A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Changing Federal Strategies for Supporting Educational Research, Development, and Statistics - September 1998

Endnotes

¹ On the role of parents and local communities in education, see James Axtell, The School Upon a Hill: Education and Society in Colonial New England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); Carl F. Kaestle, Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983); Gerald F. Moran and Maris A. Vinovskis, Religion, Family, and the Life Course: Explorations in the Social History of Early America (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1992).

² For a discussion on how state education superintendents such as Horace Mann used statistical information, see Charles L. Glenn, The Myth of the Common School (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988); Maris A. Vinovskis, Education, Society, and Economic Opportunity: A Historical Perspective on Persistent Issues (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).

³ On the federal role in education before the Civil War, see Paul H. Mattingly and Edward W. Stevens, Jr., eds., "...Schools and the Means of Education Shall Forever be Encouraged" (Athens, OH: University of Ohio Press, 1987); David Tyack, Thomas James, Aaron Benavot, Law and the Shaping of Public Education, 1785-1954 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987); Howard C. Taylor, The Educational Significance of the Early Federal Land Ordinances (New York: Teachers College, 1922).

⁴ On the creation of the Department of Education, see Donald R. Warren, To Enforce Education: A History of the Founding Years of the United States Office of Education (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974).

⁵ Sol Cohen, Education in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Random House, 1974), vol. 3, p. 1406.

⁶ Edith N. MacMullen, In the Cause of True Education: Henry Barnard and Nineteenth-Century School Reform (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991); Warren, To Enforce Education, pp. 98-150.

⁷ The Department of Education was created in 1867, but without cabinet designation. The agency was transferred to the Interior Department and renamed the Office of Education a year later. In 1870 the Office of Education was changed to the Bureau of Education (it remained under that designation until 1930 when it was again called the Office of Education). In 1939 the Office of Education was transferred to the Federal Security Agency (which was reorganized in 1953 as the Department of Health, Education and Welfare). To minimize the confusion due to the changing names of the office, it will be referred to as the Bureau of Education to 1930 and thereafter the Office of Education. For a discussion of these changes, see Harry Kursch, The United States Office of Education: A Century of Service (Philadelphia: Chilton Books, 1965), pp. 12-13.

⁸ Stephen J. Sniegoski, "John Eaton, U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1870-1886," unpub. paper (December 1994); Warren, To Enforce Education, pp. 151-73.

⁹ These are rather crude estimates calculated from data provided in Darrell H. Smith, The Bureau of Education: Its History, Activities, and Organization (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1923), pp. 130-41. They do not necessarily reflect all of the costs since the salaries of the staff are listed separately, but are not broken down by function. On the educational efforts in Alaska, see Victor W. Hennigsen, III, "Reading, Writing and Reindeer: The Development of Federal Education in Alaska, 1877-1920," unpub. Ed.D. diss (Harvard University, 1987).

¹⁰ For a more in-depth discussion of these important changes, see Maris A. Vinovskis, "Changing Views of the Federal Role in Educational Statistics and Research," unpub. paper (September 1995), pp. 15-23.

¹¹ National Advisory Committee on Education, Federal Relations to Education (Washington, DC: National Capitol Press, 1931). A minority of the National Advisory Committee opposed the creation of a Department of Education--partly out of a fear that the collection, analysis, and dissemination of educational data as a result might become politicized.

¹² Paul C. Pickett, "Contributions of John Ward Studebacker to American Education," unpub. Ph.D. diss. (University of Iowa, 1967). On the difficulties in education during the Depression, see David Tyack, Robert Lowe, and Elisabeth Hansot, Public Schools in Hard Times: The Great Depression and Recent Years (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984).

¹³ Daniel S. Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science (New York: New American Library, 1967); James L. Penick, Jr., Carroll W. Pursell, Jr., Morgan B. Sherwood, and Donald C. Swin, The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1972); Michael D. Reagan, Science and the Federal Patron (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969); Thaddeus J. Trenn, America's Golden Bough: The Science Advisory Intertwist (Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain, 1983).

¹⁴ Dorwin Cartwright, "Social Psychology in the United States during the Second World War," Human Relations, 1, No. 2 (November 1947), 332-52; Philip M. Hauser, "Wartime Developments in Census Statistics," American Sociological Review, 10, No. 2 (April 1945), 160-69; Gene M. Lyons, The Uneasy Partnership: Social Science and the Federal Government in the Twentieth Century (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969); Maris A. Vinovskis, History and Policymaking: Exploring the Uses of History for Educational Policymaking (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, forthcoming).

¹⁵ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1944 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945).

¹⁶ Roger L. Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Daniel L. Kleinman, Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995); Bruce L.R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990).

¹⁷ Roger L. Geiger, "American Foundations and Academic Social Science, 1945-1960," Minerva, 26 (1988), 315-41; Samuel Z. Klausner, "The Bid to Nationalize the Social Sciences," in The Nationalization of the Social Sciences, eds. Samuel Z. Klausner and Victor M. Lidz (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), pp. 3-40; Otto N. Larsen, Milestones and Millstones: Social Sciences at the National Science Foundation, 1945-1991 (New Brunswick, J: Transaction Publishers, 1992); Francis X. Sutton, "The Ford Foundation: The Early Years," Daedalus, 116 (Winter 1987), 41-91.

¹⁸ The annual reports of the agency in the late 1940s and early 1950s suggest that data gathering had become routine and that the staff studies of education were not seen as particularly exciting or vital. However, there were some improvements in gathering statistical data. Data tabulations shifted from a manual to a machine process after 1945 and the Research and Statistical Service began to use scientific sampling. U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1947 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948), p. 217.

¹⁹ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1951 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 13. Francis Chase, a professor at the University of Chicago, was commissioned to assess the U.S. Office of Education and confirmed the agency's deficiencies in handling statistics and research. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

²⁰ For example, Office of Education in 1950 did not have any funds for supporting contract research. U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1950 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 23.

²¹ During the Senate hearings on the Cooperative Research Act of 1954, policy makers and educators did not display much interest in research and development (the Act was the third part of the Eisenhower Administration's initiative on education). U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Education, President's Recommendations Relating to Education, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954).

²² Robert A. Divine, The Sputnik Challenge: Eisenhower's Response to the Soviet Satellite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

²³ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1957 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958), pp. 183-85.

²⁴ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1964 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, p. 235.

²⁵ Divine, The Sputnik Challenge, p. 164.

²⁶ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1959 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960).

²⁷ Much of the analysis and some of the text of this section as well as the next one draw heavily upon Maris A. Vinovskis, "Changing Views of the Federal Role in Educational Statistics and Research," unpub. paper, September 1995.

²⁸ Larsen, Milestones and Millstones, p. 24.

²⁹ On federal domestic initiatives during the 1960s, see Marshall Kaplan and Peggy Cuciti, eds., The Great Society and Its Legacy: Twenty Years of U.S. Social Policy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986); Sar A. Levitan and Robert Taggart, The Promise of Greatness (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976); James T. Patterson, America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900-1980 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981); James L. Sundquist, Politics and Policy: The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Years (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1968).

³⁰ Peter B. Dow, Schoolhouse Politics: Lessons from the Sputnik Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

³¹ For discussions of the state of educational research in this period, see Benjamin S. Bloom, "Twenty-Five Years of Educational Research," American Educational Research Journal, 3, No. 3 (May 1966), 211-21; Orville Brim, Jr., Sociology and the Field of Education (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965); John B. Carroll, "Neglected Areas in Educational Research," Phi Delta Kappan, 42, No. 8 (May 1961), 339-46; Arthur P. Coladarci, "More Rigorous Educational Research," Harvard Educational Review, 30, No. 1 (Winter 1960), 3-11; Lee J. Cronbach and Patrick Suppes, eds., Research for Tomorrow's Schools: Disciplinary Inquiry for Education (New York: MacMillan, 1969); Carter V. Good, "Educational Research After Fifty Years," Phi Delta Kappan, 37, No. 4 (January 1956), 145-52.

³² For a description of the Cooperative Research Program, see David L. Clark and William R. Carriker, "Educational Research and the Cooperative Research Program," Phi Delta Kappan, 42, No. 6 (March 1961), 226-30.

³³ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1964 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 256-63.

³⁴ Francis S. Chase, "The National Program of Educational Laboratories: An Independent Appraisal of Twenty Educational Laboratories and Nine University Research and Development Centers Conducted Under Contract No. OEC-3-7-001536-1536" (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968).

³⁵ U.S. Office of Education, Annual Report, 1964, p. 256. For a useful discussion of the creation and early development of the R&D centers, see Richard A. Dershimer, The Federal Government and Education R&D (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1976).

³⁶ The best analysis of the Gardner Task Force remains Charles Philip Kearney, "The 1964 Presidential Task Force on Education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965," unpub. Ph.D. diss. (University of Chicago, 1967).

³⁷ John Gardner, "Report of the President's Task Force on Education," (November 14, 1964), p. 33. The report is available at the LBJ Presidential Library, Austin, Texas.

³⁸ Gardner, "Report of the President's Task Force on education," p. 34.

³⁹ Gardner, "Report of the President's Task Force on Education," p. 39.

⁴⁰ Congressional Quarterly, Almanac: 89th Congress, 1st Session...1965 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1966).

⁴¹ U.S. Congress, House, Special Subcommittee on Education, Study of the United States Office of Education, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (House Document No. 193: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 1-25.

⁴² U.S. Congress, House, Special Subcommittee on Education, Study of the United States Office of Education, pp. 1-25.

⁴³ U.S. Congress, House, Special Subcommittee on Education, Hearings on the U.S. Office of Education, August 10, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p.p. 758-63.

⁴⁴ Richard C. Atkinson and Gregg B. Jackson, Research and Education Reform: Roles for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992), pp. 45-49.

⁴⁵ Peter Greenwood and Daniel Weiler, Alternative Models for the ERIC Clearing House System (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1972); Lee Sproull, Stephen Weiner, and David Wolf, Organizing an Anarchy: Belief, Bureaucracy, and Politics in the National Institute of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).

⁴⁶ For a discussion of the debate within the Office of Education on the size and function of the regional educational laboratories and R&D centers in the second half of the 1960s, see Dershimer, The Federal Government and Educational R&D; Maris A. Vinovskis, "Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development at the OERI Research and Development Centers and the OERI Regional Educational Laboratories," unpub. report, OERI (June 1993).

⁴⁷ Dershimer, The Federal Government and Educational R&D, pp. 98-103; Vinovskis, "Congressional Oversight of the Regional Educational Laboratories and Research and Development Centers."

⁴⁸ For a useful discussion of the beliefs of policy makers and a brief overview of these early compensatory programs, see Julie Roy Jeffrey, Education for Children of the Poor: A Study of the Origins and Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1978), pp. 3-25

⁴⁹ Michael J. Wargo, G. Kasten Tallmadge, Debba D. Michaels, Dewey Lipe, and Sarah J. Morris, ESEA Title I: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Evaluation Data from Fiscal Year 1965 Through 1970, Final Report, Contract No. OEC-0-71-4766 (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, 1972). For a more general discussion of the efficacy of federal educational programs, see Maris A. Vinovskis, "The Development and Effectiveness of Compensatory Education Programs: A Brief Historical Analysis of Title I and Head Start," in Giving Better, Giving Smarter: Working Papers of the National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, eds. John W. Barry and Bruno V. Manno (Washington, DC: National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, 1997), pp. 169-92.

⁵⁰ Westinghouse Learning Corporation, "The Impact of Head Start: An Evaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Children's Cognitive and Affective Development," Report presented to the Office of Economic Opportunity, contract B89-4536 (1969). There were several major scholarly challenges to the findings of the Westinghouse Report including Marshall S. Smith and Joan S. Bissell, "Report Analysis: The Impact of Head Start," Harvard Educational Review, 40 (1970), 51-104. For a rebuttal, see Victor G. Cicirelli, John W. Evans, and Jeffrey S. Schiller, "The Impact of Head Start: A Reply to the Report Analysis," Harvard Educational Review, 40 (1970), 105-29. On the historical debates on Head Start, see Maris A. Vinovskis, "School Readiness and Early Childhood Education," in Learning from the Past: What History Teaches Us About School Reform, eds. Diane Ravitch and Maris A. Vinovskis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp. 243-64.

⁵¹ James S. Coleman, Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Robert L. York, Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 325. Coleman's report generated an extensive set of debates. For a useful introduction to these discussions, see Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P. Moynihan, eds., On Equality of Educational Opportunity (New York: Vintage Books, 1972); Harvard Educational Review, Equal Educational Opportunity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969).

⁵² Chester E. Finn, Jr., Education and the Presidency (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977), p. 33.

⁵³ For an excellent analysis of the passage of the NIE legislation, see Sproull et al., Organizing an Anarchy, pp. 60-71.

⁵⁴ U.S. Congress, House, Select Subcommittee on Education, To Establish a National Institute of Education, Hearings...on H.R. 33, H.R. 3606, and Other Related Bills, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 18, 1971 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 10.

⁵⁵ U.S. Congress, House, Select Subcommittee on Education, To Establish a National Institute of Education, May 11, 1971, pp. 228-29.

⁵⁶ Congressional Record, 117, Pt. 30 (November 4, 1971), p. 39274.

⁵⁷ The House Select Subcommittee on Education under the chairmanship of John Brademas (D-IN) provided the bipartisan congressional leadership for the creation of NIE. Sproull et al., Organizing an Anarchy, pp. 60-71.

⁵⁸ Sproull et al., Organizing an Anarchy.

⁵⁹ U.S. Congress, House, Select Committee on Education, To Establish a National Institute of Education, Feb. 18, 1971, p. 41.

⁶⁰ For additional discussion of the program purchase approach, see Vinovskis, "Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development."

⁶¹ The importance of CEDaR in congressional decision-making was candidly acknowledged by the mid-1970s. Roald F. Campbell et al., R&D Funding Policies of the National Institute of Education: Review and Recommendations, National Institute of Education (Washington, DC: Department of Health, education, and Welfare, 1975), p. 35.

⁶² Campbell, et al., R&D Funding Policies of the National Institute of Education, p. 27.

⁶³ Panel for the Review of Laboratory and Center Operations, Research and Development Centers and Regional Educational Laboratories: Strengthening and Stabilizing a National Resource, Final Report (Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1979), p. iv.

⁶⁴ Ibid., pp. vi-vii, 13, 35.

⁶⁵ National Institute of Education, "Long-Term Special Institutional Agreements with the Seventeen Existing Laboratories and Centers," National Institute of Education (January 15, 1979).

⁶⁶ A National Academy of Science (NAS) panel was assembled to examine the issue of basic research in education and had strongly recommended expansion in this area. Sara B. Kiesler and Charles F. Turner, Fundamental Research and the Process of Education (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1977).

⁶⁷ National Council on Educational Research, Sixth Annual Report of the National Council on Educational Research (Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1980), p. 14.

⁶⁸ For details on this initiative, see National Institute of Education, "State Dissemination Grants Program Announcement, 1979," July 12, 1979.

⁶⁹ Kent J. Chabotar and Diane G. Kell, Linking R&D with Schools: An NIE Program and Its Policy Context (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1978); Karen Seashore Louis and Sheila Rosenblum, Linking R&D with Schools: A Program and Its Implications for Dissemination and School Improvement Policy (Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1981).

⁷⁰ Dow, Schoolhouse Politics.

⁷¹ National Council on Educational Research, Fifth Report of the National Council on Education Research (Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1979), p. 18; National Council on Education Research, Sixth Report of the National Council on Education Research, p. 14.

⁷² Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, pp. 45-49.

⁷³ Office of Management Analysis and Systems, "Management Evaluation of the National Center for Education Statistics," (Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, August 1978), p. 20.

⁷⁴ Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, memorandum for the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget and the Assistant Secretary for Education, November 7, 1978, pp. 1-2.

⁷⁵ Deborah A. Verstegen, "Educational Fiscal Policy in the Reagan Administration," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, No. 4 (Winter 1990), p. 367.

⁷⁶ Deborah A. Verstegen and David L. Clark, "The Diminution in Federal Expenditures for Education During the Reagan Administration," Phi Delta Kappan, 70, No. 2 (October 1988), p. 137.

⁷⁷ Moreover, in order to provide the most efficient and effective services with the diminished funds, the Congress stipulated that labs and centers "upon completion of existing contracts, receive funding in accordance with government-wide competitive bidding procedures and in accordance with principles of peer review involving scholars and State and local educators to ensure the quality and relevance of the work proposed." U.S., Congress, House, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981: Conference Report, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (H.R. 3982, Report No. 97-208, 1981), p. 729.

⁷⁸ For a useful analysis of the lab and center competitions, see Thomas W. Schultz, "Behind Closed Doors: Peer Review in the NIE Research Center Competition," unpub. Ed.D. diss. (Harvard University, 1988).

⁷⁹ U.S. General Accounting Office, Education Information: Changes in Funds and Priorities Have Affected Production and Quality, GAO/PEMD-88-4 (Washington, DC: GAO, 1987), p. 21.

⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 37.

⁸¹ Ibid., p. 76.

⁸² Ibid., pp. 25-27.

⁸³ For an excellent discussion of NIE's political struggles during the early 1980s, see Philip Zodhiates, "Bureaucrats and Politicians: The National Institute of education and Educational Research under Reagan," unpub. Ed.D. diss. (Harvard University, 1988).

⁸⁴ U.S. General Accounting Office, Education Information, pp. 81-83.

⁸⁵ Zodhiates, "Bureaucrats and Politicians."

⁸⁶ James Hertling, "E.D. Official Questions N.I.E.'s Effectiveness, Structure," Education Week, 4, No. 27 (March 27, 1985), p. 10.

⁸⁷ James Hertling, "Finn to Head Reorganized Research Unit," Education Week, 4, No. 40-41 (August 21, 1985), pp. 14-15. Under the new plan, most NIE's programs were to go into the Office of Research and most NCES statistical efforts were relocated in the Center for Statistics. Later, the Center for Statistics went back to its former name, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). To minimize confusion, the unit will be referred to as NCES throughout this text.

⁸⁸ U.S. Congress, House, Reauthorization of Sections 405 and 406 of the General Education Provisions Act, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

⁸⁹ Daniel B. Levine, ed., Creating a Center for Education Statistics: A Time for Action (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986), p. 4.

⁹⁰ Emerson J. Elliott, "New Directions and Initiatives at NCES: Implications for Educational Research, Policy, and Practice," Educational Researcher, 18, No. 3 (April 1989), 11-16.

⁹¹ The budgets for OERI have been reconstructed from OERI documents and the annual House and senate appropriation committee reports. I am indebted to Thomas Brown of OERI in particular for his assistance in assembling the recent budgets. For analytic purposes, in this and subsequent discussions of the overall OERI budget the funds for the library programs will be excluded.

⁹² Perhaps equally interesting, center funding from FY 1983 to FY 1993 had risen 63.1 percent while that of the labs for the comparable period had increased 136.6 percent.

⁹³ U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Select Education, Oversight Hearings on the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988), p. 255.

⁹⁴ Christopher T. Cross, et al., "Report of the Laboratory Review Panel on the 1987 Review of Laboratories," Office of Educational Research and Improvement (October 6, 1987).

⁹⁵ Christopher T. Cross, "Approval Concurrence of the Centers to be Competed in the FY 1990/ 91 National Educational Research and Development Centers Competition," memo to the Secretary of Education, January 22, 1990.

⁹⁶ Ravitch, somewhat like Cross, also stressed the importance of developing a more effective system of disseminating research findings. Robert Rothman, "New O.E.R.I. Head Sees Top Priority Ways to Marry Research and Practice," Education Week, 10, No. 40 (July 31, 1991), p. 37.

⁹⁷ Vinovskis, "Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development."

⁹⁸ Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, p. 148. The creation of the NAS Panel had been initiated by OERI Assistant Secretary Cross.

⁹⁹ Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, p. 150.

¹⁰⁰ Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, pp. 150-51.

¹⁰¹ Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, p. 152.

¹⁰² Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, pp. 151, 153.

¹⁰³ U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on select Education, "Preliminary Staff Report on Educational Research, Development, and Dissemination: Reclaiming a Vision of the Federal Role for the 1990's and Beyond," 100th Cong., 2nd Sess., unpub. report, Washington, DC (September 1988), p. 8.

¹⁰⁴ U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Select Education, Hearings on Reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 5.

¹⁰⁵ U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Select Education, "Preliminary Staff Report," pp. 37-38.

¹⁰⁶ Vinovskis, "Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development."

¹⁰⁷ His views were expanded and refined in an influential, co-authored article. Arthur E. Wise and Gerald E. Sroufe, "A Response to America's Reform Agenda: The National Institutes for Educational Improvement," Educational Researcher, 19, No. 4 (May 1990), 22-25.

¹⁰⁸ U.S. House, Committee on Education and Labor, Report on the Educational Research, Development, and Dissemination Act, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess., Report 102-845 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 134.

¹⁰⁹ "OERI Bill Bogged Down as Deadline Nears," Report on Education Research, 24, No. 15 (July 22, 1992), 3-4; Robert Rothman, "With Death of O.E.R.I. Bill, Reorganization Put Off," Education Week, 12, No. 6 (October 14, 1992), 22.

¹¹⁰ Diane Ravitch, "The State of the Agency," OERI Bulletin, No. 1 (Winter 1992-1993), p. 2.

¹¹¹ Dave Harrison, "Riley Picks 11 to Run ED Offices Pending Nominations," Education Daily, 26, No. 16 (1993), 1-2; Gerald E. Sroufe, "Emerson Elliott--Proud to be a Federal Bureaucrat," Educational Researcher, 24, No. 7 (October 1995), 29-33.

¹¹² Asking the Schedule C political appointees to resign was a routine and expected event in these situations and did not arouse much question or anxiety among the staff. When President Clinton's Schedule C appointees arrived, some of them privately questioned why OERI had not eliminated or at least isolated more of the excepted service staff appointed by Ravitch. But Elliott and then Sharon Robinson, decided to retain and use Ravitch's nonpolitical appointees. There were occasions, especially at the beginning, when some of the Clinton newcomers were concerned about the loyalty and dedication of former Ravitch staff. Over time it soon became clear that even some of the more visible and outspoken OERI supporters of Ravitch served the new administration ably and loyally.

¹¹³ Annette Licitra, "NEA Official Closes In On Top OERI Job," Education Daily, 26, No. 55 (March 23, 1993), 1, 3; Annette Licitra, "Clinton Nominates Candidates for Research, Higher ED Slots," Education Daily, 26, No. 61 (March 31, 1993), 1, 3.

¹¹⁴ David Hoff, "ED Adds Four Clinton Nominees To Assistant Secretary Roster," Education Daily, 26, No. 124 (June 29, 1993), 4.

¹¹⁵ Annette Licitra, "ED's Research Director Seeks Dialogue With Practitioners," Education Daily (July 23, 1993), p. 17.

¹¹⁶ "OERI Bill Bogged Down as Deadline Nears," Report on Education Research, 24, No. 15 (July 22, 1992), 3-4; "OERI Reauthorization Hanging With Only Weeks Left," Education Research, No. 19 (September 16, 1992), 7; Robert Rothman, "House Passes Compromise Reauthorization," Education Week, 12, No. 4 (September 30, 1992), 25; Robert Rothman, "With Death of O.E.R.I. Bill, Reorganization Put Off," Education Week, 12, No. 6 (October 14, 1992), 22.

¹¹⁷ Annette Licitra, "House, Senate Resuscitate Last Year's OERI Bills," Education Daily, 26, No. 27 (February 10, 1993), 1, 3; Jeannie Wong, "Congress Seeks Overhaul of Federal Education-Research Program," Chronicle of Higher Education (July 21, 1993), A26; Lynn Schnaiberg, "In Clearing O.E.R.I. Bill, Senate Backs More Funding," Education Week (November 10, 1993), 21; Mark Pitsch, "Action on reform Bill Seen Unlikely by Year End," Education Week (November 24, 1993), 11.

¹¹⁸ Mark Pitsch and Lynn Schnaiberg, "Senate Amends, Then Nears Vote, On Clinton's Goals 2000 Measure," Education Week (February 9, 1994), 18-19; Mark Pitsch, "Next Stop for Goals 2000 Bill: House-Senate Conference," Education Week (February 16, 1994), 18-19; Lynn Schnaiberg, "O.E.R.I. Compromise Strikes Balance On Who Will Control Research Agenda," Education Week (March 23, 1994), 17; Annette Licitra, "OERI Negotiators Settle on Research Institutes, Advisory Board," Education Daily, 27, No. 62 (March 31, 1994), 4.

¹¹⁹ For example, see Gerald Sroufe, Margaret Goertz, Joan Herman, Sam Yeager, Gregg B. Jackson, and Sharon P. Robinson, "The Federal Education Research Agency: New Opportunities and New Challenges for Researchers," Educational Researcher, 24, No. 4 (May 1995), 24-30.

¹²⁰ In these calculations, the funds for library programs have not been included as they are part of a separate congressional budget. If the funding for library programs were included in the overall OERI budget totals, the proportion of monies spent on the more traditional programs would be even smaller.

¹²¹ Moreover, there are concerns that the monies allocated for educational technology were not being well spent. Too often the funds were used to buy equipment, but teachers did not receive the training necessary to use the hardware and software properly. Peter West, "O.T.A. Decries Lack of Focus on Teachers," Education Week (April 12, 1995), 1, 11.

¹²² All the figures on the changes in staff FTEs were provided by Sharon Taylor of the Budget Services, the Department of Education on May 1, 1997. I am greatly indebted to Ms Taylor for running the special tabulations of data on OERI and the other agencies which made this analysis possible.

¹²³ Most of the earlier calculations of OERI expenditures have not included the costs of the library programs which are treated separately from the OERI budget by the Congress. However, to estimate the amounts of monies spent by the agency per employee in FY 1992 and FY 1997, the expenditures for library programs were added because the total FTEs included the individuals working in the library programs. In the future the budget and staff of the library programs, but not the National Education Library, will be located outside the Department of Education.

¹²⁴ U.S. General Accounting Office, Education Information: Changes in Funds and Priorities Have Affected Production Quality, GAO/PEMD-88-4 (Washington, DC: GAO, 1987), pp. 81-83.

¹²⁵ Public Law 103-227, Title IX, Sec. 912, (c) Appointment of Employees, (1).

¹²⁶ OERI has employed various contractors over the years. For example, the Office of Research (OR) had a multiyear, multimillion dollar contract with the Pelavin Research Institute to provide needed services such as organizing conferences, assembling research materials, and commissioning background papers. Similarly, Professional and Scientific Associates worked for the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB) to organize their workshops and meetings.

¹²⁷ U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1996, Part 5: Department of Education, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995), pp. 1409-1410.

¹²⁸ For example, in April 1995 OERI was authorized to hire 8 new employees. Madeleine Kunin, "Critical Hires," Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, April 17, 1995.

¹²⁹ Sharon P. Robinson, "Job Preference Selection for the New OERI," OERI memorandum, September 8, 1994.

¹³⁰ Sharon Robinson, "The New OERI Structure and Staffing Plan," OERI memorandum, October 26, 1994. A lot of the staff choose to stay where they were, but many did apply for new positions--especially since the reorganization of OERI forced many individuals to find a new home.

¹³¹ Preston G. Foster, "Note to All OERI Employees," OERI memorandum, April 28, 1995.

¹³² U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings...Appropriations for 1997, Part 5: Department of Education, p. 1387.

¹³³ U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings...Appropriations for 1997, Part 5: Department of Education, p. 1388; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Appropriations for 1998, Part 5: Department of Education, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 1485.

¹³⁴ On the changes in the size of centers over time, see Vinovskis, "Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development."

¹³⁵. Atkinson and Jackson, Research and Education Reform, pp. 150-51.

¹³⁶ Vinovskis, "Analysis of the Quality of Research and Development."

¹³⁷ The National Center on Policy and Teaching Excellence at the University of Washington in Seattle was funded by the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management.

¹³⁸ At the same time, of course, OERI was under great pressure to fund some of these smaller centers in order to provide at least some coverage in areas seen as substantively and politically important.

¹³⁹ U.S. Department of Education, News (September 9, 1997).

¹⁴⁰ Not everyone is agreed upon the need for having prior research designs for the center projects. At an OERI workshop, a former chair of the center director's group argued against requiring centers to submit to OERI a detailed research design. This person felt that they were unnecessary and time-consuming to develop. This was a minority view, however, as most other researchers and center directors did see the value of providing research designs for individual projects.

¹⁴¹ As will be discussed later, an alternative to this more sporadic and uncoordinated approach to creating centers as to use a life course analytic framework that had been developed for OERI in June/July 1995 by Vinovskis. For more discussion of this alternative approach as well as a conceptual critique of the announcement in the Federal Register for the center competition, see Maris A. Vinovskis, History and Policymaking: Exploring the Uses of History for Educational Policymaking (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, forthcoming), chapter 8: "A Life Course Framework for Analyzing Educational Research Projects."

¹⁴² At one time Sharon Robinson announced that Edgar Epps, a recent OERI consultant from the University of Chicago, would be the Research Advisor. However, he really did not try to fulfill that role and had relatively little impact on the direction and coordination of the overall research activities in the agency.

¹⁴³ Susan Gruskin, Kim Silverman, and Veda Bright, Including Your Child (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1997); Janice Owens, Learning and Earning: Analysis of HEA Title II-B Graduate Library Fellowship Program Recipients, Fiscal Years 1985-1991 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1997); National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education, Directory of Projects, 1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1997).

¹⁴⁴ Naturally, there are a few notable exceptions. For example, Clifford Adelman, a member of the Postsecondary Institute, has been a major and innovative scholar using college transcripts. Clifford Adelman, A College Course Map: Taxonomy and Transcript Data (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990); Clifford Adelman, The New College Course Map and Transcript Files: Changes in Course-Taking and Achievement, 1972-1993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1995).

¹⁴⁵ U.S. Congress, House, Hearings...Appropriations for 1997, Part 5: Department of Education, pp. 309-12.

¹⁴⁶ U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings...Appropriations for 1998, Part 5: Department of Education, p. 1485.

¹⁴⁷ Atkinson and Jackson, eds., Research and Education Reform, pp. 128-29.

¹⁴⁸ For example, Preston Kronkosky, Executive Director of the Southwest Educational Laboratory (SEDL), testified on behalf of CEDaR at the OERI reauthorization hearings that the Office of Research (OR) should be reorganized into several large research institutes and that funding for the field-initiated research should be expanded substantially. He also endorsed the idea that the labs should follow the research priorities outlined in the legislation. U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Select Education, Hearings on the Reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), March 17, 1992, 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), pp. 61-65.

¹⁴⁹ Public Law 103-227 (March 31, 1994), Title IX, sec. 941 (h).

¹⁵⁰ Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), "Regional Educational Laboratories for Research, Development, Dissemination and Technical Assistance, RFP #95-040: Statement of Work," U.S. Department of Education, 1995, p. 3.

¹⁵¹ OERI, "Regional Educational Laboratories...RFP #95-040: Statement of Work," p. 9.

¹⁵² These criticisms and suggestions had been raised by Vinovskis, a consultant to OERI. Maris Vinovskis, "Comments on Draft Statement of Work for Regional Educational Laboratory RFP," Memo to Margo Anderson, Eve Bither, Chuck Hansen, and Bob Stonehill, OERI, February 12, 1995.

¹⁵³ OERI, "Regional Educational Laboratories...RFP #95-040: Statement of Work," p. 14.

¹⁵⁴ OERI, "Regional Educational Laboratories...RFP #95-040: Statement of Work," p. 13.

¹⁵⁵ OERI, "Regional Educational Laboratories...RFP #95-040: Statement of Work," pp. 26-27.

¹⁵⁶ OERI, "Regional Educational Laboratories...RFP #95-040: Statement of Work," pp. 27-28.

¹⁵⁷ Atkinson and Jackson, eds., Research and Education Reform, p. 153.

¹⁵⁸ For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 1997, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., Report 104-368 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), p. 205.

¹⁵⁹ Robert E. Slavin, "Design Competitions: A Proposal for a New Federal Role in Educational Research and Development," Educational Researcher, 26, No. 1 (January/February 1997), p. 22.

¹⁶⁰ Maris Vinovskis, "Further Comments on Proposed FIE Replication and Evaluation of Promising Practices," memorandum to Jan Anderson, Joe Conaty, and Dick Hays, OERI, May 20, 1994.

¹⁶¹ Office of Assistant Secretary, "Office of Educational Research and Improvement," OERI October 20, 1994.

¹⁶² "Forgione is Confirmed for Top NCES Post," Education Week, 15, No. 39 (June 19, 1996), p. 25.

¹⁶³ Although just recently the OERI group working on the national tests has been disbanded and the "borrowed" employees have returned to their regular posts.

¹⁶⁴ National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), "Policy Statement on Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress," National Assessment Governing Board, Washington, DC, August 2, 1996, p. 5.

¹⁶⁵ NAGB, "Policy Statement on Redesigning the National Assessment of Educational Progress," p. 17.

¹⁶⁶ National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), "Schedule for the National Assessment of Educational Progress," National Assessment Governing Board, Washington, DC, March 8, 1997.

¹⁶⁷ Gary W. Phillips, "Technical, Methodological, and Operational Issues in the Implementation of the NAGB Redesign of NAEP," presentation at the Forum on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Redesign, OERI, June 3, 1997.

¹⁶⁸ NAGB, "Schedule for the National Assessment of Educational Progress"; Phillips, "Technical, Methodological, and Operational Issues."

¹⁶⁹ As a member of the Department of Education's Independent Review Panel, Vinovskis has periodically challenged the members of the Clinton Administration for their failure to provide adequate assessments for subjects like civics, geography, and history. While his suspicions that these subjects are being deliberately slighted have been confirmed, no one seems to be taking any action to remedy this problem.

¹⁷⁰ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), NAEP 1994 U.S. History Report Card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), p. 34.

¹⁷¹ Indeed, information on the differences in achievement by the educational-level of the parents or whether the student received Title I assistance suggest that economic disadvantage may be a very powerful factor. NCES, NAEP 1994 U.S. History Report Card, pp. 36, 38.

¹⁷² For recent NCES studies which do employ multivariate techniques, see Paul T. Decker, Jennifer King Rice, and Mary T. Moore, Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report, NCES 97-269 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997); Laura Lippman, Shelley Burns, Edith McArthur, Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty, NCES 96-864 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996).

¹⁷³ And when the Administration still had not appointed one by early February 1996, a frustrated Robinson stated that "[w]e're at a point where we really need the board." Debra Viadero, "E.D. Spends Time on Task of Reshaping Research Efforts," Education Week, 14, No. 20 (February 8, 1995), p. 29. Similarly, Gerald Sroufe, the Executive Director of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), agreed that "[t]here is a point when you can't do anything until you do something else, and that something else is the board." Viadero, "E.D. Spends Time on Task of Reshaping Research Efforts," p. 19.

¹⁷⁴ Patricia Ann Baltz, teacher, Camino Grove Elementary School, Arcadia, California, 1993 Disney Outstanding Teacher of the Year; Ann Blakeney Clark, principal, Alexander Graham Middle School, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1994 National Principal of the Year; Rudolph F. Crew, superintendent of schools, Tacoma, Washington; Robert W. Marley, elementary school teacher, Pearl Kessler School, Wichita, Kansas; and Claire L. Pelton, associate director, Advanced Placement Program, the College Board, vice chair, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. U.S. Department of Education, "Riley Appoints First Research Policy and Priorities Board," U.S. Department of Education News, February 27, 1995.

¹⁷⁵ Gene Bottoms, director of High Schools That Work program in 13 southern states, Southern Regional Education Board; John T. Bruer, president, James S. McDonnell Foundation, expert in cognitive science and education; Joyce A. Muhlestein, specialist, Utah Center for Families, member, national Parent Teacher Association's Health and Welfare Commission; Alba A. Ortiz, associate dean for academic affairs and research, College of Education, University of Texas, specialist in bilingual and special education; and John Theodore "Ted" Sanders, state superintendent of schools, Ohio. Ibid.

¹⁷⁶ Jomills Henry Braddock II, professor and chair, Department of Sociology, University of Miami; Kenji Hakuta, professor of education, Stanford University; Sharon Lynn Kagan, senior associate, Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy, Yale University; Glenda T. Lappan, professor of mathematics, Michigan State University; and Edmund W. Gordon, distinguished professor of educational psychology, City University of New York.

¹⁷⁷ Sroufe believed that "[t]hese are independent thinkers. I think some of the members would be hard-pressed to recite the words to the systemic-reform hymn of this Administration." And Dena Stoner, Executive Director of the Council for Educational Development and Research (CEDaR) praised the appointees by saying that "[i]t looks like the kind of group that Congress intended it to be." Lynn Schnaiberg, "Riley Appoints Independent Board to Set Research Agenda," Education Week, 14, No. 24 (March 8, 1995), p. 15.

¹⁷⁸ National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB), "Minutes of NERPPB Meeting," Washington, DC, March 30-31, 1995.

¹⁷⁹ "New Research Post Filled," Education Week 15, No. 39 (June 19, 1996), p. 25.

¹⁸⁰ Edmund Gordon, for example, "expressed for the record his unhappiness with the relative amounts of money that goes for labs and centers as opposed to the amounts available for discretionary work" and John Bruer called for further discussions of the entire matter. NERPPB, "Minutes of NERPPB Meeting," March 30-31, 1995.

¹⁸¹ Research Priorities Planning Team, "Research Priorities Plan," OERI, June 1, 1995.

¹⁸² Maris A. Vinovskis, "A Life Course Framework for Analyzing Educational Research Projects," unpub. paper prepared for OERI, July 1995. A revised version of the essay will be published in Vinovskis, History and Policymaking.

¹⁸³ Sharon P. Robinson, Kenji Hakuta, and Ted Sanders, Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners: A Framework for Education Research 1997 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996), p. iv.

¹⁸⁴ Robinson, Hakuta, and Sanders, Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners, p. 17.

¹⁸⁵ On the "Success for All" program, see Robert E. Slavin, Nancy L. Karweit, and Barbara A. Wasik, "Preventing Early School Failure: What Works?" Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Report No. 26 (November 1991); Robert E. Slavin, Nancy A. Madden, Lawrence J. Dolan, and Barbara A. Wasik, Every Child, Every School: Success for All (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1996).

¹⁸⁶ Robinson, Hakuta, and Sanders, Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners, pp. 60-65.

¹⁸⁷ On the importance of summer learning, see Doris R. Entwisle and Karl L. Alexander, "Summer Setback: Race, Poverty, School Composition, and Mathematics Achievement in the First Two Years of School," American Sociological Review, 57 (February 1992), 72­84; Barbara Heyns, Summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling (New York: Academic Press, 1978).

¹⁸⁸ "The level of public interest in improving America's schools is unprecedented, a solid body of education research now exists upon which to build new knowledge, and evidence is mounting that past research has already led to important advances in education practice." Robinson, Hakuta, and Sanders, Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners, p. 2.

¹⁸⁹ Robinson, Hakuta, and Sanders, Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners, pp. 10-11.

¹⁹⁰ The lack of focus on the negative impact of poverty appears to be one of emphasis as the authors are certainly aware of the powerful impact of socioeconomic status. For example, see Robinson, Hakuta, and Sanders, Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners, p. 55.

¹⁹¹ Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Bulletin (Summer 1997), p. 2. Given how general the OERI research plan is, the priorities of the Department generally can be encompassed. The point, however, remains that the OERI research priorities are not even viewed by the top OERI management as being the real focus of the agency's activities.

¹⁹². Much of the discussion and language in this section draws upon a commissioned background paper prepared for OERI. Maris A. Vinovskis, "An Analysis of the Proposed Phase Three Standards for the Conduct and Evaluation of OERI Activities," unpub. paper, OERI (March 26, 1997).

¹⁹³ Ibid., Sec. 912, 1, 2.

¹⁹⁴ Ibid., Sec. 912, 1, 2.

¹⁹⁵ Ibid., Sec. 912, 1, 2.

¹⁹⁶ U.S. Department of Education, Standards for the Conduct and Evaluation of Activities Carried Out by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)--Evaluation of Applications for Grants and Cooperative Agreements and Proposals for Contracts (34 CFR Part 700) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, September 1995).

¹⁹⁷ A preliminary draft of the phase two standards are available in the briefing book, Eve Bither, "Materials for Meeting of Standards Committee," December 5, 1996 (Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, November 22, 1996).

¹⁹⁸ For example, see the useful, but somewhat one-sided discussions at the Committee on Standards meeting on December 5, 1996. Committee on Standards, "Transcript of Proceedings of the National Research Policy and Priorities Board," Washington, DC, December 5, 1996 (Washington, DC: ACE-Federal Reports, 1996).

¹⁹⁹ The Clinton Administration's slow pace in replacing assistant secretaries is not confined just to the Department of Education. The White House has not filled vacancies in more than a third of the top 21 jobs at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). For example, the post of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in DHHS and the position of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families have been vacant for nearly a year. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Keeping Track: Top Health Vacancies," New York Times (September 22, 1997), p. C14.

²⁰⁰ Regina Lightfoot-Clark, "Clinton Taps Foundation Officer to Lead OERI," Education Daily (October 23, 1997), p. 4.

²⁰¹ Carol Innerst, "Goodling Plans Effort to Stop National Tests: Critics Fear Rise of National Curriculum," Washington Times (July 31, 1997), A7. Millicent Lawson, "House Blocks, While Panel Settles On, New Tests," Education Week, 17, No. 4 (September 24, 1997), pp. 1, 20.

²⁰² Millicent Lawson, "Test Proposal to be Tested by Experts," Education Week, 17, No. 13 (November 19, 1997), 1, 20.

²⁰³ U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation for 1998, Part 5: Department of Education, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 418.

²⁰⁴ Ibid.

²⁰⁵ Ibid.


-###-

[VIII. Concluding Observations]

[Appendix A]