« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
universities and schools, you have to redefine the award systems in the universities and in the schools.
One of the things that has to come in here is the fact that we have to find a way, and this is one of my standard chivarees, for differentiated stafling. Until we have elementary and secondary teachers who are as highly paid and with as much responsibility as university professors, we are never going to be able to bridge the hiatus between university and elementary and secondary school level.
That means you have to break the back of the salary level. You have to have the potential for some teachers at the 40 or 50 thousand dollar level. If you handle elementary and secondary level that had professional status of university scholars and legitimately for that status, then you could get them involved in university programs and you start breaking down the stream of watertight compartments between the different levels of education.
I think this would also encourage more community involvement and the community might begin service as a bridge between universities and schools.
In terms of the idea of university based research, I think one of the real problems in American education is that no one has figured out how university based research is to be funded. The States are unwilling to take basic funding responsibility for graduate education.
I know in the School of Education at the University of Massachusetts, $2 out of every $3 I spend are not State dollars. They are foundation and Federal dollars rather than State dollars.
The primary burden of graduate research comes institutionally. This means it becomes a soft money operation subsequent to the vagaries of programs being developed or killed.
One of the reasons that universities are in the difficulty they are in now is that all of a sudden you have withdrawal of substantial programs simultaneously without other programs being developed to take up the slack.
So I think that first of all we have to find the mechanism to put graduate education and research in the university and on a much more regularized basis.
Then I think in exchange for that, because the funding mechanism is one of the major mechanisms to command program change, in exchange for that 'I think that we ought to reorient the programs of umiversity research so that instead of being exclusively oriented to disciplines, they become oriented to the problems of society.
In other words that sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists will become members of a national faculty.
At the institutional level we should have institutes on man and environment and other problematic problems in society. If that happens, then you have a way to compel scholars to devote major parts of their energies to university based research that has more immediate pay off in society.
The trade off for that would be hopefully the ability of those scholars to have a portion of their resources available for basic disciplinary research. In other words, I am willing to support a faculty member at the university for about one-third of his time to do
anything that he pleases as a scholar.
I think I should have responsibility to provide him the funds for that in exchange for which, about two-thirds of the time he should do the bidding of the institution and bidding of the clientele of the university of which he is a part.
We have not tended to find ways to create that kind of a balance. I think it is the same issue the second question you ask, Mr. Chairman, in terms of basic research. I think we will get the support of the community for basic research and their tolerance for basic research and patience for that if we also mount concommitant programs of research efforts which have more immediate payoffs and create more immediate symbols.
What we desperately need in education is the equivalent of the symbol of the moon shot, something we can focus all of our attention on that becomes immediately obvious both what the goal is and how the things we are doing relate to that goal.
As a byproduct we will then gain the leeway and acceptability and political reality to mount programs of basic research which will provide the matrix for the next generation of implementation.
Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Dean Allen. I know we can sit here for several more hours talking to you and Dr. Oettinger and Dr. Bailey, but we do not have the luxury of that amount of time. I hope, however, with respect to our other witnesses, you will allow our subcommittee to call on you later on for continued advice and counsel.
You have been helpful to us this morning. The subcommittee is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the subcommittee adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)
TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1971
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The Select Subcommittee on Education met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas (chairman of the select subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Brademas, Reid, Bell, Landgrebe, Hansen, Pevser, Scheuer, and Grasso.
Staff: Jack Duncan, counsel, David Lloyd-Jones, staff, Martin La Vor, minority legislative associate, Gladys Walker, clerk, Christina Orth, assistant clerk.
Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will come to order. We are meeting this afternoon to hear testimony of several distinguished administration officials, the distinguished Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Richardson; and his distinguished colleagues, Sidney Marland, U.S. Commissioner of Education; the Deputy Commissioner of HEW for Development, John Ottina; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Education Legislation, Christopher T. Cross.
These gentlemen have come to testify today on legislation which seems to me to be of the highest importance for the future of American education, legislation designed to implement President Nixon's proposal to create a National Institute of Education. As the President said in his speech on educational reform of March 3, 1970, the NIE is intended as an organization to serve as a focal point both for carrying out and for supporting research, demonstration, development, and innovation in American education.
As President Nixon said in that address, “As a first step toward reform we need a coherent approach towards research and experimentation.”
Speaking for myself, and I think I don't misstate the views of the other members of this subcommittee, the proposal of President Nixon to establish a National Institute of Education is one of the most thoughtful and constructive initiatives in the field of education that I must say I as a member of this committee for 12 years, have heard voiced by an American President.
I for one want to commend the President on this initiative. Indeed. some of us on this subcommittee today may be stronger supporters of his proposal than he is. This is why the subcommittee has been holding hearings, inviting a number of experts in education and in the field of educational research and development and innovations and why we are considering this proposal in such depth.
The Chair just wants to make two or three other quick observations before inviting the Secretary to testify. It seems to me that there are several conditions that are very important if the National Institute of Education is to be more than cosmetics, if it is really to make a serious and substantive impact for change and improvement in education in our country.
inink First, I think it would be most foolish if we were to underfund the National Institute of Education. Time after time members of our committee have been told of the disappointments with the Regional Education Laboratories and that disappointment has largely been attributed to the inadequate nature of their funding.
I would hope very much that the administration will, by the money that it recommends for the programs to be carried out under the NIE, make clear that it is serious about the NIE.
Having spent the last several days traveling around universities in the Midwest where I heard much hope for the NIE voiced by educators, I make this point even more strongly.
Second, I would hope that those who are responsible for ariministering the NIE and carrying out programs under it will be balancing considerations of the long run extension of knowledge against the immediate needs of society. It would seem to me the NIE ought to be concerned both with learning more about the learning process with very pressing, urgent, immediate problems in education.
Third, I would hope--and perhaps this admonition is addressed to Members of Congress—that we do not expect results from our investment in research too readily and rapidly. I hope we will get away from the slot machine mentality that too many of us in Congress have who think that if you put a research nickel in on Monday you will get a quarter's worth of results out on Friday.
Research in education, as in other areas, takes time.
I hope as well that the research that will be carried out under the NIE will make a real difference. One of the reasons education research meets such a cold reception on Capitol Hill is that many Members of Congress don't really think it makes any difference.
We have the preconception that research in education is up there in the clouds someplace and that it is not really translated into the schools, the teachers, the students, and the universities. So we hope that research carried out under the NIE will be directed toward serious substantial real world problems.
Moreover, I believe it should be said that if the NIE is to succeed, it must emphasize excellence, that it is no place for mediocrity, no place for second rate or slovenly work.
Finally, let me express my own view that the NIE will include persons from disciplines not always thought of as being embraced within education-anthropology, cypernetics, biochemistry—to cite only a few. For we are coming to learn that these disciplines also have an impact on how people teach and learn and should therefore be called into the process supported by the NIE.
I hope the Chair will be forgiven for this expression of his own views on this matter. I want to reiterate, gentlemen, how strongly I feel about the importance of this enterprise-to repeat, one of the most encouraging ventures I have seen recommended by an American President in the field of education.