PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAY PETERSON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning on the reauthorization of the National Institute of Education.

The Council of Chief State School Officers represents the chief education officials in all states and extra-state jurisdictions. We believe the establishment of the National Institute of Education by this Committee and the Congress in the Education Amendments of 1972 was a most significant step in establishing a higher national priority for education in the federal government. We must have a national effort in educational research and development if we are to have the educated citizenry which our representative form of government and our civilization requires.

We support the reauthorization of the Institute for not less than five years with at least the annual levels of funding provided for in the original authorizing legislation, that is at least $900 million dollars for the five years.

Mr. Chairman, our Council wishes to work closely with the Committee in achieving an improved priority for education within the federal government, despite the current unfavorable attitudes in Washington toward increased expenditures. It is our hope that the NIE will, in the near future, become a part of a Department of Education with a Cabinet-level secretary. We hope to see the federal contribution to the total cost of education in the country rise to four times its current minimum level of approximately 8%. And, we would like to see an eventual expenditure for educational research and development which would rise to between 5 to 10% of our total spending on education, from the current inadequate level of less than 1%. The public institution which under law trains our children for at least 10 years must have the constant revitalization of the best new ideas available for educating children.

Historically, we admit that the public schools have not implemented the best available new methods and materials quickly enough. In recent years this difficulty has been highlighted by the increased pressure our society has placed on schools to meet crushing social and governmental problems. In this period of economic difficulties, the very survival of many public and private schools is threatened by state and local fiscal difficulties; research can help us find new ways to educate more efficiently to overcome financial problems. The destabilization of family, community, and institutional relationships in our society has placed the stresses of individual insecurity, social class integration, declining student achievement and even violence into the public schools; we desperately need the best of educational and social science thought to cope with these stresses. Changing demography and employment patterns call for totally new patterns of education for work which must emerge from research and development.

At the same time we are seeing vast new opportunities for the improvement of society through institutions such as the public schools. Research has shown us the potential for early childhood and family services which could be at least partially provided in the public schools, if the developmental resources were available. The potential for life-long education for increasing numbers of older and retired citizens demands the support of new research and development thinking.

H.R. 5988

We would like to see the Institute provided with the stability of a five year authorization. We believe that this step, along with an adequate level of financial support, would help the public, the education profession, and other federal decision-makers understand that educational research and development deserves more careful consideration than heretofore. The recent Campbell Report* indicates that educational research and development manpower is insignificant in size in comparison to research and development manning levels in health, other sciences, or energy. Surely education will be of at least comparable importance through 1980.

We believe that the objectives established by the Congress for NIE in 1972 in Section 405(b)(2) are appropriate general objectives and should be retained. The additional more specific priorities proposed by the Institute in H.R. 5988 are also necessary and appropriate. We believe that these priorities—(1) for

*Campbell, Roald F., et al., Research and Development Funding Policies of National Institute of Education: Review and Recommendation. Final Report of Consultants. National Institute of Education. August 1975.

improving student basic skills, (2) overcoming problems of finance, productivity, and management, (3) providing equality of opportunity, (4) preparing students for careers, and (5) for improved dissemination of the results of research and development should appropriately be added as specific sub-objectives in the law. We enthusiastically support Section 3 of the new bill, establishing research fellowships in the Institute. We would hope that through this and other means, a long-standing recommendation of our Council to the Institute may be achieved, that is cooperation in research and development personnel development between state education agencies and the Institute.

With regard to current law, we enthusiastically support the continuation of the National Council on Educational Research to establish general policies for, and review the conduct of the Institute. Our organization has been represented on this Council by a Chief State School Officer, and we feel that the education community is well served by the ability to bring the concerns of working educators to the Institute through this Council.

We urge the retention of the provisions of current law which allows the Institute certain exemptions from Civil Service personnel policies; we believe this flexibility is essential to quality staffing of the Institute. We believe that the Institute must be more, rather than less, innovative in staffing at all levels in order to employ persons with the necessary skill in research and development as well as actual experience in school systems. We believe that the current quality of leadership, planning, and budgeting at the Institute also warrants the Committee's assistance in ending any remaining Civil Service Commission restrictions on the Institute's staffing.

NIE BUDGET PRIORITIES

Chief State School Officers believe that, while the Institute has provided evidence of improved priority setting and budgeting, much is still to be desired in an analysis of the NIE budget.

In planning for an FY 1976 budget of $80 million dollars, only $5 million dollars was programmed for work in the "Educational Equity" areas, including bilingual education, role of women, desegregation studies, and compensatory education.

Direct work with schools in "Capacity Building," and the Experimental Schools program involved only $8 million dollars, or 10% of the NIE program for FY 1976; we urge continuation of the Experimental Schools program, and much wider dissemination of the results. We support the Institute's work on Teacher Centers as it is relevant to the concerns of working teachers.

It appears that a reasonable balance has been stuck between expenditures for types of research activity. In FY 1976, out of a $68 million dollar program budget, basic research received $10 million dollars, policy studies-$7.5 million, development activities-$27.5 million, dissemination-$23 million. We feel, however, certain individual items remain out of perspective; the ERIC System continues to provide very expensive information which must be more relevant or accessible to teachers and school administrator's needs; in 1976 this system cost almost 10% of the total available funds for NIE programs. It is also clear that the definition of dissemination has been greatly extended to reach the $23 million figure, and that states and localities have access to less than half of those program benefits. Two recent events reflect upon NIE's budget priorities. The Congress found it necessary in the Education Amendments of 1974 to direct NIE to commence a study of the federal government's major elementary and secondary education program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, for compensatory education. More recently, the President has had to turn to one of the founders of the institute, Daniel P. Moynihan, now Ambassador to the United Nations, for a definitive paper containing policy recommendations on perhaps the most controversial issue in education today, school desegregation.

FUNDING POLICIES

Chief State School Officers support the concept of a diversity of performers to be funded by NIE for educational research and development. We believe that grants and contracts should be awarded through a variety of procurements including open competition, restricted competition, unsolicited proposals, and discretionary grants to a variety of researchers and developers, with a maximum publicity effort to promote awareness and access in state and local education agencies.

We believe also that quality work can be obtained by the Institute in dealing with the widest possible variety of agencies and institutions including colleges and universities, non-profit organizations, state and local education agencies, and individuals. We have found, however, a history of imbalance in awards; in 1975, regional education laboratories and the research and development centers accounted for 42% of NIE's total appropriated dollars. Colleges and universities received slightly over 25% of dollar awards. State and local education agencies, however, received only approximately 10% of NIE's awards in 1975. We feel that these imbalances are particularly disadvantageous to state and local school systems, since the Institute also does not require any articulation or coordination of research and development work/results between contractors and the state education agency in that state.

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 the labs and centers by NIE to very few highly qualified performers, closely directed by NIE, in work specifically limited to priority areas designated by the Institute. We believe that the labs and centers represent vital skills and resources. NIE cost-effective support must mandate close working ties with state and local systems, mostly absent to date.

STATE EDUCATION AGENCY-NIE RELATIONS

Chief State School Officers do not believe that the Institute has made anything like an adequate commitment to assist or cooperate with state education agencies. We are most concerned that the Institute immediately move to implement the Campbell Report_recommendations in this area. In the program area called Information and Communication Systems, in which program the state education agencies are said to have their major participatory role in the Institute, less than $4 million out of the FY 1976 NIE total of $60 million dollars for programs has been actually made available to SEAS. States have clearly demonstrated over the past four years capacity to succeed in this program, to develop information and communication systems useful to research and development. These systems include information centers, extension networks, program demonstrations and teacher centers. The School Practice and Service program also seems most promising for SEA-LEA-federal articulation in development programs; in actuality, however SEAS are probably eligible for participation to a level of only $2 to $3 million dollars in FY 1976.

Of $23 million dollars which the Institute advertises as available for "dissemination," the 56 SEAS are eligible to participate in a maximum of $6 to $7 million dollars in program. (It should be noted that the Campbell Report has indicated that a single regional lab or research center would require a minimum of $3 to $4 million dollars annually for adequate support.)

In the other four major priority areas in the Institute, SEAs are only peripheral participants under current NIE policy and receive minimal funding.

We urge that the Committee insert language in Section 405(e) (1) of Public Law 92-318 which will make more clear and forceful its intent that the Institute utilize the capacity of state and local education agencies in research and development work and that LEAS and SEAs be directly involved in assisting NIE in disseminating the validated results of development work into the schools.

We further urge that the Committee Report direct the Institute to require each recipient of a grant or contract award of $100,000 or more to solicit cooperation, coordination, and comment from the state education agency on its work and the dissemination of the work results, and to include summaries of this cooperative effort in its regular reports to the Institute.

OPPORTUNITY FOR INCREASED RELEVANCE OF NIE PROGRAMS TO SCHOOL

SYSTEMS

Clearly, state and local school systems, school administrators and teachers have much more to offer the Institute than is reflected in current Institute activities. The Institute has done very little to survey the states and LEAs for successful new curriculum and materials, new management techniques, or teacher training models. Cooperative development of better methods of evaluating operating federal programs could be an important contribution of the Institute. Our Council has long advocated the cooperative development of staff training programs in research and development between the Institute and state and local school systems.

66-410-7613

CONCLUSION

We believe that all elements of the education community must join the Congress in supporting a vigorous research and development program in the National Institute of Education. This is a time in which numerous other innovative human development programs are under attack; these include National Science Foundation programs, innovative programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and proposed programs in Child and Family Assistance. Our country needs an improved and humanistic educational system. A vigorous and balanced research and development effort in the National Institute of Education can help provide it.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We will hear now from Mr. Saunders.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. SAUNDERS, JR., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lehman, it is a privilege to be here this monrning and, if I could amplify the remarks Dave Krathwohl made earlier about support of NIE from the education community, I would like to note that my remarks this morning are not only on behalf of the American Council on Education but eight other major associations in the field of higher education, including the Association of Community and Junior Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the National Catholic Educational Association, and the National Council of Independent Colleges and Universities

We all believe that the education community and the entire Nation has a vital stake in NIE's development into an effective center of basic and applied research. As the costs of education escalate and the needs of society become increasingly complex, a greater effort should be made to discover ways to teach and learn. We earnestly believe that NIE should be nurtured and given the strength to lead this effort. At the same time, we must observe that NIE has hardly begun to realize its tremendous potential since its establishment in the 1972 education amendments. Research is needed to develop sound public policies on many important isuses facing postsecondary education, yet NIE is currently devoting only $9.1 million of its $70 million fiscal year 1976 appropriation to postsecondary research and, of this amount, $7.3 million is devoted to ongoing projects.

Lack of funds to undertake new research initiatives, on elementary and secondary issues as well as postsecondary, is one of the agency's most serious problems, as is the persistent and demoralizing uncertainty about the likelihood of appropriations at any level.

Therefore we strongly oppose the administration's unduly restrictive request contained in H.R. 5988 that NIE funding be authorized at a level of $80 million. Ideally an openended authorization should be provided and funding of the Institute should be justified annually on the merits of its work and the needs for education research.

Alternatively a ceiling should be established which more realistically reflects a moderate rate of growth and an annual inflation factor, such

as $110 million for fiscal year 1977, rising to over $200 million by fiscal year 1980, as proposed by the Association of Deans of Graduate Schools of Education.

I might add we would also recommend extension of the authority for 5 years rather than the 3 stated in the bill.

With this important qualification, we endorse the other changes in NIE's authority proposed in H.R. 5988. The restatement of NIE's mission to concentrate its resources on five priority areas of research and development adds a clarity of purpose which should improve understanding of and support for its work.

The five priority areas are of central importance to higher education as well as to elementary and secondary education: improvement in student achievement in basic skills; overcoming of problems of finance, productivity and management in educational institutions; greater opportunities for the disadvantaged, women and students of limited English-speaking ability; preparation of youths and adults for entering and progressing in careers; and improvement in dissemination of the research results.

H.R. 5988 would also provide specific authority for the director to award research fellowships in the Institute and make desirable technical clarifications in the law with respect to the appointment of members of the National Council on Educational Research.

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

The bill would make no change in the location and status of NIE within the organization of the education division. I should note, Mr. Chairman, that ACE has already presented congressional testimony recommending organizational changes for the division to improve its leadership and support for education within the executive branch. A copy of our recommendations is attached as an appendix. Our proposals would affect the status of the NIE Director and his relationship to the head of the education division. They would at the same time elevate the director to Executive Level IV-Assistant Secretary rank and make him responsible for all research activities of the division, which would become a single, unified agency.

Under present law the director has an ambiguous status. He heads the quasi-independent agency, serves under the direction of the Assistant Secretary for Education, is authorized to conduct a broad program of education research; yet the responsibility for research on vocational and handicapped education are assigned to separate bureaus of another agency, the U.S. Office of Education.

While our recommendations would require technical changes in the law to reflect changed titles and reporting relationships, we would not propose any change in the role of the National Council on Educational Research. The NCER should continue to establish general policies for the Institute and provide an independent review of its activities. It also provides a measure of insulation from the political pressures of the bureaucracy and an important link between NIE and its client, the education community.

The subcommittee may also wish to consider another organizational change which has been suggested-that is, to establish several institutes within NIE based on the model of the National Institutes of