V. Room, board, and supplemental conference activities 81,000 tion, storage, maintenance, and distribution of video tapes, 21,000 VII. Indirect costs: Overhead expenses, including office expenses, telephone, insurance, etc. 17,000 Total 474,650 APPENDIX 5.-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN R. LOUIS BRIGHT AND ALANSON W. WILLCOX, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, CONCERNING CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONS Mr. ALANSON W. WILLCOX, PITTSBURGH, PA., January 10, 1965. General Counsel, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, DEAR MR. WILLCOX: I am writing this letter to resolve any questions pertaining to any possible conflict of interest in my position as Associate Commissioner of Education. I have submitted my resignation from the Westinghouse Electric Corp. This entails a complete severance from that corporation. They will not contribute to any retirement or insurance funds for me. I do have vested retirements rights, but this fund will not receive any additional contributions. I am exercising a stock option for 2,000 shares which will then be my entire holdings of Westinghouse stock. This is, of course, a major stock regularly available on the New York Stock Exchange. I will not hold any further option rights. Sincerely yours, R. LOUIS BRIGHT. Dr. R. LOUIS BRIGHT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, January 12, 1966. DEAR DR. BRIGHT: I have your letter of January 10. The arrangements you outline appear to me entirely satisfactory, on the understanding that as long as you hold any Westinghouse stock you will disqualify yourself from participation in any action of the Office of Education relating to that corporation. This last condition was discussed on the telephone, and I mention it only to make the record complete. Mr. Loomis told me that he is satisfied that this disqualification will not impair your ability to perform the duties of your office. Sincerely yours, ALANSON W. WILLCOX, (192) APPENDIX 6.-REVIEWS OF SHAWANO, WIS., GRANT PROPOSAL TITLE III REVIEWS Reviewers of proposed title III projects are asked to submit reviews in three parts. Part I consists of 15 listed criteria. For each of these, the reviewer is asked to give a numerical rating of 1 to 5, with 1 designating the highest rating and 5 the lowest. (Only 13 of the 15 listed criteria were applicable to the Shawano grant proposal since it was to be an operational project and Nos. 2 and 3 of the criteria apply only to planning projects.) Part II of the review consists of recommended action which can be (1) for funding (with a high, medium or low priority), (2) for negotiable changes, or (3) "not recommended" (disapproval). Part III of the review consists of a narrative statement concerning the proposal or, in the case of a State educational agency, a summary statement. The list of criteria for part I of each review is as follows: PT. 1-CRITERIA [The letters O for operational, P for planning, and OP for both operational and planning indicate the type of project to which each item applies.] The Shawano grant proposal was reviewed by title III reviewers on two separate occasions, once in late 1966 and again in early 1967. Views expressed by the title III reviewers follow. In most cases, the name of the reviewer has not been included. In order to avoid unnecessary printing costs, numbered criteria in part I of each review have not been repeated. Instead, only the number of each criteria and the numerical rating given by the reviewer have been listed. The nature of the particular criteria involved can be ascertained by referring to the list of criteria which appears above. PART II-RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Negotiable changes (resubmit). PART III-NARRATIVE STATEMENT The proposer wishes to develop and implement a learner-sensitive computerassisted educational system. The proposal is for the first 2 years of activity and would be supported by title III and title IV funds. The entire project would be 7 years in duration. The probable source of funds for the last 5 years is not clearly stated. The strengths of the proposal are obvious. The proposal is easily the best prepared and presented of those that I have read since being a title III reviewer. The reviewer has strong doubts that the proposal was prepared by the proposer, that the proposer is mindful of other avenues to the same goal, and whether the proposer has considered if the proposed activity is the most meaningful and important for the students for whom he is responsible. These and other points are discussed in subsequent paragraphs. The proposal describes an exceedingly worthy activity which is in the mainstream of the potential applications of electronic technology to education. If one takes the proposal on its merit, then it is entirely worthy of Federal funding; however, there are factors which should be taken into account before a sensible decision can be made. 1. It is inconceivable that the proposer participated to any great extent in the preparation of the proposal. 2. Much of the project activity is to be supported through title IV of ESEA, but the proposal does not state how these supplementary funds might be obtained (through a regional educational laboratory, and research and development center, or what) and the probability that they will be obtained at all. Inasmuch as the proposed project cannot be executed without exceptionally heavy supplementary funding, it would be mandatory to withhold funding from title III until title IV funding was assured. 3. Westinghouse Corp. will play the major role in all phases of the project according to the proposal. Certain legal questions ought to be raised prior to taking final action on the proposal. The most important of these is whether U.S. Government policy, and local school board policy for that matter, require that competitive bids be taken before award of a subcontract for development of the educational system and programs. No matter how one looks at it, the applicant system is merely stating a need for a particular kind of service and there exist many vendors who can competitively render such services. Consequently, it seems mandatory that the local school prepare a set of specifications about the type, kind, and amount of services and equipment which it needs, then advertise these so that all potential vendors can submit bids for furnishing the services and equipment. Unless this is done, it would appear that Westinghouse is becoming a title III applicant which it cannot lawfully do and the local school system will violate good business practices and, in addition, Federal regulations. Because of these questions, my recommendation is deferral and this deferred status should be maintained until such time as all legal quastions are resolved and the supplementary funds from title IV are absolutely assured. PART III-SUMMARY STATEMENT A. General Recommendation The substance of this project is most comendable and merits consideration when the following changes have been satisfied. B. Changes Recommended 1. More State and local involvement, also university. 2. Complete budget breakdown and classification. 3. Local initiative not readily apparent. 4. Pupil involvement not extensive enough. 5. Evidence that local system can take over funding. 6. Basic research component seems overemphasized. C. Reasons for Nonrecommendation None. I do not recommend this proposal essentially on the grounds that (1) it is too costly and (2) it lacks in sophisticated evaluation. The authors are no doubt caught up in their enthusiasm for a computer based operation and Westinghouse's desire to secure funds (Federal) to develop and test their system. Few, if indeed any, could support a system to the amount of $1 million plus, even if it did provide all of the instruction they purport. Padding of the budget is obvious. Travel alone accounts for $32,000 for the 2year period. If research (computer based) is to be carried on I certainly wouldn't trust it to the capabilities of a small, highly rural school system. As you know much is being done relative to using computers for teaching already. It is apparent that a thorough investigation of the needs of this school district was made under the planning grant. However, the proposed solution to those needs apears to have been derived from a desire to complete development of and test Westinghouse's SLATE system and instructional materials. If the desire were to find solutions to the educational needs of the children in the most effective and efficient way possible, then the operating procedure would be to list change possibilities and try them in the order of the least expensive first. It would be innovative and exemplary to follow this latter procedure. |