Legislature’s PERF review spots promising pilots, flags limits on causal evidence

Legislative Finance Committee staff and partner agencies on Oct. 1 reviewed evaluation plans for the Public Education Reform Fund (PERF), highlighting five pilot initiatives while cautioning that several designs will limit how confidently the state can attribute student outcomes to those programs.

Jessica Hathaway, deputy director for the Legislative Education Study Committee, told the committee that PERF was converted by the Legislature into "a targeted multi-year investment fund" with a statutory requirement that funded initiatives be evaluated for impacts on both students and teachers. She described staff roles in reviewing PED plans and said, "By July 1, those initial evaluation plans were due from PED to LESC, LFC, and DFA staff. We did receive those on time."

Why it matters: PERF is a new vehicle for multi-year, nonrecurring investments intended to produce evidence the state can use to scale or discontinue programs. Committee staff emphasized the fund has no dedicated revenue source, so future expansion would require additional appropriations.

What was presented: DFA analyst Simon Miller summarized the five PERF appropriations across FY26–FY28 and their purposes. Staff characterized the initiatives and key evaluation designs as follows: attendance improvement ($18.6 million total) — grants to LEAs with no statewide control group and locally chosen interventions; secondary literacy ($15.6 million) — a mix of professional development, instructional coaching and an AI reading tutor with a matched comparison design but potential sample-size limits; math achievement ($13.5 million) — algebra readiness, micro-credential pilots and high-quality instructional materials assessed with quasi-experimental methods; innovative staffing ($7.8 million) — Opportunity Culture and Next Education Workforce pilots without random assignment; supports for unhoused students ($6.3 million) — a cash-plus pilot proposing $500 monthly payments to roughly 330 students paired with counseling and financial-literacy requirements.

Key concerns raised: Presenters repeatedly noted that attendance grants and the unhoused-students pilot lack true randomized controls and that LEA choice of interventions risks implementation heterogeneity. Staff also warned that timeline compression in year one — plan development, funds flowing and program starts all within months — could hinder both implementation and interpretation of outcomes.

Quotes from the hearing: On evaluation timing, Hathaway said staff "provided robust feedback" and received revised plans Sept. 1. On the unhoused-students pilot, presenters confirmed it mirrors a New Mexico Appleseed pilot and that payments will be deposited into accounts for students alongside required weekly counseling and academic supports.

What’s next: Per statute, PED must provide periodic evaluation updates (first update due Nov. 1) and final evaluation reports are due Sept. 1, 2027. Committee members asked for continued monitoring and asked staff to track implementation fidelity, attrition, and whether cash stipends reach students.

The committee asked PED and staff to return with additional detail on monitoring, lists of selected LEAs, and the grading of evidence supporting each intervention so legislators can weigh whether to expand, sustain or end pilots after evaluation.