At the end of a keynote discussion on assessment at the National Academy of Education鈥檚 50th anniversary meeting here鈥攆ull of passionate arguments on how policymakers misuse test scores and the need for more formative assessment鈥擩ohn Q. Easton stood to ask what was immediately dubbed 鈥渢he most depressing question of the day.鈥�
鈥淢any of the points that have been brought up today, we鈥檝e been hearing for eight, 10, 12 years. ... We鈥檝e talked about them for a long time but nobody pays any attention to us,鈥� he lamented at the conference earlier this month. 鈥淲hy do we have so little influence, so little ability to communicate with those practitioners and policymakers?鈥�
The question鈥攃oming from a former director of the Institute of Education Sciences and a distinguished senior fellow at the Chicago-based Spencer Foundation, one of the academy鈥檚 chief sponsors鈥攃ut to the heart of the organization鈥檚 current soul-searching over its place in the education policy landscape.
Providing Leadership
Many of the best and brightest in the education research community have long had lively arguments about policy and practice at the academy鈥檚 annual meetings. But 50 years after the NAE was first launched, members are pushing for it take a more active leadership role in the use of research in education policy and practice.
In some ways, the academy may be joining the political education debate late, as Senate and House members have at long last agreed on tentative federal guidelines for new accountability rules for schools.
Yet the changes may offer a critical opportunity for the academy to help guide how new legislation is translated into state and district practice. For example, Deputy Education Secretary John King, Jr. listened in on the academy鈥檚 discussion of assessment鈥攁s the soon-to-be U.S. Education Secretary, he is the first federal schools chief in 15 years to attend the academy鈥檚 conference. Though he did not give his thoughts on the panel鈥檚 recommendations, he said he was 鈥渉appy to be here.鈥�
鈥淭here has been a growing appetite for scholarly input into debates about education,鈥� said Michael Feuer, the academy鈥檚 president and the education dean at George Washington University.
鈥淚 think our community has gotten smarter about this. We鈥檙e overcoming this notion that the scientific community can do the research, develop proper understanding, and all we have to do is unzip the minds and brains of the policy community and the teachers, pour in the knowledge that comes from research, and things will get better.鈥�
From 鈥楨lite鈥� to Mentors
It鈥檚 not the first time the academy has had to reconsider its vision and broaden its reach.
According to the group鈥檚 2015 history, Past as Prologue, the National Academy of Education was 鈥渄reamed up鈥� by Harvard University education scholars Lawrence Cremin and Israel Scheffler over lunch in 1964, though J.B. Conant, a former Harvard president, and John W. Gardner, the president of the Carnegie Corp. of New York, formally launched it a year later.
The group initially was dedicated to big research ideas rather than 鈥渨hat works鈥� practical studies in education, according to Ellen C. Lagemann, a Bard College research professor and NAE member since 1990. It focused on major research reviews, such as the 1978 tome Impact of Research on Education.
Into the 1980s, the academy was still self-contained enough that in 1985, incoming President Patricia Albjerg Graham recalled being given the group鈥檚 records in a single shoe box. Even then, she noted in Past as Prologue that the group鈥檚 funding was nearly gone because foundations and the public were 鈥渓ess interested in conferences or 679-page volumes on educational research [a reference to Impact] and more focused on issues of educational practice.鈥�
Graham reached out to the Spencer Foundation that year to develop a fellowship for postdoctoral education researchers. Scholars studying 鈥渃ritical education areas鈥� would receive funding for salary, travel, or other needs鈥攗p to $70,000 as of 2015鈥攁nd would come to training and networking events with members of the academy.
鈥淚t really rescued the academy, not just in the finances, but more than that, in mission,鈥� said Catherine Snow, the academy鈥檚 secretary-treasurer and a Harvard education professor. 鈥淚t had a mission; it wasn鈥檛 just we are elite researchers who like to get together and confirm for each other how elite we are.鈥�
Dick Anderson, a university scholar and psychology professor emeritus at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, agreed. Anderson was elected to the academy in 1979 and has helped select fellows in many years.
鈥淭he effort taken to understand what these young people are doing helps you keep abreast of the best new developments in the field,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he old-timers need professional development just as the young folks do. Wise doesn鈥檛 mean you know everything; we鈥檝e always got something to learn.鈥�
It also led to new researchers in the group; 16 former postdoctoral fellows have since become academy members themselves, including Feuer.
鈥淚t felt like an invitation to join a group of people who care a lot about the issues but come from very different intellectual traditions,鈥� Feuer said.
While the NAE鈥檚 disciplines span from economics to psychology to biostatistics, it is still working to bring in more diversity. Of its 237 current members, fewer than 90 are women, and fewer than 50 are not white, not counting foreign associates.
Snow said the group is working to broaden both the membership and the fellowship programs. 鈥淲e have really re-oriented and galvanized attention to diversity in recruitment for young, minority, and female [scholars],鈥� Snow said.
One of those newcomers is Lalitha Vasudevan, a Spencer fellow and associate professor of technology and education at Teachers College of Columbia University. She is studying ways to collect data from portfolios and other non-test projects.
The academy鈥檚 work, she said, 鈥渞eminds us that research is supposed to ask big questions that do good work in the world.鈥�
Broadening the Conversation
Yet Feuer and Snow argue the group must also bring more educators and policymakers into discussions of how to make education research usable.
鈥淚t turns out that providing high-quality research is neither necessary nor sufficient to have research be used in policy and practice,鈥� said Adam Gamoran, a member and the president of the William T. Grant Foundation. 鈥淲e must move from focusing on what makes research useful to setting up the structures and relationships that result in research being used.鈥�
Back in the late 1980s, the academy took part in cultural delegations between educators in the United States and the newly formed Commonwealth of Independent States, a regional group of former Soviet Republics including Russia. At that time, Anderson called for a different kind of 鈥済lasnost鈥� between the sometimes divided cultures of education research and practice. Instead of focusing on reports, which Anderson said are 鈥渨ritten for other academics even though they were intended for a broader audience,鈥� he argued members should discuss evidence for policies in person, at meetings of state officials and district leaders.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 have much interaction with school leaders; they are sort of different cultures and so we need to get up and go to meetings of school boards ... get yourself onto the program and let people know what you are worried about,鈥� he said.
Jeffrey Henig, an education politics professor at Teachers College, agreed. Rather than searching for one 鈥渒iller study鈥� to answer hot questions in education, he argued, the academy should help practitioners understand how to better incorporate new knowledge as it comes.
Making research more relevant to educators and policymakers is necessary not just for the academy, but for education research as a field to survive, said Kenji Hakuta, a Stanford education professor and an academy member since 1995.
鈥淲e were told once the rigor was in place, the funding would follow, and we鈥檙e still waiting for that to happen,鈥� Hakuta said at the meeting. 鈥淪omehow Congress doesn鈥檛 respond favorably when the only people advocating for education research were the researchers.鈥�
