The Institute for Education Sciences recently established a new research agenda for the U.S. Department of Education. The advisory board of the institute approved the revised priorities, which will guide research efforts for the foreseeable future. The topics of study remain largely the same, focusing on educational processes, instructional innovations, and teacher recruitment, retention, training, and effectiveness. However, there is now a greater emphasis on placing federally supported education research findings into context in order to identify effective education policies, programs, and practices.
The new research agenda is intended to guide the allocation of the institute’s research budget of $660 million through discretionary grants. Additionally, it is expected to impact the regional education laboratory system, which provides research services and technical assistance across the country.
Members of the National Board for Education Sciences and research stakeholders expressed their support for the institute’s increased focus on making research relevant to educators and building their capacity to use data. However, some concerns were raised about the general nature of the document and the lack of measurable goals.
Efforts will be made to incorporate the priorities into the 2011 research competition requirements, and the number of topics is likely to be reduced before requests for proposals are issued in January. Despite these efforts, there are doubts about whether the priorities would provide sufficient accountability for the use of federal funds.
The IES director, John Easton, believes that building partnerships with educators and the community will be a top priority and will help develop local analytic capacity. This collaborative approach was approved by stakeholders, who emphasized the importance of involving parents and students in the research process.
Former IES director Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst praised the final priorities for clarifying language that had raised concerns about researchers partnering with educators for every study. Whitehurst argued that such a requirement would hinder productive research that may not appear immediately relevant to practitioners.
Ultimately, board members recognized the economic pressures faced by most states, which could both foster and hinder collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Many local districts have reduced or eliminated their analytic capacity, focusing primarily on accountability and testing.
Author
