On May 21 the pro-market, right of center American Enterprise Institute held a conference on “The Politics of Knowledge: Why Research Does (or Does Not) Influence Education Policy.” The meeting, organized by AEI’s Frederick Hess (a leading member of k-12’s inside-the-Beltway policy wonk club) illustrates a significant challenge in the development of a school improvement industry – gaining insider credibility.

The No Child Left Behind Act’s call for interventions based on “scientifically based research,” the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, and a flood of data on student achievement have raised hopes that education research’s day has finally come. These rising expectations have been coupled with an influx of sophisticated research designs, yielding a growing body of research that dramatically expands what is known in the fields of teacher quality, school choice, and reading, among others. Nonetheless, there is frustration among researchers and reformers that this research too rarely influences policy or public understanding, and is too often twisted by advocates to suit their particular aims. At the same time, changes in research institutions, technology, and research funding have upended the ways in which research findings are communicated, thus offering new opportunities--but also raising concerns about how research is monitored, evaluated, and consumed.

AEI resident scholar and director of education policy studies Frederick M. Hess has commissioned eleven papers to examine how and why high-quality research influences policy, how research is used (or misused) in core policy areas, and how education research is consumed by key audiences. Please join us as AEI hosts a conference at which panelists will present their findings on education research and explore their implications for school improvement.

In case you haven’t figured it out, “the growing body of research” referred to above concerns the programs, products and services developed and offered by the school improvement industry. Yet, unless you stretch the criteria for inclusion quite far, not one of the presenters or discussants on the agenda represents a provider.

Let’s start with the trade groups in the nation's capital. It’s hard to have a meaningful discussion of why “this research too rarely influences policy or public understanding, and is too often twisted by advocates to suit their particular aims” without putting representatives from some of these intermediaries on the agenda. Nelson Smith, President of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, is constantly engaged in the problem of translating charter school evaluations for policymakers and the public.  Steve Pines, President of the Education Industry Association, grapples with the policy impact of studies on Supplementary Educational Service providers and debates like the one between RAND and Harvard’s Paul Peterson over Edison’s performance in Philadelphia.  Karen Billings, Vice President of the Software and Information Industry Associations Education Division just went through a battle over the study of education technology programs released by the U.S. Department of Education. President of the Knowledge Alliance Jim Kohlmoos, has been pushing legislation that would improve the flow and utility of evaluation research. Most of these folk's offices are a few blocks from AEI.

Moving to industry providers, there are plenty of leaders with solid credentials in education research and experience in government policymaking. To name some obvious ones within shuttle range of Washington....  Success for All Chairman Bob Slavin has all the evaluation credentials possible and no small amount of practical experience in influencing federal policy. Steve Wilson, CEO of the now defunct Advantage Schools headed up a think tank that strongly influenced the Massachusetts School Reforn Act of 1994 and then served as Governor Weld’s education advisor. The book Edison Chief Academic Officer John Chubb co-authored in 1990 with Terry Moe while fellows at the "oh so very" establishment Brookings Institution, Politics, Markets and America’s Schools, kicked off today’s central policy debate about the organization of public education.

Leaving the subjects of evaluation – who also are part of the process by which research is or is not translated into policy and government practice - out of the formal conference proceedings is a bit like leaving the beef out of beef stew. One paper worth reading, “The Evolving Relationship between Researchers and Public Policy” by Columbia University Professor Jeffrey R. Henig, covers some relevant issues. "Empiricized Ideology: Research and School Choice," by Washington left-of-center eduwonk Andrew Rotherham and "What Gets Studied and Why: Examining the Incentives that Drive Education Research"
by more or less disinterested university researchers Dan Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer strike glancing blows and the indusrry's role. But, on the whole, the "man from Mars" looking through the materials on the AEI site could be excused for not thinking the school improvement industry matters too much – or for concluding that translating research into policy is entirely about improving the dialogue between independent researchers and political policymakers.

Eduwonks organized this particular conference, so they had the burden to achieve a better balance by reaching out to industry. In this case, the papers look like a collection of Fred Hess’s more or less close friends and associates in DC and Harvard, where he has a research affliation. But it’s also a pretty safe bet that very few in the school improvement industry cared to make themselves aware that such a conference was being organized or placed a call into Hess to argue why the industry perspective ought to be included.  It's also pretty fair to generalize that the industry has yet to move much beyond thinking about evaluation as a matter of compliance and marketing in the direction of a corporate mindset that treats research as a value integral to program quality.

The policy wonks who organize these kinds of conference and the members of the industry who hope to influence government policy need to ask themselves whether it’s a good idea to act if they were operating in two separate worlds and, if not, what they ought to do about it.  The first step is simple – pick up the phone, call someone in the other world and start talking.