|
|
|
AEP Online |
Whitehurst on the What Works Clearinghouse: "We Have A Long Way To Go"During the SIIA Fly-In on March 2-3, Institute of Education Sciences' Director Russ Whitehurst stated that IES has a "long way to go" in making sure the What Works Clearinghouse is successfully implemented and encouraged suggestions from SIIA members. One attendee who attended the Whitehurst presentation during the D.C. Fly-In three years ago, noted that he was much more "humble" and recognized the need for different levels of rigor in evaluating the effectiveness of supplemental materials and instructional software vs. basal texts, which he noted parenthetically, have not been evaluated with the rigor required under scientifically-based research (SBR). He also stated that the What Works Clearinghouse results are not required to be used by the USED Title I program and other offices. Moreover, he admitted that the SBR requirements provided for Reading First and Title I supplemental education services vary significantly, which has created a "messy situation." Even though the What Works Clearinghouse has identified only a limited number of evaluations that meet SBR criteria used by the WWC, he argued that as more and more district decision-makers ask questions about "evidence" regarding a product's effectiveness, over time competition in the marketplace will result in greater use of products that have such empirical evidence of success. One of the questions uppermost in the minds of SIIA attendees was how to get cooperation from districts to participate in rigorous evaluations of their products. Dr. Whitehurst expressed great empathy for such firms, noting that the industry often moves more quickly than districts or states. Garnering participation from such districts requires the art of "making a deal" where everyone potentially benefits. On the other hand, where there exist regulations or provisions under NCLB that would prevent district-use of randomized trial evaluations, he indicated that his office does not have the authority to provide waivers. On the other hand, he noted that his office would consider a number of possible ways of facilitating the "matchmaking" between firms/products, and districts willing to participate in evaluations including:
He also told publishers that once they design an evaluation, they could send it to the WWC Help Desk, which would be pleased to review the evaluation design to ensure that its results would be more likely to meet WWC acceptance in final reports. After he spoke, Dr. Whitehurst was asked whether the What Works Clearinghouse would be considering studies of administrative applications using additional criteria beyond math and reading achievement scores. He indicated that another group within the Institute of Education Sciences was planning to address this issue, especially in light of the fact that most of the NCLB expenditures for software have been for administrative, evaluation, and reporting applications. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
|
