Education Recovery in California

• In Event: Roads to Recovery: State and District Approaches to Post-Pandemic Education Renewal

Abstract

Objectives
California invested more than $20 billion to help districts recover from COVID-19. Low-income, English learners, and foster youth students receive more funding. Little is known about how districts allocated the funding and its association with student outcomes.

Our study fills this gap by asking:
(1). What learning recovery programs have been implemented, and how are they targeted?
(2). What factors shape district decisions?
(3). What is the association between recovery activities and student outcomes?

Perspective(s)
To better understand district decision making, we rely on Haveman’s (2022) relational and cultural perspectives of organizations and Fligstein and McAdam’s (2011) theory of strategic action fields. We theorize how external factors (e.g., stimulus dollars) and local interests impact priorities within districts and the innovations across districts.

To understand the association between recovery programs and student outcomes, we rely on the education production functions (Bowles 1970; Hanushek 2008), which model the output of the education process (e.g., student achievement) as a function of student, school, and family inputs.

Methods
We employ a mixed-methods approach to answer our research questions. Quantitative analyses (descriptive and event study analyses) allow us to understand where districts allocate money, how students across California are performing socially and academically, and the relationship between recovery programs and student outcomes. A survey of districts allows us to identify what recovery strategies were used. Qualitative interviews help us to understand how and why districts are making recovery and renewal decisions.

Evidence
Quantitative data comes from three sources: (1) statewide longitudinal student data on student demographics, educational needs, test scores, and social-emotional outcomes; (2) a state-wide survey to all school districts; and (3). text analysis of all publicly available documents that describe districts’ recovery programs. Qualitative data come from our case studies (Yin, 2016). Our team purposefully selected nine districts of varying size, population, funding, region, and organizational structure. Semi-structured interviews and site visits were recorded, uploaded to Otter.ai for transcription, and coded using MAXQDA.

Preliminary Results
We expect more findings by spring 2024.

Federal Stimulus Spending. Over time, the focus of spending shifted: early expenditures targeted technology and health/safety needs, while more recent spending shifted towards extended learning time, interventions to accelerate student progress, and mental/social-emotional supports (Fig. 1)


State Stimulus Spending. Most districts spent their Expanded Learning Opportunities Grant (ELO-G) on multiple strategies. As shown in Figure 2, these include programs to accelerate student learning (92%), support social-emotional learning (86%), and extend instructional learning time (84%).


Significance
Our paper adds to the emerging literature documenting the far-reaching impact of COVID-19 and identifies strategies that help schools recover equitably. We make three contributions: we take a comprehensive look at allocation and uses of federal and state stimulus funding for educational recovery; we determine effective recovery strategies by exploring the relationship between district recovery programs and student outcomes; and we deepen the understanding of how external factors and local interests impact recovery priorities. This information will support policymakers as they continue to structure recovery programs equitably.

Authors

• Abigail Slovick, University of California - Berkeley

• Niu Gao, American Institutes for Research

• Bruce Fuller, University of California - Berkeley

• Emily N. Reich, University of California - Berkeley

• Ja’Nya Banks, University of California - Berkeley