After years of fear over the inevitable ESSER pandemic relief fiscal cliff, here we are at the edge. Despite new evidence that federal funds positively impacted student learning recovery, we’re now likely to see huge slashes to efforts that funding supported – including adoption and implementation of high-quality curriculum and aligned professional learning. Let’s be real: programs are much easier to cut than people. 

I recently connected with education finance expert and former district finance chief Noah Wepman to share my worry that instructional programs and supports will be easy targets for budget cuts. Noah told me that, indeed, when staring down a massive budget deficit, spending millions of dollars to replace something you already have very quickly looks like a “nice to have” rather than a “must have.” 

We can do better by kids and teachers. Here’s more from Noah on why can’t follow the old playbook for education budget cuts at a time like now:

Investments in instruction are more important than ever, with states just starting to gain ground recovering from lost learning. Why do you think this matters so much?

Noah: There’s a growing body of evidence that high quality curriculum and instructional materials are key to student learning. We’re seeing that right now with the science of reading. High-quality instructional materials are also an incredibly scalable and sustainable intervention, so long as systems invest in ongoing training. And finally, we know that engaging instruction coupled with high-quality materials can prevent other spending, like referrals to special education, additional academic interventions, and even truancy. Unfortunately, it’s easier and quicker to delay a curriculum adoption than to think strategically about how to reconfigure the system to better serve the needs of all students – but it’s clear that the old way of doing things will not help kids catch up.

It sounds like we agree it’s time for a new playbook for prioritizing high-quality instruction in district budgets. What are a few key things you think leaders should keep in mind to keep a commitment to quality instruction?

Noah: First and foremost, there must be a districtwide commitment to equity so that every student in every classroom in every school has access to effective instruction and high-quality instructional materials. Districts are right now making really difficult decisions– closing schools, laying off staff, and divesting from things like high dosage tutoring. Those that serve a large number of students of color and students experiencing poverty are being hit the hardest; that means those students are experiencing another disruption in learning. Districts should use this moment as an inflection point for re-envisioning how teaching and learning is structured and how schools are designed to better serve all students.

Further, districts will need to do less with less. One approach is to take a hard, data-informed look at all the programs and interventions being funded in schools. With so many different programs being implemented in schools (which also is deeply disjointing to teachers), no one in the system has their arms around all that’s happening or what’s working. Systems need to examine data on usage and outcomes and stop doing ‘things’ and focus on big bets. This won’t completely solve the problem, but it’s a good starting point for reducing expenses and for increasing focus on what’s working.

District leaders will face all kinds of pressure when making tough budget decisions. What would have been most helpful to you as a district finance leader in pushing back against cuts to high-quality curriculum?

Noah:   Recently, I heard a superintendent talk about a mantra she uses with her staff and with parents: we can do anything but we can’t do everything.  This type of pronouncement, especially when it’s made in public, shifts the conversation from “cuts” to “tradeoffs” and signals what’s coming.  As the finance leader for the district I worked in, I was also a member of the district’s management team responsible for doing what was in the best interest of our learners.  In my role, I forged a very close relationship with our Chief Academic Officer.  We attempted to work through difficult decisions together, so we could see an issue through each other’s perspective. For the most part, it created a very productive push and pull. If our CAO was vehemently opposed to a cut, we worked together to find alternatives. Speaking with one voice, we then presented alternatives to the superintendent. 

Noah is on the money here: investments in strong instructional practices pay off for teachers and kids, and we need everyone on board and speaking with one voice. It’s not just about district leaders making the right decision – we should all support that effort by holding our leaders accountable for strong academic practices. Ensuring high-quality instruction in every classroom is a long game and we owe it to our students to stay the course.