Inside IES Research

As part of the IES-funded Prekindergarten Through Grade 12 Recovery Research Network, the Georgia Policy Labs has been working to gauge the effects of economic insecurity and health stressors on student engagement and achievement during and after COVID-19 era remote learning. In this guest blog, Dr. Tim Sass, principal investigator of the IES-funded project and Distinguished Professor at Georgia State University, discusses a challenge his research team faced while linking home environment and student academic success, highlighting an obstacle to collecting home background survey data from parents/legal guardians. Dr. Sass shares his team’s practical solution to address this challenge.

The Challenge: Difficulty Collecting Data about Student Home Situation

A major challenge to studying out-of-school factors that contribute to student academic success is the lack of information about a student’s home situation. Standard administrative data barely scratch the surface, providing information on language spoken at home, eligibility for subsidized meals (an admittedly crude measure of poverty), and little else. This lack of information became even more problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic, when students were learning from home, and the pandemic had severe effects on many families’ health and economic well-being.

As part of our project, we focus on identifying the factors associated with student engagement and achievement growth in remote instruction. Our initial strategy was to gather survey data in three of our partner school districts in metro Atlanta. We created a questionnaire to measure student engagement as well as collect information on economic insecurity, health stressors, and protective factors like adult monitoring of student learning at home or hiring a tutor. However, we faced two major challenges that made it difficult for us to collect the information we needed.

The first challenge was creating a process for identifying respondents.  Our partners agreed to send out the survey on our behalf, using their established systems for communicating with parents/guardians. Our intent was to make the responses identifiable so we could directly link information gathered from the survey to outcomes for specific students. While one of our partner districts was not comfortable with identifying individual respondents, it agreed to identify respondents’ school of enrollment. A second district agreed to identify respondents, but due to miscommunication within the district, their survey team made the survey anonymous. Finally, the third district agreed to allow linking individual responses to student ID numbers but left it up to parents/guardians to identify their student in the survey, and only about half of respondents filled in their student’s ID number.   

The second challenge was the very low response rates: 192 respondents from District A (0.4% response rate), 1,171 respondents from District B (1.2% response rate), and 80 respondents from District C (0.1% response rate). While disappointing, the low response rates are not unique to our study. Other researchers have struggled to get parents/guardians to respond to surveys conducted during the pandemic or shortly after the resumption of in-person instruction.

The Solution: Using Non-School-Based Administrative Data from Multiple Agencies to Complement Survey Data

Given the low response rates and non-identifiable responses, we considered how we could use additional non-school-based administrative data to complement the survey evidence. Through a partnership with researchers from the Atlanta Regional Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, and the Georgia Institute of Technology, we obtained data from court records on evictions in the Atlanta Metro Area. The data cover four of the five “core” counties in the Atlanta Metro Area, spanning calendar years 2019-21. Over this period, there were approximately 300,000 unique eviction filings across the four-county area, including both households with and without school-aged children. The court records contain a property address and filing date, which were used to match yearly eviction filings to students based on district student address files.

The following table provides counts of students that we successfully linked to eviction filings by district and year.  “Experienced Eviction” refers to cases where we directly matched an individual dwelling unit to an eviction filing.  In many cases, however, the street address in the eviction filing is for a multi-family structure, and there is not enough information in the filing or in the student address files to directly match a student living in the complex with the unit in which the eviction filing occurred.  When this type of match occurs, we designate it as being “Exposed to Eviction.”  The “Exposed to Eviction” counts include the instances of “Experienced Eviction.” The “Eviction Rate” is the ratio of “Experienced Eviction” to the total number of students in the district.

While an eviction filing does not mean that a family was removed from their dwelling, it does indicate that they were at risk of losing their home. Moving forward, we plan to use the eviction filing information as a measure of housing insecurity and economic stress. We will incorporate this metric when estimating models of student achievement growth during the pandemic, and absenteeism and student behavior after students returned to in-person learning. This will give us a sense of the degree to which external factors affected student performance in remote learning as well as the influence of housing and economic insecurity on achievement, engagement, and behavior once students returned to classrooms. Our findings will provide information to school districts and social-service providers on student exposure to economic stress so as to ensure that in-school supports and "wraparound" services are offered to students who need them the most.  

This blog was produced by Haigen Huang (Haigen.Huang@ed.gov), program officer at NCER.

A team at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) has been examining COVID-19 learning recovery in the state as part of their Using Longitudinal Data to Support State Education Policymaking project, which is part of the IES-funded RESTART network. In addition to the research, members of the team at NCDPI developed a toolkit to help local leaders make decisions about what programs to continue or discontinue in the face of the upcoming expiration of federal funding to help schools with learning recovery post-pandemic. Through their work in the Office of Learning and Research (OLR) and the Division of Innovation at NCDPI, Rachel Wright-Junio, Jeni Corn, and Andrew Smith are responsible for managing statewide programs, conducting research on innovative teaching practices, and sharing insights using modern data analysis and visualization techniques. In this guest blog, they describe the need for the toolkit, how they developed it, how it is being used, and next steps.

Rachel Wright-Junio is the director of the Office of Learning and Research (OLR) at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI); Jeni Corn is the director of research and evaluation in OLR; and Andrew Smith is the deputy state superintendent in the NCDPI Division of Innovation.

Contact Rachel Wright-Junio at Rachel.WrightJunio@dpi.nc.gov for the webinar recording or copies of the slide deck from the in-person sessions.

This guest blog was produced by Corinne Alfeld (Corinne.Alfeld@ed.gov), NCER Program Officer.

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) held two Learning Acceleration Challenges during the 2022–23 school year, designed to incentivize innovation in math and science. The Math Prize sought school-based, digital interventions to significantly improve math outcomes, specifically in fractions, for upper elementary school students with or at risk for a disability that affects math performance. An unprecedented number of students are performing below grade level in core academic subjects according to the most recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In response to this problem, the grand prize required interventions to reach an effect size equal to or exceeding 0.77 on a broad measure of math achievement, the NWEA® MAP™ Growth math assessment. The challenge included two phases: In Phase 1, intervention providers submitted information on their interventions and research plans for implementing and testing their interventions under routine conditions. In Phase 2, selected research teams (finalists) were given $25,000 to implement and test their interventions with a shot at receiving the grand prize.

There were four submissions scored by a panel of judges during Phase 1. Two teams were selected to proceed to Phase 2 of the challenge to implement their intervention in schools: The DRUM (Digital Rational Number) Intervention and the ExploreLearning’s Reflex + Frax intervention. These two interventions were implemented in schools between November 2022 and April 2023 and participating students completed the NWEA MAP Growth math assessment before and after implementation. At the completion of Phase 2, the judging panel scored the Phase 2 submissions according to a rigorous set of criteria that included impact (as evaluated by a randomized controlled trial), cost effectiveness, scalability, and sustainability. Based on the scores received by the finalists, the panel did not recommend awarding any Phase 2 Prizes.

We recognize this challenge was an ambitious and rapid effort to improve math achievement. With the knowledge gained from this challenge, we hope to continue to design opportunities that encourage transformative, innovative change within education. While disappointing, these results shed light on some of the challenges of targeting ambitious improvements in student math achievement:

• The implementation hurdles experienced by both teams reinforce the difficulties of conducting research in schools, especially in the current post-pandemic era climate. In the present circumstances, many schools face extra strains that may make it challenging to implement new interventions, as is required during an RCT.
• It has historically been, and continues to be, difficult to create accelerated growth in math achievement for students who are with or at risk for disabilities that affect math performance. An improvement in line with the challenge’s 0.77 effect size criterion for the grand prize would substantially lessen the average achievement gap between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers—and would be no small feat!
• Barriers still exist to implementation of a technology-based intervention. For intervention developers, the cost and time required to create a digital intervention can be very large. For schools, the necessary infrastructure and acceptance of digital interventions is not always present.
• Researching interventions within schools takes a lot of time and resources. Sometimes getting answers to our most pressing educational problems takes time, despite the best efforts of those involved to accelerate this process. The results of this competition underscore the continued need for research to support the significant difficulties of this population of learners.

Thank you to all who participated. We would also like to thank Luminary Labs, the contractor providing support for the IES Learning Acceleration Challenges and the two strong partners they included in the work: NWEA and Abt Associates. We appreciate NWEA’s support in conducting the evaluation of the effects of the intervention on the MAP Growth assessment and Abt Associates for their technical assistance during the Phase 2 implementation. We also appreciate all their work to collect and summarize data to understand what we can learn from the challenges and recommendations from other open innovation initiatives to inform future similar work at IES.

If you have an intervention or an idea for an intervention that could accelerate math achievement for students with or at risk for disabilities, you are encouraged to learn more about additional funding opportunities at IES, and contact Sarah Brasiel, program officer for NCSER’s STEM topic area.

This blog was written by Britta Bresina, NCSER program officer.

On May 16-18, 2023, NCER and NCSER hosted our second virtual Principal Investigators (PI) Meeting. Our theme this year was Building on 20 Years of IES Research to Accelerate the Education Sciences. Because it was the IES 20^th anniversary this past year, we used this meeting as an opportunity to reflect on and celebrate the success of IES and the education research community. Another goal was to explore how IES can further advance the education sciences and improve education outcomes for all learners.

Roddy Theobald (American Institutes for Research) and Eunsoo Cho (Michigan State University) graciously agreed to be our co-chairs this year. They provided guidance on the meeting theme and session strands and also facilitated our plenary sessions on Improving Data on Teachers and Staffing Challenges to Inform the Next 20 Years of Teacher Workforce Policy and Research and the Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Student Learning and Contributions of Education Sciences to Pandemic Recovery Efforts. We want to thank them for their incredible efforts in making this year’s meeting a big success!

Here are a few highlights:

The meeting kicked off with opening remarks from IES Director, Mark Schneider, and a welcome from the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona. Director Schneider spoke about the importance of timeliness of research and translation of evidence to practice. IES is thinking about how best to support innovative approaches to education research that are transformative, embrace failure, are quick turnaround, and have an applied focus. He also discussed the need for data to move the field forward, specifically big data researchers can use to address important policy questions and improve interventions and education outcomes. Secretary Cardona acknowledged the robust and useful evidence base that IES-funded researchers have generated over the last 20 years and emphasized the need for continued research to address historic inequities and accelerate pandemic recovery for students.

This year’s meeting fostered connections and facilitated deep conversations around meaningful and relevant topic areas. Across the three day PI Meeting, we had over 1,000 attendees engaged in virtual room discussions around four main topic areas (see the agenda for a complete list of this year’s sessions):

• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA)—Sessions addressed DEIA in education research
• Recovering and Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic—Sessions discussed accelerating pandemic recovery for students and educators, lessons learned from the pandemic, and opportunities to implement overdue changes to improve education
• Innovative Approaches to Education Research—Sessions focused on innovative, forward-looking research ideas, approaches, and methods to improve education research in both the short- and long-term
• Making Connections Across Disciplines and Communities—Sessions highlighted connections between research and practice communities and between researchers and projects across different disciplines and methodologies

We also had several sessions focused on providing information and opportunities to engage with IES leadership, including NCER Commissioner’s Welcome; NCSER Acting Commissioner’s Welcome; Open Science and IES, NCEE at 20: Past Successes and Future Directions; and The IES Scientific Review Process: Overview, Common Myths, and Feedback.

Many  sessions also had a strong focus on increasing the practical impacts of education research by getting research into the hands of practitioners and policymakers. For example, the session on Beyond Academia: Navigating the Broader Research-Practice Pipeline highlighted the unique challenges of navigating the pipeline of information that flows between researchers and practitioners and identified strategies that researchers could implement in designing, producing, and publishing research-based products that are relevant to a broad audience. The LEARNing to Scale: A Networked Initiative to Prepare Evidence-Based Practices & Products for Scaling and The Road to Scale Up: From Idea to Intervention sessions centered around challenges and strategies for scaling education innovations from basic research ideas to applied and effective interventions. Finally, the Transforming Knowledge into Action: An Interactive Discussion focused on identifying and capturing ways to strengthen dissemination plans and increase the uptake of evidence-based resources and practices.  

We ended the three-day meeting with trivia and a celebration. Who was the first Commissioner of NCSER? Which program officer started the same day the office closed because of the pandemic? Which program officer has dreams of opening a bakery? If you want to know the answers to these questions and more, we encourage you to look at the Concluding Remarks.  

Finally, although we weren’t in person this year, we learned from last year’s meeting that a real benefit of having a virtual PI meeting is our ability to record all the sessions and share them with the public. A part of IES’s mission is to widely disseminate IES-supported research. We encourage you to watch the recorded sessions and would be grateful if you shared it with your networks.

We want to thank the attendees who made this meeting so meaningful and engaging. This meeting would not have been a success without your contributions. We hope to see our grantees at the next PI Meeting, this time in-person!

If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions for how we can further advance the education sciences and improve education outcomes for all learners, please do not hesitate to contact NCER Commissioner Liz Albro (Elizabeth.Albro@ed.gov) or NCSER Acting Commissioner Jackie Buckley (Jacquelyn.Buckley@ed.gov). We look forward to hearing from you.

April is National Bilingual/Multilingual Learner Advocacy Month! As part of the IES 20th Anniversary celebration, we are highlighting NCER’s investments in field-initiated research. In this guest blog, Drs. Doré LaForett and Ximena Franco-Jenkins (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill) and Adam Winsler (George Mason University) discuss their IES-funded exploration study, some challenges they encountered due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and how their study contributes to supporting multilingual students.

The BEE Project

Our IES-funded study, called the Bilingualism, Education, and Excellence (BEE) project, was born out of a research partnership initiated by a principal of a Spanish-English dual-language (DLE) elementary school. She noticed that student engagement in DLE classrooms seemed to differ depending on the student’s home language and the language of instruction. This got us thinking about how we as a field know very little about what goes on in two-way immersion (TWI) classrooms in terms of teacher language use, student-teacher relationships, student engagement, and learning outcomes for students who speak Spanish or English at home. Therefore, we were excited for the opportunity to dig deeper into links between language of instruction and academic outcomes for students in a relatively new immigrant community like North Carolina. Specifically, we were interested in whether and how the amount of instruction in English and Spanish is related to improvements in student academic outcomes in English and Spanish.

We conducted extensive individual direct student assessments at the beginning and end of the school year, as well as intensive classroom observations to assess both language of instruction and student on-task engagement during both English and Spanish instruction. Although we are still analyzing the data, preliminary findings suggest that language model (90% Spanish/10% English vs. 50% Spanish/50% English), type of 50/50 model used (switching language of instruction mid-day vs alternating days), and initial student language proficiency all matter for student engagement and academic outcomes assessed in English and Spanish. For some outcomes, students with low language proficiency had lower average spring scores when in the 50/50 model compared with students in the 90/10 model. In contrast, students with high language proficiency had higher average spring scores when in the 50/50 model compared with the 90/10 model. In addition, students who speak mostly English at home have a hard time staying engaged on the Spanish day in 50/50 alternate programs.

Impact of COVID-19 on Our Research and Pivots Made

Although we are excited about these findings, like many other studies, we encountered challenges with conducting our study when the pandemic hit. While some studies may have been able to pivot and resume data collection using a remote platform, we had to pause data collection activities during spring 2020 and the 2020-21 school year given our study design and the context in which our research was being conducted. For instance, we used gold-standard, English/Spanish, parallel direct assessments of children which required it to be in person since on-line versions were not available. Also, classroom- and student-level observations were not possible when instruction was remote because, for example, cameras were turned off or there was a lack of access to remote or hybrid learning platforms, due to issues such as contactless video recording technologies that prioritize the talk of only one individual in the classroom rather than the entire class or do not allow for focused observations of individual student behavior.

Therefore, our top priority was maintaining our partnerships with the school districts during the ‘sleeper year.’ We kept in touch and followed our partners’ lead as to when and how we could resume. Meanwhile, we tried to understand what school districts were doing for DLE instruction (in-person, hybrid, remote) during the pandemic. The research team found it necessary to shift tasks during the pandemic, and our efforts were centered on data management and dissemination activities. Once schools started to reopen in 2021-22, our team continued to be patient and flexible to address the health and visitor regulations of the various school districts. In the end, we had one year of data pre-pandemic, one pandemic year without spring data, and one year of data post-pandemic.

Despite these challenges, we used this opportunity to gather information about the learning experiences of students enrolled in the final year of our study, who had been exposed to remote or hybrid learning during the 2020-21 school year. So, when schools reopened in fall 2021, we asked our schools about what instruction was like during the pandemic, and we also asked teachers and parents what they thought about dual language progress during the 2020-21 school year. Teachers were more likely to report that students made good gains in their language skills over that year compared to parents. Further, parents who reported greater English-speaking learning opportunities during remote instruction tended to speak primarily English at home and have more education. Parents who reported that their child had difficulties participating in remote instruction due to technology tended to speak more Spanish at home and have less education.

These findings show how inequities in the home environment, such as those experienced during the pandemic, may have reduced learning opportunities for some students in DLE programs. This is particularly noteworthy because the social experience of language learning is critical in DLE programs, so reduced opportunities to speak in English and Spanish—particularly for students who are not yet fully bilingual or do not live in bilingual homes, can really undermine the goals of DLE programs. These reduced learning opportunities also give us pause as we consider how best to test for cohort effects, choose appropriate procedures for dealing with the missing data, and proceed cautiously with generalizing findings.

A Focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Our research is grounded in the cultural mismatch theory, where DLE programs are hypothesized to produce greater alignment or match with English learners’ (ELs’) home environments compared to non-DLE programs. By design, DLE programs that support heritage languages seek to promote bilingualism, bi-literacy, and biculturalism which bolster ELs’ social capital, increase academic performance and reduce the achievement gap for ELs. Thus, effective DLE programs are examples of anti-racist policies and practices. However, some have suggested that DLE programs may be conferring more benefits for White, native English speakers (that is, the Matthew effect, where the rich get richer) compared to the students whose heritage language and culture is being elevated in DLE programs. This is especially concerning given our data showing a potential exacerbation of the Matthew effect during the pandemic due to a variety of factors (lack of access to technology, less-educated families struggling to support their children during remote instruction) suggesting not only learning loss but also language loss. Our research is attempting to open the black box of DLE programs in such classrooms and examine whether experiences, engagement, and outcomes are similar across language backgrounds. We hope that information from our study about the intersection of language proficiency and language of instruction will facilitate decisions regarding how students are assigned to different language models and ultimately support equitable learning opportunities for students attending DLE programs.

Ximena Franco-Jenkins is an Advanced Research Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Adam Winsler is an Associate Chair Professor at George Mason University.

Doré R. LaForett is an Advanced Research Scientist at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This blog was produced by Helyn Kim (Helyn.Kim@ed.gov), Program Officer for the English Learners Portfolio, NCER.