This document discusses how states can best support low-performing schools under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). It notes that while ESSA increases states' flexibility in how they allocate funding, the amount of federal funding is unlikely to dramatically change. The document recommends states target funding to a few high-capacity districts, ensure resources are reallocated beyond federal dollars, structure investments to lead to sustainable success, and ensure plans for low-performing schools align with overall school improvement strategies.

1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2017
Draft – do not cite or disseminate
Maximizing Resources for
School Improvement
How states can support low-performing
schools in the age of ESSA: Part 1
June 22, 2017

2. Draft – do not cite or disseminateDraft – do not cite or disseminate
ESSA & Low-Performing
Schools

3. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
ESSA streamlines funding for states to improve low-performing schools, but
is unlikely to dramatically change the amount of federal funding for this
purpose
2
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
Connecticut Delaware Indiana Kentucky Mississippi New Jersey Pennsylvania West Virginia
Projected change in school improvement from NCLB to ESSA transition
2016 Projected (4% Title I Set-Aside + SIG) 2018 Projected (7% Title I Set-Aside)
2016: Title I Set-Aside & SIG
2018: Title I Set-Aside
ESSA provides that states cannot spend less in 2018 than they did immediately before the transition.

4. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
However, the discretion with which states can
allocate that funding will increase
Under ESSA, states can—
 Exercise additional control over which schools and
districts are eligible for aid.
 Determine whether they wish to distribute funds
according to a formula or through a competitive grant
process.
 Offer and incent a wider range of intervention
strategies.
3

5. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
Context matters: State school improvement strategies should
take into consideration specific policy and resource situations
4
Key Questions Context Considerations
How many and which schools and districts
will we serve?
• Magnitude of school improvement
endeavor
• Concentration of schools in need of
improvement
What types of interventions will we
implement?
• Existing school improvement policies
• Other enabling state policies
• Alternative providers
• Local empowerment
What resources will we use to support these
interventions?
• Availability of resources
• Method of distribution
How will we create capacity to implement
these interventions?
• District-level capacity
• State-level capacity
How will we ensure interventions are
effective and sustainable?
• Effectiveness
• Sustainability
• Accountability
Consistent with this principle, sustainable school improvement strategies should place the district at the center of the planning process

6. Draft – do not cite or disseminateDraft – do not cite or disseminate
Limited Dollars
5

7. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
The challenge of leveraging limited federal dollars
into sustainable school reform
Strategies to best leverage all available resources to build district
capacity for ongoing improvement:
1) Resources targeted where they’re needed most
2) Tailored tiers of intervention for differentiated support
3) District-centered approach
6
While states’ discretion in supporting school improvement has grown, federal school
improvement resources alone are insufficient to sustainably turn around low-
performing schools.

8. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
Addressing the root cause of chronic low
performance may require dramatic change
7
Declining expectations (faculty,
students, families)
Remaining students fall further
behind and high needs get
concentrated
Teachers and families with options
leave
Persistently poor performance
Resource levels and expertise no
longer match needs
Leaders and teachers have less
capacity to collaborate and adjust
instruction
Cycle of chronic low performance

9. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
State & Local
$9,810
82%
Support for Low-
Performing Schools
$859
7%
Other Federal
$1,309
11%
Simulated possible spending per-pupil at a school in the highest-need
quartile of districts within a typical state
State & Local Support for Low-Performing Schools Other Federal
Federal school improvement dollars make up only a small fraction
of a low-performing school’s budget
8
Source: NCES, US Department of Education, ERS Analysis. Assumes federal support dollars are distributed evenly to lowest-performing 5% of schools and that all district spending
is reported at the school level. State & local and federal (non-support) expenditures from FY 2012, adjusted for inflation.
Sufficient Resources

10. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
Meanwhile, state funding systems vary in how
equitably and adequately they fund needy schools
This equity metric describes the difference in funding levels between a state’s
highest-poverty quartile of districts and its lowest-poverty quartile of districts.
9
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
IL
NY
PA
TX
MD
MI
NC
ID
IA
MO
MT
RI
WY
ME
NE
NH
AL
AZ
VA
KS
SC
CO
VT
AR
FL
ND
NM
WA
MS
CT
WV
OR
WI
OK
UT
GA
LA
NJ
CA
KY
MA
IN
TN
DE
SD
OH
MN
$2,142
$1,205
Relatively fewer resources to low-income districts Relatively more resources to low-income districts
Source: Education Trust
Sufficient Resources
$2,541

11. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
These dollars may be barely sufficient to redress inequitable
state funding, much less to support transformation
10
Source: NCES, US Department of Education, ERS Analysis. Assumes federal support dollars are distributed evenly to lowest-performing 5% of schools and that all district spending
is reported at the school level. State & local and federal (non-support) expenditures from FY 2012, adjusted for inflation.
Sufficient Resources
$9,810
$13,093
$2,168
$286
$459
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
High Need Schools Low Need Schools
DollarPerPupil
Pennsylvania
State & Local Other Federal Support for Low-Performing Schools
$10,248
$11,964
$2,189
$386
$444
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
High Need Schools Low Need Schools
DollarPerPupil
Illinois
State & Local Other Federal Support for Low-Performing Schools

12. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
To succeed, states should articulate a clear goal for what they want
incremental funds to accomplish–and target them, rather than spreading
them thin
SHOULD
 Provide temporary transition support to create
success in a few situations
 Diagnose the needs and capacities of targeted
schools or communities
 Support the creation of peer networks to build
capacity of select school, system, and state leaders
 Identify, document, and create tools to share best
practices
 Create conducive conditions for success
 Help targeted schools and systems realign all of their
resources for improved outcomes, particularly in
struggling schools
 Be integrated with other federal dollars to support a
unified vision to accomplish the state’s goals
11
If the goal is to create sustainable success at scale, federal dollars
for low performing schools—
SHOULD NOT
 Be spread evenly across all failing schools
 Compensate for inadequate funding for
education
 Redress fundamental resource inequities
created by state or district formulas
 Fund permanent positions or expenditures
required for long-term school success
 Rely upon capacity that does not yet exist
 Be the sole state investment in support for low
performing schools
Sufficient Resources

13. Draft – do not cite or disseminate
In summary, states should be deliberate in distributing their support
dollars, and they should think about how they supplement and sustain
those resources
1. States should target federal funding to a few high-capacity or especially
high-need local education agencies. We strongly advocate a non-formula
approach to the distribution of most or all of these dollars.
2. Those states that are giving dollars by formula in year one should strongly
consider setting aside dollars (in year one or in future years) for incentive
grants in a few districts to support strategic initiatives, including ESSA-
mandated resource allocation studies.
3. States should ensure the reallocation of resources beyond these incremental
dollars (including state and local funds), with a clear purpose.
4. States should structure their transitional investments to lead to success that
can be sustained.
5. States should invest to replicate success across all low-performing schools
over time.
6. States should ensure that their plans for low-performing schools cohere with
their overall strategy for school improvement.
12
Sufficient Resources

14. Draft – do not cite or disseminateDraft – do not cite or disseminate
Contact us
QUESTIONS?