This study employs a document analysis of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plan submitted to the United States (US) federal government from 2017 to 2022 in order to examine Title II, Part A, implementation across all states. We analyzed state-level fund allocation, type and number of leadership development activities, and discrepancies between planned and actual spending. Results reveal substantial heterogeneity in state approaches: 23.5% made Title II-A-specific plan amendments, yet 86.3% maximized state reserves by 2020 to 2021. Leadership reserve allocation increased from 31.4% to 45.1%, indicating growing recognition of leadership importance. Findings suggest federal policy allows state adaptation while highlighting significant gaps between planning and implementation in educational leadership funding.
AbernathyS. (2024). Trump’s push to slash federal K-12 school funds, explained. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org
2.
AltheideD. L.SchneiderC. J. (2012). Qualitative media analysis (Vol. 38). Sage Publications.
3.
BauhrM.CarlitzR. (2021). When does transparency improve public services? Street-level discretion, information, and targeting. Public Administration, 99(3), 500–516.
4.
BowenE. R. (1982). The Pressman-Wildavsky paradox: Four addenda or why models based on probability theory can predict implementation success and suggest useful tactical advice for implementers. Journal of Public Policy, 2(1), 1–21.
5.
BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
6.
CardichonJ.Darling-HammondL. (2019). Protecting students’ civil rights: The federal role in school discipline. Learning Policy Institute.
7.
CardnoC. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 623–640.
8.
ChinM. J.ShiL. (2025). Average and heterogeneous effects of political party on state education finance and outcomes: Regression discontinuity evidence across US election cycles. Economics of Education Review, 105, Article 102636.
9.
CorcoranS.EvansW. N.GodwinJ.MurrayS. E.SchwabR. M. (2004). The changing distribution of education finance, 1972-1997. In NeckermanK. M. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 433–465). Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
CunninghamK. M. W.OsworthD. (2024). Improvement science and the Every Student Succeeds Act: An analysis of the consolidated state plans. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 23(4), 955–972.
11.
De VotoC.ReedyM. A. (2019). Are states under ESSA prioritizing education leadership to improve schools?Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(3), 175–199. (Original work published 2021)
12.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S.HareR. J.VegaB. E. (2010). The political origins of state-level performance funding for higher education: The cases of Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
13.
EgaliteA. J.FusarelliL. D.FusarelliB. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational inequity? The every student succeeds act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 757–781.
14.
Ellerson-NgN. (2023, July14). House FY24 appropriations proposal guts education. American Association of School Administrators. https://www.aasa.org/
FaveroN.KagalwalaA. (2025). The politics of school funding: How state political ideology is associated with the allocation of revenue to school districts. Educational Policy, 39(3), 693–722.
17.
FullerE.YoungM. (2016). Great teachers need great leaders: Why Congress should fully fund ESSA Title II to improve school leadership. University Council for Educational Administration.
18.
FullerE. J.HollingworthL.PendolaA. (2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act, state efforts to improve access to effective educators, and the importance of school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 727–756.
19.
Garcia-MilàT.McGuireT. J.OatesW. E. (2018). Strength in diversity? Fiscal federalism among the fifty US states. International Tax and Public Finance, 25(4), 1071–1091.
20.
GatesS. M.RingelJ. S.SantibañezL.GuarinoC.Ghosh-DastidarB.BrownA. (2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 289–302.
21.
GrissomJ. A.BartanenB. (2019). Principal effectiveness and principal turnover. Education Finance and Policy, 14(3), 355–382.
22.
GrissomJ. A.EgaliteA. J.LindsayC. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
23.
HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110.
24.
HermanR.GatesS. M.ArifkhanovaA.BegaA.Chavez-HerreriasE. R.HanE.HarrisM.TamargoJ.WrabelS. L. (2017). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review. RAND Corporation.
25.
HonigM. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). State University of New York Press.
26.
HorngE. L.KlasikD.LoebS. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523.
27.
KannamJ.WeissM. (2019). Alternative education in ESSA state plans: A review of 38 states. American Youth Policy Forum.
28.
KarppinenK.MoeH. (2012). What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. In JustN.PuppisM. (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 177–193). Intellect.
29.
KaulC. R.DavisB. K. (2018). How the state education agencies addressed gifted education in the Title II sections of their ESSA state plans. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 159–167.
KleinA.UjifusaA. (2017). Trump budget would make massive cuts to Ed. Dept., but boost school choice. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org
32.
KoopC. (2011). Explaining the accountability of independent agencies: The importance of political salience. Journal of Public Policy, 31(2), 209–234.
33.
KridelC. (2015). The biographical and documentary milieu. In HeM. F.SchultzB. D.SchubertW. H. (Eds.), The Sage guide to curriculum in education (pp. 311–318). Sage Publications.
34.
KrippendorffK. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
LeithwoodK. A.MontgomeryD. J. (1985). The role of the principal in school improvement. In AustinG. R.GarberH. (Eds.), Research on exemplary schools (pp. 155–177). Elsevier.
37.
LeithwoodK. A.SeashoreK.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation.
38.
LeithwoodK.SunJ.SchumackerR. (2020). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “The four paths model.”Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 570–599.
39.
LevinS.BradleyK. (2019). Understanding and addressing principal turnover: A review of the research. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
40.
LevinS.LeungM.EdgertonA. K.ScottC. (2020). Elementary school principals’ professional learning: Current status and future needs. Learning Policy Institute.
41.
LiebermanM. (2025a). Who will bear the brunt of Trump’s hold on $6.8 billion in school funds?Education Week. https://www.edweek.org
42.
LiebermanM. (2025b). What’s the latest on trump’s school funding freeze? What we know and don’t know. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org
43.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
MannaP. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Georgetown University Press.
45.
MannaP.RyanL. L. (2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President Obama’s race to the top program in theory and practice. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(3), 522–546.
46.
McGuinnP. (2019). Assessing state ESSA plans: Innovation or retreat?Phi Delta Kappan, 101(2), 8–13.
47.
MettlerS.SoRelleM. (2018). Policy feedback theory. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 103–134). Routledge.
48.
MillerR. J.GoddardR. D.KimM.JacobR.GoddardY.SchroederP. (2016). Can professional development improve school leadership? Results from a randomized control trial assessing the impact of McREL’s balanced leadership program on principals in rural Michigan schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 531–566.
49.
MoeT. M. (2005a). Political control and the power of the agent. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22(1), 1–29.
50.
MoeT. M. (2005b). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 215–233.
51.
MorganH. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77.
52.
MurphyJ. F. (2016). Professional standards for educational leaders: The empirical, moral, and experiential foundations. Corwin Press.
53.
MurrayS. E.EvansW. N.SchwabR. M. (1998). Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources. American Economic Review, 88(4), 789–812.
NiY.SunM.RorrerA. (2014). Principal turnover. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 409–437.
56.
OatesW. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(3), 1120–1149.
57.
PatrickB. (2012). Fiscal federalism, performance policies, and education reforms: Are states using performance policies to improve workforce quality?Politics & Policy, 40(4), 593–628.
58.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. B. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press.
59.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.
60.
ScottJ. (2014). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. John Wiley & Sons.
61.
ShoresK. A.SteinbergM. P. (2019). The great recession, fiscal federalism and the consequences for cross-district spending inequality. Journal of Education Finance, 45(2), 123–148.
62.
SnyderT. D.DinkesR.SonnenbergW.CornmanS. (2019). Study of the Title I, Part A Grant Program mathematical formulas: Statistical analysis report (NCES 2019-016). National Center for Education Statistics.
63.
SowM.RazafimahefaM. I. F. (2017). Fiscal decentralization and fiscal policy performance. International Monetary Fund.
64.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
65.
SutcherL.PodolskyA.EspinozaD. (2017). Supporting principals’ learning: Key features of effective programs. Learning Policy Institute.
66.
TerryG.HayfieldN.ClarkeV.BraunV. (2017). Thematic analysis. In WilligC.Stainton RogersW. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 17–37). Sage Publications Ltd.
67.
TisdellE. J.MerriamS. B.Stuckey-PeyrotH. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
68.
TroppeP.IsenbergE.MilanowskiA.Garrison-MogrenR.RizzoL.GillB. P.RossC.DillonE.LiA. (2020). The transition to ESSA: State and district approaches to implementing Title I and Title II-A in 2017-18: Supplemental volume (NCEE 2021-002sv). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
69.
UjifusaA. (2017, May23). Trump budget would slash Education Dept. spending, boost school choice. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/
70.
UmanskyI. M.ItohT.CarjuzaaJ. (2023). Indigenous students and English learner identification: A fifty-state policy review. Educational Policy, 37(7), 1989–2025.
VearsD. F.GillamL. (2022). Inductive content analysis: A guide for beginning qualitative researchers. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 23(1), 111–127.
73.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.
74.
YoungM. D.WinnK. M.ReedyM. A. (2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act: Strengthening the focus on educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 705–726.
