A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Role

As described in law, the role of the Board is closely intertwined with that of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. It is, by intent, not independent, separately conducting its own policy-setting activities in the manner that the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) does for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). It has policy responsibilities—for example, approval power for priorities and standards—in addition to advisory ones, but collaboration with the Assistant Secretary and reaching out to stakeholders are specified modes of operation. The Board selects its Executive Director, but any other staff assigned to the Board are provided at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary. The responsibilities set out in law can be grouped into setting priorities, approving standards, conducting review functions, providing liaison with the field and the public, and improving the system.

Program priorities functions include:

• Working collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary to determine priorities that guide the work of the Office.
• Reviewing and approving the research priorities plan developed by the Assistant Secretary in collaboration with the Board. (Note: This is reciprocal in the law. Language mandating the research priorities plan requires that the Assistant Secretary collaborate with the Board in its preparation and must submit it to the Board for "review and approval.")
• Recommending missions for the national research centers by identifying topics that require long-term, sustained, systematic, programmatic, and integrated research and dissemination efforts.

Standards setting functions include:

• Reviewing and approving standards for the conduct and evaluation of all research, development, and dissemination carried out under the auspices of OERI. (Note: The Assistant Secretary is mandated to develop standards "in consultation with the Board" and must submit them to the Board for "review and approval." The law specifies three types of standards: those for reviewing grant applications and cooperative agreements; those for evaluating performance under OERI funds; and those for designating exemplary and promising programs.)

Review and evaluation functions include:

• Reviewing, evaluating, and publicly commenting upon the implementation of Board recommended priorities and policies by the Department and the Congress.
• Reviewing and commenting on proposed contracts, grants, and cooperative agreement proposals exceeding $500,000 in any single fiscal year or an aggregate of $1 million. (Note: This is a strong provision. The Assistant Secretary "may not solicit any contract bid or issue a request for proposals or applications for any grant or cooperative agreement" exceeding $500,000 in a single year or $1 million in total unless the Board has had an opportunity to provide written comments on consistency with the Research Priorities Plan and soundness and adequacy of the methodology.)
• Providing guidance to Congress on its oversight of OERI.

Liaison functions include:

• Advising the United States on the federal educational research and development effort.
• Recommending ways to strengthen active partnerships among researchers, educational practitioners, librarians, and policymakers.
• Soliciting advice and information from the educational field to define research needs and suggestions for research topics.
• Involving educational practitioners, particularly teachers, in identifying research topics.

Finally, the following functions describe a Board role to strengthen the education R&D system:

• Advise the Assistant Secretary on activities to improve the coordination of educational research, development, and dissemination within the Department and the federal government. (Note: Again, the Assistant Secretary's mandate is reciprocal. The mandate for coordination of education research within the Department and across the government shall be done "with the advice and assistance of the Board.")
• Make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of persons qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of research institute directors (after making special efforts to identify qualified women and minorities and soliciting and giving due consideration to recommendations from professional associations and interested members of the public).
• Advise and make recommendations to the President with respect to individuals who are qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary.
• Recommend ways to strengthen interaction and collaboration between the various program offices and components.
• Recommend ways to translate research findings into workable, adaptable models for use in policy and in practice across different settings.
• Recommend incentives to draw talented young people into the field of educational research, including scholars from disadvantaged and minority groups.

Several themes are clearly and repeatedly set out in these responsibilities. The Board is a policy group, given explicit responsibilities for approving research priorities, approving standards, and commenting on proposed funding awards exceeding $1 million. The Board performs these functions in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary is required to collaborate with the Board. The Assistant Secretary, for example, prepares the research priorities plan, but the Board collaborates and must approve the plan as well. (As noted below, the Board is undertaking several activities so it can be a contributing partner in this work.)

Another theme is the Board's role in communicating, linking, soliciting views, forging consensus, and building partnerships. These emphases can be traced directly to the 1992 NRC Committee report, and they reflect the 1994 congressional emphasis on the Board?s role as a bridge builder between researchers and educators, one that could function across changes in administration and through changes in particular policy emphases for education. A third theme is education research standard setting, or quality. The Board was given a formal approval role in this area that congressional sponsors viewed as critical for credibility of education research. The eight ex-officio members, and the many statutory references to work of other federal agencies, emphasize the breadth of focus sought by the law's sponsors. This wide span also is apparent in the "advising the United States" provision and the "coordination" activities assigned to the Board that are intended to improve the functioning of the "system" for conduct of education research and development. The Board's activities to implement these functions are described in the sections that follow.

[Purpose of the Board]

[Accomplishments of the Board to Date]