Now that an independent has given the federal What Works Clearinghouse a thumbs up for the rigor of its methods for reviewing education research, clearinghouse operators are taking another step to make their reviews more useful to the policymakers and practitioners for whom they鈥檙e intended.
At a Dec. 12 forum held here, Mathematica Policy Research, the Princeton, N.J.-based research firm that runs the clearinghouse, and the federal officials that help oversee it invited researchers and members of the public to share ideas on charting a course for the next phase of their mission: making the clearinghouse鈥檚 work more relevant.
Launched by the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Institute of Education Sciences in 2002, the was originally intended to be a Consumer Reports-style Web resource where educators could find reliable information on 鈥渨hat works鈥� in schools. But early on, it developed a reputation as the 鈥渘othing works鈥� clearinghouse because few reviews were posted on its Web site and even fewer pointed to promising strategies for improving schools.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 spend $30 million of the public purse and have something that is referred to repeatedly in the media as 鈥榥othing works,鈥� 鈥� said Grover J. 鈥淩uss鈥� Whitehurst, who is widely credited with having spearheaded the clearinghouse鈥檚 launch during his term as the IES director, which ended last month.
Now the director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution here, Mr. Whitehurst said project delays resulted in part from disagreements over procedures for screening studies, legal threats from program developers whose work got low ratings from the clearinghouse, congressional lobbying that was critical of the clearinghouse, and a dearth of well-executed studies on which to base its reviews.
鈥淚 was naive coming in about how much was out there and how much was good research,鈥� he told meeting-goers. 鈥淏ut there has to be a place for something like the clearinghouse for the future of education reform in this country.鈥�
Practice Guides Popular
Over the last two years, the clearinghouse has picked up the pace of its work, publishing increasing numbers of reviews with 鈥減ositive鈥� findings, and producing new products, such as practice guides, that are targeted to practitioners. According to Jill Constantine, the deputy director of the clearinghouse, its Web site now gets 50,000 to 60,000 鈥渉its鈥� a month and offers 100 research reports, seven practice guides, and a series of new quick reviews, which vet studies that have been spotlighted in the news media.
Mark R. Dynarski, the clearinghouse director, noted that the seven practice guides have been downloaded 鈥渕ore times than the entire 100 reports.鈥�
鈥淓ducators are voting with their feet鈥攐r clicks,鈥� he said.
The dilemma now is how to respond to the demands for usable research, while at same time maintaining review standards, which tend to favor strict experimental studies over most other forms of research. The practice guides, in comparison, cast a wider net for studies in an effort to offer practitioners 鈥減romising practices鈥� they can put into place now until more definitive proof emerges.
鈥淚鈥檓 always grateful we took the high road to set and stick to standards,鈥� said Kay Dickersin, an epidemiology professor at Baltimore鈥檚 Johns Hopkins University and the director of the U.S. Cochrane Center. The latter group, to which Ms. Dickersin was referring, is one of 12 centers around the world that assists the Cochrane Collaboration, a 15-year-old effort to synthesize studies in medicine and give practitioners reliable, research-based advice.
鈥淧eople can be harmed by wrong or insufficient data,鈥� she added.
Different Models Eyed
The clearinghouse was patterned largely after the Cochrane Collaboration, but it was one of several models for synthesizing and sharing research that were discussed at last week鈥檚 forum.
Susan Bodilly, the education director for the RAND Corp. of Santa Monica, Calif., described her research group鈥檚 Promising Practices Network, which examines the evidence on programs and policies aimed at improving children鈥檚 lives.
Rather than try to provide unassailable evidence to the field, however, the network develops information requiring a slightly lower bar for evidence, which Ms. Bodilly described as 鈥渨hat is proven, what is promising, and what on the radar screen is coming up.鈥� The suggestions on what interventions the network should review come from practitioners in those fields.
From the National Cancer Institute, Michelle Bennett, the deputy director of the institute鈥檚 center for cancer research, discussed her federal agency鈥檚 4-year-old 鈥渢ranslational research鈥� program, an effort aimed at transforming the research that comes out of laboratories, clinical practice, and epidemiological studies into tools and practices that practitioners can use to treat or prevent cancer.
Yet where most such efforts fall short, said Ms. Bodilly, is in providing advice for practitioners on how to put programs in place and sustain them over time. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the missing ingredient in this approach,鈥� she added.
Just bringing answers to the educators is not enough to bring about changes in practice, added James H. 鈥淭orch鈥� Lytle, a professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and a former Trenton, N.J., school superintendent.
鈥淲e know hand washing reduces infections in hospitals,鈥� he told the group. 鈥淵et infection control continues to be a problem in hospitals.鈥�
鈥淚f we can鈥檛 get hospital staff to do something as simple as washing hands,鈥� he asked, how can teachers be expected to enact far more sophisticated changes in their own practice?
