The following case study was generated by prompting our automated research assistant for a high level report on how districts in Washington State are handling the end of federal funding programs introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have also incorporated external data from Washington State’s department of education. The results below are taken directly from its output.
Research Assistant Prompt:
“We are looking for patterns in how budget shortfalls related to the ending of federal programs are approached by school districts of varying sizes and funding levels. Please attempt to notice patterns or trends and group them by school size and/or percentage of students on free and reduced price lunch if possible. Support each section with key quotes that reference particular meeting documents from particular districts. Highlight any provocative or uniquely interesting findings. Focus on all school districts in the data and not just one. This should be a high level report with specific quotes chosen for support of a larger narrative.”
Supplementary Data Sources:
Navigating the Post-ESSER Budget Cliff
Introduction
The conclusion of federal ESSER funding has left many Washington State school districts grappling with sudden budget gaps—often compounded by enrollment declines, rising operating costs, and underfunded mandates. District leaders, from tiny rural systems to large suburban schools, describe a common experience: “We’ve talked for years about how the [budget] cliff was coming and now it is here.” (Highland School District, 2/5/2024). This whitepaper highlights how districts are responding, illuminated by direct quotes from board meeting minutes.
The New Fiscal Reality: “Where Did the Money Go?”
At Tukwila School District, officials voice concern over a staggering shortfall:
“ESSER funding ends August 31, 2024 totaling $5.9 million in lost funding. This is important as we do have some staff positions and some contracts on ESSER funding.”
— (Tukwila, 2/27/2024)
For La Conner School District, these cuts coincide with overwhelming cost pressures:
“Despite these adjustments, rising costs for employee benefits, insurance, and purchase services…exceed the compensation provided per student.”
— (La Conner, 7/29/2024)
Meanwhile, Clarkston School District acknowledges that ESSER once “bridge[d] the gap” in critical programs. Reflecting on the state’s revenue forecasts, the superintendent laments:
“A collective ‘ugh’ was felt… as the House and Senate released their supplemental budgets. Education advocates remain concerned by inadequate funding.”
— (Clarkston, 2/26/2024)
Approaches to Alternative Funding:
Below, two charts illustrate common funding measures, both by district size and in aggregate. Districts employ an array of strategies, from applying for extra grants and forging donor partnerships to inter-fund transfers and local levy expansions.
Chart 1: Common Funding Measures by District Size
Chart 2: Funding Measures in Aggregate
• High-Enrollment (>5000) Districts rely heavily on “federal funds”, “reserves” and “large-scale grants.”
• Low-Enrollment (<1000) Districts (often rural) emphasize “grants,” and “levies.”
• Medium-Enrollment Districts appear to combine multiple levers: cost management, legislative advocacy, grants and reserves.
Grants (22.1%) and Legislative/Advocacy work (16.2%) stand out as prominent strategies. Still, districts are also tapping levies (13.2%), use of reserves or inter-fund loans (17.6%), and targeted cost management (8.8%)—all to close immediate gaps.
Small Districts: “We’re Searching for Grants”
Smaller rural districts, already heavily reliant on grants, find themselves scrambling:
“We could lose students if we don’t have an after-school program… They may need to transfer to a school that has a before- and/or after-school program.”
— (Highland, 3/11/2024)
Entiat School District is chasing new possibilities:
“TBIP helps multilingual students and their education. We push into classrooms… We also pull out if it’s appropriate.”
— (Entiat, 4/24/2024)
When the state doesn’t fully cover special education, Title I, or after-school costs, these districts turn to philanthropic grants and scaled-back programming.
Medium-Sized Systems: “Tightening Controls and Trimming Edges”
Mid-range districts attempt to rein in costs by renegotiating vendor contracts, using one-time capital investment earnings, or stalling on expansions:
“If we assumed a 2% increase in Revenue and a 3% increase in expenditures… with the loss of ESSER funding, [the district] would be negative $13.2M.”
— (Tukwila, 4/9/2024)
La Conner officials underscore that partial cuts aren’t always enough:
“It isn’t just student enrollment that affects budgets. Districts had to address the McCleary Act requiring large salary increases, only partially funded for two years.”
— (La Conner, 7/29/2024)
Large Districts: “The Cliff Feels Steeper”
Heavier total budgets among large districts like Yakima or Puyallup do not shield them from harsh realities. Yakima, for instance, seeks to avoid mass layoffs:
“He outlined 39 FTE reductions… but no paraprofessionals will be RIF’d, only reassigned.”
— (Yakima, 8/2/2024)
Puyallup, eyeing a shortfall, concedes that local levies and fund balances may only go so far. They note:
“We may be faced with a decision on whether or not we are going to support a school or two that doesn’t meet that 30% [FRPL] threshold. That comes with an expense…”
— (Puyallup, 2/05/2024)
Legislative Advocacy and Creative Solutions
Nearly all districts highlight persistent underfunding of special education, the state’s “prototypical school” formula, and rising Materials, Supplies, and Operating Costs (MSOC). Tukwila’s board proposes an unusual grassroots push:
“One idea…was to develop a letter advocating for funding that could be sent to the legislature from community members and families.”
— (Tukwila, 6/11/2024)
Others, such as Lake Washington, harness interest from capital accounts:
“Approve Resolution…direct the King County Treasurer to deposit $300,000 of future capital fund investment earnings to purchase instructional supplies.”
— (Lake Washington, 6/24/2024)
Conclusion
Despite district size and demographic differences, one theme resonates: the expiration of pandemic-era federal funding has exposed deeper structural inequities. Leaders now juggle local levies, new grants, staff reassignments, and advocacy to sustain core programming. Yet the final word remains uncertain. As one Tukwila director put it:
“All outside contracts paid with ESSER funds will sunset… This is important as we do have some staff positions and some contracts on ESSER funding.”
— (Tukwila, 6/11/2024)
That forewarning underscores the precariousness districts confront—and spurs calls for more stable, equitable funding solutions.