our membership is a large educational research and development work-force-the some 10,000 researchers and developers housed in our nation's schools and colleges of education-doing the basic and applied research designed to affect changes in our nation's schools. When Congress voted the National Institute of Education into existence in 1972 it also provided a first year appropriation of $142 million. In effect, these actions said that educational research and development was important and that there was validity in searching for how the country's 59 million school aged children learn, how teaching influences learning, how schools function and how previous research findings could be translated into products and put in the hands of teachers. Congress gave NIE a broad mandate, for it said that the Institute should be the focal point for all educational R. & D. efforts funded by the Federal Government, and that it should systematize and coordinate the R. & D. activities throughout the country. With high hopes and many aspirations, the Institute began its program. However, since 1972, there has been a steady erosion of financial support within the Congress for the Institute. In fiscal year 1975, NIE had an obligation of only $70 million, a decrease of 7.6 percent from its 1974 budget and 34.5 percent from its 1973 budget. Given the magnitude of need by educational personnel to be able to function more effectively, we suggest that this is an intolerable situation. Education is today the major occupation of 62.2 million children, youth and adults in the United States. Last year more than $96 billion was spent by educational institutions in providing various learning services. Yet the Federal investment in educational knowledge production and utilization was less than one percent of the Federal outlay. When compared to federal support for medical, agricultural or military R. & D., this is almost too miniscule to note. America's future depends upon providing the very best education possible. The NIE must have the support necessary to effect accumulative and realitybased knowledge production and effective and timely knowledge utilization. Recent National Education Association needs assessment surveys of practitioners have shown that teachers want help from the researchers on a variety of problems: How to help learning on the part of children and youth from different ethnic/cultural backgrounds. How to deal with the unique learning needs of handicapped children in "mainstreaming" environments. How to assess their own performance as well as that of their students. How to better teach facts, concepts, ideas, attitudes and skills to all children. How to mobilize other community human resources to bridge the gaps between the schools and the "world of work". How schools might be better organized to be more responsive to communities. The National Institute of Education remains the primary source of funds to address such problems through educational research and development. The $260 million appropriated over the three years the Institute has been in existence, however, is a small amount to spend on R & D in the $96 billion enterprise that is education. Nevertheless, the Institute's support for research in education is critical and the professional education community is anxious to cooperate with the Congress in helping the NIE grow stronger. NIE has had some success stories that have received too little attention. Some important successes include: The California Beginning Teacher Study is a major effort to help the California Commission on Teacher Preparation and Licensing respond to a legislative provision that the competencies or skills of beginning teachers must be identified and scaled for licensing purposes. This study, to be completed in two years, will give certification and licensing personnel in California and many other states information needed to revise their requirements and the programs of schools, colleges, and departments of education. The University of Wisconsin based Individually Guided Education program has now been adopted by 2000 elementary schools with another 2000 using the reading materials from this program. The ERIC network of sixteen national clearinghouses are now being used more than 10 million times annually by teachers, administrators and researchers. The UCLA Evaluation project has trained more than 2500 administrators and teachers to do evaluations of their own institutions while another 10,000 have received the training materials and evaluation kits. NIE has many other success stories to tell, the combination of which would seem to more than justify the $240 million spent to date on its educational R & D initiatives. It is because of past successes continuing demand and the efforts of the new NIE leadership to be more responsive both to Congress and the educational community that we strongly urge Congress to reauthorize the National Institute of Education. AACTE and ACSESULGC/APU are two of twenty-six organizations which have prepared a separate statement in support of the reauthorization of the National Institute of Education. (A copy of that statement is appended for reference.) We see the statement of the twenty-six organizations in support of educational research and development as something of a landmark in its field. Such support for educational research and development is very heartening. We strongly support these recommendations. But our organization would like to view them as a base, a floor, or a minimum, and to offer even stronger recommendations than the twenty-six organizations were able to mutually agree upon. On behalf of our own organizations and our colleagues, we suggest that: While we agree that the reauthorization of NIE for at least a three-year term is essential to a sustained and stable effort, we would like to see a four-year term or even longer. Ideally, we would like to see NIE authorized without expiration date. The Congress could still exercise control through appropriation mechanism, providing appropriate rewards for especially good progress, or feedback that improvement is needed. As the Campbell Commission notes, the whole educational research and development effort is too small and needs to be expanded. If Congress agrees to the authorization limits suggested by the twenty-six organizations and appropriates to the full extent of these limits, that would be a significant step forward from NIE's present position. We would like to suggest, as an alternative, that an authorization limit built on a factor of about 10 percent for inflation and a 15 percent growth rate sholld be given serious consideration. Starting with $110 million in 1977, this would work out to $138 million in fiscal year 1978, $173 million in fiscal year 1979 and $216 million in fiscal year 1980. We also believe that continued support should be given to the educational research and development centers and laboratories which have been brought into being by past administrations. While it is true that these centers are variable in their quality, much of this variation is accounted for by factors of location, clientele, and administrative treatment. However, there are none that could not, with proper administration be strengthened into serving the important needs they were designed to fill. We would urge their continued support as a national resource. Further development along these same lines may be necessary for NIE to carry out a properly balanced program. The dissemination responsibility which NIE carries is an extremely important one. Again, quoting from the Campbell Commission report, ". . . inquiry... even at its most successful (level) . . . will not be self-executing. a research finding that certain activities by the teacher can reliably produce certain results in a classroom will require a long chain of deliverate action to produce results. . ." It is the task of the dissemination effort in NIE to find what are the most appropriate actions and how to bring them about in the field of education. We believe that there should be a continued effort on the part of NIE to disseminate the many products which result from its present efforts. In addition, a substantial portion of its resources should be used to research the means for determining the most effective dissemination procedures, devising, implementing, and evaluating new ones. The amount of money which NIE is able to provide from its current budget for dissemination purposes is entirely inadequate. We suggest Congress give recognition to this fact and that as NIE develops additional effective procedures for dissemination it be permitted to request an additional authorization specifically for dissemination purposes. We reaffirm our support of the National Institute of Education, and urge support of the points raised in the statement of the twenty-six organizations referred to earlier, as well as consideration of the additional recommendations made herein. the Federal Government's major elementary and secondary education program. The President had to ask Daniel Moynihan for an authoritative review of busing. NIE should have already been providing usable data in both areas. The Chief State School Officers are most interested in this study of title I. We hope that the Institute will come back with a useful report which will, in fact, point us to the most promising alternatives for educating children of the poor, and not report a rationale which will tell us that we could get better results if the moneys were spread more broadly to children of the not-so-poor. In NIE funding policy, Chief State School Officers support the concept of diversity of performers, and a variety of procurements, including open competition, restricted competition, unsolicited proposals, and research grants to a variety of researchers and developers. We believe there has been something of an imbalance in awards in 1975. Labs and centers received 42 percent of the total NIE appropriated dollars, and colleges and universities received slightly over 25 percent. State and local education agencies, however, received only approximately 10 percent of NIE's awards in 1975. We support the recommendations of the Campbell report regarding the future of the labs and centers in NIE work. We agree that careful review should limit the institutional support provided to labs and centers by NIE to a few highly qualified performers, closely directed by NIE, and the work being specifically limited to priority areas designated by the Institute. Chief State School Officers do not believe the Institute has made anything like an adequate commitment to assist or cooperate with State education agencies. We believe that the school practice and service program which NIE has proposed seems most promising for SEA-LEA Federal articulation in development programs, but we don't feel the dollars allocated are sufficient. The program would propose, for example, a consumer information guide and a research and development information center, which we think would be useful. The States have demonstrated the capacity to develop information and communications systems useful to research and development, including information centers, extension agent networks, program demonstrations, and teacher centers. We urge the committee to insert language in section 405 which would make more clear and forceful the intent that the Institute utilize the capacity of State and local education agencies in research and development work, and direct that LEA's and SEA's be involved in assisting NIE in developmental work and implementation in the schools. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we feel that this is a time in which numerous other human development programs are under attack, including National Science Foundation programs, proposed programs in child and family services and others. Our country needs an improved and humanistic educational system. A vigorous and balanced development effort in the Institute can help provide it. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson. [Mr. Peterson's prepared statement follows:] Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Peterson. STATEMENT OF RAY PETERSON, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lehman, and members of the staff, I am Ray Peterson, director of Federal-State relations, Council of Chief State School Officers. The council represents the chief education officials in all of the States and extrastate jurisdictions. We support the reauthorization of the Institute for a term of not less than 5 years and, Mr. Chairman, we believe the annual levels of funding provided for in the original authorizing legislation are the funding levels which should be maintained. We do not agree with those who say that the need is less sday. We feel that the need is greater and that those are realistic figures. It is our hope, of course, that in the future the NIE will become a part of a department of education, with a Cabinet-level Secretary. We would like to see an eventual expenditure for educational research and development which would rise to between 5 to 10 percent of our total spending on education, in contrast with the current inadequate level of less than 1 percent. We believe that we are seeing vast new opportunities today for the improvement of our society through institutions such as the public schools. Research has shown a great educational potential for early childhood and family services which could be partially provided in pubile schools if the developmental resources were available. The potential for lifelong education for increasing numbers of older and retired citizens demands the support of new research and development thinking. In H.R. 5988 we would like to see a 5-year authorization. We agree with Superintendent Cronin that the additional five priorities which the bill suggests would be useful, but as subobjectives of the original purposes written into the legislation by your committee, so as not to be unduly limiting. on We support the National Council on Educational Research, which we have been represented. We feel that the education community is able to bring the concerns of working educators to the Institute through this council. We might suggest that representation on the council be broadened further-for example, to include teacher organizations. We believe that much is still to be desired in analysis of the NIE budget and priorities. We are concerned that, in the fiscal year 1976 budget planning for $80 million, only $5 million was programed for work in the education equity area. Likewise, direct work with schools in the area called Capacity Building, and the experimental schools program received an allocation of $8 million, or only 10 percent of the NIE program. We support the Institute's work on teacher centers, as it is relevant to the concerns of working teachers. We think that two recent events show a need for revision of NIE's budget priorities. The Congress found it necessary, in the Educational Amendments of 1974, to direct NIE to commence a study of title I, the Federal Government's major elementary and secondary education program. The President had to ask Daniel Moynihan for an authoritative review of busing. NIE should have already been providing usable data in both areas. The Chief State School Officers are most interested in this study of title I. We hope that the Institute will come back with a useful report which will, in fact, point us to the most promising alternatives for educating children of the poor, and not report a rationale which will tell us that we could get better results if the moneys were spread more broadly to children of the not-so-poor. In NIE funding policy, Chief State School Officers support the concept of diversity of performers, and a variety of procurements, including open competition, restricted competition, unsolicited proposals, and research grants to a variety of researchers and developers. We believe there has been something of an imbalance in awards in 1975. Labs and centers received 42 percent of the total NIE appropriated dollars, and colleges and universities received slightly over 25 percent. State and local education agencies, however, received only approximately 10 percent of NIE's awards in 1975. We support the recommendations of the Campbell report regarding the future of the labs and centers in NIE work. We agree that careful review should limit the institutional support provided to labs and centers by NIE to a few highly qualified performers, closely directed by NIE, and the work being specifically limited to priority areas designated by the Institute. Chief State School Officers do not believe the Institute has made anything like an adequate commitment to assist or cooperate with State education agencies. We believe that the school practice and service program which NIE has proposed seems most promising for SEA-LEA Federal articulation in development programs, but we don't feel the dollars allocated are sufficient. The program would propose, for example, a consumer information guide and a research. and development information center, which we think would be useful. The States have demonstrated the capacity to develop information and communications systems useful to research and development, including information centers, extension agent networks, program demonstrations, and teacher centers. We urge the committee to insert language in section 405 which would make more clear and forceful the intent that the Institute utilize the capacity of State and local education agencies in research and development work, and direct that LEA's and SEA's be involved in assisting NIE in developmental work and implementation in the schools. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we feel that this is a time in which numerous other human development programs are under attack, including National Science Foundation programs, proposed programs in child and family services and others. Our country needs an improved and humanistic educational system. A vigorous and balanced development effort in the Institute can help provide it. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson. [Mr. Peterson's prepared statement follows:] |