Gerald E. Sroufe

Research news and Comment: The Federal Education Research Agency: New Opportunities and New Challenges for Researchers

N ew legislation has provided an excellent opportunity for the U.S. Department of Educations major research agency, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), to become a vital R&D resource for the nation. The legislation—the Educational Research, Development, and Dissemination Act of 1994—seeks to provide a platform for creating a larger and more central role for education R&D in the school reform movement. Many AERA members were involved in identifying the problems to be addressed in the reorganization of OERI, and in setting forth the ideas that emerged in the legislation. The intellectual history of the bill includes a study by the National Academy of Education (1991), and a study by the National Academy of Science (1992), both of which involved prominent AERA members. The legislative history of 15 congressional hearings, and development of many, many position papers offered additional avenues for member participation. While education researchers took advantage of numerous opportunities to shape the new federal research agency, the legislative expertise and passion necessary to make the bill become a law was provided by Representative Major R. Owens, chair of the Select Committee on Education and Civil Rights, and his staff. Representative Owenss unflagging and articulate arguments for a vital federal education R&D program attracted strong support from key Republican education leaders such as William Goodling and Cass Ballenger in the House, and Nancy Kassebaum and James Jeffords in the Senate. Ironically, as a result of the 1994 elections, Major Owens is no longer chair. The Select Committee no longer exists, its jurisdiction over OERI having been assigned to the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, chaired by Representative Randy Cunningham. But while the congressional leadership has changed, the challenges before those concerned for education research remain. Dr. Gregg Jackson has noted that the success of OERI is not guaranteed by the new legislation. He cautions that any success OERI is to have will come in the future, and that achieving it will require considerable effort, cooperation, and perseverance among all who are involved. What is required to make the new OERI more effective than the old? To address this question we have invited three important actors who have contributed to the reform of OERI to provide their perspectives on a common set of questions: (a) Doctors Margaret Goertz, Joan Herman, and Sam Yarger have combined their ideas to represent a perspective from the research community; (b) Dr. Gregg Jackson provides a perspective enriched by his 2-year experience in working with a national panel of scientists and policymakers that developed recommendations to improve OERI; and (c) Dr. Sharon Robinson, who became Assistant Secretary of OERI before the reauthorization and contributed to the legislation, offers the perspective of the administration. The responses of these scholars have not been synthesized; readers will find some surprising commonalities, as well as sharp criticisms and daunting challenges. These few perspectives do not conclude the necessary discussion of the challenges before OERI and the research community, of course, but offer a beginning. Readers comments in this forum, and their actions in the policy arena, are welcomed.

Research news and Comment: The President’s 1991 Budget for Education Research and Statistics: Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth

Education Research and Statistics: Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth Bullock, A., Stallybrass, O., & Trombley, S. (1988). The harper dictionary of modern thought (rev. ed). New York: Harper and Row. Campell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R., Jr. (1986). Program evaluation: The worldly science. American Review of Psychology, 37, 193-232. Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, U. S. (1982). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hodgson, G. (1976). America in our time. New York: Vintage. House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publishing. House, E. R. (1988). Jesse Jackson and the politics of charisma: The rise and fall of the PUSH/Excel Program. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (in press). Standards in qualitative research: A prologomenon. Educational Researcher. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981). Standards þr evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw Hill. Levin, H. M. (1983). Cost-Effectiveness: A primer. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications. Levy, F. (1987). Dollars and dreams: The changing american income distribution. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Macpherson, C. B. (1987). The rise and fall of economic justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLaughlin, M. W. (1965). Evaluation and reform: The elementary and secondary act of 1965/Title I. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Patton, M. Q. (1988). The evaluators responsibility for utilization. Evaluation Practice, 9(2), 5-24. Scriven, M. S. (1980). The logic of evaluation. Inverness, CA: Edgepress. Scriven, M. S. (1983). Evaluation ideologies. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 229-260). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus interpretive: The problem of conducting social inquiry. In E. R. House (Ed.), Philosophy of evaluation (pp. 27-51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, N. L. (1989). The Weiss-Patton debate: Illumination of the fundamental concerns. Evaluation Practice, 20(1), 5-13. Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7; 5-7. Stake, R. E. (1986). Quieting reform: Social science and social action in an urban youth program. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Weiss, C. H. (1988). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Evaluation Practice, 9(1), 5-19. Williams, J. E. (1989). A numerical taxonomy of evaluation theory and practice (Mimeo). Los Angeles: University of California, Graduate School of Education.