|
|
|
||
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingNew Center for Education Policy Survey Finds Implementation of Scientifically-Based Research (SBR) A Low PriorityThe CEP report on the second year of NCLB implementation found that with the exception of Reading First, states, districts, and even schools are placing a "low priority" on implementing various scientifically-based research (SBR) provisions in Title I and other programs under NCLB. The exception is Reading First where states had to negotiate and then receive USED approval of their plans before receiving any funds; plans had to include assurances that the five "essential elements" required under Reading First and related provisions would be met. Because NCLB does not have any sanctions for states and districts that do not otherwise comply with SBR requirements in programs such as Title I, states feel that USED will be providing the least amount of enforcement in this area. Indeed, regulations or non-regulatory guidance for implementing SBR provisions in Title I have yet to be published by USED. In addition, the What Works Clearinghouse has yet to publish any "evidence" reports on effective interventions which would provide guidance to states and districts as to what interventions, practices, or even products should be included on any list. The CEP survey found that of the 46 states responding, 16 indicated they maintained lists of curricula or instructional programs that would qualify under SBR provisions. However, only six states required districts to use these programs for Title I. The most prevalent information used by districts to determine "scientific basis" or justification underlying a program was evidence provided by vendors who develop or sell the program. According to CEP, responses from several states strongly suggest that state officials are very reluctant to provide such lists, which could conflict with state laws that delegate this responsibility to districts. At the district level, CEP found that 70 percent of districts reported that they maintained a list of curricular or instructional approaches grounded in scientifically-based research. Such lists were reported to be used more often in rural and medium to small districts than in urban or very large or large districts. On the average, 64 percent of districts reported that products or interventions on the list were required to be used in Title I schools. Ironically, the method of developing district lists where they most often exist (38 percent of respondents), was based on a list provided by the state as meeting scientifically-based research criteria. CEP notes, "most states did not maintain such lists and few of those that did required their use." One important explanation for this apparent contradiction is that, while SEA officials may not have "official lists," many state officials "suggest" products or interventions thereby constituting an "unofficial" list. This would appear to be very similar to the "unofficial list" of instructional and assessment instruments which many supplemental education publishers accused USED of advocating during the Reading First state approval process. The Center for Education Policy also attempted to determine the degree to which schools participating in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program, created in 1997, were selecting more model programs proven to be effective based upon scientific research. It compared the 1998 first-year implementation of CSRD models with those that were selected in 2002, the second cycle of awards, using a list of models rated in a previous American Institutes for Research publication as "proven to be positively affected" vs. "promising," vs. those with "no research basis." CEP concluded, "…our comparison revealed no movement toward those models that AIR rated as having the strongest research base. Rather, the percentage of schools selecting models with positive, promising, or marginal evidence decreased, while the percentage selecting models that AIR found to have weak or mixed evidence, or no research basis increased." For example, the percent of schools that selected Direct Instruction, Success for All, and High Schools That Work, which are rated as being positive, went down from 3.5 percent to 2.5 percent; from 13.9 percent to 3.1 percent; and from 2.8 percent to 1.5 percent, respectively. Districts also reported in the CEP survey that, the organizations and agencies helping them in selecting Title I curriculum or instructional programs for Title I, "to a great extent" were SEAs (44 percent) and education service agencies or local consortia (29 percent). Only nine percent reported assistance from USED. As the CEP report concludes, "In summary, the impact of the scientifically based research requirement cannot yet be determined…. So far, there is little evidence that the requirement is having an impact in Title I schools, but it is an area to watch in the future as school districts and states become more familiar with the requirements for programs to be based in scientific research."
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 856-241-7772. |
||
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|||
