Special Education Research in a Flat World: Ode to Thomas Friedman and

Flat Stanley

  Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller

   

IDEA Reauthorization in 2004

• Amended the The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 to establish the National Center for Special Education Research in the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)

• Transferred responsibility for special education research and “Studies and Evaluations” (except for the Annual Report) from the Office of Special Education Programs to NCSER.

The Charge: Legislative Branch

Research, statistical, and evaluation activities supported by the Institute shall “apply rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge … and present findings and make claims that are appropriate to and supported by the methods that have been employed.” (ESRA, 2002)

Organizational Structure

Office of the DirectorGrover J. Whitehurst, Director

National Board for Education SciencesRobert C. Granger,

ChairSonia Chessen,

Executive Director

National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional

AssistancePhoebe

Cottingham,Commissioner

National Center for Education

Research

Lynn Okagaki,Commissioner

National Center for Education

Statistics

Mark Schneider, Commissioner

National Center for Special Education Research

Edward J. Kame’enui,

Commissioner

Organizational Structure

Office of the DirectorGrover J. Whitehurst, Director

National Board for Education SciencesRobert C. Granger,

ChairSonia Chessen,

Executive Director

Office of Science

Anne RicciutiActing Deputy

Director for Science

Office of Administration

and Policy

Sue Betka,Deputy Director for Administration and

Policy

Office of Communication and Outreach

Mike Bowler, Director of

Communications and Outreach

Office of Information Technology

Gerald Malitz,Chief Information Technology Officer

IES Goals

• develop or identify programs, practices, policies, and approaches that enhance academic achievement and that can be widely deployed

• identify what does not work and what is problematic, and thereby encourage innovation and further research

• gain fundamental understanding of the processes that underlie variations in the effectiveness of education programs

• develop delivery systems for the results of education research that will be routinely used by practitioners and the public when making education decisions

President’s FY 2006 Education Final Appropriations (in millions of dollars)

• Research in special education and studies and evaluation = $82 million (0.11% of total ED monies)

• Title I Grants to LEAs = $12,713 million (largest portion of NCLB programs)

• Reading First/Early Reading First = $1,132 million

• Total Education Appropriation = $71,545 million Reference: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/06action.pdf

NCSER’s Five Original Organizing Principles

1. The science must come first.2. We must invest wisely and strategically.3. Research in special education and early

intervention is at the heart of NCSER.4. Building research capacity is not a “Lone

Ranger” endeavor.5. Good science is not enough; results must

lead to high quality performance and delivery systems.

Features of NCSER Research Matrix

NCSER Statutory responsibilities: 18

Disability Statutory categories: 13 +

Total Research Matrix cells: 18 x 13 = 234

NCSER Research Matrix (Disability x Statutory Duties)

IES Research Goal StructureGoals differ by topic area, and include:

• Goal 1: Identify interventions that may have an impact on

student outcomes.

• Goal 2: Develop interventions and provide pilot data on the

relationship between the implementation of the intervention and

intended outcomes.

• Goal 3: Conduct efficacy and replication trials.

• Goal 4: Conduct large scale evaluations.

• Goal 5: Develop or validate measurement tools.

NCSER Current Portfolio of Investments

• 39 Research Projects• 7 Contracts• 4 Interagency agreements (NICHD)• 16 of 39 research projects are research development

(Goal 2); 12 research efficacy (Goal 3)• 11 research projects focus on SBD• Research sample across projects: N= 10,352–11,075

Investments: 2006 Grant Competition ResultsCompetition Topic Total Submitted Proposals Total Funded Proposals Funded Amount

Serious Behavior Disorders

28 7 $14,579,068

Early Intervention and Assessment

55 7 $15,054,925

Reading & Writing 27 3 $5,591,366

Language and Vocabulary Development

14 3 $2,993,700

Math & Science Teacher Quality

1 0 $0

Assessment for Accountability

11 1 $1,992,629

Individualized Education Programs

24 3 $3,698,135

Math & Science 35 1 $257,170Reading & Writing Teacher Quality

26 0 $0

Secondary and Postsecondary

32 2 $2,732,128

Totals 253 27 $46,899,121

NCSER Yield for 2006 Competitions

N = 253

N = 27 (11%)

N = 108 (43%)

Total Applications Received

Total Applications Sent to FullPanel Review

Total Applications Funded

SBD – Serious Behavior Disorders EI & A – Early Intervention and Assessment R / W – Reading & Writing L / V – Language and Vocabulary TQ – M / S – Teacher Quality Math & Science M / S – Math & Science A & A – Assessment for Accountability IEP – Individualized Education Programs TQ – R / W – Teacher Quality Reading & Writing S / PS – Secondary and Postsecondary Outcomes

NCSER Yield for 2006 x Research Competition

L / V

TQ - M / S

A & A

IEP

M / S

S / PS

R / WEI & A

SBD

TQ - R / W

NCSER Yield for 2006 x GoalsGoal 1

4%

Goal 247%

Goal 330%

Goal 44%

Goal 515%

Goal 1

Goal 2

Goal 3

Goal 4

Goal 5

2006 Investments : Applications x Topic x GoalCompetition Topic

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 # Funded/Total # = % Funded

Serious Behavior Disorders

2 12 9 1 4 7/28 = 25%

Funded: 0 2 2 1 2 7Early Intervention and Assessment

1 26 14 1 13 7/55 = 13%

Funded: 0 3 4 0 0 7Reading & Writing

1 17 6 0 3 3/27 = 11%

Funded: 0 1 1 0 1 3Language and Vocabulary Development

0 10 3 0 1 3/14 = 21%

Funded: 0 3 0 0 0 3Math & Science Teacher Quality

0 1 0 0 0 0/1 = 0%

Funded: 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006 Investments: Applications x Topic x GoalCompetition Topic

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5 # Funded/Total # = % Funded

Amount Range/Total

Assessment for Accountability

11 1/11 = 9% $100,000 to $1,200,000

Funded: 1 1 $1,992,629Individualized Education Programs

3 17 3 1 3/24 = 13% $100,000 to $1,200,000

Funded: 0 3 0 0 0 3 $3,698,135Math & Science 5 22 3 3 2 1/35 = 3% $100,000 to

$1,200,000Funded: 1 0 0 0 0 1 $257,170Reading & Writing Teacher Quality

0 20 3 2 1 0/26 = 0% $100,000 to $1,200,000

Funded: 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Secondary and Postsecondary

2 21 6 1 1 2/32 = 6% $100,000 to $1,200,000

Funded: 0 1 1 0 0 2 $2,732,128Totals 1 13 8 1 4 27/253 = 11% $46,899,121

Matrix of Disability Category by Duties (Current Investments Shaded)

3

1

5

2

9

1

2

7

Matrix with Total # of Students with Disabilities Across All NCSER Studies

N =

590

N =

70

N =

1288

N =

322

N =

2424

N =

240 N

= 340

N =

5078

(N = 10,352)

Current NCSER Investments

Character of Investment Portfolio

1. Traditional areas & topics

2. Field initiated: “Walk-on” model

3. Horizontal

4. Incremental & incidental

5. IES goal driven

Special Education Research in a Flat World

Friedman, T. L. (2006). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century (Updated & Expanded). New York: Farrar, Stauss & Giroux.

Globalization 3.0• A global, leveling of the “playing field”• A Web-enabled, flat world platform

– without regard to geography, distance, time, and language– makes multiple forms of collaboration (individuals, groups,

companies, universities anywhere in the world) possible for the purposes of innovation, production, education, research, entertainment, and war-making

Special Education Research in a Flat World

Flat World Platform• 11/9/89 (Fall of Berlin Wall)• 8/9/95 (Netscape IPO)• Work Flow Software• Uploading• Outsourcing• Offshoring• Supply-Chaining• Insourcing• In-forming

Steriods • Digital; Mobile, Personal, &

Virtual• Instant messaging & file

sharing• VoIP [Voice over Internet

Protocol Service]• Video-conferencing• Advances in computer

graphics• New wireless technologies &

devices; and • DROE (the Digitized

Representation Of Everything)

Special Education Research in a Flat World

The Flat World Platform Requires:

• An infrastructure to connect with the flat-world platform

• The education to get more people innovating on, working off of, and tapping into this platform

• The governance to get the best of the platform and to cushion its worst side effects.

Special Education Research in a Flat World

• Iron Law of the Flat World: Whatever can be done, will be done--either by you or to you!

• Touching Tomorrow Today (Purdue University, circa 1983): Cheaper, lighter, smaller, and more personal, mobile, digital, and visual to communicate, compete, and collaborate farther and faster.

• The Coefficient of Flatness: The fewer natural resources your country or company has, the more you will dig inside yourself for innovations in order to survive.

•

Special Education Research in a Flat World

• The Flat World Platform assigns “supreme value” to

those who have the “right knowledge, skills, ideas,

and self-motivation” (Friedman, 2006, p. 276).

• Untouchables & jobs designed for the “new middle.”

• “Great collaborators, orchestrators, leverages,

synthesizers, explainers, adaptors, localizers, and

passionate personalizers” (Friedman, 2006, p. 276).

Special Education Research in a Flat World

• Orthogonal to a flat world• Horrendous conceit• Bulky in ideation• Slow and labor intensive in force• Opaque in process• Estranged in impact• Damn expensive!

1. Horizontal Access: Breadth (General Knowledge)2. Vertical Access: Deeper, faster, farther, & swifter3. Diagonal Access: Flat-world Competitiveness4. Inside-Out Access: Limits of Individual Access5. Outside-In Access: Competitive Resourcefulness

• Bridging Mechanisms & Processes: NegotiatingSymbolic Systems—Procedural and Content Domains

Faster, Farther & Deeper in a Flat World

NCSER’s Organizing Principles for a Flat World

1. The science must come first, but it must yield useful and useable results and products.

2. We must invest horizontally and vertically.

3. The research investments should be “transforming”.

4. Continuous collaboration: R + TA [NCSER + OSEP] = Responsible & Relevant

5. High quality performance and delivery systems for each and all.

Evidence-based Education

Using the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about education

-- Particularly for students with disabilities

IES NCSER + Practice (TA & D)

Simple Formula

1. R - TA & D = Irrelevant

2. TA & D - R = Irresponsible

3. R + TA & D = Relevant & Responsible

What Does This Mean?• Levels of evidence process & mechanisms

Levels of Evidence on What Works

A. Meta-analyses of high quality evidenceB. Experiments and well designed quasi-experiments

using WWC standards (including small n designs)C. Statistical modeling of correlational and longitudinal

dataD. Best practice studies with matching and contrastive

analysisE. Expert opinion supported by conceptual models and

generalizations from high quality research on related topics

Investments: 2007 RFA Research Topics• NCSER Topics with a July 27, 2006

Transmittal Deadline:• a. Early Intervention, Early Childhood

Special Education, and Assessment for Young Children with Disabilities Special Education Research Grants Program

• b. Mathematics and Science Special Education Research Grants Program

• c. Reading, and Writing, and Language Special Education Research Grants Program

• d. Serious Behavior Disorders Special Education Research Grants Program

• e. Special Education Research Grants Program on Assessment for Accountability

NCSER Topics with a November 16, 2006 Transmittal Deadline:

• f. Response to Intervention - Special Education Research Grants Program

• g. Autism Spectrum Disorders- Special Education Research Grants Program

• h. Research Grants Program on the Quality of Teacher and Other Service Providers for Students with Disabilities

• i. Secondary and Transition Services Special Education Research Grants Programj. Special Education Research Grants Program on Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans

Investments: NCSER Initiatives for 2006-2007 1. To address key methodological and statistical issues which

represent important, persistent, and unique technical problems in conducting special education research and may require immediate, serious and sustained attention and capacity building. 

2. To promote, establish, and sustain an evidence-based special education technical assistance and dissemination system through the IES NCSER and OSERS/OSEP research collaboration.

 3. To conduct a systematic inventory of special education research

in order to ascertain the quality, depth, and breadth of the research investments over the last 30 years since the authorization of PL 94-142 (The Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act).

Investments: NCSER Initiatives for 2006-2007, cont’d

4. To initiate a program of support designed to increase the capacity of pre-doctoral, post-doctoral and early career investigators to conduct rigorous research in special education.

 5. To develop and establish a registry of NCSER/IES

intervention studies (Goal 3-4) that will represent a codified record of research trials and contribute to a comprehensive, publicly available database of special education research trials (i.e., Any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention and comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a curricular, instructional, cognitive, social, or behavioral intervention and an educational outcome. ICMJE, 10/16/05).

Next Steps -- Investments

• Examine portfolio of investments• Identify important gaps + areas of impact• Gain input from field & stakeholders• Build for short-term and long-term capacity• Consider threshold capacity for investments• Strive for distinction and transformation• Identify IES mechanisms for advancing portfolio

Harsh Realities

1. We have more cells than research dollars. Most cells are either empty or partially filled. None of the cells are completely filled. Where should NCSER make investments for the short and long term? What organizing principles and values should guide these decisions?

2. Space and time is at least three-dimensional: Investments must reflect a long-term horizontal view (breadth) with vertical short-term investments (depth) that vary over time, complimented with diagonal investments when possible/feasible (depending on quality of research from field).

 

Harsh Realities (Cont’d)

3. What is the capacity of the field to deliver the research “goods”? The quality of the research infrastructure and capacity is essential to good science and research.

Needed: Short and long-term investments in building professional capacity that is interdisciplinary, rigorous, and content intensive in special education as a primary discipline.

Harsh Realities (cont’d)

4. What is the capacity of the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to deliver the goods?

 5. What are the mechanisms for obtaining input

from the field—individuals and parents/ caregivers of children and individuals with disabilities, professional organizations, stakeholders and the general public—on the research investments?