MS. FALKENBERG: We are going to get started again with the question and answer period of our session. It will run for one hour, until 1:30, at which time we will take a brief break for your personal refreshment, and our opportunity to change out the tables to accommodate the last session.

Trying to be sensitive to the fact that we have many people in the audience who have come a great distance and spent a lot of time and effort to get here, we would like to be able to honor your request to participate, and we have asked the committee members to be as brief as possible during the question and answer period, since they are going first, to allow everybody in the audience an opportunity to also participate fully.

So, with that, I guess we will begin with Barbara. Do you have any questions?

MS. SCHNEIDER: I thought this was a great panel. I wanted to say thank you to everyone. When we think about interdisciplinary work in education, there were two aspects that didn't come up that I would sort of appreciate if people would talk a little bit about.

Some of the most successful interdisciplinary programs happen because of the people. It isn't so much we would like to believe that it is thematic, but the reality is that Steve Raudenbush can have a program joint with statistics because he is Steve Raudenbush, and that happens in a lot of places. A lot of these things really depend on the people.

The second issue is that, when we talk about joint appointments -- and I hate to bring up that poor institution that no longer has a department of education, but one of the things that Chicago started to do in the 1970s was make joint appointments, and it made a lot of joint appointments.

What happened was that, as soon as these people were in the education department for a while, the first thing that they did was move out of education, to the point that a whole section of them left and formed the committee on human development. Bob Michael went to economics in the Harris School.

Then the question is, what kind of an incentive do you give people to stay in these joint programs, since so much of this is really tied to individual people?

MS. FALKENBERG: Any one of you want to take a crack at that?

MS. EISENHART: I will just say that I don't think the programs have to be set up as joint ones. You could have faculty permanently housed in the arts and sciences, and other faculty permanently housed in education, and not try to do the joint appointments, which I think do complicate the issues of tenure, promotion, status, a great deal.

Another thing I would say is that one thing that has helped us very much in math and science education areas is being able to recruit Nobel Prize winners and other high status people on campus to participate in the collaboration.

So, the burden is not on the young faculty to figure out how to do their careers in such a way that they can both manage education and whatever else it is, but the burden is more on the senior faculty to demonstrate their interest in educational issues and help promote that.

MR. TOBIN: I would agree. I think you are very right. In our case, at ASU, about the importance of individuals, David Berliner and Jean Glass had started this application and then they passed it on to me. They carried such weight on campus that it helped to deflect some of the status issues.

I think the power issue, in Margaret's case, she said, to get something done within the college, they had to go to the dean's level and have the dean's powers of persuasion and reward.

If we think about going between schools of ed and the disciplines, then we have to go, I think, all the way up to the president's level, so that people understand that it is not going to hurt. It may even help their chances for tenure and other benefits to participate.

MR. RAUDENBUSH: I don't know how far we want to go into a post mortem on Chicago, but there were some things that happened before that, that were important, when they stopped having a school and stopped training teachers, and they became part of the school of social science.

I think that that created a situation where, at a university like Chicago, your place in the pecking order in the division of social science is not going to be at the top with economics and so forth, at Chicago, sociology. If you are in education, for all the reasons David Labaree pointed out, it is going to be at the bottom.

I think that losing the connection with practice, and losing the connection with training practitioners may have been more decisive than just having joint appointments, and I think there might be lessons here for us, what David was talking about, sustaining strong connections with practice, and hiring people who are really interested in what goes on in classrooms and schools, and who are interested in having contacts with practitioners.

I think that maybe there is something here for us, to think about how to avoid that fate and how to do things better, how to really make that synergy work.

MS. SCHNEIDER: That was the point. Thank you.

MR. HANCOCK: I would just add that the incentives question comes in also. What would make a person take on an ownership responsibility if he or she was in a biology department, let's say, working with us in science education.

We have such an example of a person who is passionate. So, it is the person, once again, who is stepping up to the plate in the biology department saying, there are some serious things that we need to do when we educate Ohio State students through all the biology sequence courses with our education faculty.

Many of the biology courses are taught by TAs, and sometimes those are not the best quality instruction. So, you get into those kinds of issues and those kinds of issues come into play.

What would we do at Ohio State University to get more people like this particular biologist, who wants to work with the college of education on serious research issues in the teaching of biology, or in studying about health issues as they impact from a biological point of view.

MR. KLAHR: Continuing this discussion of incentives or avoiding disincentives, if you look at the area of psychologists who moved into the educational area, some of the more famous ones, people like the late Anne Brown or John Branchford or John Anderson with intelligent tutoring, they didn't make that move until after they had tenure.

It is very high risk to move out of your discipline into education, because of all the reasons we have heard today.

I wonder if there are some ways that we might think of more incentives. One might be not early career awards but mid-career awards, for people who want to actually collaborate and make that disciplinary transfer.

I know that the funding agencies are really big on huge interdisciplinary centers, but I am talking about just encouraging diadic interactions between people from one discipline who want to work with someone who is in education.

Maybe later on anybody who is here from a funding agency could address that issue. The question is whether you guys think that would be a good idea.

MS. FALKENBERG: That was a question, not a statement. Do you agree?

MS. EISENHART: Yes, I think it would be a great idea.

MR. TOBIN: I would just add, David, I think it is a great idea, but I think what we are finding in our own ASU Spencer program is, for junior people -- in this case they are still doctoral students -- one of the incentives for the people outside schools of ed is the idea of getting a job, their first appointment in a school of ed.

So, a lot of these disciplines are much tighter job markets right now than schools of ed are. I think we have to get that word out to them.

They don't automatically know this. When we first tell them about it, I say, go check the Chronicle and compare it with like the American Anthropology Newsletter. That could be pretty powerful.

MR. RAUDENBUSH: David, I am thinking of someone we both know, Fred Morrison. Fred is a cognitive psychologist who decided that the forefront question for cognitive psychology for early childhood was figuring out what the environmental input is in the form of instruction.

So, he came to the conclusion that what goes on in the classroom is the most interesting thing in the world for cognitive psychology.

The interesting thing was, nobody knew about his work in education, even though it was published in top journals in psychology for years.

Now, of course, he is at Michigan and now we have a lot more connections going with that, that really had to be cultivated.

He didn't really have to join a school of education. We just had to figure out a way of getting people to talk to each other. It was stunning.

MR. HANCOCK: I guess I would like to tie in Barbara's question with David's. At Ohio State we have something called selective investment grants that the university is giving to departments, especially those who want to cross disciplines and cross colleges.

So, if you get one of these selective investment grants at Ohio State University, it is not so much the individuals who run the grants, but it is the institutionalization of interdisciplinary efforts.

So, the university has set, as a goal, to create interdisciplinary opportunities. The incentive, anyhow, that they are using is to provide money.

So, you get so many years of funding from the central administration to do what they call an interdisciplinary approach.

So, my example of the biologist a moment ago is in that same domain. The biologists in the college of arts and sciences and those of us in science education in the college of education collectively wrote a selective investment grant and, after the third time around, it got funded.

So, I am happy to report that at least institutional process here was not so much the people involved, but the university wanting to value interdisciplinary efforts, and to put some of the university's money into that.

David, that doesn't quite talk about grant and foundation, but that is the university's allocation from the Ohio board of regents who sat that money aside. I mean, the university has decided to set some of the money aside that it was given, which I think is a value statement from the central administration once again.

MS. FALKENBERG: Other questions from the committee? I would like to ask one myself. I was thinking, as I heard people talking this morning, about the fact that we now how important it is to mentor our new teachers as they go into the classroom to retain them, for teacher retention.

I would like to ask the committee to speak a bit about the programs they have at their institutions for mentoring their new faculty members or their pre-tenure track people, to be able to keep them in educational research, particularly considering the fact that we have the plan, the intent, the hope to increase minority enrollment and retention.

Do you have any programs that you use to mentor your new colleagues as they come to your department, so that that would provide them the opportunity to be inculcated into the profession and hopefully also to retain them?

MR. HANCOCK: I don't think we have anything special at Ohio State, but we do have a kind of pairing of what we call junior staff members with senior staff members, faculty members.

That essentially is a choice as an individual coming into the department or into the college of education. We encourage incoming new faculty members to establish some kind of mentoring relationship.

When people don't do it on their own, we suggest maybe a possibility for TNP purposes within one of our three schools. We don't have any departments. We have three schools.

So, that is kind of a structured process where new faculty members coming in, especially novice new faculty members, get mentored by senior faculty members about the culture of the institution, about survival at this institution versus other institutions.

MS. EISENHART: I would say that at our institution we also have the one on one mentor mentee relationship set up for senior faculty to mentor junior faculty.

I am intrigued by Joe's model and the notion that we could be doing this better perhaps if we were trying to establish networks of people, and not just one on one mentorship relationships for the purpose of inculcating new faculty members into the grind and bureaucracy of academic life.

I think that one of the things that gets missed in the mentor mentee relationships that we have is the opportunity for actual intellectual debate and stimulation and discussion, because so much of it turns on questions of what do I have to do to get tenure, and how many publications do I need, and all those kinds of things. I like the networking idea.

MR. RAUDENBUSH: Michigan did install a mentoring program for junior faculty, mainly because of the lack of success of so many junior faculty members.

This is really rather intense. It involves visiting classrooms and helping prepare annual productivity reports.

It is all oriented toward acclimating people early to the expectations of the university, so that they can make good choices and so they can maximize their probability of being successful.

MR. HANCOCK: I would just add one other thing that we do at Ohio State University, and it is almost sui generis.

We have three Asian faculty members who mentor a new Asian faculty member. We didn't assign that. They decided to do that.

We have 13 African American faculty in the college. When a new person comes in, as we have one coming in this year, he is being mentored by some of the current African American faculty.

I don't always want to push the ethnic focus to our discussion, but sometimes people get mentored by people who look like them, and talk like them, and act like them, by their own choice.

When I first got the degree from Ohio State University and went to Teacher's College, Columbia, I didn't find a mentor, and no mentor was assigned to me. So, my life there was very frustrating, because I wasn't a New Yorker and I didn't know the ways to matriculate within a New York mentality, if you will.

When I then moved up to Albany, New York, for my second job, I found a mentor myself, the first year I got there. He happened to be a white male.

So, I am not always advocating that it would be racially based or ethnic based mentoring. This individual was in science education, just reached out to me, and I was just happy to have him.

We even now, after all these years, still keep in touch about what he stepped up to the plate and did for me, as the only African American new faculty member in the first few years, when I first went to SUNY at Albany.

I think mentoring sometimes has to occur when an individual wants to be mentored and goes looking for a mentor.

Sometimes when we structure it and say, Margaret, you are going to mentor Charles, that might not work, because Margaret and I might not see eye to eye.

MS. FALKENBERG: We have questions from the floor. Could you please come up to the microphone and, again, state your name, speak clearly into the microphone, so that the transcription will be easier to understand.

MR. KIFER: My name is Skip Kifer. I teach at the University of Kentucky. I am curious about what the content is of the courses at the University of Colorado.

You say qualitative and quantitative. I don't think that is very descriptive. What kinds of things do you do in each of those two courses?

MS. EISENHART: As I said, these courses are being approved, hopefully, by our faculty next week. So, I am telling you tentatively what I think is going to be in the courses.

In the quantitative courses, we will be doing a kind of crash course introduction to basic stats with a lab. We will then be moving into the normal course work of intermediate statistics, and then including the course work that we currently teach in experimental design.

So, the two course sequence in quantitative methodology will include those three areas. The debate around that is whether we need to have a separate lab and workshop for students who have fear of statistics, sort of how to get them into the whole process.

The qualitative course will be focused on, first of all, theoretical orientations in anthropology and sociology as they bear on the development of qualitative methods, and then attention to a variety of qualitative methods, both in data collection and data analysis and, finally, writing up results.

MR. KIFER: So, there really isn't anything about assessment or evaluation in that common core.

MS. EISENHART: Certainly, in the quantitative courses, assessment and evaluation will be part of the substantive discussion that goes on, in terms of dealing with the methods themselves.

MS. POUNDER: I would like anybody in this whole group who is willing and able to respond to this, feel free to.

I am more wrestling not with the methodological issues, but I am kind of harkening back to what Stephen Raudenbush said.

It seems that in the broader practitioner and policy arena, we are more called upon to identify what works, which does suggest causal inference.

At the same point in time, it seems to me that a critical mass of faculty in colleges of education, who are also preparing doctoral students for research careers in education eschew scientific methods. They do not even recognize that paradigm. My name is Diana Pounder from the University of Utah.

Nobody has mentioned that at all. I think in my college of ed, and I think many across the country, you have a critical mass of people who do not buy the scientific method at all.

Everybody here seems to be assuming that, of course, that is what we are preparing doctoral students to do in research careers. Could I get, I don't know, anybody's --

MS. EISENHART: Could you first say what you mean by the scientific method?

MS. POUNDER: I guess what I am referring to is sort of traditional assumptions about methods of inquiry, including the notion of causal inference.

I am not a good one to speak. I am not a post-modernist. I am not a critical theorist. You need somebody else here to speak to that.

That is one of my problems with it. I don't really even understand the language to talk about it. I would say that that certainly is a very strong trend among researchers today. Does that help any?

MR. RAUDENBUSH: I have always been a fan of intellectual diversity and a lot of exchange of different ideas to stimulate people, to get them thinking, but I think that it has really gone way out of balance, in my opinion, in the last 15 years in education.

Schools of education are funded primarily through public money to train teachers and other practitioners, and a lot of that money goes to research.

I think the money is intended to produce some kind of usable evidence about the effects of educational policies, not only do they work and so forth, but how do they work and how can we make things better.

If you have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that there is a reality out there that we can find evidence about, then your ability to fulfill this public mission that schools of education have, I think, is severely hampered.

My own feeling is that schools of education have been seriously hurt by the emphasis, by the lack of balance in this particular way, such that it has alienated constituencies who could be very politically supportive of us.

You know, we are not pure scientists. We are not the leading philosophers. There are some good philosophers in schools of education. It is not our strength.

We have to go with our strength. We are an applied group. Chris mentioned a land grant institution. We have a public mission, and I think we haven't been doing a very good job of fulfilling it.

MR. HANCOCK: As a part of this Carnegie initiative on the doctorate, there was, through Lee Shulman's efforts, and commissioning of some papers, and I guess I want to suggest a paper written by Virginia Richardson, from the University of Michigan, in which she grappled with some of these issues, what is the doctorate in education likely to be, what should it be, asking questions about the habits of mind that a doctoral student, once she has graduated, should have mastered.

There might not be a specific focus on research methodology, or there might not be a specific focus on scientific method in Virginia's paper, but you might find Virginia's paper appealing, at least to get some discussion of this.

What is it that, at least in her perspective, as the commissioned paper to write this PhD paper -- it is an essay, basically -- and it is on the web site of the Carnegie initiative.

Again, Lee Shulman might talk about that again a little bit later this afternoon, but I think her paper would deal with some of the issues that you are talking about.

As part of what we do on these teams, we read these commissioned papers on the PhD and what it is, and we read one on chemistry and we read one on mathematics, one on history and, of course, we read one on education.

I think that might be, at least for me, a good fit between your question and at least what one of our serious researchers in the field of education has thought about, in terms of the scientific method.

MR. TOBIN: My take on this would be to say that I think there are different kinds of researchers in schools of ed.

There is one group who would identify themselves as scientists and another group that wouldn't want to be called scientists.

Then there is a third group that I think is maybe the biggest group, which are people who don't really have a methodological orientation at all and research isn't at the core of their identity or their interests. That was mentioned earlier today, because of the tenure and promotion problem.

See, schools of ed are much bigger than they need to be if their jobs are research. If you look at other units on campus that don't have a huge number of students who are preparing to be teachers, you would be a lot smaller.

Yet, all these people are required, in a research university like ASU to be publishing all the time. I think that creates some of the problem.

I would say that, for the top research oriented faculty, I think that the scientific types and the non-scientific types, including the critical theorists and the gender studies people and the marxists -- I think both sides, I think, do really good work, and some do not such good work, and some of their work is accessible and some of it isn't.

I don't think that that -- I would also point out that a lot of the work that practitioners find most meaningful is not the so-called scientific work.

When you are working, for instance, with teachers who are coming back to school to work on a master's and also trying to improve their practice, if you gave them only a steady diet of so-called scientific research, they would be frustrated and I don't think they would get answers to their immediate sorts of problems.

It is a lot of the people doing non-scientific work, and maybe not even doing research at all, who engage, in my experience, most effectively with practitioners.

So, I think it is more complicated. I think it is an unfortunate dichotomy and binary which our society is caught in, but which we should really try to avoid.

I disagree with Steve. There is one kind of research that is a good use of tax payer's money and another kind that isn't. I think some day the accusation could come around to all o our doors.

MS. EISENHART: I would just like to make one shameless plug for scientific research in education, which is the volume that the predecessor committee to the CORE committee wrote, and I was a member of that committee.

I think that if you read those six principles of scientifically based research, that we discuss in all but about four pages of that book, you will find a definition of research that most of the people who do both quantitative and qualitative research in education could agree with.

I think there are some people who are critics of science, and rightly so, and they have a non-science approach, and that is not to be disregarded, but I don't think, at least in terms of my comments and my comments about my school of education, we are proceeding on the basis that those six principles can be used to guide the research that most of the people in our school will be doing.

MR. DI SESSA: I have a couple of questions that came out of Margaret's presentation. One is that, in those three courses, there isn't anything that represents what I think of as sort of theoretical thinking or analytical thinking or critical thinking.

I think this is very much underplayed, particularly in educational research. If you think about how you train a graduate student to do a thesis, one of the things that they have to do is figure out how to think about a problem. They need to develop categories, they need to be critical categories, they need to operationalize those categories.

So, there is a whole set of skills there that I think is vastly underplayed in our training. So, question number one is, what is your attitude and the attitude of your group toward this set of skills. There are many kinds of attitudes one could have.

The second question is about your big issues kind of foundations course. This one I don't have a particular axe to grind with respect to, but I would generally ask whether that might have some down side compared to another approach, and here is kind of the intuition.

Getting an appreciation for the deep, broad, knotty issues of complex education is probably the last thing that students will accomplish, and maybe it is not the first thing we want to sit them down in the middle of.

Maybe we want to think of making some kind of a microworld where they can appreciate that there are reasonably well defined problems, that we can develop reasonable approaches to get reasonable approximate answers to, rather than being overwhelmed with the complexity and sort of ever non-changing nature of the problems that we ask about in education.

MS. EISENHART: I think that my response to that would be we are pretty well persuaded, by both David Labaree's work, and also the comments of the students that we are currently working with that, even though we announce our program as a doctoral program in educational research, the majority of the students come as teachers, not thinking seriously about what educational research is, not knowing very much about it, and not really being prepared to embrace it.

We have to spend a significant amount of time taking seriously where our students are when they start, and what sort of questions they have about the value of educational research, the significance of it, the way in which they can use it, before we start talking about this is how you develop a research problem, or this is how you set up a research design.

Our idea was to build on the interests and commitments that the students have during the first year, to further extend their understanding of education.

Then, in the second year, when we are doing the more specialized training, that is when we would add more serious attention to, all right, what are the research problems in this particular area, how do you set up a research design, how do you develop a conceptual framework, and those kinds of things.

So, that is our thinking about it, and it really does come from a sense that the kinds of students that we are dealing with will not appreciate knowing how to ask a real research problem until they have had more exposure to what educational research is, and what its possibilities are and so forth.

I guess the second thing I would say about it is that I think the students who come, even though they don't know that much about educational research, they do know that these public issues around education are extremely important.

They want to have an occasion to talk about that, and I think they want to have an occasion to talk across the different background experiences and perspectives that they bring. We are trying, in this program, to start where the students are and move them forward from there.

MR. DI SESSA: Just to say, I agree with starting with where they are, but I have a different take on where -- maybe we have different students. I have a different take on where they are and how we grow from there.

MS. GALLAGHER: I am Karen Gallagher from the University of Southern California, and I am dean of the Rossier School of Education. I have two point questions.

The first is, we are engaged, at the University of Southern California, in looking at all of our doctoral programs, that both faculty and at the provost's level, have decided that we want to have much higher quality PhD programs that do prepare researchers, not just ed researchers, but psychology researchers and math researchers, and that we haven't seen enough evidence that that is at a level we want.

It has really, in fact, helped us in the school of ed, because we had started re-designing our PhD program also. We had four and we are now down to one. We are making a lot of the changes that I heard people talk about today.

It has really been helpful to have the 66 other Phd programs on campus having to go through these same exercises.

I would love to know that there are other universities, that this isn't just a problem with ed researchers. It is a problem that we would like to have higher quality doctoral programs in general.

My other part grows out of that. I haven't heard anyone talk about the old PhD EdD dilemma. We happen to be an institution that has both.

So, for us, we have defined the PhD as preparing educational researchers, and the EdD we are defining as like a JD or an MD. We are preparing practitioners.

As a private university, I have to worry about tuition to pay the bills because, if we don't earn it, we don't have anything to spend.

I don't know if it is an issue that -- the way we have defined it is unique to being where we are, and the kind of institution.

I would like to know who else has either just decided that you are only going to have one degree or you are not going to make distinctions, or you are just not talking about it.

MR. HANCOCK: I guess I will get started. We only have one degree at Ohio State University. It is the PhD. Since 1986, anyhow, that has been the decision, that we won't offer two degrees.

The rationale for that is that, at least in the education rationale is, sometimes we are perceived to be second class citizens anyhow. If we were not to go where the rest of the university is, with the PhD, that might be interpreted a certain way by those people who want to have that orientation about us anyhow.

So, the education faculty made the decision to stick with the PhD and not to explore even the EdD which, years ago, used to be offered at Ohio State University.

On your first question, I think, again, for us at Ohio State, the Carnegie project is giving us an opportunity to look at the quality of our PhD programs.

There are now six of us, six program areas at Ohio State University that have been dubbed a Carnegie partner. The four original ones were chemistry, math, English and education, and they have just added at our college history and neuroscience.

So, we think education is in there with the big guys, if I can be sexist about the wording. We are in there with math, we are in there with chemistry, we are in there with neuroscience, the latest kid on the block.

I think that speaks very good things for us, that we are looking at our program in conjunction with what some other programs on the university campus are doing. So, we are happy about that. Wherever Lee Shulman is, we bless him.

MR. TOBIN: At ASU, we have both the EdD and the PhD. I appreciate Charles' logic. I think we are guided by the same concern, including the status question.

It is for that reason that, for now I think, we are hanging onto the two degrees. I think Felice's slide, if you can remember her statistics, she showed like 5,000 people doing degrees, she said, that were basically not research oriented, and then another few thousand on the research side.

I may disagree. I would put more of the curriculum, instruction and special ed ones up, at least some of the people, on the research side.

I think the core point that slide makes is that an awful lot of the people we have doing doctorates at ASU are, for instance, superintendents and principals. I think that is an important constituency for us.

If we made everybody do the same degree and be equally research oriented, I think we would end up having a kind of lowest common denominator.

By splitting it, we could then make higher expectations for the PhD side. That allows us to more readily build bridges to the PhD programs outside the colleges of education.

MR. RAUDENBUSH: I only have one degree, which is an EdD, which is the only doctoral degree that you can get at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

I think the underlying issue is whether there are forms of inquiry, policy analyses, essays, reflections on practice, whatever they might be, that are appropriate for people who are moving into practitioner and leadership roles that are somehow different from what we think of as being original research that you are supposed to have for a PhD.

I think it is a very difficult issue. There aren't very many incentives for the regular faculty of a major university to give mentorship to those kinds of things.

Usually people who are intensely involved in their own research want to work with students who will help them do that research.

So, there is always a risk that it is going to deteriorate into kind of a tracking system in which there are a large number of people who are getting their tickets punched, and not getting a lot of good mentorship to support the rest of the enterprise.

I think it is a very difficult issue. It could be the source of an entire -- I mean, we could have like a week of meetings on this, and I don't have the answer.

Michigan is much smaller. Michigan State has programs that are practitioner oriented, where I was there for 15 years.

Michigan is much smaller and has consciously decided to be small and do the more PhD oriented, I guess you would say the more research oriented version of this.

MR. TOBIN: I just wanted to add quickly, I think guessing at something I think Ellen Lagemann would say is, it makes some sense for each school to work this out on its own and decide if it is going to have an EdD, a PhD, or both.

The cost of this is, think of the confusion in medicine if you had some schools having a degree with one name and one another.

It may be that, even though there may be something to be gained by having institution specific solutions, what we lose may be greater.

There is a lot of anxiety -- maybe not at Harvard, because the Harvard name trumps the EdD, but at a lot of other schools, I know there was a lot of anxiety at the University of Hawaii, when we had an EdD and we switched to a PhD and the students were afraid that it marked them in a way that they didn't want.

MS. LAGEMANN: Since my name has been invoked, I think I ought to say what I really do think. The truth is, the reason why Harvard gives only an EdD is because only the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard is allowed to give a PhD.

There are a lot of students at Harvard who would like a PhD, and we lose students because we can't give a PhD.

The reason why we haven't developed a joint PhD so far, although we hope to overcome this, is because, in order to do this, you have to meet all the standards of the faculty of arts and science.

We were doing pretty well. We can meet all the standards except one, which is called standards of support. We have to provide the same financial packages for our doctoral students that the faculty of arts and sciences does. At Harvard, that begins with a $30,000 stipend in your first year and $25,000 in your second year and so on. It is just so far out of our reach that, when I heard about it, I walked out of the graduate dean's office. The conversation was finished.

MR. CARSPECKEN: My name is Phil Carspecken and I am from Indiana University, and I wanted to make two quick points and get whatever responses come from them.

The first point is, I think Diana Pounder, what she was talking about a little while ago is very important, which is that the word science isn't regarded in, let's say, an objective way by lots of people in colleges of education.

That seems to have been a trend for about 15 or more years, possibly a growing trend. The sorts of things that these meetings that we are having and the publication of the book, Scientific Research in Education, are intended to do needs to take that into account. That, in itself, is a social phenomenon, and it is an interesting one.

I have read Scientific Research in Education. I think the people who put that book together did a very good job, but part of the rationale for that book seemed to defend education to those who do have a very narrow idea of what science is, and have legislative power and so on.

I think the book was very well done in that sense, but I don't think it is the final word on what we mean by science.

Philosophically, as a species at this point, we don't really fully understand all the complicated issues involved, when you are dealing with action mediated by meaning and volition.

Causation definitely applies in some cases to human phenomena, but it isn't the best concept for other types of human phenomena, when you can't talk about variables, for example.

I would hope that this body has a very broad mind when it comes to that word, science, and to take seriously the fact that there are large numbers of people in schools of education that are prejudiced against that term at this time.

The second thing I wanted to say quickly is, I have been in schools of education as a professor for 15 years now.

All during that time, I have heard complaints from students about the quality of professors and classes. We have heard a lot about what professors have to say about education of students, and difficulties that they sense there, but it goes both ways.

At Indiana University, we recently conducted a series of focus groups with PhD students in our school of education and conducted quite a few interviews.

There were a lot of complaints about course work in schools of education. One finding that seemed to be coming up from these focus groups is that the bulk of these students do want to do research, they love the idea of research.

Part of their frustration is that they are having to take too many courses, that they don't have something like an apprentice system, where they can really work on a research team and really get out there and be doing research. So, I just wanted to know, however you want to respond, is fine with me.

MR. TOBIN: Just one real quick response is, I think on the second point, part of our Carnegie -- I didn't talk about the Carnegie initiative as it is played out at ASU, but one of the things that we are moving toward seems to be moving away from courses and toward professional experiences and habits of mind, and to start by saying, what do we expect people to know and be able to do, at the point they finish, and then start moving back. It may be looking like taking a bunch of courses isn't the most important or best way to get them there.

MR. HANCOCK: Phil loves that idea about courses, and not taking courses, having spent some time talking to him about this issue.

All of us work in institutions, and at least the institutions want us to chalk up the number of credits that students take, and they have to create so many of those in order to graduate, and FTEs have to be earned.

When we find some creative way not to count courses, or to offer courses in a more generic rubric so that students can, in fact, experience their PhD studies -- I know that is the ultimate goal -- but the institutions are set up to count credits, and to give people a degree after they have earned so many credits.

That is really an uphill battle that we are fighting. It is not one we shouldn't fight, I just want us to be real about what chance we have of changing the institution.

MS. EISENHART: I would just say that, in our redesign of our program that what we are trying to do in the second year is incorporate the need for research apprenticeship and teaching apprenticeships in the context of the specialty areas that the students are working in. Part of the focus of that second year is to do the kind of thing that you are talking about.

MR. CARSPECKEN: Yes, it looks like you have got a good model.

MS. LEVINE: Let me kind of follow up on that same trajectory. I think one of the lessons that was learned in some of the predoctoral fellowship programs, both in the sciences as well as in the social and behavioral sciences, is that students who receive those fellowships often were perceived to be kind of the non-problem, meaning that the research RA-ships went to those who didn't have support. One of the lessons was that those students had more exposure to research early in their doctoral studies and could, therefore, better engage as researchers.

Some of these programs, including one that I was working with, required 12 to 15 hours of research training irrespective of needing support to receive that training.

As we are thinking about these programs, how can we institutionalize, I will say, not just in the second or third year and beyond, so that the doctoral experience isn't the first experience, or the dissertation, but how can we introduce that hands on research experience on a project or program early on in one's career.

To follow up with Charles in a similar vein, I think one of the lessons about the drop off in persons of color into graduate school, which is rather substantial from the BA level across all fields, is that there is not a pathway.

One of the best pathways has been found to be the early undergraduate hands on research experience. It is one of the issues I raised in my presentation with respect to educational research, and I would like to hear each of your views on that component as well.

MR. HANCOCK: I certainly think that the undergraduate pathway is an ideal one. Those of us who work closely with students of color in particular know is that students of color have the potential and the ability.

Sometimes the society makes them make a different choice for themselves, however. One of the struggles that many students of color face is the funding of either undergraduate or graduate level education.

I was relating that to the poverty issue earlier this morning. Sometimes people have to work three jobs in order to get an undergraduate degree.

If somebody is working three jobs, the amount of time that they have got to spend on research or on their undergraduate studies is lessened. It just has to be, because you are working three jobs and trying to balance things.

Often there might be a child involved, so a single parent, mother, African American female is taking care of that child as well as go to graduate school or get an undergraduate degree.

In fact, as an aside I will mention that in the mid-1990s, of course, we moved all of our licensure programs to the graduate level.

When you talk about the drop, we saw a significant drop in the number of students of color going into education at Ohio State University because, in 1996-1997, they no longer could get a license to be a teacher at the undergraduate level. They had to get it at the master's level.

I mention that because, again, some students chose not to go to Ohio State because it meant they would have had to go for five years working three jobs rather than four years working three jobs.

These are very practical kinds of things, at least in my experience base, that I think are going to have an impact on the number of students who come into the field of education and who persist in the field of education.

I was so happy to talk to Margaret this summer about the big ideas in one of her courses. She was saying that one of the big ideas might be the desegregation that she talked about.

Maybe we could look at the data that was around during the time of Brown versus the Board of Education, of which we are about to celebrate the 50th anniversary in 2004.

It is a significant piece of legislation about black students and what happened to black students in schools, because it was the desegregation legislation, anyhow, that said that students could go to a school where they could get a good education, and not necessarily go to a school that was assigned to them, or that they were assigned to.

So, the idea of linking research with a significant piece of legislation such as the Brown, I am just ready to give Margaret a hug up here. I gave her one this summer, but I am just reminded of how happy I am with her, and I am about to give her another hug.

I think you are right, Felice, in terms of starting early. I make the assumption that students of color, that many of them have a predisposition for success.

Before integration, that predisposition was nurtured, both in historically black colleges and universities and in predominantly black school districts, where there were many African American teachers, who nurtured the ability of the students.

When integration occurred in the 1954 time period, lots of those students got lost in the shuffle, if you will. Things fell between the cracks, because they weren't getting the nurturing that they needed in order to be successful in an academic setting.

Their parents didn't know how to negotiate the system well enough to go in and force the teachers to deal with the children. So, many of those children didn't go on to college.

I know I am making sweeping generalizations here, but I know I am right. So, this pathway of starting early can't possibly be wrong. It has got to be the best way that we could go.

We have got to have enough students of color in undergraduate programs in order to have any attempt at having a critical mass at the master's and PhD level, because we are already starting off at the very small end at the undergraduate level.

African American males and Latino males drop out of middle school and high school, let alone going on to get an undergraduate degree, in numbers that are just alarming.

When I was talking about educational researchers taking on some of these kinds of issues, I am being very moralistic, I guess I will say, about this.

I think we owe it not to have black students drop out of middle school and high school. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to ourselves to have Latino students continue on.

Otherwise, we will end up like -- again, I am going to make a super generalization here, Kay -- that what happens in a country like Brazil, where you have got two percent of the population owning the wealth of the country, and 98 percent of the population being poor and in the hills. Thank you for putting up with me today. I may never get invited back, so I have to talk.

MR. COOPER: I am Harris Cooper. I am a professor of psychology and director of the program in education at Duke University. I have only been there for three months.

Some of you may be saying to yourself, well, Duke University, I didn't know it had a program in education. Well, the reason I came up is because Duke is one of those places that did away with its school of education about 20 years ago.

It is an interesting lesson, then, in what has happened in those 20 years, and it has been a lesson to me over the last three months as I have tried to figure out the institution.

I begin now, when I talk with administrators at Duke, with the statement, when you did away with your school of education, you didn't do away with what schools of education do.

What I discovered was that, in fact, almost everything that would go into a school of education has grown up yet again at Duke, and it has happened in this way.

I don't believe they ever did away with an undergraduate teacher licensure program. It was always an option for kids who had a major in psychology, public policy, English, to also take the course work that was necessary to get a North Carolina teacher's license.

It has been there. It is a successful program. It just passed NCATE review with flying colors. So, that has always been there.

The next thing that happened was, as a public service, community outreach, they developed an MAT program that is administered through the graduate school.

The next thing that happened was, because of concerns about community relations, they developed a Duke/Durham partnership, neighborhood initiative, which sends professionals and undergraduates into after school programs and tutoring, with educational components, during the school day and after school.

The next thing that they did was they developed the TIP program, one of the nation's premier talent identification programs. I am sure lots of your kids get stuff from TIP. That comes through the provost's office.

They have a center for teaching writing and learning. They have continuing education for educators. They have now a certificate program that runs through the Stanford Institute for Public Policy.

Finally, one of the things they asked me to do about three weeks ago was to develop a graduate level PhD, interdisciplinary admitting program in education and education science.

So, this was somebody who tried, 20 years ago, to squash the monster. Instead, what they did was create 100 monsters.

They wouldn't say it that way and, actually, it is not true. The question for me, and what I don't know is, there are two things that I see about this alternative model that I would be interested in everybody's reaction to, and everybody's help in getting me through this adventure, in any way, shape, intellectual, economic or whatever.

There is clearly one down side when you do that. Maybe the moral of the story is, you can't do away with what education schools do.

The other moral of the story, as I see it is, in dividing up the things that they did, they took the three aspects of what it means to be a university professor -- teaching research and service -- and they cut it at the joints so that they don't overlap.

So, the service components have no research associated with them. I drool over the notion of getting into the after school programs to study what is going on.

The undergraduate licensure program goes on with teacher quality issues with no evidence based research going on. So, that is a teaching component that is a service component. I think that is actually lost.

Now, when I sort of say to them, well, why not bring these together in some way, I actually get a slight glimmer in people's eyes.

That may be one of the negative aspects of doing away with the schools of education. At the same time, if I were to say, let's hire a professor and call them a professor of education, I would get nowhere.

The reason why they did away with the school of education -- and they are fairly open about this -- was when they compared the level of scholarship, what was coming out of the school of education 20 years ago, to what was coming out of the disciplines, they really felt that an institution that meant to be one of the nation's leading scholarly producers couldn't afford to have a school of education that was turning out that level of scholarship.

So, there seems to be that positive to it and that negative to it, and I would be curious. I wanted to be a little bit provocative about the statement about professors of education, but I also sort of wanted to be even handed and say that there are clearly some costs to this.

I would be curious about folks' reactions to the notion that the kinds of scholarship that come out of schools of education doesn't stack up, in administrators' eyes, to what they are getting from people who study the same issues from a disciplinary perspective, if you dare.

MS. FALKENBERG: I would say, if the committee has anything they would like to suggest -- I am looking at the time -- to be very brief, and then we will take the one last question or comment, and we will end this session.

MR. RAUDENBUSH: That is a huge issue that I wouldn't try to answer, but I will say that I think if we leave it up to the disciplines, some good things will happen, and are happening, by disciplinary departments.

What is less likely to happen is that problems that emerge out of practice, in the classroom, in interaction between teachers and kids, and in schools, in terms of how schools are organized, managed and run, those kinds of bottom up kinds of problems are less likely to catch fire and capture the interest of people who really are well trained in terms of the scientific method.

I think that, in talking about the collaboration I was talking about earlier, where I was saying that the methodological training and so forth has to be done jointly, but that we can't outsource it, really, what I was saying is that that marriage between what practitioners experience and what disciplinary perspectives have to offer has to really be made for this whole enterprise to work.

I don't think it will happen unless we have really good schools of education, unlike the one that was done away with at Duke.

MR. TOBIN: I am not sure I mentioned Duke as being one of the five discipline based scholarship in ed programs, which it is, but Harris, I am really glad you brought that question up about the quality question.

One of the points I was making in my talk was, if we don't way these things out loud, it is worse than if we do. You said it and things are still okay.

I think, though, what we really need is some empirical research. I think in particular programs -- I don't know the Duke program 20 years ago, if that may very well have been the case or not, but I think that I liked the exchange earlier today where David Klahr asked, and David Labaree responded, again, about quality of students.

I would really call for some people to try to get some data on this, to try to shed some light on an area that has been kind of characterized by prejudices and innuendo and darkness.

MS. LAGEMANN: Very, very quickly, the SSRC has a committee that is actually studying this, and Sherry Ranis(?), who is the staff member, is in the back of the room.

MR. DIMITROV: My name is Dimitri Dimitrov from George Mason University. This is my first semester at George Mason, but I came from Kent State University, where I taught measurement, statistics, and quantitative research for eight years.

We all agree that there are many sources of variation, and maybe Steve Raudenbush will come up with some latent trend model or hierarchical model that might be good, but still, I would like to address a couple of them.

Many colleagues here mentioned that it might be useful for all of our students to come up with some previous experience in research. That is true, but maybe not that important or that possible is another side, another component of this problem.

Maybe those students would have some preliminary knowledge and way of thinking so that they would be ready to kind of address educational research exposure and issues.

For example, I am still surprised, and still cannot swallow the fact that our students never take a course in formal logic, formal propositional logic.

So, no wonder most of them have tremendous difficulties to make a negation of the null hypothesis. So, this is one thing.

Maybe GRE doesn't work that well in this day and age. Maybe in the first semester we have to have a core of courses such as propositional logic, or well designed courses, that will make them kind of think, what is educational research about, what kind of knowledge and skills they have to focus on, so they will be successful and not frustrated at the beginning, because most of them are.

I am not generalizing across all colleges, such as Berkeley or Harvard, but the majority of colleges of education that I know, I do experience the same problem.

The other issue is, there are two kinds of students. Some of them, say in counseling or nursing, they simply believe that quantitative or qualitative research courses are necessary just to get it over with this and get the PhD. They don't see the practical implications in their own professional development.

Well, we need to somehow help them understand the beauty and necessity of this knowledge and skills for their own professional development. That is one thing.

There is another side of the story. Students who come there, they say, okay, if I get this and this course, where do I work, what is my future professional developments?

Do they go in school districts or measurement companies or somewhere else, testing companies? All those kinds of things should be kind of tied together, so that students should hear fair and competing information about the nature of educational research, the possibilities that are out there for future professional development and, in some cases, students from, let's say, counseling, they have good quantitative or qualitative skills, and they want to make a double major.

Some professors in their own field, they are kind of resistant to this. Don't do this. That would damage your image as a counselor. I have a very difficult time to accept this position.

Many this approach, students would integrate the professional sort of skills, and research skills, should be rewarded and not penalized for having those kinds of interests.

So, those are issues that we also need to address in the colleges of education and this is not an easy job to do. So, if we have this in your agenda for future policy, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks.

MS. FALKENBERG: Thank you for your comments. I do want to remind you all that you should have in your packet contact information for all of the participants here. So, this dialogue shouldn't have to end at the end of today, obviously, to pick that up as we go along. Thank you again.