Indiana is currently seeking a waiver from federal education requirements from the US Department of Education (ED). As a part of their request, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) wants to allow federal school improvement funding to go to any district, not just those with the lowest performing schools. Identified schools are often serving students in communities with a long history of disinvestment and inequitable resources. This proposal could exacerbate these trends, creating additional barriers for students to access stronger learning opportunities within their existing school.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides states with substantial flexibility in how they support low-performing schools, with specific minimal guardrails in place: requirements for identifying schools are based around a set of metrics and dedicated resources, 7% of Title I funding, to support improvement efforts in those identified. The basic, underlying design decision is prioritization: dedicating funds to the schools in most need of improvement to better serve their students.

Currently, once a school in Indiana is identified for improvement, it becomes eligible for state support, including school improvement funds. In Indiana, identified schools (via their district) can receive $300,000 in funds to work with external providers to develop data-informed improvement plans in collaboration with communities, followed by additional funding (up to $3 million) to implement large-scale changes to improve student outcomes.

For instance, Enlace Academy in Indianapolis, where 80% of its students are multilingual, was identified for targeted support based on the performance of its Latino students and received an improvement grant in 2023. The school leveraged its grant to hire and train additional staff with skills to support multilingual students’ unique needs and provide language learning classes for families, along with home visits to increase engagement and attendance. While more progress is needed, the school has seen reading and math gains for Latino students (with ten percentage point gains in proficiency on state assessments), as well as small gains in attendance.

But here’s the rub: under Indiana’s proposed waiver, other districts or LEAs (e.g., charter schools) that don’t have identified schools would also be eligible to compete for these limited funds. The state’s intention is to develop high-quality nearby schooling options to encourage students in identified schools to enroll in. But this does nothing to address the needs of students that would remain in schools like Enlace Academy — many of which already lack access to very limited improvement funding — nor guarantee that any students attending identified schools would benefit from these funds. In our view, Indiana should be building the capacity of local leaders to transform its lowest performing schools, rather than abandoning them and just pushing students to enroll elsewhere.

Indiana’s waiver request is now back with state officials after conversations with ED failed to lead to an approval waiver, but approval is expected in the coming months. Many advocates are concerned that other states will use Indiana’s waiver, if approved, as a blueprint for their own waiver. Advocates in states considering this should voice the above concerns to prevent their state leaders from abandoning underserved students currently in schools most in need of improvement.

More broadly, advocates can ensure that all states better leverage school improvement funds to support increased student engagement and learning by:

• Maintaining the expectation (as required under ESSA) that school improvement dollars be reserved for schools identified for support and intervention. These funds provide necessary additional capacity for schools facing the biggest challenges in states and should continue to be reserved to support them. However, these funds are woefully inadequate to meet the needs of all identified schools. Given that, states should also consider investing state funds to supplement federal support.
• Pushing for a clear, transparent process for awarding funds. Competitive funds can ensure education leaders are ready to make substantial changes, but public, common rubrics and information that show which districts ultimately receive funds alongside clear plans to address identified needs — including those of specific populations that may have triggered identification — and how these funds are ultimately used are essential for making the process fair for all schools.
• Ensuring funds are making an impact — and insist on changes if they’re not. State leaders should insist on quality improvement plans before providing additional implementation funds to ensure that funds lead to transformative changes. Additionally, clear data processes are needed for evaluation and publicly reporting on the impact of individual grants and the overall program. These processes are also required to adjust state supports. For instance, Tennessee recently abandoned its Achievement School District in favor of a new school improvement pilot program in the face of mounting evidence that its current approach was not improving student outcomes.
• Investing in the capacity of local leaders. Strong leaders are essential for enabling the systems change needed in schools identified for improvement, yet many principals and superintendents aren’t equipped with the right knowledge and skills. Advocates should push SEAs to provide training opportunities before applying for improvement funds and ongoing development and support.

Federal school improvement funds are essential but are woefully inadequate to address the needs of students in identified schools — often those experiencing decades of underinvestment in their schools and communities. Advocates should push state leaders to avoid following in Indiana’s footsteps and instead leverage existing (and request additional state funds) to improve school conditions for our nation’s most vulnerable students.

This is the fourth post in EdTrust’s School Improvement blog series. This blog series features authors from EdTrust and partner organizations who explore different dimensions of school improvement and how it intersects with other core education advocacy issues. This series follows the release of a new EdTrust report, “Examining State Education Agency Perspectives on School Improvement Supports,” which draws on interviews and focus groups with state education agency (SEA) leaders across 11 states and Washington, D.C. to explore the barriers and opportunities SEAs face when designing, monitoring, and evaluating school improvement efforts.

Photo by Dorothy Kozlowski

Series: School Improvement