains in reading achievement and eventual gains in math. Ironically, the impressive improvements in Newark were not tallied to be a successful outcome, largely because of friction in the community and with elected leaders. Similar efforts under the US Department of Education School Improvement Program did not create positive results.

There are other examples of reforms that aim to change outputs. Redirecting school board activity to prioritize academics and student learning has been shown to produce positive movement on outcome measures for schools and districts.

The largest efforts to move outputs of elementary and secondary schooling lie in the national adoption of accountability programs. The consequential approach to school-based accountability advanced by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) improved learning by one half per year of student achievement and narrowed achievement gaps between groups of students. High school graduation rates increased by 15 percentage points with concomitant increases in college enrollments. These improvement trends persisted through 2015, but they have all but reversed over the past eight years, with student learning falling dramatically over the course of the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Other efforts to affect teacher preparation programs also looked at outputs, but to no avail: current teacher certification exams are unable to predict future variations in teachers’ performance once they are in the classroom. Other common indicators, such as academic credentials or years of experience (also inputs), are similarly disconnected from future teacher performance.

Finally, some reform activities deliberately circumvent mainstream institutions and channels in an attempt to create better outputs. Extra-system initiatives can take the form of inputs or processes, or they can combine the two. Some options that have shown positive impacts for student results include mayoral control (significant gains in achievement and better fiscal controls) and gubernatorial appointment of state board members (better performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments).

As noted by other scholars, school choice can arise within, across, or outside of school systems (Lake 2020). Intradistrict school choice redistributes seats in schools by changing the way students are assigned to schools; it aims to improve the outputs for the students who access better classrooms. As a process reform, it is associated with stronger achievement in math for minority students. Interdistrict choice is rare, and its effects are not well studied. Charter schools operate in a separate policy stream and deliver stronger growth and achievement in reading and math, especially in urban charter school networks (CREDO 2023). For vouchers, the impact for students on balance has not been positive; the evidence on vouchers shows weaker achievement for enrolled students even as they create positive spillover impacts on public schools. Other efforts that move outside the usual institutional arrangements are less understood. Newer options such as education savings accounts (ESAs) and microschools have yet to be examined in depth.

Outcomes

In an education theory of action, outcomes are the final results of the entire enterprise. Outcomes differ from outputs because they apply external standards and criteria to the nominal outputs to make judgments about what is “good enough.” So, while outputs may be expressed as test scores, CTE credentials, or course completions, when we apply evaluation standards such as postsecondary readiness, we are making judgments about the performance that was produced.

Since ANAR was released, we have gained clarity, if not conviction, about what we intend our schools to produce. Performance frameworks that illustrate the results that stakeholders deem desirable have grown in number and complexity. Across the country, charter school authorizers and state and local school boards use performance frameworks as central elements of school and district oversight and accountability. Newer examples of our collective expectations are seen in the work in some states to define the profile of a graduate, setting explicit criteria for what a high school diploma should represent.

By law, every state reports publicly on how its students and schools are performing. State-issued “report cards” for districts and schools generally include demographic information for teachers and students, operational and financial information, and student academic performance information. States set thresholds for student and school performance expectations, though these thresholds vary a lot. Whatever their aspirations, we are not in vastly different territory today than in 1983. Disappointing outcomes (e.g., high school math performance) have even prompted attempts to improve the optics by diluting some of the criteria (such as watering down the instructional frameworks or course requirements), but such maneuvers do nothing to alter the underlying reality.

Insights from the audience

As Walt Kelly’s cartoon character Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Indeed, the staggering array of treatments, interventions, redesigns, and innovations that our authors identified makes it a challenge to rationalize our collective experience into any semblance of order. If we had aimed for chaos at the outset, it is hard to imagine a better result.

Despite the cacophony, the catalog of activity amassed by the authors supports a few observations about our forty-year effort to reform that hold potential for illuminating future directions for elementary and secondary education in our country. After identification, we can characterize the record of reform efforts with six I’s: impulsive, incremental, incoherent, impatient, intransigent, and ineffective, as discussed below.

Impulsive

Most of the reforms were adopted at full scale—across an entire state or the nation. Many efforts to push programs across states or regions had roots in advocacy pressure to move reforms quickly. Many state leaders were game to bring new policies to their state if they were perceived as having been successful elsewhere, as it reduced the perception of risk and provided an existing model to copy.

Doing the “here, too” dance hobbled the new adopters in two ways. It skipped over analysis of the “fit” of the reform in the local context—and the important variation in local contexts — on the receiving end. It is impossible in hindsight to determine how many of the “mixed result” outcomes stemmed from differences in the settings on the ground, but it seems safe to say local contours were likely overlooked as most of the programs or policies were advanced. It is also true that jurisdiction-wide adoption curtailed the ability to evaluate implementation and impacts in real time, so valuable learning was lost at the get-go.

Incremental

The most pervasive attribute is the incremental nature of the interventions. This stems in part from the original recommendations of the ANAR Commission, framed as commonsensical and achievable changes. The commitment to incrementalism continued even when earlier efforts proved ineffective. One might argue that it made sense to aim small to soften implementation friction. The record suggests otherwise. Because the interventions were mostly narrowly focused, not only did they lack the scope or initial scale necessary to drive needed system changes, but in their sheer volume—so many reforms in so many areas—they led to a reform fatigue that lasts to this day.

It is important to note that the essays identified examples of successful reform that did not involve incremental adjustments. Systemwide efforts as described for Newark and new systems building as seen with charter schools have larger blueprints and therefore greater areas for change.

Incoherent

A third observation is that most of the changes undertaken over the past decades were launched with no consideration for how the reform would interact with the rest of the K–12 system. Changes to piece parts were designed and adopted as autonomous endeavors. This partially explains why many innovations fail to scale effectively.

This does not mean that things were only tried one at a time. Many examples exist of multiple incremental reforms launched simultaneously without an understanding of the interplay between them or with the rest of the equation. Reforms were “bolted on,” one after another, without regard for how they fit together. And each one that was added “diluted” the impact of the others. The resulting lack of coherence often led to unintended consequences that were never even considered, much less planned for.

One important implication of incoherence is a lost opportunity to ensure that stakeholders — especially the ground-level personnel—function with an understanding of the way the system works and how they belong in it; a well-crafted plan of action can provide that. A second implication is that it is difficult to objectively learn from experience, especially from unsuccessful ventures. When the general model is unorganized, it is hard to assign causality, for example, between lack of implementation fidelity of a sound design and a design that does not fit the context it is meant to improve.

Impatient

A separate issue that permeates the essays is the (often unstated) expectation that improvement efforts produce large demonstrable results almost immediately and without regard to the time requirements of the change being made. Changes to organizational culture need to occur rapidly, but other changes take time. Shifts in instructional methods often require more than a single year to stabilize enough to know how well they work. Incorporating new systems such as new-teacher onboarding can take even longer to reveal their true value and impact.

The expectation of quick results creates multiple harms. It doesn’t give the good parts time to take root or provide the space to iterate toward success. Moreover, it seeds unrealistic expectations about the diligence needed to give new approaches their due. From a political vantage, it gives the doubters and pouters a head start on declaring new reforms a failure. It also contributes to the “carousel,” as one teacher described it: “I don’t have to do anything but wait—in three years there will be something new.”

Compounding the problem, the governance side of the equation needs strong and enduring leadership to be patient with complicated, multifaceted reform efforts and to plan and invest for the long term. Even if the enabling conditions are understood and a proven scaling strategy is in place—such as with charter management organizations—when the reform in question needs ten to twenty years to come to fruition, rapid turnover cycles of education leaders lose important institutional knowledge, and politicians are short on patience (or incentive) to see it through.

All too often, the time needed to see results is longer than the amount of time politicians have in their seats, and it does not line up with the cyclical campaign and election cycle. Shortrun wins are coveted by political actors seeking to establish a record of success on which to build advancement. The bias toward quick returns and the lack of political will or appetite to invest in long-run solutions have a serious trickle-down effect: (1) a constant churn of reform that does not give space or time to realize success and (2) systems that learn to wait out the current wave of reforms, as “this, too, shall pass.” When the need for improvement is glaring but the actors in legislatures and education agencies prioritize their own short-run interests, we face compound system failure.

Intransigent

The authors carefully identified examples of reforms that produced positive student learning impacts, but many were subject to political interference or failed to perform at scale. Still, the examples show what may be possible. What they do not show is the complementing picture of the myriad reforms that went nowhere and evaporated into history. There is no tally of their number.

But anecdotal reports have consistently told the story of reform churn. Charles Payne’s phrase, “So much reform, so little change,” seems to apply. Instead of forty years of sustained and coherent reform, we have forty short-run reforms that each last three years. School teams are introduced to new practices during the professional development days that accompany the start of school each fall, with short windows of time to prepare for deployment and little implementation support during the year. The school teams learn about impacts indirectly — and often too late to try modifications. Decisions about continuing or terminating the effort usually do not include input from those on the front line. More often than not, new initiatives are quietly abandoned, with the cycle left to repeat itself the following year.

It is notable that, despite this endless churn of reforms, the prevailing institutional structure of “SEA, LEA school board, district administration, school leadership, grade/class grouping, teacher” remains largely unchanged, despite repeated pressures on it to adapt. The possibility exists that the summative effect of all the efforts over the years has fostered a resiliency to any improvement efforts—an adaptive state of resistance to change of its core activities. It may help to explain the tendency to shift focus to other facets of students, teachers, or teaching where ground may be more fertile for positive experience. There is no way to test this idea empirically, but it fits the pattern of the evidence and explains the abundant cynicism and burnout.

Ineffective

The strongest case for learning from our experience lies in our national trends on student performance. Given the authors’ reports, it is little wonder that, even before the blow to student learning of COVID-19 school closures, the long-run reports noted that US student performance was stagnant or in decline.

Two considerations help to explain our current state. Part of the problem is that, apart from formal pilots, most reforms launch without considering how to learn from them. We are seriously underresourced across the sector in measuring local conditions and reform effectiveness.

In addition, even after forty years, the system has significant internal inconsistency—it lacks a “unified theory” of how reform should be done. This essay collection recounts how many reforms were launched without a sufficient discussion of which level of the system (e.g., state, district, school) might be the most effective to lead the transformation efforts.

Conclusion

We face an even more daunting challenge today, which is that forty years of reform have exhausted everyone involved. The one thing we may have conclusively proven is that the system, as presently constituted, has been resilient to reforms at scale. A modern ANAR report might not fall on deaf ears—the need for school reform is real—but it would fall on ears that are tired of hearing about it.

What is clear is that we have a thin collection of reforms that have been shown to work and that can scale. None of the proven reforms seek to integrate with other proven reforms to concentrate their success. The larger the scale of innovation/reform, the larger the political target it presents for opponents of change.

What we do have is an impressive record of what not to do. We can’t assume that ideas that have been proven effective in one setting will be effective in every setting. We can’t expect change at the margins (no matter how well they are done) to be able to leverage an entire school model. We can’t impose reforms that ignore how the change affects other parts of the enterprise. We should accept these lessons as a form of learning in itself and perhaps the best final message of this exercise. Drawing on the six I’ —impulsive, incremental, incoherent, impatient, intransigent, and ineffective—may provide lodestars by which to assess new proposals toward more effective approaches to delivering strong education to our nation’s students.

See the full Hoover Institution initiative: A Nation At Risk +40. 

When I partnered with the Center on Reinventing Public Education on a report reviewing how transparent state report cards are in reflecting COVID-19 learning loss and recovery, I came in with an open mind. I expected they would contain most of the information we sought and would mostly be pretty usable. I was wrong. I think everyone on our team was incredibly disappointed by many of the state report card websites and their inability to answer our primary questions of interest about the effects of COVID on student outcomes.

Here are four questions from our five analysts about these sites, based on direct quotes from a written interview we all completed after we finished rating the report cards, that we think states should consider moving forward. 

Where Is the Data?

The high-level takeaway from our report: It is extremely difficult on most state report card websites to track longitudinal performance data at the school level going back to before COVID. There are a few exceptions — seven states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee) earned an A for having this data available.

But even in many of these better-performing states, there were problems. Many state report cards make it difficult to do things that should be easy. Parents should be able to use the report cards to compare schools they are considering for their children, but in too many places, that is impossible. Advocates should be able to understand, at minimum, the performance of federally mandated student groups, such as children with disabilities and English learners, but many states completely bury these data. Further, report cards often lack other kinds of data that parents might want about available services, like advanced coursework, counseling, even sports and the arts. Overall, the reviewers were disappointed and disheartened.   

Are There Really No Best Practices?

We were struck by the variation across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. One reviewer commented, “It was as if 51 different contractors designed these report cards without so much as a single best practice about how they’re supposed to look or function.” Some states leaned on graphs, others on tables. Some websites were easy to navigate, while others were befuddling. Some made subgroup data easy to find; others made it nearly impossible. Some report card websites couldn’t even easily be found through a Google search.

Our analysts also noted the difficulty of simply figuring out the basics of each site. “I was surprised with how different each state report card was and the amount of time it took to familiarize myself with it enough to find the data I was looking for,” one wrote. I felt this acutely as I examined all 51 report cards. It sometimes took two or three 10- to 15-minute visits to feel like I understood the layout of some of the sites. 

Overall, we felt that there surely must be some best practices in reporting these kinds of data that states could draw on to improve their report cards. We all wanted easily navigable sites (i.e., that made it clear where to click to find what you wanted) where 1) measures were described in clear language and organized thematically, and 2) users could manipulate the data to answer their most important questions. No site met this bar, though some, such as Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma, were far better than others; Alaska, Louisiana, New York and Vermont

were among 11 states that earned the lowest grade for usability. There could be real value in researchers working with organizations like the Council of Chief State School Officers to lay out some explicit design principles. 

Who Is the Intended User?

State report cards are intended principally for parents. Realtors certainly think parents care about school quality; otherwise, they wouldn’t name local elementary schools in their listings. The popularity of sites like GreatSchools proves that at least some demand for school performance data exists. However, if parents are the main intended audience for these reports, it sure doesn’t seem that way. “I could see [parents] spending considerably more time on this compared to our research team,” said one of our researchers. Another described the situation for parents as “frustrating and disempowering,” echoing what the Data Quality Campaign found last year when it asked parents to try to navigate state report cards. 

We felt that the report cards were perhaps trying to serve too many audiences and, in the end, not serving any very well. States need to think clearly about whom they’re serving and redesign their report cards from the ground up, working with those groups to ensure usability. In particular, the language of the report cards needs to be clear for people who may not be experts in accountability terminology and education-related acronyms. Even with our levels of expertise, we were sometimes unclear about what different data points meant. 

Are State Reports Doomed to be a Compliance Exercise? 

A few reviewers thought some state report cards seem like a compliance exercise: States post them because the federal government requires them to, but, ultimately, they’re not concerned about whether these websites are usable. This is a somewhat cynical take, but it’s hard not to feel that way after reviewing some of these sites. 

But even if report card sites did start as compliance exercises, they can still serve a positive function in the long run. We don’t want to be Pollyannaish about their potential, but parents clearly care about the effectiveness of the schools they choose for their children, and states clearly can do better at communicating schools’ effectiveness.

We hope this review is a wake-up call for states to consider better reporting of school performance data. While private companies, like GreatSchools, can provide alternatives, states are missing an opportunity to shape parents’ thinking about what matters for school effectiveness, and why. The failure of states to provide high-quality, usable report cards raises a fifth question: Given the importance of effective public education and the apparent need and demand for the data, how can states justify doing such a lousy job at informing parents?

While the closure undeniably helped keep students, families and staff physically safe, it also had a devastating impact on young people’s academic and social-emotional growth. For example, K-2 literacy rates dropped by nearly 25 percentage points.

The harm of this once-in-a-century pandemic required a once-in-a-century response. Simply returning to normal with the hope of a quick recovery was not going to work — and, frankly, would have been irresponsible. 

We decided to do something very simple, but surprisingly revolutionary: make the school year longer. Last year, we piloted a 200-day school year, rather than the traditional 180 days, at two elementary schools: Fairfield Court and Cardinal. The program was entirely opt-in: More than 90% of families and 70% of teachers at both schools voted in favor of joining the pilot; all were all given the option of moving to a school with a traditional calendar. While we heard some concerns, of course, nearly all agreed that it was worth trying. Mixed in with the nerves, we even heard a lot of excitement. Parents, for instance, were glad to have four extra weeks of free, safe and structured learning time. Teachers were eager to keep their students on track and were excited about the extra pay: a 10% increase in salary and an automatic $10,000 bonus.  

Students at these schools started classes in July 2023 and finished with the rest of the district in May. It was a financial investment, but more importantly, it was an investment of time – a resource that we hadn’t truly tapped before. The schools used that time to build relationships with families, dive into literacy instruction and enrich the curriculum with field trips and enrichment activities. Our family liaisons held pop-up events, sent text messages and went door to door to speak with parents and caregivers, stressing the importance of daily attendance and offering solutions, such as door-to-door transportation, when there were barriers to regular attendance. Local businesses, nonprofits and donors also stepped up to provide students with everything from school supplies and meals to washer-dryers and haircuts at school. By the time the traditional school calendar began in late August, the 200-day schools were rocking and rolling — and the momentum didn’t stop. 

These two schools had remarkable results. Fairfield Court Elementary’s early-literacy proficiency rates jumped from 61% to 82% in just one year. It now has the seventh-highest early literacy scores out of 26 elementary schools in the district, despite having the highest percentage of economically disadvantaged students (97%). Cardinal Elementary, where over 80% of students are recent immigrants, also saw gains, going from 53% to 58% proficient. To top it all off, despite the longer year, attendance at these schools actually improved.

Given these results, our district board and administration decided to expand the pilot to two more schools: Woodville Elementary, which is just down the road from Fairfield, and Oak Grove-Bellemeade Elementary, whose zone borders Cardinal’s. A majority of families and staff at both schools voted to participate in the pilot, and Bloomberg Philanthropies signed on to fund the expansion. On July 22, students at all four schools — nearly 2,000 (8%) of the district’s total enrollment — headed back to school for the 2024-25 year. 

The impetus for RPS200 was the pandemic, but the need for it goes much deeper. For decades, if not centuries, Virginia has created systemic barriers to education, particularly for Black students. In the early part of the 19th century, the General Assembly – which we can see from our office windows – made it illegal for enslaved and free Africans to gather to learn to read or write, “either in the day or night, under whatsoever pretext.” In 1959, Prince Edward County shuttered its entire school system for five years rather than integrate its classrooms. And over the last 50 years, the district itself has seen constant disinvestment as white Richmonders left the city and its public schools.

The inequities are further compounded by Virginia’s antiquated school funding formula, which disadvantages areas like Richmond that have high levels of concentrated poverty. The General Assembly’s own bipartisan research arm recently said the state is underfunding K-12 schools by about $3 billion. 

Students deserve more than the legacy of inequity; they deserve a future of opportunity and excellence. That’s why the 200-day calendar is not just an investment of time, but an opportunity. It’s designed to help Richmond’s students rebound from the devastating COVID-19 pandemic — but it’s also about honoring those who have fought for the right to learn. 

At Richmond Public Schools, our motto is to “Teach, Lead and Serve With Love.” We can’t think of any better way to show our young people how much we love them than by giving them a leg up in their education. RPS200 is helping us do exactly that.

Nearly a decade ago, Cecil County Public Schools had some of the lowest-performing elementary schools in Maryland, and teachers used a variety of homegrown curriculum and curated resources to varying effect. Loud calls for change were coming from the teachers’ union and Central Office.

Today, our schools all use Bookworms, a highly structured, open-source curriculum published by the University of Delaware. We adopted and implemented Bookworms districtwide at a rapid clip in 2016 and quickly saw gains in the share of students in grades 3–5 scoring proficient on statewide tests. We have consistently fine-tuned our practices to maintain progress in the years since.

Most major changes don’t happen without a long lead time or thoroughly debated pilot. And many changes cannot be sustained over the long haul. Our experience with Bookworms is a counterexample to both. It is possible to move fast and build reforms that last. Here’s how.

Start with this: Standards are not curriculum

In part, our sustainable change may be rooted in the fundamentally unsustainable practices we sought to replace.

In the past culture of Cecil County schools, teachers were expected to “teach the standards.” In day-to-day life, this meant unpacking state standards as they related to their particular students and designing curriculum, including by picking and choosing among far-flung resources and tried-and-true favorite texts. Too often, this approach didn’t work. Students’ educational trajectories were unpredictable and disjointed. Beloved books were not always at grade level. Meanwhile, teachers were overtaxed, and the local union was calling for public hearings to discuss curriculum and workload.

Around 2015, the district convened a committee to select a standard English language arts elementary school curriculum, one that would allow teachers to focus on instruction and more reliably connect students with rigorous, grade-level learning. The committee selected Journeys and Wonders, by heavyweight publishers Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and McGraw-Hill. Both were costly, comprehensive literacy programs with leveled readers and a suite of related activities and resources.

I was appointed Associate Superintendent of Education Services in 2016 and given a clear mandate from the superintendent: Raise reading scores, now. I reviewed the work of the curriculum committee, and then cast a wider net. 

The traditional curriculums that were being considered were bulky and based on teacher choice, which essentially tasked teachers with daily lesson design. It seemed likely that almost no real change would occur.

Ask for expertise and evidence

There had to be more options. I started by tapping trusted colleagues in my professional and personal networks. What districts were making literacy progress? What high-quality, evidence-based programs were they using? Through these queries, I heard about the Christina School District in Newark, Delaware. The Bookworms curriculum, published by the University of Delaware, was helping “move students in Newark,” I was told.

My district is about six miles from the University of Delaware, where I am an alumnus. I made some calls, and with senior colleagues from Cecil County, soon visited a school principal and observed reading instruction in Newark.

Bookworms was a clear fit for our needs. Rather than using leveled readers, instruction is rooted in published grade-level books that students can find at the local library. The Lexile levels were far higher that what we had been using in our district, which was crucial. Just as important, Bookworms lessons are designed so all students can access challenging grade-level books, even if they cannot yet read them independently. We saw that this could help Cecil County students break out of their guided reading groups.

The curriculum is highly structured, standards-based, and taught in three 45-minute periods: an interactive read-aloud that engages all students, a writing and literacy instructional period, and a tiered support period. Teachers’ time and planning energies are reserved for practicing instruction and working to meet individual students’ needs, not designing curriculum on their own.

I also found that the Newark teachers were enthusiastic ambassadors for the curriculum, which as an open-source publication would cost us far less than the prepackaged traditional programs. In my experience, when a group of teachers raves about a resource, you should probably take a look and see why. And by spending less upfront, we could invest more resources in aligned, ongoing professional development to help teachers improve their instructional practice.

Support sustainable change

I recommended Bookworms to the superintendent, who agreed and opted to proceed full steam ahead: no pilot, no public comment period. We did plenty of salesmanship and relationship-building to support a smooth rollout. But the move to Bookworms happened quickly and was not up for debate. We wanted to make a move and keep things simple, and Bookworms was sufficiently streamlined and structured to allow us to do that.

It was important to protect morale and ensure teachers felt supported during the shift. One powerful strategy was to direct all school-based administrators not to base performance evaluations on observations of Bookworms lessons in the first year. Our teachers and administrators were learning the curriculum at the same time and with varying levels of prior expertise. Attaching stakes to classroom evaluations of those lessons was not fair. That took a lot of the pressure off, and both teachers and administrators became more comfortable with the curriculum and with one another. We also brought eight literacy coaches in from the University of Delaware to train and assist, which was helpful.

Another move that helped create a stable transition was allowing elementary level teachers to choose subject specialties. Cecil County also changed math curriculums at this time, and teachers in grades 3–5 were given the opportunity to teach either reading and social studies or math and science. This allowed teachers to really focus on one curriculum and set of instructional strategies. 

We also built in out-of-classroom supports for the curriculum, such as an innovative relationship with the county library system. Our students can check a book on the Bookworms reading list out of the library and have it delivered to them in school.

Finally, we did not count on universal enthusiasm right away. I believe that there are times and places where leaders have to take a stand and ask that others come along with them. Then, people need time to experience and come to their own conclusion about whatever change is underway. That’s been my experience with teachers, who may first encounter a planned reform with skepticism but are almost always immediately won over when they see benefits for their students. Decide and act, and then wait.

Four months after we first implemented Bookworms, one of our early skeptics sent me a note that said, “I just love the fact that we are building good little readers.” That’s the sort of evidence that will keep enthusiasm high and maintain curriculum improvement over the long term.

Teachers say Struggly, available for at-home or classroom use, is a game changer for K-8 students discouraged by math or having a hard time with traditional tasks because of language barriers or learning disabilities. In game-like tasks aligned with common core standards, students manipulate shapes, animals, and algebraic formulas to build foundational understanding. 

The platform’s potential reach is hard to overstate as educators urgently search for ways to address the math learning crisis: On average, only one in four kids are proficient in 8th grade math; the number hovering between 9-14% for Black, Native and Latino children.

In approximately 340 schools across 28 states and 21 countries, Struggly has become the go-to supplemental learning platform for some educators whose students had difficulty socializing or collaborating after missing in-person learning in early childhood during the pandemic. School sites range from gifted programs and large Title I district schools to smaller private schools serving students with special needs and juvenile detention centers. 

Tasks, pulling from concepts at times across five grade levels, “put the student in the driver’s seat, don’t make them reliant on any sort of literacy, but also don’t make them rely on an adult to tell them what to do,” said Tanya LaMar, CEO and cofounder, adding its unusual design was intended to “allow all students to have access to math regardless of language, socioeconomic status or any kind of diversity markers.” 

Many educators have found the platform via conferences across the U.S. At SXSW EDU, the platform won this year’s Community Choice Award for the Launch Startup Competition, celebrating digital innovations helping to bridge learning gaps. 

Levels designed to become more challenging as students go on can be solved multiple ways, encouraging learners to talk to each other about their strategies and challenge common misconceptions that math is more about memorization than reason or logic. The video game-like design, with no time restrictions, also keeps students calm and engaged longer, teachers say. 

After using Struggly for one month – 20 minutes, three times a week – 63% improved scores on state tests and 68% felt more engaged in their math classes, according to independent research from WestEd. Teachers have also noticed fewer outbursts and negative self talk, more confidence and less math anxiety.

One district survey revealed students were more likely to agree with statements like, “if I work really hard, I can become very good at math” and to disagree with “people can’t change how good they are at math.”

Struggly was originally imagined by designer Alina Schlaier, whose daughter came home from first grade one day saying, “I hate math.” Schlaier found Stanford math expert Jo Boaler’s resources online, but knowing that it wasn’t sustainable for her to prep each lesson for her daughter, the designer reached out to Boaler with the idea of forming a company that would blend their skills. 

Boaler’s former PhD student Tanya LaMar joined the effort, bringing an educator’s lens to its creation, once a Los Angeles Unified teacher. There, she had faced compounding challenges: teaching math while teaching kids to see math beyond the narrow way they’d been taught it must look – facts, procedures to be memorized.

“Meanwhile, neuroscience research tells us that there’s no such thing as math brain … I felt like I was up against a lot trying to convince my students they could be math people, when struggling in math is seen as a sign that something’s wrong,” LaMar said. “So Struggly is about supporting students to embrace struggle as an integral part of the learning process.”

Such a shift has been transformational for educators like Gregg Bonti, a math group teacher at Mary McDowell, a quaker school in Brooklyn serving students with language-based learning disabilities.

Typically, his 4th and 5th graders arrive with some “resistance to learning and school.” At the start of the year, as soon as something felt challenging, many would shut down or push back on tasks, or start to talk to themselves disparagingly. Many also struggle with impulse control, but the games’ design has helped them “slow down” and “strategize.”

“It’s really rare and challenging for us to find websites that meet students where they’re at with their language skills,” Bonti said. Removing language from the tasks and letting them dive in has “neutralized” the playing field for his students, who come to class with a range of reading abilities. 

Since introducing Struggly in December, he’s finding students are more eager to persevere in math tasks and ask each other questions like “what if we tried this?” It’s also helped their teachers distinguish between their conceptual misunderstandings of math versus difficulties with language. 

Across the country in California’s central valley, one rural educator has been finding similar impacts. 

At Semitropic, a small school of predominantly Latino, multilingual students living in poverty, 3rd grade teacher Jennifer Fields was looking for platforms that would encourage and engage – they felt burnt out by Prodigy, but she needed something standards based. 

The first day she introduced it, one student went home and played on their own for three hours. It’s become so desired she can use it as a motivation for them to finish their other in-class work. 

Conceptually, it’s helped them grasp onto geometry concepts like manipulation and transformation easier than in traditional workbooks. They’re learning how to better communicate math concepts verbally, something she worried about seeing the difference in this group of children who had the equivalent of Zoom kindergarten. 

“That in itself has been my biggest success for the year is the fact that now they will work in cooperative groups with each other … they’re being more verbal and realizing it’s OK to talk about, ‘oh man, I didn’t get it.’ They go find that person and they immediately go to try to help them out instead of just having them just sit there, freak out, suffer and get mad,” she said.  

And because the platform is so visually and sonically engaging, teachers are finding it’s helping students learn independence and staying on-task. That has enabled Shelly Anderson, a 4th grade teacher in Salt Lake City, to be able to conduct small groups with students who need more specialized support; the others are able to work on Struggly independently, helping each other, as she provides more individualized attention. 

One student, who had a tendency to swear and give up, sometimes leaving the classroom, is now self-regulating his anger and frustration better. He no longer says he “can’t do this” or that “I’m dumb at math,” even during usual instruction.

“It’s just refreshing to have something for the kids to do where they can untether from the teacher more,” Anderson said. “They can start to get some of their own confidence and build their identity as math learners rather than just thinking, ‘well, either I have a math brain or I don’t.’ Everybody has the ability to seek out patterns, look at problems and look at logic.”

Disclosure: The Walton Family Foundation sponsored SXSW EDU’s Launch Startup competition and provides support to The 74. 

First, for chronically low-performing systems, policymakers can disrupt the “district as monopoly” education provider by pursuing a portfolio management model (PMM) strategy that takes districts out of the business of running schools and instead has them provide performance-based oversight in a diverse ecosystem of regulated, but still autonomous, schools of choice. While charter, magnet, and traditional district-run public schools would all be free to pursue their own strategies, they would only be permitted to continue operating in the ecosystem if they meet agreed-upon performance objectives.

Finally, all districts can and should adopt a series of commonsense governance reforms that more tightly link political accountability to student-centered outcomes: (1) establishing on-cycle and nonstaggered school board elections; (2) providing more transparency about student outcomes timed to coincide with election cycles; and (3) creating mechanisms to change district leadership when students perpetually fail to improve.

• America’s one-size-fits-all school governance system is outdated and ineffective.

• School districts should provide oversight for schools using a variety of strategies to reach agreed-upon educational objectives.

• Electoral success should be linked to student-centered outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

Despite its bold rhetoric and urgent call for action, A Nation at Risk (ANAR) notably said nothing about reforming “education governance”—the institutions and actors empowered to decide which education policies will (and will not) be put into practice. Nonetheless, shortly after the landmark report ignited a wave of reforms across the states, it became clear to many observers that the nation’s governance system—known colloquially, if not derisively, as the one best system—makes it exceedingly difficult to enact reforms that improve student learning at scale.

For example, in their pathbreaking book Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, John Chubb and Terry Moe presaged their indictment of public education at the end of the 1980s by noting: “[The one best system] is so thoroughly taken for granted that it virtually defines what Americans mean by democratic governance of the public schools. At its heart are the school district and its institutions of democratic control: the school board, the superintendent, and the district office.” Thirty years later, America remains wedded to this same system, one in which the school district is a sacred cow that often serves the interests of adults more than students. Even the most committed and visionary reformer will make little headway when constrained by a political system that makes it easier for reform opponents to defeat bold ideas and uphold the status quo.

The simple truth is that the actors who occupy and benefit from our current political institutions have a vested interest in perpetuating the existence of those crusty institutions irrespective of their performance behind the wheel. “It is tempting to think that the public schools must be different somehow,” Moe explains. “Their purpose, after all, is to educate children. So it might seem that everyone would want what is best for kids and would agree to change the system . . . [to] make sure it is performing effectively. But this is a Pollyannaish view that has little to do with reality.”

Irrespective of their virtues in other contexts, federalism and localism in K–12 education have evolved to produce a governance system that, due to special-interest capture, is neither responsive to consumers (families and students) nor accountable for producing results. As Chester Finn and Michael Petrilli argue, this one best system offers the “worst of both worlds.” “On one hand, district-level power constrains individual schools; its standardizing, bureau- cratic, and political force ties the hands of principals, keeping them from doing what is best for their pupils with regard to budget, staffing, and curriculum. On the other, local control [as practiced in the united States] is not strong enough to clear the obstacles that state and federal governments place before reform-minded board members and superintendents in the relatively few situations where these can even be observed.”

Why is the united States saddled with this patchwork quilt system of school governance? With some simplification, it all boils down to a historical accident followed by a combination of what political scientists call policy diffusion and path dependence (a fancy term for institutional stickiness). Most notably, the key developments that brought and then locked the current system into place had everything to do with adult concerns and very little (if anything) to do with designing a coherent education system to best serve kids. Political scientist Vladimir Kogan outlines the “bottom-up” origins of the first key development — US education’s commitment to governance that is local and diffuse rather than centralized and coherent:

In much of the developed world, schools are typically overseen by centralized national agencies. [The uS] model is largely a historical artifact, dating back to the first public- education law adopted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the mid-1600s. As evident from the law’s title, the Old Deluder Satan Act [1647], it was the moral concerns of adults, rather than a desire to address the holistic educational needs of children, that mainly drove the public-school effort The Massachusetts law, which charged local government with the responsibility for funding and operating local schools so kids would become literate enough to read the Bible, was copied across the country in one of the earliest examples of what political scientists now call policy diffusion.

Later, in the early twentieth century (1890–1930), the moral concerns that Kogan highlights here were superseded by more modern, secular ones: leaning on public schools to assimilate immi- grants and prepare workers for a second wave of industrialization. Governance experts Paul Hill and Ashley Jochim deftly summarize the most important changes that accompanied this latter development, the ones that ultimately gave us the one best system that we have today:

Progressive Era reformers sought to rationalize and centralize control of the system. . . . They hoped to create more capable schools—better than the fragmented one-room schoolhouses that dotted the rural landscape and less political than the patronage-driven system that dominated urban centers. Thus emerged the local education agency (lEA). The core of an lEA was an elected school board with power to make most [education] decisions and a bureaucracy largely staffed by professional educators. The lEA was insulated from normal local politics by off-cycle nonpartisan elections. . . . [This] rationalized system . . . gave way to a larger and politically fragmented system in the second half of the 20th century. laws to encourage and broaden the scope of collective bargaining among public sector employees . . . greatly strengthened teachers’ unions.

One final development warrants a brief mention: the district consolidation movement. As Christopher Berry and Martin West document, between 1930 and 1970, the nation’s tiny one- room schoolhouses were steadily supplanted by the age-graded schools we know today. This shift, Kogan explains, “necessitated consolidation into larger school systems, moving the locus of political control from boards overseeing individual schools to districtwide bodies [lEAs].” Ultimately, the nation eliminated one hundred thousand districts, and consolidated lEAs became larger bureaucracies. What did all this mean for students? Berry and West found that “although larger districts were associated with modestly [better student outcomes], any gains from the consolidation of districts . . . were far outweighed by the harmful effects of larger schools.”

The key point in all of this is that the forging of education governance in the united States was, as Kogan emphatically states, “not intentionally designed with student academic out- comes in mind and has become less local (and perhaps less democratic) over time.” In other words, largely through historical happenstance, today we are saddled with the worst of both worlds: a system that is neither especially responsive to community (and especially parental) concerns nor efficient at ensuring that system leaders prioritize student learning outcomes.

The aim of this chapter is straightforward: to assess what the education community has learned since ANAR about the challenges to good governance and the most promising solu- tions for reform. The chapter proceeds in four parts. I first summarize the major political obstacles that have kept a lid on education reform in the united States. After laying out these challenges, I discuss some of the governance reforms that have been tried and what the scholarly evidence says about how those efforts have fared. The third section of the chapter condenses the research into some lessons for policymakers who are considering different governance changes. Since America’s students cannot afford to wait for politicians to con- struct the perfect governance system from scratch (an impossible task), the chapter con- cludes with two types of recommendations for how state and local policymakers can move toward more student-centered governance systems: (1) an ambitious alt-governance frame- work well suited to troubled districts that need immediate and dramatic turnaround, followed by (2) a more modest set of reforms that are likely to do no harm and some reasonable amount of good in most any district. The guiding ethos in both sets of recommendations is the belief that enough lessons have been learned about governance in the intervening years since ANAR to identify a set of best practices for adopting political structures that incentivize the adults in districts and buildings to put student outcomes at the center of policymaking and day-to-day decision-making.

Before proceeding, the reader should be aware of two scope conditions. First, because of their relative fiscal contribution (large) and their central role in implementing policy on the ground, governance issues related to state and (especially) the local school district (rather than the federal government) are the primary concern addressed in the chapter. Second, when discussing problems and solutions, the chapter starts with the point that improving student academic outcomes is the central purpose of public education and that other values and “community interests” are of secondary importance. Focusing on how governance can enhance (or impede) reforms intended to bolster student learning outcomes is consistent with the spirit of the goals of ANAR (student achievement) and the public’s primary concern with their schools. With these two caveats out of the way, let us turn to discuss the many challenges of America’s traditional model of school governance, better known as the “one best system.”

GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES

The excellence movement that arose out of ANAR had two primary objectives: to raise stu- dent achievement and to close performance gaps between poor and advantaged students. As is well illustrated by the other chapters in this series, while the federal report helped drive education reforms in several different areas (often with mixed results), all these efforts faced a common hurdle: overcoming political resistance and governance challenges.

While all reforms faced these challenges, two proposals garnered outsized political resistance: school choice and consequential accountability. This is hardly surprising. As Terry Moe explains, “The two great education reform movements of the modern era, the movements for accountability and for school choice, are attempts to transform the traditional structure of the American education system—and the changes they pursue are threatening to the [teachers’] unions’ vested interests.” Since ANAR, the choice and accountability move- ments’ most significant political victories have been (1) the rapid expansion of charter schooling (1990–present) and (2) the consequential test-based federal accountability regime that endured during the Bush and Obama presidencies (2002–2015).

A complete assessment of the impact of these policies on student learning is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, research has shown that both choice and accountability reforms can improve student achievement and promote education opportunity for under- served kids but that success has often been uneven and difficult to sustain, especially at a statewide (let alone national) scale. For example, the demise of consequential test-based accountability and the difficulty of increasing the number of high-quality school choice options (e.g., charter schools) can both be traced to major shortcomings in the policies and practices of our traditional system of K–12 governance and politics. Three persistent challenges stand out.

ADULTS ARE NOT INCENTIVIZED TO PRIORITIZE STUDENT OUTCOMES

First, the current governance system does little to nothing to ensure that education profession- als are sufficiently incentivized to prioritize student learning above all else. In 2009, for example, just four in ten superintendents surveyed by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that student learning was an “extremely important” factor in how they were evaluated by their school board employers. These results mirror a more recent analysis of North Carolina superintendent contracts that showed fewer than 5 percent of these agreements contain provisions to hold leaders “accountable for student achievement and attainment [outcomes].”

The failure of too many school boards to prioritize and focus on student outcomes is a wide- spread problem with tangible consequences. For example, one analysis of the NSBA data uncovered a strong relationship between a school district’s academic performance and the extent to which board members prioritized student achievement outcomes in their board work. Alarmingly, though, while two-thirds of school boards agree that “the current state of student achievement is unacceptable,” nine out of ten boards said that “defining success only in terms of student achievement is narrow and short-sighted . . . and one-third are ner- vous about placing ‘unreasonable expectations for student achievement in our schools.’” School districts send the wrong message (and the wrong incentives) to the education pro- fessionals they employ (e.g., teachers, superintendents) when they make student outcomes a secondary concern. Indeed, elected board governance may not work at all if boards aren’t held accountable by voters for learning outcomes or they don’t expect to be held account- able at the ballot box.

COORDINATING MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE IS A CHALLENGE

Everyone seems to acknowledge that K–12 governance has too many cooks in the kitchen such that “if everybody is in charge then no one is.” This “tangled web” of school gov- ernance challenges the public to hold any single entity or public official accountable and encourages political buck-passing. Unfortunately, this problem is inherent in our federal political system. Political scientist Patrick McGuinn refers to it as the 50/15,000/100,000 problem, noting: “We have fifty different state education systems which collectively contain approximately 15,000 school districts and almost 100,000 schools. While the uS now has clear national goals in education, it lacks a national system of education within which to pursue these goals, and the federal government can only indirectly attempt to drive reform through the grant-in-aid system.”

Uncle Sam tried to step up to the plate in 2002 with the federal No Child left Behind (NClB) law. By requiring that student performance outcomes be made public, the law was intended to put pressure—including electoral pressure—on school boards to either improve or face consequences. unfortunately, the devil was in the details, and federal accountability man- dates failed for two primary reasons. First, the law prioritized student academic proficiency over student learning gains (growth), leading many schools where students were improving to be classified as failing. Second, as political scientist Paul Manna has documented, NClB erred by taking the sound logic of public administration (management) theory and turning it on its head. For example, rather than have the principal (the federal government) set rigorous standards and free up the agents (states and local districts) to innovate and meet these stan- dards in creative ways, the law let states set their own standards while Washington dictated weak and specific consequences for failure.

Perhaps the problem is not so much too many cooks in the kitchen, but rather that the kitchen lacks thoughtful coordination, and we have not placed each cook at the station where they have a “comparative advantage.” For example, NClB was born out of a real problem whereby localities gave insufficient attention to (and often hid) poor academic outcomes and achieve- ment gaps, but the federal foray into accountability also served to remind us that localities are functionally needed to implement reform from afar. Yet, as previously noted, those localities are easily captured by vested interests, and they themselves have incentives to focus on maintaining their institutional existence rather than holding themselves to account. For example, under both NClB and Race to the Top (RttT), states and districts “took the easy way out,” rarely opting to impose the toughest forms of restructuring on themselves.

VESTED INTERESTS DOMINATE EDUCATION POLITICS

The third major obstacle to effective governance is the fact that too many adults—be they union leaders, school employees, administrators, colleges of education, or vendors—either benefit from existing K–12 policies and procedures or are reluctant to consider any reforms that may bring about changes that leave them materially worse off. Such opposition ensues even if proposed reforms could be shown to benefit student learning. Because vested inter- ests pursue concentrated occupational benefits whose costs are widely distributed, these actors tend to be more politically organized and influential than groups like parents, whose own connection to their public schools is transitory in nature. What’s more, the widespread use of nonpartisan off-cycle school board elections often ensures low voter turnout and a lack of robust competition among competing interests. This anemic electoral environment enables teachers’ unions to win seven out of every ten school board elections when they make an endorsement. The consequence: rather than management (school boards) representing parents and taxpayers by serving as a “check” on labor, the relationship becomes reversed, with management owing its very election and political survival to the employees it is supposed to hold accountable. This well-documented dynamic has been shown to lead directly to pro-union school boards that (1) agree to more restrictive collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), (2) authorize fewer charter schools, and (3) spend more on salaries with little to no improvement (and often worse outcomes) in student achievement gains.

Although they arguably face greater political competition in federal and state politics, teachers’ unions are still rated the top education lobby in most statehouses, limiting experimentation with choice and accountability, especially on issues related to teacher accountability and pay reform. Finally, teachers’ unions are not alone in opposing new approaches to public edu- cation outside of the traditional district delivery model. School board members (regardless of party) are far less enthusiastic about school choice and charter schooling than are parents and the public. yet many states still have charter school laws that either make boards the sole authorizer or limit growth through caps that unions and board associations lobby for in state law. All in all, the politics of education reform remain constrained by governing structures (formal and informal) that empower the producers of education (e.g., teachers’ unions, district central offices) at the expense of the consumers of it (parents and students).

ATTEMPTS TO REFORM THE ONE BEST SYSTEM

Looking back on the history of education in the united States, one can’t help but notice the governance pendulum swinging back and forth between decentralization and centralization. The hyper-localism that originated in the mid-1600s held sway until the turn of the twenti- eth century before yielding to the Progressives’ centralized and professionalized lEA. A few decades later, that bureaucratic one best system became a focal point of contention between teachers’ unions and minority communities in New york City who wanted more of a say in their kids’ schools—what they called “community control.” While the unions, led by then united Federation of Teachers (uFT) leader Albert Shanker, mostly won that battle and the primacy of the central office endured, by the 1980s advocates of a new strategy they called “site-based management” (SBM) were pinning their hopes on giving schools, rather than dis- tricts, more autonomy. When student outcomes again failed to improve in any meaningful way, especially in large urban districts, reformers once again saw potential in recentralizing, pur- suing alternatives to school board control through mayoral control of the district or through state takeovers. At the federal level, after promising for decades to “end federal meddling in our schools,” in the 2000s a Republican president embraced more centralized account- ability with NClB, ushering in a decade of bipartisan support for a test-based accountability regime overseen by Washington. After political and practical considerations rendered NClB unworkable, a new breed of school reformers focused on building “parallel” school systems, abandoned trying to bring political reform to the one best system itself, and turned their attention to expanding local autonomy linked to greater school choice (charter schooling). In some cases, such efforts have even included trying to partner with or reconstitute districts under a “portfolio” management model (PMM) that combines district accountability/oversight with local school autonomy/choice. Have any of these governance reforms worked, and if so, where and under what conditions?

SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT

The earliest efforts to rethink K–12 governance after ANAR were a series of “site-” or “school- based” management reforms that spread across several states (e.g., Kentucky) and cities (e.g., Chicago). It is difficult to provide a coherent definition of SBM because the specific changes implemented across states and districts that all claimed to be using “SBM prin- ciples” varied significantly. However, some common SBM themes that emerged at various implementation sites included decision-making councils at the school level rather than the district level, formal representation for stakeholders like parents and educators, and direct involvement in hiring building leaders and instructional staff.

SBM’s “theory of action” is that taking power away from central-office bureaucrats and giving more autonomy to school leaders (with input from educators and families) promotes innovative and customized solutions that result in more effective teaching and learning in buildings and classrooms. According to one estimate, as many as 30 percent of all US school districts tried some variation of SBM by 1990. However, little systematic evidence emerged to show that the SBM model—at least as it was put into practice—widely improved student learning outcomes across implementation sites at scale.43 To be clear, this is not because the idea of having local councils or providing greater autonomy to building leaders is wrongheaded. To the con- trary, a recent study from Chicago Public Schools (CPS) found that “schools with high-quality principals and student populations requiring atypical policy decisions [benefit] from more autonomy.” However, that analysis showed that leader quality is often the linchpin to making governance reforms work in practice. As the author of that CPS study concluded, “[school] autonomy should be granted to effective and motivated school leaders [but it may] lead to worse outcomes in settings with agency problems or low principal capacity.” In other words, successful governance reforms cannot rely solely on building better institutions. Better people (human capital) is a prerequisite to reaping the rewards of well-designed institutions.

Finally, retrospective evaluations of SBM reform frequently mention another challenge that inhibited success: the lack of political will in following through on authentically devolving power and autonomy to building leaders. In practice, many state and district leaders talked a big game about handing over decision-making authority through SBM but were subsequently unwilling to yield on big-ticket items (e.g., budgeting, hiring) when push came to shove or vested interests resisted. As Paul Hill and Ashley Jochim explain:

School boards and state governments may promise to give schools a great deal of freedom, but over time they take it away This first became evident with SBM. In the early 1990s, many districts encouraged schools to use time and money in novel ways. . . . Superintendents encouraged principals and teachers to think big, but no rules were changed. Schools were encouraged to think of new ways to organize teaching, but they were still bound by the collective bargaining agreement. That meant school leaders had little control over who was assigned to teach in the school and the kinds of work they could do. Schools were encouraged to use time and materials differently, buttheydid not control their budgets or make purchasing decisions. And so on. In any clash between school autonomy and actual practice, school leaders soon learned that for every freedom they were promised [under SBM], a rule existed that effectively took it away.

ALT-GOVERNANCE (MAYORAL CONTROL, STATE TAKEOVERS)

Because they are keenly aware of the linkage between education and economic growth in their states and cities, political executives like governors and mayors were often in the van- guard of the excellence movement right from the outset of ANAR. Frustrated with the outright failure of their cities’ largest school systems to improve academically, in the 1990s several mayors sought more authority in especially long-troubled districts (e.g., Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, New york). The two primary approaches to robust executive involvement became state takeovers and mayoral control/involvement. While these alternative or “alt- governance” arrangements often involve different mechanisms, they share the common feature of removing or demoting elected school boards, either replacing them with a mayor- appointed board or relegating the board itself to have mere “consultative” status in lieu of policymaking authority. Importantly, in such cases, the district superintendent is chosen by and serves at the pleasure of the mayor—or in the case of takeover, the state education agency (SEA).

Mayoral control’s “theory of action” arises from the belief that political executives are more likely to focus on their political legacies (what’s best for their city) than parochial-minded legislators (e.g., school board members) who are more prone to single-issue interest-group capture. “Mayors,” Terry Moe explains, “are constantly in the public eye; they have larger, more diverse constituencies than school board members do; they have far more resources for wielding power; and they may decide to make their mark by reforming the local schools.” Additionally, one benefit to vesting education authority in a mayor or governor is that it can streamline political accountability under a single actor, making it easier for the public to know whom to hold accountable. Indeed, some research has shown a linkage between greater state-level centralization and student performance: gubernatorial authority to appoint state boards/chiefs has been connected to better outcomes on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and reduced achievement gaps.

Admittedly, efforts to evaluate the impact of mayoral control or state-led takeovers are ham- pered by small sample sizes and obvious selection biases: districts that turn to mayors for help or those that are taken over by SEAs are difficult to compare to districts that do not have these governance reforms imposed on them. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the most comprehensive empirical assessment of mayoral control tends to show positive effects on both academic outcomes and fiscal efficiency. yet it is equally important to keep in mind that not all mayoral involvement is similar in nature. Mayoral involvement in education in cities like Cleveland and Boston operated very differently than it did in New york City and Washington, DC. In the latter two cases, the political executives of those cities were given complete autonomy to choose the district’s superintendent, and there was no policymaking school board with which the superintendent had to deal politically. Moreover, in the case of Washington, DC—arguably the most successful mayoral turnaround story—the mayor won additional governance changes that empowered the superintendent in hiring and evaluation, removing these policies from the collective bargaining process. Therefore, while research shows that mayoral control in Washington led to reforms that improved student achievement outcomes in the nation’s capital, it does not necessarily follow that more minor forms of mayoral involvement (e.g., appointing a few of a city school board’s members) will replicate this unique success story. Indeed, one factor stands out in helping to explain why mayoral control in Washington led actors to prioritize student, rather than adult, interests: centralized political accountability. One anecdote from that city is especially telling. years after depart- ing his post as president of the Washington, DC, teachers’ union, George Parker explained, in retrospect, why mayoral control forced his hand in accepting a student outcomes–focused teacher evaluation system:

One of the most important things is that we went from board governance to mayoral control   Previously I was able to use politics to block a lot of reforms. But once mayoral control came into place, and there was only one person who had all the control, I no longer could prevent a lot of the reforms, so I had to decide: do I take a good look at these reforms and how do these reforms impact students, or do I try to continue to fight?

In my previous contract [negotiations] when the Superintendent put things on the table that I didn’t like all I had to do was go to several of the board members that we supported financially and just say, ‘We helped get you elected’ And I come back to [the] negotiating table the next day and it’s off the table. When we had mayoral control there was only one person. And I tried it with Mayor Fenty. I remember I went down to his office, but he made it clear that he promised Michelle [Rhee] that he was going to support what it was she was going to do. So, for the first time, to be very honest, I had to take a different position for negotiations because I had no one to go to [to] block reform.

In a similar vein, advocates of state takeover can point to impressive turnarounds like New Orleans, where the bold post–Hurricane Katrina choice and accountability reforms overseen by that state’s “Recovery School District” (RSD) led to dramatic improvements in student outcomes in both achievement (test score gains) and attainment. To be sure, New Orleans does not represent the typical state takeover. As Terry Moe explains, the all-charter system that emerged in the aftermath of the storm was an extreme outlier that was made possible by the sudden elimination of vested interest opposition (united Teachers of New Orleans and the Orleans Parish School Board). In fact, the most comprehensive empirical study of state take- overs to date found little systematic evidence that abolishing local control (elected boards) leads to higher student achievement at scale. Moreover, critics can and do point to a clear downside of state takeover: disempowering communities from having a direct hand in running their local public schools, with communities of color being disproportionately targeted for takeover.

On the other hand, the average effect of state takeover may not be the right quantity of interest to focus on given the theory of action for granting states temporary control. As with may- oral control, state takeover advocates rightly note that democratic accountability can become so broken in some school districts that boards can no longer be trusted to do right by their kids and that dramatic leadership change is needed. Of course, not all state takeovers are created equal; for example, some are driven by fiscal concerns and others are provoked by chronic student achievement failure. What seems to matter most is what policymakers (state leaders) do with their newfound authority when takeover occurs. For example, research shows that when states can use takeovers to close a district’s lowest-performing schools and replace them with higher-performing schools, student outcomes can and do improve substantially. But the key to an SEA succeeding in this endeavor is ensuring that students will, in fact, move to a higher-performing school. If students are instead relegated to another low-performing school (or even a middling school), then the instability associated with moving schools can be a net negative for student learning. It is not altogether surprising, then, that state takeovers have been a mixed bag. Takeovers in Camden (NJ), Newark (NJ), and especially New Orleans—where the close and replace strategy was pursued—stand out as successful. In contrast, both Michigan’s and Tennessee’s efforts to replicate Louisiana’s success in New Orleans fell short.

PORTFOLIO FRAMEWORK OR PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT MODEL

Frustrated by the lack of progress in turning around chronically low-performing schools in the late 1990s, political scientist Paul Hill began to advocate for a new governance framework for large city school districts: the portfolio management model. In one sense, PMM was partly an effort to fix a core failure of SBM—the unwillingness of states and districts to hand over the car keys of autonomy on key issues like budgeting and hiring to school leaders. But PMM pro- posed even more.

PMM reimagines the district’s role as the monopoly education provider (e.g., “district schools”) and instead sees its role as a chief incubation officer that simply oversees “schools.” In other words, PMM envisions getting districts (e.g., school boards, central offices) out of the business of running school buildings and into the business of gently overseeing an ecosystem of autonomous schools of choice. But PMM is not an unfettered school choice program. To the contrary, the framework melds autonomy and choice with a centralized accountability system for all schools (irrespective of type) and (often) a single districtwide application process. While charter schools, magnets, and traditional district-run schools are all free to innovate at the school building level under the PMM framework, all schools, irrespective of type, are only permitted to continue operating if they meet agreed-upon performance objectives. In part, the allure of the PMM approach is that it helps soften the unhelpful charter versus traditional public school debate because the district and charter sectors are incentivized to collaborate with all schools in the portfolio, as every school is seen as an equal member of the same citywide ecosystem.

Where has it been tried and how well has it worked? Standouts include New Orleans, Denver, Indianapolis, Washington, DC, and New York City. Notably, several of these cities pursued alt-governance models first or along the way, which helped provide (at least temporary) political cover for this choice ecosystem to blossom and gain constituents (families) whose favorable experience in this new system could create a new constituency that would protect the model from being undone by vested interest opposition. However, alt-governance clearly is not a prerequisite to embracing PMM, and there is no single definition of the approach in practice, perhaps other than sector agnosticism (charters and district-run schools are equal in the eyes of the system). In fact, in some cases, because traditional district-run schools have seen firsthand some of the advantages of site-based autonomy in personnel and school calendar/time use, for example, PMM has led to state legislation that spawned charter-like district schools, called “innovation schools,” in Indianapolis and Denver. On the other hand, progress has been uneven in many of the other systems that have incorporated PMM principles. In 2022, Hill and Jochim reported that “of the 52 districts that participated in CRPE’s portfolio network and nominally adopted the strategy at some time or another, few sustained it for more than a few years.” Moreover, the charter-district détente that PMM imagines has been far less successful in systems with strong teachers’ unions, such as Los Angeles.

One aspect of the theory of action behind PMM is that offering more options whets the appe- tites of and expectations among families for the district to provide them with a variety of learning models from which to choose. One of the most powerful levers of policy reform is the ability to create new constituencies who have a vested interest of their own in new school models and delivery systems. Creating value for education consumers (parents) and potential consumers will give more voters reason to defend the entire fleet of options in a district’s portfolio, and future board members who wish to go back to “the way things were” (with the district as sole provider) may find themselves facing political resistance that rivals the power of locking in a formal governance change in law or regulation. This matches the well-known (successful) mobilization effort among charter school parents to prevent New york City’s then incoming mayor, Bill de Blasio, from diminishing the charter sector that they had a personal stake in continuing to use. In that way, PMM helps reshape the politics of education more generally.

LESSONS AND RECURRENT TENSIONS IN GOVERNANCE REFORM DEBATES

What broader lessons can policymakers, reform advocates, and educators take away from past and present efforts to use governance changes to spur school improvement? Relatedly, what are the key tensions in our governance reform debates that are likely to persist moving forward?

1: DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES

“Fundamentally, democracy is really about representing the interests of adults,” Vladimir Kogan explains. “Whether school board elections are democratic tells us absolutely noth- ing about whether public schools are doing a good job delivering on their core mission [of educating kids].” In other words, when policymakers sit down to evaluate K–12 governance models, they should recognize the difference between democratic procedures (important) and the substantive outcomes that public education is trying to achieve: creating an educated populace that is equipped to participate in self-governance (most important). Consider, for example, the tension between the right for students to go to school and learn without inter- ruption and the right of school employees to pursue their occupational self-interests through a labor action. This is not a hypothetical. Teachers’ unions often claim that the right to strike fundamentally promotes democracy for workers (their members), yet we know that keeping

children out of school for prolonged periods of time is not in their best interest. How should policymakers wrestle with these tensions, ones where democratic procedures collide with democratic outcomes? Consider the following thought experiment (again) from Kogan:

In many communities drinking water is delivered by public agencies. yet very few people ask if these agencies are democratic. They ask whether they deliver clean and safe water. I think few would be okay with these agencies delivering cholera contaminated water just because they were satisfied with voter turnout and other metrics of democratic process or procedure. In many parts of the uS, we also have publicly run hospitals. Again, when we’re evaluating their performance, I think most people care about how all these hospitals are serving patients, not about whether their board meetings follow Robert’s Rules and allow opportunity for community engagement.

As agencies of government (subject to the demands of interest groups and voters), public schools will always be in the political arena. And to be sure, many adults will have a vested interest in upholding school board governance and in maintaining the traditional district/lEA as the sole provider of public education. These actors have obvious incentives to oppose alt-governance arrangements or portfolio management approaches. Policymakers should expect nothing less. However, at the end of the day, policymakers will need to prioritize, while remembering, most of all, that public education systems exist to serve students, not adults.

2: THERE’S NO “FOOLPROOFING” A GOVERNANCE SYSTEM IN THE ABSENCE OF POLITICAL WILL AND BOLD, CAGE-BUSTING LEADERSHIP

Well-defined governance arrangements with clear lines of accountability are typically neces- sary to deliver improved outcomes for kids, but they are almost always insufficient to the task at hand. Well-designed governance systems are only as good as the leaders who make use of them. As the author of a recent book on the delivery of government services in our digital age put it, “culture eats policy’s lunch.”69 In the case of education reform moving the needle for kids, this means that governance reform can create new possibilities and provide political cover, but it takes bold leaders to step up to the plate and make use of those new institutional levers. For all their faults (noted below), the architects of the turnaround in Washington, DC— then chancellor Michelle Rhee and then mayor Adrian Fenty—were each willing to put it all on the line and make tough decisions to change the culture of the city’s school system (and its future trajectory) even when those decisions cost them their jobs. In a similar vein, recall the key finding about the importance of leadership from economist Kirabo Jackson’s study of school autonomy in Chicago that was discussed earlier in this chapter. Jackson found that providing more school-level autonomy to principals improved student learning outcomes in schools with high-quality leaders. In places where leaders had a poor or middling track record, providing greater autonomy predictably did not lead to better decision-making and did not improve student outcomes; it led to worse performance. In sum, strong district and school leadership both matter immensely.

3: LOCK IN GOVERNANCE AND POLITICAL REFORMS TO INCENTIVIZE STUDENT-CENTERED DECISION-MAKING WHENEVER POSSIBLE, BUT REMEMBER THAT ETERNAL VIGILANCE WILL REMAIN ESSENTIAL

As we’ve seen with the history of both the SBM and PMM governance reform models, politics always has a way of undoing progress, and a reform-minded majority today is no assurance of one tomorrow. When in power, reformers should try to lock in governance reforms that will maximize the chances that future district leaders will remain student centered in their decision-making. For example, in New Orleans, state lawmakers ensured that even after RSD transferred authority back to the local Orleans Parish School Board, the superintendent would retain authority to hold schools accountable without meddling from individual board members. This was crucial, because the entire PMM framework functions only when school renewals are based on transparent and objective student performance criteria, not political criteria such as whether a school is in a board member’s electoral district. Similarly, as we saw in Washington, DC, the fact that some key decisions (around teacher evaluation) were taken out of collective bargaining enabled the system leader to make more efficient student- centered decisions when it came to managing human capital. This would not have been possible without changes in the governance protocols centralizing authority in the mayor’s office. In Indianapolis, empowering the mayor to authorize charters has helped ensure that the PMM framework can remain in place even if there is board turnover, as has happened in Denver in recent years, putting reforms that helped improve district performance in jeopardy.

4: IN EDUCATION REFORM, A MANTRA OF “MOVE FAST AND BREAK THINGS” OFTEN BACKFIRES

Bedside manner matters in education reform. On the one hand, Americans appear comfort- able with their state, rather than local government, addressing chronically failing schools. However, when it comes to formal takeover proposals, issues related to race and the loss of political power become salient in city school systems that were often important sites where racial minorities gained a foothold in politics or found a pathway to the middle class in a teaching career. For example, a survey commissioned by journalist Richard Whitmire found that while many Black Washingtonians believed Michelle Rhee’s tenure improved their schools, they also believed her reform methods (e.g., school closures, firings) were overly dra- conian and unnecessary. Irrespective of whether the critics are right or wrong on the merits, reformers will come up on the short end of the stick if they refuse to consider the timing, tem- perament, and input of local actors in an authentic manner. Rhee’s own tenure as chancellor was cut short because voters soured on her and Fenty’s “move fast and break things” ethos. In contrast, by being more intentionally “collaborative and accessible,” Rhee’s successor managed to maintain the very same reforms that put the city’s children first while keeping her post for three times as long. This isn’t a criticism of Rhee per se, but a warning to other reformers who have been turned out of power swiftly because community perception and a lack of engagement did them in (e.g., in Memphis and Detroit).

To avoid alienating potential allies in the local community, reformers should consider the timing and sequence of their actions. School closures are invariably controversial. When nec- essary, they should be done using a consistent and transparent set of metrics so that critics cannot claim bias in sites chosen. Additionally, some reformers have been able to put clo- sures off until goodwill has been established in the community, and, especially in the context of takeovers/alt-governance, local actors believe that reform efforts are well intended. This won’t please everyone, and opposition will surely remain, but acting capriciously and without any attention to bedside manner is both counterproductive and an unforced, self-inflicted error. In places like New Orleans, Memphis, and Detroit, where takeovers led to complaints about outsiders imposing closures without community input, it is essential for reformers to ensure demographic representation on charter boards and other bodies, for example, so that alt-governance is not interpreted as an effort to disempower local communities.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the immense size and scale of public education in the united States, it would be foolish and impractical to conclude this retrospective by recommending that a single governance model be applied everywhere. Instead, the broader lessons that have been outlined here rec- ommend two paths forward on governance reform, with careful attention to context.

In the first case, large school districts with poor academic outcomes that have remained unchanged under the constraints of the traditional “district as monopoly” education provider should give serious consideration to an alt-governance model that would allow for a portfolio framework to blossom. While formal governance changes are not a prerequisite to incorporating the portfolio framework, the author of that reform approach notes that in the absence of “a galvanizing event” or “the entrance of new [often nontraditional] leadership,” the “adoption of [the portfolio] strategy [is] often precipitated by a major shift in education governance via state takeover or mayoral control.” The reason is simple: “these events [help] to restructure local education politics such that traditional actors . . . [are] sidelined, creating a window of opportunity for new reform ideas to take root.”

Since these districts can and will rarely initiate alt-governance on their own (Washington, DC, being a rare exception), leaders who wish to pursue a portfolio framework may do well to begin their effort by working with their counterparts in state government. To avoid the nega- tive perceptions that invariably arise from “outsiders” ignoring local context and concerns, advocates could benefit by framing their effort to leverage state support as an exercise in “freeing” local schools to enjoy more autonomy or “innovation” opportunities even if they remain under traditional district governance. Alternative governance arrangements need not mean the formal elimination of an elected school board en route to a portfolio frame- work. As Indianapolis has shown, having an executive (mayor) with charter-authorizing power opens new possibilities. likewise, Denver Public Schools also remained under elected board control, but innovation schools there nevertheless provided autonomy and choice consistent with the portfolio framework.

The second path forward is probably more appropriate for the nation’s (smaller) suburban and rural school districts that maintain the traditional elected board-appointed superinten- dent structure. Although these districts (which are more numerous but enroll far fewer students) may not need to abandon traditional governance structures, states should nonetheless require (or at least encourage) them to adopt a series of more modest reforms aimed at promoting a political structure that creates stronger incentives for aligning democratic accountability with improved student academic achievement outcomes.

First, state governments should move to on-cycle school board elections. A political system that allows one special interest group to dominate low-turnout, low-information elections isn’t a model of robust democracy. A large research literature shows that off-cycle elections unfairly advantage unions over other stakeholders and decrease the representation of parents, the poor, and racial minorities in school board elections. Most importantly, shifting to on- cycle elections increases the likelihood that voters will reward/punish incumbent school board members based on student achievement growth in their district during their tenure. In sum, this is a small but important policy change that comes with few downsides and a big upside.

Relatedly, states might consider (or at least investigate) the benefits of using non-staggered school board elections. Currently, with staggered board elections, the ability for the public to make a wholesale change in district leadership is deferred across election cycles. If voters are constitutionally empowered to “throw the bums out” of Congress every two years, per- haps they should have that same opportunity in local school politics. This reform would, in theory, also simplify participation in school politics, encourage slate running, and make it easier for the public to identify whom to hold accountable at a given point in time (since all incumbents would run at the same time, there would be a de facto referendum on their performance).

Second, as A. J. Crabill has argued, state governments should require school board training or coaching that focuses specifically on student outcomes. Ideally, states could find ways to make this more than a compliance exercise. In fact, Crabill makes a good case that states could add to this the incentive for board candidates to get certified before running for office. One benefit might be dissuading candidates who do not want to do the serious work and who are running for reasons other than raising district achievement.

Third, states must ensure that their accountability systems provide useful and easy-to-understand information about the performance of each district’s public schools. Those metrics should include and emphasize information on student growth, not simply proficiency. letter grades, though imperfect, often make it easier on the public. Importantly, SEAs need to be prepared (and required under state law) to release report card data earlier on and preferably in the month prior to when school board elections are held, to maximize the likelihood that voters will prioritize student learning outcomes during board elections.

States should consider electoral reforms that provide information about student performance on the ballot, identifying any incumbents seeking reelection so that voters know how their board members have fared in raising achievement when they decide whether to rehire them for the job. As a gentler form of “takeover,” states could first have a policy whereby an automatic board recall election is held when a district’s academic improvement stagnates for a period under the same leadership. Relatedly, similar legislation could call for a superintendent’s replacement in the event of severe achievement failure or stagnation.

FINAL THOUGHTS

A total governance failure is typically observed only in an ad hoc fashion. Examples might include a district embezzlement scheme or a school cheating scandal. This leads to the mistaken belief that K–12 governance problems are rare and isolated to specific districts or leaders. yet in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the broader dysfunction beneath the surface of America’s traditional system of K–12 board-based governance. While more centralized education systems in other parts of the world reopened far more quickly, in our highly decentralized system partisanship and the lack of political will to negotiate reopening agreements with teachers’ unions played no small role in keeping half of all students out of school for a full year. In fact, numerous studies revealed that in the absence of thoughtful state polit- ical leadership, too many local school boards made decisions to keep schools closed more because of adult politics than in response to thoughtful reflection about neutral public health criteria, including the cost-benefit calculation regarding what was best for students.

As the second epigraph of this chapter noted, the root of the K–12 governance problem, Paul Hill and Ashley Jochim explain, is that ever since the turn of the twentieth century, “[school] reformers have been busy trying to take politics out of schools rather than considering how politics—of which governance is a part—can be managed, constrained, and transformed to serve public purposes.” This failure of imagination is a key reason that our public schools are encumbered by bureaucratic structures and work routines that too readily prioritize the interests of adults rather than the students they serve. Ironically, then, one hundred years after progressive reformers dismantled the nation’s large and unwieldy urban school boards, America’s fourth-largest school district, CPS, is returning to this relic of the past. Despite making real strides under mayoral control, at the behest of the city’s powerful teachers’ union, CPS will soon be governed by a large (twenty-one members!) elected board begin- ning in 2024.87 Meanwhile, the SEA in Texas has decided to pursue takeover of the nation’s third-largest district, Houston Independent School District (ISD). The Texas Education Agency recently tapped former Dallas ISD superintendent Mike Miles to bring to Houston the muscu- lar human capital reform strategy previously pursued in Dallas. Miles has announced that he will use his authority to introduce pay incentives that induce top teachers to work in struggling schools, an approach that some research shows can make a positive impact on student learning. Despite the obvious similarities they share in size and demographic challenges, Chicago and Houston suddenly appear to be two ships passing in the night. They remind us once more that the decentralized nature of K–12 politics and governance too often influences a child’s chances of receiving a high-quality education and obtaining a shot at upward mobility in this patchwork quilt we call public education in the United States.

See the full Hoover Institution initiative: A Nation At Risk +40. 

When schools closed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact was deep and long lasting. In Maryland schools, test scores fell to an all time low, particularly in math.

In 2021, counties received funds to provide high-dosage (intensive) tutoring to students to close gaps caused by school closures. This funding ensured that students consistently engaged in targeted, supplemental instruction at least two to three times per week for 30-45 minutes per session.

In fall 2021, the Reach Together Tutoring Program (RTTP), a partnership program of the George and Betsy Sherman Center at the University of Maryland Baltimore County collaborated with Baltimore City Public Schools to provide high-dosage tutoring that helps students access and master rigorous, grade-level mathematical concepts.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

The partnership was not new. In fact, UMBC staff and students have long worked with educators to not only support professional development and community programming, but also to educate, develop, and place UMBC graduates in teaching positions in Baltimore through the Sherman Scholars Program. Our growing partnership with city schools, ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund) funding, and our access to college students, allowed us to scale our previous efforts.

The program supports students in second through eighth grade who are selected based on diagnostic assessment scores. RTTP participants scored in the bottom quartile, which equates to two or more grade levels below where they should be. Tutoring occurs during the school day utilizing the “personalized learning” block, in order to minimize disruption to the core curriculum.

What makes RTTP unique is the hiring of UMBC students as math coaches. Math coaches work with a small group of students two to three times a week during the academic year for approximately 24 weeks. Using an acceleration model, coaches focus on high-leverage foundational skills that align to grade-level content. They receive extensive preservice and ongoing training highlighting cultural competency, mathematical mindsets and student engagement.

Our mission is simple: “We will facilitate purposeful math experiences that enhance each student’s math identity and accelerate their learning trajectory.”

In 2021, we were in four Baltimore City Schools serving 355 students and had 85 UMBC math coaches. Fast forward to today and we just completed our third year of programming in nine Baltimore City schools (Arundel Elementary, Cherry Hill Elementary Middle School, Lakeland Elementary Middle School, Westport Academy, Park Heights Elementary, Dickey Hill Elementary Middle, Fallstaff Elementary Middle School, Bay Brook Elementary Middle and Curtis Bay Elementary) serving 644 students.

Since 2021, UMBC math coaches have completed 45,586 tutoring sessions. This spring we partnered with the city schools to increase capacity and serve more students through the MSDE Tutoring Corps Grant with a focus on grades six-eight. We are looking forward to expanding to 10 schools in school year 2024-25.

Is it working? We partnered with faculty from UMBC’s Public Policy and Education departments to complete a two-year program evaluation. Results indicate that participants of RTTP made greater progress when looking at test score gains and percentile gains from beginning of year to end of year when compared to non participants. Student survey data indicates that 85% of students felt more confident in math after participation in RTTP, with one eighth grade student from Cherry Hill saying, “I could get help, and if I got it wrong, they didn’t put me down.”

But there’s more. RTTP has not only supported students in Baltimore City, but has created a lasting impact and shifted career trajectories for UMBC students. Math coaches are undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students from all majors, races, genders, and ethnicities.

We increased from 85 math coaches in school year 2021-22 to over 165 in school year 2023-24, when more that 1,100 UMBC students applied to be a math coach. Candidates from the Sherman Scholars Program participate in RTTP as part of their academic learning experience, giving them a hands-on opportunity to engage with students prior to beginning their teacher internship year.

Over the last three years, we have had several math coaches decide that they wanted to become teachers. They earned a master of arts in teaching and are now teaching in schools where they tutored.

Rehema Mwaisela is one such scholar who, after her first year as a math coach in her junior year at UMBC, said, “Before I was math coach in Baltimore City, I thought I wanted to be a mathematician, or just keep with math in grad school, but now I know my place in math is empowering Baltimore City scholars as much as I can with mathematical knowledge.”

She now teaches at Westport Academy. RTTP has created an exciting space where community engaged scholarship and partnership intersect and the impact is complex and far-reaching.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and X.

While older children are showing encouraging signs of academic recovery, younger children are not making that same progress, and are sometimes falling even further behind, especially in math.

New data released July 1 points to the pandemic’s profound and enduring effects on the nation’s youngest public school children, many of whom were not yet in a formal school setting when COVID hit.

“It’s showing that these students — who were either toddlers or maybe in preschool — that their learning was disrupted somehow,” said Kristen Huff, the vice president for research and assessment at Curriculum Associates, which provides math and reading tests to millions of students each year and authored the new report. “It’s striking.”

Researchers and other experts have suggested several potential reasons for this trend. One is that the pandemic disrupted early childhood education and made it harder for many kids to learn foundational skills — gaps that can compound over time. Fewer children enrolled in preschool and kindergarten, and many young children struggled with remote learning. Increased parental stress and screen time may also be factors.

It’s also possible that schools targeted more academic support to older children and teens.

“We can see it as a call to action to make sure that we, as an educational community, are prioritizing those early grades,” Huff said. Those are critical years when children learn their letters and numbers and start reading and counting. “These are all the basics for being able to move along that learning trajectory for the rest of your schooling career.”

A slew of recent reports have examined students’ academic progress post-pandemic. Some researchers found that students in third to eighth grade are making larger-than-usual gains, but that most kids are still behind their pre-pandemic peers. Meanwhile, academic gaps between students from low-income backgrounds and their more affluent peers have widened.

The new Curriculum Associates report, which analyzed results from some 4 million students, is unique in that it includes data points for younger children who haven’t yet taken state tests. Researchers looked at how students who entered kindergarten to fourth grade during the 2021-22 school year performed in math and reading over three years, and compared that against kids who started the same grades just prior to the pandemic.

Children who began kindergarten in the fall of 2021, for example, scored close to what kindergartners did prior to the pandemic in reading. But over the last few years, they’ve fallen behind their counterparts. Kids who started first grade in the fall of 2021 have been consistently behind children who started first grade prior to the pandemic in reading.

In math, meanwhile, students who started kindergarten, first grade, and second grade in the fall of 2021 all started off scoring lower than their counterparts did prior to the pandemic. And they’ve consistently made less progress — putting them “significantly behind” their peers.

Younger children made less progress than their pre-pandemic peers regardless of whether they went to schools in cities, suburbs, or rural communities. And the students who started off further behind had the most difficulty catching up.

Schools may want to consider changing up their academic interventions to focus more on early elementary schoolers, researchers said. It will be especially important to pinpoint exactly which missing skills kids need to master so they can follow along with lessons in their current grade, Huff added. This year, many of the report’s struggling students will be entering third and fourth grade.

In Charleston County, South Carolina, where younger students are outperforming others in their state, especially in math, the district is using a few strategies that officials think have helped.

The district made improving reading instruction a top priority. Officials purchased a new curriculum to better align with the science of reading, gave teachers extensive literacy skills training, and started providing families more information about their kids’ academic performance.

Crucially, said Buffy Roberts, who oversees assessments for Charleston County schools, the district identified groups of kids who were very behind and what it would take to catch them up over several years. Taking a longer view helped teachers break down a big job and ensured kids who needed a lot of help got more support.

“We really helped people understand that if our students were already behind, making typical growth is great, but it’s not going to cut it,” Roberts said. “It was really thinking very strategically and being very targeted about what a child needs in order to get out of that, I hate to call it a hole, but it is a hole.”

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters

The “science of reading” is a trending topic in state legislatures and gubernatorial speeches — over the past decade, 38 states and the District of Columbia passed new laws or implemented new policies that require evidence-based literacy instruction. This past January, my home state of Maryland joined the list when the Board of Education required all schools and districts implement evidence-based literacy instruction by the 2024-25 school year. 

This is a major shift for many districts, where leveled readers and balanced literacy have long ruled the day. It’s also more complex than a simple mandate, since the “science of reading” isn’t a single program or technique. To successfully bring research-backed reading instruction into the classroom, districts will need to identify and invest in high-quality materials and ensure teachers and communities are prepared to make sustainable, lasting change.

While advocates and educators have been engaged in wide-ranging conversations about reading proficiency in Maryland for many years, relatively few communities have undertaken the specific work of changing curriculum and instruction to follow the science of reading. Washington County Public Schools, where I lead curriculum and instruction as an associate superintendent, has been focused on this work since 2020. Districtwide, preschool and K–5 teachers are now using a new high-quality, knowledge-rich literacy curriculum: Amplify Core Knowledge Language Arts, or CKLA.

How did we do it? 

We have learned a lot over these past few years. Bringing the science of reading to the classroom requires careful research, strong collaboration and consensus-building, aligned professional learning, and robust ongoing support for school leaders.

Study the Evidence

Washington County started this work with a clear look at kindergarten-achievement data, which showed that just 39 percent of students met benchmark targets in reading in 2019. It was evident that although everyone worked hard, our students were not reading as well as they should. That helped us reflect on our beliefs and practices and ask big questions. Teachers, coaches, and administrators can ask similar questions by looking at their own data as they consider what students stand to gain from new evidence-based literacy instruction.

It’s important to understand the evidence before adopting sweeping change. We established partnerships to ensure that we thoroughly understood the research and create a vision for local success. Through our first partnership with the Council of Chief State School Officers, we collaborated with Nell Duke to reflect on and elevate our approach to early literacy. 

Duke, who is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee at the Knowledge Matters Campaign, helped us look beyond leveled texts and shift toward instructional expectations aligned with the principles of the science of reading. For example, rather than encouraging students to read independently at their comfort level, our teachers could use a variety of strategies to engage students with appropriately rigorous texts that built on their knowledge of the world, such as read-alouds, partner reads, and activities to learn vocabulary specific to a theme or topic.

Co-Create Consensus

We also engaged TNTP to help facilitate our vision. A diverse group of participants, including elementary and secondary teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, special-education teachers, and district leaders, worked together to identify our beliefs, priorities, and what would be needed to update reading instruction. We presented these ideas to school leaders, community stakeholders, and families, as well as our elected Board of Education. Through this transparent process, we created clear, shared beliefs and expectations for improved literacy instruction in Washington County.

That meant choosing a new curriculum, which would serve as the foundation and guide for our efforts. With the district’s English Language Arts leaders, Washington County teachers chose Amplify CKLA because it is both evidence-based and knowledge-rich. Through our research and work with Duke, we knew that content knowledge is essential for enhancing reading comprehension because it allows students to better connect with and understand text. Our vision-building community exercises were helpful in this step as well. Background knowledge helps students make meaningful inferences and draw on relevant prior knowledge, which is critical for deep comprehension and learning from reading — priorities for our students. Best of all, knowledge-building curriculums like Amplify CKLA are organized into units that explore a single topic, like farm animals or mythology, students can talk about what they are learning, since they are all reading about the same thing at the same time.

Prioritize Professional Learning

Washington County teachers had access to the new curriculum in the spring of 2023, nearly six months before implementation. Teachers participated in curriculum-based professional learning during the school day, as well as before and after school. Instructional leaders developed new protocols to practice and prepare units and individual lessons, and an instructional coach from Amplify offered support. Teachers have opportunities to study the curriculum, ask questions, and practice instructional techniques together. 

In addition, the district purchased a training course for educators on evidence-based reading instruction techniques created by TNTP. The course emphasizes foundational skills and guides teachers on how to apply these principles in the classroom. District leadership, teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals all completed the training to build a shared understanding of the science of reading.

Offer Ongoing Support for School Leaders

The success of any school-based initiative depends on the principal, who works with teachers daily and knows their staff and students best. We meet with our principals for a full day once a month, with half of that time dedicated to instruction and coaching. In addition, elementary-school principals routinely visit other schools to watch instruction and share observations with peers and Central Office staff. Principals also participate in quarterly data meetings where district and school leadership work together to analyze student achievement data. These structures create an ongoing dialogue focused on instructional excellence among principals and between principals and district leaders.

At the heart of these efforts is collaboration and a shared set of beliefs. Transitioning to a high-quality, knowledge-building curriculum and instruction based in the science of reading isn’t easy, and I am grateful for the efforts of our teachers, administrators, and central office staff. With their hard work, and by establishing partnerships, fostering open dialogues about data, and providing structured professional development, Washington County has created an environment where change can and has happened—proof positive for districts across Maryland and the country facing similar challenges in the months and years ahead.

Gary Willow is Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction at Washington County Public Schools in Hagerstown, MD.

Released Tuesday, the data from over 7.7 million students who took the widely used MAP Growth tests from NWEA doesn’t bode well for teens entering high school this fall. Finishing 4^th grade when the pandemic hit, many students not only lost at least a year of in-person learning, but also transitioned to middle school during a chaotic period of teacher vacancies and rising absenteeism.  

The 2023-24 results reflect the last tests administered before federal COVID relief funds run out. Districts must allocate any remaining funds by the end of September — a cutoff that is expected to cause further disruption as districts eliminate staff and programs aimed at learning recovery.

Older students don’t make gains as quickly as younger kids and will have to work harder to catch up, the researchers said. At the same time, the effects of the pandemic “continue to reverberate” for children in the early elementary grades, many of whom missed out on preschool because of COVID. On average, students need at least four extra months of schooling to catch up.

“It’s not fun to continue to bring this bad news to the education community, and I certainly wish it was a brighter story to tell,” said Karyn Lewis, director of research and policy partnerships for NWEA. “It is pretty frustrating for us, and I’m sure very disheartening for folks on the ground that are still working very hard to help kids recover.”

Thus far, only two states, California and Colorado, have asked officials for extra time to spend the diminishing relief funds that remain, according to the U.S. Department of Education. That means the question for most leaders is how to keep paying for extra tutoring and staffing levels for students still learning below grade level — especially those belonging to groups that weren’t meeting expectations before the pandemic.

Relief money “made a difference, but it certainly did not eliminate the learning loss,” said Dan Goldhaber, director of the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. A recent paper he authored showed that recovery linked to those dollars was small, in part because the federal government gave districts few restrictions on how to spend it. 

The American Rescue Plan’s requirement that districts devote 20% of the $122 billion toward reversing learning decline was “super loosey goosey in terms of what that actually meant, how it was measured and what programs counted,” he said.

Some districts that hired teaching assistants to give students additional practice in reading and math have now lost those positions. Dothan Preparatory Academy in Alabama, a seventh- and eighth-grade school, had several staff members who gave students “a few extra lessons” throughout the day based on their MAP scores, said Charles Longshore, an assistant principal. Now those positions are gone. 

He hopes a new sixth grade academy opening next month will better prepare kids for grade-level material. Two years ago, when he joined the Dothan City Schools, just north of the Florida Panhandle, he attended a districtwide administrator meeting where every school’s data was posted on the walls.  

He remembers looking at elementary school scores with “really low” student proficiency rates of roughly 20% to 30%; teachers have been trying to fill those gaps ever since. 

“We’re trying to go backwards to go forwards,” he said. “What third, fourth and fifth grade standards did you miss that are essential for your understanding of seventh and eighth grade standards?”

The NWEA results show achievement gaps continuing to widen. For example, Asian students are showing some growth, but made fewer gains in math last year than during the pre-COVID years. White, Black and Hispanic students, however, continue to lose ground. In both elementary and middle school, Hispanic students need the most additional instruction to reach pre-COVID levels, the data shows.

In reading, the gap between pre-pandemic growth and current trends widened by an average of 36%, compared with 18% in math. It’s possible, NWEA’s Lewis added, that districts focused extra recovery efforts on math because initial data on learning loss showed those declines to be the most severe. 

But that’s left many students without the reading skills to tackle harder books and vocabulary as they move into high school, said Rebecca Kockler, who leads Reading Reimagined, a project of the nonprofit Advanced Education Research and Development Fund. The organization is funding research to find which literacy strategies work with adolescents, who are easily turned off by books intended for young kids.

The pandemic, she said, only exacerbated a longstanding literacy problem for older students.

“About 30% of American high schoolers for 30 years have been proficient readers, and that really hasn’t changed,” said Kockler, a former Louisiana assistant superintendent who oversaw a redesign of the state’s reading program. “It’s always the hardest to move middle school reading results, and even some of the success we would see in fourth grade didn’t always carry up into middle school.”

School closures were especially hard on students with learning disabilities. Both of Tracy Compton’s daughters, who are entering fifth and seventh grade this fall, have dyslexia and didn’t receive services during the pandemic when they were in the Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia. 

“The time they were learning to read was during the school board’s shutdown of schools,” she said. Under a federal civil rights agreement, the Fairfax district still pays for makeup services with a private tutor. 

But Compton also moved to a Massachusetts district where she feels her girls are getting the support they need, like access to audio books and noise-canceling headphones during tests to help them focus. “They have made progress, but [have] not fully recovered,” she said.

She said too many parents don’t know their children are behind.

“They see the report card with A’s or whatever and think all is fine,” she said. “They don’t know where else to check and how to weigh things like standardized tests.”

That’s likely because different tests often tell different stories. The MAP results, for example, are worse than what many states have reported about student performance on their own assessments, which are used for accountability. 

Several states last year noted at least partial recovery, and a few showed students had even reached or were exceeding 2019 scores. Lewis explained that state tests measure the “blunt designation between proficient or not,” while MAP tests capture the full spectrum of student achievement levels during the school year.

Districts, particularly low-income districts that received the most funding, need to contend with the latest snapshots of students’ learning as they adjust to the end of federal relief funds, Goldhaber said. 

“How districts go about dealing with the fiscal cliff is going to have pretty significant consequences, particularly for the kids that were most impacted by the pandemic,” he said. If districts have to lay off staff — and newer teachers are the first to go — they should limit the impact on the neediest students. “They’ll be shuffling teachers within districts, and that shuffle itself is harmful for student achievement.”

As more time passes since the pandemic, Lewis added that school leaders might be tempted to stop comparing their students’ performance to pre-COVID levels, when states were making progress in closing achievement gaps. 

“What keeps me up at night is this idea that these persistent achievement gaps are inevitable, that this is just how it’s going to be,” she said. “I don’t think that’s the case, but I do think it takes innovation and creative thinking … to get us out of this mess.”

New state standardized test results show stagnant progress among Hoosier students in grades 3-8, signaling a continued struggle to reverse widespread learning loss following the COVID-19 pandemic.

New ILEARN scores show 41% of Indiana students who were tested earlier this spring were at or above proficiency standards in English and language arts (ELA), according to new data released Wednesday by the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). That’s on par with the year prior, when 40.7% of students were proficient.

The percentage of students at or above proficiency standards in math, on the other hand, saw a slight decrease — from 40.9% in 2023 to 40.7% in the most recent school year.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Data released by IDOE reported 30.8% of Hoosier students passed both the math and English sections of ILEARN. That’s slightly up from last year’s spring test results, which showed that 30.6% earned dual passing scores.

Nearly 493,000 students sat for both exams this spring.

“While many grades have seen increases in both ELA and math proficiency over the past three years, we must continue to keep our foot on the gas pedal to ensure all students have a solid academic foundation in order to maximize their future opportunities,” Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner said in a statement. “A number of key tactics have been put in place to support educators, parents, families and students. It is essential that our local schools and parents/families continue to work together and stay laser-focused on improving student learning in ELA, as well as math.”

Test results breakdowns

ILEARN scores continue to trail behind 2019 results, when 47.9% of Hoosiers in grades 3-8 earned passing scores on the English portion of the ILEARN, and 47.8% did so in math. That year, 37.1% of students were proficient in both sections.

But due to instruction changes spurred by COVID-19 and disruption of 2020 assessments, state officials use the 2021 ILEARN results to represent the current Indiana baseline.

When using that baseline, ELA proficiency has increased across most grade levels; third graders decreased 0.1%; fourth graders increased 2.2%; fifth graders increased 0.8%; sixth graders increased 1.2%; seventh graders increased 0.7%; and eighth graders increased 1.3%.

IDOE officials emphasized that many students who were in third grade in 2024 received instruction in either a fully or partially virtual setting during kindergarten due to the pandemic, which likely contributed to decreased student success.

The 2024 statewide ILEARN results show a slight increase in English proficiency across most grade levels compared to 2023.

The highest year-to-year increases were in grade four, up 1.5%, and grade seven, up 2.3%.  Proficiency in those grades is the highest since the pandemic, according to IDOE.

Since the 2021 baseline, math proficiency has additionally increased across all grade levels.

But compared to 2023, the latest ILEARN results in math proficiency decreased across the board — except in grade seven, which had a 1% increase in 2024.

ILEARN was first implemented in 2019 to replace the ISTEP exam for students from third to eighth grade. The exam measures proficiency in various subjects starting in third grade, but the main focus is on English/language arts and mathematics. All schools test in-person and electronically, unless an accommodation requires a paper assessment.

With federal permission, the assessment was not given in 2020 due to pandemic-related school closures.

A look at certain student populations

Since 2023, Black students had the highest percentage point increase in English — 1.2% — and also saw an 8% increase in math proficiency. The 2024 results show 20.9% of Black students scored proficient on the ILEARN in English, and 17% in math. About 11.7% of Black students earned passing scores on both portions of the test in 2024, according to the latest numbers.

Compared to the 2021 baseline, Black students have seen a 3.5% increase in English proficiency and a 5.4% increase in math.

Jenner called the data “notable,” given that “it’s not as common to see” such continued improvements. Rather, she said, education officials expect to see more “ups and downs” year over year.

Even so, Scott Bess, head of the Purdue Polytechnic High School in Indianapolis and member of the state education board, cautioned that more rapid improvements are needed.

“While it’s great that our Black students have shown progress, our English language learners have shown progress, the bar was really, really low, right?” Bess said. “If we keep on that trajectory, I’m going to be in a home before we get to any kind of acceptable results,” Bess continued.

Among other student populations, proficiency in both English and math decreased slightly for Hispanic students.

Students in special education and students receiving free or reduced price meals, meanwhile, had slight gains in both English and math from 2023 to 2024.

English learners — who were identified in 2023 as needing continued targeted support in English — have since had a 0.8% increase. IDOE officials said additional targeted support is still needed in math, though, given a 0.3% decrease on that section of the ILEARN. Total English proficiency on the ILEARN among English learners this spring was recorded at 13.8%, and math proficiency at 17.6%.

Changes on the horizon

The new results come amid an ongoing undertaking to redesign the ILEARN assessment and allow an option for schools to divvy up portions of the exam across the academic year.

The assessment plan includes what state education officials call “flexible checkpoints” for schools to administer ILEARN preparation tests in English and math before the typical end-of-year summative tests. A dozen other states already have similar models.

The redesigned assessment will have three “checkpoints” and a shortened summative assessment at the end of the school year. Checkpoints will consist of 20 to 25 questions and hone in on four to six state standards. The exams are designed to be administered to students about every three months, but local schools and districts can speed up testing if they wish.

Checkpoints won’t be punitive; if a student does not master a particular standard, they’ll receive additional intervention and instruction before having a retest option.

So far, 72% of schools across Indiana have opted-in to participate in a pilot of ILEARN checkpoints during the upcoming 2024-25 school year, according to IDOE. The overall system will take effect during the 2025-26 school year.

Jenner and other education officials reiterated on Wednesday that the new checkpoints will provide improved, real-time student data that can be used to better target supports for students throughout the year — rather than waiting until the end of the year for results, “when it may be too late” for teachers to provide support.

Also upcoming are changes to the state’s IREAD tests, which gauges students’  foundational reading skills.

Earlier this year, state lawmakers approved a separate requirement for schools to administer the statewide IREAD test in second grade — a year earlier than current requirements. Local educators must direct new, targeted support to at-risk students and those struggling to pass the literacy exam.

But if, after three tries, a third grader can’t meet the IREAD standard, legislators want school districts to hold them back.

Those changes take effect in the upcoming 2024-25 school year.

Data from 2023 showed one in five Hoosier third graders were not reading proficiently. Jenner said IREAD exam results from the most recent academic year are expected to be made public next month.

Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on Facebook and X.

Three high-profile education advocacy and research groups crossed political lines in Washington, D.C., Wednesday to announce an ambitious goal: cutting chronic absenteeism in half over the next five years. 

For the first time, the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the left-leaning Education Trust and the national nonprofit Attendance Works joined forces to confront an issue that continues to plague K-12 classrooms four years after the pandemic first hit. 

“This is not a problem for some schools. This is not a problem for some subset of students. This is a nationwide rising of a tide that’s going to harm [all] students,” said Nat Malkus, AEI’s deputy director of education policy studies. 

While felt most acutely by students of color and those in poorer districts, the spike in chronic absenteeism — students missing more than 10% of school days a year — cuts across districts regardless of size, racial breakdown or income. Chronic absenteeism surged from 13% in 2017 to 28% in 2022 and remained high in 2023. 

Research has shown that students with high rates of absenteeism are more likely to fall behind academically and are at a greater risk of dropping out of school. The three organizations are eyeing a return to those pre-pandemic percentages.

“The goal is to get us back to a baseline where we knew we needed to do a lot more work anyway, but at least we can work towards that and do so aggressively,” Lynn Jennings, The Education Trust’s senior director of national and state partnerships told The 74. 

Five years from the launch would be 2029, but the groups are hoping that districts further along in their efforts will be able to hit the benchmark by 2027 — five years after chronic absenteeism’s 2022 peak.

The goal is doable, according to Topeka schools Superintendent Tiffany Anderson, who spoke at a panel discussion Ed Trust, AEI and Attendance Works held in D.C. this week to launch their initiative. The 12,858-student district was able to lower its chronic absenteeism by investing in families through home visits. In Topeka, if a student is absent for more than two days without parent contact, it warrants a visit.

“You cannot serve needs you don’t know. So the key is understanding … it works,” she added.

Numerous experts at the event discussed the importance of a tiered approach to confront an issue that has resisted various interventions. Schools, they said, must create trust and communication with families so they can learn why students are absent — as officials did in Topeka — but then, they must work to actually remove those barriers. 

Anderson said in speaking with her Kansas families she learned that chronic health issues, such as asthma, were impacting student attendance. So, she brought health care to the school, partnering with a local hospital. Now students and their families can see a pediatrician on site.

Some schools, panel experts noted, get stuck in that first tier: understanding families’ struggles in getting their children to school, but never implementing the solutions. Another remedy discussed at the panel, which included the vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Caitlin Codella Low, was emphasizing career pathways so school feels more meaningful to students and necessary to their own futures.

At the event, Attendance Works presented a six-step roadmap to assist states in achieving a 50% reduction in chronic absenteeism and will develop resources to share with state leaders moving forward.

“Our work over the past 10 years shows us that state leaders are uniquely positioned to take on this challenge,” they wrote. And these three organizations, they believe, are uniquely positioned to help.

Attendance Works founder and executive director Hedy Chang said her organization brings the “how:” They’re able to provide states and districts with the advice, tips, and resources to take action. Education Trust brings the advocacy lens and helps keep school districts accountable through data. And The American Enterprise Institute brings a more conservative audience to the conversation, along with the data.

Malkus’s Return to Learn Tracker, where he compiles and analyzes district-level attendance data for over 14,700 school districts and charter schools nationwide, will serve as the hub to help states see if they are on track to meet the five-year benchmark. 

“We’ve got to take a long-term approach, and we’ve got to use our data to call everyone,” Chang said. “It needs all hands on deck.”

Denise Forte, president and CEO at Education Trust, noted the importance of the cross-organization partnership, saying that while she and Malkus haven’t historically always agreed on policy issues, this was one where they knew they could — and needed to — come together. 

The urgency of the issue created a shared sense of purpose, all three groups said.

“We’re in a pretty partisan world. People feel so divided on so many things,” Chang added. “But we can’t risk our children’s future by being divided on this one.”

Clarification: This article has been updated to better reflect the timeline in which the three organizations aim to cut chronic absenteeism by half.

Disclosure: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provides financial support to The Education Trust and The 74.