Chester E. Finn, Jr. Assistant Secretary for Research and Improvement, Counselor to the Secretary As Secretary Bennett notes in his foreword, preparing this volume was the first assignment that I received when I joined him at the Department of Education in June l985, just as restructuring and streamlining the part of the Department that produces research and statistics was the first major "organiza- tional" effort that Dr. Bennett launched after assuming his present office. What is the message in these two actions? They show that we believe strongly in the responsibility of the Department of Education to gather information and generate knowledge about education in an efficient and energetic manner and then make that information and knowledge accessible to people who might benefit from them. But it turns out to be easier to gather data and support research than to make results available in forms that people will find clear and useful. Statistical data tend to come in vast, indigestible quantities, often without the markers of changes and trends, improvements and declines, that distinguish information that is merely interesting from that which can form the basis for decisions and actions. As for research findings, scholars ordinarily write for other schol- ars and they seldom know as much as they think they should know before drawing definite conclusions. In many research areas, furthermore, there are conflicts between rival interpretations of the same evidence, and at every turn conclusions are hedged by the well-known academic caution: statistical correlation does not reliably indicate causation. Finally, scholars and laymen are often at odds about the significance of things. What strikes the scholar as interesting and important may seem to the layman remote and trivial; what the layman wants most to know may strike the researcher as banal, simplistic, or vague. Despite yeoman efforts, we may yet stumble into some of those traps between the covers of this slim volume. We may present research findings that some readers will find obscure, puzzling, or impracticable and still others that seem to be oversimplifica- tions of complex phenomena or premature resolutions of hotly contested disputes. This risk we must take, but we have tried to minimize it. The book does not make a particular point, beyond the straight- forward one that education is susceptible both to being under- stood and to being improved. We have provided evidence from many but not all spheres of education research. We sought findings that, in Secretary Bennett's frequent phrase, are "true, useful and important." We included only those findings about which research evidence and expert opinion were consistent, persuasive, and fairly stable over time. Each finding in this volume has been checked and rechecked by professional staff members in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement and by expert outside reviewers. During this process, we discarded more items than we kept, among them dozens of research findings that we judged to be less reliable, less helpful, or less consequential than those we retained. It must also be noted that people do not necessarily agree about what knowledge is most useful or important. They may even dis- agree about what is "known," sometimes because the evidence is mixed, sometimes because one may not welcome the implication of another's "knowledge." Statistical significance aside, since what is certain to one may be inconclusive to another, we have tried to follow the wisdom of Socrates who explained (to Meno, in Plato's dialogue of that name) that "true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as knowledge." Solid knowledge is surely to be preferred, but to wait for absolute certainty is sometimes to wait too long, particularly in the field of education where millions of children are affected every day by our actions. If we would have those actions be as well-informed as possible, in situations where we do not have knowledge we can reasonably allow our actions to be informed by "true opinion," by what informed people judge to be the "most likely story." In this volume, as you will see, we draw upon the knowledge and opinions both of modern scholars and of distinguished thinkers of earlier times. Let me now take up several questions to which readers may want answers. Is this report comprehensive? No. In many branches of education that people regard as impor- tant, not much formal research has yet been done, or that which has been done is fragmentary, inconclusive, or hotly disputed. A substantial portion of educational research is of relatively recent vintage, and much that has been done in the past several decades has centered around this straight-forward question: What can we do to make it more likely that all children will emerge into adulthood with the basic skills and knowledge that some children routinely seem to acquire as they pass from home through elementary and secondary school? Because variations on that question have--I think properly-- driven so much of our research to date, we should not be sur- prised that we have learned relatively more about it. But that means less attention has thus far been devoted to other issues in education that also deserve study. Why do so many of these findings look so obvious? Was "research" really needed to reveal what intuition and common sense would show? In the absence of reliable and valid evidence or experience, our unprejudiced views are usually shaped by intuition and common sense. Until they are put to the test, however, one person's intuition and common sense are as reliable--or unreliable--as another's, and they are often in conflict. In company with some geographers and scientists of his day, Columbus surmised that the world was round. But many less astute observers embraced the conventional wisdom of his time and insisted that it was flat; this "wisdom" did not change until Columbus tested the true opinion of himself and the scientists with the voyage that dis- covered America and proved their version of the truth to be correct. In education, too, research sometimes appears to confirm the self-evident. But sometimes it raises important doubts about conventional wisdom. Why is so much of the research about elementary schools and disadvantaged children? This situation stems from the ambitious educational reforms of the 1960s. Ironically, it is also one more example of the fail- ings of conventional wisdom. Two decades ago, conventional wisdom about education held that disadvantaged and minority children did poorly in school mainly because of the inequitable distribution of educational resources. To document this belief, Congress commissioned a huge national survey of the schools. The resulting project came to be known as the Coleman Report. This was probably the best known and most influential piece of educational research ever published. Its conclusion that unequal achievement could not be ascribed to unequal school resources so offended the conventional wisdom of the time that the next 20 years of educational research have been dominated by the quest for contrary evidence. But, of course, the problem of educational disadvantage--a prob- lem still with us today--was deeper and more complex than any simple disparity in the size of school libraries or the condition of school buildings. Its roots reached into the home and the classroom. Coleman's discovery, for example, that there was more difference in the achievement of black children within the same school than from one school to another also led researchers to examine more closely the interaction between teacher and student rather than just the effects of school facilities, spending levels, or class size. This line of inquiry is visible throughout the past two decades of educational research, much of which describes practices found to be particularly effective in fostering the academic education of disadvantaged school children. Heated arguments about the appropriate expectations and methods of instruction for disadvan- taged children were commonplace during the 1960s and 1970s. Research had to document common sense: children are more likely to learn the basics in schools that emphasize the basics and less likely to learn them in schools that do not. It has been a worthy effort. The critical features of instruc- tion and organization for more effective schools were documented by research. (A number of them are summarized and repeated in this volume.) It is no coincidence that the achievement scores of disadvantaged elementary school students have steadily im- proved in the past decades. That part of the academic puzzle has been at least partly demystified. Would all children benefit equally from the application of the facts and findings contained in this report? Within the range and limits of the evidence, we have tried to deal with the "general" or "usual" or "average" situation, not with all the special circumstances that are found among millions of children, tens of thousands of schools, and thousands of school systems in as many communities. Hence no one will find here a map out of every tangled situation or a solution to each distinctive problem. In an enterprise as large and variegated as American education, many children, teachers, parents, and schools differ from the "general" in various respects. But few differ in all respects and we therefore hope that practically everyone will find something of interest and relevance in the pages that follow. Why does the report contain so few specific recommendations about actions that should be taken? This is not an education "cookbook" so much as a "guide to sound nutrition." Specific policies, practices, and actions are the responsibility of the parent and the school, the teacher and principal, the school board and the State. The appropriate design and implementation of these policies, practices, and ac- tions will differ according to local conditions and it is not the place of the federal government to interfere. Nor do we seek to exhort people to do anything that contradicts their own "true opinions", although we would urge you to subject them to the test of experience at every opportunity. The purpose of this volume is to provide reliable information that people can, if they wish, put to use in various ways. In most instances, the reader will rapidly be able to visualize some implications for action of findings that we have included. Why are so many of these findings aimed at parents and teachers rather than at those who direct and make policy for the "educa- tion system?" Let us emphasize that many of them are indeed meant for parents as well as for professional teachers. Parents are the child's first and most influential teachers. If parents are not effective teachers, then in most cases the school will have far greater difficulty being effective. As for administrators and policymakers, we believe that they, too, will find in this volume many implications--if not specific recommendations --for their own activities. Besides setting overall standards and furnishing resources, perhaps their most important function is to create the conditions in which parents and teachers, working together, can maximize educational effectiveness. What of the students themselves? Don't they share in this responsibility? Indeed, yes. The passive learner usually doesn't learn much and the hostile student rarely learns anything worthwhile. Many of the findings in this volume convey--or assume--an old- fashioned "desire for improvement" on the part of the child; others indicate the sorts of actions that parents or teachers can take to maximize the child's enthusiasm for learning and to avoid chilling his ardor. While it is true that some children have difficulty mastering complicated subjects, few are without resources to do so. More commonly, the resources they have are underused. Parents can play vital and constructive roles in the education of their own children, and research has illuminated sound methods of home assistance. Students can add greatly to the time provided in school with time set aside at home for study and other forms of homework. We see too little "self-help" in many households today, especially among those students whose academic achievement is lagging and who need it the most. What if I want to learn more than this volume contains? To assist the reader interested in more evidence or in exploring the actual research, each finding is accompanied by citations of several sources for further reading. Most of these sources can be ob- tained through a good library. In turn, many of those citations lead to articles, books or studies that contain lengthy bibliographies of their own. We did not try to provide complete research documentation, but in every instance we have pointed the direction to further--and deeper-- understanding. In addition, we would invite your attention to the Education Research Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) system, supported by the Education Department, which provides extensive information about research findings and which can be accessed through most libraries. * * * This volume appears at a special time. American education is undergoing enormous reform, a nationwide effort to improve the outcomes of schooling and reverse the decline in student achieve- ment that developed over the past quarter century. Many of the actors are new; for example, the governors of many States have taken a deep interest in the quality of schools and colleges in their jurisdictions, and many State legislatures have stolen the march on the education profession in prescribing the reforms that they expect will boost educational outcomes. The contents of this volume ought to be of help to them, as well as to parents, teachers and citizens. We do not, however, claim to be offering pat answers or simple nostrums. It is not reasonable to expect research to resolve all issues or to erase all differences of opinion. We can but supply some information that we think reliable and we will continue in the future to supply more. But it is up to the American people to decide what to do. The better their information, the wiser will be their decisions. * * * Finally, on behalf of Secretary Bennett as well as my- self, I want to thank the many individuals whose efforts made this report possible. Milton Goldberg and Jim Bencivenga were responsible for project oversight and management. Development and production of the material in this volume was accomplished through the extraordina- ru efforts of Tommy M. Tomlinson and Susan Traiman. Editing through many drafts was coordinated by Kay McKinney with major assistance from Laurie Maxwell. Several dozen staff members of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement also contributed to this project. We especially appreciate the contributions of the outside reviewers who did their best to help assure the accuracy, veracity, validity, and importance of the contents of this report: Joseph Adelson, Lois Coit, Bernard R. Gifford, Robert Glaser, Robert Hogan, Michael Kirst, Rita Kramer, Leanna Landsmann, Jean Marzollo, and Diane Ravitch. Particular thanks are due to Professor Herbert Walberg for his manifold efforts on our behalf. While the Department of Education is properly responsible for any error of style, substance, or selection, the willing assistance of these reviewers has added immeasurably to the quality of the result.