A few years ago, University of Southern California ed. school dean Pedro Noguera and I wrote a book called . The practical work of bridging divides has drawn pretty extensive interest from state leaders, school systems, advocates, and the like. But you know where there鈥檚 been zero interest? From education researchers and schools of education.
That came to mind as I prepared this year鈥檚 RHSU Edu-Scholar rankings of the nation鈥檚 most influential education scholars. I found myself noodling on the disconnect between education鈥檚 doers and university-based researchers. For instance, even among these scholars who had an outsized public influence in 2023, it was tough to find many immersed in the questions that loom largest when I talk to state leaders or superintendents.
That鈥檚 a problem in a field that (unlike, say, math or poetry) is explicitly charged with being useful to practitioners and policymakers. That gap isn鈥檛 new (see Arthur Bestor鈥檚 Educational Wastelands from 1953 for a sense of how far back this goes), but I fear it鈥檚 been getting worse. I say this as someone who鈥檚 had a front-row seat, teaching at a half-dozen universities, publishing When Research Matters, compiling the Edu-Scholar rankings for more than a decade, convening AEI鈥檚 K-12 Working Group for nearly two decades, and toiling at the intersection of research and policy since the last century.
When I talk to K鈥�12 officials, the top-of-mind issue may be the looming expiration of federal pandemic aid. Yet, questions about where those funds have gone, whether they鈥檝e made a difference, and how to handle the requisite cuts just aren鈥檛 a focus for more than two or three of the 200 Edu-Scholars. While there are lots of education economists and finance specialists, they gravitate to analyses that feature causal claims, racial disparities, and for which timeliness isn鈥檛 a concern. This work yields some interesting results but ones which tend to be more useful for New York Times think pieces than real-world decisionmaking.
Educators and policymakers want guidance on artificial intelligence and the use of smartphones in schools. Yet, there鈥檚 no one on the Edu-Scholar list who studies these topics (and, again, really no more than a couple scholars who can be said to focus on education technology). Ed tech is, of course, a maddening thing to study. There鈥檚 little or no good data, and the field evolves at a crazy pace. But, absent good research, practitioners and policymakers in search of insight have no choice but to rely on self-interested industry figures and consultants of sometimes suspect provenance.
Then there are the heated debates around gender, race, and politicized curricula. These tend to turn on a crucial empirical claim: Right-wingers insist that classrooms are rife with progressive politicking and left-wingers that such claims are nonsense. Who鈥檚 correct? We don鈥檛 know, and there鈥檚 no research to help sort fact from fiction. Again, I get the challenges. Obtaining access to schools for this kind of research is really difficult, and actually conducting it is even more daunting. Absent such information, though, the debate roars dumbly on, with all parties sure they鈥檙e right.
I could tell similar tales about reading instruction, school discipline, chronic absenteeism, and much more. In each case, policymakers or district leaders have repeatedly told me that researchers just aren鈥檛 providing them with much that鈥檚 helpful. Many in the research community are prone to lament that policymakers and practitioners don鈥檛 heed their expertise. But I鈥檝e found that those in and around K鈥�12 schools are hungry for practical insight into what鈥檚 actually happening and what to do about it. In other words, there鈥檚 a hearty appetite for wisdom, descriptive data, and applied knowledge.
The problem? That鈥檚 not the path to success in education research today. The academy tends to reward esoteric econometrics and critical-theory jeremiads. A couple decades ago, the education academy had its share of quantheads and grand theorists but also far more room for scholars characterized by a practical, plain-spoken, observational bent (like Richard Elmore, , , or ). That kind of work was accessible, descriptive, and not especially political.
Today, elite journals rarely publish such work (it鈥檚 not 鈥渟ophisticated鈥� enough); there鈥檚 not much funding for it (it鈥檚 not what interests the fashionable set); and hiring committees tend to dismiss it (the scholars don鈥檛 mouth the proper shibboleths). This has had unfortunate consequences.
There are many reasons for the shift, including the ubiquity of powerful data tools and the way that social media and digital platforms have enabled 鈥渙utsiders鈥� to publish and promote their analyses (eroding the stature of scholars who do less reified work).
But I think two other, complementary dynamics are especially important. The ascendance of critical theory in education research means that key gatekeepers think topics like ESSER funding and AI are only important to the extent they鈥檙e examined through the lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion. And, as academe has become more ideologically over time, those who may not be wholly in step with new orthodoxies have taken refuge behind increasingly elaborate methodological sophistication.
I鈥檝e found that those in and around K鈥�12 schools are hungry for practical insight into what鈥檚 actually happening and what to do about it.
What can we do about this?
First off, there are efforts that have been designed to help on this count. Harvard University鈥檚 , UChicago鈥檚 , and the like embrace a healthy notion of 鈥渞esearch-practice partnership.鈥� These ventures are laudable, helping school systems analyze data and assess interventions. But they鈥檙e not quite what I have in mind. Such partnerships tend to be constrained by the formality of the relationship, frequently cumbersome bureaucratic processes, and a reliance on extant data systems. This isn鈥檛 a criticism of these efforts, just an observation of their limits.
What鈥檚 needed is a broader shift, one that鈥檚 more about culture than programming. It requires K鈥�12 leaders, policymakers, and funders to make clear that they value education research that is timely and useful and to understand that this kind of work is tough, messy, and time-consuming.
When it comes to public universities, governing boards should be asking questions about what is and isn鈥檛 rewarded in hiring, granting tenure, and promotion. There鈥檚 a need for hard thinking about how to judge academic accomplishment, including how to credibly gauge educational utility and then accord more weight to it.
The nation鈥檚 state chiefs and superintendents should look to sponsor training and mentoring programs that place researchers (especially in their formative years) in settings where there鈥檚 a premium on speed, utility, and relevance.
One of the heartening things about the Edu-Scholar rankings is seeing how many thoughtful scholars are out there. I just wish more of them were more focused on the questions that educators and policymakers actually ask.
