By Maria Echaveste
As the country emerges from COVID restrictions, I’ve had the privilege of participating in several meetings and discussions which give me some optimism– at least with respect to the determination of various government, civil rights, and community leaders to ensure that our more vulnerable students and young people return to classrooms and schools that are reimagined and transformed. What gives me hope and optimism are the stakeholders working together to prepare young people so they can realize their full potential. On the other hand, the proliferation of various efforts to collect data and develop indicator systems ostensibly to support this transformation, makes me worry about whether we will actually see our systems change.
As students across the country return to their schools and classrooms, we are not returning to business as usual. The pandemic revealed all the inequities in our society and, as so many of us warned, our more vulnerable students – whether from low-income or rural backgrounds, from elementary to college students would pay the price. They struggled with inadequate internet access, were unable to find quiet places to log onto their classes, took on the role of caretaker for their younger siblings, and some even dropped out of school to work to support their families. And students (as well as everyone else) from all income levels suffered emotional and mental health challenges caused by this disruption to regular life.
No one should be surprised that federal and state required student testing, after a pause, revealed serious and severe gaps in educational attainment especially for our more vulnerable students and families. The California Department of Education initially delayed releasing test scores, but after pressure, they will be releasing results next month. Across the country we are seeing disturbing and alarming drops in student academic progress outcomes. Still I remain optimistic.
There is a growing movement across the country to reevaluate and redesign measurement and indicator systems, whether for education accountability, to measure progress on equity, to break down silos among bureaucracies, to measure children’s well-being, or understand key milestones from early childhood to workforce participation. What these various efforts reflect is the recognition that to improve educational and life outcomes for all children, especially low-income and vulnerable students, relying solely on high stakes testing of reading and math proficiency is wholly inadequate, ineffective, and unjust.
For example, beginning in January 2022, the Aspen Institute’s Education and Society program focused on developing Opportunity to Learn Principles. The program brings together a diverse and bipartisan group, including elected and appointed state-wide education leaders, whether commissioners or superintendents of education, state legislators, and governors’ policy advisors. The goal was to review research and evidence, examine values and reflect on shared views of what are essential principles for ensuring true opportunities so that all students learn and thrive. Opportunity to Learn, Responsibility to Lead, issued last month, includes principle 9 that notes: “States must strategically collect and use data to illuminate the extent to which schools are providing all students with opportunities to learn.”
The foregoing principle leaves open the question of what data should be collected and used. Fortunately, others have been working on evidence-based indicators and measurements that can accelerate progress towards more equitable educational and life outcomes. For example, in May 2022, the Data Quality Campaign and the National Academy of Sciences convened several local and state education leaders from Tulsa, Oklahoma to the state of Maryland. The starting point was reviewing the NAS’s 2019 Monitoring Educational Equity and 2020 Building Educational Equity Indicator Systems. This work focused primarily on inputs and opportunities that impact educational achievement and are limited in scope, though there is one indicator relating to access to out-of-school mental and emotional services and other supports. Participants in the May meeting shared the ways in which they, at both the state and local levels, were adapting and incorporating evidence-based relevant metrics, all to address equity issues and better allocate resources. Tulsa, for example, shared that in addition to education-focused data, the district was also looking at community level data to provide a fuller picture of their students’ environment and context.
Another effort is the August 2022 release of the Education-to-Workforce Indicator Framework: Using Data to Promote Equity and Economic Security for All. Mathematica developed this framework on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I had the privilege of participating in an advisory committee beginning in the fall of 2021 along with community and equity advocates from around the country. One aspect of this framework that I am particularly pleased with is the clearly articulated commitment to equity and the effort to incorporate not just individual student indicators, but also identify school and community indicators that impact student and life outcomes. Additionally, this framework also details various evidence-based interventions which can address disparities in access and opportunities. The one drawback is that the list of indicators is rather lengthy, but that may be a benefit as individual districts and communities look to adapt the framework for their purposes.
More recently, on September 13, the National Urban League and Unidos US, along with other partners, unveiled an effort on Accountability, Assessment, and Equity. Entitled Broadening Perspectives, this work involved 42 listening sessions and 21 interviews with youth of color, parents, youth development specialists, educators, and many others concerned with improving equitable academic and life outcomes for all young people, but especially low-income and vulnerable children. The goal is “to reimagine K12 assessment and accountability” at the federal and state levels. The initial report identifies agreement on the following four pillars:
Our education system(s) consistently implements broadened definitions of success
Our education indicators and assessments, no matter the setting, are grounded in continuous improvement and accountability
Our systems of support are strengthened to enhance shared accountability that centers equity and promotes transparency and continuous, targeted improvement
Historically marginalized communities/families/youth have greater voice and ownership in assessment and accountability
In addition to this work, there are other efforts underway, including one spearheaded by the UCLA Center on Children, Families, and Communities to develop measures of children’s well-being. Others are looking at developing indicators of economic mobility connected to schools, though that effort is just beginning. There is also ongoing work in states like California, which is standing up its cradle-to-career data system, and in Illinois, where efforts are underway to implement equity indicators to help districts better understand the work they need to do. And let’s also not forget that California’s Governor Newsom recently signed AB2832 that requires the state to develop a framework of categories essential to the well-being of children 0-8, including developing an equity tool that will utilize data to identify indicators that address disparities.
As even this brief overview demonstrates, these are positive trends–from the growing awareness of the need for a “whole child equity” approach to the importance of community context and voice. There is, however, a risk of duplication and lack of coherence and alignment as various bureaucracies, especially our education systems, are asked to collect all sorts of data. And there is a continuing fear of “accountability” rather than using data for continuous improvement. It feels like we are building a 21st-century Tower of Babel—this time focused on data and indicators. Absent some serious effort at collaboration and coordination, we may find ourselves, like those in the old story, unable to understand each other.
Here at the Opportunity Institute, we are exploring ways in which we can support efforts to incorporate and build upon the NAS Educational Equity Indicator report in ongoing efforts to improve current data systems. We are also working on an initial landscape analysis of California’s data collection efforts measured against the NAS report, as well as an overview of various other California efforts to build data and indicator systems. We plan on sharing this inventory to spur discussions among advocates and policymakers, not just in California but nationally, on how we can work together to build and adapt data systems that will be value-added, and not just another isolated, siloed initiative.