Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, the federal government allocates 7% of Title I funds, about $1 billion per year, for school improvement. States have substantial autonomy in allocating these funds, including which schools are identified for federal school improvement, what improvement strategies are used, and whether external intermediaries are involved. A growing area of research explores the private, often for-profit school improvement industry, but few studies track the finance and policy structures that funnel public funds to external K–12 intermediaries. In this study, we draw on document analysis and interview data to explore school improvement practices and finance policies in five case study states. We find that states use varied methods for identifying schools for improvement, and also vary in the extent to which they provide local autonomy to school districts. Some states, such as Texas and Tennessee, incentivize schools to adopt particular strategies or encourage partnering with an external intermediary. Texas provides a list of vetted external intermediaries they expect districts to work with (and support financially). Other states, such as California and New York, provide more state-led school improvement strategies through regional offices and give districts greater local autonomy. Findings point to possible benefits of local autonomy, while highlighting potential challenges associated with unregulated market-based reforms in education.
