Last week, I went to Washington
for a briefing on Education policy given by the
SIIA (Software and Information Industry Association).
This issue of PILOTed will be focused on two of
the issues that were discussed at the Fly-in:
the US Department of Education’s policy
on Scientifically Based Research to determine
the efficacy of any new products or interventions
that schools and the status of federal funding
for technology in schools, Enhancing Education
Through Technology (EETT) and eRate.
Scientifically Based Research
We’d all like to see schools adopt interventions
that work, and we’d all like to see evidence
about which programs work so that the best ones
grow and the ineffective ones wither. Those are
the goals of the Department of Education’s
emphasis on Scientifically Based Research (SBR).
The crux of the argument for Scientifically
Based Research for educational products is that
this same basic system works with pharmaceutical
companies and new drugs. Pharmaceutical companies
conduct random studies on willing participants
to test the effectiveness of their products, and
then submit the findings to the Food and Drug
Administration. Successful drug applications can
generate billions of dollars of annual revenue
for their sponsors and unsuccessful drugs never
see the light of day, but as we’ve just
seen with the COX II inhibitor pain medications,
the system can become corrupted.
The NCLB Act prescribes Scientifically Based
Research. For access to some funding sources it
requires SBR proof of effectiveness, for others
it merely recommends it.
There is a real question whether the pharmaceutical
model of research studies is a valid, or is the
only valid, marker of whether an educational product
works. Classroom studies are more difficult to
control than drug trials and, with small sample
sizes, are subject to huge variations in students
and teachers. Pharmaceuticals are a high margin
business with high barriers to entry for competitive
products, yielding high profits for successful
companies. The same cannot be said for educational
publishing.
But even if one were to accept that randomized
independent studies financed solely by the companies
providing products into education were a valid
test of a product’s efficacy, completing
those studies is anything but a slam-dunk.
|
