The Production of Information Statistics Until recently, new statistical data collection efforts in the department have received less priority than other activities, including the maintenance of existing data systems. Data for this discussion come from recent reviews we and the Congressional Research Service have made of the federal statistical system between 1980 and 1984.3 These studies reported that NCES reduced its information activities over this period. In our 1984 study, we found that two criteria were used in the decisions to reduce data collection: whether or not an activity was part of a core program and whether or not the data collection had a congressional mandate or was a departmental requirement. The core surveys (those that provide the basic information on student, Specific efforts that either scaled back or eliminated ongoing data collection activities are reported in table 2.7. Some of the reductions, such as the delay in the noncollegiate postsecondary school survey, led to gaps in education data. Decreases in sample sizes and the frequency of data collection call into question the precision of the resulting data. Validity studies, which had previously been made on some surveys, were also eliminated. (Specific changes in NCES primary, elementary, and secondary school surveys are reported in table II.1 in appendix II.) In reporting changes in NCES surveys, we do not imply that these are necessarily problems. Some series may no longer be valuable; new series may be needed; continued surveys may be organized and sequenced in ways that are less burdensome and permit more useful analyses across surveys. However, the changes between 1980 and 1984 were not part of an external, systematic review of statistical needs. 3U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, The Federal Statistical System 1980 to 1985 (Washington, D.C.: November 1984), and U.S. General Accounting Office, Status of the Statistical Community After Sustaining Budget Reductions, GAO/IMTEC-84-17 (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 1984). Evaluation Technical assistance grants to states Savings $350,000 224,000 175,000 a $225,000 $200,000 225,000 Source: Department of Education; U.S. General Accounting Office, Status of the Statistical Community In late 1985, a commendable effort was made to undertake such a sys- Like the department's research function, the Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation is involved in a variety of activities that include new data collection and technical assistance to the states. We compared the types of activities for 1980 and 1985 and identified changes in the distribution of activities. Table 2.8 and figure 2.1 present the results of our analysis. (Random samples of contract awards for 1980 and 1985 are listed in tables I.3 and I.4.) The number of evaluation activities producing new data has declined substantially. In 1980, there were 59 new data activities. In 1985, there were 18—a decline of 69 percent. In terms of total contract activities, a a a a a Source: Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, annual evaluation reports for fiscal years 1980 and 1985. Figure 2.1: Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation Compensatory Education Obligations for Fiscal Years 1972-84 by Type of Activity Source: Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation annual evaluation reports for 1972 and 1984 and data provided by OPBE staff The Production of Information however, the percentage increased. New data collection represented 50 percent of total contract awards in 1980; in 1985, it represented 72 percent of the total. As can be seen in table 2.8, OPBE funded very few other activities in 1985. In at least one area-compensatory education for the disadvantaged- Shift in Focus Research The concern that new data will not be available for future departmental information needs led us to compare the 1980 and 1985 new data collection awards by area of study. We were interested in the areas that were no longer targets for new information collection and in identifying areas that have been most recently emphasized. L Table 2.9 shows the new data research awards coded by area for all discretionary awards. Every area saw a substantial reduction in the number of awards. In 1980, for example, 56 of the 293 awards for new data went toward studies of special populations such as minorities and women. In 1985, there were five such studies. Some areas such as learning in the home, at school, in the community, and at work and what we identified as "school problems," including such issues as dropouts and delinquency, received no new data funds at all. The only area that was added for 1985 awards was education standards and only one study was done in this area. These reductions in new data collection are particularly a problem when looked at as areas that appear to be in most need of educational reform. In a report prepared for the National Council on Educational Research early in 1984, the Center for Leadership Development (CLD) outlined areas seen as priorities. From its review of eight major national reform studies, a survey of 72 educational experts, regional meetings held at laboratories and centers in 1983, and two departmental assessments, CLD identified the most critical areas as follows: |