So I am not quite clear at this stage of the proceedings how much money you are proposing to expend for programs to be administered through the NIE and an obviously related question is how much of that is to be new money that would not have, as it were, found a place under the programs that you propose to transfer?

Secretary RICHARDSON. Let me make a couple of preliminary comments, Mr. Chairman, and then I will ask Commissioner Marland to complete our response to these questions.

First of all, there has been some variance in figures used from time to time that reflects ongoing discussions of the question of just which research or research related programs should be transferred to the NIE.

Beyond that there has been a good deal of thought given to the order of magnitude of new money that ought to be made available to it in the first year.

Our present thinking is that the total of that amount of the new programs in the 1972 budget that would be transferred is $118 million and that it would also have in that year additional funds of the order of $30 to $60 million.

Dr. MARLAND. The explanation is quite appropriately called for by the chairman. As we have sharpened our planning and refined our figures since submitting our earlier document to the committee, Mr. Chairman, we have made some adjustments which do need explanation.

Mr. BRADEMAS. May I say that I hope in response you will have in mind the disparity between the amounts of money that you propose and the programs that you propose to be transferred.

I ask this because in your March 17 study, the proposed tentative budget for NIE, you have for example, under curriculum development in vocational education the figure of $4 million. But then one turns to your more recently submitted document entitled, "OE research and development programs," and sees the columns, "likely to be transferred to NIE," and there observes that you have lumped all vocational research together and have asked for $55.7 million.

In like fashion, in the earlier document, you refer to handicapped research $30,350.000, while in your subsequent document, you have a little over $8 million. Now you may be comparing apples and oranges, and obviously I am not interested in misrepresenting what you are doing but I do think you ought to give us a clearer picture of what it is you are proposing to do.

Dr. MARLAND. As I say, we have continued to refine and sharpen this planning. Indeed I am sure we will for some months to come. We are giving you today's calculations, and I believe they are reasonably sound, I will explain the difference between this and the earlier estimates.

First, if I may however, I would like to turn to the charts just for a moment, since I am now on my feet, to return to the question which the chairman asked as to how the arrangements for authority and responsibility might flow between the Office of Education and NIE.

I think it is important to point out that NIE is not a part of the Office of Education. The NIE would report to the Commissioner, to whom the Secretary would delegate overall responsibility for the agency. It would have its own advisory council. The Office of Education sits here. You have met today D. John Ottina who sits here as a component of that Office.

Likewise the Foundation for Higher Education would be detached and separated from that Office and still within spitting distance. Turning to the question of funds, in our present plans for the Institute we are now projecting a level of funding in those functions which are suitably transferrable to NIE from the present Office of Education. That is a figure of $118 million to which the chairman referred. That is the point here on this chart for our fiscal year 1972 as now budgeted.

As we move through 1972, which will be the planning year, you note that there is a $3 million sum for planning during that year. This means the initial assembly of a staff, the beginning of the program, the beginning of the gathering of consultants during this first

year.

You will note here the range of $150 to $200 million representing the first operational year after the year of planning. A year later it is $280 to $340 million, in that range.

So on through the years. Projecting to 1977, we have an estimated range of $310 to $420 million. Roughly, 10 percent of that or less, as we now perceive it, is devoted to inhouse research by the community of scholars there gathered. The rest of it performed under contract by scholars outside of the National Institute of Education, much after the fashion of the National Institutes of Health.

Returning to the question as to the variance in figures which we have provided to date, let us take, for example, your question on the funds for research and development effecting the handicapped. Here you have an ongoing program in the Office of Education, and a lively dis cussion as to where best to place the research element of that office.

But we have in our own best judgment now divided the moneys dedi cated to research and development for the handicapped into two parts. That part which is clearly not strictly research but rather the development of new materials, for example, the production of films for the deaf, has not been cataloged as research. We would more truthfully catalog it as development, as demonstration, loosely cataloged in the past and funded under the research authority. You will note in our latest report that we are declaring for 1972, a level of something over $7 million of the total sum to be held in the Office of Education. Some $8 million would be moved to the new NIE budget, since it is strictly research and development. That is one of the later refinements in our proposal.

Mr. BRADEMAS. If we are going to hear Dr. Levien on Tuesday, I wonder if it would be possible for you, Mr. Commissioner, to let us hear from the persons in your office who are heading up these several research programs to be transferred.

Dr. MARLAND. We will welcome this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and we will have them here at your call.

Mr. BRADEMAS. It will probably be Tuesday.

Mr. Reid?

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I would like to welcome you here most warmly today, and along with Commissioner Marland and Dr. Ottina and Mr. Cross. I would say that I for one greatly welcome the President's initiative on NIE that you are so clearly supporting today for NIE.

I might ask if you could give us a little fuller definition of the difference between NIE and the foundation and the broad range of endeavors each would undertake.

Secretary RICHARDSON. I would be very glad to do that. Mr. Marland may wish to add to it or to subtract from my reply.

Most fundamentally and simply stated the National Institute for Education is charged with the support and research, the seeking for new knowledge, in effect, across the whole range of education.

The National Foundation we conceive of as an institution providing funds for the support of reform directed budgets within institutions of higher education. The Foundation's objective is not in the first instance or primarily new knowledge. It is to encourage and support the undertakings of institutions of higher education that wish to move in new directions.

The direction in which they move may have been pioneered already by others or they may represent the application in practice of a new knowledge that has been gained through research.

So fundamentally, therefore, the National Foundation would seek out opportunities in higher education and review projects submitted to it that are directed toward reform and innovation while the NIE would conduct research and development activities throughout education, elementary, secondary, and higher education as well.

Mr. REID. NIE would be concerned with a coherent approach to research and experimentation across the board from preschool through higher and graduate education, and research here would mean research in the pure sense, development, demonstration, innovation testing, et cetera?

Secretary RICHARDSON. Yes; I would just add to that research training is a related activity. Yes; that is a good brief statement of the range that the NIE would cover.

Mr. REID. Thank you.

Second, could you respond a little more explicitly on the dissemination of that function of the research once it was developed by NIE? Secretary RICHARDSON. Yes, again the Commissioner may want to comment on this. I think very clearly a great lack to this date in the research and development role of the Office of Education, and I think it is fair to say of practically every agency in HEW, has been the lack of follow through in translating new knowledge into practice.

There is a need, therefore, strictly from the research and developmental side, to focus on the question of how to disseminate new knowledge and get it moved into practice.

This would be an area we visualize as appropriate for the NIE itself to focus on. In other words, how to translate into practice the knowledge that it helps to bring into being.

Meanwhile, however, the Office of Education itself must have a major role in dissemination. Indeed, we regard the relationship of the Office of Education to the State departments and local educational systems as being increasingly a relationship in which people from the Office of Education are bringing to bear, in contact with the educational administrators and teachers what has been learned elsewhere. through research and development.

We visualize, in other words, increasingly a role for the Office of Education in which it exercises leadership through that kind of com

munication.

We think that as we have multiplied Federal formula grants programs that we have reduced the leverage of that device in accomplishing a response by the educational system to identifiable national in

terests.

We think we should therefore find means of encouraging State and local school systems to establish objectives and to bring to bear means of measuring their own progress toward these objectives.

We think that the role of the Federal Government in relationship to that process should increasingly be to bring to their attention what other people have done successfully or what the research or demonstration process, lead largely by NIE, has discovered. So, there can be no sharp line between the dissemination role of the NIE and that of the Office of Education, but primarily the emphasis with the NIE would be on the development of the new techniques and approaches to the dissemination process. The role of the Office of Education would be the actual provision of information, technical assistance, and help in bringing new practice into the delivery system itself.

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Dr. MARLAND. I can be very brief and if I can, I will return to the chart, Mr. Reid. As the Secretary has indicated, the Office of Education will indeed support the delivery system. Inventions, the discoveries, and the creative work must happen here, in NIE. This institution, the laboratory, if you will, will reach out to test its ideas, to develop models that will work.

But then this institution must have access to a delivery system which it does not have. It is not the nature of scholars to get into the marketplace and produce the product and deliver it and put it in place. That is the job of the operating agencies.

The reason for placing responsibility for supporting the delivery system in the Office of Education is to make use of that network and access to the 19,000 school districts which the agency has already established.

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Marland.

Mr. Secretary, on page 2 of your testimony I think you said we have not yet found ways to teach coping with change or humanity or ingenuity. In the face of these difficulties we can be sure of one thing, the old answer is no longer working.

Would you care to comment briefly about what seems to me to be a central question here, the importance of totally new and imaginative research, not just an assessment of old ways and past pedgogic concepts or even some of the newer ones of compensatory education, but some really imaginary research striking out in many directions to really deal with the question of how to make education work which in so many sectors of our society clearly is not working.

Dr. MARLAND. I think you have well stated, Mr. Reid, the urgency and importance of what we think is needed. I think we see this in school systems everywhere. It is a feeling reflected by administrators and teachers as well as by parents and pupils: the sense that something better is needed, that the old answers of larger per pupil expenditures or smaller class size or better equipment do not themselves produce better education.

For example, in the field of compensatory education, even though title I has pumped substantial additional amounts of money into the system, it seems clear that the trial and error process has not given us the answer of how to overcome educational handicaps from a disadvantaged environment. And so with respect generally to underachievement and alienation among poor children, we need to know more about what it is that sparks their interest in learning and involves them in the educational process.

We have problems of unemployability among young people leaving school at all levels who are unprepared to get or to fill a decent job. We need to understand more about the processes that move institutions themselves internally, to change and adapt and meet new needs. There is a long list of things one might identify.

Mr. REID. Wouldn't you add to that much greater emphasis on preschool or early learning, day care centers and approaches of this kind in the range of perhaps from ages 1 to 4, much greater emphasis here than we have given?

It seems that a good deal of research indicates that much of the learning takes place between 1 and 4. Isn't preschool an area we have to stress, early learning?

Dr. MARLAND. Yes, I think this is true now in at least two broad aspects. One is the development of better approaches to the educational process itself for preschool children. The other is the larger organizational setting within which preschool education takes place. As you know, of course, through the legislation on which you and other members of this committee have been working, there are significant jurisdictional and organizational questions to be solved in the development of stronger preschool educational systems and the relationship between the school system itself and support of day care under other agencies.

These are questions that can be and I think should be addressed by the NIE in seeking to develop model approaches. There is also the whole question of educational technology, the role of television, for example. We need a better and deeper understanding of Sesame Street and other such approaches: why they work, what parts of them appear to be most effective, and how they can be adopted and so on. Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Bell.'

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to applaud you, Mr. Secretary and Dr. Marland, in your approach to this problem. I think it is a program that is long overdue, a very important one.

I am not being particularly partisan about this: I think all administrations have an inclination to throw money into an educational area without any really strong forethought, planning, or analysis.

Although I certainly supported the Elementary and Secondary Education Act when it first came out, I think we could have given a great deal more thought about the direction in which it was oriented. I certainly do commend this. I think you are moving in the right direction. As I understand it, Commissioner, the R. & D. basically will then come under NIE?

Dr. MARLAND. That is correct.

Mr. BELL. Then as I see it, OE will be eased gradually into a little less importance, if I may put it that way, and NIE into greater im