ing that it will overcome fears and anxieties raised by departing the educational status quo.

In other words, everybody is for educational change, but educational change is very painful and there has to be some rewards for people who change in order for them to overcome their reluctance to leave the comfortable status quo. So without a specific plan for how to deliver the products of educational research and development, we will continue to have a huge chasm between innovation and implementation.

My strong recommendation would be to have the National Institute of Education become involved in a search for a modern communication system, and, for goodness sake, to budget for it. The cost of this transportation system to build regular communication between developer and consumer is likely to be very large, and there is nothing in the current budgeting or planning that shows that kind of recognition. The National Center for Educational Communication in the Office of Education, for example, currently carries a budget of less than $10 million, enough perhaps to run an information dissemination system, but not to stimulate major innovations and transportation of new practices. State departments of education, even regional service centers, may have to be involved in such a total program of comunication. My concern is not that we have an answer that no one is listening to, but rather we have not come to grips with the issue of communication itself, and that fact will cause much of other efforts of NIE to be less than totally efficient.

There has been much talk about National Institute of Education as being a fulcrum for education reform. An investment of $200 million is not going to reform a $65 billion enterprise. What it can do is become an important catalyst to start needed changes. I applaud the efforts of this committee to stimulate the kind of dialog that has begun this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Dr. Gallagher. That is a splendid statement, in my view. You have touched, on the basis of your experience in HEW and as a researcher in education, on what seem to me also to be some of the thorniest problems we have to deal with in this area.

I was especially struck by your use of the words governmental amnesia, and that is an experience through which most of us on this committee has passed. I wonder, in that respect, if you could comment on the fate of the regional educational laboratories, because those were authorized by Congress within only the past few years, and yet here we are talking as if they really had not existed in any serious

way.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. The educational laboratories were established with great expectations and with ascending cost assumptions. The cutbacks in funds that were well known in 1967, 1968, 1969 caused the very character and nature of the laboratories to change. One of the mandates that the laboratories had in the beginning was that they would play a major communications role to get new ideas into the public school programs as quickly as possible. Some of the laboratories still attempted to do that, but most of them then focused on educational development. They had their staffs cut back. They were under threat

of dismemberment or just being wiped out every 6 months. The morale in these organizations was about as low as you could get.

Under these circumstances, I think it is quite remarkable that they have achieved some of the very tangible products that they have. But I think we should have learned our lesson. Let's support programs that are valid; that we collect the best judgment we can on whether these programs are important to us, and whether we should pursue them, and then fund them for a 5-year basis. Say to an organization, "You have got the funds to do this job; carry through on it." So they won't have to be firing staff, they won't have to be reprograming their activity every 6 months.

You need to have that length of time in order to develop a sound R. & D. product. If you are under the gun every 6 months, it is just difficult, if not impossible, to carry through these responsibilities.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We in Congress, it seems to us have to overcome this slot-machine mentality of putting some money in the educational research bank and expecting instant dividends to return.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I am afraid Professor Moynihan was quite right when he said that if you start from scratch on a major project, it is going to be 5 years or longer. I do have an estimate of delivery time in the table on cost before you get some output. This is kind of our statement of faith in the future of this country in American education. We say we think it is going to be around for a long time and it is going to be important that we have these kinds of products coming out in 1975 and 1976.

The other part of the problem is that with a good delivery system we could be doing a great deal more right now in terms of putting some of these things into operation. We know a great deal more right now than we are doing, as the old farmer used to say. We would be in a position, given a more systematic approach to the delivery of products, to do a great deal more in the schools than we are now doing.

It is not necessary to wait 5 or 6 or 10 years for anything to happen. But if you were going to start from scratch and say: I am going to produce something quite new, I am organizing a staff, I am going to develop a program. I will field test it, demonstrate it and distribute it. Then 5 years is a short period of time to do that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. If I detect any new answer or difference between your statement, Dr. Gallagher, and that of Dr. Moynihan's, it is precisely on that point. And I dare say he would probably not strongly disagree with your point. I am thinking more or less of Mr. Badillo's question. You are in effect saying to Mr. Badillo: "We know more about what they in the Bronx ought to be doing to improve education in those schools than is presently available to your school system, and it isn't available because we have not made the effort of will and committed the money to communicate in usable fashion what we know to the teachers and administrators in your school system."

Is that what you are saying?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Precisely right.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Then it might well be the case that one of the earliest priorities of the proposed new Institute would be to improve the delivery system and communications.

What about the relationship between NIE and the existing regional education laboratories? How do you envisage that developing?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I think the current plans would be to transfer the administration of the educational laboratories and the programs that they are funding to the National Institute and I think that is a very appropriate move. There was a time where the major argument for educational laboratories was that we needed these major institutions to carry out these big projects. And we did. I think the time is pretty well past for just institutional support. I think what needs to be done is to put the laboratories and R. & D. centers under a program support basis. If they can develop in those laboratories or R. & D. centers major programs that are worthy of support, let's support them. But let's not support them merely as institutions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am extremely pleased to hear you stress the importance of communications and dissemination, and the implementation of an educational transportation system, which I think is a very useful phrase that I haven't heard before. And I am also pleased to hear you talk about the importance of continuing a commitment of funds and not cutting them off on a stop-and-start basis.

I am pleased, as well, to hear your comments about the importance of a substantial commitment of new money rather than a transferring of existing educational research funds into NIE in order to be able to say, "Look at what we have done." So your statement has been very helpful indeed, Dr. Gallagher.

I would like to call on Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me also express my appreciation to you, Dr. Gallagher, for your helpful testimony here this morning. To pursue the discussion on educational laboratory, it would seem to me that perhaps there are some useful lessons to be learned in our experience in the laboratory, where they were set up full-blown perhaps with little reason to know of their validity, and that by looking at that lesson we may perhaps also be a little cautious about moving in full blown with an NIE program in areas where we do not have the kind of an understanding of the validity and the purpose that is essential to its

success.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I think your point is well taken. We have learned a great many lessons from the establishment of the centers and laboratories, and that these lessons ought to be put to work in the new National Institute.

The start of these centers was really a major American contribution. There is nothing quite like these before, and they recognize the importance of development, not just the seeking of knowledge for its own sake which always has to be part of the total package, but the translation of knowledge into a meaningful educational program which is much more difficult, much more costly, requiring more diversified staff than we have previously experienced in psychological or sociological research.

So we have found out that to carry out these program development goals it is going to cost a great deal more money, if we are going to meet even a fraction of our objectives. I certainly agree with Professor Moynihan that we are not going to immediately dump four or

five times the amount of money that is now going into OE into a National Institute. But I think the increment has to be fairly high, and I think one of the things that the educational research establishment and funding has provided is the kinds of personnel that can do effective research now. You do have people out there who have the capabilities of doing a good job with funds that could be allocated.

Furthermore, we know that the availability of funds will draw talent. There are many people who are now in the fields of psychology and sociology and economics that might well be drawn into the field of education and educational problems by these additional funds. The buying of the best brains that you can to help the educational system in this country is probably one of the great byproducts of the establishment of a National Institute.

So I would agree that we need to be prudent about how we do this, but it is important for this committee to realize that the amount of funds that are being put in there now have very little relation ship to the objectives or dreams that we have as to what kind of problems will be solved with research.

Mr. HANSEN. I would concur with your suggestion with respect to trying to attach a price tag to each of the proposed program elements. But as I understand the Levien report, it did not anticipate all of these coming into being at the same time, but these can be identified as essential elements we should embrace within NIE as it evolves.

Mr. GALLAGHER. That is true. But the pressure on the research establishment and research administrator is very strong, as I well know. The people who will applaud on one hand the fact that you do have a priority in early education will, on the other hand, be dismayed by the fact that that priority prevents you from spending money on other important problems, such as vocational education or education at the elementary school level, for example.

Mr. HANSEN. In order to develop the kind of understanding that will result in continuing commitment and expanding level of support, it is going to be necessary, is it not, that we can demonstrate that this is a workable idea. And as part of the priorities-and I gather this is the import of your comments, with which I agree fully-as part of their priorities, we must perfect and improve the delivery system.

Isn't it important, or is it, to make substantial improvements in the delivery system without a very sizable investment? In other words, by bringing together a lot of what we are doing and developing the machinery that will move what we learn to the place where it can be used. Can't this be done without a large investment? And if we can succeed in this, won't it help build the kind of support necessary to develop these new program elements?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Congressman, I wish I could say yes to that, but I really can't. I think your point, the last point, is an extremely important one. That is, the delivery of the product into use is perhaps the best way to get broad support for these kinds of programs. Because, then, you can have some payoff, you will get greater public support. But I am afraid that the communication system that we are talking about is going to be costly, because we are not just talking about a communication system in terms of delivering information to people. We are talking about delivering of new practices, new methods of be

having, to the teacher, to the administrator, to the student. And these require very extensive kinds of training and demonstration activity, which are not cheap.

So I would say by investing in a delivery system, you could maximize the payoff of what has already been done; and that is a very important thing to do. But it is not going to carry a small price tag.

Mr. HANSEN. Shouldn't we be trying then, at the outset, to determine what that price tag is, too?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, indeed.

Mr. HANSEN. To me, this is almost the highest priority in this kind of legislation, and I would guess that if we are going to develop within the Congress and within the country the kind of sustained support that I agree is essential for a long-term commitment, we have just got to be able to demonstrate that what we are learning is being put into practical application.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, indeed. You do get into this kind of vicious circle where you say, because you haven't got a communication system, you aren't delivering. Then you can say, well, there is no visible payoff or delivery so we don't feel constrained to give large-scale support.

I think the National Institute could provide a great service by establishing three or four models of communication systems, of putting them into place in regions or States where it would be possible to show how you could get the newest ideas and programs into effect at the earliest possible time. I think there are some models that have already been developed, that I mentioned in the testimony, that would give guidance along these lines.

By doing this kind of thing, we could shorten the gap between the discovery and the implementation.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Following Mr. Hansen's question, is it not fair to say that the emphasis on the transfer of research results into the system, of which Mr. Hansen was speaking, would also afford you valuable resources for learning about substantive research problems? Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. If you are talking about what people ought to be learning, you are likely to learn something on the dissemination end as well as on the receiving end; are you not?

Mr. GALLAGHER. That is right. Communication is a two-way system. We need to have established communication channels to tell us what the consumer needs.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Hansen and I were in Israel a year ago,1 and we were both struck by the fact that Israelis seem to make greater use of results of educational research in the United States than we Americans do.

Mrs. Hicks.

Mrs. HICKS. Mr. Gallagher, I feel as my colleagues do, that unless it were going to be able to communicate the material to the consumer, that it is going to be of very little value. Because too often we see research that is just gathering dust on the shelves. So my question to you

1 See "Education in Israel." report of the Select Subcommittee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives 91st Cong., 2d sess.. August 1970; a report of a study mission to Israel chaired by the Honorable John Brademas, Indiana.

65-510-71-4