I’m a big fan of rigorous academic research, especially well-constructed mixed-method studies that examine the effects of educational innovations on large, randomized samples. I like to know how innovations actually change educational practices and outcomes and I love the various quantitative and qualitative methods used to describe them.
I am clearly biased in favor of strong research approaches. If someone tells me about “fantastic” new approaches to teaching, learning, managing, or designing educational systems, my first question is, what body of evidence do you have that supports these ideas?
My second question is, how rigorous were the research methods used to inform your opinion? If someone can’t answer these questions to my satisfaction, I can only consider their claims as “interesting insights” but not definitive or conclusive judgments.
To be frank, most education practitioners, policymakers, or members of the general public don’t have the training or the time to worry about statistical significance, dependent and independent variables, sample sizes, or standard deviations. Most people rely on small-scale examples (like a promising teaching method used by the reading teacher down the hall), testimonials from prominent education professionals, or intriguing trade journal articles.
Educational innovations most often emerge as bottom-up ideas, get-the-ball-rolling, and change-it-as-it-goes approaches. Sometimes, they work; often they don’t. The innovation that works in one classroom, one school, or one district may not work as well in other settings. Innovations in education can also be frustratingly unsteady (for example, consider the “new” curriculum that becomes increasingly less relevant over time).
Despite the disconnect between academic researchers and school professionals, good research provides an invaluable foundation for the cultivation of education innovations. No research institution, agency, or organization exemplifies this dynamic more than the U.S. Department of Education. Although the Education Department is one among hundreds of entities that conduct or support education research, it is by far the most prominent in terms of its breadth and scope. In one way or another, the department has had a hand in supporting or influencing virtually every large-scale education innovation in America since it was created some 45 years ago.
Department-sponsored research has influenced teaching practices, curriculum designs, support for students with special needs, programs to address student poverty, school safety strategies, teacher- and administrator-training programs, personnel-management systems, and sustainable school reforms. The list goes on and on. There is no aspect of K-12 education that has not benefited either directly or indirectly from department-supported research.
Here’s one example: A few years ago, the Cal Poly Pomona school of education received a $1.5 million grant from the Education Department to develop a research-based and innovative way to train new school administrators. As the primary author of the grant application, I worked closely with Cal Poly faculty members and a large local school district to design a program built around a full-time apprenticeship, thematically integrated curriculum, daily mentorship, performance-based assessments, and the design and implementation of a school-based change initiative. Our approach deviated from a long-established administrator-preparation tradition of in-class professor-centered instruction, term papers, episodic fieldwork, and final exams. Candidates had to blend learning on the job with thematically integrated classroom instruction that drew from relevant educational research and theories.
Cal Poly was recognized by the Education Department as one of America’s most promising administrator-preparation programs, and our graduates were quite successful in helping to advance powerful teaching and learning in their schools. In addition, Cal Poly’s performance-based program had a significant impact on the redesign of California’s administrator licensure requirements (which has influenced thousands of new school administrators). Through this project, I saw firsthand how federally funded school innovation and research grants have positively affected public education in America.
According to Education Department data, it spent about $284 million on its discretionary grant program last year to support research and innovation in K-12 and higher education. That’s a tiny fraction of overall federal spending. Inexplicably, the Trump administration has already begun freezing and terminating department contracts and grants that support education research. Without this support, American universities will lose millions of dollars annually for education research. Not only will important jobs be lost, but the capital stock of knowledge about education will be diminished.
To date, the functions and operations of the National Center for Educational Research, the Institute of Education Sciences, the Education Innovation and Research Program, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the What Works Clearinghouse have been severely compromised. These agencies provide the backbone of research and best practices for all of America’s nearly 100,000 K-12 public schools and more than 13,000 school districts. Moreover, they help to inform the work of education scholars in universities and think tanks across the nation.
I freely admit that federally funded education research has its flaws, but it is infinitely better than having no research at all. While cutting U.S. Department of Education research might save taxpayer dollars in the short term, America’s public schools and students will pay a heavy price.
