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

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

2. Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller

3. 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.

4. 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)

5. Organizational Structure Office of the Director Grover J. Whitehurst, Director National Board for Education Sciences Robert C. Granger, Chair Sonia Chessen, Executive Director National Center for Education Statistics Mark Schneider, Commissioner National Center for Education Research Lynn Okagaki, Commissioner National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance Phoebe Cottingham, Commissioner National Center for Special Education Research Edward J. Kame’enui, Commissioner

6. Organizational Structure Office of the Director Grover J. Whitehurst, Director National Board for Education Sciences Robert C. Granger, Chair Sonia Chessen, Executive Director Office of Communication and Outreach Mike Bowler, Director of Communications and Outreach Office of Administration and Policy Sue Betka, Deputy Director for Administration and Policy Office of Science Anne Ricciuti Acting Deputy Director for Science Office of Information Technology Gerald Malitz, Chief Information Technology Officer

7. 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

8. 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

9. NCSER’s Five Original Organizing Principles The science must come first. We must invest wisely and strategically. Research in special education and early intervention is at the heart of NCSER. Building research capacity is not a “Lone Ranger” endeavor. Good science is not enough; results must lead to high quality performance and delivery systems.

10. Features of NCSER Research Matrix NCSER Statutory responsibilities: 18 Disability Statutory categories: 13 + Total Research Matrix cells: 18 x 13 = 234

11. NCSER Research Matrix (Disability x Statutory Duties)

12. IES Research Goal Structure Goals 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.

13. 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

14. Investments: 2006 Grant Competition Results

16. 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

18. 2006 Investments : Applications x Topic x Goal

19. 2006 Investments: Applications x Topic x Goal

20. Matrix of Disability Category by Duties (Current Investments Shaded) 3 1 5 2 9 1 7 2

21. Matrix with Total # of Students with Disabilities Across All NCSER Studies N = 590 N = 70 N = 1288 N = 322 N = 2424 N = 240 N = 5078 N = 340 (N = 10,352)

22. Current NCSER Investments Character of Investment Portfolio • Traditional areas & topics • Field initiated: “Walk-on” model • Horizontal • Incremental & incidental • IES goal driven

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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).

29. 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!

30. Faster, Farther & Deeper in a Flat World • Horizontal Access: Breadth (General Knowledge) • Vertical Access: Deeper, faster, farther, & swifter • Diagonal Access: Flat-world Competitiveness • Inside-Out Access: Limits of Individual Access • Outside-In Access: Competitive Resourcefulness • Bridging Mechanisms & Processes: Negotiating • Symbolic Systems—Procedural and Content Domains

31. NCSER’s Organizing Principles for a Flat World • The science must come first, but it must yield useful and useable results and products. • We must invest horizontally and vertically. • The research investments should be “transforming”. • Continuous collaboration: R + TA [NCSER + OSEP] = Responsible & Relevant • High quality performance and delivery systems for each and all.

32. Evidence-based Education • Using the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about education -- Particularly for students with disabilities

34. 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

35. Levels of Evidence on What Works • Meta-analyses of high quality evidence • Experiments and well designed quasi-experiments using WWC standards (including small n designs) • Statistical modeling of correlational and longitudinal data • Best practice studies with matching and contrastive analysis • Expert opinion supported by conceptual models and generalizations from high quality research on related topics

37. 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 Program j. Special Education Research Grants Program on Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans Investments: 2007 RFA Research Topics

38. Investments: NCSER Initiatives for 2006-2007 • 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. • 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).

39. 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).

40. 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

42. Harsh Realities • 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? • 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).

43. Harsh Realities (Cont’d) • 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.

44. Harsh Realities (cont’d) • What is the capacity of the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to deliver the goods? • 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?