resources that would not even approach what is needed to do the tasks assigned it. After two or three years we could then expect to hear the noises of disappointment growing louder and a feeling would be abroad that one more noble attempt has failed. I believe that the seeds for potential failure are contained in that Table on costs, plus a set of objectives that runs wildly beyond what is appro priated.

TABLE 1.-ESTIMATED COST FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS

Type of innovation

Cost (in millions)

Delivery

time (years)

Major curriculum projects (such as BSCS, new mathematics, etc.).

New innovations in media and technology (such as "Sesame Street," computer assisted instruction

New efforts at assessment-accountability (national assessment program, Belmont project).

Experimental schools..

5

Major studies in financial reform..

3-5

Training 100 senior researchers..

4-5

1 Estimates provided from National Center for Educational Research and Development, Office of Education. 2 $5,000,000 each.

How much can 25 million buy? That is the question. Let us say that our objective is to improve urban education. One major curriculum effort and one major innovative effort in the use of mass media would be about all we could afford for that price tag. This means that we would not be able to spend additional money on R&D in vocational education programs or early education or the special problems of the deaf or mentally retarded or higher education reform or new models for rural education.

One of the most constructive areas of questioning that this committee might wish to pursue with future witnesses might well be the cost estimates that they would put beside their objectives for the NIE. It is all very well and good to wish to reform the elementary school program, introduce new preschool programs, provide new curriculum for community colleges, and new systems for computer assisted instruction and so on. But all of these efforts carry expensive price tags and we must first decide, are we going to finance this operation in such a way that there will be reasonable confidence that such tasks as we set for it will be carried out?

If the new Office of Management and Budget operates in a similar fashion to the old Bureau of the Budget, which I viewed with restrained affection, it can wave its cape and all of a sudden one hundred million dollars will appear in the National Institute of Education budget. Only those in Washington will know that it is merely a transfer of existing funds in the Office of Education budget to a new budget line with no actual new money committed at all. It would be a cruel hoax to suggest that that hundred million dollars could be used for these new objectives. A large proportion of that money will be continuation of past research activities that must be continued or else the government will again be quite properly accused of more broken promises and commitments.

It would be a great surprise to me if more than 20 million of that total figure would be really available to meet some of these new ambitious objectives. Rather than suggest a particular figure for an increase, let me suggest that we place a price tag on the proposed activities of just one of the 15 suggested program elements for the new Institute-Improving Education of the Disadvantaged, presented in the excellent planning document produced by Roger Levien. The suggested program includes basic studies on causes of educational disadvantage, curriculum projects, major programs in early childhood, experimental schools, new measuring instruments and transmittal of research. A crude estimate of costs would be 125 million for that one objective. Cost for the 14 other objectives would be worth calculating on a more systematic fashion that I have been able to do.

DELIVERY SYSTEM

One of my continuing concerns which includes both the current bill and the administration plans (as shown through the Levien report) is the limited attention paid to the delivery of finished product or discoveries to the educational consumer, to the administrator, the teacher and the student. Putting it very pragmatically, if we developed an excellent reading curriculum in Phoenix how can

we get it to Minneapolis or if there is a fine mathematics program in Los Angeles how can we get that to Winston-Salem or Peoria. This is no educational transportation system.

What we wish to transport is not just information but complex systems of behavior where the teacher will have to interact sequentially with students and so the communication that makes a difference will involve demonstration and training. Previous limited efforts at transmitting new discoveries or new programs have been tried through the establishment of demonstration centers that illustrate the new program in action; through the design of special centers such as the Special Education Instructional Materials Network; through the establishment of Regional Educational Laboratories. All of these experiences come back with similar messages.

1. We consistently underestimate the complexity of the change process in education.

2. Program change, when it takes place, usually occurs because a personal relationship has been established by the person selling change and the educational customer.

3. Unless systematic channels of communication involving personal contact are established, the changes will be difficult to maintain, even if started.

4. It is hard to find those elements in the new programs that are so rewarding that they will overcome the fears and anxieties raised by departing the educational status quo.

Yet without a specific plan for how to deliver the products of the educational research and development efforts we will continue to have a huge chasm between educational innovation and educational implementation. One of my strongest recommendations therefore would be to have the planning for a National Institute of Education become intimately involved in the search for, and demonstrations of, a modern educational communication system, and to budget for it. The cost of this transportation system to build regular communication between the developer and the consumer is likely to be very large, and there is nothing in current budgeting that shows a recognition for this crucial problem. The National Center for Educational Communications in the Office of Education currently carries a budget of less than ten million dollars, enough perhaps to run an information dissemination system such as ERIC, but not to stimulate major innovations in the transportation of new practices. State departments of education and even regional service centers may have to become involved in such a total program. My concern is not that we have an answer that no one is listening to, but rather that too few persons seem to understand that failure to come to grips with this issue will cause much of the other efforts in NIE to be less than totally efficient.

We all realize that a single Institute with a $200M budget is not going to, by itself, reform the 65 billion dollar disconnected enterprise we call American education. It can be, though, an important catalyst to start many needed changes. I applaud the efforts of this committee to stimulate a new and necessary chapter in American educational reform.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I applaud this committee's effort to get wide-ranging testimony on this bill. Instead of going into the many different aspects of it I would like to concentrate on three things.

One is that as the research operation is currently designed, the Government is compulsively required to break its promises to people. Second, that there is insufficient understanding about the cost factors which are involved in educational research.

Third, the matter of delivery systems which has been brought up. What is important is: How do you get new ideas in the classroom.

I would like to focus on these three points. There are a certain number of facts that are worth recalling. One is that the Federal Government is the prime, and perhaps the only, major supporter of educational research and development in this country. Some 85 to 90 percent of the funds spent on educational research and development are spent from the Federal Government. If the Federal Government doesn't provide the funds in the current situations, these funds are not available.

Second, from a standpoint of age, this whole educational research and development program is quite new. It has had about its fifth birthday, really, because it got funded at a significant level only in 1966 when it became title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Before that time it was below the $10 million mark, which meant that only small, unconnected kinds of research projects were funded which couldn't possibly have major impact on educational systems.

Third, it has been mentioned that a very small percentage of the funds in education are being spent on research and development. I have some points in the written testimony about the impact of research and development on education which is very real and can be documented. I won't go into that now.

What I do want to say, however, is that on the basis of my own experience in the Office of Education, it will not be possible to provide the kind of leadership that the research and development area needs in the immediate future. There are changes which are now taking place in the direction of more long-range and larger projects and more emphasis on development than research.

Professor Moynihan spent a great deal of time talking about research and new knowledge. One of the real problems in education is the translation of research into programs. We know a great deal about how children learn. The question is how do you put that into a program of instruction in a history course or in a course on American Government or in science.

What we are talking about in terms of the major trend in development is that more than one out of every $2 now being spent in the Office of Education is being spent on program development rather than research. That means the development of a specific product or a specific program that should go into the educational system. One of my great concerns in the Office of Education was that we did not have the kind of high-level professional status that was required of our responsibilities in this particular area. One easy index of influence is the number of supergrade positions that you have in the Government. In the Office of Education, in the research programs there, there are four supergrade positions now, GS-16 or above. You can compare that with National Science Foundation, which has 50 supergrade positions, and a National Institute of Health which has 89 supergrade positions.

You just have to accept the fact that good programs are designed and managed by good personnel. It is very difficult to undertake a very sophisticated operation, such as we are talking about here, with limited high-level staff.

One of the points that is of continuing concern to the people in the field is the matter of governmental amnesia. The National Government, by the way, in which it makes decisions, is compulsively required to go back on previous commitments. The history of the Govment priorities is that they are going to change every 2 or 3 years. Now, what Professor Moynihan was talking about and what I believe is quite true, is that any major research and development activity is going to take from 5 to 10 years. So that means by the time the R. & D. effort is in full swing it has lost its priority position, it is in danger of having funds drastically cut back and effort blunted in favor of a

new priority, and the whole sequence starts over again on the new priority. The priorities disappear before the programs can really get underway.

If a National Institute of Education can establish some degree of protection that wil allow major priority programs-perhaps 20 percent of the total budget-to complete a 5-year cycle, the money and personnel resources will be much more satisfactorily spent. Once there has been a commitment to a priority and you have strong quality controls, then the program should be allowed to run its course without a major cut in the budget that causes them to reprogram all of their plans and activities. This requires a degree of self-control in both the executive branch and the legislative Appropriations Committee to follow through on past commitments.

In terms of cost, we know enough about what various kinds of products cost in education to make a reasonable estimate. I have on page 8 of the testimony the estimated costs for various kinds of educational innovations. So you can figure out what it is going to cost you to obtain certain kinds of specific products.

A major national curriculum project will cost $10 to $15 million. That is what such efforts have cost in the past, and that is uncorrected for inflation. "Sesame Street" that everybody refers to as a success, has now spent $8 million. They will have spent $15 million by the end of the current year. Major effort in national assessment referred to by Professor Moynihan will cost $35 to $40 million by the time it has completed its effort.

So one of my most serious concerns about National Institute of Education is the danger that it would be established with the usual enthusiastic rhetoric, but with resources that won't approach what is needed to do the tasks assigned to it. After 2 or 3 years, we will hear noises of disappointment and critics saying that the organization didn't do the job. I believe the seeds for potential failure was tied up in that table on costs, together with a very modest increase that is being proposed for funds in educational research for the National Institute. How much will $25 million buy when you get right down to it? They will buy one major national curriculum effort, one major innovative effort in the area of media, let's say, one new attempt to provide major instructional programs that go outside the school program, through television perhaps.

And that is about all. That is what your $25 million will buy. Nothing left over for major projects in early education. Nothing left over for major problems of special groups, such as deaf or mentally retarded, or for higher education reform, et cetera.

So one of the most constructive areas of questioning that this committee might wish to pursue with future witnesses is what are the cost estimates that they would put beside objectives for a National Institute of Education. It is all very well and good to wish to reform elementary school programs, to rebuild preschool programs, and provide new systems for computer instruction. But all of these efforts carry expensive price tags and we must decide are we going to finance this operation in such a way that there will be reasonable confidence that such tasks will be carried out.

If the new Office of Management and Budget operates in a similar fashion to the old Bureau of the Budget-and I was able to restrain

my affections for the Bureau of the Budget rather effectively-it can wave its cape and all of a sudden $100 million are going to appear in the budget for a National Institute of Education. Only those in Washington will know it is merely a transfer of existing moneys in the Office of Education budget to a new budget line and that actually no new money is committed at all. It would be a cruel hoax to suggest that $100 million could be used for these new objectives. A large proportion of that money will be continuation of past activities that must be continued or else the Government will again be quite properly accused of more broken promises and commitments. It will be a surprise to me if more than $20 million of that total figure would really be available to meet some of these new ambitious objectives. Rather than suggest a particular figure for an increase, let me suggest that we systematically place a price tag on each of the proposed activities. There are 15 suggested program elements in the Levien report that has been referred to here. The first one involves an attempt to deal with educationally disadvantaged children. It suggests new curriculum projects, major programs in early childhood education, experimental schools, new measuring instruments, and transmittal of research.

A crude estimate of these costs would be $125 million for the one objective, the first objective. Costs for the 14 other objectives would be worth calculating in a more systematic fashion than I have been able to do.

Now I would like to mention something that is very dear to my heart, and that is the problem of getting the research and development programs into action. One of my concerns about the current bill, as well as the administration plans, is the limited attention paid to the delivery of the finished product to the educational consumer-to the administrator, teacher, and student.

Putting it pragmatically, if you have a new reading program in Phoenix, how do you get it to Indianapolis? There is no educational transportation system to deliver these kinds of goods at the present time. We want to make clear that what we wish to transport is not just information, but complex systems of behavior. It is not just the putting a book in the hands of the teacher. We want to help that teacher learn new systems of teaching, and that means interaction with trained people. It means demonstration, and it means a more intensive effort of training the teacher in the new methods than we have allocated for in the past.

Previous limited efforts of transmitting new programs have been tried through such things as establishing demonstration centers, the design of special centers such as special educational materials network for handicapped, establishment of regional educational labs. One common experience comes back with all these major efforts. We underestimate the cost of change in major education and what is necessary to change. The program change, when it takes place, usually occurs because of some personal relationship that has been formed between the seller and consumer. Unless you have systematic channels of communication involving personal contact, the charges will be difficult to maintain, even if they are started at administrative level. It is hard to find those elements in the new program that are so reward