In this video, produced by the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, Vivian Tseng challenges the traditional paradigm of moving from “research to practice.” She suggests that researchers and evaluators need to think differently about the ways that research is acquired and used, and she describes steps they can take to close the gaps between research and practice.
Edited by Lubienski, Scott, and DeBray, this special issue of Educational Policy includes nine essays on topics related to research use in education, including the roles of district leaders and intermediary groups, school choice, research and diversity policy, and more.
Vivian Tseng and Sandra Nutley point the way forward for education researchers and policymakers, summarizing the key points made throughout Using Research Evidence in Education and concluding: “Research is not the next silver bullet for education reform, and simply mandating its use will not get us to our ultimate goals of better teaching and learning. … If we are committed to using research to enrich problem framing, decision making, and individual and organization learning in education, the next decade should focus on building trust, capacity, strong relationships, and the conditions for productive evidence integration.”
What do we know about inequality in the justice system? What can researchers do about it? John Laub, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, and former Director of the National Institute of Justice, provides timely insights into these questions, and explores the intersections of inequality, crime, and the justice system in his new report—the second in our series on inequality.
Published by Spring and edited by Finnigan and Daly, this volume contains 12 chapters that examine how evidence is acquired and used at different levels of the education system.
Outlining fundamental topics from structuring a partnership to funding and staffing, the site is the culminating project of the Foundation’s learning community of research–practice partnerships, which was convened twice annually from 2012–2014. This community includes partnerships from across the nation.
Talk of inequality, particularly economic inequality, in the public sphere is commonplace in twenty-first century America. Indeed, various aspects of social inequality—race, gender, class, sexual orientation, and immigrant status—have been the subject of protest, debate, legislation, and judicial action for much of the last century. Inequality in its various forms—and what to do about it, if anything—is often the animating force behind much of contemporary political debates and social movements. These debates take place against a backdrop of fitful progress and retreat in America’s long struggle with inequality.
Published by Harvard Education Press and the Russell Sage Foundation, "Restoring Opportunity lays out a meticulously researched case for how targeted interventions and support can significantly level the playing field between low-income children and their more fortunate peers."
Research evidence has the potential to contribute to child welfare policy and practice, but we know little about its use and impact. We need stronger theories about how decision-makers engage with research evidence. We need studies that explore who uses research, when and why it is called upon, and how it is shared. We also need to understand how child welfare decision-makers integrate research with other types of evidence.
This abstract discusses how to calculate power for three types of treatment heterogeneity including 1) the variability in treatment effects across sites, 2) site-specific treatment effects, and 3) moderator effects at the cluster or student level. The sample includes the studies in the first wave of CRTs funded by IES, or those funded between 2002 and 2006 by NCER and NCEE. These studies represent a range of CRTs on various topics and with different research designs and sample sizes.