accumulate knowledge; and with IERI specifically, we hope that the findings from various disciplines will give rise to a "knowledge base" on teaching and learning.

(2) In general, what is your view of the merits of the NRC proposal for a Strategic Education Research Program? That is, is the idea sound and worthy of further study and the development of a detailed plan for implementation, or do you believe that there are fatal flaws in the framework and broad goals of the proposal?

I believe the Strategic Education Research Program (SERP) detailed in Improving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Education Research and its Utilization is definitely worthy of further study and consideration as to how it might be implemented. Several ideas embedded in SERP are important: the idea that we need to be strategic, that we should focus on questions of teaching and learning; and that our research is connected to "problem" areas identified by the field. These are very important ideas, and to that extent, SERP is of interest. Funds were provided to implement the planning phase of SERP in our FY2000 appropriations and we do anticipate that the NRC work could inform our planning for continued collaboration with NSF and NICHD.

(3) In general, is the framework for implementation and management of the Strategic Education Research Program feasible and likely to be successful? Will the four proposed networks on learning, motivation of students, transforming schools, and utilization of research lead to communication and cooperation among the diverse communities that need to be active participants in the program if it is to succeed?

I am uncertain whether the SERP framework is likely to be successful, but I think it is worthy of careful examination and consideration. Several issues, such as the proposed four networks, need to be worked out over the next few years. For example, I agree that these four focus areas are important issues to focus on, yet I understood that the Academy acknowledges that the questions are not set in stone. They plan to study the feasibility of the framework over the next year and a half and will help us learn whether these are the right questions around which to organize. I do appreciate SERP's overarching goal of increased involvement of policymakers and practitioners in research planning and view this involvement as critical to the strategy's success.

(4) Do you have a timetable for filling the currently vacant position of Research Advisor at OERI? What is it?

I hope to fill this position by the end of the summer.

(5) It was suggested at the hearing that education research programs should focus on addressing a small number of research questions instead of having 20-30 smaller-scale, uncoordinated projects. Yet the Department of Education's external advisory board, which reported its findings earlier this

year, was apparently unable to make the kinds of tough decisions that are needed. Who should make those decisions?

I see the role of the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board as advising us and helping us come to agreement on priorities. Our reauthorization proposal for OERI recognizes the continued need for an external research board with broad representation to suggest, consider, and approve priorities and standards for the agency's research. Such a role for an external, broadly representative body is one way to ensure that the research enterprise is independent and not politicized. Ultimately, however, the agency is responsible for these decisions and must make them not only in collaboration with the Board, but also taking into account the advice of experts from research, policymaker and practitioner communities whose needs we hope to serve.

Having said that, we have -- through our reauthorization proposal -- suggested the need to focus OERI's efforts on solving a limited number of important problems, yet we do not see the need to restrict the number of projects that would cumulate knowledge in these identified areas. The broad priorities identified in reauthorization include: (1) improving teaching and learning of reading, writing, and mathematics for all students, especially for those most at risk of educational failure; (2) aiding schools, districts, and states with reform efforts, particularly standards-based reforms, school choice, teacher quality improvements, and school safety reforms; and (3) incorporating new knowledge from research from a variety of disciplines -- such as research on brain development, information technology, organizational theory, and student motivation education strategies, practices, and policies.

to design effective

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee, and for this opportunity to respond to additional questions based on that testimony. Please let me know if you need further information.

Sincerely,

C. Kent McGuire, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary

Statement of Dr. G. Reid Lyon

Chief

Child Development and Behavior Branch

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Institutes of Health

House Science Committee
Subcommittee on Basic Research
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Education Research: Is What We Don't Know Hurting Our Children?

October 26, 1999

Introduction

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Reid Lyon, Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I am pleased to have been asked to address your Subcommittee on the current state of educational research and the impact of recent developments in neuroscience, cognition, and developmental psychology on education, as well as the contributions of NICHD to the Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI). The NICHD considers that teaching and learning in today's schools is not only a critical educational and social issue, but also is a significant public health issue. Research has shown that if children do not learn how use language to communicate ideas and perspectives, to read and write, to calculate and reason mathematically, and to solve problems, their opportunities for a fulfilling and rewarding life are seriously compromised. Specifically, in our NICHD longitudinal studies, we have learned that school failure has devastating consequences with respect to self esteem, social development, and opportunities for advanced education and meaningful employment.

NICHD Research Efforts Relevant to Education, Teaching and School Learning

The NICHD has developed and supports a large research network consisting of 42 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia that are working in a concerted multidisciplinary fashion to identify: (1) the critical environmental, experiential, cognitive, genetic, neurobiological, and instructional conditions that foster strong reading and writing development; (2) the risk factors that predispose children to difficulties in learning to read and write; and (3) the instructional approaches and procedures that foster optimal reading development, as well as practices and procedures for preventing and remediating reading and writing difficulties.

This research effort has been sustained over the past 34 years, since its inception in 1965, and has been designed to ensure: programmatic coherence and communication among scientists at all 42 sites, accumulation of converging evidence using multiple research methodologies to inform assessment and instructional efforts in an optimal fashion, testing of specific theories and assumptions that guide educational practices, and the translation of basic research findings to classroom settings and practices.

Because many of the studies conducted by scientists in the NICHD Reading and Learning Disabilities Research Network have been devoted to understanding conditions critical to the normal development of oral language, reading, and written language skills, 21,860 children with robust reading and writing skills have been studied, some for as long as 13 years. Likewise, significant programmatic effort has also been deployed to understand why many children have difficulties learning to read and write. To address this issue, 12,641 individuals with reading and writing difficulties and disorders have been studied, many also for as long as 13 years.

Moreover, in 1985, the NICHD, building on the knowledge gained from studies addressing reading development and disorders, designed an initiative to develop and apply early identification methods to pinpoint those children during kindergarten and the first-grade who are at risk for reading failure. These studies have provided the foundation for several ongoing prevention, early identification, and instructional studies under way at 12 sites in North America. Since 1985, 7,669 children (including 1,423 good readers) have participated in these reading instruction studies, and 3,600 youngsters are currently enrolled in longitudinal intervention studies in Texas, Washington, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Colorado, California, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C. These studies involve the participation of 1,012 classroom teachers, working in 266 schools and 985 classrooms. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to submit a more detailed summary of the NICHD Reading Research Program for inclusion in the hearing record.

This year, the NICHD designed and initiated a systematic research effort to identify the instructional conditions under which children whose first language is Spanish are most likely to succeed in developing English oral language, reading, and literacy skills. Similar to the studies conducted in the English language Reading Research Program, this initiative incorporates a multidisciplinary approach utilizing concepts and methodologies from neuroscience, cognitive and developmental psychology, educational psychology, and reading instruction. The Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) within the Department of Education is collaborating with the NICHD in this effort.

In the past five years, the NICHD has also developed a similar initiative to identify critical cognitive, linguistic, neurobiological, experiential, and instructional factors and conditions critical to the development of mathematics calculation and mathematics reasoning skills. We anticipate that this initiative will utilize collaborations with both OERI and the National Science Foundation.

Conceptual and Methodological Characteristics of the NICHD Research Programs
Relevant to Education, Teaching and Learning

Extensive and Long-term Collaborations With the Scientific Community -- The research initiatives described above were developed and designed in close collaboration with scientists in education, psychology, linguistics, special education, pediatrics, neurology, genetics, neuroscience, reading and written language, mathematics, demographics/epidemiology, and quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. The purpose of these collaborations is to identify critical gaps in the scientific knowledge base concerned with (1) oral language, reading, writing, and mathematics development, (2) difficulties and disorders in acquiring these academic skills, (3) the development and application of efficacious instructional-teaching approaches, methods, and strategies, and (4) the development of research designs that enhance both basic and applied research in these complex educational areas. Scientists from the external research community meet on a formal basis with NICHD program scientists to determine what is known,