How are states doing when it comes to the constellation of education policies that support students鈥� social, emotional, and academic development?
Not so good, according to a . That is especially the case regarding equity priorities and making key data accessible to families and communities.
A new analysis by the nonprofit research group鈥攊n partnership with the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, or CASEL鈥攅xamined policies around school discipline; wraparound services; educator diversity; professional development; rigorous and culturally sustaining curriculum; and student, family, and community engagement.
While states performed well in some areas but faltered in others, one consistent theme emerged from the analysis: states consistently fell short on collecting data to measure and disseminate the impact of their policies publicly.
鈥淪tates have a long way to go when actually reporting on discipline rates, when reporting on survey data about community and family engagement,鈥� said Sarah Mehrotra, a data and policy analyst for The Education Trust, in an interview with Education Week. 鈥淧arents are hungry for this data. And states across the board need to do a better job reporting this out.鈥�
Only one state, California, met benchmarks for data collection around discipline鈥攊ncluding publicly reporting district-level data on offenses and punishments, the number of students who have been expelled more than once, and breaking down the data by race and gender as well as English learner, socioeconomic, and disability status.
Just three states鈥擟alifornia, Idaho, and Rhode Island, as well as the District of Columbia鈥攑ublicly report information collected through surveys and school climate data on how engaged students, families, and local communities feel in their schools.
Nine states report data on high schoolers鈥� participation in advanced coursework鈥攕uch as Advanced Placement, dual enrollment, and International Baccalaureate programs鈥攂roken down by demographic groups.
鈥楾here is no data to actually measure progress鈥�
When it comes to wraparound services that help students and families get health care, housing, and other social and academic supports, the research group found that 12 states require districts to assess the needs and strengths of students and school systems to identify both gaps and available supports in community services.
While 21 states publish annual school-level data about the racial makeup of their educator workforce鈥攅ither in an online dashboard, school report card, or in a report on educator workforce diversity鈥攐nly two states, Connecticut and Delaware, publicly share annual school-level data on retention rates among teachers of color.
鈥淲e also scanned most of these categories for whether states had set goals鈥攄o they have goals around family engagement? Do they have a goal around wraparound services?鈥� said Mehrotra. 鈥淚n many cases, the answer was yes, but then there is no data to actually measure progress toward these goals.鈥�
Other key takeaways from the analysis include:
- Nineteen states allow for corporal punishment. In 15 states that ban corporal punishment, laws remain weak around the use of restraints to control student behavior鈥攆or instance, there are no requirements that staff be trained in de-escalation of conflict and the use of safe restraints.
- Discipline policies on the books can be out of sync with more recent state policy developments. Tennessee and South Carolina, for example, do not ban corporal punishment yet both states also give guidance and training on restorative discipline practices.
- Most states still allow exclusionary discipline, such as suspensions and expulsions, for minor, nonviolent rule-breaking such as defiant behavior.
- No state requires schools to meet the 250 students per counselor ratio recommended by the American School Counselor Association. Delaware, however, has passed a law that will eventually require schools to meet that ratio.
- Most states with so-called critical race theory bans don鈥檛 have formal systems in place to include parent voice at a high, policymaking level.
For each policy area, The Education Trust scored states on a range of considerations, such as whether the state set clear goals, provided adequate funding and training, and collected and reported data.
The findings from The Education Trust鈥檚 analysis are presented in that shows where states are on a continuum for each key policy area and it allows comparisons among states.
