![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
January 1999
The National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (NERPPB) plays a critical role in federal education research. Many of the Board's responsibilities are carried out in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. The Board attempts to make this relationship a constructive one that advances education research and strengthens its use by teachers and administrators in local schools. This document describes the role and work of the Board. It discusses:
Most federal agencies have groups of external consultants constituted in various ways to provide advice, help develop policy, or, in some respects, to govern. Since establishment of the National Institute of Education (NIE) in 1972, the education research agencies of the U.S. Department of Education and its predecessor, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), have had such a body.
An influential study, Research and Education Reform: Roles for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, published in 1992 by the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on the Federal Role in Education Research made three recommendations that influenced Congress in creating the NERPPB. First, it proposed a 24-member policymaking board—one-third of whose members would be distinguished researchers, and two-thirds practitioners, parents, employers, policymakers, and "others who have made noteworthy contributions to excellence in education." The members would be appointed by the President for 6-year terms; the President would seek advice on appointments from professional organizations, and the chair would be elected by the board members. The Committee's report argued that a board was needed that was different from the type previously had by NIE and OERI. It sought focus and stability. Contrasting the advantages of their proposal over a purely advisory group, the Committee said that "persons of accomplishment are more likely to agree to serve on a (policymaking) board and . . . a policymaking board is likely to be more influential." The board would differ from others by its size (24 members), diversity, and limitation to "people who have already proven their ability to make important contributions to research on education or to excellence in education. . . ." The board would monitor the health, needs, and accomplishments of OERI's research and development (R&D) work and "all federally sponsored education R&D"; report periodically to the President and Congress about both; and guide the agency?s agenda-setting.
The second NRC Committee recommendation was that the board should establish a process to develop priorities for OERI's agenda that involve active participation of various groups concerned with education. It would not set OERI's agenda on the basis of its members? views, but "would distill priorities from the needs and capabilities of the country after wide consultation with those concerned about education. The priority-setting process will be messy and at times confusing, but only through such a process can there be an agenda that truly reflects the country's needs." The Committee proposed 5-, 10-, and 15-year national research plans, such as those used at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The agenda-setting process also was to "reflect the capabilities of the education R&D enterprise."
Third, the NRC Committee's version of an education research board would publish a biennial report on federally funded education R&D—its accomplishments, program activities and funding levels throughout the government, unmet needs—and make recommendations for future directions. The emphasis in the biennial report would be on synthesizing "what has been learned from education research, how it has extended prior knowledge, implications for practice and school reform, the development and assistance activities . . ." across all federal involvement in education research.
The NRC Committee did not want to raise expectations beyond credibility. While it claimed that the board is "modeled closely on the National Science Board," it also noted that "there are no assurances that the same structure will work effectively for OERI. . . . OERI's board would be making decisions related to education, a topic with which almost everyone has prolonged experience and strong opinions . . . its success is not guaranteed, but the alternatives are less promising."
The Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994
The 1994 legislation reauthorizing the Office of Educational Research and Improvement created the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. It has 15 public members (rather than the 24 proposed by the NRC Committee) appointed by the Secretary (rather than the President), terms are for 6 years, and the Board selects its own chair. One-third of the members are researchers in education "nominated by the National Academy of Sciences," one-third are "outstanding school-based professional educators," and the final third are "individuals . . . knowledgeable about the education needs of the United States." All are to be "by virtue of their training, experience, and background in education research and the education professions, . . . exceptionally qualified to appraise the educational research and development effort of the United States."
In addition to the requirement that research members be nominated by the National Academy of Sciences, the Secretary is required to solicit nominations from specific interest groups such as the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Parent-Teachers Association, American Library Association, American Association of School Administrators, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Indian School Board Association, Association of Community Tribal Schools, and the National Indian Education Association. The 1994 law also designated eight non-voting ex-officio members from the U.S. Departments of Defense and of Labor, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, the Office of Indian Education Programs of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Librarian of Congress.
The Board is given numerous responsibilities in education research planning, particularly in reaching out to stakeholder groups. The NRC Committee?s concept of a "biennial report" is assigned to the Assistant Secretary, rather than to the Board, although the Board may provide its own "comments and recommendations" on the report. The Committee's emphasis on education research across the government, rather than narrowly limited to OERI, is preserved throughout the 1994 law. The Board's specific functions are detailed in the next section.
The legislation closely follows recommendations of the NRC Committee in the creation of the Board. Among other things, the Board is to connect the interests of educators and policymakers with those of researchers. Its perspective is to be government-wide.
[Role of the Board]