Bringing the Research Back to Research-based Evidence

Since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) first came on the scene in 2001, research-based evidence has become a major focus for federal, state, and local policymakers. Despite this, many Bush and Obama Administration policies were not strongly backed by such evidence. This haphazard attention to research evidence isn’t unusual in the policymaking world according to a recent report by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (NWREL). In fact, the research-policy gap may be one of the most important factors keeping American academic achievement stagnant and one the Obama Administration will eventually have to come to terms with.

Complaints about this disconnect between research-based evidence and policy most recently came up in the wake of the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation application guidance released by the U.S. Department of Education. Both documents outlined very clear priorities for reform efforts that were not always backed by concrete, indisputable evidence. Some, such as using student achievement data to evaluate and determine teacher compensation, are based on imperfect and uncertain science. Others, such as relying on charter management organizations to turn around failing schools, lack specificity and allow for significant variation in quality and outcomes.

At first glance, it seems like the Obama Administration identified the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation priorities based on current fads or popularity with stakeholders close to the Administration rather than research-proven practices. While this may or may not be the case, the NWREL report suggests that many policymakers fall into this trap.

The NWREL report concludes that for many policymakers, research evidence is often superseded by politics, financial concerns, personal experiences, and media pressure. As a result, decisions tend to made based on these influences rather than evidence passed down from universities or other research organizations. At the same time, some policymakers regarded research as limited, untimely, impractical, and inaccessible. They were more likely to use research-based evidence when it was supplied in easy to read, non-technical language and was relevant to their local context.

The research that policymakers do use, according to the report, comes from a variety of sources in addition to traditional research journals and publications. These include conferences, popular publications, intermediary organizations, and peers. This should come as no surprise because traditional research publications tend to be written in complicated and technical language that is difficult to apply to everyday practice. Additionally, the quantitative research often employed today relies on confusing statistical methods that can produce evidence that seems insufficient to policymakers on the ground. In many cases, hard research is simply not as compelling as anecdotal evidence and gut instinct.

When viewing education research through a policymaker’s point of view, it becomes clear why research-based evidence has taken a backseat to policy pushed by interest-groups, peers, and personal experiences. Information conveyed through these channels is easier to interpret than evidence gathered through lengthy studies and statistical methods. Stakeholder groups are much more likely to sell their ideas to policymakers than researchers caught in the nitty-gritty of their methods and the pressure to publish frequently. Bridging the gap between researchers and policymakers may be the greatest challenge in education today.

In the end, the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation priorities may end up being a good thing. Grant recipients will represent the first major federally-funded efforts to implement practices like performance-based pay and charter management takeovers, providing invaluable opportunities to do the research and development that is still lacking in education. We truly can not know whether these interventions work without trying and testing them on some scale and they could end up being great successes.

But at some point, the Obama Administration will have to start putting its money where its mouth is and either back up its priorities with the proper evidence or provide the necessary funding to produce this evidence in the first place.