Key Decisions Made

During this meeting, the group agreed to:

• Meet from January to July of 2021

• Invite additional practitioner voices to the group

• Hear from John Easton (UChicago Consortium of School Partnership) at the next Design Council meeting

Meeting Minutes Summary

Challenges to be addressed:

• Effectively moving multiple institutions

• Moving institutions and building buy-in beyond the individuals represented in the room.

• Mismatched incentive structures. Researchers are independently creating their own research agendas. Every institution has different motivators.

• Working with large groups, even with the Design Council, can be challenging to work effectively.

Structure

• The right structure for ensuring everyone is getting what they need and also contributing. Who owns the work? Without a lead institution, there’s no one who is held accountable to conduct all the work.

Research questions

• Differing interests. How to find a set of questions that are appealing and interesting to everyone?

• Sifting through what’s already been done to learn from existing research and working on something relevant and impactful for St. Louis.

Trust

• The history of institutional relationships can be challenging to work together.

Survey Results

Through the use of a google forms survey, Design Council Members shared potential research questions:

• What factors support Black students’ education?

• How are charters affecting college graduation rates?

• Would larger school systems better serve students?

• What are the most effective pedagogical practices? How can these define teacher effectiveness?

• How does the SES effect of virtual school impact students?

• How do the social determinants of health impact educational outcomes?

Key Decisions Made

During this meeting, the group agreed to:

• Create a Core Planning Subcommittee that would focus on the creation of a research agenda

• Consider ways in which the RPP could support the District Charter Collaboratives work

Meeting Minutes Summary

Data Systems

• In order to effectively complete research and see the progress of students, Chicago Public Schools chose to build out a data system to supplement existing systems.

• The Consortium has an extensive & holistic data set for students at CPS. More formal systems of approval have been developed for both schools and the university to protect student privacy.

Trust

• Trust is a major factor in the success of Chicago’s work. Other RPP’s have struggled to replicate Chicago’s success due to a lack of trust. Houston is another RPP that has been able to establish a deep relationship of trust between researchers and practitioners.

• Direct relationships between Consortium members and district personnel were key to building this trust over time.

• Ground rules established at the beginning of the process helped avoid & address disagreement.

CPS

• The Consortium has chosen to continue working with CPS rather than expand due to both capacity & the belief that state-wide work should sit at the University of Illinois.

• The decentralization of CPS has not affected the RPP in any major way. A minor impact is that now it is harder for the system to mandate schools to participate in research studies.

Practitioner Experience

• Some negatives practitioners have experienced as a result of the Consortium’s include 1) increased planning & administrative work 2) Unlike Freshman on Track, there are no clear pathways to improve the 5 Essentials in schools 3) Some reports have embarrassed or angered people.

• People would like to do a similar retrospective from the perspective of school practitioners.

Institutional Partnership

• Having a strong institutional partnership from the University of Chicago has helped provide connections & resources for the Consortium.

• In St. Louis, the RPP is made up of multiple institutions. Navigating and designing for this will be a challenge we need to address.

Survey Results

Through the use of a google forms survey, Design Council Members shared potential barriers and opportunities to implementing an RPP model similar to UChicago:

• Trust: "I wonder if the RPP can tackle the barrier of trust."

• Politics: "The big challenge in my mind is getting over the politics of education management and moving toward a collective commitment to children."

• Multiple Higher Education Institutions: "How HEI plays together is a huge opportunity, but past experience says it is a barrier."

• Financial: "Do we have the resources to implement an RPP and build the core staff?"

Design Council members also shared that they felt like their institution would benefit from an RPP similar to Chicago (Strongly Agree=7, Agree=5, Neutral=1), that we are the resources to implement a similar model to Chicago (Strongly Agree=1, Agree=10, Neutral=1, Disagree=2) and that this group is on the right track towards creating an RPP in St. Louis (Agree=12, Neutral=2).

Key Decisions Made

During this meeting, the group agreed to:

• Focus on the topic of student mobility for SRPC’s inaugural research agenda

• Have the Core Planning Committee interview practitioners to understand the questions they would find most useful to addressing the effects of student mobility

• Have the Core Planning Committee conduct a literature review of previous studies conducted on this topic in St. Louis

• Create Data Hub, Knowledge Sharing and Governance/Structure Subcommittees

Meeting Minutes Summary

Hopes & Fears for the research were:

• That the data would be available or attainable

• Data would include diverse quantitative and qualitative methods to fully capture the nuance of student and family experiences

• There would be coordination & synergy of goals for stakeholders across the education system

• Student, parent, and educator voices would be represented

• Results would impact students & educators

• Research results would be actionable

• There would be clear bridges from research to practice and vice versa

• The research would have funding to sustain it

Perspectives on Student Mobility:

Practitioner Perspectives:

• If we could understand how & why students move, we could better align resources, curriculum, and inform partners for wrap-around services.

• The longer kids stay in one school, the better they do, especially compared to highly mobile students.

• What sort of opportunity costs exist for the students and teachers who stay? How does mobility impact school culture, teachers, and school leaders?

Community Partner Perspectives:

• If community organizations understood best practices when it comes to student mobility, they could support practitioners in implementing these practices or spreading them across organizations.

• There is potential to help bring in dollars & work with national organizations to implement best practices in St. Louis.

Researcher Perspectives:

• While there may not be researchers in every university who is interested in student mobility, some researchers talked about how they would rather do research that is applicable to practitioners, even if it is not their typical area of study.

• There is potential to use administrative data to create descriptive data for student-wide mobility. If there are straightforward patterns, this can be easily and directly applicable.

• The timing of academic mobility would be an interesting topic. Additionally, student and teacher mobility probably intersect.

Funding:

• There is money for COVID relief coming in that the RPP could potentially pursue. However, the timing of the relief funding and the timing for research production probably does not align.

Survey Results

Through the use of a google forms survey, Design Council Members shared feedback regarding focusing on student mobility for the pilot research agenda.

• This topic is relevant for teachers, school administrators, guidance staff, support staff, families, community organizations, churches, early childhood centers/daycares, enrichment activity providers, community centers, human services

• Overwhelming sentiment: "I think this topic provides a promising avenue for research that can truly inform educational policies and practices in STL"

The Design Council also made the following suggestions to increase the diversity of perspectives at meetings:

• More "on the ground" practitioners in the room

• Asking for dissenting views

• Calling on everyone (with an option to skip)

• Discussing ways to engage families in the future

• Breakout groups

Key Decisions Made

During this meeting, the group agreed to:

• Continue to explore the creation of a Data Hub, using the student mobility research questions as a starting point

• Have the Data Hub subcommittee consider questions about ownership, governance, user-ease and data quality of a Data Hub

Meeting Minutes Summary

Needs for a data hub:

Ownership, Participation, and Trust

• Foster trust across communities: parents and students

• Include more practitioners in this process

Governance and Accountability

• Transparency and governance around access and use

• Who makes these decisions?

• User-expectations and agreements (e.g., if you use the data, an expectation to share findings back with SRPC).

User-friendliness

• Tools to put data to action

• Visualizations and dashboards for ease of use

• Identify the users and identify what it means to prioritize access and ease of use

• Minimize jargon and make it accessible

Data

• Longitudinal, raw data availability

• Various formats (e.g., CSV, SAS, SPSS, STATA, etc.)

• Agree on variables and alignment

• Make it dynamic and up-to-date so data isn’t “old”.

• Share code examples for ease of researcher use (e.g., codes to apply weights)

• Proxy-development/redesign (e.g., FRL as an indicator of poverty

• De-identifying but also coupling with student families

• Across school districts/LEAs and eventually the region

• Provide documentation/codebooks and in various formats

Survey Results

Through the use of a google forms survey, Design Council Members shared a variety of feedback regarding a Data Hub:

• The Design Council was generally comfortable with SRPC building a data hub (Strongly Agree=6, Agree=5, Not Sure=1)

• All council members felt that their institution/organization would benefit from a Data Hub (Strongly Agree=11, Agree=2)

• Most council members would use a data hub (Yes=11, Maybe=2)

• Most council members would like to see a Data Hub houses independently within the SRPC structure (8) [University/Research Center=2, School District=1, Other=1]

Additional Reactions to a Data Hub include:

• Excitement: "It's these types of conversations that are going to get us to create a system that is going to work best for whomever we create it."

• Trust: "Trust among districts/CMOs for sharing is the ongoing question."

• Expertise: "IT professionals need to be brought into the conversation about the data hub."

• Audience: "I just worry/wonder if in the interface of the hub, could we possibly have different views for different audiences."

Key Decisions Made

This meeting was conducted asynchronously, therefore feedback from members was provided, but no decisions were made.

Meeting Minutes Summary

The following updvideoates include outcomes from subcommittee work. Included are hyperlinks to videos that explain the slides and corresponding reports.

Core Planning Committee (Core function: Develop the research agenda)

• The Core Planning Committee met on 5/26 to review themes from interviews with teachers and principals and brainstorm research questions on student mobility. The discussion was informed by:

  • St. Louis-specific literature on student mobility (see video, slides, & report here)

  • Interviews with educators on student mobility (see video, slides, & report here).

• The subcommittee generated a list of potential research questions. Please review and respond to the proposed research questions in the linked document.

• The group will prioritize questions and recommend a research agenda in June.

Governance/Infrastructure Committee

• The subcommittee met on 5/17 to discuss two components of governance: creating a leadership body and selecting a managing entity. The slide deck can be found here.

• Committee members agreed that hiring high-capacity staff and designing a structure that can best enable the first project(s) to be completed as a proof of concept is critical to the SRPC’s success.

• As a next step, the group agreed that a charter document is needed to outline who will be responsible for moving the work forward including staffing, a leadership committee, and temporary housing. The subcommittee will propose a structure during the June meeting.

Data Hub

• The Data Hub met on 5/21 to discuss the Design Council’s feedback regarding the creation of a data hub (see slides here) and key considerations for student mobility (meeting notes here).

• The group will continue to explore questions regarding data collection, data infrastructure, and data use and will provide the Design Council with a scoping document for the June meeting.

Knowledge Engagement

• The Knowledge Engagement subcommittee has finished conducting interviews with educators to understand their needs when engaging with research.

• The group will meet to review results and begin planning practices to incorporate engaging practitioners in research.

Key Decisions Made

During this meeting, the group agreed to:

• Spend the next 12-16 months piloting an RPP for education in St. Louis, focused on conducting research on student mobility

• Re-evaluate the efficacy of the RPP at the end of the pilot and decide on dissolving or continuing the work in a more permanent structure

• Adjust the timing of the research study to conduct a systematic review of existing national student mobility in parallel with quantitative research. The qualitative portion of the research could then use both the systematic review and the quantitative results to inform their work.

Meeting Minutes Summary

Engaging with Stakeholders

• The Knowledge Engagement Committee proposed a 3-pronged approach to engaging with educators, parents, and members of the public. This included:

  • a public communication campaign

  • a website to track progress and provide transparency

  • Design Teams led by practitioners who will be charged with taking learnings from the research and creating implementation plans

Data

The Data Committee reported on initial discussion of what the minimum viable product would be to start building data infrastructure that could grow and support the long-term, practical use of data for education in St. Louis.

Student Mobility Research

The group discussed the proposed mix-methods, 3-part study on student mobility. This included:

• A quantitative analysis of longitudinal data to see when, where, and what effects student mobility had in schools

• A qualitative study to better understand student, family, and educator experiences with mobility

• A systematic review of existing literature on mobility to learn from existing national research

The group encouraged to research team to:

• Focus on practical impact. Ensure the research team thinks about implications of possible findings when developing areas of inquiry.

• Take into account to limitations of the data in this study to identify gaps for the data team to address

Survey Results

Rather than conducting a survey after the meeting, SKIP Designed met individually with each institution to gage interest in continuing the work in the pilot phase.