Inside IES Research

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.

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. The blog below highlights NCER’s conversation with the Equity Working Group of the IES-funded CTE Research Network. 

The Equity Working Group (EWG) of the CTE Research Network (CTERN) has published a new resource for researchers on using an equity lens in developing and conducting CTE research: The Equity Framework for CTE Research. CTERN is hosting a free webinar on February 21st at 3:00 Eastern to provide an overview of the framework and how people can use it. In this blog, members of the Equity Working Group answered questions about the framework and why it is important. 

The framework has a focus on equity, but equity can mean different things to different people. How does the EWG define equity in this framework?

We strongly believe that every student should have the opportunity to engage in quality educational experiences. Students who are interested should have access to CTE programs, regardless of their background characteristics. And school systems should invest in students so that they can succeed in these programs. Ultimately, we find ourselves quoting the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s definition because it neatly captures our position: “Every student has access to the educational resources and rigor they need at the right moment in their education across race, gender, ethnicity, language, disability, sexual orientation, family background, and/or family income.”

Why did the EWG members believe that there was a need for an equity framework for CTE research?

CTE has a long and complicated history, including extensive tracking under its previous incarnation as vocational education. The CTE Equity Working Group was very conscious of this history and wanted to take steps to help ensure that CTE research was helping to ameliorate current inequities. As we say in the framework, “We believe that infusing equity throughout our research is critical to ensuring that research can make a difference in promoting equitable learning experiences and outcomes for all students who participate in CTE.”

We also recognized that many researchers (including ourselves) want to use an equity lens to do their research but lack practical guidance in what that looks like. The working group believed that a framework with concrete examples and tips would help CTE researchers have a clearer picture of what to do and would provide a tool for helping them think differently about their work.

How did the EWG create the framework?

This was a collaborative process that grew out of our first CTE Research Network meeting in 2018 or 2019. A group of us realized that incorporating an equity lens into our work would help us better answer questions that matter to communities. We decided to form a working group, which ended up including around 20 or so researchers, practitioners, and policy staff. We read a lot of good frameworks from different organizations on improving our research practices, so we decided to invest our energy in seeing how it may be applied to a CTE context.

How is the framework structured and what are some key takeaways?

It is important to note what this framework is and is not. This framework is not intended as a methodological primer or a replication of existing research guidance; it is intended to encourage researchers to think about their own work through an equity lens.

The framework starts with a brief history of equity in CTE, a description of the process of creating the framework, a list of vocabulary (we believe having a common language is critical), and a statement of the values that underlie the framework.

The rest of the framework is then organized by six stages of research: 1) project management; 2) research design, 3) measurement and data collection, 4) data analysis, 5) cost and resource equity, and 6) reporting and dissemination. In each section, we include a description of how to implement the stage with an equity-focused lens, with questions for researchers to consider and potential barriers. Throughout, we have included examples from current and future CTE research. We are looking for more examples, so people should feel free to reach out to us at jedmunds@serve.org to share how they are doing this work.

In creating summary products to go along with the framework, we identified six themes that cut across the different stages: ensure transparency, involve the community, develop diverse teams, take a systems approach, acknowledge and attend to bias, and demonstrate respect. These themes are summarized in an infographic.

How do you hope that people will use the framework?

We hope this will help start or further conversations among CTE researchers. We structured the framework around each stage of the research process, so anyone engaging in this work can find elements to incorporate or questions to consider individually and as a team, regardless of where they are in their work right now. For studies just getting off the ground, we did our best to illustrate how researchers can build an equity approach from the start of a project through its completion.

What are some examples of how the framework changed individual EWG members’ research practices?

Julie A. Edmunds (co-facilitator): Working on the framework has crystallized three high-impact equity-focused practices that I now try to infuse throughout my work. First, I pay much more attention to the role of systems in inequities. I try to look at upstream factors that might be causing disparities in educational outcomes as opposed to just documenting gaps that might exist between sub-groups. Second, when presenting those gaps (which we still do because it is useful information), I am much more conscious about how those gaps are displayed. For example, we focus on making sure that “White” is not considered the default category against which all others are compared. Third, we are creating processes to ensure that we share our findings with people who gave us the data. For example, we are sending practitioner-friendly products (such as briefs or infographics) to the school staff we interviewed whose insights formed the basis for some of our findings.

John Sludden (member): The framework has helped us think about our internal processes and keeps us focused on our audience, who we’re doing this for. I’m an analyst on the project, and I’ve been empowered to ask questions, conduct analyses, and present to our research partners at the New York City Department of Education. We’re currently thinking about ways to communicate findings to different audiences. At the moment, we’re working on a plan to share findings with principals of CTE high schools in New York City. Organizationally, we are also working on ways to directly engage students in the city, who know more about the system than we ever will. Similar to Julie, analytically, we have spent a lot of our time and attention on looking at the conditions under which students have not been well-served by the system, and ways that students may be better served by CTE.

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

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), first enacted in 2004, specifies how public agencies should provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities and delineates the rights of families to participate in meetings in which decisions are made on the evaluation, identification, and educational placement of their children. However, students with disabilities transition out of IDEA coverage when they graduate high school or reach age 21. This is a particularly crucial moment for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

Under IDEA, parental decision-making rights transfer to students at age 18 unless parents seek further guardianship. This complex issue requires understanding of the options and what they mean for the student. Alleviating any knowledge gaps is important for better transition outcomes for secondary students. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education released an updated transition guide, A Transition Guide to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students and Youth with Disabilities, for high school educators to better equip students on their transition into postsecondary education. The Department also released a brief to better inform students about their rights and the overall transition process as they prepare for postsecondary education and employment.

Allison Hall at the University of Massachusetts, Boston and her research team are exploring the role of special educators in informing youth and parents about transfer of rights and guardianship and its implications for transition outcomes for students with IDD. The project began with a review of the literature, a document review of state-level policies, and interviews with experts in the field of transition for students with IDD. These three initial research activities were followed by interviews with students, parents, and special educators on their experience during discussions of the transition process. We asked her to update us on the project and what they’ve learned so far. (Responses have been edited for brevity and clarity.)

NCSER: Please provide an update of where you are with the project.