Local Educational Agencies' Uses of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds for Technology (ED-OIG/F20US0030)
Summary
Final report ED-OIG/F20US0030 of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, dated June 7, 2023, on Local Educational Agencies' Uses of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds for Technology, with a transmittal memorandum from Bryon S. Gordon, Assistant Inspector General for Audit. The report states that the OIG surveyed a nationally representative sample of 344 LEAs to project to a universe of 17,360 LEAs and achieved an 87 percent response rate. It estimates that 92 percent of LEAs used ESSER funds to purchase hardware, software, connectivity, or related products or services, and that 79 percent experienced significant challenges. The report is informational and does not contain any recommendations.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General
- Document type
- Report
- Date
- 2023-06-07
Cite this document
“Local Educational Agencies' Uses of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds for Technology (ED-OIG/F20US0030).”
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, dated 2023-06-07. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/leas-use-esser-funds-technology/
, SHA-256 4d6a3c5790ca2837ef5530d5072a4c86583509e2c91822b6dd3108d6dfe29152.Full text
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
Local Educational Agencies’ Uses
of Elementary and Secondary
School Emergency Relief Funds
for Technology
June 7, 2023
ED-OIG/F20US0030
ED OIG Oversight of Coronavirus Response Funds
NOTICE
In accordance with Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, United States Code,
Section 552), reports that the Office of Inspector General issues are available to
members of the press and general public to the extent information they contain is not
subject to exemptions in the Act.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Audit Services
June 7, 2023
TO: Dr. James Lane
Delegated Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
FROM: Bryon S. Gordon /s/
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Final Report, “Local Educational Agencies’ Uses of Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Funds for Technology,” Control Number ED-OIG/F20US0030
Attached is the subject final report that consolidates the results of our review of local educational
agencies’ uses of Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds for technology purposes.
We have provided an electronic copy to your audit liaison officer. We received your office’s comments
on the draft of this report and considered them as we prepared the report.
We appreciate your cooperation during this review. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(202) 245-6051 or bryon.gordon@ed.gov.
400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510
Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
Table of Contents
Results in Brief .................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
ESSER Funds Were Used to Purchase Educational Technology to Continue Instruction ... 9
LEAs Addressed and Experienced Challenges Using ESSER Funds for Educational
Technology ........................................................................................................................ 13
ESSER Funds Enabled LEAs to Continue Instruction Remotely ......................................... 21
LEAs Experienced Lost Instructional Time and Used ESSER Funds to Address the
Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time .................................................................... 25
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology............................................................................... 32
Appendix B. LEA Demographics ........................................................................................ 37
Appendix C. Estimated Percentages of Survey Results..................................................... 42
Appendix D. Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................... 66
OESE Comments................................................................................................................ 67
Results in Brief
Purpose
This report presents information describing local educational agencies’ (LEA) uses of
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds for technology
purposes. It describes the (1) types of educational technology that LEAs purchased with
their ESSER funds, (2) challenges that LEAs experienced when using ESSER funds for
educational technology, and (3) impact the educational technology had on student
learning. The report is informational and, therefore, does not contain any
recommendations.
What We Did
We surveyed a nationwide sample of LEAs about their experiences using ESSER funds to
purchase educational technology to continue student instruction during the
coronavirus. We selected a nationally representative sample of 344 LEAs to project to a
universe of 17,360 LEAs about their experiences using ESSER funds to purchase
educational technology to continue student instruction during the coronavirus. We
achieved an 87 percent response rate based on 300 completed surveys. The estimated
percentages presented throughout this report were projected with a 95 percent
confidence level for our population of LEAs and subpopulations of traditional and
charter LEAs.
Each LEA reported whether it received an ESSER Fund subgrant and used ESSER funds to
purchase educational technology, its geographical designation, student enrollment, and
percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under the National
School Lunch Program. We used these data sets to create subgroups within the survey
results to identify notable variations between categories across subgroups. We also
conducted four post-survey case study interviews with four judgmentally selected LEAs
to further explore the responses to survey questions and provide critical contextual
information.
What We Found
LEAs nationwide generally reported using ESSER funds to purchase educational
technology to continue student instruction due to the coronavirus. We estimate that
92 percent 1 of LEAs used ESSER funds to purchase hardware, software, connectivity, or
1
In Appendix C, we present the 95 confidence intervals for the estimated percentages and the
associated survey questions used throughout the report.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 1
related products or services to continue instruction remotely during the coronavirus. 2
LEAs reported that they initiated or expanded to programs that provided all students in
their schools or districts access to digital devices for schoolwork and purchased hotspots
that resolved or mitigated the challenges of ensuring that all students and teachers had
adequate internet access. Additionally, they purchased instructional software that
offered teachers flexibility when creating remote learning environments and
technology-related training that was both a challenge and an unexpected opportunity to
improve teacher and student use of technology.
LEAs nationwide reported on challenges that they addressed with educational
technology purchased using ESSER funds (ESSER-funded technology), including resolving
or mitigating challenges they faced while continuing student instruction during the
coronavirus, and experienced when using ESSER funds to purchase educational
technology. We asked LEAs about the most significant challenges they experienced
when using ESSER funds for educational technology. We estimate that 79 percent of
LEAs experienced significant challenges when using ESSER funds for educational
technology. We then asked LEAs how they resolved or mitigated the challenges they
experienced. LEAs most frequently reported experiencing challenges due to (1) shifting
the method of instruction to remote, hybrid, or in-person; (2) ensuring students and
teachers had adequate internet access; (3) purchasing educational technology; and (4)
maintaining or repairing educational technology. We asked LEAs about any ongoing or
future challenges that they anticipated related to using ESSER funds for educational
technology. LEAs most frequently reported the need to sustain ongoing costs when
ESSER funds are no longer available as an anticipated future challenge.
ESSER-funded technology enabled LEAs nationwide to continue instruction remotely
during shutdowns due to the coronavirus. We asked LEAs to provide their opinions
about the degree (i.e., great, some, or none) to which ESSER-funded technology enabled
their schools to provide remote instruction for different student populations. We
estimate that 68 percent of LEAs were enabled, to a great degree, by ESSER-funded
technology to provide remote instruction for the general student population. Further,
LEAs most frequently reported being enabled by ESSER-funded software, to a great
degree, then hardware and connectivity to provide remote instruction.
LEAs nationwide generally reported experiencing lost instructional time and using
ESSER-funded technology to address the academic impact that their student
2
LEAs that did not use ESSER funds to purchase educational technology most frequently reported that
they used other funds to purchase educational technology and used ESSER funds for other expenditures
assigned a higher priority.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 2
populations experienced during the coronavirus. We estimate that students in almost all
LEAs (95 percent) experienced lost instructional time due to the coronavirus during the
2019–2020 school year, and that students in 68 percent of LEAs experienced lost
instructional time during the 2020–2021 school year. We estimate that 46 percent of
LEAs were able to address the academic impact of lost instructional time because ESSER-
funded technology, to a great degree, facilitated activities during the 2019–2020 school
year. This percentage increased to 50 percent of LEAs during the 2020–2021 school
year.
What We Recommend
This informational report does not include any recommendations to the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE).
OESE Comments and Our Response
We provided a draft of this report to OESE officials for comment. OESE combined their
technical comments with the Office of the General Counsel’s (OGC) comments. We
reviewed the requested revisions and made clarifying and technical edits to the report,
where appropriate, based on the comments received.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 3
Introduction
Background
The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund grant was
authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, enacted
on March 27, 2020, known as ESSER (Public Law 116-136); the Coronavirus Response
and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act, enacted on December 27, 2020,
known as ESSER II (Public Law 116-260); and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of
2021, enacted on March 11, 2021, known as ARP ESSER (Public Law 117-2). Under the
ESSER Fund, the U.S Department of Education (Department) awarded a total of
$189.5 billion 3 to State educational agencies (SEA) to provide local educational agencies
(LEA) with emergency relief funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the impact
that the coronavirus has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary
schools across the nation. Each Act allows LEAs to use the ESSER Fund grant to address a
wide range of needs arising from the coronavirus, including purchasing educational
technology to support remote learning for all students, addressing the needs of
underrepresented students 4 and their teachers, planning for both school closures and
reopenings, and implementing activities to address the academic impact from lost
instructional time.
ESSER Fund Grant Administration
The Office of State and Grant Relations (SGR), in the Department’s Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education (OESE), administers the ESSER Fund. The SEA is primarily
responsible for the State supervision of elementary schools and secondary schools. 5
LEAs filed local applications with their relevant SEAs, who were required to award at
least 90 percent of their ESSER Fund grant to LEAs by formula. The SEA determined each
LEA’s ESSER allocation in proportion to the amount of funds the LEA received under
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I) in the
most recent fiscal year. The SEA could reserve up to an amount equal to 0.5 percent of
the total allocation for administrative costs, and the remaining funds were to be used
3
The Department awarded $13.2 billion for ESSER through September 30, 2022, $54.3 billion for
ESSER II through September 30, 2023, and $122 billion for ARP ESSR through September 30, 2024.
4
Underrepresented students refer to each major racial and ethnic group, children from low-income
families, children with disabilities, English learners, gender, migrant students, students experiencing
homelessness, and children and youth in foster care.
5
The definition of SEA is from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 section 8101(49).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 4
for emergency needs as determined by the SEA to address issues responding to the
coronavirus. Under the ARP, SEAs and LEAs were also required to reserve funds to
address learning loss for evidence-based interventions that responded to students’
social, emotional, and academic needs and addressed the disproportionate impact of
the coronavirus on underrepresented students.
Use of ESSER Fund Grant
ESSER Fund grants were made available to LEAs for allowable expenditures incurred on
or after March 13, 2020, the date the President declared the national emergency due to
coronavirus. The CARES Act provided LEAs with considerable flexibility in determining
how best to use ESSER funds to support their ability to continue to provide educational
services to their students. The Department encouraged LEAs to target ESSER funding on
activities that supported remote learning for all students, especially underrepresented
students, and their teachers. Section 18003(d) of the Act provided a broad, permissive
list of allowable LEA activities, including the purchase of educational technology
(hardware, software, and connectivity) that aids in regular and substantive educational
interaction between students who are served by the LEA and their teachers.
Data Collection and Analysis Process
We selected a nationally representative sample of 344 LEAs to project to a population of
17,360 LEAs 6 about their experiences using ESSER funds to purchase educational
technology to continue student instruction during the coronavirus. This sample
consisted of 150 traditional LEAs to allow for statistical projections to a
13,109 traditional LEA population and 194 charter LEAs to allow for statistical
projections to a 4,251 charter LEA population. The estimated percentages presented
throughout this report were projected with a 95 percent confidence level for our
population of LEAs and subpopulations of traditional and charter LEAs.
We administered the survey on March 16, 2022. We requested that LEAs complete a
survey covering the types of (1) educational technology purchased with ESSER funds,
(2) challenges that they faced and expect to face in the future regarding the educational
technology purchased using ESSER funds, and (3) impacts that the educational
technology purchased using ESSER funds had on student instruction. If an LEA chose not
to use its ESSER funds to purchase educational technology, the survey asked about the
reason(s) why. The different types of educational technology purchased using ESSER
6
In Appendix A, we present more information on our source of information and how we defined the
universe of LEAs.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 5
funds (ESSER-funded technology) we referred to throughout the survey are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Types of ESSER-Funded Technology
Types of Educational Technology Description of Technology
Digital devices (desktop computers, laptops, and tablets),
Hardware assistive technology, adaptive equipment, and other
peripheral devices but not connectivity-related devices.
Instructional, administrative, online conferencing, and
Software cybersecurity programs but not connectivity-related
software.
Mobile hotspots, internet-connected devices
Connectivity (smartphones), and home internet that is paid for or
managed by the LEA.
Service protection plans, insurance, training, and hiring
Other Products or Services
vendors or staff.
We achieved an 87 percent response rate (294 completed surveys) 7 consisting of
145 traditional LEAs and 149 charter LEAs. We performed quantitative and qualitative
analyses regarding the topics covered in the survey and LEA survey responses. We noted
differences in traditional and charter LEA responses, which are presented throughout
this report, that may reflect other factors that we did not measure, such as preexisting
LEA resources. Each LEA reported whether it received an ESSER Fund subgrant and used
ESSER funds to purchase educational technology. 8 Further, we asked LEAs to report
their geographical designation, student enrollment, and percentage of students eligible
7
We computed the response rate based on 300 completed surveys, but we used 294 completed surveys
in our analyses. Of the six completed surveys not used, three LEAs did not receive ESSER funds, one LEA
did not complete the survey correctly, and two LEAs responded for multiple schools.
8
There were 20 LEAs that reported receiving ESSER funds but did not purchase educational technology
using ESSER funds.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 6
for free or reduced-price lunch under the National School Lunch Program. 9 We used
these data to create subgroups within the survey results to identify notable variations
between categories across subgroups. For example, throughout the report, we indicate
whether a category of LEAs was more likely to report specific responses to survey
questions than its counterparts. We relied on these data sets because they were the
most current and complete for the purpose of our review. We did not independently
verify the accuracy of the LEAs’ self-reported information, but we took a series of
steps—from survey design through data analysis and interpretation—to minimize
potential errors and problems.
Lastly, we conducted post-survey case study interviews with four judgmentally selected
LEAs that competed the survey in order to further explore the responses to survey
questions and provide critical contextual information.
Methods of Instruction
After the national emergency was declared, LEAs closed for in-person instruction, re-
opened, and modified instructional methods to address the significant disruptions and
obstacles created by the coronavirus. At the beginning of the 2019–2020 school year,
we estimate that 91 percent 10 of LEAs instructed students via in-person instruction. 11
Then, at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, we estimate that 60 percent of
LEAs instructed students via hybrid 12 or remote 13 instruction before returning to in-
person instruction (91 percent) during the 2021–2022 school year. As shown in Figure 1,
traditional LEAs were notably more likely than charter LEAs to begin each school year
with in-person instruction.
9
The survey defined geographic designation as urban, suburban, or rural; and poverty level as low (less
than 25 percent), mid-low (25–50 percent), mid-high (50–75 percent), or high (greater than 75 percent).
We requested that each LEA report its student enrollment and used it as a proxy for their size as small
(2 to 2,429 students), medium (2,560 to 9,900 students), or large (10,099 to 435,958 students).
10
In Appendix C, we present the 95 confidence intervals for the estimated percentages and the
associated survey questions used throughout the report.
11
In-person is when students receive instruction at school.
12
Hybrid is when some students receive instruction at school and some students receive instruction at
home. Both groups of students may receive instruction together in real-time, or students may receive
instruction part of the week at school and part of the week at home.
13
Remote is when students receive instruction virtually or at home.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 7
Figure 1. Estimated Percentage of LEAs’ Instructing In-Person, by School Year
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 8
ESSER Funds Were Used to Purchase Educational
Technology to Continue Instruction
LEAs nationwide generally reported using ESSER funds to purchase educational
technology to continue student instruction during the coronavirus. We estimate that
92 percent of LEAs used ESSER funds to purchase hardware, software, connectivity, and
related products or services to continue instruction during the coronavirus. 14 We noted
that 93 percent of LEAs used ESSER funds to purchase hardware to continue instruction.
ESSER funds were also used for connectivity (70 percent), software (66 percent), and
other products and services (43 percent) such as training. Except for hardware, we
identified notable differences between traditional and charter LEAs’ responses for how
ESSER funds were used to purchase educational technology.
Figure 2. Estimated Percentage of LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Educational
Technology by Category
As shown in the figure above, traditional LEAs were more likely to use ESSER funds to
purchase connectivity and charter LEAs were more likely to use ESSER funds to purchase
software and other products and services. Further, we noted through our analyses that
urban LEAs, high poverty LEAs, and small LEAs were more likely to use ESSER funds to
14
LEAs that did not use ESSER funds to purchase educational technology most frequently reported that
they used other funds to purchase educational technology and used ESSER funds for other expenditures
assigned a higher priority.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 9
purchase educational technology when compared to their counterparts. In the sections
below, we summarize the survey responses and highlight notable variations between
types of LEAs and each category of ESSER-funded technology.
LEAs Used ESSER Funds for Chromebooks, Instructional
Software, Mobile Hotspots, and Training
LEAs reported the specific types of hardware, software, connectivity, and other products
and services purchased using ESSER funds. We created a word cloud as a visual
representation of the estimated number of LEAs that used ESSER funds to purchase
each type of educational technology. The most frequently purchased types of
technology appear bigger and bolder compared to the other types of technology shown
around them. As shown in Figure 3, LEAs reported using ESSER funds to purchase
Chromebooks, instructional software, and mobile hotpots more than other types of
ESSER-funded technology.
Figure 3. Word Cloud Illustrating Types of Educational Technology Purchased Using
ESSER Funds
ESSER Funds Provided Students Chromebooks for Schoolwork
Laptops (Chromebooks) 15 were the most frequently reported type of hardware that
LEAs purchased using ESSER funds, as shown in Figure 3. LEAs reported that they
15
In the survey, we did not differentiate laptops from Chromebooks. However, we learned during a case
study interview that an LEA purchased laptops, not Chromebooks, for their teachers because they
needed a digital device with more advanced capabilities.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 10
initiated or expanded to programs that provided all of their students access to digital
devices for schoolwork.
• A small rural high poverty traditional LEA noted that it used ESSER funds to
purchase devices for all students and transitioned to a program so each enrolled
student could use a digital device to access the internet, digital course materials,
and digital textbooks.
• A large urban mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that ESSER funds made it
possible to send a Chromebook home with each of its students.
• A small urban high poverty charter LEA noted that it used ESSER funds to
purchase laptops for its students to complete courses through remote
instruction.
ESSER Funds Supported Mobile Hotspot Purchases
Mobile hotspots were the most frequently reported type of connectivity that LEAs
purchased using ESSER funds. We also noted that charter LEAs were more likely than
traditional LEAs to purchase mobile hotspots. LEAs also reported that they purchased
hotspots to resolve or mitigate the challenge of ensuring that all students have
adequate internet access.
• A small urban high poverty charter LEA noted that it invested in wireless hotspot
services for students who did not have reliable home internet connections,
which allowed the students to stay connected with their teachers and classes
during remote instruction.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that it partnered with a
network operator to purchase mobile hotspots for students who did not have
internet access.
• A small rural mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that it leased mobile
hotspots to ensure all students and staff always possessed internet access.
ESSER Funds Supported Instructional Software Programs
Instructional software was the most frequently reported type of software that LEAs
purchased using ESSER funds. The instructional software purchased by LEAs offered
teachers flexibility when creating remote learning environments to continue instructing
students remotely.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that the ESSER funds enabled
the district to procure instructional platforms in English or language arts and
mathematics for students to stay connected, access materials during remote
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 11
instruction, and receive additional support during remote and in-person
instruction.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that purchased software
allowed teachers to differentiate between students’ reading and math
performance. This LEA added that it administered assessments to identify
student learning gaps during the coronavirus pandemic.
ESSER Funds Supported Training for Students, Teachers, and
Parents
Training was the most frequently reported type of other products or services that LEAs
purchased using ESSER funds. LEAs noted the importance and positive impact of
providing training for staff and students on how to use the technology. LEAs also noted
that technology-related training was both a challenge and an unexpected opportunity to
improve teacher and student use of technology.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that new educational
technology required training and support at all levels, depending on teacher and
student technical literacy.
• A large rural high poverty traditional LEA noted that its teachers and students
learned new skills that will continue to be used to engage students and improve
instruction, such as creating slideshow presentations, leading virtual tours,
developing class schedules, using virtual manipulatives, and attending Zoom
meetings and online training.
• A small rural mid-high poverty charter LEA noted that its students adapted to
using technology, but there was a significant gap of technological skills in
teachers and staff when working remotely, as well as providing remote or
hybrid instruction.
OESE Comments
OESE requested that OIG clarify that LEAs could have used other funds to purchase
educational technology. We reviewed the requested changes and made a clarifying
change to the report based on the comments received.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 12
LEAs Addressed and Experienced Challenges
Using ESSER Funds for Educational Technology
LEAs nationwide reported on challenges that they addressed with ESSER-funded
technology, including resolving or mitigating challenges they faced while continuing
student instruction during the coronavirus, and experienced when using ESSER funds to
purchase educational technology. We asked LEAs about the most significant challenges
they experienced when using ESSER funds for educational technology. We estimate that
79 percent of LEAs experienced significant challenges when using ESSER funds for
educational technology. We then asked LEAs how they resolved or mitigated the
challenges specified below in Figure 4. Comparing traditional and charter LEA responses,
we noted that charter LEAs were more likely to experience challenges when using ESSER
funds for educational technology.
Figure 4. Estimated Percentage of LEAs that Experienced Each Challenge When Using
ESSER Funds to Purchase Educational Technology
Further, urban LEAs, high poverty LEAs, and large LEAs were more likely to experience
these challenges when compared to their counterparts. In the sections below, we
explain that the most frequently reported challenges LEAs experienced were due to
(1) shifting the method of instruction to remote, hybrid, or in-person; (2) ensuring
students and teachers had adequate internet access; (3) purchasing educational
technology; and (4) maintaining or repairing technology. In addition, we noted how the
LEAs resolved or mitigated those challenges and the anticipated future challenges for
LEAs.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 13
Shifting Methods of Instruction was a Consistent Challenge
Experienced by LEAs
We asked LEAs to consider their predominant methods of instruction at the beginning of
each school year and report their opinions on whether it had been a challenge to shift to
remote, hybrid, or in-person instruction during the 2019–2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–
2022 school years. 16 At the beginning of the 2019–2020 school year, we estimate that
91 percent of LEAs instructed students in-person before shifting to remote or hybrid
instruction in response to the coronavirus. We estimate that 90 percent of LEAs
experienced challenges due to shifting their methods of instruction during the 2019–
2020 school year. Specifically, we estimate that 80 percent of LEAs experienced
challenges due to shifting to remote instruction, when compared to other methods of
instruction. Further, we noted that LEAs’ responses showed that shifting methods of
instruction became less of a challenge during each successive school year for both
traditional and charter LEAs but were always more of a challenge for charter LEAs than
traditional LEAs. (See Figure 5.)
Figure 5. Estimated Percentage of LEAs that Experienced Shifting Methods of
Instruction as a Challenge by School Year
16
Each LEA had the option to report whether shifting methods of instruction “was not a challenge” and
“not applicable—method of instruction did not change.”
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 14
After the national emergency was declared, LEAs noted the importance of timing and
planning when describing their challenges due to shifting methods of instruction.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that ongoing planning and
long lead times were required to complete procurement, curriculum
integration, teacher professional development, and student support activities.
• A small urban mid-low poverty charter LEA noted that one of its biggest
challenges was developing an online teaching methodology and curriculum
“on-the-fly.”
• A small urban mid-high poverty charter LEA noted that it did not have sufficient
time to determine its needs for remote learning but instead had to make quick
decisions for remote learning. As a result, this LEA added that it scrambled to
assess its needs and encountered circumstances it did not anticipate or didn’t
have time to evaluate.
At the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year, we estimate that 60 percent of LEAs
instructed in hybrid or remote instruction. Fewer LEAs experienced challenges due to
shifting their methods of instruction during the 2020–2021 school year than the 2019–
2020 school year. We estimate that 75 percent of LEAs experienced challenges due to
shifting instruction methods. Specifically, we estimate that 47 percent of LEAs
experienced shifting to hybrid instruction as a challenge.
• A medium urban mid-high poverty charter LEA reported that during the 2020–
2021 school year, its students experienced great difficulty staying connected to
classroom activities while operating under a remote asynchronous method of
instruction. The LEA added that it resulted in a significant decrease in student
engagement and in many cases a lack of follow through on required coursework
and incomplete assignments.
At the beginning of the 2021–2022 school year, we estimate that 91 percent of LEAs
returned to in-person instruction. The percentage of LEAs that experienced challenges
due to shifting their methods of instruction continued to lessen after the 2020–2021
school year. We estimate that 44 percent of LEAs experienced challenges due to shifting
instruction methods. We estimate that 28 percent of LEAs experienced shifting back to
in-person instruction as a challenge.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA devoted additional time and effort to
train teachers and students’ parents to use hardware devices and delayed
starting the 2021–2022 school year by 30 days to train and prepare staff to
instruct half of its students remotely and the other half in-person.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 15
Ensuring All Students Have Adequate Internet Access
We asked LEAs whether ensuring that all students had adequate internet access was a
challenge and how the LEAs had resolved or mitigated the challenge. We estimate that
75 percent of LEAs experienced challenges due to ensuring all students had adequate
internet access to continue instruction. Rural LEAs noted difficulties with adequate
internet access even when using a mobile hotspot because of poor cellular service in
their regions.
• A small rural mid-low poverty charter LEA noted that internet access was not
available to families without cellular service, which created challenges with
student instruction, communication, and access to assignments. This LEA added
that there was internet access at the schools, but students had transportation
problems and could not get to the schools.
• A rural high poverty traditional LEA noted that, even though it purchased mobile
hotspots for students, the mobile hotspots performed “not great” and the
internet service in the community was “terrible.”
• A medium rural mid-high poverty traditional LEA stated that hotspots generally
did not work in many areas of the county because of a lack of good cellular
service and broadband infrastructure, and many students did not have access to
the internet.
LEAs most frequently reported that they resolved or mitigated challenges when
ensuring that all their students had adequate internet access by purchasing additional
mobile hotspots for students who did not have or had limited access to internet. We
estimate that 81 percent of LEAs purchased additional mobile hotspots to resolve or
mitigate challenges due to ensuring adequate internet access. We noted that purchasing
additional mobile hotspots was not always sufficient to provide adequate internet
access for LEAs within different subgroups (geographic designation, poverty level, and
enrollment). LEAs reported that they used alternative approaches to support their
students, families, teachers, and staff.
• The previously mentioned medium rural mid-high poverty traditional LEA bused
students to schools to download and upload work assignments by utilizing the
schools’ external Wi-Fi and provided printed learning packets to students who
did not have cellular or internet access.
• A large suburban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that it equipped buses
with Wi-Fi to provide internet access in communities with poor connectivity.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA built its own cellular tower to
increase broadband for communities in areas most impacted by a lack of
internet access.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 16
• A medium suburban high poverty traditional LEA noted that it improved its
internet access and installed exterior Wi-Fi capabilities to each school building
for students to always have access to the internet, even outside of the school
day.
LEAs also collaborated with or sought assistance from other organizations to resolve or
mitigate challenges to ensure that all of their students had adequate internet access.
• A medium urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that it worked with
local internet service providers to identify affordable internet service plans and
informed families of available plan options.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA stated that it sought assistance from
a local organization that installed exterior Wi-Fi devices on its buildings to
provide students internet access.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA partnered with the local cable
company to have recorded lessons broadcasted over the local cable channel as
well as streamed through its website and on social media.
Using ESSER Funds to Purchase Educational Technology
We asked LEAs whether using ESSER funds to purchase educational technology was a
challenge and how LEAs mitigated and resolved the challenge. We estimate that
57 percent of LEAs experienced challenges when using ESSER funds to purchase
educational technology. LEAs reported instances of limited availability of technology
devices, excessive shipping delays, supply chain disruptions, and delays related to
Federal policies.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA attributed the delays it experienced
in purchasing products and services to Federal purchasing guidelines regarding
single source purchasing and competitive bidding. The same LEA added that
these delays were then lengthened further by supply chain issues.
• A medium rural mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted its frustration with
trying to navigate the supply chain and delivery issues that resulted in the
vendors either not being able to provide the educational technology or delays of
up to 6 months before delivery.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that it experienced 4 to
7 months of delays that continued to be a concern related to vendor solicitation
and supply chain issues.
• A medium suburban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that supply chain
issues led to the instructional software that it purchased arriving late in the
2020–2021 school year.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 17
LEAs most frequently reported that they resolved or mitigated the challenges due to
using ESSER funds to purchase educational technology by waiting through delays. We
estimate that 58 percent of LEAs resolved or mitigated the challenges by waiting
through delays. LEAs also resolved or mitigated their challenges due to purchasing
educational technology by purchasing the educational technology from a different
source, purchasing a different technology, or paying more for the technology than it
would have cost before the coronavirus.
• A small urban mid-low poverty charter LEA stated that its biggest issues were
the unavailability of hardware (i.e., Chromebooks) and long delays in receiving
ESSER-funded hardware.
• A small urban high poverty charter LEA stated that it ordered Chromebooks
from one vendor but, after a month-long delay, cancelled the order and
purchased the devices from another vendor that had them in stock.
Maintaining or Repairing ESSER-Funded Technology
We asked LEAs whether maintaining or repairing ESSER-funded technology was a
challenge and how LEAs mitigated and resolved the challenge. We estimate that
48 percent of LEAs experienced challenges when maintaining and repairing ESSER-
funded technology. LEAs experienced difficulties related to staffing or supply chain
issues that made repairing or replacing educational technology more challenging.
• A medium urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that it underestimated
the number of staff needed to set up, deploy, and manage devices; track
devices distributed to students and maintain accurate inventory; and process,
repair, and re-deploy returned devices.
• A large urban mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that it was overwhelmed
with the cost and time to maintain devices and it was unable to replace
damaged devices.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that supply chain issues
“exasperated” its technology needs related to tracking and replacing broken
devices.
• A medium rural mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that supply chain issues
made it difficult to find replacement parts and devices.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that the rate at which its
students damaged devices outpaced its technician’s ability to repair devices.
The same LEA noted that it experienced challenges with maintaining or
repairing devices due to the limited availability of replacement parts and the
increased cost of those parts.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 18
LEAs most frequently reported that they resolved or mitigated challenges due to
maintaining or repairing ESSER-funded technology by assigning existing staff and
resources to maintain and repair ESSER-funded technology. We estimate that
55 percent of LEAs assigned existing staff and resources to maintain or repair their
ESSER-funded technology. LEAs also resolved or mitigated their challenges due to
maintaining or repairing ESSER-funded technology by establishing new procedures or
modifying existing procedures and hiring additional staff to maintain or repair ESSER-
funded technology.
• A large suburban mid-low poverty traditional LEA stated during a case study
interview that it planned to teach a small group of students how to maintain or
repair ESSER-funded hardware and add it to their curriculum.
• A medium suburban high poverty traditional LEA stated during a case study
interview that it was a challenge for existing staff to maintain the pace of
technical support. The LEA added that it needs additional technicians for
hardware repair and continued instructional support because hardware repair is
an ongoing concern and instructional technology support for teachers is a rising
issue.
Ongoing and Anticipated Future Challenges
We asked LEAs about any ongoing or future challenges that they anticipated related to
ESSER-funded technology. We estimate that 80 percent of LEAs anticipated that they
would face ongoing or future challenges related to ESSER-funded technology. We noted
that charter LEAs (86 percent) were more likely than traditional LEAs (78 percent) to
experience ongoing or anticipated future challenges. LEAs reported the need to sustain
ongoing costs was an anticipated future challenge when ESSER funds are no longer
available as well as hiring or retaining sufficient staff to manage ESSER-funded
technology and training to enable teachers to effectively use the technology during
instruction.
LEAs most frequently reported the need to sustain ongoing costs when ESSER funds are
no longer available was an anticipated future challenge. We estimate that 66 percent of
LEAs would experience this challenge. We noted that charter LEAs (78 percent) were
more likely than traditional LEAs (63 percent) to experience the ongoing or future
challenge of sustaining ongoing costs when ESSER funds are no longer available.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that it would continue to
experience many challenges without sustainable funding to maintain or replace
the staff that were hired and the software, equipment, and devices that were
purchased using ESSER funds.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 19
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that it was not adequately
funded to cover the technology costs needed to provide and sustain these
resources.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted an enormous challenge to
pivot all investments in education technology back to an in-person environment
and adapting these investments to support its students.
OESE Comments
OESE requested that OIG clarify that LEAs leveraged ESSER funds to address the
challenges they faced during the coronavirus, not challenges they had using their ESSER
funds. We reviewed the requested change and made clarifying changes to the report
based on the comments received.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 20
ESSER Funds Enabled LEAs to Continue
Instruction Remotely
ESSER-funded technology enabled LEAs nationwide to continue instruction remotely
during shutdowns due to the coronavirus. We asked LEAs to provide their opinions
about the degree (i.e., great, some, or none) to which ESSER-funded technology enabled
their schools to provide remote instruction to different student populations. We
estimate that 68 percent of LEAs were enabled, to a great degree, by ESSER-funded
technology to provide remote instruction for the general student population. LEAs most
frequently reported being enabled by ESSER-funded software (73 percent), to a great
degree, then hardware (66 percent) and connectivity (62 percent) to provide remote
instruction. We also noted that, except for ESSER-funded connectivity, charter LEAs
were more likely than traditional LEAs to be enabled, to a great degree, by ESSER-
funded technology to continue instruction remotely. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Estimated Percentage of LEAs’ Enabled, to a Great Degree, to Continue
Remote Instruction by ESSER-Funded Technology for General Student Populations
In addition, we noted that certain subgroups of LEAs were more likely than their
counterparts to be enabled by ESSER-funded technology to provide remote instruction.
We noted that urban LEAs, high poverty LEAs, and large LEAs were more likely to be
enabled by ESSER-funded technology to continue instruction remotely. LEAs noted that
ESSER-funded software offered teachers flexibility during instructional changes.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 21
• A small urban high poverty charter LEA noted that its digital curriculum platform
dramatically increased its reading support and ability to facilitate synchronous
and asynchronous learning, discussion, and feedback. This LEA added that it also
used a web-based application for virtual co-teaching, teacher-led learning
modules for independent practice, access to engaging digital materials for
students, and allowing students to make up for missed classes or finish
incomplete work assignments.
• A small rural mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that ESSER-funded
technology enabled it to pilot a post-pandemic flexible schedule in the middle
school and high school. These scheduling options will provide students
opportunity to engage in virtual learning not regularly offered during the school
day and allow students to engage in off campus learning activities and yet still
have access to content they can engage at their convenience.
• A large suburban mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that it leveraged its
existing virtual school to create comprehensive virtual shell courses for
elementary grade levels and for most secondary courses during their transition
to remote instruction. This provided teachers with virtual lesson plans and
course materials to use with their students through the existing instructional
software. This LEA also provided ESSER-funded technology to students needing
digital devices and internet access.
ESSER-Funded Technology Enabled LEAs to Continue
Instruction Remotely Across Student Populations
ESSER-funded technology enabled LEAs to continue instruction remotely across student
populations. To a great degree, LEAs reported that general student population
(68 percent), economically disadvantaged students (69 percent), English learners
(67 percent) and students with disabilities (62 percent) were enabled by ESSER-funded
technology to continue instruction remotely. We also noted that ESSER-funded software
was more likely than hardware and connectivity to enable LEAs to continue instruction
remotely across student populations. (See Figure 7.)
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 22
Figure 7. Estimated Percentage of LEAs Enabled, to a Great Degree, to Continue
Remote Instruction by Each Type of ESSER-Funded Technology for the Specified
Student Populations
LEAs noted that ESSER-funded technology enabled them to successfully shift between
methods of instruction during the coronavirus.
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that without ESSER funds, it
would not have been possible to purchase and assign a Chromebook for every
student, a hotspot for in-home internet-access (if needed), instructional
software, and educational hardware in every classroom for students and
teachers to be successful during instructional shifts. This LEA added that an
unintended benefit of instructional shifts was the radical growth for most staff
and students in the use of educational technology.
• A medium urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that providing internet-
access, instructional software, and access to digital resources to economically
disadvantaged families was critical for students and teachers to continue
instruction during remote instruction.
• A small rural mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that ESSER funds allowed it
to purchase software necessary to address learning loss and to enhance systems
already in place.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 23
OESE Comments
OESE requested that OIG remove or use their suggested revision to replace a sentence
stating that, “We also noted that ESSER-funded software was more likely than hardware
and connectivity to enable LEAs to enable remote instruction.” We reviewed the
requested change and made a clarifying change to the report based on the comments
received.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 24
LEAs Experienced Lost Instructional Time and
Used ESSER Funds to Address the Academic
Impact of Lost Instructional Time
LEAs nationwide reported experiencing lost instructional time and using ESSER-funded
technology to address the academic impact that their student populations experienced
during the coronavirus. We asked LEAs to provide their opinions about the degree (i.e.,
great, some, or none) to which different student populations were academically
impacted, and the degree to which ESSER-funded technology facilitated activities that
addressed the academic impact of lost instructional time. 17 In the sections below, we
highlight notable differences between traditional and charter LEAs and variations
between applicable student populations, and also include LEA perspectives about using
ESSER-funded technology.
Fewer LEAs Experienced Lost Instructional Time During the
2020–2021 School Year
We estimate that 95 percent of LEAs experienced lost instructional time during the
2019–2020 school year due to the coronavirus. However, notably fewer LEAs
experienced lost instructional time during the 2020–2021 school year (68 percent). We
noted that traditional LEAs were more likely than charter LEAs to experience lost
instructional time during the 2019–2020 school year. Conversely, charter LEAs were
more likely than traditional LEAs to experience lost instructional time during the 2020–
2021 school year. Further, we noted that the decline from the 2019–2020 to the 2020–
2021 school year in traditional LEAs (30 percent) that experienced lost instructional time
was notably more than charter LEAs (15 percent) as shown in the table below.
(See Table 2.)
17
The term “academic impact of lost instructional time” is used in place of “learning loss” experienced
by students as a result of the coronavirus, which is the term that is used in the ARP and the CRRSA Acts.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 25
Table 2. Estimated Percentage of LEAs that Experienced Lost Instructional Time by LEA
Type and School Year
2019–2020 2020–2021
LEAs Difference
School Year School Year
Traditional 96% 66% -30%
Charter 89% 74% -15%
All 95% 68% -27%
LEAs noted that they were able to provide instruction and more effectively address the
academic impact of the coronavirus on student populations through purchasing
educational technology.
• A small urban high poverty charter LEA explained that remote learning was
more effective in the 2020–2021 school year because it acquired the necessary
technology, experience, and ability to implement an effective plan to shift
methods of instruction.
• A large urban mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that it was open for most
of the 2020–2021 school year and purchased software that allowed its students
to catch up academically.
• A large urban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that while it did not
experience any lost instructional time during the 2020–2021 school year, the
ESSER-funded technology enabled it to navigate the significant social-emotional
impact on teachers and students as well as academic struggle due to the change
in instructional modality (hybrid, remote).
• A medium suburban mid-high poverty traditional LEA noted that it purchased
instructional software that created an audio-visual system designed for active
learning. The LEA noted that the activities were designed by and for educators
to help students foster social-emotional, physical, and intellectual skills to the
fullest through immersive learning experiences. Further, the LEA noted that the
experiences help students develop confidence, empathy, self-esteem, and
interpersonal skills; and helped reduce anxiety and stress.
Student Populations Experienced a Great Degree of Academic
Impact of Lost Instructional Time
We estimate that 42 percent of LEAs experienced a great degree of academic impact of
lost instructional time for their general student populations during the 2019–2020
school year. Specifically, LEAs reported that students with disabilities (60 percent),
English learners (59 percent), and economically disadvantaged students (54 percent)
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 26
experienced a great degree of academic impact of lost instructional time. We also noted
that charter LEAs notably were more likely to experience a great degree of academic
impact of lost instructional time than traditional LEAs across student populations, as
shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Estimated Percentage of LEAs that Experienced a Great Degree of Academic
Impact of Lost Instructional Time by LEA Type and Student Population for the 2019–
2020 School Year
LEAs noted that students experienced academic impact because of lost instructional
time and further noted that a lack of student attendance during remote instruction and
the social and emotional effect of the coronavirus also added to the academic impact.
• A small suburban mid-high poverty charter LEA noted significant loss of
instructional time because of a lack of consistency in student attendance during
shifts between remote and in-person instruction, which made it difficult for
students to retain information.
• A small urban high poverty traditional LEA noted that due to the hardships
caused by the coronavirus, students were difficult to keep motivated and
engaged. This LEA also experienced a teacher shortage because impacted
teachers resigned from their positions during remote instruction.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 27
Student Populations Continued to Experience Comparable
Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time
Although fewer LEAs experienced lost instructional time during the 2020–2021 school
year than the 2019–2020 school year, LEAs reported that student populations continued
to experience a comparable academic impact of lost instructional time. Like the 2019–
2020 school year, we estimate that 42 percent of LEAs experienced a great degree of
academic impact of lost instructional time for their general student populations during
the 2020–2021 school year. LEAs also reported that students with disabilities
(63 percent), English learners (58 percent), and economically disadvantaged students
(52 percent) experienced a great degree of academic impact of lost instructional time
during the 2020–2021 school year. As shown in Figure 9 below, we noted that charter
LEAs were more likely than traditional LEAs to continue to experience a great degree of
academic impact of lost instructional time across student populations.
Figure 9. Estimated Percentages of LEAs that Experienced a Great Degree of Academic
Impact of Lost Instructional Time by LEA Type and Student Population for the 2020–
2021 School Year
LEAs noted that the challenges that they faced in obtaining ESSER-funded technology
reduced the effectiveness of the ESSER funds in addressing the academic impact of lost
instructional time for student populations during the 2020–2021 school year.
• A medium rural mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that ESSER-funded
technology had little impact during the 2020–2021 school year due to the timing
of ESSER funds being available to make purchases and the wait time for
hardware.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 28
• A small urban mid-low poverty charter LEA noted that delays in receiving
educational technology (e.g., Chromebooks) funded by ESSER in the 2020–2021
school year lessened the positive impact that these purchases otherwise would
have had.
ESSER-Funded Technology Facilitated a Great Degree of
Activities to Address the Academic Impact of Lost Instructional
Time
During the 2019–2020 school year, we estimate that 46 percent of LEAs facilitated a
great degree of activities with ESSER-funded technology to address the academic impact
of lost instructional time for the general student population. LEAs reported that ESSER-
funded technology facilitated a great degree of activities for economically
disadvantaged students (48 percent), students with disabilities (45 percent) and English
learners (41 percent). We noted that ESSER-funded technology was more likely to
facilitate a great degree of activities for charter LEAs than traditional LEAs across
student populations for the 2019–2020 school year, as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Estimated Percentage of LEAs’ ESSER-Funded Technology that Facilitated a
Great Degree of Activities to Address the Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time
by LEA Type and Student Population for the 2019–2020 School Year
LEAs were able to address the academic impact of lost instructional time by using
ESSER-funded technology for activities involving parents and families, and additional
learning opportunities for students.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 29
• A large urban high poverty traditional LEA provided after school virtual tutoring
and 30-minute remediation twice a week for students during the school day.
• A small urban high poverty charter LEA noted that distance learning was a
success because ESSER-funded technology facilitated schoolwide activities that
maintained school culture and allowed parents to engage with their children's
teachers.
• A small virtual mid-high poverty charter LEA noted that ESSER funds empowered
it to extend learning opportunities throughout the school year and into the
summer that it would have otherwise not been able to offer.
ESSER-Funded Technology Continued to Facilitate Activities to
Address the Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time
During the 2020–2021 school year, LEAs continued to report that their ESSER-funded
technology facilitated a great degree of activities to address the academic impact of lost
instructional time across student populations. We estimate that ESSER-funded
technology facilitated a great degree of activities for the general student population of
LEAs from 46 percent during the 2019–2020 school year to 50 percent of LEAs during
the 2020–2021 school year. We noted that LEAs continued to report that ESSER-funded
technology facilitated a great degree of activities for economically disadvantaged
students (56 percent), students with disabilities (49 percent) and English learners
(49 percent). We also noted that ESSER-funded technology was more likely to facilitate a
great degree of activities for charter LEAs than traditional LEAs across student
populations for the 2020–2021 school year, as shown in Figure 11.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 30
Figure 11. Estimated Percentages of LEAs’ ESSER-Funded Technology that Facilitated a
Great Degree of Activities to Address the Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time
by LEA Type and Student Population for the 2020–2021 School Year
LEAs continued to address the academic impact of lost instructional time by
implementing assessments to assist teachers in meeting student needs.
• A medium urban mid-low poverty traditional LEA noted that it implemented
assessments to inform teachers’ instruction to address the social, emotional,
and academic needs of students for the 2021–2022 school year. This LEA added
that this information will continue to inform instruction in the summer
programs and will provide families with information to continue to support their
students at home.
• A small urban mid-high poverty charter LEA noted that ESSER-funded
technology provided educational tools for teachers to assess and identify each
student’s learning gaps and address those gaps through personalized programs
for individual students. This LEA added that these ESSER-funded tools facilitated
small groups for individual student instruction to ensure all students had the
support they needed to meet or exceed academic standards.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 31
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology
We surveyed a nationwide sample of LEAs about their experiences with using ESSER
funds to purchase educational technology to continue student instruction during the
coronavirus. Our survey covered the types of (1) educational technology purchased with
ESSER funds, (2) challenges that LEAs faced and expect to face in the future regarding
the educational technology purchased with ESSER funds, and (3) impacts that
educational technology purchased with ESSER funds had on student instruction. We
held an exit conference on February 6, 2023, and discussed our observations of the
survey results with officials from OESE; the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development; OGC; and the Office of the Chief Data Officer.
To achieve our objective, we gained an understanding of the CARES, CRRSA, and ARP
Acts, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (2 C.F.R. Part 200). We reviewed the Department’s
guidance relevant to our objective, including the Department’s ESSER I Frequently Asked
Questions, ESSER II and ARP ESSER Fact Sheets, ESSER I Certification and Agreements,
ESSER I and II Letters to Commissioners, ARP ESSER Letter to Chief State School Officers,
and ARP ESSER Grant Award Assurances. We interviewed officials from OESE’s SGR to
gain an understanding of how OESE administers the ESSER Fund grant program. We also
reviewed relevant documentation obtained from OESE, including CARES Act Monitoring
Reports, Standard Operating Procedures, the ESSER Fund Recipient Data Collection
Form, and the ARP ESSER Fund Technical Review Plan.
To develop our survey for our nationally representative sample of LEAs, we performed
the following tests and revised the survey questions based on the test results and
feedback:
• Cognitive Testing. When developing content and refining questions for the
web-based survey, we consulted with OESE and two SEAs as subject matter
experts (SME). We received feedback from the SMEs to address whether LEAs
would understand the questions as intended and if they could provide accurate
answers. If there were questions that LEAs might misunderstand or have
difficulty answering, OESE and the SEAs advised us on how those questions
could be improved prior to distributing the survey.
• Feasibility Testing. When determining the appropriate survey platform for the
survey, we identified the necessary functionality needed to administer the
survey and aligned those with the capabilities of the available survey platforms.
After selecting a survey platform, we tested the feasibility by inputting the
survey questions into the platform and the audit team completed the test
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 32
survey. We ensured that branching questions 18 and links functioned as
intended, the questions input were updated after each revision, and the survey
results were presented as intended.
• Pretesting. To ensure that questions would be interpreted in the way we
intended, we distributed the pretest survey to 16 of the 344 sampled LEAs
(eight traditional LEAs and eight charter LEAs) to check whether (1) questions
were clear and unambiguous; (2) terminology was used correctly; (3) the survey
did not place an undue burden on those responding; (4) the information could
feasibly be obtained; and (5) the survey was comprehensive and unbiased. Of
the 16 LEAs, 13 LEAs completed the pretest survey, and we reviewed the results
to determine whether (1) the source was valid or reliable; (2) the categories
were correct; (3) the categories represented the substance of the data; and
(4) we could generalize beyond the raw data. We also conducted 3 follow-up
interviews for feedback and obtained written feedback from 10 LEAs. The
13 LEAs’ pretest survey results were included in the final data analysis and the
LEAs were not administered the survey again.
To administer our web-based survey to our representative sample of LEAs, we
performed the following procedures to achieve the desired survey response rate:
• We created SEA and LEA protocols that contained templates for email
transmittals and talking points for telephone conversations to be used for SEA
coordination and to distribute the survey directly to LEAs. This also included
instructions and a fillable version of the survey for LEA officials to consult or
collaborate with knowledgeable colleagues, as needed. These protocols
included timeframes for the audit team to perform follow up with LEAs via
emails and telephone calls. These protocols were also tested during pretesting
to ensure effectiveness.
• We contacted OESE SGR officials to obtain the contact information for all
52 SEAs. We contacted SEAs to obtain the contact information for all selected
LEAs, and confirmed whether the selected LEAs within each State received an
ESSER Fund subgrant and whether the LEA was a fully virtual charter LEA.
Further, we requested that the SEA assist in conducting the survey by
(1) notifying the selected LEAs of their selection and the upcoming contact from
18
A branching question is a change in the flow of the survey based on answers to prior question(s) in the
survey, or other known information about the respondent (e.g., whether the LEA used ESSER funds to
purchase hardware), allowing respondents to either skip or be directed to specific questions or sections
in the survey.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 33
OIG and (2) encouraging and reminding the selected LEAs to complete the
survey in a timely manner. In addition, these SEAs informed us of whether an
LEA was no longer operational because it closed or merged with another LEA.
• After excluding the pretest LEAs and LEAs that were no longer operational, we
used the LEA protocol to successfully distribute the web-based survey to
321 LEAs on March 16, 2022. We received 300 LEA responses (87 percent
response rate), 19 which exceeded our goal of a 70 percent response rate.
To complete our data analysis of the survey results, we performed the following
procedures:
• We developed a detailed data analysis plan for quantitative and qualitative
analyses of the survey results. We reviewed survey questions that addressed
our objective as well as identified how many LEAs did and did not (1) receive
ESSER funds and (2) used ESSER funds to purchase educational technology.
• We identified, analyzed, and compared the attributes across the subgroups
(geographical designation, poverty level, and size) and populations (traditional
and charter LEAs) to narrow our focus as well as any notable differences
between the traditional and charter LEAs and drew conclusions to determine
whether additional follow-up was necessary.
• We conducted four post-survey case study interviews with selected LEA survey
respondents, which gave them the opportunity to elaborate on their survey
responses and allowed us to obtain additional contextual information.
Sampling Methodology
Our initial population of 19,828 LEAs was based on the National Center for Education
Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2019–2020 school year. Because a data
source did not exist that reported which LEAs received ESSER funds, we used Title I
allocations as a proxy to estimate what LEAs may have received an ESSER Fund
subgrant. However, Title I data was not available for the complete population.
Therefore, we removed 2,441 traditional LEAs that did not have Title I data. In addition,
we removed 24 LEAs that were included in an ESSER expenditures review initiated by
OIG’s Special Investigations Unit and 3 LEAs that were not awarded an ESSER Fund
subgrant. The final sampling population was 17,360 LEAs. This sampling population was
stratified into two subpopulations. The first subpopulation consisted of
19
We computed the response rate based on 300 completed surveys, but we used 294 completed
surveys in our analysis. Of the six completed surveys not used, three LEAs did not receive ESSER funds,
one LEA did not complete the survey correctly, and two LEAs responded for multiple schools.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 34
13,109 traditional LEAs with available Title I data. The second subpopulation consisted
of 4,251 charter LEAs without Title I data.
We selected a total sample size of 344 LEAs to project to the universe of 17,360 LEAs.
This sample was selected using two approaches according to the subpopulation type.
We used a stratified random sampling design to allow for an attribute percent
projection of the first subpopulation. Due to available Title I and geographic data, the
first subpopulation was stratified into 13 strata: 20 3 geographic locations (urban city,
suburban, and rural) and 5 funding allocations (extra small, small, medium, large, and
extra-large). The sample size was estimated to be 150 traditional LEAs to account for a
70 percent response rate using a 10 percent precision rate at a 95 percent confidence
level.
We used a random sampling design to allow for an attribute percent projection for the
second subpopulation. We did not stratify because we did not have the geographic
information for the charter LEAs. The sample size was estimated to be 194 to account
for a 70 percent response rate, with an additional adjustment of 75 percent, 21 using a
10 percent precision rate at a 95 percent confidence level. Throughout this report, we
presented the estimated percentages with a 95 percent confidence level for our
population of LEAs and subpopulations of traditional and charter LEAs.
Use of Computer-Processed Data
The use of computer-processed data was limited to identifying the LEAs that received an
ESSER Fund subgrant based on the 2019–2020 Title I allocations and the CCD geographic
data. To assess the reliability of this information, we contacted 44 applicable SEAs and
requested that each SEA complete a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet included LEA contact
information for all selected LEAs and each SEA confirmed whether the selected LEAs
within its State received an ESSER Fund subgrant and whether the LEA was a fully virtual
charter LEA. Further, we included questions within the survey asking the LEAs to self-
report whether they received an ESSER Fund subgrant as well as their geographic
designation, poverty-level, and size.
We determined that the data provided by the LEAs was reliable for the purposes of our
review. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the LEAs’ self-reported
20
There were no LEAs in the strata “rural extra-large” or “suburban extra-large”.
21
The sample size for charter LEAs was adjusted a second time to account for the LEAs that may not
have received the ESSER Fund grant. We computed 75 percent by selecting a random sample of
20 charter LEAs and determined that 15 (75 percent) charters LEAs were awarded the ESSER Fund grant.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 35
information, but we took a series of steps—from survey design through data analysis
and interpretation—to minimize potential errors and problems. To identify survey
questions, we spoke with SMEs such as SEAs and OESE. To verify the clarity, length of
time of administration, and understandability of the questions, we pretested the survey
to 13 LEAs, 2 SEAs, and OESE. In addition, we examined survey responses for missing
data and irregularities. We analyzed the survey data by calculating descriptive statistics
of LEA responses.
Compliance with Standards
We conducted our work in accordance with the OIG’s quality control standards and the
Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency’s “Quality Standards for
Federal Offices of Inspector General,” which require that we conduct our work with
integrity, objectivity, and independence. We believe that the information obtained
provides a reasonable basis for the conclusions contained in this report.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 36
Appendix B. LEA Demographics
For 274 LEA survey respondents that used their ESSER funds to purchase educational
technology, we used demographic data provided by the LEAs to stratify the traditional
LEA and charter LEA populations within each of 3 subgroups—geographic designation,
poverty level, and size—and analyzed survey results for these subgroups. In addition to
the type of LEA (traditional or charter), the tables below identify the strata for each
subgroup and the corresponding number of LEAs.
Table 3. Number of LEAs by Type
Type Number of LEAs Percent of LEAs
Charter LEA 133 49%
Traditional LEA 141 51%
Total LEAs 274 100%
Geographic Designation. We defined each geographic designation in the survey and
asked each LEA to report whether it was urban, suburban, or rural. Urban LEAs are
located within a city or town of a metropolitan area. Suburban LEAs are located outside
of a city or town of a metropolitan area but within the metropolitan area. Rural LEAs are
in the non-urban area. Prior to distributing the survey, we asked the respective SEAs to
identify whether the sampled charter LEAs were fully virtual before the coronavirus.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 37
Table 4. Number of LEAs by Geographic Designation
Designation Number of LEAs Percent of LEAs
Rural 67 24%
Suburban 57 21%
Urban 146 53%
Urban, Suburban,
1 <1%
Rural 22
Virtual 3 1%
Total LEAs 274 100%
Table 5. Number of Charter LEAs by Geographic Designation
Geographic Designation Number of LEAs Percent of LEA Type
Rural 17 13%
Suburban 25 19%
Urban 87 65%
Urban, Suburban, Rural 1 1%
Virtual 3 2%
Total Charter LEAs 133 100%
22
This charter LEA reported all three geographic designations.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 38
Table 6. Number of Traditional LEAs by Geographic Designation
Geographic Designation Number of LEAs Percent of LEA Type
Rural 50 35%
Suburban 32 23%
Urban 59 42%
Total Traditional LEAs 141 100%
Poverty Level. We used the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch under the National School Lunch Program as a proxy for poverty level. Low
poverty LEAs have less than 25 percent, mid-low poverty LEAs have between
26-50 percent, mid-high poverty LEAs have between 51–75 percent, and high poverty
have more than 75 percent.
Table 7. Number of LEAs by Poverty Level
Poverty Level Number of LEAs Percent of LEAs
High 123 45%
Mid-High 61 22%
Mid-Low 66 24%
Low 24 9%
Total LEAs 274 100%
Table 8. Number of Charter LEAs by Poverty Level
Poverty Level Number of LEAs Percent of LEA Type
High 68 51%
Mid-High 20 15%
Mid-Low 28 22%
Low 17 13%
Total Charter LEAs 133 100%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 39
Table 9. Number of Traditional LEAs by Poverty Level
Poverty Level Number of LEAs Percent of LEA Type
High 55 39%
Mid-High 41 29%
Mid-Low 38 27%
Low 7 5%
Total Traditional LEAs 141 100%
Size. We asked LEAs to enter the number of students enrolled and we classified the LEAs
as small (2 to 2,429 students), medium (2,560 to 9,900 students), or large (10,099 to
435,958 students).
Table 10. Number of LEAs by Size
LEA Size Number of LEAs Percent of LEAs
Large 60 22%
Medium 50 18%
Small 164 60%
Total LEAs 274 100%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 40
Table 11. Number of Charter LEAs by Size
LEA Size Number of LEAs Percent of LEA Type
Medium 6 5%
Small 127 95%
Total Charter LEAs 133 100%
Table 12. Number of Traditional LEAs by Size
LEA Size Number of LEAs Percent of LEA Type
Large 60 43%
Medium 44 31%
Small 37 26%
Total Traditional LEAs 141 100%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 41
Appendix C. Estimated Percentages of Survey
Results
We designed the statistical approach to obtain responses allowing for the development
of an estimate for the LEA population about their experiences using ESSER funds to
purchase educational technology to continue student instruction during the
coronavirus. The estimates presented throughout the report are the point estimates for
each question, which is the projected value of LEAs in the universe of 17,360 LEAs or the
13,109 traditional LEAs and 4,251 charter LEAs. Each point estimate is accompanied with
a confidence range (lower bound and upper bound), which is a range around the point
estimate. We computed a 95 percent confidence interval for each point estimate to
convey that the true value is within that range.
In the sections below, we present the confidence interval for each point estimate and
the associated survey questions used throughout the report. The percent estimates
were computed for “Yes” and “No” categories. The “Not applicable/non-respondents”
were not included in the percent projections.
Section I. General Information
Question 5. Did your LEA use ESSER funds to purchase educational
technology?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether they used ESSER funds to purchase educational technology.
Table 13. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Educational Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 79% 93% 98%
Charter 83% 89% 93%
All LEAs 83% 92% 97%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 42
Section II. Using ESSER Funds to Purchase Educational
Technology
Question 8. Did your LEA use ESSER funds to purchase hardware?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether they used ESSER funds to purchase hardware.
Table 14. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Hardware
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 75% 93% 98%
Charter 86% 92% 96%
All LEAs 80% 93% 98%
Question 11b. For laptop computers (Chromebooks), who were the
intended users (students only, teachers only, both, and not applicable) of
the devices purchased using ESSER funds?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that indicated any
user (student only, teacher only, or both) of laptop computers (Chromebooks).
Table 15. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Chromebooks
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 72% 97% 100%
Charter 87% 93% 97%
All LEAs 83% 96% 99%
Question 16. Did your LEA use ESSER funds to purchase software?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether they used ESSER funds to purchase software.
Table 16. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Software
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 45% 63% 78%
Charter 71% 79% 85%
All LEAs 51% 66% 79%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 43
Question 19a. For instructional software, who were the intended users
(students only, teachers only, both, and not applicable) of the software
purchased using ESSER funds?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that indicated any
user (student only, teacher only, or both) of instructional software.
Table 17. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Instructional Software
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 59% 92% 99%
Charter 90% 96% 99%
All LEAs 69% 93% 99%
Question 21. Did your LEA use ESSER funds to purchase connectivity?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether they used ESSER funds to purchase connectivity.
Table 18. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Connectivity
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 57% 74% 86%
Charter 46% 55% 63%
All LEAs 57% 70% 80%
Question 24a. For mobile hotspot with paid data plans (MiFi), who were
the intended users (students only, teachers only, both, and not
applicable) of the connectivity purchased using ESSER funds?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that indicated any
user (student only, teacher only, or both) of mobile hotspots.
Table 19. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Mobile Hotspots
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 58% 81% 93%
Charter 84% 93% 97%
All LEAs 64% 83% 93%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 44
Question 26. What other products or services to support educational
technology did your LEA purchase using ESSER funds?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, except for “none of the above.”
Table 20. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Other Products and Services
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 24% 38% 53%
Charter 54% 62% 70%
All LEAs 31% 43% 56%
We also estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that
responded, “training for teachers, parents or students.”
Table 21. LEAs that Used ESSER Funds to Purchase Training for Teachers, Parents or
Students
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 14% 25% 39%
Charter 27% 34% 42%
All LEAs 18% 27% 38%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 45
Section III. Challenges with Using ESSER Funds for Educational
Technology
Questions 28. In your opinion, what has been the most significant
challenge(s) that your LEA experienced when using ESSER funds for
educational technology?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question but did not include “not applicable—the LEA did not experience any
significant challenges when using ESSER funds for educational technology.”
Table 22. LEAs that Experienced One or More Challenges When Using ESSER Funds to
Purchase Educational Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 61% 79% 90%
Charter 71% 79% 84%
All LEAs 65% 79% 88%
Question 29. In your opinion, was it a challenge to assess the educational
technology needs for students or teachers?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether it was a challenge to assess the educational technology needs for
students or teachers.
Table 23. LEAs that Experienced Challenges When Assessing the Educational
Technology Needs for Students and Teachers
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 12% 22% 36%
Charter 26% 33% 42%
All LEAs 15% 24% 35%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 46
Question 32. If it was a challenge for your LEA to purchase educational
technology (hardware, software, connectivity) using ESSER funds, how did
your LEA resolve or mitigate this challenge?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, but “none of the above” was not included.
Table 24. LEAs that Experienced Challenges Due to Purchasing Educational Technology
Using ESSER Funds
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 37% 54% 71%
Charter 58% 67% 74%
All LEAs 42% 57% 70%
We also estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs’ most
frequently reported response to how they resolved or mitigated the challenge, which
was “waited through delays.”
Table 25. LEAs that Waited Through Delays to Resolve or Mitigate Challenges Due to
Purchasing Education Technology Using ESSER Funds
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 38% 56% 73%
Charter 54% 63% 71%
All LEAs 43% 58% 71%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 47
Question 33. If it was a challenge for your LEA to safeguard hardware
devices purchased with ESSER funds, how did your LEA resolve or mitigate
this challenge?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, but “none of the above” was not included.
Table 26. LEAs that Experienced Challenges Due to Safeguarding Hardware Devices
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 25% 39% 55%
Charter 38% 46% 54%
All LEAs 29% 40% 53%
Question 34. If it was a challenge for your LEA to maintain or repair
educational technology (hardware, software, connectivity) purchased
using ESSER funds, how did your LEA resolve or mitigate this challenge?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, but “none of the above” was not included.
Table 27. LEAs that Experienced Challenges Maintaining or Repairing ESSER-Funded
Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 28% 43% 60%
Charter 59% 68% 75%
All LEAs 35% 48% 62%
We also estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs’ most
frequently reported response to how they resolved or mitigated the challenge, which
was “assigned existing staff and resources to maintain or repair technology.”
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 48
Table 28. LEAs that Assigned Existing Staff and Resources to Resolve or Mitigate
Challenges of Maintaining or Repairing ESSER-Funded Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 28% 56% 81%
Charter 42% 52% 62%
All LEAs 35% 55% 73%
Question 35. If it was a challenge for your LEA to address cybersecurity
issues that impact confidentiality, integrity, or availability of data, how
did your LEA resolve or mitigate this challenge?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, but “none of the above” was not included.
Table 29. LEAs that Experienced Challenges Addressing Cybersecurity
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 20% 32% 48%
Charter 35% 43% 51%
All LEAs 24% 35% 47%
Question 36. If it was a challenge for your LEA to ensure that all students
have adequate access to internet, how did your LEA resolve or mitigate
this challenge?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, but “none of the above” was not included.
Table 30. LEAs that Experienced Challenges Ensuring Adequate Internet Access
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 58% 76% 88%
Charter 63% 71% 79%
All LEAs 61% 75% 85%
We also estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs’ most
frequently reported response to how they resolved or mitigated the challenge, which
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 49
was “purchased additional hotspots for students who did not have or had limited access
to internet.”
Table 31. LEAs that Purchased Additional Hotspots to Resolve or Mitigate Challenges
Ensuring Adequate Internet Access
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 59% 81% 93%
Charter 73% 82% 89%
All LEAs 65% 81% 91%
Question 37. If it was a challenge for your LEA to provide technology-
related training, how did your LEA resolve or mitigate this challenge?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question, but “none of the above” was not included.
Table 32. LEAs that Experienced Challenges Providing Technology-Related Training
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 25% 40% 56%
Charter 33% 41% 49%
All LEAs 28% 40% 53%
Question 38. What was the predominant method of instruction (in-person,
hybrid, or remote) at the beginning of 2019–2020 school year?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs’ predominant
response for each school year.
Table 33. Fall 2019 LEAs Predominantly Instructed In-Person
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 75% 92% 98%
Charter 77% 84% 90%
All LEAs 80% 91% 96%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 50
Table 34. Fall 2020 LEAs Predominantly Instructed Remote and Hybrid
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 34% 51% 68%
Charter 88% 94% 97%
All LEAs 45% 60% 73%
Table 35. Fall 2021 LEAs Predominantly Instructed In-Person
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 83% 96% 99%
Charter 65% 74% 81%
All LEAs 85% 91% 95%
Question 39. Considering the predominant method of instruction at the
beginning of each school year that you checked in the previous question
[38] above, in your opinion was it a challenge for schools in your LEA to
shift to remote, hybrid, or in-person instruction during 2019–2020 school
year?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the LEAs that indicated whether shifting
to remote, hybrid or in-person was a challenge for each school year, but “not
applicable—method of instruction did not change” were not included. Then, we
estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs’ most frequently reported
response for each school year.
Table 36. LEAs Experienced Challenges Due to Shifting Methods of Instruction for the
2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 67% 91% 98%
Charter 80% 87% 92%
All LEAs 74% 90% 96%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 51
Table 37. LEAs’ Most Frequently Reported Shifting to Remote Instruction for the 2019–
2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 60% 80% 92%
Charter 73% 80% 86%
All LEAs 65% 80% 90%
Table 38. LEAs Experienced Challenges Due to Shifting Methods of Instruction for the
2020–2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 47% 72% 88%
Charter 77% 84% 90%
All LEAs 56% 75% 88%
Table 39. LEAs’ Most Frequently Reported Shifting to Hybrid Instruction for the 2020–
2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 29% 45% 62%
Charter 46% 54% 63%
All LEAs 34% 47% 61%
Table 40. LEAs Experienced Challenges Due to Shifting Methods of Instruction for the
2021–2022 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 21% 38% 59%
Charter 51% 60% 68%
All LEAs 30% 44% 60%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 52
Table 41. LEAs’ Most Frequently Reported Shifting to In-Person Instruction for the
2021–2022 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 14% 25% 41%
Charter 33% 41% 50%
All LEAs 19% 28% 41%
Question 40. In your opinion, what ongoing or future challenges does your
LEA anticipate related to using ESSER funds for educational technology?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded to
the question for each school year, but “not applicable—the LEA does not anticipate any
ongoing or future challenges related to using ESSER funds for educational technology”
was not included.
Table 42. LEAs Anticipating Ongoing or Future Challenges Due to ESSER-Funded
Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 60% 78% 90%
Charter 79% 86% 91%
All LEAs 66% 80% 90%
Then, we estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the LEAs’ most frequently
reported response for ongoing or future challenges that the LEA anticipated related to
ESSER-funded technology.
Table 43. LEAs’ Most Frequently Reported Sustaining Ongoing Costs When ESSER
Funds are No Longer Available
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 44% 63% 78%
Charter 70% 78% 84%
All LEAs 51% 66% 78%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 53
Section IV. Impacts of Using ESSER Funds for Educational
Technology
Question 42. In your opinion, to what degree has education technology
(hardware, software, connectivity) purchased using ESSER funds enabled
your LEA to continue to provide educational services remotely for the
following student populations?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population was enabled to a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was
not included.
Table 44. LEAs Reported that their General Student Population was Enabled, to a
Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 44% 64% 79%
Charter 74% 81% 87%
All LEAs 52% 68% 80%
Table 45. LEAs Reported that their Students with Disabilities were Enabled, to a Great
Degree, by ESSER-Funded Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 39% 58% 75%
Charter 66% 74% 81%
All LEAs 47% 62% 75%
Table 46. LEAs Reported that their Economically Disadvantaged Students were
Enabled, to a Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 45% 64% 80%
Charter 77% 84% 90%
All LEAs 53% 69% 81%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 54
Table 47. LEAs Reported that their English Learners were Enabled, to a Great Degree,
by ESSER-Funded Technology
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 44% 65% 82%
Charter 65% 74% 81%
All LEAs 50% 67% 80%
Question 44. In your opinion, to what degree have digital devices
purchased using ESSER funds enabled the following populations of
students to continue learning remotely?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population was enabled to a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was
not included.
Table 48. LEAs Reported that their General Student Populations were Enabled, to a
Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Digital Devices (Hardware)
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 42% 62% 78%
Charter 73% 81% 88%
All LEAs 50% 66% 79%
Table 49. LEAs Reported that their Students with Disabilities were Enabled, to a Great
Degree, by ESSER-Funded Digital Devices (Hardware)
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 38% 57% 74%
Charter 64% 73% 81%
All LEAs 45% 61% 74%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 55
Table 50. LEAs Reported that their Economically Disadvantaged Students were
Enabled, to a Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Digital Devices (Hardware)
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 45% 65% 81%
Charter 73% 81% 88%
All LEAs 53% 69% 82%
Table 51. LEAs Reported that their English Learners were Enabled, to a Great Degree,
by ESSER-Funded Digital Devices (Hardware)
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 37% 58% 76%
Charter 64% 74% 82%
All LEAs 44% 61% 76%
Question 46. In your opinion, to what degree has software purchased
using ESSER funds enabled the following populations of students to
continue learning remotely?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population was enabled to a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was
not included.
Table 52. LEAs Reported that their General Student Populations were Enabled, to a
Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Software
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 45% 71% 88%
Charter 68% 78% 85%
All LEAs 53% 73% 86%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 56
Table 53. LEAs Reported that their Students with Disabilities were Enabled, to a Great
Degree, by ESSER-Funded Software
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 41% 66% 84%
Charter 60% 70% 78%
All LEAs 48% 67% 81%
Table 54. LEAs Reported that their Economically Disadvantaged Students were
Enabled, to a Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Software
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 45% 71% 88%
Charter 63% 73% 81%
All LEAs 53% 72% 85%
Table 55. LEAs Reported that their English Learners were Enabled, to a Great Degree,
by ESSER-Funded Software
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 34% 61% 83%
Charter 60% 71% 79%
All LEAs 42% 64% 81%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 57
Question 50. In your opinion, to what degree has connectivity purchased
using ESSER funds enabled the following populations of students to access
internet outside of the classroom when needed for remote learning?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population was enabled to a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was
not included.
Table 56. LEAs Reported that their General Student Populations were Enabled, to a
Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Connectivity
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 39% 63% 82%
Charter 47% 59% 69%
All LEAs 43% 62% 78%
Table 57. LEAs Reported that their Students with Disabilities were Enabled, to a Great
Degree, by ESSER-Funded Connectivity
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 37% 61% 81%
Charter 45% 56% 67%
All LEAs 41% 60% 77%
Table 58. LEAs Reported that their Economically Disadvantaged Students Enabled, to a
Great Degree, by ESSER-Funded Connectivity
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 38% 68% 88%
Charter 64% 75% 83%
All LEAs 45% 70% 86%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 58
Table 59. LEAs Reported that their English Learners were Enabled, to a Great Degree,
by ESSER-Funded Connectivity
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 31% 62% 86%
Charter 44% 57% 68%
All LEAs 37% 61% 81%
Question 51. In your opinion, did students experience lost instructional
time due to the coronavirus during school year 2019–2020?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether they experienced lost instructional time during the 2019–2020 school
year.
Table 60. LEAs Experienced Lost Instructional Time in the 2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 82% 96% 99%
Charter 82% 89% 93%
All LEAs 87% 95% 98%
Question 52. In your opinion for school year 2019–2020, what was the
academic impact of lost instructional time due to the coronavirus for the
general student population?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population experienced academic impact of lost instructional time, to
a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was not included.
Table 61. LEAs Reported that their General Student Populations Experienced Great
Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 22% 36% 54%
Charter 54% 63% 72%
All LEAs 29% 42% 56%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 59
Table 62. LEAs Reported that their Students with Disabilities Experienced Great
Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 38% 56% 72%
Charter 67% 76% 83%
All LEAs 44% 60% 73%
Table 63. LEAs Reported that their Economically Disadvantaged Students Experienced
Great Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 31% 48% 65%
Charter 69% 78% 84%
All LEAs 39% 54% 68%
Table 64. LEAs Reported that their English Learners Experienced Great Academic
Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 37% 56% 73%
Charter 63% 73% 81%
All LEAs 43% 59% 74%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 60
Question 53. In your opinion for school year 2019–2020, to what degree
did educational technology purchased using ESSER funds facilitate
activities intended to address the academic impact of lost instructional
time for the following student populations?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population experienced academic impact of lost instructional time, to
a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was not included.
Table 65. LEAs Reported a Great Degree for their General Student Populations in the
2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 24% 43% 64%
Charter 45% 55% 64%
All LEAs 30% 46% 62%
Table 66. LEAs Reported a Great Degree for their Students with Disabilities in the
2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 21% 43% 68%
Charter 41% 51% 61%
All LEAs 27% 45% 64%
Table 67. LEAs Reported a Great Degree for their Economically Disadvantaged
Students in the 2019–2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 24% 46% 70%
Charter 44% 54% 63%
All LEAs 30% 48% 67%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 61
Table 68. LEAs Reported a Great Degree for their English Learner Students in the 2019–
2020 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 17% 37% 64%
Charter 43% 53% 64%
All LEAs 23% 41% 61%
Question 54. In your opinion, did students experience lost instructional
time due to the coronavirus during school year 2020–2021?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on all the selected LEAs that responded
“Yes” to whether they experienced lost instructional time during the 2020–2021 school
year.
Table 69. LEAs that Experienced Lost Instructional Time in the 2020–2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 47% 66% 81%
Charter 66% 74% 81%
All LEAs 53% 68% 80%
Question 55. In your opinion for school year 2020–2021, what was the
academic impact of lost instructional time due to the coronavirus for the
general student population?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population experienced academic impact of lost instructional time, to
a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was not included.
Table 70. LEAs Reported that their General Student Populations Experienced a Great
Degree of Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2020–2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 20% 37% 57%
Charter 50% 60% 70%
All LEAs 28% 42% 58%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 62
Table 71. LEAs Reported that their Students with Disabilities Experienced a Great
Degree of Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2020–2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 38% 62% 81%
Charter 57% 67% 76%
All LEAs 44% 63% 79%
Table 72. LEAs Reported that their Economically Disadvantaged Students Experienced
a Great Degree of Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2020–2021 School
Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 26% 46% 68%
Charter 60% 70% 79%
All LEAs 34% 52% 68%
Table 73. LEAs Reported that their English Learners Experienced a Great Degree of
Academic Impact of Lost Instructional Time in the 2020–2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 33% 56% 76%
Charter 56% 67% 76%
All LEAs 39% 58% 74%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 63
Question 56. In your opinion for school year 2020–2021, to what degree
did educational technology purchased using ESSER funds facilitate
activities intended to address the academic impact of lost instructional
time for the following student populations?
We estimated the percentage of LEAs based on the selected LEAs that indicated that the
specified student population experienced academic impact of lost instructional time, to
a “great degree,” but “not applicable” was not included.
Table 74. LEAs Reported a Great Degree of Impact from ESSER-Purchased Technology
on Lost Instructional Time for their General Student Populations in the 2020–2021
School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 27% 48% 69%
Charter 48% 58% 68%
All LEAs 33% 50% 67%
Table 75. LEAs Reported a Great Degree of Impact from ESSER-Purchased Technology
on Lost Instructional Time for their Students with Disabilities in the 2020–2021 School
Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 26% 47% 70%
Charter 44% 55% 65%
All LEAs 32% 49% 67%
Table 76. LEAs Reported a Great Degree of Impact from ESSER-Purchased Technology
on Lost Instructional Time for their Economically Disadvantaged Students in the 2020–
2021 School Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 33% 56% 77%
Charter 47% 57% 67%
All LEAs 38% 56% 73%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 64
Table 77. LEAs Reported a Great Degree of Impact from ESSER-Purchased Technology
on Lost Instructional Time for their English Learner Students in the 2020–2021 School
Year
LEA Type Lower Bound Point Estimate Upper Bound
Traditional 25% 47% 70%
Charter 46% 57% 68%
All LEAs 31% 49% 68%
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 65
Appendix D. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARP American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
CARES Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CCD Common Core of Data
CRRSA Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations
Act
Department U.S. Department of Education
ESSER Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
ESSER-funded educational technology purchased using ESSER funds
technology
LEA local educational agency
OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
SEA State Educational Agency
SGR Office of State and Grant Relations
SME subject matter expert
Title I Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 66
OESE Comments
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 67
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/F20US0030 68
File and source
- File
- leas-use-esser-funds-technology.pdf
- Size
- 3,084,295 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4d6a3c5790ca2837ef5530d5072a4c86583509e2c91822b6dd3108d6dfe29152
- Original
- oig.ed.gov