2026 Call for Papers

Call for Papers Timeline
February 2, 2026: Abstract submissions open
April 1, 2026: Abstract submissions close
June 25, 2026: Decision notifications sent
June 25: Registration opens
June 25: Preliminary program online
August 22, 2026: Early registration deadline

Conference Venue & Location: Baltimore Marriott Waterfront in Baltimore, MD

A Message from the Program Co-Chairs

Public trust in education—and in the research that informs educational policy and practice—is increasingly central to the future of the field, especially given the current climate. While trust has not disappeared, it is being tested by shifting governance structures, rapid advances in data science and artificial intelligence, and evolving accountability mechanisms and growing public concern about transparency. This year’s conference, Education and Public Trust: Evidence and Accountability in a Changing Landscape, invites the education research community to examine what it will take to emerge from this moment with public trust strengthened rather than diminished.

Public trust means confidence not only in individual findings, but in the integrity and stewardship of the education research enterprise. Trust is at risk when evidence is hard to interpret, difficult to replicate across settings, or unlikely to hold under real-world conditions. Trust is shaped by how evidence is generated, governed, communicated, protected, and used—across federal, state, local, and institutional contexts—and by whether research meaningfully serves the public interest, particularly during periods of rapid political, technological, and social change. This framing invites the field to move beyond defending credibility toward examining shared responsibility: how systems of accountability, data governance, methodological innovation, and community engagement must evolve to sustain and strengthen trust in education science.

Education research does not operate in isolation. Trust is created and maintained through the interactions of federal, state, and local governments; researchers and postsecondary institutions; practitioners and communities; philanthropic organizations; and policymakers across sectors such as health, labor, and workforce development. What roles and responsibilities do these actors hold in sustaining public confidence in education systems and evidence? How do we recognize when trust is present—and when it is at risk? What must change in how we generate, interpret, govern, and communicate evidence to ensure that education research remains credible, relevant, and responsive to public needs?

At this year’s meeting, we invite participants to engage in conversations about how public trust is built, maintained, and repaired across the education research ecosystem. We encourage reflection on how accountability systems are evolving, how data and methods must adapt to new realities, and how education research can better serve communities—particularly those historically marginalized—during periods of uncertainty and change.

In service of advancing understanding of public trust in education and education research, we encourage submissions that address the following:

Governance, Accountability, and Public Interest
How do governance structures, statutes, and oversight mechanisms at the federal, state, and local levels shape accountability, transparency, and public trust in education research and policy—particularly in a changing political and regulatory landscape?

Ecosystem Roles, Incentives, and Shared Responsibility
How is trust created and sustained across the education research ecosystem, considering the roles and incentives of researchers, post-secondary institutions, practitioners, policymakers, philanthropic organizations, and communities?

Methods, Transparency, and Credible Evidence
How can methodological rigor, transparency, and communication serve as foundations of trust—highlighting approaches that enhance credibility, address bias, validate data, and make evidence intelligible and meaningful to diverse audiences?

Data Science, Artificial Intelligence, and Emerging Risks
What are the implications of data science and artificial intelligence for education research, policy, and practice—with a focus on ethical use, human oversight, bias mitigation, and how new technologies affect public confidence in evidence?

Capacity-Building, Partnerships, and Community Engagement
How can the field prepare the next generation of researchers and strengthen trust through interdisciplinary collaboration, cross-sector partnerships, and meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders?

As education systems and the structures that support them continue to evolve, so too must our approaches to evidence, accountability, and collaboration, as reflected in the rigorous work across methods (causal, measurement and data quality, implementation and systems, and community engagement) found at SREE conferences. We invite you to join us at the 2026 SREE annual meeting to examine how public trust in education research is challenged, reinforced, and renewed—and to help shape a future in which evidence serves the public with integrity, transparency, and shared responsibility.

Laura Stapleton & Peggy Carr, University of Maryland - College Park
SREE 2026 Conference Program Co-Chairs

Conference Sections

Presentation Formats
Paper Types & Review Criteria
Submission Procedures
Program Limit

Presentation Formats

Symposia
Symposia provide the opportunity for investigators whose work has a common theme to present their findings in a single session. Each symposium proposal should include:

(1) a justification that describes the contributions of each individual paper and how the studies are related;
(2) abstracts for each of the individual papers (minimum of 3, maximum of 4 permitted)  being proposed;
(3) a description of how the session, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engages with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attends to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims; 
(4) an independent discussant to provide comments on the papers, both individually and, more importantly, as a collection, sharing cross-cutting themes and policy implications; and
(5) an explanation of how the symposium discussant is independent.

Symposium sessions are 90 minutes long, and the organizer will be responsible for running the session and introducing the speakers. With respect to role, symposium organizers should think about how to incorporate individuals who are able to enact research findings highlighted in the session (e.g., a representative from a school district involved in an intervention or pilot study developed by a third-party research team).

Integrated Symposia
Integrated Symposia provide the opportunity for investigators with a diversity of perspectives, but whose work has a common theme, to present their findings in a single session. The integrated symposium could include two or all three of the following perspectives of (1) methods + (2) sections/content areas + (3) policy/practice voices. Each symposium proposal should include:

(1) a justification that describes the contributions of each individual paper and how the studies are related;
(2) abstracts for each of the individual papers (minimum of 3, maximum of 4 permitted) being proposed;
(3) a description of how the session, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engages with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attends to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims;
(4) a description of the ways in which the session integrates from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices; and
(5) an independent discussant who will comment on the papers, both individually and, more importantly, as a collection, sharing cross-cutting themes and policy implications; and
(6) an explanation of how the integrated symposium discussant is independent.

Integrated Symposium sessions are 90 minutes long, and the organizer will be responsible for running the session and introducing the speakers.

Moderated Discussions
Moderated Discussions provide an opportunity to explore an issue beyond paper presentations. A moderated discussion proposal should be closely aligned with the conference theme and should include:

(1) a moderator (who may also be the session organizer);
(2) a justification that promotes the session by describing the session (and any individual abstracts if the discussion format lends itself to more than a session description);
(3) an outlined plan for the session that includes audience participation;
(4) proposed panelists (maximum of 5 permitted); and
(5) a description of how the session, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engages with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attends to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims; and
(6) a description of the ways in which the session integrates from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices.

Moderated Discussion sessions are 90 minutes long and may take a variety of formats, such as a discussion with 2-3 panelists, a debate, an examination of a topic from different perspectives, or case studies. We encourage moderated discussions that actively engage the audience and seek to include multiple perspectives, including researchers and practitioners. NOTE: Moderated Discussion proposals will not be masked during the review process to allow reviewers to better evaluate the perspectives and experiences brought to the moderated discussion session.

Individual Papers
Individual papers with a similar focus will be assembled into a single session by the program committee. Usually, 3-4 papers are included in a session. In addition to an abstract, the proposal must include a description of how the paper, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engages with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attends to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims.

General Posters
Presenters in the general poster session will have the option of using physical or electronic display. Presenters may upload their poster presentations to the conference website to allow pre- and post-conference viewing of materials in addition to the abstract. In addition to an abstract, the proposal must include a description of a description of how the poster, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engages with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attends to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims.

In-the-Pipeline Posters
In-the-Pipeline Posters allow presenters to share studies that are underway but do not yet have findings to report. Studies presented in these posters may also have interim findings that are not ready for presentation in a paper. The purpose of this session is to increase the SREE community’s awareness of research projects in the pipeline, facilitate networking among researchers conducting or contemplating similar work, and provide useful feedback to the presenters that can inform their work. In addition to an abstract, the proposal must include a description of a description of how the poster, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engages with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attends to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims.

Workshops
In conjunction with the SREE 2026 Conference, SREE will be offering in-depth workshops that support the conference theme on Wednesday, September 23, 2026. If you are interested in organizing and running one of these workshops, please submit a proposal.The proposal should include:

(1) Contact name, affiliation, and email address;
(2) Workshop Title;
(3) Instructor name(s), affiliation(s), and email(s);
(4) Proposed length of time (2-5 hours);
(5) Description of the session;
(6) Significance of the topic and how it supports the conference theme; and
(7) Target Audience.

Workshop proposals will be reviewed by the SREE conference committee. Applicants will be notified by June 26, 2026.

These workshops provide a valuable opportunity for professional development and knowledge transfer between members of the SREE community.

Paper Types and Review Criteria
SREE will accept proposals for three types of studies: impact evaluations and/or cause-and-effect; research methods; and strategies and approaches for using evidence from cause-and-effect studies. This last category is aimed at encouraging the development of practices that connect rigorous research with on-the-ground practice in education settings. The review criteria for these three proposal types differ as noted below.

Studies that use descriptive methods, including qualitative approaches, may be included if the proposal addresses how the study or method informs the design, implementation, or interpretation of results from an impact evaluation or cause-and-effect study. These proposals may be identified as “Impact Evaluations and/or Cause-and-Effect” studies. 

Review Criteria (Empirical) for Impact Evaluations and/or Cause-and-Effect Studies

Clarity & Completeness
To what extent does the abstract/session description provide enough information to evaluate the work (question, data/sample, approach, outcomes, and contribution)?

Theoretical Criterion
To what extent does the study advance understanding of key education phenomena and/or provide credible evidence about cause-and-effect relationships?

Pragmatic Criteria
To what extent does the study address an important policy or practice problem of (i.e., a decision that stakeholders face)?

To what extent does the study have the potential to inform critical decisions about educational policy or practice (e.g., quantifying and interpreting effect sizes, comparing realistic alternatives)?

Methodological Criteria
To what extent is the research design appropriate for supporting the stated causal claim?

For a descriptive or qualitative study, to what extent is the knowledge gained likely to complement, inform, or help interpret what we learn from causal impact evaluations (e.g., implementation, mechanisms, measurement, context)?

Does the study include appropriate and well-defined measures of key constructs and outcomes?
Is the study sample (including eligibility criteria, exclusions, and how well the sample supports the authors' intended claims) appropriate for the claims made relative to the population the authors aim to speak to?

Thematic Connection (for Moderated Discussion, Symposium, Integrated Symposium Only)
To what extent does the proposal explicitly connect to the conference theme and use it to motivate or frame the session, as appropriate?

Engaging a Multiplicity of Perspectives Criterion
To what extent does this submission, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engage with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attend to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims?

Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Integrated Symposia only)
To what extent does the session integrate across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices; and include an independent discussant with a clear plan to synthesize cross-cutting themes and implications?

Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Moderated Discussions Only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices.

Review Criteria for Studies of Research Methods

Clarity & Completeness
To what extent does the abstract/session description provide enough information to evaluate the work (question, data/sample, approach, outcome, and contribution)?

Theoretical Criteria
For an experimental or quasi-experimental method, to what extent does the proposed approach strengthen causal identification and/or interpretation for education research questions?

For a descriptive, qualitative, or measurement-focused method, to what extent does the proposed approach complement, inform, or help interpret what we learn from causal impact evaluations (e.g., implementation, mechanisms, measurement, context)?

Pragmatic Criteria
To what extent does the study identify a methodological problem that, if addressed, would materially improve the design, analysis, or reporting of evidence in education?

To what extent does the study offer a practical and credible solution (e.g., method, guidance, tool) that would advance the capacity to design, conduct, and/or report research?

Methodological Criteria
To what extent are the methods employed or proposed appropriate for the stated problem, with assumptions and steps described clearly enough to evaluate their utility?

If the study uses real or simulated data, how convincing is the evidence that the proposed method improves on existing approaches (including tradeoffs and limitations)?

Thematic Connection (for Moderated Discussion, Symposium, Integrated Symposium Only)
To what extent does the proposal explicitly connect to the conference theme and use it to motivate or frame the session, as appropriate?

Engaging a Multiplicity of Perspectives Criterion
To what extent does this submission, and where relevant the research that underpins it, meaningfully engage with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attend to implications for achieving more equitable educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims?

Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Integrated Symposia only)
To what extent does the session integrate across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices; and include an independent discussant who will comment on the papers, both individually and, more importantly, as a collection, sharing cross-cutting themes and policy implications?

Integration of Perspectives Criterion (for Moderated Discussions Only)
To what extent does the session integrate from across two or more of the following: (a) methods, (b) sections/content areas, (c) policy/practice voices?

Review Criteria (Applications or Practice) for Proposals of Strategies and Approaches for Using Evidence from Cause-and-Effect Studies

Clarity & Completeness
To what extent does the abstract/session description provide enough information to evaluate the work (question, data/sample, approach, outcomes, and contribution)?

Theoretical Criterion
To what extent does the study advance understanding of how evidence from cause-and-effect studies can be interpreted, communicated, or used in education decision-making?

Pragmatic Criteria
To what extent does the study address an important education policy or practice problem (i.e., a decision that stakeholders face)?

To what extent does the study have the potential to inform critical decisions about educational policy or practice (e.g., quantifying and interpreting effect sizes, comparing realistic alternatives)?

Methodological Criterion
To what extent is the proposed strategy grounded in an evidence base with credible internal validity and a clear argument for external validity (generalizability to the intended settings/populations)?

Thematic Connection (for Moderated Discussion, Symposium, Integrated Symposium Only)
To what extent does the proposal explicitly connect to the conference theme and use it to motivate or frame the session, as appropriate?

Engaging a Multiplicity of Perspectives Criterion
To what extent does this submission, and where relevant, the research that underpins it, meaningfully engage with multiple perspectives (as appropriate to the topic and design), and attend to implications for achieving more equitable  educational outcomes while avoiding unsupported claims?

Submission Procedures:

Individual Papers and Posters

Proposals for individual papers and posters should be submitted as a structured abstract, as outlined in the following paragraph. The abstract is limited to 1000 words, excluding references, tables, and figures.

We recommend that abstracts be organized using the following headings*:

• Background/Context: Description of prior research on the subject and/or its intellectual context and/or its policy context.
• Purpose/Objective/Research Question: Description of the focus of the research, including hypotheses.
• Setting: Specific description of where the research took place.
• Population/Participants/Subjects: Who, how many, key features or characteristics.
• Intervention/Program/Practice: Specific description of the intervention, including key components of how it was implemented or administered, and its duration.
• Research Design: Specific description of the research design, including strategies for eliminating sources of bias.
• For a descriptive and qualitative study, provide a description of the method, including how the study design complemented, informed, or helped interpret results from an evaluation or cause-and-effect study.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Description of methods used in collecting and analyzing data.
• Findings/Results: Description of main findings with specific details.
• Conclusions: Description of conclusions, limitations, and recommendations of authors.

NOTE: In the submission, authors will be asked to submit a short statement (max. 250 words) describing the ways in which the methods and/or content embed equity principles and practices. This statement will be used in the review process and should not include any identifiable author or project information.

Please make sure the masked abstract PDF (used for review) does not include any identifiable author or project information, including links to full a paper or to pages with author or project information.

*Abstracts for proposals that are not studies of cause-and-effect do not necessarily need to include all recommended headings.

In-the-Pipeline Posters

Proposals for the in-the-pipeline poster session should be submitted as a structured abstract, as outlined in the following paragraph. The abstract is limited to 1000 words, excluding references, tables, and figures.

We recommend that abstracts be organized using the following headings*:

• Background/Context: Description of prior research on the subject and/or its intellectual context and/or its policy context.
• Purpose/Objective/Research Question: Description of the focus of the research, including hypotheses.
• Setting: Specific description of where the research is taking place.
• Population/Participants/Subjects: Who, how many, key features or characteristics.
• Intervention/Program/Practice: Specific description of the intervention, including key components of how it is or will be implemented or administered.
• Research Design: Specific description of the research design, including strategies for eliminating sources of bias. 
• For a descriptive and qualitative study, provide a description of the method, including how the study design complemented, informed, or helped interpret results from an evaluation or cause-and-effect study.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Description of methods that will be used in collecting and analyzing data.
• (Optional) Preliminary findings: Description of preliminary findings.

NOTE: In the submission, authors will be asked to submit a short statement (max. 250 words) describing the ways in which the methods and/or content embed equity principles and practices. This statement will be used in the review process and should not include any identifiable author or project information.

Please make sure the masked abstract PDF (used for review) does not include any identifiable author or project information, including links to full a paper or to pages with author or project information.

*Abstracts for proposals that are not studies of cause-and-effect do not necessarily need to include all recommended headings.

Symposia, Integrated Symposia, and Moderated Discussions

Each element of a symposium, integrated symposium, or moderated discussion submission will be subject to the same limit of 1000 words per abstract. In each case, the space limit does not include references, tables, or figures. For example, a symposium or integrated symposium with 3 papers would have a word limit of 3500 (1000 x 3 plus 500). A moderated discussion with a moderator and 3 panelists would have a word limit of 3500 (1000 x 3 plus 500), but a non-standard discussion might not have individual elements and simply require a moderated discussion justification (session description). In each case, the space limit does not include references, tables, or figures. 

For each session type (symposium, integrated symposium, moderated discussion), submitters will be asked to submit a short statement (max. 250 words) describing how the session -- and where relevant, the research that underpins it -- meaningfully engage(s) with multiple perspectives, foster participation of voices that are impacted by the issue(s) of study, and contribute to achieving more equitable outcomes in education. This statement will be used in the review process and should not include any identifiable author or project information.

Please make sure the masked abstract PDF (used for review) for symposia and integrated symposia does not include any identifiable author or project information, including links to full a paper or to pages with author or project information. Moderated discussion abstracts and statements do not need to mask author or project information since the review for those submissions will not be masked.

*Note: The headings above were derived from Mosteller, Nave & Miech (2004), Why We Need A Structured Abstract in Education Research. Educational Researcher 30(1), 29-34.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ727552.pdf

Conference Program Limit
An individual may be a presenting author (in a symposium, integrated symposium, paper session, general poster session, or in-the-pipeline poster session) or moderated discussion participant (moderator or panelist) no more than twice in the conference program. This restriction does not include serving as a symposium organizer, integrated symposium organizer, symposium discussant, integrated symposium discussant, moderated discussion organizer, paper session chair, or workshop instructor. The presenting author must be identified in the abstract submission process for each paper or poster and will be designated in the conference program.