competing theories concerning a phenomenon, they work to rule out alternative hypotheses. Scientific Research in Education further advocated the value of the use of multiple methodologies to improve one’s chances of understanding the complexity in the phenomena under investigation. To complement this work, the committee argued for approaches that draw from multiple methodologies, involve multidisciplinary roots, recognize the importance of ethics and volition, and acknowledge the dependency of the work on building and maintaining mutually respectful relationships with practitioners. Furthermore, evaluation, like research, benefits from the careful accumulation and synthesis of such work. The best that can be asked for and expected is that such experiments in curricular reform be conducted with great care and sensitivity to the values of the constituencies, that they be monitored and reviewed with careful and thorough evaluations, and that the evidence be examined rigorously with periodic review to ensure continuous improvement. As with any scientific enterprise, the specifics of the approaches will evolve with the understanding of the problems.

In addition, there needs to be a commitment by all evaluators and investigators, including the committee, to a generous, thoughtful, and critical consideration of various possible interpretations of the data and a profound intellectual respect for others also undertaking these studies. It does not serve the public well to dismiss the considerable work represented by both the development of the 19 curricula under examination and the efforts of evaluators to document and study their effects. In fact, given the preponderance of studies regarding the curricula supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), one should acknowledge and value the role of the NSF in requiring the production of many summative evaluations and related research. These were a byproduct of NSF’s role in stimulating the development of significant numbers of alternative approaches to curricula in order to meet the need to address the relatively weak performance of American students in mathematics and address the inequities in mathematics learning. Multiple publishers testified that they followed NSF’s lead in undertaking their own development efforts. The NSF’s activity has been crucial in making this evaluation of evaluations possible and thereby in propelling the nation toward new insights and standards with regard to the conduct of curricular development and accompanying evaluation.

The history of science concerns not only the accumulation of facts and theories, but also the development of method. Developing method combines both a technical prowess as well as theoretical clarifications and negotiated agreement on what terms means and how to gather evidence on issues. To date, there has been too little focus on how to resolve disputes and how to interpret evidence, and too much fractious commentary dismissing others’ perspectives on the basis of anecdote and thin doses of empirical data. The committee saw our charge as a means to stabilize