Can We Save Failing Schools? Evidence From Los Angeles

• In Event: Navigating the College Transition: Evidence on Counseling, School Resources, and Student Outcomes

Abstract

Can investing in failing schools help them improve? This paper examines that question using a natural experiment created by a 2017 lawsuit settlement that directed substantial new resources to the lowest-performing schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The settlement provides a rare opportunity to study the causal effects of sustained, targeted funding increases on school inputs and student outcomes in a large, urban district. I implement a difference-in-differences design that compares 50 secondary schools receiving the funds—each experiencing an average 13.5 percent increase in annual budgets over three years—to nearby public, non-charter schools that did not receive settlement funding. This design leverages both temporal and cross-school variation while holding constant local conditions. The policy required schools to use funds to hire additional staff and invest in professional development, while allowing flexibility for discretionary spending targeted toward high-need students. Consistent with these requirements, I find that treated schools significantly expanded staffing across multiple categories. They hired more instructional personnel, including teachers and counselors, as well as additional support staff such as paraprofessionals, campus aides, and school service workers. These increases are statistically significant and substantively large, indicating that schools used the funding as intended to expand adult capacity. These investments translated into measurable improvements in student outcomes. Settlement schools reduced suspension rates by 0.75 percentage points relative to comparison schools, a meaningful decline given baseline rates and the short time horizon. Notably, these gains occurred alongside demographic changes induced by the policy. Treated schools experienced declines in total enrollment and increases in the share of economically disadvantaged students, along with a reduction in Black student enrollment, suggesting non-random sorting. To address concerns that compositional changes may bias estimates, I conduct a bounding exercise that accounts for demographic shifts. The results indicate that the observed reductions in suspensions are unlikely to be driven solely by sorting, pointing instead to real improvements in school practices and student experiences. Supporting this interpretation, survey data from staff and students highlight two key mechanisms: improvements in school climate and enhancements in educators’ capacity and disciplinary approaches. Respondents report safer, more supportive environments and a shift toward less punitive, more restorative practices. Together, these findings suggest that targeted investments in low-performing schools can yield meaningful improvements, even in the face of shifting student populations and persistent structural challenges.

Author

• Antonia Vazquez, Brown University
  Presenting Author