Impact of a Department of Education on

Federal Science and Technology Activities

August 1978

NTIS order #PB-286525
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 78-600085

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

Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003-00573-5
FOREWORD

One of the Office of Technology Assessment’s (OTA) primary functions is to

anticipate and advise Congress on the potential long-range impacts of technologies, and as a corollary, to anticipate and advise Congress of the long- range impacts on technology of proposed actions. In the latter sense, the proposals to

create a Department of Education, which Congress is currently considering,

could have significant effects on graduate science and engineering training in this

Nation. Therefore, this report examines a range of congressional options

available for ensuring that the integrity of the educational process for professional

scientists and engineers is maintained in order to preserve this important national

resource.

This report reviews how three key elements in the science education process

will fare under a new department. These are: the programs of the National

Science Foundation’s Science Education Directorate; general support programs

for graduate science and engineering training across the country; and educational

analysis and research which should be the responsibility of an appropriate Federal

agency. Key criteria to be utilized in these evaluations are presented for the use of

congressional committees. Specific options with regard to higher education in

science and engineering and with regard to those educational research and

development functions—important for inclusion in the new department-are also

presented.

Given the important and far-reaching consequences which could ensue if

higher education in science and engineering in this country is not carefully nurtured, OTA is pleased to make this assessment available to the Congress during

its deliberations on the proposed Department of Education. .

RUSSELL W. PETERSON

Director

Office of Technology Assessment

111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the following individuals for reviewing and providing

valuable information on the preliminary drafts of Dr. C. Kidd’s report: Richard Atkinson,

Director, National Science Foundation; Philip Austin, Department of Economics,

George Washington University; William Blanpied, National Science Foundation;

Langdon Crane, Science Policy Division, Congressional Research Service; John C.

Crowley, Director of Federal Relations for Science& Research, Association of American

Universities; Marilyn Harris, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Thomas

Kramer, House Committee on Science & Technology; Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Woodrow

Wilson School of Public & International Affairs; Charles Saunders, Director of Governmental Relations, American Council on Education; Arthur Sheekey, President’s

Reorganization Project; Allen M. Shinn, Jr., Deputy Assistant Director, Directorate for

Science Education, National Science Foundation; and Anne Strauss, Senate Committee on Human Resources, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research.

iv
OTA Department of Education

Reorganization Project Staff

Ellis R. Mottur, * R&D Policies and Priorities Program Manager

Carolee McBee, Project Leader

Roslyn Dauber, Analyst

Irene Zarechnak, Clerical Support

Consultant

Charles V. Kidd, Professor of Public Policy

Graduate Program in Science and Public Policy

George Washington University

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming

‘Resigned, effective July 31, 1978, to accept position with Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian

Institution.

v
Program on R&D Policies and

Priorities Steering Committee

Russell W. Peterson Lewis M. Branscomb Gilbert F. White

Director Chairman Chairman

Office of Technology Assessment Panel on the Applications of Panel on Decisionmaking on R&D

Science and Technology Policies and Priorities

Jerome B. Wiesner

Chairman Harvey Brooks Ellis Mottur

Technology Assessment Advisory Chairman Ex Officio

Council Panel on Health of the Scientific

and Technical Enterprise

Health of the Scientific and

Technical Enterprise Advisory Panel

Harvey Brooks, Chairman

Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy

R. Stephen Berry

Professor, Department of Chemistry

University of Chicago

Solomon J. Buchsbaum

Vice President, Network Planning &

Customer Service

Bell Laboratories

Barry M. Casper

Professor

Carleton College

James Franklin Childress

Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.

Professor of Christian Ethics

Kennedy Center for Bioethics

Georgetown University

Jewel P. Cobb

Dean

Douglass College

Harvard University

Donald W. Collier

Vice President, Technology

Borg-Warner Corporation

Richard B. Freeman

Associate Professor

Department of Economics

Harvard University

Leo Goldberg

Distinguished Research Scholar

Kitt Peak National Observatory

Donald F. Hornig

Director, Interdisciplinary Program

in Health

Harvard University

Richard M. Krause

Director, National Institute of Allergy

and Infectious Diseases

National Institutes of Health

William J. McGill

President

Columbia University

Robert S. Morison

Visiting Professor

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

David Z. Robinson

Vice President

Carnegie Corporation

Jurgen Schmandt

Associate Dean, Lyndon B. Johnson

School of Public Affairs

University of Texas at Austin

H. Guyford Stever

Independent Consultant

.

vi
Decisionmaking on R&D Policies and

Priorities Advisory Panel

Gilbert F. White, Chairman

Director, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Chicago

Robert S. Barrow

Director

Black Economic Research Center

Robert A. Charpie

President

Cabot Corporation

John W. Davis

Attorney

Adams and Davis

Martin Goland

President

Southwest Research Institute

Jerry Grey

Independent Consultant

Gerald B. Grinstein

Attorney

Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis, Holman & Fletcher

Frederic A. L. Holloway

Vice President for Science and Technology

EXXON Corporation

Edward B. Lindaman

President

Whitworth College 

Richard R. Nelson

Professor of Economics

Institute for Social and Public Studies

Yale University

Don K. Price

Professor of Government

John F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Lola Redford

Chairman of the Board

CAN’s Council on Environmental Alternatives

Donald B. Rice, Jr.

President

RAND Corporation

Note: These panels provided advice, critique, and assistance during the project for which OTA is

deeply grateful. Although these advisory panels recommended release of the report, OTA assumes full

responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

vii
CONTENTS

Chapter

1.

.

II.

Congressional Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NSF Education Directorate Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Criteria for Congressional Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Graduate Science and Engineering Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Analysis and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science and Technology Activities of the Federal Government

in Relation to a New Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Department of Education and the Education Directorate of the National

Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specific Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An Alternative Approach: Postponement or Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Research and Development Functions Transferred From the

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Collection and Analysis of Educational Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Administrative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research on Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Should a New Department of Education Be Created? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HEW’s Education Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Department of Education and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The NSF Science Education Directorate Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Is Postponement the Course? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analytic and Research Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix

S. 991 -A Bill To Establish a Department of Education, and for Other

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

, . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. * .

. , .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Page

3

3

5

5

5

9

9

9

9

14

18

19

19

19

20

21

21

22

23

23

24

24

Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

32-519 0-78 -2

ix
Chapter

Congressional Summary
On July 18, 1978 the Senate

Affairs Committee marked up a

Governmental

bill to create a

new Cabinet-level institution—the Department of

Education. This is the first step in a potentially extended congressional process which may lead to

formation of a major new governmental entity.

To assist Congress in its deliberations on certain

aspects of this action, the Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) has examined the potential

long-term impacts, both positive and negative, of

such a department on three science and

technology-related areas:

● Science education programs currently

housed in the National Science Foundation

(NSF), but slated for transfer in the proposals for the new department;

● Graduate science and engineering education training across the country; and

Chapter 1

Congressional Summary

● Educational analysis and research activities

which should be the responsibility of an appropriate Federal agency.

Members of the community most concerned

with science and technology issues, including a

significant percentage of Congress, will want

assurances prior to approval of a new department that the functions mentioned above will not

be adversely impacted.

This report assesses potential impacts in each

of these areas; suggests appropriate criteria

which Congress may utilize to examine the

science and technology-related aspects of the

proposed department; and spells out the possible

congressional options for dealing with science

and technology educational issues if such a

department is finally approved.

NSF SCIENCE EDUCATION DIRECTORATE PROGRAMS

Probably the key element in the debate about

the new department, vis-a-vis science and engineering, is whether the NSF Science Education

Directorate programs proposed for transfer will

suffer or be enhanced by such a transfer. The importance of this question cannot be measured

simply by the seemingly small amount of dollar

resources allocated to these efforts in the 1979

budget for NSF. By these standards, the programs might seem to be insignificant, but it has

been estimated that the potential impact of these

efforts is greatly magnified when the worldwide

replication of such science curricula and other

science education leadership programs is taken

into account. For example, over 70 developed

and underdeveloped countries utilize NSF

science curricula currently. Thus, NSF science

education programs affect not only the quality of

the future U.S. supply of trained scientists and

engineers, but also the worldwide supply of such

human resources, which are so necessary for further development and advancement of all

societies. Because of this important multiplicative

factor, much of the Congress’ concern and hence

OTA’S, centers on the possible impact of the proposed department on NSF Science Education

Directorate programs. The bulk of this report

discusses congressional options for dealing with

these science education activities in a manner

that will be consistent with a plan to create a

Department of Education.

The administration proposal and the Senate

bill have both suggested that most of NSF’s

science education programs be moved to the

new department-$56. 18 million of the $77.6

requested in NSF’s budget for FY 79. The scientific education community has not supported this

move—viewing it as of doubtful benefit to the

goals of maintaining high scientific standards, involving the support of the scientific community,

and having high visibility which is easier to main3
tain in a small agency. OTA suggests that the

Congress may wish to consider the following options with regard to these types of programs:

Option 1

Leave the NSF Science Education

Directorate intact.

If creating a Department of Education that encompasses the entire spectrum of educational

programs is of utmost importance, then clearly

the motivation for including programs in science

education at the postsecondary level would be

great. However, the challenge will be to coordinate the new department in such a way as to ensure a comprehensive and integrated educational

system in the United States. Previous attempts to

accomplish this goal via the HEW programs in

education were not successful. The difficulties of

HEW in this regard should be examined carefully.

Option 2

Allow the new department to begin

operations without the NSF Science

Education Directorate programs.

Move appropriate NSF activities after

careful evaluation of their potential for

successful operation in the new

departmental setting.

The National Foundation on the Arts and

Humanities (NFA&H) was originally planned for

inclusion in the new department. Because the

agency is self-sufficient and successful, it has

been proposed that it not be transferred until after

the proposed Education Department is operating

and can specify a definite need for NFA&H functions. The same reasoning could be applied to

NSF.

, Option 3

Move selected parts of the NSF

Science Education Directorate on an

individually assessed basis as soon as

a department is formulated.

This option corresponds with the current thinking of the administration and the Senate bill.

Following is a description of the Directorate’s programs and the pros and cons of transfer. There

are five specific programs:

1

2.

3.

4.

5.

Advanced Scientific Training, Minorities, Women, and the Handicapped in

Science. This program constitutes 25 percent of the Directorate’s budget. It has been

argued that because this program is directed

at aspiring scientific professionals it belongs

in NSF. Current proposals have not suggested transfer of this activity.

Science and Society. This program has

several components aimed at increasing the

public’s understanding of science. These efforts are inserted into both the formal

educational system and informal educational processes, via television. The administration and Senate bill have recommended that part of the program be

transferred and part remain at NSF. NSF is

very much opposed to splitting the program

components because such a split may inhibit the goals upon which the entire effort

was initially based.

Science Education Research and Development. This R&D function is aimed at

understanding the learning process. This

logically serves the objectives of the new

department and could increase the speed

with which new information would be

disseminated within the educational process. The National Institute of Education

would be enhanced by the transfer.

Support for College and Secondary

School Students. As a faculty improvement program this is considered a strong

candidate for transfer since it is aimed at

professional training and enrichment.

However, NSF fears that some of its current

support from university faculty members

would be lost with transfer. The issue must

be decided based on the relative importance

of the establishment of the department versus the maintenance of successfully

operating programs.

Institutional Support to Upgrade Undergraduate Science Teaching. The

five areas included in this program are: a)

assistance to undergraduate science education; b) minority institutions; c) science improvement; d) undergraduate instructional

improvement; and e) resource centers for

science and engineering. Because these are

all aimed at institutional support it is likely
that transfer to the new department would

-strengthen the higher education division.

Option 4

Move the entire Directorate to the

Department of Education.

Although this alternative was initially considered it has been abandoned because several of

the programs (as discussed above) do not substantively apply to education. Any reorganization

should be designed to maximize benefits of current and potential work; the dismantling of currently effective programs, not integrally related to

education, would be the eventual result if the entire Science Education Directorate were transferred.

CRITERIA FOR

CONGRESSIONAL EVALUATION

The wisdom of transferring some or all of the

NSF Science Education Directorate programs to

the new department can be evaluated by utilizing

the following five criteria:

Ž

●

●

●

●

How important is building up the new

department versus maintaining successfully

operating programs?

How will the goal of the program be affected by being housed in the new department?

What is the present quality and effectiveness of the programs versus their potential increased or decreased performance in a

new setting?

What are the political and administrative

considerations involved with transfer and

subsequent smoothness of operation?

How important is the continued involvement of the scientific community, which is

more likely if the functions remain in NSF?

GRADUATE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING TRAINING

Should most or all the NSF Science Education

Directorate programs be transferred, the status of

postsecondary education in the new department

will be of prime importance. If the policy of the

department indicates an orientation mainly

toward elementary and secondary education, it is

possible that graduate training in the sciences and

engineering will suffer adversely. Since much of

the Nation’s economic and social development

depends on technological advances provided by

trained scientists and engineers, this issue would

be of importance and concern to Congress. Congress has two options for ensuring that the proposed Department of Education places appropriate emphasis on graduate training:

Option 1

Make it an explicit part of the department’s mission to support and improve graduate training in all areas, including science and engineering.

Option 2

Create a high-level post in the new

department responsible for this function, such as an Assistant Secretary

for Graduate Education.

EDUCATIONAL ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH

To ensure that the new department has suffi- ess itself, the following elements should be incient programs for studying the educational proc- cluded:

5
● educational statistics To address administrative research needs the

● research on education Congress could consider the following option:

● administrative research

Since the Department of Health, Education, Establish in the new department an

and Welfare already has programs underway ad- administrative and research function

dressing the first two of these areas—the National that reports directly to an Assistant

Center for Educational Statistics and the the Na- Secretary for Administrative and Mantional Institute of Education—the Congress need agement Policy.

only assure their transfer to the new department

in order to have adequate coverage.

6
Chapter II

Science and Technology Activities

of the Federal Government

in Relation to a New

Department of Education

Prepared by Charles V. Kidd, Professor of Public Policy

Graduate Program in Science and Public Policy, George Washington University
Chapter II

Science and Technology Activities

of the Federal Government

in Relation to a New

Department of Education

Prepared by Charles V. Kidd, Professor of Public Policy

Graduate Program in Science and Public Policy, George Washington University

INTRODUCTION

What would be the effects of a new Department of Education on the science education and research, and educational R&D functions of the Federal Government? The

answer to this question obviously depends upon the functions, activities, and organization of the new department. The proposal now being most seriously considered would

establish a relatively narrowly defined agency by putting the existing Education Division

of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), plus some other education activities of HEW, and some education functions from other agencies (of which the

most significant would be transfer of the Science Education Directorate of the National

Science Foundation (NSF)) into a new Department of Education. This proposal, embodied in the Pen bill (S. 991, see the appendix, and H.R. 9618 identical) and endorsed

with some minor reservations by the administration is analyzed in this paper.

A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE SCIENCE EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

When attention is centered on the effect of

establishing a Department of Education on the

R&D functions of Government (including graduate training in the sciences), the most important

single consideration by far is whether the Science

Education Directorate of NSF should be transferred in whole, in part, or not at all to the proposed

department.

BACKGROUND

The Written Record

The case for transfer first appeared in one

paragraph of a significant report by Rufus Miles,

Jr., A Cabinet Department of Education (American Council on Education, 1977, page 90):

The Education Directorate of the National

Science Foundation is that part of the Foundation which is most directly related to the pedagogical functions of educational institutions, as

distinguished from their research functions. It is

concerned with fostering needed innovations in

curriculum materials, techniques for the teaching

of science, and the use of technological advances

for instruction, as well as with the general improvement in the quality of scientific and technical manpower. It constitutes less than ten percent of the total program of the National Science

Foundation, most of which is, of course, devoted

9
to research. It is now time to transfer this small

component to the new Department of Education, if one is establised. It is unlikely that this

transfer would meet ith strong opposition from w

any influential source. 1

The Science Education Directorate is, as Miles

notes, more directly related to the pedagogical

functions of educational institutions than to their

research functions, and the functions of the division are adequately stated. The budget for the

division is, as Miles points out, less than 10 percent of the total NSF budget. However, these

considerations hardly constitute a full and

satisfactory base for the conclusion that “it is now

time to transfer this small component to the new

Department of Education.” The central reason

advanced by Miles for transfer is that the functions of the Directorate are more directly related

to the pedagogical than to the research functions

of educational institutions. This formulation accepts as conclusive a rationale that is, in fact, the

issue to be debated. It actually makes a proposition to be tested rather than establishing a case.

The only early statement opposing the transfer

has been made by Charles Saunders on behalf of

the American Council on Education as an umbrella organization, and seven associates of

higher education, including the Association of

American Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, to which all universities conducting substantial amounts of research belong. The statement opposing the transfer reads as follows:

We would oppose transfer of the National Science Foundation’s Education Directorate (or for

that matter any other part of that appropriately

independent Foundation). Most members of the

higher education community believe that the

location of the Education Directorate within the

National Science Foundation affirms the importance of the interdependence of science education and scientific research. To separate the two

would inevitably damage the quality of both, by

depriving them of their mutually supportive relationship. These programs should be developed

‘U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs,

“Department of Education Act of 1977,” Committee Print,

95th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Gov’t Print. Off.,

Washington, D. C., Oct.12 and 13, 1977, p. 174. Miles

later indicated that he had not thought in detail of the pros

and cons of transfer of functions performed by the NSF

Science Education Directorate.

and administered with a sensitivity to the science

and research environment on campus in which

they will function. They should be staffed by professionals, some on temporary assignments from

colleges and universities, who are familiar with

existing NSF academic science research and

training programs and with emerging educational

needs and training opportunities. A staff in a

separate department, isolated from the Foundation’s research environment, in our view, would

neither bring the same perceptions and experience to these programs nor attract the quality of

experienced individuals drawn to them by the

unique research environment of the Foundation.

We see no reason to disrupt the present relationship, with the reduced effectiveness which would

be bound to occur, for the sake of adding

another agency to the new Department of

Education. 2

The interdependence of science education

and scientific research is a good general point,

but as will be noted below, it is useful to look at

specific aspects of the Science Education Directorate of NSF. To separate specific programs

might or might not “inevitably damage the quality

of both by depriving them of their mutually supportive relationship.” The precise nature of the

potential disruption, if any, that would follow the

transfer of specific kinds of activities now carried

on by NSF must be examined. The importance of

developing and administering the programs of

the NSF Science Education Directorate “with a

sensitivity to the science and research environment on campus in which they will function” is

also a weighty consideration, but it must be applied to specific programs.

Turning to the strongest opinion expressed in

the legislative branch, the Pen bill (S. 991), proposed in Sec. 7(a) 12 that the Science Education

Directorate be transferred. The Humphrey bill (S.

225) Sec. 8(d) had the more cautionary proposition that there be:

. . . transferred to the Secretary all functions

of the National Science Foundation which the

Director of the Office of Management and

Budget determines relate to instructional personnel development programs, instructional pro-

*U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs,

creating a Department of Education, hearings before a committee of the whole (March 21, 1978). Statement by:

Chades B. Saunders, Jr., Director of Governmental Affairs,

American Council on Education (p.5).

10
gram development, and programs in computer

innovations designed for use in education.3

There are no analyses accompanying the bills

and no statements by the sponsoring Senators or

Representatives indicating why the various positions have been taken. A range of bills have been

introduced in the House, but serious consideration was deferred until early August, pending the

establishment of a final position by the administration and passage in the Senate. In the

first congressional hearings on a new department,4 none of the Senators mentioned the

issue. Nor did representatives of the National

Education Association (NEA), nor any of the six

former Commissioners of Education, mention

the issue. While the question has been debated

more thoroughly in later congressional hearings,

it has thus far not been one of the central issues

related to creation of a new departments

Finally, there is the position of the administration, which constitutes the most careful analysis

of the issues. James T. McIntyre, Jr., Director of

the Office, of Management and Budget (OMB),

presented the summary views of the administration on formation of a new Department of Education in the form of commments on the Pen bill (S.

991) before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on April 14, 1978. The administration’s position recommended transfer of some

of the functions of the Science Education Directorate:

Although we do not advocate the transfer of

the entire Science Education Directorate from

the National Science Foundation, we think that a

Department of Education responsible for improving educational quality should directly involve

science education programs designed to upgrade

school and college curricula. However, we think

that the graduate training and scholarship programs, which recruit and prepare scientists for

the Nation’s scientific research effort, should remain in NSF, as well as some smaller education

programs directed at improving communications

between the scientific and nonscientific communities.

The administration position was elaborated by

the Office of Science and Technology Policy

3U.S. Senate, op. cit., p.421:S.225, Sec 8(d).

‘Ibid., S.991, S.255, S.300, S.894, and S. 1685.

5Hearings to date: 3/20/78; 4/14 & 4/18/78;

4/27/78; 5/8/78; 5/16 & 5/17/78.

(OSTP) in testimony given to the same Committee on April 18 by Philip M. Smith, Assistant

Director of OSTP. He outlined the rationale for

the President’s proposals by first stating the advantages and disadvantages of transferring programs:

Transferring the science education programs

would have the following advantages:

●

●

●

●

A Department of Education, which assumes

the responsibility for improving the overall

quality of schools and school curricula,

should be given responsibility for involving

talent, program expertise, and information

within the scientific communities.

Transfer of science education responsibility

will improve the likelihood of enlarging

Federal impact on the quality of science

education programs offered in all the Nation’s schools and colleges. The NSF has

not had the resources to demonstrate fully

and disseminate the products developed

with its research and development funds.

A major department with a mandate to

report annually on the “condition of education” and with an annual budget for education programs in excess of $12 billion may

be in a better position to articulate appropriate Federal policies and to reallocate

available resources to meet all educational

needs, including science education.

Consolidating those Federal educational

programs aimed specifically at improving

access of minorities, women, and the handicapped will emphasize the administration’s

commitment to alleviating problems of inequity and discrimination in education.

The proposed transfers could have the following disadvantages:

Transferring science education programs

from NSF could reduce the involvement of

the science and research communities in

science education.

An agency without scientific and research

talent operating at its helm would be less

sensitive to and supportive of science

education programs. In contrast, both the

11
Director and Deputy Director of NSF were

trained as research scientists.

● The substantive link between science

education programs and basic research programs would be reduced by separating

these programs. Science focuses on the

creation of new knowledge, and teaching it

effectively depends on that knowledge. To

minimize this potential disadvantage, the

proposed Department of Education would

have to work closely with NSF and assure

continued scientific input.

● Policies relating to increasing access to and

participation in education, which dominate

most Federal education programs, might

take priority over the policies stressing high

standards, excellence, and competition,

which are stressed by NSF officials and the

NSF Board.

In weighing these advantages and disadvantages, OSTP came to the conclusion that programs should be transferred:

. . . in those cases where there is a desirability of implementing on a wide basis activities

characterized by knowledge dissemination, the

widespread introduction of new educational

technologies, the training of professionals such as

teacher training programs or special assistance

programs to help improve the opportunities for

sectors of our society such as minorities, women

and the handicapped.

On the other hand, OSTP:

. . . concluded that it is desirable to have a

continuing role for NSF in those programs most

closely related to science such as the fellowships

or those programs where there is a close tie between science and learning. We expect therefore

that the NSF will have a continuing and important role in educational research specifically

directed at science, knowledge and understanding for both formal education and in broader

education of our citizenry concerning science and

technology.

Applying these principles to specific programs

produced the following proposal, which for the

first time stated the details of the President’s plan

for disposition of the Science Education Directorate:

Millions of

Disposition dollars

Faculty development, undergraduate programs, minority, women, and handicapped

programs, R&D, proposed for transfer. . . . . $56.3

Graduate research training and science and

society programs remaining at NSF . . . . . . . $21.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $77.6

Personnel: Approximatel y 90 transfer, approximately 30

remain at NSF.

In summary, the written record to date states

three positions:

●

●

●

Transfer the whole education Directorate

(Rufus Miles, Jr., in A Cabinet Department

of Education);

Transfer none of the functions of the Directorate (American Council on Education

testimony of March 21, 1978); and

Transfer part of the functions of the Directorate (administration position as stated by

OMB and OSTP on April 14 and 18,

1978). (Among all of these documents,

only the OSTP statement presented an extended discussion of the issues.)

The discussion in the following pages is an independent effort to provide a fuller anaylsis of

the considerations that would lead to any one of

these three possible choices. The following text

assesses the possible effects of such reorganization on the Federal educational R&D programs,

and graduate science and engineering activities.

The Functions of the

Science Education Directorate

The content and magnitude of the programs of

the NSF Science Education Directorate are

shown in table 1, which is derived from the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 1979.

Criteria for Deciding to Transfer Programs

The basic issue is the standard one encountered in all reorganization proposals: what

concepts and missions of Government are to

serve as the guiding, primary principles for

organization? When NSF was established and as

it has evolved, science has been considered as a

valid central organizing principle. Now, education has become a relatively more significant

12
Table I.—Possible Effects of Federal

Educational R&D Programs and Graduate

Science and Engineering Activities

FY 1979

Budget request

Program descript ion (in millions)

Advanced scientific training, and

minorities, women, and the handicapped in science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fellowships and traineeships,

predoctoral and postdoctoral. . . . . . .

Minorities, women, and handicapped

in science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science and society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public understanding of science. . . . . .

Ethics and values in science and

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science for citizens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science education R&D and information dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research in science education . . . . . . .

Development in science

education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Information dissemination . . . . . . . . . . .

Support for college and secondary

school students and teachers . . . . . . . . . .

Secondary school student

science training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Faculty improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Institutional support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comprehensive assistance to undergraduate science education . . . . . . . .

Minority institutions science improvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resource centers for science

and engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Undergraduate instructional improvement. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14.8

2.5

5.4

2.4

1.3

1.7

12.7

3.9

7.8

1.0

12.5

2.3

10.2

29.7

14.9

5.0

2.8

7.0

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $77.6

function, and the relative importance of science

and education as principles guiding the organization of the Federal Government have to be

worked out. The question is whether the set of

functions relating to science, and performed by

NSF, should redivided in order to form a more

unified set of educational functions in a new

Department of Education.

The advantages and disadvantages of transfer

noted in the OSTP testimony should be borne in

mind. They and other relevant considerations

can be stated in the form of questions.

1. Importance of a New Department

● What relative weight should be given to

establishing a well-rounded new department as contrasted with maintaining the

quality and continuity of operating programs?

2. What Relative Weight Should be

Given to the Conflicting Values of

Pluralism and Coherence?

Should pluralistic maintenance of programs

in the same field in a number of agencies be

given greater weight if there is a greater

component of experimentation in the program? or,

Should coherence—consolidation of programs in the same field in one agency-be

given greater weight if there is greater

significance to the building of a new administrative structure and administration of

programs which have relatively fixed

guidelines?

3. The Education and Science En-

●

●

●

●

●

vironments

Will the program flourish best in an atmosphere colored by education or by

science?

Is the program primarily an education program with an incidental science content, or

the reverse?

Is the program directed at professional

educators or professional scientists?

Should educators or scientists have the

primary voice in the development, administration, and evaluation of the program?

Can the optimum mix of educational and

scientific influences be attained best in NSF

or in a new department?

4. Quality and Effectiveness of Programs

What relative weight should be given to the

past effectiveness of programs in their current setting as contrasted with the potential

effectiveness in a new setting?

5. Administrate Considerations

● Are circumstances such that the function

can be administered most efficiently in NSF

13
●

●

●

or in a new department?

What attention will be paid to the function at

the top of the agency?

What are the prospects for budgetary support?

Where are the best people available to administer and advise- on ‘the program, currently and in the future?

6. Political Considerations

● What political and administrative costs and

benefits are generated by transferring programs or by keeping them in NSF?

For several reasons, it is difficult to produce

fully persuasive answers to most of these questions. Different persons and groups are inclined

to put different weights on various criteria. For

example, those who place great weight on the

potentialities of a new department for infusing all

of education at the Federal level with new leadership and ideas, and for achieving a new coherence for education in the Federal structure incline

to favor transfer of most or all of the functions of

the Science Education Directorate. Those who

place great weight on the need for leadership and

scientists, participation of the scientific community, and national competition on the basis of quality recommend that none or few of the functions

be transferred.

The structure of the new department is not

known yet and it maybe created without detailed

specifications. Clear choices are hard to make

because it is not known how the transferred functions would fit into the administrative structure of

a new department, and hence, whether they

would have relatively high or relatively low

status, visibility, and access to power. Finally, the

quality of potential leadership in a new department is unknown. The administration has

recognized the significance of such questions.

The OSTP testimony noted that:

There are many details to be worked out effectively and we are committed to help in this regard

to ensure that programs are transferred effectively and that they receive prominence and attention in the Department of Education. Clearly,

science programs within a Department having so

many elements need to be carefully organized. A

broadly based Department would facilitate the

type of functional organization that is desirable.

This Office will participate in planning and effecting transfers of science education programs to

assure an orderly transition.

The Meaning of “Transfer”

Transfer of the functions of the Science Education Directorate can mean amendment of the National Science Act to remove the authority of

NSF to conduct activities of the type transferred

to a new department, or it can mean transfer of

money, people, and current activities to a new

department while leaving the NSF statutory

authority intact. The primary advantage of the

latter course is that it provides flexibility. If functions were transferred to a new department it

would be advantageous in some cases to carry on

complementary activities in NSF. For example,

OSTP pointed out that a new department might

not be able to do everything that ought to be

done in science education, but that, “the

safeguard is that NSF would retain its current

broad statutory authority for support of science

education.” In case things went poorly in the new

department, the existence of basic statutory

authority in NSF would permit retransfer of functions.

There would appear to be no advantages to be

gained by repealing the statutory authority of

NSF to carry out transferred functions.

SPECIFIC PROGRAMS

Advanced Scientific Training, Minorities,

Women, and the Handicapped in Science

The fellowship and traineeship portion of the

program of the Science Education Directorate

was initially the sole NSF activity in the educational area. It developed during the 1960’s when

there was a clear and urgent need to provide a

strong Federal stimulus to the training of scientists

for an expanding national research program and

for an expanding system of higher education.

Now there are not general shortages of scientists,

although there are specific foreseeable needs of

some magnitude. The fellowship and traineeship

item (including programs for women, minorities,

and the handicapped) now comprises only about

25 percent of the total budget of the Science

Education Directorate. Using the argument that a

Federal stimulus to the production of scientists is

no longer an urgent priority warranting a
separate program in NSF, the program could be

transferred to the new department and administered as a segment of a broader fellowship program.

However, there are considerations which

argue for continued administration of the fellowship and traineeship program by NSF. For example, the relationships between research and requirements for academic staff on the one hand

and the flow of highly trained scientists and

engineers continues to be complex, dynamic,

and impossible to predict with precision. These

characteristics of the system make it important to

link support of basic research with fellowships

and traineeships in science and engineering. In

addition, the Nation needs a central point where

attention is paid to the content of graduate and

postdoctoral education, to future supply and demand, to the interrelationships between research

and graduate education, and to the quality of

graduate and postdoctoral programs in the

sciences. Another significant consideration is that

there are still specific shortages that can be best

detected and relieved if the education and training program is closely linked to the research function. Finally, the traineeship and fellowship program of NSF is designed not to improve general

access to higher education as a social imperative,

but to sustain the quality of personnel in fields of

direct significance to NSF and to symbolize the

national interest in sustaining high quality in

graduate education in the sciences.

All in all, there seems to be no more reason to

transfer the NSF trainee and fellowship programs

than to transfer similar programs conducted by

other agencies, such as NIH.

The case for keeping the $2.5 million program

for minorities, women, and the handicapped in

NSF is short and powerful. Every major agency

of the U.S. Government should be sensitive to

and involved with the national effort to do away

with discrimination, and the most direct way to

do this is to have a specific program directed to

that end. The new department will not need the

small NSF program to expose it to all aspects of

affirmative action or to demonstrate its commitment to doing away with discrimination.

The case for transfer is also short and powerful. Recall that the OSTP testimony stated:

Consolidating those Federal educational programs aimed specifically at improving access of

minorities, women, and the handicapped will emphasize the administration’s commitment to

alleviating problems of inequity and discrimination in education.

Science and Society

Science and technology play an influential role

in most aspects of modern life and a dominant

role in many fields. The power of science and

technology make it important that the public at

large understand the essential nature of science

and technology, and that the power of science

and technology be used with a sense of responsibility and within an ethical framework that provides appropriate guides and constraints. Attention to these matters is a proper concern of the

Federal Government, and the concern is made

concrete by the group of NSF activities called

science and society, funded at a level of $6

million.

These NSF programs are educational in a very

broad sense and could therefore be considered as

a logical part of a new department.

On the other hand, the relationships between

science and society can best be pondered and

studied in the context of scientific and technological activities. Strong links between philosophers,

social scientists, biological and physical scientists,

and engineers are necessary for effective study of

the relationships among science, technology,

and society. These links can be forged more effectively in an atmosphere where science rather

than education is the dominant theme. The role

of science in society is changing. NSF should be

both aware of the change and, to a degree, an

agent of change. The programs under consideration serve this purpose. Accordingly, NSF has

urgent and continuing interests in pursuing these

matters, whereas no such stimulus would appear

to exist in a Department of Education.

Questions of ethics and values and of public

understanding of science involve sensitive issues,

which are best approached with oversight provided by independent, informed advisors. The

National Science Board performs this function.

It has been recommended that the public

understanding of science program within the

science and society program be divided; the formal education component moving to the new

department and the science policy and broader

educational component remaining. It’s likely that

15

32-519 0 -78-4
such division would weaken both aspects. The said for maintaining diverse approaches to eduprogram was designed to provide the public with cation R&D because the complexity and experiinformation about science and to draw upon the mental nature of the subject makes different apscientific expertise available to NSF. preaches desirable. The training curricula develFinally} there does not appear to be a function oped by the Department of Defense and the lanor program in a Department of Education into guage-training curricula and teaching methods

developed by the Department of State are other which these NSF activities would fit easily. examples of successful specialized efforts.

Science Education R&D

The Nation needs a broadly based, intellectually vigorous, well-financed, well-directed, and

well-advised research program on the important

and intractable problem of understanding the

learning process. The potentiality of developing

such a program would exist in a new Department

of Education, and this is one of the reasons for

establishing a department. Transfer of the NSF

science education R&D programs would add

specialized talent, funds, and an informed constituency to the broader effort in the new department. If the program were transferred it would

obviously be placed in the National Institute for

Education (NIE), which is designed to foster such

efforts.

To be useful, the products of research and

development on science and education have to

be disseminated. NSF has concentrated on research, and its efforts at dissemination have not

been outstanding. Indeed, there is a statutory bar

to dissemination of curricula by NSF. Accordingly, the dissemination function could be performed better by a department with the propensity, skills, and resources to mount large-scale

dissemination programs.

However, there are countervailing considerations which argue for leaving this program in

NSF. First, there is a possibility that the gains

outlined above would not be realized. NIE has

encountered difficulties which have not been entirely overcome. The transfer might well impair

the effectiveness of the NSF programs rather

than elevate the level of the NIE activity. In addition, the NSF program for science education

R&D has been of high quality and, within the

areas selected for emphasis, a success. The curriculum development efforts have been clearly

superior to those sponsored by the Office of

Education. The people involved in the programs

have been national leaders. There is much to be

If program effectiveness, quality, and maintenance of diversity are given primary weight, the

case for leaving the program in NSF is strong.

Support for College and Secondary School

Students and Teachers

The NSF faculty improvement program, funded at a proposed level of $10.2 million, has a

long record of success. Utilizing such devices as

summer workshops led by experienced scientist

teachers, the quality of science instruction in

schools and colleges has been upgraded.

Similarly, the $2.9 million program for secondary school science training has been productive in identifying and encouraging talented

young high school students to choose science

majors in college.

The strength of the case for transferring these

programs to a new department depends heavily

upon decisions as to priorities among NSF missions. There is continuing tension between the

doctrine that support of the best science is the

central role of NSF and the doctrine that improvement of science education at the secondary

and college level is an important goal. While the

research support goal—and particularly support

of basic research—remains the central mission of

NSF, a moderate investment in science education is good for the country and good for NSF.

More pragmatically, administration of these programs broadens the political support base of NSF

beyond the scope of the relatively few institutions

with investigators who claim the majority of

research funds. From NSF’s perspective it would

be deleterious to lose a program that serves a

wider community.

But even if science education below the graduate level is accepted as an important NSF function, two questions remain. How well can NSF

perform the function as compared with a new

16
Department of Education, and how well might

each of the agencies support the function?

Divorcing such programs as improvement of

secondary school science training and science

faculty professional development from NSF

could have serious adverse consequences for the

quality of the programs. One of the strengths of

these programs as administered by NSF is that

they have effectively involved a number of

groups of scientists. The participation of high

school science teachers, undergraduate teachers,

active research scientists, and others expert in

theories of learning and teaching have brought

unprecedented spark and quality to these efforts.

This has not happened to the same degree in

similar programs sponsored by the Office of

Education, and transfer of the NSF programs to a -

new department poses a clear danger that the

productive, imaginative NSF approaches would

be submerged and flattened out. The history to

date of efforts along these lines in the Office of

Education does not provide grounds for optimism.

However, it is not certain that transfer would

have such adverse consequences for these programs. A major reason for establishing a new department is to attract a new and diverse group

with fresh ideas as both staff and advisers.

Moreover, the case for transfer is strengthened

would be prudent to avoid taking on additional

tasks of an essentially peripheral character, particularly if they are being well-performed elsewhere. It would be unfortunate if transfers into

the new department were made to give the appearance of a comprehensive department at the

expense of the quality of performance of significant programs. On these grounds, the function

would be kept in NSF.

The decision rests on the weight to be given to

the various criteria.

Institutional Support

NSF now administers a group of programs that

have as a common objective provision of

resources to upgrade undergraduate science

teaching. These programs are: comprehensive

assistance to undergraduate science education,

minority institutions, science improvement,

undergraduate instructional improvement, and

resource centers for science and engineering.

The case for leaving these programs in NSF

rests primarily on the grounds that NSF has

served a valuable innovative function, has nurtured the programs effectively, administered

them well, and secured increasing budgetary

support.

by the fact that these programs are not closely

linked to the research and graduate education On the other hand, there are solid reasons for

transferring the function. Of all the functions of mission of NSF. the Science Education Directorate, it is the most

This suggests that other grounds be explored remote from the central research and graduate

as the basis for decision, and two candidates ap- education mission of NSF. Conversely, these

pear. One is the desirability of providing a broad programs would fit into related programs for inbase for the new department. Inclusion of a man- stitutional support that would be carried on by a

date to design and administer programs for new department.

science education would bring an interesting,

vigorous, and important activity into the department. The generally accepted doctrine that each

department in the executive branch should have

a scientific component applies to the new department. On these grounds, transfer of the science

education activity of NSF would be called for.

The second criterion is administrative feasibility and efficiency. Given the complexity, magnitude, political sensitivity, and social significance

of the problems to be solved as a new department concentrates upon the attainment of equal

access to postsecondary education and to equity

in sharing the cost of postsecondary education, it

With respect to both the programs for science

education R&D and programs for institutional

support, prospects for future financing in both

NSF and the new department have to be

weighed. Looking first at NSF, it is clear that

these two programs are far from the top of NSF

priorities. Given the immediate urgency of many

lines of investigation of the highest scientific

significance that are inadequately funded, and of

unmet needs for research related to pressing national problems, it seems unlikely that long-range

goals for better secondary school and college

education in science will be given high priority by

NSF. The fact that these programs would be part
of a department with a budget in excess of $12

billion might well make it possible to increase the

appropriation substantially if this seemed

desirable in competition with other important activities. On the other hand, there is no assurance

that this would actually happen. Given the set of

priorities facing a new Department of Education,

the likelihood of sustained top-level attention to

and budgetary support for a small program of

secondary and college science education seems

remote. The new staff may be more than fully occupied with matters of greater significance in the

hectic months that are an inevitable phase of the

establishment of a new Federal department.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

POSTPONEMENT OF TRANSFER?

There is an alternative to immediate transfer of

programs. That is, programs can be left in NSF

for the time being and the question of transfer

can be reconsidered later. This is the course that

has been recommended by the administration for

the National Foundation on the Arts and

Humanities for its own programs:

We recommend against the inclusion of the

Arts and Humanities Endowments in S. 991 at

this time. We believe, however, that the option

of transferring these programs should be reserved for future consideration.

The statement went on to outline why transfer

is not recommended at this time:

Locating the endowments and most education

programs within the same department offers opportunities to enhance the quality and diversity of

American education. A close alliance between

the arts, culture, and education could foster new

ways for learning to take place,

On the other hand, elimination of the independent status of the Endowments might

significantly alter their existing missions, reduce

their visibility, and undermine the effectiveness of

their advocacy role.

Analogous considerations apply to the programs of the NSF Science Education Directorate,

and the central question is the weight that they

should be given. A further factor to be considered

is the difficulty of assimilating and effectively administering a substantial number of small programs during the period of stress and confusion

that seems to be inevitable when a large Federal

Cabinet department is created.

However, there is a rejoinder to this proposal:

1. Once a major Cabinet department is

established, it is difficult to transfer programs thereafter.

2. The NSF programs are so small in the context of a new department that the increment

of administrative problems created by their

immediate transfer, even during a hectic

period, would be minor.

18
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED FROM HEW

Apart from the question of the implications for

science and technology of transfers to a new

Department of Education from agencies other

than HEW, there are some important considerations relating to the status in a new department of

educational research and development now conducted in HEW.

All of the reports’ on a new department and all

of the bills introduced thus far properly stress

such matters as advice to the President on longrange goals and priorities, policies to foster the

development of educational resources, conduct

of surveys to collect, analyze, and disseminate

relevant information, and provision of leadership

by conducting studies and making recommendations to facilitate the continuing development of

the American educational system. (See, for example, See, 6, Functions of S. 991, A Bill to

Establish a Department of Education.) There is,

in addition, the function of investigating the

educational process itself. Effective performance

of these functions requires a strong analytical and

research capability in the department. This in

turn necessitates an appropriate administrative

structure.

Three kinds of analytical and research functions can be distinguished.

COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

OF EDUCATIONAL STATISTICS

The National Center for Educational Statistics

(NCES) carries primary responsibility for collection and analysis of educational statistics. NCES

is a unit reporting to the Secretary of HEW, and it

would become a part of any new department.

The primary problem to be solved here is to

secure funds and staff adequate to give the Nation statistical information that is—to take a rough

but usable measure—as complete and useful as

that available in the health field. Currently the

resources for collection and analysis of statistics

are 2 to 3 times as plentiful in health as in education even though total national expenditures for

education—$120 billion in 1976—almost equal

those for health—$140 billion.

Table 2.—Resources for Health

and Educational Statistics

Appropriation

Staff (in millions)

No. Index Amt. Index

National Center for

Educational

Statistics. . . . . . 180 100 $14 100

National Center for

Health Statistics 550 300 $34 240

This disparity will not be redressed unless there

is a stronger administrative voice for education,

and for the research function as part of the

educational enterprise. The National Center for

Educational Statistics should be transferred to the

department, and its independence from any

operating division should be retained. It should

be responsible to a high official in the department. For example, Senator Pen’s bill, S. 991,

provides for an Assistant Secretary for Evaluation

and Planning, and others have advocated that

such a position be established. This Assistant

Secretary would be the appropriate official to

supervise and protect NCES, and to ensure that

it is responsive to the needs of those whom it

would serve both within and outside the department.

The same goal should be sought if the chosen

route is strengthening of the education function

in HEW rather than establishment of a new

department. 

ADMlNlSTRATIVE RESEARCH

A second analytical and research function is to

improve administrative efficiency. Creation of a

new Department of Education would require an

intensive analytical effort on the distribution of

functions, allocation of staff functions, the

organization of the Office of the Secretary, lines

of authority and responsibility, etc., while the

details of the new organization were being

worked out. A continuing program of analysis
will be required to keep the administrative structure and process well-tuned. There should be a

central point of guidance, stimulus and, to some

degree, performance of this function near the top

of any new department. Most proposals and

most students of organization advocate that an

Assistant Secretary for Administration be named

by statute. For example, Senator Pen’s bill S.

991, proposes an Assistant Secretary for Administrative and Management Policy. The same goal

should be sought for administrative research if

there is an elevation of the status of education

within HEW rather than creation of a new department. That is, establishment of a position of

Assistant Secretary for Administration, or a post

of comparable rank, to deal with administration

of the enhanced education component of HEW.

RESEARCH ON EDUCATION

The third kind of research and analysis is concerned with the process of education itself—how

people learn and how the learning process can be

made more effective. This includes, among other

things, curriculum development, and learning

technology. This kind of research is also concerned with structures and processes for education, the management and organization of education, the financing, and the economics of

education. This kind of research in HEW is

centered in NIE. All of those who have considered the matter agree that the entire Education Division, including NIE, would become a

part of any new Department of Education.

As far as organizational shifts are concerned,

the desirability of transferring the science education activities of the Science Education Directorate of NSF to a new department, and specifically to NIE, has been analyzed above. If the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

were transferred, it also would seem desirable to

place their educational development activities in

NIE.

Improvement and diffusion of learning technology would be an important aspect of science

and technology in a new Department of Education. In fact, the opportunity to exploit more effectively such techniques as satellite communication, educational TV through the use of broadcast and cable, computer-assisted learning, and

museum exhibits and demonstrations is one of

the soundest reasons for setting up a Department

of Education. However, the strengthening of

these activities will depend primarily upon the

firmness with which the techniques are advocated, the attitude of Congress towards funding, and the technical administrative and political

skill of those who will operate the programs.

Structural problems appear to be minor, and few,

if any, transfers of functions from agencies other

than the Education Division of HEW are called

for.

If general policies and specific lines of research

are to be chosen wisely in this most difficult area,

NIE must retain its semiautonomous status and it

would have to have high status within a new department. One sound way to ensure this status is

to make the Assistant Secretary for Research (or

for Evaluation, Planning, and Research) also the

Director of NIE. It would not seem adequate to

have NIE report to an Assistant Secretary.

In conclusion, the needs in research on education are substantive as well as structural. The

report of the National Academy of Sciences to

the National Institute of Education, Fundamental

Research, and the Process of Education (Washington, D. C., 1977) states the central problem:

The application of science and technology to

improve education is of great importance. On the

whole, however, we believe that the Federal

Government has adopted policies that encourage superficial and wasteful research that

has the appearance of relevance but lacks the

substance of general principles. We recommend

a significant redistribution of emphasis toward

more fundamental research in education and

toward a more measured approach to education

R&D of all kinds. (p. 66.)

20
SHOULD A NEW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BE CREATED?

This report centers on the effects of establishment of a new Department of Education on the

R&D function, and thus assumes, as the basis of

that analysis, that such a department may come

into being. However, another aspect of the effects of a new department on the R&D functions

should be considered. That is, could potential effects upon R&D arising from the creation of a

new department be either so favorable or so

adverse as to constitute significant arguments for

or against establishment of a department? (Recall

that a large Department of Education and

Science that would include the entire NSF is not

under discussion at this point. If such a department were seriously considered, the effects of

reorganization upon the R&D function would be

a central issue. )

To answer this question, the significance of the

effects of creation of a new department on the

R&D function must be put in the context of the

important issues to be decided before a department is created. Some of the central questions

are these;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

In

tially

new

and

Would a Department of Education be so

small as to complicate rather than simplify

the tasks of the President?

Would secondary education dominate a

Department of Education?

Would the harm done by disagreements

over what should be in a department

outweigh the potential benefits from

reorganization?

Is education as the focus for a new department more urgent than health or income

maintenance?

Would creation of a Department of Education lead to the assumption of increasing

power by the Federal Government over

education?

comparison with such questions, the potenpositive or negative effects of creation of a

department on the R&D function are minor

the case for or against a new department

should be made with subsidiary attention to

potential effects upon the R&D function.

If a department is not created, most of the

functions performed by the NSF Science Education Directorate and the educational R&D functions performed by HEW will continue to be performed well. There is a very strong case for

reorganizing HEW to lift the status of education

and to create clear lines of authority and responsibility if a new department is not created.

HEW’S EDUCATION DIVISION

It is worthwhile considering briefly the Office of

Education programs that the programs of the

NSF Science Education Directorate would join in

a new department. There are 44 substantial programs in OE.6 They deal with student support,

institutional support, and professional enhancement. The major groups of OE programs have little to do with each other. They do not form an integrated whole. None of them are specifically

directed at science or science education. Therefore transfer would not represent completion of a

logical scheme, nor would the NSF programs be

integrated with the diverse OE programs. Rather

they would form a fourth program segment,

unrelated to the other three.

‘The following are now in HEW’s Education Division:

Basic Opportunities Grants; Supplemental Opportunit y

Grants; Work Study; Direct Loan Programs; Incentive

Grants for State Scholarships; Special Programs for the

Disadvantaged; Developing Institutions Program; Language

Training & Area Studies; University Community Services;

Aid to Land Grant Colleges; State Postsecondary Education

Commissions; Veterans Cost of Instruction; Cooperative

Education; Construction Grants & Interests; Intercultural

Centers; College Teacher Fellowships; Graduate/Professional Opportunities; Legal Training for Disadvantaged;

Public Service Fellowships; Mining Fellowships; Law School

Clinical Experience; Wayne Morse Chair of Law & Politics;

Library Resources; Metric Education; Gifted & Talented;

Community Schools; Careet Education; Consumer Education; Women’s Educational Equity Arts in Education;

Packaging & Dissemination of Education’s TV Programming; Teacher Corps; Teacher Centers; Planning & Evaluation; Guaranteed Student Loan Program; Health Professions Loan Program; Facilities Education Loan & Insurance;

Research and Development-Dissemination & Resources;

Basic Skills; Education & Work; Finance & Productivity;

School Problem-Solving Educational Equity; Postsecondary

Improvement-Extending Educational Opportunity & Improving Programs in personnel and instruction; Extending

Resources Beyond Campuses; Lifelong Learning; Educational Statistics; Statistical Services; Institute for Museum

Services; Educational Policy Research Centers; Support for

Advisory Councils.

21
A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Research and development functions of the

Federal Government would be fundamentally affected by a new Department of Education only if

the concept were modified to establish a Department of Education and Science. This would involve shifting the entire National Science Foundation (and perhaps some other science activities) to the new department, and a large-scale

redistribution of some current functions of HEW.

One possibility along this line has been put forward in a report of the Carnegie Council on

Policy Studies in Higher Education, Federal

Reorganization Education and Scholarship

(March 1977, p. 9). The Council proposed

transferring the income-maintenance functions of

HEW to the Labor Department to create a

Department of Labor and Human Resources,

splitting off the health functions of HEW and concentrating health functions from other agencies to

form a Department of Health, and creating a

Department of Education and Science by drawing together educational functions from other

departments and shifting NSF to the new department. Other configurations such as a Department

of Education, Health, and Science, can be easily

imagined. The Carter administration has not proposed any such fundamental changes. The problems of designing a relatively simple and modest

Department of Education are so difficult that

there is no inclination at present to take on the

additional political and administrative complexities of fitting together a Department of Education

and Science, and of working out the disposition

of the health and income maintenance functions

of HEW.

It also seems clear that serious initiatives along

these lines will apparently not originate in Congress in the absence of a proposal from the administration.

There are powerful reasons for not shifting

NSF to a Department of Education and Science.

There are also powerful arguments for not shifting the scientific activities of other agencies to a

Department of Education and Science. In addition to the fundamental desirability of attaching

an appropriate research and development activity to each major Federal department, there is the

pragmatic consideration that centralization would

put “too many eggs in one basket” in the appropriation process. These considerations are

well summarized on pages 69-71 and on pages

100-101 in the Miles report. ’

Nevertheless, continuing attention to the pros

and cons of such large-scale shifts can contribute

to pending decisions by exposing alternatives

which will raise considerations relevant to the

current debate. For example, the Carnegie

Council, after reviewing the advantages of largescale shifts of functions, came to the conclusion

that, “We are doubtful of the need to create a

new Cabinet-level Department of Education. ”

(page 2). These reasons were given: (1) such a

department would be small; (2) education will be

an area of relative stability as compared with such

fields as energy, health care, and income maintenance; (3) creation of such a department would

imply that the Federal Government is assuming

basic responsibility for education; and, (4) a

department of this kind might give more attention

to elementary and secondary education than to

higher education.

‘Rufus Miles, Jr., A Cabinet Department of Education,

monograph published by the American Council on Education, 1976, Wash., D.C.

22
CONCLUSIONS

This report considers in depth the considerations bearing upon transfer of all or part of the

Science Education Directorate of the National

Science Foundation to the new Department of

Education as proposed by Senator Pen’s S. 991.

Representatives of the scientific and the

academic communities have been skeptical about

the wisdom of transferring any of the functions of

the Directorate; OMB and the White House have

supported transfer of ,those functions that are not

closely linked to graduate training and research.

This analysis suggests that the wisdom of

transferring each program within the NSF

Science Education Directorate be evaluated

separately, and the criteria suggested are:

1. How important is building up the new

department versus maintaining successfully

operating programs?

2.

3.

4.

5.

How will the goal of the program be affected by being housed in the new department?

What is the present quality and effectiveness of the programs versus their potential increased or decreased performance in a

new setting?

What are the political and administrative

considerations involved with transfer and

subsequent smoothness of operation?

How important is the continued involvement of the scientific community?

The desirability of building a new department

that is comprehensive, well-rounded, and

capable of forming a highly integrated educational system must be weighed against the value

of pluralism—allowing educational programs to

exist in a number of agencies when the educational function is closely and productively linked

to other functions such as research, defense, or

foreign affairs.

THE NSF SCIENCE EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE PROGRAMS

Five programs in NSF’s Science Education

Directorate must be considered. OMB’S plan

would transfer $56.3 million of NSF’s fiscal year

1979 budget of $77.6.

Advanced Scientific Training, Minorities,

Women, and the Handicapped in Science

This program constitutes 25 percent of the Science Education Directorate’s budget. It can be

argued that there is no more reason to transfer

this program than to transfer the analogous program at the National Institutes of Health. It is likely that such functions would be more efficiently

performed by NSF—the agency involved in research and advanced training. Most informed observers agree. The OMB plan does not suggest

that this program be moved.

Science and Society

This program has several components, all

aimed at increasing the public’s understanding of

science. Most of these efforts are aimed at informal education of all age groups outside of

school. However, formal education is also supported. The informal education function could be

considered the responsibility of NSF and not appropriate to a department concerned with education rather than science. The administration proposal recommends that the program should be

split, with formal educational activities moving to

the new department. NSF contends strongly that

it should be deeply involved with the social effects of science and that transfer would weaken

both programs by taking them out of a scientific

environment.

Science Education Research and

Development

This R&D function is aimed at understanding

the learning process. This is clearly within the

purposes of the new department and would increase its knowledge and expertise in the area.

Ideally this topic would be studied in depth and

results widely disseminated. At present this is a

high-quality program and transfer might undermine the strong professional support that now

characterizes the program. Diversity of approach

to this important problem is encouraged by support through NSF. The National Institute of Education would be enhanced by this NSF project

but it would lose the prestige and strength of NSF

23
oversight. The administration proposes transfer

in order to build a coherent new structure.

Faculty Improvement

Because this is a faculty improvement program

not related to research or graduate training, it is a

strong candidate for transfer. NSF fears that improvement of the capacity of teachers to teach

science would be weakened and that the broad

institutional base of the program productively

balances the properly elitist base of the NSF

research program.

Institutional Support to Upgrade

Undergraduate Science Teaching

This program could logically be transferred

because of its remoteness from the central

research and graduate education mission of NSF.

Transfer of the five subareas (1) assistance to

undergraduate science education; (2) minority

institutions; (3) science improvement; (4) undergraduate instructional improvement; and (5)

resource centers for science and engineering

would strengthen the new department’s higher

education division. The effectiveness of the program might decline if it were taken out of a setting where broad participation of scientists is

assured,

IS POSTPONEMENT THE COURSE?

No one knows precisely what transition problems a new department would face, but they will

be severe. No one can assess how well it will

work or its importance in higher education. For

these reasons it has been suggested that no functions should be transferred from NSF until the

proposed Department of Education has been established and takes definite shape. The wisdom

of transfers could then be more firmly assessed.

The transfer of the National Endowment on the

Arts and Humanities has been postponed on this

basis. The argument is equally valid for the NSF

functions.

ANALYTIC AND RESEARCH

FUNCTIONS

Three kinds of analytic and research functions

should be performed by a new department: (1)

collection and analysis of educational statistics;

(2) administrative research; and (3) research on

education. The National Center for Educational

Statistics in HEW should be transferred, fortified,

and made to report directly to the appropriate

Assistant Secretary. Administrative efficiency

could be improved through an analytic and

research function reporting directly to an Assistant Secretary for Administrative and Management Policy. Finally, HEW’s National Institute of

Education now conducts research on education

and it should be a part of the new department.

24
APPENDIX
APPENDIX

s. 991

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCJK 14 (Icgislntive day, FEIRWARY 21), 1977

Mr. RIBICO= (for himself, Mr. MACWURON, Mr. Hmrmsm-, Mr. ~ Mr.

NUNN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. 13ARTLEIT,Mr. BAYTI, Mr. Bm..mON, Mr. @KLES,

Mr. CEUROH, Mr. CLARK, Mr. CRAN6rON, Mr. DECONCINL Mr. Dorimmq

Mr. hQLETON, Mr. FORD, Mr. HART, Mr. Hm% Mr. HOXXJNG8, Mr.

INom Mr. JAOESON, Mr. KENXmY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MATSUNAGA,

M-# M=.-% Mr. MUSKW Mr. PEA-N, Mr. RANuormr, Mr. S- Mr.

MKMM, Mr. STmmm, Mr. Smw Mr. WEICKER, and Mr. WILLIAMS)

intrwhmd the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To establish a Department of Eduoation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enactrd by the S’mati and Howe of Rqwentaz tiues of the United State of A&a in Congws assembled,

~ That this Act may he cited M the “Department of Education

4 Act of 1977”.

5

6 SEQ. 2. The

PINDINGS AND PURPOSES

Congress finds thnt—

7 (1) education is of fundamental importance to the

8 Nation and it is appropriate to remse.w the condition of

VII

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

education in our h7ation to insure that all Americans have

an equal opportunity for quality education;

(2) existing Federal programs in support of education are fragmented and often duplicative and should be

lwtter mmrdhmted in order to pronmtc qnality wlnmtion:

(3) the role and importance of mlnmtion inmcaws

m our sm=iety hm=omes more cmnplcx 8nd new tochnolo-

~ics and ndvmmcmcnts nrc developed to meet Annging

needs;

(4) pnblic policy toward mhwntion is ~itnl to tlw

present and long-range interests of the [Tnited Stntes;

(5) cdnmtion must he L)rondly mnmivcd in tcnnx

of all those forces, institutions, and agencies which fnnction as educating influences in tho United Mates; goals

and institutions should be enhanml: and

(6) it is essential therefore to establish a Tkpnrtmcnt of Mlncwtion to provide Federal lemlmship, to

insure cffectivc cnformmcnt of cqnal opportunity lcgisin.tion in’ education, to vmigh and consider major cdnmtional policy issncs confronting tho hTntion, and to

fnrilit~~tc n mmtinning rcmewal of the cduenting institutions ml policies of the IJnitod States.

DEPARTMENT’ OF EDITCATTON Fmf4T.fRT,TSllED

sm. 3. There is Aal)lislml nn cserntivc dqnrtnwnt

which shall hc known as the Dcpartrncmt of Mwation

(herein~fter referred to M the “I@artmcnt”).
d

(Wk’1(’ERS

SEC. 4. (a) ‘l!he Department shall be administered by

a secretary of Edncation (hereinafter referred to as the

“Secret/~ly” ), who sl)i~ll bc appointed hy the President,

1))’ nll(l n-ith tilt’ iMl\’iN! fllld (’OllSCllt d tllc SCllfttC, fill(l M’ho

Jmll rcwivr cfnllpensation ~lt thr nitc prcswihcd for h’\-cl

I (}f the Ncdcrnl lhcutivc Siihlry Sclwdlde nnder sectitm

~~~~ of title ~, ~~llite(~ States Code. Thc l%pmtnwnt shall

bc admhiistcred under the snpm+ion and dircrtkm of the

,Secrctnry.

(1}) There shrill hc in tho Dcpartrncnt an ITndm L%cretary of Mncation who shall be appointed by the President

1)Y and with the nd~.icc and consent of the Senate. Tho

Under Secretary sM1 perform such duties and exercise

WA powers m tlw ~%m’tary shall pcscrihe. During the

absence or disnhility of the Fkwrctary, or in the event of a

vamnry in the office of the Fhwrctmy, the IJnder Secretary

SIMI1l fict iM Secrctar.y. The l“mler fkxrctftry shfill rcccivc

compensation at the mte prescrihcd for Icvel 111 of the

l~wlcrnl Excmtivc SnlnlI~ ~%hcdulc cstaldished under sec -

tion 5314 of title 5, llnitcd States Code.

(r) Tlwrc shrill ho in the lhqnwtment a (lmcrnl Cmnscl

nnd fonr Assisl~nt, ~Secrctnrics of Mlnmti(m as follows:

(1) Assistjmt Swrctnry of Eihwntion for Tfigislativp

and PulJic Affaiw;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

4

(2) Assistant Secretary of Education for Administrative and Management Policy;

(3) Assistant Secretary of Education for Evaluation and Planning; and

(4) Assistant Secretary of Education for Intergovernmental Relations.

Each of such Assistant Secretaries shall be appointed by

the President, by and with the advice and consent of the

Senate. Each such Assistant Secretary shall perform such

duties and exercise such powers as the Secretary shall prescribe. During the absence or disability, or in the event of a

vacancy in the office of the Secretary or of the Under SecreW, am Assistant Secretary determined according to such

order as the Secretary shall prescribe shall act as Secretary.

Each Assistant Secretary and the General Counsel shall

receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level IV

under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY

Sec. 5. (a)

the exercise of all

have authority to

activities thereof.

(b) (1) The

fix the compensation of such officers and employees, and

The Secretary shall be responsible for

functions of the Department, and shall

direct and supervise all personnel and

Secretary is authorized to appoint and
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

5

prescribe their functions, as may be necessary to carry out

the purposes and functions of this Act.

(2) The Secretary may obtain the services of experts

and consultants in accordance with the provisions of section

3109 of title 5, United States Code.

(c) The

regulations as

vested in the

Secretary may promulgate such rules and

may be necessary to carry out the functions

Secretary or in the Department, and may

delegate authority for the performance of any such function to any officer or employee under the Secretary’s

direction and supervision.

(d) The Secretary shall cause a seal of office to be

made for the Department, of such design as the President

shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.

FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT

Sec. 6. (a) It is the principal function of the Department to promote the cause and advancement of education

throughout the United States.

(b) In addition to any other function of the Secretary

under the provisions of this Act, the Secretary is authorized

(1) advise the President with respect to the progress of education, including the recommendation of

long-range goals and priorities;

1

2

3

4

5

G

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2()

21

22

23

24

6

(2) develop and recommend to the President appropriate policies and programs to foster the ordl’rly

growth and development of the educational facilities

and resources of the Unitcd States especially in the light

of long-range requirements;

(S) exercise leadership at the direction of the President in coordinating Federal activities affecting education;

(4) conduct continuing comprehensive surveys,

and to collect, analyze, and disseminate relevant information, data, and statistics, concerning education in the

United States;

(5) provide information and such other assistance

as may be authorized by the Congress to aid in the

maintenance of efficient school, college, and university

or other education systems;

(6) encourage comprehensive planning by State

find local governments, especially with respect to coordinating Federal, State, and community educational

activities at the local level; and

(7) provide leadership by conducting studies, making recommendations, and administering discrctionary

programs to facilitate the continuing development of the

American educational system.
‘i

1 TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS AND AGENCIES

2 Sec. 7. (a) There are transferred to the Secretary, all

3 functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and WcI4 fare or the Commissioner of Education, as the case may be-

(1) with respect to and being administered by the

Secretary through the Education Division of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;

(2) with respect to and being administered by the

Secretary through the Office of Child Development of

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

regarding Headstart;

(3) any advisory committee in the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare giving advice to and

making recommendations which concern education

primarily;

(4) under section 394 of the Communications Act

of 1934; relating to Federal grants for the construction

Of television and radio broadcasting facilities to be used

for educational purposes;

(5) with respect to and being administered by the

Secretary through the Office of Civil Rights for the

enforcement of those provisions of law and education

orders which apply to educational institutions, including

title VI (insofar as it relates to educational financial

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

u

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

’24

8

assistance) and titles VII and IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 and Executive Order 11246 (insofar as it pertains to employer’s holding Federal contracts in education) ;

(G) with respect to all functions of the National

Foundation on the Arts and the Ilumanities including

all functions of the National Endowment for the Arts

and all functions of the National Endowment for the

Humanities;

(7) with respect to all Federal laws concerning the

relationship hetween Gallaudet College, Howard University, and American Printing House for the Blind, and

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;

(8) with respect to the operation of schools for

dependents of members of the Armed Force by the

Secretary of Defense;

(9) with respect to the operation of schools for

Indian children being administered by the Secretary of

the interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs;

(10) with respect to the National School Lunch

Act, and the operation of the Graduate School, being

administered by the Secretary of Agriculture:

(11) with respect to title IV of the Housing Act of

1950 relating to college housing, being administered by
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

9

(12) with respect to and being administered by the

Director of the National Science Foundation, the Education Directorate.

(b) In any case where all of the functions of any agency

or office are transferred pursuant to this Act, except any

committee transferred under subsection (a) (3) of this section, such agency or office shall lapse.

(c) All officers, employees, assets, liabilities, contracts,

records, property, leases, obligations, and commitments and

unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and other

funds which the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget determines are to be employed, held, or used primarily in connection with any office, agency, bureau, foundation, or function transferred under the provisions of this Act,

we hereby transferred to the Department.

ADDITIONAL, TRANSFERS

SEC. 8. The President is authorized to transfer to the

Department of Education any other agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government which the President determines has functions relating to education and should be

transferred to the Department of Education to promote effciency in Government and to carry out the purposes of this

Act. Such transfers shall incorporate, to the extent decmed

desiralble, the recommendations of the Federal Interagency

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

10

shall be completed within one hundred and eighty days after

the date of enactment of this Act. A report describing such

transfers shall be submitted to the Congress not later than

thirty days thereafter.

TRANSFERRED PERSONNEL

SEC. 9 Each officer or employee of the United States

or any department or agency thereof who is transferred at

any time to the Department of Education shall be deemed,

effective as of the date of such transfer, to be an officer or

employee of the Department. No reappointment of any

such officer or employee shall be required because of his

transfer to that Department. Except as otherwise specifically provided by this section, no such officer or employee

shall be reduced in rank, grade, seniority, or rate of compensation because of any such transfer.

PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT

SEC. 10. Except to the extent inconsistent with this

Act, all provisions of law applicable to the executive departments generally shall apply to the Department.

REDESIGNATION OF THE DEPATMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

SEC. 11. (a) The Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare is hereby redesignated the Department of

Health and Welfare, and the secretary of Health, Edu25 Committee on Education as provided by section 12 (c) and
Q

N

1

2

3

4

5

6

. .7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

11

cation, and Welfare is hereby redesignated the Secretary

of Health and Welfare.

(b) Any reference to the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare or the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in any other law, rule, regulation, certificate, directive, instruction, license, or other official paper

in force on the effective date of this Act shall be deemed

to refer and apply to the Department of Health and Welfare and the Secretary of Health and Welfare, respectively.

FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

SEC. 12. (a) There is hereby established a Federal

Interagency Committee on Education (hereinafter referred

to in this Act as the “Committee”).

(b) The Committee shall study and make such recommendations as may be necessary to assure effective coordination of Federal programs affecting education, including—

(1) development of Federal

ance with the educational goals

Nation;

(2) consistent administration

programs in accordand policies of the

of policies and practices among Federal agencies in the conduct of similar

programs;

(3) full and effective communication among Fed1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

eral agencies to avoid unnecesary duplication of activities with respect to education;

(4) adequate procedures for the availability of information on educational matters requested by the Secretary;

(5) recommendations for the improvement of

Federal programs for the purpose of aiding students in

their transition from school to work; and

(6) full and effectivc cooperation with the Secretary on sicj studies and analyses as are necessary to

carry out the purpose of this Act.

(c) The Committee shall, within 90 days of the cnact-

.

ment of this Act or the appointment and qualification of all

Committee members, whichever is earlier, reconmend to the

President the transfer of such additional responsibilities as

may be appropriate.

(d) The Committee shall be composed of the Secretary,

who shall be the Chairperson, and one appropriate representative of each of the following agencies: The Department

of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of

Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department

of Labor, the Department of Health and Welfare ( as redesignated by section 11 of this Act), the Department of Housing

and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The
13

1 Committee shall also include the Chairpersons of the National

2 Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for

3 the Humanities of the Department.

4 (e) The Chairperson may invite Federal agencies, in

5 addition to the agencies which are represented on the Com6 mittee under the provisions of subsection (d) of this section,

‘7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

to designate representatives to participate in meetings of the

Committee on matters of substantial interest to such agencies

which are to be considered by the Committee.

(f) The Director of the Office of Management and

Budget, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Executive Director of the Domestic Council

may each designate a staff member to attend meetings of

the Committee as observers. .

(g) The Committee shall meet at least six times in

each year and shalI prepare an annual report to the Secretary

concerning its recommendations.

(h) Each Federal agency which is represented on the

Committee under the provisions of subsection (d) of this

section shall furnish necessary assistance to the Committee

in accordance with section 214 of the Act of May 3, 1945

(31 U.S.C. 691).

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISS1ON OX EDUCATION

SEC. 13. (n) There is established a National Advisory

Commission on Education (hereinafter referred to as tho

14

1 “National Commission”) composed of fifteen members

2 appointed by the President, by and with the advice and

3 consent of the Senate, from among individuals—

4 (1) who have a demonstrated commitment, in

5 public or private industries or organizations, for the

6 enhancement and development of the educational needs

7 and goals of the Nation;

8 (2) who have competence in assessing the progress

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of educational agencies, institutions, and organizations

in meeting those needs and achieving those goals; and

(3) who are experienced with the policies or administration of State and local educational agencies and

of insitutions of higher education.

Members shall be appointed for terms of three years, except

that (A) in the case of initially appointed members, as

designated by the President, five members shall be appointed

for terms of one year, five members shall be appointed for

terms of two years, and five members shall be appointed for

terms of three years, and (B) any member appointed to

fill a vacancy shall serve the remainder of the term for

which the member’s prrdecessor was appointed.

(b) The National Commission shall–

(1) assist the Secretary in the formulation of Federal policy with respect to the appropriate role of the

Federal Government in each action;
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

(2) review the administration of, general regulations for, and operation of Federal education programs;

(3) advise the Secretary and other Federal officials with respects to the educational needs and goals of

the Nation and assess the progress of the renewal of appropriate agencies, institutions, and organizations of the

Nation in order to meet those needs and achieve those

goals;

(4) conduct objective evaluations of specific education programs and projects in order to ascertain the

effectiveness of such programs and projects in achieving

the purpose for which they are intended;

(5) make recommendations (including recommendations for changes in legislation) for the improvement

of the administration and operation of Federal education

programs;

(6) consult with Federal, Nate, and local and other

education agencies, institutions, and organizations with

respect to assessing education in the United States and

the improvement of the quality of education, including-,

(A) areas of unmet needs in education, national

goals, and changing education priorities, and the

means by which those areas maybe met, developed,

and achieved;

(B) specific means of improving the quality

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

and effectiveness of teaching, curriculums, and educational media and of raising standards of scholarship and levels of achievement;

(7) conduct national conferences on the assessment, improvement, and renewal of education, in which

national and regional education associations and organizations, State and local education officers and administrators, and other edumtion-related organizations,

institutions, and persons (including parents of children

participating in Federal educational assistance programs)

may exchange and disscminate information on the improvement of education;

(8) conduct, and report on, comparative studies

and evaluations of education systems in foreign countries; and

(9) advise and assist in the coordination of

I!’edcral eilucatioual advisory committees, councils

all

or

commissions.

(c) The National Commission shall make an annual

report, and such other reports as it deems appropriate, to the

President and to the Cpmgress, concerning its findings, recommendations, and activities.

(d) In carrying out its responsibilities under this section, the National Commission shall take, together with the

Secretary, whatever action is necessary to carry out section
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

448 of the General Education Provisions Act, to devise a

manageable and effective advisory structure for the Department. The National Commission shall advise the Secretary on the number of advisory bodies that are necessary

and the manner in which such bodies relate to one another.

The National Commission shall consult with the National

Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged

Children, the National Advisory Council on Education

Professions Development, the National Council on Education Research, and such other advisory councils and committees as may be appropriate to carry out its functions

under this subsection. All Federal agencies are directed

to cooperate with the National Commission in carrying

out its functions under this subsection.

(c) The National commission is authorized to procure such technical assistance as may be required to carry

out its functions and the secretary shall, in addition, make

available to the National commission such secretarial, clerical, and other assistance and such pertinent data prepared

by the Department as the National Commission may require to carry out its functions.

(f) Members of the National Commission who are not

in the regular full-time employ of the United States shall,

while attending meetings or conferences of the National

Commission or while otherwise engaged in the business of

18

1 the National Commission, be entitled to receive compensa2 tion at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding the

3 rate specified at the time of such service for grade GS-18

4 under section 5332 of title 5, Unitcd States Code, including

5 traveltime, and while so serving on the bus-mess of the

6 National Commission away from their homes or regular

7 places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, in8 eluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by

9 section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons em10 ployed intermittently in the Government service.

11 (g) The president shrill nominate members to the Na12 tional Commission not later than thirty days after the date

13 of enactment of this Act.

14 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

15 SEC. 14. (a) As used in this section—

16 (1) the term “Inspector General” means the In17 spector General of the Department;

18 (2) the term “Deputy” means the Deputy In19 specter General of the Department; and

20 (3) the term “Federal agency" means an agency.

21 as defined in section 552 (e) of title 5, United States

22 Code, but shall not be construed to include the General

23 Accounting Office.

24 (b) There is hereby established in the Department an

25 Office of Inspector General.
19

1 (c) There shall beat the head of the Office an Inspec2 tor General who shall be appointed by the President, by and

3 with the advice and consent of the Senate, solely on the

4 basis of integrity and demonstratcd ability and without re5 gard to political affiliation. The Inspector General shall report

6 to and be under the general supervision of the Secretary or,

7 to the extent such authority is delegated, the Under ,Secrc8 troy, but shall not be under the control of, or subject to

9 supervision by, any other officer of the Department.

10 (d) There shall also be in the Office a Deputy In11 spertor General appointed by the President, by and with

12 the advice and consent of the Senate, solely on the basis of

13 integrity and demonstrated ability and without reguard to

14 political affiliation. The Deputy shall assist the inspector

15 General in the administration of the Office and shall, duriug

16 the absence or temporary incapacity of the Inspector Gen17 eral, or during a vacancy in that office, act as Inspector

18 General.

19 (c) The Inspector General or the Deputy may be

20 removed from office by the president. The President shall

21 communicate the reasons for any such removal to both

22 Houses of Congress.

23 (f) The Inspector General and the Deputy shall each

24 be subject to the provisions of subchapter III of chapter 73,

20

1 title 5, United States Code, not withstanding any exemption

2 from such provisions which might otherwise apply.

3 (g) It shall be the duty and responsibility of the

4 inspector General—

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(1) to supervise, coordinate, and provide policy

direction for auditing and investigative activities relating to programs and operations of the Department;

(2) to recommend policies for, and to conduct,

supervise, or coordinate other activities carried out or

financed by the Department for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of, or

preventing and detecting fraud and abuse in, its programs and operations;

(3) to recommend policies for, and to conduct,

supervise, or coordinate relationships between, the Department and other Federal agencies, State and local

governmental agencies, and nongovernmental entities

with respect to (A) all matters relating to the promotion of economy and efficiency in the administration of,

or the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in,

programs and operations administered or financed by the

department, or (B) the identification and prosecution

of participants in such fraud or abuse; and

(4) to keep the Secretary and the Congress fully

and currently informed, by means of the reports re-
22 not br limited to23 ( 1 ) identification and description of significant 

24 problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating 

of significant,

to the admin1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

3.9

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

istration of programs and operations of the Department

disclosed by such activities;

(2) a description of recommendations for corrective

action made by the Office with respect to significant

problems, abuses, or deficiencies identified and described

under paragraph (1) ;

(3) an evaluation of progress made implementing

recommendations described in the report or, where appropriate, in previous reports; and

(4) a summary of matters referred to prosecutive

authorities and the extent to which prosecutions and

convictions have resulted.

(k) The Inspector General shall make reports on a

quarterly basis to the Secretary and to the appropriate cornmittees or subcommittees of the Congress identifying any

significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies concerning which

the Office has made a recommendation for corrective action

and on which, in the judgment of the Inspector General,

adequate progress is not being made.

(1) The Inspector General shall report immediately

to the Secretary and to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of the Congress whenever the Office becomes

aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses,

or deficiencies relating to the administration of programs

and operations of the Department. The Deputy and Assist-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1:3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23

ant Inspectors General shall have particular responsibility

for informing the Inspector General of such problems,

abuses, or deficiencies.

(m) The Inspector General (A) may make such additional investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the Department as

arc, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary or

desirable, aud (B) shall provide such additional information

or documents as may be requested by either House of Congress or, with respect to matters within their jurisdiction,

by any committee or subcommittee thereof.

(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

reports, information, or documents required by or under

this section shall be transmitted to the Secretary and the

Congress, or committees or subcommittees thereof, by the

Inspector General without further clearance or approval.

The Inspector General shall, insofar as feasible, provide

copies of the reports required under subsections (j) and

(k) to the Secretary sufficiently in advance of the due date

for their submission to Congress to provide a reasonable

opportunity for comments of the Secretary to be appended

to the reports when submitted to Congress.

(0) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by

this section, the Inpector General in carrying out the pro25 visions of this section, is authorized—

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

24

(1) to have access to all records, reports, audits,

reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other

material available to the Department which relate to programs and operations with respect to which the Inspector General has responsibilities under this section;

(2) to request such information or assistance as

may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities provided by this section from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency or unit thereof;

(3) to require by subpena the production of all

information, documents, reports, answers, records,

accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence necessary in the peformance of the functions assigned by this section, which Subpena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by order

of any appropriate United States district court;

(4) to have direct and prompt access to the Secretary when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the

performance of functions and responsibilities under this

section;

(5) in the event that a budget request for the Office

of Inspector General is reduced, before submission to

Congress, to an extent which the Inspector General

deems seriously detrimental to the adequate performance
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

s

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

19

20

21

22

25

of the functions nabdated by this section, the Inspector

General shall so inform the Congress without delay;

(6) to select, appoint, and employ such officers and

employees as may be necessary for carrying out the

functions, powers, and duties of the Office subject to the

provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing

appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of

such title relating to classification and General Schedule

pay rates;

(7) to obtan services as authorized by section 3109

of title 5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed

the equivalent rate prescribed for grade GS-18 of the

General Schedule by section 5332 of title 5, United

States Code;

(8) to the extent and in such amounts as may be

provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter

into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies,

analyses, and other services with public agencies and

with private persons, and to make such payments as may

be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

(p) (1) Upon request of the Inspector General for k23 formation or assistance under subsection (o) (2), the head

24 of any Federal agency involved shall, insofar as is practicable,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26

and not in contravention of any existing statutory restriction,

or regulation of the Federal agency from which the information is requested, furnish to the Inspector General, or to an

authorized designee, such “reformation or assistance.

(2) Whenever information or assistance requested under subsection (o) (1) or (o) (2) is, in the judgment of the

Inspector General, unreasonably refused or not provided, the

Inspeotor General shall report the circumstances to the Secretary and to the appropriate committees or subcommittees

of the Congress without delay.

(3) In the event any record or other information requested by the Inspector General under subsection (o) (1)

or (o) (2) is not considered to be available under the

provisions of section 552a(b) (1), (3), or (7) of title 5,

United States Code, such record or information shall be

available to the Inspector General in the same manner and

to the same extent it would be available to the Comptroller

General.

(q) The Secretary shall provide the Inspector General

and his stall with appropriate and adequate office space at

central and field office locations of the Department, together

with such equipment, office supplies, and communications

facilities and services as may be necessary for the operation

of such offices, and shall provide necessary maintenance
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

27

serviees for such offices and the equipment and facilities

located therein.

(r) (1) The Inspector General shall receive compensation at the rate provided for level IV of the Executive

Schedule by section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

(2) The Deputy shall receive compensation at the rata

provided for level V of the Executive

5316 of title 5, United States Code.

(s) There are hereby transferred

Schedule by section

to the Office of Inspector General the functions, powers, and duties of the

Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare established under title II of the Act

entitled "An Act to authorize conveyance of the interests

of the United States in certain lands in Salt Lake County,

Utah, to Shriners’ Hospitals for Crippled Children, a Colorado corporation,” approved October 15, 1976 (90 Stat.

2429) which the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget determines to be principally involved in education.

(t) The personnel, assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,

authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held,

used, arising from, available or to be made available, of

any office or agency the functions, powers, and duties of

28

1 which are transferred under subsection (s) are hereby

2 transferred to the Office of Inspector General.

3 (u) Personnel transferred pursuant to subsection (t)

4 shall be transferred in accordance with applicable laws and

5 regulations relating to the transfer of functions except that

6 classification and compensation of such personnel shall not

7 be reduced for one year after such transfer.

8 (v) In any case where all functions, powers, and

9 duties of any office or agency are transferred pursuant to

10 this subsection, such office or agency shall lapse. Any per11 son who, on the effective date of this section, held a position

12 compensated in accordance with the Executive Schedule,

13 and who, without a break in service, is appointed in the

14 Office to a position having duties comparable to those per15 formed immediately preceding such appointment shall con16 tinue to be compensated in the new position at not less than

17 the rate provided for the previous position, for the duration

18 of service in the new position.

19 SAVINGS PROVISIONS

20 SEC. 15. (a) All orders, determinations, rules, regula21 tions, permits, contracts, certificates, licenses) and privi22 leges23 (1) which have been issued, made, granted, or

24 allowed to become effective in the exercisc of functions

25 which are transferred under this Act, by (A) any
29

1

agency or office or part thereof, any functions of which

2

are transferred by this Act, or (B) any court of com3

petent jurisdiction, and

4 (2) which are in effect at the time this Act takes

5

effect, shall continue in effect according to their terms

6

until modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or

‘7 repealed by the Secretary of Education by any court

8

of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

9

(b) The provisions of this Act shall not affect any

10 proceedings pending at the time this section takes effect

11 before any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of

12 which are transferred by this Act; but such proceedings,

13 to the extent that they relate to functions so transferred,

14 shall be continue before the Department of Education. Such

15 proceedings, to the extent they do not relate to functions so

16 transferred, shall be continued before the agency or office,

17 or part thereof, before which they were pending fit the

18 time of such transfer. In either case orders shall be issued in

19 such Proceedings) appeals shall be taken therefrom and Pay20 ments shall be made pursuant to such orders, as if this Act

21 had not heen enacted; and orders issued in any such pro22 ceedings shall continue in effect until modified, terminated,

23 superseded, or repealed by the Secretary of Education, by a

24 court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.

25 (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)–

30

1 (A) the provisions of this Act shall not affect suits

2 commenced prior to the date this section takes effect,

3 and

4 (B) in all such suits proceedings shall be had,

5 appeals taken, and judgments rendered, in the same

6 manner and effect as if this Act had not been enacted.

7 NO suit, action, or other proceeding commenced by or

8 against any officer in the officer’s official capacity as an officer

9 of any agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which

10 are transferred by this Act, shall abate by reason of the en11 actment of this Act. No cause of action by or against any

12 agency or office, or part thereof, functions of which are

13 transferred by this Act, or by or against any officer thereof

14 in the officer’s official capacity shall abate by reason of the

15 enactment of this Act. Causes of actions, suits, or other pro16 ceedings may be asserted by or against the United States or

17 such official of the Department of Education as may be

18 appropriate and, in any litigation pending when this section

19 takes effect, the court may at any time, on its own motion or

20 that of any party, enter an order which will give effect to

21 the provisions of this subsection.

22 (2) If, before the date on which this Act takes effect,

23 any agency or office, or officer thereof in the officer’s offical

24 capacity, is a party to a suit, and under this Act-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

31

(A) such agency or office, or any part thereof, is

transferred to the Secretary of Education,

(B) any function of such agency, office, or part

thereof; or officer is transferred to the Secretary of

Education,

then such suit shall be continued by the Secretary of Education (except in the case of a suit not involving functions

transferred to the Secretary of Education in which case the

suit shall be continued by the agency, office, or part thereof,

or officer which was a party to the suit prior to the effective

date of this Act).

(d) With respect to any function transferred by this

Act and exercised after the effective date of this Act, reference in any other Federal law to any agency, office, or

part thereof, or officer so transferred or functions of which

are so transferred shall be deemed to mean the department

or officer in which such function is vested pursuant to this

Act.

(e) Orders and actions of the Secretary of Education in

the exercise of functions transferred under this Act shall

be subject to judicial review to the same extent and in the

same manner as if such orders and actions had been by the

agency or office, or part thereof, exercising such functions,

immediately preceding their transfer. action upon the record. * “ . & ,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

relatings relating to notice,

or administrative review

32

hearings, action upon the record,

that apply to any function transferred by this Act shall apply to the exercise of such function by the Secretary.

(f) In the exercise of the functions transferred under

this Act, the Secretary shall have the same authority as

that vested in the agency or office, or part thereof, exercising such functions immediately preceding their transfer,

and the Secretary’s actions in exercising such functions shall

have the same force and effect as when exercised by such

agency or office, or part thereof.

(g) The Secretary, in addition to the authority to delegate and redelegate contained in any other Act in the exercise of the functions transferred in this Act to the Secretary

may delegate any of such functions to such officers and

employces of the Department, as the Secretary may designate, may authorize such successive redelegations of such

functions as the Secretary may deem appropriate and may

make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to

carry out functions of the Secretary.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 16. (a) The Secretary is authorized to establish

a working capital fund, to be available without fiscal year

limitation, for expenses necessary for the maintenance and

operation of such common administrative services as the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

secretary shall find to be desirable in the interest of economy

and efficiency in the Department including such services as

a central supply service for stationery and other supplies

and equipment for which adequate stocks may be maintained to meet in whole or in part the requirements of the

Department and its agencies; central messenger, mail, telephone, and other communications services; office space,

central services for document reproduction, and for graphics

and visual aids; and a central library service. The capital

of the fund shall consist of any appropriations made for the

purpose of providing capital (which appropriations are

hereby authorized) and the fair and reasonable value of

such stocks of supplies, equipment, and other assets and

inventories on order as the Secretary may transfer to the

fund, less the related liabilities and unpaid obligations.

Such fund shall be reimbursed in advance from available

funds of agencies and offices in the Department or from

other sources, for supplies and services at rates which will

approximate the expense of operation, including the accrual of annual leave and the depreciation of equipment.

The fund shall also be credited with receipts from sale or

exchange of property and receipts in payment for loss or

damage to property owned by the fund. There shall be

covered into the United States Treasury as miscellaneous

receipts any surplus found in the fund (all assets, liabilities,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

34

and prior losses) considered above the timeouts transferred

or appropriated to establish and maintain such fund.

(b) In addition to the authority contained in any other

Act which is transferred to and vested in the Secretary as

necessary, and when not otherwise available, the Secretary

is authorized to provide for, construct, or maintain the following for employees and their dcpcmlcuts stationed at remote

localities:

(1) emergency medical services and supplies;

(2) food and other subsistence supplies;

(3) motion picture equipment and film for recreation and training; and

(4) living and working quarters and facilities.

The furnishing of medical treatment under paragraph (1)

and the furnishing of services and supplies under paragraphs

(2) and (3) of this subsection shrill be at prices reflecting

reasonable value as determined by the Secretary and the

proceeds therefrom shall be credited to the appropriation

from which the expenditure was made.

(c) (1) The Secretary is authorized to accept. hold,

administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of property, both

real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the

work of the Department. Gifts and bequests money and

the proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts or

8
1

2

3

4

5

6

‘7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

35

bequests shall be deposited in the Treasury in a separate

fund and shall be disbursed upon order of the Secretary.

(2) Upon the request of the Secretary the Secretary of

the Treasury may invest and reinvest in securities of the

United States or in securities guaranteed as to principal and

interest by the United States any monies coutained in the

fund provided for in paragraph (1). Income accruing from

such securities, and from any other property held by the

Secretary pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deposited to

the credit of the fund, and shall be disbursed upon order

of the Secretary.

(d) Nothing contained in this section is intended to

amend, modify, or repeal any provisions of law administered

by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which

authorize the making of contracts for researah.

ANNUAL REPORT

Sec. 17. The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after

the end of (such fiscal year, prepare a report to the President

for submission to the congress on the activities of the Department during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report

shall also contain objective data regarding changing trends

in education, including enrollments, expenditures, numbers of

teachers and other categories of professional and related

personnel; special needs of critical concern such as the dis36

1 advantaged, rural, and urban education, and progress made

2 toward the continuing renewal of education; the results and

3 outcomes of education and schooling, including the overall

4 results on generally recognized standard examinations for

5 entrance to undergraduate and graduate institutions; budget

6 projections for five years based on actaul or anticipated

7 appropriations for the fiscal year in which the annual report

8 is issued; recommendations as to the improvement of pro9 grams for the handicapped, recommendations with respect

10 to the advisory structure of the Department including

11 the names and composition of advisory committees and conn12 oils and the relationships the committees and councils bear to

13 one another and recommendations as to the elimination of

14 overlapping advisory committees and similar data.

15 CONFORMING AMENDMENTS

16 Sec. 18. (a) Section 19 (d) (1) of title 3, United States

17 Code, is amended—

18 (1) by striking out “Secretary of Health, Educa19 tion, and Welfare”; and

20 (2) by inserting before the period at the end there21 of a comma and the following: “Secretary of Health and

22 Welfare, Secretary of Education”.

23 (b) Section 101 of title 5, United States Code, is

24 amended—
.

-R-

-

-

c
Am

1

39

“ (119) Inspector General Department of Educa0 2 tion.”. 3 EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED 4 SEC. 19. The Secretary is authorized to make such

5 expenditures (including expenditures for personal serv6 ices and rent at the seat of government find elsewhere, for

7 lawbooks, hooks of reference and periodicals, and for print8 ing and binding) as may be necessary to carry out the pro9 visions of this Act, and as may be provided for by the

10 Congress from time to time.

11 APPROPRIATI0NS AUTHORIZED

12 Sec. 20. Three are authorized to be appropriated such

13 sums as may be necessary to enable the Department to carry

14 out the provisions of this Act and to perform any other

15 duties which may be imposed upon it by law.

16 EFFECTIVE

?

17

SEC. 21. The provisions of this Act shrill be effectve on

18 its date of cnm%mcnt.

A BILL

To establiaha Department of Education, and

for other p~

By Mr. RRUCOPP, Mr. MAWUSOIV, Mr.

H UMPHREY, Mr. Pm+ Mr. NUNN, Mr

.

&mN, Mr. BA~,Mr. BAYE, Mr. BEMMON, Mr. CHILIES, Mr. CHURCH , Mr. CLARK

,

Mr. CRANSTQN, Mr. DZCONCINI, Mr. DonrENICI, Mr. EAGIZKIN, Mr. Fore, Mr. Hmr,

Mr. HZINZ, Mr. HOLUXWS, Mr. INOUYZ, Mr. J ACKSON , Mr. KENNEDY , Mr. MGGo~N,

Mr. MATSUNAaA, Mr. hkcq Mr. MUSKIE,

Mr. PEARSON, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. SAMER,

Mr. SPAEKW N, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. i%mm,

Mr. WEICKEZL and Mr. Wnuuaa

?UmcniU (legislative day, lhnaum21), 3977

Read twioe and referred to the Conunittee on

Governmental 

~