Author Archives: Bonnie O'Keefe

Unpacking Education Finance Equity for State-Level Advocates: A Q&A with TennesseeCAN’s Erika Berry

Bellwether Education Partners’ series Splitting the Bill: Understanding Education Finance Equity gives advocates a crash course in the fundamentals of education finance and in key questions to ask in their states and communities. This series of short briefs is part of Bellwether’s ongoing examination of how finance and inequity in education shortchange millions of students and families. For a look at how equity-minded policymakers and advocates can begin to understand school finance policy, click here.

Erika Berry is senior policy director for TennesseeCAN, an independent, state-based affiliate of 50CAN’s* national network. The organization’s mission is to empower local stakeholders — from community members to policymakers — to advocate for improved K-12 education policies that put Tennessee children first. Berry has spent her career focused on improving educational outcomes for students and breaking down inequitable barriers that prevent students from succeeding, beginning her career in education as a middle school math teacher.

As a participant in Bellwether’s ongoing school finance equity trainings, Berry is currently examining Tennessee’s state school funding formula using data tools like R and Shiny, in collaboration with other advocates. I caught up with her over Zoom to discuss her work and learn more about the education finance equity landscape in Tennessee. To learn more about key education finance concepts within this Q&A, click here.

Bonnie O’Keefe:
How does TennesseeCAN’s mission overlap with education finance equity?

Erika Berry:
Every day, my work is centered on ensuring that students across the state have access to high-quality schools, teachers, and resources. I focus a lot on how Tennessee’s schools can equitably prioritize the unique talents and needs of its teachers and students. 

Education finance in Tennessee treats students as ratios. Our system assumes that all schools are the same with the same needs. School and district leaders make decisions based on prescribed inputs for staffing and resources, instead of applying a strategic mindset grounded in students’ needs. It’s not their fault; the state’s resource-based student funding formula encourages this kind of thinking. Tennessee is one of only 17 states with this kind of funding formula. 

This means that in Tennessee, our Basic Education Program (BEP) funding formula gives money to schools based on assumptions about schools’ costs and ratios of resources. This mostly revolves around staffing and student-teacher ratios. For example, in the BEP, for every 8.5 students with special needs, schools are allocated funding for a special education teacher, which means around an additional $48,000. But what if fewer than 8.5 students with special needs are enrolled in a given school — how will their needs be adequately met in this funding formula framework? And why are we counting “half” a student? 

To be clear, the resource-based formula doesn’t require that schools spend that exact dollar amount on those precise staffing ratios — it’s all based on averages. But it frames the way the whole state thinks about education funding. It’s an inherently inequitable system that is offensive to educators and students alike. Tennessee’s BEP system creates an incentive to hire less experienced teachers who make below-average salaries, and discourages schools from using their resources more creatively and strategically to best meet the needs of students. 

BOK:
Is there an alternative to this resource-based system?

EB:
Yes! At TennesseeCAN, we advocate for a weighted or student-based funding formula

BOK:
Tennessee’s governor recently announced a listening tour focused on potential changes to the state’s education finance system. What specific changes does TennesseeCAN most want to see, and why? 

EB:
Tennessee has done a great job in the past decade of implementing proven ed reforms. We have some of the best laws on the books to hold teacher preparation programs accountable. In recent teacher evaluations, something like 81% of educators in the state believed that the laws improved their teaching. I think our policymakers have held true to principles of accountability for high standards and it’s a good thing for students. But our resource-based funding formula just doesn’t match up.

A weighted, or student-based funding formula would force Tennessee school districts to think first about the needs of students every time they sit down at a table to form a budget. It would also allow district leaders to be more strategic about how to spend and create greater transparency around funding allocations clearly based on enrollment and student learning needs.

BOK:
How do coalitions or partnerships play into your advocacy strategy?

EB:
They’re a fundamental part of TennesseeCAN’s approach. In 2017, we started taking funding reform seriously as an organization and adopted a vision we wanted to see happen. We pulled in Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE),* Tennesseans for Student Success, the Tennessee Charter School Center*, and The Education Trust — all of whom are members of the Team Kid coalition.

Together, we’re pushing for a statewide weighted, student-based funding formula not just as a short-term fix, but as one that will support schools in the longer term. Every year and with each new state legislative session, our coalition partners work to defend progress made on accountability and on policies that center students. Although Tennessee is in a strong fiscal position at the moment, we know our advocacy work is far from done. Once you dive into the BEP funding system, you realize it’s wholly unpredictable and inequitable. School leaders, teachers, students, and families deserve more.

BOK:
What have you learned analyzing and visualizing your state’s finance system as part of Bellwether’s School Finance Equity trainings? What have you learned from other participants in the cohort?

EB:
Bellwether’s trainings enabled me to better understand and visualize our state and local revenue and stress-test prior assumptions — many of which were wrong. 

For example, we used to think that Tennessee’s state revenues were being distributed inequitably in the BEP. When we dove into the data, we were surprised to see that state funding was fairly equitable, but it wasn’t enough to offset inequities in local tax revenue, based on local property wealth. It was the local piece where the bigger, systemic inequities existed. We essentially have a regressive local funding system that allows wealthy districts to generate as much funds as they can, and still get state funding on top, widening the financial gap with districts that have less property wealth. My work in Bellwether’s trainings led me to realize that the added state revenue for lower-wealth districts isn’t enough to cover the local revenue shortfalls. This insight affected my thinking about what a more equitable state formula and school finance system should look like.  

The cohort model has been fascinating. I have a better analytical toolkit now, thanks to the cohort members and the training on data visualization. I’ve learned a lot from peers in other states and it’s interesting to see areas of similarity in state funding formula structures and, importantly, areas of difference. Every state has something funky in its funding formula that can usually be traced back to a quick-fix policy solution that’s good for adults, but not for kids and schools.

BOK:
What are some of the common misconceptions about Tennessee’s school finance that you encounter in your work — from policymakers, or from community members? How do you help break those down?

EB:
A lot of people think the BEP is student-based, so we spend time clarifying that. Enrollment is a factor, but it’s mediated by these resource-based ratios and funding assumptions. If you ask folks to think about how the funding formula influences decision-making, it often serves as an epiphany moment. Our resource-based system envisions spending on prescribed resources (e.g., number of staff, textbooks to order) but a weighted, student-based approach leads districts to first know their students’ needs and then be strategic about how to deploy funds in a way that prioritizes students over a laundry list of resources.

At the end of the day, local districts are in a better position to know their students than the state. And the resource-based mindset leads to a variety of ongoing issues around budgets.

BOK:
What do you hope to accomplish in 2022 as it relates to education finance?

EB:
We hope that 2022 will bring a new, weighted, student-based funding formula to Tennessee. We want to have a discussion about how a new approach could shift thinking and behaviors at the state, local, and school district levels to meet students’ needs and reduce inequities. 

I worry when I talk about education funding inequity, that people might misunderstand and think that this is a “silver bullet” solution. It’s not. But, a more equitable school funding formula can help uncover those silver bullet solutions and better enable districts to really move the needle for students. I think greater funding equity has the potential to pave the way for other kinds of reforms that target and center students’ needs, first and foremost.

BOK:
One last question: How did you get started in education and what fuels your work now?

EB:
I grew up in Mississippi and always heard that our schools weren’t successful because they were underfunded — and I believed it. After college, I taught middle school in a well-funded Mississippi school district and was surprised to find that my students weren’t achieving despite all the resources we had. More money wasn’t the solution; my students were kept behind in a system that could have served them well. 

That stark realization fueled my graduate work and advocacy work — to understand what was going wrong and think about what students need versus how to make it easy for adults to run a school system. 

*(Editor’s note: Tennessee SCORE is a Bellwether client; 50CAN and the Tennessee Charter School Center are former clients.)

Unpacking Education Finance Equity for State-Level Advocates: A Q&A with EdAllies’ Krista Kaput

Bellwether Education Partners’ series Splitting the Bill: Understanding Education Finance Equity gives advocates a crash course in the fundamentals of education finance and in key questions to ask in their states and communities. This series of short briefs is part of Bellwether’s ongoing examination of how finance and inequity in education shortchange millions of students and families. For a look at how equity-minded policymakers and advocates can take a deep dive into the wonky details of school finance policy, click here.

Krista Kaput is research director at EdAllies in Minnesota, where she uses research and data to amplify asset- and equity-based stories from the state’s education landscape. She has held a variety of roles at the intersection of education policy and practice, and began her career in the classroom as a Teach For America corps member in Chicago.

As a participant in Bellwether’s ongoing school finance equity trainings, Kaput is currently analyzing and visualizing Minnesota’s state school funding formula using data tools like R and Shiny. I connected with her over Zoom recently to discuss her work on behalf of Minnesota students and the role school finance plays in educational equity. To learn more about key education finance concepts within this Q&A, click here.

Bonnie O’Keefe:
Tell me about your role and the mission behind EdAllies.

Krista Kaput:
I’m the research director at EdAllies, a Minnesota-based advocacy and policy nonprofit that partners with schools, families, and communities to ensure that every young Minnesotan — particularly those from underserved communities — has access to a rigorous and engaging education. I manage research projects and am the lead writer for EdAllies’ policy work.

Our work follows a three-pronged approach:

  • Advance equity: We advocate for policies that put underserved students first. In particular, we focus on teacher preparation and licensure, school discipline, college and career readiness, school finance, data transparency, and parent choice. 
  • Remove barriers: We work with families, teachers, and school leaders to find the most promising strategies for success and to remove policy barriers. 
  • Elevating historically excluded voices: We strive to change the conversation by elevating the voices of those who have been excluded from decision-making through storytelling efforts such as our blogs, op-eds, projects, surveys, and also through outreach at the Minnesota State Capitol.

All of this work relies upon collaborative partnerships among EdAllies and schools, coalitions, associations, and parent groups. 

BOK:
How does education finance equity relate to your advocacy agenda in Minnesota?

KK:
Equity is at the core of our work and education finance — where and how money is allocated and spent in Minnesota — is central to achieving a level playing field. We see the complexity and inequities of our education finance system as a barrier to the general public being able to understand and advocate for change that puts underserved students at the center. Minnesota has a reputation of being a very progressive and generous state when it comes to education funding. $10.5 billion in state dollars goes to public education, about 42% of the state’s general fund. We also have several dedicated funding streams for low-income students, English language learners, and other student groups that need extra educational resources. But that isn’t the whole story. Minnesota consistently puts equality over equity in school finance, and shortchanges the groups of students who need resources the most.  

Our overly complicated education finance system deters people from digging in and learning about systemwide nuances that are actually quite inequitable. We see it as our job to deeply understand the finance system and translate that knowledge to the general public. 

BOK:
Tell me more. What are education finance equity challenges facing Minnesota, and how do they affect students and schools?

KK:
Every state education finance system should start with an adequate base amount of funding per student and allocate additional resources to underserved student populations in an equitable, transparent, and efficient way. Minnesota doesn’t do this to the best of its ability. 

While we have a generous base amount of state funding per pupil, we use several disconnected, complicated formulas to allocate additional funds for low-income students, ELLs, students in rural areas, and students with disabilities. These separate formulas have many technical loopholes and quirks that undermine equity, which make it more difficult to put money in the hands of districts and schools serving students with the greatest needs.  

For example, I’ve recently been analyzing Minnesota’s “compensatory revenue” formula, which is meant to provide additional funds to schools and districts serving low-income students. This formula has an 80% cap, which means that schools don’t see a per-pupil increase in funding if they have a low-income student concentration above 80%. If compensatory revenue is meant to acknowledge that schools serving more low-income students need extra resources and supports, why would a school serving 99% low-income students get the same amount as a school serving 80% low-income students? Furthermore, while the money is generated at the school level, statutory language allows the district to retain up to 50% of the funds.

In another example, we’re one of six states that don’t have an expected local share in our state formula, which fuels district-level inequities. The state distributes money without anticipating how much local districts can raise on their own, giving already wealthy districts a larger share of state funds than they need. 

We would prefer a weighted, student-based funding formula, which could clarify how state and local funds get distributed to districts, and embed funding for students with additional needs within one consistent, transparent, and equitable formula.

BOK:
What work do you have underway this year around finance equity in Minnesota? How have you dug into the data and policies, and what are you planning to do next?

KK:
Although school finance is a newer issue area for EdAllies, we’ve been doing a lot with it this year, and have been collaborating with several national organizations in the process. 

Our team has been partnering with finance experts at The Education Trust to identify areas of strength and improvement in Minnesota’s school finance system and learn from other states’ best practices. Through this partnership, I’ve learned just how inequitable and “faux-gressive” Minnesota’s education finance system is, particularly for how we fund ELLs and students with disabilities. And through Bellwether’s school finance equity trainings, I’ve built up my data analysis and visualization skills so that I can model and demonstrate the impact of the policies we’re proposing to change using real education finance data from Minnesota.

During the 2021 legislative session, EdAllies was part of a coalition that advanced a bill that would have lifted the cap on compensatory revenue for low-income students and kept more of those funds at the school level. The bill made it into the final education omnibus bill in the Minnesota State House, but unfortunately didn’t make it through the Conference Committee. We plan to advocate for it again in the upcoming 2022 legislative session. 

My team is already strategizing how we can visualize the proposed changes in our advocacy agenda with legislators, educators, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders. I’m creating a dashboard that will visualize the impact of potential policy changes for ELLs, students with disabilities, and students living in rural areas, as well as what a weighted student funding formula could look like in Minnesota. We’re also examining within-district finance inequity in how districts distribute funds to schools. With support through a NERD$ mini-grant from Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab I’ll also examine within-district per-pupil spending against a variety of metrics (e.g., attendance, academic proficiency, high school graduation rates, teacher diversity, and more). 

BOK:
What do you wish more state advocates for educational equity understood about school finance and state funding systems?

KK:
At least in Minnesota, I wish more people understood how much we could improve our way of funding schools. I run into a lot of Minnesotans who think that the way we do things currently is the best way, and that the only education finance change we need is more general funding. It’s a status-quo mindset that calcifies unnecessary barriers to people even trying to understand our finance system. And it perpetuates inequities and blocks progressive policies from passing. I wish more people understood that other states have transparent and clear weighted student funding formulas, and have figured out how to distribute local and state revenues more equitably. That’s what we’re working toward at EdAllies. 

If anyone reading this hasn’t already looked into how their state’s education funding system is structured, I highly encourage them to do so. I also want to encourage all readers to look at their state’s school finance data at the Edunomics Lab’s NERD$ database and, if and/or when it’s offered again, I encourage everyone to apply to take Bellwether’s school finance equity trainings.

BOK:
In closing, I’m curious about what drew you to a career in education policy and advocacy. Can you explain what led you to this work?

KK:
I grew up in a primarily single-parent household and attended Minnesota public schools for years. I wasn’t really challenged and started to make questionable choices. My mother worked two jobs and made many sacrifices to give me an opportunity to attend a private school that changed the entire trajectory of my life. No parent should ever have to do what my mom did to give their child a high-quality education. Every school should be high quality.

As an undergrad at the University of Chicago, I tutored fourth graders who could barely read. I was at a top-tier postsecondary education institution with limitless resources, neighboring woefully under-resourced schools. I decided to do Teach For America in Chicago and learned about toxic stress and the impact of neighborhood violence — I lost four students to violence while teaching there. My school had a purely discipline-based approach to teaching, that didn’t reward building trust and relationships with young people. 

These experiences drive my work and make me want to change the systems that schools operate in. 

Revisiting Missing in the Margins: Recommendations for Resource Allocation

In October 2020, Missing in the Margins: Estimating the Scale of the COVID-19 Attendance Crisis estimated that as many as 3 million K-12 students across the country were at high risk of experiencing minimal or no educational access from spring through fall 2020 as a result of the pandemic. Fast-forward one year later, and available data on 2020-21 enrollment, attendance, and engagement suggest massive missed learning opportunities, especially among the most marginalized students.

Changes to practices, policies, and resource allocation can help support all students — especially those with limited access to learning opportunities in 2020-21. In this concluding third blog in a series, we expand upon our updated practice and policy recommendations for 2021 by focusing the necessary resources to fund these changes.

Sufficient funding is key in order for schools to implement effective practices to meet the needs of students with disrupted learning experiences. Additional funding is also a key component of implementing significant policy change. As leaders and policymakers seek to encourage and implement new practices and policies, they must also allocate sufficient, sustainable resources to support the work underway. 

Thankfully, flexible federal stimulus funds of more than $120 billion, directed at districts and states based on the low-income students they serve, could go a long way toward meeting that funding need. To put this amount of money in context, this infusion of federal funds represents almost 16% of pre-pandemic annual nationwide K-12 education expenditures.* 

Some of the few requirements for district spending of federal stimulus funds include:

  • At least 20% must be used to address learning loss, including academic, social, and emotional needs.
  • Funding should especially target subgroups of students who are more likely to be deeply affected by COVID-19 disruptions, such as students experiencing homelessness, and students in foster care. 

Although stimulus funds might make districts feel flush in the short term, there are still reasons to be concerned in the longer term. There are many competing priorities for using these funds, like expanding technological capacity for remote learning or renovating facilities. Some districts are simply relying on stimulus funds to make up for shortfalls in state and local funding. And, in 2024, stimulus funds will expire

Also, using stimulus funds for direct student supports can be complicated because many of the best practices are people- and relationship-driven, which might require investments in new staff and more staff time. Students with disrupted educational experiences benefit greatly from strong relationships with a caring adult with the means to help them navigate support services, but if districts fund new staff positions with time-limited federal funds, those positions could be at-risk when funding expires.

Providing the services students need, while still planning for a sustainable financial future, means that schools and districts should lean on collaborative models. Community-based organizations with complementary skill sets could help expand schools’ capacity for non-instructional support without expanding in-school staff. For example, a homeless-services organization could partner with a school district to make sure students and families experiencing homelessness have their basic needs met. Or a community-based college support organization can supplement the work of school-based counselors. These partnerships take work to be aligned and effective, but for students with deeper needs they can be transformational — particularly if they can evolve in response to changing student needs over time. 

As district leaders make school spending plans for learning recovery amid the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal policymakers also have work to do. Many traditional state and federal funding streams are not as flexible as stimulus funds, and now could be the perfect time to re-examine state school funding policies with greater equity in mind. Meanwhile, advocates at the local and state level can help support students at the margins by demanding transparency about local and state spending to support learning recovery, and keeping the pressure on districts and states to put the needs of students with the greatest unmet needs front and center. Policymakers must plan now to help schools avoid a fiscal cliff as stimulus funds expire, to allocate resources where they can be most effective for students, and to keep effective local work going long after stimulus funds run out. 

To read the Revisiting Missing in the Margins blog series in its entirety, click here

*In 2017-18, total U.S. K-12 spending across local, state, and federal governments totaled over $760 billion annually.

Designing From the Margins Toolkit: Three Ways to Solve Problems Facing Young People

Young people facing disruptions to their education need support and guidance to meet their goals. But too often, the systems meant to support young people at the toughest moments of their lives end up frustrating and burdening them as they navigate a complex bureaucracy. Leaders working within these systems can see the challenges young people face, but they get stuck, because creating change within and across large organizations is difficult.   

A different approach to problem solving can help communities get unstuck within and across schools, nonprofits, and other child-serving organizations. This week, Bellwether released Designing From the Margins: Tools and Examples for Practitioners to Address Fragmentation and Build Equity Into Systems Design. The downloadable toolkit draws on Design Methods for Education Policy and is aligned with our Continuous Improvement in Schools Workbook, but is created specifically for local leaders who might be new to tackling human-centered design from start to finish. It includes tangible examples and facilitation strategies for collaborative problem-solving processes based on our work with communities across the country. 

Designing From the Margins centers young people and families with the most serious and concentrated needs to make inclusive solutions for everyone. By taking this approach, problem solvers focus on equity from the start, and focus on the voices and perspectives of those experiencing problems directly. 

Here are three ways schools, foster care systems, homeless shelters, and health care providers, among others, can use the toolkit:

1. Engage Young People and Families in Identifying Problems

What problems need solving right now? In order to answer this question, you should go to the people experiencing issues directly. This toolkit focuses on improving systems serving young people. In our work, we used techniques like empathy interviews to hear from young people about their experiences and unmet needs. We prioritized young people with severe disruptions in their lives and education, such as incarceration or homelessness, in order to hear how systems served (or failed) those with the greatest needs. The toolkit can help you create a plan to collect these perspectives and reflect on them in a structured and coherent way. 

2. Structure a Collaborative Problem-Solving Process

Organizations serving young people often operate under great stress and uncertainty. This can make collaboration difficult. For example, a leader of a community nonprofit might consider another organization to be a competitor for funding or enrollment, rather than a potential collaborator serving overlapping groups of young people and families. The Designing From the Margins Toolkit gives tangible examples of ways to build a productive, cross-organizational working group that centers on the needs of young people, which includes building relationships among participants who might not work together frequently. 

3. Plan for Better Implementation Through Monitoring and Continuous Improvement 

Even great plans can fall victim to incomplete or insufficient implementation. The problem-solving cycle described in Designing From the Margins includes an emphasis on concrete implementation plans, with clear metrics and owners each step of the way, along with a framework for implementing continuous improvement cycles of monitoring and evaluation once solutions are put in place. 

Click here to read and download Bellwether’s Designing From the Margins Toolkit, and visit Bellwether’s Lost by Design website to learn more.

#PandemictoProgress: Superintendents’ Plans for Academic Supports and Relationship-building to Accelerate Student Learning

In Bellwether’s recent From Pandemic to Progress three-part district webinar series, leaders of school districts and community-based educational initiatives joined our team to discuss the upcoming 2021-22 school year. Read a summary and see the video of Part 1: Policy and Planning, here, and Part 2: Operations and Outreach, here.  

Rigorous academics, high-quality instruction, and strong student-educator relationships must be at the core of efforts to ensure that every student is able to thrive in school and achieve success. Schools and districts making academic and instructional plans for the school year ahead should anticipate and assess new student needs, and effectively leverage new resources available through federal stimulus funds aimed at learning recovery.

Part 3 of Bellwether’s From Pandemic to Progress webinar series focused on academics and instruction and featured:

  • Dwight Jones, Interim Superintendent and Senior Deputy Superintendent, Equity and Engagement, Denver Public Schools, Colorado.
  • Dr. Leslie Torres-Rodriguez, Superintendent, Hartford Public Schools, Connecticut.
  • Facilitator: Bill Durbin, Senior Adviser, Academic Strategy, Bellwether Education Partners.

The discussion (video above) led to four key takeaways:

Takeaway 1: Strong relationships with students and families form the foundation of successful academic and instructional plans

Building relationships among educators, students, and families as the new school year begins is essential after more than a year of multiple disruptions to students’ and families’ lives. Districts should not see that relationship-building time as a loss for academics. 

“It’s really been a challenge,” said Jones, to build and maintain relationships with students throughout the pandemic, “And it’s become even more critical.” Multiple changes in learning modes, necessitated by fluctuating rates of COVID-19 infection in the Denver community, have made this even tougher. “We know that learning is best when students know that teachers care about them,” so Jones and his team are encouraging teachers to spend dedicated time focused on social and emotional learning and on developing relationships, and plan to roll out a new curriculum to guide that time. 

Dr. Torres-Rodriguez plans to build time into school days to keep students and families engaged in their school community with expanded before- and after-school offerings, and summer programs. “We don’t want to forget to create opportunities for fun and joy for our students and families,” she said, in addition to direct outreach to families to offer wraparound support such as tutoring or connections to other social services families might need.

Takeaway 2: Educators and school staff will also need care and support in order to do their best work for students

Much like students and families, many educators and school staff have endured a very difficult, exhausting, and traumatizing time over the past year and a half. If districts hope to hit the ground running in fall 2021 and implement ambitious academic plans and intervention programs, they must consider the needs of their educators and other school staff. For example, expanded summer learning programs may be difficult when teachers and staff need a break in order to mentally prepare for the year ahead.

“We have to be mindful of the level of almost burnout that our adults are feeling,” said Jones, especially with reduced opportunities for interpersonal connection in or out of work. He’s working with labor unions on revised scheduling and identifying ways to encourage self-care during the work day. 

Torres-Rodriguez agreed, adding, “We have to tend to ourselves before we can tend to others.” She described a two-part approach to supporting staff in the school year ahead. First, increased staff engagement in decision-making and planning processes will empower staff at all levels to shape the districts’ strategic priorities and professional learning plans. Second, carving out dedicated time for wellness initiatives, mindfulness, and stress management can help address the higher stress levels many educators and staff face at home and in their work.

Takeaway 3: Districts should use data to understand students’ individual needs and inform instruction

Students’ academic and non-academic needs may be very different in fall 2021 than they were at the beginning of the pandemic. Districts are planning to use data and assessments in new ways to better understand those needs, monitor progress, and shape plans accordingly. 

“It’s essential that we understand new and even deeper student needs,” said Torres-Rodriguez, and her team is preparing the data infrastructure now to use multiple kinds of information about student learning more effectively in the new school year. “We’ll be looking at student learning data, attendance, and early warning indicators,” she said, and setting up rapid improvement cycles to respond to individual and group trends. For example, by using this approach in winter 2021, in response to rising rates of chronic absenteeism, her Hartford team was able to target family outreach and collaboration with community groups in order to get more students back to virtual or in-person school.

In Denver, Jones and the educators on his team are emphasizing frequent formative assessments embedded in the curriculum to guide instruction on an ongoing basis, within a framework of culturally responsive educational practices and research-based interventions to accelerate student learning. “Let’s not do the same old remediation, let’s not make it feel like students or teachers are being punished. Let’s find a way to make it fun, engaging, and feel like an acceleration, not remediation.”

Takeaway 4: The pandemic isn’t over yet, and academic plans need to be flexible to different circumstances

Both Jones and Torres-Rodriguez hope to get as many students as possible back into in-person classrooms safely in the coming months. However, they recognized that their plans will have to be responsive and flexible to the possibility of changing public health guidance as well as changing family preferences to potentially continue with remote learning.

Even with the added uncertainties of the current moment, Torres-Rodriguez identified four “must-win” areas for her district in the year ahead: 1) expanding learning time during and outside of the school day, 2) increasing support for teachers and leaders, 3) connecting every student to an adult advocate, and 4) cultivating a sustainable teacher pipeline. Across those topics, Hartford is putting extra emphasis on students in grades K-3 and 9-10, which are both critical times of transition, as well as on schools in need of additional targeted support. 

Find videos and summaries of Parts 1 and 2 in our From Pandemic to Progress webinar series by clicking here and here.