If improving the 鈥渞igor鈥� of education studies has been the watchword for much of the work carried out by the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 key research agency over the past seven years, 鈥渞elevance鈥� and 鈥渦sefulness鈥� seem to be shaping up as twin themes for the half-dozen years ahead.
At least that鈥檚 the message John Q. Easton, the new director of the department鈥檚 Institute of Education Sciences, is communicating as he speaks to national groups around the country. Five months into his six-year term, the 60-year-old Mr. Easton has perfected what he calls his 鈥渇ive-bullet talk鈥� on his plans for the $617-million-a-year agency, founded in 2002. While not yet a hard and fast agenda, his presentation outlines his own goals for the direction the government plans to take in shepherding federal education research.
One point that Mr. Easton makes clear is that while promoting rigorous research through randomized experiments will be an important part of that agenda, it won鈥檛 be the agency鈥檚 guiding star as it was under his predecessor, Grover J. 鈥淩uss鈥� Whitehurst.
鈥淭he IES did a fabulous job of increasing the rigor of education research. I鈥檓 not retreating from that,鈥� Mr. Easton told a national advisory board last month. 鈥淎t the same time, I鈥檓 very interested in questions of usability, and one way you do that is by involving policymakers and practitioners early on.鈥�
Research programs being launched by the institute so far call for using multiple kinds of research strategies. Mr. Easton also said that, when a new competition for federally funded regional education laboratories is held in the next year or two, he hopes to drop requirements for them to conduct large-scale randomized controlled trials, or RCTS, which randomly assign participants to either a treatment or a control group.
鈥淲hen you need evidence of whether something works or not, you do RCTS,鈥� he elaborated in a recent interview, 鈥渂ut you also have to have much more information about context and implementation so that you get an understanding of why or why not we got the finding that we did.鈥�
Beyond 鈥榃hat Works鈥�
The shift 鈥渋s kind of an interesting next step for IES,鈥� said Gerald E. Sroufe, the director of government relations for the Washington-based American Educational Research Association.
鈥淐learly, the emphasis was on rigorous research methods,鈥� he added. 鈥淚 think the new method is going to be to look at what would make research more relevant.鈥�
Under Mr. Whitehurst, the institute鈥檚 first director, the agency moved early to increase funding for studies using randomized controlled trials and other rigorous methods in response to widespread dissatisfaction among policymakers and practitioners with the quality of education research.
The agency also created the What Works Clearinghouse, which vetted the research evidence on education programs and policies and made the results widely available on a user-friendly Web site.
Those and other efforts improved the agency鈥檚 reputation with federal policymakers from what it had been during the institute鈥檚 previous incarnation as the Education Department鈥檚 office of educational research and improvement.
But the studies issued by the IES yielded some disappointing results. Most of the education strategies tested were found to produce little, if any, effect on student learning.
In his talks, Mr. Easton, a veteran of the education research community in Chicago, has said that the field needs to know more than 鈥渨hat works.鈥� Educators need to develop a better understanding of schools as organizations and how improvement happens in them, he believes.
鈥淭he kind of rigorous evaluations that Russ Whitehurst was talking about work much better when there鈥檚 a well-defined program without the fuzz around the edge,鈥� said Eric A. Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the president of the national board that advises the IES. 鈥淣ow we鈥檙e talking about looking at the fuzz.鈥�
In his five-bullet talk, Mr. Easton says he wants to sharpen the field鈥檚 understanding of how the research-and-development process works in education, and of a cohesive government infrastructure that might support it.
On that question, Mr. Easton is working with James H. Shelton III, the Education Department鈥檚 assistant deputy secretary for innovation and improvement. The collaboration is potentially important: Mr. Shelton鈥檚 office presides over the Investing in Innovation Fund, $650 million in economic-stimulus money aimed at spurring educational innovations. (鈥淪timulus Rules on 鈥楾urnarounds鈥� Shift,鈥� this issue.)
Mr. Easton said he is also soliciting suggestions from the field and studying writings by Anthony S. Bryk, who heads the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, a research and policy center at Stanford. Mr. Bryk advocates a 鈥渄esign-engineering鈥� approach to innovation that calls for designing an intervention, testing it, reviewing and redesigning it, and testing it again.
How all of that will play out in the federal research agency is still an open question.鈥�
I would also like to see us move from a dissemination model to a facilitation model,鈥� Mr. Easton said, noting one of his bullet points, 鈥渟o that we鈥檙e not just dropping findings out for policymakers to use.鈥�
He said he sees a major role for the IES in helping states build longitudinal-data systems with the $250 million in economic-stimulus money being directed to those ongoing efforts, and in helping them develop the research capacity to use the data. 鈥淎 lot of school districts don鈥檛 have this capacity,鈥� he said, 鈥渂ut they could.鈥�
That鈥檚 important, said Susan Fuhrman, the president of Teachers College, Columbia University, because 鈥渟o much of what鈥檚 going on in education we don鈥檛 have evidence for, and the federal government doesn鈥檛 have the capacity to do it all.鈥�
Consortium Model
Mr. Easton鈥檚 ideas are getting good reviews so far from Ms. Fuhrman and other leaders in education research.
鈥淚 think he鈥檚 right on the mark,鈥� said James W. Kohlmoos, the president of the Knowledge Alliance, a Washington-based trade group whose interests in promoting educational R&D dovetail with Mr. Easton鈥檚 ideas.
Mr. Hanushek said he worries a bit about how the IES will study the organization of schools in a rigorous way. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 tough stuff,鈥� he said. 鈥淪ome of it involves novel research and evaluation, and there might be some missteps.鈥�
Mr. Easton鈥檚 orientation to collaborate with local educators grows out of a career spent doing practical research. He was involved in 1990 when Mr. Bryk formed the Consortium on Chicago School Research, and later became the group鈥檚 executive director. Mr. Easton was also the research director for the Chicago school system from 1994 to 1997.
The Chicago consortium鈥檚 model of researcher-practitioner partner-ships has spread, with consortia being formed to emulate it in Texas, the New York City area, Baltimore, and other regions.
鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a really powerful model,鈥� Mr. Easton said, and one in which the 10 regional education labs that the IES oversees may have a future role.
Mr. Easton鈥檚 work at the consortium put him in close contact with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who was Chicago鈥檚 schools chief from 2001 to 2008. That history raises questions, for some, over whether the 鈥渇irewall鈥� that shields the research agency from possible political influence from other federal education officials will show some cracks.
鈥淚 believe we need the firewall,鈥� Mr. Easton said. 鈥淲e also need to be responsive to the needs of the field. But I don鈥檛 think I should be sitting at the table formulating policy.鈥�
