Uncovering the Limits of ESSER Spending: A Closer Look at the Pandemic's Impact on Student Learning

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted the education landscape, leaving lasting impacts on student learning. In an effort to mitigate these challenges, the federal government has allocated over $2.4 billion in ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) funding to support K-12 schools in Wisconsin. However, a closer examination of the data suggests that the effects of this substantial investment may be more limited than expected.

Unraveling the Pandemic's Toll on Student Proficiency

The analysis presented in the original article highlights a concerning trend: students from low-income families have suffered the most significant learning loss during the pandemic. This finding underscores the disproportionate impact the crisis has had on vulnerable populations, exacerbating existing educational disparities. The data suggests that a hypothetical school district with 100% low-income students would have experienced an 8% larger drop in proficiency compared to a district with 0% low-income students, independent of other factors.

The Promising Role of Technology in Mitigating Learning Loss

One of the most promising findings from the analysis is the demonstrable relationship between ESSER spending on technology and reduced learning loss. The data indicates that a district that allocated all of its ESSER funding to technology would have experienced a 7.19% smaller drop in proficiency by the 2021-22 school year. This aligns with the widespread recognition that access to technology was a significant impediment to learning during the pandemic, as remote and hybrid instruction became the norm. School districts that prioritized investments in technology appear to have achieved better outcomes for their students.

The Marginal Impact of Other ESSER Spending Categories

The analysis also examined the effects of other ESSER spending categories, such as long-term closure spending and preparedness spending. However, the significance of these factors was only at the p<.1 level, which is considered a debatable level of statistical significance in social science research. This suggests that the impact of these spending categories on reducing learning loss was relatively marginal, at best.

Questioning the Broader Effectiveness of ESSER Spending

One might reasonably question how an infusion of more than $2 billion into K-12 education could have such limited impact on improving student outcomes. The article suggests that a key reason for this is that much of the ESSER spending was not directly related to addressing learning loss. According to the guidance from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), only 20% of ESSER III funds must be allocated towards learning loss recovery.The article provides examples of how some districts have utilized ESSER funding, including upgrading athletic facilities, purchasing student furniture, and hiring staff for pre-school day care. While these uses of funding may not be inherently problematic, they raise questions about whether ESSER funds should have been prioritized for such purposes, given the ongoing challenges in recovering from pandemic-era learning loss.

Reconsidering the Continuation of ESSER-Level Spending

The preliminary evidence presented in the article suggests that the DPI's effort to continue ESSER-level spending may be misguided. The data indicates that the technology needs of school districts have likely already been met, and no other category of spending has shown strong enough evidence to warrant additional state taxpayer support. As the ESSER spending data is finalized, policymakers and education leaders will need to carefully evaluate the long-term implications and effectiveness of these investments in supporting student learning and recovery.