A larger and larger body of research is accumulating about how the brain works and, more specifically, how people learn. Neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, developmental biologists, and even computer scientists, to name just a few, are making fascinating discoveries about how the brain develops and the cellular and molecular underpinnings of learning. This research is I think tremendously exciting, but it is not clear to me how or whether this type of research has a meaningful impact on education practice. As this new body of research develops, we have to build a stronger bridge between the new discoveries and what actually happens in the classroom.

I turned on the radio at 3:00 the other morning and heard a rerun of Dr. Laura. She was advocating that it is important that two parents be there and make a commitment that they are going to raise that offspring, that child in the best possible way. And as I have met with educators and teachers around my 7th Congressional District in Michigan, I think there is almost unanimous agreement that the impact of the supportive parents who do the right kind of encouraging, plus require homework is probably one of the keys that has resulted in the most success as those teachers evaluate those students that have a better chance of making it.

I think there are a lot of questions and issues, many of them are not new. Certainly, there are a lot of efforts underway to address some of them. Dr. Laura's suggestion of that parent commitment may have done more to encourage better learning and better education than possibly a lot of the research that we are doing. Is it possible to look into research areas that somehow do a better job of teaching, educating, and motivating of parents in their effort of being there for 18 hours a day encouraging their kids.

Today, we have invited representatives from three Federal agencies involved in doing or sponsoring education research to tell us about the efforts they are undertaking to bolster and improve education research, in part by working together on a multi-agency initiative. We will also hear about a new plan put forth by the National Research Council to address these same issues.

I look forward to hearing from our panel today about what we are doing right, what we could be doing better, what still remains to be done when it comes to education research. There is no question that Eddie Bernice Johnson and I feel that education and how we pursue education is key to our future success in this country and certainly in the world.

With that, I would call on one of our education enthusiasts in the United States Congress, Representative Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Permit me to join you in welcoming our witnesses. We are delighted that you have come.

In 1995, the President's Committee on Advisors on Science and Technology formed a panel to study applications of technology and K through 12 education. Two years ago the Science Committee received testimony on the findings of the study from David Shaw, who chaired the panel. Two major themes that emerged from the Shaw panel's report were: inadequacy of education research funding, and the absence of activities focused on connecting research to effective learning strategies in the classroom.

The Shaw panel described the anemic funding for education research, pointing out that less than one-tenth of one percent of the national K through 12 education budget is allocated for research. It is recommended ramping up the national investment in education research to $1.5 billion per year. Reasonable people may disagree on the appropriate level for funding education research, but the current level of education research is lacking. We cannot hope to educate tomorrow's employees and managers without more basic research into what works in the classroom. Our technology based society is under constant change and additional research will help us master these changes.

Another prominent recommendation of the Shaw panel was for a major Federal investment in large-scale, rigorous, well-controlled, empirical research aimed at determining which educational approaches are most effective in practice. The Shaw report was a major impetus for the Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI) that was initiated this year and will be reviewed at today's hearing.

I believe that establishing this Education Research Initiative is commendable, and I look forward to hearing about its status. But I cannot help noting that the first year's funding for IERI totals only $28 million, with no contribution at all from one partner, the National Institutes of Health. We simply cannot afford to lapse back, and we cannot afford to go forward. This is a very small start toward the Shaw report's call for a major research initiative and for a greatly expanded research investment.

Of course, funding is only one part of the equation for instituting an effective program of education research; and by effective, I mean research that will actually result in improved learning in classrooms across the Nation. Current education research activities appear to be uncoordinated, and practitioners largely ignore the research findings. Adding money to do more of the same does not appear to be a productive approach.

Consequently, I am very interested in learning more about the proposal from the National Research Council for a Strategic Education Research Program. The scale and focus of the proposed program seem to be consistent with achieving the goal of identifying the policies and practices that will lead to improved student learning in all schools. The question is whether the framework of the proposed research program is feasible and will lead to the kinds of collaborations required among researchers, practitioners, funding agents, and policymakers.

The importance of K through 12 education to the Nation's future is without question, and the national investment of well over $300 billion per year is consistent with this importance. In order to derive the maximum benefit from this substantial investment, we must end the apparent disconnect between educational practice and basic research on human development and learning. Educational reform will have a much greater chance to succeed if informed by qualified knowledge of what works.

I congratulate the Chairman for calling this hearing. He and I both are very interested in the future of our Nation and we cannot show that, nor can we express that without thinking about the quality of education which it offers. So I am pleased to join him in

welcoming our witnesses once again. There is no subject more important for the subcommittee to consider. I look forward to our discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you.

And without objection, all additional opening statements submitted by the subcommittee members will be inserted into the record. Without objection, so ordered. But also I would like to invite the members present, Representative Woolsey, Representative Rivers, Bob Etheridge, and certainly our Vice Chairman of our full Science Committee, if you would like to make a one minute statement in this area and then follow up.

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. Very briefly, the Speaker and the Chairman of the Science Committee have given me a special assignment, to try to improve math/science education in the United States. That is a very daunting task. But in response to the question of this hearing, Education Research: Is What We Don't Know Hurting our Children? The answer is, yes, of course. Not only that, it is hurting us and it is hurting our country. I believe it is an issue of that importance.

I think it is also extremely important as part of trying to improve science and math education in this country, we have to improve our research efforts so that we know what we are doing. I cannot imagine any industrial operation with an annual budget of $300 billion which would spend just $30 million on research. That is 0.01 percent. What company could stay in business if it spent only 0.01 percent of its effort on research? That is the problem that we face. I yield back.

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman from California, Representative Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this hearing today. Congressman Ehlers and I are part of a very small group of members that are on both this committee and the education committee, so we find ourselves working on the same things together, which is always good I think. In this case, that is learning what our children need, and particularly from my perspective, learning what young women need to do in order to go into the math, science, technology, and electronics manufacturing fields, the high-tech fields that pay a livable wage. So I am very interested today to see if any of your research has gotten to that question of why young women are dropping out of those fields way too early and not being interested enough, and therefore we are going after more H-1 visas to fill the jobs that pay the really good wages in this Nation.

So thank you for being here. I will have my ears open for that and the other input you are going to give us. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Representative Rivers.

Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to hear the testimony from each of you today. This is a huge issue. But given that there are four members from Michigan on this panel, only three of us here right now but the fourth may well show up, we are particularly pleased to have Dr. Vinovskis here representing the maze and blue. I welcome you and am very pleased to see you. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. And Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for holding this hearing. I also thank the panelists who are here. Mr. Ehlers touched on it a few minutes ago, but I want to reinforce it if I may. Too many times we talk about places where we have good educational opportunities for young people, they are doing well in isolated areas or math and science may be strong. If you are talking about education for all, what we really need is a broad-based longitudinal study in this country that has deep credibility with the public. We always talk about scale, I've been there, I've seen it, but until we have a national study that has the kind of credibility that the public will buy, we are going to continue to struggle.

The final point I want to make is that it is important that we have this hearing, it is important that we come to some resolution, but we have to have a mechanism in place when we finish, rather than just have the good words and sound, we have a mechanism in place where we continue this research over a long period of time. Too many times the two things that get cut in budgets, whether it be Federal, State, or local, is, one, research goes first, and the second thing we cut out is staff development or retraining for our staff that is badly needed all across this country. They are always the first two things to go.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit a statement for the record.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you.

Any other additional comments from any subcommittee member will be inserted in the record if they present it in writing in the next five days.

We have a very distinguished group of panelists today. At this time, I would like to take a couple of minutes to introduce them. Dr. Judith Sunley serves as the Assistant Director for Directorate for Education and Human Resources at the National Science Foundation (NSF). She will be telling about NSF's role in education research and the Foundation's role as the lead agency in the Interagency Education Research Initiative.

Dr. C. Kent McGuire is the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education. He will be describing some of the education research efforts within the Department.

Dr. G. Reid Lyon is the Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. From what I understand, Dr. Lyon's division has been engaged in some very interesting work on education research and how people learn. We will I hope be hearing about some of that research.

Dr. Alexandra K. Wigdor is the Associate Executive Director of the Commission of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education at the National Resource Council. She is here to tell us about a recent report issued by the NRC called "Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Education Research and Its Utilization."

And finally, Dr. Maris A. Vinovskis joins us from the University of Michigan, like Lynn says, our home State, where he is a professor with the Department of History in the School of Public Policy. While Dr. Vinovskis represents the perspective of the outsider

at this hearing, he was a former research adviser to the Office of Research and Improvement and so knows well the system.

Welcome. Thank you all for being here today. We look forward to hearing your testimony. And as I think our staff informed you, it is the tradition of all subcommittees and the full Science Committee to have you take an oath. So if you would stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth and the whole truth, so help you God?

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]

Chairman SMITH. Let the record show that the answer is in the affirmative.

Your full written testimony will be entered into the record. So as best you can, please try to limit your comments to five minutes. You see the red and the green light, and when the yellow light comes on you have got 30 seconds to go, and the red light means you should get it wrapped up.

We will start with you, Dr. Sunley.

TESTIMONY OF JUDITH S. SUNLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ARLINGTON, VA

Dr. SUNLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the very important issue of education research. This topic is timely and represents and vital and strategic national interest.

The public needs to know what works effectively in educating youngsters, with a degree of certainty and closure. Large-scale reforms and improvements cost time and money, and in the case of failure or limited success, the loss becomes measured in missed opportunities, posing a bleaker outlook for children and for the Nation's economic and social well-being.

But neither the past levels of funding for education research nor the localized and unique characteristics of the education system have lent themselves to adaptation of traditional educational research methodologies. The PCAST Report, mentioned by Ms. Johnson, has stimulated new opportunities in funding for large-scale studies. They will help produce findings of sufficient generalizability to enable sustained and large-scale improvement in student learning. These results could make education research useful in public discourse and policymaking in ways that do not now exist. NSF is significantly reshaping and upgrading its education research to help face this national challenge. In fiscal year 1999, NSF devoted approximately $60 million to educational research. Core elements of NSF's program include: Research in education policy and practice (REPP), which is NSF's principal vehicle to solicit research across the spectrum; support for learning and intelligent systems through NSF's Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence program which included collaborative research in learning technology centers; a number of activities that are national or international in scope, including co-funding for the TIMSS study and now the repeat TIMSS study; and support for work at the National Research Council; and, finally, the Interagency Education Research Initiative which NSF supported in Fiscal Year 1999 for the first time.