Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Gadfly Podcast
      • Flypaper Blog
      • Events
    • Covid-19
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
    • Our Work in Dayton
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • High Achievers
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
    • Events
  • COVID-19
  • Scholars Program
Flypaper

National Academies miss the mark on IES research

Chester E. Finn, Jr.
4.14.2022
Checker SR 4-14-22 image
Getty Images/santypan

This whopping new report from a special committee of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is a whopping disappointment.

Though the fifteen committee members are mostly quite accomplished in their fields, beginning with the able Adam Gamoran, president of the W.T. Grant Foundation, who chaired the group, it’s important to note that thirteen of them—all but Gamoran and Norma Ming, research supervisor for the San Francisco school system—work at major research universities. For all the heavy emphasis on “equity” in their report, not a single panelist came from an HBCU, a community college, a regional university, a religious institution, or the worlds of education policy and practice. Needless to say, none was chosen to represent parents, teachers, students—or even taxpayers. These are academic researchers, many with IES grants of their own, opining on the future of education research.

Yes, they proffer some worthy ideas for IES’s two research centers, such as supporting studies that make imaginative use of artificial intelligence and “big data.” But a slew of their recommendations are misguided and, if followed, would do more harm than good.

Particularly egregious examples include the following:

  • Reducing the focus on student-level outcomes
  • Adding “civil rights policy and practice” to the IES agenda (an important set of issues, to be sure, but not for this agency)
  • Doing more “qualitative” research
  • Publishing the “racial, ethnic, gender, disciplinary and institutional backgrounds” of everyone who applies, gets funded, serves on a review panel, or participates in a study sample

And then there are the blind spots and omissions. Nowhere in this fat volume does the panel suggest that IES do anything in such key realms as early-childhood education, private schools, homeschooling, civics education, community colleges, regional public universities, or adult education. Nor—despite their push for more different kinds of “outcomes”—do they ever mention such crucial postschool outcomes as employment, earnings, and citizenship.

As I understand it, what the twenty-year-old IES was seeking from NASEM in this review (as in two others, one focused on NAEP and the other on NCES), was constructive suggestions toward a blueprint or agenda for the next five years of federally supported education research—what topic areas should be added, which ones needed refreshing, perhaps which could be retired, plus advice regarding institutional accountability and transparency and so forth. Yet that’s mostly not what was delivered. Sorry, National Academies, but what we’re seeing in this tedious document looks more like an overweight specimen of veteran high-status education researchers washing each other’s hands while singing about equity.

SOURCE: Adam Gamoran and Kenne Dibner, eds., “The Future of Education Research at IES: Advancing an Equity-Oriented Science,” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (March 2022).

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction

Chester E. Finn, Jr., scholar, educator and public servant, has devoted his career to improving education in the United States. At Fordham, he is now Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus. He’s also a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Finn served as Fordham’s President from 1997 to 2014, after many earlier roles in education, academe and government. From 1999 until 2002, he was John M.…

View Full Bio

Sign Up to Receive Fordham Updates

We'll send you quality research, commentary, analysis, and news on the education issues you care about.
Thank you for signing up!
Please check your email to confirm the subscription.

Related Content

view
High Expectations

The excellence gap and underrepresentation at America’s most selective universities

Michael J. Petrilli 5.19.2022
NationalFlypaper
view
High Expectations

“What do you mean, ‘proficient’?” The saga of NAEP achievement levels

Chester E. Finn, Jr. 5.19.2022
NationalFlypaper
view
High Expectations

Evidence, struggling math students, and California’s 2022 math framework

Tom Loveless 5.19.2022
NationalFlypaper
Fordham Logo

© 2020 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

1016 16th St NW, 8th Floor 
Washington, DC 20036

202.223.5452

[email protected]

  • <
Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]