Local Learning from Evidence Can Reduce National Education Inequality Kirsten Kainz SREE March 2, 2017

The purpose of Title I in ESSA PL 114-95 § 1001 The purpose of this title is to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.

Starting Assumptions Policies should be evaluated based on achievement of purpose Evaluating Title I effect  student outcomes is challenging at national level Shift focus to local evaluations, improve local learning and performance, aggregate upward to national outcomes

All Systems Designed to Produce Current Outcomes Want different outcomes? Redesign the systems Learn to see the system See its inter-related parts Understand how system context and history produce outcomes Use systemic evaluation and local learning to drive changes

Start with Basic Questions What is the problem that we are trying to solve with Title I? What do we know already about potential solutions to that problem? How might research contribute to investigating and applying solutions in local settings?

Adopt Systemic Approach Who needs to identify a problem? Whose perspectives should be incorporated into solutions? What parts of the system must participate? Who needs to know whether a potential solution is working?

What is the Problem We are Trying to Solve with Title I? Persistent education inequality Academic gaps between economically disadvantaged and advantaged students larger in US than in Canada, England, Australia (Waldfogel and colleagues) Timing and persistence of disadvantage associated with size of gaps (Michelmore & Dynarski) Racial and poverty composition of schools associated with size of gaps (Reardon) Number and proportion of high-poverty, high-minority schools increased over past decade (GAO)

Potential Solutions? Reasonable evidence for what to do High quality instruction, starting early Supportive environments & relationships Wrap around supports/interventions as needed Insufficient evidence of how to do this nationally London Challenge provides some clues

Moving Forward Make the reduction of education inequality the central aim of key players – DoE, IES, RELs, CCSSO, Colleges/Universities, SEAs, LEAs…. Tie clear evaluation expectations to Title I Promote the formation of long-term local improvement teams to bolster evidence creation and use Task teams with specific performance outcomes Engage in systemic evaluation

Systemic Evaluation Toolkit Increase rigorous evidence …plus Create infrastructure for collective learning and improvement based on evidence Prioritize legitimacy and social viability of solutions Who will be affected? What are the needs/capacities/perspectives of those affected?

Ultimately Engage local stakeholders and incorporate their knowledge into solutions Be innovative: design, test, learn Manage knowledge for continuous and sustained improvement Let local improvements aggregate upward to form a powerful national response to education inequality

National Response to Education Inequality

References Bradbury, B., Corak, M., Waldfogel, J., Y Washbrook, E. (2015). Too many children left behind: The US achievement gap in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Cook, P. J., Dodge, K., Farkas, G., Fryer Jr, R. G., Guryan, J., Ludwig, J., ... & Steinberg, L. (2014). The (surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth: Results from a randomized experiment in Chicago (No. w19862). National Bureau of Economic Research. Dobbie, W., & Fryer Jr, R. G. (2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28-60. Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2014). Restoring opportunity: The crisis of inequality and the challenge for American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Foote, J., Taylor, A., Nicholas, G., Carswell, S., Wood, D., Winstanley, A., & Hepi, M. (2014) Toward a transformed system to address child abuse and family violence in New Zealand. Canterbury, NZ: Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited. Fryer, R. G. (2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools: Evidence from field experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1355-1407. Government Accounting Office (May, 2016). Better use of information could help agencies identify disparities and address racial discrimination, GAO-16-345. Washington, DC: Author. Hummelbrunner, R. (2011). Systems thinking and evaluation. Evaluation, 17(4), 395-403. Kidson, M., & Norris, E. (2016). Implementing the London Challenge. London, England: Institute for Government. Michelmore, K., & Dynarski, S. (2017). The Gap within thegGap: Using longitudinal data to understand income differences in educational outcomes. AERA Open, 3(1), 2332858417692958. Midgley, G. (2006). Systems thinking for evaluation. In B. Williams & I. Imam (eds.) Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (pp. 11-34) . Point Reyes, CA: Edge Press. Midgley, G. (2006). Systemic intervention for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 466-472. Reardon, S. F. (2016). Segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 34–57. Ulrich, W (2002a). Critical systems heuristics. In H.G. Daellenbach and R.L. Flood (eds), The Informed Student Guide to Management Science, London: Thomson, 72f.