|
Spring 2010
Prologue
In early 2007, I accompanied Dr. Robert Slavin, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Research and Reform in Education, to Capitol Hill where he testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on education funding. At the time, he boldly made the case for a large scale investment in the development, validation, and scale up of research based education programs. The ideas were acknowledged as noble and worthwhile, but his proposal to fund the effort at $100 million per year was considered out of touch with the budgetary realities faced by Congress.
A revolution in education research funding
A year and a half later, the country was facing economic collapse, and our schools were anticipating draconian cuts. Rather than tightening the federal spending belt, Congress decided that it was necessary to step in to prevent the worst of the economic crisis from hitting America’s classrooms. Few expected that the economic recovery plan would be accompanied with a truly unprecedented investment in education research and development, but what followed this investment was more than we ever could have predicted.
As a part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), Congress funded the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) to do just what Dr. Slavin proposed three years ago. The exceptional part is that it has been funded at the jaw dropping level of $650 million for just one round of competition.
Aside from its sheer size, this investment is clearly different from past research programs implemented by the Department of Education. Research funding of the past was directed to large university projects and its impact was not seen in schools for many years. The i3 program, on the other hand, requires partnerships with schools all over the country—in fact, all applications must include local school partners. The i3 fund will support local jobs, and provide funds immediately to local schools participating in the hundreds of budding and blooming innovations.
The Department of Education accepted applications in mid-May, and awards will be dispersed around the beginning of September. Awards are expected to vary greatly, from $1-50 million each. The largest, “scale up” awards of up to $50 million each will be reserved for the expansion of programs that have the strongest evidence of effectiveness. The mid-size “validation” awards of up to $30 million each will be directed to programs with moderate evidence. The smaller “development” awards of up to $5 million each will be directed to newer programs that are based on reasonable hypotheses or theories, but have a very limited evidence base.
This three tiered structure accurately reflects the growth stages of education innovations. The variation in awards appropriately directs the largest investments to programs with known outcomes, but recognizes that new innovations deserve a chance to be tested.
More than a snapshot
There is no doubt that this competition will spur the development of education innovations that are ready for “prime time,” but research is constantly developing new ideas that must be tested. The awards that will go out a few months from now will be just a snapshot of what the education community is capable of producing. A sustained investment in innovations is needed to transform the limited field of proven programs into a wide field of effective choices for schools that will guarantee success.
President Obama has proposed continuation of the i3 program at the $500 million level for FY11, and his blueprint for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) proposed establishing i3 as a permanent statutory program. By establishing the i3 fund as an ongoing statutory program, the pipeline for innovation would be fortified for long term growth. The research community will be eager to develop programs that could qualify for one of the three grant categories.
Unfortunately, there are significant barriers to making i3 a permanent program. It takes an enormous amount of political will to continue a program of this size before the first round of awards has even been released. Dozens of other federal education programs that have received non-competitive targeted funds for years have established political clout necessary for their continuation—regardless of their effectiveness. By design, i3 will be an effective program, because everything it funds already has evidence of effectiveness, especially for the largest grants. The bar has been set high, and evidence of effectiveness is paramount. But funding a new program like this may once again be considered “out of touch with the budgetary realities faced by Congress.”
The $500 million target proposed by the President may be ambitious, and Congress may be inclined to fund less than half that amount. The i3 fund’s continued existence at a modest but meaningful funding level would still represent a huge step forward for this revolutionary program.
Looking for something new
Leaders in the education community may be frustrated by the same old ideas. They may feel constrained by the limited number of choices for transforming their schools. They may be discouraged by the limited research on programs they are interested in implementing. A sustained investment in the i3 fund will change all of those things. Leaders will have new ideas, more choice, and better research to inform their decisions.
This transformation will take time and it will take money. But the current state of our education system should tell us that nothing that is fast or cheap is also effective. Many failures of the past could be traced back to an eagerness to grow an innovation before its outcomes were clear. By creating an ongoing pipeline for proven innovations through the i3 fund, we will have the opportunity to continually fine tune and grow innovations until they are ready for a scale up that will yield true results.
Aggressive, but measured
The Investing in Innovation Fund strikes a critical balance between aggressive investment and measured growth. Investment on this scale can encourage innovation while remaining limited to the most promising projects. The strict evidence requirements established in the program will ensure this is the case. As Congress considers authorizing this program as a part of ESEA, some advocates will try to have these requirements watered down to increase the number of eligible applicants. To do so would be to squander an unprecedented opportunity to produce the best interventions that this country has ever seen. It is critical that the integrity of the three tiered structure (development, validation, scale up) be maintained so that modest funding supports a large number of promising initiatives, while large funding advances proven effective approaches ready to go to scale.
The next act
In the words of William Shakespeare, “What's past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge.” The history of Dr. Slavin’s proposal, and the i3 program developed over the past year could be just a prologue to extraordinary things to come. Let’s hope it is not just one act, for it has the potential to be a historically transformative play.
*Lauren Gibbs is a Senior Federal Policy Analyst at the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University.
|
