The best way for school districts to get through turbulent times is to remain focused on what is most important—teaching and caring for students—and keeping staff aligned with that focus.
That was the takeaway from school district leaders during a recent webinar hosted for superintendents by AASA, The School Superintendents Association.
Oftentimes, the things that threaten a district’s cohesion fall outside of the core responsibility of teaching students, such as factors that aren’t within a district’s control, like political clashes, policy debates, and funding allocations, said Jason Stricker, chief policy officer of K12 Coalition, an education company that provides products, services, and training to districts. K12 Coalition sponsored the webinar.
“There are threats to creating a cohesive system, and how we as leaders respond to these threats … is where the magic is going to be and where we’re going to see success,” Stricker said.
Some of the main sources of problems district leaders have shared with the K12 Coalition in recent months include: declining enrollment due to dropping birth rates and more immigrant students staying home in fear; the expansion of private school choice programs; and funding uncertainty at the federal and state levels.
In a poll administered during the webinar, respondents named politics (29%) and funding (24%) as the biggest threats to “cohesion in your district.” Those results align with other recent queries of district leaders.
Three-quarters of school and district leaders said federal funds for their district prior to the Trump presidency that began in January were either “somewhat reliable” or “very reliable,” according to a nationally representative EdWeek Research Center survey administered in June with support from the Gates Foundation. (Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage.)
Two-thirds of respondents to that survey said the federal funds their district receives are now less reliable than before the start of the second Trump administration. Twenty-eight percent said the reliability of federal funds has not changed, and 6% said funds from the federal government are more reliable now than before President Donald Trump took office.
Leaders who responded to the June EdWeek Research Center survey also said if their district receives less federal funding in future years, it will compensate for the loss by cutting staff positions (65%), cutting programs like tutoring and summer school (53%), leaving vacant positions unfilled (53%), and relying more heavily on state funding to offset federal cuts (51%).
Respondents also said they will invest less money than planned in new curriculum products (35%), raise taxes on local taxpayers (29%), and invest less in new technology (28%).
Only 2% of respondents said their district could “easily absorb the costs” if all federal funding were taken away.
The survey, conducted June 5-26, included responses from 90 district leaders and 133 school leaders.
Strategic plans can serve as guideposts in challenging times
It can be difficult for district leaders to juggle so many challenges and know where to direct their attention. But at the end of the day, webinar panelists said, districts should always prioritize educating students. As simple as it sounds, they said, it can be difficult to keep the focus there.
One way districts can block out the noise and keep staff and the broader community focused on teaching and learning is by creating a strong strategic plan that clearly outlines district priorities, webinar panelists said.
That focus has paid off in recent years, said Tony Watlington, the superintendent of Philadelphia’s public schools, pointing to his district’s improved math and consistent reading scores on the most recent administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, while student achievement overall on the national exam has slipped. (Philadelphia remains below the average performance for other large cities, as well as below state and national averages.)
Watlington credited his administration’s and school board’s efforts to remain focused on the five facets of their strategic plan, which include improving students’ physical and emotional safety, creating strong community partnerships, boosting academic achievement, recruiting and retaining teachers, and being fiscally responsible.
School board and district meetings focus on those topics as often as possible, Watlington said, rather than “issues that could take us off course and take our attention away from that instructional core.”
LeTricia Gloster, the head of transformation for Prince George’s County schools in Maryland, agreed that strategic plans can be helpful “guideposts” for navigating difficult times.
Gloster highlighted the York City district in Pennsylvania where she previously served as the assistant superintendent.
The state in 2012 had designated it a “recovery district,” meaning state-appointed officials helped to develop and oversee a plan to improve the school system’s financial and academic standing.
Rather than viewing that as “a life sentence,” administrators took the designation as an opportunity to refocus and improve, she said. Much of the work centered on creating a stronger strategic plan that was focused on student support, instruction, and engaging families, Gloster said.
“Before that, we had a plan for a plan, and that ambiguity really caused our workforce to be unclear and uncertain about what our North Star would be,” she said. “We worked very hard to create a strategic plan that we believe really helped to focus.”
In 2022, while Gloster was still the assistant superintendent, the York district became the first in the state to exit its recovery designation.
“It was rewarding work, and something that we recognize and understand must continue,” Gloster said. “In order to create opportunities for each and every learner, we have to remain bold and courageous, and ensure that those systems remain sustainable so that we can continue to thrive and provide educational excellence for each and every learner.”
