Principles
for Reauthorizing OERI, NAEP and NAGB
(May 4, 2000; Revised May 10, 2000)
We have come to believe that the federal government's handling
of education research, statistics, assessment and program evaluation
needs a fundamental overhaul and complete reorganization. At a time
when the need for scientifically rigorous and objective education
research, statistics, assessment and evaluation is greater than
ever, the federal government has failed to live up to that challenge
despite having spent billions of dollars over the past quarter century.
At several recent House and Senate hearings, expert witnesses have
almost uniformly detailed the weak and disorganized state of federal
education research, program evaluation, and statistical efforts
in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and
the Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) in the U.S. Department
of Education today. Among the problems identified at these hearings
are: a) Despite an increase in funding in OERI since the mid 1980’s,
the funding has been spent on activities other than high quality
research, b) Congressional mandates on how OERI must spent its research
funds continue to hamper the ability of the agency to operate efficiently
and effectively, c) Federal involvement in educational research,
development, statistics, and evaluation has often suffered from
unstable and weak intellectual leadership, d) The agency lacks distinguished
and innovative researchers, e) Large-scale, systematic development
is largely absent at the Department of Education, f) Neither PES
nor OERI are providing a sufficient number of scientifically sound
and educationally relevant program evaluations, g) The Department
of Education has not always delivered timely and objective evaluations
of its major programs, h) The overall quality of the research, development,
and program evaluations needs improvement, I) Politics continue
to intrude in the operations of OERI and PES, and J) the National
Assessment of Educational Progress also suffers from its lack of
insulation and from ambiguity as to who has policy control.
It is time to reorganize the current structure and operations of
OERI, PES, and NAGB in order to build upon the best parts of the
current agencies while placing more emphasis on the independence,
integrity, and excellence of the units that deal with educational
research, statistics, assessment, and evaluation. More specifically
we suggest seven principles to guide Congress as it commences the
reauthorization of these agencies:
Education research, statistics, assessment and evaluation ought
not be subordinated to political needs, program concerns, reform
enthusiasms or policy preferences. One promising possibility is
to separate these functions from the Education Department and
lodge them in a new, independent agency, perhaps named the "Education
Audit Agency".
The new agency should be dedicated to the acquisition and dissemination
of timely, accurate information; the canons of scientific inquiry;
and the pursuit of truth, without fear or favor. The Education
Audit Agency should not be a program-operating agency, "improvement"
enterprise or reform operation. Its sole stock in trade is trustworthy
information by which the nation can appraise the performance of
its children and its educational institutions, evaluate efforts
to strengthen that performance, and develop knowledge by which
future such efforts may be more successful.
Though located within the executive branch, the new agency should
be structured to ensure maximum freedom from political manipulation
and interest group influence. Several structures should be considered;
the optimal model might resemble the Federal Reserve Board.
The Education Audit Agency should conduct all of the bona fide
research (but not the "improvement") functions of the
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), as well
as those of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). It
should also have the capacity to provide objective, high quality
program evaluations. In conducting such evaluations, the Education
Audit Agency shall serve the interests of truth, timeliness and
rigor. (This does not preclude the Education Department from also
having a policy analysis unit, but it is expected that Congress
will ordinarily assign future program evaluations to the Audit
Agency, not to the Department.)
Affiliated with, but independent of, the Education Audit Agency,
the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) should be placed
in charge of all policies pertaining to NAEP. NAGB should itself
be strengthened through longer terms for its members, its own
nominating capacity, and other measures designed to ensure its
full independence and integrity. (The Audit Agency will administer
NAEP on behalf of NAGB.)
In its conduct of education research, the Education Audit Agency
should strive for scientific rigor, including, to the maximum
degree possible, randomized field trials.
Congress should consider overseeing the Education Audit Agency—and
ensuring the quality, integrity and independence of its work—through
a special joint committee (akin to the Joint Committee on Taxation).
William J. Bennett, Empower America
(former U.S. Secretary of Education)
Chester E. Finn, Jr., Manhattan Institute
(former Assistant Secretary for Research and Improvement)
William D. Hansen, Education Finance Council
(former Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget)
Tom Loveless, The Brookings Institution
Bruno V. Manno, The Annie E. Casey Foundation
(former Assistant Secretary of Education)
Diane Ravitch, New York University
(former Assistant Secretary for Research and Improvement)
Nina Shokraii Rees, The Heritage Foundation
Maris Vinovskis, University of Michigan
(former research adviser to the Office of Education Research and
Improvement)
|