Consultant tells East Baton Rouge board to use school-by-school spending data as ESSER funds expire

Jessica Swanson, a consultant with the Edgenomics Lab who previously led finance work in DC Public Schools, told the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board on Jan. 14 that members should make school-by-school spending and student outcome data a central part of budget decisions now that federal ESSER relief funding has ended.

Swanson said the district received “about 211,000,000, a little over 5,000 per student” in ESSER funds and emphasized that the national ESSER program, which she described as the largest one-time federal infusion for schools, is finished for most districts. She said the formal deadline to spend ESSER funds was “September 30th,” and noted some states allowed limited extensions for already-obligated contracts through March 2026.

The consultant framed the change as part of a broader shift school boards face in 2026: a leaner recurring budget after a temporary funding spike, continued inflation-driven salary and operational costs, and enrollment declines. Swanson showed district visualizations that combine actual per-student spending (including salary costs and a share of central office) with proficiency results and poverty levels, and she walked board members through uses of the data to spot schools that spend more or less than peers and to identify higher-return investments.

Why it matters: East Baton Rouge’s recent spending and reserves affect what the district can sustain. Swanson said East Baton Rouge’s prior annual per-student spending tracked roughly with national averages (about $14,000 per pupil in recent years) and that the parish’s fund balance recently rose to about 25% of revenues (she cited roughly $140,000,000), well above the Louisiana Department of Education’s 7.5% target and the board’s own 15% policy. She cautioned that using reserves to replace recurring ESSER-supported services is generally not sustainable and recommended limiting fund-balance draws to one-time needs or short-term bridge funding.

Details and examples: Swanson used national and local examples to illustrate consequences of different policies. She said national average ESSER per-student allocations were about $3,850, noting district allocations varied with poverty levels and could be much higher in some places. She walked the board through EBR-specific visualizations (shared by link and on BoardDocs) that show:

- A district-level trend: EBR enrollment declined about 5% over the past decade while district employment fell only about 0.2% in the same period (data from the ACFR packages, Swanson said).

- Cross-school variation: some EBR schools spend substantially more per student than others, sometimes because of staff seniority, magnet programs or small school size. Swanson contrasted two EBR elementary schools she labeled Greenbrier and Highland (88% economically disadvantaged each): similar per-student spending (about $16,410–$16,644) but sharply different proficiency rates (54% vs. 16% proficiency on the metric shown).

- State context: layered visualizations compared EBR schools to other Louisiana schools and to statewide averages. Swanson pointed to examples in other cities (Chicago, Syracuse) to show how staffing or baseline staffing policies can create unintended per-student spending disparities.

Recommended questions for board members: Swanson gave four practical steps she said boards should use when planning for 2026 budgets: (1) know school-by-school spending and outcome trends; (2) ask what investments are demonstrably working and what they cost per student; (3) ask the community which programs to protect when choices are necessary; and (4) review whether the proposed budget aligns with board goals (for example, literacy, math proficiency or postsecondary readiness).

She illustrated the second step with a district case in which three ESSER-funded programs were compared on cost per student and perceived value; the district ultimately kept the program principals and teachers favored. Swanson also walked board members through an “examine investments” exercise that compares alternatives (for example, different tutoring ratios) to reveal trade-offs between personalization, cost per student and operational risk.

Board response and follow-up: Board members asked for more Southern or regional comparisons and clarification about which students and employees are included in the EBR tables (Swanson said the school counts in the slides include Type 1 students and that employee counts were district employees only; she offered to provide further breakdowns). Several members noted the difficulty of choosing among popular programs when funds are limited; Swanson acknowledged the political and community challenges of stopping investments that are widely valued.

The data tool used in the presentation is publicly available at a tinyurl link Swanson provided and is also in the board packet and on BoardDocs. She said the Edgenomics Lab will return later in the spring with the project’s advisory findings and that the board will receive the raw data files for further analysis.

Ending: The workshop closed with time for board members to explore the visuals and reflect on potential budget priorities and trade-offs as ESSER-driven spending winds down.