In a previous post, we explored how recent federal guidance reinforces the flexibility of Title II-A funds and how that flexibility opens new pathways for states and districts to rethink how they support educators. That flexibility creates a foundation for innovation. It does not, on its own, improve outcomes.

Moving from flexibility to impact requires leaders to think differently about how these funds are used. That shift requires moving beyond individual programs and toward a systems-level approach that aligns investments over time.

Last year, FullScale partnered with SETDA, ISTE+ASCD, Learning Forward, and state and local leaders to better understand how Title II-A funds are being used in practice,and what it takes to apply a systems approach effectively to drive improvement.

The findings from that work offer a clearer picture of where current efforts fall short and provide insight into how leaders can use Title II-A funds to support more coherent and sustainable approaches to strategic staffing.

The Title II-A Landscape

This research combined a national survey and a series of focus groups with state and local leaders who design and implement professional learning within school systems. More than 300 leaders participated, representing a wide range of geographies and contexts, including representation from 76 school districts, and 26 states.

Across this work, several consistent patterns emerged in how school systems use Title II-A funds, and where those efforts fall short of coherence:

• School systems spread Title II-A funds across disconnected priorities. Leaders invest in professional development, coaching, mentoring, recruitment, and leadership initiatives. These efforts often operate independently, without a clear strategy connecting them to one another or to broader instructional goals.
• School systems do not consistently orient to professional learning as system infrastructure. Many systems lack the conditions needed to align professional learning with staffing models, instructional priorities, and day-to-day educator practice. Even strong individual programs rarely produce sustained changes in teaching and learning.
• Leaders navigate complexity without clear design support. Coordinating across funding streams, initiatives, and priorities requires intentional system design. In the absence of shared frameworks and models, leaders are left to make critical decisions about how to use Title II-A flexibility without consistent guidance.

Taken together, these patterns point to a central issue. School systems already exercise flexibility in how they use Title II-A funds, but they do not consistently organize those investments into coherent systems.

From Flexibility to Coherence

In response, our report offers a set of recommendations for how states and districts can move from fragmented use of Title II-A funds toward a more intentional, systems-based approach. These recommendations focus on strengthening the connections between professional learning, staffing models, and instructional priorities so that investments reinforce one another over time.

Together, these recommendations point to a set of design moves that leaders can use to build greater coherence in how they use Title II-A funds to support professional learning systems:

• Align professional learning to staffing and instructional priorities. Leaders should design professional learning to reflect the roles, responsibilities, and instructional goals embedded in staffing models. This alignment ensures that educators receive support tied to their daily work and that Title II-A investments advance shared instructional priorities.
• Invest in ongoing, job-embedded support. Leaders should prioritize coaching, structured collaboration time, and embedded supports that allow educators to apply new strategies in context and refine their practice over time.
• Design for connection across initiatives. Leaders should connect professional learning, staffing models, technology use, and instructional strategy so that Title II-A–funded efforts reinforce one another rather than operate in isolation.
• Build leadership capacity to design and sustain systems. School and system leaders must coordinate across funding streams, align initiatives, and manage complexity over time. Strengthening this capacity supports more coherent design and sustained implementation.
• Use data to strengthen alignment and impact. Leaders should establish feedback loops that show how Title II-A investments function together, identify gaps, and inform continuous improvement.

Title II-A funds already support many of the right investments. Increasing the impact of those investments depends on how intentionally leaders connect those investments into coherent professional learning systems. These design moves offer a starting point for building the infrastructure needed to support strategic staffing and sustained instructional improvement.

A Systems Approach to Strategic Staffing with Title II-A

Title II-A funds already support many of the right investments across school systems. The question, then, is how leaders intentionally design those investments to work together.

A systems approach brings those efforts into alignment. It ensures that professional learning supports evolving educator roles, that staffing models connect to instructional priorities, and that investments reinforce one another over time.

Flexibility creates the conditions for this work. Coherence determines whether it leads to meaningful, sustained improvement.

—

Series Note: This article is the second in a series examining how Title II-A flexibility can support more coherent workforce design. The series connects the Department’s recent guidance with related FullScale research and field-facing tools focused on strengthening professional learning systems and redesigning the educator role for an AI-enabled era.