Category Archives: Education Funding

Why Aren’t States Innovating in Student Assessments?

Photo courtesy of Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

In the next few weeks, students across the country will begin taking their state’s end-of-year assessment. Despite rhetoric over the years about innovations in assessments and computer-based delivery, by and large, students’ testing experience in 2022 will parallel students’ testing experience in 2002. The monolith of one largely multiple-choice assessment at the end of the school year remains. And so does the perennial quest to improve student tests. 

On Feb. 15, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education released applications for its Competitive Grants for State Assessments program to support innovation in state assessment systems. This year’s funding priorities encourage the use of multiple measures (e.g., including curriculum-embedded performance tasks in the end-of-year assessment) and mastery of standards as part of a competency-based education model. Despite the program’s opportunity for additional funding to develop more innovative assessments, reactions to the announcement ranged from unenthusiastic to crickets. 

One reason for the tepid response is that states are in the process of rebooting their assessment systems after the lack of statewide participation during the past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Creating a new assessment — let alone a new, innovative system — takes time and staff resources at the state and district level that aren’t available in the immediate term. Although historic federal-level pandemic funds flowed into states, districts, and schools, political support for assessments is not high, making it difficult for states to justify spending COVID relief funding on developing and administering new statewide assessments.  

Another reason for the lackluster response is the challenges states have in developing an innovative assessment that complies with the Every Student Succeeds Act’s (ESSA) accountability requirements. Like its predecessor, No Child Left Behind, ESSA requires all students to participate in statewide testing. States must use the scores — along with other indicators — to identify schools for additional support largely based on in-state rankings. 

The challenge is that in developing any new, innovative assessment unknowns abound. How can states feel confident administering assessments without a demonstrated track record of student success and school accountability for scores?  

ESSA addresses this issue by permitting states to apply for the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA). Under IADA, qualifying states wouldn’t need to administer the innovative or traditional assessments to all students within the state. However, states would need to demonstrate that scores from the innovate and the traditional assessments are comparable — similar enough to be interchangeable — for all students and student subgroups (e.g., students of different races/ethnicities). The regulations provide examples of methods to demonstrate comparability such as (1) requiring all students within at least one grade level to take both assessments, (2) administering both assessments to a demographically representative sample of students, (3) embedding a significant portion of one assessment within the other assessment, or (4) an equally rigorous alternate method.  

The comparability requirement is challenging for states to meet, particularly due to unknowns related to administering a new assessment and because comparability must be met for all indicators of the state’s accountability system. For instance, one proposal was partially approved pending additional evidence that the assessment could provide data for the state’s readiness “literacy” indicator. To date, only five states have been approved for IADA.  

When Congress reauthorizes ESSA, one option for expanding opportunities for innovative assessments is to waive accountability determinations for participating schools during the assessment’s pilot phase. But this approach omits comparability of scores — the very problem IADA is designed to address and an omission that carries serious equity implications. Comparability of scores is a key component for states to identify districts and schools that need additional improvement support. It’s also a mechanism to identify schools serving students of color and low-income students well to ensure that best practices are replicated in other schools.  

In the meantime, states should bolster existing assessment infrastructure to be better positioned when resources are available to innovate. Specifically, states should:  

  • Improve score reporting to meaningfully and easily communicate results to educators and families. Score reporting is an historical afterthought of testing. A competitive priority for the Competitive Grants for State Assessments is improving reporting, for instance by providing actionable information for parents on the score reports. This provides an opportunity for states to better communicate the information already collected.
  • Increase efforts to improve teacher classroom assessment literacy. End-of-year assessments are just one piece of a larger system of assessments. It’s important that teachers understand how to properly use, interpret, and communicate those scores. And it’s even more important that teachers have additional training in developing the classroom assessments used as part of everyday instruction, which are key to a balanced approach to testing.  

Given the current need for educators and parents to understand their student’s academic progress — especially amid an ongoing pandemic that has upended education and the systematic tracking of student achievement — comparability of test scores may outweigh the advantages of innovative end-of-year assessments. By focusing on comparability, states can better direct resources to the students and schools that need them most.  

Three Ways to Improve Education Finance Equity in the Southeast for English Learners

English learners (ELs) are an incredibly diverse group of students, representing about 400 languages spoken, and a wide range of ages and fluency in English. As EL enrollment in U.S. K-12 public schools grows, education systems must keep up with these students’ unique learning needs. EL language proficiency, length of time spent in U.S. public schools, age, and grade level are all factors that affect learning needs and the amount of funding required to meet those needs. But, a commitment to equitable funding for EL students is too often missing or minimal in state education funding formulas.  

This commitment is especially needed in the Southeast where ELs make up approximately 15% of the U.S. EL population, growing from 657,612 students in 2015 to 713,245 students in 2019. The number of ELs enrolled in the public school system in the South is rapidly increasing. Between 2000 and 2018, South Carolina experienced a more than a nine-fold increase in EL student enrollment — a rate of growth that is 24 times higher than the national average. Despite this increase in enrollment, the resources available to EL students in the Southeast have not kept up with students’ needs. 

In Improving Education Finance Equity for English Learners in the Southeast, Bonnie O’Keefe and I examine state funding systems for EL students across nine Southeastern states ​​— Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee — and offer a set of three key policy recommendations for how states can better support EL students.

  1. State funding formulas should move toward weighted, student-based systems with multiple EL weights. EL students with greater needs must receive more funding support through state funding formulas. For states that already have a weighted, student-based funding formula, policymakers should consider how to differentiate among a diverse array of EL needs. 
  2. The federal government should increase Title III funding of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). While increasing EL allocations at the state level holds the most promise for meeting the needs of EL students, federal funding has plateaued in recent years. Federal commitments must also keep up with the growing enrollment of EL students in the Southeast region and across the country. 
  3. State education agencies and the federal government should improve transparency of EL data. Although ESSA mandated annual reports of school-level spending, policymakers should increase the level of publicly available state and district data about funding for EL students. 

The region has an opportunity to be a national leader in providing more funding for EL students that is aligned to their unique learning needs. Tennessee and South Carolina are already considering funding reform proposals this spring, and there is room for other states in the region to follow suit and consider proposals to increase the resources available to EL students. Our analysis finds that just two states in the Southeast region — Florida and South Carolina — incorporate EL student weights in their funding formula. 

States have a federal obligation to ensure that EL students receive a high-quality education that allows them to meet their full potential. Although there are bright spots in many of the nine states we examined, more work must be done by policymakers to elevate the needs of EL students in the Southeast. 

Improving Education Finance Equity for English Learners in the Southeast is part of an ongoing Bellwether examination of how finance and inequity in education shortchange millions of students and families. 

During 2022 State Legislative Sessions, Keep an Eye on Education Finance Equity

To bolster efforts to improve state education funding systems, Bellwether Education Partners compiled a series of policy briefs that gives advocates a crash course on the fundamentals of education finance equity as well as key questions to ask in their states and communities. These briefs are timely, as several states have already signaled that education finance will be a major policy issue during 2022 legislative sessions: 

In addition to the potential legislative changes, ongoing litigation in North Carolina and Pennsylvania courts could lead to substantive changes in education funding. The legislative and court considerations around education finance are not only timely, but necessary. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of state funding formulas made attempts at equity for lower-wealth communities and students with greater needs, but too many were falling short. Whether not fully accounting for differences in student learning needs or using outdated methods to account for local tax revenue, these inequities translated into real consequences for kids. Recent research shows that more funding can improve student achievement, graduation rates, and college enrollment — particularly for low-income students. 

This research is particularly germane given the growing evidence of the severity of learning loss that students — especially students of color, low-income students, and students at key milestones (e.g., third-grade reading) — experienced during the pandemic. If states are serious about addressing unfinished learning and ensuring that all students leave their systems prepared for college and career, it starts with equitable funding. 

What would an equitable state education funding formula look like? It would start with a generous base amount for every student, and then additional weight would be given for students with disabilities, ELLs, students in rural communities, and low-income students. This is known as a student-weighted funding formula. The specifics should vary based on the particular equity considerations of each states’ students and communities. This type of system can ensure that students are receiving funding based on their needs, rather than on how much property wealth their community has. 

State Spotlight: Minnesota

During the 2021 Minnesota legislative session, state advocates heard some version of, “given recent federal COVID-19 relief funds based on low-income students, tackling state funding right now just isn’t a priority.” Representatives and senators from both parties used this talking point as a rationale for not taking legislative action to make the state’s education finance system more equitable. This type of thinking is not only short-sighted, but it does a disservice to Minnesota’s most underserved students. 

It’s true that the federal government passed three stimulus packages that dispersed $189 billion to state departments of education and school districts across the country. Although these temporary funds don’t address the systemic inequities that are baked into state education funding formulas, they do present a policy opportunity. With budgetary pressures somewhat relieved, states should use this moment to revamp their education finance formulas with students at the center. 

But instead of fixing the state’s funding formulas for students with disabilities, ELLs, and low-income students — which includes overly complicated caps and combinations of concentration and weights — the Minnesota legislature did nothing. This translates to another school year without equitable funding for Minnesota’s most marginalized students who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.  

It’s promising to see so many states tackle education finance during 2022 legislative sessions. As the legislative session continues, states must keep underserved students at the center and wade through the politics to pass bills that will create more equitable school funding systems. Time will tell if this comes to fruition.  

*Editor’s note: The Tennessee Department of Education is a Bellwether client.

How One-Time Funds Can Help or Hurt Your Organization

Photo courtesy of Allison Shelley for EDUimages

As recent news broke of several major gifts to K-12 organizations from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, many education organizations and nonprofits, such as Communities In Schools, Latinos for Education, and NewSchools Venture Fund, among others, may suddenly find themselves in the unique and enviable position of determining how to prudently spend an unexpected windfall. This comes as many school districts across the country received one-time infusions of K-12 funding from the federal government’s American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund.  

With a network of ed sector clients across the country, Bellwether is often approached to advise on spending strategies, sustainable financial modeling, and strategic ways to make these funds stretch, impact communities served, and, importantly, last. Our team approaches this issue from a diverse array of viewpoints, offering a range of recommended practices and tips to strategically approach one-time funds and avoid common missteps.

Rebecca Gifford Goldberg, partner, Strategic Advising

Recommended practices:
First and foremost, take a moment to celebrate any gift as an affirmation of the work with communities, families, and young people — particularly during this extraordinarily difficult time to lead in the education sector.

Second, recognize that this is a one-time gift and not a source of ongoing capital. What are the things this funding enables you to test about broadening and deepening impact, centering community and family voice in decision-making, and/or improving long-term financial sustainability? Does this give you the chance to expand more quickly with quality? Explore whether there’s a different way to reach students (or families, or educators) you want to test, or a different way to deliver your service or product. Build in mechanisms to evaluate the work and grow your organization’s own capacity to measure progress.

Third, consider ways to use these funds to make the lives of staff members a little bit better or easier. Involve the team’s input into spending plans that best meet their needs. This could be hiring some short-term contractors to take on urgent priorities, investing in professional development, offering staff members access to mental-health supports, or supporting extra vacation days off this year. 

Finally, invest in your reserve. Allocating a portion of unrestricted one-time gifts toward that rainy day fund isn’t flashy, but is a sound investment in the long-term financial sustainability of your organization.

Potential pitfalls to avoid:
Three things stand out to me as cautionary approaches to spending one-time funds: 1) don’t increase your per-student cost or operating costs without a clear path to financial sustainability; 2) don’t forget to engage community stakeholders in a conversations about how you’ll use the money; and 3) don’t spend it all in one place!

 

Anson Jackson, senior adviser, Academic and Program Strategy

Recommended practices:
One-time giving affords single-site schools and school networks a range of exciting opportunities. Knowing where to start and prioritizing strategic decisions along the way is critical. It’s important to ask yourself and your organization: what can one-time funding buy us today to better enable using recurring funds in the future for something else. Make strategic trade-offs with the long game in mind.

  • Allocating funds for adult learning and professional development across entire teams is a smart investment. This is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic as schools face a variety of virtual learning and technology challenges that impact all areas of a school building, from instructional teams to operations staff. And carving out funding to give adults in the building stipends for additional duties during the pandemic is advisable.
  • Similarly, strengthening learning and engagement for families as partners in student learning is critical. During the pandemic, this could mean allocating funds to offer short-term workshops on how to use technology. Funds can even be used to directly support the short-term technology needs of current families who may not have access to laptops and devices they’ll need to use throughout the pandemic.
  • Supporting time-bound interventions that can close a gap for good is a prudent use of one-time unrestricted funds. Consider using funds for interventions like learning loss and social-emotional learning recovery during the pandemic.
  • Applying funds toward infrastructure is often a good way to start setting a foundation for future projects and funds down the line.
  • Using one-time funds to purchase books and materials that will be used long after funds are dispersed can build up your single-site school or school network resources. 

Potential pitfalls to avoid:

  • Using one-time funds to hire additional staff without considering time constraints on their tenure presents downstream challenges (e.g., don’t hire interventionists for two years if you don’t want to lay them off once funds are gone).
  • When allocating funds to invest in interventions and/or programs, think about the longer-term ongoing costs associated with technology licenses, tools, management, upgrades, staff support, internal knowledge management, and more. Build that forecasting into any spending plan and be sure to budget for down the road.
  • Forgetting to be thoughtful about waste is detrimental. Having $1 million in one-time unrestricted funding doesn’t automatically mean you can get everything. Be mindful of resources you use and devise a strategy to use them. Have a resource, tied to a priority, tied to a strategy, tied to a clear timeline and set of goals.

 

Andrew Rotherham, co-founder and partner

Recommended practices:
I bring less a recommended practice than a recommended caution. The idea that a sudden influx of money ruins lottery winner’s lives is overstated. Still, it does happen. And the education sector has money absorption habits that make the most profligate lottery winner seem downright Scrooge-like. 

You have to believe one of two things: all billionaire philanthropists are simply greedy or it’s actually challenging to give away a lot of money responsibly. Why? Because many people who are seeking to give away the bulk of their fortune are nonetheless struggling to do it thoughtfully. It’s possible MacKenzie Scott is pointing up a grantmaking strategy that was out there in plain sight and will be transformative. It’s also possible other philanthropists know something, too. 

It’s fashionable lately to say that those closest to problems always know best. It’s unfashionable to point out that’s no more an iron rule than the idea that experts and those distant from problems can just swoop in and fix things. Most thorny stubborn social policy problems are more situational and complicated. 

All this might sound like a rationalization or justification for hoarding money, it’s not. I’m all for the super-wealthy giving away their money — and wish more would put philanthropy toward the kind of high-risk/high-reward pursuits the government is ill-suited to take on. But, large gifts can also lead to displacement and, in edge cases, cause or enable chaos as some of Scott’s are alleged to. A more pedestrian risk, conversely, is how the education sector has shown time and again an ability to absorb huge sums of public and philanthropic money with little change left behind. 

More resources can often drive positive change for organizations. And I’m not trying to be cute. We surely wouldn’t say no to Scott largesse. It would be impactful. Bellwether, and many other organizations focused on inequity could use this kind of financial support. But being cautious and appreciating the real risks must be part of the calculus, so we’d see such support as a risk as well as an opportunity.  

Won money spends better than earned money, and I’d argue something similar is true of found money. So, you need to be planful. My colleagues make some valuable suggestions here. I won’t repeat those, but here are a few guideposts for organizations (and some that apply for philanthropists as well):

  • Focus on your north star. How will this money help you achieve your goals? How will you curb an additive desire to immediately tack new goals onto the funding?
  • Pause and plan. Carpenters say measure twice and cut once, and that’s sound advice especially with the pressure of a huge financial gift.
  • Make sure your governance and systems are robust enough to absorb a huge unrestricted gift — money can help solve problems, it can also expose them.
  • Think long term and consider ways to leverage this money over time rather than only considering it as a one-time spend.

Potential pitfalls to avoid:

  • Resist the urge to rush into new things.
  • Don’t try to “prove” this money “works” or fits a narrative. That’s someone else’s problem. Instead, make the money leverage results for whomever your organization serves.
  • Just as Hemingway said of bankruptcy, mission displacement happens gradually, then suddenly. Keep a close eye on the “why” behind your work and your line of sight to the change you seek.

 

Alex Cortez, partner, Strategic Advising

Recommended practices:
Education organizations receiving support from MacKenzie Scott have just been blessed with the one thing virtually no organization ever gets funded to do — build their capacity and the power of the communities they serve to drive systems-level change.

Systems change involves investing in efforts to shift a combination of mindsets, relationships, and power to shift policy, practice, and resource flows. Education entrepreneurs have learned repeatedly that it isn’t enough to simply be well intentioned and get results to transform education systems, because education systems are not usually rational systems but rather political systems composed of a complex web of money, power, interests, and values. Most education innovations require disrupting the status quo of systems to get to scale, and systems are very good at preserving their status quo.

Further, systems change isn’t the thing that most education philanthropy funds — even as it’s the very thing education innovations need to be transformational. Funding systems change requires being unapologetic about power; it’s not linear but rather cyclical, and it’s not a marathon nor a sprint, but rather a commitment to walk 10,000 steps every day (which is counter to the usual narrow timeline of philanthropy).

With this kind of one-time unrestricted gift, education entrepreneurs can make an investment in systems change and on a timeline that many have never been able to pursue until now. However, doing this isn’t easy, and an additional challenge leaders will need to overcome, even with this gift, is wrestling with whose power they’re building, and towards what agenda. If education leaders and entrepreneurs are truly committed to changing systems, they have to invest in informing and organizing a community of students and parents so that they can exercise their innate power — individually or collectively — to craft the agenda for change, drive it, and sustain it.


If you have questions about one-time gift strategy and financial forecasting and modeling, please reach out to Rebecca Gifford Goldberg at
rebecca@bellwethereducation.org.

(*Editorial note: Communities In Schools and NewSchools Venture Fund are Bellwether clients.)

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.)