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;  the Director of IES will be appointed by the President, by and with  consent of the Senate, for a 6-year term and will propose the  Institute’s overall research priorities and report biennially to Congress  and others on the Institute’s activities, among other duties; and a board of directors is established—the NBES—whose duties include,  among other things, (1) advising and consulting with the Director of  IES regarding its policies and approving the Director’s overall  research priorities, (2) reviewing and approving procedures for peer  review, and (3) reviewing the work of IES to ensure the consistency of  scientifically valid research. IES Supports High- Quality Research, but Lacks Key Processes and Performance Measures in Some Areas

		IES Supports High-Quality Research, but Does Not Monitor the Timeliness of Some Aspects of Its Peer Review Process

IES has substantially improved the education research field. In recent years however, the time it takes to complete this review process  substantially increased, from an average of 117 days in fiscal year 2011  to 175 days in fiscal year 2012 and 150 days in fiscal year 2013. Despite IES’s 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. Within that framework, we found that agencies should  establish a structured process for developing their research and  evaluation priorities that considers key stakeholders’ input. IES’s Performance Measures Do Not Reflect Its Current Programs

IES cannot demonstrate the impact of its efforts to improve the quality  and relevance of its research in some areas because its performance  measures have not been updated to reflect its current programs. In  addition, according to federal 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. In addition, IES does not publicly report on the overall  performance of the REL program, which constitutes one of the agency’s  largest investments. Research and Technical Assistance Groups Take Steps to Disseminate Relevant Research, but IES Has Not Fully Assessed These Efforts

		Groups Have Produced Research and Products for Use by Policymakers and Practitioners, but Relevance and Dissemination Could Be Improved

RELs, Comprehensive Centers, and R & D Centers have taken various  steps to provide relevant research to the education field. However, some noted that further efforts are needed to leverage  intermediary groups to better market REL and R & D Center work to  reach IES’s target audiences. IES Coordinates with Other Federal Agencies, but Fragmented Evaluation Funding Poses Challenges for Education’s Evaluation Efforts

		IES Coordinates with Other Agencies to Increase the Use of Evidence in Federal Decision Making and Research Planning

IES coordinates with relevant federal research agencies on projects to  increase federal agencies’ use of research evidence in guiding funding  decisions. For example, IES co-led a joint  Education-NSF working group to develop common evidence guidelines  for education research and development. Education’s Inability to Combine Evaluation Funding Poses Challenges for Evaluation Planning Efforts

IES coordinates within the department to plan evaluations of Education  programs. As a result,  OPEPD and IES officials said that some evaluations, including high- priority evaluations, may not occur. For example, IES officials told us that  the department is interested in conducting evaluations of the Mathematics  and Science Partnerships and Promise Neighborhoods programs, but  there is not sufficient evaluation funding under these programs due to the  statutory limitation and Education does not have the authority to combine  evaluation funds across the department and use them to conduct  evaluations of these or other high-priority programs. We have previously reported that many Education programs, especially  smaller programs, have not been evaluated, which can limit the ability of  Congress to make informed decisions about which programs to continue,  expand, modify, consolidate, or eliminate. For example, in 2009, we  reported that 11 of Education’s programs focused on teacher quality had  been operating for over seven years and had never been evaluated. According to a senior IES official, if the department were able to combine  funds authorized to be used for evaluation it would have more flexibility to  conduct appropriate evaluations of any of ESEA programs that need  evaluation. In order to identify leading practices and target areas for  improvement, IES should assess the effectiveness of REL and R & D  Center dissemination strategies by, for example, collecting consistent  data and lessons learned from these groups to inform future  dissemination efforts. Education generally agreed with our recommendations and has several  plans in place to address them. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our review examined (1) the extent to which the Institute for Education  Sciences (IES) demonstrates its ability to support high-quality research  and fulfill its mission; (2) the extent to which selected Department of  Education (Education) research and technical assistance groups  disseminate relevant products to the field; and (3) how IES coordinates its  activities with other relevant federal research entities and within  Education. During these discussion groups, we met with a total of 16 senior  education researchers and discussed issues such as IES’s research  standards, peer review process, and the relevance and dissemination  practices of IES overall, as well as those of selected IES research and  technical assistance groups, specifically—the Regional Educational  Laboratories (REL) and Research & Development Centers (R & D  Center).
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government has a longstanding role in conducting education research and collecting education data, and IES has a broad mission to provide this information to a wide variety of stakeholders. With a fiscal year 2013 budget of just under $600 million, IES is Education's primary research and evaluation arm. GAO was asked to review IES's performance. This report examines: (1) the extent to which IES has demonstrated its ability to support high-quality research and fulfill its mission, (2) the extent to which selected Education research and technical assistance groups disseminate relevant products to the education field, and (3) how IES coordinates its activities with other relevant federal research agencies and within Education. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, agency documents and data, interviewed agency officials and stakeholders, and analyzed information from selected research and technical assistance groups. GAO also compared IES's practices to federal internal control standards and leading practices for performance management and collaboration.

What GAO Found

The Department of Education's (Education) Institute of Education Sciences (IES) supports high-quality research, but lacks certain key procedures needed to fulfill other aspects of its mission. According to stakeholders, IES has substantially improved the quality of education research since its inception over a decade ago. However, GAO identified concerns with IES's ability to produce timely and relevant research. For example, IES's efforts are slow to respond to stakeholders' needs, in part, because the time IES's products have spent in peer review has substantially increased in recent years--from an average of 117 days in fiscal year 2011 to 150 days in fiscal year 2013--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 leading practices GAO has identified for performance management. For example, IES does not publicly report on the overall performance of the Regional Educational Laboratories (REL) program, which constitutes one of the agency's largest investments. IES officials said that they have begun to develop new performance measures for all of their programs, but these will not be in place until fiscal year 2015.
Although Education's research and technical assistance groups have taken steps to disseminate relevant research to the education field, IES does not always assess these efforts. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the dissemination of relevant products from the RELs and Research and Development Centers (R & D Center). For example, they told GAO 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 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 stakeholders. GAO's prior work on information dissemination suggests that further assessment could help inform IES's oversight of the RELs and R & D Centers to improve these groups' dissemination to key audiences.
IES coordinates with other relevant federal research agencies to increase the use of research evidence in federal decision-making. For example, IES and the National Science Foundation recently released 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 through coordination with various other offices. However, Education lacks statutory authority to combine evaluation funds for Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs, which officials said limits the department's ability to conduct high-quality evaluations of programs it considers most important. GAO's prior work has shown that many Education programs, especially smaller programs, have not been evaluated, limiting the ability of Congress to make informed policy decisions. For example, in 2009, GAO reported that 11 of Education's teacher quality programs had not been evaluated in more than 7 years. Officials said that the ability to combine evaluation funds would allow the department to conduct needed evaluations of ESEA programs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Congress consider granting Education authority to combine funds authorized for evaluation of ESEA programs, and IES use available data to manage its peer review process, develop a structured process to gather stakeholder input, develop performance measures that reflect all key agency activities, and assess REL and R & D Center dissemination strategies. Education agreed with our recommendations.