They then looked at the criteria and determined whether or not the criteria met the unique needs of each of their States. They then sent it to our office, and we had coordinated with the council of school officers here in Washington who gave us criteria that was given to them in any way, shape or fashion that was different from the criteria established by the national office. They brought in from each of the regions a coordinator who sat down with us and worked through with the final criteria that were satisfactory to the national office and to the State departments of education. You should know that your State school officer specifically came in with his own staff to talk with us about the State of Kansas and the needs he had begun to assess that were compatible to the strategy we were developing. One of the beauties is that it has compatibility both with the State departments of education efforts in many, many places, as well as local education efforts. Many people have been saying over and over again that one of the major problems of the office of education is that while we were focusing on the same target, there were 13 or 14 different programs that were focusing on one small segment of a need in a local area. By providing a strategy whereby it could be put together and prescribed at the local level, it made more sense.

I think you will find your State school officer is working specifically on a regional basis so he will not be looking at one area, but at a cluster of areas, but he will be looking at the dollars coming from the Federal office, as well as the State government.

Mr. SHRIVER. That sounds real good.

Dr. DAVIES. After the first selection, which we think will be made this spring in the later part of fiscal year 1973, we will identify an additional 100 school districts so they can get started.

NO CUTBACKS FOR SCHOOLS NOT IN RENEWAL SITES

Mr. SHRIVER. In terms of Federal assistance now going to all schools under the programs which would be consolidated in this proposal, would schools which are not chosen as experimental sites suffer cutbacks or decreases for fiscal 1973?

Dr. DAVIES. No, not at all. The only programs we are talking about are discretionary programs. They have no influence on the State grant programs at all.

Dr. SMITH. I think you are asking about the discretionary dollars themselves. We have developed a multiyear funding strategy, and the basic reason was primarily because it became very clear to us when Dr. Davies was associate commissioner that a 1-year grant did not provide for that site the opportunity to really develop a program.

He set up a multiyear multifunding program which allowed for 3 years. From fiscal 1970 through 1972 every project is in place. The advantage or the reason we are in a position to show the $25 million is because those projects that have gone through the 3-year multiyear funding cycle and would have been discontinued anyhow as a project, is now available to go into the educational renewal strategy.

It is our hope that in 1974, as the 1971, 1972, and 1973 projections that have the same multiyear commitment funding are completed, we will then have that much more money to go into the educational renewal site should it be possible for it to happen.

75-876 O 72 pt. 2 48

INSTRUCTIONAL PACKAGE FOR RIGHT-TO-READ PROGRAM

Mr. SHRIVER. You say on page 8 that you have in hand some instructional method for the right to read. Is this what you mean, this package?

Mr. FLOOD. What is this package?

Dr. HOLLOWAY. This is a package of material validated on specific programs that worked.

Mr. FLOOD. The witness shows me a box about a foot square called the right to read target for 1970's, "project conquest."

I see when I open the tab it reads "implementing project conquest.” It contains an audio cassette, program materials, different slides from these cassettes, as well as materials having to do with the various steps, one, two, and three of understanding project conquest.

Suppose someone wants it; how do you get it? I never knew it existed. Who knows about these things? Do you have a lot of them? Dr. HOLLOWAY. Yes, we do.

Mr. FLOOD. What is this guide rule? It looks like a slide rule.

Dr. HOLLOWAY. It will help the districts decide which ones of the models they would like to review for possible information.

Mr. FLOOD. I have it in my hand. Who is going to tell us how to translate this thing?

Dr. HOLLOWAY. They have all come to Washington and have all been exposed to it and know about it. We send it to each one of them. It has various information about the various model programs.

Dr. BURCHINAL. We are working with Dr. Holloway and her program. After the districts have used these boxes this spring in her initial program, the initial right-to-read programs, we will have them redeveloped so that they are even better presented and then made available to all school districts in the country in at least two ways: One, through as Dr. Marland indicated, commercial publication, and then second, this will be deposited in the State departments of educaiton for use by their consultants in those information service units that become part of the extension agent system.

Mr. FLOOD. Let me ask this: How does my superintendent of schools get into this act? Does he know about this?

Dr. BURCHINAL. He will know about it in two ways: There is within the State department of education in Pennsylvania a project which we have funded. That project allows the State of Pennsylvania to have a service unit into which we will put all materials like this, not only reading

Mr. FLOOD. The first move is up to him. It is available if he is awake. Dr. BURCHINAL. He will be told about it in person.

Mr. FLOYD. By whom?

Dr. BURCHINAL. There are 29 intermediate districts in Pennsyl vania. One person is being trained this year so he knows to go to the Pennsylvania State Information Service unit. He will know about these. He will be trained in using these and he can present it in person to his superintendent.

Mr. FLOOD. Thank you.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN RENEWAL SITES AND PROJECTS UNDER TITLE III OF ESEA

Mr. SHRIVER. How do the proposed renewal sites differ from the sites that can be funded under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Act?

Dr. DAVIES. There will be some similarities and some of the projects funded under title III of the act you mentioned.

The thing that will characterize all the renewal sites is that they will be based on a needs assessment done by the local people and will be comprehensive in that they can do all grade levels and all kinds of educational changes.

Some of the title III projects deal with some grade levels or some subjects, such as arithmetic. The educational renewal program will deal with all aspects of the educational program.

CONNECTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION WITH RENEWAL

Mr. SHRIVER. Does higher education have any connection with the renewal program?

Dr. DAVIES. Yes; very important connections. In many cases the colleges and universities will provide the training to the teachers and others in the renewal sites. In other cases they will provide consultant help on evaluation and planning.

INCREASING USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Mr. SHRIVER. On page 10 you place increased priority on educational technology, and you are requesting a $10 million increase for large-scale demonstrations in this area.

What is your justification for that?

Dr. DAVIES. I would like to call on Dr. John Cameron who is the acting director of the National Center for Educational Technology to respond to that question.

Dr. CAMERON. We have learned through some of the projects that have been funded under the Cooperative Research Act over the last several years, including the "Sesame Street" and "Electric Company," that the technologies offer real opportunities for the improvement of education. The major project that we have in mind for next year to support out of the requested $10 million is an experiment in the Rocky Mountain area, which covers eight States, that will utilize ATS-F satellite that will be launched by NASA, if on schedule, in May 1973, at which time not only will the satellite be used as a delivery system, but it will be tied in with the existing ground systems concentrating on several sites within the eight-State region and focusing on early elementary education, child development, and career education.

Another type of experimentation that we think is important to know more about and see if it has real usefulness for the improvement of education would be in cable demonstrations. That is a very rapidly growing field in technology currently, and is not being utilized very much by the educators.

We hope also to be able to support the development of a program that Dr. Davies mentioned earlier in connection with the bilingual program, the development of a TV program that will be similar to "Sesame Street" that will serve the needs of the Spanish-speaking children throughout the Nation rather than just on a regional or State basis.

Mr. SHRIVER. So these are demonstration research programs.

Dr. CAMERON. Principally demonstration and experimentation. Dr. DAVIES. Not really research in the formal sense of research, but demonstration.

Mr. SHRIVER. And particular areas of the country will see the benefit.

Dr. MARLAND. Areas chosen because of their particular need. It is very hard to get educational TV into many parts of the Rocky Mountain area because of the terrain. The satellite will permit that. The satellite will reach Appalachia at certain hours of the day for certain childhood programs and principal regions of Alaska. I might add the real momentum behind this proposition is not really to look for scientific gimmickry to back up education. It is a very long overdue effort to bring coast-benefit efficiency to teaching and learning through the tools of modern technology which we have not begun to use. Mr. SHRIVER. Very good.

LACK OF FORMAL EVALUATION OF MANY OFFICE OF

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

You mention on page 11 of your statement a rather alarming fact that about 25 percent of the office of education programs have been subject to formal evaluation. It would take several years before you can close the gaps in our knowledge about all of our programs.

Dr. EVANS. Your reciting of that quotation is correct, Mr. Shriver, and we have made some fundamental changes that we have reported in some detail in the justification statement to you in the evaluation system in an effort to correct that situation. The Congress appropriated the first significant amount for evaluation in fiscal year 1970, and actually that is less than 2 calendar years ago when the office of education received that money. Since then, and I have not personally been there during that whole period of time, but in the year and a half I have been on the board in the office of education, we have undertaken serious major steps including reevaluation of reorganizing activities, and initiating a very substantial number of major national evaluation studies on title I of Elementary and Secondary Education Act, on the vocational education programs, on a number of the higher education programs and so

on.

The results of those studies are now beginning to come in and we have started a dissemination program of the results of those studies aimed importantly at the interest of the Congress itself. I think you gentlemen may recall that in the past few days or weeks you have received letters from the Commissioner reporting some of the results of these evaluation studies that are now being completed. So we have a substantial number of evaluations underway at this time. I can list those for you now or supply that for the record.

Some detail is indicated in the justification. But one other thing that we are doing will be coming your way very shortly. As you have

reminded us on occasions, there is a legislative requirement that we submit to you an annual report on the evaluation of all Office of Education programs. That has not been submitted prior to this year. This is the size and character of the document of our first effort. That will be coming to you, I should think, within a week or so. It is going through final clearances in the Secretary's Office.

It makes some effort, even though it is correct that we have only 25 percent of the programs approximately covered by what I like to refer to as serious formal evaluations, it does make an effort to report on the more than 100 line-item legislative titles or programs. So with that magnitude of programs that is why we say, getting back to the very beginning of your question, that it is going to take some time before we are able to launch and complete serious evaluations that cover all those programs.

EVALUATION OF FOLLOWTHROUGH

Mr. SHRIVER. In some of these programs, like Follow Through, and on page 12 you say preliminary data in a major or national evaluation program from the Follow Through program suggest that followthrough children may be making better achievements, and you are asking us to appropriate $57 million for a program that you have not finished the evaluation of, or the evaluation does not show it is helping

any.

Dr. EVANS. It is correct that the evaluation is not complete. The reason is that the program is primarily not to provide educational services for children but to experiment with and test the effectivness of alternative means for doing that.

The follow-through program touches only a small portion of the target population of that age group. That program is mainly intended to test out the alternative methods of getting at these children. That is a long and difficult process begun several years ago when those children were in a preschool period, coming from Head Start or similar programs. Those children are now in the third grade and we do have the preliminary evidence indicated there, and a major testing period will occur this spring that will be what we call the after in the beforeafter kind of testing on that period of measurement.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you very much; thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Casey.

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

COORDINATION OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION WITH EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

What are you going to do differently in bilingual education and under educational technology?

Will they fit together, or are they two different things?

Dr. DAVIES. In one place they come together specifically to provide support for the new television program for preschool age children that will be in both Spanish and English. That will be supported partly by funds under the bilingual education authority and partly by funds under cooperative research under Dr. Cameron's administration. Mr. CASEY. I think you know I am interested in one.

Dr. DAVIES. I understand. That is a good example of a bilingual program.

Mr. CASEY. Do you know where it falls yet?

Dr. DAVIES. On that specific project?