As states take lead in fixing U.S. schools, Harvard will serve as a hub – Harvard Gazette

Initiative to Advance Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education

Introduction: Addressing Policy Gaps to Enhance Educational Outcomes

In the United States, state-level authorities hold significant power over public education policy. However, the implementation of new policies often lacks immediate, data-driven feedback on their effectiveness, creating a critical knowledge gap. This gap poses a significant challenge to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. In response, Harvard University’s Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) has launched the States Leading States Initiative. This project is designed to provide state education leaders with rapid, empirical evidence to refine policies, particularly in the post-COVID-19 era marked by declining test scores and attendance that threaten progress toward SDG 4 targets.

A Strategic Partnership for the Goals (SDG 17)

The States Leading States Initiative exemplifies SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by forging a multi-stakeholder collaboration to improve educational systems. The partnership is built upon the combined strengths of academia, philanthropy, and government.

• Academic Leadership: The Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education provides data analysis and research expertise.
• Philanthropic Support: A $10 million grant from the Walton Foundation will sustain the initiative’s first four years of operation.
• Government Collaboration: An inaugural cohort of nine diverse states has partnered with the initiative to subject their education policies to rigorous evaluation.

This collaboration aims to foster a culture of evidence-based decision-making within K-12 education, which is fundamental to making substantive progress on global education targets.

Core Objectives and Alignment with SDG 4 Targets

The initiative’s work is directly aligned with several key targets within SDG 4. Its primary objective is to equip state leaders with the analytical tools to create more effective educational policies that advance quality and equity.

1. Improve Learning Outcomes (Target 4.1): By providing timely analysis of policy impacts, the initiative helps states ensure that all students can complete a quality primary and secondary education leading to effective learning outcomes.
2. Enhance Literacy and Numeracy (Target 4.6): The program will directly assess state-level policies aimed at improving foundational skills, such as the use of literacy coaches in Texas and the development of a statewide numeracy plan in Illinois.
3. Foster Effective Learning Environments (Target 4.a): The initiative will evaluate policies designed to create more effective learning environments, including studies on the impact of in-school cellphone bans in states like Ohio and Illinois.

Methodology and Implementation

To achieve its objectives, the initiative employs a robust, hands-on methodology that moves beyond superficial data analysis. The core of the implementation strategy involves embedding data experts directly within state systems.

• Strategic Data Fellows: CEPR will place Strategic Data Fellows inside participating state education departments. These fellows will either be recruited externally or selected from existing department staff to lead the analytical work.
• Rigorous Evaluation: The program seeks to replace simple correlational data with more conclusive research methods, such as randomized controlled trials, to provide state partners with a higher degree of confidence in policy effectiveness.
• State-Led Policy Selection: The specific policies under review are chosen by the participating states themselves, ensuring the research is relevant and directly applicable to their most pressing educational challenges.

Inaugural Cohort and Scope of Work

The first cohort was selected to represent a wide diversity of contexts across the United States, including variations in size, political leadership, and administrative experience. This diversity ensures that the findings will be broadly applicable. Participating states include Rhode Island, Colorado, Texas, Tennessee, and Illinois. The scope of work is tailored to the specific policy questions of each state partner.

• Alabama: Evaluation of summer reading and math camps.
• Ohio: Analysis of an in-school cellphone ban.
• Texas: Assessment of the effectiveness of literacy coaches.
• Illinois: Development of a numeracy plan and comparative analysis of a proposed cellphone ban.

Projected Impact and Timeline

The States Leading States Initiative is positioned to make a significant long-term impact on the quality of K-12 education in the United States, thereby contributing to the nation’s progress toward SDG 4. By empowering states to make informed, evidence-based decisions, the program aims to ensure that policy changes genuinely move the needle on student outcomes. The first analytical findings from the initiative’s work with state partners are expected to be published in the spring of the upcoming year, providing the first of many crucial insights for education leaders.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The entire article focuses on improving the effectiveness of American public education. It discusses the challenges schools face, such as declining test scores and attendance post-pandemic, and highlights an initiative aimed at implementing and evaluating policies to enhance learning outcomes. This directly aligns with the core mission of SDG 4, which is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• The article describes the “States Leading States Initiative,” which is a multi-stakeholder partnership. It involves Harvard’s Center for Education Policy Research (an academic institution), the Walton Foundation (a philanthropic organization providing a $10 million grant), and nine state governments. This collaboration to share knowledge, resources, and expertise to achieve a common goal (improving education) is a clear example of the partnerships promoted by SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Targets under SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
   • The article directly addresses this target by focusing on reversing the trend of low test scores. The initiative aims to identify which policies actually work to improve student learning. Specific examples like “summer reading and math camps in Alabama” and “literacy coaches in Texas” are interventions designed to produce more effective learning outcomes.
2. Target 4.6: By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.
   • The article explicitly mentions state-level policies targeting these skills. It notes that Illinois is developing “a plan for numeracy, or mathematical facility, to travel alongside existing work on literacy,” directly aligning with the goal of improving these fundamental abilities.
3. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • The discussion of an “in-school cellphone ban” in Ohio and a proposed one in Illinois relates to creating a more effective learning environment. Such policies are intended to reduce distractions and improve student focus, thereby contributing to the quality of the educational setting.

Targets under SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
   • The “States Leading States Initiative” is a textbook example of a public-private partnership. It combines the resources of state education departments (public) with the expertise of Harvard University and funding from the Walton Foundation (private) to improve public education policy.
2. Target 17.18: By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries… to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.
   • Although the context is a developed country, the principle of capacity-building for data is central to the article. The initiative’s goal is to “help fill the knowledge gap” by placing “Strategic Data Fellows inside these systems” and using advanced data analysis like “randomized controlled trials.” This is a direct effort to build the capacity of state institutions to collect and use high-quality, reliable data for policymaking.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Test Scores:
   • The article explicitly states that “test scores and attendance still haven’t returned to their pre-pandemic highs.” Test scores are a direct indicator for measuring progress towards Target 4.1 (effective learning outcomes). The initiative’s success will be partly judged by whether the policies it evaluates lead to improved scores.
2. Student Attendance / Absenteeism Rates:
   • The article mentions the importance of “lowering absenteeism” as a critical question for which evidence is needed. Attendance rates are a key indicator of student engagement and access to education, relevant to Target 4.1.
3. Literacy and Numeracy Levels:
   • Policies mentioned, such as “literacy coaches” and a “plan for numeracy,” imply that progress will be measured by improvements in students’ reading and mathematical abilities. These are the core indicators for Target 4.6.
4. Adoption of Evidence-Based Policymaking:
   • A key goal is to create “a culture change in K-12 education” where policies are evaluated with rigorous data. An indicator for Target 17.18 would be the extent to which state education departments adopt methods like “randomized controlled trials” instead of relying on “simple correlations.” The number of policies evaluated through the initiative serves as a measure of this progress.
5. Number of Trained Data Professionals in Education Systems:
   • The plan to place “Strategic Data Fellows inside these systems” provides a concrete indicator for capacity-building (Target 17.18). The number of fellows recruited, trained, and embedded within state education departments can be tracked to measure the increase in data analysis capacity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.harvard.edu