Connecting Research, Development, and Evaluation in District Systems
Some of the core structures of conventional schooling have rather surprising (and old) origins, and they act as a clarion call for research, development, and evaluation to work as one within district environments. Let’s take a quick look at just three of these historical examples to ground ourselves in the “why.”
- Why do we group learners in age-based cohorts? In 1763, Prussia’s Frederick the Great issued a decree that all children aged 5 to 13 should be grouped by age and go through a mandated eight-year educational program (Melton, p. 174). This idea was adopted in the United States in the late 1840s and has been the standard-bearer ever since.
- Where does the A–F grade scale come from? One might say it officially began with Yale’s president, Ezra Stiles in 1785, when he grouped his 58 students into four categories (Optimi, second Optimi, Inferiores, and Pejores). Others might say credit should be given to a Harvard professor in 1883 who reportedly gave a student a “B” grade—the first recorded instance of a letter grade in the United States. A formalized, institution-wide letter grade and point system (e.g., A = 4.0, B = 3.0), however, seems to have started at Mount Holyoke College in 1897 (PBS, 2017). The desire to create such a system came from the rapidly growing student population at secondary and post-secondary schools between 1890 and 1920 (Shedd, 2003) and the need to standardize student performance.
- Why do the majority of secondary and post-secondary systems use time-based credits, or Carnegie Units? In 1905, Andrew Carnegie donated $10 million to establish a pension fund for college and university teachers. To make the system workable, the Carnegie Foundation helped standardize institutional eligibility and student preparation. That eventually helped produce the Carnegie Unit—a time-based measure of high school coursework—that was widely adopted by 1910 (Shedd, 2003).
So, what do age-based cohorting, letter grades, and the Carnegie Unit all have in common? They were ideas that prioritized efficiency and standardization to make things easier for institutions. This is not a cynical observation. These ideas fueled the expansion of education access and opportunity, but they are all ripe for critique as we reimagine the future of public education. A future that demands a modernized, research-informed foundation.
We Inherited a System Built on Efficiency. Now We Must Build One Grounded in Learning
Many of the structures that define schooling today were not designed based on how humans learn. Over the past several decades, we have developed a far deeper understanding of learning, development, and human potential. We have a growing body of evidence that identifies powerful drivers of whole-learner outcomes, including collaborative learning communities, learner agency, competency-based assessment, and meaningful and authentic learning experiences.
The challenge is applying this evidence to a set of systems, structures, and practices that sometimes persist because “that’s how things have always been done.” To counteract this challenge, we need to thoughtfully reconsider past practices and build a deeper understanding of how research, development, and evaluation are all intertwined.
We Need to Expand Our Definition of “Research”
When people hear the word “research,” they often think of large-scale studies—randomized control trials, peer-reviewed journals, and findings that take years to produce. That work is incredibly valuable. It provides a foundation of knowledge that helps us understand what is possible.
But there is another form of research that is just as important in the context of schools and districts. It is the research happening every day in classrooms, in team meetings, and in conversations with learners and families. It is the informal, real-time learning that emerges when educators ask: What is working? What is not? What are we noticing?
In a learner-centered system, both forms of research matter. The formal “big R” research helps us identify foundational truths about how humans learn. The informal “little r” research helps us understand how those ideas actually play out in context.
Neither is sufficient on its own. Together, they create the conditions for meaningful development.
Development is the Bridge Between What We Know and What We Do
Development is the process of translating what we know into practices, models, and systems that can be experienced by learners and educators. It is where ideas are tested, adapted, and refined.
Importantly, development is not about inventing something entirely new for the sake of innovation. It is about building on what we know from both formal and informal research (Big R and Little r) and shaping it to fit the realities of a specific community.
In practice, it is often best to start small. When I was Superintendent at Vista Unified School District, we offered modest grants to schools to experiment with more flexible learning environments. The goal was to create spaces that better supported learner agency and collaboration.
Get Inspired: Explore real examples of flexible learning spaces
What emerged included rethinking the physical furniture in classrooms, but it also extended beyond the four walls. Teachers saw opportunities in outdoor spaces on campus and even sought out opportunities for learning throughout the local community. The idea of “flexibility” expanded to ripe places for learning that weren’t originally imagined. Best of all, learners reported a stronger sense of ownership over their learning experience.
What began as a small test quickly became a catalyst for broader change. This is the essence of development. Research shows that developing learner agency leads to better outcomes for learners. And, we know flexibility in where and how learning happens increases the chances that agency will shine through. By creating space to design, test, and iterate, we brought that research to life throughout the district.
Read More: Leading at the Edge: Navigating Uncertainty With a Local R&D Strategy
Evaluation Plays Alongside Research and Development
There’s a third component, evaluation, that is too often positioned separate from, rather than alongside, research and development. Conventionally, evaluation is the “judge,” declaring whether an implementation phase was a success or failure.
In a learner-centered system, evaluation plays a very different role. It is continuous. It is embedded. And most importantly, it is designed to inform learning.
Evaluation asks: Are we seeing the impact we hoped for? What are learners experiencing? Where are we making progress, and where do we need to adjust?
This requires moving beyond a narrow set of outcome measures and embracing a broader view of evidence. Surveys, student work, observations, and feedback loops all become valuable sources of insight. When used well, they help teams make informed decisions in real time.
This is how evaluation connects back to development. It provides the feedback that fuels iteration. It ensures that what we are building, which is research-informed, is effective in practice.
Read More: Beyond Conventional Metrics: Telling a New Story Through Tiers of Data
The Power of Integrated Learning Cycles in District Systems
When research, development, and evaluation are connected, districts begin to function as learning organizations.
Instead of implementing static initiatives, they engage in continuous cycles of inquiry and improvement. They draw from research to inform direction, develop strategies through small tests of change, and use evaluation to refine and scale what works.
These cycles can be seen in many forms: piloting a new assessment approach, redesigning a learning model, or forming community partnerships to bring learning beyond school walls. Over time, these efforts build capacity in systems and people, pushing us to imagine bigger and bolder each step of the way.
Ultimately, if we are serious about redesigning education to better serve all learners, we must be willing to engage in thoughtful, evidence-informed development and to evaluate our efforts with a focus on learning and improvement, not judgment.
Learner-Centered Collaborative supports its school and district partners in developing their own research and development foundations as they advance along their learner-centered journeys. If you’re curious to learn more about how this work happens on the ground, connect with our team here.
References
“Equality of Educational Opportunity: Its Relation to Human Capital,” in American Educational History Journal, Volume 35, Issues 1 & 2 (Emerald Group Publishing, 2008), p. 45.
Melton, James Van Horn. Absolutism and the Eighteenth-Century Origins of Compulsory Schooling in Prussia and Austria. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Núñez, J. L., & León, J. (2015). Autonomy support in the classroom: A review from self-determination theory. European Psychologist, 20(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000234
PBS. (2017, January 10). Why do we get grades in school? [Video]. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/video/why-do-we-get-grades-in-school-vfjen8/
Shedd, J. M. (2003). The history of the student credit hour. New Directions for Higher Education, 122, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.106
