U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

80–479 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–533

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT (OERI)

HEARING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,

LABOR, AND PENSIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINING PROPOSED LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR THE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, DEPARTMENT

OF EDUCATION, FOCUSING ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, BUDGET, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS

JUNE 25, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MIKE DeWINE, Ohio

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

TOWNSEND LANGE MCNITT, Minority Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002

Page

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Jeffords, Hon. James M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, opening

statement .............................................................................................................. 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Letter to Senator Enzi from Judy Catchpole ......................................................... 13

Whitehurst, Russ, Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement, Department of Education, prepared statement ...................................... 18

Nettles, Michael, Vice-Chair, National Assistant Governing Board; LaMar

Miller, Director, The Comprehensive Centers; and Faye Taylor, Commissioner of Education, Tennessee Department of Education

Prepared statements of:

Michael Nettles .......................................................................................... 27

LaMar Miller ............................................................................................. 35

Faye Taylor ................................................................................................ 42

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:

Press release of Senator Jack Reed ................................................................ 46

(III)

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kennedy

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

Present: Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Reed, and Clinton.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

The CHAIRMAN. We will come to order. We will be joined in just

a few moments by our Republican colleagues and other Democrats.

We have the defense authorization, so there is a lot going on and

we would like to get started with our very important hearing today.

Today’s hearing will focus on the important role of research in

improving the quality of education in increasing educational opportunities for all Americans. I want to thank Assistant Secretary

Whitehurst for joining us today and for all the assistance he has

offered this committee as we begin the task of reauthorizing the

Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

The cornerstone of the new ESEA legislation is that we must

support proven programs and sound science when it comes to the

education of children. The Federal Office of Research and Improvement should be first on the rolodex and the first click of the mouse

for every teacher and educator in America as the place to learn

what works for our children and what does not, and that is our

challenge as we reauthorize OERI—to make it an invaluable resource for quality education in America.

And the need for quality research extends far beyond the K–12

arena. In the 21st Century learning will indeed continue to be a

lifelong process, so we need to invest in research exploring all areas

of learning from early childhood to adult learners. We need to understand the practices and structures that promote improved teaching and learning. We also need to examine the policies—local, State

and Federal—that expand or limit access to educational opportunity for people of all ages.

In order to ensure that research and national assessments are

fair, equitable and nonbiased, it is critical that the National Assessment Governing Board and the National Commission on Statistics maintain their autonomy.

2

Today’s hearing will allow us to hear from experts in the field

in each of these areas and I appreciate the time of our witnesses

to join us and help us understand these issues better. Of course,

research is only useful if we have the resources to implement it.

We cannot reform and strengthen our schools on a tin cup budget.

While the president’s budget has a modest increase for research

and assessment, it actually decreases funding for the reforms in

the No Child Left Behind Law. That means less money for quality

teachers, for smaller class size, for after-school programs, and for

college aid.

Strong schools are every bit as important to our Nation’s future

as a strong defense. We must do better. I look forward to doing

more for education research but it must go hand in hand with help

for our Nation’s schools to meet the basic educational needs of students.

I just want to add a very brief word. I think this responsibility

is of enormous importance. When you look over the range of different requirements that we have in the No Child Left Behind and

particularly when we are talking about scientifically-based research programs that we insist on, we want to make sure there are

going to be all kinds of comments about what is research-based and

what is not research-based and your organization is going to be the

one that is going to play a decisive role.

We had great debates about the quality of testing. That was

something that was enormously important. We have tried to ensure

that those tests that children are going to take are really going to

be based upon State standards and curriculum, with well-trained

teachers and fair assessments of these children.

And we also introduced the concept of supplemental services. For

a lot of different communities this is a new concept and a new phenomenon. How are we going to know if those supplementary services are really going to be high quality?

And as we look at teachers and teacher training and professional

development, we all understand we have a serious shortage of

teachers. How are we going to recruit? How are we going to retain

those teachers? The professional development programs in the various schools—how will we know which ones are working; which are

not?—so that we can share that kind of information with other districts across the country.

And early education, which we are working on, the zero through

three programs and the early intervention programs, which I am

very hopeful we will be able to achieve with Mrs. Bush. The First

Lady has shown enormously impressive leadership in the area of

early education. We are working on that in a bipartisan way. It has

been the research that was done in this area that really demonstrated the importance of interventions from the zero to five.

That research was a wake-up call for us to take action. This is the

kind of effort that can be enormously valuable to us.

So this department has an incredible opportunity, unparalleled,

I think now, in terms of where we are and we want to give you

all the help and support you need. We are going to be depending

on you, so we want to work very closely. We are grateful to you

for the efforts that you have made working with this committee, all

the members of the committee, in terms of the reauthorization and

3

we want to say that we want OERI to be what NIH is and what

the National Science Foundation is. And you are the man to do it.

So we want to try to make it a success.

If Senator Jeffords would like to——

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFFORDS

Senator JEFFORDS. Well, you said about everything I wanted to

say so I won’t go on at length but I am concerned about certain

issues which maybe are not research-type but they are existing situations, like, for instance, where are we going to get the talented

people in math and science to teach our kids. Right now we have

a huge lack of that. Anyone that is any good at that gets stripped

off by companies and organizations which are desperate for them.

We have now a million H1B young people working in that industry

because we cannot produce the necessary math and science kids,

young people, whatever. Is that within your jurisdiction? Is that

something you do? Or how do we find those answers?

I know I talked to Rick Mills, the head of the New York City

school system, and he said that 78 percent of his math teachers are

over the age of 55 and how is he going to replace those math teachers in the next few years as they get their pensions? And they obviously are there because they were close to getting their pensions

and everybody else went out and got a job at much higher pay in

industry. So that is just a few of the little problems we have.

I wonder if you would get into those things or who we can look

to, if not, for those kinds of answers. That is not a question; it is

a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have your whole statement in the

record.

Mr. Whitehurst?

STATEMENT OF RUSS WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords. I am very pleased for the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. Chairman, you may remember that you and I spent a day

and a half together in February over at Georgetown University

talking about preschool education and I came away from that experience impressed not only with your interest in preschool issues

and your willingness to be there on a Saturday morning to talk

about them but also your concern with having research evidence inform public policy in that particular arena. I think that is really

what the reauthorization of the Research and Statistics Office

within the department is all about—having high quality research

that is relevant to education policy and encouraging the use of that

research in decision-making.

You have mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act and that is

very important in what we are doing here. It certainly sent a signal

that the Congress as a whole is concerned about research informing

policy because by my count, the phrase scientifically-based research

appears 110 times in that document. So if scientifically-based research is going to be the key to reform of our most important Federal education programs, I think we had better make sure that we

4

have research of high quality and relevance that can be utilized by

those who are making education decisions and education policy.

I am here to tell you that we have significant gaps in research

coverage and quality. Senator Kennedy, you certainly mentioned

several of the areas in which we need to know a lot more. Let me

focus on simply one, and that is preschool education. We do have

a number of longitudinal studies that began 25 or 30 years ago

that have indicated that high quality, intensive preschool experiences can have very positive effects on children as they move

through school and into life and certainly pay back their investment to society as a whole. And in part based on that research, we

have public policy moving toward providing preschool services for

all children.

When you look at what States are doing in this area you find

that they are making available those services. The State of Georgia

is a leader in this area. It has a universal pre-K program that allows providers in that State to choose among seven different nationally available curriculum. But which of those curriculum work?

Which work best for what kids, under what circumstances? We

simply do not know. We have launched a research agenda this year

to try to address that issue. We hope we will be able to do so relatively shortly. But we could sit here all day and I could provide

you a long list of such questions that are very important to informing public policy. Where in principle we could address them and

provide answers, we simply have not been able to do so so far. We

need to do that going forward.

One of the things that has surprised me as I have taken on this

job in the last year or so is that even in the absence of research,

there is no lack of passion and commitment to particular answers.

A lot of education is an evidence-free zone in which people have

strong opinions that are not supported by much in the way of data.

So we have to have research and we have to have high quality research and we have to convince people to turn to research when

they are trying to make important decisions.

We have models. One is medicine. It is interesting that what we

know as modern medicine is a relatively recent invention. The first

clinical trial in medicine occurs at about the time of World War II.

The FDA stepped in to regulate the selling of drugs to the public

in the early 1960s and the whole concept of evidence-based medicine, a set of decision-making tools that practitioners can turn to

to help them make decisions in the sort of treatment regimens they

select for patients, is recent; it occurred in the 1990s.

So the revolution of medicine in the last 50 years suggests that

we can do that in other fields, as well, that it does not take as long.

And certainly now that we have models to build our work on, I

think it will take substantially less than 50 years to get it accomplished in education.

We do badly need the reauthorization of the office I am responsible for. The authorization expired in 1999. We have been moving

forward but it is difficult to do so without new legislation. It is a

difficult management job. People are not sure what they are doing

and what they will be doing next week. It is difficult to hire people.

Where would I be? What would I do? It is difficult to push for the

5

sort of budget changes we need in the absence of a clear statute

that will guide us going forward.

As this committee addresses new legislation, there are several

things that I think would be important. Let me mention some of

them.

We have problems with our administrative structure. We are organized into five internal research institutes, I think modeled on

the NIH structure, but they simply have not worked. They interfere with new initiatives. We, for example, launched a new research initiative in reading comprehension this year. Should that

be the responsibility of the At-Risk Institute or the Achievement

Institute? Or should it be the focus of the Early Childhood Institute? Or because it relates to adult skills, should it be the focus of

the Adult Institute? It is very hard to say and yet the strictures

associated with our structure prevent us from spending more than

10 percent of our funds on cross-cutting initiatives. So we have a

structure here that perhaps made sense when it was established in

1994 but I simply have to tell you it gets in the way of the work

that needs to be done.

We think that new legislation should provide for a simple and

uncluttered organizational framework. There would be a director

who would head the entity that would include at least three centers—one responsible for research, one responsible for statistics,

and one responsible for evaluation.

The recent National Research Council report on scientific research in education concluded that building a scientific culture

with the department’s research agency is really a prerequisite for

everything else. I strongly agree with that. In order to do this we

need to hire scientists on accepted service positions who can rotate

in and out of the agency to bring up-to-date skills and knowledge

to the tasks that we have to accomplish and we need to continue

the current accepted service authority, which allows us to hire such

people for short terms outside the regular civil service. I have

found in the five or six people I have been able to hire so far that

having the flexibility of accepted service was critical to the recruitment that needed to be done.

One of the problems with the OERI in the past has been lack of

stability in leadership. There have been more assistant secretaries

and acting assistant secretaries than there have been years of existence of the agency I am responsible for. So I hope in thinking

about new legislation the committee will consider ways that would

promote continuity in leadership, both at the top and at the middle

management level.

The Department of Ed and OERI suffer under a number of regulatory burdens that are unlike those under which our sister agencies—the NIH and NSF—function. For example, to initiate new

grant competitions we have to publish in the Federal Register what

we intend to do. We have to wait for a period of public comment,

revise in light of that. This can add months to the process and

moves our competitions to the latter half of any fiscal year. That

makes some sense for Department of Education programs that are

directed toward the general public or educators but we are writing

announcements for the scientific community, so when we do this

we find we get little back in the way of public comment. It takes

6

months and simply slows down and gums up the works considerably.

Also, unlike our sister research agencies, we are not exempt from

the Federal Advisory Committee Act as it relates to peer review

committees. So whereas the NIH can establish a standing peer review committee in a particular area and have it on-going for a

number of months or years, we are unable to have a review committee that meets more than once without chartering it as a Federal advisory committee. We cannot do that because applications

typically involve proprietary information. So our committees can

meet only once and cannot issue an opinion as a committee as a

whole. We need relief from these and other regulatory burdens so

that we can operate as the NIH and the NSF do.

Another important issue I think is critically important is to separate the research agency from the responsibility for delivering educational programs and technical assistance. Over the years such activities have been assigned to OERI in increasing numbers to the

point that over two-thirds of our budget is directed toward these

nonresearch activities. It is very difficult for us to fulfill the role

of nonpartisan evaluation of education programs when we are delivering some of the same programs we are supposed to be evaluating. It also produces a lack of concentration on our core task when

so many of our administrative activities and time are devoted to

these nonresearch activities. It also interferes with establishing a

scientific culture within the agency because so many of our personnel have to devote their time to activities that are not research or

statistics. We think it is very important to have a close intellectual

connection between research and programs and technical assistance but we think there needs to be an operational division between those functions.

Finally in terms of resources, we need adequate resources to support and sustain a cumulative research program in the areas that

we are interested in and in which the Congress has interest. The

entire research and statistics budget for my agency for fiscal year

2002 is a fraction of 1 percent of the department’s discretionary

budget. The core research and dissemination budget is only $122

million.

The university where I worked before I came here, State University of New York at Stonybrook, spends more annually on research

than the U.S. Department of Education. One of my friends said it

is not that OERI is broken; it is broke. We need sufficient funds

to sustain and develop the work that we need to accomplish. I am

very pleased that the president is committed to increased funding

for education research, has proposed a 44 percent increase for research for the next fiscal year and a 12 percent increase in statistics. We need the support of Congress in making an appropriation

that is consistent with this request so that we can move forward

on the important work that needs to be done.

I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have here a unique and

unparalleled opportunity to begin a process that will make American education an evidence-based field. I think it is possible to get

to a tipping point after which people will no longer be satisfied

with comments like ‘‘We already know what we need to do’’ or

‘‘You’ve got your data and I’ve got my data.’’ Rather, we will get

7

to a point where evidence from research is seen as extremely important and valid in making decisions.

I was cheered to hear a person who deals with a State education

agency saying that there had been a dramatic change in her State

in the last 10 years. It used to be people came to meetings and they

were simply there with opinions and that now the model was ‘‘In

God we trust; all others bring data.’’ I think we can get to that

point and we can get to that point relatively soon and that the

learners of American society itself will be the benefit of that.

Thank you very much. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions or comments that you have.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a very comprehensive set of recommendations that you have outlined here and you have obviously

thought a good deal about this, both the mission and how to get

there. I was struck in your testimony about the current statute as

well as how the previous administration led OERI to be responsible

for a large number of nonresearch programs. You list character

education earmarks, funds for the improvement of education, and

technology. You also believe it is critically important to separate

the research from the responsibility for delivering education and

technical assistance.

I think you point out with the number of these programs, that

over two-thirds of your budget is devoted to this nonresearch and

the impact of those nonresearch programs. How would you best recommend that these programs be dealt with?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I think the programs ought to be associated

with their funding statutes and connected with the program offices

in the department that are most relevant to the particular services

being delivered—character education, as a case in point. We intend

to have a robust research program on character education. However, I think the delivery of funds to States to enable them to have

character education programs in the school is an Elementary and

Secondary Education Office function and would be best placed

there. I think all the programs on our list have a home that is

more or less natural and it would be appropriate for them to be

placed there.

The CHAIRMAN. And we will go over those with you. I think you

make a strong argument for that.

What can you tell us about the efforts that we made in to No

Child Left Behind? You mentioned that bill references scientificbased or research-based 110 times. Can you give us some kind of

idea about how long it will take for research in some of these

areas? The department now is busy drafting the regulations on a

lot of these areas. We insist on science-based, research-based. We

all understand a lot of this has not been done, so what is your

sense of the flow line of what you can do and what help you can

provide to local communities, to the States, and to us to be able to

evaluate it and, I think most importantly work with parents and

teachers?

Mr. WHITEHURST. What we have in mind is really a short game

and a long game. The short game is to identify those areas in

which there are existing programs and practices that are available,

they are exportable in the sense that it is not something that has

been developed at a particular school and where the ability to carry

8

it out depends on the wisdom of somebody in that school but it is

something that has a manual associated with it or videotapes.

Whenever we can find those sorts of programs associated with

significant educational goals, such as those in the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, we are going to evaluate them and find

out which ones work best. We think in many cases we can do that

in short order—within a year or two—provide data on at least the

immediate effects of various education programs.

At the same time we need to understand that the development

of education programs depends on a research base, on knowledge

and understanding of underlying mechanisms of how people learn

and how they best are taught. So we need a long-term agenda that

will provide fundamental knowledge that could inform the next

generation of educational products and interventions and approaches.

So we have in mind, for example, a long-term research agenda

in reading comprehension. We think we have a lot of knowledge

with respect to how children learn to read but not much knowledge

with regard to how they read to learn once they hit middle school

and high school and we think it will take 10 years to generate the

sort of fundamental knowledge that would allow the designer of an

educational product or program or textbook to take that knowledge

and build it in.

So I hope to be able to provide, with the help of the administration, the people in the office, some answers to ESEA questions relatively shortly and then provide fundamental knowledge that will

make us able to design better interventions further out.

We also have an effort under way called the What Works Clearinghouse, which will be for the first time a place that people can

turn for evidence with respect to educational products and programs and approaches that will not provide a list of accepted programs but simply will provide information on how much research

exists, what its quality is and what its direction is. We are not

without research in many important areas and we hope that the

What Works Clearinghouse will be the major portal to the sort of

evidence that is out there that can be usable by parents and educators.

The CHAIRMAN. We would urge the priority in all of these programs. I think one in particular priority is this professional development. All of the aspects reinforce each other; we understand

that. But really getting well qualified teachers and getting the professional development they need and delivering it in ways that are

going to make the teaching exciting to people should be a priority.

But being able to get some information on quality programs could

be extremely useful to schools and that is an important priority. A

good deal of work has been done but we want to do more. As we

look down the road we have the Higher Ed Act, where there will

be an important intersect in terms of the training of teachers. We

want to try to draw from you the kinds of experience and best practices as we shape the legislation, rather than just sort of following

along in the older paths.

I am sure you are aware of this but this is going to be enormously important. In addition we have the IDEA issues that are

before us, as well. That is going to be enormously important reauVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
9

thorization. So we have a flow line in terms of what we have a responsibility for and we want to try, to the extent we can, to intersect with OERI. You are going to have to make your own judgments but we want to try and rely on OERI as much as we possibly

can.

I am going to welcome Senator Enzi here and we have been

joined by Senator Reed. I am going to go to Senator Jeffords and

then to Senator Enzi, and Senator Reed is going to chair. They just

called me from the floor for a few minutes. Senator Jeffords?

Senator JEFFORDS. It is a pleasure to have you here. I have been

waiting for this opportunity because I think there is so much that

we need to be able to get that we have not been able to get.

I know that OERI is separate from the National Center for Educational Statistics and that NCES does a great job with limited

funds. How can we better coordinate the NCES findings with research conducted by OERI?

Mr. WHITEHURST. That is a very important issue and challenge.

I found it a pleasure to work with the staff at NCES. One of the

things I have tried to do is get us to focus more as an organization

on how we can leverage our investment in research and statistics

to get the maximal benefit and to answer a set of questions that

are useful not only in terms of indicating the condition of education, which is typically what NCES addresses, but also at the

same time to provide answers that will allow us to better understand how to change the condition of education to make it better.

I think an organizational structure in which evaluation, research

and statistics are co-equal branches of an overall research agency

and where funding decisions, budget preparation and other matters

are coordinated among those three centers is likely to produce the

sort of direction you are talking about and I think it is very important.

Senator JEFFORDS. Has OERI or will OERI conduct research on

the effectiveness of testing as a sole measure of student achievement? And what is OERI currently doing regarding research on

early childhood education?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We do not have a research program focussed

on the effects of testing only on student achievement. We do understand that the product of a good educational system is much more

than a child who can read and write, add and subtract. As you

know, there is a large program in character education; I mentioned

that previously in my testimony. We would like very much to

launch a research agenda in socialization and character education

that will focus on the many aspects of progressive through school

that we think ultimately are important to academic achievement

but are not academic achievement itself.

And I think when we are looking at that broad spectrum of outcomes we will be able to analyze the effects of testing and testing

in what on the effects across the board in terms of again the sorts

of characteristics we would like for a well educated child to have

when that child exits from the public school system.

Senator JEFFORDS. Well, as Senator Kennedy noted, Congress

will be reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. Are there any

studies on teacher preparation that may be helpful?

10

Mr. WHITEHURST. This is something that I have been talking

about a lot recently. I gave a keynote address at the White House

Conference on Professional Development of Teachers and have been

going around the country talking on this topic.

There is research there. The research really relates more to selection factors than it does professional development factors. I can

tell you based on a lot of large-scale research that has been done,

that if you have $40,000 a year to spend on hiring a new teacher,

selecting someone with this characteristic would be a better bet

than selecting someone with that characteristic. We have that sort

of research.

We have much less research that indicates what is the best form

of professional development or preservice training of teachers that

addresses a question you raised earlier about how can we best attract the most qualified teachers to schools and keep them there

and I think those are issues that we will need to address, both in

OERI’s research agenda and in other research endeavors by the department and other Federal agencies. It is extremely important.

Senator JEFFORDS. Many teachers and other school personnel are

desperate for good information on an array of topics. The labs and

the Comprehensive Centers disseminate this information. How can

we improve the dissemination process so that it is more useful?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I think it is very important for this committee

to address that in the legislation that is being written. In response

to a question from staffers on the committee, we are asked to determine what are the various technical assistance entities in the U.S.

Department of Education and it actually took us longer to answer

that question than I thought that it would because there are so

many. I am making up the number now but there were over 20 different entities within the department responsible for providing

technical assistance.

I think it must be very difficult if you are a school superintendent and you have a question to which you need an answer to know

where to turn. I think one thing that is important to do is to have

a simplified, coordinated, clear technical assistance mechanism

within the department so that people who have questions know

where to turn. It should not have to be that you turn to this agency

if you have a question about technology, you turn to this organization if you have a question about professional development of

teachers, you turn to this organization if you have a question about

assessment. There should be one-stop shopping and I think we

need to do that.

Senator JEFFORDS. Under the administration’s OERI proposal

and the limited funding which OERI has traditionally received, can

OERI provide effective research on a vast array of issues, or until

there is a legitimate amount of funding should OERI concentrate

on two or three areas and do them well, as opposed to trying to

do everything with insufficient funds?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We need to focus; there is just no question

about that. OERI’s agenda in the past has been spread all over the

map. There is no denying that every one of the topics addressed is

an important topic but I think implicit in your comment is the fact

that we cannot do all of those things well.

11

So we are trying to focus and to focus in areas of great need and

high public concern and to do that in such a way that the research

that we fund will be of high quality and relevance. So focus is the

way to go.

Senator JEFFORDS. Let me give you a pragmatic question. I have

followed the TIMS exams over the years and have watched what

happens relative to our young people and the world’s young people

and come out terrible. We start off even in the fourth grade and

by the time they graduate we are at the bottom of the heap. It

seems fairly easy to be able to identify problems which result in

that, not the least of which is the length of the school year and certain obvious things.

Should you answer a broad question like that? Help us understand why we keep having TIMS and why we do not see any improvement.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes. We have been having meetings and have

funded an outside organization, the RAND Corporation, to advise

us on a research agenda in math education and questions such as

the ones you have raised would be key to such a research agenda.

We need, for example, to understand what goes on in math classrooms of our overseas partners that is different from what goes on

in classrooms here and how can that be changed?

We know that we have to address problems such as out-of-field

teaching. Middle school students in this country are taught math

more than half the time by teachers who have no major or minor

in math. It is not the case overseas that students are being taught

math by teachers with no training in that field.

So there are a variety of areas here where statistics, comparative

studies like TIMS, as well as careful research studies that look at

changes in practice and how they affect outcomes can provide, I

think, important information in going forward to deal with some of

the real problems in math achievement and the drop-off in math

achievement over the school years that you have described.

Senator JEFFORDS. Let me go one step further on that one.

Would you give us a less perhaps relevant answer, but how do we

make sure that the teachers have the basic math and are available

and why aren’t they now?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We need to understand, I think, what schools

may be able to do to structure incentive systems in order to attract

people in fields in which there are many employment opportunities

outside of school settings. OERI has funded research on compensation systems and will continue to do that. It seems to me that is

part of it because in your remarks you have noted that good math

teachers leave to work in industry. Well, they leave to work in industry in part, because of pay and in part, because of work conditions. If we could understand how to control those factors to keep

math teachers in schools, that would be to everybody’s benefit.

Senator JEFFORDS. That is a relevant question for you to answer?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Sure. I think that questions about the structure of compensation systems and the effect they have on the retention of teachers is a very researchable question. I think questions with regard to induction systems for teachers and support

systems for teachers are very researchable and relevant. We know

that teachers leave the profession in high numbers in the first 5

12

years. What can we do to keep them there is a question of practice

and which practice works best, and that is researchable, yes.

Senator JEFFORDS. Senator Reed, I think you are in charge.

Senator REED. [presiding]. That is a harrowing thought.

I think in that case, Senator Enzi?

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to

thank Senator Kennedy for having this hearing and his staff for

working with us on ways that we can get increased research for

rural education.

I am from a very rural State. I made a statement before that we

have some rules on how far kids can be transported in order to go

to school and that results in some schools having two or three kids

because we do not like elementary kids to have to travel more than

60 miles before and after school. There is quite a bit of disbelief

that there would be any schools that small or kids that far from

anybody else but it happens out our way and we are one of seven

States that get to join with the help of McCrell in doing some real

rural research for ways that education can be done and it makes

a tremendous difference to us. Without that help, none of us wind

up with enough funds under the formula to be able to do it on our

own.

So this hearing is particularly critical to us and I would ask that

my full statement be——

Senator REED. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here this morning

to discuss the upcoming reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).

The issue of educational research has always been important to

me because I feel that one of the most important functions of the

U.S. Department of Education is to provide quality technical assistance and support to States and local schools as they develop and

implement their own individualized academic achievement and improvement measures.

The improved accountability measures and increased focus on

student achievement in the No Child Left Behind Act makes educational research even more critical. It is my hope that as this committee moves forward with the reauthorization of the OERI that we

can work together to ensure that all federally funded educational

research is responsive to the needs of States and local school districts, and is focused on the goal of attaining high levels of academic achievement for all students.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one of the

most important things that the OERI does for Wyoming, which is

provide us with the excellent services of our regional educational

laboratory, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning or

McREL. McREL, which serves as the regional education lab for

seven States in the central U.S., has been critical in assisting Wyoming in educational reforms that have resulted from a 1995 State

13

U.S. U.S. Supreme Court ruling. They have also assisted the State

in examining strategies to raise student achievement in mathematics and improve teacher quality throughout the region. Most recently, McREL has been of assistance to the State of Wyoming by

agreeing to administer their State Challenge Grant for Leadership

Development, a $975,000 grant that was awarded by the Gates

Foundation. The grant will be used to assist school superintendents

and principals in creating a high achieving, technology rich educational system for all students.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a copy of a letter from Wyoming’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Judy Catchpole, detailing the important contribution that McREL has made to my

State’s educational system be made a part of the record.

As the Senate continues to examine the issue of how to reauthorize the OERI, I hope that we can maintain many of the positive

aspects of the House passed legislation, while making sure that regional labs that are performing well under the current system,

such as McREL, are allowed to continue their excellent work. It is

also my hope that an increased emphasis on the unique needs of

rural areas can be included in any Senate legislation that reauthorizes the OERI.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing,

and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue.

Senator ENZI. I also have a letter from our State superintendent

of public instruction and I would like that letter to be part of the

record, too, emphasizing the need for these funds.

Senator REED. Without objection.

[The letter follows:]

June 20. 2002.

Hon. MICHAEL B. ENZI,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC. 20510.

DEAR SENATOR ENZI: I am writing this letter in support of the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) Laboratory. McREL has served a

seven-State central region-Colorado, Kansas, Missouri. Nebraska, North Dakota.

and Wyoming since 1966. Through its work as the region’s educational laboratory

and Mid-continent Eisenhower Consortium for Mathematics and Science, McREL

works with its constituents to improve the quality of education policy and practice

using the application of the best available knowledge from research, development

and experience.

As you are aware, Wyoming has been involved in education reform since 1995 due

to a Wyoming U.S. U.S. Supreme Court ruling. For the past 8 years, McREL has

been a valued partner in our reform process. It has been involved in several activities and projects that have helped move our reform forward.

McREL’s work under the ‘‘Standards in the Classroom’’ project is designed to contribute knowledge and resources about standards and their impact on classroom

practices. This work has focused on (1) developing a process for evaluating and developing local standards and aligning them with classroom practice, (2) creating and

disseminating resources to assist teachers in developing and implementing standards-based curriculum, (3) identifying instructional practices that are effective with

diverse students, (4) providing support for educators and policy makers in the development of assessment and accountability systems, and (5) identifying strategies and

resources that support students. especially those who struggle to meet standards.

McREL’s Mid-continent Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics and

Science has helped to establish the Best in the West Mathematics Alliance (BWMA).

BWMA, a group of ten districts from northeast Wyoming which represents 32 percent of the State’s student population is examining strategies to raise student

14

achievement in mathematics on the Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System

(WyCAS).

McREL’s work in the area of ‘‘Teacher Quality’’ has been designed to support

teacher learning, improve K–12 teaching, and address the region’s teacher quality

issues. McREL’s work has focused on four areas: (1) professional development infrastructure, (2) teacher preparation and licensure, (3) teacher learning, (4) teacher recruitment and retention. McREL not only completed the publication, Blueprint: Ensuring Quality Teaching and Leadership in Wyoming, but also provided expert testimony for the Wyoming Legislature related to the blueprint.

McREL’s work under ‘‘Leadership Capacity Building’’ has been designed to provide opportunities and materials to assist the Wyoming Department of Education

staff and district and building administrators to acquire the leadership skills they

need to help create high-performing districts and schools. McREL has also helped

in developing and implementing the Bill Gates Leadership Grant. This grant provides Wyoming education leaders with financial resources to develop and deliver

critical training.

The activities and projects outlined above give you an idea of the important work

that McREL has done in Wyoming. In a small State, our partnership with McREL

has helped us make dramatic progress in a short period of time. Our partnership

is an example of a regional laboratory providing quality customer service. Because

of this service and the hard work of the Wyoming Department of Education staff,

we are positioned well to fully implement the ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ legislation.

If you have questions or need more information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

JUDY CATCHPOLE,

Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Senator ENZI. Thank you. And with that, I will turn to some

questions.

Of course, one of the things that we are particularly interested

in in Wyoming is having some technology in the classroom. We use

that to communicate between classrooms, some of these isolated

classrooms. So far, scientifically-based research seems to have little

relevance, particularly with the department. Will there be a time

when the U.S. Department of Education will conduct research on

technology education to assist the schools in putting that in place?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, indeed. There is a substantial amount of

money that is available in ESEA in the national activities account

with respect to technology programs to launch a research initiative.

And the conversations I have engaged in with respect to that initiative have acknowledge something I think is quite important. That

is that the questions that have been asked previously, such as does

technology work, are simply too broad and gross to be useful. We

know that technology works in the sense that roadways work. You

have to have wiring; you have to have computers.

I think we are to a point now where we need to be asking questions about particular applications. Will this application help teachers in a State like Wyoming get the professional development they

need to deliver effective reading instruction in the classroom? Will

this particular application in classrooms for fourth graders help in

the acquisition of math in a way that might be difficult otherwise?

And I hope that we will be able to utilize some of the national technology money to address the effectiveness of particular applications

of the sort that I have described.

Senator ENZI. I kind of want to divorce the next question from

the last one because it is not strictly technology-based, but what

role can your office play in turning education into a scientifically

based field?

15

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, I think we have a critical role to play.

We can do that in a number of ways. It can be done within the Department of Education by, to the extent possible, seeing that other

program offices utilize the best available research in designing

their program announcements and in holding the competitions that

are discretionary to deliver funds.

So one of the roles we have is to make sure that the department

practices what it preaches, and that is a role I have, to go around

to other assistant secretaries and say look, consider this research

before you go forward and structure your competition in the following ways.

We can also, I think, provide a very critical function for education decision-makers, whether they are administrators or parents, in making the best available information from good research

available in an easily used and understood form so that if you are

trying to select a particular approach toward reading you can go

and find out what evidence exists with respect to that decision and

make your professional decision utilizing that evidence to the extent that you can.

One of the things that chiefs around the country tell me and also

school superintendents is that there is not a vendor or product developer who comes through their offices who does not say my research or my product is research-based and scientifically proven

and we simply need to provide people the decision aids and the decision tools they need to determine which of those claims is valid

and which of those claims is not.

Senator ENZI. Thank you.

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator Enzi.

Let me ask a few questions, Dr. Whitehurst, before I recognize

Senator Clinton for her questions and then bring on the next panel.

The strength of our regional education laboratories has been

their focus on applied research driven by regional needs—clientbased requests for help and assistance—and their ability to reach

out to both rural areas and urban centers in these regions. Given

the proposed restructuring of OERI under the House legislation,

how do you envision that the important work of the regional laboratories will be maintained and strengthened?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I spent the last year getting to know the regional laboratories I think reasonably well. Also, I spent the last

year seeing the department struggle with the Herculean task of

providing the assistance that States and localities need in carrying

out the No Child Left Behind Act. The laboratories, the Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers, the RTACs, represent the

troops on the ground that are necessary to provide the technical assistance that is needed in regions such as yours.

So I think it is vitally important in writing this legislation that

there be a consistent, coherent and appropriate approach to technical assistance and regional R&D that serves those needs and

serves them better than they have been served in the past.

Senator REED. Thank you, Doctor.

It is my understanding from looking at the House legislation that

there would be a separation between the nationally driven research

component and the regional research and it seems to me for some

of the reasons you indicated in your previous response that there

16

has to be a closer link, since ultimately, as we envision the system

today, the regional labs are the ones that are actually interacting

with local school systems.

Can you comment upon this apparent cleavage between the national research agenda and the regional research agendas in the

House bill?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I think that the strengths of the regional labs,

with exceptions, are not in research. They are in technical assistance. Some of the regional labs are actively involved in developing

products and approaches but a fully applied R&D cycle involves developing products and approaches, testing those products and approaches to see the degree to which they work or fail, revising in

light of that evidence until the desired goal is reached. I think too

much of what goes on in terms of regional R&D is the development

of products but not the careful testing and assessment of the effectiveness of those products.

As I have talked to some regional labs, and I do not intend to

represent their views collectively, I have been told and I think

what I have been told is reasonable, that the regional labs are simply not in a position to attract and retain the personnel who are

capable of carrying out high quality applied research. They compete

with universities in their region. It is difficult to maintain that sort

of personnel.

I think again that the regional labs and the sweet spot for the

regional labs is providing the help that schools and States need in

getting the job done. That will often be data-driven help, having

schools understand, for example, how they can take their assessment system and use it to drive instruction in the classroom and

provide information to teachers in real time that will be useful, and

those will be very important tasks to be done. I think it needs to

be connected again with technical assistance, with providing help.

I do not see it primarily as a research job.

Senator REED. Thank you, Doctor.

One final comment, perhaps a question. The emphasis now

seems to be on raising the level of resources devoted to research

at the national level. It strikes me that even if we are wildly successful we will never have within the Department of Education a

huge research operation. So that means we have to depend upon

institutions, colleges of education, and graduate schools of education for research, yet it also strikes me that there is not as much

research going on in those venues as there should be.

So within this authorization or outside of it, we have to begin to

think about how we can encourage more resources for research at

universities that can be translated by your department and the

labs into practice.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Oh, quite so. And I would point out that with

a few exceptions, we do not conduct any research in OERI at all.

We simply fund it as it occurs elsewhere. We have proposed in our

budget next year a substantial amount of funding to establish

interdisciplinary predoctoral and postdoctoral training programs in

education sciences. We believe that we need greater capacity and

we need to encourage universities and encourage faculty in universities to devote their intellectual effort, time and motivation to the

very important issues that face education.

17

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Dr. Whitehurst.

Senator Clinton?

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Senator Reed.

And thank you, Dr. Whitehurst. I appreciate greatly your using

your considerable expertise over many years to head this important

enterprise within the Department of Education. I know that much

of your research was done at SUNY-Stonybrook, which I think is

a very nice tribute both to that university and to the intellectual

efforts that you have been involved in, particularly with respect to

preschool and language development and the development of those

cognitive skills early on.

I am concerned about just a few matters because I generally

agree with your assessment that we have to do a better job in acquiring research to make decisions and that we need much more

technical assistance to disseminate these findings, and assist classroom teachers, principals, parents and others in implementing

them.

I am interested in learning more about the House bill. I understand that the administration is not going to put forth its own bill

so that Representative Castle’s bill, I assume, represents the administration’s position. Is that correct?

Mr. WHITEHURST. The administration supported the House bill.

It is not our bill. Had we been given a clean sheet of paper it would

have had some differences from the House bill but we were, in general, pleased with the House bill and think it is a very positive step

forward.

Senator CLINTON. Well, would you advise in detail perhaps in

writing what changes you would have made had you started with

a clean plate? Because that is our mission here, to make sure that

we come out with the best bill possible. And often the Senate will

have a different perspective than the House. So I would appreciate

your comments.

One of the issues that I am particularly interested in pursuing

with additional research is the effect of health and environmental

factors on children and their cognitive development. I have become

convinced after a number of years of following the research, that

we are experiencing increases in learning difficulties and certain

conditions like autism, and some of these increases are a result of

interactions between environmental health, physical, mental and

emotional, and the ability to learn.

During the No Child Left Behind debate I was able to insert two

provisions into the legislation to allow us to better understand the

link between environmental health in our schools and children’s

cognitive development. As you may know, some countries have

done some interesting research on access to sunlight, for example,

and access to fresh air as opposed to reventilated air. It seems to

improve both attendance and in some instances, particularly the

Canadian research, actually academic achievement.

There is a tremendous backlog of school repairs and we know

that hundreds of students in scores of schools in more than 14

States across the country have experienced all kinds of problems.

Some of it may be attributed to psychogenic disorders, but some

has also been linked to demolition debris, and mold. These factors

have yielded respiratory problems, and rashes, and in the legislaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
18

tion I asked that we study this interaction to try to get a handle

on the school environment. The larger environment issues we have

to contend with as well, but I thought that within the No Child

Left Behind, we should begin to do some research on child environmental health and what happens in school, since children spend so

much time there.

The study that was required under the legislation was to be completed by December 31 with recommendations for additional research or action to the Congress. I have sent two letters to Secretary Paige inquiring about the status of the Healthy and High

Performance Schools Program, one on April 2, the other on May 8.

I also asked Undersecretary Hickok about the status of this program at the committee’s April 23 implementation hearing. I still

have not received a response and I believe, looking at the organization chart, that OERI is responsible for conducting the study and

I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman, if I can put a copy of this letter

into the record. It is a letter to Secretary Paige with a copy to Dr.

Whitehurst and I would like to leave this for you.

Senator REED. Without objection.

[The letter was not available at press time, however, copies are

maintained in the committee file.]

Senator CLINTON. I do hope that I can get a status update on

this study and move it into the research agenda because one of the

difficulties we are confronting, as we try to unpack the learning

challenges that children face, is that not only do we have prenatal

influences that we are well aware of, whether it is addiction or

fetal alcohol syndrome, but we also have the continuing challenge

of lead, mercury and other elements. I believe that any good research agenda has to include these new factors. Maybe they were

always there, but they certainly seem to have come to the forefront

now and I would very much appreciate a written response to this

letter by the end of the week. Then I look forward to working with

you in the future as you pursue this very important agenda on behalf of our children. Thank you, Dr. Whitehurst.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Dr. Whitehurst, for your

testimony. We all look forward to working with you in the days

ahead as we try to shape this legislation. Thank you very much.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you, Senator Reed.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehurst follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GROVER J. WHITEHURST

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to

testify before you today regarding the reauthorization of research functions within

the Department of Education.

The shared understanding of the Congress and the Administration about the role

of research in educational reform was evidenced vividly in the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). In that bill,

passed by overwhelming majorities in both chambers and signed into law by the

President on January 8, the phrase scientifically-based research appears 110 times.

Scientifically-based research will also be a component of reform in the upcoming

reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The

ESEA and the IDEA account for approximately $30 billion in annual Federal expenditures within the Department of Education. Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, $30 billion is a lot of money. We all recognize that, historically, the huge

annual investment in the education of disadvantaged students and students with

disabilities has not achieved everything that was expected of it. For instance, in the

most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading, 40 percent of

19

white 4th graders read at a proficient level, compared with only 12 percent of African-American students. In some urban school districts that serve predominantly disadvantaged children, 70 percent of 4th graders cannot read at even the basic level.

Nothing has changed in the last decade in these statistics, and the overall gap between the highest and lowest performing students has actually increased in some

subjects.

If scientifically-based research is going to be the key to reform of our most important Federal education programs, then we had better make sure that the Federal

office with the principal responsibility for generating that research has the tools it

needs to get the job done. That is what we are here today to address.

In facing that task, I want this committee to understand that we are dealing not

only with gaps in student achievement, but also gaps in scientific knowledge. Consider some of the major program areas in the ESEA in which Congress instructed

that funding decisions and practice should adhere to scientifically based research.

These include the core academic subjects of reading, mathematics, and science,

school-wide reform models, early literacy programs in preschools, professional development of teachers, supplementary educational services, education of gifted and talented students, character education, educational technology, and programs for safe

and drug-free schools, among others.

We have a substantial and persuasive research base in only one of these topics,

learning how to read. However, even within reading, the research becomes substantially thinner when we move down the developmental range from learning to read

in early elementary school to getting ready to read in the preschool period, and up

the developmental range from learning to read in elementary school to reading to

learn, otherwise known as reading comprehension, at later points in schooling. In

the other core academic subjects of math and science, research has not progressed

to a level at which it is possible to make strong statements about which approaches

produce the strongest effects on academic achievement for which children in which

circumstances. In the education and professional development of teachers, we don’t

have research to answer dozens of fundamental policy issues about how to best train

and sustain teachers in order to enhance student learning. The ESEA authorizes

supplementary educational services, such as after-school tutoring, for children in

failing schools. Which tutoring programs work best for which types of academic skill

deficits? Sorry, we don’t know. How about comprehensive school reform? The ESEA

instructs local educational agencies to consider successful external models and to develop an approach to reform of their school that is derived from scientifically based

research. By one count, there are well over 100 comprehensive school reform models

from which a local educational agency might choose. Which of these are successful?

That is hard to say, because only a few have been subjected to research, and much

of that research isn’t sufficiently rigorous to permit strong conclusions about the effects of the models compared to business as usual, much less compared to each

other.

My point, and I apologize for making it repetitiously, is that there is a lot we don’t

know about how learners learn and how to deliver instruction effectively.

The extent of our ignorance is masked by a ‘‘folk wisdom’’ of education based on

the experience of human beings over the millennia in passing information and skills

from one generation to the next. This folk wisdom employs unsystematic techniques.

It doesn’t demand scientific knowledge of mechanisms of learning or organizational

principles or social processes. It is inefficient, and it is hit or miss. It lets us muddle

through when the tasks to be learned are simple, or in a highly elitist system in

which we only expect those with the most talent and most cultural support to learn

advanced skills. But it fails when the tasks to be learned are complex or when we

expect that no child will be left behind. The tasks to be learned in a 21st century

economy are without a doubt complex, and we have rightly decided that our education system must serve all learners well. We have to do better than we have done

in the past.

Consider the analogy of medicine. For thousands of years, folk remedies have been

used to cure disease or relieve symptoms. But the successes of modern medicine

have emerged in the last 75 years and derive from advances in the sciences of physiology and biochemistry that allowed us to understand the mechanisms of disease,

and from the wide use of randomized clinical trials to determine which prevention

and treatment approaches drawn from these sciences work as intended.

Or consider the analogy of agriculture. For thousands of years, humans barely

managed to avoid starvation by using agricultural methods that were passed from

generation to generation. The abundance of inexpensive and nutritious foods that

can be found at any neighborhood grocery store today results from agricultural practice that has moved from reliance on folk wisdom to reliance on science.

20

When we come to education, the picture is different. The National Research Council has concluded that ‘‘the world of education, unlike defense, health care, or industrial production, does not rest on a strong research base. In no other field are personal experience and ideology so frequently relied on to make policy choices, and in

no other field is the research base so inadequate and little used.’’ At the same time,

the National Research Council has concluded that scientific inquiry in education is

at its core the same as in all other fields. In other words, the core principles of scientific inquiry are as relevant for education as they are for medicine. There is every

reason to believe that, if we invest in the education sciences and develop mechanisms to encourage evidence-based practice, we will see progress and transformation

in education of the same order of magnitude as we have seen in medicine and agriculture. I believe we are at the dawn of exactly that process, and it is very exciting.

How quickly will the transformation of education into an evidence-based field

occur? The actions of this committee and the Congress as it considers the reauthorization of the research functions in the Department of Education will have a lot to

do with the answer to that question.

A number of significant changes are necessary so that we can operate consistently

with the standards of a science-based research agency and so that the research,

evaluation, and statistical activities we fund lead to solving problems and answering

questions of high relevance to education policy.

Before assuming my current position, I spent 31 years conducting research on

children’s learning. I am proud to say that some of that research has proven useful

to educators and parents. For the last 15 months, I have focused exclusively on

OERI, first as a consultant to the Department, and since July of last year as Assistant Secretary for Research and Improvement. My testimony today is informed both

by my background as a practicing scientist and by my experiences to date in leading

OERI.

I believe that we have made substantial progress in OERI over the last year. To

be specific, we have launched three major new cross-cutting research initiatives—

in reading comprehension, preschool curriculum, and learning in the classroom; we

have hired a number of key personnel, we have brought the responsibility for the

evaluation of the impact of Federal education programs into OERI and have designed a new generation of evaluations that will use scientifically rigorous randomized trials to provide definitive evidence of what works and what doesn’t; we have

helped the Department move toward a greater reliance on evidence in its delivery

of programs; we have implemented new procedures for peer review of applications

for research funding that are modeled on those used at the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) and that are working very well to help us select only the very best

proposals for funding; we have established a What Works Clearinghouse, which will

vet the evidence from research on education and make it available to decision-makers in easily understood forms; and we have put forward to the Congress as part

of the President’s fiscal year 2003 budget request an unprecedented and badly needed 44 percent increase in funding for our research functions and a 12 percent increase in funding for our statistics functions. I believe we have also created a positive buzz in the research community about the new OERI that helps us attract

strong applications and that enhances the participation of distinguished scientists

in our planning and review processes.

If you are willing to take my description of these successes at face value, you

might be tempted to draw the conclusion that the current OERI statute doesn’t need

fixing. Why not report out of this committee a bill that is pretty much the same

as current law?

Let me tell you why not: A lot of what we have accomplished in the last year has

been much more difficult than it should have been because of the current statute.

Further, I have been operating with a remarkable degree of support from within the

Department, the Administration, and Congress, and from many non-Federal organizations that are eager to see the Federal education research agency revitalized. Appreciative as I am for that support, it is natural for enthusiasms to wax and wane.

Further, I’m quite concerned that the alternative to progress will be backsliding and

entropy rather than the status quo. We need an authorizing statute under which

the Department’s research agency can develop and sustain a cumulative research

program, and we need it this year.

Here are some major problems in the current statute that should be corrected in

reauthorization.

Organizational Structure

Institutes. OERI is currently divided into four principal operational arms: (1) the

National Center for Education Statistics, which conducts surveys and assessments

to determine the condition of education; (2) the Office of Reform Assistance and DisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
21

semination, which monitors ten regional educational laboratories and administers a

large number of programs funded under the ESEA, (3) the National Library of Education, which manages a physical library in the Department of Education as well

as an electronic repository of documents in education called the Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse; and (4) the National Research Institutes, which

are five administrative units that manage research centers at universities and fieldinitiated grants to individual researchers.

This administrative structure is seriously problematic. The five national research

institutes have overlapping responsibilities, redundant personnel functions, and

statutory restrictions on funding that do not permit the agency to pursue a focused

agenda or to support significant programs of research. To be specific, the statute requires that an equal amount of the funds appropriated for research be made available to the Achievement and Assessment Institute and the At-Risk Institute; that

each of the five national research institutes use at least one-third of its share of the

research appropriation to fund university-based research and development centers

and at least one-fourth to fund field-initiated research (the statute does not permit

the agency to specify even broad topic areas for field-initiated research—individual

investigators choose both the topics and methods of study); and that not more than

10 percent of the total research appropriation (and not more than 33 percent of the

share for any particular institute) be used to fund cross-cutting research. Cross-cutting research is research that is germane to more than one institute and may be

carried out jointly by two or more institutes, or by one or more institutes jointly

with other offices in the Department or other agencies within the Federal Government.

Each of the initiatives we have launched this year is cross-cutting. Take our new

program of research in reading comprehension as an example. Should this be the

responsibility of the At-Risk Institute or the Achievement and Assessment Institute?

And isn’t it also an initiative of relevance to the Early Childhood Institute and the

Postsecondary and Adult Learning Institute? It is difficult to assemble staff outside

the Institute structure to focus on cross-cutting issues. And, most critically, we have

only been able to move ahead with our new programs based on bill language in our

appropriations statute that exempts the funds for new initiatives from the statutory

requirements for apportioning funds under the institute structure. The appropriators have done this since our statute expired in 1999 based on the assumption that

these funding strictures would be removed in reauthorization. I hope their assumption was correct, because it would be impossible to do the new work that needs to

be done under current law.

Centers. Another facet of this same problem lies in the current requirement that

at least one-third of institute funding go to research and development centers located at universities around the Nation. Centers are the major mechanism by which

OERI supported research prior to my arrival. Currently, there are 11 R&D centers.

Several have been funded for over 15 years. Some of the centers have performed

well and the center mechanism is one we intend to continue to use. However, centers have failed as the principal mechanism of supporting field-based research.

Why? First, an effective center needs to have scientists who work closely together

and interact frequently with the goal of solving a particular problem or closely connected set of problems. Too many of our centers end up being mail drops that serve

scholars scattered across the Nation.

Center support is parceled out to these scientists for individual projects that are

only loosely connected to each other, if connected at all, and the goal of the work—

the point at which success could be declared—is undefined. In effect, such centers

become intermediate funding agencies. We give them money, and then they give it

to other people under conditions that are much less competitive, much less strategic,

and involve much more overhead than would be the case if we skipped the center

mechanism entirely and parceled out the money ourselves. Second, centers as the

sole mechanism of support freeze out all those researchers who could be doing important work but aren’t part of the club. In the recent history of Federal funding

of education research, if you were not connected with a center you had scant prospects of continuous funding for a serious program of research. We need much more

capacity in the education research community than we currently enjoy. To get there,

we need to open up our funding process to all interested and competent parties, including those who are not a part of the existing education research community and

center structure.

Creating a Culture of Science

The recent National Research Council report on scientific research in education

concluded that building a scientific culture within the Department’s research agency

is a prerequisite for all else. This is my view as well. It is very important to underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
22

stand that successful research agencies, such as the NIH, embody a scientific culture because the people in the principal program management roles share the dispositions and training that characterize scientists. It is this shared culture, much

more than statutes, rules, and regulations, that supports high-quality research. My

experience in trying to increase the number of qualified scientists at OERI highlights the importance of our excepted service authority, which allows us to hire scientists for limited terms outside the regular civil service. OERI has had this authority for its entire existence, as do our sister research agencies. It is critical that it

be continued so that we can rotate scientists through the agency for limited terms

and under flexible conditions.

Building a scientific culture at the Department’s research agency also requires

stability in leadership and the shared sense that the organization can pursue its

agenda over the long-term.

Regulatory Burdens

The Department of Education is required, by section 437 of the General Education

Provisions Act, to take public comment on priorities for grant competitions before

funding announcements can be published. This can add up to 6 months to the time

necessary to make grants, and can push our grant-making into the final half to

third of each fiscal year. The provision makes sense in Education for programs that

deliver funding to State and local educational agencies where broad areas of the

public may have an immediate stake in the funding program and be motivated to

comment. However, our funding announcements are technical documents directed to

scientists. The period for public comment required under rulemaking has historically generated very little in the way of comment. Letting us use the same exemption that the NSF and the NIH use would have no downside that I have identified,

and would allow us to be much quicker on our feet in getting funding out the door.

Another regulator burden is the possible application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Our Office of General Counsel has informally advised that OERI

may be subject to FACA for the purposes of peer review if a panel that has fixed

membership, meets regularly and advises me or the Secretary. Such a panel would

have to be chartered as a Federal advisory committee. Because applications for

funding for scientific projects often include proprietary and privileged information

and because FACA requires open committee meetings, we do not want to charter

our peer review panels as Federal advisory committees. As a result, historically

OERI has not had standing peer review committees. Further, when peer review

panels meet just once they cannot provide a summary judgment on the quality of

applications. Standing review panels are an important tool in the competitive funding process in a science agency. It is critical that we be exempted from FACA for

peer review committees.

Budget Flexibility

We need more flexibility in authorization and appropriations. When there are separate authorizations for particular, narrow components of our work, there are two

predictable consequences. The first is that we are not able to move quickly into a

new area of activity that is important. The second is increased pressure to fund

work of lower than desirable quality so that we do not have to lapse funds. It would

be very helpful if legislation gave us the flexibility to direct funds among program

areas in response to project quality and national needs.

Nonpartisanship

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

outside community and Congress as more subject to political involvement than

would be the case for research conducted by the NIH or the NSF. Regardless of the

accuracy of that view, the perception that politics is driving research needs to be

avoided if we expect the Department’s research activities to have the force of scientific findings.

There are a number of ways that legislation could increase the perception and reality of nonpartisanship of the research process. A consolidated budget would help

because it would isolate the agency’s budget for personnel and supplies from the

core Department budget for those items. An agency staffed predominantly by scientists, who are committed by virtue of their training to the integrity of the research process, will contribute significantly to the goals of nonpartisanship and objectivity. Placing the responsibility for evaluation of Federal education programs in

a center for evaluation within the agency will provide useful distance between the

program evaluation and program management functions within the Department.

Research, statistics, and evaluation activities need to be based on sound science

and be independent of undue partisan influence. We look forward to working with

the Committee toward legislation that supports that goal.

23

Separation of Research and Program Delivery Functions

Our current statute, as well as previous administrative decisions, have led OERI

to be responsible for a large number of nonresearch programs. These include a number of ESEA programs such as character education, a large number of earmarks

through the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE), technology programs

such as Star Schools, and the regional education labs. We believe it is critically important to separate the research agency from the responsibility of delivering educational programs and technical assistance. Over the years, those activities have

been assigned to OERI in increasing numbers to the point that over two-thirds of

our budget is devoted to nonresearch programs. The agency responsible for evaluating program effectiveness and upholding high standards of evidence cannot fulfill

its role if it is directly delivering the very educational programs and technical assistance that it is supposed to evaluate. Further, the culture of science that is so important to establish within the agency is impeded when we need so many staff to engage in activities such as monitoring FIE earmarks that do not require scientific

training. Also, far too much of my and my senior staffs time has to be spent in overseeing these nonresearch activities. We need a solid intellectual connection between

scientific research and technical assistance, but in keeping With the recent National

Research Council report on scientific research in education. We believe it is very important to keep these types of activity operationally distinct.

The Regional Educational Laboratories

A very important instance of this general theme has to do with the role and function of the regional labs. I have spent considerable time over the last year getting

to know the labs and their work. It is a mixed picture. Some of the labs do work

that is considered quite valuable by their customers. Other labs are weaker in the

quality and value of the work they conduct. So, one issue with the labs is this substantial variability in quality and relevance. A second issue is defining their core

function. Is it applied research and development or is it technical assistance? Applied R&D in any field, including education, means the development of products

that are intended to address needs and then doing research on their effectiveness

until a final product is developed that successfully addresses the problem it was designed to solve. Some of the labs are actively involved in developing products and

programs. Others develop few products. However, even for those labs that do a lot

of product development, the research half of the R&D process usually gets short

shrift. None of the lab products I have examined has gone through the cycle of development, research-based evaluation, and revision that constitutes the full R&D

cycle. Instead, the products are developed and put into the field. Whether they

work, or how well they work, is never assessed in a rigorous way. From my perspective, we do not need to use Federal funds to sponsor the development and dissemination of unproven educational materials and products. Education is plagued with

that from the commercial and nonprofit sectors. We don’t need to support the expansion of the large evidence-free zone that already exists in education through the regional lab structure.

The labs have a unique and critical role to play in regional technical assistance.

The No Child Left Behind Act imposes a new and challenging set of requirements

on State and local educational agencies. States and schools need a lot of help in designing and implementing assessment and accountability systems, in training teachers in how to teach reading and math, in selecting curriculum and aligning it with

State standards, in recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff, and so on. The

Department has been engaged in a Herculean effort to help States and schools understand and implement the new law through a wide variety of meetings, workshops, printed materials, and web sites. However, the Department has few troops

on the ground to provide the follow-up and local assistance that educational agencies will need when the unavoidable problems and questions arise. The labs represent a resource for that assistance that could be extremely valuable if focused and

aligned with the implementation requirements of NCLB and other Federal programs, and if driven by the expressed needs of the State and local educational agencies within a region. The Department’s research agency is not the organizational

component that should be overseeing regional technical assistance, but it will be important to write legislation that takes advantage of the labs’ presence and expertise

in each region to provide technical assistance that meets local needs and that structures the labs functions so that the unevenness in the quality and relevance of their

work is addressed.

Funding

The entire research and statistics budget of OERI for fiscal year 2002 is less than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the Department’s discretionary budget. The core research and disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
24

semination budget for 2002, leaving out statistics, is only $122 million. The education research agency needs adequate resources in order to support a sustained

and cumulative research effort in its areas of responsibility. I am very pleased that

the President is committed to investments in education research. Accordingly, he

has proposed a 44 percent increase for fiscal year 2003 in our core research budget

and 12 percent in our statistics budget. This is an unprecedented increase. We need

the support of Congress in making an appropriation consistent with the President’s request so that we can move forward on the important work that needs to be done.

In an effort as large, complex, and important as this, informed, well-intentioned

individuals and groups will differ on details. Let us talk about those details and

compromise on those that seem to represent different routes to the same goal. However, we cannot and should not compromise on the end points. We need an invigorated agency that is capable of carrying out a coordinated, focused agenda of highquality research, statistics, and evaluation that is relevant to the educational challenges of the Nation, and that has sufficient flexibility to adjust to new opportunities and problems when they arise. This is a unique and unparalleled opportunity

to begin a process that will make American education an evidence-based field. If we

succeed in this task, historians may look back at our actions in the next weeks and

months as building the foundation for a new era in learning and teaching, an era

that propelled the U.S. into another century of preeminence.

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.

Senator REED. Now let me call up the second panel, please.

Senator CLINTON. May I have the courtesy, Senator Reed?

Senator REED. Absolutely, Senator Clinton.

Senator CLINTON. I have the pleasure to introduce Professor

LaMar Miller, who is here today from New York University’s Metropolitan Center for Urban Education, where he is the executive director of the Metro Center in the School of Education. Under his

direction the Metro Center works to provide assistance and services

to underserved populations, including children with disabilities,

with other disadvantages such as—low income, and limited English

proficiency.

He is also the principal director of the New York Technical Assistance Center, one of the centers authorized by OERI, and he

conducts and disseminates research in that capacity. He has authored and edited numerous publications and we are so delighted

that he could be here with us because he has a wealth of experience and a real commitment to the underserved children who are

often overlooked in a lot of what we are doing.

So thank you, Senator, for letting me say a few words for the

home team here.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Clinton.

Now let me turn to Senator Frist, who would like to introduce

our witness from Tennessee.

Senator FRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to introduce the next witness on this

panel from my home State of Tennessee, Commissioner of Education Faye Taylor. Commissioner Taylor has been on the very

front lines of education, fighting for Tennessee’s children for the

past 30 years.

She has served as a classroom teacher, a reading resource teacher, a Title I teacher, a principal, a supervisor, and the director of

elementary education and curriculum development for the State

Department of Education. She currently serves on the board for the

University of Tennessee, the Tennessee Board of Regents, Accountability Works, Incorporated, Tennessee Tomorrow, and the State

Workforce Development Board. She also serves as the secretarytreasurer for the Education Leaders Council, as co-chair of the TenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
25

nessee P–16 Council, and as a member of the Early Periodic

Screening Diagnosis Treatment Commissioner’s Task Force.

Miss Taylor graduated with honors from Middle Tennessee State

University and holds endorsements in both elementary and secondary education. She earned a masters and an education specialist

degree in administration and supervision from Austin Peay State

University and has completed course work toward a doctorate at

Tennessee State University.

Most recently, Miss Taylor has been working tirelessly to assure

passage of charter school legislation within the Tennessee State

legislature. Just last week the State Senate voted 30 to 1 in favor

of charter school legislation. Largely due to her leadership, for the

first time in 10 years, both State legislative chambers have approved a bill allowing charter schools.

Commissioner Taylor, I want to personally thank you for taking

time out of your extremely chaotic schedule to share your knowledge, your hands-on experience with the Senate Health, Education,

Labor and Pension Committee. Your testimony will be greatly appreciated.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Frist.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Dr. Michael Nettles. Dr. Nettles has been professor of Education at the University of Michigan

since 1992 and is a prominent policy researcher on educational assessment, student performance and achievement, educational equity and higher education finance policy. Also a widely published

researcher in education, he currently is the vice-chair of the National Assessment Governing Board and I am very interested to

hear your testimony on the necessity for viable and reliable educational testing.

Senator REED. Thank you all for being here and Dr. Nettles, if

you would please begin.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL NETTLES, VICE-CHAIR, NATIONAL

ASSISTANT GOVERNING BOARD; LAMAR MILLER, DIRECTOR,

THE COMPREHENSIVE CENTERS; AND FAYE TAYLOR, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION

Mr. NETTLES. Thank you very much, Senator Reed. I am really

pleased and honored to be before the committee to testify on the

reauthorization of NAEP and NAGB. I will not be addressing OERI

generally except to the extent that it relates to NAEP.

As you mentioned, Senator, I am vice-chair of the National Assessment Governing Board and a professor at the University of

Michigan, father of three young daughters and I am personally and

professionally interested in the quality of education in the country.

I was originally appointed by Lamar Alexander when he was secretary of education to be on the National Assessment Governing

Board and reappointed by Secretary Riley. I am a native Tennessean, as well, Senator Frist, and have my baccalaureate degree

from the University of Tennessee, grew up in Nashville.

No Child Left Behind is an important new act, new law for the

country. Through the leadership of President Bush and the Congress, the No Child Left Behind makes education a really high domestic priority for our country. It has been observed that too few

26

of our students read and write and compute well enough. Now we

have a really clear goal that all children will achieve at high levels

regardless of economic status, race, ethnicity, disability or limited

English proficiency.

Tracking the progress of children in the country is a really essential and important part of No Child Left Behind and NAEP, the

National Assessment of Educational Progress, has been designated

to serve in a prominent role in this new law. NAEP has been expanded as a consequence of No Child Left Behind. In 2003 and

every year thereafter every State must participate in the National

Assessment of Educational Progress in grades four and eight in

reading and mathematics as a condition for receiving Title I funding. The public confidence and trust and credibility and independence of the National Assessment of Educational Progress and its

objectivity and independence has never been more important.

The NAEP results are the only source of comparable State data

for the 50 States. NAEP reports, the National Assessment of Education Progress reports, will receive greater scrutiny and attention

as a consequence of this new role. The public confidence in No

Child Left Behind is partly dependent upon its confidence in the

objectivity of NAEP. Will the data be objective and who will be accountable to the public for the results of the assessments? Are

there sufficient safeguards to resist political pressure to show improvements in the National Assessment of Educational Progress?

These are critical questions that I think are before this committee

as it moves forward in this reauthorization.

The solution here, we think, is to renew and strengthen the independence of NAEP in the governance of the National Assessment

of Educational Progress by transferring operational responsibility

for the NAEP to the National Assessment Governing Board.

NAEP has had a long history in the country, about 32 years, 33

years now, and it has been through three distinctive periods. The

first period was from 1969 to about 1988. During that period the

NAEP was administered through a grant from the Department of

Education through the National Center for Education Statistics,

first to the education commission of the States and then to the

Educational Testing Service.

After a national commission that was headed by Lamar Alexander and distinguished educator James, Secretary Bennett recommended and this committee approved the establishment of the

National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for NAEP. That

has represented the second era and has been the last 14 years. We

view the No Child Left Behind bringing the national assessment

into yet a third major critical era of expansion and we think that

it calls for an alteration and change in the governance structure.

NAEP is in a unique position because it has the greatest visibility among the assessment programs in the country and will be

looked upon by the citizens of the country as a measurement

against which State assessments will be gauged. We think that this

calls for NAEP to have greater independence to establish its own

credibility.

This is not a new idea. This was first suggested in 1994 by the

Congressional Research Service. It has also been written into sevVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
27

eral subcommittee laws that never have been passed but have been

mentioned before.

The board itself has distinguished composition. There are two

governors on the board of NAGB. Governor Kempthorne and Governor Musgrove are on the board. There are two legislators. We

sometimes think of it as the Noah’s arc of governing boards. It has

almost two of everything—superintendents and principals and distinguished teachers. We even have the most recent teacher of the

year, Marlin Whirry, on our board.

The current board is appointed by the secretary of education but

beyond that, the board has great independence to operate. There is,

however, a great deal of shared ambiguity between the policy-setting aspect of the board and the operations of the National Assessment. The National Assessment is administered by the National

Center for Education Statistics and the policy board, NAGB, sets

policy for it.

Now there are no legislative requirements that NCES follow

board policy and this very often relies upon the personalities that

are in office to succeed in functioning. We have been quite successful but there have been times in which we have recognized that

like any board of directors, the National Assessment Governing

Board has needed to have responsibility and authority for the CEO.

Senator, we think that the assistant secretary has made a very

important point in distinguishing between research and the operations as a critical point and we view the National Assessment of

Educational Progress as an operational activity, not a research activity. We need to have independence to be able to rely upon the

best research, whether it is conducted and funded by the Department of Education or conducted and funded independently, and

that is another reason why we think that this should happen.

I am not going to address the specific aspects of the House bill.

I would be happy to entertain questions about it in the conversation that we may have afterwards. I will just conclude with the

central point; that is that we believe that the new demands on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress requires that it have

greater independence and we would like to suggest that probably

the best way for that to happen is for you to transfer the operational responsibilities for the National Assessment to the National

Assessment Governing Board. Thank you.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Dr. Nettles.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nettles follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NETTLES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to

be testifying before you today on the reauthorization of the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) and the National Assessment Governing Board.

My name is Michael Nettles. I am Vice-Chairman of the National Assessment

Governing Board and a professor of education at the University of Michigan. As the

father of three young daughters, I have a personal interest in the quality of education.

This is a critical time for our Nation’s schools. Too few of our students read, write,

and compute well enough. Through the leadership of the President and Congress

in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act, education was made our highest domestic

priority.

There is widespread commitment to reach the vision of No Child Left Behind—

all children achieving at high levels of proficiency regardless of economic status,

28

race, ethnicity, disability, or limited English proficiency. And there is consensus that

we must regularly track our progress toward this essential goal.

The need for valid, reliable, credible information on student achievement has

never been greater than it is today. The No Child Left Behind Act calls on the National Assessment to fulfill this need in a new and expanded manner. For thirty3 years, the National Assessment has monitored national student achievement at

grades 4, 8, and 12 (and ages 9, 13, and 17) in key subjects, including reading, writing, mathematics, and science. On a voluntary basis beginning in 1990, NAEP allowed States to receive their own results. Under No Child Left Behind, starting in

2003, States must participate in NAEP reading and mathematics assessments in

grades 4 and 8 every other year as a condition of receiving Title I funds. Now, not

some States, but every State will be participating in the National Assessment.

As the only source of student achievement data that can be compared across

States, National Assessment results undoubtedly will receive much attention when

its reports are released to the American public. However, greater attention to National Assessment results brings with it ever higher expectations for public credibility.

As recent experience of the States has shown, loss of public confidence in the tests

used to measure results is one of the greatest threats to achieving higher standards

for all students. If fault is found with the tests, the public loses faith in the schools’ ability to achieve the standards. Clearly, public confidence in No Child Left Behind

will be partially dependent upon the public’s trust in the National Assessment.

NAEP results will be subject to intense scrutiny when the reading and mathematics data under No Child Left Behind are released beginning in 2003. This is because they will serve as a point of comparison with the States’ performance on their

own tests. Will the data be pure and apolitical or will they be fudged? Are the safeguards currently in place for NAEP’s integrity sufficient to resist intense pressure

to show ‘‘improved’’ achievement? Public credibility of the NAEP results will be inextricably tied to the perception that NAEP is independent, free of external manipulation or political entanglements. Now is the time to renew and strengthen the independence of NAEP and its governance.

My testimony today is limited specifically to NAEP and the Governing Board. I

will not be addressing broader issues related to the structure or functions of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, except to the extent that they may

affect the National Assessment.

After providing some background about the National Assessment and its increasingly complex and consequential role, my testimony will address the following

themes:

• The impact of No Child Left Behind on the National Assessment

• The importance of NAEP’s independence

• The implications for legislation

Background

Mr. Chairman, since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress,

sometimes referred to as NAEP or the Nation’s Report Card, has been our only continuing source of national information on U.S. student achievement at the elementary and secondary levels. The National Assessment is widely praised for its quality

and noted for its integrity.

In 1988, with your leadership, the participation then of Committee Members Senator Dodd, Senator Mikulski, and then Representative Jeffords, widespread bipartisan support, and the support of the Reagan Administration, the National Assessment was expanded to allow for the reporting—for the first time in NAEP’s history—of State level results. With the encouragement of the Department of Education, headed by Secretary William Bennett, Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board, a citizen body independent of the Department of Education, to oversee and set policy for NAEP.

Your bill to expand and restructure the National Assessment, S. 1700, was introduced on September 17, 1987, only 9 months after the release of the recommendations of the Study Group on the Nation’s Report Card. The twenty-two member

Study Group was commissioned by Secretary Bennett, chaired by Governor Lamar

Alexander, co-chaired by distinguished educator Thomas James, and included Senator Clinton, then First Lady of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, your bill became a part

of the Hawkins-Stafford Act, approved almost unanimously in both chambers, and

signed by President Reagan on April 28, 1988. Clearly, the changes to the National

Assessment were made on a bipartisan basis and bipartisan consensus continues to

be a hallmark of the National Assessment.

The Study Group recommendations for the National Assessment followed the release of ‘‘A Nation at Risk,’’ the report that called for high standards and accountVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
29

ability in education on the one hand, while frustrated State policymakers on the

other, were faced with the paucity of information and lack of comparability of student achievement data across States. In recommending a sea change in the National

Assessment—the conduct of regular State assessments—the Study Group was keenly aware of the desire for such information on the part of governors and chief State

school officers and foresaw the importance of the independence of the National Assessment and its governance as a consequence of this expansion of NAEP’s role.

‘‘The governance and policy direction of the national assessment should be furnished by a broadly representative [body] that provides wisdom, stability, and continuity; that is charged with meshing the assessment needs of States and localities

with those of the nation; that is accountable to the public—and to the Federal Government—for stewardship of this important activity; but that is itself buffered from

manipulation by any individual, level of government, or special interest within the

field of education.’’ (The Nation’s Report Card, page 8.)

Mr. Chairman, the independence of the National Assessment was important in

1988. It is doubly important now, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001. Recent painful experience in the business world reminds us how important

true independence is for the integrity of an audit-like function. Whether reporting

profits to share holders or a portrait of student achievement to the public, data will

be trusted if perceived as independently produced, free of conflicting interests, and

safeguarded from manipulation. No Child Left Behind requires all States to participate in the National Assessment every 2 years, beginning in 2003. It is essential

that NAEP be valid, reliable, and credible, in reality and in public perception. I will

return to the connection between public credibility and an independent National Assessment later in my testimony.

NAEP’s Usefulness

I am a long-time fan of the National Assessment. The late Albert Shanker called

it a treasure for our Nation. He was correct. The National Assessment is our only

continuing source of credible student achievement information at the national level

and one of the most important sources for State leaders on the educational outcomes

from the collective $400 billion annual investment in student learning.

NAEP was once little known except to a small number of educational researchers.

Today, National Assessment data are widely used by national and State policymakers. Although NAEP uses the best research about testing, the National Assessment itself is not a research activity. NAEP is a fully operational assessment program, with a schedule of assessments set through the year 2012 and periodic reports to the American public on what our students know and can do in a range of

important subjects.

National Assessment results are regularly front-page news. National Assessment

results are frequently quoted by Members of Congress. Forty States or more, on a

voluntary basis, have been using the National Assessment to track their progress

over time, to validate their own State test results, to examine their academic standards, and to compare their performance with other States.

State-by-state comparisons can be done using the National Assessment that cannot be done with any other test or source of information. State tests are not comparable because the content of State tests, the grades tested, and the test administration procedures are as varied as the States themselves. Thus, State test results

cannot be ‘‘added up’’ to get a national result. Other well-established tests, such as

those used for college admissions, cannot provide state-by-state or nationally representative results because they are taken by a nonrandom subset of the population,

not by a scientifically drawn sample that validly represents the Nation or a particular State. On the other hand, NAEP’s samples are nationally and State-representative.

Others use National Assessment data, too. The National Assessment figured

prominently in the annual reports of the National Education Goals Panel. Education

Week relies heavily on the National Assessment in its annual publication ‘‘Education Counts.’’ Governors, State legislators, and chief State school officers depend

on and want more National Assessment State-level results.

Not just NAEP data, but other products and services are widely used by teachers,

curriculum specialists, parents, administrators and the public. The Governing Board

has distributed, upon request, thousands of copies of NAEP test frameworks—the

test blueprint that describes the content and construction of the assessment for each

subject. Hundreds of test questions have been released to the public and can be

downloaded from the NAEP website. There even is an easy to use tool that permits

the public to analyze NAEP data online. NAEP data, products, and services are easily accessible to those who wish to use them, and many do.

30

NAEP’s Integrity and Independence

The National Assessment is in demand because it occupies a unique place among

the many varied testing programs in the U.S. It is the only source of state-comparable results. Its data are trusted. Its policy setting and operations are conducted

in the sunlight. Its credibility and integrity have been established the old-fashioned

way. They have been earned over three decades.

Unique position, trust, credibility, integrity—these positive attributes make the

National Assessment attractive for monitoring education achievement. Undoubtedly,

these attributes of the National Assessment figured prominently in the major role

assigned it by the No Child Left Behind Act.

However, with the National Assessment’s heightened visibility will come new

pressures and challenges. The issue is that the more important the results, the

greater the political attention to NAEP and, consequently, the greater the need to

provide a buffer from ‘‘political spin’’ and partisan politics. Although this may sound

‘‘academic’’ or theoretical now, it will become very real in 2003 and 2005 when the

first rounds of National Assessment State results are released. It is difficult to overstate for the coming decade the importance of this valid, reliable, credible measure

for educational improvement. This demands a National Assessment that is independent and unfettered by entanglements with partisan politics or special interests.

A way to achieve this independence is to assign operational responsibility for the

NAEP program to the citizen Board that now oversees and sets policy for it—the

National Assessment Governing Board.

Later in my testimony, I will describe NAEP-related roles and responsibilities in

more detail. For now, I will just explain it as a bifurcated arrangement in which

the Governing Board sets policy for NAEP and the Commissioner and staff of the

National Center for Education Statistics administer the NAEP program operations.

Administering program operations includes overseeing contractors who prepare test

booklets, administer the tests, analyze the data, and draft the reports.

Assigning NAEP’s program operations to the Governing Board increases the independence of the National Assessment by removing it several steps from political control and putting it in the hands of citizen policymakers. The idea of turning NAEP

operations over to the Governing Board was first advanced in a Congressional Research Service report on NAEP reauthorization. Assigning the Governing Board the

role of administering the National Assessment was also a prominent part of a bill

from the last Congress, H.R. 4875, passed unanimously by the House Early Childhood, Youth and Families Subcommittee. And the Governing Board does have operational experience in a number of areas critical to the conduct of the National Assessment: selecting the subjects to assess, deciding on the content and methodology

of the assessment, approving all test questions, and setting the standards for reporting results.

The Governing Board, by its very composition, advances the credibility of the assessment, with its strong emphasis on State and local perspectives and mix of policymakers, educators, test experts and parents: two governors and two State legislators on a bipartisan basis, two chief State school officers, a State and a local board

of education member, a school district superintendent, a private school administrator, three teachers, two principals, two parents, a representative of business, two

members of the public, and test and curriculum specialists.

Highly distinguished individuals serve on the Governing Board. They include:

Melanie Campbell, Fourth-grade Teacher, Topeka Kansas; Dr. Wilmer Cody, Former

Kentucky Commissioner of Education; Dr. Daniel Domenech, Superintendent of

Schools, Fairfax County, Virginia; Edward Donley, former Chairman, Air Products

& Chemicals, Inc., Allentown Pennsylvania; Dr. Thomas Fisher, Director of Student

Testing, State of Florida; Dr. Edward Haertel, Professor, School of Education, Stanford University: Juanita Haugen, School Board Member, Pleasanton, California;

Hon. Dirk Kempthorne, Governor of Idaho: Hon. Nancy Kopp, former Maryland

State Legislator (now State Treasurer): Hon. Ronnie Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi: Mark Musick, Governing Board Chair and President, Southern Regional

Education Board; Roy Nageak, Sr., Member, Alaska State Board of Education; Dr.

Michael Nettles. Governing Board Vice Chair and Professor of Education, University

of Michigan: Debra Paulson, Eighth-grade Mathematics Teacher, El Paso, Texas;

Hon. Jo Ann Pottorff, Kansas State Legislator; Dr. Diane Ravitch, Research Professor, New York University; Sister Lourdes Sheehan, R.S.M., Secretary for Education,

U.S. Catholic Conference; John Stevens, Executive Director, Texas Business and

Education Coalition; Migdania Vega, Principal, Miami, Florida; Dr. Deborah Voltz,

Professor of Special Education, University of Louisville: Dr. Michael Ward, North

Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction; Marilyn Whirry, 2000 Teacher of the

Year; Dr. Dennie Palmer Wolf, Director, Annenberg Institute, Brown University.

31

The Governing Board’s members are exceptionally well qualified to achieve the

delicate balance needed for its mission of ‘‘meshing the assessment needs of States

and localities with those of the Nation.’’

Roles and Responsibilities

The 1988 expansion of NAEP necessitated the creation of the Governing Board.

While the Board has steadfast carried out its duties faithfully and effectively, the

experience of fourteen years has surfaced a problem in the respective roles and responsibilities of the Department’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

and the Governing Board. Board Chair Mark Musick, in testimony on May 11, 2000

before the Early Childhood, Youth, and Families Subcommittee, referred to the

problem as ‘‘shared ambiguity’’ in roles and responsibilities. Let me explain what

we mean by ‘‘shared ambiguity’’ and how it can be a problem for the independence

of the National Assessment and, consequently, for No Child Left Behind.

Under current law, the Governing Board is responsible for setting policy for the

National Assessment. But the Board does not administer NAEP. That is done by

NCES. However, organizationally speaking, there is not a line relationship between

NCES and the Board. NCES is a part of OERI, and reports to the Secretary through

the Department’s Assistant Secretary for Research and Improvement. Without a

line relationship, or a legislative requirement, NCES is not obliged to follow Governing Board policy in conducting NAEP.

It is important to remember, too, that the NCES Commissioner administers many

program areas other than NAEP, for which the Board has no role, including higher

education, international education, longitudinal studies in elementary and secondary education, and the annual ‘‘Condition of Education’’ report. Thus, the governance of NAEP is a special case within NCES, the only one for which an external

Board sets policy. Where the conduct of the NAEP program is concerned, NCES has

several ‘‘masters,’’ which is unsound and unwise. More to the point, it is not good

for the NAEP program.

Although the NAEP legislation requires the Commissioner to report to the Board

on implementation by NCES of the Board’s decisions, the legislation does not specifically require the Commissioner to follow those decisions. The relationship between NCES and NAGB is akin to a local Board of Education that sets policy for

a school district but has no authority over the Superintendent, or a corporate Board

of Directors to whom the CEO has no direct accountability.

So you can see why I call this ‘‘shared ambiguity.’’ Some think of the NAEP governance structure as a set of checks and balances, which was appropriate in 1988,

when NAEP’s expansion to State level reporting was experimental and the newly

created independent citizens’ Board was untried. But State level reporting is a clear

success and the Governing Board has fourteen productive years behind it. What

seemed appropriate as a system of checks and balances given the circumstances in

1988 should not be permitted to become a recipe for paralysis in 2002. The expectation in school administration and the world of business, and virtually all effective

organizations, is for clear lines of authority and accountability between policy setting and policy execution. Congress should set no lower expectation for the governance and conduct of the National Assessment. This is especially true given the role

of NAEP under No Child Left Behind.

Although ‘‘shared ambiguity’’ has been made to work, it is due solely to the personal characteristics of the individuals involved, not to the logic of the organizational relationships. But the integrity of the National Assessment and the trust of

the public are too precious to leave up to good will, personalities, and, in a word,

chance. The NAEP legislation should ensure that the policy setting, operations, and

reporting of the National Assessment are insulated from partisan politics and special interests. It should provide for NAEP policy, operations, and reporting together

under the Governing Board—still independent of, but attached to the Department

of Education, with Board members appointed by the Secretary—rather than under

two separate organizations.

No Child Left Behind Implementation

The No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law on January 8, 2002. The Act

amends the National Assessment and assigns new duties to the Governing Board.

The Governing Board has acted with dispatch to carry out the law. Our Chairman,

Mark Musick, has sent letters describing the Board’s plans and decisions to implement the Act to each Member of the Senate HELP Committee and the House Education and the Workforce Committee (following enactment on January 16, 2002, following the March Board meeting on March 14, and following the May Board meeting on June 6). The three letters include policy statements adopted by the Board

and describe the Board’s actions to:

32

• Change the design and methodology of the assessment to provide for reporting

within 6 months of the completion of testing. • Amend the schedule of assessments to provide for biennial assessments in 4th

and 8th grade reading and mathematics and to realign the timing of assessments

in other subjects in accordance with legislative priorities. • Adopt new Board policies pursuant to legislative changes under the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001: (1) Public access to NAEP questions; (2) A process for submitting complaints to the Governing Board; (3) NAEP test framework development;

(4) NAEP test question development and review; (5) Collection and reporting of

NAEP background information; (6) The NAEP long-term trend assessments; (7) Preventing the use of NAEP to influence State and local standards, tests, and curricula.

Following the Governing Board’s next meeting in August, we will again provide

a written update on our activities related to No Child Left Behind.

H.R. 3801

The House bill on OERI reauthorization, H.R. 3801, is comprehensive in scope,

creating an Academy of Education Sciences that adds statistics gathering and evaluation functions to those currently included in the OERI authorizing statute. It is

beyond the Board’s purview to address the bill’s provisions generally. However, we

do believe that certain provisions in H.R. 3801 could exacerbate the ambiguity of

authority over NAEP that exists, rather than lessen it.

H.R. 3801 establishes an Academy of Education Sciences, headed by an Academy

Director and a new policy and governing board, mandated to set policy for the entire

Academy. The National Assessment and the Governing Board are established outside the Academy, under a separate title of the bill. However, as is the case now,

the bill provides that NAEP shall be administered by the Commissioner of Education Statistics. The Commissioner and all of the activities conducted in the statistics center of the Academy would be subject to the supervision of the Academy Director and the policies of the Academy Board. H.R. 3801 also amends NAEP itself,

transferring authority from the Commissioner to the Academy Director for awarding

NAEP contracts. In addition, the duties of the Academy Director overlap with the

duties of the Governing Board in several key areas including: assessment methodology, technical review, and reporting.

Because explicit exceptions for NAEP are absent from the bill, H.R. 3801 increases the potential for conflict with the Governing Board over authority over

NAEP. For example, and most importantly, H.R. 3801 does not specify that, where

NAEP is concerned, the Commissioner is to follow the guidance of and defer to the

decisions of the Governing Board. Without such a requirement, NAEP operations

could be ‘‘held hostage’’ should there be a disagreement between the Academy and

the Governing Board. This could result in delays in operations, untimely reporting,

and a loss of credibility.

Another area of potential conflict is in reporting procedures. NAEP’s public credibility is rooted in its independence in reporting student achievement results. H.R.

3801 gives the Academy Director authority for the release of all reports prepared

within the Academy, and there is no explicit exception for how the release of NAEP

data is to be handled. At the same time, the NAEP legislation (both current and

as specified in H.R. 3801) requires the Governing Board to ‘‘develop guidelines for

reporting and disseminating results.’’ Under this latter provision, no NAEP report

is released without Governing Board review of the report and without approval in

advance of a release plan submitted to the Board by NCES, practices that have been

in effect for almost fourteen years. Again, without an explicit exception for NAEP

and clearer lines of authority, disagreements could arise that would jeopardize the

timely release of NAEP results.

H.R. 3801 provides that the Secretary will receive an advance copy of all reports

30 days prior to release. Again, there is no exception for NAEP. We suggest instead

that, not just the Secretary, but also the Chair and ranking minority members of

the Senate and House authorizing committees, should be sent advance copies of

NAEP reports after the contents have been reviewed and finalized, presumably by

the Governing Board. However, the advance period should be significantly shorter

than 30 days, perhaps a few days to a week. This is for two reasons. First, a shorter

advance period enhances the public perception of independence of the data and freedom from manipulation. Second, a shorter advance period also shortens report production time, so that data can be released to the public more promptly.

We believe that H.R. 3801 in its current form increases the ambiguity and uncertainty about the governance and conduct of the National Assessment. It thus jeopardizes the National Assessment’s integrity and credibility at the very time when

these should be strengthened. The success of No Child Left Behind depends to a

large extent on public trust in the information it receives about student achieveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
33

ment. Uncertainty can breed mistrust and this is no time for any erosion of confidence in the National Assessment. Whether the problem is defined as ‘‘shared ambiguity’’ or ‘‘having too many cooks.’’ it is very important that the issues we have

identified be resolved in final authorizing legislation.

Summary and Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Committee on

this timely and important subject. Just as ‘‘A Nation at Risk’’ served in 1983 as a

stake in the ground to prompt almost two decades of significant education reform

efforts in the States across our Nation, so will ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ serve as a

second stake, prompting a greater focus on standards, redoubling efforts to produce

results, and relying more heavily on systematic student achievement data to mark

our progress.

And just as the need for quality, credible information in the 1980’s led to NAEP’s

expansion to provide State level results and to the establishment of a revised governance structure, so do the demands of the coming decade, with a further expansion of NAEP State results, suggest a need for further revisions to NAEP governance.

It is likely that there will be great attention paid when NAEP reading and mathematics results are released in 2003 and every 2 years thereafter. It is essential,

therefore, that the National Assessment go forward on firm footing. In reauthorizing

the National Assessment, our Nation’s report card, primary attention should be

given to making it more independent, ensuring that it is buffered from partisan political influence, and clarifying roles and responsibilities in its governance by transferring authority for NAEP operations and reporting to the National Assessment

Governing Board. Sound ‘‘constitutional’’ arrangements will ensure the independence of the National Assessment and its credibility to the public in supplying crucial

information on the achievement of students in our schools.

Senator REED. Before I recognize Dr. Miller let me request that

the record remain open until the end of the day to allow members

to submit statements and questions and without objection, that will

be ordered.

Dr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I wanted to publicly thank Senator Clinton for that kind introduction.

Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, I am

pleased to have this opportunity to share with you my views regarding the important role that technical assistance can play in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.

I represent the Metro Center, which is one of the 15 Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers that provide technical assistance

to States, school districts, schools and other educational entities.

Our specific service area is in the State of New York.

Congress created the Comprehensive Centers in 1994 to provide

technical assistance services for implementing school reform strategies primarily in low-performing, high poverty area schools. Therefore I want to define what I mean by technical assistance. I mean

the use of knowledge generated by scientifically based research to

improve the adoption and implementation of educational practices

targeted toward students. This definition suggests that legislation

needs to focus on the translation of research into practice as

strongly as it focuses on the understanding and meaning of scientifically based research and what works. In other words, research

has to find its way all the way to the classroom. Technical assistance is important because it is the key to long-term continuous

change for the expressed purpose of implementing priorities in Federal legislation.

The Comprehensive Centers established in 1994 have been involved in five key types of services. First is direct assistance in deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
34

signing and improving instructional programs in high poverty

schools. Second, training and professional development activities

for teachers and administrators. Third, information dissemination

on current research and best practices in forms that are useful to

school staff. Fourth, collaboration services in linking schools with

each other and the community, forging strategic partnerships, helping educators build networks for support and continuous learning.

And finally, advice and consultation and the implementation of relevant policies, particularly in the very complicated No Child Left

Behind Act.

But this morning I want to talk quickly with you about three

topics: one, how the Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

are making a real positive difference in the classroom; second, to

describe six basic ways that Congress can strengthen the technical

assistance system in order to help improve the academic performance of all children; and third, I want to tell you why the centers

are unique positioned to help implement the No Child Left Behind

Act.

First of all, the Comprehensive Centers are already benefitting

children, teachers and families in communities across the country.

For example, in New York City we have a technical assistance program with 47 of the lowest-performing schools in collaboration with

the New York City Board of Education, which we have now been

doing for the last 3 years. This profile of success speaks well for

the expert services that centers can bring to bear in helping lowperforming, high poverty students succeed.

I believe we can benefit more students in more communities by

strengthening the technical assistance infrastructure and I have

six recommendations for how this can be done in the reauthorization of the Federal education research programs.

Recommendation number one: strengthen and expand the overall

system of knowledge utilization currently supported and administered by the Department of Education. Our technical assistance

program is part of a larger knowledge utilization system that includes research, development, dissemination, professional development. To improve technical assistance the larger system also needs

to be improved.

Recommendation number two: sustain the basic technical assistance infrastructure of the Comprehensive Centers. The centers

have already established a specialized capacity for providing high

quality research-based technical assistance. To ensure that No

Child Left Behind Act is effectively and efficiently implemented,

the Comprehensive Centers infrastructure should be maintained

while making a number of refinements and enhancements. This

will also enhance efforts already under way in the Department of

Education and make sure the priorities actually get to the classroom.

The third recommendation: increase the investment in Comprehensive Centers to address greater demand. In response to the

strong accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act,

it is anticipated that States, districts, tribes, and schools will have

a significant increase in the demand for technical assistance to

help them turn around low-performing schools. And in fact, it is esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
35

timated that this year alone there are 5,000 to 7,000 more schools

that are going to be identified as low-performing schools.

Recommendation number four: align the Comprehensive Centers’

mission with the No Child Left Behind Act. The Comprehensive

Centers should be utilized to implement effectively the reform initiatives specified in the act.

And number five: establish core services for the Comprehensive

Centers. In other words, one of those core services should be to specifically work with those identified low-performing schools that are

on the increase.

And the final recommendation is to build the improved technical

assistance systems on the data, on the data that comes from geographic and demographic factors. We must take into consideration

demographics, included but not limited to the total number of students in a region or State, numbers of limited English-proficient

students, numbers of Title I students, and those on free and reduced lunch.

States, districts, tribes, other grantees do not currently have the

capacity to implement a number of the key provisions of the No

Child Left Behind Act, particularly in such areas as accountability,

assessments, flexibility, teacher quality, and low-performing

schools. The Comprehensive Centers have the experience and the

expertise to help the U.S. Department of Education effectively implement the new law in every State throughout the country.

Candidly, I do not know if there is any other system that is as

uniquely qualified as the Comprehensive Centers are. We are very

proud of our service to the Nation’s children and schools and I hope

that with the continuing interest and support of Congress, the

Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers can continue working

to ensure that no child is left behind.

Senator FRIST. [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Miller.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAMAR P. MILLER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am LaMar P. Miller, Professor

of Education and Executive Director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education at New York University. I am pleased to have this opportunity to share with

you my views regarding the important role of Technical Assistance (TA) to support

the new legislation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

At the Metro Center we operate one of the 15 Comprehensive Centers located

across the country that provide TA to States, school districts, schools, tribes and

other educational entities. Our specific service area is the State of New York. As

part of this network of Centers we have had the opportunity to observe first hand,

both the strengths and pitfalls of Technical Assistance.

My interest is in commenting on how TA can be strengthened in the legislation.

I should like to cover four important points. First is the definition of TA. Second

is why TA is important. Third are special challenges that TA providers face. And

finally, what I believe is needed to strengthen the system.

Definition

A working definition of TA might be stated as follows: TA is a means of using

knowledge generated by scientifically based research to improve the adoption and implementation of educational practices that are targeted toward students.

This definition suggests that the legislation needs to focus on the transition of research into practice as strongly as it focuses on the understanding and meaning of

scientifically based research and what works. More importantly, when Federal funds

are provided to support Federal priorities, there must be a network of federally

monitored TA providers to ensure that the messages of the Federal Government are

faithfully transmitted all the way to the classroom.

36

We need to keep one guiding principal in mind, the major goal is capacity building. TA should happen with people and for people but never to people. An effective

system of TA can do this by emphasizing needs analysis, solidifying and nurturing

relationships, and involving clients in the planning, implementation and evaluation

of TA efforts.

What kind of services do the CCs provide?

Direct assistance in designing and improving instructional programs in high-poverty schools; • Training and staff development activities for teachers and administrators; • Information dissemination on current research and best practices in forms that

are useful to school staff. • Collaboration services in linking schools with each other and the community,

forging strategic partnerships, helping educators build networks for support and

continuous learning. • Advice and consultations in implementing relevant policies and developing

strategies to optimize the use of resources.

Some key examples of technical assistance currently offered by comprehensive

centers include: • A think tank collaborative that has brought together representatives from the

New York State Education Department, The New York City Board of Education,

The New York Teacher Center, The Regional Lab, and The States Regional Schools

Support Center to coordinate CSRD and related services.

• TA to empowered networks of low performing schools to address specific issues

such as math, and reading by providing sustained professional development.

A network of centers that address the issues of migrant education by focusing on

English language learners and by offering a series of ongoing workshops and opportunities for teachers of migrant children.

What is special and unique about the CCs work that others don’t do?

The CCs have a uniquely focused expertise in:

• Implementing the programs authorized in NCLBA

• Serving the specialized populations identified in NCLBA programs

• Serving the specialized populations identified in NCLBA programs

• Providing ‘‘one stop shopping’’ services for technical assistance.

Developing and implementing researched based strategies for turning around low

performing high poverty schools.

The Importance of Technical Assistance

Technical Assistance is important because it is the key to long-term continuous

change for the express purpose of implementing priorities stated in Federal legislation. A monitored system of TA providers allows the States and districts to be both

a client and a partner while the provider can be both proactive and reactive. In this

way, States and districts can truly build capacity while adjusting to local needs and

at the same time, share in the knowledge of the provider who is supported by the

Federal Government.

There are other reasons why TA is important. First of all, in response to the

strong accountability provision in NCLBA, it is anticipated that States, districts,

tribes and schools will have a significant increase in the number of low performing

schools. States, districts, schools, tribes and other grantees do not currently have

the capacity to implement a number of the key provisions of the NCLBA, particularly in areas relating to accountability, assessments, flexibility and teacher quality.

In fact, States are currently struggling with the choice provision in the law and provisions for supplemental educational services. Subsequently, the demand for TA has

already increased. Hence, there is an urgency to strengthen and expand the current

system of TA providers.

Second, many State Education Departments and large urban school district offices

have staff trained and experienced in monitoring for program/fiscal compliance—but

not for delivering technical assistance on research-based practices or strategies. As

a result, the proliferation of programs and initiatives intended to improve districts

and schools is often overwhelming but ineffective. Rather than promoting schoolwide improvement it discourages it by producing the impression that each initiative

is an independent program (silo effect) rather than part of a comprehensive whole.

Providing services to State Education Agencies (SEAs) is often affected by the

changes in the State’s political climate. Schools and school districts are not always

truly aware of what their needs are. Comprehensive needs assessments, with input

from all stakeholders, are frequently lacking. A prioritization of needs, with teachers

involved in the decision making process, is also frequently lacking.

Third, teachers in low performing schools are generally new and bring with them

limited experience in teaching at-risk populations which can lead to limited teacher

37

efficacy. Often TA is in the form of a one or two-day workshop that introduces new

ideas but leaves teachers on their own to implement new methods and other innovations. They have had relatively little opportunity for professional development that

is continuous, needs based and integrated into their daily routine. Teaching, especially under the demands and rigueur of scientifically based research curricula and

new requirements to meet State standards, is a complicated task. Therefore, teachers are generally accepting of technical assistance when it is on going, comprehensive and collaborative in nature.

Finally, the quality of some assessment practices and the programs promoted as

quality research-based solutions are often flawed. Technical assistance is needed to

help practitioners be more astute consumers of assessment information and claims

of ‘‘proven effective, packaged solutions,’’ so resources and energy are not squandered.

In summary, technical assistance needs to be focused, intense and sustained on

critical issues for a sufficient time for the client to acquire and internalize the

knowledge and skills necessary, to become self-sufficient.

Special Challenges That Technical Assistance Providers Face

Technical assistance must address the greater challenges faced by children in

those schools, classrooms and States with the largest number of poor and

undeserved children.

These challenges include:

1. Support for new and inexperienced teachers who need sustained professional

development anchored in the understanding of rigorous and evidenced based curricula practices.

2. Development of a school culture where the twin goals of excellence and equity

are not compromised.

3. Capacity building at the State level for developing equitable assessments, this

includes educating the public by the State about the appropriate use of test data.

4. Assurance that there is an understanding of the linkage and interpretation of

high stakes assessment on the one hand and on the other hand the appropriate

changes that must therefore follow in the teaching and learning framework.

Strengthening the System of Technical Assistance

The legislation should establish a much stronger system of TA if it is to carry out

the mandates of the NCLBA and ensure that all children reach high levels of performance and achievement. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities should be the

foundation of a strengthened system of technical assistance. In general, this new

system should:

• Meet increased demand with new and sustained investments.

• Promote research to practice and the effective implementation of national efforts to leave no child behind.

• Raise the quality of rigor of research and research applications.

Develop an integrated agenda for research.

• Clarify and simplify the mission of the Office of Education Research and Improvement.

I believe that there are six basic ways to strengthen the technical assistance system that will ultimately help improve the academic performance of all children.

The six suggestions are:

1. First, strengthen and expand the overall system of knowledge utilization that

is currently supported and administered by the Department of Education. It is important to emphasize that our technical assistance program is part of a larger

knowledge utilization system that includes research, development, dissemination,

professional development, evaluation as well as technical assistance. I believe that

in order to improve TA the larger system also needs to be improved.

2. Sustain the basic technical assistance infrastructure of the Comprehensive Centers (CCs). The CCs will work through their client organizations to help targeted

grantees to:

• Gain a full understanding of the relevant new provisions of NCLBA, including

issues related to compliance and accountability.

• Align local and State policies with NCLBA.

• Identify new programmatic requirements and funding opportunities.

• Address specific needs of schools identified for improvement.

• Identify and implement research based programs and practices needed for high

quality implementation of specific provisions.

3. Increase the number of TA centers to take into account proximity to the large

numbers of low performing schools and needy students.

4. Align the CCs mission with the NCLBA.

38

• Address high priority needs, particularly in low-performing schools and Title I

targeted, high-poverty districts;

• Provide TA to school districts, schools, and intermediate agencies whose mission

is to improve low performing schools;

• Assist SEAs with technical issues surrounding the implementation of NCLB

and build their capacity to provide meaningful support to low performing schools;

• Assist States and school districts in addressing the barriers to student achievement such as limited English proficiency and the achievement gap that exists between minority and majority students.

5. Establish core services for the CCs TA delivery.

• Develop and implement interventions based on scientific research that has been

field-tested in classrooms;

• Recommend specific research-based practices to meet the unique needs of a particular school or district;

• Develop and implement research-based technical assistance strategies that enhance reading, math and science instruction;

• Promote research-based strategies that improve student achievement that are

cost effective;

• Develop and implement technical assistance strategies that help translate research into classroom practice;

• Align their services with No Child Left Behind;

• Build local capacity.

6. Build the New Technical Assistance System on Geographic and Demographic

Factors. For the NCLB TA Centers to be effective in fulfilling the aforementioned

roles and responsibilities, geographic and demographic factors become extremely important. Two key principles which must be taken in consideration when building a

technical assistance infrastructure are (1) demographics (including but not limited

to total number of students in a region or State, numbers of limited English proficient students, numbers of Title I schools in a State/region, free and reduced lunch

numbers, schools in corrective action) and (2) client density.

Clusters of States, individual States, or parts of large States with significant numbers of students at risk or the highest percentages of schools or districts in improvement or corrective action need concentrated and focused amounts of sustained technical assistance. For example, 51 percent of all Title I students served in the Nation

reside in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Michigan, Illinois and Puerto Rico.

Their systems are complex with the numbers of potential clients (administrators,

teachers, parents and students). Signaling out these large geographic areas and creating one or more NLCB TA Centers would allow for grouping other States into demographically or geographically similar clusters in order to maximize service efficiency.

Recognizing client density allows for proximity of service delivery and increased

efficiency that enhances the quality and impact of technical assistance. Similar demographics equates to consistency in the quality of TA and less disparate variables

and/or problems.

Technical assistance can serve as direct links between practitioners and research.

With all of the wonderful educational research that has emerged, why does it have

limited success in guiding classroom instruction? The National Academy of Sciences

has suggested that locally based TA entities may play pivotal roles in forming

‘‘learning communities’’. Learning communities would be forums where practitioners

and researchers join to inform each other’s work. Researchers may take directives

based on practitioners experience whereas practitioners would have the opportunity

to learn more about research findings and their implications for transforming instruction or school district policies.

For me, the most important outcome of an effective technical assistance system

is what it will do for students. I have stressed a system that would be directly

aligned with No Child Left Behind: cost effective, responsive to local needs, based

on scientific research and focused on improving student achievement. Make no mistake about it, an effective technical assistance system must provide assistance to

schools in ways that will provide all children with the opportunity to achieve academic success.

Senator FRIST. Miss Taylor?

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you, Senator Frist. It is certainly an honor

to be here to testify before this distinguished committee regarding

the reauthorization of the Office of Education Research and Improvement and to underscore what is said about the need to proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
39

vide sound research upon which States can make good decisions

about improving education.

I testify today on behalf of the Education Leaders Council, which

is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of practicing reformers. Its

leadership includes 11 State education chiefs, including myself,

representing over 30 percent of the Nation’s K–12 population. Our

membership includes governors, State boards of education, and

practicing reformers throughout the Nation’s education systems.

First on behalf of ELC let me commend the chairman and the

rest of the committee for the work on the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001. I believe it is truly a landmark education reform that will

have a profound impact upon this Nation, ensuring that all children are provided the opportunity to high quality education.

The No Child Left Behind Act includes many important provisions but I believe that one that is particularly key and relevant

to this morning’s hearing is the focus on scientifically based research. This term is used throughout the new law in a way that

will require everything from technical assistance in failing schools

to reading programs to be based on sound scientific evidence that

shows which strategies are effective toward improving student academic achievement.

In effect, what Congress has said is that Federal funds may no

longer be used to support programs that have no compelling evidence of effectiveness. To those not familiar with the world of education, this may seem like common sense. However, I can attest

that in my many years being involved in education at the ground

level, what works is often defined by a variety of things, including

good intentions, expensive marketing, and just good plain politics,

all at the expense of a hard look at the evidence and ultimately at

the expense of our Nation’s children.

This is why today’s hearing on Federal education research is critical to ensuring the promises of the No Child Left Behind and that

they become a reality. Specifically today’s focus on the Federal role

in education research is important because to date ELC believes

that there is much room for improvement in this area. For this to

occur OERI must be significantly reformed as a part of the current

reauthorization. ELC believes that such reform must, at a minimum, focus on three pillars: integrity, quality, and utility of educational research.

I am pleased to say that Chairman Castle’s bill, which recently

passed in the House, leads me to believe that we are already on

a path toward achieving each of these goals. That bill needs some

further fine-tuning, particularly with respect to its handling of statistics and assessment, but it is a very solid start to the needed reform.

Let me begin with integrity. By integrity I am, of course, not

talking about any personal honesty of those working within the Department of Education research. Instead I am talking about the

soundness of the system and the infrastructure through which education research is produced.

In discussing research, let me highlight evaluations done within

the department. To the extent that such evaluations are conducted

by the same agency administering the program being evaluated, it

seems this is very much like the fox minding the henhouse. ELC

40

believes the issue of integrity must be addressed. How this comes

about is most certainly a combination of many factors, some of

which, such as changing the culture of education research, may be

hard to legislate.

However, I believe that a great deal can be done by simply creating an infrastructure that is conducive to building integrity and

staving off the appearance or the reality of undue political influence. At a minimum, this should include providing as much independence for research and evaluation as possible while ensuring

proper checks and balances.

ELC encourages this committee to closely examine the options in

this area which should, as in the bill passed by the House, include

consideration of a quasi-independent agency for research and evaluation while retaining the oversight of a Cabinet-level executive

department.

Although some changes were made in the National Assessment

of Educational Progress as a part of its enhanced role in No Child

Left Behind, there are additional long-standing issues regarding

the independence and the integrity of the NAEP and the role of the

National Assessment Governing Board that remain to be addressed. We believe it is important to grant additional independence and authority to NAGB in the operation of the NAEP.

NAGB’s capacity to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the National Assessment of Educational Progress should not hinge on the

sufferance or goodwill of particular officials in the Department of

Education or a new academy to be created within the department.

Congress should entrust NAGB with full responsibility for NAEP

rather than splitting that jurisdiction with the National Center of

Education Statistics or the new academy. In our view the House

bill did not adequately address the ambiguities regarding NAGB’s

authority over NAEP.

Chairman Kennedy has often been described as the father of

NAGB and it is our hope that this committee will take this opportunity to reestablish suitable constitutional arrangements that will

ensure NAEP’s independence and integrity. Given the new burdens

that No Child Left Behind places on NAEP and the added importance of NAEP results, this has never been more urgent.

We also urge this committee to be careful not to undermine the

integrity and status and the autonomy of the National Center of

Education Statistics. The House bill passed, perhaps unintentionally, downgrades the Federal education statistical enterprise by

giving the NCES commissioner less independence than in the case

today. This could cause damage by creating the possibility or at

least the appearance of manipulation of important educational statistics. It will also make it harder to recruit able people for the key

role of statistics commissioner.

Now if I may speak to quality, many of us by now are familiar

with the National Reading Panel’s review of research on reading

and the fact that such a large amount of research in this area was

simply not scientifically sound. I would not be at all surprised to

learn that a vast majority of this research was, in fact, funded in

whole or in part by the Federal Government. Just imagine where

we would be if each and every Federal dollar that the Federal government has spent on education research in the past 20 years had

41

met the same type of definition of research passed by No Child Left

Behind. We would clearly have a far better understanding of education and learning on all topics, ranging from the teaching of

mathematics to relatively newer areas related to education technology. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

It is simply imperative that Congress take this opportunity to ensure that education research is, in fact, held to the same high level

of scrutiny as exists in other fields of inquiry and that a body of

knowledge be created for the education issues facing this Nation.

For too long we have heard excuses of why such research is not fitting for education when all along it has been this failure to hold

education research to these standards that has left a vacuum of

knowledge that has instead been filled with hunches.

Finally, let me discuss the third pillar of reform, which is utility.

The key question I asked myself in preparing this testimony was

this. In all my years involved in education reform, what role has

Federal education research and the research infrastructure played

in my role as an education practitioner?

I believe that far too large a portion of limited Federal research

resources continues to support projects and organizations that are

not useful for the production of high quality research and development, statistics, assessment, and program evaluations. This has

been the result of unfocussed priorities and mandates derived from

prescriptive statutory requirements, separate Federal priority

boards and pressure to adhere to political and education fads. Congress must not micromanage the priorities of the research agency

but instead, establish a workable process by which on-going input

from parents, teachers, schools, researchers, policymakers and others form the basis of specific priorities and a strategy for carrying

them out.

For example, it would be wonderful if we could develop a knowledge base about the acquisition of math skills, a knowledge that

was as powerful as the one we had in developing reading. In Tennessee we are also enormously concerned about how to maintain

the growth of higher level reading skills and thoughtful literacy in

middle and high schools. We are also concerned about how to help

children who have fallen seriously behind in the growth of their literacy skills catch up with their peers. We would welcome carefully

designed studies in this area and would be most willing to consider

their results as we formulate our educational policies at the State

level.

We are at a critical juncture with respect to education in this

country. The many reforms now taking place at the State and local

levels, aided greatly by passage of No Child Left Behind, are largely predicated on the belief that we know what works. Unfortunately, we know far less of what works than we are willing to

admit. However, the opportunity to gain a far better understanding

of the complexity of education is upon us with the reauthorization

of the OERI.

The House bill contains a number of very good things on the research and evaluation front but did not and, in fact, has created

some problems on the statistics and assessment front. We simply

urge the Senate to take the good and fix the bad and take advantage of the opportunity to greatly increase the integrity, quality

42

and utility of education research and ELC stands willing to assist

in any way we can.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Miss Taylor and Dr. Nettles, Dr. Miller.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FAYE TAYLOR

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure and

honor to be here today to testify on issues surrounding the reauthorization of the

Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI).

My name is Faye Taylor, and I serve as Commissioner of Education for the State

of Tennessee. I have spent 29 years in education. Before being appointed Commissioner by Governor Sundquist, I served as a classroom teacher, a reading resource

teacher, a Title I teacher, a principal and a supervisor.

I am testifying today on behalf of the Education Leaders Council (ELC). ELC is

a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of practicing reformers. Its leadership includes

eleven State education chiefs, including myself, representing over 30 percent of the

Nation’s K–12 population as well as governors, State boards of education and practicing reformers throughout the Nation’s education systems. My ELC colleague,

Florida Secretary of Education Jim Horne, has also provided similar testimony in

the U.S. House of Representatives on these important issues.

First, on behalf of ELC let me commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of the

committee, for your work on the ‘‘No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001,’’ which

I believe is truly a landmark education reform that will have a profound impact in

this Nation toward ensuring all children are provided the opportunity for a highquality education.

The ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act’’ includes many important provisions, but I believe

one that is particularly key and relevant to this morning’s hearing is the focus on ‘‘scientifically based research.’’ This term is used throughout the new law in a way

which will require everything from technical assistance for failing schools to reading

programs to be based upon sound scientific evidence that shows such strategies are

effective toward improving student academic achievement.

Although often overlooked in many of the summaries and press accounts of ‘‘No

Child Left Behind,’’ I believe this focus on scientifically-based research may in fact

be among the provisions in the new law which has the most lasting and positive

impact toward education reform in this Nation. And there is no place where this

principle needs to be applied with greater diligence than in the work of the Federal

Government’s own education research endeavors.

In effect, what Congress has said is that Federal funds may no longer be used

to support programs that have no compelling evidence of effectiveness. To those not

familiar with the world of education, this may seem like common sense. However,

I can attest that in my many years of being involved with education at the ground

level,‘‘what works’’ is often defined by a variety of things including good intentions,

expensive marketing—and of course, a whole lot of politics—all at the expense of

a hard look at the evidence and ultimately at the expense of our nations’ students.

‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ will force schools, districts, and States to focus far more

on evidence and to demonstrate that funds are being used for programs that scientific inquiry has shown to have positive results.

This is why today’s hearing on Federal-education research is critical to ensuring

the promises of the NCLB become a reality.

Specifically, today’s focus on the Federal role in education research is important

because to date, ELC believes that there is much room for improvement in this area.

Simply put, I believe there is a broad consensus among those at the State and

local levels that much of the research funded and disseminated by the Federal Government, has not to date, met the same stringent criteria that will now be applied

to schools, districts and the States.

For this to occur, OERI must be significantly reformed as part of the current reauthorization. ELC believes that such reform must, at a minimum, focus upon three

pillars: Integrity, quality, and utility of educational research.

I am pleased to say that Chairman Castle’s bill, which recently passed in the

House, leads me to believe that we are already on a path toward achieving each

of these goals. That bill needs some further fine tuning, particularly with respect

to its handling of statistics and assessment, but it is a very solid start on the needed

reforms.

Let me begin with integrity.—By integrity, I am of course not talking about the

personal honesty of those working within the department on education research. InVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
43

stead, I am talking about the soundness of the system and the infrastructure

through which education research is produced.

I understand that over the course of the past few years, including in testimony

to the House Subcommittee charged with this legislation, it has been widely asserted that far too much of the research overseen by OERI has suffered from a lack

of credibility. As an education reformer from the State level, I don’t pretend to be

an expert on why this has historically been the case. However, I would agree there

is clearly the perception out in the field that too often, this research—and more specifically, the topics, the timing, and the findings—is driven more by politics than

sound-scientific inquiry. I think it needs to be admitted that the ‘‘canons of science’’ haven’t always worked well even when applied to education research, which is why

we find so many ‘peer reviewed’ reports and studies that turn out to be just ideological soap boxes.

In discussing research, let me highlight evaluations done within the Department.

To the extent that such evaluations are conducted by the same agency administering the program being evaluated, it seems this is very much the case of the fox

minding the hen house.

ELC believes the issue of integrity must be addressed.

How this comes about is most certainly a combination of many factors—some of

which, such as changing the culture of education research may be hard to legislate.

However, I believe that a great deal can be done by simply creating an infrastructure that is conducive to building integrity and staving off the appearance (or realities) of undue political influence.

At a minimum, this should include providing as much independence for research

and evaluations as possible while ensuring proper checks and balances. This may

be easier said than done, as there is a fine line between autonomy and a lack of

accountability. ELC encourages this committee to closely examine the options in this

area, which should—as in the bill passed by the House—include consideration of a

quasi-independent agency for research and evaluation while retaining the oversight

of a Cabinet level executive department.

Although some changes were made to the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) as part of its enhanced role in No Child Left Behind, there are

additional, longstanding issues regarding the independence and integrity of the

NAEP and the role of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) that remain to be addressed. We believe it is important to grant additional independence

and authority to NAGB in the operation of the NAEP. NAGB’s capacity to ensure

the integrity and accuracy of NAEP should not hinge on the sufferance or goodwill

of particular officials in the Education Department or a new ‘‘Academy’’ to be created within that Department. Congress should entrust NAGB with full responsibility for NAEP rather than splitting that jurisdiction with the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) or the new Academy. In our view, the House bill did

not adequately address the ambiguities regarding NAGB’s authority over NAEP.

Chairman Kennedy has often been described as the father of NAGB and it is our

hope that you and your committee will take this opportunity to reestablish suitable

constitutional arrangements that will ensure NAEP’s independence and integrity.

Given the new burdens that NCLB places on NAEP and the added importance of

NAEP results, this has never been more urgent.

We also urge this committee to be careful not to undermine the integrity and status and autonomy of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The

House passed bill, perhaps unintentionally, downgrades the Federal education statistical enterprise by giving the NCES Commissioner less independence than is the

case today. This could cause damage by creating the possibility, or at least the appearance, of manipulation of important education statistics. It will also make it

harder to recruit able people for the key role of statistics commissioner.

The second pillar of reform is quality.—Many of us by now are familiar with the

National Reading Panel’s review of research on reading and the fact that such a

large amount of research in this area was simply not scientifically sound. I would

not be at all surprised to learn that a vast majority of this research was in fact

funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government.

Just imagine where we would be if each and every Federal dollar that the Federal

Government spent on education research for the past 20 years had met the same

type of definition of research passed as part of NCLB. We would clearly have a far

better understanding of education and learning on all topics ranging from the teaching of mathematics to relatively newer areas related to education technology. Unfortunately, this is not the case. At the dawn of passage of the NCLB Act, many of

us at the State and local level are waking up to realize that the requirement that

our programs use scientific research was based upon the premise that such research

has existed all along—a premise that is simply not true.

44

Albeit late in coming, it is simply imperative that Congress take this opportunity

to ensure that education research is in fact held to the same level of scrutiny as

exists in other fields of inquiry and that a body of knowledge be created for the education issues facing this Nation. For too long, we have heard excuses of why such

research is not fitting for education, when all along, it has been this failure to hold

education research to these standards that has left a vacuum of knowledge that has

instead been filled with hunches.

Finally, let me discuss the third pillar of reform, which is utility.—The key question I asked myself in preparing this testimony was this: In all my years involved

in education reform, what role has Federal-education research and the research infrastructure (including the Federal education labs, research centers and comprehensive centers) played in my role as an education practitioner?

I believe that far too large a portion of limited Federal research resources continues to support projects and organizations that are not useful for the production of

high quality R&D (Research and Development), statistics, assessments and program

evaluations. This has been the result of unfocused priorities and mandates derived

from prescriptive statutory requirements, separate Federal priority boards, and

pressure to adhere to political and education fads.

Congress must not micromanage the priorities of the research agency but instead

establish a workable process by which ongoing input from parents, teachers, schools,

researchers, policy-makers and others, form the basis for specific priorities and a

strategy for carrying them out. For example, it would be wonderful if we could develop a knowledge base about the acquisition of math skills and knowledge that was

as powerful as the one we have developed for reading. In Tennessee, we are also

enormously concerned about how to maintain the growth of higher level reading

skills and ‘‘thoughtful literacy’’ in middle and high school. We are also concerned

about how to help children who have fallen seriously behind in the growth of their

literacy skill catch up to their peers. We would welcome carefully designed studies

in this area, and would be most willing to consider their results as we formulate

educational policy in our State.

In determining research priorities and implementing them on a timely basis, the

agency should not be hampered by a cumbersome statutorily mandated structure or

by earmarks and set asides for specific categories of grantees and contractors (including the research institutes, labs and centers). These are major obstacles to the

agency’s efficiency and effectiveness. Instead, OERI or its successor should be provided proper latitude in determining the best nationwide structure to carry out its

mission and disseminate its work.

Such a structure is imperative if Federal research is to be useful to those who

are supposed to be the end users of this valuable information. As you consider and

evaluate specific proposals for reforming and refocusing OERI, we suggest that you

address the following important issues:

(1) The structure should adequately insulate key decisions about Federal education R&D (and statistics and assessment) from politicians and from other interest

groups.

(2) The statistics and assessment operation should be given the political autonomy

and professional integrity needed for its data to be trustworthy—while also making

that operation accountable for the speed, accuracy and utility of its data.

Conclusion

We are at a critical juncture with respect to education in this country. The many

reforms now taking place at the State and local levels—aided greatly by passage of

the No Child Left Behind—are largely predicated on the belief that we know what

works.

Unfortunately, we know far less of what works than we all admit. However, the

opportunity to gain a far better understanding of the complexity of education is

upon us with the reauthorization of OERI. The House bill contains a number of very

good things on the research and evaluation front but did not solve, and in fact has

created, some problems on the statistics and assessment front. We simply urge the

Senate to keep the good and fix the bad and take advantage of this opportunity to

greatly increase the integrity, quality and utility of education research in this Nation.

ELC stands ready to assist you in this endeavor.

Senator REED. My colleague, Senator Frist, was called away. I

have to go to the floor to debate national missile defense so I will

ask that you be prepared to respond to any questions that may be

submitted in writing to you to follow up on your excellent testiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\80479.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: SLABOR3
45

mony. The record will remain open so that your responses will become part of the record.

Again thank you for your insightful and thoughtful testimony

today. I appreciate it very much.

At this point let me declare the hearing adjourned. Thank you.

46

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

47

[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ