The Every Student Succeeds Act’s evidence requirements mandate the use of research in the selection of school improvement interventions, with the aim of ensuring that schools and districts invest their efforts and funding more wisely. This study of eight states presents three different approaches to the evidence requirements: using lists of pre-sanctioned evidence-based interventions, training schools and districts to evaluate the research supporting potential interventions, and building local evidence of effectiveness. Through interviews with state administrators, I show how each approach relied on different understandings and prioritizations of research rigor and local relevance.
AdamsC. M.MiskellR. C. (2016). Teacher trust in district administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 675–706.
2.
BirkelandS.Murphy-GrahamE.WeissC. H. (2005). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the drug abuse resistance education (DARE) program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(3), 247–256.
3.
BoudettK. P.CityE. A.MurnaneR. J. (2013). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning: ERIC.
4.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
5.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.
6.
CoburnC. E. (2010). The partnership for district change: Challenges of evidence use in a major urban district. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education (pp. 167–182). Rowman & Littlefield.
7.
CoburnC. E.HonigM. I.SteinM. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence. In BransfordJ. D.StipekD. J.VyeN. J.GomezL. M.LamD. (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–87). Harvard Education Press.
8.
CoburnC. E.TalbertJ. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495.
9.
CoburnC. E.TouréJ.YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.
10.
CohenD. K.HillH. C. (2008). Learning policy: When state education reform works. Yale University Press.
11.
DavidsonK. L.FarrellC. C.PenuelW. R. (2019). What types of research do education leaders find useful, and for what purposes [Paper presented]? Annual Conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
12.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 (2015).
13.
Farley-RippleE. (2012). Research use in school district central office decision making: A case study. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(6), 786–806.
14.
Farley-RippleE.MayH.KarpynA.TilleyK.McDonoughK. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245.
GoertzM. E.BarnesC.MassellD.FinkR.FrancisA. T. (2013). State education agencies’ acquisition and use of research knowledge in school improvement strategies (CPRE Research Report# RR-77). Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
17.
HamannE. T.LaneB. (2004). The roles of state departments of education as policy intermediaries: Two cases. Educational Policy, 18(3), 426–455.
18.
HerlihyC.KempleJ.BloomH.ZhuP.BerlinG. (2009). Understanding reading first: What we know, what we don’t, and what’s next. MDRC Policy Brief.
19.
HillH. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289–318.
20.
HillH. C. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265–282.
21.
HonigM. I.CoburnC. E. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.
22.
KaneT. J. (2017). Making evidence locally. Education Next, 17(2), 52–58.
23.
LevinsonB. A. U.SuttonM.WinsteadT. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795.
24.
LewisC.PerryR.HurdJ. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 18–22.
25.
LouisK. S.ThomasE.GordonM. F.FebeyK. S. (2008). State leadership for school improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 562–592.
26.
LytleS.Cochran-SmithM. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447–475.
27.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldanaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
28.
NelsonS. R.LefflerJ. C.HansenB. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. http://www.nwrel.org/researchuse/report.pdf
PenuelW. R.BriggsD. C.DavidsonK. L.HerlihyC.ShererD.HillH. C.FarrellC. C.AllenA.-R. (2016). Findings from a national study on research use among school and district leaders. National Center for Research in Policy and Practice.
31.
PenuelW. R.FarrellC. C. (2016). Research-practice partnerships and ESSA: A learning agenda for the coming decade. In Quintero, E. (Ed.), Teaching in context: The social side of education reform (pp. 181–200). Harvard Education Press.
32.
PenuelW. R.FarrellC. C.AllenA.-R.ToyamaY.CoburnC. E. (2016). What research district leaders find useful. Educational Policy, 32(4), 540–568.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational research, 72(3), 387–431.
38.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 3–16.
39.
TsengV.EastonJ. Q.SuppleeL. H. (2017). Research-practice partnerships: Building two-way streets of engagement. Social Policy Report, 30(4), 3–15.
40.
WeissC. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545.
41.
WeissC. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Science Communication, 1(3), 381–404.
42.
WeissC. H.Murphy-GrahamE.BirkelandS. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect DARE. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 12–30.
43.
WeissC. H.Murphy-GrahamE.PetrosinoA.GandhiA. G. (2008). The fairy godmother—and her warts: Making the dream of evidence-based policy come true. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 29–47.
ZeehandelaarD.GriffithD.SmithJ.ThierM.AndersonR.PittsC.GasparianH. (2015). Schools of thought: A taxonomy of American education governance. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
