organization. The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration is contributing to the improvement of organization. and administration through its Strategies of Organizational Change and other processes for adapting organization and administration to instructional needs. The Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virgina is developing Administrative and Organizational Systems and Educational Improvement Systems for colleges and universities. The ways in which the materials and provisions for training of personnel have been worked out add important dimensions to the older approaches to institutional study and improvement. Some of the programs which have been described are already in extensive use and have proved themselves in a variety of situations; and others are just completing field testing and will shortly be ready for widespread adoption; and still others are undergoing extensive revision as a prelude to field testing. All are being worked out with great care to meet specified objectives under closely defined conditions. There are other programs of great diversity equally worthy of mention, such as the Center for Urban Education's Citizen Participation Programs, the Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory's Communications Arts Package, and the Social Accounts Program of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools. These and several others hold exciting possibilities, but I do not have at hand evidence on their performance. In the long run, the refinement of research, development, and implementation strategies is likely to assume greater importance than the products now coming from research and development organizations. The case was strongly put by one of the center directors in the quotation at top of page 20 of this report, and it may be noted that this director believes that these development, diffusion, and research strategies "are now becoming part of the accepted tools for educational improvement throughout the educational community." Although this statement may appear over-optimistic, it is reinforced by the director of planning and development for a large city school system in his comments quoted on page 48 regarding the effects on urban school systems. It is also reinforced by the professor quoted on page 43 who asserts that "research, experimentation, evaluation, and to a slight degree field testing are much better understood within the educational profession than was true 10-15 years ago". Another contribution that may assume great importance in the future is a modest beginning toward building of linkages which permit each type of educational agency to perform the functions for which it is best adapted, in collaboration with other agencies which perform complementary functions. An illustration is the close relationship between Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction and the University of Wisconsin Center in the development, installation, and monitoring of the multi-unit schools. The State Department has made important contributions at all stages of development and has assumed primary responsibility for diffusion. Under its sponsorship several hundred Wisconsin schools have adopted the multiunit organization after careful planning and staff training. Another example is the close cooperation between the Texas Education Agency and the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory in designing and developing improved programs for migrant education; and a third example is the Northwest Regional Laboratory's extensive involvement of state departments of education, colleges, universities, and professional organizations in its programs of teacher education. Numerous examples may be found of close collaboration between laboratories and centers, several of which have been cited previously. While these examples are encouraging, they also illustrate how far we have to go in building a national system of mutually reinforcing agencies which will include not only the publicly governed agencies but also commercial publishers and educational suppliers of many kinds. These links, too, are now being forged. Another type of contribution to the development of delivery systems is represented by the Far West Laboratory's ALERT system (Alternatives for Learning through Educational Research and Technology). The first product of this system is an Elementary Science Information Unit which describes six new, relatively well developed programs suitable for science instruction in elementary schools. This unit has already been tried out by five hundred users and is now ready for commercial distribution. The intent of the ALERT system is to help educational planners, administrators, teachers, and other decision makers to understand and choose among the new processes and products available to schools. This is a direct answer to the plea of the respondent who bemoaned the "lack of an effective system for translating R&D outcomes into practice" and described the need for a "system for bringing R&D outcomes (as appropriately packaged and developed) into the principal's office, or into the classrooms of teacher training institutions." I think that it may be said that the research and development organizations have already demonstrated that important improvements in education can be brought about through the application of research and development strategies and processes. The success of the first line. of products is sufficient to assure widespread adoptions: and the provision for evaluation, while not yet good enough, are sufficient to generate successive improvements in the products. I anticipate also that evaluation, application of performance criteria, and cost-effectiveness analysis will lead to successive products and systems which eliminate weaknesses in the present products and incorporate new features which make possible higher levels of performance and/or lower costs. New needs will also be identified which will lead to new types of products supplementing those already under development. Whereas most of the products now in use are designed to operate within the constraints imposed by present educational institutions and conventions, I anticipate that in the design and development of future products bolder attempts will be made to break through the constraints and create a new order of educational institutions. As understanding of research and development operations grows, more and more schools and colleges will become experimental centers and join a continuing search for better ways of identifying and meeting needs for education. These and related developments which can be foreseen if the indicated corrective measures are taken should produce over the next ten years, and progressively thereafter, a series of accelerating, cumulative, and reconstructive changes to raise the level of educational achievement for all members of the society. The changes will include increased attention to out-of-school environments and experiences, a reexamination of present educational structures and the creation of a variety of settings for individualized instruction, social process learning, and other imaginative alternatives to traditional practices. DEAR APPENDIX A.-INQUIRY FORM AND COVERING LETTER SOUTHWEST EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, Austin, Tex. At the request of Congressman John Brademas, I have agreed to prepare a paper as background material for the Select Subcommittee on Education's Study of the National Institute of Education. The working title suggested by Congressman Brademas is Educational Research and Development in the Sixties: A Mixed Report Card. I seek your help in making the paper reflect the experiences of those who have been actively engaged in trying to make educational R&D as productive as possible. Even though I know how heavy the demands on your time are, I hope you will take the time to give your first-hand reactions to the attached check list and to add any comments that occur to you. The information you supply will be used in preparing the paper for the Select Subcommittee on Education, of which I shall be glad to send you a copy as soon as it is ready. Subsequently, I hope to incorporate the substance of your ideas in a more complete reexamination of educational R&D. Explanation.--Please 1. check all items you consider important 2. add other items of equal or greater importance 3. double check the two or three you consider crucial 4. add your comments. 1. What do you regard as the chief achievements of educational R&D? the speeding up of educational innovation. solving. the improvement of evaluative techniques. the development of improved instructional systems. -contributions to improved processes of planning and problem the use of systems approaches and feedback loops. Comments: Please return by March 8, 1971. To: Chase From: Explanation.-Please 1. check all items you consider important 2. add other items of equal or greater importance 3. double check the two or three you consider crucial 4. add your comments. 2. What have been the chief obstacles to effective operations? inadequacy of methodology in educational research. inadequate funding. lack of experience in the management of R&D operations. Comments: Please return by March 8, 1971. To: Chase From: Explanation.-Please 1. check all items you consider important 2. add other items of equal or greater importance 3. double check the two or three you consider crucial 4. add your comments. 3. What steps are most vital to the increased effectiveness of educational research and development? better arrangements for national management of R&D. better provisions for training R&D personnel. greater autonomy for the several R&D organizations. better understanding of the nature of educational R&D by. Comments: Please return by March 8, 1971. To: Chase From: 4. What are the most valuable lessons to be learned from our experience up to this time with research and development in education? 5. What is your general assessment of the major strengths and weaknesses of educational research and development at the present time? Please return by March 8, 1971. APPENDIX B.-LIST OF PERSONS RESPONDING TO INQUIRY ON R. & D. Abbott, Max; Director, University of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, Eugene, Oregon. Bailey, Stephen; Chairman, Policy Institute, Syracuse Research Corporation. Syracuse, New York. Baker, James F.; Assistant State Commissioner, Department of R. & D., Boston, Massachusetts. Barnes, Jarvis: Assistant Superintendent, Atlanta, Georgia. Barton, Rogers; Director of Planning and R. & D., Dallas, Texas. Becker, James; Director, Research for Better Schools, Incorporated, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. Bertram, Charles L.: Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Incorporated, Charleston, West Virginia. Bidwell, Charles: Department of Educational Sociology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Blanchard, Robert; Superintendent of Schools, Portland, Oregon. Bloom, Benjamin; Department of Education, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Borg, Walter; Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Berkeley, California. Brain, George B.; Dean, College of Education, The University of Washington, Brewer, Anita; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, Texas. Carmichael, Benjamin; Director, Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Incorporated, Charleston, West Virginia. Carroll, John B.; Psychologist, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Carter, Launor F.; Vice President, Systems Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California. Conner, H. T.; Assistant State Superintendent, North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh, North Carolina. Crowther, Jack; Superintendent of Schools, Los Angeles, California. Cunningham, Luvern; Dean, College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Dayton, Mona; Social Sciences Division, Southampton College, Southampton, New York. Dentler, Robert; Director, Center for Urban Education, New York, New York. Edgar, J. W.; State Commissioner of Education, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas. Essex, Martin; State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio. Felder, Del; Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas. Fish, Lawrence; Director, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon. Gage, N. L.; Director, Stanford University Center for R&D in Teaching, Palo Alto, California. Getzels, J. W.; Department of Education, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Giaudrone, Angelo: Superintendent of Schools, Tacoma, Washington. Hannen, Lew W.; Superintendent of Schools, Durham, North Carolina. Hansford, Byron W.; State Commissioner of Education, Denver, Colorado. Heathers, Glenn; University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Hemphill, John; Director, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Berkeley, California. Higginson, George; Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, Texas. Hilgard, Ernest R.; Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Hood, Paul: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, Berkeley, California. Hopkins, Everett H.; Director, Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Durham, North Carolina. Howe, Harold II; Vice President, The Ford Foundation, New York, New York. Hubert, Frank; Dean, College of Education, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. James, H. Thomas; President, Spencer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois. Klausmeier, Herbert; Director, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, Madison, Wisconsin. Koutnik, Paul G.; Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Kansas City, Missouri. Lamberth, E. L.: Superintendent of Schools, Norfolk, Virginia. McCarty, Donald; Dean, School of Education, The University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Medsker, Leland L.; Director, The University of California Center for R&D in Higher Education, Berkeley, California. |