An Examination and Analysis of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

Education research is an incredibly important component of the federal, state, and local governments as they seek to improve the quality and value of education within the country. In order to determine what factors contribute towards this improvement (and alternatively, contribute towards low-achievement), research and studies must be conducted and this data analyzed so as to be useful for policy recommendations and curriculum changes. This research and analysis is in large part conducted and carried out by the Institute of Education Sciences, which was created in 2002 as a part of the Education Sciences Reform Act, and replaced the previously ineffectual Office of Education Research and Information. This paper examines the reasons behind the creation of the Education Sciences and Reform Act (and thus, the creation of the Institute of Education Sciences), the factors of its design, who and what the Act impacted, and possible recommendations for future changes.

Background

In 2002, the Education Sciences and Reform Act (H.R. 3801) was passed during the Second Session of the 107th Congress in 2002. The purpose of the Education Sciences and Reform Act (ESRA) was “to provide for improvement of Federal education research, statistics, evaluation, information, and dissemination, and for other purposes” (H.R. 3801, 2002). This was a result of the government having collected data on educational performances of students, teachers, schools, and other related subjects for decades but having no exact means of processing this data and producing analytical results that would be useful.

In order to carry out its goals of performing research and analysis, ESRA commissions the creation of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The purpose of the IES is to carry out this research through a National Board for Education Sciences ad the National Education Centers (Education Research, Education Statistics, and Education Evaluation) also created in ESRA as parts of the IES. This research is to be done partly in conjunction with the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (H.R. 3801, 2002).

The National Center for Education Research (an additional Center part of the IES) is directed to focus its research on increasing student achievement through State and local education reform, the impact of technology on education, and improving mathematics and science education in classrooms. Additional areas of research to be explored are: adult literacy; assessment standards; early childhood education and development; English language learners; improve low-achieving schools; innovate education reform; local and State policies; postsecondary training and education; education in rural areas; quality of teachers; and literacy and reading (H.R. 3801, 2002).

The introduction, discussion, and passing of ESRA was non-contentious, as aside from a few suggestions of amendments for the alteration of words and phrases (particularly of section detailing the Board of Directors at the IES), the Act passed unanimously after only roughly 40 minutes of debate (Insert Citation: minutes of H.R. 3801). The only disagreement that occurred during the discussion of the bill, before it was introduced to the Senate, was by the Democrats on the issue of the level of appropriation of funds for the bill. This disagreement initially delayed its introduction at the 106th Congress, in the bill it was originally a part of. Representative Castle (who was the main sponsor of the bill from the House Education and Workforce Committee), introduced the bill again in 2002 (after it was denied in 2000, and not considered to be part of 2001’s No Child Left Behind) and reached the desired compromises on appropriation and definitions (Sroufe, 2003, p. 225). Both Democrat and Republican members of Congress agreed with the need for a department (or institute) whose sole focus would be to research and analyze all the data collected by the United States Federal Government in order to create informed policies. The ESRA represents the shift in recent years from policy supported by theory to policies supported by theory and data.

Market Failures, Public Goods, and Externalities Behind the Policy

Prior to the Institute of Education Sciences and the associated Centers, education research in the United States was carried out by the Office of Education Research and Information (OERI) which was established in 1994. However, the OERI was underfunded and understaffed, the lack of funds meaning that it did not attract people to director-level positions. (Sroufe, 2003). No funds also meant that even with data the government had been collecting since the late 1800s (Libassi, 2014), there were no researches to analyze the data in a way that would be beneficial.

Political and Economic Factors in the Design of the ESRA

As education is important for the future of individuals and the country as a whole, improving the quality and focus of education is incredibly important. The main political factor behind its design is that the OERI, was not being as useful as it could be as means of assisting with the creation of educational policies. The education system is one system that changes much and changes often, and the OERI was not capable of keeping up with the political machine. This was in large part due to the lack of funds. When the OERI was created in 1994, only about $1 million was awarded in funds to the OERI to conduct and produce applicable research. This was by no means, even then, a suitable amount to create large-scale surveys and employ enough members with which to generate, implement, and analyze that research.

Following the initial abysmal years, in 1999, the OERI was awarded $14 million to perform the tasks it was created for (Sroufe, 2003). This increase in budget was too little to late, as while the OERI was able to perform some research and analysis, the OERI largely became obsolete as members of Congress deemed the Office largely a waste of money.

Initially meant to be introduced in the bill for “No Child Left Behind,” the bill was delayed due to the disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans over the level of appropriation and funding for ESRA. The Democrats wanted a higher level of appropriation for the funding of ESRA so as to avoid the previous situation with the OERI over its lack of an appropriate level of funds.

Implementation

With the bill being expedited through the Senate and passing the House vote unanimously, ESRA resulted in the creation of the IES and Centers focusing on research in Education. ESRA was well-received and there have since been many studies conducted with other government agencies (the National Institute of Health) as well as other non-governmental organizations (such as the American Education Research Association). A major factor in the overall success of ESRA and the IES over its predecessor the OERI, is that the first director of the IES was Grover Whitehurst, an experienced researcher, and the initial authorized appropriation amount being $400 million, of which Whitehurst only requested about half in the first budget request submitted to Congress in its initial year (Sroufe, 2003).

Research generated by the IES has led to policy changes as well as introduced various curriculum reform, as most (if not all) education research done within the United States is in some way associated with the IES.

The IES is researcher-friendly, with an interactive website for both amateur and advanced researchers. The results of research, papers and analysis, are published and available through the website. In addition to the published works, data is also available, both data restricted to approved researchers and data which can be accessed by the public. The IES has previously gathered research, from before its creation, as well as data produced as recently as 2016.

What Worked and Didn’t Work and Who Won and Lost

The major success of the IES include improving “quality and rigor of research within Education and increased demand for scientifically based evidence of effectiveness in the education field as a whole” (GAO, 2013) according to the Office of Budget Management. Research in educational fields has improved greatly as a result of the IES, as joint projects with various institutions (those related to education directly and those not directly related) have produced large amounts of research that have been beneficial to policy and curriculum changes. These policies include, but are not limited to, those in early childhood development and education (through longitudinal studies), programs for non-English speaking students (those learning English as second language), and adult literacy.

These changes have also helped teachers to improve the focus of their classroom learning through curriculum suggestions as well as a means of recommending alteration to how some subjects (particularly those of science and mathematics) are taught to those in the early stages of education. Therefore, students and teachers are some of those who have benefitted the most from ESRA (in addition to those who make the policies).

However, despite the overall success of ESRA and how the IES has contributed to plans, the policymakers are amongst both those who have gained and have lost from the Act. This is due to the fact that a majority of the research is not finished and published in a timeframe in which it would be beneficial to the policymakers. This is both because of the amount of data that has to be processed and also the time in which the research is being peer-reviewed.

Future Policy Recommendations

Overall, the Education Sciences and Reform Act has been successful. However, technology and data has changed since the initial implementation of the Act in 2002. In addition to the change and increase in data, privacy laws have also risen in interest and importance. In this case, not only should the research and goals of the IES be open to researchers, policy makers, and teachers, but parents as well. There should be more disclosure to the existence and purpose of the IES.

While the overall quality and breadth of the research produced by the IES is well-done and extensively peer-reviewed. The peer-review process, without any well-defined period of time and standards, takes longer than is useful to reach policymakers. This is because by the time the research is published, changes have already been made to the associated policies and curriculum. It is because of this that a recommendation for change would be to set standards for peer-review as well as improve the timeliness of the analysis of the research (as the only component that is not as time-dependent as studies, surveys, and other such activities associated with the research process).

Many groups have called for the reauthorization of the Educations Sciences Reform Act, first to examine the successfulness and achievement of the IES (which many have agreed to be beneficial and also to examine what updates may be needed to the Act. In particular focus is the need for an update of the research in special education for students with disabilities and for students in accelerated (gifted and talented) education programs. The latter in particular, as while there is continued research into education for students with disabilities per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, research into gifted and talented education ended with the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act in 2011, when Congress voted to eliminate the bill (CEC, 2013).

Conclusion

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 has been incredibly beneficial to the field of education research. Through its collection and processing of data, as well as collaboration and transparency with other organizations, the IES has played a large part in the changes of the education system in the past 17 years. The IES’ research has led to improvements in the quality of education, attaining the goal that its predecessor, the Office of Education Research and Information failed to do in the 5 years it was active. In the future, the peer-review process should be streamlined, with clear standards and a greater emphasis on the speed (though without losing the quality with which it has been affiliated) in order to more accurately represent the ever-changing educational landscape and to keep up with current and future policy recommendations.

References