UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

PRESIDENT\'S COMMISSION ON

EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

\* \* \*

RESEARCH AGENDA TASK FORCE

HEARING

Peabody College of Vanderbilt

University

Wyatt Building

Nashville, Tennessee

Friday, April 18, 2002

8:00 a.m.

The hearing was held pursuant to notice, on

Friday, April 18, 2002, at 80:10 a.m., Nancy Grasmick,

presiding.

ATTENDEES:

KATIE WRIGHT

ROBERT PASTERNACK

G. REID LYON

JACK FLETCHER

ALAN COULTER

TERRY BRANSTAD

C. TODD JONES

LYNN FUCHS

DOUGLAS FUCHS

TROY JUSTESEN

TERRY BRANSTAD

PRESIDENT\'S COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

DR. GRASMICK: Good morning. I\'m Nancy

Grasmick, and I\'m the Maryland Superintendent of

Education. I am chairing the research task force of

the President\'s Commission on Excellence in Special

Education.

I\'d like to welcome all of you to our

meeting here today. The focus of this hearing today

is research in special education. Before we get

started, I\'d like to briefly provide you with some

background information on the mission activities of

this commission thus far. President Bush established

this commission last October to collect information

and to study issues related to federal, state, and

local special education programs.

The commission\'s goal is to recommend

policies to improve the educational performance of

students with disabilities so that no child will be

left behind, especially those with learning

disabilities. The commission\'s work is not designed

to replace the upcoming Congressional reauthorization

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Rather, the report we produce and issue this summer

will not only provide vital input into the

reauthorization process, but also into the national

debate on how best to educate all children.

Over the past two months the commission

and its task forces have held hearings in Houston,

Denver, Des Moines, Los Angeles, Coral Gables, and

New York City as recently as this week. The

commission has looked at issues such as teacher

quality, accountability, funding, cost effectiveness,

parental involvement, and identification of children

with learning disabilities.

Today, of course, we are turning our

attention to research. Sound research should be the

foundation for all teaching and learning especially

in special education. Through effective research and

dissemination, classroom educators and parents stand

a much better chance of bringing successful practices

into the classroom for the benefit of children with

learning disabilities. This administration strongly

favors the use of scientifically based research in

education, and that includes special education also.

2

Today we will hear presentations from

experts detailing how quality research can provide us

with important information so that educators can:

‑ Better identify children with learning

disabilities.

‑ Assess the educational progress of each

special education student to ensure that no child is

left behind.

‑ Create successful transitions from

school to adult life for students with learning

disabilities.

‑ Evaluate infants, toddlers, and children

for learning disabilities.

‑ Create the least‑restrictive learning

environments for special education students.

‑ Bridge the gap between research and

practice.

‑ Create alternative models and programs

for special education.

‑ Help states and school districts

determine whether special education programs are

working. In doing so, research creates and supports

vital accountability mechanisms for federal and local

educational dollars.

Today we will hear from a variety of

experts. We thank them in advance for their presence

here. They can provide us with suggestions on how to

create the best‑possible research agenda for special

education. We are also eager to hear from others

gathered here today. We need the suggestions of

educators and parents to accomplish our work. We

will have a public comment period this afternoon to

ensure that you have a chance to provide us with that

vital input.

Thank you for your interest in this

commission. We will now begin today\'s hearing.

Before we do that, I would just like to ask the

members of the commission who are gathered here today

to introduce themselves following Governor Branstad\'s

comments.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: Nancy Grasmick, thank

you very much for chairing this research agenda task

force.

I\'m Terry Branstad, former Governor of

Iowa. I\'m really honored and proud to be chair of

this President\'s Commission on Excellence in Special

Education. I\'m especially pleased to be here at the

Peabody College of Vanderbilt University because

Lamar Alexander, one of your distinguished alumni, is

a very good friend of mine.

My first trip to Tennessee as governor was

to a Governors Conference that Lamar Alexander hosted

here in 1985. He was the first governor to focus the

National Governors Association of education. I had

the honor of later chairing the Governors Association

when we had the presidential summit on education with

the president\'s father, President George Herbert

Walker Bush. I think maybe that\'s why the president

asked me to chair this commission.

We are encouraged about the progress

that\'s been made in special education over the last

25 years. Yet we know that the president\'s goal of

Leaving No Child Behind has not been met. There is a

lot that can be done to improve and make special

education better. The focus today is going to be on

research. We have already heard from some of your

distinguished professors and researchers here about

some of the exciting research and ideas that are

coming out of Vanderbilt University in this area.

I\'m excited about the opportunity for us

to work with you, with parents, as well as with

teachers and researchers because we believe this is

how we can have an impact or an influence on moving

education forward in a way that helps all children,

especially children with disabilities who are the

most vulnerable of our children.

So, thank you for coming and

participating. I think as you get a chance to get

acquainted with the members of the commission, you

will agree with me that we have a very knowledgeable,

experienced, and diverse group of commissioners who

care deeply about this subject. Along with all the

participation we\'ve had from parents and from people

in the community, I\'m very hopeful we\'re going to see

some good ideas come that we can submit to the

president around the first of July.

Thank you very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you. I asked Dr.

Lyon if he will begin with introductions. Please

introduce yourselves with your name and positions.

DR. LYON: My name is Reid Lyon. I\'m the

chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at

the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development at the NIH.

DR. FLETCHER: I\'m Jack Fletcher. I\'m a

professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the

University of Texas Houston Health Science Center.

I\'m a neuro‑psychologist.

MS. WRIGHT: I\'m Katie Wright. I live in

Illinois but I also work in St. Louis. I am

thrilled. I am a former teacher and superintendent

of schools, director of special education, college

professor, the whole thing. But I am so thrilled to

be on this commission because I think I know a lot.

But I have found that being on this

commission that I really don\'t know enough. I am

learning a lot, I\'m learning what I don\'t know on

this commission. It\'s just a thrill to be here with

you. Thank you, Madame Chair.

MR. PASTERNACK: Good morning. I\'m Bob

Pasternack. I\'m the assistant secretary at the

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services at the United States Department of

Education.

MR. JONES: I\'m Todd Jones. I\'m deputy

assistant secretary for enforcement in the Office for

Civil Rights at the United States Department of

Education. I also serve as executive director of the

President\'s Commission on Excellence in Special

Education.

MR. COULTER: I\'m Alan Coulter, director

of School‑Age Services at the Human Development

Center, LSU Health Sciences Center.

DR. BERDINE: I am Bill Berdine. I\'m

professor of special education and chair of the

Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation

Counseling at the University of Kentucky. Also, the

person who will be joining us here momentarily and

who is still working on some things behind the scenes

is our deputy executive director, Troy Justesen, who

is also a distinguished alumnus of Peabody.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you. We will now

begin. Our first topic is assessment. But we are

going to take a photo first.

(Pause.)

DR. GRASMICK: Our first topic is

assessment. The researchers will discuss what

research shows about assessment measures in students

with disabilities. The presentation will include

suggestions for future research effort by OSEP and

other federal agencies to increase the knowledge base

concerning assessment measures.

Initial presenters are Dr. Lynn Fuchs of

Vanderbilt University, a professor of special

education and co‑director of the research program on

learning accommodations for individuals with special

needs at the John F. Kennedy Center.

Joining her is Dr. Douglas Fuchs of

Vanderbilt University, a professor of special

education and co‑director of the research program on

learning accommodations for individuals with special

needs at the John F. Kennedy Center.

Both of them have conducted extensive

research. We would ask them to begin their

presentations at this time.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Thank you. Doug and I

thank you for the invitation to speak before the

commission this morning. You requested that we speak

about progress monitoring. So the focus of our

testimony is necessarily narrow, confined to the role

of progress monitoring in a special education

research agenda.

We are offering three recommendations.

First, that procedures for monitoring students\'

development of academic competence be used for two

purposes, to improve special education accountability

and to identify students with LD within a response‑

to‑treatment identification model.

Second, that research programs be

conducted to answer key questions about using

progress monitoring for these two purposes. Third,

that Part D of IDEA be kept tightly aligned with

Parts B and C so that special education research may

continue to support and strengthen practice on behalf

of individuals with disabilities.

Our testimony focuses on curriculum‑based

measurement or CBM, a standardized progress

monitoring system developed by special education

researchers over the past 25 years with funding from

the Office of Special Education Programs. More than

200 empirical studies published in peer‑review

journals provide evidence of CBM\'s reliability and

validity for assessing the development of academic

competence in reading, math, spelling and written

expression.

This research also documents CPM\'s

capacity to help special educators improve student

outcomes at the elementary grades. At present CBM is

the most conceptually sophisticated, technically

sound, and thoroughly researched progress monitoring

system available.

In our comments we discuss CBM\'s potential

to address two pressing problems. The first is how

to measure the learning of students with disabilities

and more generally the effectiveness of special

education. The second problem is how to identify

students with LD in a response‑to‑treatment‑

identification process. We describe each problem,

discuss CBM\'s role in addressing that problem, and

identify critical topics for research.

We begin by briefly explaining what CBM

is. Most progress‑monitoring systems rely on mastery

measurement where teachers test for mastery of a

single skill. After mastery is demonstrated, move on

to assess the next skill in a presumed hierarchy.

Mastery measurement presents serious technical

problems that limit its utility for quantifying

learning outcomes.

For example, because objectives are not

equal interval units, a teacher can report better

outcomes simply by subdividing objectives into

smaller units, thereby showing mastery of a greater

number of objectives. With CBM instead of measuring

mastery of short‑term objectives, each test assesses

performance on all the skills covered in the annual

curriculum in such a way that each weekly test is an

alternate form of equivalent difficulty.

Scores achieved in October can be compared

directly to scores achieved in November or May. Each

weekly test is graphed against time, and an

individual\'s data path represents progress toward

achieving competence in the annual curriculum.

Slope, expressed as the student\'s weekly rate of

improvement, is used to quantify the data path.

With that introduction to CBM, we turn our

attention to how CBM might be used to address the

problem of special education accountability. When

talking about accountability we address the needs of

all students with disabilities for whom academic

goals are appropriate. This is the vast majority of

students with disability.

Discussions about accountability for these

students with high‑incidence disability typically

focus on participation in the general education

accountability system. Although most agree on its

importance, such participation is unlikely to promote

challenging goals and stronger outcomes for these

students. This is due to the large gap between the

level of achievement required on the state tests and

the actual performance levels of these students.

This gap creates two problems. First,

such distal goals are perceived as beyond reach.

Second, many students\' skill levels fall below the

range of items on a state test so that students can

earn scores of zero in successive years despite

academic growth. It\'s, therefore, critical to

supplement general education tests with an

accountability system that provides a more proximal

and sensitive framework for indexing learning.

In fact, a second approach to

accountability already exists in the IEP process.

But for years IEP\'s have been based on a mastery

measurement framework which creates onerous paperwork

while failing to provide a basis for quantifying

outcomes. Most agree that the IEP system requires

revamping. We argue that CBM should become an

important part of a revamped IEP process.

With a revised IEP process a student\'s

initial CBM score is the current performance level.

The student\'s year‑end goal is also a single CBM

score established using normative data about

appropriate expectations for student growth. A line

connecting the child\'s current performance level with

a year‑end goal represents a desired rate of

progress, and the student\'s actual rate of progress

is monitored weekly with CBM to determine whether

year‑end mastery is predicted. If not, the teacher

modifies instruction in hopes of accelerating

learning.

In this way for any domain all IEP

components are represented on a single graph. The

teacher uses this graph as a living document to

derive effective programs inductively and to ensure

goal attainment. In addition, CBM slopes can be used

to document how well special education is working as

a larger system to accomplish special education

accountability.

For example, CBM slopes under special

education can be compared to slopes when those same

students are served by general education. In this

way Doug Marsten, for example, documented special

education effectiveness as he followed students from

general to special education and showed higher CBM

slopes in special education.

CBM for students with disabilities can

also be compared to slopes associated with typical

development. Slopes can be averaged across students

for a given special educator to quantify that

teacher\'s effectiveness. Slopes can be averaged

across special education teachers to quantify special

education effectiveness for a district and so on.

But to bolster the meaningfulness and

usefulness of CBM as an accountability tool,

investigation is required. Our written testimony

identified six important issues. But given the time

limitations of oral testimony, we highlight three.

The first concerns the need for national

norms which would help teachers determine how much

progress typically‑developing children make at

different grade levels. With this information

teachers could establish IEP goals that specify

acceptable rates of progress, and teachers,

administrators and policy‑makers would have the

necessary yardstick by which to judge special

education effectiveness.

Currently the best normative profile is

inadequate. It addresses grades two through five.

It incorporates information from just four to eight

districts in five western states using basal programs

no longer available. It provides information about

level, not slope, and focuses exclusively on reading.

Research is needed to establish current comprehensive

and rigorous CBM norms.

A second research topic concerns

consequences, intended and unintended, of infusing

special education with a reformed IEP process based

on CBM. Studies should examine effects on the

ambitiousness of goals, the quality of instruction,

and the extent of student learning.

Studies should also identify how

aggregating data by teachers, service‑delivery

arrangements, instructional methods, curriculum

packages, and types of disability and how that

affects decision‑making at the school, district,

state, and federal levels. Studies should assess how

outcomes‑based accountability affects the content of

teacher‑preparation programs.

The third critical research need is to

expand CBM\'s focus. Most research conducted on CBM

concerns the acquisition of basic skills at the

elementary grades. CBM must expand its focus to

include more‑complex skills and to span the

secondary‑level curriculum.

In our written testimony the three

additional areas we identified were identifying how a

revamped IEP process used for accountability

interacts with student participation in a general

education accountability system, questions about

aggregating CBM data, and questions about teacher

training and support needed to ensure accurate CBM

use.

At this point I am going to turn the floor

over to Doug who will discuss a second problem for

which we are recommending progress monitoring, the

identification of students with LD, and a response to

treatment‑identification process.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Good morning and

welcome to Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

in Nashville, Tennessee.

I would like to echo Lynn\'s sentiments

that it\'s a privilege and honor to appear before this

commission. Without further ado, permit me to take

up the issue of whether and how progress monitoring

can help us think about identifying children with

learning disabilities.

Few would disagree that the current

psycho‑metric approach to LD identification has

technical difficulties and conceptual problems. The

public has become increasingly aware of the

controversy over methods of LD identification as more

and more children are given the label and given

access to relatively costly education services.

Policy‑makers, politicians, school

administrators, and scholars seem poised to consider

alternative frameworks for defining the construct.

One alternative receiving attention over the past

several years is to re‑think LD as an inadequate

response to treatment. CBM is often mentioned in

this context because it\'s a progress‑monitoring

system with the technical properties to reliably and

validly determine who is responsive and who is not.

Within a response‑to‑treatment model LD

identification occurs after two distinct stages. In

stage one a student is identified as at‑risk for poor

academic outcome using either cutpoints on

traditional academic measures or CBM slope and

performance level. Once a student\'s risk status is

established, she\'s placed in a time‑limited,

diagnostic intervention stage of decision‑making.

During this stage two, validated

instruction is implemented as CBM data are collected

to assess the child\'s response to instruction.

Students who respond inadequately are identified as

disabled and requiring more long‑term and intensive

special education instruction. Thus, according to

this alternative method of LD identification, non‑

responsiveness to presumably effective instruction ‑‑

not a large IQ‑achievement discrepancy ‑‑ is the

litmus test for whether a child is determined as LD.

The response‑to‑treatment model has a lot

going for it. I want to underscore that point.

First by basing LD identification on the failure to

respond to validated effective instruction, this

alternative identification model eliminates poor

instruction as an explanation for inadequate

learning.

Second, for many at‑risk children who are

simply the victims of poor teaching in regular

classrooms, the diagnostic intervention stage may re‑

mediate their academic problems. Third, the CBM data

collected in this second stage may be understood to

constitute a baseline against which growth in special

education can be compared and by which judgments

about its effectiveness can be made.

Despite these and other promising features

of a response‑to‑treatment model, there are important

assessment‑related questions that require answers.

I\'ll discuss two of these from a larger set of issues

addressed in our written testimony. The

first issue addresses the major decision points

implicit in a response‑to‑treatment model. A two‑

stage response‑to‑treatment model incorporates two

pivotal decision points, one for determining at‑risk,

that is, who enters the diagnostic intervention; the

other for determining non‑responsiveness to

treatment, that is, who enters special education?

For each of these decisions the normative

framework and the cutpoint used in that framework

must be established. Different normative groups and

cutpoints can result in very different numbers of

identified students, different types of students, and

not surprisingly, different demands on school

services.

Guidelines for determining at‑risk status

and non‑responsiveness to treatment have been

previously offered, but few have been studied

systematically. In thinking about these critical

decision points there are at least two broad

assessment questions requiring further investigation.

The first is whether local or national

norms are better suited for designating risk status

and responsiveness to treatment. Local norms offer

the advantage of referencing learning in a child\'s

own school or classroom to evaluate whether she\'s

performing with levels commensurate with her

classmates. On the other hand, local norms are very

difficult for schools to establish and maintain.

There is also an associated danger that

ineffective schools will fail to identify children

with disabilities because of a poorly achieving peer

group. Research is needed to explore the pluses and

minuses associated with using local versus national

norms.

A second assessment question corresponding

to stage two of the response‑to‑treatment model is

what should be the criteria for judging

responsiveness to treatment? Velatino and colleagues

conducted a simple median split on slopes indexing

treatment responsiveness for a group of very poor

first‑grade readers. Velatino et al decided that the

lower half of the group was non‑responsive and

probably disabled.

Working with older students, Torgeson and

Associates defined non‑responsiveness in terms of a

post‑treatment standard score of less than 90. Both

of these methods for specifying unresponsiveness and

assigning disability status are problematic and are

recognized as such by their authors. Velatino et

al\'s median split is arbitrary because it simply

designates failure as below the middle level of

response within a normative framework limited to very

poor readers.

Torgeson et al\'s strategy is insensitive

to the possibility that some students failing to

reach a post‑treatment score of 90 will nevertheless

exhibit a better growth than some of their classmates

who score 90 or better.

To provide a more defensible basis for

identifying students who perform poorly in response

to diagnostic intervention, one would need growth

norms on the full range of the population. This

would be expensive because it would require providing

diagnostic treatment to a large representative sample

of the school‑age population. An alternative

solution would be to establish a criterion‑reference

framework that provides cutpoints of growth below

which meaningful, long‑term competence would be

unlikely.

There are additional concerns about the

diagnostic intervention stage. If schools

operationalize treatment using current, pre‑referral

intervention processes, then the response‑to‑

treatment model will fail to realize its potential.

In many districts pre‑referral intervention lacks

substantive focus and intensity and specificity of

effort, and it lacks direct evidence of improving

students\' behavior or academic performance.

Typically it is based on an ill‑defined

model of teachers helping teachers which itself has

never been validated with student‑outcome data.

Moreover, extant research offers few alternatives of

pre‑referral intervention that had been validated in

terms of improving children\'s academic performance.

A research program is very much needed to establish

appropriate methods for designating at‑risk status

and treatment‑responsiveness status in a response‑to‑

treatment model of LD identification.

A second set of research questions

concerns unintended consequences. As with any

relatively untested innovation, unanticipated and

undesirable consequences of a response‑to‑treatment

model of LD identification may occur. Research

should be conducted so that these consequences are

foreseen and action is taken to blunt their impact.

Some areas of concern: First, without

including the measurement of intelligence in the LD

identification process, it\'s unclear whether and how

schools will distinguish students with mental

retardation from students with learning disabilities.

We need to know more about how a response‑to‑

treatment model affects the mild MR category.

Second, delivering diagnostic intervention

to large numbers of at‑risk students will require

numerous instructional experts. Questions about how

to train school personnel to expertly deliver

diagnostic intervention need attention.

Third, there has been insufficient

discussion about the LD identification process beyond

the earliest grades. Procedures need to be developed

for grade three and beyond.

A final comment. During the past 20 years

the Office of Special Education Programs has

sponsored a body of work that provides very important

information about how to enhance general‑education

practice, how to design diagnostic intervention, and

how to improve outcomes for students with

disabilities.

These instructional practices include, but

are not limited to, self‑regulated learning

strategies, mnemonics, classwide peer tutoring and

peer‑assisted learning strategies, reciprocal

teaching, Ladders to Literacy, Sound Partners,

curriculum‑based measurement, direct instruction, and

strategy instruction.

Contributing to the impact of this

research on practice are the close connections among

Parts B, C, and D in IDEA. The deliberate alignment

of Parts B, C, and D does much to close the gap

between research and practice. We urge the

commission to support a version of IDEA that

continues to ensure that the research and service

components of the law remain together with one

informing the other.

Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much. Now I

would like to ask our commissioners to engage in a

question‑and‑answer period. We are cognizant of the

time constraints we have for this. So I will ask the

commissioners to be sensitive to that point.

Dr. Fletcher, would you like to begin?

DR. FLETCHER: Thank you. On behalf of

the commission, I would like to thank you for your

commitment to special education research and the

wonderful contributions that the two of you have made

over the past 25 years not only in the area of

progress monitoring, but in many other areas on

behalf of children with disabilities.

I am going to ask you some questions that

are probably a little unfriendly. I\'m sure that you

know, based on interactions in the past, why I am

asking these questions. The first question that I

have ‑‑ and I have to be quick ‑‑ is to simply ask if

we know anything about normative cutpoints on

achievement tests that would indicate when a person

has a disability. What score on a norm‑reference

test tells us that somebody has a disability?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Well, I would say

traditionally it depends on the achievement test. I

would say that the 15th or 25th percentile is what

people generally use for risk status. I would say

for disability status it\'s below the 10th percentile.

DR. FLETCHER: But would you agree that

that, in fact, is not something that has been

validated through research and that we don\'t have

criterion‑validity research that would establish such

a cutpoint?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Yes, I think that\'s

correct.

DR. FLETCHER: I guess I\'m wondering why ‑

‑ given that we\'ve placed children in special

education for the past 25 years in the absence of

this sort of information ‑‑ we suddenly need new

research to establish this for a particular model

before we might consider implementing it?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Well, I think that

traditionally we are talking about the Bell Curve,

the normal distribution. So in the traditional model

we are using cutpoints that are simply identifying

the very lowest students in the normal distribution.

If we are looking for a response‑to‑

treatment model for a new identification procedure in

order to distinguish ineffective instruction from

disability, then I think that we could use the same

framework. But we would need norms for the range of

population\'s responsiveness to the kind of validated

treatment protocols that would be used in the

response‑to‑treatment model. So I think we could use

that, but I think that would be very costly to

collect.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Plus, if I could just

add.

DR. FLETCHER: Surely.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: The reason why we are

advocating research on the cutpoints is because we

are hoping that a more‑rational decision‑making

process can be put in place. As you know, in the

past ‑‑ and there are people in this room who have

done research to demonstrate ‑‑ that many schools and

schools systems use non‑scientific procedures and are

motivated by other considerations for identifying the

kids that they are placing in special education.

DR. FLETCHER: There is, for example, a

framework, and there are alternative approaches to

implementing, say, a response‑to‑treatment model.

The commission heard testimony from Sharon Vaughn in

which she implemented a response‑to‑treatment model

that was based on pre‑ and post‑testing using norm‑

reference measures of fluency that would not, for

example, require new collection of norms, given that

these are well‑established, norm‑reference tests that

simply measure fluency that could be done on a

before‑and‑after basis.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Well, I think that that

framework is similar to the one that Torgeson has

used.

DR. FLETCHER: Right.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: It relies on post‑

treatment status at a certain cutpoint. But the

problem with that in our own work that we\'ve observed

is that there are children who make progress and do

not complete treatment at the designated post‑

treatment status. So if you are looking at response

to treatment, post‑treatment status method does not

necessarily identify the children who are low but

nevertheless learning.

DR. FLETCHER: But to correct the record,

Dr. Fuchs, this is before‑and‑after intervention.

There was a pre‑test and a post‑test. The difference

in that model versus your model is that it didn\'t

include the weekly probes.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: I\'m not familiar with

what kind of standard for progress Dr. Vaughn would

have been using.

DR. FLETCHER: Well, it was both growth as

well as a series of exit criteria.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Yes, but I don\'t know how

she established the norms for growth from pre‑ to

post.

DR. FLETCHER: In growth, no, but she

essentially used the existing norm‑reference data to

establish ‑‑

DR. LYNN FUCHS: A level of post‑

treatment?

DR. FLETCHER: Yes, as well as a different

score between pre‑ and post‑treatment.

I have to be quick, and I want to ask one

other question that we have been asking many of the

witnesses. That is, do you think that there is a

role for the use of IQ tests in the identification of

children with learning disabilities based on what you

know from research, not in the identification of

children with mental retardation, but specifically in

the identification of children with learning

disabilities based on research?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: I think that in terms

of research context it\'s important to use IQ

achievement discrepancy as a comparison. As we

explore alternative models, we need to know how many

children, what kinds of children are being identified

by alternative models in comparison to procedures

that use IQ achievement discrepancies.

So if you are asking is there a role for

IQ achievement in research ‑‑

DR. FLETCHER: That\'s not my question. My

question was essentially ‑‑ and it wasn\'t about

research ‑‑ I was asking if research supported the

use of IQ tests for the identification of children

with learning disabilities. How does IQ contribute

to either identification, assessment‑planning, and so

on?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: I think that there is

research to very seriously question the use of IQ

achievement discrepancy as it\'s used with young

children and in the area of reading. It\'s unclear to

me ‑‑ to me the jury is still out in terms of when we

are interested in and concerned about kids who have

reading difficulties that go beyond the individual

word level.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: I think also that

additional research is needed that extends IQ below

90 and below 85 when looking at that question.

DR. FLETCHER: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Pasternack?

DR. PASTERNACK: Hi. Thank you for your

fine testimony and your fine work. I\'ve got many

questions but, in the interest of time, I\'m going to

ask you a couple.

What do you know about the achievement of

students with disabilities in the State of Tennessee

based on the fact that you are training teachers in

this model? In other words, are students with

disabilities who are recipients of services provided

by the teachers that you train different from

surrounding states?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Most of our graduates

from Vanderbilt don\'t stay in Tennessee. So we don\'t

have data aggregated by those teachers in Tennessee

who have provided services to children in the state.

So I don\'t know the answer to your question.

DR. PASTERNACK: If we know that this

model works and we have sound research to suggest

that it works, why aren\'t universities training

teachers to use the strategies in the education of

students with disabilities?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: You are referring to

the response‑to‑treatment model as this approach?

DR. PASTERNACK: CBM, sure.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Well, we do train

students at the undergraduate and graduate levels in

the use of curriculum‑based measurement but we have

not pushed it, we\'ve not taught it as an alternative

method of LD identification because ‑‑ well, for the

reasons that we\'ve talked about in our testimony.

DR. PASTERNACK: I guess I\'m less

interested for the moment in the LD identification

issue and more interested in the instruction of all

students with disabilities.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: I think that more

specific incorporation of validated research

procedures needs to be incorporated in the

professional standards that organizations and

certifying bodies ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 2)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. LYNN FUCHS: (Continuing.) Nowadays

research procedures need to be incorporated in the

professional standards that organizations in

certifying bodies use. I think there is a tendency

in those organizations toward broad statements rather

than specific validated processes. So I think that

is one deficit that could be addressed, having

professional organizations actually adopt into their

standards specific validated practices.

DR. PASTERNACK: I\'m glad you brought that

up because another question I\'m interested in hearing

about is something that you didn\'t testify about this

morning, but some of you work on peer‑assisted

learning strategies. If we know that certified

doesn\'t mean qualified ‑‑ and you all have

demonstrated that yours can achieve progress by

teaching other kids with disabilities ‑‑ then what

does that tell us about the fact that adults are not

accomplishing that with the kids that they\'re

teaching?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Well, our use of peer‑

assisted learning strategies, which is a peer‑

mediated approach to reinforcing basic skills in

reading and mathematics, is never used in isolation.

In other words, it is always combined with ‑‑ it\'s

not a substitute for but a supplement to teacher

instruction.

So we don\'t know what the effect of peer‑

assisted learning strategies or classwide peer

tutoring or other permeated efforts are apart from

teacher instruction. We know that when it is used

appropriately, it can be a wonderful adjunct to

teacher‑directed instruction.

DR. PASTERNACK: Let me ask you the

question a different way. One of the things that we

have heard, not only in this commission, but I have

heard as I\'ve gone around the country gathering input

towards the reauthorization is incredible frustration

on the part of thousands of parents that their kids

are not making progress in special education.

So my question to you is why aren\'t

teachers trained to go ahead and make sure that kids

are making progress in special education?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Peer‑assisted learning

strategies and classwide peer tutoring are not

designed to be used in special education. They are

designed to be used in general education. Our non‑

responsiveness rates run between 10 and 15 percent in

general education classrooms. So there is a portion

of students in general education classrooms who don\'t

respond to peer‑assisted learning strategies.

We consider peer‑assisted learning

strategies to be a validated practice for use in

general education classrooms. We have actually run

studies using peer‑assisted learning strategies in

special education with low‑achieving students working

with low‑achieving children. We have found that not

to be effective.

DR. PASTERNACK: So those 10 to 15 percent

of kids would sort of equate to the percentage of

kids we have identified with disabilities placed in

special education?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Yes, I think there is

also a role for some secondary level of intervention

with students who don\'t respond to the general

education program using peer‑assisted learning

strategies to further distinguish disability from

children who could make progress when instruction is

delivered by adults.

We\'ve never assumed that children are a

replacement for trained professionals. Although we

can effect better progress in general education using

PALS, we don\'t recommend or ever speak about it as a

replacement for teachers.

DR. PASTERNACK: Okay, thank you. In the

interest of time, just one other question although

there are many. Could you talk to us a little bit

about how CBM could help us address the issue of

defining AYP for SWD\'s. To translate all those

initials, we have the mandate, as you know, in the

legislation signed by the president, No Child Left

Behind, to define in the first time in the history of

this country adequate yearly progress for students

with disabilities.

How would the work that you\'re doing in

CBM help us make that sort of determination for kids

with disabilities?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Well, I hope that my

testimony tried to address that. I think that slope

provides a good basis for quantifying growth for

individual students. I think slope is a metric that

can be averaged across children and teachers and even

districts to provide a quantifiable index of

learning.

I think there are questions that still

remain unanswered about how to aggregate slope across

grades, across academic areas. I think those are

important technical issues to address. But I do

think that slope is the best available index for

providing a quantitative index for learning for

students for whom academic goals are appropriate.

Does that answer your question?

DR. PASTERNACK: I think it\'s a step in

that direction. It seems like what you\'re suggesting

is that we have a body of work that we can use, but

we need more research in order help us define ‑‑ I

don\'t want to put words in your mouth, but that seems

to be what you are recommending to the commission.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Yes, I think that we have

the technical basis for even moving forward while

additional information on CBM as a method to promote

special education accountability. I think things can

move forward but, for example, I think that without

having a good index of how much progress typically‑

performing students make using CBM, that CBM data for

the use of accountability, how to interpret those

data remains open.

So I think that a technology is there that

teachers can use and districts can use. But I think

the interpretation of the outcomes is jeopardized

without additional information about how to aggregate

slopes in technically appropriate ways and having

normative information that\'s broadly based.

DR. PASTERNACK: Getting back to my

earlier question that I don\'t think I got an answer

to which is why are we scaling it up? If we know

what works, why aren\'t teachers using those

strategies across the country? Why don\'t we see

better results for kids with disabilities?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Well, we have tried

and not only us here at Vanderbilt, but other folks

in other states have tried hard to scale up use of

CBM. Quite frankly, one of the reasons why it hasn\'t

gone to scale is because of disinterest in lots of

places across the country.

A notable exception, by the way, is the

State of Iowa where we and colleagues have worked

with literally hundreds and hundreds of teachers who

are using curriculum‑based measurement to measure

individual students\' progress and using it as a means

of accountability. But, you know, you can lead a

horse to water. That\'s been sort of our experience

with a lot of folks.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: I think there hasn\'t been

the national press for accountability for student

learning in special education. So I think that\'s

part of the problem. I think teachers haven\'t felt

the need to use CBM because policy‑makers, state

departments of education, even central district

school administrations have not been asking for those

kinds of outcomes. I think it\'s kind of

understandable that teachers are not necessarily

interested in using CBM if there is not an external

press for accountability.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you. I can just

promise you that that\'s going to change under this

administration. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Wright?

DR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am just so thrilled to get a chance to

dialogue with the Fuchs. I\'ve gone to the Internet,

and your work is fabulous. In the current issue of

Accounts of Exceptional Children, The Journal, I like

those articles, too.

My question is not a research question.

It\'s just a personal question, and I want your

personal opinion because I\'ll it to the researchers

to ask you all the research questions. But I know

that there are people even in this audience who want

to know how on earth can we get general education and

special education colleagues to work together in

peace and harmony?

I am a teacher and I\'ve been there. How

can we get special and general ‑‑ I know you

mentioned this in your testimony somewhat, but how

can you get us to work together for the benefit of

these children in peace and harmony? Do you have

opinions and things that you can tell us as to how

special teachers and regular teachers and staff can

work together? Am I making sense?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Yes, you\'re making

sense, and I think you\'re bringing up a very

important issue in education. I think there is a

kind of fundamental tension between generalists and

specialists. If generalists are doing their job and

specialists are doing their job, there is always the

potential for not necessarily division, but

separateness where the right hand doesn\'t often know

what the left hand is doing.

The real challenge, I think, is to ‑‑ as I

view it ‑‑ is to encourage special educators to

provide expert, intensive, relentless instruction to

the children who truly need it, and at the same time

encourage special educators and general educators to

communicate frequently.

I\'ve been a classroom teacher, a school

psychologist. I\'ve spent a lot of time in the public

schools, and folks are very, very busy. It becomes

all too easy for special educators to do their thing

and general educators to do their thing.

Collaboration and communication often suffer. So I

don\'t have a pat answer. I think you\'ve identified a

very important issue that needs to be addressed.

DR. WRIGHT: Probably part of it is to

talk with general educators in layman terms and not

in the alphabet soup that they don\'t know and often

we don\'t know. They should respect general

educators.

I was trained under Sam Kirk and Jim

Gallagher as an elitist, that only special educators

knew all of this and could do all of this. Of

course, now I know better. I just wanted to know

what the Fuchs thought about it. I know you are

great educators and great researchers. How on earth

can we bring this down to the level of the teachers

who have to work in the trenches and who have to work

with these children? Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Lyon?

DR. LYON: Just to echo everyone else\'s

comments to you all, thank you so much for the

wonderful work you have done over the years and this

very compelling testimony.

I have two questions. Given that your

work appears extremely solid scientifically and it

can be used to move policy in fundamentally more

positive directions with respect to kids with

disabilities, why aren\'t we making changes in

regulations that will drive the concerns, Lynn, that

you just indicated seem to impede teachers around the

country using your procedures?

Why are we hesitating to change

regulations when, in fact, I think we have enough

data to suggest that what is in existence now is not

effective and possibly invalid and while your work

and those working in a similar area has to obviously

be continued? It does seem to be at a level where

application appears appropriate. I think part of the

problem with the issues that Dr. Pasternack brought

up, that is, people not being motivated to use

different practices, is because they don\'t have to.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: In all honesty, I

don\'t think I can answer your question directly. I

don\'t know why the regulations don\'t reflect. Let me

answer it somewhat obliquely, and it may not even be

an answer, but I think you might be interested.

As we\'ve worked on curriculum‑based

measurement and with many, many schools and school

systems over 20 years, one of the concerns that

people have about curriculum‑based measurement ‑‑ and

I think it\'s a legitimate concern ‑‑ is that despite

that CBM as a technology was developed for teachers

to use with students to better effect student

learning, there has often been concern that it would

be used instead as an instrument to judge teachers.

That was never our intent or that of any

of the other people who developed it. But there has

been a reluctance, I think, some reluctance to take

it on in part for that reason. In part, too, because

it requires more work. As Lynn said and Dr.

Pasternack suggested, it really requires leadership

at all levels to encourage teachers to use data‑based

instruction for moving kids forward.

DR. LYON: This commission heard

compelling testimony from Dan Reschly earlier that

addressed the scaling issues that you indicated are

possible. It seems to me that if Kansas can scale a

system that, in fact, has significant positive

effects on student populations, we can do that

nationally.

The second question I have is related to

your appropriate call for more research. There is no

doubt that that needs to be done. The question I

have to both of you is, given the existing peer‑

review system within OSEP, how can we make sure that

the products of funded research from OSEP are more

uniformly rigorous and robust? How would you suggest

we begin to look honestly and directly at the system

that vets and evaluates the quality of fund

applications?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: I think the OSEP review

process is an evolving one. I think that recently

with the new administration and changes in the office

that OSEP has been permitted to make some changes

that actually do improve the process. I think that

all funding agencies suffer from inexactness in terms

of being able to predict what proposals will yield

important contributions.

I do have to say that in my participation

in the OSEP review process and on my end of receiving

reviews that I\'ve always ‑‑ well, not always, but I

have almost always felt that the review process is

fair, instructive, and funds good proposals. That is

not to say that all funded proposals end up producing

good knowledge. I think that is a general problem

for agencies.

So I think there is a tendency in the

field ‑‑ and I\'m guilty of this myself ‑‑ to focus on

the bad review that you as a researcher occasionally

receive. But when I look at the range of proposals

that I\'ve submitted over the years, I would say that

the better ones have been funded. The less‑

compelling ones have not.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: If I could just add

this quickly. People who read and know special

education research, I think, are united in the

perception that there has been a tremendous amount of

excellent research done across this country. I would

suggest that that\'s an indirect reflection that the

system over the past 20 years has tended to work more

often than it hasn\'t worked.

DR. LYON: I didn\'t want to in any way

compete agencies or different systems. Peer review

is peer review. It\'s not perfect review. But if you

look at the conditions under which sustained quality

in research evolves, those conditions seem to be

that, Number One, it is, indeed, an honor to serve on

peer review groups. I\'m not sure that\'s the case or

that\'s the way it\'s perceived in some areas of

science.

Number two, there is a consistency of

membership, of people developing a culture on a

review group that has brought about obviously some

longitudinal sway on a study section. Most

importantly those two factors ‑‑ that is, that it is

something you give to your science and that you work

consistently with people over years and so forth.

The benefit to the field is a recursive

one, an educational one, such that when applications

come in that may not be that strong, the feedback is

extraordinarily detailed and positive and productive

and so forth. That\'s more what I was trying to get

to. What are the conditions under which OSEP can

begin to take what it\'s done well and to bolster

that?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Well, I think you\'ve

just suggested some future direction that OSEP can

think about going.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: I\'d like to add one

additional idea. I think that the review process

through the U.S. Department of Education could be

improved by putting a little bit more focus on track

record of knowledge production on previously funded

grants.

DR. LYON: Thank you very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you so much for your

excellent testimony and to our commissioners. I know

there are other questions but in respect for

subsequent presenters, I\'d like to stay on schedule.

The next area we will be dealing with is

transition services. The researchers who will be

presenting will discuss the current status of what is

known about how to increase the successful transition

from school to adult life for students with

disabilities. I would like to invite Dr. Susan

Hasazi, who is a professor in the department of

education and director of the doctoral program in

education, leadership and policy studies at the

University of Vermont, to join us at this time.

She is currently coordinating a

collaborative research effort related to improving

the health and well‑being of children, youth, adults

in Vermont among the Vermont several agencies such as

human services, education, and the University of

Vermont.

Also, Dr. Paul Wehman of the University of

Virginia Commonwealth is a professor of physical

medicine and rehabilitation with joint appointments

in the department of curriculum and instruction and

the department of rehabilitation counseling. He has

pioneered the development of supported employment at

VCU in the early \'80s and has been heavily involved

in the use of supported employment with people who

have severe disabilities.

I would like to welcome both of you and

ask Dr. Hasazi if she would begin.

DR. HASAZI: Thank you very much. Thank

you for providing me with the opportunity to testify

before you this morning on research and policies

designed to promote more positive school and post‑

school outcomes for youth with disabilities.

Given the enormous investment that

families, educators, and policy‑makers have made in

the education of children and youth with

disabilities, it\'s essential that we promote the use

of research‑based practices related to transition in

order to increase the likelihood of ensuring positive

post‑school outcomes.

As you know, the transition mandates of

IDEA were established in 1990 and reauthorized in

1997 as a result of broad‑based concern about the

future of students with disabilities following their

graduation or completion of high school. Follow‑up

studies on students conducted during the 1980s found

that approximately 36 percent were dropping out of

school, 82 percent were living at home with their

families, 14 percent attended some form of post‑

secondary education or training, and about 45 percent

were employed.

More recent data collected in the early to

mid‑1990s suggests a more positive trend with about

20 percent of students with disabilities attending

post‑secondary institutions, 59 percent being

employed, and fewer students dropping out of school.

In the interest of continuing these more‑

positive trends, I would like to offer six

recommendations related to research and policy that

will enhance the school and post‑school transition

outcomes of youth with disabilities. First,

implement effective practices and develop policy for

more closely linking the IEP and transition plans.

IDEA currently requires, quote, a statement of

transition service needs for all students with

disabilities at age 14. Then at age 16, quote, a

statement of needed transition services.

In order to learn about how these

requirements related to the transition planning

process were being implemented, my colleagues,

Katherine Furney, Liz Anne DeStefano, David Johnson,

and myself conducted a series of studies funded by

OSEP which explored the implementation of the IDEA

transition mandates at the local level.

We visited nine school districts, three of

which were among the largest in the country. Some of

the nine sites were engaged in exemplary practices,

and others were trying their best to meet the

requirements of the law. As part of our study, we

reviewed many IEP\'s and transition plans and found

that the long‑term transition goals were, for the

most part, not related to the annual goals on the

IEP.

For example, we reviewed a transition plan

of a junior in high school who had a moderate hearing

impairment. His long‑term vocational goals were to

become a merchant marine. However, when we reviewed

his IEP, there were no goals, objectives, or

activities related to his career aspirations.

Instead, his goals were all focused on improving

articulation and offered little in terms of helping

him achieve his career aspirations.

In many of the sites we visited we

observed similar problems associated with a lack of

understanding about how to integrate the required

transition planning process with the IEP. During the

past decade there have been many research and model

demonstration projects funded by OSEP which have

validated effective transition practices. From a

research perspective we need to identify strategies

that can be utilized to promote wide‑scale use of

what we\'ve learned about effective transition

planning.

In addition, given the current focus on

school reform, we need to explore how state standards

in general education affect transition‑related

planning and instruction. Related to policy, I

believe that new language is needed, too, in IDEA

which clearly links students\' long‑range transition

goals to the development of the annual goals,

objectives, and activities specified in the IEP.

Second, promote research and policy that

will enhance the participation of students with

disabilities in the design and implementation of

their IEP\'s and transition plans. Current language

in IDEA requires participation of students with

disabilities at transition planning meetings whenever

appropriate.

In my opinion, it would be difficult to

identify a situation where a student should not be

present in their transition‑planning process. Given

the importance of understanding the aspirations and

preferences of students in order to design transition

services linked to their post‑school goals, it seems

essential to include students in all transition and

IEP meetings. Students need to have the opportunity

to share their hopes and dreams and advocate for

themselves.

Additional research is needed on how

skills and knowledge related to self‑advocacy and

self‑determination can be taught and included within

the context of state standards, assessments, and

curriculum reform, and how and to what extent

students with disabilities are participating in the

development of IEP\'s and transition plans.

In addition, teachers and administrators

need to acquire the skills, knowledge, and attitudes

to promote the participation and empowerment of

students. In our national study we found that high

schools that employed special educators trained to

facilitate transition planning and services achieved

more favorable post‑school outcomes for students.

In these sites the quality of the

transition plans and the supports available were

vastly better than in districts without transition

specialists. More research needs to be conducted on

the specific skills and knowledge needed by high‑

school‑level special educators and transition

specialists. In a related area, we need to know more

about the nature and extent of pre‑service programs

across the states that prepare high‑school level

special educators and transition specialists,

counselors, and related services personnel.

Third, expand the definition of transition

services contained in IDEA to include an outcome‑

oriented process which focuses on post‑school and in‑

school outcomes including academic and non‑academic

domains. The present definition of transition

services provides a listing of programs and services

that are considered appropriate under the law

including post‑secondary education, vocational

training, integrated employment, continuing and adult

education, adult services, independent living or

community participation.

While the above transition areas are of

obvious importance, I believe that several in‑school

areas need to be listed as well in order to promote

successful post‑school outcomes. These include

adolescent literacy instruction, self‑determination

and self‑advocacy training, drop‑out reentry

programs, and service learning. All of these options

will increase the likelihood that students with

disabilities will remain in school and acquire the

skills needed to become successful adults.

In the area of adolescent literacy,

arguably one of the most important and least‑

recognized areas of transition need, there is much we

already know about effective practices. The

challenge in this area is how to incorporate the

research knowledge on adolescent literacy into the

organizational structures and cultures of high

schools and the daily instructional practices of

teachers and administrators.

Later on, Dr. Deshler from the University

of Kansas will describe some of his very‑impressive

research. So, again, the issue here is how do we

move what we\'ve learned from research into daily

practice within high school settings?

Fourth, prepare general and special

education and human service leadership personnel with

the skills, knowledge, and dispositions to advocate

and enhance the transition experiences of students

with disabilities. A distinctive finding from our

national study which I noted earlier was the

important role of both general and special education

administrators in assuring effective transition

services.

In the school districts where the use of

effective transition services were evident, general

and special education administrators collaborated to

involve the broader community and human services

agencies in the work of the school. For example, in

several schools both in rural and urban areas,

administrators had developed community‑based learning

programs and articulated agreements with community

colleges that were available and sometimes required

for all students with and without disabilities.

It was in these schools where the combined

leadership of general and special education and human

services administrators came together to make a

difference in the breadth of opportunities that

students with and without disabilities enjoyed.

The definition of transition services

assumes an inter‑disciplinary, inter‑agency, and

community focus that requires leaders who are willing

and able to look beyond the school campus and involve

the community at large. In this regard, I would hope

that OSEP continues to fund personnel preparation

grants and leadership that include both general and

special education administrators and relevant human

services leaders who can collaborate with colleagues

both within and external to the school.

Research in this area should include

identification of the skills, knowledge, and

attitudes that general and special education and

human services administrators need to learn to

promote inter‑agency and community collaboration in

development of strategies for schools to engage human

services agencies and students, IEP, and transition

planning.

Fifth, support the development of

strategies for enhancing parent participation in the

transition‑planning process. Parents often lack the

needed information regarding the purpose and

processes associated with transition planning

including knowledge related to community agencies and

resources.

In addition, effective strategies for

increasing parental participation have not been

routinely implemented. Relatively simple strategies

such as providing information on the IEP transition

process prior to meetings, maintaining open and

frequent communication among parents, school, and

agency personnel and formally acknowledging the

critical role that parents and students play in the

transition process can help build more‑trusting

relationships between parents and teachers.

The work of OSEP‑funded parent centers has

played an important role in advancing the skills and

knowledge base of parents throughout the country.

Several centers have received competitive grants from

the Federal Rehabilitative Services Agency to develop

and disseminate training materials and strategies for

increasing the involvement of parents, especially

those with diverse cultural backgrounds.

In addition, OSEP‑funded National Center

on Secondary Education and Transition has

collaborated with the Pacers Parent Center in

Minnesota to develop documents on transition that are

parent‑friendly and grounded in research‑based

practice. Research in this area should be directed

at evaluating current efforts and identifying new

ways to promote wide‑scale implementation of

effective practices for engaging parents in the

transition process.

Lastly, develop a research agenda for

studying the impact of various credentialling

approaches on the school and post‑school outcomes of

students with disabilities. There has been

considerable discussion over the past year about the

effects of high‑stakes assessment on graduation rates

and policies associated with exit credentials.

Currently there are varied approaches to

graduation and credentialling policies across the

states. Some states that have planned exit

examinations have delayed implementation of their

policies because of concerns about the number of

students who may not pass the exams. Families and

educators have questioned the practice of using

differentiated diplomas because of the potential use

of these diplomas as a screening tool to limit future

opportunities following graduation.

Others have suggested that there should be

one diploma for all students with differing

supportive evidence rather than a series of

alternative exit documents that will have less

perceived value than the higher‑status diploma. As

such there is a need to study the differential impact

of various credentialling approaches on the school

and post‑school experiences of students with

disabilities.

Importantly in 1990 OSEP funded a decade‑

long study to track the school and post‑school

experiences and outcomes of a large national sample

of students with disabilities across the country.

This study, known as the National Longitudinal

Transition Study II, will provide important

information on factors related to school and post‑

school outcomes such as high school course work,

placement, academic performance, post‑secondary

education and training, and independent living.

This study should provide information that

has enormous potential for influencing policy,

research, and practices associated with the

transition from school to the adult community.

Knowledge generated through a comprehensive

transition‑research agenda can inform all of the

other national programs contained in Part D of IDEA

and enhance personnel preparation, parent

involvement, evaluation studies, and model

demonstration projects.

Thank you very, very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Dr. Wehman?

DR. WEHMAN: Thank you very much for the

privilege to present to you this morning regarding my

recommendations on transition research for youth with

disabilities. I would also like to thank my

colleague, Dr. Hasazi, who was kind enough to comment

on and help me with some of these comments.

I am a parent of a daughter, Kara,

currently in high school now who had five open‑heart

surgeries in her first five years of life. She has

been diagnosed with a learning disability. I am also

a stepfather to a son, Payton, with ADHD. Hence, I

have been active in IEP development, standardized

testing issues, and transition planning for each

child.

I approach this testimony not only as a

professional for 30 years, but also as somebody who

is living it every day in my home environment. As

you are aware, youth with disabilities are

significantly unemployed or under‑employed compared

with their non‑disabled peers. There\'s nothing new

there. They tend to drop out of school more and go

to college less.

There is a strong need for evidence‑based

practices of transition‑related activities,

specifically as they relate to vocational competence,

career preparation, and competitive employment.

Therefore, I would like to address two broad

categories in transition. These are competitive

employment and post‑secondary education, simple but

basic outcomes.

Both of these are areas where substantial

progress has been made since 94142 in 1975, but so

much work does remain. I would like to first address

three key points that I hope the commission can

consider in the area of employment and career

building. These are pretty simple but if they were

that easy to do, they would have been done by now.

Number one is that students need to attain

competitive employment before leaving high school

through assistance from school personnel in

conjunction with state, federal, local rehab programs

and other community agencies. Emphasis is on before.

One of the most powerful ways to interfere with the

progression of large numbers of youth onto SSI long‑

term benefits is to create a competitive employment

work history. We know that they are going on to SSI

very quickly. Just check The Wall Street Journal the

last two days.

This could be done by strengthening IDEA

to provide stronger language, supporting LEA\'s

responsibility to provide employment and career‑

building services. It could also be done by

establishing a grant authority in IDEA for states to

earmark dollars strictly for funding LEA competitive

employment initiatives including support of

employment.

Number two, one‑stop career centers

supported through the Work Force Investment Act need

to accommodate students with disabilities. While

recent efforts have improved architectural

accessibility, invisible walls remain that restrict

access to and prevent coordination of services.

Federal and state policies should be amended to

require inclusion of students beginning at age 16, or

14 when appropriate, in the one‑stops while they are

still in special education.

Number three, Congress and the

administration should work to ensure that federal

monies appropriated through the Work Force Investment

Act, Titles 19 and 20 of the Social Security Act, the

Rehabilitation Act, and IDEA are used to support

competitive employment and career‑development

alternatives for students. In other words, working

together with one policy toward the same outcome.

For example, federal and state agencies

should expand the use of funding mechanisms that

encourage joint funding of career development and

work experience that begins early in the educational

process for youth with disabilities. Some examples:

Local school districts and developmental‑disability

agencies could jointly fund job placement and ongoing

support service for students with significant

disabilities who are already receiving SSI benefits.

Local school districts and VR offices

could jointly fund the development of apprenticeship

or mentor programs. Vocational rehabilitation needs

to participate more fully and sooner in the

transition process. Many, if not most, state VR

agencies follow a policy of not providing rehab

placement services until a student is within six

months of graduation.

Some of the primary research needs in this

area: Longitudinal research needs to be conducted on

the benefits experienced by students who have had

real work experiences before graduation versus those

who have not. Research needs to be conducted on how

to include youth with disabilities into the one‑stop

career centers and how to help the one‑stop career

centers to work effectively with youth with

disabilities.

As many of you may be aware, the one‑stops

are growing very rapidly all around the country.

Persons with disabilities need to be involved in

these. Research needs to conducted in how businesses

and schools can work more closely together in order

to facilitate employment outcomes for youth with

disabilities. My addendum to the side on that is

business is ready? Are we ready?

Research needs to be conducted to

determine the effects of participation in the SSA

Ticket‑to‑Work program, so‑called TWIA, for students

14 to 18, as well as the effects of SSI

redetermination at 18.

I would now like to turn my attention to

the second big cornerstone, and that is post‑

secondary education. Many parents have hopes and

aspirations for their children to go on to some form

of higher education because they know that in this

increasingly competitive work force our children need

every bit of education and training they can get.

On a positive note, we know that the

representation of students with disabilities in

higher education has risen to about 20 percent, a

dramatic increase since 1978. However, enrollment

rates of these students are still 50 percent lower

than the enrollment among the general population.

We also know there is a positive

relationship between disability level of education

and adult employment. Earning a college degree does

not guarantee post‑graduation employment. However, on

the average it takes students with disabilities

approximately five years longer after college to

obtain a position in their chosen career.

We also know that students enrolled in

post‑secondary education experience difficulty

staying in and completing their programs of study.

No surprise there. Any of us who have children who

have started in college know that after the first

year, if we can get them through the first year, then

we probably are looking at another three or four

years of paying their college tuition. It\'s that

first year that is that critical year.

So there are two areas that I think

require serious consideration in helping students

gain access to college and ultimately to graduate.

These are professional‑development training for

faculty and administrators. There remains a critical

need for training and technical assistance for

faculty and administrators to ensure a quality post‑

secondary education for students with disabilities.

A quick sidebar. Many faculty that are

teaching geology or psychology or physical therapy

don\'t have the first clue about what learning

disabilities or ADHD or how to deal with somebody

with spinal cord injury. But they are willing to

learn.

Current issues in higher education are

professional development activities that focus on

concepts such as incorporating universal design

techniques into course work, using technology to

enhance learning. Providing accessible distance

education courses for individuals with disabilities

is a powerful means that could be used. To encourage

the development and implementation of these

innovative techniques strategies it is recommended

that funding of demonstration projects to ensure

quality education for students with disabilities

continue through the Higher Education Act.

Secondly, financial incentives. The

selective use of financial incentives to public and

private colleges for enrolling, supporting, and

graduating students with disabilities could possibly

be a highly‑effective strategy through an amendment

of the Higher Education Act. Issues such as flexible

admissions policies, eligibility for receiving

services, expanding use of technology and benefits

counseling for students. Many students don\'t even

know about the student earned‑income

exclusion which can be a very powerful.

These need to be examined in the

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Many of

these areas could be studied in more depth through an

expanded number of the post‑secondary education model

demonstration projects, as well as earmarking post‑

secondary as an area of emphasis within the IDEA Part

D Model Demonstration for Children Projects.

Some of the specific post‑secondary

research areas: We need research to determine the

effectiveness of these strategies and academic‑

support techniques on student access, performance,

and retention in higher education. We need research

on the current models of service to learning for

students with disabilities in higher education to

determine what models encourage the self‑

identification of a disability and use of

accommodations provided.

You realize that in college if they don\'t

self‑identify, they don\'t necessarily get access to

accommodation. There needs to be research on the

barriers to and supports for succeeding in post‑

secondary environments as perceived by the students

with disabilities ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 3)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. WEHMAN: (Continuing.) ‑‑ and

strategies or accommodations these students believe

work in overcoming these barriers. This is as Dr.

Hasazi talked about in terms of self‑advocacy and

self‑determination, teaching kids at an earlier age

about how to advocate for themselves. This can carry

over in the post‑secondary environment.

Research on the differential effects on

students with disabilities who have utilized

accommodations in high schools compared to those who

have not, the college admission rates, as well as

employment rates. In other words, how much are the

different types of accommodations being used and how

effectively are they being utilized?

In closing, the United States taxpayer has

invested billions of dollars in special education for

the youth of America in the past quarter century. We

have been very excited about what\'s happened in the

last 25 years. There is tremendous hope that is out

there. The taxpayer, however, expects schools and

the federal government to be cost‑effective and

accountable for positive long‑term results and

outcomes associated with the special education

investment.

We hear about it at 18, 19, or 20 years

old after 10 or 15 years of, What is there for my kid

now? Tremendous strides have been made, but in order

to maintain this covenant that is made to parents,

students, and school districts, we must provide

students with the best‑possible opportunity to not

only go to work and build careers but to be able to

go to college. Full implementation of IDEA cannot be

complete without this covenant being honored.

Thank you very much. I apologize for some

of those little quick sidebar comments but I couldn\'t

resist.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you both very much

for your excellent testimony. Given the restricted

time we have for questions, I\'m going to begin with

those who have not had an opportunity to ask a

question.

Governor Branstad, I think we cut you off

last time.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: Thank you very much.

First of all, I want to thank you for your research

and your excellent presentation. I just also want to

our previous presenters to indicate that I see a real

linkage between the discussions that you had about

curriculum‑based measurement and achievement. The

task force on achievement which met in Des Moines

heard from some of the people that have been in some

of the implementation of the research that you have

been talking about.

I am excited about how we might be able to

move that agenda forward. In this area I am really

interested in the whole transition. When we were

down in Houston, one of the things I did was I went

to the high school, and what really concerned me was

that there was no mechanism for determining what was

happening to the kids with disabilities that had gone

through the special education program, tracking after

they had completed it.

Do you have some suggestions or ideas on

how we can have more accountability in tracking to

see that transition is, indeed, working? I think

you\'ve come up with some really good recommendations

here. I\'m interested in how we can have a mechanism

for tracking to see what kind of results we are

getting.

Maybe this longitudinal study that you\'ve

talked about is part of it. I\'d be interested in

your comments about how we track and be able to see

what the outcomes really are.

DR. WEHMAN: One of the pioneers in doing

the follow‑up studies is sitting to my immediate

left. She did one of the very first studies. I\'m

going to defer to her in terms of commenting on some

of the mechanisms that would be involved at the LEA

level to provide those outcome measures.

You are absolutely right. One of the

beautiful things about exiting from school is the

transition areas that you really can measure very

easily what\'s happening. You either have an

occurrence of work or a non‑occurrence of work. You

have an occurrence of participation or not. On the

other hand, knowing what\'s happening requires some

mechanisms by the LEA.

DR. HASAZI: I think that you\'re correct

in your assessment of the evaluation study that I

talked about and the kind of data that will be

available on a national scale. I think you are

absolutely correct about the needs of school

districts to begin to conduct follow‑up studies in

their own districts to determine what has happened to

these young people in terms of employment,

independent living, connections with their community

and so on.

It needs to be used for program

improvement. We need to ensure that we can

understand from the perspectives of students and

families and employers about what worked and what

didn\'t work and how we need to use that data to

inform practices in the schools.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: Dr. Wehman, you

mentioned about starting the transition in work

before they ever get out of school.

DR. WEHMAN: Yes, sir.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: I have a son that\'s a

senior in high school and he\'s working. My sense is

there is that a vast majority of general education

students are employed before they ever get out of

high school. What is the situation in special

education and how can we move that forward to get a

much higher percentage of those kids involved in

employment before they ever school?

DR. WEHMAN: You are so on the money with

this. Work is my passion. I fully believe ‑‑ we

have five children in our house. Everybody works by

the time they are 15 whether they have a disability

or not, whether it\'s Ponderosa or King\'s Dominion or,

you know, part‑time at ‑‑ my daughter, Kara, is

working at a furniture store.

The issue is what you get out of

employment is you get so much more than just the

work. You get learning how to be dealt with when

you\'re yelled at or you are made fun of. You want to

talk about what the problems are in terms of learning

reading and math and language arts and oral

expression. Those things come flushed right out in a

work environment, don\'t they?

So the struggle that we\'ve been in in

recent years related to work is the struggle where so

many of the so‑called higher‑incidence kids, the kids

with learning disabilities are being tracked down a

line of pure academics. They are not getting the

opportunity to maybe have some work experience along

the way.

I don\'t think it has to be either/or. I

think it can be both. It can be an after‑school job,

it can be a weekend job. I just ‑‑ everything that

we have seen clinically and anecdotally but not in a

national aggregate type of study that needs to be

done is that those kids that have those work

experiences early on tend to be able to deal much

better with work experiences after they .

So the recommendation is clearly within

IDEA to emphasize employment outcomes and work

experience before the kids school. I had this

discussion with former Secretary of Education William

Bennett in 1983. This is not the first time that we

have discussed this. This is a golden opportunity

for the commission to move on this aggressively.

Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Dr. Berdine?

DR. BERDINE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Paul and Susan, thank you. That was

excellent testimony. I think the written record will

serve us very well as we get into our deliberations.

They were succinct, cogent, to the point, and

current.

Paul, you know particularly that I am very

interested in post‑secondary issues with students

with disabilities at the post‑secondary level. Just

yesterday ‑‑ I don\'t know if you\'ve received your

copy of the Committee for Education Fundings 2003

Report ‑‑ I was leafing through this last night. I

would like you to comment on something.

The quality of higher education for

students with disabilities provision of the Higher

Education Act you will notice has been zero‑funded

for 2003. Under that act, as you probably know, it

specifically addresses the issues on campuses for

providing quality services for students with

disabilities.

What evidence ‑‑ and, Susan, you also ‑‑

what evidence would you be able to provide the

commission to make a case to strengthen funding

legislation for these quality demonstration projects

on campuses that specifically target instructional

personnel, administrators, and auxiliary services

providers? They have historically not been a part of

the funding picture.

So the infrastructure in post‑secondary

settings is in many cases just absent or very poorly

situated. So what evidence ‑‑ we need to have some

evidence that this kind of funding would make a

difference.

DR. WEHMAN: I could take a first shot at

that. Over the last four years there have been 21 or

22 post‑secondary education projects that have been

funded from places like the University of Washington,

Virginia Commonwealth University, the University of

Arizona, and Buffalo that have really done some

exciting things demonstrating and collecting data on

the different types of intervention strategies that

can be utilized to help persons with disabilities,

but specifically learning disabilities tends to be

the focus in the majority of them in achieving gains

in four‑year colleges for the most part.

In some of the comments I made about

universal design, for example, we\'re getting evidence

that suggests that the way to really approach the

whole way of getting four‑year colleges ‑‑ small,

medium and large ‑‑ ready for students with learning

disabilities, bi‑polar disorder, ADHD, whatever

labels you want to use is not just to train the

disability service offices or the disability student

coordinator in disability, but rather to train all of

the university.

That means the faculty, the

administration, residence life. The 22 projects that

have been funded for the last several years have

given us a number of excellent preliminary evidences

to show how efficacious those interventions can be if

they are done directly in the college and across the

college.

Unfortunately neither IDEA or the Higher

Education Act really puts a heavy emphasis on service

delivery, accommodations, eligibility. One of the

first things we learned in trying to get my daughter

into college this next year is the importance of

looking at the curriculum modifications, the ability

to maybe substitute math for a computer science class

or substitute foreign language for something else.

As I was telling a doctoral student the

other day, I consider research in the post‑secondary

education area to be virgin area. To me, you are in

the second inning or the third inning. If you want

to really build a career or research career, this is

where I would go.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Coulter?

DR. COULTER: Once again, we want to thank

you for your testimony. I also appreciate the fact

that you recognize that in terms of special

education, the area that you are talking about really

holds the end of the line, the promise that\'s made to

families at the earliest possible age. This is what

we all work so hard for.

I\'d like you to comment on the fact ‑‑ we

have heard testimony in the past about that as it

relates to transition, as you well know, the

requirements now are to invite agencies to

participate, et cetera. We\'ve heard a lot of public

testimony about the fact that other agencies are not

as on board, so to speak, as public schools might be

in trying to collaborate on planning for the futures,

certainly for those students who are about to become

adults with disabilities.

I\'d like for you to comment. I know this

hearing is on research but what are the policy

implications or policy recommendations that you would

make relative to transition and the collaboration of

cross agencies?

DR. HASAZI: One of the things that we\'ve

learned is that relationships make a huge difference,

the kind of relationships among leaders in these

various agencies external to the school with the

school leadership. That gets back to our

recommendations around the importance of preparing

leaders in doctoral programs, masters programs in

leadership that include not just special educators

and general educators, but human services providers,

as well. That is the only way it is going to become

a common language between schools and post‑school

services.

In addition, I think that that will go

only so far. Many of the post‑school agencies that

we need to help with the transition are overloaded.

Their waiting lists are enormous, thousands and

thousands of young people. I think to get rehab

counselors to the table, to get folks from our

developmental disabilities agencies to the table we

are going to need some incentives in policy to make

that happen.

I think, you know, we have tried all kinds

of things over the past few years, and people of

goodwill have attempted to make efforts but it just

isn\'t happening. I think we need some policy

interventions mostly that relate to some kind of

incentive for participation.

DR. WEHMAN: I\'d really like to comment

very quickly on that. You\'ve really put your finger

on the point. Why is it that you can go one place

and everything is clicking and looking great, and you

go 50 miles away and it\'s not? It\'s about money.

DR. BERDINE: Or five blocks away.

DR. WEHMAN: Or five blocks away. It\'s

about money. We have a grotesque two‑tier system

going on here, okay? It\'s called the squeaky wheel

gets the grease. Intelligent, well‑informed parents

know how to advocate very strenuously. They are able

to get different agencies locally to the table and to

squeeze to get what they need whether it is a waiver

for personal assistance services or it\'s help with a

504 plan.

Then we have a much larger group that

doesn\'t know how to do that. In fact, we do have

evidence as to what works, and it is money. If, in

fact, there are financial incentives to do

competitive employment and do career building and

really do that and not just process ‑‑ you know,

we\'ve seen this is the past 10 to 15 years.

States and localities that put money out

and they tie the money to the outcome ‑‑ not just an

inter‑agency agreement. There has got to be money

tied behind it as to who is going to do what. You

will get your outcome. If you do not put the money

there, you will get people going to meetings. That\'s

unfortunately been the tragedy with the thing.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Justesen?

DR. JUSTESEN: You touched, Dr. Wehman, a

little bit about an important issue that I have a

question on for both of you. That is, has anyone

looked at states that have inter‑agency agreements

between rehab and special education programs? Is

there that sort of policy incentive and is both a

requirement in both statutes? Has anyone examined

how helpful these IA agreements actually translate to

for kids with disabilities?

DR. HASAZI: We actually conducted a

national study with some colleagues at the University

of Vermont, as well as the University of Minnesota,

where we examined inter‑agency agreements at the

state level related to transition. We found that

most states had inter‑agency agreements across the

various agencies. But, in fact, there wasn\'t

necessarily a relationship between the agreements and

what actually happened at the local level.

So, much of it depends on the context of

the state, on who the people are at the local level

that are working together representing those

agencies, and whether or not ‑‑ as Dr. Wehman

suggested ‑‑ there were financial incentives.

What we did find was that in states where

there was joint funding of positions of transition

specialists both during school and after school by

rehab, special education and MRDD, that there was

much more likelihood for students to make a smoother

transition from school to adult life. But the money

had to be there to fund the positions.

DR. JUSTESEN: Did you look at all 50

states?

DR. HASAZI: We did, we looked at all 50

states.

DR. JUSTESEN: I have a follow‑up

question. Most of the discussion has been about

students who are eligible for special education. I

am part of the group of students with disabilities

who did not require special education. It is what is

commonly referred to as a 504‑eligible person. Speak

to any separate work you have done or other

colleagues with respect to this group of children

with disabilities.

DR. WEHMAN: I can\'t specifically identify

studies that have done that. Although what I would

say is that, as we open up this new frontier into

post‑secondary education research, I think that there

is going to be a plethora of studies that are going

to be looking at, quote, 504 situations because

that\'s where a lot of that is coming from. That is

an excellent question but it is not an area that I

can point to in the literature where there has been a

distinct separation.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much. I

know there are other commissioners who have

questions. I would hope that we could perhaps submit

those to you for a response given the restraints of

our time. Thank you so much.

DR. WEHMAN: Thank you very much.

DR. HASAZI: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Our next area is early

childhood research. These researchers will be

discussing the current knowledge base of research

concerning infants, toddlers, and children with

disabilities and discuss their recommendations for

future research priorities for OSEP and other federal

agencies.

We have with us Dr. Don Bailey, the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who is

the director of the National Center for Early

Development and Learning. Dr. Bailey\'s research has

focused almost exclusively on the importance of the

early‑childhood period with special emphasis on

families of infants and toddlers with disabilities.

Dr. Mark Wolery is a professor of special

education at Vanderbilt University. He has received

numerous awards. His studies laid the foundation for

the field of understanding of the naturalistic

context of inclusion at the early‑childhood level.

We welcome both of these presenters.

DR. WOLERY: Thank you for the opportunity

to address the commission about research priorities

and early intervention. We use the term early

intervention to refer to services designed to enhance

the competence and well‑being of infants, toddlers,

and pre‑schoolers with disabilities.

Don and I will present together and use

the organization of our written testimony. We will

not use PowerPoint because of the arrangement of the

room, but we have given the commission the slides

that we would have had.

I will begin with three broad

recommendations. Research is needed to enhance our

capacity to identify young children early, to improve

the efficacy of early intervention, and to improve

the measures of outcomes for children and families.

Don will make recommendations regarding the

infrastructure for intervention in the funding

process.

Our comments are the consequences of our

collaboration. I hope Don will agree with that when

we are done. Our recommendations are made in a

context that can be summarized as the field of early

intervention is relatively new. There is about 30

years of activity and less than a dozen years of

actual implementation on a broad scale. It has made

significant strides in devising interventions and

applying them. Research in the field has benefitted

substantially from support from OSEP.

Now I will turn to recommendation one. We

are calling for more research to identify young

children early, not for the sake of classification

but for the initiation of services. This requires an

understanding of the factors that cause variability

in proportions of children served across states.

Given a mobile society, it is unacceptable that a

child\'s geography or the place he lives is the basis

by which he receives services. We need to know the

factors that produce the variability across states to

initiate practices and policies to eliminate them.

We also need to identify more effective

community models for identifying young children.

Unlike school‑age children, young children in the

United States are rarely seen by professionals on a

regular basis. Therefore, the individuals who do see

them, the professionals, need effective ways to

identify them often briefly and in the context of

other interactions and to do that accurately.

We also need to use the earliest signs for

certain selected disabilities. We have better

practices in genetic testing that allow us to reduce

the age by which certain diagnoses can be made.

However, families often report concerns and specific

things that cause them to believe that their child

was in trouble long before reliable diagnosis can be

made.

With other conditions such as Fragile X

where we have methods for testing at birth, this

often is not done because universal testing is not

available. With many conditions such as language and

behavior disorders, the diagnoses are made through

behavioral observations rather than biological

markers.

Those children are only identified after

the constellation of behaviors or deficits are

sufficient to allow the reliable diagnosis.

Certainly had we known about them earlier, prevention

or perhaps intervention could have reduced the

severity of the condition. We also need research to

develop more accurate and efficient tools and to

reduce any potential, unintended negative effects of

early identification.

Our second recommendation is research is

needed to improve the efficacy of early intervention.

Intervention can be conceptualized as a broad,

organized set of services or as individual practices,

with the former being much broader.

For intervention services research is need

to evaluate the relative efficacy of certain

approaches or models to others. Although we can

argue about whether we are ready for such research,

at some point we will need to understand whether and

to what extent different approaches are more

efficacious for some children and under what

conditions.

We also need to evaluate the amount of

intervention provided. We have some research

indicating that amount or intensity is an important

variable. We have substantial confidence that some

children will need more intervention than others.

Such research could guide decision‑makers on

organization of services. There is a common belief

in early intervention that more is better, but in

life that is rarely true and we need to understand

dosage effects.

We need research also on the quality of

treatment. In regular early childhood better

outcomes are consistently associated with higher‑

quality programs. A body of research with young kids

with disabilities on this variable does not exist.

We know the two types of quality are different, but

we need efficient measures to reliably assess early

intervention quality. Such studies should include an

analysis of the nature and the amount of services as

well as the degree to which treatment was implemented

with integrity.

Also we need research on variables,

factors, and circumstances that help an intervention

work better at different level or impede an

intervention\'s effectiveness. We have relatively

little work on mediating or moderating factors, but

that clearly is an area of future direction.

Related to intervention practices we have

selected developmental and adaptive abilities for

which we still do not have effective intervention.

We have made great strides, but we continue to have

difficulties around friendship formation, commenting,

conversational skills, sustained play with peers, and

selected sleeping and eating disorders.

Also for children with significant

behavioral problems we now conceptualize problematic

behavior in terms of function. We have classroom‑

based treatments many of which are translated down

from older children. We have many fewer treatments

that are based on function that can be applied in the

home or in the community outside the home.

We also recognize the importance of

detecting early mental health problems in devising

interventions in the classroom type area for

addressing those problems.

We need more research on embedding

interventions into the routines and activities of

children\'s ongoing days. Young children learn from

their interactions with the environment. They don\'t

segregate intervention time from other times. Some

of those lessons are adaptive, others promote a

passiveness and maladaptive behavior. We need to

understand how to devise interventions that can be

implemented when we are not there.

A third area related to intervention

effectiveness is making recommended practice usual

practice. We have some empirically supported

practices that were developed in real places with

real kids using real teachers, but those practices

often aren\'t used on a wide scale.

Our research should focus on getting broad

features of early intervention such as instructional

program planning assessment and transition practices

used with all young children who have disabilities

because these practices have sound logic and

supporting research. We need to get individual

practices for specific skills used regularly with

adequate intensity and frequency and fidelity.

Then research is needed to understand how

to support child care providers who have kids with

disabilities within their classes. There are

practices related to families for which we need

additional research. These include identifying those

families for whom the birth of a child with

disability or a diagnosis shakes their confidence in

parenting. Many families do quite well, thank you,

with having the birth or the diagnosis of a child

with disability. Others do not. We don\'t know how

to separate them or support them differentially.

There are many daily routines and

difficult developmental skills for which we still

need practices for helping parents promote those

skills and deal with those difficult routines,

routines as simple as giving their child a bath

without it being a major task and time‑consuming

endeavor.

Then there is a whole set of families

living in very difficult circumstances in the United

States including chronic unemployment, severe

poverty, and low levels of education. The practices

we have for working families of young children with

disabilities in those contexts are yet to be well

developed.

Our third recommendation is to improve the

measurement of early intervention outcomes. We

recognize and support the proposition that early

intervention ought to be measured and evaluated but

we also recognize the complexities of doing that.

The measurement of family outcomes ought to address

both their perceptions of the intervention

experience, as well as the impacts of that

intervention on the family and the child.

Those measures should meet several

criteria, and they are mostly absent in our existing

measures. That is they ought to be family‑friendly,

non‑intrusive, efficient, and technically adequate

and capable of being used cross families with

different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

We also need research on improvement of

child outcomes. There are some measures that exist,

others are under development. For some areas,

however, they are absent. Of critical importance is

that outcomes of early intervention should be viewed

broadly. That is, efficacy cannot be measured only

on children\'s cognitive or academic abilities, but

should address a wide range of abilities and usual

interaction patterns within the environment.

Then we need research on the influence of

risk and opportunity factors on child and family

functions. For children without disabilities we know

a number of risk factors can conspire to produce

decrements in children\'s developmental functioning.

A similar body of work is emerging for young children

with disabilities but it is fairly unsupported. We

need to understand the effects of risk and

opportunity factors and then how to incorporate those

into our intervention practices.

I\'ve hurried through these

recommendations. I want to turn you now over to my

good friend and esteemed colleague, Don Bailey.

DR. BAILEY: Thank you, Mark.

It is a tremendous honor to be here today

and to present and talk with the commission on this

very important series of topics. I wanted to echo

Mark\'s comments. He and I have worked together over

the years on many different things. We did

collaborate in the preparation of our comments on

both the focus of research and on the infrastructure.

We merged those two together in a single

written report for you. The report is perhaps longer

than you would like, and we apologize for that. In

my presentation I will be maybe a little more

informal than some of the others. I\'ll try to just

highlight for you what some of the things I think are

really important in the context of infrastructure.

Before that let me just make a quick

observation. First of all, unlike most of the other

sessions, we are focusing on a particular age period

as opposed to a particular content area. It\'s a

unique aspect of the early childhood years. We are

focusing on some of the questions, of course, around

why those years are important.

A second comment has to do with the fact

that each of the other content areas that you will be

addressing today are directly relevant to early

childhood. So those issues of least‑restrictive

environment, the issues of assessment, issues of

intervention planning and transitions all are

fundamental issues. So we tried to reflect those in

our report. But, of course, you have full reports on

each of those in the other sessions.

We understood part of our charge to be

that of describing to you some recommendations with

respect to infrastructure. We think this is

important because federal infrastructure for early

childhood is a little bit different from the

infrastructure discipline provided at school age.

So instead of just talking about infrastructure for

research, I want to briefly describe five areas of

infrastructure but talk about research issues related

to each of those areas. You should have a handout in

front of you that provides PowerPoint slides for

that.

There are five domains for federal

infrastructure support:

‑ Direct allocations to states for

services.

‑ Model demonstration programs.

‑ Technical assistance to states.

‑ Personnel development.

‑ Research.

In the direct allocations to states, just

as with school‑age children, money is given directly

to the states on a per‑child allocation for three‑

and four‑year‑olds. This is different from the

infant and toddler program where money is given to

states based on the state\'s population base, how many

children in that age range and not on a per‑child

kind of service.

This money has been very important and has

helped to provide, of course, support for direct

services. It has helped in the infant and toddler

program. It has been very important, we think, in

getting states into the service‑delivery system and

keeping them in. To some extent, it helps assure

some accountability.

We think that there needs to be some

research dimensions added to this particular

component of infrastructure. First of all, we need

research on determining the real cost of early

intervention. I think we have some fairly good data

about that for three‑ and four‑year‑olds. We have

very little data about that, for instance, in

toddlers primarily because the federal money is

designed to help pull together sources from a variety

of different resources from a variety of different

areas.

We really don\'t have good data on what it

costs to provide early intervention, especially for

infants and toddlers. We need data on the cost

efficacy of different models. Not only what are the

outcomes, but what are the costs of each model and

how do those costs relate to outcomes?

Finally, there\'s need for research on the

best ways to blend funds in order to maximize

effective services. This is especially true in

infant and toddler programs but it is also true for

three‑ and four‑year‑olds. If you look at Head Start

funding, there is child‑care block‑grant money,

social services money, MedicAid funding, and Tanner

funds.

Many states are moving towards what a

variety of people are calling universal pre‑

kindergarten programs. There are many different

early childhood initiatives, and they are very much

state‑based. There is, however, a federal role in

each one of those initiatives. How those funding

streams can interact to maximize effective services

for children with disabilities is a research question

and a policy question.

Second domain has to do with technical

assistance to states. The federal government very

early in the 1970s decided that states needed help in

implementing federal legislation. There\'s been a

wide range of technical assistance and support

activities provided on a continuous basis since then.

We think that\'s very important. We, of course, urge

that to be continued.

We do think there has been relatively

little attention to evaluating alternative models of

technical assistance, as well as to evaluating in a

more rigorous sense the outcomes of these technical

assistance efforts. We urge you to consider that as

well.

Thirdly, a unique component of the early

childhood system has been a series of model

demonstration and outreach programs. These were

started in 1968 in what was then called the

Handicapped Children\'s Early Education Program. It

has gone through a series of different names, but

there have been literally hundreds of projects funded

over the years since then.

The program has been generally considered

to be highly effective. Many of these projects are

replicated in various sites around the country and

are often continued beyond federal funding. There

has been an evaluation requirement that has been

included as a part of this funding.

We feel it has not been as rigorous as it

could be. Part of the problem is that the funding

amount and the funding period for these projects has

not been sufficient to allow them to do the true

kinds of experiments and evaluation studies that need

to be done to clearly document efficacy. We would

urge funding to be added during this model

demonstration phase so that before projects move into

the outreach phase, which is the phase when you are

sharing this information with other projects, that

funding and mechanisms are in place for a more‑

rigorous evaluation of these models.

Next I would like to briefly talk about

personnel development. Of course, there has been a

major federal role over the years in providing funds

for both teacher training and therapist training.

Here I would like to focus on funds for leadership

training for researchers. This has been very

important as research in universities has been given

money over the years through competitive grants to

provide primarily stipends and fellowships for

students who would ultimately be leaders and

researchers in special education, including early

childhood special education.

I\'m quite sure that if that funding were

not available, we would have a tremendous difficulty

in recruiting the best and brightest individuals into

special education to do the kinds of research we

really need to understand what we need to be doing in

special education in a truly efficacious kind of way.

Finally and perhaps the main reason we are

here, of course, is the recommendations regarding the

research infrastructure. The department has funded

field‑initiated research, student‑initiated research,

directed research, evaluation‑studies programs, and a

wide variety of research activities.

If I may digress and just speak personally

for a minute, I\'ve been funded through the field‑

initiated projects for a number of years since very

early in my career. I started out looking at studies

of the efficacy of various environmental components,

not necessarily direct‑instruction techniques, but

how the environment like the peers that are around

you or the way that therapy is provided or the

services are provided in an integrated model ‑‑ how

does that affect student learning?

In the late 1980s we learned that my

daughter has Fragile X Syndrome. So in the early

1990s I shifted my research career to focus on almost

exclusively on this disorder. Even though that is

something that would often be funded by NIH, we

decided to focus on more applied issues related to

this particular disorder. We got funding from field‑

initiated research program.

No one had ever studied the early

development of children with this disorder before.

So we had the first longitudinal study. Every series

of studies ever published were funded by the Office

of Special Education Programs. When scientists at

the NIH discovered the protein that is influenced by

Fragile X Syndrome, we, I think, got the first

supplement from OSEP to draw blood and actually test

protein levels in children and look at the

relationship between that and outcomes for kids.

So we feel like the office has been

extremely supportive of often risky and ground‑

breaking work in a variety of different areas. We

have been very appreciative of that kind of support.

Having said that, though, I think there are a number

of challenges. We have some specific recommendations

that are related to that. First of

all, NIH typically funds research usually from 15 to

25 percent. I would say about 20 percent of

applications that are submitted are funded. In the

field‑initiated research program that is more on the

order of 5 or 6 percent. So we are only able to fund

a small proportion of the grants that are actually

submitted in the field‑initiated research

competitions.

Also, the funding levels of those projects

have been very stable over the last decade or so at

around a \$180,000 cap. That is including indirect

costs. So we recommend appropriating new dollars or

reducing directed‑research funding to allow more

creative field‑initiated funding.

In my reading of some of the figures it

looks like the funds that go into directed research,

which is research determined heavily by departmental

priorities, is more than double the amount of funding

that goes into field‑initiated research. We very

much encourage the department to think about

redirecting some of these federally determined

priorities to help encourage the creative field‑

initiated work that is so desperately needed by all

of us.

We would encourage either the allocation

of new dollars or redirecting funds so that the

agency could be funding at about the 20‑percent level

of field‑initiated funds comparable to what NIH is

doing.

Secondly, raise the funding cap on those

projects. Thirdly, allow for the submission of what

NIH calls the program‑project type submissions. The

department has very few mechanisms for that. They

used to fund some early‑ childhood research

institutes, but this notion of a collection of

projects coming together to answer a larger series of

questions that could be answered in a single

individual project we feel is missing in the funding

structure right now. We would very much encourage

the agency to consider changing policies to allow for

that kind of submission.

Thirdly, we do think that a lot of funds

have been allocated for major national studies, often

descriptive studies like the NEILS Project which I\'m

participating in as a consultant. We think those are

very important projects, but sometimes they take away

from the field‑initiated funding again. So we would

urge Congress to allocate more funds to the

department to help them gather the kinds of

descriptive data they need so that we can free up the

other funds for the field‑initiated research.

We don\'t think there should be a separate

early‑childhood competition, for example. The

department would fund 16 to 18 field‑initiated

projects a year across all of special education. So

there may be only two or three early‑childhood

projects. So there is really a limited range of

things that can be funded.

Consistent with our other colleagues

speaking today, we urge the department to continue

the excellent work it\'s doing in continuing to

improve the peer‑review process in the use of ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 4)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. BAILEY: (Continuing.) ‑‑ standing

review panels. We also recommend a twice‑a‑year

funding cycle rather than once a year, again,

encouraging resubmissions. We often get grants that

are submitted that get good reviews that could be

resubmitted with some improvement. Adding a

standardized mechanism for that in the context of the

standing peer review panel we think would be a good

idea.

Thank you for the opportunity to share

with you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you for your

excellent presentations. I know there are a number

of questions. I\'d like to begin with those who did

not have an opportunity last time. I will begin with

Dr. Lyon.

(Pause.)

DR. GRASMICK: You\'re deferring to Dr.

Fletcher?

DR. FLETCHER: Dr. Bailey, I was very

interested in your appeal for more field‑initiated

research and the generous nature of your request not

to have early childhood targeted as an area of

research. I thought that was very generous on your

part.

There are also times, however, where

national priorities do come in and are very

important. I\'m thinking about, for example, the

president\'s initiative in the early‑childhood area

where the president\'s proposed that it\'s really very

important to develop and evaluate programs that

attempt to integrate the social behavioral and

educational needs of young children.

I\'m really sort of wondering how you think

special education and OSEP should participate in that

initiative, given that it\'s not likely to happen

through the field‑initiated mechanism under the

circumstances that you describe?

DR. BAILEY: Well, I certainly think that

collaborative efforts among a variety of federal

agencies are going to be critical. It\'s pretty clear

to me that each agency has its own unique role and

its unique way to approach research and a unique

contribution whether it\'s applied research versus

basic research, whether it\'s in genetics or whether

it\'s in school reform and so forth. So to me a

collaborative endeavor around thematic issues is the

way to go.

DR. FLETCHER: I really appreciate that,

and I would point out real quickly that, you know,

even though you\'ve described sort of the emphases of

different sorts of agencies, there is also a lot of

overlap. NICHD, for example, supports early‑

childhood research that is very practical, very

applied, includes intervention studies, as well as

other kinds of studies.

I think there is a tendency to view OSEP,

because of the way it\'s funded through Part D and the

fact that it\'s tied to a piece of federal

legislation, as something that should be kept

separate and isolated from, for example, other

federal endeavors. I gather that you\'re actually for

more interaction of OSEP with other federal agencies

that have similar interests?

DR. BAILEY: I am supporting collaborative

interaction. I guess I do feel that OSEP still has a

unique niche, that applications of educational

research in the context of educational settings for

kids with disabilities, to me is a unique OSEP role.

I think if it were totally transferred to another

agency, I think it would get lost. That may not be

what you\'re asking.

DR. FLETCHER: Not at all, no. I\'m simply

suggesting that it\'s important to interact with other

agencies so that we maximize our investment in

research for people with disabilities.

DR. BAILEY: I would agree with that.

DR. FLETCHER: Certainly NIH supports

research on children with disabilities since the

Mental Retardation Research Centers, of which I think

at one point you were at least a co‑director and

actually benefitted from funding from both OSEP and

from NIH.

DR. BAILEY: Absolutely.

DR. FLETCHER: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Lyon, you\'ve

reconsidered?

DR. LYON: Just let me follow up on this.

For both of you but, Don, I think you\'re closer to

this issue. The president has asked the federal

government to undertake a massive effort to figure

out how kids from birth to school entry develop

social, cognitive, and emotional capabilities; to

figure out if, in fact, there are interventions

already in existence that provide interactions that

develop those in an integrated way. Frankly the

review suggests there is not.

So what will have to be done is we are

going to have to develop and then test a wide range

of interactions across a wide range of setting. It

is literally impossible to do if the NIH does not

collaborate with the Department of Education and all

of its agencies and so forth.

One of the things that we\'ve noticed over

the years is every initiative we do at NIH we send to

OSEP to collaborate. That has never happened, nor is

it ever reciprocal. When we\'re talking about these

areas of research, they need to be built and

developed, for the capacity is actually very low, I

have to be honest. When we reviewed the literature

for the president in early childhood, we could

basically count on one hand that which we could

provide him the specific answers he needed despite

millions of dollars of funding.

One of the reasons that is is I think we

do become insulated as research agencies and groups.

Again, I just appeal to you all to begin to ‑‑ it

doesn\'t have a thing to do with territory or turf.

It has everything to do with sharing concepts and

methodologies. It has everything to do with

providing, again, as we talked about earlier with

Doug and Lynn, a recursive educational process for

young investigators to figure out what\'s good

research, what\'s not good research, and so on.

There has got to be a way we can

strengthen the national research effort in early

childhood. That\'s got to go beyond just NIH or

beyond just OSEP.

DR. WOLERY: I appreciate the need for

collaboration across agencies at the federal level.

I think I would step back and say that there are a

number of investigators who have worked on specific

problems, issues, practices or interventions that

have gone to a number of different, as we call them,

pots of funds across agencies to get that addressed.

Now, Don\'s Fragile X work, I think, is an

example of that. Strain and Odom\'s peer‑mediated

stuff, some of that was supported by NIH, some of

that was supported by OSEP. Some of the work in

autism, the researchers have come from both places.

So despite the fact that there may not be at the

federal level integration across agencies, I think

there is often ‑‑ not always ‑‑ at the individual

investigative team level.

Now, if there are ways that the unique

mission that I think OSEP has can be preserved and

facilitate collaboration, you know, I am very

interested in that around autism. I have funding now

from both places in that area. If there is a way to

put a program project together that would include

both of those, that\'s an appealing task. I\'ll let Don

describe how the bureaucracy would have to make that

occur.

DR. BAILEY: May I just make a quick

comment, Reid?

DR. LYON: Sure.

DR. BAILEY: There is a huge national

movement in early childhood at large, not just

children with disabilities, as you know, but for all

children. I think ultimately this will be a state‑

based initiative. That is, each state is going to

determine how it is going to articulate programs and

services. Clearly there are going to be very

important federal roles in this. The president has

articulated a number of possibilities for that

already.

I feel like there are a number of lessons

that we can learn from how the federal government

played roles in the initiation, implementation, and

evaluation of early childhood special education

programs that apply directly to a larger early‑

childhood initiative. So, for example, you were

talking about a lack of validated models. Clearly we

need something like the model demonstration program

for kids with disabilities, but with a more rigorous

evaluation component to it.

We need a ground‑up, as well as a

collaborative set of activities that would create a

variety of these models and then evaluate them.

We\'ve learned a lot from that process in the

disability arena that could be very helpful in the

larger early‑childhood arena.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

DR. LYON: Just one other issue, though.

I don\'t think early childhood will escape ‑‑ that\'s

the wrong verb ‑‑ will not be part of the

administration\'s emphasis on using that which works.

Even if these are state efforts in early childhood,

it hopefully will come to pass as soon as possible

that federal money can no longer be provided to

states to support even the preparation of teachers or

the purchase or training in programs that have not

been found to be effective for those specific

children they are being applied with.

I don\'t think early childhood will escape

that. I don\'t think special education will escape

that. That\'s the legislation in H.R. 1 at this time,

that you can use federal money for that which does

not work. I don\'t know how we are going to provide

the capacity in the community in the early‑childhood

community to be able to base their practices on solid

evidence unless we have a massive collaborative

effort.

DR. BAILEY: Mark and I wrote a paper on

just those four words, Is early intervention

effective? We looked at each word in that. So what

do we mean by early? What do we mean by

intervention? What do we mean by effective? You are

exactly right. It\'s a very complicated issue, and to

answer it fully, it will take a massive research

effort.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Wright?

DR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, gentlemen. I have numbered

what I need to say, and I\'ve timed it, too. The

first thing that I want to say is at the reality

level. My daughter is an early‑childhood educator in

the St. Louis Public Schools. So we know the need is

there.

Also, a question that I would ask is, in

research do we have to ‑‑ and I\'m just saying this; I

know the answer, I think. In research we do not have

to reinvent the wheel, do we? No. You alluded to

this a little bit, Dr. Bailey. You talked about the

programs in Head Start. You didn\'t name Head Start

but there\'s a body of research about Head Start.

There\'s also a body of research about Follow Through.

These are ESEA programs.

I would hope we would take into

consideration the research that has already been

done. That\'s my second comment. My first one was

about my daughter. My second comment is about the

Head Start and the Follow Through.

Now, my third comment is this. I feel ‑‑

we know there is not going to be enough money.

Secretary Paige and I questioned him about this,

questioned the president about it. We all say we

need money, money, money. Secretary Paige has

already stated that the president has said that we

will not get full funding for special education. We

are getting more money than we ever had but his

panel, this commission will make recommendations, I

hope, as to how the monies that we have will be

spent. I would like to see us focus some of the

funds on the para‑educators, para‑professionals,

these teachers in the field, in the trenches with

these little children like my daughter. They need

para‑professionals, para‑educators.

Has any research been done on that? Has

any research been ‑‑ I\'m sure there has been ‑‑ on

class size in working with what I call little‑biddy,

little‑biddy children. So we need some money and

some research for para‑educators and how efficient

that will be. Those are my comments, and I would

like you to answer those. Thank you.

DR. BAILEY: Mark, did you want to comment

on the para‑professional training? I know you\'ve

done work in that area.

DR. WOLERY: Sure. There is a good body

of work about how to train para‑professionals, how to

use them, how to deploy them within classrooms. A

lot of that\'s been funded by OSEP. It\'s clear that

it makes sense from a cost perspective to have para‑

professionals or para‑educators in classes under the

supervision and direction of a qualified teacher. I

think that\'s established. I don\'t think we need more

research on how to do that.

An interesting thing that happens is that

different teachers use para‑educators in different

ways. But it\'s clear that they can be quite

beneficial to children if they are used as an

instructional assistant as compared to someone who is

there for a given kid or is there to do

administrative tasks.

DR. BAILEY: If I may comment on your Head

Start. You\'re right. There\'s been quite a bit of

work done in that context of Head Start. We\'ve

actually done a number of those studies ourselves.

One of the main areas of focus has been on quality.

What we know first of all is that there is a

relationship between the level of quality and the

outcomes that you get for children.

Secondly, we know that in Head Start, we

know that in day care, and we know that in schools

there\'s an incredible range of quality. There are

some settings where there is very poor quality, and

there are other settings where there is very high

quality. A lot of it has to do with the training of

the teachers who are in that setting. Secondly, it

has to do with the resources that are invested in

that program. Thirdly, it has to do with the leaders

and the philosophy of the leadership within those

programs.

Clearly, we\'ve done ‑‑ I don\'t think we\'ve

done as good a job as we should have of documenting

what we mean by quality in early‑childhood education

assuring that every child not only has free,

appropriate public education, but we ask what we mean

by appropriate. Take that appropriate and equate it

with quality to make sure that children are getting

not only basic services, but they\'re getting

effective, high‑quality services.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

DR. WRIGHT: I would like to say that I

really commend my fellow commissioners and the staff

for bringing the best and the brightest presenters

for this.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Dr. Pasternack?

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, many questions, little time. First question,

should we expand Part C from zero to age five?

DR. WOLERY: This is the first opportunity

that the commission has had to specifically address

early‑childhood issues. I really appreciate both of

you being here. This is a question that not only the

commission needs the answer to but I need the answer

to.

DR. BAILEY: Well, it\'s hard for an

academic to say yes or no to a question. But my

feeling is that there are many positive aspects about

Part C that could be incorporated into the three‑ and

four‑year‑old programs. Those have to do with

emphasis on family support, that is the

individualized family service plan as opposed to the

individualized IEP. Families don\'t go away at age

three. In fact, we are just beginning to see what

the powerful effects ‑‑ the benefits of working with

families in a positive and collaborative way.

Secondly, the task of pulling resources

from multiple sources to support services is really

what Part C is about. You\'ve got a service

coordinator, you\'ve got people from multiple agencies

trying to work together, you\'ve got local inter‑

agency coordinating councils that are to facilitate

that, and you\'ve got some actual potential for family

goals and outcomes as opposed to just child goals and

outcomes.

So there are aspects of Part C that I

think would be really very beneficial. Do you have a

specific question, any more specific questions about

that?

DR. PASTERNACK: Several, but I want to

make sure for the record that in response to the

question, should Part C be expanded in your opinion

from birth to age five, your answer would be?

DR. WOLERY: The answer would be that

first there needs to be service for zero to five.

DR. PASTERNACK: I\'m sorry, Dr. Wolery,

just one second. I want to get Dr. Bailey\'s answer

for the record.

DR. BAILEY: Would you restate the

question.

DR. PASTERNACK: In your earlier research

you were talking about every word except for the

word, is. I know there is a great deal of interest

in that word, as well. Should Part C be expanded to

age five?

DR. BAILEY: I think several components of

Part C should be, yes.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you.

DR. BAILEY: Part C in many ways has

tremendous good parts to it. We have clearly shown ‑

‑ and the NEILS study shows also ‑‑ that the average

amount of service that a child gets is around six to

eight hours a month. You know, we wouldn\'t want that

model for three‑ to four‑year‑olds. I think we need

to have a much‑more‑intensive set of services than

can be provided currently through Part C.

So I think Part C provides the beginning

framework. But do we want to have a model of six to

eight hours a week of services for three‑ and four‑

year‑olds that was primarily a home‑visiting or a

consultation type of service, I would say no.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you.

Dr. Wolery, your answer to that question?

DR. WOLERY: I don\'t know that I can add a

lot to what Don said except a couple of things. One

of the things that\'s always been a problem with B is

that the schools alone were responsible. So only the

schools were required to provide things, and others

were invited. Part C is a step toward making

multiple people responsible or multiple agencies. So

part and the service coordination part, the family‑

friendly part, makes a lot of sense to me.

Having said that, I would hate in some

ways to move three‑ and four‑year‑old services out

from under the schools. I would hate to put birth‑

through‑three services under the schools. It\'s a

different kind of thing. I fear it will lose its

family focus, C would lose family focus if B was

extended down.

DR. PASTERNACK: I know this is part of a

larger discussion, and I appreciate the answers that

you\'ve provided so far. I guess in the interest of

time, there are many things to say. The president,

of course, in one of the many important statements

he\'s made said that everybody is responsible and

nobody is responsible.

But the issue about family involvement,

what do we know from the research ‑‑ since we know

that the parents are critically important to making

education reform successful ‑‑ what do we know from

the research about ‑‑ if the IFSP says Individualized

Family Services Plan, what would you all would be the

critical elements of parental involvement that we\'ve

learned from the research?

DR. BAILEY: Well, it\'s a complicated

question, and there are two levels of responding to

that. One is, if you look at the actual IFSP\'s that

are developed, by and large, the goals that are

written are more ‑‑ there is much greater

preponderance of child goals than family goals. So I

think even though we have this philosophy and the

whole family‑center model and so forth, much of

what\'s written in the IFSP still is very much focused

on children actually in part because that\'s what

families are wanting from professionals, direct

services for children.

So there is a much broader set of

literature, of course, about the effects on the

family of having a child with a disability and the

effects that parents can have on children\'s

development. I don\'t know how to answer your

question in a simple way except to say that that

literature does show that one of the most powerful

predictors of child outcomes and maternal education

and maternal depression.

We know that children whose mothers are

depressed are at risk for all kinds of poor

developmental outcomes. We know that parents

children with disabilities are at risk for higher

depression. But we also know that parents of

children with disabilities can provide some of the

most inspiring stories imaginable about how people

can cope with incredibly diverse and difficult

circumstances.

So it\'s not an easy question to answer but

the bottom line is that parents exert an incredibly

powerful influence on their children, probably more

so during the early‑childhood years than during later

years. I\'m the parent of a teenager now, and I know

what I can\'t do. We do feel like family support

during this period of time is especially

foundational.

DR. PASTERNACK: Let me ask another quick

question. From your research what would you suggest

should be the percentage of infants and toddlers that

we should be serving under Part C?

DR. BAILEY: It\'s certainly not going to

be the 10 or 11 percent that are served in elementary

school. That would be unrealistic. With the vast

majority of children with learning disabilities it

would be almost impossible to identify them, and we

wouldn\'t be sure what to do with them at one or two

years of age.

I think there are a number of children

with genetic disorders ‑‑ my own work in Fragile X

Syndrome, for example, shows that children with

Fragile X Syndrome usually aren\'t identified until

age two or three, and they often miss out on early

intervention programs. Right now the percentage is

about 1.68 to 1.7 percent.

I suspect that with systematic screening

by pediatricians and in community‑based programs,

combined with the expansion of newborn‑screening

programs, we could probably get that up to maybe 3

percent. That is just a wild guess on my part.

DR. WOLERY: I\'ve nothing to add.

DR. BAILEY: Of course, it depends on what

you define as risk. If we take low income as a risk

condition, for example, then it\'s going to be a much‑

higher percentage.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you very much for

your testimony.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you. Our final

question, Dr. Coulter?

DR. COULTER: I\'ve been cautioned to make

this very quick. So it\'s not yes/no, but it\'s close

to a yes/no. You\'ve been very articulate about the

fact that in Part B we\'re really focused on student

outcomes. While in many instances those results

ultimately have been disappointing, we at least have

some measures that we can use. Those measures we can

aggregate.

I think what has been particularly

challenging is we have looked at the data on Part C,

and all we are left with are incidents much like you

just mentioned. We want to be able to aggregate

outcomes but not obfuscate outcomes. So what is a

reasonable time line within your recommendations that

the public could expect for consumer‑friendly

measures of family outcomes that we can aggregate to

use as an argument for increased funding for Part C?

DR. BAILEY: As a part of the NEILS Study

we are actually documenting ‑‑ there\'s a nationally

representative sample of families participating in

early intervention programs, over 3,000 families. We

are documenting outcomes reported by families. So

there are a wide range of outcomes ranging from

satisfaction ‑‑ we have shared some of those data

with you in the written comments of families\'

perceptions of their ability to interact with

professionals, their perceptions of the impact of

early intervention on them as a family as opposed to

their child.

I can say that overwhelmingly we show that

parents report positive outcomes which they attribute

to early intervention. We can say that in very

friendly ways and I think in clear ways to the

public. This is not a scientific experiment. This

is a descriptive study of children participating in a

national program.

We can describe where they are at the end

of the program. The extent to which we can attribute

that to the program, we can draw on a number of

sources to say that. If that\'s the question you\'re

asking, I think we\'ve still got a long ways to go in

terms of studying in an experimental way what kinds

of outcomes we can have for families.

DR. COULTER: Well, I suspect that, as you

said, you are a tried‑and‑true academic, and we

respect that. I don\'t think I\'m going to get a quick

answer to my question. So I defer for the break,

Madam Chair.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Did you indicate, Dr. Bailey, that you

would submit something to us as an enhancement to

your response to this question?

DR. BAILEY: I did not but I\'d be glad to.

DR. GRASMICK: I think that would be

helpful to receive that information.

DR. BAILEY: Sure, we just finished the

year‑one follow‑up report of children a year after

entering early intervention with the SRI

International with whom we\'re collaborating. I\'d be

glad to send you that report.

DR. GRASMICK: Fine, thank you very much.

Thank you again for your excellent presentations. I

would like to caution the commissioners we will

restrict our break to ten minutes. Thank you.

(Break)

DR. GRASMICK: Our next topic will be

dealing with least‑restrictive environment and

inclusion. Special education has made great strides

in including students with disabilities into a full

range of educational services. However, much remains

to be done, and much remains to be researched in

terms of the gap of knowledge to better serve

students with disabilities in the least‑restrictive

environment in making the services appropriate for

each individual child.

We are delighted to welcome Dr. Wayne

Sailor who is a professor at the University of Kansas

Department of Education. His major fields of

interest are full integration of students with severe

disabilities through school restructuring processes;

service‑integration strategies for health, social,

and educational services for all children at the

school site.

Welcome, Dr. Sailor.

DR. SAILOR: Thank you, and thank you very

much for this invitation. This is an honor, and I

appreciate the opportunity to speak to you folks. In

some of what I\'m going to say, by the way, you will

all hear for the second and even third time. There

is some consistency in some of the things that I\'ll

cover and particularly Paul Wehman\'s earlier remarks

on universal design. That\'s a concept that I think

is very important. I want to say some things about

that and also some of Mark\'s comments on the early‑

childhood implications.

When Troy Justesen first contacted me and

asked me if I would be willing to consider coming and

providing testimony on the issue of inclusion, my

response was can I reframe the question and still

have an invitation? I don\'t think this issue of

placement of kids ‑‑ whether it be in a separate

program or in an inclusive program ‑‑ in terms of

research is a very strong predictive variable.

I think there are bigger issues and more

important ways of framing the question of addressing

the needs of students in classrooms and schools than

simply should we place kids, include them or not

include them?

The process began for me right around 1990

when Ann Halverson, my colleague, and I published a

review of research on the issue of inclusion in a

book that was edited by Dr. Robert Gaylord Ross, the

late Robert Gaylord Ross who was here at Vanderbilt

University.

This work was published at about the same

time that Margaret Wong, Maynard Reynolds, Herb

Walberg were also publishing research on the issue of

keeping kids with mild disabilities, learning

disabilities, and so forth in general education

classrooms and providing positive evidence for

special education applications.

The summary of that research for the

severe populations, which are the ones that we were

looking at, could be summarized by saying that we ‑‑

that collectively the research suggested better

communicative skills from regular classroom

participation with support from special education for

kids with severe disabilities, also better social

skills development.

In terms of looking at the very few

studies that compared separate‑setting placements and

integrative placements, comparable skills in other

areas ‑‑ and also there were a couple of studies that

looked at the attitudes of general educators and

families. These found generally positive attitudes.

So at that time it looked like inclusion

was an interesting variable. I think you could

conclude that available evidence showed it wasn\'t

harmful. In some cases for kids with severe

disabilities it opened doors for other possibilities

through social development and communicative

development opportunities.

We were then asked by OSEP to undertake a

study to find out ‑‑ to see if we could get some

answers as to why this was becoming such a difficult

thing to accomplish. There were a number of court

cases that emerged that were seeming to impel the

idea of inclusive education. Many parents were

approaching school districts and starting due process

and so on to try to get inclusion. Yet there wasn\'t

very much of it occurring.

The research question that we were asked

to address by a survey research method was what is

going on out there? What are the bridges for

inclusive education? What are the barriers to it?

We engaged that study over a four‑year period. What

we found in general terms was a very high awareness,

surprisingly perhaps on the part of all groups,

administrators, teachers, family members, and in some

cases students on the topic of inclusive education.

So everybody knew what it was about. We

found there was moderate support with all but one of

the groups that were surveyed. In other words,

families of children with disabilities, families with

general‑education kids, administrators, general‑

education teachers were supportive of inclusive

education. The group that was not was the special

education group. There was strong opposition from

special education teachers and administrators in

special education.

When we did some interview data to try to

get at what the concerns were, the finger pointed to

the universities and basically said, you know, we

weren\'t trained to do this. Trying to support kids

in general‑education classes is not something that we

feel competent to undertake.

Finally this led the California Department

‑‑ we did our research in California ‑‑ the

California Department of Education responded by

undertaking a longitudinal in‑service training

program that attempted to upgrade skills of special

education teachers in providing inclusive supports.

That program continues to this day.

I became interested ‑‑ as a result of

undertaking this study, I became interested in

focusing on school reform. I think the turning point

for me ‑‑ if you\'ll permit me an anecdote ‑‑ I found

myself conducting an in‑service program for the

Berkeley School District. I had all of the assembled

teachers in the school district in Berkeley High\'s

auditorium. I was trying to lay the groundwork for

what teachers could expect from inclusion of kids

with disabilities of all types and so forth.

I told them about the supports, I pointed

out how special education can integrate its supports

and services. At one point a general‑education

teacher stood up and said, I don\'t get this. We

invented you guys some time ago to take these kids

that we can\'t teach. Now you are bringing them back

to us, and they are not fixed.

That kind of raised the question for me of

how big a disconnect do we have between what general

education sees in terms of what we are as special

educators and what we are offering here in terms of

inclusion? So I got interested then in school

reform. What is it that general education is

interested in in evolving in terms of systems change

and better practices for its population? Is there a

common or shared agenda between what\'s going on there

and what we are trying to accomplish for students in

special education?

I wrote a paper at that time that was

published in RASE in 1991 called Special Education of

the Restructured School. I offered the idea that we

have a common agenda, and through that common agenda

we might consider combining some of our resources and

some of research, some of our program plan efforts,

and that through that both groups could prosper.

I think that was followed up with some

studies that did undertake to incorporate special

education efforts within the school reform context.

Bob Slaven and Success for All, for example,

conducted some excellent research studies in which

data were dis‑aggregated for students with

disabilities. Some of the research I summarized in

the paper I provided the commission with.

In general it showed that when school

reform decentralized instructional practices, for

example, occurring in reform processes with support

from special education, kids can do very well in

inclusive situations under those circumstances. So

it was that special education may benefit from

comprehensive school reform processes. So, in fact,

there may be a common agenda to be shared there.

Hank Levin with Accelerated Schools also

began to publish information on the need to practice

inclusive programs. He didn\'t dis‑aggregate his

evaluation data on outcomes. What he did share,

however, was some research on practices. Those

studies indicated that teachers could effectively

incorporate practices that were being developed as a

result of special education research and incorporated

into accelerated schools\' curriculum and

instructional design processes. There would be

effective outcomes for all kids. Again, we don\'t

have specific data on the kids that were included as

part of that.

Right now the effort ‑‑ when you deal with

this topic of inclusion, you are really ‑‑ it\'s

almost as if when you are looking at whole school

processes and you look at it ‑‑ through it from the

perspective of general educators, it looks like

there\'s a ‑‑ special education looks like it\'s a

federal and state template that is being put down

over schools, and it has a kind of one‑size‑fits‑all

mentality.

In other words, as I interact with school

administrators and we get into discussions about the

need to bring special education fully into school

reform processes, they almost universally feel that

that\'s going to be a very tough thing to do because

we are restricted by our law, we are restricted by

the legality. Every time we try to do something,

somebody steps up to sue us. They view special

education as something that\'s a little scary and it

has to be done in a separate way.

So I think from my perspective there is a

tremendous need to begin to work on a school‑wide,

collaborative framework. In other words, make the

unit of analysis at least with some of the research

that we do ‑‑ the school, its culture, school climate

‑‑ how does special education interface and

effectively interact with the rest of the school to

make decisions about where ‑‑ for example, how to

educate kids with severe disabilities in what

environments at the school, and so on and so forth.

That is why when Paul Weyman brought up

the issue of universal design for learning, I have

recently been very interested and invested in a

further look at that. I think that offers kind of a

Rubrick around which we can organize whole‑school,

collaborative, team‑driven processes and make

decisions about where to best educate kids.

When I undertook to review the literature

to make this presentation, I first thought I would

try to take a look at what evidence exists that

compares separate classroom or categorical separate

classroom placement of students with disabilities

with general education kids in inclusive

arrangements. I came to the conclusion very early on

that there are too few controlled comparison studies

to make a meaningful statement.

There is a lot of research on outcomes

from separate class programs. There\'s a lot of

research ‑‑ well, not a lot but there\'s a fair bit of

research on outcomes from inclusive practices, very

few comparison studies. So I took a little different

tack and decided to look at a comprehensive review of

the literature on the question of what evidence is

there in support of inclusive practices? That\'s what

I have reported in the paper.

I took a look at mild disabilities,

learning disabilities, and so forth. The literature

that I had the time to review and could review there

I reviewed. I updated our earlier review and looked

at other comprehensive reviews of the literature for

severe disabilities. I finally took a look at ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 5)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. SAILOR: (Continuing.) ‑‑ the research

on early childhood.

In terms of deciding what evidence exists,

I thought there was a need to have a standard for

this evidence consideration. So I looked at the

Shagelson and Pound recent pre‑publication copy on

the nature of scientific evidence in education. In

very general terms it argues for quasi‑experimental

and qualitative research methodologies with rigor as

the fundamental criterion for advancement of

knowledge. I thought that was a good one. I thought

their review was fair and holds up a pretty good

standard.

So the literature I reviewed in the paper

was pretty well based on those criteria. I would say

that some of the studies that I cited were

necessarily reviewed in other people\'s comprehensive

reviews of the literature. My criterion there was as

long as they used the standard for evidence that was

comparable to the one I was offering, I accepted it.

So I haven\'t read every single paper and every single

review that I cited but I did reject reviews that

didn\'t hold some standard up for evidence.

In terms of specific recommendations I

would like to say that I have one general

recommendation first and then a number of specific

recommendations. I will summarize those quickly.

The general recommendation I came to at the end of my

review because I realized that many of my specific

recommendations to you were beginning to cluster

around a common theme.

So let me state that common theme and that

general recommendation from the outset. It reads:

\"The advent of comprehensive school reform in a move

to establish greater accountability linked to

standards embodied in the No Child Left Behind

legislation are together creating opportunities for

general education and special education to work on a

shared agenda to accomplish better outcomes for all

students.

\"Research is now needed that is addressed

to common priorities established jointly by OERI and

OSERS research administrations. These common or

shared priorities should be jointly funded by the two

authorities, and grantees should be required to

provide evidence of school‑wide collaborative

research partnerships involving multi‑disciplinary

teams that include special educators, as well as

general educators.\"

So I think my main recommendation here is

that we need to get teamed up with general education.

We need to have schools as a focus, and we need to

have a collaborative research endeavor that shares

resources and funds.

In terms of specific recommendations, I

would say, number one, there should be specific

research addressed to standards‑based participation

of special education students and standards‑based

assessment. The approaches that we take to

participation in school district‑wide and so forth

assessments must be linked to the teaching/learning

processes that we engage with that population. We

have begun now to make some progress here, but I

think there is much more that is needed.

Secondly, research in high‑incidence

disability areas be jointly prioritized and jointly

funded by the general education research system, as

well as the OSERS‑supported research systems. My

main reason for suggesting that is because I think

there is pretty clear evidence emerging that both

groups benefit.

I work in partnership with urban schools.

Most of my work over the past ten years has been in

urban Kansas City and also through a contract with

Chicago Schools. It\'s clear to me that there is more

in common with children with learning disabilities

and other mild disabilities and low‑achieving

students that are not identified for special

education than anybody has heretofore recognized.

I really think that when we combine those

resources and we deliver education in an inclusive

way, then both groups will benefit. So I would say

that should be joint priorities.

I think we need much more research on

whole‑school models. That\'s pretty well what I said

in that general recommendation. That\'s maybe a

little bit different unit of analysis than focusing

on individual student outcomes or classroom‑based

applications.

Schools are small communities, they have

cultures. We can identify climate variables in

schools that matter. Most importantly there\'s

evidence that when schools pull together and

everybody buys in to a particular set of practices

and particular innovations, that outcomes can be

identified as a result of that. So I think that is a

better predictive variable than simply classroom

placement and so forth.

I think that more research studies are

needed on the use of para‑educators such as Katie

Wright mentioned. That is a critically important

one, and I agree with Mark Wolery\'s comments on that.

I think in our terms we see ‑‑ sometimes when we see

programs under inclusion, we will see what we call

Velcro para\'s. That\'s a para‑educator that\'s just

attached to a student with disabilities in a general

education classroom. It\'s a bad model, it doesn\'t

work.

There is some emerging research in that

area by Michael Giangreco and others showing that we

need to pay a lot more attention to the use of para‑

educators. The problem is that we\'re looking at the

lowest‑paid work force in our whole system. Probably

as a result of that, we\'re looking at high turnover.

When we invest tremendous amounts of in‑

service training and so on in that group, then we\'re

‑‑ over a short period of time because of the low

pay, then we\'re getting a bad investment. We need

better ways through ‑‑ I think through research I

think we need to find better ways of getting a work

force of para‑educators maybe through career ladders,

through university partnerships, and other incentives

that keep them in the work force and longitudinal

training.

We need more research on training for

them, what they need. What are some of the key kinds

of longitudinal processes we can put into effect

through partnerships at schools that will involve

para‑educators?

More research is needed on community‑based

vocational instruction. Here I think Paul Weyman was

absolutely right. We really need to study more

effective ways of getting the students job training

off campus in settings where they have an opportunity

to work for pay and benefits. That\'s another one

that we share with low‑achieving students in urban

settings, at least from our database.

Research is needed on adaptations and

accommodations for students with severe disabilities.

That is underway, there is more needed. We need

adaptations and accommodations for participation and

assessments. More research is needed on that one.

We\'ve only begun to scratch the surface.

Uses of technology with the education of

students with severe disabilities, this is one that ‑

‑ you know, I go to lots of schools, computers all

over the place; nobody\'s using it. Yet there is

evidence that very effective adaptations and

accommodations can be provided through the use of

technology.

Prevention research, combined early‑

childhood system supports, and Head Start bring the

early childhood community together, set common

priorities, set common research objectives, pool the

funds. I think, you know, we can find that a lot of

kids later labeled for disabilities can ‑‑ that can

be prevented through better effective teaching

processes at the early‑childhood level.

Positive‑behavior support research badly

needs to be extended now to the early‑childhood

situation, to families in communities so that

behavior‑support plans ‑‑ parents can begin to learn

effective ways of managing emerging problem behavior

without setting a pattern that will lead to

segregation and identification for special education

later on.

Some work has already begun to surface in

this area from the University of South Florida, in

particular, and some other research areas. There\'s

new money now that I think will really engage that

opportunity.

More research is needed on embedded

instruction and naturalistic interventions. For

example, at the pre‑school level ‑‑ I think Mark and

Don covered that ‑‑ research on realistic family‑

participation models. Again, that\'s one that Mark

and Don covered. Families, as they pointed out,

don\'t disappear as kids make the transition into

schools. We really need a lot of research to figure

out how to continue to anchor the family perspective

into the plan.

Finally, research, I think, is needed on

team and collaborative planning processes. Those are

already underway. There\'s a fair bit of research

emerging in general education on that. Special ed

needs to be involved and particularly research on the

effective utilization of indicators on school reform,

process teams, and collaborative teaching

arrangements, and so forth.

I\'ll stop there.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much. I\'d

like to begin with Dr. Berdine who did not have an

opportunity during our last presentation.

DR. BERDINE: Thank you, Madam Chair. No,

I did not, and I wish I had because in the last

presentation ‑‑ and this adds to yours, Wayne, which

I had forgotten about the bride‑less wedding analogy

that Liebermann did. I enjoyed reading that again.

But starting in about the second 30

minutes of the last presentation, as I listened to

the trend of the questions, the Q&A that was coming

from the commission, it became really clear to me

that the current administration in Washington is

going to have an emphasis, clear emphasis on early

infant, child and family intervention. Then Mark and

Don laid out a very rich research agenda I have great

empathy for.

Wayne, in your testimony, you laid out 15

research questions which, indeed, would be a very

rich agenda. As I listened to that, listened to you,

and re‑read some of this historical documentation, on

this commission as the only practicing doctoral‑level

trainer personnel in special education, it really

worries me. Where do you think we\'re going to get

the people to train, the practitioners and the

researchers that you all are recommending?

You know that we don\'t have enough now.

One out of three positions in special education in

higher education are empty with no prospect of

filling them. We turn out less than half of what is

needed in terms of doctoral‑level faculty in special

education every year. That\'s well‑ documented in

OSEP‑funded studies. So while I have great sympathy

with both Mark and Don and your research agenda, can

you make suggestions to the commission about

legislation that would impact on the funding

leadership personnel?

We have heard testimony about the indexing

of Part D with Parts B and C, and that\'s been widely

discussed. But do you have any ‑‑ you have a long

history, 30 years in higher education. What would be

your recommendations to the commission how we would

fund the personnel to implement the research agenda

that you\'ve placed out in front of us?

DR. SAILOR: I think that\'s an excellent

question, and I agree with your comments. I think

that your commission is actually receiving or has

received some input from Mary Brownell and Tom

Skurdik into the task force on the personnel

preparation agenda that I\'ve reviewed and I\'m

agreement with. I think that begins to get at it. I

think we need to begin to move down ‑‑ you know,

special education has been a graduate fifth‑year

endeavor beginning in many states for a long time.

I think we need to begin to prepare people

to enter research careers at the level of high

school, and from there move into stronger under‑

graduate curriculum and link carefully to recruitment

procedures, and then finally some incentives through

personnel‑training stipends at the doctoral level so

that we can ensure that we get the best and the

brightest.

We can also have some of these stipends

perhaps split across general education, as well as

special education so that we bring people to the

table who can cover, you know, kind of two sides of

the issues. I think for really substantive analysis

I\'d go to the Brownell/Skurdik input. I think it was

excellent.

DR. BERDINE: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Jones?

MR. JONES: Well, actually I have to step

back a bit. Terry Branstad and I are the only

lawyers up here. So I do ‑‑ I was a juris doctor but

they don\'t usually call us doctor.

I wanted to ask a question along the issue

of family involvement. In 1975 when LRE was embedded

in the law, greater inclusion was an unambiguous

good. Those children who weren\'t being excluded from

schools were being served in segregated settings or

in less‑inclusive settings. But as time goes on, a

more‑nuanced question of what\'s desired by the child

and what\'s desired by the family starts coming into

play.

I think one easy example of that are

efforts in the deaf community to have what might be

termed less‑inclusive settings, but ones which are

more reflective of the desires of the individuals

involved. Clearly there is room to push the envelope

here. As you are laying out the research agenda,

there\'s areas that self‑evidently need to have more

research.

The only area where I heard some

discussion was under 14 where we were talking about

family participation. There it looked to be ‑‑ your

comments seem to go a little beyond what you

described here. I wanted to ask you where is there

room and what might research look to to incorporate

appropriate levels of family involvement and

individual involvement in the process and better

reflections of that even to where ‑‑ even where it

might possibly run counter to the general theme of

IDEA being greater and more‑inclusive settings?

Would you talk to that.

DR. SAILOR: Yes, great question and one

that I\'m very interested in. One thing I didn\'t get

into in the paper much ‑‑ I cited Lawson and Sailor

2000\. I think, number one, the process begins really

early. That\'s why I think the early‑childhood

collaborative focus that really substantively

involves educators with families, into their lives,

their perceptions, their understanding. That needs

to be strengthened, and it mustn\'t be lost through

the K‑12 program, which it often does.

To come back to your original discussion,

Bob\'s discussion on Part C and so on, I think that

this issue of the transition from early childhood

into the grade ladder, this is an opportunity to

really begin to conduct some research and look at

policy on the role of families as kids move up in the

grade ladder.

Secondly, there is a move on in general

education associated with school reform. I think the

leaders on it are probably Hal Lawson at SUNY Albany,

Howard Edelman at UCLA. Some others are really

beginning to look at the need to effectively partner

schools with the families of the kids that attend the

school, with the businesses that make up the area in

the community, and the community‑service‑provider

systems, and then wherever possible, IHE\'s,

institutions of higher education, and create

mechanisms that enable them to effectively work

together to improve educational outcomes for all

children.

In other words, open ‑‑ view the school as

a part of a broader community set of issues.

Certainly in urban schools this one looks very

doable. Some of the evidence particularly coming out

of UCLA on outcomes for low‑achieving kids where

these partnerships are formed is pretty persuasive.

So I would say ‑‑ I mean, I think that\'s

my answer. I would like to see us move from strong

family participation, effective involvement in early

childhood, continuing in the grade ladder, through

moving to community school concepts, and doing

research on how those processes can interact with the

statute IDEA, and with No Child Left Behind, and so

forth.

MR. JONES: Thank you very much.

DR. GRASMICK: You have a question?

DR. WRIGHT: I don\'t need to dance this

dance.

DR. GRASMICK: Any other questions? Yes,

Dr. Fletcher?

DR. FLETCHER: I might have missed this in

your testimony, Dr. Sailor, but I was wondering if

you were aware of any evidence that shows that for

students identified with learning disabilities that

inclusive practices per se even in a research‑based

demonstration are associated with significant gains

in reading achievement?

DR. SAILOR: Say the last part of your

question.

DR. FLETCHER: Are inclusive practices

associated with significant gains in reading

achievement in students who are identified with

learning disabilities? Is there any evidence for

that?

DR. SAILOR: My source for my answer is

going to be Dr. Deshler\'s review papers together with

his colleagues. What I\'m going to have a little

trouble partitioning here is the evidence that

pertains to reading per se versus other educational

outcomes.

DR. FLETCHER: But my question is

specifically about reading.

DR. SAILOR: Then I\'m going to defer the

answer to Don\'s presentation and invite you to ask

him because that\'s his ‑‑ this is an area that I am

not a particular expert on. I don\'t remember from my

own reading of the reviews and the papers I did read

whether the specific evidence accrues to reading or

if it\'s across the board. I can\'t give you a direct,

honest answer on that.

DR. FLETCHER: Thank you. I\'ll ask that

the record be left open so that Dr. Deshler can

respond to that question.

DR. GRASMICK: We will accommodate that

request.

Dr. Pasternack?

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Sailor, thank you for your legacy of

work in affecting the lives of kids with disabilities

over the years. It\'s good to see you. First

question for you is why is the drop‑out rate for

students with disabilities twice the drop‑out rate

for their non‑disabled peers?

DR. SAILOR: In my opinion, the problem

for students with disabilities at the secondary level

is there is no effective preparation for those

students to have a meaningful life beyond school.

This is, I think, exactly what Paul Wehman addressed.

We have not succeeded in creating effective inter‑

agency collaboration and planning mechanisms to have

a light at the end of the tunnel for kids with

disabilities and their families to remain invested in

public education and see it through.

I think as long as that situation

continues, we are probably going to continue to see a

high drop‑out rate.

DR. PASTERNACK: As you know, the

president in the new freedom initiative talked about

the 70‑percent unemployment rate for adults with

disabilities, 90‑percent under‑employment rate.

Unfortunately at a time of unprecedented economic

prosperity those high unemployment rates for those

with disabilities persists.

I guess, in response to what you just

said, what\'s our responsibility as public schools and

as the policy‑makers in special education to help

prepare students with disabilities to take advantage

of those other systems?

DR. SAILOR: I think it\'s our

responsibility to put some teeth into the transition

language and some effective research directed to how

transition effectively could work, and then some

policy initiatives that really create incentives for

these systems to come together and work together.

Transition\'s a bridge. It\'s got the post‑school

support system, and it\'s got the schools.

Yet one waits for the other to either have

kids age out or graduate them with no particular

preparation for whatever set of circumstances they

are going to have when they . This other side of the

bridge, the voc‑rehab system, for example, the

developmental‑disability systems ‑‑ until very

recently many of those systems have provided very

little opportunity for people to have meaningful,

gainful employment and a high quality of life and so

forth in the community.

I think that we can do ‑‑ the access to

the general curriculum for students with

disabilities, some of Weymeyer\'s work, and being able

to ‑‑ some of Lou Brown\'s recent work now with the

foster care system in Chicago Public Schools,

creating an arrangement whereby both low‑achieving

kids and kids with disabilities who will ‑‑ in the

Chicago data it\'s 100 percent unemployment.

These kids will have an opportunity to go

outside of the school during their junior and senior

years into the areas uptown, State Street, and

Michigan Avenue and so forth where they\'re going to

have opportunities in the real work area out of the

neighborhood. They will be trained in these

settings, and then there will be mechanisms put into

place for these kids to be able to experience a job

choice and then have the opportunity to be hired in

competitive employment when they graduate.

We don\'t, you know ‑‑ we don\'t know if

that\'s going to be a successful model or not, but I

think it\'s certainly going to be a step up from what

we look at now in those same schools where these kids

are routed into transition classes, they get work in

sort of simulated workshop‑type environments and so

on within the schools. I don\'t think that\'s going to

create incentives to remain in school, and I don\'t

think it gives the opportunities afterward.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you. This is

ostensibly our purpose here today, primarily for

research issues. What you just said, would that be

indicative in your opinion that we\'ve not targeted

our research in this area appropriately over the

years at the Office of Special Education Programs?

If so, what specific research topics would you

suggest we explore in the future?

DR. SAILOR: I think the problem is it\'s

been encapsulated. In other words, the research that

comes through IDEA on secondary issues and transition

has been research that can only be effectively

controlled within the schools.

Paul may correct me on that but I think

that the research that is needed now has to come from

a combined authority that looks at the questions that

are of interest to the post‑school support system as

well as to the school‑preparedness system. Again, if

we\'re isolated in separated systems with our separate

language and separate viewpoints, we can\'t get there

from here, nor are their questions be answered by

educators because there are different priorities and

different issues in voc rehab.

So my answer to you is we need policy that

enables these questions to be addressed through

research through inter‑agency consortium

arrangements.

DR. PASTERNACK: Well, if it\'s voc rehab,

it would seem like under the Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services we ought to be

able to have that sort of collaboration going on

within the same entity.

DR. SAILOR: I agree.

DR. PASTERNACK: So that is kind of

interesting. Thank you.

For the record at the moment statute says

students shall be invited to participate or shall

participate in their IEP\'s, comma, where appropriate.

In your view should we strike the words

\"where appropriate\" thereby encouraging practice

where every student is invited to every IEP meeting?

DR. SAILOR: Yes.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you.

DR. WRIGHT: Did he say yes or no?

DR. PASTERNACK: He said yes.

I guess one other quick question, Madam

Chair, if I may.

Wayne, would you talk to us about what you

think the role should be for sheltered workshops.

Should sheltered workshops continue to have a role in

the 21st century, particularly for individuals with

cognitive impairment?

DR. SAILOR: No, I would close them.

DR. PASTERNACK: 100 percent? None?

DR. SAILOR: Right.

DR. PASTERNACK: Okay. Thank you, Madam

Chair.

DR. GRASMICK: You\'re welcome. I have a

final question and hope to be brief. When you

described the issue that helps students with special

needs be successful in inclusion situations, I

wondered if there was any research on the high rate

of mobility of some of these students stabilizing

their learning opportunities by way of well‑defined

whole‑school reform, preparation of staff,

involvement of parents? Suddenly there\'s this rapid

movement which seems to exist in our urban centers to

a greater degree. Has there been any research on the

impact of that high mobility?

DR. SAILOR: Not that I know of. I think

that\'s a great question, and I think research is

really needed on that. I\'m concerned a little bit

about the increasing movement for choice. What will

be the impact on kids with disabilities who, you

know, begin to have a stable situation but then may

be pulled out because there is choice availability to

move to another program?

Also, I think there\'s interesting

opportunities to look at migratory populations where

there is tremendous mobility and what the impact is

on students with special needs from that population.

So I that would be something I would add to the list

of questions.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much, Dr.

Sailor. Your testimony has been enormously helpful.

Thank you.

DR. SAILOR: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: The next area we\'ll be

pursuing is intervention research and bridging the

gap between research and practice. As we think about

those issues, our next presenter will address a broad

array of issues related to intervention research. We

are delighted to welcome Dr. Don Deshler, professor

of special education and director of the Center for

Research on Learning at the University of Kansas.

He provides leadership for the research,

product development, and staff development activity.

His expertise and interests lie in program design and

implementation of strategic‑based intervention for

students at‑risk for failure and providing assistance

for schools and professionals in the process of

educational change and professional growth.

Welcome, Dr. Deshler.

DR. DESHLER: Thank you. I appreciate the

opportunity to be here and consider it an honor to be

able to share information with you. I might just say

that when I taught school, there were two periods of

the day I dreaded most. One was the last period of

the day and the other was the one right before lunch.

It looks like I drew the short straw.

(Laughter.)

DR. DESHLER: I wish to address a

challenge that should be foremost in the mind of

every educational researcher, policy‑maker, or agency

that sponsors educational research for individuals

with disabilities. Namely, do the findings of a

research program improve the quality of practices and

outcomes for individuals with disabilities?

I would submit that if neither practice

nor outcomes improve on a large‑scale, sustained

basis, it is reasonable to question either the value

of the specific line of research or the way in which

research programs in general are conceptualized and

operated within a given funding agency. In other

words, just because an innovation is embraced by the

scientific community, there is no guarantee that an

innovation will positively impact practice.

If an innovation ends up sitting on the

shelf in most classrooms because it is too cumbersome

or burdensome to use, we need to question the overall

value of its contribution and the standards that led

to it being classified as scientifically based.

Given the scope and inter‑related nature

of the challenges inherent in bridging the research‑

to‑practice gap and given the emphasis on making

scientifically‑based practices available to all

children as specified in the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001, it is clear that only a comprehensive and

well‑orchestrated plan of action that has as an

explicit goal of bringing scientifically‑based

practices to scale on a sustained basis will lead to

dramatic changes in prevailing practices and improved

outcomes.

Toward this end I offer the following four

recommendations to the commission for ensuring that

every individual with a disability served under IDEA

has his or her program firmly grounded in

scientifically‑based practices. Recommendation

number one is to support and R&D agenda that

addresses the contextual realities within which

individuals with disabilities function and are

served.

As we know, individuals with disabilities

live in families, attend schools, and receive

services from agencies that are highly complex and

often unpredictable. The quality of services, child

care, and instruction varies greatly as do the

abilities and skills of parents, caregivers, and

teachers. Because of these realities it is important

that the research programs appropriately account for

the many contextual factors and the systemic

complexity of implementing and sustaining

scientifically‑based practices in schools or other

organizations.

The newly released National Research

Council report edited by Shavelson and Towne,

entitled Scientific Research in Education,

underscores how critical it is for researchers to

carefully consider contextual factors in their

research. I quote directly, \"Naive uses and

expectations of research that do not recognize the

contextual differences can lead to simplistic,

uninformed, and narrow interpretations of research

and indiscriminate applications.

\"It is clear that research programs that

fail to carefully and deliberately consider

contextual factors ignore the realities of the

educational enterprise and end up producing research

findings that have a low probability of impacting

outcomes. Indeed, research that is limited to

tradition bench science results in a broadening of

the research‑practice gap and an increase in

skepticism by practitioners about the value of

educational research.\"

I would, therefore, propose two specific

action steps be taken by federal agencies to ensure

that their investments effectively address the

contextual realities within which individuals with

disabilities function and are served. First, that we

establish standards that researchers must meet to

demonstrate that their research effectively accounts

for the complexities inherent in the settings in

which individuals with disabilities and their

families live and are served.

Secondly, to create mechanisms within

federal education research agencies that build

significant and sustained connections between

researchers, practitioners, and policy‑makers to

guide both knowledge production and knowledge

utilization. The purpose of these mechanisms would

be to enhance the quality of collaboration between

those stakeholders most responsible for improving the

quality of services and outcomes for individuals with

disabilities and their families.

Recommendation number two is to

deliberately link research investments to other parts

of IDEA. This has been a common theme through much

of the testimony this day. I would like to perhaps

expand upon some of those comments. Part D funding

which represents approximately 4 percent of the

annual national expenditure to educate individuals

with disabilities plays an extremely important role

in producing, implementing, evaluating, and

disseminating information about effective practices.

Hence, IDEA Part D programs provide an infrastructure

for improving the quality of direct services.

Just for a moment I would like to step

back and put in context what I think is a significant

bit of history in terms of why we have this current

infrastructure today. Nearly 30 years ago when the

Bureau of Education for the Handicapped was

established, James Gallagher, at that time the

associate commissioner, articulated what I consider

to be a brilliantly‑conceived plan for how BEH would

support effective translation of research into

improved practice.

Five inter‑related phases of Part D

investments were articulated. One, investments in

research; two, investments in development projects to

help integrate research findings into curricula;

three, investments in demonstration projects as a

first step to take things to scale; four, investments

in implementation and dissemination projects; and

five, investments in projects to support

administrators and policy‑makers in

institutionalizing the research.

Now, subsequent to those initial efforts,

94142 and IDEA have continued to reflect this

research practice paradigm by deliberately linking

research to training and technical assistance

activities. Today there are seven program areas

linked together in IDEA in Part D.

The power of this investment strategy is

that which provides researchers with access to

resources that enable them to not only conduct

foundational research to develop scientifically‑based

practices, but also to access funding streams that

will facilitate the translation of validated

practices into configurations that can be both

supported by policy‑makers and embraced by

practitioners.

Now, the availability of the seven

strategic funding areas under Part D enables

researchers to think of ways of effectively

developing and expanding findings from foundational

research initiatives into product and processes. In

the absence of a federal program that enables

researchers to access funding for such things as

training, technology enhancements, and technical

assistance to probability of closing the gap would be

greatly reduced.

Now, while linkage among these various

components of Part D is critical, I believe that it

is important to note that it is the research

component that serves as the engine that drives the

rest of Part D programs. In brief, research is the

cornerstone of Part D. As such, it is imperative

that it remain closely linked to these programs under

the auspices of a single agency.

Any other configuration of research

investments on behalf of individuals with

disabilities, for example, placing the research

function in one agency and the other six strategy

investments in another agency will contribute to a

broadening, rather than a narrowing, of the gap that

we all struggle with.

Now, while deliberate linkages of various

programs together under Part D is a conceptually‑

sound strategy for bridging research to practice,

there has been a disturbing trend over the past

decade in the support of Part D programs.

Specifically, funding appropriations to support Part

D investments have fallen woefully behind what is

required to adequately support the validation of a

broad array of scientifically‑based interventions and

the subsequent development of strategies for bringing

these interventions to scale.

During the past several years, Part D

funding has fallen steadily in relationship to Part B

appropriations. For example, in 1990 Part D

appropriations were nearly 12 percent of Part B. In

2002 they fell to 4.67 percent. These data help

explain why current programming on behalf of

individuals with disabilities often fail to achieve

intended outcomes. Part D investments are key to

ensuring high quality of services provided to

students with disabilities and their families through

Parts B and C.

Therefore, the following steps are

recommended to the commission. First, index Part D

funding directly to Part B and Part C funding. As

the amount of support for services to individuals

under B and C of IDEA increases, it is imperative

that Part B funding increase commensurately.

In order to deliver on the challenge to

use scientifically‑based practices in all services

provided to individuals with disabilities,

investments will be required to not only support

foundational research studies, but also research to

validate systems and programs that will facilitate

bringing those findings to scale and sustain their

use over time.

Second, create mechanisms within federal

education research agencies that build significant

and sustained connections between researchers,

practitioners, and policy‑makers to guide both the

knowledge‑production and knowledge‑utilization

enterprise.

Third, ensure that federal and state

policy‑developers are knowledgeable of and responsive

to research findings and support the application of

research‑based practices.

Now, the third overall recommendation that

I would make to the commission is to support research

programs that deliberately study issues of

scalability and sustainability. Replicating

validated practices on a large‑scale basis and

enduring their sustainability has proven to be an

extremely difficult and vexing problem.

However, I would submit unless the broad

array of issues related to scalability and

sustainability are deliberately and aggressively

addressed, the lofty vision and goals of No Child

Left Behind will not be realized.

More specifically, using scientifically‑

based practices to improve the results of all

students including those with disabilities will only

happen if researchers and policy‑makers develop an

array of sophisticated and powerful strategies for

broadly disseminating and effectively integrating ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 6)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. DESHLER: (Continuing.) ‑‑ proven

practices into schools and other organizations.

In many respects much of the basic

infrastructure for addressing the broad array of

issues surrounding scalability and sustainability is

already in place in Part D. Specifically the seven

inter‑related strategies currently specified in IDEA

provide the policy levers through which federal

support can be channeled to promote the best

practices in the field in order to appropriately

address the issues surrounding scalability and

sustainability.

However, the following action steps are

recommended to the commission:

First, earmark specific funds that go to

Part D research to study scalability and

sustainability research questions. By definition,

these investments must be sizable and of considerable

duration to adequately study the complexities

inherent in these questions.

Second, amend evaluation criteria for

judging intervention research proposals to award

credit for sophisticated plans for studying issues

related to generalization, robustness, and

maintenance of intervention effects.

Third, increase funding for programs in

IDEA Part D. Addressing the issues of scalability

and sustainability will require substantial

investments. In the absence of such investments only

a small segment of individuals with disabilities will

result in the benefits of research initiatives. In

short, lots of children will be left behind.

It is important to emphasize that this is

not merely a call to throw more money at research.

Money alone will not ensure broad‑scale knowledge

utilization. Increases in funding must be targeted

to critical research questions that are addressed by

the field\'s best researchers working in close

collaboration with practitioners and policy‑makers.

Fourth, re‑institute a process similar to

the Joint Dissemination and Review Panel that

operated in the late \'70s to the mid \'80s or its

successor the Program Effectiveness Panel. The

presence of federal review panels would provide

researchers with mechanisms and incentives for making

their research available in broader venues.

My fourth overall recommendation is to

structure federal education research agencies

according to design principles that foster quality

education research and effective knowledge

utilization. A key element in enabling the ambitious

goals articulated in No Child Left Behind Act and the

goals that undoubtedly will be articulated in the

yet‑to‑be reauthorized IDEA will be the presence of a

strong federal leadership role manifested by the

Office of Special Education Programs.

To enhance the capacity of OSEP to be

optimally responsive to the principle embedded in No

Child Left Behind, the following action steps are

recommended to the commission:

First, increase the number of research

scholars in the agency so that a culture of

scientific rigor can be supported and sustained and

the attention given to R&D mission of the agency can

begin to take precedence over other functions such as

monitoring. Continued strong leadership in growth in

the intellectual capital of the agency is

foundational to future successes.

Second, reduce the number of authorizing

statutes that place restrictions on budgets. For

example, the models used in NSF and NICHD afford much

more budgetary discretion to agency leaders. In

order to craft R&D agendas that are optimally

responsive to both long‑ and short‑term needs, agency

leaders must have the necessary degrees of freedom to

make investments in promising areas as dictated by

emerging discoveries and data.

Third, develop mechanisms for targeting

R&D priorities to areas of highest need and priority.

The breadth of programs currently supported by OSEP

is overwhelming, given the agency\'s relatively

limited budget allocations. Concentrating

investments into a narrower range of priorities will

promote the development of more powerful and reliable

discoveries with an increased probability of

improving outcomes.

Finally, establish mechanisms and

expectations for various agencies ‑‑ OERI, OSEP,

NICHD, NSF ‑‑ to collaborate to address the complex

issues surrounding research to practice. So in

conclusion, one of the defining and landmark features

of No Child Left Behind was the call for education

practices used with children to be scientifically

based.

This most laudable and worthy goal will

only be reached, however, if we come to grips with

the extraordinarily challenging set of problems

related to effectively translating research‑validated

innovations into broad‑scale practice. I would

strongly urge the commission to support the current

infrastructure built into Part D that deliberately

links research to specific initiatives designed to

translate research and practice and to tie funding

levels for Part D investments to increase in Parts C

and B expenditures.

Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: I\'d like to begin with

asking Dr. Lyon if he has a question.

DR. LYON: Thank you so much, Dr. Deshler.

Extraordinarily sound testimony from a fellow that\'s

contributed substantially to this country\'s children.

DR. DESHLER: Thank you, I appreciate it.

DR. LYON: The scaling issue is enormous.

The only question I have ‑‑ and I think Jack was

going to ask it, too ‑‑ as you may know we have a

major initiative underway whose sole purpose ‑‑ this

is an initiative between NSF, OERI and NICHD. It\'s

called the Inter‑Agency Educational Research

Initiative. Its sole purpose is to take validated

findings, findings or results obtained from more

controlled studies to better understand the

conditions under which they can be scaled at more‑

complex levels.

That\'s a \$25‑million‑per‑year program. We

haven\'t been able for some reason to attract OSEP

researchers into that mix, although we certainly

would think it would be relevant. We asked OSEP to

contribute but they didn\'t feel they wanted to.

Again, I think your call for collaboration is

something that resonates with me obviously.

The other thing I\'m going to ask you here

that\'s going to put you on the spot is, I\'m trying to

figure out why we got the answers this morning we did

when this same collaborative question came up, that

OSEP is a unique agency and those kinds of answers.

That is, as I\'ve looked through the documents, I find

that there are concerns raised about moving research

funding from OSEP or the functions of OSEP to

different agencies, either OERI or to NICHD.

I don\'t know anybody on this panel that

has any idea where that came from. What I\'m

concerned about is that, you know, as we talk with

you all and get advice, it is not unfettered advice.

There seems to be some need to reply to the questions

less than candidly at times. I don\'t ‑‑ at any rate.

So when we are asking questions about

agencies collaborating on very‑complex research

questions, it surprises me that we haven\'t gotten a

great deal of number one, historical input from OSEP,

and number two, we still see that resistance from

some of the witnesses today. Why is that?

DR. DESHLER: Well, first of all, I can\'t

respond to the rumors that you\'ve heard about funding

moving from one place to another. I\'m unaware of

those rumors, so I can\'t comment on that. I didn\'t

speak to that in my testimony. The point that I

tried to make ‑‑ perhaps I didn\'t make it clearly ‑‑

is that one of the key elements that I believe should

be in place to support validated practices getting to

the front line is to have a set of structures that

encourage and support researchers to participate in

that.

It has been my personal experience during

my career to attempt to do that. I have ‑‑ if you

are asking personally why I haven\'t gotten funding

from NIH or NSF, you can answer that better than I

can, Reid. I\'ve tried. I think it would be a worthy

endeavor to investigators together.

DR. LYON: Right, right. I just want to

make sure on the record that I do not do review.

There\'s a very clear demarcation.

DR. DESHLER: I just wanted to make clear

on the record, too, that I have submitted to multiple

agencies.

DR. LYON: Well, thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Wright.

DR. WRIGHT: Dr. Deshler, I am so familiar

with your work. My students at Harris‑Stowe State

College and at Singers University are familiar with

your work, too. I\'m glad that you are one of our

presenters.

DR. DESHLER: Thank you.

DR. WRIGHT: I want to address just a

couple of things. One of your recommendations is

increase the number of research scholars in the

agency. I wanted to add, in the field, not just that

particular agency.

Dr. Berdine brought up the issue and the

problem of attracting, say, doctoral students. Those

doctoral students, those researchers in the field

need funds. I say just not limited to research

scholars in the agency, but out in the field.

One other thing, your fourth

recommendation established practices that will ensure

public review and input through the use of visible

mechanisms. It would appear to me that one of those

mechanisms would be like where in the school

districts we put our budgets out in the libraries and

all for the general public to look at.

So it would appear to me that one of those

mechanisms would be to put this stuff out in the

libraries and the public schools where actual parents

and lay people and people who need this information

could get at it. That is my question and my comment.

DR. DESHLER: I think you\'ve raised some

very significant issues and observations. I couldn\'t

agree more with you about the importance of engaging

young scholars in communities of influence where they

can grow and develop the kind of research skills that

are needed to take on some of the difficult

questions. I fully agree with you.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Pasternack?

DR. PASTERNACK: Thanks, Dr. Deshler, for

your work and your testimony. In your opinion, why

are teachers having such a difficult time locating

the instructional strategies that we think we have

identified through research and that work in meeting

the needs of students with disabilities?

DR. DESHLER: I\'d like to shift the

perhaps focus of the question to, rather than an

implied laying the blame at the doorstep of the

teacher, I think we need to begin with looking at the

way in which instructional innovation has been

configured and packaged and made available for

practicing teachers.

The kinds of protocols that we put

together to do the research in the field during the

foundational research phase is often something that

is not user‑friendly and does not lend itself to

being broadly embraced and used within the complexity

of the classroom. That is the first thing that has

to happen.

We need to deliver to teachers

interventions packaged in such a way that they have

the proper kind of support materials so that they

don\'t need to hunt all over for them, that they can

put it into practice immediately. Oftentimes that

doesn\'t happen. What comes out in a research

protocol often does not lend itself to use readily by

teachers in the front lines.

Secondly, it\'s imperative that teachers

have the proper kind of professional development to

learn to use the intervention with fidelity. Not

only that, as we are engaged in the professional

development process, it\'s imperative for those who

developed and designed the interventions that they

spend as much time trying to understand the context

within which teachers are going to be applying the

intervention as we hope the teachers spend trying to

understand the parameters of the new intervention.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thanks. I want to be

very clear, I\'m not blaming teachers. I think the

attribution lies elsewhere. I think we can have that

discussion at another juncture.

DR. FLETCHER: The researchers.

DR. DESHLER: What\'s that?

DR. PASTERNACK: Dr. Fletcher pointed out

that you might be blaming researchers and not the

teachers.

DR. DESHLER: It\'s a joint process.

DR. PASTERNACK: One of the

recommendations that you made talked about,

increasing the number of scholars at our agency. I

believe that you were referring to the agency that I

have the responsibility for. Would you also suggest,

based apropos of what you just said, that we not only

need research scholars but we need people who can

actually translate that research into terms that real

people can understand?

DR. DESHLER: Absolutely. My definition,

if you will, of scholars is not limited to research

scholars. I see scholars as being practitioner

scholars, policy‑maker scholars, and researcher

scholars.

DR. PASTERNACK: Well, it\'s interesting

because as you may know, the reading specialist that

I hired at OSEP is indicative of that kind of

philosophy because she is a person who clearly

understands these issues and has only a high school

degree and has dyslexia and a son with dyslexia. Yet

she is uniquely qualified to be able to translate the

research into terms that non‑researchers can

understand.

DR. DESHLER: That\'s right, absolutely.

DR. PASTERNACK: Would you agree ‑‑ I

think you mentioned this earlier that one of the

failings has been that researchers write for other

researchers and not necessarily for the people who

are the users. It\'s the knowledge‑production

utilization dichotomy that we talked about.

DR. DESHLER: Yes, I would agree with you.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

DR. GRASMICK: You\'re welcome.

Governor Branstad?

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: First of all, Dr.

Deshler, I want to congratulate you. The University

of Kansas does a great job of recruiting some of our

very best basketball players from Iowa.

DR. DESHLER: And we appreciate them

coming.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: They have contributed

mightily to your success in recent years.

(Laughter.)

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: The first

recommendation that you made which was support for an

R&D agenda that addresses the contextual realities

within which individuals with disabilities function

and are served. You specifically made some action

recommendations in your presentation about

establishing standards that researchers must meet and

research that effectively accounts for the

complexities.

Then number two under that is creating

mechanisms within the Federal Education Research

Agencies to build significant and sustained

connections between the researchers, practitioners,

and policy‑makers.

I\'d be interested if you could enhance

that a bit. This, I guess, is kind of a follow‑up to

what Dr. Pasternack also talked about and that is how

we enhance the collaboration and really make sure

that the research is practical and being utilized.

DR. DESHLER: One way to enhance

collaboration is at the very beginning of the process

before we start to formulate research questions and

to conceptualize interventions, we should key

stakeholders sitting around the table who are

ultimately going to be the benefactors, including

individuals with disabilities and their parents and

policy‑makers and practitioners.

As we start to formulate interventions,

they should be informing us about some of the

contextual realities within which it\'s got to fit.

We have often used the metaphor that we can create a

wonderful Cadillac, but if the only vehicle that a

classroom can accommodate is a coaster wagon, it will

probably end up sitting on blocks outside the door.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Two comments. We would

like to begin by thanking you, Dr. Deshler, for your

excellent testimony. The record is open on the

questions that Dr. Lyon raised. We are convening for

a luncheon on the second floor that will be open to

presenters and members of the commission. We regret

that the public cannot participate in that luncheon.

We will reconvene here at 1:25 for public

comment. Thank you very much.

(Lunch break.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

AFTERNOON SESSION

Public Presenters

DR. GRASMICK: This begins the public

presentation portion of the program. As we enter

this part of the program, I\'d just like to define the

rules governing this. Each speaker will have three

minutes. We will welcome any written testimony that

can be shared with the commissioners. You will be

timed by the lady who will be sitting in front of

you. She will alert you to the amount of time you

have left at intervals of two minutes and one minute

so that you can pace your presentation. Having said

that, I now would like to begin with the first

presenter, Maureen Powers.

MS. POWERS: Madam Chair, members of the

commission, my name is Maureen Powers. I am a vision

research person for about 30 years with work that\'s

been supported by NIH, NSF. I was actually a

professor here at Vanderbilt for 20 of those 30 years

and founded the Vision Research Center over here

which continues today.

I gave you a handout called Visual Skills

and Reading Performance. I\'m not going to read that

to you. I\'d like to introduce the concept of visual

skills, summarize some descriptive data that we have

from running a program at Delano High School which is

a mainly Hispanic school in California, near

Bakersfield ‑‑ it\'s Caesar Chavez country, for those

of you who remember those times ‑‑ and on a rather

large data set, tell you the influence of visual

skills, we believe, on reading performance, and then

tell you about a control study that we\'re running in

Memphis ‑‑ which we hope will tell a better story ‑‑

and encourage special educators to have a look at

this issue with special education populations.

What do I mean by visual skills? Visual

skills are the ability ‑‑ this is an eyeball ‑‑

eyeballs are mobile things. They move in one\'s head.

Both eyes have to track across the page in reading

activities. Both have to move together, and in order

to form a single image, they have to be pointing at

the same point on a page.

Visual skills in these studies I\'ve

described in this handout. We measured clinically

three visual skills: Tracking; binocular vision

which we call teaming; and focusing, the ability to

focus that eyeball using the vunticular (phonetic)

muscles inside the eye.

We screened children, we recommended to

the school which students should be placed in a

visual skills training program which was delivered

over the Internet. This is an eye exercise, a

neuromuscular training program. They participated in

20‑minute sessions for 30 sessions spanned over about

a semester, depending on exactly when we did the

program.

This was an uncontrolled study. However,

we found that 70 percent of the students following

this regime had clinically normal eye movements.

Moreover, 70 percent of the students ‑‑ not

necessarily the same 70 percent ‑‑ I\'ll have to

elaborate on that at a later date ‑‑ also had

dramatic, sometimes erratic increases in their

reading scores on standardized reading tests.

We used in this particular study the

California achievement test. The SAT‑9 scores also

went up in most students that completed the program.

In both that study using 450 students this year and a

study with a controlled, matched random‑sample design

in Memphis ‑‑ that\'s in Snowden Middle School ‑‑ in

both those studies we found a correlation between

visual skills, visual skill levels quantified using a

special scale that we have ‑‑ this one ‑‑ and

readers\' scores.

In Snowden Middle School we\'re doing a

controlled study which is showing similar things.

Special ed might want to look at this as a possible

way to examine students\' visual behavior and how it

relates to reading scores.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Sam Odom, followed by Joanne Bregman.

MR. ODOM: Commissioners, thank you for

listening to my testimony. My name is Sam Odom. I\'m

a professor in special education at Indiana

University. I\'m also the vice president of Division

for Research for the Council for Exceptional

Children.

D.R. endorses the statement that you\'ve

received from the Higher Education Consortium on

Special Education, HECSE. My comments will real

briefly highlight some of those points. As you have

heard today, research in special education as funded

by through IDEA and OSEP has multiple purposes. One

primary purpose that we\'ve heard a lot about is

discovery of new knowledge about instructional

techniques.

The research in special education goes

beyond generations of new knowledge about effective

techniques. This is how it\'s different from research

conducted in other agencies, NIH and OREI, and why

it\'s established within OSEP.

First, special education research is tied

very directly to the elements of IDEA which you\'ve

heard about. That\'s extremely important to address

questions related to IDEA that might not be

addressable through other standardized, randomized

clinical trial methodology. For example, how much

does special education cost? Do states measure

special education student outcomes?

A second major goal of special education

research is knowledge utilization which Dr. Deshler

was eloquent about today. That is, given that

science can determine practices that are most

effective in a specific context, the next step is to

translate this empirical knowledge into feasible,

usable, and acceptable practices.

This research process is complex and it\'s

a close parallel to research and development that

occurs in private industry. It requires different

designs, different methodologies such as single‑

subject relational designs, qualitative research. It

also requires dissemination in training of

practitioners.

The division for research endorses two

recommendation in the HECSE statement. We recommend

that the authority of special education research and

development remain with OSEP. No other agency has

shown the capacity or history of supporting the

activities necessary for generating new knowledge

about special education and then moving it into

practice. I want to emphasize the latter mission.

D.R. also recommends that the funding for

research and development effort ‑‑ that is Part D ‑‑

be linked directly to total funding of IDEA and to an

industry standard of 10 percent of the total funding.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Joanne Bregman, followed by Mike Nelson?

MS. BREGMAN: Good afternoon, commission

and panel members. My name is Joanne Bregman. I\'m

neither a researcher nor an educator, but I am a

squeaky wheel. I speak to you today on behalf of the

Disability Coalition on Education which I chair. I

am also the parent of a child with severe multiple

disabilities who is a kindergarten student here in

Nashville.

DCE is a family‑driven coalition with

active representation from families, advocacy

organizations and agencies working collaboratively to

improve education systems in Tennessee. With two

years of significant achievement and impact behind

us, we continue to create and support partnerships

focused on ensuring that all students with and

without disabilities receive a quality education.

As DCE has developed our working agenda,

we have made a commitment to aggressively seek out

best educational practices throughout the country, to

identify successful models for the inclusion of

students with disabilities, to analyze data‑based

outcomes when such are available, to move research

into practice, and to draft our own template for

change.

We have heard from families and educators

across Tennessee that services provided to students

are at best inconsistent and fragmented and, in the

worst scenarios, non‑compliant with both the

ideological and pragmatic requirements of IDEA.

Inclusion in general education environment and access

to the general education curriculum are often

dictated ‑‑ that is restricted ‑‑ by the orientation

of an LEA special education director or even a

principal or staff at the building level rather the

clear intent of the law.

Much work remains yet ahead in our state

to convince policy‑makers, as well as department and

systems leadership, that children and youth with

disabilities are valuable members of our school

communities. These students must, by legal and

ethical mandate, be offered access to the full range

of meaningful educational opportunities.

DCE has studied issues such as class size

through the lens of impact upon students receiving

special education and special education services,

particularly when those students are educated along

side typical peers. We recognize that because of

inadequate, pre‑service training for teachers ‑‑

compounded by scant professional development

activities targeted to key skills such as curriculum

modification and positive‑behavior intervention ‑‑

many educators are ill‑prepared to effectively

address the instructional needs of the diverse

learners in their classrooms.

Our goal is a service‑delivery structure

which provides appropriate supports to all those

involved in the education of students with

disabilities. We know that some state and local

education agencies have evolved successfully into

unified systems in which special education is no

longer a place ‑‑ that mysterious classroom down the

hall ‑‑ but instead functions as a matrix of supports

and services enriching the educational experience for

all students.

We believe that the themes of

accountability and improved achievement which are

driving forces in general education reform could be

equally effective tools in the reform of educational

services provided to students with disabilities.

Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

Mike Nelson, followed by Susan Young.

MR. NELSON: Good afternoon. My name is

Mike Nelson. I\'m hear representing Gwinnett County

Public Schools. We are a suburban district in the

Atlanta metropolitan area, and we are the largest

school district in the State of Georgia.

I would like to begin by first thanking

the commission for the opportunity you are providing

for individuals and groups and to give input into

your information‑gathering process. It is the hope

of Gwinnett Public Schools that after hearing from

all constituents, the commission will make

recommendations which both benefit students with

disabilities and are sensitive to the challenges

which face local school district personnel who

implement IDEA in good faith every day.

From our perspective as a local district,

there are three issues of critical concern which need

to be addressed regarding the provision of services

to students with disabilities. Number one is

funding. I suspect you will hear this topic brought

up repeatedly throughout your hearing schedule.

Therefore, I will not spend a lot of time on it.

Simply put, we believe it is time for the federal

government to fulfill the financial commitment it

made over 25 years ago and that this commitment be

met on as rapid a schedule as possible.

Number two, discipline, another topic

which you will likely hear about repeatedly. Our

concerns center on two primary issues: A, the double

standard fostered by the current process, that is,

the inequities and the consequences assigned to

general education students versus special education

students for the same offenses; and B, an ever bigger

worry is the message this double standard sends to

students with disabilities.

It doesn\'t take long for the seed to get

planted in some students minds that because they have

a disability, they are not going to be held

accountable like other students for their actions.

We, as responsible adults, must give serious thought

to the long‑term consequences of such a message. It

is imperative that all students learn that they are

accountable for their actions, that there are

consequences for breaking the rules. The law should

not afford a student with a disability a shield where

the offense is not a manifestation of the disability.

Three, procedural compliance in the

adversarial climate in special education. The

legalistic, contentious, adversarial climate which

permeates much of special education must be ended.

It affects teacher morale, teacher retention,

district finances, and most importantly,

instructional time for students.

As controversial as this may sound, it

would seem the only way to really change the present

climate is to eliminate or at least reduce procedural

safeguards. Procedural safeguards started out as

valuable and legitimate tools to further the original

purposes of EHA in public law 94142 and have by

practically any objective measure done their job. It

is now time for a shift in the very essence of IDEA

from an emphasis on procedure and procedural

compliance to an emphasis on education.

In fact, one of the pioneers in the field

of special education, Fred Weintraub, states in the

January 2002 issue of CEC Today, I quote, Perhaps we

should write a substantive law and eliminate such

procedural requirements as the IEP and procedural

safeguards, end of quote.

Now, we are not ready to start advocating

the elimination of IEP\'s and some of the other

valuable, instructional tools and infrastructure

which has been established over the years. However,

taking steps to remove some of the legal safeguards

which create the present atmosphere of tension and

distrust may be in order. It is time to bring some

reasonableness back into the process and end the

interminable legal wrangling which impoverishes both

the human and financial resources which rightly

should be devoted to students with disabilities.

I thank you for your time, and I have a

handout for you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Susan Young, followed by Reza Tajali.

MS. YOUNG: Madam Chair and commissioners.

I represent the Tennessee Education Association which

is the largest education association representing

public school employees in Tennessee. TEA, we are

the state affiliate of NEA. TEA and NEA have long

supported the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act. We suggest few statutory changes during this

reauthorization process. Instead, we view this

reauthorization as an opportunity to improve

implementation.

Our recommendations regarding future

research are defined by our seven key priorities.

One of the guiding principles and qualities of

scientific inquiry is that one should pose

significant questions for investigation.

Furthermore, the relevance of any educational

research must be grounded in those areas of concern

to our members because they are the ones who hold

chief responsibility and the opportunity for

improving the outcomes of students with disabilities.

The following recommendation are,

therefore, significant questions worth investigations

and are the primary concerns of our members. Full

funding naturally is our first key priority.

Congress\' unfulfilled promise to fund 40 percent of

the cost of special education jeopardizes the quality

of education for all students.

We need to conduct cost‑benefit analyses

in the area of early interventions, specific models

for the education of special education students,

specific types or accommodations and effective

alternative educational settings.

Secondly, paperwork and documentation.

Special education teachers report that that is the

primary reason they leave the profession. What

conditions exist in those local districts in states

that have the greatest share of due‑process

violations? What are the core elements necessary in

the IEP process to maintain the due‑process

protections for parents without burdensome

documentation for educators?

We are concerned about case load and work

load for special education personnel. For example,

in Tennessee we have a special education speech

pathologist that has a case load of 143 students. We

are concerned about eligibility and identification

criteria because, from state to state, where a child

lives can determine whether or not he is identified

as having a disability.

We are concerned about early intervention.

What models produce the most significant improvements

in student performance outcomes? Naturally,

professional development. What models of

professional development produced the most

significant increase in the use of research‑based

instructional practices and what models of

professional development produce the greatest

improvements in student achievement?

Naturally, discipline. We are concerned

with the same concerns that this gentleman has just

presented. It is our recommendation that the future

research be focused on these key primary research

areas.

Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

Reza Tajali, followed by Theresa Howard

Lawson.

MR. TAJALI: Ladies and gentlemen of the

commission. My name is Reza Tajali. I am an

electrical engineer, a concerned citizen, a parent,

and a grandparent. What has brought me here today is

the fact that I\'m fully in support of the premise of

Leaving No Child Behind as President Bush stated.

I believe that the future of our nation is

dependent upon the quality of education that we

provide to our children. These children are going to

be building highways and running the industry of the

future and, therefore, must be provided with a

complete education. However, I am sad to say that to

my observation, our special education system is not

providing its intended premise.

Special education is now costing taxpayers

some \$50 billion a year in state and federal funding,

of which some \$28 billion is spent on the relatively

new creation of the psychiatric profession called

learning disorder. When the Congress passed the

original special education law, the intent was to

cover those children with sight, speech, hearing and

other physical handicaps.

Over the past 27 years, however, a large

part of the funding has been diverted to such things

as attention deficit disorder, a very ambiguous and

subjective term that does not really have any

scientific basis. The definition of learning‑

disabled is so ambiguous that the researchers at the

University of Michigan found that 85 percent of the

students they tested, who had previously been

identified as normal, would have been classified as

learning disabled.

The result of this one flawed aspect of

the law, the subjectivity of who is classed as

disabled, has resulted in more than 60 percent of

special education funding being channeled away from

children who really need it; they are physically and

intellectually handicapped. The problem with special

education is not the amount of federal funding. The

problem is in the way the funds are utilized. We

have reduced the effectiveness of special education

by mixing it with psychiatric practices. This is an

abuse of the government funds and an abuse of our

children.

My request to you is a simple one. Spend

federal funds on education, not on psychiatric

experimentation with the future race. Thank you for

the opportunity to address you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Theresa Howard Lawson, followed by David

Crenshaw.

MS. LAWSON: Good afternoon. My name is

Theresa Howard Lawson. I\'m the director of special

education and preschool programs in Woodford County

Schools which is in Versailles, Kentucky, outside of

Lexington. I have over 20 years in the field of

special education as a teacher and administrator.

Based on these experiences I would like to offer my

recommendation for improving services to students

identified with disabilities under IDEA.

Number one, increase inter‑agency

collaboration. In 1975 it was made clear that

schools have the ultimate responsibility for

educating all children. The reality is that we

cannot do this by ourselves. We have children in

elementary school with severe mental illness. I

could not educate these children without the help of

our mental health professionals, often social

services and others.

Number two, focus on transition services.

Early intervention is very important. We need to

provide those services at a very young age. We also

need to look at school‑to‑adult living for our

mildly, moderately, and severely disabled children.

For our most severely disabled children, there are

very limited options for parents.

Push for reform in the area of preschool

training for general education. In my school

district our elementary inclusion rate is 80 percent,

many that 80 percent of our identified students are

in the general education classroom 80 percent of the

school day. Yet general educators continue to

graduate without even a basic understanding of

working with diverse learners. If our teachers are

not successful, how can we expect our children to be

successful?

Address and continue to study special

education teacher recruitment and retention. In

Kentucky out of approximately 5,000 special education

teachers it is typical in a year to have over 1,000

teachers in the classroom with less than full

certification. Surveys indicate that special

education teachers leave the field due to excess

paperwork, lack of support, and threat of litigation.

However, the teachers I work with believe that IDEA

\'97 took some steps in the right direction, and these

efforts should continue.

Finally, fully fund IDEA. States and

local districts have shouldered the enormous

financial burden of implementing IDEA for over 25

years. It is time for Congress to keep the promise.

Thank you very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

David Crenshaw, followed by Ann Corn.

MR. CRENSHAW: My name is David Crenshaw.

I\'d like to thank the commission for giving me the

time to address you. I\'m just a parent. I\'d like to

take a moment to tell you about my son, Conner. He\'s

five years old. When he was three, he was diagnosed

as at‑risk for Asperger\'s. He has benefitted greatly

from special education services provided by the State

of Tennessee.

He is now five and is entering

kindergarten. We very much would like to provide the

best environment for him. In his case small

classrooms, extra teachers will make a difference.

That means private school. We are fortunate that my

wife is a teacher and we are able to provide a

discount to give financial means to send him to such

a school.

However, when we do so, the state steps

out and we no longer receive any special education

benefits.

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 7)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

MR. CRENSHAW: (Continuing.) Our

therapist will no longer visit during the class. Our

insurance will not pay for special education speech

and language therapies. If we do upgrade our

insurance, the coverage is still spotty at best. The

coverage is minimal to the extent that it will be for

10 to 20 one‑hour sessions which in the course of a

year of school is laughable.

So what we ask you for obviously is better

mental health coverage for our children. Thank you

for your time. I appreciate it.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

Ann Corn, followed by Nancy Diehl.

MS. CORN: I\'m Ann Corn. I\'m a professor

of special education here at Peabody with an

appointment in ophthalmology and visual sciences.

While reviewing the agendas of this meeting and

previous meetings of the commission, I noted an

omission of expertise of the education of students

who are blind and visually impaired.

I understand that the focus of the

commission is on learning disabilities and with the

population I\'m speaking about being 0.2 percent of

the school population, I understand that there is

less importance here. However, this is a population

at‑risk. In fact, it\'s in crisis.

Let me speak to issues of research and

priorities of the field. I estimate there are maybe

20 or fewer researchers addressing the entire school‑

age population of children with visual impairments.

Over the past five years only one of 20 new Ph.D.\'s

attained and retained faculty position preparing

teachers of students with visual impairments. She is

on a non‑tenured track, and research is not a focus

of her position.

Of the top‑ten‑ranked colleges of

education and the top‑ten‑ranked departments of

special education, only Vanderbilt has one full‑time

FTE, and only one other program exists without one

full‑time FTE. We simply don\'t have the research

that tells us how well children with visual

impairments access the general education curriculum

where there are achievement levels in such areas as

orientation and mobility and technology.

Yet we know that three to five years out

of school, students with learning disabilities are

employed at more than double the rate of students

with visual impairments. Literacy is but one area of

instruction that is sorely needed in research. While

Braille literacy has garnered attention in recent

years, research related to the literacy with low

vision comprising 85 to 90 percent of population is

insufficient to produce intervention and bring

research into practice.

A soon‑to‑be‑published study suggests that

with only large type and without interventions such

as individually prescribed devices, children read 30

to 40 words per minute behind their sighted peers

through primary school. Then while sighted students

continue to gain fluency and speed, these low‑vision

students plateau with reading speeds of about that of

a typical third‑grader.

Braille reading speeds are no better. In

a study in Missouri 11‑ to 15‑year‑olds were reading

silent, independent rates of 63 words per minute

slower than that of a typical first‑grader.

Attention across the country is now focused on

preparing teachers. While the Council for

Exceptional Children indicated a need for 5,000

teachers to meet then‑current needs, only 250 are

trained each year, and data suggest that 36 percent

of them are already teaching with waivers. With

attrition we just cannot meet the need.

In a study I did in 1995 with 985 families

whose children attend special schools, 69.7 percent

of those students would go home to no teachers. If

we want to address the research needs in the field,

we must address the need to keep programs alive in

research universities. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

Nancy Diehl, followed by Shirley Young

South.

MS. DIEHL: Hi, I\'m Nancy Diehl, and I

live in Greenville, Tennessee, a rural community. I

wear two hats today. I\'m the mother of four kids but

two sons that have disabilities that benefitted from

IDEA. One you would call high‑incidence and the

other you\'d call low‑incidence. I\'m learning your

terms.

I am also director of the Parent Training

and Information Center. I was excited to hear today

about the researchers talking about how essential it

is for parent involvement. I want to mention to you

that for a lot of folks when I meet with them,

parents and educators believe that parent involvement

is helping the kids do their homework.

They don\'t really understand the kind of

involvement that IDEA intends. So when we talk about

it, people don\'t understand it. But I experience the

value of it, and my school was very cooperative in

that. So I need you to expound on what you mean by

that.

The other thing is that I\'m concerned

about high expectations. Even when we talk about

setting goals and objectives, we have a problem

because some people aren\'t willing to set a high goal

for somebody because they already believe that can\'t

achieve it. I\'ve seen many students where parents

are involved and educators are creative and promising

practices are a part of the picture make incredible,

beyond‑belief achievement beyond the highest

expectations. That has to change.

As far as inclusion, inclusion with good

teaching actually is one way to leave no child

behind. I\'m really concerned about decisions that

are made that for some courses and some things we

teach kids they can\'t be present with other kids.

But I have seen really excited things when people

work together where kids learn in the same classroom

and mastered the things that were on their IEP and

also got all the unintended consequences of being

with their same‑age peers and learning things that

weren\'t on the IEP.

I think compliance needs to move outside

the Department of Education. I\'ve thought about this

for a long time, and I think it\'s really hard for the

Department of Ed to provide all the technical

assistance and support to school systems and then

have to turn around after they\'ve gained their trust

and have to slap them on the hand. I think that\'s

something that should be looked at.

Finally, I think the inequity that a

previous speaker talked about with kids with

disabilities ‑‑ I think we need to start thinking to

fix the inequity of leaving no child behind. Parents

and students are the ones who have to live with the

outcomes of education, not teachers. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Shirley Young South, followed by Diane

Randall.

MS. SOUTH: Good afternoon. I\'m really

happy that I have an opportunity to come to this.

I\'m not an expert, I\'m not a scholar. I\'m a mother

of a handicapped child who is 21. This is the first

time I\'ve ever heard that special education was

mandated for handicapped children, physically

handicapped, not learning disorder but physically

handicapped.

My son was born with a birth defect where

he had to have both legs amputated. At the age of

two he had that done. In no time during the years of

education when he had repeated surgeries with eight

weeks off from school was there any offer of tutoring

to bring him up to par, no time. There was school in

the hospital but no child can be educated with the

pain after surgery and being on pain medication.

As he grew, as a mom it was my job to see

that he got the tutoring and the education that he

needed. I worked and I paid for the tutoring. I

worked extra‑long hours. I taught him how to walk

upstairs. We\'re not talking physical rehab; we\'re

talking about learning things, how to live life, the

things that everyone takes for granted such as

zipping zippers, being able to open a can of pop.

He plays the guitar now. He wanted to

become a graphic artist. He\'s now 21. He has a high

education level. He told me he wanted to find the

funding for his education, so he did. In Florida he

had to do psychological testing. In those 21 years

prior to four weeks ago he never entered the area of

mental health. People looked at me and social

workers looked at me and asked, How does your son do

so well, above the average?

I said, We love him for who he is and not

questioning what he has. We encouraged him to be

able to overcome. But four weeks ago he had to go

through psychological testing in order to do this

program to get funding to become a graphic artist.

It was deemed that he was bipolar and would have to

take medication in order to get the education.

I watched this boy overcome every obstacle

over 21 years to be able to live life which we take

for granted. Then he was told in one moment that his

dream was crushed by some expert who felt he didn\'t

fit into a pattern. Yet he works with the public and

works with people everyday and is liked very much.

But he is classified and he is labeled.

I think that the money that goes toward

special education should go back to the handicapped

children. That is what should happen. Thank you

very, very much for letting me testify.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

Diane Randall, followed by Christine

Hayes.

(Pause.)

DR. GRASMICK: Diane Randall? Is she

here?

(No response.)

DR. GRASMICK: Christine Hayes?

MS. HAYES: Good afternoon. I am a mom

and I am concerned about some things that are

happening with our education. I am here to tell you

a story. I have a friend who is a school teacher in

Davidson County. She relayed two stories about two

different children to me that I would like to share

with you.

One was a first‑grader whose mother said

that her doctor had suggested putting the child on

Ritalin. She was a good student and had no serious

behavior problems. She did have problems on the bus

once and had to be suspended from riding the bus for

a few days. After being put on Ritalin, she began

losing control of her bladder. She had to take extra

clothes to school because she had accidents about

twice a week.

She lost her appetite and ate very little,

if any, of her lunch. She became somber and

uninterested in events around her. Her school work

suffered, as well.

Another student was a six‑year‑old boy who

was on several different medications that were

supposed to help him handle the traumatic experience

that had happened to him the year before. He had

behavior problems which became more serious

throughout the year. His medications changed twice

during the year. He began to have severe stomach

cramps which brought him to tears because the pain

was so intense. He also lost his appetite and ate

very little of his lunch.

All of the, quote, help that he was

getting from the mental health professionals actually

hurt him physically and emotionally. My friend

watched an intelligent young boy suffer needlessly

and with negative results.

I, myself, have a seven‑year‑old son in

the second grade. Last summer we moved from Davidson

County to Sumner County. Since we moved to Sumner

County ‑‑ he did all right in Davidson County. He

wasn\'t an A student but he did all right. When we

moved to Sumner County, he has had great difficulties

this whole year in school.

Now the teacher and school counselor want

him to be tested so that he can receive special

education. They want to label him learning‑disabled.

My son is a very smart young man. I feel that this

is not right. They don\'t even look at the fact that

he changed curricula from one county to the next and

what the differences might be there.

I feel that instead of spending billions

of dollars on an unproved condition, I would like to

see the money go toward the physically handicapped

who really need the extra help.

Thank you very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

John Shouse, followed by Kenneth Warlick.

MR. SHOUSE: Hello. My name is John

Shouse, and I\'m the parent of three children

including a son with autism. Evan is receiving

special education services in the public schools as

guaranteed him by the provisions of IDEA. I

appreciate this opportunity to speak to this work

group of the President\'s Commission on Excellence in

Special Education.

In addition to being a parent, I am also

the president of the Autism Society of Middle

Tennessee. I\'m a core group member of Williamson

County Partners in Education which is a local parent

advocacy group in our school district. I\'m also a

member of DCE in Tennessee.

This commission is facing many complex

issues: Full funding, discipline, eligibility, over‑

identification, monitoring, enforcement, et cetera.

I feel fortunate to be here today at this hearing of

the research agenda task force because I believe that

in some ways this area holds the greatest potential

for positive change.

Since its inception 25 years ago, IDEA has

made a tremendous difference in the lives of children

with disabilities and their families. Their

countless success stories of how children\'s needs are

being served is a result of the law. I feel

fortunate that at least thus far I can count our son

and our family as one of those successes.

At the same time, we must understand that

despite these successes, there are still many

children who remain under‑served. In my role as a

parent advocate, not a week goes by that I don\'t hear

stories from families about difficulties securing

even the most‑basic services that they are promised

under the law. There are many reasons for these

problems.

Far too often it\'s the mind‑set of a

particular local administrator or local school board.

The way that mind‑set trickles down through the

system, it becomes the primary stumbling block that

requires families to fight for the education that

their child is promised by the law.

Far too often even today placement is

based on a child\'s label and not based on an

intelligent, IEP team decision about what environment

would best serve his or her unique needs. We have a

system where special education teachers are trained

in particular methods for teaching basic skills to

children with specific disabilities.

Too often, however, special education

teachers are lacking in the training to implement

curriculum‑based instruction. Conversely, general

education teachers who are trained in curriculum

implementation receive very little preparation in

best practices to serve the needs of children with

disabilities who are ending up in their classrooms.

Consequently, IEP teams, even in the best

circumstances, struggle to formulate goals for

children that are both meaningful and attainable.

As we saw from the testimony of Dr. Sailor

and Dr. Deshler this morning, in order to serve the

needs of children with disabilities we must begin to

move towards better and more‑collaborative, inclusive

models in order to get each child into his or her

true, least‑restrictive environment. We must find

ways to bridge the gap between research and practice.

Clearly, a new mind‑set is needed.

I don\'t know if it\'s possible to legislate

a paradigm shift, but that shift will occur naturally

if colleges and universities can begin to turn out

more and more teachers in both general education and

special education after training both groups in best

practices to teach all children.

I urge this work group of the presidential

commission to recommend a research agenda that will

encourage real improvement in the delivery of

services to children with disabilities, an agenda

that will find real and concrete ways of taking what

we know and continuing to learn about best practices

and using that knowledge to prepare teachers to serve

all children, because our kids are worth it.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Kenneth Warlick, followed by Alice

Holbert.

MR. WARLICK: Good afternoon. I\'m a

colleague of Dr. Berdine at the University of

Kentucky, although I do spend most of my time

traveling around the country consulting with state

education agencies around how to improve results for

students with disabilities and state accountability

systems.

DR. WRIGHT: Excuse me, I didn\'t get his

name.

DR. GRASMICK: There was difficulty

hearing your name when you introduced yourself. It\'s

Kenneth Warlick?

MR. WARLICK: That\'s correct.

Much valuable time and money is wasted

through trial and error to adopt practices that have

limited, if any, validation in research. Policies

often undergo drastic changes based on unwarranted

perceptions rather than factual information learned

through research.

Who suffers most from this approach?

Children, youth, and adults with disabilities in

their families. Is it any wonder, then, that there

are those who argue that special education doesn\'t

work?

We need to focus more attention to

systematically analyzing what does work and

disseminating that information to the right audiences

and in translating practices that show promise in

small clinical settings into large‑scale

implementation while maintaining high‑quality

results.

Any practices recommended for national

practice should have a base of research demonstrating

effectiveness as interventions are scaled up from the

laboratory setting to a significant number of

schools, school districts, and states.

I encourage you to support research based

on in‑depth analysis of issues rather than

superficial analysis. We often hear of arguments

that we need policy changes because of local opinion,

not data or facts suggesting a problem exists.

I will give you a quick anecdotal, rather

than a research‑based, example from some experiences

I had with one of your colleagues, Doug Gill, about a

year and a half ago in his state, Washington State,

where we met with teachers around his state about

paperwork burden.

I had the opportunity to review with his

teachers the IDEA requirements for paperwork. They

were absolutely astounded at how minimal they

actually are. We then reviewed the Washington State

requirements. One by one, the teachers said they saw

value and logic in each. The problem was not the

paperwork for an individual child. The problem was

the caseload that prevented them from planning,

collaboration, and coordinating what they considered

otherwise‑reasonable documentation.

I was previously a learning disabilities

teacher many years ago. So I am very happy with the

national dialogue about learning disability issues.

I think it is very important for us to get accurate

research on the prevalence, the number of students

who are identified as learning disabled, and to

address the issues of similarities and differences

between students with learning disabilities and other

students exhibiting low achievement.

We also need to be sure, though, that we

avoid the problem with learning disabilities that we

had in the war that occurred in our schools around

reading practices, phonics versus whole language. We

did not need LD wars in our schools.

In closing, I do encourage you to be sure

we have research to translate effective, research‑

based practices particularly in reading to success in

large‑scale assessments. It\'s very disappointing to

have students who show significant gains in reading

research, and then those gains do not follow into

comprehension and to a successful performance in our

state‑assessment systems. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Alice Holbert, followed by Beverly

Hartaby.

MS. HOLBERT: Greetings from Southern

Middle Tennessee. This is a place where great care

and commitment is given to all children. Every

effort is being made in education by professional

educators, para‑professionals, and parents to bring

right intervention and the combination of

interventions to children with special needs.

This combination must now include removing

behavior as a barrier to profiting from education

that we\'re providing. In 1987 when I was working

with children in my system, 3 percent of those at‑

risk children were behavior referrals, and 60 percent

had a lot to do with attendance and truancy issues.

In 1992 that had flip‑flopped. It was now 60 percent

were behavior, 40 percent were attendance.

Four of the top‑ten disabling diseases are

depression, obsessive‑compulsive disorder, bipolar

disorder, and schizophrenia. The average age of

onset is by fourth grade. With early intervention

and good treatment, good outcomes can happen for

these children in time.

Now, I think there\'s some obstacles.

Number one, insurance has limits on treatment or will

not cover issues in children. There is little or no

parity. We passed the parity law but if you are big

enough to be self‑insured, you don\'t have to pay.

There are few providers specifically to rural

children. Signs, symptoms, and medication issues are

different in children than they are in adults.

In order to fulfill parent in‑put systems,

we need personal‑preparation grants. We need some

social workers, and we need some behavior‑

intervention specialists. I need some clinical

counselors out there with my children in those

schools helping my teachers, and the parents

understand what\'s going on.

In order to provide behavior intervention,

training and service provisions should be part of the

college training priorities. Left untreated or

treated inappropriately, these children will be left

behind. You know that. So please give some

additional thought and research to this matter.

Thank you very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Beverly Hartaby, followed by Tonya

Meredith.

MS. HARTABY: I am the voice of the

special‑needs children of Southern Illinois, most of

whom have parents too uneducated to grasp the powers

and concepts of empowerment. We are the lowest of

the low and the poorest of the poor. The systems

within the confines of a free and appropriate

education for the normal population seem beyond

repair. Can you imagine where this puts the special‑

needs children?

I strive to help these parents create that

win/win situation with their special education

providers in school districts in our area. I do not

work for any advocating groups or anyone else for

that matter. My involvement is free of charge, being

driven by the power of my spirit.

By actions rather than words, they have

shown that they do not want special‑needs children in

their districts. It may be the new millennium, but

cronyism and the good‑old‑boy network are alive and

thriving in Southern Illinois. If you don\'t believe

me, come and visit me.

I live 50 percent beneath the national

poverty level in the seventh‑poorest school district

in the state. The school is one of the 10 percent of

the poorest educational institutions in America.

While the City of Chicago School District budget is

larger than 24 states, our school budget couldn\'t

even buy you a home in an undesirable suburb.

My son Ricky is autistic and at four years

old reads on a first‑grade level, does basic math,

operates his own program manager, and has a

predisposition to foreign language and music. My son

Jessie is 2‑1/2 and is LD and speech‑delayed, just

like his brother was at that age. Through IFSP, IEP,

and community‑based systems we utilize those systems

but count on university research for real

progress.

How can I with a just mind put my children

into a school where 70 percent of the eighth‑graders

could not even pass the reading portion of the ISAT.

Resorting to due process would do nothing but turn

our small rural community against the families of

these children. Laws state that the district

receives money to fund children like ours, but they

do not guarantee you the freedom to walk into the

local grocery store without getting the glare of

local citizens who resent their educational dollars

spent for your child.

The benefits and rewards of getting my son

involved in clinical research studies at Southern

Illinois University has been tremendous. It has

changed his life in an overwhelmingly positive and

educational way. SIU is not in his IEP.

The State of Illinois is 49th in inclusive

education. The ISB has imposed quotas on the

placement of special education students in regular

classrooms. What is this? A cattle call for

disabled children? This is directly contrary to the

individual decisions required by IDEA and the IEP.

They cannot violate federal law. One realizes that

the IEP is still a legal, binding document.

This system has forgotten that the parent

is the public in public education. The parents of

special‑needs children need to be able to send their

child to the best, most‑appropriate program available

in their area. For special‑needs children the

educational tax dollars should follow the student

rather than the system. Although school districting

may make sense for regular classrooms, we need to

consolidate our resources for special‑needs children.

We would like to thank President Bush for

appointing this commission and allowing our voices to

be heard. All too often I hear complaints and

criticisms, but we have the undeniable right to

change the system. Thanks to this commission we can

change the laws and change the lives of our children.

Don\'t let us slip through the cracks. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Tonya Meredith, followed by Pat Pierce.

MS. MEREDITH: My name is Tonya Meredith.

I appreciate your letting me come to speak in front

of you today. I don\'t have any research or

scientific facts to tell you, but what I have is my

life\'s story.

I am 18 years old. When I was about 3‑

1/2, I was diagnosed with ADHD. Pretty much

counselors did like they tend to do to ‑‑ well, not

counselors by psychologists ‑‑ like they tend to do

to a lot of kids. They put me on Thorazine, whereas

now it\'s like Prozac and Ritalin. I know a lot of

kids that have taken an adverse effect, I know I took

one.

I don\'t think drugs are exactly the answer

to psychological problems or anything. I went after

my dad with a butcher knife, I blacked his eye with a

lamp, I turned on every heat source in the house and

I was only four years old. At the age of five I

spent a month of my life up here in the Vanderbilt

psychiatric ward.

After that summer when they let me go

home, I couldn\'t go outside for the whole summer

because of the medicine. I had bruises on my arm.

No kid needs to go through that, I don\'t care what

problems they have. There are other answers.

Since I had ADHD, it was automatically

assumed I had a learning disability, so I had to be

put in special education. That\'s no more a place for

mentally disabled or I don\'t really know the correct

wording for it. It turned out that I got kicked out

of that, and doctors couldn\'t understand why. There

is not an answer for everything but I think there\'s a

place for everyone. Just because you have a learning

disability it doesn\'t mean that you belong there. I

guess that\'s all I have to say.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you, Tonya.

Pat Pierce, followed by Amy Petula.

MS. PIERCE: Good afternoon, my name is

Pat Pierce, and I\'m a director of special education

from Northwest Indiana. I have a sibling who is 40

years old and he has Downs Syndrome. That got me

into special education 28 years ago. I\'ve been very

proud of being an educator and now a director of

special education. We serve about 4,300 children in

Northwest Indiana.

I have written copies for you, so I won\'t

go through this in great detail. I am concerned that

we celebrate what IDEA has done, as well as telling

you what we think you need to change. Some of the

things that are great about IDEA is the fact that we

now have a multi‑disciplinary team and parents are

involved in the discussions about their child\'s IEP.

7

We do in‑services for teachers, and we

meet with local universities to make sure that we are

trying to find out what all those cutting‑edge ideas

are. We also have a great deal of technology now

that we didn\'t have five or six years ago for

students with disabilities that helps put them on par

with their age‑appropriate peers.

We also have more children with

disabilities in general education classrooms. I\'m

very pleased to say that my cooperative has done

that. It\'s been tough but we\'ve got more kids in the

general education classrooms. We do need more help

for teachers, though.

One of the things I think we need to do is

we need to fully fund, we need to meet that

commitment and make sure that the 40 percent is there

because it has not been there. We\'ve had 26 years of

substandard funding. If you want to know what\'s

wrong with special education, I think that has hurt

us. We have not been able to do what we\'ve always

wanted to do. It has made us have high caseloads for

teachers when they really need to be working more

with kids. They have to also deal with a great

amount of paperwork. That keeps us bogged down, as

well.

The other things I think we have not to

compete in is salaries with other areas such as

engineering and chemistry. All of our great, great

bright minds are going into other areas because

that\'s where they can make a living. We need to make

sure that in the next five to ten years, when we see

a great number of teacher educators retiring, that

we\'ve got people there to take their places.

We have also got a dual system of

discipline as was mentioned earlier. We need to look

at how we deal with that. Mediation needs to be

required for all issues that are out there in the

public schools. So often you\'ll get a parent who

files for a due process, and you didn\'t even know

that there was an issue going on. Mediation needs to

be a way of communicating with the parents.

We also need to review documentation and

the excess paperwork. Do you realize that every time

we send home a notice of a conference, we send home a

procedural safeguard which is an absolute waste of

paper, time, and resources? We also now have to

report monthly on the federal money that we get.

What is wrong with one final report for the year that

tells us how much was spent?

I think the other thing you need to

consider is high‑stakes testing. In Indiana if you

don\'t pass the ninth‑grade standards, you will not

get a diploma. That could be why more kids are

dropping out of special education. Thank you for

your time.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Amy Petula, followed by Randall Moody.

(Pause.)

DR. GRASMICK: Randall Moody?

MR. MOODY: Thank you, Madam Chair, and

members of the commission. My name is Randall Moody.

I represent the National Education Association in

Washington, D.C. NEA represents 2.7 million members

throughout the country, including members of the

Tennessee Education Association. I am here today

representing two coalitions of which the NEA is a

member, the National Coalition for Public Education

and the IDEA Full‑Funding.

The National Coalition for Public

Education is comprised of more than 50 education,

civic, civil rights, and religious organizations

devoted to the support of public schools. Founded in

1978 NCPE opposing the funneling of public money to

private and religious schools through such mechanisms

as tuition tax credits and vouchers. The

coalition urges this commission to reject any efforts

to fund special education and services for children

with disabilities through vouchers or other similar

funding mechanisms. There is no need to expand

current law to include a voucher program that diverts

responsibility for public funds to private and

religious schools and undermines accountability while

doing nothing to improve to access to special

education or related services or achievement of

students with special needs.

The IDEA Full‑Funding Coalition is made up

of the American Association of School Administrators,

the AFT, American Speech‑Language‑Hearing

Association, Council for Exceptional Children,

Council of the Great City Schools, National

Association of Elementary School Principals, National

Association of Secondary School Principals, the

National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, the National PTA, and the National School

Boards Association.

We worked very hard this past

Congressional session for the passage of the Hagel‑

Harkin Amendment of the Senate version of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However,

that did not pass. If it had passed, we would have

been on track over six years to fully fund IDEA up to

the 40 percent.

So we hope that this commission would

recommend putting legislation into place which would

fully fund IDEA, as well as make the funding

mandatory for IDEA so that it does not have to go

through the appropriations process every year and

compete with other priorities. So we would hope you

would make that recommendation.

Finally, just as an example here in the

State of Tennessee, if the Harkin‑Hagel Amendment had

passed and IDEA had been fully funded over a period

of six years, a total of \$1.8 billion would have been

made available during that period of time in

Tennessee for special education. Under the current

funding system, only \$825 million will be available

for special education funding. So we certainly

encourage you to both recommend fully funding IDEA

and to also reject any voucher schemes. Thank you

very much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Sumida Chataborti? I\'m sorry if I

mispronounced your name.

MS. CHATABORTI: Thank you for giving me

an opportunity to come over here. I didn\'t expect to

be here. I guess several dropped out, so I am here.

2

I am Sumida Chataborti. I\'m am from

Tennessee State University. I\'m a researcher, I\'m an

educator, and I\'m a parent. Since I wasn\'t prepared

to be here, I am just going to put in a nutshell what

I really wanted to talk about.

We are talking about inclusion and

collaboration. We are talking about the majority

impact. How can we be successful if we do not have

any representatives from regular instruction and

regular ed people? I don\'t know how many people are

here. I am assuming the majority are from special

education.

In the university and the public schools

we always have problems in collaboration between the

regular education and special education. We have

only one course that is mandatory, required for

general education and professionals or teachers to

take this in special education. They continuously

ask how they can learn if they do not take enough

courses. So as a researcher and an educator that is

my question.

My next question is or my next comment is

that I wear two hats. One of them is as a researcher

and educator. The other one is as a parent. Let me

tell you my third hat. I am a minority as a woman

and an individual of an Asian group. So when I come

to the school district, they said I do not understand

them because I do not understand their culture.

I have two children, both of whom are

identified as gifted. They had to be labeled as

gifted to receive individual service. They could not

get the individual service by educators because they

said, Well, we cannot provide the time you need.

This is the curriculum that we provide. So they had

to be labeled as gifted to get their individual

needs. That\'s as a parent.

As a minority in special education and a

special education professional, my question is how

can we staff our representation of minority, so‑

called diverse children with a background in special

education, if we do not have enough minority

personnel in special education? There are not enough

teachers that are representing diverse‑culture‑

linguistic backgrounds.

We are fighting for this for years and

years. We have more minority children in special

education than any other areas. We have minority

children with learning disabilities, more minority

children are identified with learning disorders. Of

course, the majority of African‑American

representation in Tennessee ‑‑ they\'re African‑

American in mental retardation areas.

So, again, I really ask the commission to

look at the training or preparation of minority

personnel in understand diversity in the classroom to

prevent the drop‑out rate. Understand the children

before you label them. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

Terry Long?

MS. LONG: I come before you this

afternoon completely unprepared to talk. Forgive me

if I fumble. I just want to come here as a parent of

a daughter who is about to turn 23 years old. She is

a person with Downs Syndrome. We have been through a

year now of post‑school transition stuff trying to

get adult services.

I guess I felt compelled to come up here

just for a moment before you and just put a face to

what Dr. Wehman was talking about earlier when he was

saying that there are tremendous problems bridging

that gap between what happens in high school and then

what happens when a child leaves that setting and

goes into their adult life.

As I was sitting back here, I drew a

little picture while we were talking about bridging

the gap between research and practice. I drew a

picture of school to post‑school transition. That

bridge seems to come to an abrupt halt, and some of

those adult services are there but the gap is so

large.

We have these inter‑agency agreements on

paper. We talked about the fact that most states

appear to have something written down somewhere but

it seems to be somewhere in a drawer. So I just ask

you and I echo what Dr. Wehman was saying about

coming up with some of the incentives to get that

piece of paper out of the drawer and actually get

adult‑services‑agency‑provider people really involved

in the transition of kids out of their high school

programs and into their adult lives. Thank you so

much.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you very much.

This concludes the public comment period

of this meeting. We will have a 15‑minute break and

then return.

(Break.)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 8)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. GRASMICK: This part of the meeting

will be Improving Research in Special Education. But

before we enter into that part of the meeting, I

would like to call upon Governor Branstad to make a

statement that will be important to the commissioners

and to the audience.

GOVERNOR BRANSTAD: Thank you very much,

Nancy. Many people have asked or inquired about the

process in how the work of the Presidential

Commission on Excellence in Education, how that is

going to go forward. We did talk about this at our

last full commission meeting down in Miami. I

thought it would be good to reiterate this and maybe

clarify it today.

This is one of the task forces of the full

commission. Each of the task force chairs are

responsible for developing and writing the proposed

policy recommendation in consultation with their task

force members. Each of the task forces will have

telephone conference calls over the next few weeks to

together to work out these recommendations.

The executive director and staff are

responsible for the coordination and compilation of

the draft of the entire report integrating the

recommendations of all the task forces in a manner

that is clear, concise, and structured to facilitate

and ease in reading and understanding. The staff\'s

work on the language describing each of the task

force\'s recommendations must be approved by the

chairs of each of the task forces before the

preliminary recommendations are finalized as a draft

and released to the public.

However, our goal is to have this entire

process completed and the draft Presidential

Commission on Excellence in Special Education report

available to the public for review and comments about

a week before our next full commission meeting which

will be in Washington, D.C., at the end of May.

So I hope that makes it clear. There have

been rumors that it\'s already been written or

whatever. I want you to know there is a lot of work

ahead of us. I think we\'ve gotten great testimony,

and I am very appreciative of the good work of all of

the task forces.

With that, I want to turn it back to

Nancy, and thank you for your leadership on this task

force on research.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

As I indicated, this next segment will be

Improving Research in Special Education. We have two

experts who will discuss the OSEP peer‑review system,

how OSEP interacts with the field issues around

research quality and relations with other federal

research agencies.

Our two experts are Dr. Donald Lee

MacMillan who is a distinguished professor of

education at the University of California, Riverside.

His major research interests include classification

of mild disabilities, risk factors related to school

disabilities, social and affective characteristics

and conduct problems of children.

He is joined by Dr. Ann Kaiser who is a

professor of special education and psychology at

Vanderbilt University. She is also the director of

the Institute on Prevention, Early Intervention, and

Families at Vanderbilt\'s John F. Kennedy Center. Dr.

Kaiser\'s primary research interests include early

language acquisition and intervention, ecological

psychology and early‑childhood special education and

social policy.

Welcome. We look forward to hearing from

you.

DR. MacMILLAN: Thank you. Ann and I have

discussed what order to go in, and we finally decided

to go with the age‑before‑beauty routine. So I will

be the person leading us off.

(Laughter.)

DR. MacMILLAN: I would like to thank the

commission. It was a privilege to be invited to

participate with this group and certainly an honor to

be here. We have decided that I will try to focus my

comments more on the OSEP research agenda a bit more

specifically, and Ann will address more the OSEP

agenda in the context of the other federal agencies

funding research on children with disabilities.

I would feel much more comfortable talking

about my own research than what the topic is that you

gave me. But let me give it an effort and say that I

am drawing on over 30 years of experience being a

reviewer of, then the Bureau of the Education of the

Handicapped, now the Office of Special Education

Programs; serving a section which at that time was

Hud III in the National Institutes of Health; and

serving on review panels for CORE grants throughout

the country.

I\'ve consulted on the National

Longitudinal Transition Study and have recently just

completed serving on the National Research Council\'s

Committee on Representation of Minority Children.

Probably the thing that qualifies me the best is I\'ve

had grant proposals rejected by all of those agencies

and, therefore, have some perspective.

(Laughter.)

DR. MacMILLAN: Looking at IDEA and the

role of Part D or the activities designed to improve

outcomes for children with disabilities is

instructive in the sense that for the fiscal year

2002 Part B that grants to states to actually

implement the program is funded currently at just

under \$8 billion, with a B.

Part D, sub‑part II which concerns

research is currently funded at \$285 million a year.

Of that, approximately \$78 million is devoted to

research and innovation which I think most of us

would discuss as being the research component of

that. In addition, under sub‑part II is personnel

preparation, technological assistance, and so forth.

So it is not just a research agenda that is included

under that \$285 million.

The one thing that strikes me as unique

about the OSEP research activities, if you would, is

the extent to which stakeholders have a voice in

articulating the priorities that are undertaken under

that research endeavor. That is, as designed, Part B

and Part D interact with one another.

If we go back ‑‑ because I\'m one of the

few old enough to remember when it was enacted ‑‑ but

when we first entered into the Education of the

Handicapped Act, we suddenly embraced a whole host of

children, those who had been excluded from public

education previously, low‑functioning, severely‑

mentally‑retarded children, and we charged the states

with implementing programs for them.

Yet at that time we didn\'t know what we

were doing, and there was a need to generate

knowledge and information about what to teach them,

how to teach them, and how to most effectively

achieve desirable outcomes for those children. We

have come to grips with some of that. I would say

that to some extent we have been a victim of our own

success.

The aspirations and dreams of parents of

Downs Syndrome children at that time are now

expectations. We didn\'t believe we could teach Downs

kids much, let alone how to teach them. But over the

years we see today Downs children achieving at levels

heretofore considered impossible to achieve.

When I entered this field, deaf children

typically graduating from high school had a reading

level of about fourth grade. Today we are seeing

much higher achievement by children with deafness as

a result of much of the research that has been

undertaken under Part D.

Today it strikes me that we face new

concerns. The question might arise, why do we keep

having to find out information to help people

implement Part B? In part that is because many of

the children we\'re talking about ‑‑ let me say that

from my point of view and the children that I\'ve

worked with ‑‑ are not learning disabled, but rather

mentally‑retarded children. For them the condition

is not an acute one but rather is a chronic one.

The supports and services we provide them

in the second grade don\'t serve them well when they

go to middle school. We need new information in

order to serve them well in middle school. As they

transition from middle school to high school and on

into the work force, they need yet other and new

supports. The supports we gave them previously no

longer work. So it\'s an ongoing research effort.

Those charged with implementing Part B

come back to OSEP by saying here\'s what we need to

know to effectively implement Part B. That

determines, in part, the priorities for what is

funded under Part D in that research agenda.

There is a reciprocal nature between the

stakeholders charged with implementing the Part B and

the research community, and it\'s a somewhat unique

one. That is not to suggest that in other agencies

those stakeholders don\'t have some say in it. But I

would argue that they don\'t have the say to the same

extent that they have it through IDEA. They\'re

provided that vehicle.

The intent of that research is to inform

and assist parents, educators, teachers in the

schools, and others how to serve those children. In

fact, under Part B and under the research and

innovation component, there\'s a three‑tiered

procedure. One is the research and innovation which

in turn should come up with knowledge and information

that informs another set of activities that occurs,

the model demonstrations which you\'ve heard referred

to here previously.

When the model demonstration projects can

be exported, the research is supposed to go to a

third stage yet, and that is to the outreach programs

so that it can be implemented at a larger scale

throughout other school districts and with larger

populations of children. It seems to me that is a

somewhat unique perspective that the OSEP Part D

funding ‑‑ and particularly that dealing with

research and innovation ‑‑ brings to the table.

Looking at that unique mission, it seems

to me that it differs from some of the other

agencies. I don\'t mean to suggest it is an either/or

kind of situation. But under OSEP the research and

evaluation activities tend more to be knowledge‑usage

activities rather than knowledge production.

The research community in some of the

other competitions will submit the proposal and they

make the case for the research that they are going to

undertake and make the rationale for it. Whereas,

under Part D, it\'s the stakeholders who come back and

establish what the priorities are going to be for

some of that research.

When I was first approached by Jack

Fletcher to come before you, I spoke with Troy

Justesen to address several questions about the

research agenda of OSEP. Let me go to those. Number

one, how can OSEP better administer the research

program?

It seems to me that one is in the number

and the size of awards. It\'s been commented on

before that the inter‑agency program is now

supporting a project to the tune of \$25 million. I

think Dr. Lyon mentioned that. The total funding for

the research and innovation is \$78 million under

OSEP. In 1992 the amount of money, about two cents

on every dollar for IDEA was spent under Part D,

under the research part. Today it is less than one

cent. So the commitment to research under IDEA has

diminished relative the to overall funding of IDEA.

It seems to me another way in which the

research can be better supervised is in attracting

leadership to the Office of Special Education

Programs. Again, going back to an earlier day when I

was interacting with OSEP, under sub‑Part D you had

three people in administrative capacities. Marty

Kaufman was heading research and innovation. You had

Max Meuller who was doing personnel prep, you had

Nancy Safer doing the technology.

Today that\'s been reduced to one person,

and that one person has to be either schizophrenic or

cannot devote sufficient attention to any one of

those and really direct the agenda of personnel prep

or research or innovation or something else. That is

not to suggest Dr. Danielson is schizophrenic.

(Laughter.)

DR. MacMILLAN: Secondly, as has been

brought up before, I think we have to get incentives

to attract the best people back into public service.

There was a time when it was an honor to go back and

serve. I remember many people ‑‑ Sam Guskin from

Indiana, Jay Gottlieb from NYU ‑‑ went back for

stints to work in OSEP. With reduction in staffing,

that is no longer the case. I can\'t explain why but

it seems to me that is not a career option that

people are seeing as a priority when they come out of

their Ph.D. training programs.

Secondly, it seems to me that the

appropriations need to be increased. We are being

asked for a very aggressive agenda and being given

meager funds in order to implement it. I think if we

are to fully fulfill the intentions of the Part D,

there is going to have to be more sufficient funding.

Let me turn to the review system, itself.

I think there is room for improvement in there, and

it needs to be improved. The review process has to

be viewed as more than an administrative procedure

whereby funds are allocated. That is, it seems to me

that one of the purposes ought to be to improve the

quality of research done on children with

disabilities and in special education.

Toward that end adequate feedback,

instructive feedback, and constructive feedback to

people submitting proposals is an essential item. It

is not just saying who gets the funds and we\'re done

with it.

This requires project staff who are

professionally prepared and experienced. That goes

back to attracting the best and the brightest back to

Washington to implement this program. It requires

expert panels who possess expertise in both the

methodologies being proposed in the research and in

the subject matter content under investigation by the

proposal so that an investigator can get a fair

review when they submit a proposal and devote that

much attention to the process.

For the review process to have credibility

and encourage researchers to continue in that

process, it seems to me that we must require first

more systematic and thorough documentation by

reviewers of their evaluation. Many have alluded

here to the fact that getting back handwritten

reviews does not instill confidence that you got a

good hearing, even if you did.

Secondly, there must be accuracy and

checks by panel managers of the claims made by

reviewers. I think there one thing is there is room

for improvement in OSEP to make sure that project

managers do oversee and review and edit what comes

back to the investigator.

Thirdly, that reviewer comments provided

be presented in a professional and otherwise

appropriate manner without glib comments or snide

comments coming back with the review process.

A second question I was asked to address

was how does OSEP interact with other federal

agencies that fund research on children with

disabilities? Not meaning to be glib, but if I look

at the people who are asked to testify here today,

either OSEP is funding good researchers or you folks

have asked for bad input from the people you\'ve asked

to comment to you. Most of the people ‑‑ if not all

of the people ‑‑ who have testified here today have

received funding by OSEP.

Secondly, another indication ‑‑ and I

certainly don\'t have a comprehensive perspective on

all the research that they have funded ‑‑ but it is

the extent to which people who have research funding

from OSEP have also been funded by other agencies. A

number of us have, in fact, been funded by OSEP, by

NICHD, by OERI, and various other agencies that fund

this kind of research.

Thirdly, if, in fact, the research is

published in highly‑regarded referee journals, I

think that might be another way of looking at it.

Much of the research that has been supported under

Part D has found its way into those agencies, as

well. It seems to me that the quality of research

that has been supported has been of a good quality.

That is not to say that some that has gotten out

there is all good quality. I think, like any other

place it has its limitations, as well.

In dealing with the interaction of OSEP

with other agencies, it seems that is a two‑way‑

street interaction. The extent to which OSEP

interacts with other agencies also addresses the

question of to what extent other agencies cooperate

with OSEP. Some of the ways in which I think they\'ve

been very effective in dealing with it, in the Bureau

of Census, for example, disability categorizations

have been included in census which it wasn\'t before

OSEP reached out to them.

With groups like the National Center for

Education Statistics, one of the task forces I was on

was dealing with exiting data, the common‑core data

set, and the NCES, the high‑school‑and‑beyond data

set didn\'t look at disability status. OSEP has been

able to negotiate with them to include disability

status in that to, again, give some comparable basis

because the criteria for dropping out in OSEP is much

more rigorous than the criteria for dropping out

under the NCES reviews for general education.

Thirdly, to comment on should the research

program ‑‑ Dr. Lyon, I think that this gets to it.

When I called to find out what I should be

addressing, I was told by Troy to address the

question, should the research program at OSEP be

moved to another federal agency? Let me address

that.

I think that any consideration of that has

to consider seriously what would be the costs and

what would be the benefits or the losses as a result

of doing that. It seems to me that the research

authority as described in the language is clear that

the research undertaken under IDEA is not basic or

bench research, but rather more applied research that

will have a direct and rather‑soon impact on

practice.

In another federal agency the question is

whether that focus would still be ensured that

children with special needs would get appropriate

attention and whether or not they would receive an

appropriate education might be challenged and, in the

worst scenario, it might be lost. Moving the

research endeavor from OSEP would presumably result

in some disconnect between the Part D authority and

the Part B as I mentioned before of informing back to

those charged with the implementation of it.

Moreover, it seems to me that some of the missions

that differ, the tiers of part IDEA ‑‑ I would just

raise it as a question, not as a solution or

recommendation. If we move the research component,

what do we do with the model demonstration and the

outreach? Would they go as well or would they be

retained under the current structure?

It seems that we have heard from Don

Deshler today, Martha Thorleau, Rob Horner, and

George Sigat at the University of Oregon. They

participated in all three of those components. They

are funded for research, they are funded for model

demonstration, and then they go out and do a lot of

training for the outreach venture. There is some

efficiency to keeping those all together that I think

potentially could be lost.

Let me just conclude by saying it seems to

me that with the children that we are concerned with

here with disabilities, they have special educational

needs. I guess, unlike some who you\'ve heard before,

I\'m not sure they go away. Some of the kids that we

work with require very protected environments in

order to be supported in their efforts. I think that

research under OERI I think is unlikely. There has

not been a strong reception to disability research

there. I think it is a very different political

agenda than what we have had now.

Let me at this point turn it over to Dr.

Kaiser who will continue on.

DR. KAISER: I hadn\'t heard that age‑

before‑beauty thing when we made this arrangement.

I\'m glad I agreed to it.

(Laughter.

DR. KAISER: I\'d like to thank the

commission for inviting me to be here today. I\'m

really honored to have this opportunity to talk with

you. I want to make four key points and then three

recommendations. Because it\'s the end of the day and

we are all tired, I\'m going to go quickly. There are

good things and bad things about being the last

speaker. Everything I have to say has been said, but

I get to say it one last time.

The key points here are that OSEP has a

unique research mission and that the credibility and

validity of OSEP‑funded research is directly affected

by the quality of grant reviews. If we can make

improvements in the grant‑review process, we will

ultimately strengthen the empirical bases of special

education practice.

All of this is impacted by the limited

resources that OSEP can contribute to research and

the limited research infrastructure within which it

works. Therefore, three recommendations:

‑ That the grant‑review process be

strengthened immediately and considerably.

‑ That research grants that remain in

special education should be funded through OSEP.

‑ Finally, that additional resources

should be allocated to support both OSEP research and

the infrastructure for the review and administration

of OSEP research.

I have a long list of things that I\'ve

done in the past that prepare me to make these

comments. Like Dr. MacMillan, I\'ve been rejected in

all the best places. I\'ve also served on four NIH

panels and have reviewed intermittently for the

Department of Education for the last 20 years. In

the process of participating in those reviews, I

think I\'ve become even clearer that what OSEP

contributes is unique in the field and that that

uniqueness is an important construct to hold in mind

when we discuss the grant‑review process.

The uniqueness of the mission of OSEP

comes directly from the legislative mandate for

special education services and the improvement of

those services. OSEP funds research that directly

influenced the practice of special education. It is

that direct linkage between knowledge generation and

knowledge application that sets it aside from the NIH

agencies and NSF, as well.

In the previous presentations we\'ve heard

a remarkable report of research and how it has

affected the practice of special education. Like Dr.

MacMillan, I would like to point out that that is

high‑quality work that has been funded under the

current system. So while there is much to be

changed, there is much to be preserved. We should

pay attention to both.

The key questions that have been raised

about the OSEP grant‑review process are as follows:

‑ Are the reviewers selected qualified to

evaluate proposals?

‑ Does the system for peer review embody

the critical features for fair review of the research

proposal? Those critical features would be high

standards for the scientific rigor of the research,

balanced standards that reflect both the importance

of the problem and the adequacy of the approach taken

and the research methods applied, and third,

consistent application of standards across

competitions and review groups.

‑ The third and final question is does the

review process promote the development of high‑

quality research? In response to significant and

continuing concerns about the review process, a

number of steps have already been taken by OSEP to

address these concerns. Most notably the

establishment of a roster of continuing reviewers who

compose standing panels.

While I believe ‑‑ and I think others do

as well ‑‑ that these steps have been undertaken

thoughtfully, there is much work to be done to

strengthen the review process. Decisions about

research funding ‑‑ given the limited resources of

the agency for research ‑‑ are obviously important.

How these decisions are reached affects not only the

allocation of resources, but also directly and

indirectly affects both the validity and the

credibility of the OSEP‑funded research.

There are a number of ways in which we can

immediately strengthen the review process. In

general, we should consider an overall protocol that

resembles the NIH review process that allows

resubmission that has careful and public review of

grants and continuing indexing of grants for the

entire agency to a common standard.

We should place greater emphasis on the

methodological rigor of proposed research using the

criteria specific to the type of methodology. I

think this is especially important and sets the

process apart from some of what has been in the NIH

agencies.

In special education there is group

research, single‑subject research, qualitative

research, intervention and descriptive studies. The

specific research questions, the context in which the

studies are conducted and the methodology vary

widely. To compose panels where we have sufficient

expertise in those research methodologies is not an

easy task but it is an essential one.

Using a system of study sections or

standing panels that include systematic training for

reviewers, feedback and public accountability for

reviews, sufficient staff support for professional

and timely review, and indexing of scores across

panels in research competitions would greatly improve

the process.

In addition, we must consider the use of

ad hoc reviewers for individual proposals where

standing panels do not have the expertise to judge

the methodology or the content of the proposed

research. It is essential to the credibility of

special education research that the review of our

grant proposals is professional, public, rational,

and dependable.

The criteria applied in the review must

match those of the field for rigorous,

scientifically‑sound research in special education.

While these review criteria must also consider the

importance of the problem being addressed, it is the

adequacy of the proposed method to provide reliable

and valid findings that should be judged with utmost

care.

The methods are diverse, and there is a

need for diverse reviewers, as well. But these

reviewers must be able to make judgments based on

being knowledgeable about the conduct of research in

applied settings and the specific research

methodology proposed. The construction of panels,

therefore, must address both content and method and

must be prepared to provide a sufficient number of

experts that we can have diverse opinions about the

adequacy of the methods.

I want to diverge for just a minute to

talk about setting priorities for research as being

separate from the grant‑review process. It is

important, it is essential, and it is mandated that

we will set priorities for research with consumers,

with stakeholders in the special education process.

I am entirely supportive of that. I think we can do

it in ways that we have not yet constructed. But

I do not think that one of those ways is to have

stakeholders to be primary reviewers of the research

quality of proposals for funding. That may not be a

popular view but I think it\'s an important one. I

would urge us to continue to think of how we can have

stakeholders involved in setting the agenda, in

reviewing the outcomes of research, in reviewing the

scaling up of research to practice. But I urge us to

consider researchers as the primary reviewers of

research proposals.

In addition, it is important that the

review process, itself, is organized in a manner that

actively encourages progressive improvement of

research through revision and resubmission based on

previous review. Strong peer review makes stronger

science, and better, more‑accurate scientific

information is badly needed to improve the practice

of special education.

The review process, itself, must allow

researchers to develop long‑term programs of research

that support evidence‑based practice. A rational

system of review that includes progress reports from

previously‑funded projects and places newly‑proposed

research in the context of a researcher\'s record of

empirical work and translation of that work into

practice is needed.

So let me summarize the recommendations as

follows:

‑ We need to provide professional,

accurate, timely, and fair feedback to applicants.

The content of that feedback should be substantive

and reflect the technical adequacy of the proposals

in precise terms and the importance of the proposed

approach within the parameters announced for the

competition.

‑ We should develop a system of grant

reviewing that allows for systematic revision and

resubmission of proposals, particularly in the field‑

initiated competition. There should be standing

dates for annual competitions and predictable

submission deadlines for special competitions

providing sufficient public notice for applicants to

prepare relevant and rigorous application.

‑ Because much research implementation and

all personnel‑preparation grants are affected by the

award date, it is essential that the timing of

reviews and the notification of applicants about the

outcome of reviews coincides with functional start

dates for research and training activities, a small

but extremely important step in getting research

conducted in the schools and people trained in

colleges.

In sum, evidence‑based practice depends on

sustained funding for important, credible, and

methodologically‑rigorous research in special

education. A stronger system of peer review can

strengthen the field in terms of the base upon which

it is built.

I\'m going to talk only briefly about the

grant‑review process remaining at OSEP because I

think we have addressed that adequately in our

conversation today. Like my colleagues, I believe

that OSEP has a unique research mission and that that

mission is not mandated to any other agency.

Moving OSEP funding to OERI, for example, does not

directly address any of the concerns about the grant

review of the administrative processes that I have

just discussed. Moving OSEP research to NIH seems

unlikely, given they\'re under different legislative

mandates.

Let me turn, then, to the third issue

which I want to spend a little bit more time on. One

of the reasons that we have such difficulty in

administering the grand‑review process has to do with

the infrastructure that has been built to support the

review and the management and the administration of

those grants.

Limited resources allocated to OSEP for

research affect not only the size of the research

funding program, but the infrastructure for

administering that program. Limited resources affect

the quality and the quantity for OSEP‑funded research

in several different ways. So I make the

recommendation to increase the allocation of

resources to OSEP for research not lightly,

considering the need for research in this area and

not lightly considering the constraints on the

budget, but because I believe these two things are

absolutely essential to the future of the field.

The amount of money available for research

is not sufficient to address the scope of issues

facing the field of special education. Field‑

initiated research, which is arguably the most

innovative and timely research in special education,

receives minimal funding in the OSEP budget.

Restructuring and reallocating funds within the

existing research budget toward more funding of

field‑initiated research is recommended.

It is also the case that the level of

funding for field‑initiated research grants limits

the type and the scope that can be conducted outside

directed‑research initiatives. While the costs for

doing research ‑‑ largely personnel costs ‑‑ have

risen steadily, the level of funding for individual

field‑initiated grants have not.

Several people today have spoken about

OSEP\'s role in inter‑agency collaboration. I want to

make just a couple of comments about that. OSEP has

limited funding to contribute to those

collaborations. That is one of the things that

inhibits its being a full partner in any jointly‑

funded enterprise. Being a full partner in setting

the agenda means being a full partner in paying the

bills.

Given the constraints on the research

budget at OSEP, it\'s unlikely that OSEP can make

large contributions to any of the inter‑agency

initiatives. It\'s very simple. If you can\'t pay,

you can\'t play. I don\'t think it\'s a case of the

agency not wanting to cooperate.

I\'ve attended three meetings in the last

two years in which OSEP representatives have been

full partners in the discussion of important issues

around children\'s mental health, children\'s behavior

problems, and families. When it comes down to being

able to invest substantive amounts of money, however,

you cannot do it on a \$78‑million research budget.

You have to make choices, and you have to make

priorities.

Limited resources also affect the

administration of OSEP research funds at several

levels. OSEP has a very small number of professional

staff with knowledge of research, the field of

special education, the peer‑review process, and the

ability to communicate effectively with researchers.

The very small number is not a criticism of the

people who are there. It is a criticism of how many

people are there.

While the NIH agencies have also been

under constraints for numbers of staff, they have

been able to successfully separate program and review

and provide clerical support for the review process.

Part of being able to do timely, professional,

public‑documented review is having the staff that are

able to do that. I understand quite well why OSEP

can\'t pull that off with the current level of

infrastructure funding that they have.

Staff resources directly affect timely and

professional review, they limit the options for

multiple submission dates, and it limits the options

for revising and resubmitting proposals because of

the need for the clerical work that supports those

revisions and resubmissions.

On the other hand, the management of the

portfolio of OSEP research grants is also constrained

by its lack of resources. Staff have responsibility

for both program and review that preclude the

effective oversight of research grants on an ongoing

basis. The professional training of staff members

limits their effectiveness in consulting with

researchers about complex problems in research and

their time for overseeing the conduct of research

once it is funded.

As has been noted by Dr. MacMillan, it is

increasingly difficult to attract promising young

professionals to positions at OSEP because of the

limited professional development opportunities, the

overwhelming scope of the workload, and the lack of

support for the many tasks that staff are asked to

do.

The linkage between resources and quality

of research in special education is readily apparent.

Too little high‑quality research is being funded, and

the problem does not lie exclusively with the grant‑

review process. Given sufficient resources, the

review system can be restructured to ensure high‑

quality reviews. It\'s broken but not impossibly so.

4

Improving the review system alone,

however, without increased research funding and

without building an adequate administrative

infrastructure to support research will not be

sufficient to address the needs of the field for a

substantive knowledge base directly related to the

practice of special education.

Conducting rigorous applied research is

extremely challenging, and the effective practice of

special education requires that we are able to do

reliable, valid, and conceptually‑accurate research.

OSEP has been mandated to fund such research in order

to improve education outcomes for children. In order

to meet that mandate, OSEP must have sufficient

research funds, a credible system for awarding those

funds, and an adequate infrastructure to support all

phases of the grant‑review process.

Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Now for commissioners\'

questions. Dr. Fletcher?

DR. FLETCHER: I\'m going to apologize in

advance for asking hard questions and want to

indicate that I found both your testimonies very

compelling. But there are some things that I would

like to ask about that I think would facilitate the

work of this task force in preparing its report.

The first question involves the level of

support that\'s necessary to do adequate reviews. I

am aware, for example, in documents that OSEP

provided that approximately two percent of their

budget goes into the peer‑review process.

I have to say that while I found Dr.

Kaiser\'s recommendations about the need for more

staff and so on compelling, I am aware, for example,

that in the Mental Retardation Developmental

Disabilities branch there is a director and, I

believe, now two program officers running an

approximately \$100‑million portfolio; that the

reviews are done ‑‑ and you and I were both on the

same study section ‑‑ by one SRA with an assistant

who also had the responsibility for conducting

reviews for institute‑initiated investigations to

RFA\'s and things of that sort, as well as a support

for the RO1\'s through standing study sections.

I am having trouble understanding the

difference in the allocations of resources. I

believe ‑‑ and I hope I\'m correct in this ‑‑ that the

total amount that NIH spends just, for example, on

peer review is less than 1 percent of its research

budget. So I am wondering how you reconcile these

differences with your call for more personnel.

DR. KAISER: Well, Jack, first of all, the

NIH ‑‑ 1 percent of the NIH research budget is a lot

bigger than 2 percent of the OSEP budget. That\'s one

thing. A second thing is those amounts of grants ‑‑

the same thing applies to the amount of money that

you\'re talking about. In terms of sheer numbers of

proposals that are submitted, OSEP handles as many as

300 or 400 in a single competition.

That is part of the problem. It\'s a very

short turnaround time, it\'s a lot of proposals,

there\'s a lot of diversity in the proposals that they

accept, it\'s a different‑structured system. I think

it\'s problematic in the sense that ‑‑ first of all,

if you begin with what the premises of NIH and OSEP

are, NIH has as its primary charge to fund scientific

research. So the agency is structured to support

that.

OSEP has multiple agendas, and the agency

addresses all of those agendas. As Don pointed out

earlier, staffs serve multiple functions in OSEP. If

you were to count the number of people and the

caseloads that those people have, I don\'t think it\'s

comparable.

DR. MacMILLAN: Jack, if I also might

comment. You also have the personnel‑prep

competition, you\'ve got the technical‑assistance one.

You\'ve got all of those different ones which that

same limited number of staff members are all having

to have expertise in. I think the leadership in each

of those would be desirable to have in order that

they really get the attention they would need at the

leadership level.

DR. FLETCHER: So, do we know how many

people at OSEP are responsible for all these

different components of the program?

DR. MacMILLAN: I don\'t have a count, no.

DR. FLETCHER: Could we ask staff to find

out for us so that we can evaluate the load?

VOICE: We definitely can find out.

DR. GRASMICK: And we\'ll leave the record

open to receive that information.

DR. FLETCHER: The second question I had

involves the idea that a major goal ‑‑ and this is

for Dr. MacMillan ‑‑ a major goal of OSEP research

programs is to have impact on the field in the

shortest time possible. Yet we have heard repeatedly

about the difficulties of implementing certain kinds

of research that there has been ‑‑ from Dr. Deshler ‑

‑ under‑funding of research on scalability so that

the implementation is sometimes difficult.

I will ask what I will acknowledge is a

fairly mean question. I am very aware of the

research you have done, Dr. MacMillan, on

identification practices with children who have

mental retardation and learning disabilities. I am

wondering how much impact you feel your research has

had on federal regulations involving identification?

DR. MacMILLAN: How much impact?

DR. FLETCHER: Yes, sir.

DR. MacMILLAN: Probably not nearly as

much we would hope it would. I think, again, that

gets to the dissemination issue of what policy‑makers

are looking at. Hopefully through the LD summit and

stuff it will have some impact. That remains to be

seen.

DR. FLETCHER: But, in fact, if one of the

ways we should be evaluating the impact of OSEP

research, there are certainly some glaring examples.

We heard, for example, quite a bit about curriculum‑

based measurement and what it would offer children

with learning disabilities. Yet Drs. Fuchs, who

testified today, acknowledged that it had not been

scaled up very rapidly and that a great deal more

research would be necessary to do that.

For the record, I want to ask you if you

support the use of intelligence testing for the

identification of children with mental retardation

and learning disabilities?

DR. MacMILLAN: Yes and no for mental

retardation. Frankly with the National Academy panel

we couldn\'t come up with any way short of using

intelligence tests given the construct that it is low

general intelligence to get away from intelligence

testing.

For purposes of identifying children with

learning disabilities, I don\'t think it is essential.

I am more comfortable with the resistance‑to‑

treatment approach. How those two interface, I

think, is a major question confronting the field.

That is, if you don\'t use it for this purpose ‑‑

however, you know, I\'ve had discussions with Lynn

Fuchs before about saying that of some of her kids

that she looks at with the curriculum‑based measures

who are low and then low in slope, are those the kids

at which point we might consider administering

intelligence tests but certainly not to be doing it

on the routine ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 9)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. MacMILLAN: (Continuing.) ‑‑ basis of

every kid coming in for an eligibility determination

to give those tests to each and every child.

DR. FLETCHER: Do you feel like, for

example, we need to have every aspect of a particular

problem mapped out from the viewpoint of research

before we attempt implementation? For example,

should we continue with current identification

procedures for children with learning disabilities

when there is ample research evidence that these are

not only invalid, but also unreliable, when

admittedly there are problems with some of the

alternatives?

DR. MacMILLAN: Well, I think with the

conception we are clear on LD. I think the

conception we\'ve always been in agreement that it is

unexpected under‑achievement. It\'s been in the

operationalizing and the criteria we use to identify

which kids meet that criterion. It seems to me,

looking at the consensus statement following the LD

summit of using resistance to treatment, we still

have the operationalizing of that.

Once we see how that plays out, I\'m sure

that others will come up and say, Well, boy, we\'ve

failed at this end on that. It seems to me that it

is a dilemma and we do have these kids far betwixt

and between. Some alluded to the kids who are the

shady‑80 kids who aren\'t LD, nor are they MR, nor are

they anything else, but they certainly need help.

DR. FLETCHER: Which is exactly the point.

To a certain extent the eligibility process, and the

fact that it is not anchored in research and what we

know which is that it\'s difficult to discriminate and

identify these children is something of an obstacle

to providing services for them at least to a focus on

eligibility instead of instruction as you suggested

at the LD summit.

DR. MacMILLAN: I didn\'t hear a question

but I\'d say yes.

DR. FLETCHER: There wasn\'t a question. I

do have one quick question just for the record. I\'d

gather that neither of you would support the

statutory language that presently exists that

requires the inclusion of practitioners and people

with disabilities in the technical review of grants

with the peer‑review process but are, in fact,

recommending that these function be separated?

DR. KAISER: That\'s right. I do believe

that input from stakeholders is enormously important.

I do not believe the place for it is in the technical

review of proposals.

DR. FLETCHER: Thank you very much.

DR. MacMILLAN: I think we do want to look

for diversity, but we ought not compromise the

research competence in doing so. But we ought to be

looking for a diverse review panel as long as we

don\'t compromise that.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Lyon.

DR. LYON: Thank you both for very strong

and informative testimony. You both ‑‑ as well as

the other witnesses today ‑‑ have highlighted a

number of strengths that OSEP has. I\'m sure this

commission feels that those are extraordinarily

important for our research endeavors in special

education.

You\'ve pointed out some shortcomings, some

non‑strengths in the system as it stands now. My

question is how do we begin to systematically begin

to solve some of those shortcomings? I\'m a bit

surprised we haven\'t done it before. But given that

the peer‑review issue is in front of us, the

overwhelming number of priorities OSEP has to address

is in front of us, what do you recommend to this

commission in terms of strategies that we can

actually bring to bear the recommendations you\'ve

made?

Before you answer, let me ask you this.

It\'s a dumb question. Who makes OSEP respond to all

of those priorities? In other words, I mean, the

boss is back here. Who is it that overwhelms a

research agency with the numbers of things it\'s

expected to do? That is ‑‑ let me be more succinct.

Why are there not programmatic priorities that are

linked ‑‑ as you all have pointed out ‑‑ to IDEA or

to figuring out which instructional approaches are

most beneficial for which kids and so forth?

I just don\'t understand the vetting

process, the identification of research priorities

that overwhelm OSEP. In other words ‑‑

DR. KAISER: Well, Reid, I think my

response to that is that if you look at IDEA, it

covers a lot of territory. The research priorities

cover not even all of the things we say we are going

to do in IDEA. I think the issue is about how to set

priorities.

I think that one of the options is to

allocate more money to field‑initiated research, to

have guidelines of the priorities of the agency, and

to let researchers make choices among those

priorities but maybe to have a narrower scope of

research priorities that are addressed in any given

five‑ or ten‑year period.

DR. LYON: Yes, so that\'s my question.

Why has the scope been so broad that it hamstrings

the efforts in that manner that you all have

described? Why can\'t there be that priority‑setting

noting that we can\'t get to everything at the same

time and we\'re going to have to identify that which

is most important?

DR. KAISER: Well, I think there is one

other part of this which is that one of the things

that is one the strength of OSEP is also a

difficulty. That has to do with the seven different

phases that Don Deshler laid out of the research‑to‑

practice process. You know, if you have even a few

competitions in each of those, plus you have

personnel prep and a few other things going on, you

already have a couple of dozen things that you\'re

doing at once.

It\'s not so much sure that the research

part of that is so broad as it as that there are so

many different functions in research development,

technical assistance, and personnel prep that are

supported that the combination of all of those things

is really extensive. It\'s also really understandable

and probably necessary. So we may not be able to fix

all of that, but I think we can systematically

address the part that has to do with research funding

and research grants.

DR. MacMILLAN: I\'d also say that looking

at the magnitude of what the charge is there and then

looking at ‑‑ I\'m not critical of it, but the

leadership. It seems to me that my experience with

OSEP and having been a president of the division on

research, we met, I think, three times with Lou

Danielson on the standing panel issue alone. We were

going over that.

My sense was that he had good intentions

but as soon as he left us, somebody else hammered

him. It\'s tough to follow through on some of these

things when you have these different people coming at

you from different directions. I think there\'s good

intention there, and I think there\'s been progress

made.

There\'s a group that met with him last

year on the review process of standing panels. There

were recommendations made. I think some have been

implemented but, again, other things have come up,

and I think it\'s been very difficult with one person

really the head of it.

What are our needs in leadership? We had

discussion before about where are the next

researchers coming from? In the field‑initiated, I\'d

say that\'s where we\'re training the next generation

of researchers. We not only use it for research,

we\'re supporting graduate students and training the

next generation of researchers. When you look at

that budget, we\'re not going to have many come out if

we can\'t expand it.

DR. LYON: The issue about the review

budgets, the review budget within NICHD is .5 percent

of our NICHD budget which is somewhat equivalent to

OSEP, maybe a little bit more. That pays for the

internal review sections, which I think you\'ve been

on, Ann, and Don, maybe you, as well.

DR. MacMILLAN: I agree completely with

Ann\'s point about when you have staff that you can go

to for assistance and information, it\'s nice. OSEP,

I think, is torn on that. They don\'t know whether to

‑‑ they talk to me, and does that give me a benefit

over Ann coming up? So the separation of review and

program is a very desirable feature.

DR. LYON: Right, and I\'m just suggesting

that I think even with limited resources, it can

probably be at least initiated. I think this is part

of the process of how we get better at this. Related

to the other thing, Ann, I will disagree with you

with respect to having to pay to play.

We are in intellectual partnerships with a

number of agencies, including OERI. They\'re not

giving us money for anything, but they certainly are

intellectually involved in a lot of the development

of new initiatives. We\'ve asked OSEP to be a part of

that. Never happens.

DR. KAISER: But OSEP has been involved.

I\'ve been in several meetings where OSEP has been

involved in substantive discussion about cross‑agency

priorities around children\'s mental health in

particular. But I think part of being able to shape

those inter‑agency research agendas is being able to

contribute money and being able to have staff present

through the whole process.

So even when people contribute, you know,

to the agenda setting, they\'ve got to be able to see

it through, and that means having a stake in seeing

it through. It\'s very hard on a limited research

budget to make those kinds of choices. I really

applaud what NICHD is doing, though, in reaching out

to other agencies. I am really happy to see that

happen.

DR. LYON: I think what we ‑‑ you know, I

don\'t know if anybody said it today yet, but one of

the charges the president gave us the day after he

came into office was to develop programmatic

initiatives that would make sure that our country\'s

kids entered school and continued through school,

learning how to learn, being emotionally healthy and

socially competent.

He admonished us not to become parochial

or agency‑driven but to reach across all agencies to

do that, for the first time to develop bona fide,

general collaboration such that we are all planning

at the same time, knowing the strengths and

weaknesses of different agencies. I think that\'s a

culture that has not yet reached OCEP at all. It\'s

insulated, it\'s insular, and there\'s no reason for

it.

DR. MacMILLAN: It\'s also true of OERI.

You go in there and try to talk disability to those

folks, they will not listen. They\'re very insular.

They\'re in school reform, there\'s a political agenda.

You know this is not unique. When you start looking

at the review process, what we\'ve alluded to here

with regard to OSEP, you get the same handwritten

reviews from OERI. There is no standing panel there.

All of the frailties that we have

described and admitted to about OSEP are every bit as

true of OERI. So it is something I think is endemic

to the department. It is not something that is

unique to OSEP in many cases.

DR. LYON: Right, and I\'m not suggesting

that. I will let ‑‑ I will say clearly that OERI is

going through substantial change, as well. I don\'t

think we\'ll be seeing what you just described next

year, for example.

DR. MacMILLAN: Except the field‑initiated

competition was canceled this year from them. So for

investigators to come in, there is no funding for

this year which, again, impacts our graduate training

program, the research agenda, and so forth.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Dr. Wright?

DR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam Chair, and

thank you, gentlemen. I have several comments but

I\'ve timed my comments. The first thing I want to

say is to Dr. MacMillan. I don\'t really have to ask

you a lot of questions because you have really added

to my knowledge base of special education. I know a

lot about special education because I know your work.

I use your work in mental retardation. I

don\'t like to use alphabets. MH is mental

retardation, LD is learning disabilities. I am just

so pleased to just dialogue with you. I am not going

to try to debate with you because I would lose. I

have learned so much by using your work.

DR. MacMILLAN: Thank you.

DR. WRIGHT: It\'s just a pleasure to be

here. I don\'t really have to ask you a lot of stuff

because I will go back and read all those books I

have. One thing that being on this commission has

made me do is to go back and read. So I came here

ready with a certain knowledge base so that I don\'t

have to ask a whole lot of questions.

I want to ask Dr. Ann Kaiser ‑‑ I want to

pick on you for a little bit. I am so glad that

you\'re here. I don\'t know your work as well as I

know the work of Dr. Don MacMillan. But I was so

pleased to hear you in your comments say that there

needs to have diversity in terms of reviewers. I

want to ask you who do you mean by that diversity?

Do you mean racial diversity? I hope so. Do you

mean religious diversity or just what kind of

diversity do you mean?

DR. KAISER: All of the above and also

people with disabilities who are researchers.

DR. WRIGHT: Another thing you said was we

need diverse opinions and so that ties in. Another

thing I wanted to ask you about. I call it field

testing because when I was the director of special

education back in Illinois, some of the researchers

would bring their projects and their ideas and their

programs to some of us to test them in the field to

see if they really worked.

What kinds of research do you think would

be better used for field testing? I\'m a field

person, to get out in the field, out in the trenches

where the teachers need us and where the kids need

us. Can you talk to that for a minute, please.

DR. KAISER: I\'m not sure if I understand

your question about field research. I\'m assuming

that most of the research that we do in special

education is field research. Very little of it is

done outside the context of settings where children

and families typically are.

DR. WRIGHT: Yes, but that\'s what I\'m

saying. I think that some of this research needs to

be done ‑‑ put it out in the field to see if it

really works, to see if these methods really work

that we sit in the universities and say will work, we

sit at OSEP and say will work. Put it out there in

the field and see if it really works. If it works,

use it. If it doesn\'t, then don\'t use it in terms of

field testing methods, in terms of field testing

materials, and on diverse populations.

I don\'t want to sing this song, and I

don\'t usually play race cards and all like that. But

we know that there\'s an over‑representation of

minorities in special education. I\'m talking about

black people, African‑American people, Negroes,

colored, whatever you want to call us. I\'m also

talking about Hispanics whether they\'re Puerto Rican,

whether they\'re whatever. I think that a lot of the

field testing without the research needs to be done

that\'s really going to help minority kids.

DR. KAISER: I agree with that. I think

one of the things we\'ve learned is that there are a

lot of stages to field‑based research. There\'s

conducting research in schools, and then there is

having schools adopt curriculum approaches and use

them themselves and lots of steps in between those,

that field research isn\'t just one thing. It might

be four or five different phases of moving from

research into practice.

DR. WRIGHT: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: You\'re welcome.

Dr. Pasternack?

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask both of you what you think the

greatest contribution has been in terms of research

in the last 25 years based on what OSEP has provided.

Don, I\'ll start with you first.

DR. MacMILLAN: Had the most influence?

DR. PASTERNACK: Had the most significant

contribution, the research that OSEP has funded, in

your opinion?

DR. MacMILLAN: There have been a number

of different investigators. Are you talking about

the work that\'s been done in LRE or the work that\'s

been done on assessment? Are you looking for

specifics?

DR. PASTERNACK: When I came to OSEP, one

of the first questions that I tried to ask was that

type of question. What\'s the legacy of

accomplishment? Where have we been? I\'m trying to

get a sense of where we\'ve been, where we are, and

where we need to go. So, based on your legacy of

accomplishment, based on your knowledge of the

research and the fact that you\'ve been involved as

long as you have, I\'m just curious from your

perspective what you think the most significant ‑‑

what have we done ‑‑

DR. MacMILLAN: Let me take a shot at it.

It seems to me that from \'75 or so on up until the

\'80s we are concerned with access of kids. So during

that period of time, there was a lot of work done on

identification of children and some of the

implementation techniques with kids we hadn\'t served

heretofore.

We had the issue during the \'70s and \'80s

dealing with issues of over‑representation of

minority children. Issues of assessment were a big

issue at that time. I am reflecting my own reading

of that literature and probably missing some things

outside of that.

It seems to me there continues to be a lot

on LRE today. In many cases in looking at what will

make it work, I think some of us use that as the

independent variable in which we say we don\'t know if

it works and so let\'s look at it. Others are using

the deep end of the variables. They know it works,

so what are the impediments to implementing it?

I\'d really be hard‑pressed to say. I read

a certain cut of that literature, and I don\'t go into

certain of the sensory and orthopedic conditions.

There may been ground‑breaking work in there that I\'m

just not aware of.

DR. PASTERNACK: Okay.

DR. KAISER: Let me frame it a little

differently. If we hadn\'t had OSEP‑funded research,

we wouldn\'t have the technology for teaching children

with disabilities. I think it\'s about that simple.

Now, that technology has a lot of pieces to it.

It has instruction, it has delivery of

instruction in inclusive classrooms. It has the

involvement of families in decisions about their

children. It has moving instruction from didactic

pull‑out models to naturalistic instruction embedded

in inclusive classrooms. It has extension from

infants to 22‑year‑olds.

Although we would have had an

understanding of the ways in which kids learn and the

factors that effect learning, we wouldn\'t have the

technology for instruction if we didn\'t have OSEP‑

funded research.

DR. PASTERNACK: Okay. Thank you both for

that. Let me ask the question a little bit

differently. I\'d like both of you to tell me your

three priorities for research funding for OSEP as we

move from this year to next year\'s budget.

DR. KAISER: Three, we get three?

DR. PASTERNACK: We\'ll start with you,

Ann.

DR. KAISER: These are very personal

priorities. My number one priority is the prevention

of behavior problems in young children because I

think that probably makes the biggest difference in

how many student we see in special education. We

don\'t have an effective technology for identifying or

preventing the development of behavior problems. So

that remains for me a really important priority.

DR. PASTERNACK: Okay.

DR. KAISER: I\'m an early‑childhood

person, so I\'m really biased around continuing

commitments to early intervention, and that is

probably the greatest one.

I think the conversation that we\'ve been

having all day today about scaling up interventions

calls for a different kind of research. This is not

so specific to what the content of that research is,

but research that moves to larger‑scale applications

of effective educational technology is a really

important research agenda for us in the field.

I don\'t know if I have a third. I have

about ten others but those two are the ones that

really come to mind as being incredibly important for

us to be doing at this point in time.

DR. PASTERNACK: Are you thinking ‑‑ I

know this is probably not the right venue to get into

this depth of discussion. But given the work that is

being done by George and Hill and Rob and those folks

in Oregon, are you saying that there needs to be more

done in the area of preventing behavior problems in

young kids?

DR. KAISER: We\'re 25 percent accurate in

identifying four‑year‑olds who as seven‑ or eight‑

year‑olds will still have a behavior problem. We\'re

not ‑‑ the methods that we have for early

identification are not very effective. We have

basically no convincing data that early intervention

at age three or four has long‑term positive outcomes.

That doesn\'t mean it isn\'t true. It means

we don\'t have any convincing data to show that. It\'s

a really important problem, given the numbers of kids

that are being identified with significant behavior

problems.

DR. PASTERNACK: So is that one of the

fundamental differences between the research that

OSEP funds and the legacy of accomplishment at NICHD

in terms of their funding large‑scale, multi‑site,

coherent longitudinal studies and OSEP going on the

sort of cyclical, shorter‑term, lack‑of‑coherent ‑‑ I

wouldn\'t say incoherent ‑‑ but lack‑of‑coherent,

fragmented perhaps approach to such a huge diversity

of issues that we face in terms of trying to improve

outcomes for the wide array of kids that we see

having disabilities?

DR. KAISER: I think that\'s part of the

issue. I think that the need for longitudinal‑

outcome data for any of the interventions that we

fund is really important. Taking into consideration

the effect of multiple‑classroom experiences and

successive interventions that kids typically get in

special education, we know almost nothing about the

life course of interventions for children with

disabilities and their cumulative outcomes on those

children\'s learning and life adjustment.

We have not looked very broadly at

classrooms as they affect kids one year after another

year. It\'s like every intervention we look at is

short‑term focused, as if the child in kindergarten

is not going to be in a grade‑three inclusion

classroom that also affects his long‑term outcome.

We need more sophisticated analytic models for

looking at classroom effects, and we certainly need

longitudinal data that consider the multiple

treatments that most children receive.

That\'s a kind of research that\'s

expensive, it\'s complicated methodologically, and

it\'s really important to understanding the long‑term

outcomes of special education. Yes, I think that\'s

not what OSEP has been well positioned to be able to

fund.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thanks.

Don?

DR. MacMILLAN: I\'d say one thing that I

would recommend for OSEP to be somewhat unique, and

that is to fund research that goes beyond set nine.

I think that most parents of children with

disabilities have aspirations for their kids

concerning outcomes that go way beyond just academic

achievement.

I think as we start looking at parents who

are concerned about their children\'s vocational

adjustment and so forth. I think there are important

outcomes like how kids feel about themselves, getting

along with peers, interacting.

Secondly, I\'d be remiss if didn\'t say that I retire

in seven weeks. This group of kids that I\'ve been

concerned with throughout my career are the children

who have low aptitude and low achievement. I think

that they are in many numbers being identified in the

LD populations of the schools. They are being

ignored and are, therefore, in the general education

population of schools. They are a group who will not

have advocates coming forward to any of the agencies

because the parents are basically out of the

political arena.

I think some agency somewhere has got to

have some concern over that group of children who are

largely from urban centers, are not represented by

parents very well but whose academic careers up until

now we have not successfully reached them. I think

they are a group sorely in need of study and support

and advocacy.

DR. PASTERNACK: Do you find it troubling

that your testimony earlier said that 20 years ago we

looked at disproportion of representation of minority

kids in special education and in 2002 we are looking

at disproportion of representation of minority kids

in special education?

DR. MacMILLAN: No, I\'m not discouraged.

The condition has improved dramatically. Even within

the context of mental retardation, it\'s not gone

away. But the magnitude of the disproportion for

black children in mental retardation has improved

dramatically.

I would say of equal concern is the fact

that because it\'s not disproportionate, we haven\'t

been as concerned with the fact that for Anglo,

black, Hispanic kids the increase in the number

identified as LD has become epidemic. That, I think,

ought to be a concern equally great as the one over

the continued over‑rep of black kids in mental

retardation.

DR. PASTERNACK: I know the time is short

but earlier I had to write down something that you

said, \"Snide remarks by reviewers.\" I\'m curious

about that; would you elaborate on that.

DR. MacMILLAN: I can even get personal as

a recipient. When staff doesn\'t have ‑‑ for example,

the big distinction you see when you submit to NICHD,

you\'ll get your pink sheets back. They are typed,

they are grammatical, they\'re organized. Staff has

clearly reviewed them.

With OSEP and OERI what you get are the

reviewers have traditionally ‑‑ and I understand that

that is improving somewhat; they did get advanced

notice. You would come into Washington and you would

get them when you arrived. You\'d go to a hotel and

you would review them. So the comments are

handwritten when you get them back.

Sometimes they are ungrammatical. We had

one where we used the cohort design because it was a

\$180,000 budget. We couldn\'t get enough kids, so we

did a cohort design. The review comment I got back

was, Why don\'t you get it right the first time?

I thought that was inappropriate, it was

snide. I think others can share similar kinds of

things with you. That kind of thing shouldn\'t slip

through the agency and come back to the investigator.

That\'s the point I was making.

DR. PASTERNACK: I guess my last question

would be, now that you are retiring, clearly you are

going to come back and help us fix some of these

things based on some of the experiences you have had,

right?

DR. MacMILLAN: If it\'s in Oregon, I would

be glad to.

(Laughter.)

DR. PASTERNACK: I guess with that, Madam

Chair, I will stop at this point. Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

I want to be sure there are ‑‑ Dr. Lyon, I

think I was somewhat abrupt at the end of yours

because I was eager to be sure everyone got their

questions answered. I would return to you to say do

you have any outstanding questions? No? Thank you.

Thank you very much; very interesting,

very helpful testimony.

Okay, we are now moving into a period of

facilitated discussion. We would invite any of the

previous witnesses to join us for this, including

these two. If you\'d like to stay with us, we would

love to have you.

Dr. Dan Reschly, who is the department of

special education at this university is going to be

the person conducting this. That\'s going to be

helpful to us in drafting a research agenda from

documents that the task force has collected and

certainly from today\'s presentations. The task force

intends the summary of that agenda as it develops its

recommendations.

I\'d just like to say something about Dr.

Dan Reschly, the professor of education and

psychology and chair of the department of special

education at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.

From 1975 to 1998 he directed the Iowa State

University school of psychology program where he was

a distinguished professor of psychology and

education. He\'s published extensively on topics of

special education, system reform, over‑representation

of minority children and you, learning disabilities,

and mild mental retardation.

Welcome, Dr. Reschly.

DR. RESCHLY: Thank you very much, Madam

Chair. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear

before this panel. This is a very unusual experience

in my career. I rarely get asked back to speak to

people for whom I\'ve spoken to before. So this is a

special time.

However, I am in the role today of a

facilitator. I asked Troy, but I see Troy\'s left.

Troy\'s the person who put me into this role, and I

asked Troy what were the expectations, what should I

do? He said you\'ll kind of know when you get there.

I asked my wife last night, and she said,

You have to go in tomorrow for that thing? I said,

Yes. She said, What are you doing? I said, I\'m a

facilitator. She snickered.

(Laughter.)

DR. RESCHLY: So I\'m afraid my

expectations are not very high. What I\'ve done today

‑‑ and I intend to make a few brief remarks and then

open the agenda for discussion. I wanted to provide

for you the general themes that I\'ve abstracted from

listening to the testimony today, from reviewing the

various recommendations. I realize there may be

questions about whether I really got everything in

there correctly, although certain things ought to be

restructured or stated in different ways.

I will go through these themes rather

quickly and then open the floor up for discussion.

There clearly was a strong theme through many of the

recommendations to retain the Office of Special

Education Programs as a primary site for research on

persons with disabilities. I emphasize the article

there is as a primary site, not the primary site, but

a primary site for research on persons with

disabilities. That recommendation, I believe, came

from the presentations of several of the different

scholars represented here today.

Second, the importance of recognizing a

unique OSEP mission compared to other federal

agencies. I believe Don MacMillan was most

articulate on that point of view. But it was also

mentioned by a number of other persons as well. He

focuses on ‑‑ and here I have something that I

mistyped this morning ‑‑ but the three broad research

programs are levels of research done in OSEP, field‑

initiated research, and it should say and directed

research. Secondly, model demonstration, and third

outreach projects.

There were several recommendations

throughout the day ‑‑ Deshler, Kaiser, MacMillan,

several others who talked about improving the OSEP

infrastructure through increased staff with research

expertise. My personal acquaintances at OSEP, some

of whom are very sophisticated with regard to

research, others admittedly are not. I think OSEP

needs more people that have a high level of expertise

with regard to research methodology, methods of

analysis, and so on.

The second strong theme is to increase

research funding particularly in order to meet the

demand for scientifically‑based practices. I think

the emphasis on scientifically‑based practices is one

of the most important things to happen since the

original enactment of mandatory special education law

in 1975. I think it represents one of the greatest

opportunities this field\'s ever had. I\'m hoping the

field will embrace this and make the very, very best

out of it. But it will require further research

investments in order to meet that challenge.

There were a number of comments regarding

continued improvement in the OSEP grant‑review

process. I\'ve been a recipient of that grant‑review

process, as have many of the persons who testified

today and many other persons in the room. We need to

ensure that there are sufficient numbers of reviewers

with research expertise regarding methodology and

content.

Don chose not to elaborate on the issue of

if you can\'t get enough subjects the first time and

why don\'t you do it right the first time, when

somebody was looking at his proposal of a cohort

design. Well, a cohort design is a very strong

methodological technique. It clearly represented a

research reviewer who didn\'t know very much about

methodology. That\'s unfortunate; that tends to drive

away good research or it leads to the funding of

research that\'s less that optimal.

Secondly, we need to establish and

implement expectations for the quality of reviews and

the quality feedback that goes to investigators.

When you receive an area that had 10 points and

somebody says I didn\'t like it and that is the extent

of the remarks, which I have received. Maybe it was

so bad it didn\'t deserve comment.

Perhaps I should have checked with my

colleagues to see if anybody else has gotten any

comment like that. Nod your head no. Doug says no.

Well, there it is.

(Laughter.)

DR. RESCHLY: The third comment has to do

with the use of standing panels. There are many

advantages of a standing panel. They are that the

panel can be trained and can develop a level of

expertise to ensure a level of quality and also that

the reviews meet high standards.

Further, there were recommendations

regarding close alignment of Part D with Parts B and

C; the Fuchs, Deshler, several others suggested that.

Deshler suggested further linking Part D funding to

Parts B and C funding levels. The analysis presented

here today suggests that the relative proportion of

money going to research out of OSEP as a proportion

of B and C funding has declined and actually declined

a significant amount over the course of the history

of IDEA.

Don Bailey had several remarks about

field‑initiated research that I think other persons

alluded to, as well, which I thought were

particularly on point and appropriate. I think we do

get some of our most creative and most useful

ultimately research out of the field‑initiated

program.

Don suggested raising the field‑initiated

research grant limits to at least \$250,000 from the

current \$180,000 ‑‑ they have been at \$180,000 now

for quite a long time ‑‑ to establish two field‑

initiated research cycles each year and then to allow

resubmissions.

Many people ‑‑ based on my experience in

doing grant reviews for OSEP, and it is an onerous

process because you don\'t see the grants until you

get there. You get too many to read after you do get

there, and then you are closeted in a hotel room in

Washington when there are better places, I think, to

review grants, usually without a lot of technology

support.

So there you are making handwritten

comments on a grant that you\'ve read over a short

period of time, and it\'s real difficult for you to

study that grant thoroughly and make the kind of

insightful comments, the kind of penetrating analysis

that the authors of that grant deserve. If we could

improve the review process and allow for

resubmissions, I think we could have the effect of

raising the overall quality of research over time,

certainly a strong goal for all of us.

In terms of research policy and content,

well, there was emphasis from Deshler on greater

analysis of context effects, the scalability and

sustainability. In one particular area in which I

have some limited amount of expertise but a great

amount of interest, that has to do with the use of

alternative criteria for the diagnosis of students

with high‑incidence of disabilities including

learning disabilities.

We have a fair amount of experience doing

that in one state, and a small handful of districts

in other states. Although I am a strong proponent of

those alternative criteria, I personally want to see

studies on scalability. What does it take to

implement those methods in California, as opposed to

a more‑rational place like Iowa, just to choose and

example?

Without that research our great danger ‑‑

and it would be a great blow to things I\'ve worked on

throughout much of my career ‑‑ the great danger is

that we implement too rapidly, implement badly. It

all falls flat on its face, and we go back to

practices that are not supported by research. So I

strongly emphasize this particular recommendation

regarding scalability. We need improved

dissemination efforts and enhanced collaboration

among stakeholders and a better focus on R&D

priorities.

Now, in terms of research content, we

heard from people who are interested in early

childhood special education and early childhood

education; we heard from people that were

particularly interested in inclusion generally; we

heard from people particularly interested in

transition. I do not mean to denigrate anything

about their presentations. But predictably, they all

found the need for substantially greater investments

in their areas.

About all I can say is that if you had

other people at the table with a different set of

priorities or set of expertise, you would see similar

kinds of recommendations coming from them. But I did

abstract from those presentations some of what I

think are generalizable points across different

content areas associated with the education of

students with disabilities.

First is the importance of assessing and

improving outcomes. I have here in early childhood,

in transition, et cetera. But please add to that in

programs for students with behavior disorders,

students with sensory impairments, et cetera, et

cetera. But a strong emphasis on improving outcomes

is a critical challenge for this field.

Second, to improve measurement tools. For

example, the expansion of CBM to include other

subject matter areas; the development or possible

development of national norms for CBM; improved

measurement tools for early‑childhood outcomes in

terms of transition, early‑adult adjustment, et

cetera.

A third common theme that I think\'s

applicable to a broad number of areas has to do with

the requirement or better requirements regarding the

implementation of research‑based practices ‑‑ I\'m

going to go a little beyond what people testified ‑‑

in personnel development. In other words, I think

there ought to be a criterion on personnel

development proposals; that people show that they\'re

using research‑based practices. That

particular section ought to receive a substantial

number of points. More over there ought to be

further statements in the certification or program‑

approval requirements, say those established by CEC,

those that are established at the state level that

would require research‑based practices as a

fundamental part of the training of all teachers. I

mentioned earlier the research on alternative

classification methods and so on.

My last slide, we need longitudinal

studies across areas with regard to transition. Most

of our research on transition right now involves the

first few years outside of school, the first couple

or three years beyond school. One of the interesting

things is ‑‑ I was only involved in one study of this

and I was a consultant to it, which means I couldn\'t

do anything but they paid me more than I was worth ‑‑

was the interesting perspective that, if you compare

the ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 10)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. RESCHLY: (Continuing.) ‑‑ employment

rates of students with disabilities to the employment

rates of other youth of 18, 19, 20, 21 years of age,

you\'d be surprised how many other youth never

identified as having disabilities are also unemployed

or marginally employed or their employment is

extremely unstable. We need better longitudinal

studies, particularly beyond what happens in the

first two or three years outside of the cessation of

special education programs.

Finally, there is the personnel

development issue. The infrastructure for research

depends very heavily not just on better funding,

better review processes, but it depends very heavily

on sophisticated personnel who can design, implement,

carry out, interpret that kind of research.

We are very concerned as a field about

where do we find the young Don MacMillans? We do not

have enough people going into research careers in

special education. I know Don says he is going to

ride off into the sunset in seven weeks, but I am

betting a lot of money against it. I don\'t think

Don\'s career is over as an active researcher. In

fact, I think he\'ll probably do more research because

he won\'t have to go to any more committee meetings.

I do believe that you might not go to

committee meetings. I think there is a pretty good

possibility that you maybe have been in on your last

graduate studies committee, although you chaired it

for a long time I know.

Those are some of the major themes. I

think we ought to open it up for discussion and

further questions of persons on the panel, Madam

Chairman?

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Fletcher?

DR. FLETCHER: I just want to clarify some

of the other points I heard today to make sure that

the panel agreed about these points. One was the

need perhaps to focus a research agenda so that there

were more resources so that research can do a better

job on perhaps fewer priorities. Is that a correct ‑

‑ I mean, if anybody disagrees with that, please let

me know.

The second was ‑‑ and I thought I heard

this certainly from Dr. Kaiser ‑‑ is the need to

separate review from program so that review is a

separate process so that investigators can have

access, for example, to people who might be able to

explain the review to them, but fundamentally a

separation of these activities so that the same

functions weren\'t being done by the same people which

has to be very difficult on staff. Is that okay?

(Pause.)

DR. FLETCHER: Then I also thought I heard

comments that I would have interpreted as a concern

about the ratio of field‑initiated versus directed

research programs which presently, I believe, is at

about a two‑to‑one ration in favor of directed

research. I think, regardless of the amount of

funding, the researchers that we heard today were

recommending some shift in that balance toward the

field‑initiated side.

I thought I heard support for changes in

statutory language about the nature of peer review

and how panels should be constituted, correct?

(Pause.)

DR. FLETCHER: Then I also thought I heard

very clearly an emphasis on studies of scalability as

well. In terms of that emphasis, I\'m really curious.

I know that Part D provides approximately \$58 million

in technical assistance and dissemination. I\'m

wondering if that component is not for scalability,

what is it for? Does anybody know or have an

opinion?

DR. KAISER: I have an opinion. I think

that some of that money ought to be earmarked for

research on technical assistance and dissemination

and that perhaps that is the way we could increase

the overall amount of money at OSEP that is targeted

on research. I have the same opinion about personnel

prep.

If I could claim my third research wish,

it would be that we did research on how to train

teachers. We do very little research on how to train

teachers. Possibly some of our personnel prep money

should go into researching effective strategies for

training teachers, as well as for supporting teachers

in training.

DR. PASTERNACK: I\'m sorry to interrupt,

Dr. Fletcher, but that\'s one of the concerns that I

have that for 27 years into the implementation of

this law, and we are still asking some of these same

basic questions that I think I\'d hoped we would have

answered a long time ago. But thank you for your

third wish.

DR. FLETCHER: So, I mean, essentially

what your thought is is that some of this money ought

to be directed toward research on scalability given

that we\'ve heard several people talk about the

absence of this sort of research. The government has

thought it important enough to institute an entire

federal initiative that focuses on scalability which

is the IERI.

Does anybody have any concerns ‑‑ and

everybody knows that I ask questions fairly obliquely

‑‑ about the fact that peer review is contracted

often with the same support organizations that

compete with grants? Are there ever any concerns

expressed about the fairness of that particular

practice?

DR. MacMILLAN: Jack, could you go further

with that.

DR. FLETCHER: Well, specifically it is my

impression from material that was provided with OSEP

that a substantial amount of the peer‑review

mechanism is done through a contract with an

organization that has headquarters in several

different locations in Washington and elsewhere. But

I also know that this organization competes for funds

from OSEP, and is, in fact, a recipient of contracts

and directed‑research programs. I am wondering if

anybody ever voices concern about the nature of that

relationship.

DR. MacMILLAN: Yes.

DR. FLETCHER: So I am not alone in

noticing that?

DR. MacMILLAN: I would have concerns

about that because I think that we ‑‑ let me say that

I have to preface this by saying that coming from a

university background that when you get a grant at a

university, typically it supports graduate students,

it supports masters theses, dissertations, and so

forth. The federal government for that research

dollar ‑‑ the information is for dissemination very

widely.

The concern I have is that they will

fulfill the obligation of the contract, and it

doesn\'t get into the professional literature and

there may not ‑‑

DR. FLETCHER: In peer‑review

publications, for example. I think the same thing we

could say about the part of Part D that\'s oriented

towards what I think are called studies and results.

I think it\'s about \$15 million, all of which is

contracted out to for‑profit research organizations.

They have, for example, different requirements and

expectations for reporting results relative to what

would be expected if you had a field‑initiated

project.

Then one other question, if I may, Madam

Chair. This is also probably a little unfair but I

feel compelled to point out that I\'m not an

educational researcher by training, but I certainly

do research that people would consider educational.

I\'m really ‑‑ just to take Vanderbilt as an example.

I have very little interaction in my hometown with

people who work in special education departments.

Yet I had no access, for example, to

training funds that are earmarked for students that

want to learn to do research on disabilities. Yet I

train students to work in schools and to research on

disabilities.

I\'m sort of wondering if there are

examples of university programs where special

education training programs interact with other

departments or training programs or things of that

sort. In other words, are we completely dependent on

the personnel‑preparation grants to train people to

do research on children with disabilities?

DR. WOLERY: I don\'t think we\'re totally

dependent on it, but I would suspect that those of us

who aren\'t retiring at least almost all of us were

trained on those. So it\'s been a real important

thing to the field. Most of the productive

investigators who identify themselves as special

educators came from or some of their graduate

training was in those projects.

The other part of your question, I think,

was are there programs that are interacting with

others?

DR. FLETCHER: Do you interact with other

research preparation?

DR. WOLERY: Yes. The University of North

Carolina example is one where there isn\'t a

department of special education now. It\'s special

education literacy and family studies or something.

That\'s traditionally, as many other departments have

been, embedded with other disciplines. So, yes,

there are plenty of examples I think.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Can I respond to both

those points?

DR. FLETCHER: Yes.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: With respect to the

first, I think that if you were to look at the top

tier and then the next tier of special education

departments in this country, you would find that one

of the distinguishing characteristics between those

two tiers is that in the higher tier, most of the

students are full‑time students.

What permits these students to be full‑

time in the overwhelming majority of cases is the

money that comes from the federal government to help

defray the costs of their education. You are talking

about entirely different cultures, as I suspect you

may know and appreciate, between students who can

work full‑time versus part‑time.

Second point is ‑‑ and I\'m not speaking

necessarily with respect to Peabody College of

Vanderbilt University when I say this. One of the

reasons why there isn\'t the kind of collaboration

that in principle all of us, I think, would support

between and among departments in colleges of

education is that the missions tend to be different.

Special education\'s mission tends to be different

from, say, curriculum instruction\'s mission.

I think there are ‑‑ and I\'m not saying

one is right and the other is wrong ‑‑ but there are

just fundamental differences about what is research

and what constitutes evidence and what is good

teaching? Sometimes I think that those differences

are so large as to be irreconcilable.

DR. FLETCHER: But you are talking

specifically about programs within a college of

education?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Yes.

DR. FLETCHER: Just to use Vanderbilt and

Peabody as an example, your department of special

education interacts with a number of other

departments at the university?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Yes.

DR. FLETCHER: It might not be true of the

CNI department, for example.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: That\'s correct what

you are saying.

DR. FLETCHER: Thank you.

DR. GRASMICK: Commissioner Jones?

MR. JONES: I want to go down two paths

possibly. The first one is picking up on something

Commissioner Fletcher was discussing and that is

moving the knowledge out. It\'s pretty clear that

good research can be taken by policy‑makers, for

example, and turned into a hash, let\'s say, how

California has taken class‑size‑reduction research

and turned it into an interesting emptying of inner‑

city schools of more‑qualified teachers.

But it is also clear that there is a lot

of research that gets out and either goes nowhere or

lacks the apparatus to get out. Now, Dr. MacMillan

talked about, for example, at Oregon having the

synergies that are gained by having professional

development or teacher training research and

dissemination activities at one unit.

What could be done with federal funds to

strengthen efforts that are working? What would you

cite as some of the reasons that ‑‑ where have we

been misspending money for 25 years out of Part D?

Are the regional resource centers making things

happen? Are parent training centers effectively

getting knowledge to parents? Where are some of the

areas that aren\'t working now that possibly resources

could be redeployed?

(Pause.)

MR. JONES: Who feels like goring an ox

this afternoon?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Well, I personally

don\'t know what the regional resource centers are

doing to advance knowledge in the field. If you guys

know, enlighten me.

DR. MacMILLAN: I think that one of the

difficult issues is getting a handle on the whole

scope. As I was saying, I would be much more

comfortable addressing my research in this whole

agenda. I think you get into areas ‑‑ I know the

field‑initiated probably the best of the different

components and personnel prep. In the technical

assistance I really can\'t speak coherently on that.

MR. JONES: Is there a way to draw

colleagues of yours who are researchers into some of

the nitty‑gritty of getting materials out into

broader use or to policy‑makers so that they can make

effective choices rather than politically convenient

or advantageous choices?

DR. KAISER: I think there are but I want

to point out the constraints of the academic culture.

One of the reasons that I suggested we do research on

dissemination and we do research on teacher training

is because we\'re in an academic culture where

publishing and conducting research is a huge part of

our job. Simply disseminating is a small part of our

job.

I think there are ways to construct it so

there are incentives that meet both of those systems

at the same time, and it\'s really important to do

that. We couldn\'t recommend to a young faculty

member that they take on lots of dissemination tasks.

It\'s not going to get them tenure. It\'s not wise to

do that as an academic. But maybe there are some

ways to do both.

MR. JONES: Go ahead.

DR. WOLERY: Actually Dr. Berdine could

probably speak to this better. The University of

Kentucky for a number of years ‑‑ 20 now ‑‑ has been

preparing a large number of masters students in very

rigorous programs that are thesis‑requirement

programs, something almost unheard of in colleges of

education.

That\'s had an interesting effect on the

practices in the district where those people

practice. Nearly all of them ‑‑ at least when I knew

about it, Bill; please correct me if I\'m wrong ‑‑

were full‑time teachers during their graduate

programs. That had a way ‑‑ not in two years, not in

three ways, but over time ‑‑ of scaling up

recommended practices that were evidence‑based

because they had that training. That is a long

process but on that I think deserves replication.

DR. BERDINE: Madam Chair, if I may

respond to that for clarification. That\'s the

Training of Rural Educators in Kentucky. TREC was

the acronym for that series of projects funded over

15 years. You\'re exactly right, it\'s one of the only

thesis‑required teacher‑certification programs for

what we call in Kentucky low‑incidence or moderate‑

severe disabilities.

It has produced ‑‑ the last time we

counted, there are nearly 300 published theses coming

from full‑time practitioners. There are no full‑time

people; there may have been one or two full‑time but

it\'s almost 98 percent full‑time practitioners in

rural populations of Kentucky, the Appalachian part

of Kentucky. So it\'s low‑density populations, very

poor, very few resources. They are classroom

researchers.

DR. MacMILLAN: If I may add just one

thing to the question of exporting some of the

expertise. Being involved in a teacher‑credential

program, I\'m shocked at how many of our student‑

teachers are coming back for class work saying that

they are prohibited from implementing some of the

techniques they are learning in the schools they are

going to. We have a young man who is teaching

curriculum‑based measurement in our program. The

principal at the school will not them let them use

it.

I would hope the commission would go

beyond just teachers and recognize that the training

of administrators is woefully inadequate with being

sensitive to students with disabilities. If you

don\'t change that, teachers are going to find it very

difficult to implement some of what they know.

DR. GRASMICK: I\'d like to ask a question.

I think that No Child Left Behind is a unifying

document for this nation. I am very worried about a

research agenda that\'s highly fragmented. That is,

there are priorities of higher education in pursuing

certain topics. There are priorities of pre‑K to 12

education in pursuing certain topics.

How do we ‑‑ yet more accountability is

being given to state departments of education to set

forth a coherent agenda for each state because of the

accountability that is required for No Child Left

Behind. How do we build a pre‑K to 16 agenda or

beyond 16 so that we have a more‑highly, I think,

articulated and coherent approach to what will be

beneficial in terms or research across that

continuum?

(Pause.)

DR. GRASMICK: I will welcome any response

to that.

DR. RESCHLY: In order to gain access to

the reception, I feel like I ought to say something

more up here. So I will try to handle that one. I

think there\'s a huge advance occurring with the

notion of scientifically‑based practices. Coupled

with that, the use of problem‑solving methods that

involve single‑subject design, time‑series analysis.

Single‑subject design is what Mark was referring to

and Bill elaborated on with respect to the programs

in Kentucky.

The Iowa Special Education System is built

around those two concepts. They use heavily, then,

curriculum‑based measurement, et cetera, and other

things that are empirically based. I think the

demand for empirically‑based practice in special

education ‑‑ although strongly advocated by much of

the research community, although not all ‑‑ although

strongly advocated throughout the history of IDEA is

a recent demand with respect to practice. I think we

will see positive results, we will see more effective

programs.

One of the things we have learned very

clearly ‑‑ and it\'s a matter of scalability now from

the work of my colleagues, Doug and Lynn Fuchs ‑‑ is

that if you carefully monitor progress, graph the

results, develop guidelines for making decisions

along with ambitious goals, you get better results.

There\'s no reason why every student in special

education throughout the country should not have a

performance‑monitoring graph.

In the future I think that will be a

stronger expectation, I hope, than whether or not 18

people have signed up off an IEP. When we get to the

point ‑‑ and we\'re nowhere near that in any of the

alternative replacements ‑‑ when we get to the place

where there are more graphs in children\'s files than

long‑signature forms, I think we will have much‑more‑

effective practice.

That\'s the direction we are moving, and we

can certainly be launched further on that path with

strong federal legislation encouraging better

research to practice and the implementation of

research‑based practices.

DR. GRASMICK: Thank you.

Dr. Lyon?

DR. LYON: This is first to Ann, because

you brought it up. Then everybody can help with

this. What does it mean when an academic community

has in place criteria for advancement, promotion, and

tenure which seems at odds with the mission and the

job of the profession? That is, what ‑‑ I mean, one

of the reasons why we\'re looking at 25 years or 30

years or 50 years of frankly a lack of convergence in

some critical areas of research is because of the

fragmentation and the thousand flowers blooming that

has characterized many fields of research, but

education as a profession. Frankly,

one of the strategies in developing Leave No Child

Behind and writing it the way, it\'s written with its

emphasis on making sure that federal money can no

longer be used for that which has not been found to

be effective, is to drive to the colleges of

education a clear message and clear protection that

if you want money, somebody is going to have to start

figuring out these things.

So why in the world ‑‑ you know, a

department chair, you probably have got your own set

of constraints in terms of how you reward in your

department ‑‑ but what in the world are we rewarding

people for for publishing sometimes short‑term

studies with minimal probability of impact, a lack of

convergence of those studies with other studies ‑‑ in

a sense, a lack of a program of research? What\'s the

thinking?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Well, I think that

there\'s a tension. I think that one of the

advantages of a rigorous promotion and tenure system

is that it should produce good knowledge. So, you

know, there is this tension between infusing the goal

for high‑quality work published through a peer‑review

system that\'s reinforced by the promotion and tenure

system on the one hand and being able to have to time

to work with school districts and teachers and to

make sure that the procedures that are researched are

usable in a school setting.

So I think that there are ways for

universities and departments to simultaneously

promote usable practice through a tenure and

promotion system that\'s rigorous in terms of

requiring publications in good journals.

DR. LYON: Right.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: But I also think that

often we look to researchers to accomplish the full

spectrum of activity. I think that\'s what Ann\'s

comment was really getting at. Sometimes I feel as a

researcher I don\'t really control the reinforcers

that operate in schools to change practice.

I think that we all up here do a good job

of getting teachers involved in studying good

practices which simultaneously promotes the

development of their teaching competence. But in

terms of changing school district practice, that\'s a

difficult challenge. We are not really schooled in

how to do that. We don\'t really have the right

positions to effect those changes. I often feel

nixed on this issue.

DR. LYON: I will be a bit more concrete.

We just finished talking with a number of university

presidents about being more thoughtful with their

tenure and promotion practices such that in

professional fields that require accumulating

knowledge, why would you penalize someone who is

doing a longitudinal study who has to await

publication, for example?

Many of these presidents of some of the

finest universities in this country say when they

review tenure files, they still just count

publications. There is no relationship between the

publication except its presentation in a highly‑

respected journal, but that doesn\'t say anything

about its impact on knowledge or on the field.

Nobody is really looking at that that much it doesn\'t

seem to me.

But anyway, asking them to start to think

about ways that young faculty members could receive

reinforcement for carrying out high‑quality, rigorous

research that doesn\'t provide you that, you know,

that publication so you can count those things ‑‑

DR. MacMILLAN: Reid, we also say that

presidents like of the University of California and

chancellors have no influence. It\'s the personal

process of faculty. If you can\'t get somebody in

biochemistry to buy into that ‑‑ even though the

president articulates it ‑‑ the personnel case goes

forward. In the University of California it is

reviewed at the department level.

Then it goes on to the campus, and you

have people from different disciplines on it. Then

biochemists and nematologists and stuff don\'t ‑‑

first of all they think education shouldn\'t be on the

campus to begin with. Secondly, if you come up with

something that is practice instead of being in a

journal, it\'s tough.

DR. LYON: So we\'re just getting there.

DR. KAISER: I think there\'s a stages

thing here, though, Reid. Come on, we\'re old. We

can afford to do longitudinal studies that don\'t pan

out immediately. But I can\'t in good faith say that

to an untenured colleague. Nor is it fair to hold a

new person in the field to the standards that we hold

mid‑career people because they don\'t have access to

the same kinds of resources. They need to do small‑

scale, important research in building things in the

early stages of their career, and later on their

contingencies and resources are different.

I think our expectations for impact belong

there. I\'m with you on that. But I think stages of

career have something to do with it.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: Also, one cannot get

tenure and be promoted at Vanderbilt University

unless the candidate demonstrates a program of

research. That the work be programmatic is a major

criterion.

The second thing is for anyone to be

promoted from associate to full professor at

Vanderbilt University, one of the major ‑‑ if not the

single criterion, is that this candidate has had

significant impact on the field. I don\'t think

Vanderbilt is alone in this kind of orientation. So

I think that there\'s maybe more agreement between how

the universities are rewarding folks and the kinds of

things that you are looking for.

DR. LYON: Thanks.

DR. GRASMICK: Yes, Dr. Pasternack?

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

How do you guys interact with NIDER? By

guys, I mean ladies and gentlemen.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Not much right now, but I

have in the past. I have been a reviewer for them

some long while ago when Naomi Carp was there and had

an active interest in early childhood. I had a grant

from NIDER.

DR. PASTERNACK: How long ago was that?

DR. KAISER: Oh probably 15 years ago, 10

years ago, a long time. But there was a time when

there was a lot of interaction with NIDER. TASH had

a lot of interaction with NIDER at that time because

they had a pretty‑aggressive agenda around persons

with severe disabilities.

This was when Tom Bellamy was the director

of OSERS. There was a lot of conversation at that

time, I think, because of long‑term employability

issues, family issues. Because NIDER was willing to

pick up some pre‑school things that were not at that

time very‑well covered by OSEP.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Doug and I maybe five

years ago had a NIDER‑funded high school literacy

project of research. Most of our work is K‑3, so

that was a foray into high school work. One of the

things we learned is how hard it is to work with

those populations of kids with disabilities. So we

are kind of sticking with K‑3 right now.

DR. PASTERNACK: Is it your sense that

NIDER funding could be more targeted towards kids and

adolescents and even infants and toddlers as opposed

to, I believe, the preponderance of the current

investments are targeted towards adults?

DR. LYNN FUCHS: Honestly I don\'t know

that much about NIDER.

DR. KAISER: One common theme I know is

about families. They have funded a fair amount of

family‑related research that seems like it could be

collaborative with OSEP. That was the priority ‑‑ we

were doing language interventions with families.

That was how that got funded through NIDER.

DR. PASTERNACK: Are you aware, Ann, for

example, of funding we\'re doing on adult mental

health issues, that NIDER is doing?

(Pause.)

DR. PASTERNACK: You are? Okay. Anybody

else?

(No response.)

DR. PASTERNACK: Okay.

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Wright.

DR. WRIGHT: You probably discussed this

while I was running around in the corridor eating

cheese and crackers. But I want to ask this; I want

to say this first. I\'m a teacher at heart even

though I\'ve been a professor and an administrator and

all like that. But it is my sense that many teachers

and many professors, too, want to just teach what

they think they know without going into the research.

Am I right?

How can we ‑‑ maybe we can\'t even answer

this, but I sat here and I thought about this, having

been a charter member of Local 1220 of the American

Federation of Teachers in East St. Louis. I thought

about this. How can we ‑‑ we are all professors and

we\'re this, that, and the other in this room ‑‑ how

can we involve teachers union ‑‑ that\'s AFT ‑‑ in

this research in terms of the practical use of it?

The same with the American Association of

University Professors, what can we say to them, what

carrot can we hold out, and how can we get them to

buy into the kind of thing that we\'ve been talking

about here today? Does that question make any sense

to you?

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: We have ‑‑ Lynn and I

have had productive relationships in the past with

both NEA and AFT. Both teacher organizations have

had divisions that have been very interested in

identifying innovative practices. Trying to bring

them to scale, I think, is too ambitious a term, but

to try to disseminate them. We have worked with

Lovely Billups, for example, at AFT in Washington and

Schneider ‑‑ I can\'t remember his first name at NEA ‑

‑ to get practices out there.

They have had fairly aggressive training

programs for large numbers of teachers. So I think

there\'s a partnership there that should be

cultivated.

DR. WRIGHT: Anybody else want a piece of

that, about the teachers\' unions? They\'re strong,

we\'re strong and we\'ve got to sell this to them in

order to work for our kids.

(No response.)

DR. GRASMICK: Dr. Berdine?

DR. BERDINE: I don\'t have a question,

more a comment to two of my colleague commissioners,

Dr. Lyon and Secretary Pasternack. Over the last

several months I\'ve been working with Dr. Pasternack

and educating him in the ways and wiles of higher

education.

Reid asked a question to faculty and

department chairs about what they could do about the

tenure and review process in talking to presidents

about that instead of talking to people who really

make a difference on campuses. I think that Don

MacMillan addressed that, where presidents of

universities are not in the tenure‑review process.

They\'re at the end of it.

I would suggest that the commission might

want to take a look at the deans and the role that

deans play in providing leadership. I\'ve had a

conversation, Bob, with you in New Orleans about

that. Deans of colleges of education are very

analogous to principals in school buildings. If you

have strong leadership at the dean\'s level, you\'ll

have strong research agendas or whatever other agenda

the dean wants to push.

Presidents don\'t push that. They push

development and fund‑raising. So you might want to

look at that issue. I would suggest the commission

go and address the AACTE and some of the goals that

they have for the emerging deans in colleges of

education.

DR. LYONS: I hope there are no deans here

but, as a matter of fact, we have called in quite a

few deans, and it\'s been deemed somewhat of a waste

of time.

DR. GRASMICK: Commissioner Jones?

MR. JONES: I want to pick up on a

question of the chicken‑and‑egg problem you talked

about, getting quality staff to come to Washington.

I know it\'s something that OERI debates on a regular

basis. When you think about the things that motivate

people to take jobs, prestige, quality of work,

leadership ‑‑ although clearly with Bob, we reached

the pinnacle of quality of leadership that we can

have for recruiting people to come to Washington with

OSERS.

DR. PASTERNACK: Thank you.

MR. JONES: With that excepted, the other

things that are out there, pay, collegiality of the

people they work with are all things that obviously

influence this. But it is a chicken‑and‑egg problem.

How do we get people to go out there to bring

prestige to that process and to want to do that work

and to have better quality work in the first place?

What things can be done to draw those people out, in

your view?

I am assuming that the people we are

talking about drawing are your colleagues for stints

in Washington. What can be done?

DR. MacMILLAN: Let me just suggest that

there are several levels, there are two things. One,

maybe attracting some senior people to come back at a

point in their career where they feel that they have

done their research and would like to see it make a

difference and maybe Washington is a place where they

can do it.

I think there\'s another constituency,

though, and those are the young people coming out. I

think ‑‑ what\'s the value added of coming to OSEP as

opposed to taking a job at the University of

California? I think there was a time when they

rubbed elbows with the leading people of the field

and they saw it as a vehicle maybe as a

steppingstone. They would go in, learn how the

funding picture worked, and would move from there off

into university positions. I think there are many

people we could point to who followed that particular

route.

Another thing, though, is they are not

provided an opportunity to do their own work there.

I think it is much like me looking at administrative

positions. You say if you still get your kicks out

of seeing a manuscript come out, becoming an

administrator you have to put that on the back burner

and work for your faculty.

I think for many of these people, if they

are trained to aspire to publishing and so forth, the

position doesn\'t permit them to do that in addition

to doing the other things.

The other thing frankly is the work load.

They are basically buried with much like the teachers

with the IEP stuff. They are just running

competitions; getting the paperwork in; turning it

around; giving scores; saying you\'re funded, you\'re

not; getting those out. It\'s just overwhelming.

They don\'t view it as a professional job at this

point because it has become so tedious.

That\'s my take on it. Others may have a

different view of it.

DR. PASTERNACK: Does it have to be that

way, Don?

DR. MacMILLAN: No, I think that ‑‑ the

one thing I would say in special education that you

may have picked up and you may have not. Those

little get‑togethers in the summer in Washington with

the project directors meeting and stuff, I think, has

developed a community of special education

researchers where we do know one another. It\'s very

beneficial.

To what extent are OSEP employees a part

of that? We see them because of the project officer

on your grant or something like that. But they are

not viewed as colleagues, and they are not treated

like colleagues recently. I think it is a

disincentive in some ways. That\'s my perception of

the situation.

DR. LYON: We don\'t have the same

problems. I don\'t want to be comparative here, but

just in terms of what the different infrastructures

look like, I won\'t recruit anybody in my branch who\'s

not a tenured associate or full professor. All of

our program officers are that. They are accomplished

and so forth. Their main job isn\'t to crunch the

paper. Their main job ‑‑ their first job is to

figure out what is known in their field, where the

gaps are.

That is done in collaboration with the

field. Then working with the field, they are to

identify specific targets for initiatives. Their

second job is then to foster the research process to

go after that through what all of you have mentioned

today. That is being able to actually guide and

mentor the young scientists as they come along and

help the senior folks if the senior folks desire

that.

So their second piece of work is the

interactions with the field in terms of grant kinds

of things. But their first job is to figure out with

the community what is known, what is not known, where

the gaps are, and then to develop the initiatives and

all that kind of stuff.

I\'m not sure if that\'s possible. It seems

to me ‑‑ that\'s why we keep asking these questions.

Does it have to be that way? This seems to be common

sense, doesn\'t it? I mean, I don\'t know why

everybody is so encumbered by the infrastructure

issues unless it\'s statutory or regulatory. I don\'t

see why we can\'t change that.

DR. KAISER: I really support what you\'re

saying, Reid. One of the things that has happened

over the years is there is very little money for

OSERS staff to travel. That dialogue that goes on

around them being at meetings and being able to do

site visits to a place like Vanderbilt and see

multiple projects and be out in the field with the

research that\'s ongoing, I think, was one of the

things that kept staff really feeling like they were

part of the cutting edge of research.

DR. LYON: Right.

DR. KAISER: That seems to be a really

important thing to do. The separation of program and

review would help enormously.

DR. LYON: It would.

DR. KAISER: I think it might also be

important to create some really attractive post‑docs

if you could for at least young people for two years

or so create a job where they did some of the staff

functions but they also had opportunities to help

setting the agendas in research or learning something

that would actually advance their career, but not

thinking of them as permanent, long‑term staff but as

bringing in young people with new skills, new energy,

learning something important about the process and

then sending them out into the field after that could

be a way to attract some people and would be very

helpful.

DR. PASTERNACK: As Todd and I were

sitting in half a plane on the runway with the air

conditioning not working, we were talking about how

glamorous it is to travel on behalf of the federal

government.

(Laughter.)

DR. PASTERNACK: So I think that really

people are missing out on an incredible opportunity.

I think ‑‑ you know, just to give you some data, Don,

to support what you were saying. One of the things I

asked when I first came there was what our attrition

rate is. It\'s only 2 percent a year. I think most

organizations would love to have an attrition rate

that was that low.

In our case I think it hampers our ability

to get new people to come in and kind of bring

creativity and energy and passion and new ideas.

Apropos of what Reid was saying, you know, I think

some of these issues are cultural and we can change

the culture ‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

(Tape 11)

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

DR. PASTERNACK: (Continuing.) ‑‑ we have

to change the culture. If they are not statutory, it

makes it easier or maybe not. Clearly it doesn\'t

require statutory change, it doesn\'t require

regulatory change. It requires a change in practice.

I think that is something that ‑‑ given the

discussion that we are having here today ‑‑ we ought

to get about doing.

We are sitting here troubled by why we

haven\'t figured out answers to some of these

critically important questions that we are still

perplexed by in 2002 when we have been at this a very

long time and have spent a great deal of money. I

think that\'s why I asked the question that I did in

terms in give me three things, give me three things.

19

I would invite the rest of you who have

not had that opportunity either today ‑‑ or since the

chairwoman who\'s done an outstanding job today, by

the way ‑‑ is keeping the record open, if you want to

go ahead and submit those to us, we would be very

interested in getting your thoughts on priorities as

we look to \'03, fiscal year \'03, and then \'04 and \'05

and \'06, certainly after the president has been

reelected ‑‑ oh, this is not supposed to be a

political discussion.

DR. MacMILLAN: Let me just add, though,

this field has been hammered by the post‑modernists.

Now we are getting the message from many people, why

would one want to go to work in a place that is

supporting an endeavor the people are saying is no

good?

I think the message has got to get out

from the federal government, as well as other

agencies, that what we are doing is working. I think

we should get some more positive summaries of what we

are doing that does work instead of preaching the

gospel that we are engaged in an endeavor that\'s

getting money based on sympathy, but what we are

doing is not effective.

I think you\'ve heard from people today who

have been very effective in working with some of

these kids. I think, as a general rule, special

education is far ahead today than when I came into

it. I think that positive message has to go out or I

wouldn\'t want to go work in an agency that\'s merely

shuffling paper toward some ineffective endeavor.

DR. PASTERNACK: Go ahead.

DR. LYON: One of the things that I think

you will see coming online in your area, as well, are

a number of FDA‑type of organizations either federal

or private. We are now initiating plans to look at

the research across areas against a set of criteria

such that the consumer, such as teacher or another

researcher or a parent of whatever, can determine if

the research has certain characteristics and so forth

and if the products being used or the technology

that\'s being used actually has been evaluated

according to the principles that you guys have talked

about all day.

So I think there is going to be ‑‑ you

can\'t have a legislative mechanism like Leave No

Child Behind that requires this level of specificity

without providing the community with a summary of

that which has been found to work. I think that\'s

going to be very beneficial.

DR. PASTERNACK: I want to respond to what

you said because I think it\'s very important. I

think life is much better for people with

disabilities today than it was 27 years ago. My

brother ‑‑ God bless him ‑‑ is 58 and has Downs

Syndrome. He started out his life in Willow Brook

which was a horrible place for anybody to live. Life

is much better.

However, when I look at the fact that we

are about to release our 23rd annual report to

Congress and talk about the fact that the graduation

rate for students with disabilities has climbed to an

all‑time high of 57.8 percent, I don\'t sleep real

well at night knowing that over 40 percent of the

kids with disabilities are not graduating from high

school in 2002.

So, yes, we have come a long way. I

encourage people to look down the road that we have

been on. But as I look ahead, we\'ve got so much more

to do. I\'m struck by ‑‑ we hear today about progress

monitoring. We\'ve known about that for a really long

time.

Dan\'s point about our caring who\'s at an

IEP meeting that what\'s in an IEP. We\'ve got so much

more to do and this sense of urgency ‑‑ you know,

I\'ve come to Washington, I see how quickly time goes,

I see how large the job is, how cumbersome, how

difficult. There are all these different competing

points of view and competing interest. People have a

specific agenda, a lack of consensus. I\'m fond of

Margaret Thatcher\'s line that consensus is the

absence of leadership. It\'s easy to be the leader

when everybody agrees.

I think one of the challenges for the

commission ‑‑ this is the first time, by the way, in

any of our meetings that we\'ve had this kind of

interaction. I think it\'s really helpful. You can

see the task before us, how difficult it is to

recommend to the president ‑‑ and this is just one of

the nine areas in the executive order, the research

agenda.

It\'s not synonymous with the

reauthorization which is not synonymous with what

we\'ve got to do in terms of improving results for

kids with disabilities, which is not synonymous with

what we\'ve got to do for adults with disabilities,

and on and on and on.

So it\'s incredibly overwhelming. I

imagine that\'s one of the reasons why there is such a

sense of urgency and there is ‑‑ at least on my part

‑‑ such a desire to do the right thing and to

struggle to figure out what\'s the right thing to do

in each one of these areas. So I appreciate what we

are talking about here.

We have heard wonderful presentations of

early‑childhood issues and a lot of needs there.

We\'ve talked about employability, we\'ve talked about

transition, we\'ve talked ‑‑ well, we really didn\'t

talk about autism. There are so many things that we

haven\'t talked about. This is daunting to think

about where we need to go.

I just want to express my appreciation to

all of you for the work that you\'ve done and that you

do, and the fact that we are going to continue

struggling to make a difference and make a difference

differently than we have in the past. I think that\'s

one of the challenges that we face.

DR. WRIGHT: I think the Chair said I

could talk next. This question is for any of the

panelists. Here I go again. I am not as familiar

with the Office of Special Education Programs as some

of you are, but I just wonder ‑‑ and I\'m from ‑‑ most

of my higher education work has been done at a

historically black college. I just wonder if there

is a pool in some of the historically black colleges

for researchers.

With the economy sort of being like it is

and, you know, really some genius black people or

Hispanic people maybe went into business or computers

or stuff like that. I want to know ‑‑ Dr. Fuchs, you

just look to me that you might know the answer to

this. How involved with some historically black

college and university people ‑‑ professors or deans

or presidents or whoever be involved in research in

OSEP, do you know?

DR. MacMILLAN: Yes, OSEP funded the

outreach programs and one was to ‑‑ the first one

went to Reginald Jones at Hampton University which

was the research component. The training program

went to Alba Ortiz at the University of Texas.

Subsequent to that, it was moved to the University of

Virginia.

They have involved historically black

colleges and universities throughout the process and

brought in a mentor program faculty members there to

assist in preparing them to do research grants and so

forth.

So there has been ‑‑ I don\'t know what

year those started ‑‑ for quite a period of time now.

DR. RESCHLY: There\'s been a similar

effort to increase the amount of personnel‑

development funding at historically black colleges

and universities and other minority institutions.

It\'s been led by a unit here at Vanderbilt

University, the Alliance Project led by Deb Smith and

her staff.

Deb was here earlier this morning, but her

son is ill and she didn\'t make the rest of the

presentation. She might show up for the reception.

If she does, I\'ll try to introduce you. But there

have been a number of efforts funded by OSEP along

those lines.

DR. WRIGHT: It just seems to me that

there would be a pool there for young researchers or

old researchers or whatever. Thank you.

DR. LYNN FUCHS: If I can, I would just

like to reinforce the idea that we described of some

type of FDA. I know there are these efforts underway

by both foundations and organizations. I think that

that kind of process where the criteria for judging

evidence are clear to all communities, the research

community, practitioners, accrediting organizations,

and so forth would really have a potentially

important function so researchers know what evidence

is going to be required to be able to get their

product disseminated and schools know what they are

looking for in terms of practices that might increase

outcomes and so forth.

So I think that that is a potentially

centering activity that could really enhance

practice.

DR. LYON: I think some of you today have

mentioned today the very critical issue of multiple

methodologies being available for funding. I think

you and I were talking about that earlier. One of

the things that some constituencies have done had

polarized the quantitative/qualitative kind of thing.

It\'s kind of a ridiculous polarization.

Be that as it may, it is interesting that

we don\'t have a very good understanding at least in

published form of what constitutes criteria for

qualitative studies. So there is a panel that will

be working on that for the next year or so with

hopefully the best qualitative people we can find

that will provide the community with an NRP that\'s

related to qualitative stuff and likewise for second‑

language learning studies. So those things are in

the works.

DR. DOUGLAS FUCHS: One of the other

dimensions of an FDA or a joint dissemination/review

panel that establishes explicit criteria for

validated practices ‑‑ one of the things ‑‑ and, Bob,

I think you\'d be interested in this. One of the

things that works against special education

researchers\' efforts to disseminate their work, bring

their work to the schools is that oftentimes schools

are involved in practices that have no demonstrated

validity and, yet without any rational basis, cling

to them dearly.

One example is accelerated reader which

some of you may have knowledge about. I mean, this

program spreads like crabgrass. I encourage anyone

in this room to try to get data on the technical

adequacy and the efficacy of this program. I tried

for 18 months and I gave up. So it\'s really tough.

The other related point I want to make is that I\'m

impressed, Bob, by your view and that of other

commissioners and other folks in government about the

sincerity of effort to try to move what we know into

practice. I submit that a majority, an overwhelming

majority of my researcher colleagues far‑flung have

the same interest, have the same burning interest.

Many of us have tried very hard and fought the good

fight.

We lack the leverage, we just lack the

leverage. I could tell you stories about our work in

high‑poverty Title I schools here in Nashville. We

get beat up right and left in some schools. There

are some great high‑poverty Title I schools, but in

others terrible stuff is going on. We try to make a

change, and they tell us to get lost.

DR. GRASMICK: I\'d like to add a comment.

It\'s so germane to what you\'ve just said, and I\'ve

been wanting to say this for a few minutes. I keep

referencing back the legislation on No Child Left

Behind and our obligation to all children and why I

think it\'s such a unifying document for this country.

If one examines the 1,100 pages, the major

policy decisions for a state and the major

accountability is going to be vested in a state

department of education. I can tell you as one who

lives that every single day as a state

superintendent. I am concerned about these ad hoc

relationships with institutions of higher education

by a single school. It is not coherent with the

policy decisions being made, and it doesn\'t

accelerate achievement.

So I think when we look at ‑‑ you know,

there is a chain here. There is higher education,

there\'s the research being done there. There is the

school. In between there has to be, in my opinion,

two other steps. One is the interpretation of the

research because it is not often in a usable form.

The second is a policy decision surrounding the

research that is more germane to a state department

of education or a whole local school system policy

than an individual school.

That does not negate the fact that you

don\'t use schools in terms of the research. If you

look at this continuum of things that have to happen,

I think there are missing pieces now. There really

are. It\'s just what you said. I\'m sure you\'ve

encountered that frustration. We\'ve encountered

years of those relationships only to find out that

legislation had to be passed to totally restructure a

school system that had those schools with individual

relationships that, as Reid Lyon said, were a

thousand flowers blooming but nothing was happening.

I just want to pick up on something Bob

Pasternack said, this sense of urgency. In every

single meeting when we have public comment, when we

think of the consumers being parents and children,

this is the only second grade opportunity this child

will have, the only third grade opportunity. We just

can\'t keep waiting. I\'m sorry; I\'m very passionate

on this.

DR. PASTERNACK: The kids in Maryland are

very lucky to have you as their leader.

The issue that you brought up, Doug,

there\'s no right way to do the wrong thing. One of

the things I\'ve just found out at Commissioner Lyon\'s

urging, I went to ARA and spoke there and found out

from those folks that was the first time in the

history of ARA the assistant secretary from OSERS had

ever spoken at an ARA meeting.

So I think that what we are trying to tell

you all is that we need your help. We want to

integrate science into policy, we want to integrate

science into politics. I think the president is

encouraging that and is committed to that in the way

that no other leader of the free world has ever been

committed to that. But we need your help in order to

do that. We need the best science, we need the best

evidence.

It\'s got to be rigorous, it\'s got to be

methodologically sound, and we have got to quit

picking on personality and focus more on the issues.

I think some of the ‑‑ I worry that some of the

dialogue that we have is not constructive. It\'s

destructive, it\'s not designed to move evidence and

science forward. It\'s more of a personalized agenda.

It\'s disturbing.

I want to again thank you all for the work

that you do. Certainly, Don, since you\'re retiring,

we wish you well. You better invite us all to what

must be one hell of a party you\'re going to have. We

expect to be there.

DR. GRASMICK: I don\'t know if there are

any other comments to be made.

DR. WRIGHT: I have one other comment.

The president is really very passionate about being

inclusive in terms of diversity. He really, really

is. He wants ‑‑ I know he wants historically black

colleges and other minority people included. He

really does. I know him personally, I have worked

with him, I have campaigned, I have talked with him.

He really wants us to be inclusive in terms of

diversity.

Do you know what I\'m talking about? I

really have to put forth that. The other

commissioners put it forth, too. But I know I have

to put it forth, and I am passionate about putting it

forth.

DR. GRASMICK: In conclusion I would like

to say we are privileged to have had all of you

present to us today, to interact with us. I feel a

tremendous sense of optimism about the future knowing

people like you want to join hands to make this work

on behalf of our students. Thank you.

(Commission meeting concluded at 5:15

p.m.)