September 6-7, 2005 Minutes of Meeting
Location:
80 F St. NW, Room 100
Washington, DC 20208-7564
Members Present:
Jonathan Baron
Beth Ann Bryan
Carol A. D'Amico
James Davis
Robert Granger, Chairman
Eric A. Hanushek
Jerry Lee
Bobby Lopez
Richard Milgram
Sally E. Shaywitz
Joseph K. Torgesen
Herbert J. Walberg
Members Absent:
F. Philip Handy
Caroline M. Hoxby
Ex Officio Members Present:
Grover J. Whitehurst, Director, IES
Phoebe H. Cottingham, Commissioner, National Center for Education Evaluation
Barbara Foorman, Commissioner, National Center for Education Research
Edward J. Kame'enui, Commissioner, National Center for Special Education
Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Executive Director: Sonia Chessen
Designated Federal Official: Mary Grace Lucier
IES Staff Present:
Sue Betka, Deputy for Administration and Policy, IES
Lynn Okagaki, Deputy for Science, IES
Ricky Takai
Mike Bowler
Mark Schneider
Members of the Public Present:
Marcia Knutson, NEKIA
Frederic A. Mosher, Carnegie
Andrew Stringer, Washington Partners
Sandi Wurtz, AERA
Sarah Sparks
Lawrence Feinberg
Paul Kimmelman
Sally Shake, Education Legislative Services
Dan Blair, CEC
Nancy Segal, ACT
Lucy Gettman, OSU
Patty McCallister, Council of Graduate Schools
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. The roll was called and the presence of a quorum was established. The chairman thanked the members for coming to the meeting on the Tuesday after Labor Day and introduced the members of the public in attendance. He acknowledged the contributions made to the Board by Carrie Mathers, former assistant to the IES director, prior to her return to her university, and other IES staff. He thanked Mary Grace Lucier, David Berthiaume, and Gloria Mounts for the adminstative and legal support they provided to the Board over the summer.
He then introduced the new executive director of the Board, Sonia Chessen, formerly the chief of staff to the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Chairman outlined the order of procedure for the afternoon's meeting, namely, to get information on the operational implications of the IES research priorities. On the next day, the Board would examine the revisions to the proposed priorities that were made subsequent to public comment and vote on the priorities, leaving until the next meeting a consideration of the technical and peer review system and other issues the Board might wish to take up. A motion to approve the agenda was approved.
The Chairman described his activities on the Board's behalf since the last meeting and encouraged the members likewise to make use of opportunities to become more familiar with the technical and peer review process at the policy level. Sonia Chessen briefly described her prior work in youth policy and her hopes for future interactions with the members.
Remarks of IES Director
Dr. Whitehurst mentioned some pressing items before the Department, principally an action plan for schools affected by Hurricane Katrina. He introduced the new commissioner of the National Center for Special Education Research, Edward Kame'enui, and the President's nominee for commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, Mark Schneider. He provided background on the following topics:
- The report of the National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth;
- A document to be made available to UNESCO to support the decade on literacy;
- The evaluation of Title One and the re-competition of the regional educational laboratories by the National Center on Education Evaluation;
- The statewide longitudinal data systems grants competition and the National Adult Literacy Survey in the National Center for Education Statistics;
- An inaugural symposium to be conducted by the National Center for Special Education Research; and
- Planning for a new Board meeting facility.
Dr. Whitehurst then provided information on the proposed research priorities and how the priorities will be used in making decisions about funding. He focused on the IES budget, programs, and funding authorities (see attachments) and answered members' questions. He described the priorities as having been organized by a matrix of outcomes, such as Core Academic Outcomes and Social Transition Outcomes, that will inform planning and future investments. The priorities, in short, define the areas in which IES will focus attention, resources, and evaluations.
The meeting adjourned at 5 p.m.
Location:
80 F St. NW, Room 100
Washington, DC 20208-7564
Members Present:
Jonathan Baron
Beth Ann Bryan
Carol A. D'Amico
James Davis
Robert Granger
Eric A. Hanushek
Caroline M. Hoxby
Jerry Lee
Bobby Lopez
Richard Milgram
Sally E. Shaywitz
Joseph K. Torgesen
Herbert J. Walberg
Member Absent:
F. Philip Handy
Ex Officio Members Present:
Grover J. Whitehurst, Director, IES
Phoebe H. Cottingham, Commissioner, National Center for Education Evaluation
Barbara Foorman, Commissioner, National Center for Education Research
Duane Alexander, M.D., Director, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Robert A. Kominski, representing Charles Louis Kincannon, Director of the Census
Kathleen P. Utgoff, Commissioner of Labor Statistics
Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Executive Director: Sonia Chessen
Designated Federal Official: Mary Grace Lucier
IES Staff Present:
Sue Betka, Deputy Director for Administration and Policy, IES
Lynn Okagaki, Deputy Director for Sciences, IES
Ricky Takai
Mike Bowler
Ellie McCutcheon
Members of the Public Present:
Vaughn K. Lauer, ETS
L. Gettman, OSU
Paul Kimmelman
Marcie Knutson, NEKIA
Debra Viadero, Education Week
Sandi Wurtz, AERA
Deb Ziegler, CEC
Frederic A. Mosher
Sarah Sparks, Education Daily
Sally Shake, Education Legislative Services
Chairman Robert Granger called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Opening Remarks/Actions
Dr. Granger asked the Designated Federal Official to call the roll and establish a quorum for the meeting. A quorum was present.
The Chairman discussed his review and reactions to the public comments on the proposed research priorities. The comments particularly addressed special education and the need for more research into the identification of children with disabilities; the broadening of the focus on academic content beyond math, reading, and science; the distinction between fundamental versus applied knowledge, the factors that influence the use of research; and the context outside the school. He reminded the members that after the Board approves the priorities, the IES Director will publish an action plan for responding to the priorities and that plan will go out to the public for a 60-day comment period.
Presentation of the Revised Priorities
Dr. Whitehurst explained that he had met with the Deputy Director and Commissioners of IES to consider all the comments that were received from the public. One result was the addition of a fourth long-term goal, the gaining of fundamental understanding of the processes that underlie variations in the effectiveness of education, programs, practices, policies, and approaches Another revision added material to indicate that IES has as a priority efforts to promote and enable the use of research results. A further revision focuses on the need to address children and students with disabilities and the dispositions and functional skills that relate to success in school and later life. A clarification was added to explain that reading and writing were priorities not as separate subjects but as broadly construed. In reference to the statement that the priorities emphasized conditions under the control of the education system, Dr. Whitehurst clarified that this was not to be narrowly construed as only those things directly in control of district or school-level staff. Rather, the reference was to the full range of education policy and practice. A further revision clarified that the term "education work force" included all who are responsible for delivering education services.
IES sees as a priority the support of doctoral and post doctoral training to produce a new generation of educational researchers that will build capacity in the field.
Following discussion and deliberation, the Board approved a motion to approve the revised priorities document.
Plan for Examining Technical and Peer Review System
Members were given an outline of IES Scientific and Technical Review Procedures (see attachment) which discusses two types of peer review (for reports produced by IES and for applications for funding). The outline will be the basis for a manual describing the procedures, which will be submitted for Board approval. Members were invited to observe these procedures in action during the meetings of the peer review panels that would take place on October 23 and 24. Members would also have the opportunity to see the electronic system that IES has established for managing peer review online.
Lynn Okagaki, Deputy Director for Science, explained the review procedures, which are modeled on those in use by scientific journals. Members made suggestions as to how they would like to review the process or to see it in action before the January meeting. Dr. Okagaki further explained the process for grant application review.
The Chairman encouraged members of Board committees to avail themselves of the opportunity to see at first hand the operations of the peer review process in the IES Centers.
Setting a Focus for Future Board Activities
To assist the Board in setting its priorities for future work, the Chairman reviewed the Board's legislative charge for its mandatory and advisory functions. He then called for discussion regarding the Board's work in 2006. Suggestions were made about strategic coordination with other Federal research agencies and topics of opportunity for 2005-2006. Other topics of special interest to some Board members included knowledge utilization, the identification of areas that are underserved by research, and an exploration of things that might be done to strengthen support for IES. With regard to the Family Education Records and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Director mentioned that the Board was uniquely qualified to speak for the needs of the educational research community in efforts to improve the legislation.
Recognizing that some members needed to leave early due to other commitments, the Chairman proposed that a summary of the session's discussion be prepared for members to review in order to plan a focus for future meetings. The Executive Director agreed to prepare the summary and circulate it to the Board for comment. Further discussion centered on the reports called for in the authorizing legislation, an annual report assessing the effectiveness of IES in carrying out its priorities and an interim report with the Board's recommendations that would enhance the ability of IES to carry out its priorities and mission. The Executive Director agreed to investigate the Board's reporting requirements to make sure they are fulfilled.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
The National Board for Education Sciences is a Federal advisory committee chartered by Congress, operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); 5 U.S.C., App.2). The Board provides advice to the Director on the policies of the Institute of Education Sciences. The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent the views of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or disseminated by the Department of Education.