“No one wants poor children to foot the bill for the pandemic,
but that is the path that most states are on.”– Dr. Thomas Kane
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly $190 billion has been allocated through Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds. The largest tranche, comprising $122 billion, was delivered via the American Rescue Plan of 2021. This funding was heralded as a vital lifeline aimed at supporting the academic recovery of disadvantaged students who suffered significantly from the effects of pandemic-related disruptions. Billions later, however, the stark reality remains that poor students continue to disproportionately struggle to recover academically.
When local governments were forced to shut down schools in response to COVID-19, it was the poor students who bore the brunt of the impact. Many children in low-income areas returned home to environments devoid of the necessary resources for effective remote learning. As parents lost jobs and lacked access to technology and tailored learning tools introduced during the pandemic, these factors collectively widened the academic gap between poorer and wealthier students.
A 2020 report from McKinsey & Company highlighted the troubling achievement gap, revealing that students from households earning less than $25,000 experienced an average of seven months of math progress loss and six months in reading. This was nearly double the learning loss suffered by students from more affluent families. In response, the provision of ESSER III funds was meant to help rectify this disparity. Unfortunately, the historical performance of federal education funding has proven lackluster, and ESSER III has followed in this troubled tradition.
From 2022 to 2023, as schools received a surge of funding, the achievement gap between low- and high-income students not only persisted but actually grew. Despite both student groups experiencing improvements in test scores, the gains for low-income students were not only smaller but resulted in an even wider gulf in achievement.
The implementation of ESSER III, similar to the Title I program, depended on complex funding formulas that inadequately catered to the specific needs of diverse student populations. On average, low-income districts received $7,700 per pupil, yet the allocation of funds was frequently inconsistent. For instance, one in ten low-income districts received upwards of $10,700 per student while another equal fraction received less than $3,700 per student. In a striking disparity, students in Detroit received an astounding $26,000 per pupil, with the city having received a total of $1.3 billion aimed at aiding fewer than 49,000 students.
The American Rescue Plan came with specific mandates that required state education agencies to allocate five percent of ESSER III to tackle learning loss, one percent for after-school activities, and another one percent for summer learning programs. Once the funds reached local education agencies, 20 percent needed to be focused on addressing learning deficits, while the remaining 80 percent could be spent largely at the discretion of schools.
While the attempt to provide flexibility at the local level was a positive move, it did not resolve the underlying issue related to the use-it-or-lose-it funding model. Large-scale construction projects emerged as a more visible means of spending that effectively mitigated the impending ‘fiscal cliff’ that loomed. Conversely, student-centered interventions relied on sustained funding and innovative approaches, a luxury that wealthier districts were in a better position to afford compared to their low-income counterparts.
ESSER III represents just the latest chapter in an ongoing saga of inequitable education funding practices. To illustrate the disparity, a 2018 report revealed that low-income districts receive approximately $1,000 less per pupil from federal sources compared to their higher-income counterparts. Similar inequities exist regarding property tax bases that can drastically influence district funding. Low-income schools grapple with a long-standing history of inadequate resources, overcrowded classrooms, subpar facilities, and a plethora of academic and social challenges.
For schools primarily serving disadvantaged communities, pre-existing needs were exacerbated when ESSER III was launched. A recent study conducted by Matthew Springer and Christopher Brooks at the University of North Carolina examined the divergent spending strategies employed by many low-income districts. Their research indicated that these districts have prioritized spending on facilities and operational costs over crucial academic recovery efforts.
While investments in necessary repairs and improved facilities can enhance student outcomes in the long run, the short-term strategy of investing in structural improvements over hiring additional educational support staff may have inadvertently widened learning gaps that ESSER III sought to close. Each dollar diverted into long-term construction was a dollar that could have funded tutoring services, extended learning opportunities, and resources critical to addressing learning loss.
Even amongst wealthier districts, allegations of frivolous spending have emerged, revealing that taxpayer dollars were funneled into sports amenities, a nature center, pool passes, and even luxury accommodations in Las Vegas. This pattern of misuse is not unprecedented when it comes to federal funding, which has often suffered from a one-size-fits-all framework that disregards local context. An illustrative case occurred in Oklahoma, where federal emergency funds were used to purchase luxury items like gaming systems and Christmas decorations instead of addressing educational disparities.
Initially, learning-delay interventions were prioritized during the early days of the pandemic, as noted in a recent survey. However, by 2023, only half of district leaders cited addressing learning delays as a priority, with just 30 percent committing to significantly investing in intervention programs. In contrast, funding for new long-term capital projects surged to become a top priority for nearly 40 percent of decision-makers.
The pitfalls associated with ESSER III are not merely anomalies; they reflect systemic flaws in a funding model that fails to meet diverse educational needs. Federal funds encounter numerous bureaucratic hurdles before reaching their intended recipients, creating opportunities for misallocation and inefficiency. Despite its unprecedented scale, ESSER III is simply a reiteration of the same outdated narratives that neglect the unique requirements face-by-school districts nationwide.
A reformed approach to education funding should prioritize the needs of students rather than serving the interests of a disconnected bureaucratic system that perpetually overlooks its mistakes. Too often, the redistribution of funds is entangled in a complex web of board meetings, vested special interest groups, teachers’ unions, and bureaucrats, entirely disconnected from the realities faced by impoverished children. A more effective strategy would involve increasing parent participation in funding decisions, rewarding teacher effectiveness, fostering local flexibility, and ultimately prioritizing the needs of the students.
Ef=”https://www.edweek.org/leadership/the-pandemic-hit-vulnerable-students-hardest-now-schools-have-to-reckon-with-the-effects/2021/12″>bore the brunt of the impact. Many children in low-income areas returned home to environments devoid of the necessary resources for effective remote learning. As parents lost jobs and lacked access to technology and tailored learning tools introduced during the pandemic, these factors collectively widened the academic gap between poorer and wealthier students.
A 2020 report from McKinsey & Company highlighted the troubling achievement gap, revealing that students from households earning less than $25,000 experienced an average of seven months of math progress loss and six months in reading. This was nearly double the learning loss suffered by students from more affluent families. In response, the provision of ESSER III funds was meant to help rectify this disparity. Unfortunately, the historical performance of federal education funding has proven lackluster, and ESSER III has followed in this troubled tradition.
From 2022 to 2023, as schools received a surge of funding, the achievement gap between low- and high-income students not only persisted but actually grew. Despite both student groups experiencing improvements in test scores, the gains for low-income students were not only smaller but resulted in an even wider gulf in achievement.
The implementation of ESSER III, similar to the Title I program, depended on complex funding formulas that inadequately catered to the specific needs of diverse student populations. On average, low-income districts received $7,700 per pupil, yet the allocation of funds was frequently inconsistent. For instance, one in ten low-income districts received upwards of $10,700 per student while another equal fraction received less than $3,700 per student. In a striking disparity, students in Detroit received an astounding $26,000 per pupil, with the city having received a total of $1.3 billion aimed at aiding fewer than 49,000 students.
The American Rescue Plan came with specific mandates that required state education agencies to allocate five percent of ESSER III to tackle learning loss, one percent for after-school activities, and another one percent for summer learning programs. Once the funds reached local education agencies, 20 percent needed to be focused on addressing learning deficits, while the remaining 80 percent could be spent largely at the discretion of schools.
While the attempt to provide flexibility at the local level was a positive move, it did not resolve the underlying issue related to the use-it-or-lose-it funding model. Large-scale construction projects emerged as a more visible means of spending that effectively mitigated the impending ‘fiscal cliff’ that loomed. Conversely, student-centered interventions relied on sustained funding and innovative approaches, which a luxury that wealthier districts were in a better position to afford compared to their low-income counterparts.
ESSER III represents just the latest chapter in an ongoing saga of inequitable education funding practices. To illustrate the disparity, a 2018 report revealed that low-income districts receive approximately $1,000 less per pupil from federal sources compared to their higher-income counterparts. Similar inequities exist regarding property tax bases that can drastically influence district funding. Low-income schools grapple with a long-standing history of inadequate resources, overcrowded classrooms, subpar facilities, and a plethora of academic and social challenges.
For schools primarily serving disadvantaged communities, pre-existing needs were exacerbated when ESSER III was launched. A recent study conducted by Matthew Springer and Christopher Brooks at the University of North Carolina examined the divergent spending strategies employed by many low-income districts. Their research indicated that these districts have prioritized spending on facilities and operational costs over crucial academic recovery efforts.
While investments in necessary repairs and improved facilities can enhance student outcomes in the long run, the short-term strategy of investing in structural improvements over hiring additional educational support staff may have inadvertently widened learning gaps that ESSER III sought to close. Each dollar diverted into long-term construction was a dollar that could have funded tutoring services, extended learning opportunities, and resources critical to addressing learning loss.
Even amongst wealthier districts, allegations of frivolous spending have emerged, revealing that taxpayer dollars were funneled into sports amenities, a nature center, pool passes, and even luxury accommodations in Las Vegas. This pattern of misuse is not unprecedented when it comes to federal funding, which has often suffered from a one-size-fits-all framework that disregards local context. An illustrative case occurred in Oklahoma, where federal emergency funds were used to purchase luxury items like gaming systems and Christmas decorations instead of addressing educational disparities.