The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) requires districts to deliver “evidence-based interventions” to students impacted by the pandemic. The policy has created a unique opportunity for researchers and practitioners to engage with evidence to learn how recovery interventions work and under what conditions.
This study is part of a research-practice partnership (RPP) between Guilford County Schools, AIR-CALDER, Harvard University and NWEA to understand the impacts and implementation of ESSER-funded recovery programs. We use a case analysis approach and frameworks of evidence-use and RPPs to explain how researchers and Guilford leaders engage with evidence to improve and evaluate programs.
The RPP used evidence to inform Guilford leaders’ recovery approaches and strengthened researchers’ evaluations of programs. Conditions that enabled evidence engagement included the RPP’s goals, research activities and collaborative conditions such as boundary spanning activities, team meetings, relationships and trust. We also observed factors that hindered evidence engagement, including the RPP’s nascent stage, structure and breadth of goals, rapid policy timelines and other organizational conditions in Guilford.
Given the complexities of pandemic recovery, RPPs can help researchers evaluate programs in their local context, and present evidence in ways that are actionable to guide decision-making. District leaders can play a valuable role in co-designing research studies attuned to local priorities and context and facilitating research participation among internal stakeholders. However, newly formed RPPs with broad goals for impact will need more time and resources to build an improvement infrastructure for sustaining pandemic recovery.
