Funding for Priority Programs
Knowledge Alliance strongly supports vigorous, sustained Federal support for education research and its use, centered on the following priorities:
These programs have improved learning opportunities for millions of students across the country by enabling educators at the state, district and school levels to make informed, research-based decisions on which programs are the most effective, how to implement evidence-based practices, and how to help the lowest-performing schools. Policymakers at all levels of government rely on the findings of these programs to target taxpayer resources to the most effective programs and techniques. A greater federal investment in research-based programs will help states and districts better respond to rapidly increasing needs and lead to improved outcomes for students and schools.
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
IES is one of the major sources of Federal funding for education research. Through its four research centers, including the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE), IES funds hundreds of grants and contracts annually that support a wide range of research projects, including projects that provide vital information on students with disabilities, charter schools, teacher preparation, and strategies for improving college and workforce readiness, among other topics.
NCEE serves two critically important functions. First, it conducts independent evaluations of education programs supported with Federal funds, helping to ensure that Federal funding supports better outcomes for students, families and educators, and that programs struggling to achieve intended outcomes are improved or replaced. Second, NCEE houses resources for State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) including the RELs, the What Works Clearinghouse, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the National Library of Education.
NCER houses the Research, Development, and Dissemination (RD&D) program which funds basic research using rigorous research methodologies, including randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental approaches, which have led to improvements in curriculum and instruction in many areas. For example:
NCER supported the evaluation of Building Blocks, a mathematics curriculum for preschool and early elementary school students. The study found that the curriculum had significant, positive effects on mathematics achievement and helped close achievement gaps between children from different economic backgrounds. Building Blocks has been adopted by 262 school districts, including the nation’s largest (New York City). The software, which can be purchased separately for use in preschool and early grades, is being used in 444 school districts, representing 1,147 schools and approximately 5,600 classrooms across the country.
Additional basic research in areas that are of importance to educators and policymakers could be done if more funding were available. For example, research that examines successful school violence prevention models; the characteristics of effective post-secondary certificate programs and the most fruitful computer science instruction are all supported by RD&D. Reliable Federal funding is essential to continuing the important work of IES and the RD&D program.
Regional Educational Laboratories (REL)
The 10 RELs nationwide, which operate under five-year contracts with the U.S. Department of Education, produce relevant and useable research for educators that reflect the best available research findings, and offer training and other supports to States and districts to aid their school improvement efforts. Particularly in the context of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which has returned significant flexibility to States and local districts, supports like RELs are critical. Access to the resources provided by RELs help educators and local officials understand the enormous universe of research and resources available to them, and they help them solve practical problems. For example:
To support school districts that are seeking ways to increase efficiency by maintaining or improving education outcomes while using fewer resources, REL Northeast and Islands released a guide to help States and districts use publicly available data about district expenditures and student academic performance to calculate six expenditure-to-performance ratios. The guide also includes implications for practitioners and policymakers when using the different ratios, including how a district’s perceived efficiency varies depending on which ratio is considered.
Education Innovation and Research (EIR)
The EIR Program, authorized by ESSA, has the potential to drive substantial and lasting improvements in student achievement by supporting the development and scale-up of successful innovations at the State and local levels. EIR uses a tiered-evidence approach that has two important design principles: it provides more funds to programs with higher levels of evidence, and it requires rigorous and independent evaluations so that programs continue to improve.
By prioritizing approaches proven to work, EIR grants are more likely to achieve greater impact while still encouraging innovation in the field. The requirement to evaluate results provides a basis to improve programs all along the spectrum of effectiveness. In addition, we believe the EIR program has the potential to drive private sector investment in innovations that continue to improve outcomes for students and families. For example:
KIPP is a national network of public charter schools whose stated mission is to help underserved students enroll in and graduate from college. In 2010, the KIPP Foundation received a five-year, $50 million grant- similar to those provided under the Education Innovation and Research grant program- which it used to scale up its network by growing its leadership pipeline and roughly doubling the number served from 27,000 to over 55,000 Pre-K through 12th grade students. Two randomized controlled evaluated the impact on student achievement of KIPP middle schools and KIPP elementary schools. The trials found that both types of schools produced positive, statistically significant impacts of between 5 and 10 percentile points on reading and math achievement 2-3 years after random assignment (corresponding to standardized effect sizes of between 0.15 and 0.30 standard deviations).
Comprehensive Centers (CCs)
The CCs provide technical assistance that builds the capacity of SEAs to help school districts and schools improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and increase the quality of instruction. The CCs include Regional Centers that work closely with states in their regions on implementation of critical reforms in elementary and secondary education, as well as Content Centers that provide high-quality materials and services for use by states and districts across the country.
The CCs have an essential role to play in the successful implementation of ESSA. The greater autonomy granted to States and districts under the new law will place even greater demands on already limited resources. CCs are an essential bulwark – helping States and districts increase their capacity as they plan for and implement new, evidence-based policies and practices, while decreasing the burden on educators across the country. For example:
Great Lake Comprehensive Center (GLCC), partnered with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) in forming the Michigan School Discipline Task Force charged with developing a model policy on reducing suspensions and expulsions using alternative discipline strategies; a revised model student code of conduct; and a user-friendly online toolkit for schools and districts on how to implement the new policy and code. GLCC experts reviewed and analyzed state and national suspension and expulsion data, researched suspension and expulsion policies in other states and connected the Task Force with restorative justice and social-emotional learning experts. Through facilitation and planning, GLCC experts supported the MDE in drafting and revising the models, enabling education leaders to make informed decisions and identify clear action steps. In addition, the GLCC team brought together key stakeholders to ensure that the new policy would include their experience and perspectives. After the Task Force developed a draft policy, GLCC experts conducted focus groups to collect feedback from MDE staff, teachers, principals, parents, students and other stakeholders. While this work was underway, Center experts developed an online tool for gathering additional public comment on the drafts.