Reasonable Expectations: A Reply to Elmendorf and Shanske 2018

Abstract

As educational researchers, we agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of the argument laid out by Elmendorf and Shanske: good data on public education in America is too hard to come by, and access to more and better data can help us answer questions that are central to improving education and securing the educational rights of all children. That said, as education researchers, we also recognize the very real limits on the kind of answers that school data — and educational research — can provide. In this reply, we elaborate on this view and try to articulate what we see as the key contributions and remaining challenges of Elmendorf and Shanske’s proposal. Part I highlights the historical importance and intractability of the problem Elmendorf and Shanske hope to solve. Part II considers the current state of the “causal revolution” in education research in order to highlight the kind of progress that can be made and the issues likely to remain out of reach despite the considerable data, methodological, and computational advances of the last decade. Finally, moving beyond an abstract consideration of the potential of better data, Part III considers Elmendorf and Shanske’s proposal in the context of a case — Williams v California — that likewise sought to secure educational rights by requiring the state to produce data on the availability of school resources.