[NLA] Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL?
David J. Rosen
DJRosen at theworld.com
Sat Oct 19 18:21:15 EDT 2002
NLA Colleagues,
John Comings, Director of the National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy, has not been able to join us this year on the NLA
list, but he has responded to the question which I posed to the list
about OERI, and which I also forwarded directly to him. He asked me to
post this reply to the NLA list. I urge you to read it and to think
about the important questions John has raised. Please feel free to post
your thoughts to the NLA list, and also please send them directly to John.
David J. Rosen
NLA List Moderator
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect
NCSALL?]
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 10:10:33 -0400
From: comingjo <comingjo at gse.harvard.edu>
To: "David J. Rosen" <DJRosen at theworld.com>
The OERI legislation specifically leaves the existing R&D Center grants
in place, and so NCSALL is funded through July 2006 at about $3 million
per year. The R&D Centers are in the new legislation, with a specific
reference to an Adult Education Center, and so sometime before 2006 OERI
should have another open competition for a new adult education R&D
Center that will be funded for 5 years with a 5 year non-competitive
extension if the Center's work is satisfactory. NCSALL will be one of
the bidders for that new Center, but we may decide to make changes in
such things as who directs the Center, which institution is the host,
which researchers are funded, and, of course, what research we pursue.
OERI will be looking for more experimental or quasi-experimental
research in the proposals. NCSALL researchers and staff are discussing
how best to move in that direction. Even without the politics around
this issue, this is a difficult discussion, but one that we are finding
useful and interesting. Once we have completed our discussion, we will
share our proposed plans with the field for feedback and will use NLA as
one of the venues for this. As the first step in this process, we have
prepared a report of everything we did in the first five years
(1996-2001), which we plan to publish in November. As soon as this
document is on our website, we'll post a notice on NLA. At the end of
that report, we summarize what we have learned in a way that misses
some of the details but provides, we hope, a useful framework.
For people involved or interested in policy, the new OERI legislation
presents three issues that need discussion. First, the next 10-year
grant to an adult education R&D Center should be much larger, at least
$5 million per year with a 5% inflation factor. How is our field going
to organize itself to argue for these funds? Keep in mind that the funds
are not coming from any other adult education pot of money.
Second, what questions should this Center seek to answer and how should
it go about doing that. Part of the "how" is a technical question that
should be answered by the researchers who take on this task but part of
it is a policy issue in that different research methods have different
levels of credibility and are open to different limitations on accuracy.
I feel a mix of methodologies that follow a process of exploration and
testing leading to more exploration and testing is the way to ensure
credibility without walking down a narrow path that may help some, but
not all of our students.
Third, OERI now has the evaluation function that funded the Development
Associates National Evaluation of ABE programs in 1994. As you know, our
experience in MA of outside evaluations (the Grossman Report and the
MassINC report) has been that though they can identify weaknesses they
can lead to more resources. I believe our field should be calling for a
new national evaluation of the WIA Title II program. Since 1994, NCSALL
and other researchers have developed methods for studying our programs
that could be employed in this evaluation, and our field has a more
sophisticated knowledge base about our work. A well-funded, outside
evalution report would be helpful to identifying our weaknesses and our
strengths in a way that can inform policy decisions. Since the NAAL
(the second NALS) will probably release its finding in 2005, we would
want a national evaluation to release its findings at about the same
time. Since the evaluation will probably take at least 2 and may take 3
years, it should start early in 2003. I feel a $5 million evaluation
could give us a good report. I would urge every state to take on their
own evaluations at the same time. This could provide much richer data
for the national evaluation but would also provide each state with a
document that could be used to argue for greater state support.
I hope that some of NCSALL's work, "Focus on Basics" for example,
continues on even if OERI awards the next Center grant to another group
of institutions. The field should look at NCSALL's work and argue for
continuation of those parts that deserve that support.
John
John Comings, Director
National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy
Harvard Graduate School of Education
7 Appian Way
Cambridge MA 02138
(617) 496-0516, voice
(617) 495-4811, fax
john_comings at harvard.edu
http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Discussion: How will OERI Reauthorization affect NCSALL?
>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:10:51 -0400
>From: "David J. Rosen" <DJRosen at theworld.com>
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>
>NLA Colleagues,
>
>An NLA list member called my attention to the article below about the
>reform of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement which, as
>was recently pointed out here, funds the National Center for the Study
>of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL). I cannot tell from this
>article whether the "lamb-ing" of this Lion means that a separate
>national adult literacy research center is no longer at risk. Anyone
know?
>
>David J. Rosen
>NLA List Moderator
>
>
>
>
>Article from the Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools
>Project Bi-Monthly Bulletin
>
>The entire PPI newsletter is available at
>http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=
250950
>
>
><http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID
=250950>.
>
>
>
>
>OERI Reauthorization: In Like a Lion, Out Like a Lamb
>
>Last week the House passed a conference-approved version of
>the bill to reauthorize the federal Office of Educational Research
>and Improvement; the Senate is expected to do the same later
>this week, and the President is expected to sign off on the
>legislation, bringing an end to a process that has languished on
>Capital Hill in a peculiar paradox of obscurity and political import.
>The Bush Administration had grand plans for overhauling the
>federal government's role in education research as an
>accompaniment to the No Child Left Behind Act. But in the end
>it looks as if federal education research will continue to be a faint
>cymbal clang on the tail end of the policy cacophony.
>
>At face value there are some changes to be sure: a new name,
>some new offices created, more "independence" for federal
>research and statistics. At the end of the day, however, it's
>unclear how much of a difference any of these changes will
>make in the primary operations of federal education research.
>This is truly unfortunate because research should be a priority
>of federal education policy. As opposed to the private sector,
>where the lure of enormous profits drives a robust R&D industry,
>for the most part education research offers only intrinsic rewards.
>It's shocking to consider that the Department of Education
>spends almost as much on its own overhead and administration
>as research functions for American education. Even in flush
>times, let alone the current fiscal climate, states do not have
>education research capability or resources; this is a job
>for Washington.
>
>The bill also aims to improve evaluation functions for federal
>education programs by moving them from the program offices
>into the new research office. This is an improvement, but it's
>unclear how program evaluation will actually be any more
>independent or isolated from politics. Apparently independence
>in research and program evaluation looked a lot better to the
>Bush campaign than the Bush Administration.
>
>Perhaps none of this matters that much. Education research is
>only as useful as its consumers are savvy, and there is still
>plenty of evidence that too many people involved with education
>fail to differentiate among different kinds of research, both in
>terms of what sorts of questions it can help to answer and more
>importantly in terms of whether specific findings can be
>generalized and applied through public policy. The Bush
>Administration does deserve credit for putting the issue of
>what constitutes research front and center. But in too many
>cases that conversation is far ahead of practice in the field.
>
>Further Reading:
>
>Education and the Workforce Committee Press Release
>on House Passage of Final Agreement (10/11/02):
>http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press107/edresearch101102.htm
>
>"Senate Panel Passes Federal Research Bill,"
>Lisa Fine Goldstein, Education Week (10/02/02):
>http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=05oeri.h22&keywords=research
><http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=05oeri.h22&keywords=research>
>
>"Research of Education:
>On the leading Edge of School Improvement,"
>PPI-NEKIA-EQI Conference Transcript (03/26/02):
>http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=181&contentID=250
346
>
>
><http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=181&contentID=25
0346>
>
>
>
>
>Scientific Research In Education
>Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research,
>Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne, Editors,
>National Research Council (2002):
>http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html
>
>ABOUT THE 21st CENTURY SCHOOLS PROJECT
>
>The Progressive Policy Institute's 21st Century Schools Project
>develops public policy to ensure that American schools help all
>students develop the skills and knowledge they need to be
>successful in the knowledge economy.
>More about us:
>http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=110
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org
More information about the Nla-nifl-archive
mailing list