9

Concluding Observations

This committee was charged with providing guidance to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) aimed at supporting the work of its National Center for Education Research (NCER) and National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) in the years to come. The committee focused on four primary tasks outlined in its charge: (1) to identify critical problems or issues on which new research is needed; (2) to consider how best to organize the request for applications issued by the research centers to reflect those problems/issues; (3) to explain new methods or approaches for conducting research that should be encouraged and why; and (4) to identify new and different types of research training investments that would benefit IES. To carry out its charge, the committee gathered and reviewed evidence from multiple sources, including official documents from IES and federal legislation, testimony from IES leadership, perspectives of education stakeholders, and scholarly literature. Committee members also drew on their own expertise and their knowledge of and experience with NCER and NCSER in formulating the recommendations it offers throughout this report.

The reach and impact of NCER and NCSER over the past two decades is impressive. As of 2022, there is virtually no part of the education research enterprise in the United States that is not in some way influenced by IES-funded work. Moreover, the committee recognizes that it is due in large part to the efforts of IES that education research has achieved recognition as a robust science-based field. In formulating its recommendations, the committee kept these successes in mind while also working to identify areas

where NCER and NCSER can improve their processes and be responsive to changes in the education landscape that have occurred over the past 20 years. In this chapter, we summarize several high-level observations about the landscape of education research in the United States, and point to two additional recommendations to support IES’s ongoing work in building an education research enterprise equipped to serve the next generation of students.

TWENTY YEARS OF IES: A CHANGED LANDSCAPE

As the committee notes in the first several chapters of this report, the field of education research has changed substantially since the founding of IES. Any survey of education research over the past 20 years could point to a myriad of areas in which knowledge in education has grown, much of which is directly tied to IES-funded research. Beginning with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and furthered by policies at all levels that require use of data in decision making, the field of education now has nearly two decades of data of all kinds. This abundance of data—on students, teachers, schools, and other education settings—has expanded the kinds of questions that education researchers can ask and answer.

As a result of two decades of research, the field now better understands the ways that students are nested within cultural contexts and the way those contexts matter for students’ experiences. Similarly, the field is better positioned to understand the ways that nonacademic outcomes help support students’ academic outcomes. Further, the field now has a more complete understanding of the way that education in the United States is a system, signifying that change needs to occur at multiple points in the system in order to bring about desired outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, the field now has decades of concrete evidence describing the undeniable role of structural inequality and systemic racism and discrimination in shaping educational experiences and outcomes of all kinds.

Of course, U.S. education and education research has seen tremendous upheaval in the past 2 years in particular. As the nation continues to reckon with the twin pandemics of COVID-19 and systemic racism, the committee encourages NCER and NCSER to shift to ensure that funded research is responsive to the challenges of the present moment. Recognizing that racial, ethnic, and economic inequality in education have always been present, and armed with new evidence that these divides have sharpened during the pandemic, it is more important than ever that IES prioritize research that advances equity. Likewise, we recognize the importance of addressing questions regarding access and inclusion of students with disabilities to ensure their meaningful academic progress and life chances.

In addition, knowledge of how research evidence is used in education settings has grown by leaps and bounds in the 20 years since the founding of IES. As discussed throughout this report, the field now recognizes that with rare exceptions, local decision makers do not tend to identify problems of practice and then turn to peer-reviewed research to find a “vetted” intervention to solve whatever the problem may be. In reality, mobilization of knowledge from research is a dynamic, multidirectional process that relies heavily on trusted relationships among researchers, practice partners, and individuals or organizations in knowledge broker roles.

As a result, the committee is concerned that the current reliance on a model for knowledge use that expects post-facto decision making by practitioners otherwise divorced from the production of knowledge simply does not map onto the realities of knowledge use in public education. This tension has the potential to substantially limit the ultimate utility of research funded by NCER and NCSER. In its recommendations, the committee offers insight into how IES might make changes to its current programming in order to better address the reality of how knowledge is and can be used in education. Throughout this report, the committee has identified recommendations that are intended to help IES continue to produce transformative education research and maintain its status as the premier funder of education research.

When the committee stepped back to look at NCER and NCSER’s work within IES, it became clear that an organizational structure that once worked to build a national infrastructure of education research now constrains the issues and methods that are likely to be studied. Over time, NCER and NCSER have attempted to address these constraints as well as the shifting needs of the field by adding new and often unique or specific funding opportunities (such as Education Research grants in Special Topics) and altering institutional policies (Schneider, 2021). As the field continues to grow as a result of NCER and NCSER’s investments, the ability to address ongoing challenges by adjusting the existing structure is unlikely to meet expanding needs. The recommendations identified by this committee are aimed at helping NCER and NCSER transform its infrastructure in a coherent and cohesive way to meet the present and future needs of this field.

IES has an obligation to adapt its work so that the centers’ funded research continues to meet the objectives laid out in the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) of 2002. In identifying these recommendations, we are describing a vision of NCER and NCSER that is distinctly appropriate for scientific research in education, based on two decades of cumulative knowledge building. If enacted in concert with one another, these recommendations will help IES continue to fulfill the obligations laid out in its founding legislation.

ENABLING RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee’s recommendations are informed by our understanding of how the five crosscutting themes identified in Chapter 1 (equity in education, technology in education, usefulness in education research, attending to implementation in education research, and heterogeneity) bear on what IES needs to change or adapt in order to meet the current and future needs of education research. Some of our recommendations can be implemented rapidly, particularly those pertaining to topics, methods, and measures for future study, whereas other recommendations may require longer consideration by IES stakeholders.

By following our recommendations, IES will set a course for a productive and impactful body of education research in the future. To fully realize the vision, however, two additional conditions, if met, will enable IES to implement the recommendations we have offered. At face value, these additional recommendations may seem to go beyond our charge, but the committee determined that for IES to respond to the recommendations that respond directly to our charge, these additional recommendations are necessary. In that sense, these recommendations, too, fall within our charge. The first is directed to IES and the second is directed to the U.S. Congress.

First, as noted throughout this report, the committee has determined that given that ESRA clearly mandates that the work of NCER and NCSER attend to pernicious and stubborn gaps in achievement between groups of students, it is essential that the centers consider how to address equity issues in all aspects of their work. Such consideration would also be consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity. To build a diverse and inclusive field that is well positioned to meet the most difficult challenges facing education in the United States, IES should be continuously vigilant about how its activities relate to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

RECOMMENDATION 9.1:

In addition to implementing the recommendations highlighted above, NCER and NCSER should conduct a comprehensive investigation of the funding processes to identify possible inequities. This analysis should attend to all aspects of the funding process, including application, reviewing, scoring, and monitoring progress. The resulting report should provide insight into barriers to funding across demographic groups and across research types and topics, as well as a plan for ameliorating these inequities.

Second, the committee recognizes that meaningful and lasting change within an organization cannot occur without financial support. We are keenly aware of the realities of IES’s budgetary constraints and have at-

tempted to prioritize recommendations that would re-allocate existing resources, rather than require additional funding. That said, the committee knows that in order to achieve the overarching vision presented through these recommendations, IES will require additional investments. We were dismayed to learn about the modest size of IES’s budget in comparison to the budgets of other like agencies throughout the federal government. The modest size seems particularly unwarranted in light of the high degree of success IES has demonstrated in pursuit of its mission, as outlined throughout this report. The committee’s assessment was amplified in three of the six public comments received throughout the process of writing this report. These public comments, representing dozens of organizations, urged us to recommend higher funding levels for IES, particularly for special education research. In light of the committee’s recommendations on project types, topics, methods, training, and the application process, the need for greater funding is even more acute. The committee recognizes that in the absence of additional funding, IES will need to make a series of challenging decisions related to how it will address the recommendations identified in this report. For this reason, the committee makes the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 9.2:

Congress should re-examine the IES budget, which does not appear to be on par with other scientific funding agencies nor does it have the resources to fully implement this suite of recommendations.

The committee regards NCER and NCSER, under the auspices of IES, as well positioned to realize the vision laid out in ESRA: a federal agency squarely aimed at improving the experiences of students around the country. Building on the past accomplishments of IES, the committee offers this report as a series of recommendations to IES as a mechanism for continued improvement of its already good work.

REFERENCE

This page intentionally left blank.