Remodeling US special education research
What is in the report for suggesting reforms of the Institute for Education Sciences?
Editor’s note 6 March 2026: Because the date for the calling legislators has passed, I am resetting the comments so that commenting on the post is closed.—JohnL
The US Department of Education released a report entitled “Reimagining the Institute of Education Sciences” on 27 February 2026. The report presented recommendations developed by Amber Winkler, a Senior Adviser for the department, about reforming IES. It provided recommendations for IES in general and for the centers that comprise IES, including the National Center of Special Education Research.
In this article Special Education Today summarized both the general and the special education recommendations (with a tad more detail, unsurprisingly, on the latter).
To develop the recommendations about changing IES, Ms. Winkler (who earned a Ph.D. in education policy and research from the University of Virginia)1 conducted interviews with leaders of IES, ED, congressional staff members, state and local officials, and others. She reported that “nearly 400” people contributed) and reviewed “over 230 comments” Because the report includes few specifics on the methods for the study (for example, how interviewees were chose, how interviewee statements and publicly submitted comments were coded, or what analytic methods were used) it is difficult to explain how the team that developed the report reached their conclusions.
General
According to a press release from ED about the report, IES has provided valuable work, but it is in need of reform. The release included this paragraph:
Despite its emphasis on scientific rigor, IES has too often delivered research that is slow, siloed, and disconnected from classroom realities. Working with key stakeholders, Dr. Northern has overseen an extended effort to develop this report, which outlines a vision for IES focused on its core mission: “to provide national leadership in expanding fundamental knowledge and understanding of education from early childhood through postsecondary study.”
The ED press release indicated that the report recommended that IES “focus on the most urgent education challenges”; “develop a develop a streamlined and coordinated data strategy”; conduct across-state projects; emphasize practical, innovative, and relevant research; and focus the What Works Clearinghouse on better use of its knowledge base. If implemented, it appears that these recommendations would influence IES functions such as creation or continuation of longitudinal studies of the state and practice of education. The report itself, for example, described work by the National Center for Educational Statistics as having “kept pace with evolving needs.” Examples of these efforts would include the National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Adult Literacy Survey, Common Core of Data, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Schools and Staffing Survey; Private School Universe Study, and some longitudinal cohort data sets such as National Educational Longitudinal Study, Educational Longitudinal Study, Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies (one tracks children from when they began kindergarten and another from birth), High School Longitudinal Study, High School and Beyond; some of these projects began as early as 1980 and continue to be updated.
The data sets that NCES provides are particularly useful for tracking changes in students and schools in general over time. The full report included sections addressing not only NCES, but also the National Center for Education Research and the National Center for Educational Evaluation.
Special education
Readers of SET probably would be especially interested in the report’s recommendations for the NCSER. Before detailing them, however, I should note that the introductory section of the report, which discusses some of the successes of IES, included references to some products (e.g., Class-wide Function-based Intervention, that many SET readers will know) that originated in special education.
The discussion of NCSER, which begins on p. 65 and ends on p. 68, has three central parts. Each of those parts identified a specific concern and provided recommended actions.
First
Problem: The NCSER portfolio tends to be heavy on the study of interventions for students with disabilities but not on the role of special education policy in influencing those interventions.
Recommendation: Revise the NCSER portfolio to include more research on special education policies in alignment with IES’s high-need areas, while reducing the emphasis on interventions.
Such policies might include the impact of special education funding mechanisms, teacher preparation and retention policies, transition policies addressing school to post-school outcomes, inclusion mandates, and policies that encourage public reporting and transparency of special education outcomes.
Second
Problem: AI tools promising to address disabilities are inundating the market with little attention to quality control.
Recommendation: As advised in Making NCER’s work more relevant, one of the eight mandated R&D Centers could conduct research to determine the most effective methods for evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the various AI-powered tools and resources that are emerging in the market.
Third
Problem: NCSER is limited in its understanding of how various factors, such as health, nutrition, and social services, impact educational outcomesfor children with disabilities.
Recommendation: Strengthen cross-agency connections that span education, health, and social services agencies—all of which often have a role in addressing the needs of children with disabilities.
Summary
The section of the report on NCSER ends with a list summarizing the recommendations. It’s headed, “Say it Again.” Here is an image showing that summary.
Readers should make of these recommendations what they will. Overall, the perspective seems to me to be an effort to move IES research—NCSER research, in particular—away from its historic emphasis on studying educational practices, procedures, and methods and toward administrative policy. Some Dear Readers will likely find that shift to be objectionable and others will find it laudable.
Footnote
I remember having a few conversations with Amber when she was a doctoral student, but I recall little about those conversations. I harbor neither grudges nor protective instincts because of our relationship.