Federal stimulus packages, Act II

Getty Images

Over the last 13 years, the federal government has twice tried to strengthen a sagging economy with an enormous stimulus package. First, in 2009, with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and recently, with the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP). On both occasions, the education sector received large tranches of money. (For COVID relief, states and school districts also received funding through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, parts I and II.) While conditions on the ground in 2009 and now, in 2021, are very different, these stimulus packages were meant to accomplish a common goal: to help hold together a struggling public education system. Although we won’t know for some time whether and how states effectively used ARP funding, some lessons from the ARRA era might help today’s decision makers.

How ARRA worked — and didn’t

In 2008, a newly elected President Barack Obama, eager to blunt the impact of the Great Recession, urged Congress to pass an emergency stimulus package. On paper, ARRA had three primary goals: to save and create jobs, to spur economic activity, and to increase accountability in government spending. The act provided approximately $100 billion in stimulus funds for both K-12 and postsecondary education, and the money could not come soon enough for states and school districts. At the time, education budgets were being slashed because of recession-induced state shortfalls, even as demands facing educators were increasing. School systems were struggling to manage a multitude of issues, including a growing achievement gap, school violence, and communities being ravaged by the recession.

The Obama administration, aware of the leverage ARRA funding gave them, required states to address the key issues that undergirded the administration’s reform agenda. To receive funds, states had to adopt rigorous standards and assessments, implement statewide student data systems, enhance teacher effectiveness, and improve low-performing schools. These ambitious goals, however, like so many other well-intentioned policies championed by the U.S. Department of Education over the years, required more than just money. Many state departments of education lacked the capacity and expertise, never mind the budget, to meet these requirements. And, although the ARRA funds were a one-time distribution, the requirements meant states had to plan for reforms that would require a longer timeline to achieve. While the funding helped fill some important gaps, many states struggled to achieve any significant outcomes. And later studies about how ARRA funds were used would show that restrictions in how the funding could be used meant that much of the funding bypassed state education agencies, the very entities responsible for carrying out the administration’s reforms.

In the end though, it wasn’t budgetary concerns that hobbled the Obama administration’s reform agenda. It was politics. Although they were not federally mandated, the Department of Education’s support for the Common Core State Standards caused a firestorm among parent groups and conservative lawmakers. As reasonable as it may sound to encourage states to adopt a common reform agenda, the politics that swirl around state and local education can (and often do) short-circuit many promising reform efforts. In an effort to quell the backlash, some states chose to drop the Common Core standards entirely, despite all the resources that went into implementing them. Other ARRA-funded initiatives, like the administration’s signature Race to the Top program, were also overshadowed by the politics of the Common Core.

The legacy of ARRA

While the massive influx of federal funding did help mitigate the effects of recession-driven budget cuts in K-12 education, it did not spur the kind of large-scale reform and innovation the administration hoped for. The reform agenda would have been ambitious even under the best of circumstances, and amid a historic recession, it proved too complex an endeavor for many state and local leaders. The added political drama did not help either. In the end, most states used the funding to save or create jobs and stabilize budgets, not to pursue school reforms (Rentner & Usher, 2012).

While the massive influx of federal funding did help mitigate the effects of recession-driven budget cuts in K-12 education, it did not spur the kind of large-scale reform and innovation the administration hoped for.

The reforms tied to ARRA, however, did lay the foundation for a reform agenda that continued to guide state and district leaders. That became clear in 2015 with passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the long-overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the main federal spending source for K-12 education). ESSA gave states the flexibility they longed for after years of struggling to manage the requirements of its predecessor, No Child Left Behind. With the worst of the recession now behind them, many states saw ESSA as an opportunity to implement ambitious reforms on their terms, and many districts saw a chance to focus on the lowest-performing students, using evidence-based strategies that suited their students and their communities. In short, ESSA gave state leaders something they value almost as much as extra funding: flexibility.

Betsy DeVos was named secretary of education just as states began to implement their ESSA plans, but other than the sideshow nature of her nomination hearing and her various attempts to privatize public education, she had a fairly insignificant impact on education policy and practice. It wasn’t until 2020 that things really got weird.

Much has been written about the COVID crisis and its effects on education, and it will be years before we really know the breadth of it all. What we do know is that President Joe Biden’s administration acted quickly to provide leadership and guidance to school systems, and the American Rescue Plan, like ARRA before it, injected billions of dollars into COVID-stricken states and counties. If you look carefully at the ARP state plans, you can actually see throughlines to the four reform areas first prioritized with ARRA in 2009. Assessments, low-performing schools, and teacher effectiveness are still priority areas for many states, but this time they are there by choice, not requirement.

What’s next?

With all but a handful of state plans approved by the U.S. Department of Education, educators nationwide are now figuring out how to use their ARP money to address both new and long-standing issues. Tutoring, social and emotional wellness, and evidence-based interventions are priorities for many states, even though there are not enough tutors, counselors, and evidence-based programs to meet all the demand. (Supply chain issues aren’t limited to shoes and refrigerators). And evergreen issues, such as how to address persistent achievement gaps, high school attrition, and inequitable learning opportunities, remain as challenging as ever. Even though the stimulus funds are a very, very helpful part of the equation, money alone is not the answer. State and local leaders also need guidance and technical assistance in a range of areas.

For example, if the field learned anything from ARRA, it was that a sudden, one-time infusion of money can only do so much. Guidance on how to maximize funding and plan strategically for both the short term and long term would be very helpful for many education leaders. The same goes for resources to help states and districts maintain the kind of cross-agency partnerships that developed during the COVID crisis.

Guidance on how to maximize funding and plan strategically for both the short term and long term would be very helpful for many education leaders.

The combination of high demand and low supply will also bring out charlatans looking to capitalize on ARP funding. As we saw with the Common Core and many reform efforts before it, once big money is on the table, a plethora of companies will start marketing products that allegedly address learning loss, social and emotional wellness, or any number of issues. Many of them will have no evidence base whatsoever. While some states have lists of vetted vendors to help education leaders figure out who is and is not worth doing business with (see VanGronigen & Meyers, 2020), more guidance and technical assistance on this topic would be helpful, especially as it pertains to high-profile issues like learning loss and tutoring. (Education Week and other media outlets have done a great job covering the demand for tutors; see, for example, Heubeck, 2021.)

Given the urgent needs students and schools are facing, state leaders must act boldly with the money they are given, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from reflecting on history, which, as we know, tends to repeat itself. Looking back on how other stimulus funds were spent won’t provide any easy answers, but it may help provide some perspective.

References

Heubeck, E. (2021, October 12). Schools are in desperate need of tutors, but qualified ones are hard to find. Education Week.

Rentner, D.S. & Usher, A. (2012, July). What impact did education stimulus funds have on states and school districts? Center on Education Policy.

VanGronigen, B.A. & Meyers, C.V. (2020). Buyer beware: Using external providers to improve schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (2), 26-31.

This article appears in the December 2021/January 2022 issue of Kappan, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 62-63.