1 / 44

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

b. Mathematics and Science Special Education Research Grants Program ... e. Special Education Research Grants Program on Assessment for Accountability ...

Anita
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

     

    Slide 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. DAVEDAVE

    Slide 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)

    Slide 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 Evaluation and Regional Assistance Phoebe 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

    Slide 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 Science Anne Ricciuti Acting 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

    Slide 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

    Slide 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

    Slide 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.

    Slide 10: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)

    Slide 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.

    Slide 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

    Slide 14:Investments: 2006 Grant Competition Results

    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

    Slide 18:2006 Investments : Applications x Topic x Goal

    Slide 19:2006 Investments: Applications x Topic x Goal

    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)

    Slide 22:Current NCSER Investments

    Character of Investment Portfolio Traditional areas & topics Field initiated: “Walk-on” model Horizontal Incremental & incidental IES goal driven

    Slide 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

    Slide 25: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)

    Slide 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.

    Slide 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.

    Slide 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).

    Slide 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!

    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 Faster, Farther & Deeper in a Flat World

    Slide 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.

    Slide 32:Evidence-based Education

    Using the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about education -- Particularly for students with disabilities

    Slide 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

    Slide 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

    Slide 37: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 Program j. Special Education Research Grants Program on Individualized Education Programs and Individualized Family Service Plans

    Slide 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).

    Slide 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).

    Slide 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

    Slide 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).  

    Slide 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.

    Slide 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?

More Related