This report, based on interviews with officials from seven state departments of education, explores state efforts to assist local educators with selecting evidence-based interventions to improve low-performing schools. The report also contains some recommendations for making research more accessible to educators.
Several themes emerged across multiple state interviews that
could be informative for other state leaders and researchers. These themes are
summarized below and explained in more detail, with supporting quotations from
state interviews, in later sections of the report.
•
•
_Local education
leaders, and even some state officials, are struggling with the ESSA evidence
requirements, according to state interviewees. The greatest challenge is a lack of
familiarity with research and methodology. As one state official observed,
superintendents and principals are often hired for their managerial skills, not
for their knowledge of school improvement research.
•
•
_Some state leaders
are concerned about their ability to help the larger-than-expected number of
TSI and ATSI schools. Some
state officials expressed surprise at how many schools have been identified as
TSI and/or ATSI schools. These larger numbers are stretching the capacity of
SEA staff and raising concerns about how to provide adequate assistance to
schools. Most interviewees said they have the capacity to meet the letter of
the law but would like to be able to do more for these schools and for CSI
schools. Some are working with outside entities to expand their capacity.
•
•
_States differ in the
types of assistance they are providing to districts and CSI schools. Some states reported providing direct
technical assistance and optional lists of interventions for CSI schools.
Others have embedded SEA employees in CSI schools or are providing
instructional coaches for identified schools. Some states are providing aid
through regional education agencies.
•
•
_States report that
districts are reevaluating longstanding relationships with vendors of education
products and services. According
to state interviewees, the ESSA evidence requirements have prompted many state
and district leaders to look more closely at vendors they have worked with in
the past to ensure that their products and services are supported by evidence
of their efficacy.
•
•
_State views differed
about the prohibition on using Title I SIG funding for tier 4 interventions. ESSA requires states to reserve 7% of
their federal Title I funds for school improvement purposes. At least 95% of
this set-aside must go to school districts, consortia of districts, or
education service agencies. However, these grant funds may be used only for activities,
strategies, or interventions that meet the evidence criteria for tiers 1-3, but
not tier 4. Some state interviewees objected to this policy on the
grounds that tier 4 encouraged innovative, research-based strategies that had
not yet been subjected to the more formal study methodologies required for
higher tiers.
•
• _Several state interviewees said the current U.S. Department
of Education (ED) has not been helpful with ESSA implementation. Some noted that ED staff are slow to
answer questions or had cancelled scheduled phone calls. However, one state
official welcomed the hands-off approach because it has given the state and
school districts the space to figure out ESSA and their new roles.
•
•
_State leaders had
several suggestions for how to make education research more accessible to
educators. Examples included
communicating research findings more clearly, eliminating barriers to accessing
published research, inviting researchers to test their theories in schools,
No comments:
Post a Comment