Collaborative Releases Promise to Practice

Today, HCM Strategists, in partnership with the Collaborative for Student Success, released Promise to Practice, an analysis of where states are in the process of implementing their new school improvement plans, emergent best practices among states, and areas for improvement to strengthen turnaround efforts.

The report is a continuation of the “Check State Plans” reviews released last year, and like its predecessor, is grounded in the collective wisdom and experience of peer reviewers from across the country. These former chiefs, district leaders, school improvement experts, English language instruction leaders and special education leaders were recruited to conduct an independent review of the progress made to date on school improvement under the new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Three years ago, the federal government, in the passage of ESSA, gave state leaders unprecedented freedom to grapple with and innovate around how they would intervene in those schools identified as “in need of comprehensive support.” 

Through our analysis, we set out to identify, applaud and promote states that were embracing the opportunity to be bold, to prioritize this work, to spur innovation and to push the field. 

Reviewers examined plans with eight key areas in mind:

• Coherent vision for improving outcomes
• Strategic use of funding and alignment of resources
• Rigorous review process
• Continuous improvement, monitoring and evaluation
• Evidence-based interventions
• Capacity building and autonomy
• Engaging stakeholders
• Sustaining outcomes

When we started this project, only 17 states met our threshold for having enough publicly available information and progress to be reviewed. Those states leading the way are: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Thirteen of the 17 states received a “strong” rating in at least one category, and the peer reviewers identified best practices in states in each of the eight categories. For instance, Colorado has created a clear and logical menu of school improvement options that includes a pre-defined range of funds, as well as the state and district’s role in implementing the strategy. Nevada explicitly asks districts to address in their school improvement application how their chosen strategy will address equity gaps. And in Idaho, each school identified for support is assigned a “capacity builder improvement coach” to assist in executing the school’s improvement plan.

Yet overall, the results raise concerns about whether states are taking the necessary steps to turnaround the highest-need schools. While nearly every state reviewed referenced equity in some way, fewer than half clearly stated equity as a focus and required districts to demonstrate how they would address inequities. In many cases, it was also difficult see how states will be able to distribute funds in a strategic manner or reach the schools and districts with the greatest need. And in all but one state, there was no evidence of a sustainability plan. Without a clear plan of action, stakeholders won’t know if goals are met, or if their state and districts are boldly leading toward change.

I strongly urge you to review the findings from the peers, see how your state did, and learn about the most promising practices for improving our nation’s schools.

Figuring out how to close achievement gaps between our country’s highest and continuously lowest performing schools is one of the greatest equity issues of our time. It is my sincere hope that Check State Plans: From Promise to Practice serves as an advocacy tool and guide for states as they work to strengthen school improvement efforts to provide all children with the high-quality education they deserve.

--Jim