Special Education Research in a Flat World: Ode to Thomas Friedman and Flat Stanley.
-
Upload
wilfred-martin -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of Special Education Research in a Flat World: Ode to Thomas Friedman and Flat Stanley.
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
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 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?