Merriam-Webster includes the following in the definitions of progress:
“a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : ADVANCE”
“a gradual betterment especially: the progressive development of human kind”
“to move forward: PROCEED”
“to develop a higher, better, or more advanced stage”
Know history – diverse history. Use research to improve education and healthcare so we can move forward not backward. Image created by Dr. Nixon’s description provided to Adobe AI.
Imagine.
Pause. Imagine that it’s 1990. You are in a wheelchair. You do the same work as your peers, but you get paid less. You can’t go to a movie theater because there aren’t accessible seats.
Do we really want to go back to that?
That was life before the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that includes Section 504. Section 504, the section being the one currently being challenged by attorneys general in 17 different states with Texas v. Becerra.
In an essay written in Time on February 19, 2025, Rebekah Taussig wrote:
“In many ways, Section 504 has operated as an almost invisible protection – easy to take for granted. And in doing so, we’ve been able to continue the fiction that disability is something that happens only to others. The undeniable fact is that every one of us will acquire a disability if we live long enough. Disability is an experience we can move in and out of over the course of our lives, and disabled people are the only minority group anyone can become a part of at any moment. Section 504 is not a law for “those people.” …
As with much of U.S. politics right now, Texas v Becerra feels like a reckless attempt to pull us back to a former time. But there is one crucial difference between 1977 and 2025. More than one generation of disabled children has grown up under the protections Section 504 provides us. And while the politicians are still reciting the same script, our revolutionary predecessors gave us a new story. We are a valuable part of our communities, we belong here, and we’ve been shown how to fight.”
It was because people were (and still are, just check Supreme Court Cases) treated differently based on their race, religion, national origin, (dis)ability, gender (and gender identity), and sexual orientation.
If you think that shouldn’t be a concern, just take a look at what Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga) said when asked about school lunches after Trump proposed a federal funding freeze that could affect nutrition support for children: “Before I was even 13 years old, I was picking berries in the field, before child labor laws that precluded that. I was a paperboy and when was I was in high school; I worked my entire way through”.
Use of the phrase “back in my day” to dismiss concerns
Just because something was one way in 1954, doesn’t mean it should continue – particularly when it comes to civil rights.
Disclaimer. This post is not medical or legal advice.
The information provided in this blog post is for educational and informational purposes only. It is based on historical research, analysis, and interpretation, which may be subject to varying perspectives and ongoing scholarly debate. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented, I do not guarantee its completeness or infallibility. Historical accounts can be complex and nuanced, and my interpretations reflect my understanding of the available sources at the time of writing.
This blog post may also contain personal opinions and reflections on the historical events and figures discussed. These opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of others. They are offered as a basis for discussion and further exploration of the topic.
Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult multiple sources to form their own informed opinions. I am open to respectful discussion and feedback on the content of this blog post, and I acknowledge that historical understanding can evolve over time. Any errors or omissions brought to my attention will be considered and, where appropriate, corrected.
By reading this blog post, you acknowledge that you understand and agree to the terms of this disclaimer.
Many people talk about university researchers as living in the “ivory tower” unaware of the needs of people in society.
I challenge you to pause for about 10 minutes and watch this video courtesy of PBS News to better understand potential long-term impacts of Trump’s cuts to research funding.
(And yes, I know the video is about medical research funding, but the same applies to education. Also, NIH funds more than medication research. They fund research into child development, reading, language, speech production, and so much more.)
PBS News Hour clip about Trump’s cuts to medical research funding (2025). This is a wonderful summary.
Beyond that video, did you know that research grant funds also help pay tuition for students working in those labs? Yes. They can make higher education more affordable.
It’s part of the reason most grad and doctoral students look for labs with funding.
If research funding is decreased, then we may end up with less socioeconomic diversity in higher education due to the cost.
If research funding is decreased, then students who choose to pursue higher education degrees are likely to have higher student debt.
What can you do?
Contact your representative and senator
Speak UP! Post on social media!
Disclaimer. Information provided in this post by, Stephanie M. Nixon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is provided in good faith. Nixon Speech and Language, LLC makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information supplied by other sources.
Information provided here is for informational purposes only.
If you don’t need this article to realize the necessity of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and their role in funding high quality independent educational grant research, then please sign this petition in an effort to halt actions by DOGE and the current Presidential administration: https://chng.it/vjdYGZw9wz
If you just need the numbers to sign the petition:
2024 entire Federal Budget was $6.75 trillion.
IES had an $807 million budget in 2024
Between $800 million and $1 billion in IES research grants were cut by DOGE (Grants are paid over multiple years. See the note below.)
Note. In this Washington Post Article posted 2/13/2025 by Meckler and Natanson, Nat Malkus, a senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute DOGE may have overstated the cost of the canceled contracts because many of the contractors were several years into the agreements, meaning the money has already been spent.
In other words, canceling the grants right now likely caused more waste, especially if the studies cannot be completed due to lack of funding.
Other reasons to sign:
IES is part of the accountability arm of the education system
Studies are being cut short including one called, ReSolve designed to help students learn math faster.
Federal funding cuts including grant funding to researchers at the institutions is devastating. This article in the GW Hatchet by Jenna Lee (2/11/2025) addresses lawsuits related to the NIH Federal funding cuts
DOGE cut additional resources within that funding including:
Common Core of Data, primary database of all K-12 schools with enrollment, demographics, and other information is collected
What Works Clearinghouse: a project that has been essential to facilitating decisions for administrators and educators (see below for more)
School Pulse Panel: began surveying K-12 public schools about education related topics
Studies about international education
Career and technical education
Early childhood education
Contact your congressmembers. Protect this funding so our country can move forward with improving our education system on the whole vs. backwards. We need independently funded research. It is paramount.
I posted this in a previous post, and I’m posting it again.
If you need more convincing or just want some background, then read on.
Briefly…why do we have a Federal Department of Education?
Before we can discuss the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), we need to consider, why do we have a Federal Department of Education (DoEd)? Can’t the states do everything?
Time machine:
Let’s hop in our “time machines” and review history:
Non-cabinet level agency with Henry Barnard as the first commissioner (and a staff of 3 and only 2 rooms)
Objectives:
improve American education by providing strong education information to local- and state-level authorities without having official control of the authorities in the states
collect statistics and facts to show educational progress across states and territories
Henry Barnard
He deserves his own post (if I have time). For now, review the Barnard Papers and the information from Cross and Islas. Barnard had to collect data from the schools and send it to practitioners. He and his small staff produced reports and research to help give a context for education.
July 20, 1868: Congress decided the the efforts by Barnard was a waste of national resources, reduced the funding, and then on June 30, 1869 removed the DoEd’s independent status and relabeled it the Office of Education with the Department of Interior.
1870:John Eaton served as the US Commissioner of Education until 1886 with only a $6000 yearly budget.
1889 to 1906: Commissioner William Torrey Harris continued the data collection and expanded it to include public and private elementary school enrollment.
This path continued, the name changed and shifted. In 1953, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. More funds were available due to political and social circumstances.
In 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson emphasized the need for education to fight poverty leading to the Higher Education Act (1965) and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965).
Now, it’s 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Department of Education Act
This established the Federal Department of Education as a cabinet-level department.
What kind of funding did DoED receive in 2024?
Per USAfacts.org, DoED received 4% of all federal funding in 2024, totaling $268.35 billion.
Originally posted by USA FACTS.
DoEd is the smallest of any cabinet-level department with about 4,100 full-time employees (as of 2023).
What is/was the function of DoEd as of 2024?
Note. Given the unknowns related to what data/websites will remain available under the current administration, I cannot guarantee the existence of any links to federal websites. If you click a link and it is gone, then please contact me and I will do what I can to find the information and make it accessible (when possible).
“Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual;
Supplement and complement the efforts of states, the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the states, the private sector, public and private nonprofit educational research institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve the quality of education;
Encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in Federal education programs;
Promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education through Federally supported research, evaluation, and sharing of information;
Improve the coordination of Federal education programs;
Improve the management of Federal education activities; and
Increase the accountability of Federal education programs to the President, the Congress, and the public.”
As noted on the about page for DoEd, the mission “is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access for students of all ages. Learn more about our mission, offices within ED, key initiatives, and more.”
What is the Institute of Education Sciences (IES)?
promotes high quality comprehensive research to expand knowledge of children and youth with or at risk for disabilities
age range is infancy through post-secondary education
ERIC: Repository of education related information including journal articles, dissertations, and other such resources
Importance of IES
IES is how we improve education. Under this institute, there have been education advances. Chester Finn wrote commentary on February 12, 2025 about this current situation with funding cuts to IES by DOGE. IES in its current form “corrected much of what was weak and wasteful in the previous arrangement —and the new agency got off to a strong start under the leadership of Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, who strove with considerable success to see that its work would be conducted as proper scientific research—controlled experiments, etc.—and data gathered and reported with objectivity and integrity”.
Information for this post was pulled from these webpages (citations also linked within the post itself as appropriate):
Disclaimer: Including these links is not intended as Nixon Speech and Language, LLC’s or my an endorsement OR agreement with information created by the authors, companies, institutes, or websites. If you find factually inaccurate information in my post or a link, then please let me know and I will adjust.
Disclosure. I am writing this as a supporter of strong education science and research. I am writing this as educators need rigorous peer-reviewed randomized studies to facilitate decisions. In my opinion, they also need access to quickly disseminated information as is available in What Works Clearinghouse. I am concerned at the likely negative outcomes for all children, but particularly those with learning disabilities or at risk for learning disabilities.
I worked at the Institute of Education Sciences from January 2004 through about March 2005 in the National Center for Education Research. I saw the amazing research. I watched the peer reviews.
Disclaimer. Information provided in this post by, Stephanie M. Nixon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is provided in good faith. Nixon Speech and Language, LLC makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information.
The opinions expressed in this post, are exactly that, opinions of Stephanie M. Nixon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP.
[…] distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License Version 3 (GPLv3). Essentially, this license guarantees you the…
[…] posted this in a previous post, and I’m posting it […]
[…] Toward Equity in Health Care for People with Communication Disabilities. You can also review disparities associated with health insurance…
Note. This is an updated version of an article I wrote in 2021 for Apraxia Kids. The main reference was to childhood apraxia of speech research, but this applies to research across the sciences.
Some current (2025) actions by the executive branch make information of utmost importance. Some changes threaten sources of independent research funding.
What is evidence-based practice?
You may have heard speech-language pathologists (SLPs) saying “evidence-based practices” when describing a specific treatment approach. Such practices are based on scientific evidence and professional experience while considering your child’s specific needs.
Scientific evidence is used by SLPs, educators, and medical professionals (among others) to guide interventions and strategies could help a person based on their specific needs.
There is not one approach that works for all people, especially not for all children with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS). There are some approaches that have not been studied at all or have been studied with research methods that don’t allow for very strong conclusions.
What is scientific evidence?
Scientific evidence is empirical data that is collected and interpreted using the scientific method. This is evidence that serves to support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis and is derived from controlled studies.
Is all scientific evidence high quality?
Simply put, no.
Well-designed research studies are more valuable tools than an anecdotal opinion.
What are the levels of evidence?
Additional information about evidence-based interventions as defined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) from the California Department of Education.
Let’s summarize…
The lowest form of evidence = opinions based on “experience”
Best form of evidence = pulling multiple randomized controlled trials into guidelines or a meta-analysis
Anecdotes are not evidence especially when these anecdotes are offered by (or on websites of) people/companies with a commercial interest.
Note. Researchers/organizations obtain grant funding by applying. Even then, there is a review process to determine whether they receive the funding.
Applications are peer reviewed by field experts who determine whether the application meets the criteria among other standards.Why does commercial interest matter in speech-language pathology or education?
What is a commercial interest? Earning money by selling a product OR saving money by not providing a service. (The latter is more relevant to health insurance – at least for now.)
Example: Dr. Blah at company XYZ creates and markets a program to teach math. If it is sold to school districts, then they will make money. Now if XYZ and Dr. Blah are the only ones who research the program they are more likely to determine this “works”.
What can decrease the quality of evidence?
Specific to CAS treatment research studies, look for study limitations (e.g., small sample size, inconsistent implementation of treatment approach, lack of a control group or condition, pre-treatment differences between groups, analysis performed by non-blinded outcome assessors, etc.).
Do we have much of the Level 1 standard research for Childhood Apraxia of Speech treatment?
No. We have a few meta-analysis studies and systematic reviews available.
Here are some systematic research reviews (most summaries by the American Speech Language Hearing Association in their Evidence Maps):
Murray, McCabe, and Ballard (2014) concluded that of the research articles they analyzed, at least 3 treatments had sufficient evidence for Phase III clinical trials. Those treatments were Dynamic Temporal and Tactile Cueing (DTTC), Integrated Phonological Awareness, and Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment.
Ng, McCabe, et al. (2022) found an evidence base for the use of Rapid Syllable Transition Treatment (ReST).
Springle, Breeden, et al. (2020) found limited higher dose and frequency of motor programming treatments appeared most effective for children with CAS.
SLPs can look at the “evidence” to determine which approaches are most likely to work. The evidence includes the research available and the patient’s unique needs.
What characterizes a strong treatment research study?
Diversity in the population? (i.e., Gender? Race? Ethnicity? Primary language? Age – depending? Diagnoses? Socioeconomic status (SES)? Geographic location? Gender identify and expression? Disability status?)
Why do we care about diversity in the sample ?
Simply put: Inclusivity matters. The linked 2023 article by Alice McCarthy details the need for inclusive clinical trials.
Yes, we’re dealing with speech-language therapy trials vs. drug trials; but, that doesn’t change the need to ensure a representative population. This might advise a research of possible barriers to care as well as how to address the barriers.
Randomization: There are many types of randomization as described in the article linked (Lim & In, 2019). Randomization helps researchers eliminate/minimize accidental bias (including selection bias).
e.g., We want to ensure that patients weren’t chosen to receive the “treatment” group merely because they seemed to have more or less speech sound errors.
Bias in research
Bias in research is beyond the scope of this article. If you’d like to learn more, here is one journal article by Pannucci and Wilkins (2010).
Internal consistency indicates that several items measuring the same idea generate similar responses.
External consistency is the degree to which results are consistent with prior research.
Specific to consistency of analysis, we want to know how reliable were measures of patient performance. What was the level of agreement between/among therapists? How about a novel therapist?
Were the control and treatment interventions provided as intended? For example, did the SLPs administering the interventions stay within the guidelines provided by the research study? Did they introduce any concepts not included in the study?
Was the same modality of treatment used across patients in each condition? (in-person, telehealth, etc.)
Example.
(1) SLP working with a child in the “control” group includes some of the techniques from the “treatment” being tested and child shows progress in the “control” intervention.
Does this mean the “control” intervention works? No. It means the SLP did not follow the research protocol in the “control” intervention.
(2) SLP working with a child in the “treatment” group includes techniques beyond those described by the researchers as part of the treatment program (e.g., visual aids, cues, etc.) and the child shows progress with the “treatment” intervention.
Does this mean the “treatment” intervention works? No. It means the SLP did not follow the research protocol in the “treatment” intervention.
Other important factors
We also need to consider the presence of other factors that could explain improvement or regression (including whether these were controlled in the study). and whether these are controlled (e.g., if a child also received treatment elsewhere, or if a child started school, or had a medical procedure).
Was the child receiving treatment beyond that supplied in the study?
Did the child start school while in the study?
Did the child experience any medical changes during the study? (e.g., new medication, surgical procedure, new diagnoses, accident, etc.)
Maturation(i.e., getting older) is another factor to consider when reviewing treatment studies. That is, did the treatment group improve beyond what would be expected based with aging.
What if one approach with research support isn’t working for my child?
Well, if you have that concern, ask the practitioner. Practitioners usually track progress so they know when they need to adjust intervention (i.e., when the approach is not effective for the patient or when the patient masters an objective, etc.).
As a clinician, I ask myself these questions when an approach doesn’t seem to be “working”?
How long have we tried the approach?
Am I implementing the approach correctly? (It helps to review the approach.)
Is the child engaged (i.e., attending) with us during our sessions?
How consistent is the child’s attendance?
Have we provided appropriate family education (if included) with the approach? (This includes home practice)
Sometimes an approach just isn’t the best option for a child (and their family) and we need to adapt. This could include modifying the approach slightly to adapt or even changing approaches to one more suited for the child.
Regardless, an approach should have an evidence base, even if it was only demonstrated in a “single-subject design case study”. This allows SLPs to generate ideas/hypotheses (sophisticated educated guesses) about what might work for a given child.
Disclaimer. Information provided in this post by, Stephanie M. Nixon, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is provided in good faith. Nixon Speech and Language, LLC makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information.
Information provided here is for informational purposes only.
This material is not substitute for professional medical advice or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified professional with any questions you may have regarding conditions and treatments/therapies. Do not delay seeking professional medical or educational advice/evaluation or delay seeking it because of something you read on this website.
See these websites for more information about evidence-based practices and research:
Leave a Reply