We Need More Education Research, Not Less
If we have learned anything from education policy these last few decades, it’s that we continue to struggle when it comes to collecting, analyzing, and implementing research on what is most effective with learners.
Twenty-five years ago, I was fortunate enough to lead the release of the National Reading Panel report, which for the first time we sought to catalog decades of research on best and promising practice when it came to teaching young children to read. Two and a half decades later, it is still a controversial study, despite it establishing the necessary research methodologies and examining more than 100,000 studies on teaching literacy. Those research findings still stand today and have experienced a bit of a renaissance thanks to journalist Emily Hanford and her groundbreaking Sold a Story podcast on the science of reading.
Recent NAEP scores have shown that we continue to struggle when it comes to teaching our children to read. Why? Too many graduate schools of education, too many teacher preparation programs, too many states, and too many school districts continue to resist implementing what is proven effective. Despite what decades of research reveal when it comes to the teaching and acquisition of literacy skills, we want to do what “feels” right rather than what is research proven. Too many educational institutions continue to embrace “balanced literacy” (the rebrand of the failed whole language philosophy) rather than utilize the tested, retested, proven, and reproven science of reading.
Why this walk down education research memory lane? Because recent efforts to gut the research components of the U.S. Department of Education are, unintentionally, giving power and validation to the generations that have rejected the science of reading and resisted doing what we know works in our local classrooms. And they run the risk of further embracing failed instructional techniques responsible for the learning struggles of generations of students.
There is no question that there are programs, initiatives, and efforts at the U.S. Department of Education that should be examined, improved, or outright shut down. If anything, efforts to root out waste, fraud, and abuse should direct us to finally embrace that which is research proven, rather than reject it.
DOGE efforts have now resulted in the elimination of more than $1 billion in contracts at the U.S. Department of Education. We have eliminated the Regional Education Labs, which have long provided research and technical support to states and localities on best practice in education. We have shut down the Comprehensive Centers, which provided capacity building to those same state and local education agencies. Equity Education Centers have been cut, likely because of the term “equity” in the title. We are cutting off NAEP testing for 11th graders as well, either because we don’t find such data valuable or we are afraid of the truth that such data will reveal. It may be only a matter of time before all of the Institute for Education Sciences is shuttered in totality, or left as a shell of its previous research-conducting self.
Since its establishment in 1980, the U.S. Department of Education has been targeted by some for elimination. In continually calling for its death, we tend to focus on the ineffectiveness of a growing bureaucracy, coupled with a misbelief that ED is implementing national curriculums and infringing on states and localities from doing what is best for our local communities and our local taxpayers.
Eliminating ED makes for a nice soundbite, but it overlooks reality. The reality that the Federal government still must administer federal financial aid, still must protect learners under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and still must enforce federal civil rights laws. And the reality of it all is that someone still must be responsible for the research on student learning performance and best practices in education.
Over the decades, we have sadly spent billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on education approaches and interventions that simply didn’t work, failing our learners and the taxpayers. We have continued to throw dollars to programs that have resulted in diminished student performance, particularly when it comes to reading and math. We have continued to protect efforts that we know don’t work, because they are popular with some in the education establishment, even though they are of little or no value to our learners.
These truths speak to the need to redouble our commitment to the science of learning, not diminish it. As a nation, after the National Reading Panel report, we made a collective commitment to the science of reading, making sure that states and localities had the financial resources to do what was best for their learners. Five years after making such a commitment, Congress pulled the plug, allowing school districts to revert back to the unproven, and harmful, balanced literacy.
In 2002, IES established the What Works Clearinghouse, the first and only time that the federal government offered research-proven, trusted information on educational effectiveness. We supplemented the WWC commitment with the Doing What Works Initiative, which helped translate that research into actionable guidance and support for states and localities. Just as those efforts were starting to have their intended impact, we killed them off too, failing to give states and school districts the research supports they so desperately need. And our students’ collective performance on state assessments has suffered for it.
Yes, research and evaluation can be expensive. Yes, education research and eval isn’t the sexiest of topics. But it is necessary to the success of our nation. It is essential to improving our economy and our workforce. It is required to ensure a safer, smarter homeland. And it is central to ensuring that states and localities, parents and educators, have the information they need to ensure that our kids are learning, obtaining the knowledge and skills they will need to succeed.
If the Reading Wars have taught us anything, it is that the research and the science of learning are non-negotiable when it comes to getting the best out of educational systems. Without research, without evaluation, and without data, we are left with schools that are without goals, without purpose, and without the results we all seek.
Whether it is a part of a newly constituted, or greatly scaled back, US Department of Education, or the focus of a rebuilt IES, or even a new streamlined and laser-focused entity committed to boosting student performance, education research is necessary to the success of our students, our schools, and our republic.
If we believe the Comp Centers or the RELs aren’t getting the job done, then let’s refocus our efforts on the supports and information that will indeed benefit our states and school districts. Let’s increase our expectations for education. Let’s raise research standards and demand more before an approach or an intervention receives a seal of approval from the Feds or the states.
But when we discard the programs entrusted with collecting and analyzing education research, we say that data doesn’t matter. And for the two-thirds of fourth graders across the United States who are reading below proficient levels, we know better.
The learning sciences have never been more important than they are today. Let’s respect all of those communities and all of those families seeking more out of their schools by ensuring that every public school in the country — elementary, secondary, and postsecondary — continues to get the research data and technical assistance necessary to finally improve our local schools.
