of the University of Chicago a book on educational research as human investment, as distinguished from his broader theories of education as investment in human capital, and it might be useful for us to look at that in the light of your colloquy.

Dr. Howe, I just have one other question to put to you; that returns to the point that you touched on at the outset of your remarks on the relationship between the proposed NIE and the proposed National Foundation on Higher Education.

I will just give you my own bias on it, and I am sure you will disagree with me; and if you disagree with me, in any event, tell me your feelings about it.

My own perception is that educational research does not stand very well on Capitol Hill for several reasons, one of which is, we don't know what it is.

Another is that whatever it is, we don't think it makes much difference.

And another, which is related to the first two, is that we have the apprehension that the fruits of investment in educational research are not really translated into the system.

My fear is that if there is established, independent of the NIE, a foundation on higher education the mission of which, as presently represented by the administration, which marks a significant shift from the original foundation purpose of a year ago, when it was supposed to be a general-purpose organization-if the foundation is now represented as a source of funding for innovation, experimentation, and reform in higher education, my apprehension is that the foundation will only buttress the fears of those of us in Congress, and those who pay attention to these matters that once again a sharp distinction is being made between research on the one hand anad its application on the other.

That is a tactical problem but it has important substantive implications. I have had a hard time trying to get from the administration witnesses a clear picture of the relationships that they seek to establish among basic research, application of that research through demonstration or experimentation, and then dissemination of the results thereof.

Have I given you a clear picture of what troubles me?

And then, by way of symbolizing this concern, we see $100 million proposed by the administration for the foundation, the design of which has not been subjected to nearly the amount of study and inquiry on the part of the administration that has been directed to the NIE, by way of contrast, in a request, for planning, of $3 million for the first year of the NIE.

And the administration is not asking for much new money for the NIE, even in the first year after the planning. They are asking by 1977, according to Secretary Richardson the other day, a level of $370 to $430 million in fiscal year 1977, which would include perhaps as much as $140 million in existing educational research money.

So that 6 years from now, the administration is proposing, if you use these figures, $300 million in new money, but you, Dr. Howe, are suggesting that there ought to be new money for the NIE in the amount of up to half a billion dollars in fiscal year 1972.

So my point is that, if you put all those budget projections together, long with the substantive questions that I have tried to pose, it seems

to me that the administration hasn't thought this problem through very carefully, to put the most generous interpretation on it.

Dr. Howe. Let me make just a couple of comments on that:

First of all, it seems to me that the continuum of research, design, and development of tryout and disseminations is really a continuum with an interrelatedness in all the parts of it in which there are not straight lines.

And that sometimes your researcher finds himself on the front of tryout in order to establish his results, and therefore I think it is very difficult to assign to an organization discreet pieces of that spectrum, and fence it out of other pieces of that spectrum. It is all interrelated, and needs to have the sort of hunting license that this bill gives this new organization.

In regard to the congressional view of educational research, I suspect you are right.

I think there is one very good example of an education research activity that all Members of Congress know about, which they probably don't think of as an education research activity. It is "Sesame Street."

When I was in the Office of Education, I worked hard to preserve $3 or $4 million of research funds to put into Sesame Street, and finally got it there.

Some other private resources came in and created enough money to start a research job. And a research job was done for a period of a year and a half or more before there was any real development of program, and then that program was started on a trial basis. Some mistakes were found in it; there was feedback; it was redesigned, and eventually a product emerged.

That was an interrelated process. It is easy to see now as representative of this spectrum I was talking about.

I think other efforts of that kind can start with bets on research money, not necessarily in the media or television realm but in other realms.

And I think perhaps that is a good way for Members of Congress to conceive of a successful research effort with real results in education.

I don't want to try to comment beyond expressing my concern that I expressed earlier about the National Foundation for Higher Education, because I really don't know enough about it.

But I have a concern which would naturally lead me to wonder about some of the kinds of points you have raised.

I just don't yet understand how these two organizations are going to have their functions defined and put together.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me ask just one other question, before we allow you to cease.

And I ask you this question because your responsibilities at the Ford Foundation and your previous responsibilities in the Office of Education went clear across the spectrum of education in the preschools through graduate schools.

Now, we have the Office of Education with the Bureau of Higher Education, which spends money on programs.

Next, it is proposed that we have a National Institute of Education, one of the missions of which will be to carry out research with respect to higher education.

Third, the administration proposes that we have a National Foundation for Higher Education, which presumably is going to carry out demonstration projects motivated by a concern for reform.

It is curious to me that an administration that is devoted to overcoming proliferation of bureaucracy should be moving in this direction, but that is just an aside.

What has been difficult for me to understand is, the reason higher education should be singled out for a foundation of this kind, when one might well make the point that there ought to be reform in elementary and secondary education, or that there ought to be reform in vocational-technical, or career, education; or that there ought to be demonstration projects of a kind that are proposed for the Foundation for Higher Education for child development or preschool programs. So that I don't understand the intellectual, the rational, the logical, rationale for a Foundation for Higher Education in particular. There may be tactical reasons for the foundation. Indeed, I suspect there are. That, of course, is not my point.

Have I made my question absolutely clear?

Dr. Howe. This is the question I am raising without providing the answer: It seems to me at least the possibility that this all ought to be one organization. And that possibility ought to be seriously examined. It may be that the tactical issues make it either politic or necessary to have two organizations, but there ought to be a serious look at these other possibilities.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Dr. Howe, very much. You have been very helpful to us.

Can we go off the record for just a minute?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BRADEMAS. We are now very pleased indeed to welcome back an old friend, who has given very great leadership to American education throughout his career, and most particularly as U.S. Commissioner of Education under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and is now the president of General Learning-Frank Keppel. Mr. Keppel, we are glad to see you, sir.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS KEPPEL, PRESIDENT, GENERAL

LEARNING

Mr. KEPPEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid that what I'll say is likely to be repetitious. I know that that is not a new experience for Members of Congress, but this is particularly true be cause I follow Mr. Howe, with whose views I have very substantial agreement.

Which reminds me of my father's comment: "Nothing succeeds like a successor," [laughter] and in this case it certainly worked.

I will run through very rapidly, Mr. Chairman, what I have her condensing my formal statement.

I will start by supporting the basic idea of H.R. 33. This represents. personal change of view over 3 or 4 years.

It seems to me the time has now come to do this.

I would also like, if the members of the committee would permit m to make a point very strongly, which is my personal delight-I thin that's the word I want to use-my personal delight and to my cor

mendation to the chairman and to the members of the subcommittee that this piece of legislation is introduced on a bipartisan basis; exactly the way this sort of legislation, it seems to me, should be introduced.

Anyone who has sat as Commissioner of Education is well aware of the fact that it is one aspect of Government which should, as far as is practicable, be a bipartisan enterprise.

(The statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANCIS KEPPEL, PRESIDENT, GENERAL LEARNING

Mr. Chairman, let me start by supporting the basic idea of H.R. 33. The time has come to establish a central point of initiative for educational research in the Federal Government. It is no longer a question of whether it would be wise to establish such an Institute: it is now only a question of how best to do so. Let me comment on H.R. 33 section by section.

Section 2. It seems to me that arguments for educational research go beyond only the provision of equality of educational opportunity. The extent and the nature of investment in education is closely related to economic growth, for example. Nor can it be separated from the subtler issues of the quality of American life in myriad ways: appreciation of the arts, strengthening a capacity in basic research, etc. I therefore suggest that consideration be given to expanding Section 2 by adding words such as "to raise the level of quality of learning and teaching.” Section 3. I am not clear as to the relation between the National Institute and the present U.S. Office of Education. An argument can certainly be made to separate such an Institute from the day-to-day operations and the grant programs of the U.S. Office. On the other hand, I should think it unwise to separate it too far. In the long run, it seems likely that the United States will have to create a separate cabinet Department for Education. To plan for this eventuality, it might be sensible to establish the new Institute as a separate unit reporting to the Commissioner of Education. This would make a transition to a separate Department, of which the Institute would be a part, easier to accomplish.

Section 4. While I agree with the broad definition of the areas in which the Institute may work, there is surely danger in conceiving of it as the instrument of the federal government in "evaluations" and in "investigations." Whatever unit conducts such evaluations and investigations of current programs is going to be up to its ears in controversial and politically urgent matters. There would be serious danger that the urgent would take the place of the important and long term research effort of the Institute. And it is at least conceivable that the funding of the basic program of the Institute might be affected by current attitudes toward the results of surveys and evaluations. It would not be the first time that the messenger is punished for the message that he brings.

Section 4 does not make it clear, at least to me, how the Institute relates to a number of programs in the Office of Education that might be described as "development," if not "research." As a guess, the success of the Institute idea will depend in considerable part on keeping its focus on major issues rather than engaging in bureaucratic aggrandisement. May I therefore suggest that special attention be given during the hearings to a detailed review of research and development programs throughout the government and their possible relation to such an Institute.

Nor does the summary indicate the policy on allocation of funds to support investigations on the basis of the request of the investigator rather than on the basis of the current interests of the Institute. Perhaps these are matters best left to the Institute once established. But one matter is of such importance that it should be expressed in the legislation itself: that a substantial part of the work of the Institute should be in basic rather than applied research. We may be on the threshhold of major advances in understanding how man learns from the researches of biophysicists and neurologists as well as the research of psychologists. The Institute should not only be free to support such areas of science and scholarship but should be explicitly instructed to do so. Indeed, I recommend that at least one member of the National Advisory Council be selected from the staff of the National Institute of Health.

Section 5. More explicit language might be included in the Bill to encourage a free exchange of scholars and scientists between universities or other research

groups and the Institute. While the Institute would presumably want to have a permanent core staff, I can see sensible arguments for planning rotation of individuals on short term, sabbatical arrangements, etc. This is not just a bureaucratic question. It goes to a fundamental issue: the fact that the United States is in short supply as far as talented investigators in the educational area. It would seem a serious mistake to weaken the capacity of universities and other research groups by drawing away their talent into a National Institute which does not have responsibility for the recruitment and training of future investigators. Collaboration and interchange is essential.

Mr. BRADEMAS. May I interrupt to say that this subcommittee is singularly blessed with talented and creative and openminded members of the other party, and they have contributed enormously to the effectiveness of our work

Mr. KEPPEL. May I bring the attention of the subcommittee particularly to section 2 to the general purposes of the bill?

The argument as one reads it is an argument based primarily on research needed for the provision of equality of educational opportu nity. Heaven knows I am in favor of that.

But it seems to me that to argue the case for educational research on the basis of the need for provision of equality of educational opportunity alone is to place such an enterprise on too narrow a base.

We have heard discussions this morning, for example, on the relation of higher education to economic growth, and also Mr. Scheuer's comment about the GI bill.

But there are a myriad of other areas, from the role of the arts in the United States, from strengthening human capacity for basic research in areas that in a sense have nothing to do with education.

I would therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that consideration be given to rewriting section 2, to make it clear that the purpose is broader than solely the question of providing equality of educational opportunity.

And I venture to suggest in my testimony general language which would relate to something like "to raise the level of quality of learning and teaching" in the United States.

With regard to section 3, I share Mr. Howe's uncertainty about the relationship of the National Institute to the present U.Š. Office of Education.

Obviously, an argument can be made, and it should be made, that such an institute be separated from the day-to-day operations and the grant programs of the U.S. Office.

But on the other hand, I obviously am concerned that we separate it too far. The Government is not without "unrelated" planets in these matters, and one of the problems that Mr. Howe brought out I thought was very much to the point.

A Commissioner of Education, I presume, presiding over such an enterprise, could, if I may use uncongressional language, "louse it up." He could do something else that augurs worse, which is to neglect the Institute. But even worse would be the possibility of such an Institute neglected by everybody. It could in effect become quite useless and would become one of those appendages.

I would on balance think it is better to have it hitched to a responsible, senior officer of the Government.

It is my personal view that in due course something like a Department of Education will be formed in one way or another; that is, a very senior representative of Government. I believe that the Institute