March 2004 — Exclusive Series: SBR
Print this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Scientifically Based Research: Guidelines or Mandates for Product Purchasing?
A key concern of educators - and especially of providers of products and programs - is whether or not a positive review by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is a prerequisite for purchasing a specific product, particularly if federal funds are being used. As one technology coordinator asked: Are "ivory tower researchers and/or bureaucrats" going to make purchasing decisions by federal policy?
No, says Christine Wolfe, director of policy in the Office of the Undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Education. "The overall policy is that the department is not creating a federal imprimatur on curriculum or specific products and services," she states. "Instead, they are trying to provide a way of synthesizing what research says. They are not going to say, 'If it isn't listed in the What Works Clearinghouse you can't buy it with federal dollars.' "
Wolfe points out that some instructional areas such as reading have significantly more research in them than others. As a result, programs that oversee those areas may refer to the WWC more in their guidelines to states and districts than programs that administer other instructional areas with less research behind them. Thus, it is possible, if not probable, that different program areas will treat the WWC reports and SBR standards differently in their guidelines and requirements. In addition, the use of the WWC reports may vary, depending upon whether the monies are from a formula program or a competitive program.
WWC as a Resource
Wolfe acknowledges that policies regarding the use of WWC reports could change over time. However, Wolfe says that she "could not envision a program making legal requirements to use only products, programs, etc., which were vetted by the Clearinghouse." Furthermore, Wolfe consistently characterized the WWC as a "tool" and a "resource."
John Bailey, former director of the U.S. Education Department's Office of Educational Technology, concurred with Wolfe in an interview while he was still with the department. He noted that in Title II D, the technology section of the No Child Left Behind Act, there are no references to SBR. The education technology industry, led by the Software & Information Industry Association, convinced members of Congress that because there are such enormous changes in technology and its use in education, there has not been sufficient time to conduct SBR. Bailey said that a directive had gone around his department stating that funding for any product, program, practice or policy was not to be contingent upon vetting by the WWC.
The Case of NYC
Despite these statements from Wolfe and Bailey, the short history of SBR might suggest that the fears educators and vendors have expressed regarding a "federal purchasing policy" are not without some merit. The most visible incident where federal SBR policy and local purchasing decisions collided occurred on Jan. 21, 2003, in New York City, when Schools Chancellor J'el I. Klein announced a new reading program for all elementary students.
Klein's choice for the program, which would be at the core of his school reform effort for reading, was Month-by-Month Phonics in grades K-3, augmented by a districtwide policy to devote significant time to the practice of reading and writing. This announcement came early in the grant process for NCLB, before New York state had submitted its Reading First application.
