The William T. Grant Foundation recently awarded seven grants to support our research interests. Four of the grants are focused on our interest in understanding and improving the environments in which youth spend time, including public schools, classrooms, and neighborhoods. The other three projects are studies of the use of research evidence in policies and practices that affect youth.

“These seven awards are among the most promising we have made in the last few years,” said Foundation President Robert C. Granger. “I am particularly pleased we are adding new studies on how research is used in policy and practice. We now have 14 studies in progress on that topic.”

Information about each of these grants follows.

SOCIAL SETTING RESEARCH

The Causes of Truancy and Dropout: A Mixed-Methods Experimental Study in Chicago Public Schools
Jonathan Guryan, Ph.D.
Northwestern University
Jens Ludwig, Ph.D.
University of Chicago
Philip Cook, Ph.D.
Duke University
Mimi Engel, Ph.D.
Vanderbilt University
Amy Claessens, Ph.D.
University of Chicago
Sandra Christenson, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota
$597,811
2011–2014

What factors influence the effectiveness of structured mentoring and monitoring interventions designed to reduce school truancy and dropouts? Despite evidence demonstrating the harmful effects of truancy and dropouts on youth, few interventions designed to reduce these show positive results. This project takes advantage of a large trial including 540 students—funded by the Institute of Education Sciences—of Check and Connect, a structured mentoring and monitoring intervention. Through Check and Connect, adult mentors strive to improve youths’ educational outcomes through systematic monitoring of school progress (“check”), timely interactions and interventions with the youth (“connect”), and interactions with the family to promote communication and family support for learning. Mentors work with students and families for two years and are trained in methods for promoting school engagement. The William T. Grant-funded study will focus on a random subsample of 108 fourth and ninth grade students—76 will participate in the intervention, 16 are from schools in the control group, and the remaining 16 students are in experimental schools but not receiving the intervention directly. Using mixed-methods, the researchers will examine how the intervention promotes and sustains student engagement and improves student outcomes. They will also examine what determines engagement with school and learning for elementary and high school students, and how and why engagement may vary by developmental level and family or school setting.

The Motivational and Learning Benefits of Autonomy-Supportive Classroom Practices
Erika Patall, Ph.D.
University of Texas, Austin
$92,684
2012–2012

Do classrooms that support students’ feelings of autonomy improve student motivation, attitudes, and behaviors? Prior research has suggested some instructional practices facilitate such feelings, but little is known about how and why they work. One problem is that there are few existing cost-effective measures of the practices themselves. This study aims to create such a measure to provide a better understanding of how specific instructional practices support feelings of autonomy, motivate positive behavior, and foster learning among high school students. Patall will identify which teacher practices support students’ psychological needs and whether they are related to greater student motivation, engagement, and achievement. The research will be conducted in high school science classrooms in the Austin (TX) Independent School District. Prompted by email reminders, students will use an Apple iPod Touch to report on their teachers’ practices. In addition to these reports, classrooms will be videotaped and trained observers will code data on a parallel set of teacher practices. The video data would be used to validate the students’ reports.

Toward Improving Settings Serving Youth with Emotional Disturbances: Measuring Social Processes in Special Education Phase I
Susan Rivers, Ph.D.
Marc Brackett, Ph.D.
Peter Salovey, Ph.D.
Yale University
$336,198
2011–2013

Research indicates that positive youth development within classrooms is related to interactions among teachers and students that promote empowerment, skill building, supportiveness, warmth, and a sense of security. Researchers have developed observational tools to measure such teacher-student interactions in general education classrooms. Currently, however, there are no comparable measures for self-contained special education classrooms, which have distinct instructional and social structures. In this study, the investigators will develop the Special Education Classroom Observation Tool (SPECOT) to assess the quality of classroom interactions in special education classrooms. The tool will be modeled on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), which is currently used in general education classrooms. The study sample will include full- and part-day classrooms serving youth classified as having emotional disturbance (ED). Researchers will sample 15 ED classrooms from grades three through six. They will conduct ethnographic observations and focus-group interviews with educators in order to understand the unique nature of the social processes within the self-contained ED classroom. Field notes from the observations and interview transcripts will be coded and used to inform the development of the SPECOT.

Crime, Context, and Academic Performance
Amy Schwartz, Ph.D.
Patrick Sharkey, Ph.D.
New York University
$300,000
2011–2013

Children exposed to violent crime have poorer reading scores, higher rates of school absenteeism, lower educational attainment, higher dropout rates, and a lower likelihood of attending college. Prior research has also found that schools can buffer the negative psychological and behavioral effects of exposure to community violence. `The study will examine the impact of recent exposure to violent crime on academic achievement and how the impact varies with respect to the timing of the incident, its physical proximity to the student, and the degree of violence. They will also investigate whether the effects of exposure to violent crime on students vary by school and, if so, which features of the school settings moderate the effects of violence in academic achievement. The study looks at New York City public school students in grades three through eight, and the neighborhoods in which they reside. This is a large-scale secondary analysis of data obtained from the New York City Department of Education, the New York State Department of Education, and the New York City Police Department. All data for this study are derived from secondary sources. Sources include individual-level longitudinal data on students in grades 3–12 over the course of three academic years, as well as school-level data describing school, student, and staff characteristics and school expenditures. In addition, 2007–2010 data from the NYC School Survey—completed by 6th through 12th grade teachers, students, and parents—will be analyzed. Finally, detailed violent crime data from the NYPD for the years 2004–2010 have been made available to the researchers.

USE OF RESEARCH EVIDENCE

Understanding the Federal Plan for Growing Evidence-based Programs
Ron Haskins, Ph.D.
Isabell Sawhill, Ph.D.
Brookings Institution
$300,000
2011–2013

The Obama administration—building on steps taken during President Bush’s terms in office—has pursued policy initiatives linking program funding to research evidence of the effectiveness of the program. The magnitude and number of these initiatives is unprecedented—why and how did they come to pass? Haskins will analyze the development of six administration efforts: home visitation, teen pregnancy prevention, the Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund, the Social Innovation Fund, the Community College Challenge Fund, and the Workforce Innovation Fund. Each is intended to support the scale-up of evidence-based interventions. In instances where the research is weaker, the initiatives support rigorous evaluation of promising interventions. Haskins and his team will identify and analyze the processes through which the six have been developed, promoted, and implemented. The investigators aim to produce an accurate, in-depth description of the policymaking work involved, the role of research evidence, and the relevant political and bureaucratic contexts. The project will include a variety of federal policymakers, including officials from the Office of Management and Budget and the White House; staff at the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services; members of Congress; congressional committee staff; and advocates who work outside formal policymaking structures. Approximately 80 interviews will be completed. Information will also be collected from newspaper articles, congressional testimonies, hearings records, bills, committee reports, funding announcements, and other agency materials.

How Do Intermediary Organizations Promote Research Evidence for Educational Policymaking?
Christopher Lubienski, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Elizabeth Debray, Ed.D.
University of Georgia
Janelle Scott, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
$607,052
2011–2014

Advocacy groups, philanthropies, and think tanks play an increasingly visible role in local and federal education policy. Many of these intermediary organizations have promoted “incentivist” reforms such as charter schools, merit pay, and pay-for-performance for students. (Such reforms are based on the idea that external rewards and inducements will motivate improvement in public schools, teachers, and students). These intermediaries often use research to gain support for their positions. More systematic understanding of how these increasingly influential policy actors acquire, interpret, and use research to shape policymaking is critical. This is a comparative case study of three policy issues at the federal level and in three cities. The investigators will examine what research is used by intermediaries, how that research is packaged and conveyed to policymakers, and how policymakers use it. The study will include policymakers and representatives from influential foundations, advocacy groups, and other intermediary organizations at the federal level and in New Orleans, Denver, and New York City. They will conduct site visits and interviews with policymakers and individuals at intermediary organizations. The team will collect documents from the organizations and observe dissemination activities.

Networks, Organizational Culture, and Limited Differences: Examining the Use of Research (Phase I)
Jerald Herting, Ph.D.
David Takeuchi, Ph.D.
University of Washington
$158,496
2011–2012

State policymakers in Washington are planning a large-scale effort to disseminate research findings and assessment tools on adverse childhood experiences (ACE). The body of research related to ACE includes a tool assessing exposure to childhood trauma as well as findings relating those early experiences to negative health behaviors and outcomes later in life. In Washington State, state and community organizations are encouraged to use this research to engage schools and health and social services providers in efforts to improve the health and well-being of residents, especially youth. This presents an opportunity to study both how the state goes about designing an effort to get research used and the factors that influence which local providers take up the research and how they use it. The first phase of the study will examine how the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) develops their plan to disseminate ACE research evidence and clarify whether the State and other key policy partners have developed content and plans to promote the incorporation of ACE in practice. Investigators will analyze how the State and key policy actors view ACE and its use and value. They will also examine the reach of ACE across geographic regions of Washington State. They will interview key policy actors in Washington, and gather a body of literature about ACE that these policy actors deem key evidence. They will also conduct a literature and grant review to see if there are similar dissemination activities taking place in other states. Findings from the first phase will inform the design of the second phase.