|
Whitehurst, Others Discuss SBR at Legislative Forum
September's Association of Educational Publishers Washington Legislative
Forum featured Russ Whitehurst of the U.S. Dept. of Education,
Rep. Mike Castle (R - DE), Gerald Sroufe of the American Education
Research Association, and Senatorial Staffer Roberto Rodriguez.
Each of their presentations indicated that there is the potential
for greater flexibility in the scientifically based research provision
of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The forum, which was attended by about 25 members and friends
of AEP, provided background and future steps in their fight to
modify the scientifically based research (SBR) provision of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB), which favors the use of educational materials
that have been proven effective through randomized trials, the
so-called gold standard of research.
Rep. Mike Castle (R - DE),
a key AEP supporter on other legislative issues, expressed admiration
for both the teachers and administration officials charged with
carrying out NCLB, and was cautiously optimistic about the future
of the scientifically based research provision of the Act. "It
takes a while to do research," he said. "The bottom line
benefits have not been realized yet."
Still, some unintended consequences of the SBR provision have
taken place, including some school districts refusing to purchase
materials that have not been subjected to gold-standard testing.
Supplemental publishers, whose products often do not warrant trials
that can last for years and cost millions of dollars, have supported
the push for SBR, but voiced concern over the one-size-fits-all
approach. In the past, administration officials have been firm
in their endorsement of randomized clinical trials. But at the
forum, Institute of Education Sciences Director Russ
Whitehurst said that there is a place for other types of research.
While confirming that his What Works Clearinghouse focuses on
randomized clinical trials, Whitehurst said that there were other
types of studies that the clearinghouse will consider when listing
educational materials backed by SBR.
"One other design we admit into the What Works Clearinghouse
is something called a quasi-experiment," Whitehurst said,
referring to a more flexible version of a controlled experiment
in which the main difference is the absence of random assignment.
This was not a departure from the text of the No Child Left Behind
Act, which says that materials can be evaluated using "experimental
or quasi-experimental designs...with a preference for random-assignment
experiments..." But Whitehurst's statement should serve as
a guide for states and local education agencies that have been
hesitant to purchase products that were tested using methods other
than random assignment experiments.
That kind of flexibility represents what legislators envisioned
when NCLB was enacted, according to Roberto Rodriguez, senior education
advisor to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D - MA).
"There were some concerns that our members raised at senate
committee hearings and we began to get concerned about how this
standard of scientifically based research was going to be implemented
and interpreted," Rodriguez said. "We received certain
reports from state and local communities that said, 'We've been
using this with our students for three or four years and we know
that it works, but now that we have this new standard for scientifically
based research, we're concerned because this instructional approach...doesn't
have randomized clinical trials behind it."
"Our response was, 'Keep using it, because we know that the
standard in the [No Child Left Behind] law requires peer review.'"
Rodriguez said that the senate will begin delving into various
issues concerning NCLB in 2006, in preparation for the law's scheduled
reauthorization in 2007. "I anticipate that scientifically
based research is going to be one issue we're going to take a close
look at," he said.
Gerald Sroufe, senior advisor for the American
Education Research Association,
outlined several steps that AEP should take in trying to modify
what happens with the SBR provision of NCLB. Among them was the
suggestion that AEP emphasize the authoritative definitions of
SBR other than those restricted to randomized controlled trials.
He also suggested that AEP continue to provide a rich theoretical
basis for the applications and benefits of [supplemental] materials,
and champion multiple methods to presenting evidence of effectiveness.
Sroufe said that although research is the best way to determine
whether something works, research is not the only answer. "Policies
are more powerful than any research," Sroufe said. "We
know a lot about our children's reading and how they learn. But
if you don't have a policy change it doesn't make a difference."
Questions, ideas, or
in need of more information? Please contact Stacey
Pusey at 856-241-7772.
|