When the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) introduced its States Leading States (SLS) initiative, the primary goal wasn’t to dictate educational policy but to meticulously measure what truly works and understand the reasons behind its effectiveness. Recently, the program unveiled its inaugural group of nine partner states: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas.
Spearheaded by HGSE’s Centre for Education Policy Research (CEPR), this initiative will partner with state governments to evaluate a wide range of educational policies. These include diverse programs, from literacy initiatives in Colorado to summer reading and mathematics camps in Alabama. The core aim is to develop a consistent, evidence-based understanding of which state-level policies genuinely lead to better student learning. Scott E. Sargrad, a senior director for the initiative, explained that the project seeks to bolster both state-level leadership and foster a collaborative learning environment. “We are hoping this project supports state leadership while also deepening our collective understanding of effective state policies,” he stated.
From Research to Real-World Reform
The program’s initial report is anticipated this spring, offering early insights from its collaborating states. For example, in Illinois, education officials are particularly interested in whether limiting student mobile phone use can genuinely improve classroom concentration and academic results. Illinois State Superintendent of Education, Anthony “Tony” V. Sanders, highlighted that this partnership provides “a robust platform for exchanging ideas, enhancing data utilization, and supporting ongoing school improvements.”
The situation in Illinois perfectly exemplifies the SLS model: pinpointing local challenges, gathering comparative data, and then crafting precise metrics to gauge success. For Sanders, this translates into objectively measuring how cell phone restrictions influence student engagement—a question echoing through school districts across the country.
A Vision Decades in the Making
While the SLS program officially debuted in January, its foundational concept originated nearly twenty years ago. Professor Thomas J. Kane, CEPR faculty director, recounted how in 2005, Joel I. Klein, then Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, sought Harvard researchers’ help to assess aspects of the city’s school system. Kane noted that Klein’s request exposed a significant capacity gap. “He expressed that he lacked the internal resources to perform this type of work, which made us realize that if the chancellor of the nation’s largest school district didn’t have this capability, then likely no one did,” Kane explained.
This realization spurred CEPR to secure funding for a long-term, data-centric partnership among U.S. states. The SLS initiative is slated to continue for four years and will leverage a robust network of over 700 highly skilled data analysts from Harvard’s Strategic Data Project, an ongoing CEPR endeavor since 2008 focused on integrating data science into educational policy.
Fostering Bipartisan Solutions for Education
Professor Kane stressed that SLS was intentionally designed as a bipartisan program. Its initial group of participating states includes both conservative and liberal leaning regions, a strategic choice to focus on areas where consensus and collaboration are still achievable. “Our strategy is to avoid divisive ‘culture war’ topics,” he clarified, instead prioritizing efforts to decrease student absenteeism and elevate academic performance.
This collaborative approach is especially critical as U.S. academic performance has seen a steady decline for over a decade. Kane expressed optimism that the program will deliver actionable, evidence-supported solutions to reverse this troubling trend. “We are intensely focused on providing concrete answers to these challenges within the coming year,” he affirmed.
For Harvard, this initiative transcends a typical research partnership; it symbolizes a dedicated commitment to re-establishing trust in education policymaking by relying on concrete data rather than ideological debates. The outcomes, which are expected in the upcoming months, could offer invaluable guidance to state leaders grappling with one of American education’s most persistent questions: how to craft policies that genuinely make a difference in our schools.