For schools, districts and institutions of higher education located outside urban and suburban settings, implementing new policies and programs can be quite a challenge. They may have limited financial resources, fewer qualified staff, limited access to high quality professional development, and older infrastructure that may not support AI. When institutions or districts lack capacity, vulnerable students ─ such as those with disabilities, English language learners, or students from low-income families ─ may not receive the benefit from new policies and existing gaps can be exacerbated.

Support from state policymakers and state education agencies can significantly influence the success of policy implementation. We know that when state leaders provide clear direction, guidance, training and resources they are more likely to succeed.

Model Questionnaires

This recommendation is accompanied by two model questionnaires SREB developed to help states get started determining capacity. The questions are intended to gauge critical pieces of the implementation puzzle such as technology infrastructure, staff capabilities, student needs and planning. Both include examples of recommendations and potential next steps.

K-12 model questions >

Postsecondary questions >

States should consider creating scoring rubrics for their questionnaires to help determine recommendations regarding the level of assistance needed and specific actions steps. 

Feedback and Evaluation

States and districts will also need mechanisms to monitor progress and evaluate implementation efforts. Feedback loops should be built into the front end of any new efforts so they can inform state leaders on how to adjust policy and practice as needed.

References

Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12(1), 49–61.

Bowers, A. J., & Urick, A. (2011). Does high school facility quality affect student achievement? A two-level hierarchical linear model. Journal of Education Finance, 37(1), 72–94.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379.

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks: A study of their influence on reform implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3–49.

Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147–158.

Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2010). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Westview Press.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016

Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). SUNY Press.

Honig, M. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of New Small Autonomous Schools initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 387–422.

Levine, A. (2020). The new school funding landscape: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Education Finance, 45(3), 237–254.

Marsh, J. A., & Wohlstetter, P. (2013). Rethinking district roles in school improvement. Teachers College Record, 115(11), 1–43.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019009011

Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285–307.

Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2014). School finance: A policy perspective (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019002185

Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Harvard University Press.

Supovitz, J. A. (2008). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Harvard Education Press.