Specifically, ESRA contains several key  provisions related to the management, core functions, and processes of  IES: all research conducted by IES is to use scientifically based research  standards that include, where appropriate, making claims of causal  relationships only in random assignment experiments; education evaluations conducted by IES are to employ experimental  designs using random assignment, when feasible; all research, statistics, and evaluation reports conducted by or  supported through IES must be subjected to rigorous peer review  before being published or otherwise made available to the public; and  the establishment of an advisory board—the NBES—whose duties  include (1) advising and consulting with the Director of IES regarding  its policies and approving the Director’s overall research priorities, and  (2) reviewing and approving procedures for peer review and reviewing  the work of IES to ensure the consistency of scientifically valid  research. In addition to IES, other entities conduct education-related research and  evaluations, and ESRA includes general requirements for the Director of  IES to coordinate its research and evaluation work with these entities,  both within Education and across the rest of the federal government. IES Has Supported High-Quality Research, but Lacks Key Processes and Performance Measures in Some Areas

In our ongoing work, we found that IES has substantially improved the  education research field. In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) assessed IES’s research and concluded that since its inception,  IES had transformed the quality and rigor of research within Education  and increased demand for scientifically based evidence of effectiveness  in the education field as a whole. Likewise, many stakeholders we spoke  with said IES’s research standards have improved the quality of  Education’s research and had a positive influence on education research  generally. IES’s support of these multiple types of methodologies allows it to better  meet its various stakeholders’ needs. Although IES has made recent efforts to increase the relevance of its  research, IES does not have a structured process for incorporating  feedback from policymakers and practitioners into its research agenda. In addition, according to our internal control  standards and leading practices on performance management, agencies  should establish performance measures for their activities and continually  compare actual performance data against these goals. IES officials told us they have begun work on revising their performance  measures. Officials told us that they plan to include revised performance  measures in Education’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for IES, and that  it has begun discussions with OMB to establish these new measures. Research and Technical Assistance Groups Take Steps to Disseminate Relevant Research, but IES Has Not Fully Assessed These Efforts

Research and technical assistance groups have taken various steps to  provide relevant research to the education field. Despite these efforts, stakeholders—including practitioners and  policymakers—have raised concerns about the relevance and  dissemination of some of the research and products these groups have  produced. As a result, they do not always adapt their research  findings in a format that is readily understandable by practitioners, such  as by producing non-technical reports and shorter research summaries. In addition to concerns about relevance, REL and R & D Center  dissemination efforts are not always reaching policymakers and  practitioners. Further, IES does not collect sufficient information  about RELs and R & D Centers to manage these groups’ efforts to  disseminate relevant research. In addition, IES collects limited information to assess the R & D  Centers’ dissemination efforts because IES does not require R & D  Centers to report on their specific dissemination strategies or the  strategies’ effectiveness. IES Coordinates with Other Federal Agencies, but Education Faces Challenges in Funding Program Evaluations

IES coordinates with other federal education research agencies on  projects to increase federal agencies’ use of research evidence in guiding  funding decisions. For example, IES co-led a joint Education-National  Science Foundation working group to develop common evidence  guidelines for federally-funded research in education. Specifically, officials reported that Education does not have the authority  to combine evaluation funds from programs across the Department and  use them to evaluate any program.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government has a longstanding role in conducting education research and collecting related data. The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 established IES as Education's primary research and evaluation arm. With a budget of just under $600 million in fiscal year 2013, IES has a broad mission to provide its research, evaluations, and statistics to a wide variety of stakeholders, including researchers, parents, educators, and the general public.
This testimony reports on ongoing GAO work about IES. A full report will be issued later this year. Based on preliminary findings, this testimony will focus on: (1) the extent to which IES supports high-quality research and fulfills its mission, (2) the extent to which selected Education research and technical assistance groups disseminate relevant products to the education field, and (3) IES's coordination within Education and with other federal agencies.
For this work, GAO reviewed agency documents and relevant federal legislation, interviewed agency officials and stakeholders, and analyzed information from selected research and technical assistance groups. GAO also compared IES's practices to established guidelines for internal controls and effective program management and performance reporting.

What GAO Found

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) supports high-quality research, according to stakeholders, but lacks certain key procedures needed to fulfill other aspects of its mission. Since its inception, IES has substantially improved the quality of education research. However, stakeholders expressed some concerns about IES's ability to produce timely and relevant research that meets their various needs. For example, IES's efforts to respond quickly to its stakeholders are slowed, in part, because the time IES's products have spent in peer review substantially increased this past year, and IES does not monitor some aspects of these timeframes. In addition, IES does not have a structured process for incorporating stakeholder input into its research agenda, which previous GAO work has shown to be key to sound federal research programs. Lastly, IES's performance measures do not fully reflect its current programs, which is not consistent with GAO's leading practices for performance management. IES officials said, however, that they have begun to develop new performance measures for all of their programs.
Although the Department of Education's (Education) research and technical assistance groups have taken steps to produce and disseminate relevant research to the field, IES does not always assess these efforts. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the relevance and dissemination of research and products from the Regional Educational Laboratories (REL) and Research and Development Centers (R & D Center). For example, they told us that these groups do not always adapt their products for use by both policymaker and practitioner audiences. Further, IES has not fully assessed REL and R & D Center relevance and dissemination efforts. As a result, IES does not know if these efforts are effective in meeting their mandated goal of providing usable research and information to policymakers and practitioners. GAO's prior work on information dissemination suggests that further assessment could help to inform IES's oversight of the RELs and R & D Centers to improve these groups' dissemination to key audiences.
IES works with federal education research agencies to increase the use of research evidence in federal decision-making, but according to officials, has limited ability to prioritize evaluations. IES and the National Science Foundation recently developed guidelines to help improve the quality of evidence resulting from federally-funded education research, which stakeholders said will benefit the education field. Within the department, IES plans evaluations of Education programs in concert with various other offices. However, Education officials said funding and program evaluation requirements prevent the agency from combining evaluation funds across programs, which limits their ability to conduct the evaluation projects they consider most important.