By Charles Sosnik
Tick Tock.
About 13,800 district superintendents are facing a hard deadline: September 30. That date marks the statutory cutoff for committing ESSER III funds, and with little time left many districts are scrambling to decide how to use billions of federal dollars meant to support students and accelerate learning recovery.
As September arrives, data show that a large share of districts have committed very little of their ESSER III allocations. Roughly 40 percent of districts have spent less than 20 percent of their ESSER III funding, and about 60 percent have only used around 30 percent. The stakes are high: if funds are not properly obligated by the deadline, districts risk losing access to approximately $54 billion in unspent ESSER III dollars.
To address the looming deadline, 683 superintendents, through the AASA, delivered a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona last Monday asking for clarity and flexibility. The letter requests a blanket liquidation extension or at least clear guidance that would reassure districts they can obligate funds now while preserving eligibility if a technical extension is later granted.
The examples provided in the letter to illustrate why districts need more time include situations such as negotiating favorable long-term curriculum contracts and maintaining telehealth mental health services through the 2024–2025 school year. For example, one district described a potential three-year curriculum contract that would lock in better pricing and an extra year of correlated professional development, while another highlighted a telehealth partnership that has successfully supplemented in-person counseling and that district leaders want to continue uninterrupted.
- A popular curriculum provider is offering more favorable pricing if a district signs a three-year contract instead of a two-year agreement starting in 2022–2023, which would sustain high-quality curriculum and professional development at a minimal extra cost.
- A district contracts with a telehealth vendor to supplement in-person mental health services. The district reports that telehealth has been effective in meeting student needs and wants assurance funds can be used to maintain those services through the 2024–2025 school year.
Those examples highlight both the practical pressures and the planning timelines district leaders face when investing one-time federal funds. At the same time, critics argue that superintendents have had months to plan and should have moved more decisively to obligate ESSER dollars. The debate centers on risk tolerance: districts are cautious about committing funds now if there is any uncertainty they won’t be allowed to liquidate later, while the Department of Education must safeguard compliance with statutory deadlines and program rules.
The letter’s core point is simple: districts need timely certainty about whether a liquidation extension will be available, because many critical budget decisions and contracts are made months in advance of the next school year. If a blanket extension or clear pre-approval is granted, superintendents say they would feel more comfortable finalizing long-term investments that support students, staff, and school facilities.
But the tone of the appeal has drawn mixed reactions. Some view the request as a reasonable ask for administrative flexibility that will improve strategic planning and protect essential services like mental health supports. Others call it an eleventh-hour plea that exposes weaknesses in local planning and decision-making and risk sacrificing student benefits to administrative delays.
If an extension is not granted, the most immediate consequence is that uncommitted funds will remain unused and unavailable for school improvement. The ultimate losers, many argue, would be students: missed opportunities to expand high-quality curriculum, strengthen mental health services, upgrade learning environments, and invest in evidence-based interventions that could narrow learning gaps.
Perfection should not be the enemy of good. With billions of federal dollars at stake and students depending on effective use of those resources, districts must act with urgency. Whether the Department of Education issues broader guidance or not, local leaders should accelerate decision-making, document obligations carefully, and prioritize investments that yield measurable benefits for learners.
About the author
Charles Sosnik is an education journalist and editor and serves as Editor in Chief at the Learning Counsel. An EP3 Education Fellow, he draws on extensive experience in the education community to provide context on issues affecting K–12 schools. Charles contributes regularly to education publications and brings a Southern perspective to his coverage, describing himself as an editor by trade and Southern by the grace of God.