HGSE Program Partners with States to Evaluate, Identify Effective Education Policies – The Harvard Crimson

Executive Summary

The States Leading States (SLS) initiative, launched by the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE), represents a significant effort to advance Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) within the United States. By analyzing state-level education policies to identify effective practices, the program directly addresses the need for improved learning outcomes. The initiative’s structure as a collaboration between academia, state governments, and private philanthropy also exemplifies the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), creating a multi-stakeholder model for educational improvement.

Initiative Overview and Alignment with SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The core mission of the SLS program is to support state leadership and foster learning about effective education policy, directly contributing to the achievement of quality education for all students.

Program Objectives

The primary objective is to provide data-backed solutions for improving educational outcomes, a foundational component of SDG 4. By identifying what works in state policy, the initiative aims to reverse a decade-long decline in academic achievement and reduce absenteeism. This focus on evidence-based improvement is critical for achieving SDG Target 4.1, which calls for ensuring all children complete equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to effective learning outcomes.

Key Areas of Policy Evaluation

The initiative will evaluate a range of state-level policies designed to enhance learning environments and outcomes, in line with multiple targets under SDG 4. Initial areas of focus include:

• Summer reading and math camps, directly supporting the achievement of foundational skills.
• Elementary student literacy programs, addressing SDG Target 4.6 (achieve literacy and numeracy).
• Policies for mitigating student cellphone use to create “safe, focused learning environments,” as called for in SDG Target 4.a.
• Strategies for improving student math performance.

A Multi-Stakeholder Approach: Fostering SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The SLS program is built on a foundation of collaboration, reflecting the importance of partnerships as outlined in SDG 17. The initiative brings together diverse actors to mobilize knowledge, expertise, and financial resources for the common goal of educational advancement.

Inaugural Partner States

The first cohort establishes a broad partnership base, engaging directly with local government officials to ensure the research is relevant and actionable. The partner states are:

1. Alabama
2. Colorado
3. Delaware
4. Illinois
5. Indiana
6. Ohio
7. Rhode Island
8. Tennessee
9. Texas

Bipartisan Collaboration and Funding

In a deliberate effort to foster consensus and focus on core educational challenges, the initiative is explicitly bipartisan, including both conservative and liberal states. This approach avoids divisive issues to concentrate on improving student achievement. This public-private partnership model, supported by a $10 million grant from the Walton Family Foundation, is a practical application of SDG 17.17, which encourages effective public-private and civil society partnerships.

Data-Driven Strategy for Educational Improvement

Central to the initiative is a commitment to data-driven analysis to reverse declining academic achievement, a critical step for realizing the ambitions of SDG 4. The program is housed under the Center for Education Policy Research (CEPR) at HGSE.

Capacity Building and Expertise

The program leverages a network of approximately 700 data analysts trained through HGSE’s Strategic Data Project. This focus on building and utilizing analytical capacity to inform policy aligns with the principles of SDG Target 17.18, which emphasizes the need for high-quality, reliable data to guide development.

Expected Outcomes and Reporting

The SLS program will disseminate its findings through annual reports, with the first scheduled for publication in the spring. This commitment to sharing knowledge aims to provide education leaders across the country with evidence-based solutions for implementing policies that can make measurable progress toward achieving SDG 4.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article is fundamentally centered on improving the quality of education in the United States. The “States Leading States” initiative aims to identify and evaluate effective schooling policies to improve educational outcomes, reverse falling academic achievement, and enhance student performance in core areas like math and literacy. This directly aligns with the core mission of SDG 4.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article highlights a multi-stakeholder partnership designed to achieve educational goals. The initiative involves collaboration between an academic institution (Harvard Graduate School of Education), multiple state governments (the nine partner states), and a private philanthropic organization (the Walton Family Foundation). This structure exemplifies the collaborative approach promoted by SDG 17 to leverage combined resources, knowledge, and expertise.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • 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 addresses this target by focusing on reversing “a decade of falling academic achievement” and the initiative’s overall goal to “support learning about what’s actually working with state policy” to improve student outcomes.

   • Target 4.6: By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.

     This target is directly relevant through the specific policies being evaluated, such as “summer reading and math camps in Alabama,” “literacy programs for elementary students in Colorado,” and the focus on “improving its students’ math performance” in Illinois.

   • 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 initiative’s work in Illinois to evaluate policies for “mitigating student cellphone use” connects to this target. The stated goal is to “support districts in creating safe, focused learning environments that are cell phone free,” which is a direct effort to improve the effectiveness and safety of the learning environment.

2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • 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 clear example of a public-private partnership. It brings together a public university’s research center (HGSE’s CEPR), public entities (state governments), and private funding ($10 million from the Walton Family Foundation) to work towards a common goal.

   • Target 17.6: Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms.

     While the context is national, the spirit of this target is reflected in the initiative’s structure. It creates a forum for inter-state cooperation (“includes both blue and red states”) to “exchange ideas” and share knowledge. The plan to publish “annual reports” is a mechanism for knowledge sharing based on data analysis to inform education policy more broadly.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Student Achievement Levels: The article explicitly states the initiative aims to reverse a “decade of falling academic achievement” and “improve student achievement.” This implies the use of standardized test scores or other academic performance metrics as key indicators.
• Math and Literacy Proficiency Rates: The focus on “improving its students’ math performance” and evaluating “literacy programs” suggests that proficiency rates in these subjects will be used as indicators of success.
• Student Absenteeism Rates: The article directly mentions that the program will “focus on initiatives to… reduce absenteeism,” making this a clear indicator of progress.
• Metrics for Policy Effectiveness: The article notes that Illinois officials want to “measure success” around cellphone bans. This implies the development of specific indicators to evaluate the impact of policies on creating “focused learning environments,” which could include metrics on student engagement, time-on-task, or disciplinary incidents.
• Knowledge Sharing and Data Use: The publication of “annual reports” serves as an indicator of knowledge dissemination. The goal to “strengthen our data use” implies that an increase in data-driven decision-making by state officials would be a measure of the program’s success.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thecrimson.com