[AAACE-NLA]Opposing proposed changes to ERIC

[George E. Demetrion]

David and others,

A leg up on administration intentions with regard to ERIC may be
discerned by considering the new legislation (I don't know whether it has
passed yet, but likely will) called the Educational Sciences Reform Act,
which replaces OERI, the call of which comes right out of the US
Department of Education Strategic Plan 2002-200.  The Draft version of
the Plan is actually stronger than the final version.  The Draft calls
for "sweeping changes" to implement the vision embedded in the Plan.  The
final version, a bit softer, calls for " creating flexibility" in the re
authorization of OERI in order to implement the needed changes.

It seems like the Draft version was followed in HR 3801, the Education
Sciences Reform Act.  I was able to pull a couple documents on the bill
from the web that anyone could probably find through a google search. 
I'm not going to cover the whole substance of the bill, but will only 
highlight the few points that are of relevance to the discussion on ERIC.

*  OERI is to be replaced by an Academy of Education Sciences

*  A Knowledge Utilization Office would be established within the Academy
"to disseminate information on scientifically valid research to the
public, especially in the core academic areas of reading, mathematics,
science and technology, which may [or may not, GD] include the
continuation of funds to existing clearinghouses."  

Read that sentence again and ponder for a moment.

*  "The Academy would consist of three main Centers; the National center
for Educational research, the National Center for Education Statistics,
and the National Center for Education Evaluation."

* "The National Center for Educational research would replace the five
existing educational research institutes."

* "All research funded by the center would be required to meet the
requirements of 'scientifically valid research' as defined in the
legislation."

Obviously, the legislation abolishes OERI.  The issue on the table is
whether the streamlining also effects (even if only indirectly) the ERIC
Clearinghouse.  

A degree of speculation is called for at this point.  ERIC is the
repository of a good deal of educational scholarship (research and
theory) that pre-dates the new emphasis on scientifically-based
educational research.  Reducing its influence and potential impact helps
to give the government a singular message on what is viewed as legitimate
research.  Because the government's position is not only being driven by
(what some of us viewed as a skewed view of) social science research, but
by strong conservative ideology going back to the views of B.V. Bruno and
E.D. Hirsch, among others, there seems to be a compelling need within the
Department of Education to do everything within its power to drive out
competing or conflicting views. 

One may view this intent as a blending of political, educational, and
epistemological fundamentalism, that, given the influence of the
Christian Right and the President's own professed view that he is called
at this time by God to lead the nation, carries more than symbolic
religious overtones.  One may view the cleansing of the NIFL archives of
all references to the current discussion of ERIC as a manifestation of
this ideological, political, epistemological, and religious
fundamentalism in its intolerance of views that are not its own.  

 I would ask the scientists who are supporting  the Bush administration's
political agenda (even if only silently through their participation) 
whether this removal of data conforms to stringent scientific research
principles of methodological rigor.  Would the scientists be willing to
put pressure on the Department of Education to restore the integrity of
the archives so that we could have all the facts before us?  Would others
in high and not-so-high places be willing to do so?  If not, why not? 
That was just an aside, but it does point particularly to the tension
within the Administratiion between its politicians and ideoloques and its
scientists.  Are the scentists truly willing to bracket this action of
removing the archival material and claim they are operating on sound
methodological and scientific principles?  If so, that raises more thanj
a few questions, which, I believe, the Administration would rather avoid.

There is a second piece to this story, closely related, the formation of
the What Works Clearinghouse, information of which can be accessed at:
(http://www.w-w-c.org/forum/forumtoc.html).  This gets you to the
"Summary Forum on Draft What Works Clearinghouse Standards for Scientific
Education on Educational Effectiveness."  

I will spare you and myself a lengthy discussion of What Works, at this
time, though I encourage those who do have time to closely  study this
document.  The key point that I would make at this time, and it's an
assumption (though a strong one in my mind, given the Department's
intention to make the What Works Clearinghouse the government's premier
Clearinghouse) is that in the minds of the Department's leadership, the
rising of the  What Works Clearinghouse requires a dethronement of the
ERIC Clearinghouse. 

 In terms of scholarship, the best approach would be to allow both
Clearinghouses to flourish to enable educators and others to draw broadly
on both sources of information to undergird the informed eclecticism of
research assumptions and methodologies which have grounded educational
scholarship for a century.  While that approach would be sound in terms
of scholarship, it does not pass muster given the Administration's
political, ideological, moral, and religious intent to reconstruct the
culture as much as possible along the axis of (what many of us view as
their skewed, if not dangerous) world view.  

The rhetorical dismissal of views not their own is reflected in the
Opening Speech to the What Works Forum delivered by Beth Ann Bryan,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education.  Here is Ms. Bryan in her
own words, "..[I]f we're serious about what are truly effective
educational practices or approaches, rather than just the latest fad or
fancy, we require evidence from sound, scientifically based research." 
As she similarly puts it in the preceding paragraph, "Simply put, we
can't waste another generation on instructional fads that leave children
without the skills they need to make the American dream possible.

Simply put, indeed, Ms. Bryan.  Simply put, indeed.  One wonders what the
political and rhetorical intent is behind such discourse which is
pervasive in the current department of Education.  Anyone care to
speculate.


George Demetrion
sophocles5 at juno.com


On Thu, 01 May 2003 16:51:50 -0400 "David J. Rosen"
<DJRosen at theworld.com> writes:
>
>
>Tom (Sticht),
>
>I agree that some of the changes proposed for the "new ERIC" may be 
>positive.  However, I am concerned that in eliminating the 
>clearinghouses, with their individual focuses, will mean a loss of 
>attention on adult education. Coupled with what I see as efforts by 
>the 
>Administration and the House of Representatives to change the focus of 
>
>the National Institute for Literacy to focus on children's reading, 
>and 
>to change the structure of the OERI, eliminating a national research 
>centers whose focus in adult literacy education, these three changes, 
>not to mention the other objectionable sections of H. 1261, would -- 
>as 
>Gail Spangenberg points out,  "set the field back decades."  I see 
>this 
>part of ERIC reform as movement further away from an adult education 
>and 
>Literacy system, an idea which you so rightly have championed.
>
>David J. Rosen
>


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!