SpedPro

How to read research

By JohnL on Feb. 21, 2008.

I sometimes note how much I’d like to help policy makers learn to discriminate between evidence- and bologna-based educational programs. Apparently, I’m not alone.

The US Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, a non-profit promoting excellence in government, is offering a workshop for public-sector administrators on understanding research that should form the basis of public policy. Because I couldn’t find a page about the workshop on the Web site, I’m taking the unusual action of reprinting the Coalition’s announcement of the workshop.

How to Read Research Findings to Distinguish Evidence-Based Programs from Everything Else

Tools for Public Officials and Other Stakeholders to Become Independent Experts,

Offered by Recognized Leaders in Evidence-Based Reform

Washington DC, April 8, 2008

Evidence-based policy reform is an important new development in American government, requiring new skills of public officials, staff, and other stakeholders. Requirements for rigorous evaluation and the use of evidence-based programs now appear in Congressional legislation, Office and Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and federal agency grant solicitations in many diverse areas of policy. These developments offer the potential to bring rapid, evidence-driven progress to areas such as education, employment and training, crime and justice, early childhood programs, substance abuse prevention, and international development assistance. Key precedents include medicine, where evidence-based policy has produced remarkable advances in human health over the past half-century; and welfare, where rigorous evaluations built actionable knowledge about “what works,” setting the stage for the successful, bipartisan welfare reforms of the 1980s and 90s.

Our workshop teaches the core skill needed to be an effective practitioner of evidence-based policy: The ability to read a study and readily assess whether it produced valid evidence of a program’s effectiveness.

This core skill is needed, for example, to –

• Distinguish the few programs in your policy area that are truly backed by valid evidence from everything else that claims to be, without having to rely on outside “experts” whose biases and capabilities are unknown;
• Sponsor a study that is capable of generating valid evidence about a program’s effectiveness; and
• Explain research results to key colleagues and stakeholders in a clear and persuasive way, so as to enlist them as partners in your efforts.

Acquiring this core skill is straightforward: A one-day workshop on key principles, followed by weekly “brown-bag” conference calls providing hands-on, coached experience in reviewing actual studies.

The workshop will take place on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy from 9:00 to 4:00, with lunch provided. The weekly follow-up sessions will be held over a 12-week period, via 45-minute conference calls at the noon hour. In these sessions, participants will gain hands-on experience reviewing actual studies in a small-group setting facilitated by Coalition staff, with the goal of becoming independent experts. Participants are encouraged to suggest studies to review in these sessions.

Our background: A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, we’ve played a leadership role in advancing evidence-based reforms through our work with top Congressional and federal agency policymakers:

Our work with Congress and OMB helped create a new evidence-based home visitation program at HHS in the FY 08 Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-161).
We helped OMB develop new guidance for the federal agencies on What Constitutes Strong Evidence of a Program’s Effectiveness.
Our work with Congress has yielded important advances in Congressional support for rigorous – preferably randomized – evaluations in education, crime prevention, and other areas.
We’ve conducted previous workshops on evidence-based policy for OMB, the Departments of Education and Labor, the Congressionally-established Academic Competitiveness Council, and others.
We developed and manage one of the leading U.S. websites of evidence-based programs – Social Programs That Work (www.evidencebasedprograms.org).
A recent independent assessment of our work found we’ve been “instrumental in transforming a theoretical advocacy of evidence-based policy among certain [federal] agencies into an operational reality.”
Logistics and Cost

When: Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with lunch provided. 12 follow-up sessions via conference call each Tuesday thereafter, starting at noon.

Where: The April 8th session will be held at the Council for Excellence in Government (1301 K Street, NW, Suite 450 West, Washington DC 20005)

Who: Public officials and staff, policy analysts, program providers, and other stakeholders. A research background is not required.

Cost: $520 for the one-day workshop and 12 follow-up sessions. As a nonprofit organization, we price our workshops as inexpensively as we can to reach the widest possible audience.

Deadlines: The deadline for registration and payment is Tuesday, April 1st. Space is limited, and our previous workshops have filled up quickly.

How to register: Please register via our website at http://www.excelgov.org/userpreview.php?formid=389.

Payment Information: Credit card payments are preferred; we also accept checks (payable to the Council for Excellence in Government) and purchase orders. To process your payment, please contact David Anderson at (danderson@excelgov.org, 202-530-3284).

Questions?: Please contact David Anderson (danderson@excelgov.org, 202-530-3284).

Development of the workshop curriculum is funded through a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation.

Presidential candidates’ views

By JohnL on Feb. 10, 2008.

Late last week, Christina A. Samuels, the special ed beat writer for Education Week posted an entry on US political candidates’ views about disabilities and education. Writing under the title “Presidential Candidates and Spec Ed,” Ms. Samuels started her post with these words:

They may have other policy differences, but when it comes to special education, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all want the same thing for states–more money.

My colleague Michele McNeil has already written in her lively blog about Clinton’s pledge to “fully-fund” the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I hope someone is standing up when there are opportunities and asking candidates questions about how US policy on special education will change in the next few years. One of my big fears is that the next round of IDEA will actually see efforts to disenfranchise some students with disabilities. Can we expect any candidate to understand the intricacies of such policies?

Read the entire post here.

Politics and ed research

By JohnL on Feb. 6, 2008.

In “‘Scientific Research’ and Policymaking: A Tool, Not a Crutch,” Frederick M. Hess and Jeffrey R. Henig present concerns about how research affects educational policies and how public policymakers use educational research.

These are heady times for education researchers. The No Child Left Behind Act famously endorses the use of “scientifically based research,” the federal Institute of Education Sciences has elevated the profile of rigorous scholarship, and presidential candidates tout studies on teacher quality, testing, and school choice. Advocates market favorable social science evidence and enlist sympathetic researchers as spokespersons. This attention can tempt researchers to oversell their findings and policymakers to overinterpret them—confusing our understanding of what “scientific research” can and cannot teach us when it comes to education policy.

We write as two individuals housed in very different institutions and frequently on opposing sides in polarized policy debates, both having just published books plumbing the impact of research on education policy. One sits in a school of education; the other in a Washington think tank typically described as “conservative.” Despite our differences, we share the concern that undisciplined claims about the power of research can stand in for careful thinking, foster cynicism, and undermine the long-term contribution of the research community.

Link (subscription may be required): Education Week, 27(22), 26, 36.

NCD on NCLB and IDEA

By JohnL on Feb. 2, 2008.

The National Council on Disability (NCD) published a document entitled “The No Child Left Behind Act
and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report” that describes changes in student outcomes, professional practices, and policies across the US. Here’s an excerpt from the executive summary that provides an overview of the document.

In 2004, NCD issued a report called No Child Left Behind: Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, which examined the impact of NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The report drew its conclusions and recommendations from interviews with disability policy, education, and advocacy leaders and identified some changing attitudes and behavioral shifts in K–12 education as a result of the new legislation.

This report provides both a follow-up and a more detailed reporting of the trends and attitudes about NCLB and IDEA over the past several years. In this study we spoke to dozens of researchers, practitioners, and state administrators from across the country about NCLB and IDEA. In addition, we conducted a study of 10 of the largest states in the nation, representing approximately half the U.S. general population.

This report is divided into four sections. Part I provides a brief overview of trend data regarding students with disabilities. Part II describes conversations with state administrators and representatives about trends and issues related to NCLB and IDEA. Part III describes similar conversations with advocates, federal officials, and other stakeholders. Part IV provides recommendations based on our findings.

Read the rest of this entry »

Insurance policies

By JohnL on Dec. 30, 2007.

This is not really a an educational story, but one that reveals another gap in the care received by individuals with disabilities. It’s the story of the Denney family and a child, David, who has such substantial disabilities that he requires extensive nursing care. Perhaps most surprisingly, it is the story of an insurance company that, after agreeing to pay for the care for years, reverses itself and forces the family to fall back on public sources for the care.

Using reasonable procedures (e.g., letters from David’s physicians), the Denneys sought to persuade the insurance company that David needed the services; when denied, they decided that the insurer’s reversal was not appropriate, and they sued.
Read the rest of this entry »

Consortium to Prevent School Violence

By mayerma on Dec. 28, 2007.

Dear Colleagues,

The new Consortium to Prevent School Violence website is up and running at: http://www.preventschoolviolence.org (alternate URL: http://www.ctpsv.org).

Consortium Mission: The Consortium to Prevent School Violence is committed to assisting educators and schools in the reduction of school violence.

Consortium Goals: The Consortium seeks to foster high quality research on school violence prevention; communication among researchers, practitioners and policy makers; dissemination of research-based information regarding effective school violence reduction programs; technical assistance and professional development that aid in implementing effective school violence reduction practices; and advocacy of effective research-based solutions to policy makers.

Consortium History: The Consortium grew out of efforts that followed the tragic Amish school shootings of Fall, 2006. A group of 20 researchers and practitioners in the field of school violence prevention collaborated on the creation of a nationally disseminated position statement on the school shootings. In the process, it became apparent that an alliance of researchers and practitioners in school violence prevention to further the common goal of reducing school violence would be highly valuable.

Current Consortium projects include:

• Brief and practical fact sheets for use by teachers, school administrators, parents, and others working in schoolrelated settings, offering concise, understandable, and usable research-based recommendations for practice. Topics will include: screening and referring at-risk students for help; bullying prevention; gangs in schools; threat assessment in schools; working with students with a history of academic failure and behavioral problems; school-family partnerships to address behavioral problems; mentoring programs for at-risk youth; and others as needs are identified.
• Usable research briefs by leading researchers, targeting critical topic areas, such as bullying prevention, zero tolerance, school-accessible evidence-based interventions, youth gun access and guns in schools, and school resource officers. The briefs, which summarize extant knowledge of the topic, will be designed for an end-user audience of school staff, local school and school district administrators, professional training personnel, and policymakers and legislators at the state and federal level.
• Staff training PowerPoints for school violence prevention which include speaker notes and support resources, for use in schools, local youth service agencies, and other organizations concerned with school violence. The PowerPoints will be designed for use by professional trainers who may have general but not highly specific knowledge of school violence prevention. The PowerPoints will be geared to support training sessions for use in in-service programs, workshops, and other professional training venues.
• Effective practices video in which national experts share key lessons learned from school violence prevention research and practice. The video, as envisioned, approximately 35-40 minutes in length, will feature approximately 15 national experts, each briefly highlighting important bottom line findings. The video will be developed along critical themes such as school wide programming, early intervention, fostering connectedness, providing mental health and other supports, threat assessment, and crisis management.

All research-based materials posted on the Consortium website are evaluated and approved by the Consortium’s expert review panel of distinguished scholars.

Please share the URL with colleagues. Thank you.

Matthew Mayer
Rutgers University

Is special education a taxing entitlement?

By mgerb50 on Dec. 26, 2007.

In a 20 December editorial entitled “The Special Education Bridge to Nowhere” published by Vermont Tiger, Curtis Hier published the accompanying editorial.

The recent study by the Joint Fiscal Office on our tax burden in Vermont reminds me of another JFO study done a few years ago. In 2001, the JFO was put in charge of studying special education costs. It enlisted a working group that included special educators, professional disability advocates, and the “Big Three” of the education lobby — including, of course, Joel Cook of the Vermont-NEA.

Given the makeup of the working group, it should not be a surprise that the study identified growing costs that were beyond anybody’s control, and it recommended that the problem be studied further. Herein lies the problem of special education cost containment. Those who potentially have the answers to the problem of spending are the stakeholders who benefit from the spending.

At Vermont Tiger (www.vermonttiger.com), we have some great ideas for identifying and tackling the real cost drivers of education spending in Vermont. And we have some great resources at our disposal. We are a nonprofit organization that promotes sound and sustainable economic growth in Vermont.

We’ve started to post regular investigative reports on our site that expose certain practices of the education community, and we are watching particularly for examples of ineffective spending. In special education, while there are dedicated professionals and certainly pockets of success throughout Vermont, there are plenty of examples to be found of inefficient spending and poor results. And looking at the results statewide, it appears that we’re building a virtual bridge to nowhere.

Special education spun out of control in the 1990s. Special education professional staff increased by 42 percent, while paraprofessional staff increased by an amazing 139 percent. Overall special education expenditures rose at a rate of 150 percent. We went from spending $51 million to spending $128 million on these programs.

Since Act 117 was passed in 2000, special education programs have slowed their growth rate a bit. They had to. They couldn’t possibly maintain the pace of the 1990s. Still, the growth is formidable. Now we spend well over $200 million on these programs. And yet, despite the spending levels, we are seeing abysmally low and essentially flat achievement scores among special needs students.

Part of the problem has been that the cost drivers have been overstated and taken advantage of by the special education community. For instance, there is a perception that litigation is common and that parents always win. But in the last three years, 13 due process cases were disposed of by hearing officers. Six decisions clearly found for the school district. Five found for the parents. And two included partial findings. Three of the 13 cases ended up in court. That’s not bad for 350 local education agencies over a three-year period.

Another cost driver, seemingly beyond our control, would be the increasing number of low incidence disabilities, such as autism, that are being diagnosed in recent years. These disabilities are cost-intensive. But not every school sees a net increase in these cases every year. Some occasionally see a net decrease. However, schools do not tend to take advantage of the savings opportunities that occur when that happens. While there are certainly fixed costs involved in serving children with severe disabilities, there are some variable costs as well. Contrary to popular belief, special education enrollment has not been trending upward, especially as general student enrollments are going down. Schools that see lower special education enrollments should realize some savings. No rational business would ever lower production and want to keep paying the same amount of money on variable costs.

Clearly there are opportunities for savings in staffing levels. Professor Michael Giangreco has been doing some great work on special education staffing patterns at the University of Vermont. Although he insists that his ideas are “cost-neutral” proposals, his findings could potentially offer ways to reduce significantly our cost burdens. Our current staffing patterns are arguably failing to meet the “least restrictive environment” test of special education law. We can do a better job meeting that test while actually reducing staffing costs. Vermont Tiger will be shedding more light on this subject, as we attempt to build a less expensive bridge to somewhere.

Recently our organization hosted a symposium that explored the question of whether Vermont is to become an entrepreneurial state or a land of entitlements. Special education is an entitlement that is adding to public sector job growth in Vermont. The overall trend of public sector jobs replacing private sector jobs is a disturbing phenomenon in Vermont. It needs to be addressed. And we at Vermont Tiger have been and will continue to be addressing it.

If I understand Mr. Hier, he’s suggesting that all the “cost drivers” that we often hear cited by special education fiscal critics—e.g., increasing identifications, court cases, etc.—are not what keeps special education costs “out of control” in Vermont. He seems to suggest instead that its staffing costs that are not adjusted downwards when special education enrollment drops and, also, that better (more?) implementation of the LRE criterion would bring costs down.

In theory (and in policy), the cost of special education is intended to be variable because it’s based on the aggregate value of all individual educational plans which, in principle, are individually calculated.

Not knowing exactly how much it costs to get to any yearly acheivement target, a rational system would invest steadily in professional development since the aggregate costs of special education cannot trend downwards if capacity stays constant. So one could just as reasonably argue that Vermont hasn’t spent enough on professional development. But, then, we still wouldn’t have any way of knowing if the current expenditures map well against the actual need or not since no one attempts to measure what it really would cost to reach actual IEP goals.

I do not know about Vermont’s special education service structure, but I’m willing to bet that the 139% increase in paraprofessional costs has paralleled increased inclusion (what Mr. Hier seems to be arguing will reduce costs).

The fact is that states have not figured out how you can effectively divide a single special education teacher by the number of classrooms where students with disabilities are placed. Therefore, paraprofessional costs—typically undertrained paraprofessionals—as a percentage of special education has gone up (everywhere).

If I’m right, some of the maintenance, if not increase, in costs might be associated with inclusion as it is practiced in Vermont. This would be a disappointment for policymakers who supported an expansion of inclusion in 1990, thinking that it would bring special education costs down.

We could, of course, withdraw paraprofessionals and expect regular classroom teachers to carry the full responsibility, but alas that would take some significant and ongoing investment in professional development, effectively moving the cost from paraprofessional support to professional development. And, it isn’t clear to me that classroom teachers would readily accept that full responsibility.

That one should expect special education to be expensive is not news at this point. What would be news would be if anyone, anywhere had the least idea what it should cost to assure meaningful learning outcomes for students with IEPs.

But, for that matter, no one knows what it really costs, say, to teach non-disabled children to read. Fact is, we have no idea what outcomes-based education really costs.

I don’t think that States really want to know because it’s likely to be many times what we spend now.

Instead, as seen in NCLB, the policy strategy is to set outcome expectations with relatively fixed revenue (with some guessed at supplement from federal contributions). If you can’t adjust revenues to match needs, then the only movable part left is teaching effectiveness and effort which, as I noted above, come at a cost, too.

It is on this same issue, by the way, that RTI will fail. As a rational strategy for allocating scarce instructional resources, RTI is sensible. Devote these resources to students who really need more intensive and extensive instruction based on progress monitoring. However, the entire strategy falls apart if the primary level of instruction—what the classroom teacher provides—is not, at least, very good. If it isn’t, then scarce resources will be allocated to compensate for not-so-good teaching rather than innate limitations of students.

The only way out of this is, again, significant investment in professional development, the same place we end up in pursuing special education’s real costs. It shouldn’t surprise us. Special education, all along, has been a system for responding to the perceived unresponsiveness of students under conditions of typical instrution (beginning way back when Elizabeth Farrell taught at P. S. 1 in NYC). Although the technical skills of teachers in 1901 may have been somewhat limited, the principle remains unchanged that there will always be relatively “unresponsive” learners if baseline instruction occurs in large groups of students who are variable in their ability to respond to whatever the prevailing method or technology of instruction might be.

So, I fear that Mr. Hier’s and Vermont’s problem of special education costs is technically unsolvable in the foreseeable future

It is, of course, politically solvable.

Mr. Hier or others could convince voters to spend less to get more. In the world of politics we spend according to what we collectively—by vote—value, even when the benefits derived from that spending are muddy (as in proscecuting wars, for example).

Any proposal to cut spending will be met with sizable resistance from parents, special educators, and other advocates. Of course, these folks (us) do not have any better idea what the real spending number ought to be. We merely suspect (rightly, I believe) that it should be higher, certainly not lower. But, if Mr. Hier or others have or gain more votes, they win. In one sense, a reauthorized NCLB that reduces the requirement for making progress for students with disabilities, accomplishes something of the same end. That is, if schools do not have to demonstrate progress by students with disabilities, such a policy invites schools to make less, not more, effort for these students regardless of their inclusion status.

Laws change; reality doesn’t. It won’t change a thing in the schools, of course. School folks will still be pinned between the requirements of effort mandated in IDEA (unless IT is changed as well) and whatever cost-cutting policies are adopted in Vermont or elsewhere. And children with disabilities will still be at very high risk for learning failure.

If you don’t live in Vermont, don’t worry. There’s some version of “Vermont” everywhere these days. There can be no rest for advocates.

Michael Gerber
Professor
University of California Santa Barbara

To read Mr. Hier’s complete editorial in its original form, follow this link.

NAEP and accommodations

By JohnL on Dec. 13, 2007.

Are accommodations for students with disabilities compromising the integrity of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress? According to a story by Elizabeth Green in the New York (NY, US) Sun, educators are considering that question closely. Ms. Green reported that, “Responding to mounting concerns about the validity of a test considered the gold standard for measuring American students, federal officials are pushing for a change in how the test is administered.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Personnel prep CFDA

By JohnL on Nov. 30, 2007.

The US Department of Education has issued a call for proposals for projects to prepare special education professionals. Goodness knows, we need ‘em.

*******************************************************************
  Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for   Children with Disabilities (Federal Register: November 27, 2007
  [CFDA#s 84.325D, 84.325K, 84.325R, and 84.325T])
*******************************************************************
Purpose of Program: The purposes of this program are to (1) help address State-identified needs for highly qualified personnel — in special education, related services, early intervention, and regular education — to work with infants, toddlers and children with disabilities; and (2) ensure that those personnel have the necessary skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been determined through scientifically based research and experience, to be successful in serving those children.
    Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHEs).
 ==> Preparation of Leadership Personnel — 84.325D
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/04/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $171,969-$200,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $196,200
    Estimated Number of Awards: 25
 ==> Combined Personnel Preparation — 84.325K
 Focus Area a: Training Personnel to Serve Infants, Toddlers, and Pre-school Age Children with Disabilities.
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/11/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $150,000-$200,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $175,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 14
Focus Area b: Training Personnel to Serve School Age Children with Low Incidence Disabilities.
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/11/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $150,000-$200,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $175,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 23
Focus Area c: Training Personnel to Provide Related Services, Speech/Language Services, and Adapted Physical Education to Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Disabilities.
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/11/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $150,000-$200,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $175,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 14
Focus Area d: Training Personnel in Minority Institutions to Serve Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Disabilities.
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/11/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $150,000-$200,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $175,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 14
 ==> National Outreach and Technical Assistance Center on Discretionary Awards for Minority Institutions — 84.325R
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/11/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $1,500,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,500,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 1
 ==> Special Education Preservice Training Improvement Grants — 84.325T
    Applications available: 11/27/07
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: 01/18/08
    Estimated Range of Awards: $100,000-$150,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $125,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 21
    Additional Information: Applicable regulations, priorities, and other information are available in the Federal Register notice. Additional information is available online at:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2007-4/112707b.html

Cambridge Center ED

By JohnLloyd on Nov. 30, 2007.

The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies seeks an experienced behavior analyst to assume the position of Executive Director in July, 2008. Link.