THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF 

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 28, 2002 

Serial No. 107-47 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

81-203 pdf 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

 MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado, Vice Chairman DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado SUSAN DAVIS, California 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RON KIND, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 
iii

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 1 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.......................................................... 2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DALE E. KILDEE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ..................... 4 

STATEMENT OF GROVER “RUSS” WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE 

OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. .......................................................................................... 6 

STATEMENT OF JIM HORNE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA BOARD OF EDUCATION, 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE EDUCATION LEADERS 

COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. .............................................................................................. 27 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN, COMMISSIONER, NEBRASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................... 31 

STATEMENT OF LISA TOWNE, SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER AND STUDY 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EDUCATION, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 35 

STATEMENT OF ANNE BRYANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCHOOL 

BOARDS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA .......................................................... 38 

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ................... 59 

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GROVER “RUSS” WHITEHURST, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND 

IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. ............... 63 

APPENDIX C - QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY WHITEHURST BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 75 
iv

APPENDIX D - RESPONSE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY WHITEHURST TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ................... 79 

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JIM HORNE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA 

BOARD OF EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.................................................... 85 

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN, 

COMMISSIONER, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, 

NEBRASKA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL 

OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. ............................................................................................. 93 

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LISA TOWNE, SENIOR PROGRAM 

OFFICER AND STUDY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EDUCATION, NATIONAL 

RESEARCH COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. ...................................................................... 107 

APPENDIX H - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ANNE BRYANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA ................. 117 

APPENDIX I - DOCUMENT REGARDING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

COMPREHENSIVE ASSISTANCE CENTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE 

HONORABLE HILDA SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.............................................. 127 

APPENDIX J - QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY WHITEHURST BY THE HONORABLE HILDA SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................. 137 

APPENDIX K - RESPONSE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY WHITEHURST TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE 

HILDA SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................................... 141 

Table of Indexes.......................................................................................................................... 145 
1

HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE 

OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT 

_____________________________________________________________

Thursday, February 28, 2002 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Education Reform, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Michael Castle [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Castle, Biggert, Keller, Osborne, Kildee, Scott, Woolsey, Solis, 

Davis, Owens, Payne, Kind, and Kucinich. 

 Staff Present: Blake Hegeman, Legislative Assistant; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff 

Member; Doug Mesecar, Professional Staff Member; Deborah Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Bob Sweet, Professional Staff Member; Heather Valentine, Press Secretary; Denise 

Forte, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Maggie McDow, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; and Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Assistant/Education.

Chairman Castle. I call the Education Reform Subcommittee to order. 

 I will give a brief opening statement, and call on Mr. Kildee for an opening statement. 

Secretary Whitehurst will then testify. We will have questions from the members of the panel who 

are available, and then we will go to the second panel with the same format. Each of them will 

testify. We have some introductions from members and then we will have questions. 

 There may be votes, we understand, at 11:30. Hopefully, we won't have to break. We can 

keep it going by rolling people and maybe we'll have to break. Then we'll try to go from there to 

some sort of a finish. So we'll see. 
2

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 I would, obviously, like to welcome everybody here today in preparation for the 

reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, known as OERI. 

 Two years ago, I introduced H.R. 4875, the Scientifically Based Education Research, 

Statistics, Evaluation and Information Act, to reform OERI and to institutionalize new standards of 

quality to ensure that our Federal investments produce results where they matter most - in the 

classroom. 

 Then and now, I am seeking to insulate our Federal research, evaluation, and statistics 

activities from partisan or undue political influences, put the needs of our teachers and students 

first, insist on the use of rigorous scientific standards to identify and disseminate effective 

strategies and methods, and ensure that program evaluations are impartial. 

 Today's hearing will focus on the reauthorization of OERI and our discussion will be based, 

in large part, on H.R. 4875, which was unanimously approved by the subcommittee last Congress. 

 It is my hope that we will also discuss my new legislation, H.R. 3801, the Education 

Sciences Reform Act, which I believe incorporates the best ideas of H.R. 4875 and other 

reauthorization proposals. 

 During the 106th Congress, we all agreed that the reform and restructuring of OERI were 

needed and we agreed that improving student achievement, not protecting the current structure, was 

our main objective. 

 H.R. 4875, as reported by the subcommittee, established a bipartisan benchmark in the 

reauthorization process. It created a more independent Federal education research, statistics, and 

evaluation entity. 

 It simplified the Federal education research process and it provided independent objective 

evaluations of Federal education programs, among other things. 

 Much like H.R. 4875, the new bill would replace OERI with a new Academy of Education 

Sciences that would provide the infrastructure for the undertaking of coordinated and high quality 

education research, statistics gathering, program evaluation, and dissemination. 

 The Academy would be located within the Department of Education, but it would function 

as a separate office under the direction of a National Board for Education Sciences. 
3

 I believe this change will help ensure that the Academy's activities are carried out with the 

greatest levels of independence and integrity. 

 We all know that tried and true information is critical to the development of sound 

education policy. For this reason, our bill adopts clear standards and definitions to define the 

degree of precision that must be used when individuals and organizations conduct education 

research with Federal funds. 

 As many of us will recall, these definitions were threaded throughout the bipartisan No 

Child Left Behind Act. Then, through a new Knowledge Utilization Office, information on the 

findings of the scientifically valid research would be disseminated in an understandable format, 

ensuring that teachers and school administrators receive the latest information on proven learning 

programs and strategies. 

 Finally, the new legislation attempts to fill the need for high quality technical assistance by 

giving the Secretary of Education new authority to oversee a regionally based, consumer-driven 

grant program. 

 As envisioned in my bill, the grant program would combine and direct existing funds to 

address issues and questions regarding core academic areas, such as reading, math, science, and 

technology.

 The regional structure would also be used to assess local needs and provide Federal 

education program support to local schools and school districts, including the administration and 

implementation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs. 

 This change, I believe, is significant. As I am sure we will hear today, school 

administrators, educators, and parents are already examining various strategies and methods to help 

their students meet and exceed new and more challenging standards of achievement and 

accountability. And I want quality education research, not fads or anecdotes, to inform their 

decisions on the best way to improve student learning and narrow achievement gaps. 

 By holding education research, evaluations, and statistics to new standards of quality, 

improving the focus of these activities so they address the needs of educators and policymakers, 

and laying the framework for the dissemination of high quality, scientifically valid information, I 

believe we can build the foundation to improve the education of our children and all of our nation's 

students. I believe our bill, H.R. 3801, is a good start. 

 I wish to thank everyone here for taking the time to be with us. As I said, in just a few 

moments, we will proceed with the introduction of OERI Assistant Secretary Whitehurst. 

 I will yield to Ranking Member Kildee at this time for any statements he may wish to make. 
4

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX A 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DALE E. 

KILDEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here with you as we continue our 

efforts this Congress at reauthorizing the Office of Education Research and Improvement and other 

related programs. 

 I want to especially welcome Dr. Whitehurst to what I believe is his first appearance before 

this committee as the Assistant Secretary for OERI. 

 The research, technical assistance, dissemination, and evaluation activities of the 

Department are critical if we are to improve the educational achievement of our nation's students. 

 The 1994 reauthorization of OERI, spearheaded by one of our experts in this area, Major 

Owens, increased the emphasis and the quality of these activities within the Department. 

 It is my hope and expectation that we will be able to reach a bipartisan consensus and 

reauthorization of OERI and enable a bill to be signed into law this year, Mr. Chairman. 

 Our work last Congress resolved a major difference between myself and Governor Castle 

over the establishment of an independent Federal agency outside the Department of Education to 

administer OERI's function. 

 While additional differences remain, I am confident and look forward to working together 

to resolve those outstanding issues. 

 A vital focus on our deliberations should be a stronger methodology for dissemination of 

research based best practices in a fashion that can be understood by local and state level consumers. 

 I do not believe that research is disseminated in a user-friendly fashion presently and I am 

hopeful that we can improve upon existing efforts and that effective dissemination becomes a 

priority for this administration. 

 It is also critical to invest additional resources if we are to ensure that we produce quality 

research that can reach and inform the local level in an understandable and useful format. 

 For too long, the appropriation for OERI has been pitifully small compared to other Federal 

research efforts. 
5

 Unfortunately, this administration's budget largely maintains its status quo on funding since 

it eliminates a number of technical assistance initiatives. 

 Lastly, I want to briefly express a concern over the impact of scientifically based research in 

reading, specifically the Department's implementation of the Reading First program. 

 Reading First's use of scientifically based research should not be used by the Department of 

Education to force states and localities to use a one-size-fits-all curriculum. 

 Rather, as is clearly articulated in the legislation and the accompanying report language, 

states and localities should be free to choose from a wide variety of reading programs and 

approaches, so long as they meet the requirements of the statute. 

 In closing, Governor, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to 

working with you on this issue. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. We've worked through some differences here - it is not 

quite as independent as it was before. 

 If we work through enough, maybe we could just skip this hearing and proceed to the 

markup, but I guess that's not a proper thing to ask for at this point. And, there are still some things 

we have to work out. 

 But let me just say not only to Mr. Kildee and to all the members here, but also to those in 

the audience who are interested in this bill that we really have been on the same wavelength from 

the beginning about making this work better. Assistant Secretary Whitehurst has as well, and it's a 

question of working out details. We do want to move this pretty quickly. 

So if you do have input, you really need to get it back to us. We are looking for a resolution 

that we can all say, ‘hey, this is a better way of doing it.’ 

 And I haven't talked to a lot of people, quite frankly, who defend the old structure out there. 

Even the insiders, to be candid, when you really have a chance to talk to them, say, ‘hey, this just 

isn't working as well as it could.’ 

 So it's a chance to make progress. This is not the kind of bill people are going to run for 

political office on. 

 Hopefully we can do something in the best interests of education and of our kids. 

 But, let's go to the Assistant Secretary. Russ Whitehurst is the Assistant Secretary for 

OERI. He was the lead professor and chair in the Department of Psychology at the State 

University of New York at Stoneybrook, where he taught since 1970. 

 During this time, he has held several academic and leadership posts within the university, 

including Director of Applied Child and Family Studies, Chairman of the University Committee on 
6

Child and Family Studies, and Professor of Clinical Psychology and Pediatrics. 

 Today, his tenure at OERI marks the first time in the research office's 22-year existence that 

it has been headed up by an education researcher. That may tell you something right there. 

 For that reason, I have especially appreciated his strong personal interest in revamping 

OERI to generate scientifically valid research that will empower our states, school districts, and 

educators with proven programs and methods to help educate our children - particularly those who 

are disadvantaged or limited English proficient. 

 I look forward to working with him to pass an OERI reform bill this year. 

Mr. Secretary, we are pleased to have you here and the time is yours. 

 About the clock, so all the witnesses understand, and I think most of you have been here 

before, but you get a green light at four minutes - they're right there in the little boxes. You get a 

yellow light at one minute, and then you get the red light. And, obviously, when you see the red 

light, you should start thinking about trying to sum up and finish up at that point. 

Secretary Whitehurst. 

STATEMENT OF GROVER “RUSS” WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND 

IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee. You may not remember that 

the previous occasion in which I was scheduled to testify was September 13th. I did not have that 

opportunity. A lot has happened to us all since then. 

 I am extremely pleased to be able to be here today and to offer my testimony. 

 Last year's bipartisan reauthorization bill was a very important step toward improving the 

vigor and the relevance of education research. 

 The Administration and I support the fundamental principles underlying that bill. We 

applaud you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee, and the members of the committee, for your efforts. 

 The shared understanding of the Congress and the administration about the role of research 

in educational reform was evidenced vividly in the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act. 

 In that bill, the phrase ``scientifically based research'' appears 110 times. 
7

 If scientifically based research is going to be the key to reforming our most important 

Federal education programs, then we better make sure that the Federal office with the principal 

responsibility for generating that research has the tools it needs to get the job done. 

 Let me give you my reflections on how new legislation could help us move forward 

towards our overriding goal of making education an evidenced-based field. 

 There are problems with our current administrative structure. For instance, we have five 

internal National Research Institutes with overlapping responsibilities.

 Should our new research initiative in reading comprehension be the responsibility of the AtRisk Institute or the Achievement Institute? And, isn't it also relevant to the Early Childhood 

Institute and the Post-Secondary Institute? 

 It would be much, much better if we had the ability to organize and reorganize ourselves as 

needed to pursue the particular research topics at hand. 

 We believe, consistent with your bill last year, and the bill introduced this morning, that 

new legislation should provide for a simple and uncluttered organizational framework. 

 A director would head an Academy of Education Sciences that would include three centers 

responsible for research, statistics, and evaluation, each with its own commissioner. 

 The recent National Research Council report on scientific research and education concluded 

that building a scientific culture within the Department's research agency is a prerequisite for all 

else.

 We agree. In order to do this, we need to hire scientists for accepted service positions 

outside the regular civil service. OERI currently has this authority. We want to see it continue. 

 Building a scientific culture at the Department's research agency also requires stability and 

leadership.

 OERI has had more assistant secretaries and acting assistant secretaries than it has had years 

of existence. We need legislation that enhances the likelihood that the Director and the 

commissions of the principal centers will serve for a substantial period of time. 

 At the NIH and other Federal agencies, the initiation of grant competitions requires only 

internal review. In the Department of Education, in contrast to all other Federal agencies, we are 

required by law to regulate separately for each competition and each review. 

 Establishing standing peer review panels also requires regulation. New legislation that 

would release us from the heavy burden of regulation is very important. 

 The research activities within the Department have sometimes been seen by the outside 

community and Congress as more subject to political involvement than would be the case for 
8

research conducted at the NIH or NSF. 

 The centers for research, statistics, and evaluation need to conduct work that is based on 

sound science and that is independent of politics or partisanship. 

 We look forward to working with the committee toward legislation that supports that goal. 

 We believe it is critically important to separate the research agency from the responsibility 

for delivering educational programs and technical assistance. 

 Over the years, an increasing number of such activities have been assigned to OERI, to the 

point that over two-thirds of the budget is devoted to non-research programs. 

 The agency responsible for evaluating program effectiveness cannot fulfill its role if it is 

delivering the very educational programs and technical assistance that it is supposed to evaluate. 

 We need a solid intellectual connection between scientific research and technical assistance, 

but we believe it is very important to keep these two types of activity operationally distinct. 

 The research agency needs adequate resources in order to support a sustained and 

cumulative research effort in the areas of its responsibility. 

 The entire research and statistics budget of OERI for Fiscal Year 2002 is less than one half 

of one percent of the Department's discretionary budget, and the core research and dissemination 

budget is only $122 million. 

 I am extremely pleased that the President is committed to increasing funding for education 

research. Accordingly, he has proposed an unprecedented 44 percent increase for Fiscal Year 2003 

in the core research budget. 

 We need the support of Congress in making an appropriation consistent with the President's 

request, so that we can move forward on the very important work that needs to be done. 

 This is a unique and, I think, an unparalleled opportunity to begin a process that will make 

American education an evidence-based field. 

 If we succeed in that task, historians may look back at our actions as building the 

foundation for a new era of learning and teaching, an era that propelled the United States into 

another century of preeminence. 

 Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to 

testify. 
9

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF GROVER “RUSS” WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your testimony and your interest, as 

well as the cooperation of your staff for working on it. 

 To begin, I would like to ask a couple of questions, and let me start with this. 

 This is something that has bothered me. I'm not an expert on this - you are much more 

knowledgeable than I, and others who here as well. 

 So when I start talking about scientifically based research, et cetera, it's a little vague to me. 

 I don't understand why the most basic research practices that take place in other fields, 

quality research designs, carefully constructed hypotheses, peer reviewed grants, replication, don't 

take place in education. 

 It seems to me, in education, we come up with an idea, then try it in the classrooms, and 

someone says, “Gee, it really works.” Then there's a little pilot thing of it, there's a little 

comparison that is made, and that kind of thing. 

 Are we addressing this problem in this bill or should we address this problem, or is it such a 

soft science, if you will, as a social science, that you can't do this? 

 My view is you can and I want to make sure that we are moving at least in that direction. 

Mr. Whitehurst. I don't think there is any doubt that we can. If you look within the existing 

research literature, you will find many instances in which it has been done and it has been done 

well.

 But it is, I think, a fact, and the National Research Council has endorsed the view that 

education has, up until recently, not adopted the procedures of other fields, like medicine or 

agriculture or even, relevant to your comment, social and behavioral fields, like criminal justice and 

social welfare, in employing the methods of science as a basis for education decision-making. 

 I think that we are close to a point where the right investments, the right structure, and a 

scientific culture in place to move that forward could get us to a tipping point where education 

moves towards being an evidence-based field. 

 I think we are very close to being there. Frankly, I was attracted to this position because I 

think there is an opportunity to move things in that direction and to the point where it would be 

difficult to move back. 
10

 If you look at medicine, for example, it's really only been within the last 75 years that 

medicine has become an evidence-based field. 

 My grandmother's brother was a country doctor and he got in his buggy with his horse and 

he drove around and he delivered babies. He probably did a little bit for fevers. I don't think he did 

a lot of harm, but he did not have much in his medicine kit that was really helpful. 

 It was really the development of biochemistry, the science of physiology which allowed 

medicine to get to the point where it had a basic understanding of disease. Then it was the bringing 

on board of clinical trials, experiments in the field in 1948, which have skyrocketed now to the 

point that there are 10,000 of them. That allowed medicine to take basic science and determine how 

it actually worked. 

 We can do that in education. We need to do it. This administration, the Secretary and I are 

committed to seeing that all of our funding, all of our dissemination efforts are based on strong 

science and are moving toward the goal of having educational decisions based on evidence and 

science.

Chairman Castle. Let me come back to that, but let me ask another question first, and that is a 

direct question of what, if any, changes would you like to see in the Education Sciences Reform 

Act of 2002 that was just introduced. 

 We have worked with your office, to a degree, on it, but we need to know that. 

 Mr. Kildee will probably ask these questions because I don't know the numbers that well at 

this point, but we need to know them very well before we pass this legislation. There is little bit of 

a difference in terms of that in the explanations, because you say that the core budget has been 

increased.

Mr. Kildee said something about technical budgets or something. It sounds to me like there is 

more than one budgeting item here and we need to get the numbers resolved. 

 But I need to get some sense, and I don't mind looking at additional spending if we have to 

do it. I'm not wild about more spending, but I will look at that. I want to make sure that it's 

something you can do, that we're not just throwing money at something for the sake of doing it. 

That it's something you can manage. 

 So in answering any questions about any other changes, I am concerned about the 

authorization of dollars, as well, because I want the research to work. That is what I'm after. 

 If it's less money, fine. If it's more money, fine. I just want it to work. 

 But are there any general suggestions, things we should still be looking at in this 

legislation? 
11

Mr. Whitehurst. As you know, Mr. Castle, the legislation was just introduced this morning. I took 

a look at it-. 

Chairman Castle. You had an hour. I don't understand what the problem is. 

Mr. Whitehurst. I've looked at it and have some thoughts that I would be glad to share with you 

and your staffers. 

 The Administration has not had a chance to go through it yet, so I'd rather not speak on this 

occasion.

Chairman Castle. I don't have a problem with that, but we do need to hear from you rapidly, and 

include those numbers when you do. 

Mr. Whitehurst. I think with regard to the budget issues, the President did propose what was 

rounded to a 44 percent increase in the core research and dissemination budget. 

 I think it was an 11 or 12 percent increase in the statistics budget. 

 I believe that is an amount of money that we can digest and use productively in 2003. I 

hope, in doing that, we can demonstrate to the Administration, to this committee, and to the 

Appropriations Committee that when we are given additional money, we can spend it well and 

produce results that are useful to the American people. And, with that as a foundation, we would be 

in a position to ask for additional increases in the out years. 

Chairman Castle. I'm not going to ask you to answer this, because I'm running out of time, but I'm 

just going to mention it and it goes back to the first point. 

 In the No Child Left Behind legislation, the expression scientifically based research is 

mentioned a 100 times with a lot of little definitions - or whatever they may be. 

 I think it's very important that we have a consensus on what scientifically based research is 

before it's all said and done in this legislation. And it's something I think we need, just as we do on 

the dollars, we need to keep an eye out for that, as well. 

 I hope it has been achieved, but it's an area, I think, of particular concern, because I think 

that's a fundamental shift we need as far as education research is concerned. 

 You don't need to comment now, but I just wanted to leave you with that suggestion. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Dr. Whitehurst, you bring great credentials to 

your job. I really look forward to working with you and I think you can be very, very helpful both 

to the people out there being served by education and to this committee as we make our policy. 
12

 One of the most critical tools that the Department can use to judge the quality of research is 

peer review. How would you envision you would utilize peer review? 

Mr. Whitehurst. That is an excellent point, Mr. Kildee. In my submitted testimony, I made 

several remarks about the need to establish a culture of science within the research agency and the 

Department of Education. 

 Peer review is the fundamental mechanism used in science for determining what's good and 

what is not so good, what should be funded, what shouldn't be funded, what should be published, 

what shouldn't be published, what should be disseminated, and what should not. 

 Peer review, however, is only as good as the peer reviewers who are selected to conduct 

that review. 

 I have noted in my testimony, worked on by the current board, that an examination of the 

process of peer review in 1999 found three committees reviewing research that had on them no one 

with any competence in the areas of the topics that were being reviewed. There were no real 

credentials. 

 My efforts to date have been focused extensively on the issue of peer review. We have a 

number of new initiatives we are putting in place this year. 

 My senior research advisor and I go over in detail everyone who is a potential reviewer, 

examine their credentials, look at their vitae, make sure that they have competence, both 

methodological competence and substantive competence in the areas that are important. 

 The legislation that we would like to see passed would allow us to set up standing 

committees. We cannot do that now very easily. 

 By a standing committee, I mean this. If we have, as we are initiating, a research program 

in reading comprehension that seeks to better understand what the principles, processes, and 

approaches are that can help children understand well what they read once they have learned how 

to read - it would be very useful to have a standing committee of experts, peers, if you will, who 

would not only be experts in the area and serve to advise me and other people in OERI, but who 

also can serve as a core of peer reviewers for research as it goes forward. 

 So I think the key is to select good peer reviewers. We can do a better job with new 

legislation than we're currently able to do in defining the rules, regulations and procedures that 

those peer reviewers should use. We have drafts of those documents ready to go, but fundamentally 

it is a people business and if you get the right scientists with the right credentials and the right 

understanding of how the game works on these peer review committees, I think you get a very 

different outcome than if you don't. 

 So it is a very critical part of the process. 
13

Mr. Kildee. All of us could pick people who review something, who we would expect to have one 

point of view. So we have to avoid that subjectivity, and I think you are on that path of trying to 

achieve that yourself. 

 Let me ask you this, too. The Department has put out an RFP to set up a new dissemination 

system under the OERI, despite the fact that Congress is now only in the very beginning stage of 

OERI reauthorization, why has the Department moved ahead on this given that the authority for 

this new dissemination system may not exist as outlined in the RFP? 

Mr. Whitehurst. Are you referring to the What Works Clearinghouse, Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Yes. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Well, we believe that the authority is very clearly stated in the current statute and 

exists in the spirit of every reauthorization proposal or draft or conversation that we have seen. 

 It is reflected in the comments that you made to us this morning that, to date, a fundamental 

gap exists in terms of serving the American people, for making available high quality evidence in a 

form that is useable, understandable, and easily digestible. We thought it was very important to 

move forward with that plan. 

 We have sought the advice of legal counsel in the Department as to whether there was, in 

fact, authority to do this. And, the sense was that it is clearly there in the statute. 

 We believe it is important to provide, in the context of ESEA, as quickly as we can, 

information that will allow people to make decisions based on the best available evidence that is 

out there. 

 So we have moved ahead rapidly with that. 

Mr. Kildee. I would suggest, inasmuch as the Governor here wants to move this bill a little more 

rapidly than I want, that since we may move this bill ahead rapidly, you might want to slow down 

the RFP so we can make sure the authority exists for that RFP. 

Mr. Whitehurst. I appreciate your comments and we are certainly interested in that and would be 

pleased to talk with you about it. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. I think Mr. Kildee was going to say ``we'' want to move it as fast as possible, 

but we'll get to that in a moment. 

Mrs. Biggert? 
14

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I think that we are all concerned about 

the regional laboratory program and the real value that they bring to education. 

 I have a lab, the North Central Regional Laboratory, in Oak Brook, Illinois - in my 

congressional district. I certainly support the effort to restructure OERI, and I'm a co-sponsor of 

Chairman Castle's bill. 

 But the responsibility for transitioning these labs to the new regime will reside with your 

office. And, as I have said, I think that these laboratories have certainly provided value. 

 So how will you help them through the transition and ensure that they are left strong enough 

to compete? 

Mr. Whitehurst. Let me say that I have met, in the last several months, several times with the 

CEOs of the organizations that run the regional labs, including the regional lab in your district. I 

have found them to be a very impressive group of people. I found that their organizations and labs, 

in many instances, provide very valuable services to the states and the local educational agencies in 

their regions. 

 There is a great deal of variability in the lab product. There are regions like yours where the 

chief state school officers tell me that their lab is great, “They help me all the time, and we need 

that sort of assistance.” 

 There are other areas in which the chief state school officers say to me, “We have a regional 

lab? I did not know that.” 

 I think the intent of the bill that was introduced this morning, as well as the thinking within 

the Department, is that we need to come up with structures and mechanisms so that every lab can 

be driven by the needs of its region and also conserve those needs as well. 

 Again, I think this is a very valuable resource. I have been working a lot with Secretary 

Neuman to try to bring together the labs and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education in 

an effort to help with the implementation issues in ESEA. 

 There is a growing sense, I think, throughout the Department that the labs are a valuable 

resource. We need to be very careful in whatever transition we do to preserve those resources and 

make them available. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Maybe this is a little bit off the topic, but the NAEP tests have certainly 

been an area generating a lot of discussion, as far as how this is going to work and looking at the 

performance of students. 

 Have you had a lot of comments on that test? Are there going to be revisions or, if you 

know, how this is going to work in the future? 
15

Mr. Whitehurst. I have been involved in many discussions on this issue, both within the 

Administration, with staffers and members of Congress, with the National Center for Education 

Statistics, with the Education Testing Service, which is a principal contractor, and certainly with 

NAGB.

 It is important for all of us to understand that under the statute, this is a NAGB 

responsibility. My role is to sort of be a gadfly around the edges. 

 I serve as ex-officio on the NAGB board. I know that the NAGB and the NCS have a 

process in place, I was briefed on it last week, to thoroughly review all of the existing questions, 

including those that have already been released out on the web, to take special care that they be 

non-political, non-partisan, and to include all the other characteristics indicated in the statute, and 

to put in place a new process to review these questions going forward. To make sure that they are 

the sort of questions that not only focus on the content of interest in a valid way, but that they are 

also questions that will not be offensive to people who take the test, or the parents of people who 

take the test. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Whitehurst, you're going to get a lot of questions 

on process and organization. 

 I would like to kind of cut through that and figure out what you are doing in terms of 

providing information on subjects such as dropout prevention, challenges to educating at-risk 

youth, and urban children, and diverse cultures, the effect of resource allocation on educational 

results, methods on reducing the achievement gaps, and what kind of education would most likely 

increase the likelihood of employment and self-sufficiency and less likely to end up on drugs. 

 After whatever structure you've got, what are we getting in terms of subjects like that? 

Mr. Whitehurst. The issue that you address, I think, is an issue of focus and an issue of relevance.

As I examined the portfolio of activities currently funded by OERI, I noted that there are some that 

fit into each of the topics you have mentioned. 

 We do not have the resources to cover all of those topics and to cover all of those topics 

well. And a result of the dispersion of our resources over a large number of topics with little 

pockets of money in each of those is that we have not been able, I think, to address any of them 

with the force and with the sort of cumulative effort that is necessary to produce real solutions to 

these problems. 
16

 We need to establish some very clear priorities and pursue them. Many of the topics that 

you mentioned will be among our priorities. 

 Let me, if you don't mind, mention some things that we have initiated this year. 

 As I alluded to previously in my comments to Mr. Kildee, we have initiated a new initiative 

in reading comprehension. We think there is now a lot of research to guide the process of and 

teaching with regard to early reading and reading in the elementary grades. There is much less to 

tell us what happens when you have a child in junior high school who isn't reading well and how do 

you remedy that and how do you catch that child. 

 We need to understand the reading comprehension process, we need to understand how to 

measure it and we need to understand how to deliver educational interventions that help these kids. 

 It is very well and good to focus on prevention efforts, and that is the intent of ESEA and 

Reading First and Early Reading First. We have a generation of kids who are out of elementary 

school or shortly going to be out of elementary school. 

 So I think it's very important. Another area in which we have launched an initiative that we 

hope to be able to continue in future years is to understand what sorts of preschool programs, in 

fact, enable children to enter school ready to learn. 

 We find that states are moving increasingly towards state sponsored pre-K. The State of 

Georgia, for example, has a universal pre-K program. 

 You go to their web page, you find that it lists seven preschool curricula that are approved, 

and very little research on any of those curricula that would tell us what is good and what isn't. 

Mr. Scott. You mentioned a lot of different things. OERI has been around for a long time. 

 Have we gotten this information in results of the research in such a format that we can 

actually use it? We would need it, as legislators, to make sure it got into the legislation and 

teachers would need it in the format not of an abstract of research, but in lesson plans. 

 Has it been converted into something, translated into something useful? 

Mr. Whitehurst. In some cases, certainly it has. Success for All, which is the largest single 

comprehensive school reform model used in the United States, was developed and funded through 

OERI.

 Efforts at CREST, our research center at UCLA on assessment, have provided significant 

guidance on how assessment systems can be structured so that they provide the most useful 

information to teachers and parents. 

 In other cases, as I have indicated, we simply have substantial gaps in the knowledge base.

We not only have gaps in achievement that you are very appropriately concerned with, but we have 
17

significant gaps in the knowledge that would help us address those achievement gaps. 

Mr. Scott. I'm going to try to get in another quick question. My time is just about up. 

 Do you incorporate, in terms of your research, research that you did not fund, but somebody 

else did, and try to get that into your knowledge base and are you coordinating your research with 

NIJ and others to figure out what kind of holistic research, anti-drug programs and things like that? 

Mr. Whitehurst. Yes. The research that we will review and disseminate, both currently within the 

Education Resources Information Clearinghouse, and going forward with the What Works 

Clearinghouse. It will be information from all sources. It doesn't make any difference who funded 

it.

 And we have a number of cooperative programs going with the NIH, with the NSF, and 

with Justice to focus on the issues that you talked about. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Keller. 

Mr. Keller. Good morning, Dr. Whitehurst. Good to see you. 

 I personally believe that the very best thing your office can do is to be a user-friendly 

clearinghouse of high quality information for local school superintendents and school boards. 

 I'm going to ask you some questions about how we disseminate that information to them. 

 But let me begin by giving you a real world example. Let's say that I'm a local school 

superintendent in central Florida and I am cash strapped, like a lot of school superintendents are, 

and only have so many dollars to put into various programs, and I hear that class size is a good 

thing.

 One of the benefits of having high quality research is that it would teach me that, well - 

class size does make a difference. If I've read the articles on K through 3, and if I'm concerned 

about reading scores, in particular, it is really important to have those small classes for kindergarten 

and first grade, 20 or less. 

 I can then target my resources there. Let's just assume what I said is true, just for the sake 

of argument. 

 As to the procedure, how are we going to make that information very user-friendly so the 

superintendent can get it? And how are you going to let him know that there is a web site out there 

or that there is information that discusses both sides? 

Mr. Whitehurst. Again, that is exactly our intent with the What Works Clearinghouse effort. 

 Currently, at least for some topics, and school size, the one you mentioned, is one of those 

topics with a fairly large amount of literature. 
18

 If you go to our current dissemination effort, which is the Education Research and 

Information Clearinghouse, ERIC, and click on class size, the problem is that you will generate 

hundreds of hits. 

 Some of those lead to articles or scientific papers or summaries that accurately and 

informatively describe the research in that area. Many others do not. 

 The descriptions, when they are of high quality, in many cases, are not framed in a way that 

would be particularly useful to the school superintendent, and it is just very difficult. 

 If you look at the local family physician or pediatrician, for example, we really don't expect 

those professionals to go do a thorough review of hundreds of papers themselves to decide which 

drug to dispense in the office. 

 The Federal Government has a role in vetting that information and providing it to them. We 

think it is very important that the U.S. Department of Education provide that information to 

practitioners and school superintendents and educators in the form that you are mentioning, and so 

that it is user-friendly, pre-adjusted, understandable, and useful in decision-making. 

Mr. Keller. Say, there are 5,000 articles on that subject. You can take that and create a little order 

out of chaos and say here are the leading articles that say class size is a big deal, here are some 

articles that say, well, it's not that big a deal and it's the high quality teacher. Then they can make 

their own decision. 

Mr. Whitehurst. What we would like to do is perhaps provide at the first level just some graphic 

information; how much research there is on this topic. 

 You can imagine a bar graph, there's a lot, there's a little, there's none. What quality is it? 

Would the definitions of quality be transparent to develop publicly and open for anybody to look 

at? What is the quality? What does it suggest in terms of action? That is, does it suggest class size 

reduction is good, for what area, and what circumstance? 

 And then people could drill down, if they want, and look at the particular studies that 

support that conclusion and the rules that we are applying. 

Mr. Keller. Let's assume that you have achieved that. You have a user-friendly clearinghouse that 

Republicans and Democrats and liberals, and that everybody agrees is objective. You have laid out 

both sides and it is user-friendly. 

 Now I want to go to the marketing side. How does the local guy in Orlando, Florida know 

about it? Are you going to advertise in trade journals that there is a web site or are you going to 

send blast faxes to these people? 

 How are they going to know that this is a good source of info to go to? 
19

 And that's my last question, and I will yield back. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Well, we will certainly use a variety of mechanisms to let people know. I think a 

principal one, however, will be the chief state school officers - with whom I and the other assistant 

secretaries, secretaries, and other members of the Department have met at an historic occasion at 

Mt. Vernon a few weeks ago to perform a partnership to implement ESEA in the way intended by 

Congress.

 The chiefs are hungry for information of the sort that we've talked about. They indicate that 

their school superintendents are hungry for information. 

 I think once it is there and people have confidence in it and find it easy to use, that the 

chiefs will do a wonderful job in letting the superintendents and LEAs in their states know that it's 

there.

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Dr. Whitehurst. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you, Mr. Keller. 

Chairman Castle. We are trying to straighten out the votes before we proceed. Sorry for the 

delay.

 Apparently, there was one vote. If it's possible, somebody could go vote now and come 

back, we could continue the hearing. 

 I don't know if we can get that done, but that would be helpful. 

 In the meantime, we will continue for another ten minutes or so, at least. Hopefully, we can 

keep it rolling. 

 I will call on Ms. Woolsey now for her questioning, and maybe we'll get one more round in 

before we have to close down. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am going to ask you a few questions on 

the National Research Center, so you can put that hat on now. 

 In California, we have two national research centers, one in Santa Cruz and one at UCLA -

not in my district, but very important to our state. 

 These centers are focusing on improving education for students at risk, at risk because of 

language and cultural diversity. 

 So what we would like to know is, from your perspective, how important is the long-term 

research that goes along with these centers and the authorization of the National Research Centers 

to your program? 
20

Mr. Whitehurst. With respect to the university-based research centers, our current legislation 

requires us to conduct our activities using two and only two funding mechanisms. 

 Field-initiated research, on which we have to invest 25 percent of our funding, and where 

we are unable, by statute, to specify how that research should be focused, and research centers, 

which take up 75 percent of our budget. 

 Some of those research centers are doing very important work. We would intend to 

continue the funding for those centers, doing important work. Others have done some work, that's 

good, but, on balance, seem to me not to justify the very high overhead associated with the centers. 

 We think that we need the flexibility to use the funding mechanisms that are most 

appropriate for the particular task at hand. 

 A physically located center seems, to me, a desirable mechanism for funding when the 

center is at a location where there is a sufficient number of scientists, experts, and technicians who 

are focused on that area. They can be brought together in the same physical location and interact 

with each other and serve as colleagues. 

 The center is also very desirable when the center has a clear problem that it is addressing 

and when it is moving and appears to be moving towards providing a solution to that problem. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, a problem maybe that you could address that these centers are working 

towards a solution. I would like to know what your opinion is on how well they are doing on the 

question of assuring that all kids are fairly tested. 

Mr. Whitehurst. CREST, the center at UCLA, is a stellar center, in my view, and is doing very 

important work on testing and assessment. 

 It has the characteristics that I just mentioned. It has their leading experts in this area, and 

they are pursuing not only scientific problems, but problems that lead to solutions. 

 For example, they have developed a piece of software there that provides assessment results 

back to school districts and teachers in a way that allows those districts and teachers to tailor their 

instructions to the particular needs of the child. 

 So I think that the center mechanism is working very well there. 

 We have other centers where there is a physical location, but most of the scientists are not at 

that location. They are scattered around at various locations. 

 When you look at the pattern of funding, and most of it is funding for small projects, you've 

got the pot of money - you give a little bit here, a little bit there, and it is not clear what problem is 

being addressed or what solution is being provided. 
21

 We would like the ability to fund focused areas of research that serve some of the functions 

of the traditional centers, but allow us to draw on the best possible talent around the nation to 

provide solutions, rather than insisting that that talent be at one university. 

Ms. Woolsey. So would that lead us to conclude that long-term funding is valuable instead of-. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Long-term funding is extremely valuable. Our fundamental problems, the areas 

in which we have substantial gaps in knowledge, are, by and large, not areas that we can address 

successfully with a year or two of funding. Continuous funding is extremely important. 

 Again, a center mechanism is one way to do that. NIH uses a mechanism called a program 

project grant. It doesn't have quite the overhead associated with it as a physical center, but it 

provides funding for collections of investigations. 

 The funding is typically renewed and there are organizations, groups of people who have 

had program project grants for 20 or 25 years. 

 So I am absolutely committed to continued funding and to the necessity for many problems 

to have large science, to have teams of people working in a coordinated fashion on a problem, and 

to have some assurance that, if they are doing it well, they will continue to get funding for it. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. 

Chairman Castle. We're going to go to Mr. Kind, who may have to shorten his questions slightly.

After that, we'll see if we can continue to go through this or not. 

Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome the Secretary today, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend you, as well as the ranking member, for the 

leadership you have shown in trying to move this reauthorization bill through and your willingness 

to work in a bipartisan fashion with some of us and our staff in trying to craft a good bill on this. 

Mr. Secretary, you are probably familiar that we moved some legislation back in 2000 

setting up the National Academy of Education Research, and that with some goals, some common 

objectives that we share greater independence, greater consolidation of some of the regional entities 

that now exist, a formal evaluation and standards process within the Academy that would be 

established that would be different from what currently exists under law. 

 The question I have, and I'm interested in eliciting your opinion, is in the best vehicle as far 

as the dissemination of information, after we are able to establish what research-based work is and 

dealing with the standards and that, because the district I represent in western Wisconsin, we have a 

lot of rural school districts and that. 
22

 We also have an outstanding comprehensive center at the University of Wisconsin at 

Madison, outside my district, but they do serve a six-state region in the upper Midwest. 

 Some of the concerns I am getting from some of my school officials back home is given the 

technical assistance and dissemination of information that the CCN Madison is able to do, what the 

new legislation would be calling for and how that might impact their ability in order to get the 

information they need to implement the reforms now at the ESEA and get the help they need. 

Mr. Whitehurst. We understand, in the Department, that the reauthorized ESEA places significant 

challenges on states and local school districts. 

 The Department has little ability to meet the needs of the states and the localities to 

implement ESEA, except through the regional labs. 

 Comprehensive assistance centers are, as you know, typically run by the same organizations 

that run the lab. They are typically the same organization. 

 That is our resource in the field. And as I was suggesting earlier, we need to make sure that 

the resource is as good as it can be and can serve those needs. 

 I know that my colleague, Assistant Secretary Neuman, is acutely interested in utilizing that 

resource to serve her needs to implement ESEA in an effective fashion. 

 Nothing that I have heard discussed in the Department or with regard to last year's 

legislation or this year's legislation ignores, in any respect, the very important need that you have 

addressed. And I think all of us will need to work together to make sure that we have a framework 

in which the needs of the district in your districts and your locality can be well served in terms of 

technical assistance, the development of products, and other things to help educate children. 

Mr. Kind. I appreciate that. Obviously, one of the concerns is that they're small. They are in 

remote areas. They don't have a lot of resources that they can leverage and what little assistance 

they do get goes a long ways in those school districts. 

 I think as we move forward on this, recognizing efficiencies with greater consolidation, 

there will be a continued role for a lot of these regional centers. 

 But now that you have been on the job for a while, do you encounter much debate or 

feedback in regards to the integrity of the research that is being done right now at OERI in regards 

to any type of undue influence that may be placed on some of the information? 

Mr. Whitehurst. I must say that in the time that I have been at OERI, there has been no instance in 

which anyone has tried to interfere politically with any of the work going on there. 

 It is the case that this administration has a great deal of respect for data and evidence and 

science. So not only has there not been the sort of influence that we both would be concerned 

about, but there has been the opposite of that. And that is an ongoing effort within the Department 
23

to try and make each of the program offices driven by data and evidence to the greatest extent 

possible.

 It is actually a little burdensome the degree to which the other assistant secretaries will send 

me an e-mail or call me on the phone and say what is the evidence with regard to this. And 

sometimes I feel like I'm their research assistant, but that is a function I am pleased to serve 

because it suggests that using scientifically based research and evidence in the delivery of Federal 

education programs is an ethos that is permeating the Department. 

Mr. Kind. Thank you, and I thank you for the work you're doing at the Department. 

 I think as we do move forward with ESEA and implementing the reforms, and if we're 

going to empower the school districts to make the changes that they do need, this is going to be an 

integral component of that. It's going to be an important piece of legislation. 

 Again, I look forward to working with the chairman and other members of the committee as 

we move forward on this process. 

 Thank you, again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kind. We expect other members to come back and to resume. 

We're going to go into a very temporary recess, so somebody will probably replace me up here. 

 I don't know if this is the final vote of the day or what's happening here, but we'll try to 

straighten that out, too. And then we'll go to the second panel immediately. 

 But if you can stay, Secretary Whitehurst, for a little while, to see if other members come 

back who may want to ask a few questions we would appreciate it. 

 So we will recess until the call of the chair. 

 [Recess.] 

Mr. Whitehurst. To hold each school district accountable for the success of their children in 

learning to read, I think there are sufficient resources available in ESEA and sufficiently powerful 

technology and teaching approaches behind those resources that I believe that we can make 

substantial progress in the next four to five years in achieving the goal of teaching every child to 

read.

 It can be done. We know how to do it. Now the question is doing it. 

Mr. Osborne. [Presiding] It seems like much of the theme of what you've said is a matter of 

translating research into practice. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Yes. 
24

Mr. Osborne. And that needs to be aided and abetted in various ways. 

 One other question. What changes, if any, would you like to see to the Education Sciences 

Reform Act of 2002, the bill that is before us? If you could mention anything that you would like 

to advise us about making it better. 

Mr. Whitehurst. Again, I haven't had a chance to go through it thoroughly. I read it just before I 

fell asleep last night and took another look at it this morning. 

 I think one area I hope we could work on a little bit is the language, with respect to the 

accepted service authority. That is the authority for the research agency to hire scientists quickly 

outside the regular civil service system. 

 The draft of the bill that I saw last night limited our ability to do that to 20 percent of the 

overall employees for three-year periods, and then only 20 percent of those could be appointed for 

another three-year period. 

 We think it would be better if we had a fixed number to work with rather than 20 percent.

What if we are at 20 percent and our staff is reduced a little bit? We have to let people go. 

 And it would be good if we could assure people who come on for three years that if they are 

doing a great job, they could have another three-year term. 

 If we limit the proportion of the people on these accepted service positions who can get a 

second three-year term to 20 percent of those on board, there is no assurance that somebody who is 

doing a great job can stay for a longer period. 

 The intent here is to bring scientists in from the outside and then send them back. Three 

years is kind of an awkward period. 

 People can leave their university for two years and go back and get back in the saddle again.

They can come someplace for six years, with the idea that it is a career move, but three years is 

difficult. 

 So we would hope to be able to work with you to refine that language a little bit. That is the 

one area that I notice that I would really appreciate some work on the language. 

Mr. Osborne. So you're saying you would like a little more flexibility and we'll try to see to it that 

the chairman is apprised of that, and I am sure he will be back shortly. 

 So at this time, we will convene this panel. We thank you for being willing to testify here. 

 At this time, we will call up the second panel, and we appreciate their being here. 
25

 The chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Mr. McKeon, has 

written questions that he would like to submit to the Assistant Secretary. 

 Without objection, I would ask that the responses to those questions be submitted in the 

official hearing record. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

WHITEHURST BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX C 

RESPONSE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY WHITEHURST 

TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX D 

Mr. Osborne. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be held open for 14 days 

to allow members' statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be 

submitted in the official hearing record. 

 Without objection, so ordered. 

 We will go ahead and introduce the witnesses at this time. 

 It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Doug Christensen, who has served as Commissioner of 

the Nebraska Department of Education since 1994. 

 In his position, he currently supervises 600 school districts, which is quite a few, obviously.

He is a former teacher and superintendent, and certainly has become recognized as a leader in his 

profession.

 He has been a valuable resource to me in terms of issues of research assessment and 

funding, and we have appreciated all of his input. 

 Under his leadership, Nebraska schools continue to be among the highest achieving schools 

in the nation. We are very proud of that. 

We are pleased that he could be here today to discuss the impact that quality education 

research has played in the success of the Nebraska educational model. 

 Dr. Christensen, we appreciate your being here. 

 I believe Mr. Keller has an introduction of one of our panelists. 
26

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Coach. I have the pleasure of introducing Jim Horne, the Secretary of 

Education for the State of Florida. 

Mr. Horne grew up in Jacksonville, Florida. He received his bachelor's degree from Florida State 

University. Coach, I think you are familiar with that school. 

Mr. Osborne. Never heard of it. 

Mr. Keller. Home to Bobby Bowden, one of the top two coaches in the history of college sports.

Of course, the top one is sitting in the chairman's chair right now. 

Secretary Horne was elected to the Florida State Senate in 1994, where he quickly rose to 

become one of the leaders in the legislature on education issues. 

 As a state senator, Mr. Horne was a co-sponsor of Governor Jeb Bush's A-Plus Plan for 

Education, which later served as a model for the historic No Child Left Behind Act, which 

President Bush signed into law just this past month. 

 On July 1, 2001, Governor Jeb Bush selected Mr. Horne as the first appointed Secretary of 

Education for Florida. And, in this role, Secretary Horne oversees the entire education system in 

Florida, from K through 20, which is the only seamless education system in the country. 

 The reforms that Secretary Horne implemented as part of Governor Bush's plan have 

proven to be extremely successful. For example, in the course of the three years, Florida has gone 

from having 78 F-rated schools to zero - and Secretary Horne truly is a reformer with results. 

 So it is with great pleasure that we welcome Secretary Horne's appearance before our 

subcommittee today. 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Keller. I would also like to introduce the two other panelists. 

 Lisa Towne is Senior Program Officer and Study Director for the National Research 

Council's Center for Education. 

 Prior to arriving at the National Research Council, she worked as both an analyst and later 

as Assistant Director for Social and Behavioral Sciences at the White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. 

Ms. Towne is an adjunct professor of quantitative research methods at the Georgetown University 

Policy Institute. She holds a master's in public policy from Georgetown University. 

 In addition, we have Dr. Anne Bryant. Dr. Bryant is Executive Director of the National 

School Boards Association. 
27

 Before accepting her current position description, she was Executive Director of the 

American Association of University Women. 

 In addition, Dr. Bryant was Vice President of the Professional Education Division for P.M. 

Haggar & Associates, Incorporated. She holds an educational doctorate from the University of 

Massachusetts.

 We welcome the panel. I believe you understand the procedure on the testimony, and we'll 

have the light running for five minutes. 

 Mr. Horne, we would appreciate it if you would proceed at this time. 

STATEMENT OF JIM HORNE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Horne. Good morning. Members of the committee, it is indeed a pleasure and honor to be 

here before you to testify on issues involving the reauthorization of the Office of Education 

Research and Improvement. 

 As you have heard, I am the first ever appointed Secretary of Education for the State of 

Florida, but today I am here testifying on behalf of Education Leaders Council, ELC. 

 ELC is a non-profit, non-partisan reform organization that includes the leadership, includes 

ten state chiefs, myself included, representing over 30 percent of the entire K-12 student 

population.

 It also includes governors and state boards and other reformers from various systems of 

education throughout state. 

 First, on behalf of ELC, let me commend this committee for the fine work it has done in the 

passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. I believe this will become a landmark piece of 

education legislation and will have a profound impact for decades to come, ensuring that all 

children receive a high quality education. 

 H.R. 1 included many very important provisions, but I think one that is truly relevant as a 

part of today's hearing is the part that focuses on scientifically based research. 

 As you have heard, that term exists over a 110 times during the bill and it is used 

throughout the new law in many different ways - everything from technical assistance for low 

performing schools to reading, and would require that all of them would be based upon scientific, 

sound scientific evidence to prove that the programs and the strategies are effective. 
28

 In effect, what I think Congress has made very clear to all of us is that Federal funds will no 

longer be available to support programs that we cannot prove work. 

 To those not familiar with the world of education, that may seem like common sense. 

However, I can attest, from many years involved in education policy from the ground level to the 

highest level of policy, what works has often been defined by a variety of mechanisms, including 

good intentions, expensive marketing, and a whole lot of politics. All at the expense of a very 

serious and hard look at the real evidence and ultimately, I think, at the expense of our nation's 

students.

 I think it is important that as we look to the reauthorization, that we must focus and 

recognize that this No Child Left Behind law will force school districts and even the states to focus 

more on real evidence and to demonstrate that the funds are used for programs that scientific 

inquiry can prove have a positive effect. 

 And that is why today is so very important. We discuss Federal education research to ensure 

that the promises of No Child Left Behind become a reality. 

 I believe there is a broad consensus today at the state and local levels that much of the 

research that has been funded and disseminated by the Federal Government has not, to date, met 

the same very rigorous and stringent criteria that is now defined clearly in the No Child Left 

Behind law. 

 For this to occur, OERI must significantly be reformed as part of the current 

reauthorization.

 ELC believes that at a minimum, this reform includes three pillars: Integrity, quality, and 

utility of educational research. 

 I am pleased to say that this subcommittee's work, beginning last year that was embodied in 

Chairman Castle's bill that was introduced in the last Congress, leads me to believe you are on the 

right path. 

 And while I have not had a chance to read the new bill, it sounds as if it is following that 

same pat. We are very excited about that. 

 Let me begin with integrity. I am certainly not talking about the personal honesty of the 

hardworking professionals in the Department. What I am talking about is the soundness of the 

system - the infrastructure, the organizational structure. 

 I understand that over the course of the last couple of years, you have had countless people 

testify before this subcommittee, talking about the credibility of the research. 

 As an education reformer from the state level, I don't know why that is, but I can tell you 

that it is a fact that in the field, there is a sense that the credibility of this research is driven more by 
29

politics than by sound science. 

 I think it needs to be admitted that the canons of science haven't always worked, even when 

it has been applied to education research. That is why we have so many peer reviewed reports and 

studies that turn out to be nothing more than ideological soap boxes. 

 Validation and independent verification are the cornerstones of a good system. And to the 

extent that evaluations are conducted by the same people who are in charge of programs, you will 

have the proverbial fox guarding the chicken pen. 

 ELC believes that the issue of integrity must be addressed. I believe a great deal can be 

done by simply creating an infrastructure that is conducive to building integrity and by staving off 

political interference. 

 At a minimum, we should provide as much independence for research and evaluation as 

possible, while also ensuring proper checks and balances. 

 There are many examples in Federal Government, on which education research can be 

modeled, including the National Institutes of Health, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census 

Bureau.

 We know that OERI has taken some steps to increase the rate of its scientific research, and 

we applaud the appointment of Dr. Russ Whitehurst as the new head of OERI. 

 His reputation for rigorous scientific inquiry on educational topics will help with the 

process of cultural change. 

 We also know that some changes have been made to NAEP as a result of the No Child Left 

Behind Act. We recognize that additional issues have to be addressed, including the independence 

of NAEP and its interaction with the National Assessment Governing Board. 

 We believe it is important to create additional independence and autonomy for NAGB and 

its administration of NAEP. 

 The second pillar is quality. By now many of us know about the National Reading Panel's 

review of research on reading and the fact that a large amount of some of the previous research was 

simply not based on sound science. 

 I would not be at all surprised to know that a great deal of that research was funded by the 

Federal Government. Imagine what it would be like if every Federal dollar over the last 20 years 

met the same rigorous criteria that is now established by No Child Left Behind. 

 We would clearly have a better understanding of knowledge, learning, and all the topics 

ranging from reading to math, and education technology. 
30

 It is imperative for Congress to take this opportunity to ensure that education research is, in 

fact, held to the same level of scrutiny that exists in other fields. 

 We have heard, for too long, excuses for why this cannot be. The truth is that there has 

been a failure to hold this education research to these higher standards. This has left a tremendous 

vacuum of knowledge that has instead been filled with hunches and good intentions. 

 That last pillar is utility or value. I had to ask myself a key question as I prepared my 

testimony today. What role has Federal education research played during all the years I dealt with 

education reform as an education reformer? 

 The truth is not much, not much at all. I believe for too long, a large portion of our Federal 

research resources continued to support projects and organizations that were not useful for the 

production of high quality research, development statistics assessments, and even program 

evaluation.

 This has been an accumulation of unfocused priorities and mandates derived from overly 

prescriptive statutory requirements, separate Federal priority boards, and the pressure to adhere to 

political fads and education fads. 

 Congress must not micro manage the priorities of the research agency, but instead establish 

a legitimate and workable process by which ongoing input from the stakeholders, the parents, the 

teachers, the researchers, the policy makers and others form the basis for specific priorities. 

 Wouldn't it be wonderful if we understood the development of math ability, much like we 

now know about reading ability? All states are interested in closing the achievement gap. We 

would welcome careful design studies in this area and would be most willing to consider the results 

as we formulate our education policies. 

 As you consider and evaluate specific proposals for reforming and refocusing OERI, we 

suggest you address these two following questions. 

 Does the structure adequately insulate the key decision-makers from the other special 

interest groups? And, two, does the statistics and assessment operation enjoy the political 

autonomy and the professional integrity needed for its data to be trustworthy, while also making the 

operation accountable for speed, accuracy, and utility? 

 We are now at a critical juncture in education in this country. Many reforms are taking 

place, being aided by No Child Left Behind, are also largely predicated on the belief that we know 

what works. 

 Unfortunately, let me tell you today, we don't really know what works. However, you have 

an opportunity today to help us move forward through the reauthorization of OERI and encourage 

you to take advantage of this opportunity and greatly increase the integrity, the quality, and the 

utility of education research in this nation. 
31

 ELC stands ready and willing to help in any way that we can. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JIM HORNE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE EDUCATION 

LEADERS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Secretary Horne. Dr. Christensen. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN, COMMISSIONER, 

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, 

AND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL 

OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and Congressman Osborne, thank 

you for the introduction. It is a pleasure for me to be here and provide written comments to you 

and some verbal testimony on the reauthorization of OERI. 

 I represent the State of Nebraska and the membership of the Council of Chief State School 

Officers, which represents over 70 percent of the kids in this nation. 

 Between Secretary Horne and myself, representing over 30 percent, we represent over 70 

percent, together we represent a 110 percent of the kids in this nation. 

Mr. Osborne. There is a problem with math in our country. That's what we're trying to get at with 

this education research. That's our next challenge. 

Mr. Christensen. That's a weak attempt at humor, but I thought I'd give it a try. 

 What I would like to do, since you have my remarks, is to not read them now. I think the 

remarks are going to be repeated by other individuals, so I would like to focus on a few things. 

 Again, I assume that you will read them or have your staffs read them. And in the spirit of 

NCLB, there will be a test. It is our intention to leave no Congressman behind in this process. 

You're going to hear this rhetoric, I'm sure, over and over again and be tired of it. 

 What I would like to do is respond to some remarks that I have heard, some things that I am 

not sure about, but want to make sure that I make those comments, and then have the opportunity 

later on to respond to your questions. 

 The first thing I would like to simply say is that coming from a small state, a rural state in 

the heartland, we couldn't feel anymore disconnected from the national research issues and research 

agenda than if we were located on a manned space station. We just don't feel connected to it. 
32

 We feel suspicious. Like Secretary Horne, we sometimes see little utility in the results, and 

then when politics being to swirl around that agenda, we really get disenfranchised by it. 

 We have state-specific research needs. Many of those are complimentary to national needs 

and needs that you must address. It seems to me that a state-Federal partnership in the 

reauthorization that needs to be strongly placed into the reauthorization of OERI is absolutely 

critical if we're going to bridge that gap between what happens in research and what the practitioner 

needs to do. 

 Let me make some generalized comments. In my opinion, the purpose of research is to 

inform policy development and practice implementation. 

 Educators, at least the ones that I am familiar with, are professional people who are capable 

of very thoughtful development and design of instructional strategies, and implementation of 

curriculum and instructional practices. 

 We need research to inform us, not to decide for us, not to determine for us, and not to 

dictate to us. 

 Research is not about developing prescriptions that cause education to look more like 

remote control from a distant place. 

 We cannot control the complex act and dynamic act of teaching and the complex, and 

organic act of learning through the research agenda. I don't think that's what it's all about. And 

you've heard others talk about making sure that it's not a one-size-fits-all result. 

 Current research has had little impact, for a number of reasons. It is my belief that it has 

been under-funded to the point that it cannot be sustained over a long period of time. 

 I don't happen to believe that the current research and education is soft. I think social 

science research, by its very nature, could benefit from more scientific rigor. However, I would not 

couch it as being soft. 

 I simply think it lacks the long-term emphasis that it needs. You can measure clinical trials 

in months and get conclusions in a short period of time. 

 In the case of education research, as dynamic as the educational practices in classrooms are, 

it takes multiple replications over multiple periods of years. And that is the commitment we need to 

make if there is going to be utility in that research. 

 I think it is important to understand, also, that what I think the development side of R&D is 

has to do with translating that research for the practitioner. 

 And remember that the practitioner is a pragmatic person. They must deal with the realities 

of what is going on in the classroom. And unless you can conceptually connect that research to 

where they are, and unless you, in their language, connect that research to where they are, then 
33

nothing is going to happen. 

 I would contend that the real gap lies in the fact that researchers and practitioners don't talk 

to each other in the same language. There is very little effort on the part of either one of them to 

talk to each other because it is easier to dismiss each other if we don't talk. 

 I have some concerns about some language that I hear, and let me just illustrate that or 

mention that. I'm not being critical of OERI and I'm not being critical of the attempt to bring sound 

quality research to the forefront. 

 But when I hear terms like scientifically based research, it is my background in curriculum 

instruction assessment, research and so on, that there is no other kind - or its not research. 

 If it's not scientifically based, it's not research. Just because you can find something in print 

doesn't make it research. 

 Just because it is based upon a medical model of clinical trials, blind studies and all that 

doesn't necessarily make it evidence-based or appropriate to education. 

 I get very concerned that those terms mean something far beyond what is intended. Yet, I 

would like to take the language on its face value. 

 Certainly we need focused research. We need research that focuses on the complexity of 

schools and classrooms, the teaching-learning process, and one that maintains focus over a long 

period of time. 

 Let me just make a couple of comments about times and today, as well, I heard about the 

medical model. 

 As a practicing professional, I find the language of the medical model absolutely abhorrent. 

My experience, the knowledge that I have gained as a result of that experience, and my background 

allows me to make decisions on a moment-to-moment basis and be informed by sound research. 

 The medical model - by beginning to try to conceptualize education and the teachinglearning process in terms like clinical trials, double blind studies, treatments, and prescriptions -

makes me ill. 

 It makes me think that I am not capable, as an educator, of making decisions on a momentto-moment basis, without someone from a distant place and from a distant source of experience 

telling me exactly what to do. 

 Our children are not sick. They're not diseased. Education and instruction are not 

treatments. 
34

 While some of that model may be appropriate in some cases, it certainly isn't appropriate, in 

my opinion, as a singular approach. 

 I hope we remember that in the research design process, and the conducting of research, that 

anything that aims at the beginning to come out with a single approach, a single methodology, a 

singular policy, guarantees that there will be a pathology that will come right along with it. 

 I think that we have folks out in the fields - at least we do in Nebraska, and I'm sure that's 

true in other states - who are capable of making informed decisions. 

 Finally, let me address a question relative to the regional labs, and I see that the red light is 

on.

 Eight years ago, when I was appointed commissioner, I would have hoped for the regional 

labs to ride into the westward sunset, never to be seen again, because they simply were not doing 

anything that was very helpful to us. 

 In fact, many times they were doing things that sabotaged our efforts to provide leadership 

in our state. 

 However, over the past six years, we have done a number of things, and I just want to 

quickly capsulize them. 

 A restructuring agenda in the state education agency that not only restructured how we're 

organized, but restructured our mission as well, that said we think we can accomplish being a 

regulatory agency, but being customer service. 

 We have no middle management in the Department of Education. We have gone from 700 

employees to 500. There are 14 team leaders who report directly to the commissioner's office. 

 And in the process, we have tried to be a learning organization. The Mid-Continent 

Regional Laboratory in Denver has provided us a facilitator in the name of Myron Kellner Rogers, 

who is nationally recognized as an organizational development expert and who has helped us to 

learn what we have learned in the process of trying to make this transition. 

 Secondly, they have provided the research. A person meets with us all the time, comes to 

our meetings all the time, documents what we're doing and our progress, which is fed back to us in 

our learning dialogue that has been going on. 

 Secondly, as Congressman Osborne indicated, we have a very unique assessment system in 

the state that comes from the schools up, not from the state down. The regional laboratories have 

been absolutely critical to the research agenda. 

Chairman Castle. Dr. Christensen, we're going to have to ask you to summarize. You're quite a 

bit over your time. 
35

Mr. Christensen. I was coming to the conclusion. 

Chairman Castle. Unfortunately, we're going to start to lose members. If you could, please. 

Mr. Christensen. I am coming to the conclusion right now. Through the research agenda and by 

helping us to do training, we simply couldn't live without them. 

 We would prefer to have that regional service from the labs and not from either the 

comprehensive assistance centers or from the USOE regional offices. 

 Thank you. I apologize for going over. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN, COMMISSIONER, NEBRASKA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX 

F

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Christensen. Ms. Towne. 

STATEMENT OF LISA TOWNE, SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER AND 

STUDY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EDUCATION, NATIONAL RESEARCH 

COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Towne. Good morning, Chairman Castle and other members of the subcommittee, and thanks 

for the introduction. 

 I am indeed a Senior Program Officer at the National Research Council. As you may know, 

the NRC is not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is the National Research Council, which is 

the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, an independent agency chartered by 

Congress in 1863 to provide scientific advice to government. 

 I am accompanied today by the NRC's Director of the Center for Education, Mike Foyer, 

who is over to my left. Wave, Michael. Thank you. 

 My remarks this morning are based on a report that was recently released by the NRC 

called ``Scientific Research and Education.'' With your permission, I would like to submit a copy 

for the record. 

 Like all NRC reports, it was authored by an interdisciplinary committee of prominent 

experts, and in this case, includes expertise in education research and practice, statistics, 

economics, history, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, even cell biology and 

chemistry. 
36

 This diverse group was asked to consider the nature of scientific research in education, 

generally, and its implications for the future of a Federal education research agency, specifically. 

 I will begin with a very brief overview of the committee's characterization of scientific 

education research, and then use the remainder of my time to focus specifically on its 

recommendations regarding the future of the agency. 

 As it began its work, the committee asked itself a fundamental question - is scientific 

research in education fundamentally different from other fields and disciplines? 

 After much deliberation, it concluded that the answer was no. At a very basic level, there is 

much that unites the science; for example, the linking of data to theoretical models, using methods 

that best address the particular question at hand, employing a rigorous and transparent process of 

reasoning, and striving towards generalization. 

 Another key principle of science in education or in any other field is the critical role of the 

community of researchers engaging in public critique of each other's work, and integrating new 

findings into the existing body of knowledge. 

 Of course, there are differences among fields, as well. Researchers in the field develop a 

specialization that takes into account the specific features of what is being studied. 

 In education, researchers fit the guiding principles of science that unite all scientific 

endeavors to the systematic study of teaching, learning, and schooling. 

 The role of the community of researchers is emphasized in the committee's findings about 

the future of a Federal education research agency, as well, which I will turn to now. 

 In short, and these remarks will echo some of the testimony you heard earlier from 

Assistant Secretary Whitehurst, the committee concluded that a key to the success of the agency is 

the development of a scientific culture within it. A culture of science or a culture of inquiry that 

infuses everything the agency does and is supported by its processes and by its structures. 

 To elaborate on this idea, what the committee did was develop six design principles and 

describe specific ways that these principles could be supported in practice. 

 First, staff. Experienced researchers, like Secretary Whitehurst, must lead and staff the 

agency if the culture of science is to be cultivated. 

 Without a high quality staff, little else matters. 

 An agency should have the flexibility to hire permanent, as well as short-term staff through 

the accepted authority that Assistant Secretary Whitehurst described. 

 Second, structures. Here I will just highlight the committee's findings regarding peer 

review. Although imperfect, peer review is a critical mechanism for promoting a scientific culture, 
37

and, again, the key to a successful peer review is not necessarily the structure of that system, but 

the choice of peers, with excellent scientific credentials and an ability to think across the many 

disciplines and fields that interact in studying education. 

 Third, politics. The committee believes, first of all, that an agency cannot and should not be 

separated completely from the political process. This is, after all, a democracy. 

 It should, however, have buffers, like independent authority for publishing, hiring, and 

disbursal of funds to enhance its independence and the integrity of its work. 

 Fourth, its portfolio. The agency's research portfolio should include a mix of both short and 

long term studies, as well as a mix of new investigations and syntheses of bodies of work. 

 All of these studies should be organized into coherent programs of research that focus the 

field and promote the accumulation of research-based knowledge over time. 

 Fifth, funding. The committee is certainly not the first to conclude that, historically, 

Federal funding of education research has been inadequate, but I won't belabor the point. 

 I will simply say that the National Institute of Education, OERI's predecessor agency, began 

with a budget of roughly $400 million. Today, with roughly the same agenda, OERI has, as the 

Assistant Secretary reported earlier, about $122 million for research. 

 If the scope of the research agenda is to remain basically constant in this new 

reauthorization, this committee would recommend that more resources will be necessary to support 

that mission. 

 Finally, infrastructure. The committee believes that an agency ought to consistently vest 

parts of its annual appropriation not just in new studies, but also in the professional development of 

investigators in the field, in facilitating ethical access to data and research participants, and in 

promoting partnerships with practitioners. 

Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a lot more in this report, but I will stop there and will be 

happy to answer any questions you or other members may have. 

 Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on these matters and for your leadership 

in promoting high quality education research. 

REPORT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY LISA TOWNE ON FILE WITH THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LISA TOWNE, SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER AND STUDY 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EDUCATION, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX G 
38

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Towne. We are interested in the report and obviously that is 

important, so we appreciate that, as well as your testimony here today. 

Dr. Bryant? 

STATEMENT OF ANNE BRYANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Ms. Bryant. Thank you very much, Chairman Castle, Congressman Kildee, and other members of 

the committee. It is my honor to be here. 

 Coming last means that you get the benefits and the liabilities of repeats. If I repeat points 

that you have already heard, it means I'm brilliant. If I have new ideas, it means I'll get your 

attention.

 I will start by saying that I am really pleased with the new legislation. I think it gives us a 

real opportunity to take advantage of the reauthorization of OERI and look at what a new Federal 

research agency can do to be more responsive to local district staff, teachers, and school board 

members. 

 I am going to make four main points today. First, because of our desire to raise all 

children's achievement, research on how to achieve this goal is critical. 

 As you have heard, the newly reauthorized ESEA further drives this agenda and 

underscores the need for quality data, not only around reading, math and science, but also on 

effective instructional techniques and programs to reach all demographic sub-groups and help close 

the achievement gap between the highest and lowest performing students. 

 Second, research must be disseminated in a way that is useful to district staff, teachers, 

school board members, and others who need this research. 

 Third, Federal research should provide a grant process to fund local initiatives regarding 

data driven decision-making and train district staff to be their own research teams. 

 We have got to drive data decision-making in local districts. 

 Finally, providing the necessary Federal funding for these priorities is obviously critical. 

 It has never been more important for local school districts to have access to high quality 

research linked to raising student achievement. 

 The recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act raised the stakes on 

student achievement. Consequently, there needs to be articulation between the Federal research 

agenda and the requirements of ESEA. 
39

 OERI needs to think differently about the purpose if its research. It is not primarily to drive 

an academic agenda for the research community. It is to provide data, analysis, and we would 

argue, strategies and tools for the practitioner, for teachers and school leaders to make good 

decisions locally about curriculum, teaching and learning strategies, technology integration, and 

student development. 

 High quality education research can play a critical role in raising student achievement if it is 

properly disseminated to those who are directly linked to our nation's schools. 

 Once the research is available, dissemination is key. Sitting on one regional lab's web site, 

buried in a long title, with 50 footnotes, is not easy access. 

 For instance, one school board member from Forestville Union School District, in 

Forestville, California, said, “My board receives very little, if any results of quality research.” 

 Another school board member, as a member of the Brandywine Board of Education in 

Delaware, notes that OERI's research on teacher effectiveness has been critical in developing “a 

consensus and commitment with our community around aggressive investments in early 

recruitment, quality induction for beginning teachers, and ongoing professional development.” 

 In light of the two totally different responses from school board members, we would simply 

argue that the dissemination, the way it is disseminated, is absolutely critical if all children are 

going to achieve. 

 Data should be disseminated in a format that is easily understandable. Most school board 

members have full-time jobs outside of their school responsibilities. Their time is valuable. 

 What we need to do is make an effort to make sure that school districts are regularly made 

aware of where to go. And I was pleased with the Assistant Secretary's comments about one 

centralized place to get this data. 

 Teachers, administrators, and school board members have different roles within the district, 

but they all need reliable, high quality information in a format that works for them. 

 The third objective pushes the agenda of OERI out to local school districts and, in some 

ways, is a radical departure from the old OERI. 

 Federal legislation should enable local school districts to apply for grants to do the research 

itself. 

 Local school districts need to be data driven and need to make decisions, based on research, 

on everything from curriculum and pedagogy and textbooks, to online learning. 

 In essence, a program's effectiveness and the decisions about teacher and staff placement 

must be made on their own student achievement data, as compared to, and in the context of, 
40

national research. 

 We are pleased that this new legislation includes the provision on school based customer 

driven technical assistance, and we urge that you keep that in the bill. 

 Under this provision, local school districts, LEAs, would be given the opportunity to choose 

technical assistance from high quality providers, such as universities or the labs. 

 We are concerned, however, that the funding in the 106th Congress was only $11.8 million 

to local education agencies, which has to cover the 15,000 school districts. 

 We do hope that in the next authorization this funding increases. 

 Training for district staff should be part of the OERI agenda in an effort to build the 

capacity of school districts to track data. 

 A grant program to enable district staff to conduct their own research on their practices for 

the purposes of continually raising students' learning is needed. 

 ESEA contains more than a 100 references, as has been stated, to scientifically based 

research. Mr. Chairman, you referenced this in your opening comments, as did Secretary 

Whitehurst. 

 The question is how do you define scientifically based research. It is very important that 

this definition be clear, understandable, and a definition that all agree to. 

 Our fourth point is a simple one; the funding of this program is critical. Without adequate 

funding, we're not going to be able to do any of the things that each of us recommended. 

 On a final note, a child gets only one chance to be a third grader or a fifth grader, at least 

that's what their parents hope. 

 We need to make sure that the Federal research agenda supports the best curriculum, the 

best pedagogy, on environmental and climate supports, on curriculum and technology, to ensure 

that every child can meet academic success in his or her life. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ANNE BRYANT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA – SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Bryant. Let me thank all of the witnesses. It seems to me I 

heard some strong positives and some questions about what we are doing. We need to try to 

straighten out as much as we can with some questioning. 
41

 I am going to take my turn last so we can go through members here. I am going to go to 

Mrs. Biggert first for questioning. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Secretary Horne. 

 You stated in your testimony that scientifically based research may, in fact, be among the 

provisions in the new law that has the most lasting and positive impact towards education reform in 

this nation. 

 I think that I have heard some expressed that defining research in the law would amount to 

a Federal mandate, and I having been a local school board member and president, I have 

emblazoned across my forehead ‘local control.’ 

 I would be interested in how you would respond to that view. 

Mr. Horne. Referring to the No Child Left Behind Act, it is very clear. In fact, in Florida, we have 

already begun the process of pulling all the different pieces together to discuss, in particular, 

reading, because everybody begins to see things that aren't there. They begin to sense that this is 

code for one-shoe-fits-all. 

 I think the law is very clear about scientific research. It's not suggesting that there is one 

curriculum or one program or one way to do it, only that we should base this upon sound science. 

 I think for too long, in education research in particular, we have thought up some good 

ideas and we've kind of gone in and observed in the classroom and then determined the success 

from that single observation. 

 I think it is clear that over the years, and I think it is clear by now, that there seems to be an 

emerging consensus that we can use scientific research in the education field to establish what 

works and what doesn't work. 

 I know that may create some discomfort from some who feel that a medical environment 

won't necessarily produce the results in the education field. 

 Clearly, I would point to, for example, the whole language debacle in California. That if we 

had used clinical trials and if we had used control groups, we may have avoided what I think was 

probably a very significant and very costly mistake. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. And maybe all of us who think that we're such experts in education - I 

think every parent, every person thinks that they are the expert - at least now will have scientific 

basis to back up our conclusions there. 

Dr. Bryant, you talked about the labs and the centers and how people access them or that they don't 

have the information or that it is buried deep in their web site. 
42

 Has the National School Boards Association ever done a survey of your members to see if 

they have access to the information or how they feel about these boards or these labs? 

Ms. Bryant. We have not done a national survey of our members on that, but I can tell you that, as 

I think was mentioned earlier, that depending on the lab, they are either very much involved with 

helping local districts or they're not. 

 So you happen to come, as does the Congressman from California, from two areas where 

there has been terrific outreach, terrific research. 

 But that is not true across the board. I think my point was that there ought to be one place 

where school board members or administrators can go to and get the kind of analysis that they can 

understand, so it's not six million footnotes, it's literally, actually, what the Assistant Secretary was 

describing that would make a lot of sense. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Ms. Towne, do you have any opinion on how to make the lab or the 

centers more responsive to the needs of local schools? Is this in your report? 

Ms. Towne. No. The precise structure of OERI with the centers and the regional labs was not 

something that the committee took up, and, more generally, the committee actually didn't go into 

depth on the issue of dissemination and knowledge utilization, which itself is a very complicated, 

very important task that we really should be researching more to find out how best to interface with 

school boards and other people and get research to them in ways that help them practice. 

 I should mention that there is another National Research Council effort that is trying to look 

at this connection between research and practice. It is called the Strategic Education Research 

Partnership.

 If you would like information about that, I can certainly get it for you. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Dr. Christensen, would you have any advice for getting information? 

Mr. Christensen. I think the critical thing is to invent ways to structure conversations that I don't 

think we do now. There are opportunities for advisory groups, opportunities to use communications 

through the regional centers, the labs, the state education agencies, to go out and have face-to-face 

kinds of meetings. 

 I think the dialogue is very, very important, and relative to my comments on being from a 

state in the Midwest, we do not feel included in most of those things. We have a voice. We would 

like to be heard. 

 I think administrators would like to be heard. I think board members would like to be heard. 

And it's ways to structure conversations, and I think all of us have, if not a legal obligation to do 

that, a moral obligation to do that, so that we do work together. 
43

 There is no point in criticizing each other. I think this legislation gives us the opportunity to 

look at how we begin to build that partnership. And it has to be a partnership, and I don't think any 

one of us is the junior or senior partner. We come to the table as equal partners. 

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. We appreciate it. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Horne, you mentioned that there is more than just one 

research-based method and we have some concern here that in the reading program, that there may 

be an effort to push, one, the research-based method. 

 You would not want the Federal Government to determine a research-based method for 

reading or any other learning area, would you? 

Mr. Horne. No, sir. We would not want that. I think the sovereignty of the states would rise up 

once again. 

 I think it is important that we do not lose focus on history, which has not really been based 

on sound science. I think that is the motivation behind No Child Left Behind and then the 

reauthorization of OERI. 

 I don't think that there is anything that I have read that would suggest that the Federal 

Government is dictating one particular curriculum or one particular program. 

 I think this approach is the right approach and that it does steer us to sort of change our 

ways a little bit, to be able to prove that things work. 

 I think for a long time, we have, with good intentions, looked at and thought up new ways 

to deliver some of our programs, and maybe, by chance, some worked, maybe some didn't. 

 I think that we should not be afraid to approve the effectiveness of our programs. 

 I think there is clearly going to be many new and very innovative and creative ways to 

deliver high quality reading. 

 In Florida, and we are probably no different than any other state, 47 percent of our fourth 

graders don't read on grade level and by tenth grade, it's 62 percent. 

 That is just unacceptable in a civilized nation. We have based a lot of our programs on what 

we thought was research. 

 I think now there seems to be a convergence of the great minds in this country on what is 

effective based upon sound science. And that will now, I think, move us forward to look at and 

revisit our curriculums and our programs to make sure that we can look you in the eye with the 

resources you send us, we're thankful for those resources, because right now some of the states are 
44

hurting, and we will utilize those resources in a very positive way. 

 I think this approach is a very good approach. I think it is going to move us maybe in some 

different directions, but not just one direction. 

Even within the State of Florida, you would not want to impose one research-based model 

for reading. You might let certain things develop in certain areas and look at how effective they 

may be. 

 We certainly do not plan to. We have made that clear in our first historic meeting of all of 

the college deans of education, reading instructors, our school superintendents, districts, 

community colleges, and everybody that is involved in preparing teachers. 

 We made it very clear that we are not looking to develop one program. Now, we will 

ensure - because that is the law - that it will be based upon sound science, that we will use scientific 

research evidence to prove its effectiveness. And we support that, but we have made it clear. 

 In fact, I said I'm going to look you in the eye and promise you this is not code for one 

program or one brand of curriculum. And we believe that the best way to produce this good reading 

is by using science, then allowing, even the local level – the state is not going to dictate to the 

school districts. 

 The school districts should be in charge of that. I am a proponent of local control, always 

have been, and we will continue to support local control. 

Mr. Kildee. Appreciate your answer, Mr. Horne. 

Ms. Towne, your testimony and the NRC report specifically objects to the definitions of research 

contained in the last Congress, H.R. 4875, as a Federal mandate on research, without getting to the 

real root of the problem. 

 Could you please expand on why we should not adopt such definitions? 

Ms. Towne. Sure, I'd be happy to. Let me first say that included in these definitions, surely, are 

many of the concepts that the committee talks about as being the guiding principles of good 

science. Things like the use of empirical data, replication, peer review, that sort of thing. 

 Many of the concepts certainly are parts of science that are very important to uphold. 

 I think what seems problematic about them, I think, from the committee's perspective, is 

that the listing is of, if I'm correct, of scientifically based qualitative methods and scientifically 

based quantitative methods. 

 If you look at the committee's conclusions about what the principles of science are, 

methodology is one of them. 
45

 Method in science is clearly a very key part of the process of inquiry and understanding 

evidence, but it does not uniquely define science either. 

 For example, if you were to pull off a method on this list and have a poorly specified 

question and sloppy reasoning, you're not going to get good science out of that. 

 The other point is that science, while very disciplined and a disciplined form of reasoning 

can't be prescribed by a list. Methods, in particular, need to fit the particulars of whatever question 

is being addressed in a particular situation, not to mention the fact that methods actually evolve 

over time. 

 The history of science has shown, not just in social sciences, but in some of the harder 

sciences, if you will, that the types of tools that researchers use in their trade actually evolve as the 

types of questions they are addressing evolve, as well. 

 While I think the committee would feel that the notion of developing quality standards is 

very important, I think their use as a piece of legislation is what would be objectionable. And that 

more preferably, Assistant Secretary Whitehurst could engage with the field to develop such 

standards and to also enforce them over time. 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Keller [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Kildee and Ms. Towne. They tell me I am next. So I'm 

going to recognize myself just for a couple of questions, the first one for you, Secretary Horne, and 

then, Dr. Bryant, I'm going to hit you with just about the same question. 

 That is this. Earlier, Dr. Whitehurst, from the U.S. Department of Education, talked about 

wanting to have an Office of Educational Research that was a user-friendly clearinghouse of 

information. And I said let's assume you get that and that you have this great What Works 

Clearinghouse.

 I asked him how are you going to communicate to the rank and file in the field, the 

individual school board members, and the school superintendents? The gist of his response was that 

he's going to rely on you, the state chiefs of education to disseminate it. 

Secretary Horne, you have 67 school districts. Do you have some method in place of letting them 

know that this is the place you go to get information about research topics? 

Mr. Horne. We do, Congressman Keller, and it is great to see somebody from Florida in the 

chairman's seat, even though I know it's temporary for the moment. 

 But we do. It is very important that you have a mechanism for disseminating that kind of 

information, and I will tell you that we don't do it right yet in Florida. 

 I wish I could tell you that we do. It is somewhat disconnected. I think my partner to the 

north here said the same thing in terms of Federal Government down to the state level. But even 
46

from the state level and local level, I think we are somewhat disconnected and that we probably 

disseminate information fairly well to some of the school districts. 

 However, oftentimes, those who are actually in the real laboratories, the teachers, we're 

disconnected from, and that information then doesn't filter down to them. 

 We do and have established mechanisms and we are working very hard. 

 I think the key is not so much this push down kind of system of pushing down the research 

and the information, but it is connecting the stakeholders to the input side of this process - because 

if they are not going to be involved in the input portion, then they are not going to be as interested 

in the output part. And I think therein lies probably part of the disconnection, that they were never 

involved, their opinions were never asked for. And as part of any legitimate, workable process, I 

think we have to establish the outreach for the input and then I think, naturally, it will then improve 

our ability to distribute that information. 

 We all have mechanisms. We could all stand to improve them, and we pledge in our 

cooperation to make sure that as information comes out of Washington, we are going to press it 

into, but I do think that we need to dramatically improve the input part of the process. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Secretary Horne. Dr. Bryant, we've waved the magic wand and got the 

world's best web site, that's a clearinghouse of useful information, so that school board members all 

across the country can have access. 

 How are you going to let your school board members know about it? 

Mr. Bryant. Well, I think that - and I would agree with Mr. Horne's comment about dialogue, but 

I think that technology has done wonders for all of us. I think using not only the National School 

Boards Association and our online learning center, which goes out to all 50 state associations and, 

therefore, to the 15,000 school boards, is a natural way and we can do that instantly. 

 But using other education organizations in the same way, I would urge that the new OERI 

and the Department of Education think about the use of these national education organizations, 

which are now, in fact, because of the Internet, literally connected to their members. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you. Mr. Scott from Virginia. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Bryant, I was intrigued by one of the things you said. It 

suggested a fairly radical idea that the research ought to be linked to actual student achievement. 

 That idea is often lost on Members of Congress, who are more interested in making sure the 

grants get into our district without any consideration of the overall impact on student achievement. 

 But I would want to see kind of how this would work if we kind of focused on research, 

improving student achievement. 
47

 You’ve got, I guess, two parts of that. One, you have to select the right thing to do research 

on, and then after you’ve got the results, you have to translate it into something that a school board, 

administration, into the classroom would actually do some good. 

 We are here to reauthorize OERI. What has OERI done for you to help improve student 

achievement? 

Ms. Bryant. Well, you have about six parts to the question. So let me take two of them. 

 One is how do we make sure the research that is done on an ongoing basis is linked to 

student achievement? 

 My idea, which is a little bit radical, is to say school districts have a capacity, many of them 

do now, to be really data driven. 

 There are many districts in each of your states where there is terrific evidence about what is 

working for kids. 

 The link to the national research is very, very important. You can't make a decision just 

based on Mrs. Jones' sixth grade. You have to link it to the overall national research agenda. 

 Actually, the National School Boards Foundation is the recipient of an OERI grant to help 

train school board members on how to be good data driven decision-makers. 

 Part of our challenge is what are the right questions school board members should be asking 

to get them the answer regarding whether or not it is the right program? Not, I went to a 

conference and I heard about this great program at the exhibit booth given to us by, and name the 

product of the company. But rather, here is a research base and here is how it works for AfricanAmerican boys, here is how it works for Hispanic girls, and it is proven to work for those 

populations.

 I think, again, it is looking at how do you use the context of your own student data, own 

student demographics, and link it to good scientific research at the national level? 

Mr. Scott. What should we be doing in the reauthorization of OERI to make sure that happens? 

Ms. Bryant. Make sure there are grants that go to local education agencies and that link their work 

to the national agenda. 

Mr. Scott. And do the local school boards have the expertise to do research, so you're counting 

appropriately from a research - that would be helpful in research? 

Ms. Bryant. Not all of them. Obviously, one question is do they have the right staff and capacity, 

but also can they link with partners, can they link with universities, can they link up with labs, so 

that they are, in fact, doing scientifically based research? 
48

Mr. Scott. You also mentioned technical assistance. Presumably, you are doing professional 

development, which is unrelated to OERI's. Is there some research based specific technical 

assistance that would be helpful to teachers generally or to school administrators generally or 

would you be looking just to make sure the school system has that in-house expertise? 

Ms. Bryant. I think that, depending on the size of the school system, and, obviously, it ranges from 

200 children and very few adults to Los Angeles, that you have a big variety of technical expertise. 

 I think that some of the recommendations that you have heard today are let's use the 

regional labs, let's use university centers to help bring together that expertise with those districts. 

Mr. Scott. Ms. Towne mentioned the research they are doing. How can - what would you need 

from the research labs in terms of, I guess, translation from their research to something that would 

actually be helpful in the classroom? 

Ms. Towne. As I said before, that question probably is the most important one that we have to 

figure out here. 

 After all, my committee really only focused on the scientific quality of the work. But it 

recognized up front that scientific quality and the rigor of the work is necessary, but not sufficient 

to get to where I think we all agree we need to be, which is a place where evidence and science is 

actually the driver of decision-making in the way that I think you are describing. 

 The committee really didn't go into a lot of how structures would need to be set up, 

certainly. It did talk about some of the roots of the problem. 

 It isn't just a matter, I think, of web sites and formats and all of that, although that's critical. 

There is also a cultural division. Someone mentioned it earlier today. 

 Researchers and practitioners speak different languages. They don't tend to hang out 

together and that is something that if we're actually going to get to that goal, is really going to have 

to change. There is going to have to be a little bit of the meeting of the minds over time. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Osborne. 

Mr. Osborne. Yes. I would like to ask one question of Dr. Christensen. 

 I think you started to discuss your use of a regional lab, Corel in Nebraska, and ran out of 

time. If you want to just take a moment and explain how you think that was important. 

Mr. Christensen. The two things that we mentioned for which they have provided research 

documentation for us to feed back into us so that we can learn what worked, what we intended to 

have happen, did have happen, and what kind of unintended consequences we did have that we also 
49

could learn from. 

 In addition, we have had annually - in fact, we will be having our fourth one this summer - 

a policy forum where all of the seven states in our region send a policy team of people, including 

the governor, chief state school officers, state boards, professional associations, administrators, 

teachers organization and so forth, who come together around an issue we have decided. And for 

the past three years, we have been dealing with the issue of teacher quality. 

 And that discussion at a policy level, which has had presentations on the research evidence, 

has energized conversations in every one of our states going back to help in that problem-solving 

process.

 If you want to talk about one way in which that information can be made useful and 

disseminated-. 

We have used those regional policy forums as a way to inform policy. A professional 

partnership team, from every state, is informed on what the major issues are, like teacher quality, 

and then each goes home and continues that conversation. 

 The final thing that I think the regional lab has done for us, complimentary to our forums, 

the chief state school officers from the region, the seven states, meet twice a year and we share 

ideas, share practices. 

 It is a lot of discussion about the research agenda and the research results that are out there 

and simply what is working in our states, so that we can learn from each other, and that simply 

would not be happening without Corel. 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Dr. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panel. It is so nice to hear research and 

witnesses that don't have an axe to grind. 

 This is really nice. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Bryant, I want to tell you I think your constituency, the school board members, have the hardest 

political positions in the country. I mean, everybody thinks they are an expert on education, 

because they were all educated at one point or another or have kids, et cetera. 

 I have a question, and I'm going to start with you. 

 Do we or should we, through OERI, do research on programs that aren't specifically 

educational, but rather support good education, getting kids ready to learn, so that when they enter 

the classroom, they can do what they need? 
50

Ms. Bryant. Absolutely. The whole area of early childhood education is coming into its own. We 

did a survey of our Council of Urban Boards of Ed, which is 100 school districts who are urban 

boards of education, and early childhood education is top on their list. 

 The beginning research is clear that the earlier you get to children in terms of habits of 

learning, habits of behavior, as well as reading and mathematical skills, the better off we are. 

 I would urge the new OERI to really look at that area. The little bit of research that I have 

seen shows that the amount of time you spend with younger children on reading skills gets them 

doubled and tripled and quadrupled by the time you get to third and fifth grade. So absolutely. 

 I also want to thank you for your comment about the tough political job of school board 

members. I'll bet you that Members of Congress don't have to spend three hours in a grocery store, 

for the very reasons you mentioned. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, I have to tell you that going to the grocery store is a long, long process for me. 

So I can't rush through the grocery store and get re-elected. It just doesn't work. 

 We talked about disconnection and we talked about disconnection coming - information 

coming down. 

 Let's talk about information going up. I would like to know from all of you or each of you 

that would respond to this if you think the classroom teachers and the school boards, but 

particularly the instructors, are being heard when it comes to what should be researched and who is 

making those decisions. 

 Start with you, Secretary Horne. 

Mr. Horne. No. 

Ms. Woolsey. Okay. That's good. I mean, it's not good. 

Mr. Horne. We have identified that as an issue in Florida. I can't speak for other states. We are 

working on ways to-. 

I think in many respects, and, I can just speak only for Florida at the moment, but we have 

identified our customers as just being school boards or school districts and not teachers, not 

parents, and not students, and that culture is changing. 

 Their input is very valuable. They are the front line. That is where it is delivered every 

day. They are in the trenches and their opinions matter. 

 And to even conduct and lead education research without their input is going to be a fatal 

mistake. I think their input is very, very important, and that of parents is, as well. 
51

 I mean, we often talk about the teachers and we talk about others, but we leave the parents 

out, and they are the actual first teacher to begin with. 

 I think our stakeholders need to be clearly identified. Their input ought to be sought and 

they ought to lead our priorities and help us develop the strategies by which we do our education 

research.

 That's not to say that we don't have some great researchers who can, independent of that, 

develop some very sound programs, but I think we will be far more effective and efficient if we 

cast the net broad and bring in these stakeholders. 

Ms. Woolsey. Would any of you like to comment? Dr. Bryant? 

Ms. Bryant. I think, absolutely, I would agree with Mr. Horne. When you look at the sort of 

process of how a school board makes a decision on curriculum or pedagogy, it usually, or it should, 

involve a committee of teachers who are involved in that decision-making process. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. 

Ms. Towne. I will comment from two perspectives. One is with respect to this committee that 

authored this report. 

 It did, in the process of talking about the setting of the research agenda for a Federal 

education research agency, suggest that a governing board that was broadly representative help 

define that agenda. It would include folks like teachers and people who are more on the ground 

level to help and do that. 

 After all, the priorities of a research agenda should be driven by the priorities of the nation 

for what is important to know. Along with scientists who can identify areas that are ripe for 

investigation and have a high likelihood of actually generating the kinds of insights that can be 

useful.

 The second thing that I will mention is with respect to the National Research Council 

generally. The way we do our work is through these committees of experts. 

 We almost always have teachers on the committees that do education work because we 

believe they do bring unique insights to the process. And, in fact, we are in the process of putting 

together what would be something like a standing board within the National Research Council of 

teachers to advise us more broadly on our work in education, and I think, for the very reasons that 

you asked the question. 

Mr. Christensen. If I could make one comment, in addition to all those, which I agree with. 

 I wish there was some requirement that on an annual or biannual basis, the state agency, 

specifically the chief state school officer, was required to report to the Federal Government on what 

he thought or she thought were the research priorities in that state, given that we are supposed to be 
52

connected to the schools, to the boards, to the administrators, to the teachers, and to the 

communities. I think you could create a tremendous dialogue around that kind of information 

gathering process. 

 I hope I live long enough to be asked. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this good hearing. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. We appreciate it. I will yield to myself, since I didn't 

take the opportunity to ask questions originally. 

 I just want to say a couple of things. One, the chart, you can read the charts up there, can't 

you? I'm just kidding. 

 But those charts basically are a demonstration of the procedural structure for OERI before 

and hopefully afterwards, with some degree of simplification. We don't need to go into the details 

on that. 

 Secondly, we have had some discussion today, and I have provoked it a little bit with 

questions and you all have talked a little bit about the scientifically based research, et cetera. 

 We need to remember that that is in the No Child Left Behind Act, which was signed by the 

President. It was bipartisanly supported, and that is the law that we have to look to. 

 So not that we can't discuss it, but I am just saying it is already there, and it's really not as 

much a part of this bill as it is the law that is presently with us today. 

 Let me just also say that my interest in this is in getting the best research product we can. I 

haven't heard - I mean, some people defend the labs, because they're in their districts or whatever, 

but the truth of the matter is, I haven't heard too many Republicans or Democrats saying that we 

need to defend the system as it currently exists. 

 Our goal is to move this legislation along, but at the end of it, to be able to have something 

that is meaningful in terms of research. 

 If you have direct input on the changes we need, you should get that to us. 

 Let me just ask a few questions, if I can. Dr. Christensen, a couple of things, going back to 

your original testimony. And, I'm sorry, I had to step out for a phone call and then, also, part of 

this was when I was over voting, so I may be repeating a little bit. 

 But you indicated in both your written testimony and your oral testimony that you in 

Nebraska feel remote and disconnected from national research issues and the national research 

agenda.
53

 We hear this from everybody in Nebraska - or any other remote part of the country. They 

always feel remote; we don't get enough money or whatever. And we understand that. 

Mr. Christensen. You are right. 

Chairman Castle. Also, later, we were talking about - and I can't remember where it was, but you 

were talking about the lab in, I think, Denver and how good a job they do. 

 It seems somewhat inconsistent to me. I'm sure there is an explanation, but if you could just 

sort of balance that for me a little bit, I'd appreciate it. Briefly, please. 

Mr. Christensen. Initially, like I said, eight years ago, when I took over as Commissioner, the lab 

was doing its own thing. It never asked us, “Are there research issues you would like us to be 

focusing on which would be helpful to Nebraska.” 

 I have no idea why that was the case. I don't know whether it was the specifics of the 

leadership at that time of the agency, but it changed about five years ago and the new director and 

the new board of the lab have absolutely made it their cause to find out what is going on. 

Chairman Castle. I'm going to sort of interrupt you, because I want to keep things moving. So 

they are now corresponding with you and asking you what you need in Nebraska, and you are 

inputting stuff to them or information to them? 

Mr. Christensen. We meet with them regularly. The chiefs meet with them. They come to our 

state. They talk to the stakeholder groups. 

 Every state gets to say something about the research and development agenda of Macrell, 

absolutely critical to-. 

Chairman Castle. Do you feel as disconnected as you did before as a result of this? 

Mr. Christensen. No. My disconnection is with the Federal kinds of issues. I never know why 

they come up. I never know if there is a purpose behind them. They just seem to appear and then 

seem to be dropped. There is never a dissemination in what I call the development phase that 

begins to translate that into - all right, what does this stuff mean, what does it mean to policy, what 

does it mean to practice. 

 That's what I'm referring to. 

Chairman Castle. Let me sort of jump over to Dr. Bryant. I think Mrs. Biggert asked you this 

question in a way, but I also want to ask it, perhaps in a slightly different way. 

 That is, to the extent that you can help us with this, is the real use of this data at the teaching 

level or even at the school building level, if you will? 
54

 To the best of your knowledge, it is really getting down to that level? Do the teachers even 

care if it gets down to that level? 

 I think the dissemination aspect of this is very, very important and I, frankly, don't think it 

has been handled particularly well. 

 I know there are web sites and there are various other ways of disseminating it, but I just am 

not convinced. When I talk to people at home, they don't even know what I'm talking about. They 

don't even know this office exists, for the most part. I would be curious as to your viewpoint on 

that, your vantage point. 

Ms. Bryant. I think that is right. I think there is still a disconnect between a teacher who is very 

adept at analyzing the data on her students and figuring out what teaching strategies are best for 

pockets of students in her classroom. 

 I think that is sort of the brilliant teacher who is connected to the research arena. 

 And then there is the teacher who is going along and doing it the way she has done it for 20 

years or he has done it for 20 years. 

 I think where the district can be helpful – and we shouldn't say to every principal that they 

have to be a research center. 

 I think what we say is a school district is a school district, to try to leverage the capacity of 

all the schools and all the teachers and the student data in that district to make good decisions 

around curriculum and pedagogy. And that is where I think what you've heard from a lot of us is 

that you shouldn't adopt a curriculum based on whim or based on a good anecdote. 

 You ought to adopt a curriculum based on good, sound research. 

 I think teachers do want to have the capability, the capacity to get to that research. They 

spend their lives with these kids. They want to be providing the best, whether it's success for all or 

reading recovery or whatever. 

 Teachers really don't want to be spinning their wheels. They want to be using the best 

products and curriculum and textbooks. 

Chairman Castle. I agree with that. I go back to the story that was circulated last year regarding 

100,000 reading studies being done in this country, with most of these reading programs being 

stamped satisfactory by somebody doing education research, maybe OERI, maybe somebody else. 

 What is it, 30 or 40 percent of our kids can't read by the third grade or something of that 

nature now? Reading doesn't seem to be taught any differently than it was heretofore. 

 It just seems to me that if I was a teacher in the classroom someplace in Nebraska or Florida 

or wherever, I wouldn't know where to turn in terms of what is a new methodology for doing this, 
55

and that is a frustration to me that it is not happening. 

Ms. Bryant. Let me just add that I actually think the reading research is better than almost every 

other subject, and we have made huge progress in reading. 

 In fact, that is probably the most available content data for teachers. 

 Quite frankly, we're teaching it differently. There is much more use of the sort of phonics 

based early on and then an integration of loving literature. 

 Now, I won't use the words ``whole language,'' because I know Mr. Horne will probably 

jump at me, but there is a piece of loving to read and loving literature that we know is important, 

especially as we become more proficient in reading. 

 So actually the research around reading is, in a very exciting way, further along, and then I 

could name all the other subjects. 

Chairman Castle. I thank you for that. Mr. Horne is a nice man. I just wanted you to know that, 

too, before we had him come up here. 

 This may have been asked of you, Ms. Towne - again, I was out of the room - but what 

prompted the National Research Council to undertake the report on scientific principles and 

education research? 

 Because that is sort of an important change that we're going through right now. 

Ms. Towne. That is a very interesting question. There had been quite a bit of debate in the field of 

education research since it began about 100 years ago about what is the nature of this work - is it 

really like other science, what does quality mean, all of the issues that have come to bear here in the 

policy environment in No Child Left Behind. 

 So that had been brewing for a very long time. And then in the last couple of years, this 

idea of evidence-based practice started working its way into Federal legislation and into 

comprehensive school reform, the Reading Act, and then much more prominently, as I said, in the 

No Child Left Behind Act. 

 The National Education Research Policy and Priorities Board, which is OERI's current 

board, came to the National Research Council and said it would really be nice to have a group of 

researchers and a group of scholars and experts come together and try and clarify actually what this 

very loaded term means. And, in doing so, we also have the reauthorization of OERI coming up, 

can you think about the implications of what that means for a Federal agency that is charged with 

supporting this research. 

 So that is the context. 
56

Chairman Castle. Thank you. That's helpful, and we'll take a good look at that. 

 Finally, Secretary Horne, I am going to ask you the final question, and this is going to be 

rather open-ended, because I have a lot of specific questions I could have asked you. 

 That is, based on - and I know, obviously, you haven't had a chance to study this legislation, 

but based on what you know of OERI today, based on what you know from conversations today or 

otherwise about the legislation which we are proposing, can you highlight anything for us that you 

would be concerned about out or warnings? 

 Are we going in the right - what is your general view about what you're hearing, or 

specifically, is there something in there that you think is just off base? 

Mr. Horne. I'm not sure there is anything off base. I think there is a very powerful element at play. 

It's a very positive force and one that we have really not discussed at any great length. 

 That is the piece that begins to separate some of the functional areas that have previously 

been conducted all in one area. I think the separation of some of these functions is critical to the 

effectiveness of the overall effort of education and research. 

 I might get myself into a little trouble about what I'm about ready to say, but at the state 

level, we are somewhat suspect of the quality of the product because of what appears to be political 

interference, and I think that to the degree that you can create some autonomy and independence. 

 Now, while we recognize the need to have some executive oversight, and I think that is the 

path that this bill is taking, that is important. Any level of quasi-independence to research from 

program evaluation is important. 

 I'm a CPA by trade and I recognize the need to separate and have control mechanisms in 

place.

 And so I think this bill is taking appropriate steps, even within retaining its existence within 

the Department. Yet it has created, I think, a powerful enough element of independence so that you 

can separate the research from program evaluation. 

 We in Florida have likewise taken similar steps. We are in the midst of a massive 

reorganization of our education system. We have created what we call an accountability research 

measurement office, ARM, some would call it the long arm of the law, but it is an effort to remove 

the research from the program areas and also remove it from the budgetary side. 

 We think it's critically important to have that independence. And it will go a long way to 

establish credibility in the eyes, I believe, of state chiefs throughout the country. 

 So I would say that that is probably one of the most powerful pieces of the legislation. I 

think it's a good piece and I urge you to hold onto that piece, because I think that is critical. 
57

Chairman Castle. Thank you. I actually agree with you on that. When we started this process, 

there was a previous administration in place and I wanted the board to be completely independent. 

And I didn't necessarily win that argument. 

 Now we have a new administration in place and I still think it should be completely 

independent, if I have my druthers. 

 I guess the example is NIH. And I don't want to get into the medical-educational 

comparisons here, but in terms of an independent research entity - and that actually happens to be 

under a department that I didn't even know. 

 I would like to see the same thing happen. I mean, when I started down here, I didn't know. 

I learned it. 

 I want to see the same thing happen with this. We're trying to make it strong enough so that 

it can stand up to any administration and not just carry out political whims, which is, in my 

judgment, a terrible way to do educational research. 

 Whether we have achieved that-. 

I'm glad to hear you think we're moving in that direction. Hopefully we have achieved that. 

We'll find out. 

Mr. Horne. In the CPA world, the appearance of independence is almost as important as 

independence in fact. So to the extent that you can create the appearance of independence, it will 

establish almost instant credibility at the state level and will assure the value that we want for the 

research.

Chairman Castle. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Scott, do you have anything further? 

Mr. Scott. The CPA independence is a bigger issue. 

Chairman Castle. I was going to ask him if he worked for Arthur Andersen at any point, but I 

thought I better leave it alone. 

Mr. Christensen. Price Waterhouse. 

Chairman Castle. I had that same question in mind. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We appreciate your participation. 

 Let me thank the panel. We are at our conclusion now. 
58

 Obviously, after the last vote, you start to lose members, as you can see. But your 

testimony is very important and as you all know, that testimony is brought in and looked at by all 

the staff and we will consider it as part of our final push to this legislation. 

 We appreciate you being here. If you have any thoughts after the fact, let us hear from you 

in some way or another and we will try to incorporate them, as well. 

DOCUMENT REGARDING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE 

ASSISTANCE CENTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HILDA 

SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX I 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

WHITEHURST BY THE HONORABLE HILDA SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX J 

RESPONSE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY WHITEHURST 

TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE HILDA SOLIS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX K 

 With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Castle, 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 31, 34, 35, 38, 40, 43, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 

Mr. Christensen, 31, 35, 42, 48, 51, 53, 57 

Mr. Horne, 26, 27, 41, 43, 45, 50, 56, 57 

Mr. Keller, 17, 18, 19, 26, 46, 48, 49 

Mr. Keller [Presiding], 45 

Mr. Kildee, 4, 10, 11, 13, 43, 44, 45 

Mr. Kind, 21, 22, 23 

Mr. Osborne, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 48, 49 

Mr. Scott, 15, 16, 17, 46, 47, 48, 57 

Mr. Whitehurst, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 

Mrs. Biggert, 13, 14, 15, 41, 42, 43 

Ms. Bryant, 38, 42, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55 

Ms. Towne, 26, 35, 42, 44, 48, 51, 55 

Ms. Woolsey, 19, 20, 21, 49, 50, 51, 52