State Based Research & Development Laboratories (Update COLLABORTORIUM: Close the Research and Relevance Gap via Independent Researchers & Educators Focused and Acting on Current Evidence in an Effort to Discover New Knowledge and Methodologies for Digital Distribution)

COMMENTARY

Why We Need State-Based Education R&D

By Arthur D. Sheekey

In recent surveys, state education officials have indicated that they recognize that better decisions require better information, but few said they have the capacity to analyze the education-related data they are required to collect. 

This year, research from the Government Accountability Office and the American Institutes for Research corroborated the state surveys, revealing that states rarely use research and analysis in their decisions to reform and improve schools. Although this problem is unlikely to be resolved soon, and certainly not by every state, a makeover of the federally supported regional research-and-technical-assistance infrastructure into a state-based arrangement could make a big difference in fostering the adoption of research- and evidence-based programs and practices.

Education officials have long acknowledged a research and relevance gap. More recently, state officials have admitted to suffering from an analysis gap: collecting huge quantities of school- and student-performance data with insufficient time and expertise to analyze and interpret the data.

A $600 million federal investment in state longitudinal-data systems in recent years has undoubtedly helped state and local agencies build databases for tracking school and student progress. However, there has been little evidence, to date, that the vast accumulation of data on school and student performance is being used to choose more effective state education policies and programs.

Surveys over the past decade have found that state education agencies do not have direct access to the expert talent and technical assistance that are needed to analyze the complex body of school- and student-performance data. 

Few examples can be found where evidence-based data has supported statewide decisions for allocating scarce resources to failing schools, for selecting curricula, or for making judgments about tolerable risks and trade-offs between targeting too many and too few schools or students.

Rethinking the regional research infrastructure. As serious discussions on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently the No Child Left Behind Act) and the Education Sciences Reform Act, or ESRA, get underway, lawmakers should ponder the arrangement of the national educational R&D infrastructure. In particular, the effectiveness of the current national network of regional research laboratories and technical-assistance centers should be reviewed based on what has been learned over the past decade.

Since the ESRA was first adopted in 2002, Congress has appropriated more than $1 billion to support regional educational research laboratories and comprehensive technical-assistance centers.

The regional-lab program (run by the Institute of Education Sciences, or IES, within the U.S. Department of Education) has, the IES website says, "advanced the quality and reliability of available evidence through its focus on producing and disseminating high-quality, rigorous research." Ten such labs serve the education needs of designated regions of four to six states each, using applied research, development, dissemination, training, and technical assistance.

Twenty-two comprehensive centers, funded by the Education Department's office of elementary and secondary education, provide technical assistance to states, school districts, and schools, especially those in need of improvement. 

The comprehensive-center program supports 15 regional technical-assistance centers and seven content centers, which the department says provide "research-based information and products in their specific [geographic] area" for regional centers working with states.

“A system that promotes a genuine collaboration between independent researchers and educators needs to be state-based."

After nearly five decades of federal support for this infrastructure of regional lab and centers, there is considerable evidence about how to make research relevant to practice. Notably, the W.T. Grant Foundation has conducted studies that offer insights about how research can be transferred into policy and practice. And recent GAO interviews of regional-lab directors shed additional light on more effective ways to engage state and local educators to understand and interpret research, and to act on evidence about what works and under what conditions.

Research generated by the regional labs and the network of national research centers continues to improve. Grants and contracts to these federally funded entities exerted pressure to beef up the quality of their research and program evaluations. The ESRA also encourages state and local officials to "apply rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs."

The quality of research by the IES has also climbed over the past 10 years, and recent competitive federal Investing in Innovation grants have advanced the adoption of research-based programs. These are significant federal accomplishments that could contribute to the formation of a new national education R&D infrastructure that fosters a sustained working relationship between researchers and state-level administration and program managers.

A state-based infrastructure. Each state education agency operates within a unique set of political and economic conditions, and each needs to prioritize its strategic school intervention strategies. Recognizing the diversity of states and the varied approaches they take to policy, policymakers should consider creating a new R&D infrastructure that is state- rather than regionally based.

The advantages are obvious when it comes to building more direct links between the nation's education research infrastructure and individual states. A state-centered infrastructure would also enable researchers and technical-assistance professionals to develop sustained relationships with state officials to better understand and interpret longitudinal-data collections. States and their districts would also benefit from gaining a single independent research laboratory and technical-assistance center; each one would be tasked with bridging the education research and relevance gap and strengthening a state's capacity to make more productive use of its longitudinal data.

State officials acknowledge that the basic arrangement of the public education enterprise and the educational research community is extraordinarily weak for effectively translating and using good research. They accept the evidence of independent surveys and investigations that infer there must be better ways to improve the coordination of the disparate education research and technical-assistance support-service agencies.

Interestingly, federal legislators appear to have been influenced by evidence suggesting there are better ways to allocate ESEA funds for improving education for our lowest-performing schools and students. Yet, few, if any, officials seem aware of studies that should guide the writing of new provisions for the ESRA, including those that could improve the states' capacity to access and use research and evaluation findings.

Having sufficient funds for a 50-state-based R&D infrastructure should not represent a major problem. Thanks to the ESRA, the regional-lab and -center programs receive a combined annual appropriation of more than $100 million. Moreover, this level of federal funding could be increased, if, for example, states were encouraged to match their federal grant awards with private contributions, or authorized to contribute part of their ESEA administrative dollars for evaluation and technical assistance.

The next set of ESEA and ESRA mandates should not assume that most state and local education reform initiatives are being influenced by the availability of high-quality research. A system that promotes a genuine collaboration between independent researchers and educators needs to be state-based. A new national network of state-based research and technical-assistance centers managed by the IES could advance the goal of sharing research-related information that is more timely, relevant, and useful to the states and the jurisdictions they serve.

Arthur D. Sheekey retired in 2012 as a project director at CNA, formerly the Center for Naval Analysis, an independent research organization in Alexandria, Va. He previously served as a specialist for educational technology at the Council of Chief State School Officers and a research-program manager at the U.S. Department of Education.

JR NOTES: (School Capacity for School Improvement: A First Look at Agency Resources)

SEAs are in the midst of a critical moment in the administration of K-12 education 
policy. In a speech in late 2010, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan argued that 
education in the United States had entered an era of the “New Normal.” Among other 
things, he predicted that educators in this period would have to face “the challenge of 
doing more with less.” He went on to offer a more detailed description of what he felt lay 
ahead for education, as well as the types of policy choices that education leaders are likely 
to grapple with in the near future.

Given the current emphasis on school improvement, it is reasonable to assume that SEAs 
will be asked to do more to help struggling schools in the months and years ahead. It 
also is likely that SEAs will be working with less money as they head into the future. 
The recent economic downturn is hitting states particularly hard in 2011. Tax revenues 
remain depressed, the consequence of decreased economic activity. The demand for 
social services and assistance remains elevated, with unemployment levels high. And, 
though the resources were welcome at the time, ARRA stimulus funds that flowed to 
the states served to only stave off the inevitable for a year. As a consequence, more than 
40 states were in deficit or anticipating facing a deficit heading into the 2011-2012 fiscal 
year; three-quarters of those states were facing a deficit of more than 10 percent of their 

total budget.

What Role Will SEAs Play in School Improvement? (Graphic)

At one end of the spectrum, SEA school improvement activities might consist 
of the collection and dissemination of information, with the agency serving 
as a resource. For example, the SEA might identify effective strategies for the 
recruitment and retention of effective principals and teachers, which it shares 
with districts. 

Some improvement strategies, however, envision a more extensive, and therefore 
labor intensive, role for the SEA. In this caseworker role, agency personnel 
would move from merely disseminating information, to assisting schools and 
districts in taking the steps necessary to improve. These measures might include 
assisting districts in identifying and preparing school leaders; helping districts 
in identifying and adopting appropriate turnaround models; or guiding districts 
through the process of selecting intervention experts. 

At the far end of the spectrum, in terms of school improvement strategies, is a 
scenario where the SEA would oversee the transition of control to an outside 
entity (for example, charter or private management organization) or even take 
over operations of a school outright. At current staffing levels, it is difficult to 
imagine that many states are positioned to play the role of manager for these 
transitions. Even when talking about turning over control of a school to a third 

party, one would expect the transaction to be a complicated one.

Caught in the Middle: State Education Agencies (Graphic)

One CFO at a state agency described the challenge of moving resources around to 
address new needs or challenges as akin to trying to fix a leak in a dam, but with no 
authority to do so.

If there is a leak, it is difficult to fill it [the gap] if somebody doesn’t pass a 
bill or create a new federal program. If you have a hole somewhere, most of 
the time you’re just watching the water come in.

Absent a mandate from the federal government or the granting of authority from 

state legislation, the SEAs find it difficult to exercise discretion over resources.

Position FTE % of Total

Executive                                                                                       5.00 17.73
Paralegal                                                                                       1.00   3.55
Teacher Preparation Program Coordinator                                 2.00   7.09
Electronic Learning Project Coordinator                                     0.50   1.77
Technology Positions                                                                   14.50 51.42
Professional Development Managers                                            2.00   7.09
Teacher Effectiveness Research Director                                      1.00   3.55
Leadership Development Manager                                                1.00   3.55
STEM Project Coordinator                                                            1.00  3.55
College Access Network Staff                                                        0.20   0.71

Total                                                                                           28.20 100.00

Unless the Tennessee case proves to be an anomaly, it is difficult to imagine how the
current configuration of the RttT program will encourage SEAs to devote more resources
to improvement activities. If the RttT program agenda is representative of future education 

reform efforts, then SEAs will continue their struggle to do more with less.

CONCLUSION

This project makes three assumptions:

• School improvement is likely to remain a priority of the federal government,
and in fact greater emphasis will be placed on that function.

• New money to expand the capacity of state education agencies is unlikely to
be forthcoming.

• The role expected of state agencies in working to improve schools is an active
one, not merely serving as a source of information.

These assumptions, combined with the analysis of the eight states here, suggest that the 
current allocation of SEA resources is unlikely to meet future expectations. Though it
is difficult, and probably undesirable, to suggest some optimal investment in school
improvement activities, it is hard to imagine a scenario where a single staff member could

manage improvement efforts, let alone the turnaround, of 25-30 schools.

Most important, this conclusion is reached at what is likely to be the “high-water mark” 
in terms of SEA headquarters resources, as most states across the country are looking 
to cut budgets and reduce personnel. In other words, if the experience of these eight 
states is any indication, existing school improvement resources are spread fairly thin, 
and the future situation looks worse, not better. The situation presents a serious threat to 
continued progress on education reform in the United States.

Given this rather pessimistic scenario, it would behoove the federal government to
identify any marginal resources that could be made available for school improvement
efforts, while freeing up SEAs to move their personnel around to the maximum degree
possible. The fact that the agencies examined here do not allocate their resources in
precisely the same manner suggests that one size does not necessarily fit all when it comes
to managing state education efforts.

Care would have to be taken, however, to ensure that states maintain their current efforts,
when given the chance to reshuffle personnel. The threat of states’ legislatures perceiving 
flexibility in personnel assignment as an opportunity to back-fill for general fund supported positions is a real one.

Lastly, the amount of resources available to SEAs as measured by positions and people is 
only the first of many measures to assess the state’s capacity to manage education activities.
There is still a considerable amount of research that needs to be performed in order to
develop a better understanding of a state’s capacity to implement education reform. .
Significant progress has been made in terms of establishing standards and monitoring
how well schools manage to meet those benchmarks. It has become much more difficult
to overlook or ignore underperforming schools. SEAs have played a significant role in
making this possible. If, however, they are going to play a meaningful role in improving
failing schools, many SEAs are going to need to find a way to make more resources
available for this purpose. SEAs will, most certainly, be expected to do more in this regard.
Under current circumstances, however, it would appear that the states are likely to find 

themselves in a position of doing less with less, much to the dissatisfaction of many.