charge ahead with our task. And we appreciate both of your excellent, both written and oral testimony.

I asked the second panel to come forward building on the foundation that has been set this morning. I have introduced all three in my opening statement. We will first hear from Dr. Maris Vinovskis from the University of Michigan about childhood and disadvantaged programs; he will be followed by Carley Ochoa, former Director of Special Projects, Riverside United School, Riverside, California; to be followed by Ms. Madeleine Will, former Assistant Secretary of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Dr. VINOVSKIS.

STATEMENT OF MARIS A. VINOVSKIS, PH.D., PROFESSOR,

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Dr. VINOVSKIS. My name is Maris Vinovskis and I am the Bentley Professor of History and a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. I was also the research advisor to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) in 1992 and 1993 and, thus, have had the privilege of working with both the Bush and Clinton administrations. I will submit a copy of my forthcoming essay on which this testimony is based1 and will try to keep my remarks brief so that we will have more time for discussion.

Senator FRIST. It will be made a part of the record, thank you. Dr. VINOVSKIS. While the rationale for educating children has shifted somewhat over time, Americans have always viewed education as important for the well-being of each citizen. There has been a significant shift, however, from a heavy dependence upon parental and private responsibility for that education to a greater reliance on public schools. Throughout the past 350 years providing education for the poor was also a major societal goal. Historically support for K through 12 education was mainly a State and local responsibility with the Federal Government playing a secondary role.

But as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty, the Federal Government created several compensatory education programs for the poor, such as Title I and Head Start. These educational programs symbolized the renewed commitment of American society to help the disadvantaged. But they were premised on an unrealistic expectation that we could eradicate poverty almost entirely by means of a few uncoordinated, under-funded, untested, and largely ineffective new Federal initiatives.

In the mid-1960's Title I and Head Start raised hopes that for the next generation poverty could be eliminated. But by all accounts these programs have failed to provide at-risk children with sufficient assistance to overcome their disadvantages and compete equally and successfully with their middle-class counterparts.

Some of the individual Title I and Head Start programs, however, have provided at-risk children with better educations than they might have received otherwise. But it is disappointing that having spent more than $150 billion on these compensatory edu

1 See p. 189.

cation services, we still do not know which practices and programs are particularly effective in helping at-risk children, especially those living in high poverty areas of inner cities.

There are several explanations for the overall limited results from Title I, Head Start and other early childhood education programs of the past three decades. Our initial expectations of them were unrealistically high and our understanding of the nature and persistence of disadvantages among the poor was too simplistic. Too often well-meaning proponents of these programs understandably defended Title I and Head Start at all costs against hostile critics but in the process they were reluctant to admit that there were weaknesses and limitations in these programs.

Neither the executive branch nor the Congress has done a good job of ascertaining exactly what types of compensatory education services and programs are most effective for helping at-risk children. While there have been some useful national assessments of the overall impact of Head Start and Title I, usually these evaluations have not even attempted to ascertain in a rigorous and systematic manner which components of their programs have been successful.

And although there have been a few good, in-depth assessments of individual model programs, especially in the area of early childhood education, the Federal Government has devoted far too little attention and too few funds to develop and test alternative ways of delivering educational services to disadvantaged children.

The failure of the Federal Government to provide more guidance in educational program and development is disappointing, given its initial efforts in this area. When the Johnson administration created Title I and Head Start, it also established regional educational laboratories and the research and development centers which were to produce precisely the type of large-scale program evaluations that we are talking about today.

Moreover, the Nixon administration created the National Institute of Education (NIE) to sponsor long-term research and development initiatives to improve compensatory education programs. Unfortunately, neither NIE nor its successor, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) produced much of the type and quality of research and development on specific educational practices and programs which now could be employed effectively by Title I and Head Start.

Most of the current research and development activities in OERI and the rest of the U.S. Department of Education do not include a systematic development and rigorous assessment of different models of compensatory education programs. The Department is beginning a valuable, large-scale, individual-level analysis of the overall impact of Title I programs and standards-based reform. However, this study will not systematically ascertain which educational practices or programs are effective. Nor will that evaluation focus on the most disadvantaged students, those at-risk children who frequently move from one school to another. Equally disappointing is the fact that there are no plans to calculate the expenditures on those programs so that we will not be able to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of different interventions.

There are at least four major reasons for this discouraging state of affairs. One is the limited funds available for educational research and development during the past few decades. The second is the mis-allocation of research and development funds to small, short-term projects that often have limited scientific validity and little practical usefulness. Third, the decreases in the number of distinguished researchers and evaluators in OERI and the Department of Education limits the ability of those agencies to design and monitor high-quality research and development. And the fourth difficulty is the relatively low priority that has been assigned over the years by educators and policy makers to the development of effective educational programs to fight poverty.

The inability and unwillingness of the Federal Government to develop and assess systematically different compensatory education programs invites the exploration of alternative strategies. For example, this might be an area in which private foundations could play an important constructive role, but the U.S. Department of Education and OERI, in particular, should also develop, test and disseminate information about appropriate methods and models of instruction by hiring more distinguished researchers and by targeting their existing monies more efficiently and effectively.

When existing Federal programs, well-intentioned though they may be, are not as effective as they could or should be, the problem is not just wasted tax dollars or wasted chances to help those most in need, we raise the expectations of those who have the least to look forward to and then dash their hopes by failing to really help them escape from their poverty. The overall experiences with Title I and Head Start also have been frustrating for the American public who have been willing to sacrifice for the achievement of the lofty goals of Title I and Head Start but now find that little real progress has been made.

For many of the at-risk students who pass through these programs and who are not significantly helped, however, the results are more than just frustrating, they are precious opportunities lost forever.

Thank you.

Senator FRIST. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Vinovskis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIS A. VINOVSKIS, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND RESEARCH SCIENTIST, CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES, INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

THE DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

This statement is a revised and abridged version of a background paper prepared for the National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, June 1997. The longer version contains the documentation and footnotes which were omitted from this essay. The ideas and suggestions expressed here are strictly those of the author and do not represent those of any other group or institution.

My name is Maris Vinovskis and I am the Bentley Professor of History and a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. I was also the Research Advisor to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) in 1992 and 1993 and thus have had the privilege to work with both the Bush and Clinton administrations. I will submit a copy of my forth

coming essay upon which this testimony is based for the record and will briefly summarize my comments for the committee now.

While the rationale for educating children has shifted somewhat over time, Americans have always viewed education as important for the well-being of each citizen. There has been a significant shift, however, from a heavy dependence upon parental and private responsibility for that education to a greater reliance on public schools. Throughout the past 350 years, providing education for the poor was also a major societal goal.

Historically, support for K-12 schooling was mainly a State and local responsibility with the Federal Government playing a secondary role. But as part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty," the Federal Government created several compensatory education programs for the poor such as Title I and Head Start. These educational programs symbolized the renewed commitment of American society to help the disadvantaged; but they were premised on an unrealistic expectation: that we could eradicate poverty almost entirely by means of a few uncoordinated, under-funded, untested, and largely ineffective new Federal initiatives.

In the mid-1960's Title I and Head Start raised hopes that for the next generation poverty could be eliminated, but by all accounts these programs have failed to provide at-risk children with sufficient assistance to overcome their disadvantages and compete equally and successfully with their middle-class counterparts. Some of the individual Title I and Head Start programs, however, have provided at-risk children with better educations than they might have received otherwise. But it is disappointing that having spent more than $150 billion on these compensatory educational services, we still do not know which practices and programs are particularly effective in helping at-risk children-especially those living in the high-poverty areas of inner-cities.

There are several explanations for the overall limited results from Title I, Head Start, and other early childhood education programs of the past three decades. Our initial expectations of them were unrealistically high and our understanding of the nature and persistence of disadvantages among the poor was too simplistic. Too often well-meaning proponents of these programs understandably defended Title I and Head Start at all costs against hostile critics, but in the process were reluctant to admit that there are weaknesses and limitations in these programs.

Neither the executive branch nor the Congress has done a good job of ascertaining exactly what types of compensatory education services and programs are most effective for helping at-risk children. While there have been some useful national assessments of the overall impact of Head Start and Title I, usually these evaluations have not even attempted to ascertain in a rigorous and systemic manner which components of their programs have been successful. And although there have been a few good in-depth assessments of individual model programs, especially in the area of early childhood education, the Federal Government has devoted far too little attention and too few funds to develop and test alternative ways of delivering educational services to disadvantaged children.

The failure of the Federal Government to provide more guidance in educational program development and assessment is disappointing given its initial efforts in this area. When the Johnson administration created Title I and Head Start, it also established the Regional Educational Laboratories and the Research and Development Centers which were to produce precisely the type of large-scale program assessments that are needed. Moreover, the Nixon administration created the National Institute of Education (NIE) to sponsor long-term research and development initiatives to improve compensatory education programs. Unfortunately, neither NIE, nor its successor, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) produced much of the type and quality of research and development on specific educational practices and programs which now could be employed effectively by Title I and Head Start.

Most of the current research and development activities in OERI and the rest of the U.S. Department of Education do not include the systematic development and rigorous assessment of different models of compensatory education programs. The Department is beginning a valuable large-scale, individual-level analysis of the overall impact of the Title I Program and standards-based school reform. However, this study will not systematically ascertain which educational practices or model programs are effective. Nor will that evaluation focus on the most disadvantaged students those at-risk children who frequently move from one school to another. Equally disappointing is the fact that there are no plans to calculate the expenditures on those programs so that we will not be able to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of different interventions.

There are at least four major reasons for this discouraging state of affairs. One is the limited funds available for educational research and development during the

past three decades. The second is the misallocation of research and development funds to small, short-term projects that often have limited scientific validity and little practical usefulness. Third, the decreases in the number of distinguished researchers and evaluators in OERI and the Department of Education limits the ability of those agencies to design and monitor high quality research and development. And the fourth difficulty is the relatively low priority that has been assigned over the years by educators and policy makers to the development of effective educational programs to fight poverty.

The inability and unwillingness of the Federal Government to develop and assess systematically different compensatory education programs invites the exploration of alternate strategies. For example, this might be an area in which private foundations could play an important constructive role. But the U.S. Department of Education and OERI in particular should also develop, test, and disseminate information about appropriate methods and models of instruction by hiring more distinguished researchers and by targeting their existing monies more efficiently and effectively.

When existing Federal educational programs, well-intentioned though they may be, are not as effective as they could or should be, the problem is not just wasted tax dollars, but wasted chances to help those most in need. We raise the expectations of those who have the least to look forward to and then dash their hopes by failing to really help them escape from their poverty. The overall experiences with Title I and Head Start also have been frustrating for the American public who have been willing to sacrifice for the achievement of the lofty goals of Title I and Head Start, but now find that little real progress has been made. For many of the at-risk students who pass through these programs and who are not significantly helped, however, the results are more than just frustrating-they are precious opportunities lost forever.

Senator FRIST. MS. OCHOA.

STATEMENT OF CARLEY OCHOA, FORMER DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS, RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN RIVERSIDE, CA

Ms. OCHOA. My name is Carley Ochoa. And I just retired in June. So, I have been having a leisurely couple of months. But I worked for 32 years with Title I and Head Start and came in almost with the programs.

I would love to answer Senator Boxer's question about when was the last time you saw a child? I would say it was the day before yesterday.

So, you have now got in front of you a practitioner, and not a researcher, not a data collector but a person who has worked intimately with the programs in the Riverside Unified School District in Riverside, California.

I have worked with Title I since 1967. It was never my understanding that Title I one, all by itself, was to eradicate poverty in this country. It was instead funds specifically allocated to schools with high numbers of low-income children in order to deliver specific programs to children who were not keeping pace with their grade and age level peers.

In the beginning we saw something called remedial reading and math. We do not use the term remedial any more by the way. We do not think that just fixing children is enough. The goal was to remediate these children's so-called learning deficits so that they could catch up with higher achieving children. And in the 1960's, what did poverty look like?

Have the conditions for inner-city children in poverty improved since the inception of Title I? The answer is, of course, an obvious resounding, no. Greater numbers of American children now live in poverty and with far greater problems and challenges, even danger.