The Little-Known Bill With a Big Impact on Education Research

One could be forgiven for not knowing much about the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), which became law in 2002 and was back in the news this month. But the arcane, little-noticed law has quietly played an important role in shaping how our education system handles another much-noticed issue: data.

That’s why the breakdown of talks over a bill introduced this year to reauthorize ESRA--and then its ultimate resuscitation and passage through the House--has captured the attention of certain circles. In case you’re not in one of those circles, though, here’s your guide to all things ESRA:

What did the original legislation do?

On November 5, 2002, President Bush signed H.R. 3801, which included the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. Although the federal government has been collecting educational data in some form or another since at least 1870, the legislation made these data collection capabilities more robust with the creation of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to house the National Centers for Education Research, Education Statistics, and Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. According to the law, IES, through its many Centers, was to provide leadership in the developing understanding of education from early childhood through post-secondary. The law also established the National Board of Education Sciences to serve as the board of directors for IES.

Additionally, ESRA sought to influence the quality and dissemination of educational research, both by increasing the amount and quality of data collected and by setting standards and a review process for the research that used those data. Lawmakers took a multipronged approach to those major quality improvements. First, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) was charged with assisting states with the development of quality longitudinal data systems. Additionally, Congress authorized the Department of Education to make grants to states to create or improve those data systems. And it updated provisions concerning the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which provides comparable student achievement data across the U.S.

These changes to data collection and quality were coupled with expectations that the study of education data reflect “scientifically based research standards.” Empirical research methods and peer review were both major requirements for that. It’s been evident in the Department of Education’s policymaking, too. Consider the Investing in Innovation program, which requires grantees to use evidence-based programs.

Finally, the law also aimed to ensure that the research findings uncovered through IES data would be widely distributed, and not just to other researchers, but to stakeholders such as schools, educators and parents. IES primarily conducts those activities through its Regional Education Laboratories (RELs), which provide technical assistance to state and local educational agencies. Its goal is to help states and districts understand and use data, both for research and instructional purposes.

What would reauthorization do?

This last function--dissemination--has been one of the primary concerns in ESRA reauthorization discussions. It was raised by a GAO report, and again by witnesses testifying before the Education and the Workforce Committee in September of last year. Both expressed concerns that, though the creation of IES has had an unambiguously positive effect on the quality of education research since its inception, it often creates research that is best suited for other researchers--not research that can be easily used by teachers, state and district officials, or other important stakeholders not well versed in research methods.

Reauthorization, which has been due since 2008, seems to be aiming to fix this dissemination issue in a few ways. First, the performance management portion of the bill would refocus its emphasis to address more directly the concerns of timeliness and accessibility for a wide range of stakeholders. And the bill adds two spots for “practitioners who are knowledgeable about the education needs of the United States” on the National Board for Education Sciences in order to better close the loop between research and practice. State policymakers have made many of the same missteps, with data that aren't timely or that aren't presented in a user-friendly interface. Some states are working to fix that, but it's slow going for others. The bill would also, as Alyson Klein explains over at Politics K-12, extend support for state longitudinal data systems beyond their initial construction stage to a more practicable state that can better support instruction.

Finally, the bill also takes steps to address another hot topic of the last couple years. It would further allay privacy concerns by tightening protections on student data. The bill first underscores the importance of privacy concerns in the development and use of student data by making explicit in many places that specific provisions must be carried out consistent with the law’s privacy provisions. Also, the bill adds a requirement that any requests to NCES to use student data from federal agencies or other interested parties must include a description of the research purpose for which the data is needed--and their plan for keeping the data confidential.If NCES sees any threat to student privacy from a given proposal, the Center also has the authority to deny access to data.

Given the bill’s roller coaster fate thus far (it ran into disagreements over authorizations levels last year but came to life again this spring and passed the House), it’s hard to predict whether it will have the same success in the Senate. The skepticism about the value of IES or the possibility of improving educational research expressed in the questions of some at the September hearing in the House underscores the difficulties that were also on display last year. Specifically, the question on the minds of many seems to be whether the costs of IES are justified. But the bill’s relative obscurity, as Politics K-12 also explains, may save it from the same partisan roadblocks that have plagued reauthorization of other education laws.