6 tips for covering how districts spend $122 billion in new funding, from a national expert. First in a new series.

By Marguerite Roza

Over the next several months, school districts across the country will be deciding how to spend the closest thing to a blank check that we’ve ever seen in K-12 education. All eyes should be shifting to districts to follow their choices.

The $122 billion for K-12 in the American Rescue Plan (ARP) is the latest federal pandemic relief package for states and school districts. (Two previous packages sent some $67 billion to K-12.) We’ve seen lots of stories (correctly) noting ARP’s historical significance as the biggest onetime federal payout to schools. But the lack of strings attached is equally significant and begs for reporter attention.

Decisions about how to spend these once-in-a-lifetime sums will be made this summer. Most districts face late August deadlines to submit spending plans to their states. To report on these decisions along the way, reporters can examine school board meeting documents, which may provide early insights into spending plans as they develop. Final district plans—which must be made public—should be on district websites.

Look here to find out how much your district got in total and per-student terms in each of the three waves of federal recovery aid. (Note: ESSER I, II and III refer to the K-12 education portions of the three waves of federal relief funds. So, ESSER III is the education portion of ARP. Some districts are combining federal dollars across the three waves. Look here for a comprehensive backgrounder.)

Here are six tips for covering ARP school spending in ways that will be helpful and compelling to readers, including linking spending to students’ lives and outcomes, matching up decisions with stakeholder priorities, and showing how decisions are really being made.

Here are six tips, including linking spending to students’ lives and outcomes, matching up decisions with stakeholder priorities, and showing how decisions are really being made.

#1. Remember it’s districts that decide how to spend the money.

The law’s only significant spending directive is that districts use 20 percent of their money to address the impacts of lost learning time using “evidence-based” interventions. But as new federal guidance makes clear, this comes with no real specifications. The federal money is so flexible that we’re hard-pressed to find something in the rules that districts can’t use the money for. Districts have enormous latitude, including the option to pass some or all their federal relief dollars through to schools to let principals and communities decide how to spend, as BlockClub recently reported was happening in Chicago.

While it’s definitely still early days, we’re seeing news coverage of district plans to spend federal relief dollars on thank-you payments to staff, facilities projects, filling budget gaps, hiring counselors and nurses and other specialists, reducing class sizes (aka hiring more teachers), updating technology and curricula, and expanding staff planning time.

Less common so far are many hoped-for investments, including tutoring, adding weeks to the school year, innovations and customized options where families pick what works for their kids, new delivery models or new content/course options.

#2: Make clear that limits on spending are generally self-imposed or a function of labor agreements.

Where districts point to external barriers that limit their spending choices, odds are those barriers are self-imposed. New federal instructions make it clear that states can’t limit how districts use the money.

Districts may complain about local spending restrictions, but those generally refer to agreements they negotiated with unions.

Sometimes districts present spending as a “we had to” even when other options existed. Take, for instance, a district with declining enrollment and thus declining state funds. The district can spend ARP money to keep the budget and staffing as is or it can restructure the budget to fit the (now smaller) number of students. It may seem daunting to restructure the budget at the very moment the federal government has sent “relief funds,” but using ARP monies to fill a budget gap rather than right-size the budget might have serious repercussions in the future. Either way, it’s still a district choice.

#3. Break down the mega-sums to put dollars in per-student terms (the national average is about $2,400 per student).

Peoples’ eyes tend to glaze over when they see multimillion-dollar figures, and the money becomes meaningless. Putting the ARP money in per-student figures  gives readers a sense of scale (as Chalkbeat does here) and links financials to children (as US News does here).

When districts share their spending plans, it helps to break down the different investments into their per-student cost implications. For instance, a district might spend $200 per student on thank-you payments, $1,150 per student on new staffing, $150 per student on curriculum, etc. All this connects the money to students and helps your audience and community gauge the value accordingly.

#4. Tell readers how spending decisions are being made (and whether they match stakeholder preferences).

Districts are required to seek “meaningful consultation” on spending plans with a wide range of groups, including those representing students with disabilities, English learners, and more. Are districts using surveys to gather input? Holding a series of meetings? Or going to their communities with fully baked plans on how to spend the ARP monies? How are plans being revised in response to community engagement?

To be fair, the tight time lines involved are a challenge to bona fide community input. However, it’s worth making sure to see how district spending plans do or don’t match up against community priorities and preferences. You may be surprised.

#5. Give readers the specifics on exactly what districts are buying (and whether it’s sustainable).

I’ve asked a few district leaders: What does it mean to spend money on “social emotional supports”? Is that investment paying for counselors? Counseling materials? More staff hours to expand school time for students? Is the money going directly to school leaders to decide how to spend? Is it paying contracts for districtwide services? If so, to what vendors? And for how much? In other words, get underneath the stated priorities to ask what the money will pay for—and perhaps seek out expert comment on whether the investment is likely to be effective.

As reporters dig into spending plans that call for hiring more staff, another question to ask: How does the district plan to pay to keep those staff once the federal money runs out? Good intentions can have bad consequences if districts turn around three years from now and lay off the new counselors, teachers, and specialists they envision hiring with ARP money in the coming months.

#6. Ask districts what the money will actually do for students.

At a basic community accountability level, the district exists to meet the needs of students. Are districts communicating the “it” of what they want to show for the money? It seems fair for reporters to ask districts how they’re planning to measure success for the massive public investment in student and community recovery—and how they will pivot to use funds differently if need be.

Connecting spending to results for students is important for both the district and for your readers. One thing we’ve learned from engaging with audiences about finance: If we can’t connect it to students (as some financial stories fail to do), many audiences can lose interest quickly.

The public is highly aware of these funds—but rather than seeing this topic only as a budgeting or financial story, they want to know what that money means for children. This pandemic wreaked havoc on many children, and these financial decisions can’t lose sight of that.

Big public investments call for public scrutiny. For reporters, it’s a tired but true trope: Follow the money. But I’ll just add: Don’t forget the students.

It’s worth noting that while districts are the big-money story—they get 90 percent of the ARP money for K-12—they aren’t the only story. State education departments got a federal windfall of their own, with 10 percent of ARP dollars.

What state agencies do with their share deserves its own coverage. Reporters can see those spending plans on the U.S. Department of Education website as they become available; the mandatory public plans were due June 7. (My team at Edunomics Lab is reviewing plans as they’re posted and will be sharing what we’re seeing.)

Also, keep in mind that district decisions made in the coming months will likely be playing out in communities for years to come. (Districts have until September 2024 to obligate ARP funds.) There’s ample fodder accumulating for enterprising reporters to write stories or even a series with impact.

One potential example could start by examining investments to address lost learning time. How well do the district’s spending decisions reflect community priorities? Where new programs are launched, what if any measures of success are spelled out for the program? Do the programs work for the highest-needs students? Which groups of students show up for the extra services? With those participation figures, what ends up being the cost per student served? And finally, as services are completed, do the outcomes match the original goals?

Big public investments call for public scrutiny. For reporters, it’s a tired but true trope: Follow the money. But I’ll just add: Don’t forget the students.

Previous explainers from The Grade:

Putting parents front and center

Social & emotional learning is all the rage; here are 5 smart ways to cover it

5 tips on how to cover teacher layoffs

Smart ways to cover the wrenching debate over reopening schools

How to quote more students with disabilities in education news 

Including English learners in COVID-19 coverage

Four hours a day; how teacher contracts are shaping remote learning

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

default profile picture

Marguerite Roza

MARGUERITE ROZA is a research professor at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., and director of the McCourt School of Public Policy’s Edunomics Lab.