[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 178 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47816-47826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22873]



      

[[Page 47815]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



Grants and Cooperative Agreements; Availability, etc.: Educational 
Research and Development Centers Program; Notices

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 1995 / 
Notices  
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47816]]


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI); 
Educational Research and Development Centers Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final priorities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final priorities to support seven 
national research and development centers that would carry out 
sustained research and development to address nationally significant 
problems and issues in education.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities take effect October 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Either--
    1. Jacqueline Jenkins, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey 
Avenue NW, Room 510G, Washington, DC 20208-5573. Telephone: (202) 219-
2232. Internet: Jackie--J[email protected] or;
    2. Judith Anderson, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey 
Avenue NW, Room 611B, Washington, DC 20208-5573. Telephone: (202) 219-
2086. Internet: Judith-A[email protected].
    Individuals who use a tele-communications device for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title IX of Public Law 103-227, the 
Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act 
of 1994, re-authorized the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement and established five new national research institutes to 
carry out coordinated and comprehensive programs of research, 
development, evaluation, demonstration, and dissemination designed to 
provide research-based leadership for the improvement of education. The 
five institutes are--
    (1) The National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and 
Assessment;
    (2) The National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students;
    (3) The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, 
Policy-Making, and Management;
    (4) The National Institute on Early Childhood Development and 
Education; and
    (5) The National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, 
and Lifelong Learning.
    The institutes support sustained research and development focused 
on significant national problems and issues in education conducted by 
national research and development centers. The statute specifies that 
each institute will support one or more national research and 
development centers. For the purpose of this notice, Priority 1 is 
related to the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and 
Education; Priorities 2 and 3 are related to the National Institute on 
Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment; Priority 4 is related 
to the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students; 
Priority 5 is related to the National Institute on Educational 
Governance, Finance, Policy-Making, and Management; and Priorities 6 
and 7 are related to the National Institute on Postsecondary Education, 
Libraries, and Lifelong Learning.
    The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), through 
a series of meetings, regional hearings, and Federal Register Notices, 
solicited advice from parents, teachers, administrators, policy-makers, 
business people, researchers, and others to identify the most needed 
research and development activities. After reviewing this advice, the 
Secretary published on April 10, 1995, a notice in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 18340) inviting written public comments on proposed priorities 
for seven national educational research and development centers that 
would carry out sustained research and development to address 
nationally significant problems and issues in education. Written public 
comments were to be submitted by May 25, 1995.
    On June 8, 1995, at the meeting of OERI's National Educational 
Research Policy and Priorities Board (Board), the Board reviewed and 
commented on staff summaries of the written public comments. A 
committee of the Board held a public meeting on July 18, 1995, to 
review the written public comments and to make recommendations to the 
Assistant Secretary on the priorities. The Department has incorporated 
the committee's recommendations and explained the reasoning for those 
recommendations in the comment/discussion sections of the document.

    Note: This notice of final priorities does not solicit 
applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition 
is published in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal 
Register.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the notice of proposed 
priorities, 248 parties submitted written comments. An analysis of the 
comments and of the changes in the priorities since publication of the 
notice of proposed priorities is published as an appendix to this 
notice of final priorities. Major issues are grouped according to 
subject. Technical and other minor changes and suggested changes the 
Secretary is not legally authorized to make under the applicable 
statutory authority are not addressed.

Absolute Priorities

    Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), the Secretary gives an absolute 
preference to applications that meet both the general priority and one 
of the individual priorities listed below. Funding of any individual 
priority will depend on the availability of funds, priority, and the 
quality of applications received.
General Absolute Priority: Each national research and development 
center must--
    (a) Conduct a coherent, sustained program of research and 
development to address problems and issues of national significance in 
its individual priority area, using a well-conceptualized and 
theoretically sound framework;
    (b) Contribute to the development and advancement of theory in the 
area of its individual priority;
    (c) Conduct scientifically rigorous studies capable of generating 
findings that contribute substantially to understanding in the field;
    (d) Conduct work of sufficient size, scope, and duration to produce 
definitive guidance for improvement efforts and future research;
    (e) Address issues of both equity and excellence in education for 
all students in its individual priority area; and
    (f) Document, report, and disseminate information about its 
research findings and other accomplishments in ways that will 
facilitate effective use of that information in professional 
development for teachers, families, and community members, as 
appropriate.

Absolute Priority 1: Enhancing Young Children's Development and 
Learning

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on enhancing the development 
and learning of young children from birth to age eight, with special 
focus on children who are placed at risk of educational failure because 
of community, economic, linguistic, family, or disability factors; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to the 
following topics:
    (1) Effective practices and programs for maximizing the development 
and learning of young children from diverse 

[[Page 47817]]
backgrounds, emphasizing the whole child and developmentally 
appropriate strategies;
    (2) Effective professional development for educators and other 
early childhood personnel;
    (3) Family and community support for young children's development 
and learning; and
    (4) Effective programs and practices for supporting young children 
during crucial transition periods, from infant to toddler, toddler to 
preschooler, and preschooler to early elementary school student.
    (c) Develop and field test a set of 3-5 hypothetical cases that can 
be used in training and other settings to help practitioners, families, 
and community members develop and extend their knowledge and skills to 
address effectively the development and learning needs of young 
children; and stimulate new debate, hypotheses, and research.

Absolute Priority 2: Improving Student Learning and Achievement

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on improving student 
achievement, which must be comprised of research and development on 
improving learning, teaching, and assessment within a content area; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to the 
following topics:
    (1) How students acquire knowledge and skills;
    (2) Curriculum and effective instruction, including the use of 
technology, which reflects current understanding of cognitive 
development, the social context of learning, and student motivation;
    (3) Effective professional development for teachers and other 
school personnel; and
    (4) Assessment for improving teaching and learning, including the 
technical quality of such assessments.

Absolute Priority 3: Improving Student Assessment and Educational 
Accountability

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on improving student 
assessment; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to the 
following topics:
    (1) Development and use of assessments aligned with curriculum and 
instruction to promote improved teaching, learning, and educational 
accountability, including the use of assessment in student placement;
    (2) The use of accommodations, adaptations, and alternative 
assessments to enable all students to participate in assessment 
systems;
    (3) The creation of coherent systems that assess diverse student 
outcomes using multiple measures and multiple assessments; and
    (4) The technical quality (validity, reliability, fairness, and 
content and skill coverage) of different types of assessments and 
assessment systems, including accommodations, adaptations, and 
alternative assessments.

Absolute Priority 4: Meeting the Educational Needs of a Diverse Student 
Population

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on meeting the educational 
needs of an increasingly diverse student population, including students 
who are at risk of educational failure because of limited English 
proficiency, poverty, race, geographical location, or economic 
disadvantage; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to at least 
two of the following topics:
    (1) Instructional strategies that recognize and build on the 
strengths of students from diverse backgrounds to help all students 
achieve to high academic standards;
    (2) Training and professional development activities that enhance 
the ability of educators, families, and communities to help language 
minority students and other students at risk of educational failure 
achieve to high academic standards;
    (3) Working with families and community-based organizations, 
through such means as structuring out-of-school experiences as well as 
providing support for school-based programs, to help students at risk 
of educational failure achieve to high academic standards; and
    (4) Ways that federal, state, tribal government, and community 
reform efforts can be designed so that language minority students and 
other students at risk of educational failure learn to high standards.

Absolute Priority 5: Increasing the Effectiveness of State and Local 
Education Reform Efforts

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on increasing the 
effectiveness of state and local efforts to reform elementary and 
secondary education; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to the 
following topics:
    (1) Local and school level strategies for reform that create 
supportive and secure learning environments and lead to improved 
learning by all students including district and/or schoolwide reforms 
and partnerships and productive collaboration among families, 
communities, and schools;
    (2) State and local policies that support improved learning by all 
students including aligning elements of the education system to achieve 
challenging student standards, enhancing licensing systems for teachers 
and other education professionals, and providing incentives for reform;
    (3) State and local finance strategies that lead to improved 
learning by all students, including strategies for the equitable 
distribution of programs and services and strategies for the productive 
allocation of resources;
    (4) State and local governance arrangements that support improved 
learning by all students including those that involve new opportunities 
and responsibilities for educators, families, and communities; and
    (5) The factors that contribute most to the success of state, 
district, and school-level reforms, from initiation through 
implementation to ``scaling up,'' including how variations in context 
affect the implementation and effects of various strategies.

Absolute Priority 6: Improving Postsecondary Education

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on improving quality, 
productivity and outcomes of postsecondary education; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to three or 
more of the following topics:
    (1) Transitions from school to work, or to further education, for 
secondary and postsecondary students, including, but not limited to, 
development of effective K-16 systems;
    (2) Relationships among students' participation and progress in 
postsecondary education, their academic achievement, and their later 
employment outcomes;
    (3) Approaches to professional development geared to improving 

[[Page 47818]]
    postsecondary instruction and student learning, including preparation 
of K-12 educators;
    (4) Improvement of postsecondary student learning and assessment; 
and
    (5) Containing costs and improving the productivity and 
accountability of postsecondary institutions.

Absolute Priority 7: Improving Adult Learning and Literacy

    Under this priority, a national research and development center 
must--
    (a) Conduct research and development on improving adult learning 
and literacy through delivery methods and systems other than 
postsecondary institutions, including the basic skills needed for work 
and responsible citizenship; and
    (b) Include in its work research or development related to topic 
(b)(2) below and one or more of the other topics:
    (1) Adult acquisition of knowledge and development of linguistic, 
quantitative, and reasoning skills, including adult acquisition of 
second-language skills and computer skills;
    (2) Effective strategies and technology for providers, including 
libraries, community organizations, and family literacy programs, to 
improve adult learning and literacy for all adult populations, 
including adults with special needs and those needing English as second 
language instruction;
    (3) Effective methods, including use of technology, for 
professional development of instructional staff for adult education and 
literacy programs, including English as second language programs and 
programs for adults with special needs; and
    (4) The assessment of adult learning and literacy.

Post-Award Requirements

    The Secretary establishes the following post-award requirements 
consistent with the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, 
and Improvement Act of 1994. A grantee receiving a center award must--
    (a) Provide OERI with information about center projects and 
products and other appropriate research information so that OERI can 
monitor center progress and maintain its inventory of funded research 
projects. This information must be provided through media that include 
an electronic network;
    (b) Conduct and evaluate research projects in conformity with the 
highest professional standards of research practice;
    (c) Reserve five percent of each budget period's funds to support 
activities that fall within the center's priority area, are designed 
and mutually agreed to by the center and OERI, and enhance OERI's 
ability to carry out its mission. Such activities may include 
developing research agendas, conducting research projects collaborating 
with other federally-supported entities, and engaging in research 
agenda setting and dissemination activities; and
    (d) At the end of the award period, synthesize the findings and 
advances in knowledge that resulted from the Center's program of work 
and describe the potential impact on the improvement of American 
education, including any observable impact to date.

    Authority: Pub. L. 103-227, Title IX.

    Dated: August 31, 1995.
Sharon Porter Robinson,
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 84.305, 84.306, 
84.307, 84.308, and 84.309 Educational Research and Development 
Centers Program)
Appendix--Analysis of Comments and Changes

General Absolute Priority

    Summarized below are comments which either referred specifically 
to the General Absolute Priority or cut across all the priorities.

Comments Related to Improving Practice

    Comments: Six commenters recommended changes which they believed 
would increase the likelihood that the centers would conduct 
research likely to improve practice. The comments included: Add 
statement about the importance of translating research findings to 
improvements in practice; include stronger language to encourage 
utilization of the outcomes of the research program by 
practitioners; replace the phrase ``will allow others to use that 
information'' in (f) with ``will encourage effective use of that 
information;'' and add an additional requirement, ``(g) Increasing 
the capacity of field-based practitioners.'' Another commenter 
stated that all work must include practitioner-researcher 
collaborations. The Board committee similarly recommended that 
stronger language be used to ensure that Center research findings 
are actually used in professional development activities for 
teachers, families, and community members.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the centers should conduct 
research which is likely to improve practice and that dissemination 
plays an integral role in research and development activities that 
promise to have a positive impact on improving education. The 
Secretary also agrees about the importance of translating research 
findings so that results of research may find their way into 
practice.
    Changes: The Secretary has amended (f) to read ``Document, 
report, and disseminate information about its research findings and 
other accomplishments in ways that will facilitate effective use of 
that information in professional development for teachers, families, 
and community members, as appropriate.''

Comments on Technology

    Comments: Five commenters submitted comments related to 
technology. One commenter recommended the establishment of a 
national center on educational technology or that a requirement to 
conduct research and development on promoting the use of educational 
technology be included in the general absolute priority. One 
commenter was concerned about the lack of any mention of research in 
the area of computer technology. Two commenters said that technology 
should be dealt with as a cross-cutting issue. Another commenter 
requested that all of the institutes include work on assistive 
technology.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that technology should be dealt 
with as a cross-cutting issue. Therefore, a separate center on this 
topic is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Secretary believes that 
the particular types of research in the area of technology should be 
proposed by the applicants and not mandated by the Department. The 
Secretary encourages all applicants to identify appropriate research 
topics related to technology.
    Changes: None.

Comments on Coordination

    Comments: Seven commenters noted the importance of communication 
and coordination. One commenter stated that the centers must 
communicate with each other in areas of overlap, as well as 
establish working relationships with the Regional Laboratories. 
Several commenters made more specific recommendations concerning 
coordination and communication: Include funds for consultations with 
parent and education advocacy organizations; require collaboration 
with other federally-supported entities in the absolute priority, 
not in the post-award requirement; require that the centers and the 
other research components in ED, including the research component in 
the Office of Special Education Programs, maintain regular contact; 
require centers to develop interagency working agreements with 
agencies and other entities to promote inter-institutional 
cooperation and private/public partnerships in the delivery of 
educational and library services, as well as to emphasize research 
into organizational design and educational management and delivery 
systems; and require the new centers to work directly with 
professional societies, in order to link the research agenda to 
specific subject areas.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that research and development 
centers should work with federally supported institutions and other 
entities to maximize the impact that their activities may have on 
improvements in the educational system. The instructions provided to 
applicants will provide examples of ways in which proposed centers 
could collaborate with these types of entities.
    The Secretary believes that inter-institutional cooperation and 
partnerships for 

[[Page 47819]]
the delivery of educational and library services are important, as is 
research on organizational design and educational management and 
delivery systems, but that these are not areas of research which 
should be mandated for all research and development centers.
    Changes: None.
    Comments on Dissemination
    Comments: Four commenters recommended that the requirements for 
dissemination should be strengthened. These commenters recommended 
that the requirement for documenting, reporting, and disseminating 
information be strengthened; that an essential component of the 
centers be the development and implementation of effective 
dissemination strategies; and that dissemination be given a higher 
priority.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that dissemination plays an 
integral role in research and development activities that promise to 
have a positive impact on improving education. The Secretary 
believes that the particular types of dissemination activities that 
will best accomplish this objective depend on (1) the nature of the 
research knowledge being generated and (2) the potential users of 
this knowledge. The application package will provide examples of 
possible dissemination strategies.
    Changes: None.
    Comments Related to Cost
    Comments: Three commenters recommended that the centers be 
required to address issues of cost or cost-effectiveness. These 
commenters recommended that each center be challenged not only to 
address issues of equity and excellence, but also to address issues 
related to adequacy of resources in its individual priority area; 
that centers should provide an assessment of the resources required 
to implement the practices and programs they research and develop; 
that cost or cost-effectiveness research should be required under 
all of the priorities; and that each research study should address 
the issue of cost-effectiveness and creative models and partnerships 
that could improve cost-effectiveness.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the importance of the 
issues raised by the commenters but believes that grant applicants 
should be allowed maximum flexibility to develop research agendas 
within the absolute priority areas. In addition, the Secretary 
believes it is inappropriate to mandate specific research topics, 
such as cost-effectiveness, given the limited resources available 
for supporting the centers. However, applicants are encouraged to 
address these issues as appropriate in their overall research plans.
    Changes: None.
Comments Related to Students With Disabilities

    Comments: Eight commenters recommended that the priorities place 
greater emphasis on students with disabilities. Several commenters 
stated that all the centers should be required to include research 
activities on the educational problems of students with 
disabilities, with one commenter recommending setting aside one-
third of their funds to support efforts on this issue. Another 
commenter recommended requiring grantees to include weighted samples 
of populations of students with serious emotional disturbance; 
requiring all institutes to set aside at least 10 percent of funds 
to study these populations; and inserting the word ``all'' before 
the word ``students'' throughout all of the priorities.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that problems and issues of 
national significance addressed in the individual priorities are 
relevant to the needs of all students. In many instances individual 
children and youth fall into several population categories, for 
example, young children with disabilities living in rural poverty. 
The Secretary believes that better applications will result if 
applicants are allowed to propose and justify what population or 
populations will be studied in their proposed centers' research and 
development activities. However, the Secretary does believe that it 
is important to ensure that centers consider the needs of all 
students as they design their research activities.
    Changes: The Secretary has modified the General Absolute 
Priority to make clear that the needs of all students are to be 
included in centers' research. The revised priority states: ``(e) 
Address issues of both equity and excellence in education for all 
students in its individual priority area.''

Comments Related to Size, Scope, and Methodology

    Comments: Nine commenters recommended various changes related to 
issues of size, scope, and methodology. One commenter recommended 
adding a requirement that each center must produce at least one 
definitive study, and, in addition, suggested a requirement that 
each center must embed internal and external evaluation in all 
activities. One commenter stated that the emphasis on size, scope, 
duration, and definitive guidance will lead to biasing proposals 
toward large scale empirical studies; this commenter wanted the 
priority to specifically mention funding for small scale projects. 
One commenter was concerned there would be too many centers and too 
many mandated tasks for some centers given the amount of funding. 
Another commenter supported the emphasis on scientific research of 
sufficient scope to answer key questions. This commenter also 
recommended that the Department give priority to centers that take 
advantage of major research efforts underway and design new research 
targeted to questions that cannot be answered by on-going research 
or existing data bases. One commenter recommended that the scope 
should be defined to include depth as well as breadth of topics; and 
one commenter stated that explicit mention should be made of the 
desirability of multidisciplinary perspectives. Another commenter 
believed that the individual topics included in the research or 
development to be undertaken by the centers are written at an 
appropriate level of specificity. One commenter did not like the 
idea of large centers addressing broad areas and would prefer either 
more, smaller grants, or requiring multi-site proposals, with 
offerers allowed at least nine months to assemble proposals. Another 
commenter recommended including in section (b) of the General 
Absolute Priority the expectation that the centers would contribute 
to methodological advances in the field.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that each center should produce 
at least one definitive study and believes that section (d) of the 
General Absolute Priority is sufficient to ensure that centers will 
meet this requirement. The Secretary agrees that centers should 
evaluate their work, and believes that the requirement to conduct 
scientifically rigorous studies will ensure that centers are held 
accountable for conducting high quality research. The Secretary does 
not believe that requiring work of sufficient size, scope, and 
duration to produce definitive guidance will prohibit centers from 
conducting small studies. The Secretary encourages the use of 
multidisciplinary approaches, but does not believe that they should 
be mandated; instead, applicants should be allowed the opportunity 
to select approaches which they believe represent the best possible 
center package. The Secretary does not believe that the centers are 
too large, or that they are addressing areas that are too broad. The 
legislative mandate calls for centers that are ``of sufficient size, 
scope, and quality * * * to support a full range of basic research, 
applied research and dissemination activities.'' The Secretary 
believes that it is reasonable to require sustained research across 
the five years of the grant.
    Changes: None.

Requests for Funding Additional Centers

    Comments: Several commenters recommended funding additional 
centers. One wanted to add an evaluation center. One commenter 
requested that the Department establish a center for policy research 
and decisionmaking. Thirty-three commenters expressed support for 
continued funding of a center on families. Eighty commenters voiced 
support for continued funding of centers in the language arts, e.g., 
writing and literature. Thirty-two commenters expressed support for 
continuing a center on research on evaluation of educational 
personnel and teacher professionalization. Four commenters suggested 
that there should be a focus on content areas; another was 
especially concerned about science and mathematics.
    Discussion: Given the Congressional mandate to support centers 
``of sufficient size, scope, and quality * * *'' and given limited 
resources, the Secretary recognizes that these priorities cannot 
address all of the topics recommended by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
Cross-Cutting Issue of Eligibility

    Comment: One commenter recommended that non-profit organizations 
as well as institutions of higher learning be eligible to apply for 
center grants.
    Discussion: The statute requires that grants be awarded to 
centers ``established by institutions of higher education, by 
institutions of higher education in consortium with public agencies 
or private non-profit organizations, or by interstate agencies 
established by compact which 

[[Page 47820]]
operate subsidiary bodies established to conduct postsecondary 
educational research and development.''
    Changes: None.

Other Cross-Cutting Issues

    Comments: A variety of other comments were related to cross-
cutting issues or the priorities as a whole. One commenter requested 
an emphasis on the importance of family and community contexts, as 
well as of schools. One commenter stated that all centers should be 
expected to address issues over the full range of differences among 
individuals. One commenter expressed concern over the role of 
libraries and information services in the proposed research 
priorities. One commenter stated that for each of the seven 
priorities, a great deal of information on best practice is 
available, that this information needs to be summarized and shared, 
and that the institutes should form best practice review boards. One 
commenter suggested that all of the proposed priorities should 
address the needs of diverse student populations. One commenter 
stated that tribal involvement and consultation should be considered 
throughout the description of the seven priority areas. One 
commenter wanted the final priorities to include an absolute 
requirement that centers demonstrate capacity and interest in 
developing student-centered research and development strategies; 
include plans for involving students and their families in the 
development of the work of the center; and include plans for the 
demonstration of the ultimate student-centered outcomes which result 
from the work. One commenter stated that cross-research activity 
would strengthen the centers, and recommended allowing each center 
to conduct a portion of its work in a related priority area. One 
commenter suggested that the research agenda should include programs 
that assist state and local educators with implementation of 
improvements. One commenter expressed a number of concerns 
including: The apparent lack of an overall guiding plan; too limited 
information for applicants about the priorities and about existing 
activities; an unclear distinction between research and development; 
too little integration of proposed work with other OERI activities; 
inadequate integration of similar research and development tasks 
across the centers; failure to identify key intervention points in 
the life course; and failure to address some of the most important 
ways of helping disadvantaged students. One commenter stated that it 
is unclear how the seven centers relate to the five Institutes; and 
one commenter wanted to know why field-initiated research was not 
mentioned.
    Discussion: The Secretary recognizes that there is merit to many 
of these suggestions. However, the Secretary believes that the 
mandatory requirements imposed on applicants should be held to a 
minimum in order to allow applicants the flexibility to propose work 
that will lead to the improvement of American education. Applicants 
are required to conduct a coherent, sustained program of research 
and development to address problems and issues of national 
significance within an individual priority, but the Secretary 
believes decisions about which issues to cover should be left to the 
applicant. The section entitled ``Supplementary Information'' 
provides further clarification of the relationship between the seven 
centers and the five Institutes. The statute requires that each 
Institute reserve at least 20 percent of its funding each fiscal 
year for field-initiated studies.
    Changes: None.

Absolute Priority 1: Promoting the Cognitive and Social-Emotional 
Development of Young Children

    Overview: A total of 48 letters contained comments on Priority 
1. Some commenters discussed more than one topic in their 
correspondence.

Comments Related to the Title

    Comments: Seven commenters expressed concern that the title 
focused too narrowly on cognitive and social-emotional development 
alone and thereby failed to consider the total development of the 
child. Two of these commenters recommended that the title be 
expanded to include the physical development of young children. Two 
commenters wanted the title to include health outcomes for children. 
Three of the commenters suggested that language and/or motor 
development also be included. Another commenter suggested the title 
be changed to ``Services that Promote the Cognitive and Social-
Emotional Development of Young Children.'' Another wanted the title 
to focus solely on the cognitive development of young children.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that school readiness extends 
beyond the dimensions of cognitive and social-emotional development 
and that the focus of research and development in this topical area 
should be holistic.
    Changes: The Secretary believes that the phrase ``development 
and learning'' conveys the priority's intent to focus on the whole 
child. Consequently, the Secretary has modified the priority's title 
to read: ``Enhancing Young Children's Development and Learning.''

Comments Regarding Focus

    Comments: Fifteen commenters believed that the priority should 
shift its focus from young children to their environments, which the 
respondents defined as family, teachers and other significant 
caregivers. These commenters stated that there is considerable 
research in the field on child development and on the factors which 
directly influence children's well-being. The commenters believe 
that what is needed is research on programs, strategies and policies 
which influence parents, educators, and others in the child's 
environment and enable them to become more effective in supporting 
children. The commenters maintain that it is just as important for 
schools to be ready for children, as it is for children to be ready 
for school. Several commenters recommended the priority's research 
and development activities should include: Interprofessional 
development and collaboration--research designed to inform 
``professional practice, professional development, and policy;'' the 
relationship between public policies and the abilities of parents 
and educators to support children's development, including family 
leave policy, proposed reductions in social service programs, and 
consolidation of categorical child care and early childhood programs 
into block grants to the States; effective dissemination of early 
childhood information for use by parents and professionals; and 
involvement of early childhood professionals in research efforts by 
the international community.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that young children should 
remain the central focus of this center. However, the Secretary also 
understands that research on improving the environments which shape 
child development is an integral part of this center's work. The 
Secretary agrees that this priority should include research and 
development activities on interprofessional development. The 
Secretary further believes that research can guide and inform 
policy. Therefore, applicants may choose to address policy issues in 
their applications, but it is not a requirement.
    Changes: In responding to the calls for an emphasis on young 
children's environments and work on interprofessional development, 
the Secretary has amended this priority to specifically address 
these concerns in sections (b) and (c).

Comments on Targeted Populations

    Comments: Fourteen comments addressed the parameters of the 
priority's target populations. Although the proposed priority did 
not specify an age range, seven commenters recommended that research 
and development activities focus on children from birth to the age 
of eight. Five commenters wanted to clarify the phrase ``children * 
* * at risk'' in section (a) by adding specific risk factors, 
including biological, socio-cultural, environmental, and disabling 
conditions. One commenter wanted to modify section (a) by replacing 
the word ``especially'' with ``including,'' to preclude the proposed 
center from duplicating the work of an already-established center 
for the education of children at-risk.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the concept of ``young 
children,'' for the purposes of this center, should extend from 
birth to the age of eight. The Secretary also agrees that it is 
important to make clear that children who are culturally, 
economically and/or biologically vulnerable, as well as children 
with disabling conditions, are not to be excluded from research 
activities. However, the Secretary believes that each of these 
suggested factors of risk is already encompassed in section (a), and 
therefore, the Secretary has not changed the list of enumerated 
factors. Furthermore, the Secretary recognizes that the proposed 
center and the existing center for students placed at risk of 
educational failure do share a focus on the early elementary grades. 
The Secretary believes, however, that the work of each center will 
be unique and not duplicative. Therefore, the Secretary sees no need 
to modify the language of this priority by replacing the word 
``especially'' with the word ``including.''
    Changes: The Secretary has amended section (a) of the final 
priority to clarify the 

[[Page 47821]]
target population as children from birth through the age of eight.
    Comments on Families: Three commenters recommended that the role 
of families needs to be strengthened throughout the priority. One 
commenter stated that the proposed priority ``ignores the central 
role families play in the educational development of children.'' One 
commenter stated that ``family processes have profound effects on 
early development and should be considered both in studies of 
development and in studies of policy and services.'' One commenter 
recommended that the priority should address family-centered 
approaches that can be adapted to diverse community contexts. 
Similarly, the Board committee recommended that families and 
communities be further emphasized in this priority.
    Discussion: The Secretary understands the critical impact of 
families on young children's development and success in school and 
consequently the need for research and development activities that 
can strengthen supports and services for families.
    Changes: The Secretary has amended the final priority to include 
revised sections (b) and (c) in order to give greater emphasis to 
the role of the family and community throughout the entire final 
priority.

Comments on Services and Supports

    Comments: Twelve commenters addressed the topic of services and 
supports within communities, schools, and families and offered 
recommendations on the kinds of research and development activities 
that should be included in the priority: Service integration 
strategies for meeting the needs of children, families, and 
practitioners; community barriers to the distribution of needed 
services; impact of cultural factors on the delivery of early 
childhood services; collaboration among service providers, including 
coordination among child care providers and early childhood 
educators; coordination of research conducted under this priority 
with results of last year's OERI conference on school-linked 
services; the role of libraries and museums in early childhood 
development and education; and the role of technology in the 
classroom.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that quality comprehensive 
services provided by families, preschools, child care facilities, 
schools, libraries, museums, and other community resources, increase 
the opportunity for all children to come to school ready to learn, 
and that research and development activities on this topic should be 
a part of this center's work.
    Changes: The Secretary believes that comprehensive supports and 
services are encompassed within revised section (b).
    Absolute Priority 2: Improving Student Learning and Achievement 
Overview: A total of 114 letters provided comments on Priority 2. 
Some commenters discussed more than one topic in their 
correspondence.

Comments on the Integration of Priorities 2 and 3

    Comments: Five commenters stated that successful education 
reform requires the integration of issues of curriculum, assessment 
and student learning. In order to ensure continuous coordinated 
research efforts across these topics, these commenters recommended 
that the Department support coordinated studies of student learning, 
curriculum, and assessment. Two commenters recommended that this 
priority be modified to address the integration of assessment 
practices into the curriculum.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that assessment tied to 
curriculum and instructional strategies can improve student 
learning. To ensure that assessments are aligned to instruction, the 
Secretary has added a new topic to the priority. In addition, the 
Secretary has maintained Priority 3 and modified the wording of that 
priority to align the development and use of assessments with 
curriculum and instruction.
    Changes: The Secretary has added a new topic (b)(4) which reads: 
``Assessment for improving teaching and learning, including the 
technical quality of such assessments.''

Comments on Separate Content Areas

    Comments: One hundred and six commenters recommended changes in 
the six topics of the proposed priority. Many of the commenters 
recommended reorganizing the entire priority to emphasize the core 
academic content areas. Eighty-seven commenters recommended support 
for separate content centers in the areas of English/ English 
language arts, writing, literacy, reading, and literature. 
Frequently these commenters stated that English language arts are 
fundamental to subsequent student achievement. In addition, many of 
the commenters supported continuing the existing centers on writing 
and literature. Nineteen commenters stated that content-oriented 
centers would have a more direct impact on instruction and learning 
than the proposed achievement and assessment centers. These 
commenters reasoned that effective teaching and instructional 
strategies are content-specific and that most teachers' questions 
relate to problems of instruction in specific content areas. The 
commenters suggested that the priority be altered to include 
content-oriented centers such as science, math, and English.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that instructional strategies, 
professional development, and assessment should all be tied to 
content areas. The Secretary has restructured this priority so that 
applicants will identify content areas and propose research and 
development activities in areas of student learning, instructional 
strategies, professional development, and assessment related to 
those content areas. The Secretary believes, however, that 
applicants should identify the content areas for which research and 
development will be most productive. In the application package 
instructions, applicants will be reminded of the requirement to 
specify the content areas, e.g., English, mathematics, writing, or 
science, on which they propose to focus their investigations.
    Changes: The Secretary has revised Priority 2 (a) to read: 
``Conduct research and development on improving student achievement, 
which must be comprised of research and development on improving 
learning, teaching, and assessment within a content area.''

Comments on Topic Areas

    Comments: Thirteen commenters recommended that technology, the 
evaluation of school personnel, and family and community be included 
in the priority. Some of these commenters recommended requiring the 
center to look into how technology should be used to improve student 
learning and achievement. The commenters also recommended including 
investigation of family involvement as a means to improve student 
learning and achievement, and investigation of the relationship 
between personnel evaluation of teachers and student achievement. 
The Board committee recommended that work related to curriculum and 
instruction reflect current knowledge about cognitive development, 
the social context of learning, and student motivation.
    Discussion: The Secretary recognizes that these and many other 
factors can lead to improved student achievement. Family, community, 
and other out-of-school factors have important impact on the 
improvement of student learning and achievement. In fact, the 
Secretary believes that many of these recommendations fall within 
the scope of the priority's topics and could be the subject of the 
center's research projects. Applicants are encouraged to consider 
the most effective ways to investigate both in- and out-of-school 
factors which influence student achievement. To emphasize the 
important role of technology in improving student achievement, the 
Secretary has explicitly included technology as one method of 
instruction to be investigated. To emphasize the important roles of 
cognitive development, the social context of learning, and student 
motivation, the Secretary has also explicitly included the 
requirement that center research on curriculum and effective 
instruction reflect current understanding of these factors.
    Changes: The Secretary has modified topic (b)(2) to read: 
``Curriculum and effective instruction, including the use of 
technology, which reflect current understanding of cognitive 
development, the social context of learning, and student 
motivation.''

Comments on the Scope of the Priority

    Comments: Four commenters stated that the priority was too broad 
in its scope, making it impossible for one center to pursue high 
quality work in all six areas. These commenters recommended that 
applicants be given the option of identifying which of the topics to 
investigate.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that research and development 
centers should concentrate their efforts on the most important 
teaching and learning issues. By changing the priority to focus on 
content areas and by reducing the number of topics, the Secretary 
has made it possible for applicants addressing this priority to 
develop a coherent, focused set of research studies. The Secretary 
has deleted topics that addressed school organization and school 
environment. Applicants are encouraged to propose work that will be 
sensitive to these and other issues as appropriate to their overall 
research plan.
    Changes: The Secretary has reduced the number of topics listed 
in the priority from 

[[Page 47822]]
six to four, and has limited the work to a content area or content 
areas. The Secretary has revised Priority 2 (a) to read: ``Conduct 
research and development on improving student achievement, which 
must be comprised of research and development on improving learning, 
teaching, and assessment within a content area.''
Absolute Priority 3: Improving Student Assessment and Educational 
Accountability

    Overview: A total of 17 commenters provided comments on Priority 
3.

Comments on Topic Areas

    Comments: Four commenters recommended specific topics for 
inclusion in assessment. These commenters stated that ``core content 
areas'' should include geography, arts, humanities, physical 
education, English, mathematics, social studies, science and foreign 
languages. These commenters also indicated that the measurement of 
students' interdisciplinary knowledge and students' cognitive, 
social, emotional and physical development should be included in 
assessments.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that the identification of 
topics to be included in assessments should be up to the applicant. 
Applicants are encouraged to identify content areas which will be 
the focus of their research on assessment. The Secretary believes 
that all these topics can be addressed using the current wording.
    Changes: None

Comments on Ways to Improve Assessments

    Comments: Four commenters recommended various ways to improve 
assessments. These commenters stated that assessments should be 
accurate and devoid of cultural or gender bias. Commenters also 
stated that the center should explore the creation and use of 
alternative assessments. The Board committee recommended that this 
priority be modified to include research on the use of assessments 
to improve teaching and learning, as well as educational 
accountability. The Board further recommended that the center's work 
include research on the use of assessments for student placement.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that assessments should be of 
high technical quality and free of bias so that assessments can be 
used to measure the performance of all students. The Secretary 
believes that the existing language in topic (b)(4) of ``validity, 
reliability, fairness, and content and skill coverage'' adequately 
covers issues of technical quality and bias. Therefore, no 
additional language is necessary. In addition, the Secretary 
believes that different types of assessments, including alternative 
assessments, present fruitful areas for investigation. The Secretary 
has added language on alternative assessments to the priority. The 
Secretary further believes that assessments should promote improved 
teaching and learning and that particular emphasis on the use of 
assessments for student placements is appropriate. The Secretary has 
added language on this area to topic (b)(1).
    Changes: The Secretary has amended topic (b)(4) to read: ``The 
technical quality (validity, reliability, fairness, and content and 
skill coverage) of different types of assessments and assessment 
systems, including accommodations, adaptations, and alternative 
assessments.'' Further, the Secretary has amended topic (b)(1) to 
read: ``Development and use of assessments aligned with curriculum 
and instruction to promote improved teaching, learning, and 
educational accountability, including the use of assessment in 
student placement.''

Comments on Special Populations

    Comments: Four commenters recommended that the priority 
explicitly include special education and bilingual populations of 
students in the priority's scope. These commenters also stated that 
school systems often exclude language minority students from 
educational assessment programs. The commenters said that research 
on assessment should consider issues related to the inclusion of 
students with disabilities, especially regarding test modifications 
and testing accommodations.
    Discussion: Assessments and assessment systems should be able to 
reliably and validly measure the performance of all students. 
Therefore, the Secretary has added a new topic to the priority for 
research on the accommodations, adaptations, and alternative 
assessments which will enable all students to participate in 
assessment systems.
    Changes: The Secretary has modified the General Absolute 
Priority to reinforce that all students are to be included. The 
revised General Absolute Priority reads: ``(e) Address issues of 
both equity and excellence in education for all students in its 
individual priority area.'' Furthermore, the Secretary has added a 
new topic (b)(2) to Priority 3 which reads: ``The use of 
accommodations, adaptations, and alternative assessments to enable 
all students to participate in assessment systems.'' The Secretary 
has also modified (b)(4) of Priority 3 to include ``including 
accommodations, adaptations, and alternative assessments.''

Comments on Combining Priorities 2 and 3

    Comments: Five commenters recommended combining student learning 
and assessment into a single priority. These are the same comments 
discussed under Priority 2.
    Discussion: As stated previously, the Secretary has modified 
Priority 2 to include assessment issues. Although the Secretary 
agrees that some assessment research and development and the 
improvement of teaching and learning in content areas should be 
closely linked, the Secretary believes that a number of issues 
related to assessments, assessment systems, and accountability 
warrant attention by a center which focuses first on assessment and 
secondly on content areas.
    Changes: In addition to the changes in Priority 2, the Secretary 
amended (b)(1) of Priority 3 to read: ``The development and use of 
assessments aligned with curriculum and instruction to promote 
improved teaching, learning, and educational accountability, 
including the use of assessment in student placement.''

Absolute Priority 4: Meeting the Educational Needs of a Diverse 
Student Population

    Overview: A total of 30 letters contained comments on Priority 
4. The comments are grouped by topical area.
Comments on the Entire Priority

    Comments: Eight commenters provided comments about Priority 4 as 
a whole. Four commenters voiced total support for the priority. Four 
commenters expressed reservations. One of the latter four stated 
that ample information is available on the topical area, and that 
the Institute should begin by collecting and analyzing existing 
information. Other commenters recommended that limited research 
dollars be allocated elsewhere and used to support broader research 
on improving student learning and achievement; that the work 
proposed for this center should be integrated with similar 
activities in other priorities and the funds allocated for this 
center be given to other centers; that funds should not be used to 
support a center based on a diverse student population; and that the 
topics covered should be more limited given the center's likely 
funding.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes this topical area is 
essential, and that a separate center devoted to this topic is 
warranted even given the reduction in the total number of centers to 
be funded. However, the Secretary agrees with the comment that it 
may be difficult for applicants to adequately address all of the 
topics in their proposals.
    Changes: The Secretary has modified (b) to read ``Include in its 
work research or development related to at least two of the 
following topics:''.

Comments on Student Populations

    Comments: Nine commenters recommended that the priority identify 
more specifically the population or populations of students 
included. Seven of these comments were related to students with 
disabilities. One expressed concern that the ``diverse student'' 
designation in this priority would serve as a catch-all for 
``other'' students, including students with disabilities, rather 
than an assurance of the inclusion of all students in each center's 
efforts. The comments included: Add ``disability'' to the categories 
of risk; broaden the definition of risk to include students with 
behavioral and psychological problems; and modify the priority to 
add a focus on students with disabilities or to set aside a portion 
of funding to support research and development dealing specifically 
with the needs of special education students. Two commenters called 
for inclusion of additional groups or aiming efforts at specific 
categories of at-risk students, namely Pacific Island students and 
at-risk students with limited vocational job options. One commenter 
supported the inclusion of limited-English proficient students. One 
commenter stated that the priority should address the broad range of 
dimensions of student diversity.
    Discussion: The statute authorizing the National Institute on 
the Education of At-Risk Students defines an at-risk student as ``a 
student who, because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race, 
geographic 

[[Page 47823]]
location, or economic disadvantage, faces a greater risk of low 
educational achievement or reduced academic expectations.'' The 
Institute is limited to funding research which meets the purposes of 
the statute.
    Changes: The Secretary has modified the priority to include the 
exact wording of the statute.

Comments on Agencies

    Comments: One commenter recommended that (b)(5) (now (b)(4)) be 
amended to add ``tribal'' to the list of agencies.
    Discussion: The Secretary will modified the priority to add the 
words ``tribal government.''
    Changes: The Secretary has modified the language of Priority 4 
by adding ``tribal government'' to the list in (b)(4).

Comments on Topic Areas

    Comments: Sixteen commenters provided comments on the proposed 
priority's five topics for research and development activities. One 
commenter stated that student diversity is so basic to our nation's 
schools that the topic should be incorporated into the other 
proposed priorities. Another stated that the most pressing need of 
diverse students is effective literacy lessons. Four commenters made 
recommendations concerning (b)(2), as follows: Professional 
development should also include the preparation of teachers and 
other school personnel, and professional development is so vital 
that an additional priority on this topic should be added; support 
for highlighting professional development in Priority 4 and a 
recommendation that it be similarly highlighted in the other 
priorities; a statement that professional development research 
should ensure that appropriately certified school personnel are 
prepared to work effectively with American Indian students; a 
statement that methods of assessing teachers of at-risk students 
should be examined; and a statement that issues related to potential 
shortages of minority teachers should be investigated. Similarly, 
the Board committee recommended that topic (b)(2) be modified to 
include training activities for families and communities, as well as 
professional development for educators. Seven commenters expressed 
concerns regarding the scope of and language contained in (b)(3), 
including recommendations for amending the language to include 
libraries and museums as examples of out-of-school experiences, 
adding ``* * * and become responsible citizens'' to the language, 
and clarifying the phrases ``structuring out of school experiences'' 
and ``learning to high standards,'' subsuming (b)(3) under (b)(4), 
or deleting (b)(3) altogether because it is not as crucial as the 
other topics. Three commenters supported (b)(4). Two letters 
recommended stressing the topic of (b)(4) among all centers and 
another recommended a number of studies to enhance knowledge of risk 
and resiliency factors in children and to generate policy 
recommendations. Two commenters specifically addressed the needs of 
language minority students under (b)(5). One stressed the importance 
to this population of English/language arts skills; the second 
commenter suggested requiring basic research on the process of 
second language acquisition and in-school learning experiences that 
enhance English proficiency and academic excellence.
    Discussion: The Secretary recognizes the merit of the 
recommendations regarding in-school learning experiences and has 
modified (b)(1) to emphasize instructional strategies. The Secretary 
believes that the language in (b)(2) is sufficiently inclusive to 
provide for the population of teachers and other school personnel. 
However, the Secretary has revised (b)(2) to clarify that training 
activities for families and communities are included within the 
scope of the topic. The Secretary recognizes that there is merit to 
including libraries and museums as examples of out-of-school 
experiences. However, the Secretary does not wish to imply 
partiality toward particular types of learning experiences, 
preferring instead to encourage applicants to identify and justify 
the promising experiences that reflect the particular design of 
their proposed research and development activities. The Secretary 
has considered rewording the phrase ``structuring out-of-school 
experiences''. The Secretary believes that existing knowledge of 
effective practices in this area is significantly limited as to 
warrant a broader, more inclusive approach rather than a more narrow 
focus. The Secretary expects that applicants' concepts of out-of-
school experiences will contribute to the merits of their proposals. 
The Secretary further believes that there is significant potential 
for identifying promising out-of-school practices which are not 
mutually exclusive of family and community-based experiences. Thus, 
the Secretary concurs with the suggestion that (b)(3) be subsumed 
under (b)(4).
    Changes: Section (b)(1) has been modified to read 
``Instructional strategies that recognize and build on the strengths 
of students from diverse backgrounds to help all students to achieve 
to high academic standards.'' Section (b)(2) has been modified to 
include families and communities. Sections (b)(3) and (b)(4) of the 
priority have been modified to read: ``(b)(3) Working with families 
and community-based organizations, through such means as structuring 
out-of-school experiences as well as providing support for school-
based programs, to help students at risk of educational failure 
achieve to high standards.''

Absolute Priority 5: Increasing the Effectiveness of State and 
Local Education Reform Efforts

    Overview: In response to the Secretary's invitation in the 
notice of proposed priorities, 76 respondents submitted written 
comments regarding Absolute Priority 5: Increasing the Effectiveness 
of State and Local Education Reform Efforts. Some commenters 
discussed more than one topic in their correspondence.
    General Comments: Sixteen commenters supported the focus of the 
proposed priority. Commenters noted the importance and usefulness of 
such research in the past and the ongoing need for research in the 
topic areas listed in the proposed priority. Several commenters 
provided specific references to useful research in this field. Five 
commenters expressed disapproval of the proposed priority. One 
warned against excessive federal intervention in education affairs. 
Another argued that all the priorities should be directly related to 
the Goals 2000 legislation. The third characterized the current list 
of topics under Priority 5 as an unfocused laundry list. The fourth 
argued that the priority focused on research that had already been 
done and that academics would continue to do this type of research 
even in the absence of a center on this topic. The fifth suggested 
that the proposed research should be conducted in other centers.
    Discussion: The Secretary does not believe that the National 
Research and Development Centers Program represents excessive 
federal intervention into education affairs. The purpose of these 
centers is to provide information that will be helpful to educators 
as they carry out their programs. Because these centers are not 
intended to promote any particular predetermined reform strategy, 
the Secretary does not believe the priorities should be directly 
related to the Goals 2000 legislation. The Secretary has 
restructured the topics under this priority so they are more 
coherent rather than giving the appearance of a laundry list. The 
nonbinding mission guidance will also explain how the topics fit 
into an integrated whole. The Secretary believes that current 
reforms are more coherent than they have been in the past and the 
focus of this priority--the relationship between increased learning 
by all students and local and school level strategies for reform, 
state and local policies, finance strategies and governance 
arrangements--is an important advancement in both research and 
practice. Also, the Secretary believes that while some research on 
this topic will be conducted by independent academicians, the 
important work to be conducted by a center on this topic will not be 
carried out elsewhere. The Secretary believes that the proposed work 
is sufficiently distinct to be conducted at a separate center, but 
that the work of this center should be closely coordinated with work 
in other centers related to K-12 student achievement. Therefore, the 
substantive focus of the proposed priority has not be changed.
    Changes: The language of the priority has been revised so the 
topics are more coherent.

Comments on Local and School Level Factors

    Comments: Ten respondents commented about the importance of 
local and school level factors. Some of these emphasized the 
importance of the impact of these factors on student learning. 
Generally the comments noted the importance of understanding how 
local and school factors interact to support desired changes and how 
these factors interact with state and local policies. In addition, 
the Board committee recommended that topic (b)(1) be modified to 
emphasize the importance of supportive and secure learning 
environments as a target of local or school level reforms.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that local and school level 
factors that influence student learning are important and should be 
studied by this center. The Secretary further 

[[Page 47824]]
agrees that supportive and secure learning environments are 
particularly important concerns at the local and school levels.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to emphasize the 
importance of research on local and school level factors that 
influence student learning with particular emphasis on supportive 
and secure learning environments.

Comments Regarding Student Standards

    Comments: Seven respondents commented on the topic of student 
standards. Most emphasized the importance of the topic. One 
recommended that work on this topic be coordinated with Title 1 
evaluations and with the work the National Science Foundation is 
sponsoring on standards-based reform. Two argued that such work must 
be content-based.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that student standards are an 
important topic for investigation. The Secretary will coordinate 
work on this topic with the evaluation of Title 1 and with the work 
being supported by the National Science Foundation. Applicants will 
be free to propose content-based approaches to this topic. The 
center is encouraged to coordinate its work, including the work on 
student standards, with other related activities in the field.
    Changes: The priority has been amended to add as a new topic 
(b)(2), ``State and local finance strategies that support improved 
learning by all students including aligning elements of the 
education system to achieve challenging student standards and 
providing incentives for reform.''

Comments Regarding Finance Issues

    Comments: Six commenters noted the importance of finance issues. 
One recommended a center on this topic alone. Another called 
explicitly for studies of the cost-effectiveness of alternative 
strategies. Several commenters recommended research on finance 
strategies that are integrated with other elements of reform.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that finance issues are 
important and that the discussion of them in the priority should be 
expanded.
    Changes: The priority has been amended to elaborate upon the 
finance topic. The equitable distribution of programs and services 
and the productive allocation of resources are included as areas 
that must be covered by the center's work.

Comments Regarding Family, Community, School Relationships

    Comments: Six commenters noted the importance of family, 
community and school relationships. One recommended supporting a 
Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children's Learning as 
a second center in the Governance Institute, or, as an alternative, 
research on strengthening the connections between schools, families, 
and communities. Two commenters recommended adding parents and 
families to the topic in the proposed priority focused on examining 
community-school relationships. In addition, the Board committee 
recommended adding the word ``partnerships'' before 
``collaboration'' in (b)(1) to emphasize that families, communities 
and schools should work together as closely as possible.
    Discussion: The Secretary believes that budget restrictions 
paired with the legislative mandate that no center be funded at less 
than $1.5 million per year preclude the possibility of funding a 
second center under the Governance Institute. However, the Secretary 
agrees that the relationship between schools and families and the 
community is an important factor related to student learning. The 
Secretary believes that both productive partnerships and productive 
collaborations among communities, families and schools merit 
investigation as local strategies to improve elementary and 
secondary education.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to include enhancing 
productive partnerships and collaborations among communities, 
families and schools as a topic area that must be addressed by the 
center.

Comments Regarding the Format of Topics

    Comments: Five commenters were concerned about the format of the 
topics under the priority. Two suggested that the priority appeared 
to be promoting a particular view of reform. Another suggested that 
the topics were too process-oriented. Another commenter suggested 
that all topics should focus on increasing student achievement. The 
fifth called for a more integrated and synthesized statement.
    Discussion: The Secretary does not believe that this priority 
should promote any particular reform strategy. Rather, alternative 
reform strategies should be the focus of the research supported 
under this priority. The Secretary agrees that the focus of the work 
sponsored under this priority should be on the relationship between 
alternative approaches and student learning, not on processes per 
se. The Secretary also agrees that the statement of the individual 
topics within the priority should be as integrated and synthesized 
as possible.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to clarify that the 
topics are not promoting a particular approach to education reform, 
are not focusing on processes per se, and are aimed at investigating 
the relationship between alternative approaches and student 
learning. The priority has been reformatted to be more coherent.

Comments About Adding Topics

    Comments: Fifty-two commenters recommended adding topics to the 
proposed priority. Examples of research areas proposed for inclusion 
were the general areas of education governance and teacher 
professionalization, and the topic areas of building organizational 
capacity, alternative models of schooling, family-community-school 
relationships, collaboration between schools and postsecondary 
institutions, and the integration of services for children and 
youth. Specific research topics recommended included the federal 
role in education, policies supporting the use of technology, 
especially for students with special needs, the role of libraries 
and museums in students' learning, and addressing cultural 
differences when setting education policies.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that education governance is an 
important general area that should be included in the priority. 
Also, in recognition of the number of comments on 
professionalization of education personnel, the Secretary has 
decided to modify the priority to include a focus on licensing of 
teachers and other education professionals. The Secretary also 
believes that the general topics recommended are important and 
should be considered by applicants as candidates for study. The 
Secretary recognizes that there is merit to many of the specific 
topics recommended for inclusion. In fact, the Secretary believes 
that many of these recommendations fall within the scope of the 
priority's topics and could be the subject of the center's research 
projects.
    Changes: The priority has been revised to include the general 
topic area of education governance. In addition, section (b)(2) has 
been amended to read: ``State and local policies that support 
improved learning by all students including aligning elements of the 
education system to achieve challenging student standards, enhancing 
licensing systems for teachers and other education professionals, 
and providing incentives for reform.''

Absolute Priority 6: Improving Postsecondary Education

    Overview: A total of 22 letters provided comments on Priority 6. 
Some commenters addressed more than one topic.

Comments on Scope and Relationship of Priority 6 to Priority 7

    Comments: Seven commenters were concerned with relationships and 
distinctions between priorities 6 and 7. Two recommended combining 
the two priorities, while others recommended various ways of 
ensuring that the work is coordinated or that the scope of each 
priority be clarified to prevent overlap. Several commented on the 
broad range of issues included in Priority 6, while others added 
issues that should be emphasized.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that distinctions between 
priorities 6 and 7 need to be clarified, but does not agree that a 
single center can address the complex issues in both postsecondary 
education and adult literacy and learning. The Secretary agrees that 
it is important for the centers to coordinate work on issues of 
mutual interest.
    Changes: The title of Priority 6 has been changed to: 
``Improving Postsecondary Education'' to distinguish its focus from 
priority 7. Section (a) is changed to: ``Conduct research and 
development on improving quality, productivity and outcomes of 
postsecondary education.'' Applicants will be permitted to select 
three or more topics for research from among those listed. Non-
binding mission guidance will suggest ways of coordinating the work 
of the two centers.

Comments on Emphasizing a Continuous View of Education

    Comments: Three commenters argued for a broader view of 
postsecondary students and a more continuous view of education, 
consistent with the theme of lifelong learning. Three advocated 
inclusion of community colleges in the work on 

[[Page 47825]]
postsecondary education. Eight commenters recommended linking research 
on postsecondary education with various other reform issues 
including: Teacher education; links to communities; promotion of 
private/public partnerships in service delivery; and employment 
opportunities for high-risk students and for the non-college bound. 
Two commenters advocated a K-16 approach to education reform.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that this priority should 
reflect a continuous view of education, including an emphasis on K-
16 approaches to education improvement and teacher education. The 
Secretary encourages the inclusion of various groups of participants 
and institutions, including community colleges.
    Changes: The Secretary has omitted (b)(5): ``Articulation 
between secondary and postsecondary education,'' and has amended 
(b)(1) to read: ``Transitions from school to work, or to further 
education, for secondary and postsecondary students, including, but 
not limited to, development of effective K-16 systems.''

Comments on Faculty Development

    Comments: Three commenters recommended inclusion of research on 
faculty development, especially for improving student achievement. 
Others recommended a focus on professional development, including 
interprofessional development for educators at various academic 
levels. The Board committee recommended adding teacher education as 
an express part of this priority in order to emphasize the need for 
research and development related to the professional development of 
K-12 teachers.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that faculty development is an 
important aspect of improving the quality of postsecondary 
education. The Secretary also agrees that postsecondary institutions 
are critical in improving the preparation of K-12 educators.
    Changes: Section (b)(3) will include a new topic: ``Approaches 
to professional development geared to improving postsecondary 
instruction and student learning, including the preparation of K-12 
educators.''

Comments on Institutional Productivity, Faculty Rewards, and 
Finance

    Comments: Three commenters advocated various aspects of 
improving the management and productivity of postsecondary 
institutions, including a focus on faculty productivity and reward 
structures.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that these are important issues 
and believes that they are already included in the statement on 
``Containing costs and improving the productivity and accountability 
of postsecondary institutions.''
    Changes: None.

Comments on Emphasizing Library Services

    Comments: Three commenters recommended an emphasis on research 
on library services.
    Discussion: While the Secretary agrees that libraries are 
important aspects of postsecondary education, he does not believe 
that this topic is appropriate as a separate research topic for this 
priority. However, the Secretary has included the use of libraries 
in (b)(2) of Priority 7.
    Changes: None.
    Absolute Priority 7: Improving Adult Learning and Literacy 
Overview: A total of 21 letters provided comments on Priority 7. 
Some commenters discussed more than one topic in their 
correspondence.

Comments on Organizational Strategies, Methods and Delivery Systems

    Comments: Four commenters recommended that greater attention be 
paid to developing effective delivery systems through better 
organizational strategies, and four others asked that libraries be 
specified within the research activities.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that greater attention be paid 
to developing effective delivery systems through better 
organizational strategies, including the use of libraries.
    Changes: Section (b)(2) has been amended to read: ``Effective 
strategies and technology for providers, including libraries, 
community organizations, and family literacy programs, * * *''

Comments on Workplace Skills

    Comments: Two commenters asked that more work be done in 
developing skills for use in the workplace and two asked that the 
research on workplace skills be coordinated with that of the 
Institute on Postsecondary Education so as to differentiate the 
basic skills from the levels and kinds of skills generally 
considered the province of postsecondary institutions' preparation 
of students for work. The Board committee recommended deleting the 
word ``cognitive'' from (b)(1) and replacing it with the phrase 
``linguistic, quantitative and reasoning'' to clarify the myriad of 
skills to which this Center's research and development might 
pertain. The Board also recommended that an explicit reference to 
computer skills be added.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that adult learning and 
literacy programs can provide a variety of skills useful in the 
workforce, including computer literacy, that postsecondary 
institutions can generally provide skills that are useful for higher 
level workforce preparedness, and that research on all these skills 
will profit from collaborative work.
    Changes: Section (a) has been amended to read: ``Conduct 
research and development on improving adult learning and literacy 
through delivery methods and systems other than postsecondary 
institutions, including the skills needed for work and responsible 
citizenship.'' In addition, section (b)(1) has been amended to read: 
``Adult acquisition of knowledge and development of linguistic, 
quantitative, and reasoning skills, including adult acquisition of 
second language skills and computer skills.''

Comments on Instructional Considerations

    Comments: Two commenters wanted specific mention of family 
literacy, and two emphasized the importance of instructional 
strategies and materials. The Board committee recommended adding a 
specific reference to the use of technology for professional 
development in order to encourage further use of technology toward 
the goals of this priority.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that family literacy is a vital 
part of the provision of literacy and related instruction and 
services. The Secretary believes that the importance of 
instructional strategies and materials is already apparent in the 
priority in sections (b) (2), (3) and (4).
    Changes: Section (b)(2)has been amended to read: ``Effective 
strategies and technology for providers, including libraries, 
community organizations, and family literacy programs,* * *''. 
Section (b)(3) has been revised to include a specific reference to 
the use of technology for professional development.

Comments on Special Populations

    Comments: Two commenters recommended the specific mention of 
target populations, including those with learning disabilities, 
learning disorders and other special needs, and one recommended much 
greater attention to diversity in general and English as a second 
language programs and instruction in particular.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that much more sophisticated 
identification methods have shown us that an increasingly large 
number of adults have special learning needs. The Secretary further 
agrees that burgeoning numbers of adults needing English as second 
language instruction are asking for programs.
    Changes: Section (b)(2) has been amended to read: ``Effective 
strategies and technology for providers, including libraries, 
community organizations, and family literacy programs, to improve 
adult learning and literacy for all adult populations, including 
adults with special needs and those needing English as second 
language instruction.'' In addition, section (b)(3) has been amended 
to read: ``Effective methods, including use of technology, for 
professional development of instructional staff for adult education 
and literacy programs, including English as second language programs 
and programs for adults with special needs.''

Comments on Research Methodology

    Comments: Two commenters called for greater practitioner 
involvement in the design and conduct of research.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that such participation would 
be a valuable ingredient in carrying out the research under this 
Priority. The Secretary encourages practitioner involvement, but 
does not believe this should be mandated.
    Changes: None.

Post-Award Requirements Comments

    Comments: One comment was received on the post-award 
requirements. This commenter recommended dropping the five percent 
set-aside for supporting activities that fall within the center's 
priority area and are designed and mutually agreed to by the center 
and OERI. The commenter stated a belief that the set-aside modifies 
the intention of the appropriators by reducing the center awards by 
five percent to provide additional discretionary funds for the 
agency 

[[Page 47826]]
not acknowledged in the formal appropriation process. The commenter 
also suggested that the word ``synthesizes'' in paragraph (d) has a 
technical meaning that may not be appropriate in the context of 
post-award requirements, and suggests using ``document'' instead, as 
well as adding ``actual impact'' instead of ``potential impact.''
    Discussion: The Secretary does not believe that a 5 percent set-
aside for the described activities is unreasonable or an attempt to 
circumvent the appropriations process. The five percent set-aside 
will be used by the centers for activities which enable them to work 
more closely with each other. The Secretary agrees that synthesis 
has a technical meaning and believes that it is an appropriate 
activity for the centers. The Secretary also believes that it is 
appropriate for centers to describe potential impact as well as 
observable impact to date.
    Changes: None.

[FR Doc. 95-22873 Filed 9-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P