Introduction

The severity and unpredictability of the disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic over the past 15 months has upended life as we know it in many ways, particularly when it comes to schooling. In the U.S., an education system previously marked by structure and routine was forced to respond quickly and with little preparation or previous experience to unprecedented circumstances – a challenging task for education leaders, teachers, and students and families. Questions emerged on how, what, who, and when across all levels of the system, with a number of opportunities for research and evidence to help inform decisions.

In non-pandemic times, education research-practice partnerships (RPPs) often play an important role in filling knowledge gaps, given their aims to be responsive to and address problems of practice. This typically involves research- and practice-side partners co-developing a research agenda and individual projects in response to co-identified problems of practice. Even in normal times, this process is not without its challenges (e.g., research timelines are almost always longer than what practice-side partners would prefer). However, the pace of the work can generally be anticipated, with partnerships able to weigh priorities and timelines for projects depending on research-side capacity and practice-side needs. 

This all changed swiftly when the Covid-19 pandemic hit in the spring of last year. With the sudden shift to online learning amidst school building closures and enormous challenges around deepening inequities (to name but a few pandemic-related issues), the practice-side’s priorities (and timelines) changed dramatically. Given partnerships’ roles in supporting evidence-informed decision making prior to the pandemic, one might assume that RPPs would be uniquely positioned to pivot and answer these new calls from their practice-side partners. While there is some truth to this assumption, what we have learned recently from the experience of our members is that the ability to shift partnership work quickly is heavily dependent on how flexible an RPP’s funding structure is. That is, most partnerships are funded by project rather than by partnership, which, practically speaking, means that a new research question that arises after a grant has been awarded may not necessarily be taken on by the partnership, especially if it is not attached to a particular project. Simply put, being able to pivot is directly tied to the flexibility of funding.      

In this edition of the Research Insights series, we take a look at how three RPPs in NNERPP were able to respond to the needs of their practice-side partners during the pandemic and in the wake of the racial justice movement, and how these case studies highlight the critical need for unrestricted funding sources for RPPs if we hope them to fulfill their potential utility.

Case Study 1: Lessons From Boston

The Boston P-3 Research-Practice Partnership was originally founded in 2007 by Dr. Jason Sachs from the Boston Public Schools (BPS) Department of Early Childhood and Dr. Christina Weiland, then a doctoral student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The partnership has since expanded to include MDRC, the University of Michigan (where Dr. Weiland currently works), and Harvard University. In its current iteration, the Boston P-3 RPP aims to identify the key features in children’s learning environments from prekindergarten to third grade that best support their academic, cognitive, and social-emotional development. However, like many RPPs, research-practice priorities are driven in part by funding for specific activities. For example, we are currently funded by the Institute of Education Sciences as part of the national Early Learning Network to identify malleable factors in children’s P-2 experiences that lead to gains in children’s academic outcomes within and across grades. In a different project housed under the umbrella of the RPP, we are funded by the Foundation for Child Development and the Heising-Simons Foundation to conduct a mixed-methods study examining the key facilitators and barriers affecting implementation of the BPS prekindergarten program – historically implemented in public school settings – in partner community-based organizations participating in the district’s Universal Pre-K (UPK) expansion effort. 

However, to truly partner with the district, our RPP has to also address pressing questions that fall outside the scope of our funded work. Without being able to address such needs when they arise, RPPs risk losing credibility and relevance with practice partners, potentially affecting the sustainability of the RPP in the longer-term. Flexible funding that supports the broader goals of the RPP without being tied to answering a pre-specified set of research questions can make RPPs more effective and impactful, both in the short- and long-term. 

There are two recent examples in Boston where the team has leveraged flexible funds to support critical questions that the BPS district wanted to answer during the pandemic. First, in the context of the pandemic, districts across the country have encountered historic drops in prekindergarten and kindergarten enrollment. As reported in a recent policy brief published by the Boston P-3 RPP team, this issue was particularly salient for community-based UPK providers during the fall of 2020. In this case, the work was greatly facilitated by the flexibility of the Foundation for Child Development and the Heising-Simons Foundation. We kept them updated when our UPK research plans for 2020-2021 were upended by the COVID-19 crisis and they allowed us instead to focus on following the effects of the crisis on UPK sites.  

Second, BPS began using a remote learning platform called “Seesaw” to support asynchronous instruction during the pandemic. Many teachers used Seesaw to assign a substantial number of assignments to students but given the stressors of the pandemic, it was difficult for the district to get a high-level view about how these types of assignments compared to the instruction that students would experience in a typical synchronous learning context. The district placed a priority on learning more about these assignments, particularly their cognitive demand, the extent to which they involved writing, and the quality of feedback teachers provided, among others. Using access to flexible funding support, we were able to co-construct, in a short amount of time, a coding tool with the district and then code about 500 activities randomly selected from 15 different schools. In exchange for course credit, a University of Michigan School of Education masters student and kindergarten teacher, Luna Terauchi, also worked as a coder on the team – a benefit of including university partners in particular in RPPs. In addition to summarizing findings across all activities, we were able to create school-specific reports for each of the 15 schools to give them a snapshot of their own data. We further developed a coding manual for principals to support them to review their own Seesaw data using this systematic lens. Importantly, the district has used the findings to create new best practices to promote the use of Seesaw in the coming school year as both a remote and in-person learning tool.

At the Boston P-3 RPP, we have learned over the course of our 14 years in existence that the RPP model is most effective and mutually beneficial to districts and researchers when there is flexibility in how research can be used to provide timely information prioritized by district partners – which is possible through unrestricted or flexible funding. Our experiences during the pandemic, as outlined here, again demonstrate why flexible funding is so important for RPPs to make a real impact.  As RPPs in education continue to expand in size and reach, gaining access to flexible funds can be critical for supporting the sustainability of these models, which is necessary for using research to make real change in policy and practice.

Case Study 2: Lessons From New Orleans

Over the past several years the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans (ERA-New Orleans), housed at Tulane University, has shifted its focus towards practitioner-partnership work with local education stakeholders. This work has included a variety of projects, including program evaluations of two local education nonprofits, a partnership with New Orleans Public Schools (NOLA-PS) to test the effects of a text messaging intervention that supported families through the centralized enrollment process for early childhood programs, and a citywide youth survey developed in partnership with a variety of local community groups including NOLA-PS and the New Orleans Health Department. As this partnership work has become a more central component of our research agenda, we have developed a more formal process for conducting this research. Our advisory board and NOLA-PS annually propose and vote on topics that are of particular interest or relevance to their work. The ultimate goal is to provide timely and relevant data to help education stakeholders in the city make informed decisions about New Orleans students’ public education.

Unlike much of our work, which is dependent on funds allocated towards specific research questions, this emerging line of work relies on less restrictive funds provided to us by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. This flexible funding allows our work to be more responsive – both in topic and in timeline – to policymaker and practitioner needs. For example, recent events have brought racial disparities to the forefront of national conversations with regards to disparities in health, policing, and many other aspects of society. In light of these conversations, our advisory board and NOLA-PS have expressed particular interest in developing a broader understanding of the racial disparities that exist within the education system here in New Orleans.

Over the course of the last year, we were able to examine two different questions posed by our partners with regards to racial disparities in New Orleans education. First, we used data from our citywide youth survey to examine student responses based on whether students had teachers who shared their race or ethnicity. As we report in the corresponding policy brief, we found that on measures of school climate and student engagement, Black students are likely to benefit from having teachers who look like them. Having data to highlight these trends in student experiences can aid in the conversation as local groups advocate for increased representation of teachers of color in our schools’ teaching forces.

Second, we evaluated the equity implications of a recent policy change to the centralized enrollment process. In New Orleans, students apply to schools through a centralized enrollment system called the OneApp, and they are then assigned to a school based on a lottery process, which relies on both applicant rankings of programs and program-specific admissions priorities (i.e., siblings of current students are admitted first). Most elementary schools have historically had a broad geographic zone priority, but in the 2019-20 school year, NOLA-PS implemented a “half-mile” priority. This new priority meant that students living within a half mile of a school now receive priority for some of the broader geographic priority seats. In looking descriptively at the implications of this policy, we found that White and higher income students were more likely to have priority to the city’s most in-demand elementary schools, and they were therefore more likely to ultimately benefit from the new priority. Being able to provide these findings about the unintended equity implications of this policy to district leaders and the New Orleans community has informed continued conversations about the fairness of New Orleans’ centralized enrollment process and the racial disparities that may be furthered as a result of particular policy decisions. 

The empirical evidence from these practitioner-driven, fast-turnaround projects can inform, in real-time, discussions that our partners are having with regards to addressing the racial disparities that exist in the New Orleans public education system. A flexible, less restrictive funding stream has allowed us to conduct research that is timely and relevant not only to our local partners, but to the broader national discussion.

Case Study 3: Lessons From Houston

In early March 2020, as the severity of the pandemic became fully known and schools worked to figure out how to educate students during a pandemic, it became clear that just as schools were adapting their practices, the Houston Education Research Consortium (HERC) would need to adapt its practices as well. Founded in 2011, HERC began as a partnership between Rice University and the Houston Independent School District. In 2017, HERC expanded to other Houston-area school districts, for a total of now 11 district partners. Guided by its mission to improve the connection between education research and decision making for the purpose of equalizing outcomes by race, ethnicity, economic status, and other factors associated with inequitable educational opportunities, HERC’s research portfolio includes projects related to early childhood education, English and dual language learners, postsecondary readiness and outcomes, wraparound needs, arts education, decentralization, students experiencing homelessness, and more.

At the onset of the pandemic, HERC had more than 10 research projects in motion. Most projects involved receiving data directly from districts, and all involved regularly engaging with districts to share out findings and receive feedback. The pandemic placed new and urgent demands on districts that reduced, and in some cases eliminated, the ability for them to participate with HERC in the research process. Had HERC been supported mainly by project-specific funds, this change in partner availability during the early weeks and months of the pandemic could have produced significant strains on the ability of HERC to meet its timelines or provide deliverables. Instead, HERC has a significant portion of its budget covered with flexible funding that is tagged for conducting research, but not tied to specific projects. As a result, when its district partners needed to redirect their efforts inward to ensure students were receiving an education in the spring 2020, HERC was able to respond by making several bold but necessary decisions about its partnerships and existing research projects. First, HERC decided it was going to proactively collect data about the consequences of the pandemic on education and schooling. Second, HERC decided it was going to continue meeting with district partners but pause disseminating research (unless specifically requested by a district partner). Finally, HERC decided it would be a resource to its district partners in helping collect and analyze COVID-19-specific data and information.

In light of its first decision to proactively collect data on the consequences of the pandemic for education and schooling, HERC reached out to others in the Houston community to determine what data collection efforts were already underway. Through these efforts, HERC partnered with Connective (formerly Harvey Home Connect) to launch the Gulf Coast Coronavirus COVID-19 Community Impact Survey in late March 2020. Early data from the survey was used by Connective to get information about available supports and services (e.g., assistance with rent/mortgage, utilities, food) to families in need, as well as develop an interactive dashboard that allowed non-profit organizations around the Houston region to know where pockets of concentrated need existed. HERC subsequently used these data to produce three reports detailing the social consequences of COVID-19.

Based on HERC’s second decision to continue meeting with districts, but pause research dissemination, HERC reached out to each of its district partners to consult with them on this decision. Each partner district agreed with the decision to pause research dissemination, but also agreed to continue holding regular check-in meetings to discuss emerging research needs and determine when it would be appropriate to begin sharing study results with the districts again. Many districts asked for research dissemination to be paused until the end of the school year (i.e., June 2020) with a few asking that nothing be shared until later in the summer. From the districts’ perspective, they needed to focus all their energies and efforts on supporting schools, teachers, principals, and students to ensure education was happening. Districts did not have the bandwidth to also fully engage in the research process with HERC, and therefore preferred delaying the receipt of findings. Beginning in late-summer 2020, HERC re-started sharing findings with districts, and by the fall, had re-engaged nearly all their district partners in the research process.

Finally, as a result of its third decision, HERC undertook several research efforts related to COVID-19, making its research services available to districts as needs arose. For example, if a district was interested in collecting data from parents or students about education during the pandemic but did not have the time to design, program, and administer a survey, HERC was available to help. In spring 2020, HERC designed and programmed a parent-survey for one of its district partners (making it available online and in English and Spanish). Over the summer, HERC formed the COVID-19 Action Research Committee (COVID-19 ARC) – a small team of district representatives and researchers at HERC – tasked with actively monitoring and providing support to school districts who had data or research needs specifically related to the pandemic. The COVID-19 ARC met every-other-month through the end of 2020, and responded to public school requests to put together a dashboard on school opening and closures because of COVID-19 cases, and also designed a student engagement survey aimed at understanding engagement with learning during the 2020-21 school year and the factors that were disrupting learning.

The decisions made by HERC in the early days of the pandemic helped provide data to community organizations so they could connect with families in need and offer supports and services. The decisions resulted in a temporary pause to research dissemination, but in doing so gave space to build further the relationship between HERC and its partner districts. Finally, the decisions created the space for HERC to adapt and meet the changing and urgent needs of districts in the Houston area. HERC was able to make these decisions and respond to the immediate needs of schools, districts, and families in the Houston area during the COVID-19 pandemic because of its access to flexible funding.

Recommendations for Requesting General Operations Support

In this final section, HERC director Ruth López Turley shares the lessons she has learned over the last decade of securing grants for general operations support – that is, flexible funding that is not tied to specific research projects. These recommendations are not specific to pandemic times, nor are they applicable in all circumstances and to all types of partnerships; rather, these are general tips that Ruth has found to be helpful in her RPP funding efforts and that may be helpful to your partnership as well. We invite you to let us know if you have other suggestions to add to this list.

>> Start local

General operations support is most compelling to local funders because their mission often focuses on local issues, and education is frequently among them. Since much of the work of RPPs is primarily relevant for local agencies, this is a good fit for local funders. However, a strong case has to be made for how supporting a local RPP will benefit local students and what the return on investment will be. One challenge is that some geographic areas have fewer potential funders than others, limiting their local opportunities. Additionally, some funders are more engaged than others. This is why state and federal funding should also move in the direction of providing general operations support for RPPs, efforts that can be moved along by NNERPP. However, if local funders do exist in your area, they should be involved as much as possible, even if not through funding per se (more on this in the paragraph below), as this will help build the case for other forms of support. 

>> Develop long-term relationships

Funders need to know who they are investing in. Ultimately, they are investing in students, but they are also investing in the members of an RPP, so funders need to know them well – beyond the type of information you can get through a website, brief, or proposal. They need to know the RPP team members, particularly those in leadership positions, on a personal level, so they can hear and see directly that the people doing this work truly care. These types of relationships with funders can take years to cultivate before making a funding request. Even if a request is never made or funded, these relationships are worth the time investment, as funders can provide valuable information, and vice versa. 

>> Generate compelling deliverables

When making a request for general operations support, be sure to generate compelling deliverables. Just because you’re not requesting project-specific support doesn’t mean that you don’t have specific deliverables to provide. If anything, it’s even more important to develop a strong list of deliverables resulting from general support, including items such as developing a longitudinal database, generating a specific number of research briefs, or presenting regularly to funders, legislators, or other community stakeholders. Be sure to ask funders about the types of deliverables they think are important and impactful in your community.

>> Mitigate risks

General operations support may seem riskier to funders due to factors such as leadership turnover, school board dysfunction, natural disasters, and anything that can interfere with the work of the RPP. In addition to generating a compelling list of deliverables, it’s helpful to make clear to funders that you are aware of potential risks and that you are taking steps to mitigate those risks. Risk mitigation deserves a lot of thought. With all the crises we’ve experienced recently, we have a lot of information about how to prepare for and anticipate future crises. This information should be included in all funding requests.

>> Build funder partnerships

Another way to mitigate risk for funders is to help build funder partnerships that can jointly invest in your RPP. By working together, funders don’t have to single-handedly take on the risk of a failed effort. Furthermore, joint investment can increase the amount of funding and in turn increase the likelihood of a successful RPP. Funders often communicate regularly among each other anyway, especially if they support similar topic areas and geographic areas, so it’s not a big leap for them to collaborate in support of a specific RPP.

Concluding Thoughts

Perhaps more clearly than any other time, the past 15 months of the pandemic have emphasized just how closely an RPP’s potential utility to practice-side partners is related to its ability to be responsive to shifting practice-side needs. This, in turn, is tied to the nature of RPP funding (flexible or restricted). As illustrated in this article by the case studies from three of our member RPPs, partnerships are able to produce work that has immediate impact when they do not have to contain it within boundaries that were predefined long before the work was to actually take place. If impact is truly what we care about, then current funding models for RPPs may need to reconsider their approach and examine ways in which funding can be supportive of rapidly changing practice-side needs.

Nina Spitzley is Marketing Specialist at the National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP); Meghan McCormick is Senior Research Associate at MDRC, Anne Taylor is Evaluation & Data Manager at Boston Public Schools Department of Early Childhood, Christina Weiland is Associate Professor at the University of Michigan; Alica Gerry is Senior Research Analyst at the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans; and Dan Potter is Associate Director and Ruth López Turley is Director of the Houston Education Research Consortium.

Suggested citation: Spitzley, N., McCormick, M., Taylor, A., Weiland, C., Gerry, A., Potter, D., & López Turley, R. (2021). Research Lessons from the Pandemic: Why Unrestricted Funding is Critical to RPPs. NNERPP Extra, 3(2), 2-8.