All new education programs and initiatives are subject to scrutiny from policymakers, media and parents. However, the level of scrutiny state innovation and pilot programs face is often heightened since these innovative programs are, by definition, untested.
Because most existing state innovation or pilot programs are relatively new, they don’t have a track record of success yet. In fact, many schools and districts participating in these programs are still in the design and planning phase so they don’t have a track record at all. As such, little empirical data is available for states to reference when developing a program or measuring the full impact of innovation and pilot programs on students and their outcomes.
Though challenging, it’s critical that states can evaluate, report and communicate the progress and impact of their innovation and pilot programs.
“States [should] have a plan in place for knowing if or when and how to scale up. States can identify processes for evaluating the design and impact of small-scale pilots to determine what aspects of the innovations are working, under what conditions, and for which students. Conversely, the evaluation could also be designed to identify innovations that do not meet their promise, even after adequate time to adjust implementation to improve results.”
Taken from Achieve’s report Creating Innovation Zones to Advance the Promise of Competency-Based Pathways
States must understand that the transition to student-centered learning will not happen overnight. As states begin this transition, there are practical steps they can take to ensure they develop thoughtful evaluation plans to support their long-term vision for innovative pilots and programs.
A thoughtful evaluation plan informs parents, teachers, the community, policymakers and more about what is working and what isn’t. The evaluation plan should:
Developing an evaluation plan may seem intimidating, but it really comes down to four questions:
Most programs have clearly stated outcomes either in legislation or in applications. But if this isn’t the case, goals and desired outcomes should be defined at the outset, so the right data is collected and participating schools have clear guidance.
There may be formal statutory reporting deadlines, but more frequent interim and more informal reports should be included. As soon as possible, establish a timeline with due dates for all involved.
Progress reports can be formal reports from the state department of education or selected presentations by school leaders at a state board meeting. However, if there is a specific time frame for implementation, a more formal external analysis would carry more weight.
States should identify early on what data will need to be collected to accurately evaluate the impact of innovation and pilot programs as they mature.
State summative assessments will be able to provide some of the data necessary, but participating schools should be asked to identify what formative and interim assessments will be used.
State longitudinal data systems must be set up to identify students participating in state programs and for which period they participated. This would make it possible to evaluate the impact of programs on long-term student outcomes such as high school graduation and postsecondary success.
Full participation in data collection and evaluation activities should be made clear on any state program applications.
It is important to identify the correct indicators and the timing for the associated data collection to appropriately measure state innovation pilot and program quality. While student outcomes should remain at the core of evaluating the impact of state programs, many of the recommended indicators below are particularly valuable in measuring innovation pilot and program effectiveness when student outcome data is limited.
| Program Quality Indicators* | |
|
Leading Indicators During Implementation |
Student Engagement
|
Instructional Practices
|
|
|
Primary Indicators Once Fully Implemented for at Least Three Years |
Performance on Local Formative and Benchmark Assessments
|
Performance on State Standardized Assessments
|
|
|
Long-Term Indicators Student Outcomes Post-Graduation |
High School Success
|
Postsecondary Success
|
|
* All outcomes should always be disaggregated by subgroups.