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)