The Limited Value of 'What Works' Research

Ever since educational research became an academic discipline more than a century ago, researchers and educators have been vocal in their dissatisfaction over its impact on practice. For decades, education research has been criticized as confusing, irrelevant, and of little practical use, fueling a pessimistic view that research probably will not lead to better schools.

In response, the federal government and the research community have zeroed in on so-called “what works” research, and, in recent years, studies have mushroomed to answer a broad range of policy questions, such as: Do school vouchers work? Does technology improve student learning? Are private schools better than public schools? At the same time, existing studies on intervention strategies and programs are scrutinized to provide educators, policymakers, and the public with trusted and easy-to-understand scientific evidence of effective programming. The federal What Works Clearinghouse is a premier example of such endeavors.

This is all well and good, but we would argue that it is far from enough. We believe it is time for a research shift, and instead of making determinations about whether programs work or not, attention should turn to identifying the right students for whom a program is effective and the necessary contextual conditions that make a program work. What’s more, local schools should conduct rigorous studies to determine whether programs and initiatives will work for their students—a key to sorting...

This article is available to subscribers only.

To keep reading this article and more, subscribe now or start a 2-week FREE trial.

Already have an account? Please login.


Subscribe to Education Week

You Save 20% or More!

Premium Online + Print


20 issues + Online Access
$39

You Save 20%

SUBSCRIBE NOW

(See details.)

Premium Online


6 Months Online Access
$29

You Save 22%

SUBSCRIBE NOW

(See details.)


Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Emailed

Recommended

Commented