Introduction and summary
The federal government has played a leading role in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on education, supporting state and local governments to combat learning loss and other repercussions. To fully grasp the impacts that pandemic relief aid and federal response efforts to deploy emergency funds have during domestic and global emergencies, it is important to reflect on the history of federal spending on K-12 education. Such spending has seen a decline over the past two decades, with the exception of 2009–2010 and 2020–2021.
Figure 1 illustrates this downward trend, in billions of dollars, when adjusted for inflation and school-age population growth. Federal funding for K-12 public education has decreased for decades, with temporary spikes in funding only during periods of emergencies, specifically the Great Recession, which spurred funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),1 and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic, which spurred the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020,2 the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act of 2021,3 and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021.4
COVID-19, though recent, is not the first time the federal government has dispersed billions of dollars in relief aid to states and districts to address disruptions and other hardships to public education. The pendulum of emergency education relief aid has swung in different directions, at times between opposing extremes. The earliest occurrence of federal emergency relief aid in education took place during the Great Depression, the worst economic disaster in American history. In 1933, the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA) was enacted to lessen the effects of the Depression—providing financial resources to state and local governments to reduce the effects of unemployment, declining wages, school closures, and loss of homes and closures of businesses, to name a few.5 With high teacher unemployment due to the economic turmoil and everyday Americans also unemployed, FERA provided funding for states to hire teachers to provide education programs to all Americans, including general adult education, vocational education, literary classes for adults, and access to early childhood education for young children from disadvantaged homes.6 Since FERA was enacted, several other pieces of legislation have passed over the decades to fill states’ resource gaps and allow them to address learning interruptions during national emergencies. The timeline below describes key pieces of federal legislation that have provided federal emergency relief funds to states and districts to support K-12 education during unprecedented periods in U.S. history.
Federal education emergency relief aid legislation in the United States
The Federal Emergency Relief Act is signed into law to retain teachers during the Great Depression and lessen the impacts of economic turmoil on education programs.
The Lanham Act of 1940 is amended to include federal aid for overcrowded schools providing education to students within defense zones during World War II, ultimately leading to the creation of the Impact Aid Program in 1950.
The National Defense Education Act of 1958 is passed—originally as short-term emergency legislation to address the Sputnik crisis—to provide funding for science, math, and foreign language education, as well as testing and counseling for gifted students.
The Emergency School Aid Act of 1972 is passed to strengthen school integration through grants and incentives for local education agencies and nonprofit organizations.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act becomes law to provide recovery grants to educational institutions affected by natural disasters and declared emergencies.
The Hurricane Education Recovery Act is passed to support school reopening, academic recovery, and support for displaced students and students with disabilities in the Gulf Coast after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is passed in response to the Great Recession to restore K-12 funding to prerecession levels as the economic downturn leads to deep declines in K-12 expenditures.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021, and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 support the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund to help schools affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Federal support for K-12 education during the COVID-19 pandemic
In 2020, COVID-19 caused widespread disturbances to teaching and learning. It also presented a new challenge and opportunity for the federal government to respond to the impacts of the pandemic on K-12 schools. In the United States, the pandemic caused immediate school closures7 and forced adoption of distance learning, without proper training in some cases.8 It also revealed the digital disparities in the K-12 system, including the limited broadband access of students in remote communities.9 Moreover, the mass exodus10 and burnout of teachers11 and increased mental health needs of students required financial resources beyond what states could provide.12
Congress passed three COVID-19 relief packages over time to address the effects of the pandemic, including the shutdown of the economy, school closings, and education disruptions. These stimulus bills included multiple education-related provisions, appropriating a total of $190 billion to strengthen state and local education response efforts.13 The following pieces of federal legislation, which included relief aid for elementary and secondary education, were passed:
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act: Passed on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act appropriated $13.2 billion to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund.14 These funds had an obligation deadline of September 30, 2022, and had to be spent by January 28, 2023.15
- Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021: The CRRSA Act was passed on December 27, 2020, and provided $54.3 billion for supplemental ESSER funding, known as ESSER II.16 These funds had an obligation deadline of September 30, 2023, and had to be spent by January 28, 2024.17
- American Rescue Plan Act: The ARP Act was passed on March 11, 2021, and appropriated an additional $122.7 billion in supplemental ESSER funding, known as ARP ESSER or ESSER III.18 These funds had an obligation deadline of September 30, 2024, and have to be spent by January 28, 2025.19
In total, 5.4 percent of all federal funding committed for COVID-19 recovery supported education, with 3.6 percent aiding K-12 education specifically.
In total, 5.4 percent of all federal funding committed for COVID-19 recovery supported education,20 with 3.6 percent aiding K-12 education specifically.21 Policymakers used fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 Title I poverty levels to determine the amounts distributed to states.22
Emergency relief for K-12 education through the ARP
The final allotment of ESSER funds, commonly known as ARP ESSER or ESSER III, came in March 2021 through the American Rescue Plan.23 ARP ESSER allotted more than $122 billion to state and local education agencies, the largest one-time education funding in U.S. history.24 While the first two installments of ESSER focused primarily on supporting students in remote learning and safely reopening schools, ARP ESSER included new priorities, with a focus on addressing learning loss and the repercussions of necessary school closures.25 States and districts were given nearly four years to spend these funds, with an obligation deadline of September 30, 2024—by which funds had to be committed to a specific purpose—and a liquidation deadline of January 28, 2025—by which funds have to be spent.26
Extensions to spend ARP ESSER funds
In September 2023, the U.S. Department of Education announced that a liquidation extension request process—similar to what was previously available for ESSER I and II—would be available for ARP ESSER.27 If states are approved, they may be granted an extension of up to 14 months to liquidate these funds, giving them until March 2026 to spend their remaining dollars. In their requests, states must explain how a liquidation extension will contribute “to the acceleration of academic success for students and how continuing these investments may extend or expand on a continued path of academic recovery.”28 As of September 2024, ARP ESSER extension requests from Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico had been approved.29 While there is no formal deadline to submit a request, the Education Department encouraged states to submit by December 31, 2024.30 Any funds that have not been approved for an extension and are not spent by January 28, 2025, will need to be returned to the Department of Education.31
To balance providing immediate relief with the need for accountability and oversight, the Department of Education distributed two-thirds of ARP ESSER funds within two weeks of the passage of the ARP.32 But to receive the final one-third of funding, states had to submit a plan to the department detailing how they would spend ARP ESSER funds, which the department had to approve.33 To focus the use of these funds on addressing learning loss, ARP ESSER included some requirements for spending. States had to distribute at least 90 percent of funds to local education agencies and had the option to reserve up to 10 percent of the funds for state-level uses.34 ARP ESSER was the first ESSER program to create mandatory spending categories for both state and local education agencies.35 State education agencies (SEAs) were required to reserve 5 percent of their funds to address learning loss, 1 percent for after-school activities, and 1 percent for summer learning programs.36 Local education agencies had to reserve at least 20 percent of their funds to address learning loss.37
In addition to these requirements, both state and local education agencies were required to engage with communities in the creation of their plans.38 These requirements included: providing a way for families and communities to view their individual district’s plan; engaging families, educators, representatives of students with disabilities, and other stakeholders in the creation of these plans; and adjusting plans based on the needs of students as recovery continues.39
States and districts are using ESSER funds in a wide variety of ways to meet the unique needs of their students. The Department of Education breaks ESSER expenditures into four categories:40
- Operational continuity, including expenditures to maintain the operation and continuity of services and continue to employ existing staff
- Physical health and safety, which covers building and facilities upgrades, cleaning supplies, and meals assistance
- Mental health supports, defined as mental health services conducted by licensed practitioners and professionals
- Academic, social, and emotional needs, including investments in tutoring and out-of-school or summer learning programs; hiring additional school counselors, social workers, and nurses; increasing the number of full-service community schools and services; and engaging families to increase attendance
According to the department’s most recent report on ESSER funding, nearly half (49 percent) of local education agencies’ ESSER expenditures for fiscal year 2022 were spent on academic, social, and emotional needs; 32 percent accounted for operational continuity; 15.4 percent accounted for physical health and safety; and 3.3 percent accounted for mental health supports.41
How states are using ARP ESSER funds
Supporting physical and mental health
In Iowa, the state Department of Education and University of Iowa are using ARP ESSER dollars to develop the Iowa Center for School Mental Health. “The center will expand training opportunities for student teachers and practicing teachers, provide professional development resources and services to support mental health needs in schools and support research on the effective delivery of these services to students.”42
In Mississippi, funds are being used to address the disparity in health care access for rural students. Through a partnership with the University of Mississippi Medical Center, students will be offered free physical and mental health care through a statewide telehealth system. ARP ESSER dollars will cover equipment and training to allow health care workers to provide these services.43
Supporting school staff
Oklahoma is using ARP ESSER funds to expand principal support programs targeted at assistant principals and early-career principals. The programs provide training and support to produce highly effective principals, as well as assist school leaders in understanding and leveraging school data to improve academic achievement.44
Meanwhile, Virginia is utilizing its funds to support current and aspiring educators through its Continuing Education Support Grant program. This program assists aspiring educators and school staff to earn full state teaching licensure. The Virginia Department of Education notes that many dedicated school staff may not have the means to complete the coursework required to earn their licensure and hopes that through this program, current and aspiring school staff can overcome these barriers and become high-quality educators.45
Supporting students’ academic recovery
Louisiana has allocated some of its ARP ESSER funds to implement high-quality summer learning experiences to students most affected by the pandemic. These experiences “include mentor opportunities, extra-curricular activities, and high-dosage tutoring”—an evidence-based intensive tutoring model—to best support the students who are most in need.46
State reserve spending priorities for ARP ESSER show a similar focus on addressing learning loss. As of March 2024, more than 29 percent of state ARP ESSER funds were spent on tutoring and accelerated learning, and more than 21 percent were spent on summer enrichment, after-school programs, and efforts to extend the school day or year.47 The next two highest spending categories were curriculum and instruction and school personnel, both around 8 percent.48
As of July 31, 2024, the only grant recipient that had spent less than half of its ARP ESSER funding was Washington, D.C., at 44.4 percent. Figure 2 shows that more than one-quarter of states and territories have spent less than 75 percent, with the overall percentage of ARP ESSER funds spent at 79.5 percent, leaving more than $25 billion left to be spent by January 28, 2025.
More than one-quarter of states and territories have spent less than 75 percent, with the overall percentage of ARP ESSER funds spent at 79.5 percent, leaving more than $25 billion left to be spent by January 28, 2025.
The authors further analyzed these data to understand trends in spending based on the number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, as well as trends in spending based on the amount of ARP ESSER funding received. When considering public student population sizes, the 10 states with the lowest student populations have spent on average approximately 9 percent less of their funds than the 10 states with highest student populations. Similarly, when looking at the amount of ARP ESSER funding received, the 10 states that received the smallest amounts have spent on average roughly 10.5 percent less of their funds than the 10 states that received the largest amounts. This analysis indicates that states that serve more students and states that received larger sums may be more on track to spend 100 percent of their ARP ESSER dollars before the deadline than states that serve fewer students and those that received smaller sums, respectively.49
Moreover, the implementation of ESSER has revealed two key lessons that can be applied in the future when distributing federal education relief aid of this magnitude:
- The first lesson is the importance of collecting data not just on state spending trends but also on the interventions and strategies that states have implemented that have been most effective. This will help to determine where future investments should be made.
- The second lesson from ESSER is that SEAs should be engaged in the equitable distribution and oversight of funding distributed to school districts. SEA involvement can help ensure that local districts, particularly those with strained human resources, are implementing promising practices and high-quality programs and are fully maximizing their use of funds to address needs related to academic success and school improvement.
Why losing ESSER funds would harm public schools
ESSER provided historic levels of public education funding to support schools during a challenging time. But these funds also allowed states and districts to fund programs that were once not possible due to funding constraints. States have been able to invest in school staff, support mental and physical health, and implement programs to improve student achievement. While the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated many of these issues, they are not new, and there is still significant progress to be made.50
Student achievement remains low;51 teacher shortages persist, particularly among hard-to-staff subject areas and regions;52 and students and staff alike continue to struggle with mental health.53 As ESSER spending comes to a close in January, many districts may struggle to continue to provide vital services that better the education of their students.
Academic achievement
Student academic achievement rates still sit below pre-pandemic levels, and achievement gaps between high- and low-poverty districts have widened.54 However, thanks to the influx of funding through ESSER, evidence-based academic improvement programs have begun to close gaps, with students learning more than 100 percent of what they would have typically learned in a prepandemic school year.55 Yet without funding for high-dosage tutoring programs, extended learning opportunities, high-quality curriculum and instruction, and other strategies targeting academic achievement, students are at risk of falling further behind—losing the progress they have made thus far and widening achievement gaps in the coming school years.
See also
Teacher and school staff shortages
Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many subject areas and regions were facing a teacher shortage, with fewer young adults entering the profession56 and high turnover rates.57 Teacher and principal turnover rates have continued to rise,58 leaving many schools with vacancies or uncertified staff members filling positions.59 Among school-related factors, teacher quality has the highest impact on student achievement60 and can influence attendance, behavior, and socioemotional skills.61 The impacts of teacher shortages can have dramatic effects on the quality of education students receive.62 While ESSER funds are being used to address these shortages, many of these programs—such as teacher residency programs, apprenticeships, and teacher grants—will take time to see an impact, as aspiring staff must first complete their coursework and training to become high-quality teachers. In addition to these programs, districts that have used ARP ESSER dollars to pay teacher salaries may run into budgeting issues when attempting to retain staff after funding ends, further exacerbating shortages. Without continued funding to support teacher programs, these shortages will continue to negatively affect the quality of education.
Student and staff mental health
Similarly, student mental health was a growing issue prior to the pandemic and has worsened since.63 School staff have also been affected by the mental health crisis: In a survey of U.S. public sector employees, K-12 public school employees were found to be the most likely to feel stressed, burnt out, or anxious.64 To ensure the safety and health of students and staff, ESSER funds have been allocated toward improving mental health—including hiring trained professionals, providing mental health services, and implementing social-emotional learning initiatives.65 Once ESSER funds expire, though, continued investments will be necessary to make progress toward ensuring the health of students and staff and therefore promoting teacher well-being and retention and student achievement.
As states and districts prepare for ESSER funds to come to a close, policymakers must consider innovative and new ways to sustain investments for these vital programs at the federal and state levels.
Recommendations to sustain investments and expand federal base programs
The federal COVID-19 relief aid distributed to states for elementary and secondary education represented the largest one-time funding in U.S. education history,66 totaling $190 billion.67 Of this amount, $175 billion was distributed based on Title I allocations in fiscal year 2020, which meant the majority of funds went to low-poverty school districts. Pandemic relief funding supported a wide range of pandemic recovery efforts across states, from academics to mental health.68 Recent research confirms that federal relief aid has been consequential in narrowing learning achievement gaps that would have otherwise been further widened between high-poverty students and their low-poverty counterparts.69 The researchers found that during the 2022–2023 school year, for every $1,000 in federal aid per student that a district spent, there was a 0.03 grade equivalent increase in math achievement and a 0.018 grade equivalent increase in reading achievement.70 While these are small academic gains, they have long-term impacts on students’ quality of life. The researchers assert that the relationship between test scores and earnings suggests that students who have demonstrated academic gains due to ESSER investments are likely to experience higher income over their lifetime. One specific study found that one standard deviation in achievement is linked to a 12 percent difference in earnings for men and women ages 33–50.71 There are also social benefits of these academic achievements, no matter how small, including lower likelihood of student arrests and teen pregnancy.72
Sustaining the progress of ESSER will require additional investments. One of the studies cited above indicates that from 2019 to 2022, the average U.S. student lost 0.149 standard deviations in math achievement and that returning to 2019 levels based on pandemic relief aid alone would cost $904 billion ($18,800 per student) for the 48 million students enrolled in public schools.73 This amount is five times more than the $190 billion of education pandemic relief aid awarded to schools across the country. While $904 billion in funding may not be the only resource necessary to close the achievement gap, due to other factors that play a key role such as family and parental investment, this amount underscores the importance of strengthening existing federal education programs. These programs should be enhanced to continue to build upon the progress of academic recovery postpandemic.
When the 119th Congress commences in January 2025, just as states and districts have to spend the last round of COVID-19 education relief funding, policymakers will have a new opportunity to reexamine priorities for how the federal budget will be allocated with increased appropriations for education in fiscal year 2026 and beyond. The president’s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget requested $82 billion in discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education,74 a $3.1 billion increase from the previous enacted level.75 Within this budget is a proposed $8 billion for Academic Acceleration and Achievement Grants, which would be awarded on a competitive basis to help school districts sustain pandemic relief efforts to address chronic absenteeism and learning loss and expand learning time. While this proposed grant program is a step in the right direction, it is important that new investments to sustain COVID-19 relief efforts are universal and accessible to all and that policymakers apply the lessons from ESSER to improve existing base programs.
Policymakers will have a new opportunity to reexamine priorities for how the federal budget will be allocated with increased appropriations for education in fiscal year 2026 and beyond.
Below are base programs that the Center for American Progress recommends strengthening to sustain the work that states have started, with the help of ARP ESSER funds, to expand the teacher workforce, boost student and educator mental health, and increase academic achievement postpandemic.
ESEA Title I, Part A: Education for the disadvantaged
All students need access to credentialed and high-quality educators, especially students who are in underresourced schools and academically behind. School districts receiving the majority of federal relief pandemic aid were mostly Title I eligible, meaning that most schools within these districts had high concentrations of students from low-income families and with profound needs.76 Teacher turnover is greatest in high-poverty schools.77 From 2022 to 2023, high-poverty schools experienced 29 percent teacher loss.78 Between 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, 39 percent of teachers who moved to a new school within the same district went to a school serving a smaller proportion of students in poverty.79
Funding from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is currently distributed across four formula programs, and there have been concerns raised by advocates that the funding does not specifically target all students who need it the most and that the distribution of funds is inequitable.80 One such example is that high-poverty school districts in states that spend less money on education overall receive less Title I funding compared with their peer districts in states that spend more on education. The distribution formula for Title I must be improved to ensure that adequate financial assistance is reaching all high-poverty districts and students and to continue the narrowing of the achievement gap that has been improved as a result of ESSER funding.
Another improvement that would strengthen Title I and sustain the progress from ESSER is to fully fund the program at a level that will close the achievement gaps exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic. The president’s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget for Title I is $18.6 billion, a meager 1 percent increase from fiscal year 2024’s enacted level.81 Since Title I provides necessary resources to school districts to hire and retain teachers in hard-to-staff schools, among other things, it’s important that the funding level be increased.82 As previously stated, closing the achievement gap caused by the pandemic will require an estimated additional $904 billion, based on the federal education relief aid and academic loss experienced.83
Unfortunately, Title I-eligible schools will be among the schools most affected by the termination of ESSER funding once the last round of relief funds is expended in January 2025. In order to lessen the learning loss, chronic absenteeism, and mental health impacts caused by the pandemic on students experiencing poverty, it’s imperative that Title I receives a significant budget increase.
HEA Title II, Part, A: The Teacher Quality Partnership program
As previously stated, teacher quality is the most impactful contributor to student achievement.84 About 60 percent of districts and charter organizations that received ARP ESSER funds committed to using it to invest in teachers, including hiring new teachers and paying teachers for increasing workloads.85
The pandemic made it difficult for districts to rely solely on traditional teacher recruitment methods.86 About 47 of the 100 largest districts committed to using ARP ESSER funds on recruitment and retention, including online recruiting events, university partnerships, and application fee waivers for preparation and certification applicants.87 These efforts justify the need to expand the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program, funded by Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA).88 The president’s fiscal year 2025 proposed budget includes a 35 percent increase for TQP over 2024 enacted levels, which is critical to supporting the preparation of quality teachers in critical shortage areas and for high-need schools.89 TQP supports teacher preparation programs at the prebaccalaureate level or programs with residency models.90 It also requires partnerships between institutions of higher education, high-need local education agencies, and high-need schools.91 What also makes this program essential to improving student achievement is the quality of preparation it provides. Candidates enrolled in TQP programs receive yearlong clinical practice, otherwise known as student teaching, and induction support for two years after completing their programs.92 In order to sustain the academic progress from ESSER, policymakers must continue to expand the TQP program.
HEA Title IV, Part A, Subpart 9: TEACH grants
Fewer young people are pursuing a degree in education,93 and a key barrier is college affordability.94 The average annual cost of a four-year college degree is $38,270, including tuition, books, supplies, and living expenses.95 This is where the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant program has helped fill the gap.96 TEACH provides up to $4,000 per year to any undergraduate or graduate student who meets academic achievement standards—generally scoring above the 75th percentile on college admission test scores or maintaining a 3.25 cumulative GPA—and is enrolled in a TEACH grant-eligible program, regardless of financial need.97 The program also supports those pursuing high-quality alternative route programs. Award recipients commit to a service obligation to teach in a high-need field at a school that serves low-income students for at least four years within an eight-year period.98 If they fail to meet this requirement, the grant is converted into an unsubsidized loan.99 TEACH grants have helped many students pursue a career in teaching by making it more affordable. The Department of Education estimated that, in 2024, 28,006 eligible students would receive TEACH grant awards totaling $74,550,000, a slight increase over recent years.100 By the end of the 2021–2022 school year, 701 institutions participated in the program,101 up from 400 in 2008.102 In spite of this progress, the TEACH grant program has been mostly underutilized, with just 11 percent of education degree recipients at the bachelor and master levels being TEACH grant recipients in 2022.103 Despite improvements that took effect in 2021 to reduce administrative obstacles and offer counseling to grant recipients to decrease high grant-to-loan conversion,104 the program continues to experience a low production of education degree earners.105 When examined by institutional type, the program’s participation rate by minority-serving institutions (MSIs)—about 50 percent—and by non-MSIs is comparable.106 However, MSIs enroll mostly students of color, who represent the majority of Pell Grant recipients; the financial aid of the TEACH grant could make a significant impact for many of these students.107 Among institutional types, for-profit colleges receive 15 percent to 20 percent of TEACH grant disbursements, although they award just 5 percent of degrees in education.108 Grant recipients at these institutions are also more likely to have their grants converted to loans due to low completion rates.109 This raises a serious concern about the exploitation of the program and the financial harm caused to students who experience little to no return on their investment.
The high grant-to-loan conversion, projected to be 52 percent in 2024,110 for failing to meet the service obligation requirement is likely a key contributor to the underutilization of the TEACH grant and a deterrent for many prospective students. One way to improve this issue and potentially increase participation in the program is to designate resources within the TEACH grant program to support early-career teachers who have received grant awards. Early-career teachers are leaving the profession at alarming rates. Following the 2022–2023 school year, 30 percent of new teachers within their first two years of teaching left their school, of which about 20 percent left their district altogether.111 With additional support, these novice teachers can remain in the field longer to fulfill their service obligation requirements. Mentorship and induction supports should be provided to TEACH grant recipients for a specified period after completion of their programs. CAP recommends that such supports should be provided for three years after program completion or even through the entire service obligation. Additionally, recipients should receive counseling on advancement pathways. When these early-career teachers are supported and see clear paths to growing in the profession, they are more likely to stay in the field and successfully complete their service obligation.
To address the high participation (15 percent to 20 percent) but low degree production (5 percent) of for-profit colleges participating in the TEACH program, the program should require institutions to develop and meet success metrics. These metrics should include targets of acceptable performance toward program completion and a preset goal of students expected to achieve these targets. Institutions should be required to report on their outcome measures annually, including percentage of program completers and percentage of students making progress toward completion. Institutions that fail to meet or demonstrate progress toward target goals consistently should receive necessary interventions and support to ensure that they are adequately preparing their teacher candidates for success.
Finally, the TEACH grant program must be improved by increasing the award amount. An award of $4,000 is insufficient and makes obtaining a teaching degree unattainable. Moreover, the pay of the teaching profession has declined by 5 percent in the past 10 years, when adjusted for inflation, making the debt that students incur incommensurate with their income.112 Increasing the award amount of TEACH grants will ensure that states’ efforts to use ESSER funds to invest in teacher recruitment and preparation strategies are sustained.
ESEA Title IV, Part A: The Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant program
Nearly 50 percent of ARP ESSER spending has been used on labor costs that have supported academic recovery and student mental health.113 Sustaining these efforts will require increased investments and improvements to Title IV, Part A of ESEA. This statute provides Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants to state and local education agencies to ensure that all students receive a well-rounded education.114 Included are supports to improve school conditions for learning; increase the integration of face-to-face and online learning experiences through blended learning models and the use of technology; and invest in school-based mental health services, as well as programs and practices such as trauma-informed care and drug and violence prevention activities.115 Title IV, Part A of ESEA also ensures training for school personnel on crisis management, schoolwide positive behavior intervention and supports, and other strategies that reduce violence and the use of exclusionary disciplinary practices.116 The president’s fiscal year 2025 budget proposed $1,380,000 for this program, and the funding level has remained unchanged in recent years.117
In fiscal year 2021, more than 2,700 local education agencies used their funds for the purpose of supporting student mental health,118 and by fiscal year 2022, that number had increased to 6,260.119 Funds were used to hire support personnel such as school psychologists and counselors. Overall, funding from ARP ESSER has allowed districts to increase the number of school counselors by 22 percent and increase the number of school social workers by 54 percent, compared with prepandemic levels.120 The loss of this funding will lead to job losses and a lack of support to students to address barriers to learning, attendance, and school safety. It is recommended that Title IV, Part A funding be increased to assess and address student mental health needs that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Despite the investments made using ARP ESSER funds, the United States still has a shortage of school counselors,121 school psychologists,122 and social workers.123
Title IV, Part A should be restructured to include various formula and competitive grant programs to sustain academic recovery efforts, including formula grants for technology integration and blended learning and high-dosage tutoring.124 There should also be separate grant programs for supporting student and educator mental health to build on the investments that districts have made to improve student well-being and reduce teacher burnout.125 These formula grants should invest in pipeline programs and hiring of counselors, school psychologists, and other mental health professionals. Additionally, Title IV, Part A should include a national technical assistance center for school-based mental health providers. This center should work collaboratively with professional associations, local behavioral health agencies, and school districts to provide the support and resources that these professionals need to thrive and to ensure that the field has a strong pipeline of professionals.
Conclusion
States have slightly more than three months to spend the remaining federal relief funds provided through ESSER as they work to improve the quality of education and reverse the negative impacts of the pandemic. As the nation enters a post-ESSER era in school funding, policymakers would be wise to heed lessons from the impacts of COVID-19 and the implementation of COVID-19 relief funding to strengthen the quality of education. With declining federal contribution to fund K-12 public education in the past 20 years, the lessons from ARRA, ESSER, and other emergency relief aid legislation warrant a careful examination of what policymakers ought to invest in when it comes to public education and how much resources should be deployed. The pandemic relief aid has provided new insights on the importance of proactively investing in teachers, universal broadband access, authentic and equitable family engagement, and student mental health. In addition to strengthening and expanding existing federal programs to support these areas, lawmakers should also apply lessons from the pandemic to improve how to respond to future crises. The U.S. education system must refrain from knee-jerk reactions during crises that may overwhelm local school districts with unplanned financial resources and consider how to intentionally increase high-quality instruction, opportunity, and access throughout the academic experiences of students, not just during times of crises.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jared Bass, Bobby Kogan, and Stephanie Hall for their valuable insights and feedback, as well as CAP’s Art team for their contributions to this report. The authors would also like to thank Sophia Applegate for her thorough fact-checking and support throughout this report’s development.