level than the OE, because they are going to be doing the research that might contain the policy of the schools at the various levels?

Dr. LEVIEN. I don't think it will be quite that way. It is hard to anticipate what the influence will be, but I would expect first of all that the NIE's influence will not be more visible. What you will see is new materials coming out of the University of Illinois or UCLA. They will be supported by the NIE, but they won't have the NIE's name all over them.

The NIE's support will give more options to the local districts, and more curriculums, and better ways of making decisions. Yet the personto-person advice, and the personal relationships will still tend to flow along the lines that they have to the OE.

I think the picture that Commissioner Marland painted is a feasible one, in that technical advice is given by the OE, and a pool of new curriculums and information is made available by the NIE.

Mr. BELL. You do believe, do you not, that that Commissioner would be in a position to judge the importance of the NIE right alongside judging the importance and the concentration of effort in the OE. You think that he can handle both, and not become blinded by the preponderance of weight from one side or the other?

Dr. LEVIEN. I think he certainly will have a major role to play there, but I think it is true as well that the Congress, through its constituents, will know how well he is serving education, as will the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. BELL. You are recommending a very strong oversight on the part of the committee.

Dr. LEVIEN. I am certain that there will be strong oversight, and I think it is important for this development in education that it receive the informed and intelligent oversight of Congress. I think R. & D.'s potential for improving education is still not widely understood. It needs the concern and guidance and continuing evaluation of the Congress.

Mr. BELL. I very much agree with you on this. I just wanted to hear you say it for the record. I think an adequate Commissioner of Education will see the importance of that and will balance one against the other. He must visualize himself, and I am sure he will, as a head of really two organizations there.

Dr. LEVIEN. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I have just two other quick questions to put to you. One goes back to what we were talking about earlier, on this foundation idea. Agreeing with you that it is important that some agency of the Government be a funding agency for innovative programs, I agree with you too, that higher education certainly requires reform.

Is it not also true that so, too, does elementary and secondary education, and certainly vocational-technical education, and a variety of other activities? Would it not therefore make rational sense to have, if one wanted to establish another structure beyond an existing Office of Education, an agency called a National Foundation for Education, period?

That is to say why not a foundation whose mission would be to fund innovative, reform-oriented programs at every level? At least that makes some sense to me once one comes to the conclusion that you need another structure, apart from the existing program agencies in

OE. That is a subject worthy of discussion, but assuming that were possible, would not such a foundation make a lot more sense rationally? Dr. LEVIEN. Yes; I can see the sense in it. I suspect two things would occur. One, you would probably develop within the single foundation a number of substructures to serve the various levels, so that there would develop a Bureau of Higher Education a Bureau of Vocational Education, and so on.

Two, there is already in elementary and secondary education, a certain amount of Federal funding for innovation, in title III particularly. So I guess the felt need for such funding is not so great in that area as in higher education. That may be the reason why the foundation took the form it did, but I can see the rationale behind what you have to say.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The analogy is usually drawn in response to questions like mine, to title III of ESEA. That is not entirely the purpose of title III. That is supposed to be supplementary services and centers. They may or may not be innovative in character, and I can cite to you specific instances of such supplementary programs that certainly would not have the reforming mission which is represented as the purpose for higher education of the proposed national foundation.

I think this is another example, just speaking for myself, of how very little this whole matter has been thought through.

Dr. LEVIEN. I would certainly agree that the funding of innovative activities should be a concern of the Federal Government, that we don't know enough yet about effective mechanisms for doing so, and a more broadly conceived national foundation may be an appropriate mechanism.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I have just one other question, and that has to do with technology.

In your statement, you remark on the need of using the limited resources of education more effectively, and one area that is often cited in this respect is the process of educational technology.

When I say process, I mean to include software and hardware.

If you can give us a generalization, what role do you envisage for the NIE in using the process of technology to help bring about substantial change in education in this country?

Dr. LEVIEN. I think the NIE will be involved in technology in a number of different ways. To some extent it will be working on technology in the pure sense. For example, there are things that have to be done to make the computer an effective tool for instruction, which have to do with the hardware and the basic software of the computer. The NIE might legitimately involve itself with that.

But my work has convinced me that the major problems lie on the software and the institutional side of the system. I mean the problems lie in developing institutional mechanisms through which instructional materials can be made available to be used on computers, and which encourage their production and employment.

The one technology that we have that is used effectively in instruction, that is continually renewed, and that is widely distributed is printing technology and its software-the textbook. I think we have something to learn from that example about ways we might get other technologies effectively used.

One of the things we have to learn is that it is an effective use of the medium itself that must be the principal concern.

I think the NIE might sponsor the development of curriculum materials for early childhood education or physics in higher education, or for geography, or elementary science, that is specifically directed toward the effective utilization of new educational technologies.

For example, the NIE might develop a course that heavily uses the computer and television to convey a subject such as physics to students. It might employ physicists in the universities and elsewhere in the course development, as well as specialists in the medium, and then test whatever the result demonstrates that the technology is an effective tool of instruction.

Here the emphasis of the NIE would not be on the technology itself, but on funding the development of materials that utilize the technology effectively.

Third, it has to be concerned with the institutional mechanisms by which technology is employed. It has to see that the right incentives to produce and utilize technology-teach materials exist, and the right institutions, may be modeled on Children's Television Workshop, develop to bring together skilled people to employ technology to its highest.

We may need more institutions concerned with these things. Again I think the NIE would be experimenting to find ways to make the most effective use of technology for education.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Dr. Levien, we thank you very much, both for your excellent testimony this morning, and for the outstanding study that you have made of the NIE. I hope you will allow us to call on you from time to time as the subcommittee considers this project. Dr. LEVIEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We are adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Select Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The Select Subcommittee on Education met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representative John Brademas.

Staff members present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; David LloydJones, subcommittee staff; Martin LaVor, minority legislative associate; and Gladys Walker, clerk.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will be in order.

The Select Education Subcommittee is meeting today for the purpose of continuing hearings on H.R. 3606 and related bills to create a National Institute of Education.

Members of the subcommittee have recently returned from Europe where we visited a number of institutions committed to the application of disciplined intellectual work to the task of renewal in education. In each country we visited-in France, in Norway, and in Britain-we found appreciation for the work being done in educational research in the United States. Yet, in each country, there was also a determined effort to apply research findings to problems of education through an organizational form appropriate to this purpose.

The National Institute of Education is conceived as just such an organization, a visible national center with the scientific and political in the nonpartisan sense of that word-stature to lead in educational innovation.

What is to be the shape of the proposed NIE, and what are to be its priorities? These are difficult questions, and to confront those questions we have heard a number of witnesses. Today, as we continue this process, we are pleased to have with us two persons well qualified to give us the benefit of their own counsel and judgment-Dr. Hendrick Gideonse and Mr. Kenneth Komoski.

Dr. Gideonse-his doctorate is in the history and philosophy of education-headed the program planning and evaluation unit of the National Center for Research and Development of the Office of Education during the years of greatest creativity and innovation there. Mr. Kooski, similarly, has been heavily involved in issues of evaluation. Formerly a codirector of the Institute of Educational Technology at Columbia University, in 1967 Mr. Komoski founded the Educational Products Information Exchange or EPIE Institute. A sort of consumers union for educators, the EPIE Institute tries to help schools evaluate the materials and procedures they use.

STATEMENT OF HENDRIK GIDEONSE, FORMER DIRECTOR, PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Mr. GIDEONSE. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be here this morning. I am glad that I have been invited to come.

I have a number of documents that I would like to insert in the record if I might at some point following my statement and one that I would like to call to the attention of the committee. Then I would like to insert my testimony, too, and just summarize it briefly if I might as a way of getting into the questions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes, without objection that will be so ordered. (The prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENDRIK D. GIDEONSE, FORMER DIRECTOR, PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have been invited to testify in favor of the general conception of HR 3606 to establish a National Institute of Education. I offer my testimony as a professional in the field and not in my present capacity as a Professional Staff Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Executive_Reorganization and Government Research. For the last six and a half years I have participated in the administration of the research program, of the U.S. Office of Education, the last five and a half as Director of Program Planning and Evaluation for the National Center for Educational Research and Development and its predecessor organization, the Bureau of Research. I would like to share what I have learned from that experience and apply it positively to the proposal for an NIE. The need to elevate the status and visibility of educational research and place it on a par with medical, defense, and space research is critical. A meaningful response to that need is long overdue.

My statement this morning, comprised of three major points, stands at odds with much of what you have heard on the subject so far.

First, educational research as mission-oriented behavioral and social science is fundamentally different in kind from agricultural, bio-medical, natural or physi cal science R&D. Analogies based on those sciences have been frequently employed in the testimony you have heard so far. Insofar as those analogies reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of educational R&D, the basic assumptions underlying the Institute proposal appear flawed and likely to lead to serious deficiencies and difficulties in program, approach and structure. Second, I think the testimony you have heard so far on the so-called delivery system problem has been misleading.

Third, the cost of educational research and development, when it is finally undertaken on the proper scale, is likely to be far greater than any estimate laid before the committee to this point in time.

WHAT KIND OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? When Professor Moynihan, Counsellor to the President, announced the Presi dent's proposal to create a National Institute of Education, he said that NIE was "shamelessly modeled on the National Institutes of Health." In testimony before this committee he cited examples of neurological research and studies in the chemistry of learning. Other testimony you have heard from the Secretary, the Commissioner, and Dr. Levien argued by analogy from space, industrial, health, military, or agricultural research.

For certain purposes such analogies may be useful, particularly, for example, when comparing scale of effort-how many people, how many dollars, what proportion R&D expenditures bear to the total investment in a field.

But when such analogies are applied to the substance of educational research itself, the comparisons are fundamentally misleading.