grounds which provide a rich culture for the development of misunderstanding. mistrust, and misdirected efforts. It is not surprising that nonuniversity personnel would feel defensive at the presence in their "territory" of "experts" from another level of education whose legitimacy in terms of socially acknowledged credentials is greater than their own. One very fortunate development in education today has been the professional separation of public school and higher education personnel, the latter frequently convinced that they are the true professionals while the former believe that they must labor in the fields while others reap the rewards of recognition, higher salaries and easier jobs, a conviction which is too often reinforced by poor communications.

In spite of certain friction between the public schools and university educators, there are developments in education today which require the cooperation of all educators for vigorous study. For example, significant policy decisions are being made regarding the governance and financing of schools, characteristically without adequate reference to theoretical models or experimentation. A further example is the fact that the lip service paid to the value of educational hardware vastly outweighs development and experimentation with such. Finally, many techniques, such as human relations training, whose potential surely interests anyone who has been concerned with teacher attitude, are being practiced without adequate, controlled experimentation.

Turning from what ought to be done to what is now taking place, we can view the nine federally sponsored university based centers as a major example of mission-research in education and as a tentative but positive thrust.

A very recent trend is occurring on many more campuses besides those which host the national centers, where individual researchers and research teams are also working on projects whose spin-off will eventually increase the composite research effort and information base in education. Across the nation, within the field and in conjunction with other disciplines, education faculties are making connections with outside agencies, including school districts, social agencies and independent laboratories, effecting cross-institutional collaboration in addition to interdisciplinary efforts within the institution.

A final point concerns the importance of planning for success in educational research and development, which extends into the planning for overall institutional development that should be a major factor in the determination of research goals. It is to the institution's advantage to think of the research enterprise as something more than just another of the many units within the university. The major point to be made in this regard is that research funds in substantial amounts, particularly when allocated to projects involving several members or inter-disciplinary effort, can be used to shape departmental and institutional development. With informed awareness of possibilities and intelligent planning for results, the growth and development of a program could be telescoped, accomplishing in a few years what might require decades at established rates of institutional growth.

None of this is possible, however, neither the planning nor resulting institu tional growth, unless adequate funds and reasonable freedom to deploy them are made available to researchers in education.

In a number of ways, the federal government has acted to stimulate and support research on the campus without strictly categorizing the funds made available. Historically, these non-categorical funds have been given to disciplines other than education, allowing them to develop a richer pool of resources for future arrangements. Until quite recently, on the other hand, funds for educational research have generally been marked when allocated, providing little flexibility for institutional development following natural growth patterns.

In conclusion, two points I wish to make are that we need to be neither surprised nor discouraged by the shortcomings of educational research. We need not be surprised at them because we have viewed the funding problems both in terms of magnitude and flexibility, the slow-to-emerge tradition of scholarship, the lack of linkage between universities and other institutions, and lack of adequate planning. On the other hand we need not be discouraged because some of the more established disciplines with now firmly rooted traditions of research and scholarship went through similar experiences before realizing their present day status. Much more significantly, there is evidence in very recent times of movement in the direction of solutions of these problems of educational research and development in the university.

I believe, with Chase, that properly conceived, supported, and directed re search and development can contribute both to continuous and cumulative inprovement and to institutional reconstruction in education. I further believe that the university will play a key role in this endeavor.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 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 call, at 10 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas (chairman of the select subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Brademas, Meeds, Mazzoli, Quie, Reid, Bell, and Hansen.

Staff members present: Jack Duncan subcommittee counsel, David Lloyd-Jones, staff, Martin LaVor, minority legislative associate, Gladys Walker, clerk, and Christina Orth, assistant clerk.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Select Subcommittee on Education will continue hearings on legislation to establish a National Institute of Education.

We are particularly pleased to welcome as our witness this morning Dr. Roger E. Levien, the director of the planning study for the National institute of Education. Dr. Levien is with the Rand Corp. and he has been laboring very diligently for some time now under commission of the Office of Education to devise a proposal for the dimensions and structure of the National Institute of Education.

As one who has read his study, I must congratulate you, Dr. Levien, on what has clearly been a very diligent and thoroughly perceptive effort on your part, to talk to all sorts and conditions of persons in seeking to shape a proposal that will enlighten both the administration and us on this subcommittee and thus Congress generally as we consider this significant proposal.

We look forward to hearing from you and we congratulate you on your very important contribution to our understanding of this proposal.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER E. LEVIEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION PLANNING STUDY, THE RAND CORP.

Dr. LEVIEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Roger E. Levien. I am, as the chairman has said, director of the National Institute of Education planning study conducted by the Rand Corp. under the sponsorship of the Office of Education.

The views and conclusions I will express are mine and those of my tudy group and should not be interpreted as representing the official pinion or policy of Rand or of the Department of Health, Educaion, and Welfare.

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this distinguished subcommittee on a matter of such potentially great importance for American education as creation of a National Institute of Education.

The preliminary planning study, which I have been leading, began last April at the request of the then Commissioner and Assistant Secretary of Education James Allen. He wanted to have flesh put on the bones of the ideas expressed in the President's message on education reform and the accompanying legislation.

He sought to have a number of technical questions that remained open explored far enough to develop a more comprehensive, coherent picture of what the Institute might become.

My testimony will draw upon the preliminary plan that resulted from that request. But I want to emphasize that this plan should be understood to be but the second stage (after the President's message and the accompanying legislation) in the continuing evolution of the Institute.

These hearings might be considered the third stage and, if the Institute is authorized, there should be additional stages of modification and adaptation as long as the Institute retains the capacity to renew itself as circumstances change.

I hope that this preliminary plan, therefore, will be a useful contribution to the very important deliberations of this subcommittee on what your chairman has termed "a social invention of the higher importance. . . one of the most significant initiatives in American education in recent years."

The planning study began by identifying the questions that needed to be addressed. These fell into five categories:

One, objectives. What should the principal objectives of the NIE be? Two, program. What program activities should the NIE undertake? How should the choice of program activities be made? Three, organization. What should the internal structure and management procedures of the Institute be? Four, relations to other parts of the education system. How should the NIE relate to other Federal, State. local, and private agencies concerned with education? And five, initial activities. What early activities will give the NIE the best chance of success?

Several sources are employed to help answer these questions. The first, and most important, was wide consulation with individuals in education and research. During the initial stages this took the form of individual and group discussions with over 200 persons.

Last fall an advance draft of the preliminary plan was made widely available for comment. Over 150 written replies were received and wer used to guide the revision of the draft.

The second source of information was examination of comparable research organizations, such as NIH and NSF, for lessons from their experience that might be applied in planning for NIE.

And the third source was the extensive literature concerned with educational R. & D., science policy, the management of R. & D. enterprises, and Federal science administration.

The preliminary plan provides answers derived from these sources for each of the five categories of question.

Why a National Institute of Education? One question that the pla ning study did not set out to answer directly was, why create a N.. tional Institute of Education?

Our charter was to explore what the NIE might become if the Con-gress were to authorize its creation. Nevertheless, during that exploration we have become familiar with the reasoning that has led to the call for creation of an NIE. It may be useful to review it here for the subcommittee.

The reasoning begins with the recognition that American education faces severe problems, despite its significant achievements in broadening access to education. All of us are aware of the symptoms of a widespread malaise; children born into economic or social disadvantage suffer educational disadvantage as well, and are doomed to perpetuate the conditions that will capture their children in turn, despite the billions of dollars that have been put into special educational programs.

Even children born into more comfortable circumstances often find education joyless and inappropriate, despite heavy investments in school facilities and equipment.

■ Financial crises occur with growing frequency at every level of education, despite the rapid growth in support for education over the last few decades.

Learning in all settings is disrupted by acts of violence, despite a variety of efforts to meet the demands of students, faculty, and the public for changes in educational governance.

The problems are severe indeed. But the aspirations are high as well; Americans continue to expect much from their educational system. To alleviate its problems and achieve its aspirations, American education, at all levels and in all forms, must undertake a continuous program of improvement and reform.

The reasoning continues. But not enough is known and what is known is not available enough to bring about improvement and reform at a rate adequate to meet education's needs.

The necessary knowledge may be acquired in two ways, through the random and casual process by which most institutions and individuals learn from experience, trial and error, or as a product of the interrelated and disciplined procedures by which scholars, scientists, and technologists gain information and use it, research and development. While random and casual processes of learning about education will continue, they are insufficient. Educational R. & D. is necessary to gain the knowledge needed for educational improvement and reform. What can educational R. & D. provide? Neither miracles nor instant solutions. Its foundations are still weak, as were those of agriculture and health in the last century, and the phenomena with which it must deal are extraordinarily complex and subtle. Their comprehension will demand years, sometimes decades.

Nevertheless, R. & D. in education, like that in industry, health, and agriculture, can serve practice well even when not providing breakthroughs in knowledge or technique. For educational R. & D. should comprise a broad range of activities from fundamental research through product and process development to the implementaion of new practice.

While research attempts to unravel the biology, psychology, and chemistry of learning, development can proceed to combine science with art and judicious experimentation to produce new child care programs or widely different forms of education or more effective school management procedures. And implementation can see that new knowl

edge, procedures, technologies and forms of education enter practice. Research, development, and implementation, though all essential parts of the process of improving and reforming education, need occur in no fixed order. A research finding may indeed lead to a promising educational development, which in turn requires implementa tion to enter practice.

But development may also reveal questions that become the challenge to research. And implementation may uncover difficulties or opportunities that suggest further development.

În a vital and effective R. & D. system all these kinds of activity will be underway at the same time in a complex balance and interrelationship. When that balance is absent, research results fall on barren ground and research turns inward and becomes precious or irrelevant; development products make little headway into practice and often relate poorly to the needs of the user, and implementation serves simply to distribute poorly conceived new ideas and to amplify faddism. Educational R. & D. today shows all the symptoms of this lack of balance.

It suffers from other deficiencies as well. Although research on education began in the 1890's, it was not until the mid-1950's that significant national investment became available, and only after 1963 that the OE provided funds passed the $10 million mark.

Even now educational R. & D. receives only slightly over $200 million each year, which is tiny compared to the size of the educational enterprise, $70 billion yearly contribution to GNP, 3 million per sonnel, 60 million students. R. & D. investment is about 0.3 percent of total educational expenditures.

As several previous witnesses have testified, this is a trivial investment in developing the knowledge for innovation and reform, espe cially when compared to the investment in such activities made by other national enterprises.

Health invests about $2.5 billion in R. & D. each year; 4.6 percent of total health care expenditures and 12 times as much as education invests.

Agriculture invests about 1 percent of agriculture's contribution to GNP in R. & D., about $1 billion for new knowledge and practiceand five times as much as education invests.

Moreover, if education were ranked among the major industries a cording to R. & D. expenditures it would stand in 13th place, just below the stone, clay, and glass products industry, and far below the $5.6 billion aircraft industry R. & D. program, or the $4.2 billion program of the electrical equipment industry.

Of course, the comparison with health, agriculture, and industry is not sufficient to demonstrate the need for more funds for educational R. & D. Educational R. & D. is not as fortunate as those areas in the solidity of its scientific base, the demand for and acceptance of innovation by its clientele, or the ability to measure and display improvement.

Nevertheless, these comparisons are useful because they show the cost and scale of reasonably successful R. & D. systems in other major enterprises of no greater complexity or challenge than education.

As Secretary Richardson noted in his testimony, since 1950 over $1+ billion have been invested in health R. & D. by the Federal Gover