2. Three problem areas layed out in moderate detail with a preliminary de lineation of sub-problems, existing or possible lines of attack, at least one preliminary review of relevant research, with accompanying data. A projected list of background studies needed to better understand each problem will be defined. 3. An initial estimate of the probable NIE budget for fiscal year 1973 will be made, including the following:

a. A tentative budget based upon a substantive analysis of programs. b. Which programs will be transferred and what will be the nature of the transfer.

c. Which funds are unrestricted and available for new R&D commitments. d. Which funds have "moral" commitments, and what these commitments

are.

4. A document describing methods for involving a broad range of outside consultants, in order to:

a. Extend the planning work already started by the Planning Unit.
b. Begin to provide for subsequent recruitment of personnel.

c. Achieve widespread involvement of the many relevant public, academic, and professional groups and individuals.

IV. Output Planned for Delivery by September 1, 1971.

1. A document tentatively detailing systematic cost estimates for various forms of R&D activities, analyzed on a modular basis allows for contingencies.

The document will include the number and type of personnel needed for various classes of NIE activity with implications for the number of non-civil service and civil service people required.

V. Outputs Planned for the Period Ending December 15,1971.

1. Revised list of major problems with a position paper on each, written through collaboration of consultants and planning staff members.

2. One problem layed out with background review completed. One or two solu tion-oriented projects specified and an appropriate number of others tentatively suggested to follow.

3. Alternative plans or organizational structure that would be appropriate for NIE including procedures for management of R&D efforts.

4. A document specifying in detail a recommended process for handling the transition from existing OE commitments to whatever new priorities and commitments NIE will recognize. This plan would be developed in cooperation with the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Management, and would focus partie ularly on the Regional Education Laboratories and on the R&D Centers.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me observe that on page 2 of your statement, Dr. Davies you refer to the NIE, and you said, "where its main thrust is to assist schools today using tools we already possess."

You use the phrase "schools," and then I recall the phrase of Dr. Silberman in his testimony when he suggests that the NIE is to encompass all phases of education. I know the word "schools" in the American context is an ambiguous one, and that when you ask in this country where does someone go to school, you could mean high school or university; whereas in Great Britain, you mean elementary or secondary school.

I just want to be sure that we are all in accord in our understanding that the NIE covers all phases of education from the earliest years throughout life, as it were, both in formal institutions of learning and outside.

Is there any quarrel with that proposition?

Dr. DAVIES. There is no question about that. I was using the word "school" in the American sense.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I note also, I must say in all candor, and I don't sa it critically because I know how letters are often drafted, that in the letter of the President which I quoted earlier, he speaks of "improving the education of children" when he talks about the purview of the activities of the NIE. So, I do think it is important that we all understand when we talk about the NIE that it is not to direct or confite

or restrict its scope of activities to any particular level of education. And I am, therefore, reassured by what you have said.

Dr. DAVIES. I quite agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Another question that concerns me, if we could talk about budget for a moment, is that you are proposing, as I understand it, $3 million for planning for

Dr. DAVIES. For fiscal 1972.

Mr. BRADEMAS (continuing). For fiscal 1972.

I want to come back to that picture subsequently, and I mention it now so as to not forget it, but let me ask if you could give us any comment on a philosophical question, as it were, with respect to the NIE. I am very pleased that our distinguished ranking minority member of the full committee, Mr. Quie, is here today because he and I are both enthusiastic, I think I am not inaccurate in representing him, proponents of this proposition.

Let me speak of one of the concerns that many of us in Congress have had about educational research, and I am now talking about a subject that I think will touch on Mr. Burchinal's activities and Dr. Silberman's responsibilities. We are concerned about the effectiveness of dissemination into the system of the results of research. I am sure you are all familiar with the observation on the part of many Members of Congress that the results of research don't get into the system. My own feeling is that one reason that a lot of Members of Congress are not very enthusiastic about educational research, aside from the fact that most of us don't know what it is, is that whatever we think it is, it doesn't make much difference; and one of the reasons we don't think it makes much difference is our apprehension that it does not get into the system.

Maybe one of the problems is that we have in mind this rather linear model of educational research, where you have a researcher on this end of the line and then you do some development and demonstration, and the research gets into the system in a kind of one-way direction. I ask therefore whether there is enough emphasis on the part of educational R. & D. people on two-way communication between themselves and the consumer, the teacher or the learner.

What can you tell us about what you contemplate for the posture of the NIE with respect to this question of generating effective demands on the part of the consumer for what you are doing and building up a really dynamic two-way street?

This question obviously touches directly on your attitude toward dissemination, who administers disseminating activities and how much money you put into dissemination.

Dr. DAVIES. My view, Mr. Chairman, is that the success of NIE and the success of the Office of Education after NIE is established will depend very much on how successful we are in improving our ability to disseminate good ideas and good practices to the field. In my opinion, this is going to depend on a couple of things.

First of all, it creates a close kind of relationship between NIE and OE, very much along the two-way line that you suggest. This would not simply be a linear feeding of a product to OE to be installed to its funded programs, but a constant kind of interchange with ideas and problems deserving solution, and problems about dissemination coming from OE to NIE.

I think our success in both agencies will depend upon our ability to establish more effective interaction relationships with the fieldwith colleges, universities, schools, and other kinds of educational institutions.

I quite agree that the process of improving education is not a simple linear matter of a researcher, a developer, disseminator, and finally a child in a classroom. It is much more complex than that and, if you were drawing charts, there ought to be arrows going all over the charts showing interaction rather than just a simple line moving along from the researcher to the child.

You can be assured that our planning unit is going to pay very great attention to this whole question of that process of relationship between the work of these two agencies and between research and development and the installation of improved practice. You can also be sure that Commissioner Marland and I, in my new job, are going to be spending a great deal of time determining how OE can best gear itself up for the reform and renewal part of its mission in American education, so that it can be effective in working with the National Institute of Education. That process of reconsidering how the Office of Education, through the Office of Development which I head, can organize itself more effectively has already started.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me ask two questions in this respect. If we are in agreement that these relationships must be a two-way street, is it not essential that we give some attention to the question of strengthening the capacity of your consumer population to know what it is you are up to and to have some awareness of alternatives?

To make my point, I might, from another context, use the educational voucher program, where we apparently are going to experiment with the idea that parents will have alternative schools among which to choose where to send their children. I think it is fair to say, if we look at the voucher system, we have to ask the question: How are the parents really going to have knowledge, awareness, appreciation of those several alternatives?

The alternatives are not just going to come into their minds out of the clouds.

In like fashion, how will the school superintendent back in South Bend, Ind., or in smaller communities, or a small community college off in North Dakota, really have any realistic appreciation of what is possible so that he will know how to go about putting questions to the R. & D. community?

Mr. DAVIES. Dr. Burchinal in the National Center for Educationa' Communication, which has just celebrated its first birthday, has made some progress in finding ways to get at the problem of getting to the school, to the college, to the teacher, to the classroom.

As I indicated before, I see as my major responsibility in my new assignment trying to devise more effective ways of reaching out t teachers, reaching out to the grassroots with help through development assistance. We want to find all kinds of ways of giving ther the knowledge and information that they need in order to make the choices that they have to make.

We are a long way from doing that now. We are, however, giving the highest possible priority trying to devise more effective ways, and this will play a central role in our whole program planning for 1973.

Mr. BRADEMAS. In this respect, Dr. Burchinal, you said on page 2 of your statement, if I read you correctly, that you would expect that the NIE would carry out research with respect to improving ways of disseminating the results of research. Is that not correct?

Dr. BURCHINAL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. But you also said that the responsibility actually to manage the dissemination of information on the results of research would remain within the Office of Education; is that right?

Dr. BURCHINAL. Yes, sir; I think Commissioner Marland in his testimony earlier indicated the Office of Education would do that. Mr. BRADEMAS. Who does that now? Who is responsible even now for managing the dissemination of the results of research?

Dr. BURCHINAL. May I suggest a starter for continuing this conversation. There is no one way or no one unit that really could take the full responsibility to insure that every product and every system is fully disseminated.

In some cases, as today with regional laboratories, they are able with their own products through their own ties with various clients and groups to see that those products move rather rapidly. I think one example that you have heard about is the individually prescribed in

struction.

Others Dr. Silberman mentioned. In other cases we need to base use of the product very closely to the interpersonal ties among people in the same subject field, in which case the appropriate OE bureau should take the lead.

I think Dr. Martin could refer to some ways in which Bureau of Handicapped with their ties to professional associations, to State counterparts, and local counterparts are really in the best position to insure wide knowledge and use of those materials.

In addition, we need other kinds of activities which provide generalized services as with personnel training which is necessary frequently for opening up the readiness for a number of changes and to prepare the staff to use new and different kinds of materials.

Dr. Davies has indicated some ways which under his leadership we will be articulating our dissemination and training activities to provide a variety of ways to help various educational groups to use results from R. & D. and innovative programs.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I think I hear what you are saying, but you know what you have just said could readily be translated as saying we are going to keep things just as they are. And I don't want to misrepresent you, but you really didn't answer my question when I asked a very simple question: Who now is responsible for managing the dissemination of the results of research and development supported by the U.S. Office of Education?

Who does that?

Dr. DAVIES. The specific answer has to be that there is no single centralized manager, but the new organization that the Commissioner has set up with an office of development gives to that office responsibility of making sure that it happens.

Responsibility is taken for this dissemination process in each of the bureaus and each of the programs. I think Ed Martin's bureau has probably been most successful at this, and it might be useful if Ed would respond to this question.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I would like to hear him, but let me press my point. I hope you see my questions are not meant to be argumentative, but I am trying to elicit some response here because you are telling me that you do not want the NIE to have responsibility for managing the dissemination of the results of R. & D.

That is what you have said in your testimony; right? If I read the English language correctly, that is correct; right?

Dr. DAVIES. That is correct.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Now, you say you want that responsibility retained in the Office of Education. Is that correct?

Dr. DAVIES. That is correct.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Right now one of the principal complaints about educational research and development in this country is that it is not getting disseminated into the system.

I therefore raise the question, if you are not proposing some substantially different method of managing the dissemination of the results of R. & D., you are giving us a prescription for more of the

same.

Now, are you telling me, and maybe I don't understand, so I will put the question to you once more, Dr. Davies, are you telling me that in point of fact you are proposing a radically different method of administering dissemination?

Do you see my question?

Dr. DAVIES. Yes, I do. What I was telling you was that my respon sibility is to put together a different and more effective management system for getting the best ideas into the field.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am very dubious.

I hope you can do that and I hope it works.

Dr. DAVIES. If I don't, the Commissioner better get somebody else to try.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't think it is so much a question of personalities here as it is a question of structure because quite obviously one of the apprehensions that legislators like us will have when we talk to people like you is whether or not you will be enthusiastic for ceding some of your present authority to a proposed new enterprise. So when I hear sounds like the ones emanating from you now, that is:

We are not going to allow the proposed NIE, which is going to be generat ing and supporting R. & D. in education, to have the responsibility for com municating its results out into the system.

I say you may be right, but I would only raise a warning flag there that this could be the path of very serious trouble.

In other words, I don't want to see more walls built up between R. & D. over here and getting it into the system over here, walls of the kind that right now have led to so much frustration on the part of us in Congress who are sympathetic to educational research and development and to the consumers of the results of R. & D.

Dr. DAVIES. You are making your point very clear, and you can be assured our intent is not to build any walls, and it is not a jurisd tional problem.

We in American education haven't learned how to accomplish this task effectively yet, and to accomplish it will require an effective NIE and effective OE and an effective relationship between the two.