IES Blog

(A Dear Colleague Letter sent to Chief State School Officers on February 23, 2023.)

Dear Colleague:

As state and local education agencies leaders reflect upon the successes and challenges of the 2022-2023 school year—and the opportunity that summer 2023 presents to further support students’ academic, social, and mental health needs—I am writing today to encourage you to take full advantage of the services offered by your Regional Educational Laboratory (REL).

The REL Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, supports educators and policymakers at the state and local levels in the use of data and evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes. All REL services are provided free of charge and are designed in partnership with state and local partners to meet their specific needs. Each REL is led by a Director with deep expertise in education policy, practice, and research who can help you navigate how best to leverage REL supports to address your state’s most pressing needs. A list of REL Directors, including their contact information, is attached.

Your REL can support a wide range of state and local initiatives. They include:

• Analyzing student progress and outcome data (e.g., achievement, chronic absenteeism, graduation rate, English language proficiency) to understand the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Your REL can analyze longitudinal student data provided by the state or district partners to better understand the trajectory of student performance prior to the pandemic, during the pandemic, and today. When disaggregated by student group, school characteristics, or other relevant features, these analyses can support decision-makers in focusing resources, monitoring improvement, and adjusting implementation efforts. RELs Midwest and Mid-Atlantic recently provided similar services for their state and district-level partners.
• Supporting the identification of existing, or the design of new, evidence-based practices to meet students’ academic, social, and mental health needs. Your REL can support state and local efforts to identify practices that prior evidence suggests can promote learning and development. REL Southeast recently published a review on the effectiveness of early literacy interventions across several domains in response to a request from partners regionwide. When high-quality evidence does not exist, or existing practices are not well-aligned to state or local needs, RELs can support efforts to design and pilot research-based innovations.
• Coaching state and local education agency staff on the use of data to improve the ongoing implementation of education policies, programs, and practices. Your REL offers coaching and training services for state and local leaders on data-driven approaches to continuous quality improvement. These services are particularly beneficial when a program is relatively new to a state or district and leaders are focused on timely feedback to ensure an evidence-based practice is well-implemented at scale. REL Southwest recently supported the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s (OSDE) rollout of Oklahoma Excel, a data-driven and job-embedded professional development program for educators in participating districts. A 2-part video series provides background on the program, and the supports REL Southwest provided to OSDE staff who administer the program.
• Evaluating the impact of state or local interventions on important student outcomes. Your REL can support the rigorous evaluation of well-implemented policies, programs, or practices to document those efforts’ impacts on important student outcomes. For example, a 2021 REL Northwest study examined the implementation and impact of full-day kindergarten in Oregon in light of a funding structure shift that incentivized districts to offer the programming. When a rigorous evaluation is not feasible, your REL can advise you on credible, alternative approaches to understanding the outcomes associated with a policy or program.
• Coaching state or local education agency staff on the use of existing REL tools and resources. Through their work with state and local partners, RELs have developed a wide range of actionable resources designed to support the implementation of evidence-based practices. Your REL can coach state and local education agency staff on how to  customize and use tools developed elsewhere to meet your needs. Examples include REL Appalachia’s Community Math Night Facilitators’ Toolkit and REL Southeast’s Professional Learning Community on Emergent Literacy.
• Providing expert guidance to senior state or local education agency leaders. Finally, your REL can leverage its network of internal and external experts to offer guidance on data- and evidence-driven approaches to addressing problems of policy and practice. This “Ask-an-Expert” service is available to senior leaders of both state and local education agencies. A recent REL Appalachia “Ask an Expert” response to a Tennessee-based partner shared best practices for administering and using data from Kindergarten readiness screeners.

REL Directors are routinely in contact with senior education agency leadership as part of their on-going work to better understand the kinds of supports that might benefit states in their region. However, if you or senior members of your leadership team have not yet had the opportunity to meet with your REL Director (or have not done so recently), please consider contacting them at your convenience. I am also glad to facilitate that connection at your request.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the critical relationship between your REL and the Regional Comprehensive Center (RCC) that serves your state. Sponsored by the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, RCCs support state education agencies in their efforts to implement evidence-based policy and practice and realize the goals set in their Consolidated State Plans.

If you have any questions about the REL Program, please do not hesitate to contact me or a senior member of my team.

Sincerely,

Matthew Soldner
Commissioner, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
Matthew.Soldner@ed.gov 

Note: This blog reflects slight edits to the letter sent to Chief State School Officers. References to an attached brochure and a contact list for REL Program staff have been removed.

As part of the IES 20^th Anniversary celebration, we are highlighting NCER’s investments in field-initiated research. In the Adult Education and Adult Foundational Skills series, NCER will be spotlighting researchers and projects and sharing information about research to improve outcomes for adult learners.

In this opening blog, program officer Dr. Meredith Larson defines NCER’s use of the terms adult education and adult foundational skills, which have specific meaning and scope for IES research. Dr. Larson also describes who the adult learners are, why research in this area is important, and the research NCER has supported.

How does NCER define Adult Education and Adult Foundational Skills?

NCER uses the term adult education to refer to a system legislatively defined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). The adult education system serves learners who are at least 16 years old and not enrolled in K-12 through programs such as adult basic education, adult secondary education, integrated education training, family literacy, and integrated English language and civics.

By adult foundational skills, NCER means the common academic skills—such as literacy (reading, writing, listening), English language proficiency, and numeracy—that are necessary for participating in college or career. Nowadays, digital literacy and digital skills are emerging as foundational skills.

As researchers and practitioners in this field discuss how to define their work and purpose, NCER’s use of the terms may evolve

How many U.S. adults have low foundational skills?

Data from the 2017 Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) indicate that roughly 114 to 135 million U.S. adults may have significant or moderate skill gaps in reading or numeracy, with approximately 48 million (23 percent) of adults having significantly low literacy and 69 million (33 percent) having significant low numeracy skill. Having low foundational skills may impede adults’ ability to pursue education or training, participate fully in the workforce, or engage civically.

What is the adult education system like?

Although millions of U.S. adults may benefit from building foundational skills, the adult education system and programs focus on adults with significant skill gaps and those who lack a high school diploma or equivalent.

Adult learners who enter into this system vary widely. They can include people from all regions, races, ethnicities, age groups, and levels of academic attainment, including those with no formal education to those with advanced degrees from other countries. They may be parents, workers, or retirees. They may seek out programs to learn how to read, earn a high school diploma, prepare for employment or college, or pass a citizenship test. The educators who teach adult learners are also diverse. Some have teaching certification, but many do not. The majority of them are part-time. There is also a wide variety of program providers (community colleges, community-based organizations, LEAs, etc.), relevant policies (federal, state, local), and funding sources. The National Reporting System for Adult Education includes descriptive data on students and programs reported to the US Department of Education as part of annual reporting requirements for grantees.

Why is research on this area important? What types of work has NCER supported?

Because of the diversity of learners in the system and the complexity of the system itself, the way forward maybe be unclear without a solid research base to inform policy and practice. Research can provide the knowledge, innovations, and evidence that can help learners, educators, and policymakers make informed choices and decision.

The adult education and foundational skills research portfolio at NCER is small but expanding. Between 2004 and 2021, NCER has invested approximately $51.8 million across 27 awards (grants and contracts) relevant to adults with low foundational skills who are in or eligible for adult education services. Please see a list of the NCER adult education and foundational skills projects funded since 2004: Word file or PDF file).

In the early years of NCER, research addressing adult education and foundational skills tended to focus only on reading, and adults were not the primary or sole focus of the study. Over time, this research has grown to encompass additional skills and education policy, and more studies focused primarily on adults served by the adult education system. The earliest NCER study in this set was funded in 2004 and is a direct ancestor to a 2016 grant to validate a reading assessment specifically for adult struggling readers. Other adult education projects have also built off of early NCER work and have inspired other projects. For example, NCER’s first adult education research and development center, the Center for the Study of Adult Skills (CSAL), incorporated work from one of NCER’s first grants in 2002 and led subsequent development research. Multiple awards in the adult education portfolio also use the PIAAC, as a resource for both research (see here, here, and here) and training grants.

What is on the horizon for NCER research?

One significant recent trend in this portfolio has been the expanding role of technology and digital skills. From CSAL to the CREATE Adult Skills Network and to projects exploring adult problem solving in digital environments, NCER researchers are building knowledge and developing interventions that focus on technology and adult learners’ ability to benefit from technology.

In particular, the CREATE Adult Skills Network is bringing together multiple research teams around technology to support reading, writing, math, professional development, civics/history and English language instruction, and assessment. CREATE is also helping to disseminate information about the role of technology in adult education and the importance of developing adults’ foundational skills.

How can people learn more?

Please visit the project homepage for the CREATE Adult Skills Network and sign up for their newsletters. The network also hosts blogs and podcasts, both of which include discussions of research. People can also visit the IES-wide topic page for adult skills, which curates examples of the work happening across IES relevant to adult education or adult foundational skills.

Dr. Meredith Larson (Meredith.Larson@ed.gov) is a research analyst and program officer at NCER. Her focus areas include postsecondary teaching and learning, adult education, and postdoctoral research training. She was trained in cognitive and instructional psychology and psycholinguistics and has served as a volunteer tutor for refugee children and in adult basic and adult secondary education programs.

In recognition of Black History Month, we asked Dr. Wynetta Lee, Professor, School Administration Program and PI of the IES-funded Research Institute for Scholars of Equity (RISE) Pathways training program at North Caroline Central University (NCCU), to discuss the roles of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and mentoring in the development of the next generation of education researchers.

In this photo, RISE fellows visit VEST, the University of Virginia’s IES-funded predoctoral training program. Pictured in the front row starting 4^th from the left are RISE PI Wynetta Lee, VEST PI Sara Rimm-Kauffman, and RISE PI Marta Sanchez (deceased). 

How have HBCUs shaped your scholarship and career?

I am fortunate to be a third-generation college student—both of my parents and one grandparent attended HBCUs. That makes me a product of HBCUs even though I did not attend one as a student.  During my childhood, my teachers were also trained at HBCUs.  At the risk of dating myself, it is important to note that I was born at a time and in a place where education was mandated by law to be delivered in segregated spaces. This system of education certainly carried a long list of undesirable outcomes. 

I have heard it said that education is a social process, and I count myself as privileged to start my educational journey in an environment that was nurturing and inclusive, yet individualistic when needed. During my elementary school days, everyone in my educational community treated me as if I were their protégé. I had my own village of mentors—all of whom were on the same page when it came to my future. My mentors prepared me for the inevitable experience of desegregation and remained connected to me over my lifetime. They taught me that solid relationships are based on mutual trust, respect, and benefits. They also taught me that not all relationships are the same, yet there is something to be learned from each relationship if you pay attention.

In college, I found another village of mentors who were trained at HBCUs, and they too were on the same page when it came to my future. These scholars mentored me to degree completion and beyond. They gently but clearly pushed me toward graduate education and a career in higher education. They saw potential in me that I did not see in myself. This set me on a path to center my work around issues of educational equity and educational experiences in college.

Professionally, most of my academic career has been at HBCUs. What I have come to appreciate about HBCUs is that the ideal of “students first” is more than a phrase; it is a pillar of campus culture. HBCU students are not simply seen as brains waiting to be filled with knowledge. Rather, I have found that HBCUs operate as a community committed to addressing the academic, social, emotional, financial, and spiritual needs of students within their respective resources, which creates a natural environment for creating a village of mentoring.

What has been the biggest challenge you have encountered, and how did you overcome the challenge?

I have had many experiences with being in the minority and with being “the only one” in a variety of contexts. I would say that the biggest recurring challenge I have encountered in higher education is being judged by people’s perceptions rather than by my skills. There are many things that helped me to overcome this challenge, such as having grit, choosing a positive outlook, and mentally playing out possible reactions to their likely conclusion prior to reacting to the challenge.  However, I think the mentoring relationships that I have been part of over the years is what helped and continues to help me most. Receiving advice from a mentor you trust and who knows you well is an invaluable asset.

What advice would you give to emerging scholars from underrepresented, minoritized groups that are pursuing a career in education research?

My best advice is to develop a community of mentors. Seek out an education researcher to be one of your mentors. It is important to know that pursuing a career in education research does not need to be a solitary journey on a one-way highway. Mentors will help you in ways that you do not know you need and can connect you with opportunities. Also, do not underestimate the value of peer mentors. They have shared experiences with you and perspectives that can give you clarity, and they can be a strong source of support.

How does your research contribute to a better understanding of the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in education?

I am privileged to serve as the principal investigator for RISE at NCCU, which is an HBCU in Durham, NC. RISE seeks to develop a cadre of future researchers who know the rules of rigor and ethics in social science research and can pursue research through a culturally competent lens. While not all RISE fellows may ultimately pursue a career in education research, each will be aware of the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in education and can push for it from their respective worlds of work.

How can the broader education research community better support the careers and scholarship of researchers from underrepresented groups?

The broader education research community can better support the careers and scholarship of researchers from underrepresented groups by making it a priority to do so and investing resources.   

It is important to spread the word that education research is a viable career choice. Students from underrepresented groups are often first-generation college students. These students know about careers in education because they engaged with teachers, principals, and counselors prior to college. However, the students I have encountered over the years—including graduate students—know nothing about a career in education research. People cannot pursue what they do not know.

Mentoring is the cornerstone of RISE. Our mentors share what fellows need to know for success through teaching, sharing experiences, providing opportunities, and through the development of mutually beneficial relationships that are safe spaces. Creating more formal and informal mentorship opportunities within the education research field is crucial to supporting the careers of all scholars, but particularly those from underrepresented groups.

Finally, the broader education research community can also better support the careers and scholarship of researchers from underrepresented groups by being more welcoming of those who do pursue education research careers and by inviting collaborative relationships as they evolve professionally.

Produced by Katina Stapleton (Katina.Stapleton@ed.gov), co-Chair of the IES Diversity and Inclusion Council. She is also the program officer for the Pathways to the Education Sciences Research Training Program and the new Early Career Mentoring Program for Faculty at Minority Serving Institutions, the two IES training programs for minority serving institutions.

February is Career and Technical Education (CTE) month! As part of our 20^th anniversary celebration, we want to highlight the great work our CTE Research Network (CTERN) continues to accomplish. This guest blog was written by James Kemple, Director of the Research Alliance for New York City Schools and the principal investigator (PI) of a CTERN research project that is examining CTE in New York City.

While “college and career readiness” are familiar buzzwords in K-12 education, it has often seemed like system leaders shout “college” and whisper “career.” During the last decade, as it has become clear that a high school diploma has limited value in the 21^st century labor market, career and technical education (CTE) has become a more prominent way to explicitly prepare students for both college and career. For the CTE field to evolve productively, valid and reliable evidence should inform policy and practice, for example by identifying conditions under which CTE may be more or less effective and for whom.

CTE and College and Career Readiness in New York City

One such project is our ongoing study of New York City’s CTE programs. The current phase of the study focuses on 37 CTE-dedicated high schools, which are structured to ensure that all enrolled students participate in a CTE Program of Study from 9th through 12th grade. These programs are organized around an industry-aligned theme (for example, construction, IT, health services, etc.) and offer a sequence of career-focused courses, work-based learning opportunities, and access to aligned college-level coursework. Our study uses an especially rigorous approach to compare the experiences and outcomes of nearly 19,000 NYC students who were assigned to a CTE-dedicated high school between 2013 and 2016 with those of similar students who also applied to CTE programs but were assigned to another high school during the same period.

When our research team looked at the overall impact of 37 CTE-dedicated high schools in NYC, we found that CTE students graduated from these high schools and enrolled in college at rates that were similar to their counterparts in non-CTE high schools. On average, therefore, being in a CTE high school did not steer students away from a college pathway.

Variations in CTE Programs

A much more interesting story emerged when we took a closer look at variation in student experiences and outcomes. In fact, some of the schools produced statistically significant reductions in immediate college enrollment, while others produced increases in the rate at which students enrolled in college.  Why might this be?

The study team identified two possible reasons. First, the schools in our sample differed based on the policy context in which they were created: 21 of the schools were established after 2008 as the NYCDOE undertook a major expansion of CTE in the midst of a larger overhaul of the city’s high schools that included closing persistently low-performing schools, opening new small schools in their place, and creating a universal high school admissions system that gave students access to schools across the city. In contrast to the 16 longstanding CTE high schools—some of which dated back to the early 1900s—these new high schools were smaller, with more thematically aligned sets of CTE programs, and non-selective admission processes. Most of the longstanding CTE schools used test scores, grades, or other performance measures as part of their admissions criteria.

Second, the schools in the study differed in terms of their intended career pathways—and the extent to which these career pathways require a post-secondary credential for entry-level jobs. Notably, nine of the newer (post-2008) high schools focused on career pathways that were likely to require a bachelor’s degree (referred to “college aligned”). CTE programs in the remaining 12 newer high schools and all of the CTE programs in the 16 longstanding high schools focused on either “workforce-aligned” career pathways—allowing students to enter the labor market directly after high school—or “mixed” pathways that require additional technical training or an associate degree for entry-level jobs. Interestingly, each of these groups of schools included a mix of CTE career themes. For example, some health- or technology-focused CTE programs reflected college-aligned pathways, while other programs with these themes reflected workforce-aligned pathways.

We found that the newer, smaller, less selective CTE schools with more tightly aligned career themes had positive effects on key outcomes—particularly those that were focused on college-intended career paths. These schools produced a substantial, positive, statistically significant impact on college enrollment rates. Students in these schools were nearly 10 percentage points more likely to enroll in a four-year college than those in the non-CTE comparison group.

By contrast, the larger, more selective CTE schools, with a range of work-aligned career pathways, were associated with null or negative effects on key outcomes. Notably, these schools actually reduced four-year college enrollment rates.

Applying Lessons Learned

The extraordinary diversity of NYC’s CTE landscape and its student population provides a unique opportunity to gather information about program implementation, quality, accessibility, and costs, and about how these factors influence CTE’s impacts on college and career readiness. A recent report from the project provides new insights into strategies for learning from variation in CTE programs and contexts, as well as particular policies and programming conditions that may enhance or limit college and career readiness.

Recent efforts to enhance CTE, including those underway in NYC, wisely focus on such key elements as rigorous and relevant CTE course sequences, robust work-based learning opportunities, and articulated partnerships with employers and post-secondary education institutions. The findings from this study point to additional conditions that are likely to interact with these curricular and co-curricular elements of CTE—such as providing students with smaller, more personalized learning environments; using inclusive (less selective) admissions policies; and aligning high school requirements with post-secondary options. It will be crucial for policymakers to attend to these conditions as they work to strengthen students’ pathways into college and careers.

Finally, it is important to note that we do not yet have all the information needed to fully discern the impact of NYC’s diverse CTE options. Data on employment and earnings will be crucial to understanding whether students in these schools opted to enter the workforce instead of, or prior to, enrolling in college—and how these decisions affected their longer-term trajectories.

This blog was produced by Corinne Alfeld (Corinne.Alfeld@ed.gov), program officer, NCER.

During our 20-year anniversary, IES would like to reflect upon the important work of Drs. Doug and Lynn Fuchs, who have received multiple IES grants over the years to explore important factors associated with learning and develop interventions aimed at improving outcomes for low-achieving learners and learners with disabilities in math and literacy. Their work as “trailblazers in the field of special education” was recognized in 2021 when they received the “Nobel Prize of education,” the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education.

Doug and Lynn Fuchs are internationally recognized for their intervention work in Response to Intervention, or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), tiered models that include teacher collection of progress monitoring data and offer progressively intensive support for students who are not performing at grade level. Their research and development work has provided training for educators and research project staff and intervention materials to use in tiered interventions for students who are struggling in the areas of reading and mathematics. Their research has also included exploratory work and measurement development to better understand and measure factors associated with risk of disability in reading and math in elementary school children. Their innovative intervention designs take into consideration different cognitive factors such as working memory and executive functioning.

Although Doug Fuchs is well known for his work within MTSS frameworks, one of his early IES grants in 2004 focused on teachers tailoring instruction to meet individual student needs in elementary schools with a diverse range of students. The goal of the project was to scale up Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), an instructional approach developed by the Fuchses in 1997 with increasing instructional differentiation and evidence of reading achievement. For this scale-up study, his research team collected and analyzed data across 2 years from three sites. They demonstrated that implementation of PALS with onsite support for teachers led to significant reading achievement gains, an effect that was strongly influenced by whether teachers were encouraged to modify the PALS program to suit the needs of their particular students. With a NCSER grant in 2009, Doug Fuchs and his research team (including Lynn Fuchs) developed and tested interventions in reading and math to prevent or mitigate disability among first grade students with or at risk for disabilities in these outcome areas. One of the interesting findings from this research related to students with comorbid math and reading disabilities (LD). They found that students with comorbid LD respond differently than those with only math disabilities, depending on the nature of mathematics intervention. However, students with reading disabilities responded similarly whether they had a disability only in reading or in both reading and math. Recently, Doug Fuchs has become passionate about assessment, critiquing how reading comprehension is often assessed in an article he co-authored with Nathan Clemens, “Commercially Developed Tests of Reading Comprehension: Gold Standard or Fool’s Gold?”

Lynn Fuchs is a leader in improving outcomes for students with or at risk of math disabilities. Through a 2009 grant, she and her research team (including Doug Fuchs) developed a measure to predict first graders’ calculation skills and word problem development using dynamic assessment. The measure was found to be more predictive than traditional assessments for early identification of students at risk for a math disability. The team concluded that language, reasoning, and mathematical cognition were important in predicting calculation and word problem solving for these early learners. Lynn Fuchs continued this work in math and cognition with students in second grade, exploring connections between cognition and student calculation, word problem solving, and pre-algebraic knowledge with funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. With a 2015 IES grant, she applied what she learned about the importance of cognition to test the efficacy of a math intervention that embedded working memory training into a previously validated math problem-solving intervention (Pirate Math) for students with poor problem-solving skills. The results of this study showed that general working memory training with ongoing math practice improves working memory and word problem skills; however, working memory training alone is not sufficient to improve word problem solving.

More recently, Lynn Fuchs received a 2020 grant to further research a fraction intervention for fourth grade students with disabilities developed through her work as co-principal investigator on the 2010 National Research and Development Center on Improving Mathematics Instruction for Students with Mathematics Difficulties. In the current replication study, she and her research team are testing the Inclusive Fraction Intervention as a class-wide intervention taught by general education teachers to understand the effect on students with and without math learning disabilities. Lynn Fuchs also chaired the panel for the most recent WWC Practice Guide, Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Intervention in the Elementary Grades. This guide provides six evidence-based practices that can help teachers tailor their instructional approaches and/or their mathematics intervention programs to meet the needs of their students. All six practices in this guide are supported with strong evidence due, in part, to the research conducted by Lynn Fuchs. By the start of 2023, this practice guide has had 62,346 views and 10,468 downloads.

Together, Doug and Lynn Fuchs have pushed the field forward with their leadership. Through their 2013 A3 Initiative project, they developed and tested the efficacy of intensive reading and math interventions for learners in upper elementary grades. The research team demonstrated that both the math and reading interventions were effective in improving  outcomes for students with disabilities. As part of this work, the Fuchses led a meeting with a group of experts to discuss evidence to support the importance of moderator analysis in intervention research. This effort resulted in a special journal issue with several articles on this topic. Their leadership role extends beyond IES-funded work to their involvement in several other national projects, such as the National Center on Intensive Intervention, funded by the Office of Special Education Programs and other national thought leadership activities, such as their webinar on  intensive intervention. The Fuchses have also published articles in practitioner journals outlining how their research-based practices can be implemented by teachers in the classroom, such as “What is intensive intervention and why is it important?”

The impact of Doug and Lynn Fuchs research is far reaching. In addition to leading research projects and publishing articles, Doug and Lynn Fuchs have truly developed capacity in the field of special education research through mentoring and collaborating with junior researchers. The following are examples of researchers who worked with Doug and Lynn Fuchs in the past as graduate research assistants, post-doctoral researchers, or research associates who now lead their own IES-funded research:

• Kristen McMaster, University of Minnesota
  • Making the Right Connections: Improving the Comprehension of Struggling Readers
  • Supporting Teachers' Data-Based Instruction in Early Writing: Tools, Learning, and Collaborative Support
  • Supporting Teachers' Implementation of Data-Based Instruction in Early Writing: An Efficacy Study
• Sarah Powell, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Developing Connections Between Word Problems and Mathematical Equations to Promote Word-Problem Performance Among Students with Mathematics Difficulty
  • The Role of Algebraic Reasoning Within Additive and Multiplicative Multi-Step Problem Solving for Students With Mathematics Difficulty (Project RAAMPS)
  • Math SPIRAL: Specialized Intervention to Reach All Learners
• Jessica Toste, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Collaborative Teacher Expertise in Evidence-Based Decision Making for Reading Intervention: Development of the EXPERT Training Program
  • The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction for Reading (SDLMI-R): Improving Outcomes of Upper Elementary Students with or At-Risk for Reading Disability
• Eunsoo Cho, Michigan State University
  • Project i-SMART: Intervention to Support Mindset and Reading Together
• Jessica Namkung, University of Delaware
  • Exploring Cognitive and Foundational Processes Underlying Pre-Algebra Among Students With and Without Mathematics Learning Difficulties

Doug and Lynn Fuchs have pushed the fields of assessment and intervention development forward, providing new opportunities to understand and support math and literacy outcomes for students with or at risk for disabilities. We are proud to have funded their work over the years, and we are excited to see how they continue to advance the field.

This blog was authored by Sarah Brasiel, program officer at NCSER.