Tag Archives: federal education policy

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.  

Updating Data Systems is a Critical Piece of State-Improved ESSA Plans

Photo courtesy of Allison Shelley for EDUimages

For the last two years, state-level Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) accountability plans ​​— which provide critical information about student achievement and school culture — have either been modified or essentially on pause due to COVID-19-related school closures. From canceling statewide assessments to variability in how attendance was taken, the lack of high-quality and reliable data made it difficult for states to follow their original ESSA accountability plans. 

However, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) signaled that states must restart ESSA accountability plans and identify their lowest-performing schools in fall 2022. Recognizing the impact that COVID-19 has had on schools’ and states’ ability to use indicators like test score growth and attendance, the DOE guidance specified that states can make one-year or longer-term changes to their accountability plans. The guidance also noted that in fall 2022 states’ Report Cards must contain all the data as required under ESSA, including for the 2021-22 school year (e.g., access to advanced coursework, suspension rates, math and reading proficiency, graduation rates, chronic absenteeism, and per-pupil school funding).  

These may seem like easy tasks since states already developed and implemented ESSA accountability plans and report cards. However, not all state data systems are created equal. Prior to the pandemic, Washington, D.C. and all 50 states were missing at least one data point required under ESSA. Furthermore, many ESSA accountability plans used inconsistent data and methodology to identify schools for support — particularly as it relates to English language learners, students with disabilities, students of color, and low-income students. A 2017 Bellwether analysis found that only 10 of 51 ESSA plans indicated they would incorporate student subgroup performance into rating and identifying schools for support. And, of those 10 only three — Louisiana, Minnesota, and Tennessee — provided data and information about what that would mean in practice. The other states provided broad assurances. 

Whether because of antiquated data systems, underfunding, or a lack of political will to use certain metrics, these gaps in state-level ESSA accountability data are problematic. They leave huge voids in understanding how students are doing, what’s working, and which students need support, and also hinder a state’s ability to engage in effective short- and long-term planning. 

And the problem persists over time. A 2021 analysis found that many states still don’t report on mandated metrics like participation in advanced coursework, teacher credentials, per-pupil school spending, and chronic absenteeism. Nearly 25% of states don’t include spring 2021 assessment data on their Report Cards. 

Given the negative impact that COVID-19 has had on the U.S. K-12 education system, it’s critical that states step up. We need intentional, collaborative, and thoughtful planning in order to address everything from unfinished learning to student disengagement. But this can only be done if states have access to comprehensive data that is accurate, transparent, and current. 

States are in an optimal position to invest in data system upgrades and state report cards as they rethink accountability plans. Although this kind of infrastructure investment might seem like a lesser priority, schools’ access to accurate and updated data is critical and a cost-effective investment that pays dividends in the long run. Through three major COVID-19 federal stimulus packages, state departments of education received billions of dollars to help with pandemic recovery which can include updating data systems. A May 2021 DOE FAQ gave permission and encouraged states to use COVID-19 American Rescue Plan (ARP) Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) dollars to improve their data systems. 

Many states are taking advantage of the federal funding. A June 2021 analysis found that 29 states designated some money to improve data systems and analysis capacity to better support students. For example:

  • Arkansas is using ARP dollars to launch SmartData Dashboards, an automated early warning and intervention dashboard that will help districts identify students who are off-track from graduation and implement the appropriate interventions. 
  • Connecticut is using ESSER funds to establish the COVID-19 Education Research Collaborative — a partnership with researchers from the University of Connecticut and other state universities, local representatives, and educators. The Collaborative is a long-term investment that utilizes statewide data to track the efficacy of programs and provide accurate information to the public. 
  • Minnesota is investing $6 million in ARP dollars to update Ed-Fi, a new statewide data system that will consolidate multiple data systems into one. This will allow the state to track student data in a more timely manner and identify trends in student experiences and outcomes. 
  • Missouri is using $4.3 million in Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act dollars to update its 15-year-old longitudinal data system, which will increase its capacity to collect and analyze data on individual students. 

These state-level data improvements are a step in the right direction. However, it’s critical that data system upgrades and accountability plans center all students’ needs — particularly for historically marginalized student populations. The federal funding and policy window is there to pave the way. Will states seize the opportunity?

An “Abundance Agenda” Must Include K-12 Schooling

Photo courtesy of Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Scarcity is a familiar concept to economists, but most Americans don’t need to crack open a textbook to understand its impact right now. Walking through my local grocery store, there are barren produce displays and freezers with only a fraction of the products they typically stock. And I’ve had to scour the greater Louisville, Kentucky region to find at-home COVID-19 tests for sale.

In a thought-provoking new piece for The Atlantic, Derek Thompson argues that the problem of scarcity isn’t just limited to grocery stores and pharmacies it’s a societywide challenge that we ought to address.

“Altogether, America has too much venting and not enough inventing. We say that we want to save the planet from climate change — but in practice, many Americans are basically dead set against the clean-energy revolution, with even liberal states shutting down zero-carbon nuclear plants and protesting solar-power projects. We say that housing is a human right — but our richest cities have made it excruciatingly difficult to build new houses, infrastructure, or megaprojects. Politicians say that they want better health care — but they tolerate a catastrophically slow-footed FDA that withholds promising tools, and a federal policy that deliberately limits the supply of physicians.”

But there’s a significant sector missing from Thompson’s analysis of our scarcity challenge: K-12 education.

Public schooling is supposed to be a public good that provides equitable access to educational opportunities for all children, in the same way that public parks provide everyone with an opportunity to enjoy natural beauty in our communities.

For many families, however, access to a quality public education is an unfulfilled promise.

Scarcity in K-12 schooling is a much more opaque phenomenon than in higher education. We can easily monitor the ever-rising cost of college tuition, but most parents don’t pay tuition for K-12 schools. Instead, the “price” of attending public schools is embedded in rent or mortgage payments.

Affluent families have an abundance of educational options: they can afford to pay for tuition at private schools, buy a home in sought-after school districts, and provide their children with supplementary learning opportunities like tutoring, music lessons, and athletic programs.

Lower-income families face many more barriers to educational opportunity. Public schools are often their only educational option. As my colleagues and I showed in Priced Out of Public Schools, they also face scarcity in public schooling opportunities due to a combination of where affordable rental housing is located and how school district boundaries are drawn.

Thompson argues for a national “abundance agenda” to address problems created by scarcity. In K-12 education, that could mean an expansion of educational opportunities, particularly for lower-income families.

There are systemic ways to achieve abundance in educational opportunities. We could tackle reforms to update district boundaries more frequently — similar to how we engage in redistricting for legislative seats — to provide better, more equitable access to public K-12 schooling opportunities. Other efforts could expand access to nonpublic education options, as 18 states did in 2021.

Reformers can also expand educational opportunities within the public school system more incrementally through public charter schools. A recently-announced $750 million grant-making effort to support the expansion of public charter schools could serve as a catalyst for a broader reinvigoration of the charter sector, as my colleague Andy Rotherham notes in his latest for The 74.

For too long, families have not had access to the schooling options their children deserve. An “abundance agenda” for educational opportunity has the potential to garner support from the left, right, and center of our increasingly polarized nation and, more importantly, to provide children with equitable access to the public schools they deserve.

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.