The question, posed at a recent conference here, was this: Is the federal government鈥檚 call for 鈥渟cientifically based research鈥� in education a mandate or just strong advice?
Nearly 26 months after President Bush signed the federal No Child Left Behind Act, that question still looms.
|
Although the law is known best for its bold testing and accountability requirements, it has helped put the phrase 鈥渟cientifically based research鈥� on the lips of educational decisionmakers from coast to coast. It calls on educators to use research to guide a wide range of school practices, including reading instruction, professional development, technical assistance, and anti-drug programs.
Part of the problem is that the legislation itself contains two different definitions of the phrase鈥攐ne for Reading First, President Bush鈥檚 flagship reading initiative, and one to cover the rest of the law鈥檚 provisions.
Since the law鈥檚 passage in 2001, the U.S. Department of Education has crafted regulations spelling out what it means by scientifically based research with regard to the reading program.
But no such regulations exist for the rest of the law鈥攎ostly because federal policymakers view the research base as weaker in those areas. As a result, even some of the law鈥檚 primary architects and enforcers are reluctant to call the phrase a mandate.
鈥淚t certainly is not a druthers situation. It is the law,鈥� said Robert Sweet, who helped define 鈥渟cientifically based research鈥� in the law as a staff member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. 鈥淚n practice, is everyone going to be held to a strict scientifically based research definition?鈥� he continued. 鈥淧robably not.鈥�
No Inspectors
The question about scientifically based research came up at a March 11 conference on the topic organized by three Washington-based organizations: the congressionally chartered National Academies of Science, the National Education Knowledge Industry Association, a research trade group, and the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist think tank.
|
At the meeting, both Mr. Sweet and Grover J. 鈥淩uss鈥� Whitehurst, the director of the Education Department鈥檚 Institute of Education Sciences, said no 鈥渟cientifically based research police鈥� would be coming around inspecting schools. In due time, though, they hope educators will come to rely on such evidence.
States, on the other hand, are taking the federal law at its word, according to Ted Sanders, the president of the Education Commission of the States, a Denver-based research group for state policymakers. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any state in the country that looks at this as advisory,鈥� he told conference-goers.
In fact, in a survey published this month by the Center on Education Policy, a national advocacy group based here, 64 percent of the districts polled said they require schools participating in the federal Title I program for disadvantaged students to select programs from a list of curricula or instructional programs grounded in scientifically based research.
Washington state, for example, last year turned down half the experts who applied to present at state-sponsored professional-development meetings for lack of scientific evidence, according to Dawn Billings, as assistant superintendent in that state鈥檚 education department.
鈥淲e have to do things differently,鈥� she said last week. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 go higgledy-piggledy doing this reform and that. We are taking this very seriously.鈥�
Strict Adherence?
Even so, Jack Jennings, the center鈥檚 director, thinks the numbers his survey turned up could be inflated.
鈥淚 think there鈥檚 a difference in people鈥檚 minds about whether they鈥檙e trying to use scientifically based research in improving education and whether they鈥檙e strictly following the requirements of federal law,鈥� he said in an interview last week.
Both of the definitions of scientifically based research under the No Child Left Behind law call for studies that apply 鈥渞igorous, systematic, and objective鈥� procedures and have been subjected to peer review.
But the definition that applies specifically to all programs outside of reading goes a few steps further. It expresses a clear preference for either randomized experiments or quasi-experiments, in which the group that receives the experimental treatment can be compared with another group that does not.
The definition also says studies should be detailed enough so that their findings can be replicated.
Though the Reading First definition is the more flexible of the two, states appear to be interpreting it very narrowly, partly because the Education Department sent many states鈥� program applications back for numerous revisions. (鈥淩eading Programs Bear Similarities Across the States,鈥� Feb. 4, 2004.)
Whether from a desire to appease federal reviewers or confusion over how to meet the new requirements, some states modeled their programs on those of the successful applicants that went before them.
In the process, some reading programs that are widely considered to have solid research track records were sidelined.
Success for All, a school improvement program established by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, is a case in point. Rated in 1999 by the American Institutes of Research as one of a handful of programs with 鈥減ositive鈥� evidence of effectiveness, the program got left off some of the earliest approved-program lists that states put together for Reading First.
鈥淒aily, we鈥檙e getting reports from one state or another where somebody is being told Success for All is not a legitimate use of Reading First funds,鈥� Robert E. Slavin, the program鈥檚 founder, said in an interview. 鈥淭here鈥檚 an undercurrent that, if you want to be safe, you鈥檙e better go with one of the big [commercial] series.鈥�
