[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 178 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47816-47826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22873]
[[Page 47815]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Grants and Cooperative Agreements; Availability, etc.: Educational
Research and Development Centers Program; Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 1995 /
Notices
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47816]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI);
Educational Research and Development Centers Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities to support seven
national research and development centers that would carry out
sustained research and development to address nationally significant
problems and issues in education.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect October 16, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Either--
1. Jacqueline Jenkins, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey
Avenue NW, Room 510G, Washington, DC 20208-5573. Telephone: (202) 219-
2232. Internet: Jackie--Jenkins@ed.gov or;
2. Judith Anderson, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey
Avenue NW, Room 611B, Washington, DC 20208-5573. Telephone: (202) 219-
2086. Internet: Judith-Anderson@ed.gov.
Individuals who use a tele-communications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title IX of Public Law 103-227, the
Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act
of 1994, re-authorized the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement and established five new national research institutes to
carry out coordinated and comprehensive programs of research,
development, evaluation, demonstration, and dissemination designed to
provide research-based leadership for the improvement of education. The
five institutes are--
(1) The National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and
Assessment;
(2) The National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students;
(3) The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance,
Policy-Making, and Management;
(4) The National Institute on Early Childhood Development and
Education; and
(5) The National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries,
and Lifelong Learning.
The institutes support sustained research and development focused
on significant national problems and issues in education conducted by
national research and development centers. The statute specifies that
each institute will support one or more national research and
development centers. For the purpose of this notice, Priority 1 is
related to the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and
Education; Priorities 2 and 3 are related to the National Institute on
Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment; Priority 4 is related
to the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students;
Priority 5 is related to the National Institute on Educational
Governance, Finance, Policy-Making, and Management; and Priorities 6
and 7 are related to the National Institute on Postsecondary Education,
Libraries, and Lifelong Learning.
The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), through
a series of meetings, regional hearings, and Federal Register Notices,
solicited advice from parents, teachers, administrators, policy-makers,
business people, researchers, and others to identify the most needed
research and development activities. After reviewing this advice, the
Secretary published on April 10, 1995, a notice in the Federal Register
(60 FR 18340) inviting written public comments on proposed priorities
for seven national educational research and development centers that
would carry out sustained research and development to address
nationally significant problems and issues in education. Written public
comments were to be submitted by May 25, 1995.
On June 8, 1995, at the meeting of OERI's National Educational
Research Policy and Priorities Board (Board), the Board reviewed and
commented on staff summaries of the written public comments. A
committee of the Board held a public meeting on July 18, 1995, to
review the written public comments and to make recommendations to the
Assistant Secretary on the priorities. The Department has incorporated
the committee's recommendations and explained the reasoning for those
recommendations in the comment/discussion sections of the document.
Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit
applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition
is published in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed
priorities, 248 parties submitted written comments. An analysis of the
comments and of the changes in the priorities since publication of the
notice of proposed priorities is published as an appendix to this
notice of final priorities. Major issues are grouped according to
subject. Technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the
Secretary is not legally authorized to make under the applicable
statutory authority are not addressed.
Absolute Priorities
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute
preference to applications that meet both the general priority and one
of the individual priorities listed below. Funding of any individual
priority will depend on the availability of funds, priority, and the
quality of applications received.
General Absolute Priority: Each national research and development
center must--
(a) Conduct a coherent, sustained program of research and
development to address problems and issues of national significance in
its individual priority area, using a well-conceptualized and
theoretically sound framework;
(b) Contribute to the development and advancement of theory in the
area of its individual priority;
(c) Conduct scientifically rigorous studies capable of generating
findings that contribute substantially to understanding in the field;
(d) Conduct work of sufficient size, scope, and duration to produce
definitive guidance for improvement efforts and future research;
(e) Address issues of both equity and excellence in education for
all students in its individual priority area; and
(f) Document, report, and disseminate information about its
research findings and other accomplishments in ways that will
facilitate effective use of that information in professional
development for teachers, families, and community members, as
appropriate.
Absolute Priority 1: Enhancing Young Children's Development and
Learning
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on enhancing the development
and learning of young children from birth to age eight, with special
focus on children who are placed at risk of educational failure because
of community, economic, linguistic, family, or disability factors; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to the
following topics:
(1) Effective practices and programs for maximizing the development
and learning of young children from diverse
[[Page 47817]]
backgrounds, emphasizing the whole child and developmentally
appropriate strategies;
(2) Effective professional development for educators and other
early childhood personnel;
(3) Family and community support for young children's development
and learning; and
(4) Effective programs and practices for supporting young children
during crucial transition periods, from infant to toddler, toddler to
preschooler, and preschooler to early elementary school student.
(c) Develop and field test a set of 3-5 hypothetical cases that can
be used in training and other settings to help practitioners, families,
and community members develop and extend their knowledge and skills to
address effectively the development and learning needs of young
children; and stimulate new debate, hypotheses, and research.
Absolute Priority 2: Improving Student Learning and Achievement
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on improving student
achievement, which must be comprised of research and development on
improving learning, teaching, and assessment within a content area; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to the
following topics:
(1) How students acquire knowledge and skills;
(2) Curriculum and effective instruction, including the use of
technology, which reflects current understanding of cognitive
development, the social context of learning, and student motivation;
(3) Effective professional development for teachers and other
school personnel; and
(4) Assessment for improving teaching and learning, including the
technical quality of such assessments.
Absolute Priority 3: Improving Student Assessment and Educational
Accountability
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on improving student
assessment; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to the
following topics:
(1) Development and use of assessments aligned with curriculum and
instruction to promote improved teaching, learning, and educational
accountability, including the use of assessment in student placement;
(2) The use of accommodations, adaptations, and alternative
assessments to enable all students to participate in assessment
systems;
(3) The creation of coherent systems that assess diverse student
outcomes using multiple measures and multiple assessments; and
(4) The technical quality (validity, reliability, fairness, and
content and skill coverage) of different types of assessments and
assessment systems, including accommodations, adaptations, and
alternative assessments.
Absolute Priority 4: Meeting the Educational Needs of a Diverse Student
Population
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on meeting the educational
needs of an increasingly diverse student population, including students
who are at risk of educational failure because of limited English
proficiency, poverty, race, geographical location, or economic
disadvantage; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to at least
two of the following topics:
(1) Instructional strategies that recognize and build on the
strengths of students from diverse backgrounds to help all students
achieve to high academic standards;
(2) Training and professional development activities that enhance
the ability of educators, families, and communities to help language
minority students and other students at risk of educational failure
achieve to high academic standards;
(3) Working with families and community-based organizations,
through such means as structuring out-of-school experiences as well as
providing support for school-based programs, to help students at risk
of educational failure achieve to high academic standards; and
(4) Ways that federal, state, tribal government, and community
reform efforts can be designed so that language minority students and
other students at risk of educational failure learn to high standards.
Absolute Priority 5: Increasing the Effectiveness of State and Local
Education Reform Efforts
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on increasing the
effectiveness of state and local efforts to reform elementary and
secondary education; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to the
following topics:
(1) Local and school level strategies for reform that create
supportive and secure learning environments and lead to improved
learning by all students including district and/or schoolwide reforms
and partnerships and productive collaboration among families,
communities, and schools;
(2) State and local policies that support improved learning by all
students including aligning elements of the education system to achieve
challenging student standards, enhancing licensing systems for teachers
and other education professionals, and providing incentives for reform;
(3) State and local finance strategies that lead to improved
learning by all students, including strategies for the equitable
distribution of programs and services and strategies for the productive
allocation of resources;
(4) State and local governance arrangements that support improved
learning by all students including those that involve new opportunities
and responsibilities for educators, families, and communities; and
(5) The factors that contribute most to the success of state,
district, and school-level reforms, from initiation through
implementation to ``scaling up,'' including how variations in context
affect the implementation and effects of various strategies.
Absolute Priority 6: Improving Postsecondary Education
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on improving quality,
productivity and outcomes of postsecondary education; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to three or
more of the following topics:
(1) Transitions from school to work, or to further education, for
secondary and postsecondary students, including, but not limited to,
development of effective K-16 systems;
(2) Relationships among students' participation and progress in
postsecondary education, their academic achievement, and their later
employment outcomes;
(3) Approaches to professional development geared to improving
[[Page 47818]]
postsecondary instruction and student learning, including preparation
of K-12 educators;
(4) Improvement of postsecondary student learning and assessment;
and
(5) Containing costs and improving the productivity and
accountability of postsecondary institutions.
Absolute Priority 7: Improving Adult Learning and Literacy
Under this priority, a national research and development center
must--
(a) Conduct research and development on improving adult learning
and literacy through delivery methods and systems other than
postsecondary institutions, including the basic skills needed for work
and responsible citizenship; and
(b) Include in its work research or development related to topic
(b)(2) below and one or more of the other topics:
(1) Adult acquisition of knowledge and development of linguistic,
quantitative, and reasoning skills, including adult acquisition of
second-language skills and computer skills;
(2) Effective strategies and technology for providers, including
libraries, community organizations, and family literacy programs, to
improve adult learning and literacy for all adult populations,
including adults with special needs and those needing English as second
language instruction;
(3) Effective methods, including use of technology, for
professional development of instructional staff for adult education and
literacy programs, including English as second language programs and
programs for adults with special needs; and
(4) The assessment of adult learning and literacy.
Post-Award Requirements
The Secretary establishes the following post-award requirements
consistent with the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination,
and Improvement Act of 1994. A grantee receiving a center award must--
(a) Provide OERI with information about center projects and
products and other appropriate research information so that OERI can
monitor center progress and maintain its inventory of funded research
projects. This information must be provided through media that include
an electronic network;
(b) Conduct and evaluate research projects in conformity with the
highest professional standards of research practice;
(c) Reserve five percent of each budget period's funds to support
activities that fall within the center's priority area, are designed
and mutually agreed to by the center and OERI, and enhance OERI's
ability to carry out its mission. Such activities may include
developing research agendas, conducting research projects collaborating
with other federally-supported entities, and engaging in research
agenda setting and dissemination activities; and
(d) At the end of the award period, synthesize the findings and
advances in knowledge that resulted from the Center's program of work
and describe the potential impact on the improvement of American
education, including any observable impact to date.
Authority: Pub. L. 103-227, Title IX.
Dated: August 31, 1995.
Sharon Porter Robinson,
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.305, 84.306,
84.307, 84.308, and 84.309 Educational Research and Development
Centers Program)
Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes
General Absolute Priority
Summarized below are comments which either referred specifically
to the General Absolute Priority or cut across all the priorities.
Comments Related to Improving Practice
Comments: Six commenters recommended changes which they believed
would increase the likelihood that the centers would conduct
research likely to improve practice. The comments included: Add
statement about the importance of translating research findings to
improvements in practice; include stronger language to encourage
utilization of the outcomes of the research program by
practitioners; replace the phrase ``will allow others to use that
information'' in (f) with ``will encourage effective use of that
information;'' and add an additional requirement, ``(g) Increasing
the capacity of field-based practitioners.'' Another commenter
stated that all work must include practitioner-researcher
collaborations. The Board committee similarly recommended that
stronger language be used to ensure that Center research findings
are actually used in professional development activities for
teachers, families, and community members.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the centers should conduct
research which is likely to improve practice and that dissemination
plays an integral role in research and development activities that
promise to have a positive impact on improving education. The
Secretary also agrees about the importance of translating research
findings so that results of research may find their way into
practice.
Changes: The Secretary has amended (f) to read ``Document,
report, and disseminate information about its research findings and
other accomplishments in ways that will facilitate effective use of
that information in professional development for teachers, families,
and community members, as appropriate.''
Comments on Technology
Comments: Five commenters submitted comments related to
technology. One commenter recommended the establishment of a
national center on educational technology or that a requirement to
conduct research and development on promoting the use of educational
technology be included in the general absolute priority. One
commenter was concerned about the lack of any mention of research in
the area of computer technology. Two commenters said that technology
should be dealt with as a cross-cutting issue. Another commenter
requested that all of the institutes include work on assistive
technology.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that technology should be dealt
with as a cross-cutting issue. Therefore, a separate center on this
topic is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Secretary believes that
the particular types of research in the area of technology should be
proposed by the applicants and not mandated by the Department. The
Secretary encourages all applicants to identify appropriate research
topics related to technology.
Changes: None.
Comments on Coordination
Comments: Seven commenters noted the importance of communication
and coordination. One commenter stated that the centers must
communicate with each other in areas of overlap, as well as
establish working relationships with the Regional Laboratories.
Several commenters made more specific recommendations concerning
coordination and communication: Include funds for consultations with
parent and education advocacy organizations; require collaboration
with other federally-supported entities in the absolute priority,
not in the post-award requirement; require that the centers and the
other research components in ED, including the research component in
the Office of Special Education Programs, maintain regular contact;
require centers to develop interagency working agreements with
agencies and other entities to promote inter-institutional
cooperation and private/public partnerships in the delivery of
educational and library services, as well as to emphasize research
into organizational design and educational management and delivery
systems; and require the new centers to work directly with
professional societies, in order to link the research agenda to
specific subject areas.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that research and development
centers should work with federally supported institutions and other
entities to maximize the impact that their activities may have on
improvements in the educational system. The instructions provided to
applicants will provide examples of ways in which proposed centers
could collaborate with these types of entities.
The Secretary believes that inter-institutional cooperation and
partnerships for
[[Page 47819]]
the delivery of educational and library services are important, as is
research on organizational design and educational management and
delivery systems, but that these are not areas of research which
should be mandated for all research and development centers.
Changes: None.
Comments on Dissemination
Comments: Four commenters recommended that the requirements for
dissemination should be strengthened. These commenters recommended
that the requirement for documenting, reporting, and disseminating
information be strengthened; that an essential component of the
centers be the development and implementation of effective
dissemination strategies; and that dissemination be given a higher
priority.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that dissemination plays an
integral role in research and development activities that promise to
have a positive impact on improving education. The Secretary
believes that the particular types of dissemination activities that
will best accomplish this objective depend on (1) the nature of the
research knowledge being generated and (2) the potential users of
this knowledge. The application package will provide examples of
possible dissemination strategies.
Changes: None.
Comments Related to Cost
Comments: Three commenters recommended that the centers be
required to address issues of cost or cost-effectiveness. These
commenters recommended that each center be challenged not only to
address issues of equity and excellence, but also to address issues
related to adequacy of resources in its individual priority area;
that centers should provide an assessment of the resources required
to implement the practices and programs they research and develop;
that cost or cost-effectiveness research should be required under
all of the priorities; and that each research study should address
the issue of cost-effectiveness and creative models and partnerships
that could improve cost-effectiveness.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the importance of the
issues raised by the commenters but believes that grant applicants
should be allowed maximum flexibility to develop research agendas
within the absolute priority areas. In addition, the Secretary
believes it is inappropriate to mandate specific research topics,
such as cost-effectiveness, given the limited resources available
for supporting the centers. However, applicants are encouraged to
address these issues as appropriate in their overall research plans.
Changes: None.
Comments Related to Students With Disabilities
Comments: Eight commenters recommended that the priorities place
greater emphasis on students with disabilities. Several commenters
stated that all the centers should be required to include research
activities on the educational problems of students with
disabilities, with one commenter recommending setting aside one-
third of their funds to support efforts on this issue. Another
commenter recommended requiring grantees to include weighted samples
of populations of students with serious emotional disturbance;
requiring all institutes to set aside at least 10 percent of funds
to study these populations; and inserting the word ``all'' before
the word ``students'' throughout all of the priorities.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that problems and issues of
national significance addressed in the individual priorities are
relevant to the needs of all students. In many instances individual
children and youth fall into several population categories, for
example, young children with disabilities living in rural poverty.
The Secretary believes that better applications will result if
applicants are allowed to propose and justify what population or
populations will be studied in their proposed centers' research and
development activities. However, the Secretary does believe that it
is important to ensure that centers consider the needs of all
students as they design their research activities.
Changes: The Secretary has modified the General Absolute
Priority to make clear that the needs of all students are to be
included in centers' research. The revised priority states: ``(e)
Address issues of both equity and excellence in education for all
students in its individual priority area.''
Comments Related to Size, Scope, and Methodology
Comments: Nine commenters recommended various changes related to
issues of size, scope, and methodology. One commenter recommended
adding a requirement that each center must produce at least one
definitive study, and, in addition, suggested a requirement that
each center must embed internal and external evaluation in all
activities. One commenter stated that the emphasis on size, scope,
duration, and definitive guidance will lead to biasing proposals
toward large scale empirical studies; this commenter wanted the
priority to specifically mention funding for small scale projects.
One commenter was concerned there would be too many centers and too
many mandated tasks for some centers given the amount of funding.
Another commenter supported the emphasis on scientific research of
sufficient scope to answer key questions. This commenter also
recommended that the Department give priority to centers that take
advantage of major research efforts underway and design new research
targeted to questions that cannot be answered by on-going research
or existing data bases. One commenter recommended that the scope
should be defined to include depth as well as breadth of topics; and
one commenter stated that explicit mention should be made of the
desirability of multidisciplinary perspectives. Another commenter
believed that the individual topics included in the research or
development to be undertaken by the centers are written at an
appropriate level of specificity. One commenter did not like the
idea of large centers addressing broad areas and would prefer either
more, smaller grants, or requiring multi-site proposals, with
offerers allowed at least nine months to assemble proposals. Another
commenter recommended including in section (b) of the General
Absolute Priority the expectation that the centers would contribute
to methodological advances in the field.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that each center should produce
at least one definitive study and believes that section (d) of the
General Absolute Priority is sufficient to ensure that centers will
meet this requirement. The Secretary agrees that centers should
evaluate their work, and believes that the requirement to conduct
scientifically rigorous studies will ensure that centers are held
accountable for conducting high quality research. The Secretary does
not believe that requiring work of sufficient size, scope, and
duration to produce definitive guidance will prohibit centers from
conducting small studies. The Secretary encourages the use of
multidisciplinary approaches, but does not believe that they should
be mandated; instead, applicants should be allowed the opportunity
to select approaches which they believe represent the best possible
center package. The Secretary does not believe that the centers are
too large, or that they are addressing areas that are too broad. The
legislative mandate calls for centers that are ``of sufficient size,
scope, and quality * * * to support a full range of basic research,
applied research and dissemination activities.'' The Secretary
believes that it is reasonable to require sustained research across
the five years of the grant.
Changes: None.
Requests for Funding Additional Centers
Comments: Several commenters recommended funding additional
centers. One wanted to add an evaluation center. One commenter
requested that the Department establish a center for policy research
and decisionmaking. Thirty-three commenters expressed support for
continued funding of a center on families. Eighty commenters voiced
support for continued funding of centers in the language arts, e.g.,
writing and literature. Thirty-two commenters expressed support for
continuing a center on research on evaluation of educational
personnel and teacher professionalization. Four commenters suggested
that there should be a focus on content areas; another was
especially concerned about science and mathematics.
Discussion: Given the Congressional mandate to support centers
``of sufficient size, scope, and quality * * *'' and given limited
resources, the Secretary recognizes that these priorities cannot
address all of the topics recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Cross-Cutting Issue of Eligibility
Comment: One commenter recommended that non-profit organizations
as well as institutions of higher learning be eligible to apply for
center grants.
Discussion: The statute requires that grants be awarded to
centers ``established by institutions of higher education, by
institutions of higher education in consortium with public agencies
or private non-profit organizations, or by interstate agencies
established by compact which
[[Page 47820]]
operate subsidiary bodies established to conduct postsecondary
educational research and development.''
Changes: None.
Other Cross-Cutting Issues
Comments: A variety of other comments were related to cross-
cutting issues or the priorities as a whole. One commenter requested
an emphasis on the importance of family and community contexts, as
well as of schools. One commenter stated that all centers should be
expected to address issues over the full range of differences among
individuals. One commenter expressed concern over the role of
libraries and information services in the proposed research
priorities. One commenter stated that for each of the seven
priorities, a great deal of information on best practice is
available, that this information needs to be summarized and shared,
and that the institutes should form best practice review boards. One
commenter suggested that all of the proposed priorities should
address the needs of diverse student populations. One commenter
stated that tribal involvement and consultation should be considered
throughout the description of the seven priority areas. One
commenter wanted the final priorities to include an absolute
requirement that centers demonstrate capacity and interest in
developing student-centered research and development strategies;
include plans for involving students and their families in the
development of the work of the center; and include plans for the
demonstration of the ultimate student-centered outcomes which result
from the work. One commenter stated that cross-research activity
would strengthen the centers, and recommended allowing each center
to conduct a portion of its work in a related priority area. One
commenter suggested that the research agenda should include programs
that assist state and local educators with implementation of
improvements. One commenter expressed a number of concerns
including: The apparent lack of an overall guiding plan; too limited
information for applicants about the priorities and about existing
activities; an unclear distinction between research and development;
too little integration of proposed work with other OERI activities;
inadequate integration of similar research and development tasks
across the centers; failure to identify key intervention points in
the life course; and failure to address some of the most important
ways of helping disadvantaged students. One commenter stated that it
is unclear how the seven centers relate to the five Institutes; and
one commenter wanted to know why field-initiated research was not
mentioned.
Discussion: The Secretary recognizes that there is merit to many
of these suggestions. However, the Secretary believes that the
mandatory requirements imposed on applicants should be held to a
minimum in order to allow applicants the flexibility to propose work
that will lead to the improvement of American education. Applicants
are required to conduct a coherent, sustained program of research
and development to address problems and issues of national
significance within an individual priority, but the Secretary
believes decisions about which issues to cover should be left to the
applicant. The section entitled ``Supplementary Information''
provides further clarification of the relationship between the seven
centers and the five Institutes. The statute requires that each
Institute reserve at least 20 percent of its funding each fiscal
year for field-initiated studies.
Changes: None.
Absolute Priority 1: Promoting the Cognitive and Social-Emotional
Development of Young Children
Overview: A total of 48 letters contained comments on Priority
1. Some commenters discussed more than one topic in their
correspondence.
Comments Related to the Title
Comments: Seven commenters expressed concern that the title
focused too narrowly on cognitive and social-emotional development
alone and thereby failed to consider the total development of the
child. Two of these commenters recommended that the title be
expanded to include the physical development of young children. Two
commenters wanted the title to include health outcomes for children.
Three of the commenters suggested that language and/or motor
development also be included. Another commenter suggested the title
be changed to ``Services that Promote the Cognitive and Social-
Emotional Development of Young Children.'' Another wanted the title
to focus solely on the cognitive development of young children.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that school readiness extends
beyond the dimensions of cognitive and social-emotional development
and that the focus of research and development in this topical area
should be holistic.
Changes: The Secretary believes that the phrase ``development
and learning'' conveys the priority's intent to focus on the whole
child. Consequently, the Secretary has modified the priority's title
to read: ``Enhancing Young Children's Development and Learning.''
Comments Regarding Focus
Comments: Fifteen commenters believed that the priority should
shift its focus from young children to their environments, which the
respondents defined as family, teachers and other significant
caregivers. These commenters stated that there is considerable
research in the field on child development and on the factors which
directly influence children's well-being. The commenters believe
that what is needed is research on programs, strategies and policies
which influence parents, educators, and others in the child's
environment and enable them to become more effective in supporting
children. The commenters maintain that it is just as important for
schools to be ready for children, as it is for children to be ready
for school. Several commenters recommended the priority's research
and development activities should include: Interprofessional
development and collaboration--research designed to inform
``professional practice, professional development, and policy;'' the
relationship between public policies and the abilities of parents
and educators to support children's development, including family
leave policy, proposed reductions in social service programs, and
consolidation of categorical child care and early childhood programs
into block grants to the States; effective dissemination of early
childhood information for use by parents and professionals; and
involvement of early childhood professionals in research efforts by
the international community.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that young children should
remain the central focus of this center. However, the Secretary also
understands that research on improving the environments which shape
child development is an integral part of this center's work. The
Secretary agrees that this priority should include research and
development activities on interprofessional development. The
Secretary further believes that research can guide and inform
policy. Therefore, applicants may choose to address policy issues in
their applications, but it is not a requirement.
Changes: In responding to the calls for an emphasis on young
children's environments and work on interprofessional development,
the Secretary has amended this priority to specifically address
these concerns in sections (b) and (c).
Comments on Targeted Populations
Comments: Fourteen comments addressed the parameters of the
priority's target populations. Although the proposed priority did
not specify an age range, seven commenters recommended that research
and development activities focus on children from birth to the age
of eight. Five commenters wanted to clarify the phrase ``children *
* * at risk'' in section (a) by adding specific risk factors,
including biological, socio-cultural, environmental, and disabling
conditions. One commenter wanted to modify section (a) by replacing
the word ``especially'' with ``including,'' to preclude the proposed
center from duplicating the work of an already-established center
for the education of children at-risk.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the concept of ``young
children,'' for the purposes of this center, should extend from
birth to the age of eight. The Secretary also agrees that it is
important to make clear that children who are culturally,
economically and/or biologically vulnerable, as well as children
with disabling conditions, are not to be excluded from research
activities. However, the Secretary believes that each of these
suggested factors of risk is already encompassed in section (a), and
therefore, the Secretary has not changed the list of enumerated
factors. Furthermore, the Secretary recognizes that the proposed
center and the existing center for students placed at risk of
educational failure do share a focus on the early elementary grades.
The Secretary believes, however, that the work of each center will
be unique and not duplicative. Therefore, the Secretary sees no need
to modify the language of this priority by replacing the word
``especially'' with the word ``including.''
Changes: The Secretary has amended section (a) of the final
priority to clarify the
[[Page 47821]]
target population as children from birth through the age of eight.
Comments on Families: Three commenters recommended that the role
of families needs to be strengthened throughout the priority. One
commenter stated that the proposed priority ``ignores the central
role families play in the educational development of children.'' One
commenter stated that ``family processes have profound effects on
early development and should be considered both in studies of
development and in studies of policy and services.'' One commenter
recommended that the priority should address family-centered
approaches that can be adapted to diverse community contexts.
Similarly, the Board committee recommended that families and
communities be further emphasized in this priority.
Discussion: The Secretary understands the critical impact of
families on young children's development and success in school and
consequently the need for research and development activities that
can strengthen supports and services for families.
Changes: The Secretary has amended the final priority to include
revised sections (b) and (c) in order to give greater emphasis to
the role of the family and community throughout the entire final
priority.
Comments on Services and Supports
Comments: Twelve commenters addressed the topic of services and
supports within communities, schools, and families and offered
recommendations on the kinds of research and development activities
that should be included in the priority: Service integration
strategies for meeting the needs of children, families, and
practitioners; community barriers to the distribution of needed
services; impact of cultural factors on the delivery of early
childhood services; collaboration among service providers, including
coordination among child care providers and early childhood
educators; coordination of research conducted under this priority
with results of last year's OERI conference on school-linked
services; the role of libraries and museums in early childhood
development and education; and the role of technology in the
classroom.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that quality comprehensive
services provided by families, preschools, child care facilities,
schools, libraries, museums, and other community resources, increase
the opportunity for all children to come to school ready to learn,
and that research and development activities on this topic should be
a part of this center's work.
Changes: The Secretary believes that comprehensive supports and
services are encompassed within revised section (b).
Absolute Priority 2: Improving Student Learning and Achievement
Overview: A total of 114 letters provided comments on Priority 2.
Some commenters discussed more than one topic in their
correspondence.
Comments on the Integration of Priorities 2 and 3
Comments: Five commenters stated that successful education
reform requires the integration of issues of curriculum, assessment
and student learning. In order to ensure continuous coordinated
research efforts across these topics, these commenters recommended
that the Department support coordinated studies of student learning,
curriculum, and assessment. Two commenters recommended that this
priority be modified to address the integration of assessment
practices into the curriculum.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that assessment tied to
curriculum and instructional strategies can improve student
learning. To ensure that assessments are aligned to instruction, the
Secretary has added a new topic to the priority. In addition, the
Secretary has maintained Priority 3 and modified the wording of that
priority to align the development and use of assessments with
curriculum and instruction.
Changes: The Secretary has added a new topic (b)(4) which reads:
``Assessment for improving teaching and learning, including the
technical quality of such assessments.''
Comments on Separate Content Areas
Comments: One hundred and six commenters recommended changes in
the six topics of the proposed priority. Many of the commenters
recommended reorganizing the entire priority to emphasize the core
academic content areas. Eighty-seven commenters recommended support
for separate content centers in the areas of English/ English
language arts, writing, literacy, reading, and literature.
Frequently these commenters stated that English language arts are
fundamental to subsequent student achievement. In addition, many of
the commenters supported continuing the existing centers on writing
and literature. Nineteen commenters stated that content-oriented
centers would have a more direct impact on instruction and learning
than the proposed achievement and assessment centers. These
commenters reasoned that effective teaching and instructional
strategies are content-specific and that most teachers' questions
relate to problems of instruction in specific content areas. The
commenters suggested that the priority be altered to include
content-oriented centers such as science, math, and English.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that instructional strategies,
professional development, and assessment should all be tied to
content areas. The Secretary has restructured this priority so that
applicants will identify content areas and propose research and
development activities in areas of student learning, instructional
strategies, professional development, and assessment related to
those content areas. The Secretary believes, however, that
applicants should identify the content areas for which research and
development will be most productive. In the application package
instructions, applicants will be reminded of the requirement to
specify the content areas, e.g., English, mathematics, writing, or
science, on which they propose to focus their investigations.
Changes: The Secretary has revised Priority 2 (a) to read:
``Conduct research and development on improving student achievement,
which must be comprised of research and development on improving
learning, teaching, and assessment within a content area.''
Comments on Topic Areas
Comments: Thirteen commenters recommended that technology, the
evaluation of school personnel, and family and community be included
in the priority. Some of these commenters recommended requiring the
center to look into how technology should be used to improve student
learning and achievement. The commenters also recommended including
investigation of family involvement as a means to improve student
learning and achievement, and investigation of the relationship
between personnel evaluation of teachers and student achievement.
The Board committee recommended that work related to curriculum and
instruction reflect current knowledge about cognitive development,
the social context of learning, and student motivation.
Discussion: The Secretary recognizes that these and many other
factors can lead to improved student achievement. Family, community,
and other out-of-school factors have important impact on the
improvement of student learning and achievement. In fact, the
Secretary believes that many of these recommendations fall within
the scope of the priority's topics and could be the subject of the
center's research projects. Applicants are encouraged to consider
the most effective ways to investigate both in- and out-of-school
factors which influence student achievement. To emphasize the
important role of technology in improving student achievement, the
Secretary has explicitly included technology as one method of
instruction to be investigated. To emphasize the important roles of
cognitive development, the social context of learning, and student
motivation, the Secretary has also explicitly included the
requirement that center research on curriculum and effective
instruction reflect current understanding of these factors.
Changes: The Secretary has modified topic (b)(2) to read:
``Curriculum and effective instruction, including the use of
technology, which reflect current understanding of cognitive
development, the social context of learning, and student
motivation.''
Comments on the Scope of the Priority
Comments: Four commenters stated that the priority was too broad
in its scope, making it impossible for one center to pursue high
quality work in all six areas. These commenters recommended that
applicants be given the option of identifying which of the topics to
investigate.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that research and development
centers should concentrate their efforts on the most important
teaching and learning issues. By changing the priority to focus on
content areas and by reducing the number of topics, the Secretary
has made it possible for applicants addressing this priority to
develop a coherent, focused set of research studies. The Secretary
has deleted topics that addressed school organization and school
environment. Applicants are encouraged to propose work that will be
sensitive to these and other issues as appropriate to their overall
research plan.
Changes: The Secretary has reduced the number of topics listed
in the priority from
[[Page 47822]]
six to four, and has limited the work to a content area or content
areas. The Secretary has revised Priority 2 (a) to read: ``Conduct
research and development on improving student achievement, which
must be comprised of research and development on improving learning,
teaching, and assessment within a content area.''
Absolute Priority 3: Improving Student Assessment and Educational
Accountability
Overview: A total of 17 commenters provided comments on Priority
3.
Comments on Topic Areas
Comments: Four commenters recommended specific topics for
inclusion in assessment. These commenters stated that ``core content
areas'' should include geography, arts, humanities, physical
education, English, mathematics, social studies, science and foreign
languages. These commenters also indicated that the measurement of
students' interdisciplinary knowledge and students' cognitive,
social, emotional and physical development should be included in
assessments.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that the identification of
topics to be included in assessments should be up to the applicant.
Applicants are encouraged to identify content areas which will be
the focus of their research on assessment. The Secretary believes
that all these topics can be addressed using the current wording.
Changes: None
Comments on Ways to Improve Assessments
Comments: Four commenters recommended various ways to improve
assessments. These commenters stated that assessments should be
accurate and devoid of cultural or gender bias. Commenters also
stated that the center should explore the creation and use of
alternative assessments. The Board committee recommended that this
priority be modified to include research on the use of assessments
to improve teaching and learning, as well as educational
accountability. The Board further recommended that the center's work
include research on the use of assessments for student placement.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that assessments should be of
high technical quality and free of bias so that assessments can be
used to measure the performance of all students. The Secretary
believes that the existing language in topic (b)(4) of ``validity,
reliability, fairness, and content and skill coverage'' adequately
covers issues of technical quality and bias. Therefore, no
additional language is necessary. In addition, the Secretary
believes that different types of assessments, including alternative
assessments, present fruitful areas for investigation. The Secretary
has added language on alternative assessments to the priority. The
Secretary further believes that assessments should promote improved
teaching and learning and that particular emphasis on the use of
assessments for student placements is appropriate. The Secretary has
added language on this area to topic (b)(1).
Changes: The Secretary has amended topic (b)(4) to read: ``The
technical quality (validity, reliability, fairness, and content and
skill coverage) of different types of assessments and assessment
systems, including accommodations, adaptations, and alternative
assessments.'' Further, the Secretary has amended topic (b)(1) to
read: ``Development and use of assessments aligned with curriculum
and instruction to promote improved teaching, learning, and
educational accountability, including the use of assessment in
student placement.''
Comments on Special Populations
Comments: Four commenters recommended that the priority
explicitly include special education and bilingual populations of
students in the priority's scope. These commenters also stated that
school systems often exclude language minority students from
educational assessment programs. The commenters said that research
on assessment should consider issues related to the inclusion of
students with disabilities, especially regarding test modifications
and testing accommodations.
Discussion: Assessments and assessment systems should be able to
reliably and validly measure the performance of all students.
Therefore, the Secretary has added a new topic to the priority for
research on the accommodations, adaptations, and alternative
assessments which will enable all students to participate in
assessment systems.
Changes: The Secretary has modified the General Absolute
Priority to reinforce that all students are to be included. The
revised General Absolute Priority reads: ``(e) Address issues of
both equity and excellence in education for all students in its
individual priority area.'' Furthermore, the Secretary has added a
new topic (b)(2) to Priority 3 which reads: ``The use of
accommodations, adaptations, and alternative assessments to enable
all students to participate in assessment systems.'' The Secretary
has also modified (b)(4) of Priority 3 to include ``including
accommodations, adaptations, and alternative assessments.''
Comments on Combining Priorities 2 and 3
Comments: Five commenters recommended combining student learning
and assessment into a single priority. These are the same comments
discussed under Priority 2.
Discussion: As stated previously, the Secretary has modified
Priority 2 to include assessment issues. Although the Secretary
agrees that some assessment research and development and the
improvement of teaching and learning in content areas should be
closely linked, the Secretary believes that a number of issues
related to assessments, assessment systems, and accountability
warrant attention by a center which focuses first on assessment and
secondly on content areas.
Changes: In addition to the changes in Priority 2, the Secretary
amended (b)(1) of Priority 3 to read: ``The development and use of
assessments aligned with curriculum and instruction to promote
improved teaching, learning, and educational accountability,
including the use of assessment in student placement.''
Absolute Priority 4: Meeting the Educational Needs of a Diverse
Student Population
Overview: A total of 30 letters contained comments on Priority
4. The comments are grouped by topical area.
Comments on the Entire Priority
Comments: Eight commenters provided comments about Priority 4 as
a whole. Four commenters voiced total support for the priority. Four
commenters expressed reservations. One of the latter four stated
that ample information is available on the topical area, and that
the Institute should begin by collecting and analyzing existing
information. Other commenters recommended that limited research
dollars be allocated elsewhere and used to support broader research
on improving student learning and achievement; that the work
proposed for this center should be integrated with similar
activities in other priorities and the funds allocated for this
center be given to other centers; that funds should not be used to
support a center based on a diverse student population; and that the
topics covered should be more limited given the center's likely
funding.
Discussion: The Secretary believes this topical area is
essential, and that a separate center devoted to this topic is
warranted even given the reduction in the total number of centers to
be funded. However, the Secretary agrees with the comment that it
may be difficult for applicants to adequately address all of the
topics in their proposals.
Changes: The Secretary has modified (b) to read ``Include in its
work research or development related to at least two of the
following topics:''.
Comments on Student Populations
Comments: Nine commenters recommended that the priority identify
more specifically the population or populations of students
included. Seven of these comments were related to students with
disabilities. One expressed concern that the ``diverse student''
designation in this priority would serve as a catch-all for
``other'' students, including students with disabilities, rather
than an assurance of the inclusion of all students in each center's
efforts. The comments included: Add ``disability'' to the categories
of risk; broaden the definition of risk to include students with
behavioral and psychological problems; and modify the priority to
add a focus on students with disabilities or to set aside a portion
of funding to support research and development dealing specifically
with the needs of special education students. Two commenters called
for inclusion of additional groups or aiming efforts at specific
categories of at-risk students, namely Pacific Island students and
at-risk students with limited vocational job options. One commenter
supported the inclusion of limited-English proficient students. One
commenter stated that the priority should address the broad range of
dimensions of student diversity.
Discussion: The statute authorizing the National Institute on
the Education of At-Risk Students defines an at-risk student as ``a
student who, because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race,
geographic
[[Page 47823]]
location, or economic disadvantage, faces a greater risk of low
educational achievement or reduced academic expectations.'' The
Institute is limited to funding research which meets the purposes of
the statute.
Changes: The Secretary has modified the priority to include the
exact wording of the statute.
Comments on Agencies
Comments: One commenter recommended that (b)(5) (now (b)(4)) be
amended to add ``tribal'' to the list of agencies.
Discussion: The Secretary will modified the priority to add the
words ``tribal government.''
Changes: The Secretary has modified the language of Priority 4
by adding ``tribal government'' to the list in (b)(4).
Comments on Topic Areas
Comments: Sixteen commenters provided comments on the proposed
priority's five topics for research and development activities. One
commenter stated that student diversity is so basic to our nation's
schools that the topic should be incorporated into the other
proposed priorities. Another stated that the most pressing need of
diverse students is effective literacy lessons. Four commenters made
recommendations concerning (b)(2), as follows: Professional
development should also include the preparation of teachers and
other school personnel, and professional development is so vital
that an additional priority on this topic should be added; support
for highlighting professional development in Priority 4 and a
recommendation that it be similarly highlighted in the other
priorities; a statement that professional development research
should ensure that appropriately certified school personnel are
prepared to work effectively with American Indian students; a
statement that methods of assessing teachers of at-risk students
should be examined; and a statement that issues related to potential
shortages of minority teachers should be investigated. Similarly,
the Board committee recommended that topic (b)(2) be modified to
include training activities for families and communities, as well as
professional development for educators. Seven commenters expressed
concerns regarding the scope of and language contained in (b)(3),
including recommendations for amending the language to include
libraries and museums as examples of out-of-school experiences,
adding ``* * * and become responsible citizens'' to the language,
and clarifying the phrases ``structuring out of school experiences''
and ``learning to high standards,'' subsuming (b)(3) under (b)(4),
or deleting (b)(3) altogether because it is not as crucial as the
other topics. Three commenters supported (b)(4). Two letters
recommended stressing the topic of (b)(4) among all centers and
another recommended a number of studies to enhance knowledge of risk
and resiliency factors in children and to generate policy
recommendations. Two commenters specifically addressed the needs of
language minority students under (b)(5). One stressed the importance
to this population of English/language arts skills; the second
commenter suggested requiring basic research on the process of
second language acquisition and in-school learning experiences that
enhance English proficiency and academic excellence.
Discussion: The Secretary recognizes the merit of the
recommendations regarding in-school learning experiences and has
modified (b)(1) to emphasize instructional strategies. The Secretary
believes that the language in (b)(2) is sufficiently inclusive to
provide for the population of teachers and other school personnel.
However, the Secretary has revised (b)(2) to clarify that training
activities for families and communities are included within the
scope of the topic. The Secretary recognizes that there is merit to
including libraries and museums as examples of out-of-school
experiences. However, the Secretary does not wish to imply
partiality toward particular types of learning experiences,
preferring instead to encourage applicants to identify and justify
the promising experiences that reflect the particular design of
their proposed research and development activities. The Secretary
has considered rewording the phrase ``structuring out-of-school
experiences''. The Secretary believes that existing knowledge of
effective practices in this area is significantly limited as to
warrant a broader, more inclusive approach rather than a more narrow
focus. The Secretary expects that applicants' concepts of out-of-
school experiences will contribute to the merits of their proposals.
The Secretary further believes that there is significant potential
for identifying promising out-of-school practices which are not
mutually exclusive of family and community-based experiences. Thus,
the Secretary concurs with the suggestion that (b)(3) be subsumed
under (b)(4).
Changes: Section (b)(1) has been modified to read
``Instructional strategies that recognize and build on the strengths
of students from diverse backgrounds to help all students to achieve
to high academic standards.'' Section (b)(2) has been modified to
include families and communities. Sections (b)(3) and (b)(4) of the
priority have been modified to read: ``(b)(3) Working with families
and community-based organizations, through such means as structuring
out-of-school experiences as well as providing support for school-
based programs, to help students at risk of educational failure
achieve to high standards.''
Absolute Priority 5: Increasing the Effectiveness of State and
Local Education Reform Efforts
Overview: In response to the Secretary's invitation in the
notice of proposed priorities, 76 respondents submitted written
comments regarding Absolute Priority 5: Increasing the Effectiveness
of State and Local Education Reform Efforts. Some commenters
discussed more than one topic in their correspondence.
General Comments: Sixteen commenters supported the focus of the
proposed priority. Commenters noted the importance and usefulness of
such research in the past and the ongoing need for research in the
topic areas listed in the proposed priority. Several commenters
provided specific references to useful research in this field. Five
commenters expressed disapproval of the proposed priority. One
warned against excessive federal intervention in education affairs.
Another argued that all the priorities should be directly related to
the Goals 2000 legislation. The third characterized the current list
of topics under Priority 5 as an unfocused laundry list. The fourth
argued that the priority focused on research that had already been
done and that academics would continue to do this type of research
even in the absence of a center on this topic. The fifth suggested
that the proposed research should be conducted in other centers.
Discussion: The Secretary does not believe that the National
Research and Development Centers Program represents excessive
federal intervention into education affairs. The purpose of these
centers is to provide information that will be helpful to educators
as they carry out their programs. Because these centers are not
intended to promote any particular predetermined reform strategy,
the Secretary does not believe the priorities should be directly
related to the Goals 2000 legislation. The Secretary has
restructured the topics under this priority so they are more
coherent rather than giving the appearance of a laundry list. The
nonbinding mission guidance will also explain how the topics fit
into an integrated whole. The Secretary believes that current
reforms are more coherent than they have been in the past and the
focus of this priority--the relationship between increased learning
by all students and local and school level strategies for reform,
state and local policies, finance strategies and governance
arrangements--is an important advancement in both research and
practice. Also, the Secretary believes that while some research on
this topic will be conducted by independent academicians, the
important work to be conducted by a center on this topic will not be
carried out elsewhere. The Secretary believes that the proposed work
is sufficiently distinct to be conducted at a separate center, but
that the work of this center should be closely coordinated with work
in other centers related to K-12 student achievement. Therefore, the
substantive focus of the proposed priority has not be changed.
Changes: The language of the priority has been revised so the
topics are more coherent.
Comments on Local and School Level Factors
Comments: Ten respondents commented about the importance of
local and school level factors. Some of these emphasized the
importance of the impact of these factors on student learning.
Generally the comments noted the importance of understanding how
local and school factors interact to support desired changes and how
these factors interact with state and local policies. In addition,
the Board committee recommended that topic (b)(1) be modified to
emphasize the importance of supportive and secure learning
environments as a target of local or school level reforms.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that local and school level
factors that influence student learning are important and should be
studied by this center. The Secretary further
[[Page 47824]]
agrees that supportive and secure learning environments are
particularly important concerns at the local and school levels.
Changes: The priority has been revised to emphasize the
importance of research on local and school level factors that
influence student learning with particular emphasis on supportive
and secure learning environments.
Comments Regarding Student Standards
Comments: Seven respondents commented on the topic of student
standards. Most emphasized the importance of the topic. One
recommended that work on this topic be coordinated with Title 1
evaluations and with the work the National Science Foundation is
sponsoring on standards-based reform. Two argued that such work must
be content-based.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that student standards are an
important topic for investigation. The Secretary will coordinate
work on this topic with the evaluation of Title 1 and with the work
being supported by the National Science Foundation. Applicants will
be free to propose content-based approaches to this topic. The
center is encouraged to coordinate its work, including the work on
student standards, with other related activities in the field.
Changes: The priority has been amended to add as a new topic
(b)(2), ``State and local finance strategies that support improved
learning by all students including aligning elements of the
education system to achieve challenging student standards and
providing incentives for reform.''
Comments Regarding Finance Issues
Comments: Six commenters noted the importance of finance issues.
One recommended a center on this topic alone. Another called
explicitly for studies of the cost-effectiveness of alternative
strategies. Several commenters recommended research on finance
strategies that are integrated with other elements of reform.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that finance issues are
important and that the discussion of them in the priority should be
expanded.
Changes: The priority has been amended to elaborate upon the
finance topic. The equitable distribution of programs and services
and the productive allocation of resources are included as areas
that must be covered by the center's work.
Comments Regarding Family, Community, School Relationships
Comments: Six commenters noted the importance of family,
community and school relationships. One recommended supporting a
Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children's Learning as
a second center in the Governance Institute, or, as an alternative,
research on strengthening the connections between schools, families,
and communities. Two commenters recommended adding parents and
families to the topic in the proposed priority focused on examining
community-school relationships. In addition, the Board committee
recommended adding the word ``partnerships'' before
``collaboration'' in (b)(1) to emphasize that families, communities
and schools should work together as closely as possible.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that budget restrictions
paired with the legislative mandate that no center be funded at less
than $1.5 million per year preclude the possibility of funding a
second center under the Governance Institute. However, the Secretary
agrees that the relationship between schools and families and the
community is an important factor related to student learning. The
Secretary believes that both productive partnerships and productive
collaborations among communities, families and schools merit
investigation as local strategies to improve elementary and
secondary education.
Changes: The priority has been revised to include enhancing
productive partnerships and collaborations among communities,
families and schools as a topic area that must be addressed by the
center.
Comments Regarding the Format of Topics
Comments: Five commenters were concerned about the format of the
topics under the priority. Two suggested that the priority appeared
to be promoting a particular view of reform. Another suggested that
the topics were too process-oriented. Another commenter suggested
that all topics should focus on increasing student achievement. The
fifth called for a more integrated and synthesized statement.
Discussion: The Secretary does not believe that this priority
should promote any particular reform strategy. Rather, alternative
reform strategies should be the focus of the research supported
under this priority. The Secretary agrees that the focus of the work
sponsored under this priority should be on the relationship between
alternative approaches and student learning, not on processes per
se. The Secretary also agrees that the statement of the individual
topics within the priority should be as integrated and synthesized
as possible.
Changes: The priority has been revised to clarify that the
topics are not promoting a particular approach to education reform,
are not focusing on processes per se, and are aimed at investigating
the relationship between alternative approaches and student
learning. The priority has been reformatted to be more coherent.
Comments About Adding Topics
Comments: Fifty-two commenters recommended adding topics to the
proposed priority. Examples of research areas proposed for inclusion
were the general areas of education governance and teacher
professionalization, and the topic areas of building organizational
capacity, alternative models of schooling, family-community-school
relationships, collaboration between schools and postsecondary
institutions, and the integration of services for children and
youth. Specific research topics recommended included the federal
role in education, policies supporting the use of technology,
especially for students with special needs, the role of libraries
and museums in students' learning, and addressing cultural
differences when setting education policies.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that education governance is an
important general area that should be included in the priority.
Also, in recognition of the number of comments on
professionalization of education personnel, the Secretary has
decided to modify the priority to include a focus on licensing of
teachers and other education professionals. The Secretary also
believes that the general topics recommended are important and
should be considered by applicants as candidates for study. The
Secretary recognizes that there is merit to many of the specific
topics recommended for inclusion. In fact, the Secretary believes
that many of these recommendations fall within the scope of the
priority's topics and could be the subject of the center's research
projects.
Changes: The priority has been revised to include the general
topic area of education governance. In addition, section (b)(2) has
been amended to read: ``State and local policies that support
improved learning by all students including aligning elements of the
education system to achieve challenging student standards, enhancing
licensing systems for teachers and other education professionals,
and providing incentives for reform.''
Absolute Priority 6: Improving Postsecondary Education
Overview: A total of 22 letters provided comments on Priority 6.
Some commenters addressed more than one topic.
Comments on Scope and Relationship of Priority 6 to Priority 7
Comments: Seven commenters were concerned with relationships and
distinctions between priorities 6 and 7. Two recommended combining
the two priorities, while others recommended various ways of
ensuring that the work is coordinated or that the scope of each
priority be clarified to prevent overlap. Several commented on the
broad range of issues included in Priority 6, while others added
issues that should be emphasized.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that distinctions between
priorities 6 and 7 need to be clarified, but does not agree that a
single center can address the complex issues in both postsecondary
education and adult literacy and learning. The Secretary agrees that
it is important for the centers to coordinate work on issues of
mutual interest.
Changes: The title of Priority 6 has been changed to:
``Improving Postsecondary Education'' to distinguish its focus from
priority 7. Section (a) is changed to: ``Conduct research and
development on improving quality, productivity and outcomes of
postsecondary education.'' Applicants will be permitted to select
three or more topics for research from among those listed. Non-
binding mission guidance will suggest ways of coordinating the work
of the two centers.
Comments on Emphasizing a Continuous View of Education
Comments: Three commenters argued for a broader view of
postsecondary students and a more continuous view of education,
consistent with the theme of lifelong learning. Three advocated
inclusion of community colleges in the work on
[[Page 47825]]
postsecondary education. Eight commenters recommended linking research
on postsecondary education with various other reform issues
including: Teacher education; links to communities; promotion of
private/public partnerships in service delivery; and employment
opportunities for high-risk students and for the non-college bound.
Two commenters advocated a K-16 approach to education reform.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that this priority should
reflect a continuous view of education, including an emphasis on K-
16 approaches to education improvement and teacher education. The
Secretary encourages the inclusion of various groups of participants
and institutions, including community colleges.
Changes: The Secretary has omitted (b)(5): ``Articulation
between secondary and postsecondary education,'' and has amended
(b)(1) to read: ``Transitions from school to work, or to further
education, for secondary and postsecondary students, including, but
not limited to, development of effective K-16 systems.''
Comments on Faculty Development
Comments: Three commenters recommended inclusion of research on
faculty development, especially for improving student achievement.
Others recommended a focus on professional development, including
interprofessional development for educators at various academic
levels. The Board committee recommended adding teacher education as
an express part of this priority in order to emphasize the need for
research and development related to the professional development of
K-12 teachers.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that faculty development is an
important aspect of improving the quality of postsecondary
education. The Secretary also agrees that postsecondary institutions
are critical in improving the preparation of K-12 educators.
Changes: Section (b)(3) will include a new topic: ``Approaches
to professional development geared to improving postsecondary
instruction and student learning, including the preparation of K-12
educators.''
Comments on Institutional Productivity, Faculty Rewards, and
Finance
Comments: Three commenters advocated various aspects of
improving the management and productivity of postsecondary
institutions, including a focus on faculty productivity and reward
structures.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that these are important issues
and believes that they are already included in the statement on
``Containing costs and improving the productivity and accountability
of postsecondary institutions.''
Changes: None.
Comments on Emphasizing Library Services
Comments: Three commenters recommended an emphasis on research
on library services.
Discussion: While the Secretary agrees that libraries are
important aspects of postsecondary education, he does not believe
that this topic is appropriate as a separate research topic for this
priority. However, the Secretary has included the use of libraries
in (b)(2) of Priority 7.
Changes: None.
Absolute Priority 7: Improving Adult Learning and Literacy
Overview: A total of 21 letters provided comments on Priority 7.
Some commenters discussed more than one topic in their
correspondence.
Comments on Organizational Strategies, Methods and Delivery Systems
Comments: Four commenters recommended that greater attention be
paid to developing effective delivery systems through better
organizational strategies, and four others asked that libraries be
specified within the research activities.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that greater attention be paid
to developing effective delivery systems through better
organizational strategies, including the use of libraries.
Changes: Section (b)(2) has been amended to read: ``Effective
strategies and technology for providers, including libraries,
community organizations, and family literacy programs, * * *''
Comments on Workplace Skills
Comments: Two commenters asked that more work be done in
developing skills for use in the workplace and two asked that the
research on workplace skills be coordinated with that of the
Institute on Postsecondary Education so as to differentiate the
basic skills from the levels and kinds of skills generally
considered the province of postsecondary institutions' preparation
of students for work. The Board committee recommended deleting the
word ``cognitive'' from (b)(1) and replacing it with the phrase
``linguistic, quantitative and reasoning'' to clarify the myriad of
skills to which this Center's research and development might
pertain. The Board also recommended that an explicit reference to
computer skills be added.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that adult learning and
literacy programs can provide a variety of skills useful in the
workforce, including computer literacy, that postsecondary
institutions can generally provide skills that are useful for higher
level workforce preparedness, and that research on all these skills
will profit from collaborative work.
Changes: Section (a) has been amended to read: ``Conduct
research and development on improving adult learning and literacy
through delivery methods and systems other than postsecondary
institutions, including the skills needed for work and responsible
citizenship.'' In addition, section (b)(1) has been amended to read:
``Adult acquisition of knowledge and development of linguistic,
quantitative, and reasoning skills, including adult acquisition of
second language skills and computer skills.''
Comments on Instructional Considerations
Comments: Two commenters wanted specific mention of family
literacy, and two emphasized the importance of instructional
strategies and materials. The Board committee recommended adding a
specific reference to the use of technology for professional
development in order to encourage further use of technology toward
the goals of this priority.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that family literacy is a vital
part of the provision of literacy and related instruction and
services. The Secretary believes that the importance of
instructional strategies and materials is already apparent in the
priority in sections (b) (2), (3) and (4).
Changes: Section (b)(2)has been amended to read: ``Effective
strategies and technology for providers, including libraries,
community organizations, and family literacy programs,* * *''.
Section (b)(3) has been revised to include a specific reference to
the use of technology for professional development.
Comments on Special Populations
Comments: Two commenters recommended the specific mention of
target populations, including those with learning disabilities,
learning disorders and other special needs, and one recommended much
greater attention to diversity in general and English as a second
language programs and instruction in particular.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that much more sophisticated
identification methods have shown us that an increasingly large
number of adults have special learning needs. The Secretary further
agrees that burgeoning numbers of adults needing English as second
language instruction are asking for programs.
Changes: Section (b)(2) has been amended to read: ``Effective
strategies and technology for providers, including libraries,
community organizations, and family literacy programs, to improve
adult learning and literacy for all adult populations, including
adults with special needs and those needing English as second
language instruction.'' In addition, section (b)(3) has been amended
to read: ``Effective methods, including use of technology, for
professional development of instructional staff for adult education
and literacy programs, including English as second language programs
and programs for adults with special needs.''
Comments on Research Methodology
Comments: Two commenters called for greater practitioner
involvement in the design and conduct of research.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that such participation would
be a valuable ingredient in carrying out the research under this
Priority. The Secretary encourages practitioner involvement, but
does not believe this should be mandated.
Changes: None.
Post-Award Requirements Comments
Comments: One comment was received on the post-award
requirements. This commenter recommended dropping the five percent
set-aside for supporting activities that fall within the center's
priority area and are designed and mutually agreed to by the center
and OERI. The commenter stated a belief that the set-aside modifies
the intention of the appropriators by reducing the center awards by
five percent to provide additional discretionary funds for the
agency
[[Page 47826]]
not acknowledged in the formal appropriation process. The commenter
also suggested that the word ``synthesizes'' in paragraph (d) has a
technical meaning that may not be appropriate in the context of
post-award requirements, and suggests using ``document'' instead, as
well as adding ``actual impact'' instead of ``potential impact.''
Discussion: The Secretary does not believe that a 5 percent set-
aside for the described activities is unreasonable or an attempt to
circumvent the appropriations process. The five percent set-aside
will be used by the centers for activities which enable them to work
more closely with each other. The Secretary agrees that synthesis
has a technical meaning and believes that it is an appropriate
activity for the centers. The Secretary also believes that it is
appropriate for centers to describe potential impact as well as
observable impact to date.
Changes: None.
[FR Doc. 95-22873 Filed 9-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
