Colloquium: Marrett Explains Challenges for NSF and a Resumption of the Political Science Program's Proposal Review

National Science Foundation (NSF) Acting Director Cora Marrett spoke about the state of the social and behavioral sciences at NSF. The Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) has been under fire in recent years, particularly with the passage of the Coburn amendment, which restricts the scope of political science grants (see Update, June 10, 2013).

Marrett began by outlining the government's support for social and behavioral science. In 1945, Vaneevar Bush published Science the Endless Frontier, which advocated for increased support for the natural and physical sciences and led to the creation of NSF. However, the report also cautioned that "It would be folly to set up a program under which research in the natural sciences and medicine was expanded at the cost of the social sciences, humanities, and other studies so essential to national well-being." This caveat seems to have gotten lost, Marrett observed.

More recently, President Obama, speaking at the 150th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences, voiced his support for the social sciences and cautioned that these sciences should not be subject to politics. And John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, affirmed the administration's full support for basic research in the social sciences, arguing, "The fact is that nobody can predict where new understandings developed in fundamental research will ultimately lead-- and what benefits to society will ultimately result."

Marrett addressed the impact sequestration and the ongoing uncertainty over appropriations has had on NSF. Over 90 percent of NSF's comparatively small budget ($7 billion compared to roughly $30 billion for the NIH) goes out the door to fund research, education, and facilities. So far, NSF has not been hit as hard as other federal agencies by sequestration; it has not had to cut back on existing awards, staff, or programs. However, NSF suffered a two percent cut to its budget, which, Marrett indicated, will result in fewer new awards, decreasing the likelihood of future discoveries.

Marrett also discussed some of the challenges faced by SBE, which she predicted would not go away anytime soon. She referred to NSF's "Rebuilding the Mosaic" report from 2011, which laid out some of the big questions the SBE sciences could pursue in the future, including topics like population change, disparities, communication, and the role of new technologies. Marrett also argued that the future of SBE will be highly interdisciplinary, collaborative, and data intensive.

She also noted the resumption of the solicitation and review process for SBE's political science program (see later story in this issue), despite the continuation of the restrictions placed on it by the Coburn Amendment.

For those who want to strengthen SBE in the face of its detractors, Marrett argued that it is essential to demonstrate effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This means making decisions transparent and accountable and ensuring that investments support the national interest as defined by the NSF charter ("to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense"). Marrett asserted that NSF's merit review process is the gold standard and that NSF does not intend to back away from it. She concluded by reminding the audience that these challenges are not unprecedented and that they will pass if we can work together to spread the message of the importance of all scientific disciplines and of investment in fundamental research.

Colloquium: Silver Reviews Thirty Year Career at COSSA

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak addressed the challenges facing the agency (slides). Tabak focused his remarks on three particular challenges:

1. Enhancing the translation of data into knowledge - Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) and Reproducibility activities and pilot programs
2. Ensuring a robust and diverse biomedical workforce - Biomedical Workforce and Diversity Initiatives
3. Supporting the best science through a dynamic and efficient peer review system

Big Data to Knowledge /Reproducibility Activities and Pilot Programs

Tabak began by pointing out the myriad data types that exist today, including genomic, clinical, other 'omic, imaging, exposure, and social media/internet-based. He noted that there are more than 28 million daily page views of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) website, with approximately four million daily users, 35 terabytes of daily downloads, with peak hits of 7000 per second.

He highlighted the June 2012 report of the Data and Informatics Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH director. Major themes of the report includes a recognition that we are at a pivotal point and are at risk of failing to capitalize on technology advances; cultural changes at NIH are essential; aim to develop new opportunities for data sharing, data analysis, and data integration; and long-term NIH commitment is required.

According to Tabak, starting in FY 2014 NIH's BD2K program will facilitate the broad use and sharing of large, complex biomedical data sets through the development of policies, resources, and standards; develop and disseminate new analytical methods and software; enhance training of data scientists, computer engineers, and bioinformaticians; and establish Centers of Excellence to address biomedical analytics, computational biology, and medical informatics.

Regarding the issue of reproducibility and transparency of research findings, Tabak noted that this has been the topic of concern in multiple publications. It is a problem in all areas of research, he pointed out, and not just specific types of studies.

He explained that the possible causes of difficulties in reproducing data include:

• Misconduct (falsification, fabrication or plagiarism (FPP)), one of the causes, but not the focus of the NIH's effort
• "Cartoon biology" -- Experiments are conducted until desired result is achieved, but prior experiments are not adequately reported
• Chance -- Experiments performed correctly, but without appropriate replication
• Poor experimental design -- Fundamental quality characteristics not reported/performed (e.g., blinded assessment, randomization, sample size calculations)

Tabak noted that the NIH is discussing reproducibility and transparency of research findings with its stakeholder communities to alert them to the issue. He pointed out that things seem to be moving fastest in psychology. The agency's role has included sponsorship of 2011 and 2012 meetings and regular participation in discussions. NIH has also collaborated with the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science on new and enhanced journal reporting standards (e.g., expanded Methods sections, addition of statistical sections).

Additional trans-NIH actions include: Office of Intramural Research will create and pilot a new module on research integrity as it relates to experimental biases and study design and ethics training courses required for NIH intramural fellows. Once tested, the Office of Extramural Research will make available on the web and encourage adoption (or equivalent) by extramural training programs for fellows and trainees.

NIH will implement pilots to address key concerns, said Tabak. These include: evaluate the "scientific premise" of grant applications; develop a checklist to systematically evaluate grant applications; design changes to bio-sketch requirements; determine approaches needed to reduce "perverse incentives" and support replication studies. Important issues to consider as the pilots move forward, he cautioned, such as one size does not fit all; effects on experiences versus early-career researchers; costs of additional data; and potential added burden to review process. The agency also intends to convene meetings with journal editors, study section chairs, and the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) chairs, he explained, and noted that NIH will continue dialogue with stakeholders, including professional societies, industry, academics, and patient advocacy groups.

Biomedical Workforce and Diversity Initiatives

Tabak highlighted the NIH's Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) Program. The agency, via its Common Fund program, is currently seeking innovative approaches to complement traditional research training in biomedical sciences at institutions that receive NIH funds. The program allows one application per institution and provides up to $250,000 in direct costs per year. NIH received more than 100 applications for the program. The program encourages institutions to leverage funds with existing institutional offices and programs, local resources outside the institution, or that partner with industry or other entities, said Tabak. Proven approaches will be widely disseminated throughout the biomedical research community and awardees will meet to exchange ideas.

Addressing the issue of diversity, Tabak stressed the challenges the agency must solve. No one set of initiatives will diversify the NIH-funded workforce overnight, he emphasized, noting that the NIH must gain the trust within many communities. This will require that it develop partnerships; success will require collaboration and cooperation of extramural partners. The agency's overarching strategy includes four interrelated approaches that will be implemented:

• NIH Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Program
• National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN)
• Ensuring fairness in peer review; and
• Increased engagement by all NIH leadership, which also includes the creation of a steering committee working group on Diversity and recruitment of a Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity (See Update, June 25, 2012 ).

NIH Peer Review

Tabak concluded his remarks with a discussion of the NIH review and award process, a process that is "fundamental to the NIH mission." He reviewed the NIH's two-tier review system which is the foundation on which the agency's funding of extramural research is based. Each year, he explained, the NIH issues approximately one thousand funding opportunity announcements, reviews 70,000-80,000 applications, recruits approximately 22,500 reviewers, and runs nearly 2,500 meetings.

He highlighted the recommendations from the Advisory Council to the Director (ACD) Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce that the: NIH should establish a working group of the ACD comprised of experts in behavioral and social sciences and studies of diversity with a special focus on determining and combating real or perceived biases in the NIH peer review system (recommendation #9); NIH should first pilot different forms of validated implicit bias/diversity awareness training for NIH scientific review officers and program officers to determine the most efficacious approaches. Once the best training approaches have been identified with NIH staff, pilot these programs with members of the study sections to ascertain if their value is sustained. If they are, provide to all study section members (recommendation # 10) (See Update, June 25, 2012).

Tabak discussed the recent charge to the NIH Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) to recommend ways to further optimize the process of reviewing and awarding grants. The SMRB is directed to focus on ways in which NIH can:

• Streamline the grant-making process and shorten the length of time from application to allocation of funds, and
• Address the administrative burden on applicants and their institutions, scientific reviewers, Council members, and NIH staff while maintaining a high quality review process.

NIH is increasingly challenged for additional validation of peer review and its funding approach, he explained. A fundamental challenge, he pointed out, is that NIH extramural research support is largely based on prospective review which forces evaluation of the potential of valuable outcomes. The "value" of research, he observed, is "often impossible to predict at inception, and stakeholders less willing to accept the 'promise' of a return on investment." He lamented that there are few interim and/or surrogate markers of research value. The quantitative approaches rely on some form of citation analysis or usage data, and the qualitative approaches are rarely applied in a rigorous manner prospectively, he stated.

The challenge for NIH is does its peer review system optimally inform decision making to support the most important science. Possible approaches are being explored, including quantitative approaches that will analyze the study section "inputs," said Tabak. The analysis will examine the number of new applications; the number of new awards; and the relationship between the two for different study sections, while controlling for their different sizes; and the percent of awardees who submit competing renewals by IRG.

The quantitative approaches under consideration include tracking indicators of emergent fields such as "word bursts" in literature, applications which precede widespread adoption could indicate a new research area; the appearance of new investigators in application to the study section; citation analysis of applications (emerging areas tend to cite interdisciplinary references); and "altmetrics," he said. He concluded his remarks by concluding that that "to date, quantitative approaches are insufficient and must be supplemented with expert qualitative input."

Former NIH Official Wendy Baldwin Responds to Tabak's Presentation

Wendy Baldwin

Baldwin noted that NIH, like the National Science Foundation (NSF), has repeatedly called for interdisciplinary research, which is hard to do, but with big data the two communities are grappling with the same data. It is what is opening up observational data. She expressed her belief that data sets that different constituencies want to use are the best avenue to interdisciplinary research, emphasizing that she has seen it work. She cautioned, however, that if not done properly, we could end up with new big data silos and the big challenge is to bring the constituencies together.

But NIH and NSF can do this, Baldwin insisted. They can exert the leverage needed to make it happen via how the agencies frame the issues, the challenges, and the questions along with the financial support provided. It is a powerful and empowering approach as these agencies look to draw on the creativity of the community. She pointed to the relentless support of data sharing by both agencies. There is public support as well as an obligation to share the data, said Baldwin.

According to Baldwin, the bigger issue is the one of replication. It requires the community to understand that reproducibility and translation are critical features to the process of science. It is important to the mission both NSF and NIH, she declared.

Colloquium: Changes at Census

Colloquium: America's Political Institutions in Trouble

Aside from the individual talks, the Colloquium included a series of panel presentations. The first focused on "America's Political Institutions in Trouble," Sarah Binder, Brookings Institution; Jeremy Mayer, George Mason University; and Mark Graber, University of Maryland Law School, addressed the challenges facing the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, respectively.

Congress

Sarah Binder

Binder (slides) began her presentation by asking the following questions: Can Congress govern in polarized times? What does social science tell us about this question? A timely discussion, coming only weeks after a government shutdown, Binder sought to determine if this Congress is uniquely dysfunctional or just slightly more dysfunctional than usual-- or, in the words of Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, if it's "even worse than it looks."

To begin to answer these questions and create a measurement with which to compare this Congress with past iterations, Binder looks at landmark laws passed-- a concept created by political scientist David Mayhew-- compared to landmark laws that could have passed (in other words, what Congress could have accomplished but didn't). In this case, "landmark laws" refers to major legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act. When using this methodology to create a measurable score, Binder found that this Congress is, in fact, uniquely dysfunctional-- it has the highest dysfunction score in the post-WWII era (for comparison, the least dysfunctional periods were during LBJ's Great Society and immediately after September 11^th, 2001).

Having empirically established the deadlock in today's Congress, Binder addressed some potential causes. Chief among them are inter-branch divided party government, intra-branch partisan polarization, and bicameral policy differences (the House and Senate have competing priorities). Binder wrapped up by posing the question: Is this time really different or are these factors simply more exaggerated than in the past? She suggested that the reality is a combination of both, which is exacerbated by a new problem: the current dysfunction is creating bad solutions (such as sequestration), which lead to the creation of new problems. She predicted that eventually electoral forces will reign in the deadlock-- as they have in the past-- but the real question is how much damage will be done before that happens.

The Presidency

Jeremy Mayer

For instance, Mayer asserted that Obama's (poor) handling of relations with the Congress should not be too surprising: Obama brought the shortest resume in 100 years to the White House, including very little experience in the legislature. Furthermore, he doesn't have the personality of LBJ or Bill Clinton, which would allow him to work with an intransigent opposition party. Finally, the Obama Administration's legislative agenda has been largely reactive, and most policy has been written on Capitol Hill rather than by the White House. His strengths as an orator, in instilling staff loyalty, and as a politician, combined with an opposition party "prone to error" has kept things from being as bad as they potentially could have been given his weaknesses, Mayer asserted.

He continued with a historical comparison. In his dealings with the Republican opposition, the most ideologically rigid parties since the Civil War, Obama has mistakenly believed that helping the GOP through compromise would lead to more cooperation overall. If Tip O'Neill ran Congress in the same manner under Reagan as Speaker John Boehner runs this Congress, Mayer argued, Reagan would have been a failed president. Thus, while Obama's presidency has been marred by many weaknesses, it would be hugely inaccurate to examine his presidency without considering the unique dysfunction of Congress and the rarely high degree of unity in the opposition party.

Mayer concluded his presentation with some possible solutions-- or ameliorations-- and his hopes for the future. Certain structural changes, such as filibuster reform, electoral reform (in particular gerrymandering), and a unified ruling party are imperative for a functional presidency in the future. He expressed hope that after 2014 Republicans in Congress could act like the Democrats under Reagan and that the Tea Party "outburst" will have subsided. "Systemic anachronisms," Mayer said, "are helping our dysfunctions rather than healing them. The norms of American party politics are broken...Don't hope this will change from the White House."

The Supreme Court

Mark Graber

Graber argued that the Supreme Court is working as it always has-- which is the problem, thanks to recent changes to our political system. Specifically, the hyper-polarization addressed by the two previous panelists is leading to a Supreme Court that will continue to function in a typical manner, but its makeup will lead to fundamentally different outcomes.

To articulate this point, Graber stated that prior to Franklin Roosevelt's Administration, there existed a general agreement surrounding the role of the Court and the role of Congress. FDR changed this system by appointing "civil liberty activists" who were quite divorced from the general public in their views. These elites, as Graber calls them, will always have more extreme views than society-- from either left or right-- and our current Supreme Court reflects that.

Graber continued by stating that Justice Kennedy is the last of the real centrists, and the next confirmation will be a "war," as it will name the fifth "pure breed"-- that is, the fifth purely ideologically aligned Justice. Historically, Graber said, the Supreme Court managed to find the political center in many issues. In our current political environment, with a polarized Supreme Court, the United States will be wholly lacking in centrist institutions. He finished by stating that in the near future, "constitutional law could be rewritten every five years by 5-4 decisions," something Graber considers a worrisome prospect.

In a brief Q&A session, the panelists were asked what associations can do to help find and build up centrist voices. Binder responded, stating that stakeholders must reach out to legislators who have demonstrated interest in policy- and evidence-oriented solutions. For instance, some members of Congress are members of the American Political Science Association who could clearly be receptive to such issues. The next questioner wondered if associations could work with the business community to address some of these problems. Mayer thought this is certainly possible, especially with the dysfunction hurting businesses as it has, but Graber was concerned that businesses might not reflect the social science community's interests.

Colloquium: Changes Regarding Race in America

NSF Announces Policy Regarding Political Science Program

In a Dear Colleague letter dated November 1, Joanne Tornow, Acting Assistant Director for the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate, announced updated information about the political science program. She declared that "the Political Science Program at NSF will be holding its regular and dissertation competitions this spring. As usual, the deadline for both competitions is January 15th with results being announced between the middle of May and early June."

Recognizing that the program is still under the restrictions placed on it by the Coburn Amendment, which stipulates that projects funded through the Political Science Program must either "promote national security or the economic interests of the United States," she advises researchers that "the relationship of the proposed research to these goals should be addressed both in the broader impacts section of the project summary and within the project description."

Regarding the review process, Tornow notes that "the Political Science Program...will continue to engage panels to review grant proposals, using the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts)." However, these panels will be asked to provide input on the degree to which the proposed research projects meet the Coburn criteria. Informed by the advice of the review panels, NSF Program Officers will make funding recommendations.

As long as a Continuing Resolution (CR) remains in effect for NSF's FY 2014 funding, eliminating the Coburn amendment will remain difficult, since a positive action would be necessary to remove it. If the Congress manages to consider NSF's FY 2014 budget in a regular or Omnibus Appropriations bill, the elimination of Coburn restrictions could be easier because the two bills the emerged from the House and Senate appropriations committees that include funding for NSF in FY 2014 do not include the Coburn language and another amendment to preserve it would be required.

For questions and further information about the Dear Colleague Letter contact: Brian Humes (bhumes@nsf.gov) and Erik Herron (eherron@nsf.gov).

George F. Koob Named Director of NIAAA

George F. Koob has been selected as Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). He is expected to join the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in January 2014.

As NIAAA director, Koob will oversee the institute's $458 million budget, which primarily funds alcohol-related research in a wide range of scientific areas including genetics, neuroscience, epidemiology, prevention, and treatment. NIAAA also coordinates and collaborates with other research institutes and federal programs on alcohol-related issues and national, state, and local institutions, organizations, agencies, and programs engaged in alcohol-related work.

Koob comes to the NIH from The Scripps Research Institute, California Campus, where he is Chairman, Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders, and Director, Alcohol Research Center. He earned his Ph.D. in Behavioral Physiology at Johns Hopkins University.

His early research has contributed to the understanding of the anatomical connections of emotion al systems and the neurochemistry of emotional function. He is also one of the world's authorities on alcohol and drug addiction. He has furthered the understanding of the neurocircuitry associated with the acute reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse and more recently on the neuroadaptations of these reward circuits associated with the transition to dependence.

NIH director Francis Collins recognized and thanked NIAAA Acting Director Kenneth R. Warren, "for his exemplary and dedicated service. Ken ably led the NIAAA for five years, and those years have been full of uncertainty and change."

Senate HELP Committee Holds Hearing on "Attaining a Quality Degree: Innovations to Improve Student Success"

On October 31, the full Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing to discuss the role of innovation in improving access, quality, affordability, and completion in higher education. HELP Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ranking Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) laid out the goals of this hearing in their opening remarks, stating "innovation for its own sake is not what we're after." Alexander continued by saying there should be three goals of innovation in higher education: 1) improve student performance; 2) increase graduation and retention rates; and 3) reduce costs to taxpayers and students. He finished his statement by wondering if the federal government is "in the way" and asked the witnesses to talk about the government's role in their testimony.

The witnesses were Richard Kazis, Senior Vice President, Jobs for the Future; William Kirwan, Chancellor and CEO, University System of Maryland; Scott Ralls, President, North Carolina Community College System; and Paul LeBlanc, President, Southern New Hampshire University. In response to the opening statements, Kazis argued that innovation is vital to improving success and access for first generation and low-income students, and that Congress should provide incentives for innovation. Kirwan reiterated these points and mentioned that massive open online courses (MOOCs) are a positive step in this direction. Ralls said that his experience in North Carolina has shown that "focusing on success as much as access" was important in improving outcomes in N.C. community colleges. He continued by saying that reauthorizing the Higher Education Act would be a positive step in the right direction. Finally, LeBlanc affirmed his belief that competence-based education programs (CBEs) "have the potential to drive a paradigm shift in higher education." LeBlanc also suggested that Congress demand more from higher education as an industry in areas such as transparency, data, and overall accountability.

Alexander asked what lawmakers can do more specifically to help this process. The witnesses' answers were in alignment: more incentives and money. Technology in particular has been shown to lower costs and improve learning and outcomes, but new technology comes with high up-front costs that many institutions have difficulty covering.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) raised the issue of the rise in non-traditional students, such as those with families and full-time jobs. LeBlanc agreed that innovations must address this group, stating that the challenges presented to these learners are much different than the typical middle- to upper-income student coming out of high school and enrolling in a four-year institution. For instance, many of these non-traditional students have potentially not written a paper in over a decade, but they do have relevant work experience that should exempt them from certain course requirements. Ralls agreed as well, stating that community colleges in particular must ensure articulation agreements-- agreements that set the rules for transferring credits-- are well-established and keep transferees from retaking classes. Additionally, non-traditional students are generally focused on completing as quickly as possible, as opposed to the more traditional university enrollees. They are not interested in summer vacations, for example.

To conclude the hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Harkin asked for more detail about the cost structure of some institutions, with a particular focus on LeBlanc's university's model. The senators' concerns surrounded the cost structure of online courses versus traditional courses. Specifically, LeBlanc and others stated that the low overhead and relative affordability of online courses have resulted in higher profits compared to traditional in-person courses. In response, Warren asked if it made sense for those who participate in online courses-- typically lower-income individuals due to the courses' lower costs-- to subsidize the traditional courses for the typically higher-income students who attend classes on campus. LeBlanc responded by stating that, at his university, 90 percent of students at the traditional campus receive some sort of financial aid and that both students bodies were fundamentally different (40 percent of online attendees are adults, for instance). Warren and Harkin were not wholly satisfied with this answer, stating that discussions on future innovation must consider who, in actuality, is really footing the bill for higher education. However, the hearing concluded before they were able to delve more deeply into this issue.

The Nation's Report Card: 2013 Mathematics and Reading, Grades 4 and 8

In the National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP) webinar The Nation's Report Card: 2013 Mathematics and Reading, Grades 4 and 8, the NAEP delivered information on student performance data in mathematics and reading. The data in their entirety are available on the NAEP website.

 Notable points:

• The white-Hispanic score gap has not decreased, but scores in both categories individually have continually increased.
• The white-black score gaps did not change significantly in 2013.
• Fourth- and eighth-grade female students scored higher in mathematics in 2013 than in 2011, but the scores for fourth- and eighth-grade male students did not change significantly over the same period.
• Math scores were higher in 2013 than in all previous assessment years.
• The number of students performing at or above "proficient" has increased in every year of the study.
• Only two states (Hawaii and Tennessee) and the District of Columbia saw higher mathematics scores in 2013, and only Iowa, Tennessee, Washington, the District of Columbia saw higher reading scores. The District of Columbia schools, however, ranked among the lowest in the nation in past years.
• In reading, minority progress stagnated in the fourth grade, but in eighth, Asian students gained five points, Hispanic students gained three points, and black students gained two points. Boys' scores went up two points, and girls' rose three points.
• This NAEP assessment includes more data from special education students than in past years due to changes in methodology.

Jack Buckley, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics which oversees NAEP, said that he was "heartened" by the positive results, particularly in eighth-grade reading, but noted that overall, there was not much improvement. The continued gap in racial and ethnic progress is of notable concern to Buckley. Additionally, Cornelia Orr, the executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, said during the call that assisting "beginning readers to be stronger readers would be an area that needs more attention" based on the fourth grade reading scores.

Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte discussed some important policy changes and the impact of these data on policymaking and education reform. "NAEP is the only yardstick that can measure student achievement nationally," she said. She finished by stating that policymakers must pay attention to the data in the NAEP report card if we are to make productive reforms in education policy, particularly in states with changing demographics.

William Waidelich, Executive Director for the Association for Middle Level Education, also praised the rigor and usefulness of the NAEP studies. He stated that the data show that educators "continue to improve their curriculums" and that they should continue to "challenge their students when developing their curriculums." He also stressed the importance of active involvement by parents. It is important, Waidelich stated, that stakeholders recognize the vital importance of a quality education at these grade levels in particular.

NCHS Releases Interactive Health, U.S. 2012 Website

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has released its interactive website for Health, United States 2012: In Brief, developed in collaboration with the National Library of Medicine. The website allows users to take the data from the Health, U.S. report and create customized charts and tables; additional years and data elements (such as sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, percent of poverty level, geographic region, and location of residence) are available. The Health, U.S. topics cover life expectancy, infant mortality, causes of death, teen births, overweight and obesity, health insurance status, delay of medical care due to cost, and others.