ED 426 116

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NO

PUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE

DESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

TM 029 402

Timpane, Michael

National Directions in Education Research Planning. A

Conference Co-Sponsored by the National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board and the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education

(McLean, Virginia, June 17-18, 1998). Report on the

Conference.

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board

(ED/OERI), Washington, DC.

PPB-1999-6312

1998-12-00

36p.

Web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs.nationaldirections/

Collected Works Proceedings (021)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

Agenda Setting; *Communication (Thought Transfer);

Conferences; *Educational Research; Federal Government;

Financial Support; *Planning; Research Design; *Research

Methodology; Research Utilization; *Resource Allocation

A conference was convened to bring together representatives

of educational research planning efforts underway in federal agencies and

professional and scientific organizations. This report identifies the

principal emphases and tentative agreements from the sessions. The clear

sense of the conference was that the educational research system has

encountered powerful constraints and limitations, which have hampered many

research efforts. In spite of this, educational research has made many

important contributions to the improvement of education and can continue to

contribute if adequate resources are allocated. Improvements to the synthesis

of research findings, the institutional framework for research, and the

communication of research findings must be made, and new, highly trained

researchers must be recruited. An overriding idea of participants was that

educational research planning must emphasize focus and selectivity to

concentrate on areas that the public and profession believe to be important.

Emphasis on more rigorous methods and designs and better peer participation

and review will be very important. Undergirding any successful research

planning must be attention to the capacity of the education research system

and an increased emphasis on communicating the findings of research to the

profession, the public, and the educational policy world. The National

Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board and the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement have important roles to play in these

efforts. Appendixes contain the conference agenda and a list of attendees.

(SLD) ********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document. ********************************************************************************
,

) rfr

V.) 71" 4-1 drbUCiPtAkRE'S

PitIORRIES$Q4RIX6:1,O

ok. -?fi 1f. <

0 OVitr

s's

VOIL,T( /fk:

' a I,

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Offide of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

.4/fhis document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.

/41

;-*

C

-1,-/-71F0 p. in- a BEST COPY AVAILABLE

0
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

POLICY & PRIORITIES BOARD

National Directions

in Education

Research Planning

A Conference Co-Sponsored by the National Educational

Research Policy and Priorities Board

and

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

June 17-18, 1998

Report on the Conference by

Michael Timpane

Conference Moderator

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board

U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board

Kenji Hakuta

Chair

Eve M. Bither

Executive Director

December 1998

This publication was prepared under contract to the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. Any opinions, findings, or conclusions are

those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education or any agency of the United States Government.

Comments about this publication may be directed to

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board

U.S. Department of Education

80 F Street NW, Suite 100

Washington, DC 20208-7564

Telephone: (202) 208-0692

Fax: (202) 219-1528

E-mail: nerppb@ed.gov

Contact:

Mary Grace Lucier

(202) 219-2253

NERPPB Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/NERPPB/

4

atlonal DirectiOnidiln Education Research Planning
National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB) is

authorized by the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The Board was established to work collaboratively with

the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement

(OERI) to forge a national consensus with respect to a long-term agenda for

educational research, development, dissemination, and the activities of the Office.

The Board regularly reviews, evaluates, and publicly comments upon the implementation of its policies by the U.S. Department of Education and the Congress.

From time to time, the Board commissions papers from outstanding scholars and

researchers on issues pertaining to educational research and improvement. This

publication derives from a conference, National Directions in Education Research

Planning, which was co-sponsored by the Board and OERI on June 17-18, 1998

in McLean, Virginia.

Members

Kenji Hakuta, Chair

School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

Patricia Ann Baltz

Teacher

Camino Grove Elementary School

Arcadia, CA

James E. Bottoms

Senior Vice President

Southern Regional Education Board

Atlanta, GA

iii
National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Boar

Jomills H. Braddock, II

Professor and Chair

Department of Sociology

University of Miami

Miami, FL

John T. Bruer

President

James S. McDonnell Foundation

St. Louis, MO

Ann B. Clark

Principal

Vance High School at Governors' Village

Charlotte, NC

Edmund W. Gordon

Professor Emeritus

Yale University

New Haven, CT

Sharon L. Kagan

Senior Associate

Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy

Yale University

New Haven, CT

Glenda T. Lappan

Professor

Department of Mathematics

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI

Robert W. Marley

Department of Health and Physical Education

Wichita State University

Wichita, KS

Joyce Muhlestein

Utah Center for Families

Salt Lake City, UT

National Directiorekin,EducationResearch Nanning

;:i! .
NationatEducatiOnal Research Policy and Priorities Board

° Alba A. Ortiz

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

and Research

College of Education

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX

Claire L. Pelton

The College Board

San Jose, CA

Ex Officio Members

Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

U.S. Department of Education

Director, Office of Indian Education Programs, U.S. Department of the Interior

Director of Research, U.S. Department of Defense

Director of Research and Demonstration, U.S. Department of Labor

Librarian, Library of Congress

Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts

Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities

Director, National Institutes of Health

Director, National Science Foundation

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

National Directions in Education Research Planning
Acknowledgments

The Board and OERI wish to thank the individuals, agencies, and organizations

participating in this conference. Special thanks to the Spencer Foundation and to

the conference moderator and author of this report, Michael Timpane.

National Directions in Education Research Planning vii
Table of Contents

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board iii

Acknowledgments vii

I. Introduction 1

Summary of the Proceedings 3

Opportunity and Promise 3

Challenges and Risks 6

III. Implications for Educational Research Planning 11

About the Author 15

Appendix A: Agenda 17

Appendix B: Attendees 21

National Directions in Education Research Planning ix
I. Introduction

This conference was convened by the U.S. Department of Education's National

Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB) and Office of

Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) to bring together leaders and

representatives from a dozen or more research planning efforts underway in

federal agencies and professional and scientific organizations. The purpose was to

put those efforts in communication with one another and with the educators and

policymakers who could use the fruits of educational research to enhance learning

and suggest priorities and collaborations for future work. The agenda and list of

attendees are appendices A and B, respectively.

It was the sense of the conference organizers that this is a time of both risk and

opportunity for educational research. Educators and policymakers are eager to

have clear evidence and conclusions from research upon which to build more

effective policies and practices. However, they are not convinced that education

research can produce such information on a timely and consistent basis, and they

may well punish or abandon the enterprise if it does notor worse, does not

choose torespond to their needs. That said, the opportunities for progress that

the conference identified or accelerated seemed numerous and feasible:

to strengthen mutual capacity for identifying priorities and setting

agendas;

to establish appropriate and consistent standards for research designs and

methods, as well as quality assurance processes;

to begin to synthesize and aggregate findings among programs of study;

to identify specific steps to strengthen the educational research system

itsktfi,4titutifaitsf and its people;

to build communities of scholars and new connections between the worlds

of research, policy, practice, and the publicto create, eventually, a

stronger culture of learning, a voracious appetite for knowledge to

improve education among all parties to this dialogue; and

National Directions in Education Research Planning
introduction

to begin to identify the education research planning responsibilities most

appropriate to each principal agency and institutionbeginning with

NERPPB and OERI but extending to the other significant participants as

well.

The conference delved into the nature and significance of each of these challenges, and began to discover a framework to guide joint efforts to address them

in educational research plans and programs.

T COPY AVANTABLE

2 National Directions In Education Research Planning
II. Summary of the Proceedings

As it is with conferences such as this, the comments and recommendations cannot

be readily documented, validated or even necessarily agreed to by all participants.

They are nevertheless the considered views of well-informed, often expert, leaders

and participants in educational research; in many cases, they are mutually reinforcing, almost consensus statements. They should be considered authoritative but

not final; weighty but still needing further deliberation, evidence and argument.

This report is neither a stenographic nor even a chronological recapitulation of the

statements made in the day and a half of conversations. It is, rather, one

participant's authorized rendering of the principal emphases and tentative agreements of the sessions, paraphrasing cogent interventions, making connections and

drawing conclusions that were implicit in the discussion but could only be discerned in retrospect, with the stenographic record and group session reports in

hand.

Both at the conference and in this account, most comments were and are meant to

reflect upon the history and performance of the educational research system, albeit

from the vantage point of one or another institution or experience. Thus, the

comments are not about any particular enterprise within the system.

Opportunity and Promise

The clear sense of the conference was that the educational research system has

had powerful constraints and limitations on it, which have hindered, sometimes

crippled, numberless researchers and projects. The wonder is that educational

researchers have been able to accomplish what they have. The prospect is that

more confidence and opportunity could pay off handsomely, if the support is

strategically provided. The past century's record buttresses this claim. Educational

research as been used time and again, at critical junctures, to improve teaching

and learning. Important examples range from John Dewey through

constructivism, to Edward L. Thorndike through behaviorism and educational

testing, to the diverse social scientists who influenced the design and evaluation

of Great Society education programs. In our time we have seen the impact the

students of cognition and organization have made upon pedagogy, assessment,

and other school retrm strategies. At the same time, there have been many hard

9

National Directions in Education Research Planning
vStuttin*fOtthe:prOceedings

'

lessons to be learned. Educational improvement occurs slowly and in small

increments no matter how powerful the research base behind it. Deep disagreements among prominent researchers are continual and perhaps inevitable. Professional educators have never become enthusiastic consumers of research, and weak

designs and measures, combined with these doubts and disputes, have produced

too many research results whose values and political implications are more prominent than their scientific validity. There are, moreover, important contemporary

proofs of the capacity of educational research to make an important difference in

education. Recent important examples include:

the National Research Council (NRC) report, Preventing Reading

Difficulties in Young Children, crowning a generation of solid research in

many venues;

the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the

latest, most comprehensive and most significant of a generation's progress

in building comparative international assessments of learning and

instruction; and

the continuing contributions of both developmental and cognitive science

research to our understanding of learning and consequent design of

curriculum frameworks and instructional strategies.

The instance of reading research seemed to the conferees particularly pertinent.

Here is a field transformed by a high-powered, highly focused, speedily accomplished and clearly communicated research planning effort undertaken by federal

research managers in the early 1970s, and then developed over 25 years in federally funded reading research centers. It was spurred on by the International Reading Association's A Nation of Readers in the 1980s, and nurtured by new discoveries in cognitive and developmental studies. Over the past decade, it was revisited by the research program at the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD), implemented in Success for All and other successful

early reading programs; and synthesized and applied to policy, practice, and the

next generation of research, in the NRC's recent report.

The current moment of opportunity and risk for educational research has distinctive new features. The quest for measurable, accountable results will be a permanent policy feature, at every level, sought by policymakers, parents, and the

public. And this is not a trend confined to education. Many realms of policy are

becoming increasingly results-oriented. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) at the federal level, the growing demand for international

comparative data, and the broad insistence upon assessment and accountability at

all levels of education reflect a broad and persistent public policy shift. Education

_ 2

:National Dirialone In Education Research Planning i'
may have some unique characteristics that must be taken into account, but it is not

and will not be immune from this profound trend. Educational research will be

rewarded if it contributes (and is seen to contribute) new knowledge and insight in

this arena, and punished if it does not. It will take particular courage and some

diplomatic skill to succeed: to support and sustain appropriate developments

while at the same time standing, with solid research knowledge, against wrongheaded, damaging proposals. And the tolerances will be slight. The pace of social

and educational change is accelerating and the stakes are growing. Insights ranging from cognitive science (in the case of pedagogy) to political and economic

theory (in the case of vouchers) raise questions about the basic structure of

schooling. Policy paradigms are moving away from centralized control mechanisms to reliance on incentives and capacity building as the significance of education grows in the worldwide economy.

Even so, there are still too few resources available for educational research to do

all that it could to improve education. There are strong logical arguments for more

resources, ranging from the link to economic development to the inability so far to

design more effective approaches for poor and minority students who need them

most and whom our society and economy need as well. There are also arguments

by analogy from other fields, like health and science, where sustained research

expenditures, both public and private, have paid off in better lives for all.

At the same time, there are hidden consequences of long-term patterns of scarce

funding: the compromises researchers make in their designs to accommodate

limited resources; and the inability of research managers to amass resources for

sustained, necessarily multidisciplinary, attack on important, slow-yielding

problems. One of two equally unsatisfactory outcomes usually ensues: too few

resources get spread too thinly and for too short a time on too many topics; or, by

contrast, very large investments are made in a few highly visible, large-scale,

overly-ambitious, uncoordinated programs of research and evaluation which fail

to find significant effects or to attribute them to causes. The net result is to

weaken the repute of programs, investigators, and by association, educational

research itself. Rarely is there the opportunity for persistent, cumulative pursuit of

questionsfrom theoretical work and hypothesis-building, to small-scale experiments or other controlled trials, to demonstration designs, to large-scale field trials

using randomized assignment or other methods of evaluation.

Inasmuch as progress in children's learning is inherently a long-run proposition,

this situation will take a long time to fix, even if more resources become available. The 1997 report of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology (PCAST) makes the most recent and persuasive case for the swift and

steady build-up of resources for educational researchto $1.5 billion per year

National Directions in Education Research Planning
Summary of the Proceedings

ultimately. PCAST suggests that the necessary investments must encompass

methodological enhancements based on new technological and statistical techniques, the production of a large new generation of researchers, and the strengthening of the institutions that will carry forward the enterprise.

Challenges and Risks

There are, of course, numerous obstacles to progress. The most prominent is that

educational research has yet to find a way to relate effectively with the teachers

and other educators or policymakers whom it serves. It is perceived by these

partners to run the narrow gamut from nonconsultation to tokenismat every

stage, from agenda setting to research design and execution to interpretation and

implementation of findings. To those in the field, educational researchers seem

not to be united around the theme of student learning, but seem rather to be

working within discrete disciplinary boundaries and not communicating across

them or with the field.

Viewed from the opposite perspective, the deepest problem may be that many

schools are not learning organizations with a commitment to continuous improvement; and most teachers have not thought of themselves as lifelong learners and

knowledge-based, reflective practitioners. This is the demand side of things:

education is not a research-hungry system.

To some extent, these disparate perspectives are inevitable. Researchers expect to

solve problems on a generalizable basis over extended periods of time, while

teachers and school people are naturally preoccupied with the here-and-now of

classroom instruction and individual learning; and the incentives and rewards

researchers and teachers face differ accordingly.

These perceptions of disparity are changing, but slowly. Most teachers have not

been trained or encouraged to be constructive learners from research. With heavy

workloads and scant time or opportunity to make a serious effort to absorb and

incorporate research findings into their daily routines, they settle for second hand

reports or, alternatively, existing lore and practice. Thus we have a vicious cycle

education has not consistently valued research knowledge nor fostered the culture

and institutions to strengthen it. As a result, it often cannot get the knowledge it

now seeks, and so it continues to undervalue research. Researchers, for their part,

neglect to shape their inquiries to respond directly to the problems facing teachers,

devalue lore when they should honor and learn from it, do not train teachers to be

participants in and consumers of inquiry, and take their norms and rewards from

academic disciplines rather than the profession they serve.

5

6 _ National Directions in Education Research Planning
rstimmary o 'the PniCeedinid

A similar tale can be told about the relationship of educational research to policymakers and administrators. Most educational policymakers are simply not used to

making research-based decisions to the extent occurring in other realms where the

evidence is from "hard science." When they do make such decisions, as in the

cases of, say, class size or the adoption of specific reading programs or the construction of entire programs of school reform, they may either ignore research

findings or go beyond what the shaky research evidence can bear. Administrators

face similar dilemmas, as they decide whether research results should guide

decisions or if administrative convenience or simplicity should carry the day.

The reportedly shocking lack of sustained research on the learning problems of

poor and minority youngsters seemed to be a case in point, especially considering

that Major federal programs of long standing, like Title I and Title VII, have been

promoted as knowledge-based and frequently evaluated. The opportunity presented by the Obey-Porter program for comprehensive research-based school

designs in Title I might well be missed. The problems seemed to be twofold:

policy and evaluation research that proceeded ahead of adequate understandings

of how children learn and thus produced little sustained program improvement;

and the inability of researchers, policymakers and educators to create together a

program of studies that would, over time, yield the basic knowledge and instructional designs that might improve learning. As often as not, neither practitioners

nor policymakers are able to judge the significance of any particular research

enterprise or result. Educational research on the one hand has not established

clear, widely acknowledged standards for the design and conduct of research. On

the other, it countenances work that is value-driven and neither significant nor

rigorous. Well-meaning researchers sometimes pull their punches when their

findings are discouraging, not wanting to damage programs or the children they

serve with results that they know are partial at best. Dubious findings and implications can be peddled, while high-quality work is not adequately appreciated or

used.

Two recent initiatives will help alter and diminish these long-standing patterns of

miscommunication and mistrust:

1. The NRC, with support from the U.S. Department of Education, has

convened a distinguished panel of educators and policymakers to construct a

Strategic Educational Research Plan (SERP); and

2. Congress has instructed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to constitute a panel to suggest standards of evidence in educational researchto answer

the questions: What constitutes evidence that can be trusted in policy, practice,

and as the basis for future research? How can teachers and parents decide what

programs, using what methods, are most powerful for which children? Sustained

1

National Directions in Education Research Planning'''.
Summary of the Proceedings

efforts of this sort are essential to deal with what seemed to be a primary obstacle

to current and future progress.

Several more significant problems must also be addressed:

There is need for a systematic program of synthesis of research findings.

This is particularly important since we now know that the search for

"silver bullet" panaceas will be in vain. Education is a field where both

knowledge and progress will be only slowly and partially achieved, and

always in the context of specific children in specific educational environments. Educators need clear straightforward statements of "what the

research says" even as they accept the responsibility for adapting its

implications in their context. Scholarly syntheses appear regularly in the

many subdisciplines of educational research, but they are rarely drawn

together across disciplines or focused on the needs of the users in policy

and practice.

The dissemination of results to the worlds of practice and policy is caught

up in its own vicious cycle, since it is seen to be diverting already scarce

resources from the research endeavor.

Unsurprisingly, given the scarcities and confusions in the system, the

institutional framework for research is flawed. The conference presenters

showed that responsibilities for one focus or function may be spread

across several federal agencies, and among governmental, academic, and

professional organizations. OERI' s centers and labs are not preeminent in

the field, partly because they have lacked the resources. Procedures and

standards for project initiation and conduct vary widely from agency to

agency. The tension between field-initiation of research projects and

agency responsibility for priority setting and resource allocation, quality

control, synthesis and communication of results has not always been

resolved. NERPPB has been given limited coordinating authority by

Congress but has just begun to exercise it, with results yet to be determined.

Educational research has several communication problems: with

educators, with its public, and with policymakers. It has not been aggressive and opportunistic, and has not sold many potential supporters on its

real accomplishments, nor upon its growing relevance to the solution of

education's chronic and emerging problems. It has not used the media

extensively to communicate with its public. It has not developed a robust

set of intermediary institutionsbe they regional, state or local agencies;

partnerships with practice, professional network development or

s 17

Natiorial Directions in EthicatIonfleseaiCh Planning
ummary of the Proceedings

. t

"extension agent" programsor, most currently, "virtual" institutions

utilizing the Internet.

Educational research has a human capital problem: too few young, highly

trained scholars. This is true with respect to education school doctoral

programs, and even more so to the supporting disciplines of psychology,

sociology, political science and policy studies, economics, anthropology,

linguistics, history and philosophy, and applied statistics. Moreover,

too few of these few are minority scholars or other persons focused on

problems of poverty, race, and second-language learning. To make the

matter more difficult, the dynamics of contemporary academic advancement work perversely, deny young scholars the intellectual autonomy they

need to take chances in their researchsteering them instead into safe,

specialized, usually conventional disciplinary pursuits and away from the

risky, multidisciplinary, and collaborative inquiries needed to solve most

educational problems. The need for transformative activity, going beyond

just adding knowledge to restructuring it and discovering new significance

in it, is little understood or rewarded.

3 3

National Directions In Education Research Planning 9
III. Implications for Educational

Research Planning

The dozen or more educational research planning efforts reviewed by the conference were of varying scope and duration. Some were taking on one major area of

study. Some were concerned with directing or strengthening systems for the

production and utilization of knowledge. Some were starting, some were in

midcourse, and some were completed and fully implemented. Whatever their

status, they had shared notions of the essentials of educational research planning:

1. The overriding sense of the conference was that educational research

planning must, sooner rather than later, emphasize focus and selectivity. Its

inquiries should be concentrated on those areas that the public and profession

believe are important as well as those that will become important. The touchstone

issue must be student learning, with a particular but by no means exclusive emphasis on the challenges presented by ever-growing diversity and inequality.

Selection of specific areas of inquiry must proceed from assessment of what is

known and not known, and of what research opportunities are presented. Criteria

for selection must be clear enough to build strategies consisting of related projects

executed over time, and sometimes to exclude or redirect worthy but not strategically significant proposals. Otherwise, as experience has shown, academic logrolling will likely prevail. Candidates for the short list of research priorities

seemed rather obvious: continued focus on reading and language learning; expanded attention to mathematics; the dynamics of teacher performance and effectiveness in schools and classrooms; and new emphasis on technology and telecommunications, international studies, and learning in family, community, and

workplace settings.

The elements of successful research planning strategies are already present in

many of the existing efforts represented at the conference, such as NICHD in

reading, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in cognitive-based training activities, and the several National Research Council (NRC) initiatives. And these

elements should as well characterize the more broadly conceived or newly

launched efforts of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP), the

National Academy of Education (NAE), the American Educational Research

Association (AERA), and others.

National Directions In Education Research Planning 7--

19
Implications for Educational Research Planning

Once the problems of the field are clearly specified, research plans should set

forth an extended array of basic and applied work, theory building, investigations

in clinical and field settings, surveys and case studies of field experiences, and

syntheses of completed studies. The result will be programs of study that gain the

respect of the scientific, professional and policy communities, and thereby guarantee substantial resources now and in the future.

2. Hand-in-hand with this focus and strategy must come emphasis on more

rigorous methods and designs, with particular attention to:

rethinking, reimagining the possibilities of experimental field trials given

new technical tools, the complexity of the puzzles we seek to unravel, and

the persuasive power of randomized trials with policymakers and the

public;

designing processes ("engineering") that systematically apply insights of

research to the development of discrete education programs; and

creating a universe of reliable syntheses of all-important areas of educational research.

3. Another necessary element of successful planning will be thoroughgoing

peer participation and review, with "peer" denoting both the relevant community

of scholars (operating in study sections or other continuous deliberative bodies)

and professionals from the field (teachers especially), participating fully in priority-setting and project selection, in the design and execution of collaborative

research and in discussions about the significance and implementation of results.

Researchers and professionals must develop a better understanding of their mutual

responsibilities in performing research and moving it into practice, indeed a

mutual understanding about when research-based knowledge is "good enough" to

inform practice and policy.

4. Undergirding any successful research planning program must be two

essential supporting activities:

perennial attention to the capacity of the education research system: its

human resources, and its institutions and financial resourcesan inventory and descriptive analysis of the system would be a good first step; and

an entirely new approach to communications, taking the word on educational research to the profession, the public, and the policy world.

20

12 National Directions In Education Research Planning
mplicatIons for Educational Research Planning

. The conference's review of educational planning and related activities suggested

the shape of a new, or at least redefined, role for NERPPB and OERI, and its

research centers, regional laboratories, and other assets:

convening periodic meetings on educational research planning and on

such underlying issues as standards of evidence and methodological

progress, since there are no naturally occurring forums for such discussions which transcend specific missions and agendas;

encouraging and coordinating communications strategies, to place the

accomplishments, promise and challenges of educational research before

its professional and public audiences;

monitoring the educational research system, and building human and

institutional resources;

instigating syntheses of all important fields of educational research, to sum

up progress continually and draw implications for policy and practice; and

building linkages between research endeavors and teachers in the field,

through consultations, network building, professional training programs,

translation of research findings into program designs and promising

implications for the organization of instruction.

The agencies should, in other words, inhabit the space between the research

community, the political community, and the world of practice, and help all

agencies, associations, institutions, and individuals involved in educational

research and improvement to add more value to their own work and to the joint

endeavor of learning. The goal can be clearly stated: in the future, we must be able

to count on educational progress that is based on ideas that have been validated by

well-designed, well-executed research, and translated into success by well-qualified professionals.

National Directions in Education Research Olanning
About the Author

Michael Timpane is senior advisor for education policy for RAND. He has served

as vice president and senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; as professor of education and president of Teachers College,

Columbia University; and as deputy director and director of the National Institute

of Education. He has conducted research on educational policy as a senior staff

member at the Brookings Institution, and served as director of educational policy

planning for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

National Directions in Education Research Planning
Appendix A: Agenda

National Directions in Education Research Planning

A Conference Co-Sponsored by

The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB)

and

The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

U.S. Department of Education

June 17-18,1998

McLean Hilton at Tysons Corner

7920 Jones Branch Drive

McLean, VA 22102

June 17, 1998

8:00-8:30 a.m. Registration

9:00-9:30 a.m. Greetings and Opening Remarks

Kenji Hakuta

Chair, NERPPB

Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary, OERI

9:30-11:15 a.m.

Conference Purposes, Assignments, and Activities

Michael Timpane, RAND

Conference Moderator

Panel 1: Domain-based Research Planning

Diane August, Committee on Developing a Research

Agenda on the Education of Limited-EnglishProficient and Bilingual Students, NRC

William Sibley, National Science Foundation

- 'liational Directions in Education Research Planning

. 17

.
Appendix A

Catherine Snow, Committee on Preventing Reading

Difficulties in Young Children, NRC

Reid Lyon, National Institute for Child Health and Human

Development

Thomas Romberg, National Research Center for Improving

Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics

and Science

Respondents:

Jomills Braddock, NERPPB

E. Lea Schelke, National Education Association

Organizing questions: How can and should education

research planning be successfully accomplished? What has

been or can be its impact, in theory building, in methodological advances, and in applications to practice and

policy?

11:15-11:30 a.m. Break

11:30-1:00 p.m. Panel 2: Comprehensive Approaches to Research

Planning

Elizabeth Carve llas, Council of Scientific Society

Presidents

Daniel Goroff, Harvard University (PCAST)

Gerald Sroufe, American Educational Research Association

Alexandra Wigdor, National Research Council

Michael Kirst, Board of International Comparative Studies

in Education, NRC

Respondents:

Alba Ortiz, NERPPB

Paul Schwarz, Principal-in-Residence,.ED

Organizing Questions: How can and should education

research planning be successfully accomplished? What has

been or can be its impact, in theory building, in methodological advances, and in applications to practice and

policy?

1:00-2:30 p.m. Lunch

;

2 4

18 National Directions in Education Research Planning
Appendix A

Keynote Address:

The Future of Education Research: Priorities, Possibilities,

and Risks

Marshall Smith

Acting Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of

Education

2:45-4:30 p.m. Small Group Sessions

Moderators:

Patricia Albjerg Graham, Spencer Foundation

Frederic Mosher, Carnegie Corporation

Emerson Elliott, National Council for Accreditation of

Teacher Education

John Bruer, NERPPB

Organizing Questions: What specific lessons should

be taken from the morning sessions for the future conduct

of research planning? How should issues of quality and

priority be addressed? Are there opportunities for better

collaboration, coordination, and communication of research

and planning? What policy changes are needed?

(Recorders from OERI for each group)

4:30-5:00 p.m. Reporting Out to Full Group

Moderators and Recorders

June 18, 1998

9:00-10:30 a.m. Panel on Necessary Policy Initiatives and

Implementation Issues

Kent McGuire, Moderator

Denis Doyle, Doyle Associates

David Shaw, President's Committee of Advisors on

Science and Technology

Bella Rosenberg, American Federation of Teachers

Frank Newman, Education Commission of the States

William Mon-ill, Mathtech

Respondent:

Patricia Ann Baltz, NERPPB

2 'T

National Directions in Education Research Planning 19
'Appendix A

Organizing Questions: Where should education research

planning go from here? How can education research

activities be more effectively funded, organized, and

managed? How can discourse about the need for more and

better research become a more extensive and significant

part of education policy development?

10:30-10:45 a.m. Break

10:45-12:00 p.m. Summary, Next Steps

Discussion

Kent McGuire, OERI

Kenji Hakuta, NERPPB

Ann Clark, NERPPB

Michael Timpane, RAND

12:00 noon Adjourn

2 6
Appendix B: List of Attendees

National Directions in Education Research Planning

June 17-18,1998

McLean, Virginia

Martin Apple

Executive Director

Council of Scientific Society Presidents

1155 16th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 872-4452

Fax: (202) 872-4079

E-mail: cssp@acs.org

Arthur Applebee

Director

National Research Center on

English Learning and Achievement

ED-B9 SUNY-Albany

1400 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12222

(518) 442-5026

Fax: (518) 442-5933

E-mail: a.applebee@albany.edu

Diane August

August and Associates

4500 Wetherill Road

Bethesda, MD 20816

(301) 229-5077

Fax: (301) 229-5087

Patricia Ann Baltz

Member

National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board

Camino Grove Elementary School

Arcadia, CA 91006

(626) 821-8353

Fax: (626) 294-09311

E-mail: pann_baltz@msn.com

National Directions in Education Research Planning

27

Sue Betka

Office of the Assistant Secretary

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20202

(202) 219-2236

Fax: (202) 219-1402

E-mail: Sue_Betka@ed.gov

Eve M. Bither

Executive Director

National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board

U.S. Department of Education

80 F Street NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 208-0692

Fax: (202) 219-1528

E-mail: Eve_Bither@ed.gov

James E. Bottoms

Member

National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board

Southern Regional Education Board

Atlanta, GA 30318

(404) 875-9211

Fax: (404) 872-1477

E-mail: gene.bottoms@sreb.org
Appendix B

Jomills Braddock II

Member

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

Professor and Chair

University of Miami

Department of Sociology

123 Ferre Building

Miami, FL 33124

(305) 284-6768

(305) 284-5310

E-mail: braddock@miami.edu

John T. Bruer

Member

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

President

James S. McDonnell Foundation

1034 South Brentwood Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63117

(314) 721-1532

(314) 721-7412

E-mail: bruer@jsmf.org

Susan Burns

Committee on the Prevention of

Reading Difficulties in Young

Children

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20418

(202) 334-3619

(202) 334-3584

E-mail: sburns@nas.edu

Elizabeth Carve llas

Co-Chair

Science and Math Education Committee

Council of Scientific Society Presidents

7 Wilderness Rise

Colchester, VT 05446

(802) 879-5538

Fax: (802) 879-5503

E-mail: bcarvellas@ejhs.k12.vt.us

Ann B. Clark

Member

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

Vance High School

Charlotte, NC 28262

(704) 343-5284

Fax: (704) 343-5286

E-mail: Ac1ark0@vhs.cms.k12.nc.us

Rodney Cocking

Senior Project Officer and Board

Director

National Academy of Sciences

2001 Wisconsin Avenue

Washington, DC 20841

(202) 334-3010

Fax: (202) 334-3584

E-mail: rcocking@nas.edu

Joseph Conaty

Director

National Institute on Student

Achievement, Curriculum, and

Assessment

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208-5573

(202) 219-2079

Fax: (202) 219-2135

E-mail: Joseph_Conaty@ed.gov

Christopher Cross

President

Council for Basic Education

1319 F Street NW

Washington, DC 20004-1152

(202) 347-4171

Fax: (202) 347-5047

28

22 National Directions in Education Research Planning
ppendix

Richard Deasy

Director

Arts Education Partnership

One Massachusetts Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 336-7065

(202) 408-8076

Elizabeth Demarest

National Institute on Education

Governance, Finance, Policymaking,

and Management

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2217

Fax: (202) 219-2159

Cynthia Dorfman

Director

Media and Information Services

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-1556

Fax: (202) 219-1321

E-mail: Cynthia_Dorfman@ed.gov

Denis Doyle

President

Doyle Associates

110 Summerfield Road

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

(301) 986-9350

Fax: (301) 907-4959

29

Emerson Elliott

Director

NPT Standards Development

National Council for the Accreditation

of Teacher Education

2010 Massachusetts Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 416-6137

Fax: (202) 296-6620

Jim Fox

National Institute on Postsecondary

Education, Libraries, and Lifelong

Learning

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2207

Fax: (202) 501-3005

Susan Fuhrman

Dean

Graduate School of Education

University of Pennsylvania

3700 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104-6216

(215) 898-7014

Fax: (215) 573-2032

Daniel Goroff

Senior Policy Analyst

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Old Executive Office Building

Washington, DC 20502

(202) 456-1414

Fax: (202) 456-6003

E-mail: d.goroff@ostp.eop.gov

Patricia Graham

President

The Spencer Foundation

900 North Michigan Avenue

Chicago, IL 60611

(312) 337-7000

Fax: (312) 337-0282

National Directions in Education Research Planning

-;-.7?.1;:n-72,14!...* .
Appendix B

James Griffin

National Institute on Early Childhood

Development and Education

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2168

Fax: (202) 273-4768

Kenji Hakuta

Chair

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

Professor

School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 725-7454

Fax: (650) 723-7578

E-mail: hakuta@leland.stanford.edu

Peirce Hammond

Director

Office of Reform Assistance and

Dissemination

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2164

Fax: (202) 219-2106

E-mail: Peirce_Hammond@ed.gov

Douglas Herbert

Director

Arts in Education

National Endowment for the Arts

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20506

(202) 682-5438

Fax: (202) 682-5660

E-mail: herbert@arts.endow.gov

Elfrieda Hiebert

Director

Center for the Improvementof Early

Reading Achievement

School of Education

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259

(734) 647-6940

Fax: (734) 763-1229

E-mail: hiebert@mich.edu

Debra Hollinger Martinez

National Institute on the Education of

At-Risk Students

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2024

Fax: (202) 219-2030

Jacqueline Jenkins

National Institute on Student

Achievement, Curriculum, and

Assessment

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2079

Fax: (202) 219-2135

E-mail: Jackie_Jenkins@ed.gov

Todd Jones

President

National Education Knowledge

Industry Association

1200 19th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 429-5101

Fax: (202) 785-3849

3 0

24 National Directions In Education Research Planning
73".c4. ppericlix B.

Michael Kirst

Chair

Board on International Comparative

Studies in Education

School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305-3096

(650) 723-4412

Fax: (650) 725-7412

Joseph Krajcik

Professor

University of Michigan

610 East University

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259

(734) 647-0597

Fax: (734) 763-1368

Carole Lacampagne

Director

National Institute on Postsecondary

Education, Libraries, and Lifelong

Learning

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2064

Fax: (202) 501-3005

Judith Langer

Director

National Research Center on English

Learning and Achievement

ED-B9 SUNY-Albany

1400 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12222

(518) 442-5026

Fax: (518) 442-5933

Glenda Lappan

Member

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

Department of Mathematics

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48224

(517) 353-4657

Fax: (517) 432-2872

E-mail: glapfan@math.msu.edu

"s- ,::F:v6N . National Directions In EilOcationMlieseritiCh k!lehnIn

Thelma Leenhouts

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

U.S. Department of Education

80 F Street NW

Washington, DC 20208-7564

(202) 219-2065

Fax: (202) 219-1528

E-mail: Thelma_Leenhouts@ed.gov

Debbie Leong-Childs

Project Director

National Academy of Education

School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305-3084

(650) 725-1228

Fax: (650) 725-2165

E-mail: ea.dlc@forsythe.stanford.edu

Robert Linn

Professor

CRESST University of Colorado

Campus Box 249

Boulder, CO 80309-0249

(303) 492-8280

Fax: (303) 492-7090

Mary Grace Lucier

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

U.S. Department of Education

80 F Street NW

Washington, DC 20208-7564

(202) 219-2253

Fax: (202) 219-1528

E-mail: Mary_Grace_Lucier@ed.gov

3 1
G. Reid Lyon

Chief

Child Development and Behavior Branch

National Institute of Child Health and

Human Development

9000 Rockville Pike, MSC 7510

Building 6100, Room 4B05

Bethesda, MD 20892-7510

(301) 402-5261

Fax: (301) 480-7773

E-mail: lyonr@exchange.nih.gov

Dianne Maranto

Director of Workforce and Education

Policy

American Psychological Association

750 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 336-6000

Fax: (202) 336-5953

Robert Marley

Member

National Education Research Policy

and Priorities Board

Department of Education

Wichita State University

Wichita, KS 67260-0038

(316) 722-3683

Fax: (316) 729-8323

E-mail: rcmarley @feist.com

Richard McCarty

Executive Director for Science

American Psychological Association

750 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20002-4242

(202) 336-5500

Fax: (202) 336-5953

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2050

Fax: (202) 219-1402

Oliver C. Moles

National Institute on the Education of

At-Risk Students

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2239

Fax: (202) 219-2030

William Morrill

Mathtech Inc.

202 Carnegie Center

Princeton, NJ 08540-6239

(609) 520-3850

Fax: (609) 520-3849

E-mail: wmorrill@mathtechinc.com

Frederic Mosher

Senior Policy Analyst

Carnegie Corporation of New York

437 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10514

(212) 207-6239

Fax: (212) 753-0395

Joyce Muhlestein

Member

National Educational Research

Policy and Priorities Board

Utah Center for Families

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

(801) 538-7756

Fax: (801) 538-7769

(. 3?

26 National Directions in Education Research Planning
"4'1 , ppendix 13

- Frank Newman

President

Education Commission of the States

707 17th Street

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 299-3629

Fax: (303) 296-8332

E-mail: fnewman@ecs.org

Alba Ortiz

Member

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

Professor

College of Education

Department of Special Education

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, TX 78712

(512) 471-6244

Fax: (512) 471-5550

E-mail: alba.ortiz@mail.utexas.edu

Claire Pe lton

Member

National Educational Research Policy

and Priorities Board

The College Board

San Jose, CA 95110

(408) 452-1400

Fax: (408) 453-7396

E-mail: cpelton@collegeboard.org

Ivor Pritchard

National Institute on Student

Achievement, Curriculum, and

Assessment

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2231

Fax: (202) 347-5047

3 3

Jill Reich

Executive Director for Education

American Psychological Association

750 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

(202) 336-5500

Marian Robinson

National Institute on Student

Achievement, Curriculum, and

Assessment

Office of Educational Research

and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2215

Fax: (202) 219-2135

Thomas Romberg

Director

NCISLA/Math and Science

University of Wisconsin-Madison

1025 West Johnson Street

Madison, WI 53706

(608) 263-3605

Fax: (608) 263-3406

Bella Rosenberg

Assistant to the President

American Federation of Teachers

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 879-4562

Fax: (202) 393-7481

Ema Lea Schelke

Trenton High School

2601 Charlton

Trenton, MI 48138

(734) 692-4530

Fax: (734) 692-4615

National Directions In Education Re-Seer:on kenning.'

.
Appendix B

Paul Schwarz

Principal in Residence

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20202

(202) 205-0687

Fax: (202) 401-3095

David Shaw

Chair

Panel on Educational Technology

D.E. Shaw and Company Inc.

120 West 45th Street

New York, NY 10027

(202) 478-0000

William Sibley

Acting Division Director

Research, Evaluation, and

Communications

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22230

(703) 306-1655

Fax: (703) 306-0434

E-mail: wsibley@nsf.gov

Enid Simmons

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-1739

Fax: (202) 219-1736

E-mail: Enid_Simmons@ed.gov

Marshall Smith

Acting Deputy Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20202

(202) 401-1000

Fax: (202) 401-3093

Mavis Smith

National Institute on the Education of

At-Risk Students

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-2239

Fax: (202) 219-2030

Catherine Snow

Professor of Education

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Cambridge, MA 02138

(617) 495-3563

Fax: (617) 495-5771

E-mail: snowcat @ hugsel.harvard.edu

Gerald Sroufe

Director

Government and Public Liaison

Committee

AERA

1230 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036-3078

(202) 223-9485

Fax: (202) 775-1824

E-mail: jerry@aera.net

John Stanfield II

Director

Center for Urban Research and Policy

Studies

University of California at Davis

Davis, CA 95616-8701

(530) 752-5388

Fax: (530) 752-0783

34

28 National Directions in Education Research Planning
47 Robert Stonehill

Office of Reform Assistance and

Dissemination

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208-5644

(202) 219-2088

Fax: (202) 219-2198

Ricky Takai

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208

(202) 219-1385

Fax: (202) 219-1402

E-mail: ricky_takai@ed.gov

Kevin Tee ley

President

Lake Washington Education Association

17530 Union Hill Road

Redmond, WA 98052

(425) 885-7222

Fax: (425) 867-9703

P. Michael Timpane

Senior Advisor for Education Policy

RAND Corporation

1333 H Street NW

Washington, DC 20005-4707

(202) 296-5000

Fax: (202) 296-7960

William Trent

Professor of Educational Policy Studies

and Sociology

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

Champaign, IL 61820

(217) 333-4238

Fax: (217) 244-4121

National Directions in Education Research Planning

35

'4+ ppendix

Alexandra Wigdor

Director

Division on Education, Labor, and

Human Performance

National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20418

(202) 334-3026

Fax: (202) 334-3584

E-mail: swigdor@nas.edu
United Stat6s

Department of Education.

Washington, DC 20208--,. 756 it

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

"

: PPI3,1999-6312

,I Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. G-17

Standard Mail (A)

36
ERIC,

(9091)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUa.4TIONI

Ottica ot Educational fiaaaamti and Impr.IlinAt

Educational Hosowcom Informtion Cof:lor (1/0C)

NOTICE

iREPRODUCTION BASIS

TM029402

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,

does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federallyfunded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may bc reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release

form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").