4 Reasons for Public School Districts

to Invest in Local Research

Created By :

www.schoolwealth.com

The relationship between data and research is clear to most people. The vast majority

of professions rely on research and the data it produces to guide decisions that can

make the difference between success and failure, especially in businesses that are

subject to competitive market forces. It is precisely the lack of competition that for

many years characterized the operation of public school districts and may have

resulted in a general disdain for conducting research and a disinterest in developing

sources of data at the local, district level.

With the advent of charter schools approximately 25 years ago, and with a renewed

focus on standardized test data as a measure, fairly or unfairly, as to the success of

public school districts, education has undergone a fundamental shift in its relationship

with data. It is now common for parents and community members to review data

published in newspapers, magazines, and online that purport to rank schools and

districts on a variety of indicators.

The rationale for this scenario often involves the concept of competition as a

motivation for improvement, tacitly implying that educators weren’t trying hard enough

because they had little competition. This fundamental absurdity gained momentum

when the only data typically available on schools and districts were derived not locally

but on a statewide or national scale. America’s embrace of standardized test scores

and the carrot and stick model for school improvement that it spawned was a basic

premise of NCLB during the George W. Bush presidency and was amplified by RTTT

during the Obama presidency.

1. New federal legislation as a catalyst for change.

ESSA, the successor to past legislation on the governance of public schools, provides

some hope that things are changing for the better, especially in the area of

assessment. As implementation details of the new law emerge, educators are

anticipating the likelihood of more freedom to assess learning with multiple measures

designed at the local level and approved at the state level. As the next few months

and years unfold, research and data conducted and collected locally will likely

supplant the largely failed attempts at national assessments that grew from an

embrace of the standards that have come to be known as the Common Core.

Anticipating this scenario, districts are beginning to respond by enhancing their ability

to conduct or commission research on what is happening locally, with the intent to use

data that results to make decisions on personnel, programs, and products. When a

previously meddlesome federal government gives back authority to decide what

should be measured and how, districts must be prepared to respond with a viable plan,

ideally featuring new sources of data that embrace personalization and customization.

Any organization would benefit by having at its disposal a research function, especially

an organization that is accustomed to the process of monitoring progress and adjusting

procedures accordingly, a descriptor that certainly applies to public education. In

many ways and for many reasons, one key thing typically absent and sorely needed to

enable the enhanced success of public school districts has been the existence of

research conducted consistently, productively, and locally. Only the largest districts

have traditionally had the resources necessary to staff and maintain a research

department, though all districts would benefit from the consistent application of this

foundational principle.

At a time in our history when politicians are more apt to “get rid of the Common Core”

or “abolish the US Department of Education” than ever before, educators must be

ready to make things better immediately by anticipating these possibilities and being

equipped to respond with the expertise that politicians typically lack. We are entering a

phase of unprecedented opportunity for autonomy and improvement, guided by

educators who know what works for the nation’s students, ideally guided by research of

their own design.

The next item in this series will examine cost-effective ways for even the smallest districts

to conduct or commission its own research. A practical look at how to enable this

important concept to become a standard practice holds the promise of helping all

districts meet the obligation to improve academic opportunities and achievement for

every student every year.

School district leaders are faced with expectations to improve academic achievement

every year, and in most districts that process requires the collection and analysis of data

from a variety of sources. Until recently, the preponderance of data came from

standardized test results and few other places, predictably leading to an over-reliance

on such data to assess school and district effectiveness. Add to this fact a steady

stream of unfortunate federal legislation meant to spur academic improvement, and

the less than stellar results have led to a reconsideration of how to improve public

education.

When parents are asked whether they are satisfied with their local public schools, the

responses are overwhelmingly favorable, especially in suburban schools not plagued by

persistent poverty and safety concerns more common in urban centers. Those same

suburban parents, however, are apt to describe public schools as largely failing, thanks

largely not to their own experiences with public schools but more likely tied to the

drumbeat of negative press about public education from political leaders and the

popular press.

A fundamental shift is underway in the way public schools are viewed, precipitated,

oddly enough, by parental backlash stemming from assessments tied to the Common

Core in the past few years. As the folly of using standardized test data to gauge school

and district success or, even more strangely, to assess teacher effectiveness has taken

root, so too has the need for different kinds of data that is more rooted in what is

actually happening in schools at the local level. With this backdrop, it is no surprise that

districts are beginning to invest in new sources of data, often coupled with a growing

appreciation for the value of local research.

2. Outsourcing research is affordable and is one of the best ways to gather data to

improve academic achievement and return on investment in our public schools.

A simple Internet search on the subject of K-12 research companies reveals just how

many entrepreneurs in the education marketplace have recently begun expanding

their services from the post-secondary market to the larger and more lucrative K-12

space. Any district leader who understands the confluence of data needs, ESSA

implementation, and changes in assessments as catalysts for change has already taken

the plunge into convincing a sometimes skeptical board that investing in research at

the local level is a remarkably cost-effective way to monitor expenses and make

decisions on programs, products, and personnel.

Some research companies charge a flat fee for their services, often with a large cap on

the number of projects a district may undertake in a given year, while others bill their

district clients only on the studies specifically undertaken. Regardless of the billing

policies of the companies involved, district leaders and the boards that employ them

are often and pleasantly surprised at how affordable this option can be for their

districts. As discretionary dollars become tighter with each school budget cycle,

spending every dollar wisely and having research to support decisions to continue,

modify, or abandon a particular initiative has never been more important.

The diversity of opinion that a private company can bring to a study of any district’s

programs and products simply cannot be matched by having district personnel take

their own measure of effectiveness or efficacy. Research companies often provide a

review of current literature and a summary of best practices from across the country

that local districts also cannot match, due less to an inability to perform this work but

rather to the lack of time to do it. Especially in all but the largest urban districts, having a

research department or even a few people dedicated solely to a research function is

cost-prohibitive.

The prospect of conducting research targeted specifically at what any district is

currently doing has long been something districts could not afford to do. The advent of

companies dedicated to this task makes this kind of research a thing that districts

cannot afford to leave out of their improvement plans.

School districts have for many years been the recipients of data generated by forces

beyond their control and outside of their wants, needs, or interests. This data has

historically resulted from standardized tests given to groups or grade levels of students.

Ever since NCLB was first enacted early in the first term of President George W. Bush,

virtually all students in grades 3-11 have been tested every year, a phenomenon unique

to the United States and thanks largely to giving policy decisions to lawmakers and

politicians rather than honoring the input of educators and parents.

Testing virtually every student from the ages of 9 to 17 was initially packaged as a way

to leave no child behind, an aim that during the Obama administration was

reconstituted as a way for America to race to the top of the heap in terms of

academic achievement. The results were mixed at best, and the advent of improved

standards in the form of the Common Core necessitated a new assessment protocol,

which produced more data that was largely unrelated to local preferences and values.

Backlash against PARCC and Smarter Balance assessments from parents, educators,

and eventually from many of the same politicians who insisted on the need for these

new assessments has led us to the present day, where calls for the abolishment of the

Common Core are more commonly heard than support for their continued use. If that

trend continues, the need for actionable data that is tangibly tied to local interests and

values will only increase, leading in turn to the need for research to produce that data.

3. Local districts can outsource research that is targeted at things actually happening in

their districts, at an affordable cost.

This notion may at first glance seem unrealistic, either due to cost considerations or a

perceived lack of things to study in a local context. More thoughtful consideration of

the prospect, however, has led many district leaders to contact any of the many

dozens of research providers in the K-12 marketplace. Contracting with one or more of

these private companies often results in the realization that every district has several

interesting things happening every year that are worthy of detailed study by people

trained to undertake the task, a process that ideally is guided by the superintendent or

her/his designee.

A few examples can illustrate the concept of commissioning local research as a means

of guiding policy and practice in any public school district. Perhaps a district is

considering a change in reading or math series, or a shift from live instruction in world

languages at the elementary level to the use of computer-assisted instruction. Virtually

any change in the means or methods of delivering content can be improved by

considering the body of research that always exists as the result of other districts, either

locally, nationally, or internationally, that have already undertaken the task at hand.

The obvious value of considering what has worked and what has failed elsewhere has

prompted districts to seek this information, a task made immeasurably easier by

enlisting the aid of professionals trained for precisely this work. A lack of personnel and

the absence of time to dedicate to the process of studying what has happened in like

districts under similar conditions need never prevent districts from having this valuable

data created and organized for them. Companies that perform this work are universally

accommodating and creative when it comes to negotiating a payment structure that

works for both the provider and the client district.

Perhaps a school district is considering a change in school start times to honor recent

research which suggests that adolescent learners would universally benefit

academically by having a later start time each school day. The volume of research on

just this topic, from a variety of medical and educational experts from across the

country, would be of immense and immediate value to any school leader or school

board that is considering this initiative. The existence of this data is undeniable, much of

it inaccessible, however, without the time or means of obtaining it, packaging it, and

sharing it with the public. Outsourcing some or all of these steps can make success

more likely, rather than using vague references to what the research says about earlier

start times in presenting new initiatives to the public for their information and to secure

their support.

As sources of assessment data shrink with the implementation of ESSA, districts must be

properly positioned to fill the void with better research that is locally derived and

targeted at things valued by the local community, another way to provide for

measurable improvement in academic achievement for every child, every year.

Public school districts and the people who lead them are accustomed to the scrutiny

and oversight inherent in a profession that seeks to improve the lives and prospects of

the nation’s young people every year. The process of continuous improvement carries

with it the need to use data to guide decision making, and the need for reliable data

that relates directly to the needs and interests of students and the local community has

caused many districts to expand the collection of data to include sources other than

results from state or federally mandated annual assessments.

The existence and recent expansion of companies that exist to serve the research

needs of K-12 schools has resulted in new kinds of data that has more of a prospect to

guide local decision making than many previous sources of data, justifying the modest

expense of contracting with such companies and outsourcing research on current

practices or programs. Districts are also using this resource to determine whether to

pursue new initiatives or abandon unproductive ones, guided by data gathered and

analyzed at the local level.

New federal legislation that includes more freedom for local districts and states to

pursue assessment protocols of their own design, and the affordability of outsourcing a

research function to companies specializing in this service, has made school

improvement more likely under ESSA than it had been during its more draconian

predecessors. The tipping point as to whether the return of local control will improve

educational opportunity may well hinge on the degree to which districts invest in local

research, and whether districts furthermore invest in ways to use that research to

connect dollars spent to academic gains made.

4. Local research, conducted independently and analyzed with software designed

specifically to connect dollars to achievement, is one of the best ways to ensure a high

return on investment in the nation’s schools.

It came a pleasant and welcome surprise to many educators when one of the central

tenets of ESSA, the federal legislation signed into law in December 2015 that replaced

Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, was the intentional increase in local control

and autonomy in the assessment of learning. Implementation details have thus far

aligned with the original intent of the new law in the area of assessment, and the

coming elections will likely have little impact on ESSA in the near term.

At a time when the political world seems uncharacteristically willing to allow educators

to have a stronger voice in developing and implementing policy on assessment of

learning, it is incumbent upon district leaders and school boards to be prepared to act

in the interests of students by having in place the products and personnel necessary to

assess student outcomes and quality of products purchased and programs

implemented. Included in this effort must be the rigorous and appropriate

development, collection, and analysis of data that actually matters.

Every educator who has ever opined about the inadvisability of using high-stakes

standardized testing to gauge the effectiveness of teachers or the learning of children

must now be prepared to demonstrate that they have always known there was a

better way, ideally by replacing old, summative, single assessments with an array of

new assessments that match local priorities and that relate directly to local district

goals. The implementation of ESSA, unlike its predecessors, allows for and encourages

this outcome, making this the ideal time to invest in research and the use of data to

drive instruction, all with the foundation of tying academic achievement gains directly

to the resources it takes to enable them.

Public education is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor worldwide, and the United States,

despite what often appears in the popular press, has always led the world in the quality

of a public education system that meets the needs of all learners, regardless of birth

circumstances, handicapping conditions, or any other factors that cripple systems of

public education in other countries. The next few years hold the promise, more than the

last many years, of improving the delivery of a free and appropriate public education

to children in this country, all made more likely in districts that invest in local research

and the kind of data analysis that ties learning outcomes to dollars spent.