Appendix B

Email Correspondence Sent to the Committee

Due to the high interest in this consensus study, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff created a project email account to gather all public commentary. This account received a total of 20 email messages, most of which asked for information about how to attend planned open sessions. The following six messages contained substantive comments sent to the committee for consideration while answering its charge. They are reproduced below, in the order received.

• Kenji Hakuta, Stanford University (7/26/2021)
• Early career Special Education Researcher (8/6/2021)
• Soraya Zrikem, Learning and Education Academic Research Network (LEARN) Coalition (8/11/2021)
• Christy Talbot, American Educational Research Association (9/21/2021)
• Elizabeth Talbott, College of William and Mary (9/28/2021)
• Steve Pierson, American Statistical Association (10/5/2021)

Dear Colleagues:

We recently sent the attached letter to IES Director Mark Schneider, which speaks directly to the ARP funding, but more broadly makes a statement about educational research priorities and knowledge production capacity at HBCU’s. Chair of the Committee Adam Gamoran suggested that we enter it into your public comment records.

Thank you.

Kenji

From: Kenji Hakuta <hakuta@stanford.edu>

Date: Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:47 AM

To:Mark.Schneider@ed.gov <Mark.Schneider@ed.gov>

Cc: Gordon, Edmund <egordon@exchange.tc.columbia.edu>, Sonya Douglass Horsford <sdh2150@tc.columbia.edu>, ‘Kent McGuire’ <KMcGuire@hewlett.org>, Na’ilah Suad Nasir <nsnasir@spencer.org>

Subject: Letter from Edmund W. Gordon re: IES ARP

Dear Director Schneider:

Please find attached a letter from Prof. Gordon and his colleagues who are commemorating his centennial birthday, immediately regarding the ARP funds, and more broadly about priorities in education research. We would also like to request a follow‐up meeting with you.

Thank you.

Edmund Gordon

Kenji Hakuta

Sonya Douglass Horsford

Kent McGuire

Na’ilah Suad Nasir

TEACHERS COLLEGE

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

July 24, 2021

Director Mark Schneider

Office of the Director, IES

National Center for Education Statistics

Potomac Center Plaza

550 12th Street, SW

Room 4109

Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Director Schneider:

We are writing as a collective of individual scholars, all concerned with equity and justice in the educational system that reflect the complex history of race and class in our nation. In addition to the historical moment captured in the recovery efforts from the magnification of these issues through the lens of COVID-19, we are also propelled by a celebratory note – the centennial birthday of one of the authors of this letter, Edmund Gordon – who has been addressing this issue for his entire career, recognized by scholars, practitioners, and policymakers.¹ His history of scholarship and advocacy on behalf of all disadvantaged students, particularly Black students, presents a vantage point from which to assess our current situation. As a celebration of Dr. Gordon’s centennial, a large number of his students have been holding conferences and events over the course of the year. Research funders, notably the Spencer Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, have contributed to mark the moment as well.

As part of these events, we have been in conversations with the Congressional Black Caucus as well as staff from the House Education and Labor Committee, offering advice and seeking assistance with specific requests that promote our agenda. In our recent conversations with Congress in which we expressed our interests, they suggested that we contact you regarding ways of prioritizing the additional appropriations to IES that were made as part of the American Rescue Plan.

As might be expected from a long (and still continuing) career of a centenarian with a broad vision, a plethora of issues have been explored and advanced. But among them we would like to bring to your attention three simple priorities:

1. A synthesis of research that extend the report of the National Academies report How People Learn II to specifically address implications of educational science to support the design of appropriate and sufficient pedagogical intervention. This would lead to a focus on educational opportunities that are equitable, and not just equal -- appropriate and sufficient to the needs and characteristics of the learning

1. persons. The need to address this is particularly amplified by the evidence of COVID-19 gaps that are becoming increasingly apparent.²
2. An effort to expand the field of educational assessment to privilege the development of ability as much as it has promoted the measurement of ability. This has been a continuous theme of Dr. Gordon’s life, ever since he began his career as a clinician conducting psychological testing of children in Brooklyn during the 1950’s, extending into his leadership of The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment for Education (in contrast to “Assessment of Education.”). This group advanced the notion that educational assessment can and should inform and improve learning and its teaching, as well as measure developed ability.
3. Developing a strong capacity in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s) to engage in research and knowledge production in the education sciences (and the social sciences more generally) to enable strong alignment of the educational mission and purpose of these critical institutions with the K-12 needs of the Black community. Getting something akin to this in the social sciences was a long-term goal of one of Dr. Gordon’s mentors, W.E.B. DuBois in the 1940’s, and is something that could serve as an inspiration to this continuing need.³

We recognize your personal commitment as reflected in your memo of August, 2020, Acting on Diversity, highlighting ESRA legislation for “initiatives and programs to increase participation of researchers and institutions that have been historically underutilized in Federal education research activities of the Institute, including historically Black colleges or universities or other institutions of higher education with large numbers of minority students.” We further applaud your emphasis on the Pathways program in working with minority-serving institutions, as well as comprehensively searching for opportunities across all of the IES programs. We truly applaud these actions, and encourage follow-through. As you do so, we hope that the three priorities indicated above help shape the ways in which the additional appropriations from the ARP are utilized.

We would like to request a meeting with you to further discuss our request, and to offer any assistance as appropriate. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Edmund W. Gordon

John M. Musser Professor of Psychology, Emeritus - Yale University

Richard March Hoe Professor of Psychology and Education, Emeritus - Teachers College, Columbia University

Kenji Hakuta

Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education, Emeritus – Stanford University

Sonya Douglass Horsford

Associate Professor of Education Leadership

Teachers College, Columbia University

Kent McGuire

Program Director of Education

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

[Electronic Signature TBA]

Na’ilah Suad Nasir

President, The Spencer Foundation

¹ Entered into the Congressional Record by Congressman Steven Horsford, Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus: CELEBRATING PROFESSOR EDMUND W. GORDON’S 100TH BIRTHDAY

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Professor Edmund W. Gordon, an extraordinary professor of psychology whose career work has heavily influenced contemporary thinking in psychology, education, and social policy. Professor Gordon’s research and initiatives have focused on the positive development of underserved children of color, including advancing the concept of the “achievement gap.”

Professor Gordon grew up in a highly segregated area of North Carolina to parents who encouraged the importance of schooling. He received both his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Howard University, and went on to pursue a PhD in psychology at the Teacher’s College at Columbia University.

In 1956, after working with mentor and friend W.E.B. DuBois, Professor Gordon was commissioned by President Lyndon B. Johnson to help design the Head Start Program, aimed at providing early childhood education and family services to under-resourced families. After six months working on Head Start, Professor Gordon and his team had built a program to serve nearly half a million children. Professor Gordon also conducted research that would later be used to prove to the Supreme Court that school segregation had harmful effects on children. Professor Gordon strongly advocated the importance of understanding the learner’s frame of reference in the development of education action plans.

Professor Gordon is the John M. Musser Professor of Psychology, Emeritus at Yale University, Richard March Hoe Professor, Emeritus of Psychology and Education and Founding Director of The Edmund W. Gordon Institute of Urban and Minority Education (IUME) at Teachers College, Columbia University.

From July 2000 until August 2001, Professor Gordon was Vice President of Academic Affairs and Interim Dean at Teachers College, Columbia University. Professor Gordon has held appointments at several of the nation’s leading universities including Howard, Yeshiva, Columbia, City University of New York, Yale, and the Educational Testing Service. He has served as visiting professor at City College of New York and Harvard.

Currently, Professor Gordon is the Senior Scholar and Advisor to the President of the College Board where he developed and co-chaired the Taskforce on Minority High Achievement.

As a clinician and researcher, Professor Gordon explored divergent learning styles and advocated for supplemental education long before most scholars had recognized the existence and importance of those ideas. From 2011 to 2013, Professor Gordon organized and mentored the Gordon Commission, bringing together scholars to research and report on the Future of Assessment for Education.

Professor Gordon has authored 18 books and more than 200 articles on the achievement gap, affirmative development of academic ability, and supplementary education. He has been elected a Fellow of many prestigious organizations, including the American Academy of Arts & Science, and has been named one of America’s most prolific and thoughtful scholars.

Approaching his centennial birthday, Professor Gordon still pays close attention to the state of education, and has stated that he would love to be able to change national education policy “to get a more equal focus on out-of-school and in-school learning.”

On April 12, 2021, Professor Gordon was appointed as the first ever Honorary President of the American Educational Research Association.

I wish Professor Edmund W. Gordon the very best as he and his family celebrate his 100th birthday on June 13, 2021.

² See S. Douglass Horsford, L. Cabral, C. Touloukian, S. Parks, P. A. Smith, C. McGhee, F. Qadir, D. Lester & J. Jacobs (July 2021), Black Education in the Wake of COVID-19 & Systemic Racism: Toward a Theory of Change & Action. Black Education Research Collective, Teachers College Columbia University, July 2021. See also D. Bailey, G. J. Duncan, R. J. Murnane & N. A. Yeung (2021), Achievement Gaps in the Wake of COVID-19, Educational Researcher, 50: 266-275.

³ David Levering Lewis (2019) in W.E.B. Du Bois: A Biography 1868-1963 characterizes this push in 1943 as “a rebirth of the seminal Atlanta University Studies at the beginning of the century” (Du Bois was briefly at Atlanta then but the early studies he directed ran from 1896-1914 even as he was at NAACP). As Lewis wrote: “At the convention of the Presidents of the Negro Land Grant Colleges in Chicago that October [1943], Du Bois had rallied the association’s seventeen presidents to formal endorsement and financial backing of an annual Atlanta University Conference. These were seventeen state-supported, racially restricted institutions founded as a result of the Morrill Act of 1862, to which the presidents of Hampton, Howard, and Tuskegee were affiliated.” In his autobiography published posthumously in 1968 (The Autobiography of W.E.B. Du Bois: A Soliloquy on Viewing My Life from the Last Decade of Its First Century), Du Bois re-creates extensively his plan for knowledge generation and the capacity needed at HBCU’s to do this work. What might have been had he successfully created the Black sociological empire focused on the problem of race is a matter of consideration, as it would have greatly affected where the state of educational research would be today.

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate research activities and priorities for the future of IES. As an early career Special Education researcher, I believe these are two areas that deserve increased focus moving forward. Helping early career researchers become established in the field is critical for the future, and the current requirement that applicants in this award are within their first 3 years post-Ph.D. is extremely limiting given the competition is only held every 2 years. Additionally, Special Education research overall deserves increased support in the future. Effective instructional practices frequently used across this discipline (e.g., direct instruction) will become critical for all students as we work to decrease learning losses from the ongoing pandemic. I appreciate your consideration of these issues.

Open project information: DBASSE-BOSE-20-07

Good Afternoon,

Attached please find the comments submitted by the Learning and Education Academic Research Network (LEARN) Coalition to the call for comment from the NAS panel on "The Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education." Thank you for your consideration of LEARN’s views.

Best,

Soraya Zrikem

‐‐

Soraya Zrikem

Associate, Penn Hill Group

777 6th St NW, Suite 610 | Washington, DC 20001

szrikem@pennhillgroup.com

(734) 417‐1796

problem-solvers, ones who can embrace ambiguity and nuance, who can move away from binary thinking and who can manage the complexity in challenging problems.

LEARN members also believe research is required on virtual learning at all ages. In addition to studying the effectiveness of current virtual programs, researchers should capitalize on the range of data and digital learning applications in their research and develop new ways for children to be learning with the use and assistance of technology. Virtual learning is still in its infancy. We must continue to tap into its potential to better help children learn. However, as we know, learning does not take place in isolation, and we note that it is also essential to conduct research that studies the systems of public education that support and/or inhibit improvement, and promising approaches and practices.

We need more research on successful interventions that can address the achievement gap. This is especially relevant after this past year when this gap grew and became much larger. How do we catch students up if they have fallen behind while still challenging students who are making good educational progress?

Lastly, we submit that there needs to be much more research around successful implementation and scale up of the contexts, structures, and approaches that support research take-up, including the conditions and types of research that are best aligned to research-practice partnerships.

Where are the human capital gaps that could benefit from better or more readily available training, and what kind of training is necessary?

LEARN believes it is critical to support the education research pipeline by training and providing grant opportunities to new researchers, including graduate students seeking to embark on a career in education research, as well as fellowships and training grants. The last two years have been highly detrimental to rising researchers, as projects and funding streams were paused in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the staggering learning loss being experienced by students due to the pandemic, it is important that IES provides researchers from a wide range of backgrounds with the grant opportunities to identify and develop innovative, evidence-backed and effective educational interventions. Using what we already know will only get us so far and not investing in our early career researchers will reduce our future potential at solving the problems facing education.

While a focus on research on the most effective interventions is important, we also need the nation’s future generation of researchers to study educational systems, and policies that address complex educational challenges, including preparing teachers and leaders. Specifically, we note the need for more pre-doctoral training grants and a focus on mixed -methodologies as well as methodologies and approaches for research-practice partnerships, including improvement science. This strand of research can also include the development of researchers to focus on developing culturally relevant methodologies and approaches.

How does the field support and sustain mutually beneficial partnerships in education research?

The field, as well as IES as a federal grantmaking organization, must foster a greater number and more powerful set of partnerships. IES’s research-practitioner partnerships are one example of IES seeking to foster partnerships in the education research space. However, the benefit of these partnerships is largely limited to only the organizations actively involved in the specific grant or research work envisioned by the partnership. To further drive the expansion of the partnership model, LEARN proposes that IES create a matching directory of locales, school districts, entities and organizations that are seeking research partnerships so that connections can be more efficiently and equitably made. This directory would not promise or require IES grant funding, but rather serve as a clearinghouse for those seeking to connect. Since the partnerships are reciprocal relationships, expanding access to this opportunity equally will benefit both the education and research field.

What are the conditions necessary for ongoing partnerships?

To identify the ingredients of a successful partnership, we need to identify the types of research that are best suited for partnerships. Additionally, there are multiple types and approaches to partnerships with

little research on the variation and the impacts. A broader research agenda into partnerships is warranted. Questions that must be asked as part of this agenda include:

• How can research funding balance response to local needs and priorities, and support research that is generalizable and builds a knowledge base all while providing clear standards of evidence and scientific merit?
• How is partnership and improvement science blended with, and used in concert with other types of research and knowledge funded by IES, rather than separate from research funded through other priorities?

Additional Comments on IES independence, RFP timing and IES Funding Levels

Outside of our immediate comments on the questions posed during the June 29^th panel, we would also like to emphasize several other points. First, we view IES’ independence from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) as critical as it allows for flexibility in quickly identifying and addressing research problems and issues. LEARN finds that this independent structure is most effective when IES is led by both a director and board. This structure is key to the integrity of IES and it is critical that IES populate the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES) which has been largely nonfunctional for the past several years due to few or no active members. We also want to emphasize the paramount importance of scientific merit and peer review in the funding process.

Second, we are concerned about the amount of time that IES generally permits between the release of a grant competition and the due date for proposals with respect to Request for Proposals (RFPs) that utilize partnerships. The time allotted generally does not sufficiently allow for developing the conditions for deep and ongoing partnerships. We recommend that IES consider establishing separate timeframes for issuance to proposal date when considering approaches for RFPs for new partnerships versus RFPs for established partnerships.

Finally, LEARN would be remiss to overlook the budget limitations IES currently faces. Conversations with IES staff have uncovered that they are working at capacity and straining to adequately operate competitions and identify priorities. As we have discussed above, there is a vast amount of research we need to conduct and knowledge we need to develop in order to address the education challenges of today’s students. IES must be properly supported and staffed to allow for this work to occur intentionally and effectively.

This is especially critical in research on special education, which is presently spearheaded by IES’s National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER). NCSER received over $71 million in FY 2010 but was misguidedly cut to less than $51 million in the subsequent fiscal year. NCSER’s funding reached at high of $58.5 million in FY 2021, but that is $27.1 million short of the buying power of the FY 2010 NCSER funding level after factoring in inflation.

Likewise, Research, Development and Dissemination (R, D and D) funding, IES’s largest research account, was $200.2 million in FY 2010. The FY 2021 R, D and D funding level is $195.9 million, which is $45 million short of what the FY 2010 amount would buy in today’s dollars. Without an increase in funds for R, D and D and NCSER, IES will not be able to properly address this panel’s recommendations nor drive the education research currently required. We hope the NAS panel will underscore the need for Congress to increase IES’ funding in their recommendations.

Thank you for your commitment to sustaining and strengthening the nation’s education research infrastructure. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Nock at 202 495-9497 or anock@pennhillgroup.com.

Respectfully Submitted,

Camilla P. Benbow, Ed.D.

Co-Chair, Learning and Education Academic Research Network (LEARN)

Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development of the Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University

Glenn E. Good, Ph.D.

Co-Chair, Learning and Education Academic Research Network (LEARN)

Dean of the College of Education, University of Florida

Rick Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Co-Chair, Learning and Education Academic Research Network (LEARN)

Dean of the School of Education, University of Kansas

Dear Dr. Gamoran and Committee Members,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to inform the work of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on the Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

On behalf of 19 organizations with particular interest in IES research and training programs, please find attached comments that encourage the committee to address the underinvestment in IES over the past decade in its report and recommendations. Sufficient resources are critical for IES to meet both its mandated responsibilities and emerging priorities, including those discussed by this committee.

We specifically urge the committee to include two recommendations to Congress in its consensus report: (1) Advance strong, sustained funding levels for the Research, Development, and Dissemination (RD&D) and the Research in Special Education line items in appropriations legislation; (2) Include robust authorization levels for IES in a future reauthorization of the Education Sciences Reform Act.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments and recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact Felice Levine (copied here) or me with any questions.

Warm regards,

-Christy

Christy Talbot

Senior Program Associate, Government Relations

American Educational Research Association

1430 K St. NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005

O: 202-238-3221 | M: 202-664-2737

ctalbot@aera.net

Comments from Education Research Stakeholders to the
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Committee on The Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences

September 21, 2021

On behalf of the 19 undersigned organizations, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on The Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. The organizations joining these comments represent scientific associations, K-12 and higher education organizations, universities, and organizations serving persons with disabilities.

We greatly appreciate the thoughtful work and deliberation that the committee has taken on over the past few months to examine the roles of the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) in supporting rigorous and relevant education research. As part of that effort, we encourage the committee to include recommendations that address the underinvestment in IES research and training programs over the past decade in its final consensus report.

To enable NCER and NCSER to increase their respective capacities to support high-quality, innovative research and to build a diverse and inclusive education researcher workforce, we particularly encourage the committee to include two recommendations to Congress in its consensus report:

• Advance strong, sustained funding levels for the Research, Development, and Dissemination (RD&D) and the Research in Special Education line items in appropriations legislation.
• Include robust authorization levels for IES in a future reauthorization of the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA).

We are thankful for the $100 million provided through the American Rescue Plan to support education research and data collection as part of the response in education to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also pleased to see strong proposals with significant and long-needed boosts for the investment in IES in President Biden’s FY 2022 budget request and the House FY 2022 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill. These proposals show the commitment of the administration and Congress to the important role education research has in informing evidence-based policy and practice.

We urge you to address funding levels in your recommendations as sufficient resources are necessary for IES to meet its mandated responsibilities under ESRA and to support emerging priorities. The FY 2022 budget request and House bill serve as important steps to restore lost purchasing power that has constrained the ability of IES to award research grants and support training programs to advance essential knowledge on important educational issues and build the education research pipeline. Unfortunately, IES is still significantly behind the deep cuts borne by sequestration in FY 2011-2013, with the FY 2021 appropriation providing nearly $160 million less in purchasing power compared to the FY 2010 appropriation after adjusting for inflation.

The RD&D line item supports the research and training grants provided by NCER, yet funding for RD&D has remained relatively flat over the past five years. Funding in FY 2021 for RD&D was only $3 million above the FY 2016 level of $195 million. In that time, NCER launched new grant solicitations encouraging the use of innovative methods and open science best practices. As important as these programs are, appropriations levels have not kept up with the increased costs to incorporate the Standards for

Excellence in Education Research, resulting in larger, but fewer, grants for the field. NCER is also balancing awards for its core field-initiated education research grants with off-cycle competitions that promote replication of IES-funded research and use of state longitudinal data systems, among other programs. Postdoctoral and predoctoral training grants also provide professional development incorporating innovative methodological skills; additional funding could go toward increasing the reach of training programs to underrepresented institutions among IES grantees, including HBCUs, HSIs, and MSIs.

Funding has also remained relatively frozen for NCSER. The FY 2021 appropriated amount of $58.5 million is only $4.5 million above the FY 2014 funding level. Although NCSER will award research grants focused on accelerating learning recovery in special education with funding provided through the American Rescue Plan in FY 2022, it will not run its core special education research grant competition. This will be the second time since FY 2014 that NCSER has not been able to award new grants through its core research grant program due to limited funding.

Several of the organizations joining this statement will also be commenting separately on specific areas where there are gaps in research that could be supported by IES, new methods and approaches in education research, and new and different types of research and training. We have joined on these comments to collectively underscore that IES will require significant and sustained investment in order to meet those recognized needs. We thus urge the committee to include recommendations for Congress to increase appropriations and authorization levels to enable NCER and NCSER to support rigorous, timely, and innovative education research and training programs to develop a diverse education research workforce. In addition, we encourage the committee to provide language in the consensus report on the role of the executive branch to advance robust budget proposals for NCER and NCSER.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and for considering these recommendations. If committee members have any questions or need additional information, please contact Felice Levine (flevine@aera.net) or Christy Talbot (ctalbot@aera.net) at the American Educational Research Association.

Undersigned Organizations

Alliance for Learning Innovation (ALI)

American Educational Research Association

American Psychological Association

Association of Population Centers

Consortium of Social Science Associations

EDGE Consulting Partners

ETS

Institute for Educational Leadership

Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)

Knowledge Alliance

LEARN Coalition

Lehigh University

National Center for Learning Disabilities

National Down Syndrome Society

National Education Association

Population Association of America

University of Florida

University of Washington College of Education

Vanderbilt University

To the National Academies Committee:

Thank you for providing a public recording of the panel presentation in August addressing future directions and priorities for IES-NCSER research. I watched the entire presentation and found it absolutely fascinating.

I know that 4 panelists commenting on needs for the field and future directions for IES-NCSER cannot possibly address all pressing issues. But the panelists did a terrific job of highlighting key ones, such as the need for systems change, funding for implementation science/team science and participatory research, and improving services provided to children and youth with disabilities from diverse backgrounds.

Yet I was struck by the fact that none of the panelists was an IES-funded expert in academic interventions, even as one of the most pressing and persistent needs for students with disabilities is the advancement of their academic skills leading to college and career readiness. OSEP has done a fantastic job of funding researcher and educator preparation in the area of intensive intervention, with the AIR providing technical assistance to leaders of school districts. However (and especially because of COVID), research addressing the academic and mental health needs of all students with disabilities becomes even more urgent, and we need IES NCSER to be a leader in funding intensive intervention research, in my opinion.

How do researchers and practitioners deliver intensive intervention in the context of instruction provided in inclusive settings? This question is absolutely critical for NCSER funding to address. Jade Wexler’s IES-funded Project Cali provides direction to this end, with specific training for more effective co-teaching in literacy. Sharon Vaughn’s work in individual and small group instruction with students who have LD also provides a helpful structure, as does Lynn and Doug Fuchs’ work in peer tutoring. Special education researchers are well prepared to tackle this challenging question, as they are among the best in the nation. For example, both Chris Lemons, whose research focuses on intensive intervention in reading with students who have Down Syndrome and Sarah Powell, whose research addresses interventions for students with math disabilities, have received the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers.

These are a few examples of the significant accomplishments of researchers in our young field—yet the work clearly needs to accelerate and intensify and special education researchers, many of whom are funded by IES and OSEP, are well positioned to take on this challenge.

NCSER’s struggle over the past decade has been its chronic under-funding by Congress. NCSER funding is 20% lower today than in 2010. Every few years or so (including 2021), NCSER has not been able to offer its regular competitions, creating lost momentum in critical areas such as career and technical education. There was no early career competition this year. I hope that the National Academy can reflect this urgent need for more funding in its report.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment. I wish the committee all the best in concluding its work.

Sincerely,

--

Elizabeth Talbott, PhD

Professor, Special Education

Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development

School of Education

William & Mary

Hello,

Please see the attached for your panel from the American Statistical Association.

Thank you,

Steve

Steve Pierson, Ph.D.

Director of Science Policy

American Statistical Association

Promoting the Practice and Profession of Statistics®

732 North Washington Street

Alexandria, VA 22314-1943

(703) 302-1841

www.amstat.org/policy

For ASA science policy updates, follow us on Twitter: @ASA_SciPol

AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION

Promoting the Practice and Profession of Statistics®

732 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-1943

(703) 684-1221 ▪ www.amstat.org ▪ asainfo@amstat.org

www.facebook.com/AmstatNews www.twitter.com/AmstatNews

October 5, 2021

Adam Gamoran

Chair, Committee on The Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences in the US Department of Education

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [Transmitted electronically]

Dear Dr. Gamoran,

We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide input to your panel considering the future of education research at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the US Department of Education. As the science of learning from data, statistics is fundamental to IES’s mission to “provide scientific evidence on which to ground education practice and policy.” The role of statistics in education research starts with framing the problem and designing the study and continues through analyzing and interpreting the data and communicating the findings. We believe emphatically that engagement of statisticians and the statistical perspective results in better science.

The tremendous strides in education research over the past 25 years underscore the important role of statistics both through the Statistical and Research Methodology in Education (SRME) program and more broadly. One manifestation of this success is the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), which provides decision-makers with information about effective interventions in reading, math, science, dropout prevention, and more. Many of these advances, and the confidence in the studies reported in the WWC, would not be possible without strong statistical methods underpinning the study designs and analyses and a solid research base for understanding which designs and analyses yield accurate results.

Through the SRME program, we appreciate that IES has recognized—and indeed, fostered—the importance of statistical methodology grounded in and disciplined by the context of education research. Recognizing the need for statistical advances that respond to the specific challenges faced by the field, SRMA-funded projects have ensured the following:

• Principled analyses of primary data collected in empirical studies
• More informative use of large-scale survey data routinely collected by IES
• Advances in methods for characterizing findings and synthesizing bodies of evidence from multiple studies

• Advanced power-analysis methodologies, with assumptions informed by empirical data, to ensure the money spent on research is put to good use
• Robust methods to determine what interventions work best for whom—again, a particularly important topic in times of limited resources

For IES to continue furthering education research, we recommend thoughtful implementation of the following statistical perspectives:

• More strategic use of existing administrative data, and new modalities for collecting and processing data, to provide practitioners and decision-makers with up-to-date information on student progress
• Study designs representing in more detail the heterogeneity of student and school characteristics to better inform local decisions
• Improved systems for archiving, accessing, and reanalyzing data collected from completed primary studies to better address emerging policy questions and improve the relevance of available evidence
• Continued development and improvement of methods for evaluating systemic and structural-level reforms that may not be easily randomized or evaluated using traditional quasi-experimental approaches currently examined by the WWC
• Further use of statistical methods and strategies for helping identify study design and analysis approaches most likely to yield accurate results, as has been done for the WWC to this point
• Development of methods that monitor or measure systems of discrimination
• Increased support of programs, workshops, and training initiatives in statistical and methodological research in education settings both generally and to increase the diversity of researchers engaged in statistical and methodological research in education settings

The following experts provided input and time to craft these recommendations: Vivian Wong, University of Virginia; Tracy Sweet, University of Maryland; Elizabeth Stuart, The Johns Hopkins University; James Pustejovsky, University of Wisconsin, Madison; and Luke Miratrix, Harvard University. My comments here echo the comments of some of those who presented to this committee over the summer.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Ron Wasserstein

Executive Director, American Statistical Association

This page intentionally left blank.