Using Special Education Research to Inform Policy

Reauthorization of IDEA: Using Special Education Research to Inform Policy Janet R. Decker, J.D., Ph.D. Asst. Professor, Educational Leadership & Policy Studies Dept., Indiana University Maria Lewis, J.D., Ph.D. Asst. Professor, Education Policy Studies, Affiliate Law Faculty, Pennsylvania State University, Meghan Burke, Ph.D., BCBA-D Asst. Professor, Dept. of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign DRAFT: Conference paper for the 2016 annual meeting of the Education Law Association, Orlando, Florida. Please do not quote or reproduce without permission from authors. Running Head: REAUTHORIZATION OF IDEA 2 Introduction In January 2016, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) published an Issue Brief on the Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (NSBA, 2016). The brief is timely because Congress will shift its attention to IDEA now that the Every Student Succeeds Act has been reauthorized. Special education organizations have also begun to formulate recommendations for the next IDEA Reauthorization (see CEC, Feb. 17, 2016). To contribute a research-driven perspective to this policy discussion, we have begun to conduct a review of the most-highly regarded special education research published since the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA. In 2004, Congress criticized that, “the implementation of [the law] has been impeded by…an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities” (20 U.S.C. § 1400 (c)(4)). Moreover, the Congressional findings found within the last Reauthorization of IDEA (2004) state, Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by—(A) having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible...(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home; (C) coordinating this title with other local, educational service agency, State, and Federal school improvement efforts..; (D) providing appropriate special education and related services, and aids and supports in the regular classroom, to such children, whenever appropriate; (E) supporting high-quality, intensive preservice preparation and professional development for all personnel who work with children with disabilities in order to ensure that such personnel have the skills and knowledge necessary to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities...; (F) providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs of such children; (G) focusing resources on teaching and learning while Running Head: REAUTHORIZATION OF IDEA 3 reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving educational results; and (H) supporting the development and use of technology… (20 U.S.C. § 1400 (c)(5)). Given the significance that has been placed upon the relationship between high-quality research and policy implementation, this paper will include preliminary findings from a study examining the policy implications of the past decade of special education research. Currently, a disconnect appears to exist between special education research and special education policy. To illustrate, we conducted a quick literature search using the keywords “special education” from 2005-2015 in one of the top education policy journals—American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) Educational and Evaluation and Policy Analysis—and, of the 241 articles included in the search, only 9 of these articles included the keywords “special education.” Further, even when articles published in special education journals clearly discuss an element of IDEA, implications for the next reauthorization are not written. For example, a 2015 article in one of the top special education journals—Exceptional Children—addressed research-based reading interventions—which is a topic highlighted in IDEA (Richards-Tutor, Baker, Gersten, Baker, & Smith, 2015). However, the article did not mention “IDEA” or the seemingly relevant policy implications. This limited presence of special education research in policy journals and our hypothesized lack of policy focus in special education journals could be an under-studied consequence of academic silos. That is, special education researchers typically publish in special education journals and policy/legal researchers typically publish in policy/law journals. The purpose of our inquiry is not to evaluate special education research. Instead, we seek to identify, document, and analyze the gap between research, policy, and practice. Our overall purpose is to examine how special education research could inform the next Reauthorization of IDEA. To that end, we have begun to systematically review every article published from 2005- 2015 in the three top special education journals: Exceptional Children, Journal of Special Education, and Remedial and Special Education (N=899). We have analyzed the data gleaned from approximately the first 100 articles published in each journal (n=290) in order to examine the prevalence of explicit recommendations for IDEA relevant to the upcoming Reauthorization. Specifically, our inquiry is guided by three research questions: (1) What is the prevalence of special education articles that have explicit implications for IDEA; (2) Of the articles that have Running Head: REAUTHORIZATION OF IDEA 4 explicit implications for IDEA, what are those implications?; and (3) What are the correlates of articles that have explicit implications for IDEA? Method Eligibility Criteria We included studies if they met the following criteria: (a) participants related to individuals with disabilities or at-risk for disabilities in the United States, ages 0-21 or individuals who worked with such individuals (e.g., special education teachers, families); (b) the article was published in the Journal of Special Education (JSE), Exceptional Children (EC), or Remedial and Special Education (RASE); and (c) the article was published between 2005 and 2015 (book reviews and introductions to special issues were excluded). The rationale for restricting the year of publication to 2005 to 2015, is to only examine the research published since the Reauthorization of IDEA in 2004. The three journals (JSE, EC, and RASE) were selected because these journals publish studies related to students with various types of disabilities; we did not want to include journals which only focused on students with one type of disability (e.g., Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders) or specialty journals focused on a sub-topic within the field of special education (e.g., Topics in Early Childhood Special Education). Further, the three chosen journals are ranked amongst the highest in the field special education research which includes specific disability and specialty journals. EC is ranked 1 by the 2016 Release of Journal Citation Reports with an impact factor of 2.796. RASE is ranked 4 with an impact factor of 2.016. JSE is ranked 13 with an impact factor of 1.415 (Web of Science, 2016). Additionally, these journals advertise that they are seeking, in part, articles that discuss policy. Namely, EC’s “Purpose” states, “Articles published in Exceptional Children must have implications for research, practice, or policy in special or gifted education” (Exceptional Children, 2016). RASE’s “Aims and Scope” explained that “Appropriate topics include, but are not limited to...legislation; litigation; and professional standards and training” (Remedial and Special Education, 2016). A self-described interdisciplinary journal, JSE’s “Aims and Scope” states, “The goal of this journal is to add to current scholarship and provide a sense of emerging directions in the field” (Journal of Special Education, 2016). Running Head: REAUTHORIZATION OF IDEA 5 Finally, our research design was corroborated through previous literature reviews. Similar to our reasoning, prior reviews have included these three journals because they are considered the top special education journals that are not disability-specific or a specialty journal (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2009; McLeskey & Landers, 2006). To further validate our research design, we sought input from faculty from three different Research I institutions who publish in special education journals. Specifically, we asked “What would you consider the ‘top’ three special education journals that address general special education topics? When defining “top,” please consider the most widely-cited, well-respected, and influential journals in the field of special education.” JSE, EC, and RASE were most commonly cited in their responses. Data Source After collecting all of the articles published in each of the three journals from 2005 to 2015, there were a total of 208 JSE articles 406 RASE articles, and 285 EC articles (N=899). At this point, we have reviewed the first 290 articles (i.e., approximately 100 from each journal). Data Collection Once all studies were identified, we coded the studies in Microsoft Excel to collect information on study characteristics

Load more