Highlights

To jump-start educational recovery after the disruptions from COVID-19, the federal and state governments sent billions in one-time stimulus funds to school districts.
California allocated much of its stimulus funding to districts based on their shares of low-income students—a proxy for student need and the main way California directs money towards high-need districts and students. This approach more directly targeted districts with pre-existing lower achievement levels rather than those with larger pandemic learning loss.
Districts have spent nearly two-thirds of federal funds as of March 2023; most of the remainder must be spent by September 2024. Federal spending first targeted health and technology, but now more often targets academic interventions.

The extent of learning losses was not known when California first allocated its stimulus funds; instead, most funds went to districts based on either the federal Title 1 formula or California’s Local Control Funding Formula, both of which target districts with higher shares of low-income students—who also tend to have lower test scores. The federal relief packages were therefore better structured to reach schools with lower achievement rather than those with the largest drop in test scores on California’s Smarter Balanced Assessments between 2019 and 2022.

What impact did the pandemic have on the academic performance of California’s students?

In 2022, math and English Language Arts (ELA) scores were back at or below 2016 levels in nearly all grades, after several years of growth pre-pandemic. Losses occurred across districts, income levels, region, and race/ethnicity.

Districts serving higher shares of low-income students, English Learners, and foster youth faced slightly larger drops in proficiency between 2019 and 2022. Districts with the largest Latino populations saw the sharpest drops—especially in math, where proficiency fell by 7.1 percentage points.

How much stimulus funding did California receive for educational recovery?

Between each of the stimulus packages, the federal government distributed $28.4 billion in one-time stimulus dollars to California. Early moneys became available in March 2020 and included $4.4 billion from the Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), $1.6 billion from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I), $6.7 million from ESSER II, and $15 billion from ESSER III.

On average, the state allocated $708 per student from CRF, $239 from ESSER I, $1,067 from ESSER II, and $2,350 from ESSER III—although high-need districts generally received higher funding. The Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER I, $335 million, and GEER II, $341 million) also made funds available at the governor’s discretion.

In 2021, California created the $4.6 billion Expanded Learning Opportunity Grant (ELO-G) to directly address the impact of lost instructional time. To receive ELO-G funds, districts were required to submit learning recovery plans and quarterly reports on spending.

Where did districts direct their stimulus dollars?

In the 2020–21 school year, the typical district directed roughly half of their federal funding to technology and materials, as districts adapted to virtual instruction amid public school closures. In 2022 and 2023, districts shifted their stimulus spending toward addressing learning loss. Over all federal stimulus programs through March 2023, technology has been the largest spending category, accounting for about 23 percent in the average district ($778 per student). Academic/learning loss interventions (22%; $757 per student) and health spending (21%; $709 per student) are the next largest categories.

More than 90 percent of districts used ELO-G dollars to accelerate student learning through programs such as small group instruction, and 86 percent used these funds for student supports such as access to meals, mental health counseling, and programs to support social-emotional learning (SEL). District case studies highlight how funding aided in the return to in-person teaching and ramped up innovations around student learning and well-being.

How can policymakers improve funding programs for educational recovery?

Across all stimulus programs, there are 40 categories for reporting expenses. Currently, the ways districts may use program funds, and the spending categories funds fall into are vaguely defined. The reporting requirements are more clearly defined. State efforts to clarify uses and make reporting requirements consistent across programs—as well as provide technical assistance—could ease burdens on districts while allowing better analyses of programs. With more consistent data and measurement, policymakers can identify the educational recovery policies to prioritize for the future.

Most federal stimulus spending went to health and technology early in the pandemic; later, more spending went to learning loss and other interventions

figure - Most federal stimulus spending went to health and technology early in the pandemic; later, more spending went to learning loss and other interventions

SOURCES: Quarterly Expenditure Reports; California Department of Education; authors’ calculations.

NOTES: Average spent per student across districts (unweighted). 2022–23 includes spending through March 31, 2023. Enrollment data is from the 2021–22 school year. Charter schools that report expenditures independently from a district’s general fund are excluded. Other to maintain: other activities to maintain normal school operations.

Sources

About the Authors

Julien Lafortune is a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he specializes in education and economics. His primary areas of focus include K–12 education finance, school infrastructure, human capital, and labor market policy. He has authored policy reports, briefs, presentations, and blogs on a variety of policy topics, including K–12 education, labor market issues, demographics, and housing markets. He has academic published research papers on school finance reforms and school capital investments in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics and the American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings. He holds a PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley.

Laura Hill is a policy director and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. Her areas of expertise are K–12 education and immigration. She is currently researching English Learners in California schools, special education, and ESL students in community colleges. Her recent publications examine student achievement on the state’s K–12 assessments and the link between language reclassification policies and student success. Prior to joining PPIC, she was a research associate at the SPHERE Institute and a National Institute of Aging postdoctoral fellow. She holds a PhD in demography and an MA in economics from the University of California, Berkeley.

Niu Gao is a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, specializing in K–12 education. Her areas of interest include math and science education, digital learning in K–12 schools, and student transition from high school to college. Prior to joining PPIC, she worked as a quantitative policy analyst at Stanford. She holds a PhD in educational policy and an MS in economics from Florida State University.

Joseph Herrera is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he studies education policy. Prior joining PPIC, he was a graduate student fellow for the Center of the Study of Race and Democracy at the University of Texas at Austin, where he examined the effects of local cultural districts on appreciating housing values in Austin and surrounding underserved populations. He holds an MA in economics from the University of Texas at Austin, and a BA in economics from the University of Oklahoma.

Emmanuel Prunty is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he focuses on K–12 education policy. Since joining PPIC, he has worked on topics such as distance learning, transitional kindergarten, and declining enrollment during the pandemic. Previously, he interned at the Hutchins Center at the Brookings Institution and served as a graduate student instructor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he majored in economics and ethnic studies, and minored in demography.

Darriya Starr is a research associate at the PPIC Higher Education Center, where she conducts research in K–12 education policy. Her work focuses on the challenges and achievements of California’s education system, as well as opportunities for improving the future for Californians. Prior to joining PPIC, she was a research assistant at the Harvard University Kennedy School Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Foundation, the Harvard University Economics Department, and the Harvard University Institute of Politics. Her past research has focused on students’ access to higher education, charter school development, the national impacts of COVID-19, racial equity, gender equity, intergenerational socioeconomic mobility, and other aspects of socioeconomic opportunity. She holds a master’s degree in international social and public policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science and a BA in economics from Harvard University.

Bruce Fuller is professor of education and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. His work centers on institutions, large and small, that attempt to lift children and families and often focuses on how the social organization of schools or families advance the well-being of young children. He is author of Standardized Childhood and Organizing Locally. His latest book—When Schools Work—reports how a feisty band of activists shook civic politics in Los Angeles and won school reforms that elevated student achievement for nearly two decades. After receiving his doctorate in sociology at Stanford University, he worked in southern Africa for the World Bank, then taught comparative policy at Harvard University.

Julian Betts is a professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego and executive director of the San Diego Education Research Alliance (SanDERA), and an adjunct fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. He has devoted 21 years to collaborative research that has evaluated many education interventions designed to assist disadvantaged groups. He has directed a lottery-based study of public school choice programs in San Diego and is currently studying both the short- and long-term impacts of winning school choice lotteries. He holds a PhD in economics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Karna Malaviya is a PhD student in economics at University of California, San Diego interested in public economics, health economics, and the economics of education.

Jonathan Isler is administrator of the Office of Research Requests and Partnerships (formerly the Data Visualization and Reporting Office) at the California Department of Education. Dr. Isler has served as a co-PI on a five-year IES partnership grant to study college and career readiness among California high school students. Before working for the state of California, he was a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Springfield. His primary research interests include inequality, career trajectories, and professional networks, and English Learner student performance. Dr. Isler received his PhD in sociology from the University of California, Davis.

Stephanie Barton is a senior editor at the Public Policy Institute of California. She edits research reports, blog posts, and other publications, working with staff to communicate complex messages to a wide readership. Before joining PPIC, she was a developmental editor for Sage Publications and for Wiley Publishing, and a technical writer for the Department of Energy. Early in her career, she worked as a book designer for Doubleday Books. She holds an MFA in creative writing from Vermont College of Fine Arts and a BA in studio art from Pomona College.

About the Authors

Karna Malaviya is a PhD student in economics at University of California, San Diego interested in public economics, health economics, and the economics of education.