[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2007
and
JUNE 6, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-28
and
Serial No. 110-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-233 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 15, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Witnesses:
Ms. Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers
Association
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 15
Mr. Michael C. Lach, Director of Mathematics and Science, Chicago
Public Schools
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 21
Dr. George D. Nelson, Director of Science, Technology, and
Mathematics Education, Western Washington University
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 25
Mr. Van R. Reiner, President and CEO, Maryland Science Center,
Maryland Academy of Sciences
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 132
Dr. Iris R. Weiss, President, Horizon Research, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 34
Biography.................................................... 39
Discussion....................................................... 40
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers
Association.................................................... 58
Mr. Michael C. Lach, Director of Mathematics and Science, Chicago
Public Schools................................................. 59
Dr. George D. Nelson, Director of Science, Technology, and
Mathematics Education, Western Washington University........... 61
Mr. Van R. Reiner, President and CEO, Maryland Science Center,
Maryland Academy of Sciences................................... 62
Dr. Iris R. Weiss, President, Horizon Research, Inc.............. 63
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Science on a Sphere, Front-end Evaluation, prepared for the
Maryland Science Center, August 20, 2004....................... 68
Dino Quest, Front-End Evaluation Focus Groups, prepared by Minda
Borun, Museum Solutions........................................ 141
Dinosaur Mysteries, Summative Evaluation, by Minda Borun, Museum
Solutions...................................................... 165
C O N T E N T S
June 6, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 184
Hearing Charter.................................................. 185
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jerry McNerney, Vice Chairman,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 192
Written Statement............................................ 193
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 194
Written Statement............................................ 195
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 195
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 196
Witnesses:
Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Assistant Director, Education and Human
Resources Directorate, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 196
Written Statement............................................ 198
Biography.................................................... 201
Dr. Joyce L. Winterton, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 202
Written Statement............................................ 204
Biography.................................................... 209
Mr. William J. Valdez, Director, Office of Workforce Development
for Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science, Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 210
Written Statement............................................ 212
Biography.................................................... 215
Dr. Bruce A. Fuchs, Director, Office of Science Education,
National Institutes of Health
Oral Statement............................................... 216
Written Statement............................................ 217
Biography.................................................... 222
Discussion....................................................... 222
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Assistant Director, Education and Human
Resources Directorate, National Science Foundation............. 234
Dr. Joyce L. Winterton, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 236
Mr. William J. Valdez, Director, Office of Workforce Development
for Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science, Department of
Energy......................................................... 237
Dr. Bruce A. Fuchs, Director, Office of Science Education,
National Institutes of Health.................................. 238
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of the Office of Education, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 240
FEDERAL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS: EDUCATORS' PERSPECTIVES
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Federal STEM Education Programs:
Educators' Perspectives
tuesday, may 15, 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
The purpose of this hearing is to inform the Subcommittee of
educators' experiences working with science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) education programs for K-16 students supported by the
federal R&D mission agencies: National Aeronautics & Space
Administration (NASA), National Oceanographic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards & Technology
(NIST), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Energy
(DOE). This hearing will explore whether such issues as the lack of
coordination between the agencies, difficulty by educators in finding
information about the programs, and the absence of robust evaluation
techniques hinder the potential of the federal programs for improving
STEM education in America. Most importantly, the hearing will highlight
how the federal R&D mission agencies can best contribute to raising the
level of scientific literacy of all students.
Witnesses
Ms. Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers
Association
Mr. Michael C. Lach, Director of Mathematics and Science, Chicago
Public Schools
Dr. George D. Nelson, Director, Science, Technology, and Mathematics
Education, Western Washington University
Mr. Van R. Reiner, President, Maryland Science Center
Dr. Iris R. Weiss, President, Horizon Research, Inc.
Overarching Questions
What are the experiences of educators in finding and
leveraging resources for STEM education from the federal R&D
mission agencies? What challenges have they encountered?
What do educators perceive to be successful STEM
education programs at the federal R&D mission agencies? How do
they determine success? What should the agencies improve?
What support that the federal R&D mission agencies
could provide would have the most impact on improving STEM
education?
Background
A multitude of studies over the past twenty years have documented
the downward slide of American students' proficiency and participation
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. In
October 2005, the National Academies released the report, Rising Above
the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future, which warned that ``the scientific and technological
building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a
time when many other nations are gathering strength.'' The authoring
committee deemed the highest priority action to be vast improvement of
science and mathematics education in order to increase the number of
students interested in and prepared for entering careers in STEM
fields.
The scientific and technical expertise of the R&D mission agencies
has been applied to varying degrees and with varying success to
programs and activities relevant to improving STEM education.
Currently, the STEM education programs at these agencies for K-16
grades are relatively small and vary widely in methods, target
audiences, evaluation measurements, and funding. In an inventory of
STEM education programs, the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC)
identified approximately $39 million in FY06 appropriated funds at the
federal R&D mission agencies for K-12 programs and $6.6 million for
undergraduate programs.
Until recently, the agencies have developed their programs
independently and without a strategic plan for accomplishing a set of
overarching goals and objectives. Unfortunately, this led to a need for
each program to discover a cadre of ``best practices'' on its own
rather than collaborating with other program and agency experts. Each
program also developed a unique method of evaluation, making a
comparison of effectiveness across the programs impossible. Lastly, the
agencies have had trouble building widespread awareness of their
programs among teachers nationwide.
In response to these issues, the National Science and Technology
Council, which serves as the principal body for coordinating federal
research and development, has re-established the Education and
Workforce Development subcommittee to encourage the agencies to share
knowledge and develop a federal strategic plan for effectively
increasing STEM proficiency nationwide. The plans for this new federal
coordination and planning activity will be reviewed by the Subcommittee
in a subsequent hearing.
The Subcommittee recognizes that critical guidance for how to
improve the federal STEM education programs must come from the people
who work directly with teachers and students. The witnesses for today's
hearing were chosen because of their experience working with these
programs and have been asked to provide insight from the field on what
the agencies are doing well and where they need to improve.
Specific Questions for the Witnesses
Ms. Linda K. Froschauer
In your experience, what are the federal R&D mission
agencies doing well in their respective STEM education
programs? What could they do better? Can you give examples of
any particularly effective programs?
How do your teacher members learn about STEM
education programs sponsored by the federal research and
development agencies?
What resources of the agencies would be most valuable
in supporting your teacher members in the classroom?
Mr. Michael C. Lach
How do you find resources for improving science and
mathematics education in the Chicago Public Schools?
What resources have you garnered from the federal R&D
mission agencies? How has this contributed to improving your
students' understanding of science?
What type of support that the federal R&D mission
agencies could provide would have the most impact on STEM
education for your teachers and students in Chicago Public
Schools?
Dr. George D. Nelson
In what ways can federal R&D mission agencies
contribute most effectively to improve K-12 STEM education? Can
you give examples of any particularly effective programs?
At the undergraduate level, what type of support
could the federal R&D mission agencies provide that would
recruit more students into pursuing careers in the physical
sciences?
How does the lack of coordination and overarching
strategy for STEM education programs hinder the agencies from
making an impact?
Mr. Van R. Reiner
Please describe the informal education programs that
you have partnered with federal R&D mission agencies to provide
for school-aged children.
How well do the federal R&D mission agencies develop
evaluation methods to determine the effectiveness of informal
STEM education programs?
What informal education activities should the federal
R&D mission agencies increase to help raise the level of
scientific literacy in American students?
Dr. Iris R. Weiss
Do you feel that the federal R&D mission agencies
develop evaluation methods for STEM education programs that
demonstrate effectiveness? What recommendations would you give
for improving their evaluation methods?
To what extent do the federal R&D mission agencies
incorporate best practices which have proven to be effective in
STEM education into their programs?
Based on your research on teacher training and
professional development, what guidance would you give for
developing programs for pre-service and in-service STEM
teachers?
Chairman Baird. This hearing will come to order. I want to
thank the witnesses and our guests and thank my good friend and
colleague, Dr. Ehlers, Ranking Member.
Our Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Committee is interested in hearing from educators in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM fields, about
their experiences working with the federal R&D mission
agencies.
This hearing is part of the ongoing effort led by Chairman
Gordon that the Committee is undertaking to determine how to
improve the level of scientific understanding of students in
the United States and how to attract more students to careers
in science and engineering.
There have been at least a half-dozen reports released over
the past 20 years documenting how American students have fallen
behind students in other countries. The National Academies
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, warned us that this
will threaten the standing of our country in the future. The
authors of that paper wrote ``the scientific and technological
building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding
at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.''
They recommended, they being the authors, recommended that the
highest priority should be a vast improvement of science and
mathematics education in this country in order to increase the
number of students interested in and prepared to enter careers
in STEM fields.
The Science and Technology Committee held a hearing in
March with leading voices in private industry and higher
education to discuss research and education needs in STEM
fields. Every one of the witnesses, including a retired CEO of
Lockheed Martin, the current CEO of McGraw-Hill, the CEO of
Intel, and the President of the Council on Competitiveness,
testified that companies in America need a workforce well-
trained in STEM fields in order to continue the innovative
solutions that keep them profitable.
The Committee has taken this advice to heart. H.R. 362,
also known as ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds'' Science and
Math Scholarship Act, was introduced by Chairman Gordon earlier
this year. The bill implements most of the K-12 education
recommendations of the Gathering Storm report and was passed by
the House with strong bipartisan support last month.
The Research and Science Education Subcommittee will next
be exploring ways that federal efforts in STEM education can be
better focused and more effective. This is the first in a
planned series of hearings to address these issues.
Today we are reviewing the role of the federal R&D mission
agencies in improving STEM education. Specifically, we are
referring to NASA, NOAA, NIST, EPA, and the Department of
Energy. I believe there is a great deal of untapped potential
residing in the expertise of scientists and engineers at these
agencies.
Not only do these scientists and engineers possess
impressive content knowledge of the sciences, they also have
real-world experience with the ``wow'' factor that gets kids
excited about learning science. Space travel, discovering new
forms of ocean life, creating renewable energy sources,
improving air and water quality, testing bullet-proof vests, we
could list hundreds of more activities that make science and
math captivating to young people.
Although the agencies have made commendable efforts to
share their knowledge and passion for science with students, I
believe those efforts have been relatively small and have
varied widely in their methods, target audiences, and methods
of evaluation. The programs have been developed independently
and without a strategic plan for accomplishing a common set of
goals and objectives. With a unified effort, I am convinced
these programs could have a much bigger impact on the
approximately 52 million K-12 students in America.
So we have asked our witnesses today to tell us about their
experiences participating in these programs. We have asked them
to respond to a series of questions. What do the agencies do
well? What should they improve? Which programs do educators
consider successful? And how do they define that success?
The Committee is devoted to improving science education, so
devoted that we added science education to the name of this
subcommittee. We are very concerned that American students are
not achieving their potential in science and math education. It
is a concern not only as we look at competing in a knowledge-
based global economy but also when we look at access to high-
paying, technology-based jobs in this country.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and
recognize my colleague and Ranking Member, Dr. Ehlers.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good morning and thank you for attending today's Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education hearing. Today, we are going to hear
from educators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--
STEM fields--about their experiences working with the federal R&D
mission agencies.
This hearing is part of an ongoing effort that the Committee is
undertaking to determine how to improve the level of scientific
understanding of students in the U.S. and how to attract more students
to careers in science and engineering.
There have been at least a half dozen reports released over the
past 20 years documenting how American students have fallen behind
students in other countries. The National Academies report, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm, warned us that this will threaten the
standing of our country in the future. The authors wrote ``the
scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic
leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering
strength.'' They recommended that the highest priority should be a vast
improvement of science and mathematics education in this country in
order to increase the number of students interested in and prepared to
enter careers in STEM fields.
The Science and Technology Committee held a hearing in March with
leading voices in private industry and higher education to discuss
research and education needs in STEM fields. Every one of the
witnesses, including a retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, the current CEO
of McGraw-Hill, the CEO of Intel, and the President of the Council on
Competitiveness, testified that companies in America need a workforce
well-trained in STEM fields in order to continue the innovative
solutions that keep them profitable.
The Committee has taken this advice to heart. H.R. 362, ``10,000
Teachers, 10 Millions Minds'' Science and Math Scholarship Act, was
introduced by Chairman Gordon early this year. The bill implements most
of the K-12 education recommendations of the Gathering Storm report and
was passed by the House last month.
The Research and Science Education Subcommittee will next be
exploring ways that federal efforts in STEM education can be better
focused and more effective. This is the first in a planned series of
hearings to address these issues.
Today we are reviewing the role of the federal R&D mission agencies
in improving STEM education. Specifically, I am referring to NASA,
NOAA, NIST, EPA, and the Department of Energy. I believe there is a
great deal of untapped potential residing in the expertise of
scientists and engineers at these agencies.
Not only do these scientists and engineers possess impressive
content knowledge in the sciences, they also have real-world experience
with the ``wow'' factors that gets kids excited about learning science.
Space travel, discovering new forms of ocean life, creating renewable
energy sources, improving air and water quality, testing bullet-proof
vests--I could list hundreds more activities that make science and math
captivating.
Although these agencies have made commendable efforts to share
their knowledge and passion for science with students, I fear that
those efforts have been relatively small and have varied widely in
their methods, target audiences, and methods of evaluation. The
programs have been developed independently and without a strategic plan
for accomplishing a common set of goals and objectives. With a unified
effort, I am convinced that these programs could have a much bigger
impact on the approximately 52 million K-12 students in America.
We have asked our witnesses today to tell us about their
experiences participating in these programs. We have asked them to
respond to a series of questions: What do the agencies do well? What
should they improve? Which programs do educators consider successful?
And how do they define that success?
The Committee is devoted to improving science education--so devoted
that we added science education to the name of this subcommittee. We
are very concerned that American students are not achieving their
potential in science and math education. This is a concern not only as
we look at competing in a knowledge-based global economy, but also when
we look at access to high-paying, technology-based jobs in this
country.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much, Chairman Baird, and I do
apologize to you and to the group for my due late arrival. I
was speaking at another session, and unfortunately I ended up
being the last speaker; and even though it was difficult for
me, I did cut my words short.
I am pleased today that we have a cadre of consumers of
science, technology, engineering and mathematics, better known
as STEM educational programs across the federal agencies before
us to hear about their experiences.
I believe it is the desire of all Members of the Science
and Technology Committee that we support the implementation of
programs that are well-designed and effective. But often as
legislators we are so distanced from the final implementation
of the programs that we hear little about personal challenges
and personal successes, and this is an opportunity for us to
hear what some of our grand schemes have resulted in and hear
it from the people who are sort of the boots on the ground in
the STEM education battle.
Today's hearing will delve into what was happening with the
consumers of federal STEM agency programs. I might mention many
of these programs don't come directly from this committee.
There are a number of federal agencies that instigate their own
programs without Congressional direction, and I have worried
for some years how those all intertwine with each other and
with what we have passed.
While each of our panelists brings unique perspectives to
the table today, I note there are a few common themes running
through your prepared testimony. Several of you have identified
the Federal Science and Technology Workforce and Facilities and
under-utilized resources for K-12 classrooms. I am interested
to learn more about programs that successfully leverage these
resources.
Secondly, many of you remarked that the best programs are
those that excite and inform teachers and students. Finally,
your testimony, coupled with the recent release of the Academic
Competitiveness Council's report on federal STEM programs
emphasizes a need to reduce the number of programs that are not
evaluated or clearly do not provide a benefit to teachers and
students.
Alternatively, faced with a maze of resources, you need
help identifying programs that have been evaluated as
successful to know what may be useful to you.
Our challenge in Congress is to target limited federal
funds at programs which leverage relevant federal resources and
also complement the local education requirement.
Today we will have achieved a win-win scenario to promote
STEM literacy at all levels if we manage to do that. I am
particularly pleased to see that today's panel includes Michael
Lach. As an Einstein Fellow in my office from 1999 to 2000,
Michael provided extremely valuable insight to me on STEM
education and science policy. He has moved onto much grander
things, now directing the math and science curricula for the
entire Chicago Public School System. He has been an outspoken
pioneer for effective teaching in math and science from the
time that he started teaching high school science through the
Teach for America program.
Granted that I will allow that I am a little biased since
Michael is a physicist by training, but I have been told by
others that he is an exceptional teacher, one that other
teachers look up to as an example that they aspire to be. We
are fortunate to have him here today. Welcome Michael, and for
that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
I am pleased today that we have a cadre of consumers of Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educational programs
across the federal agencies before us to hear about their experiences.
I believe it is the desire of all the Members of the Science and
Technology Committee that we support the implementation of programs
that are well-designed and effective. Often as legislators we are so
distanced from final implementation of programs that we hear little
about personal challenges and successes. Today's hearing will delve
into what is happening with the consumers of federal STEM agency
programs.
While each of our panelists brings unique perspectives to the table
today, I note that there are a few common themes running through your
prepared testimony. Several of you have identified the federal science
and technology workforce and facilities as under-utilized resources for
K-16 classrooms. I am interested to learn more about programs that
successfully leverage these resources. Secondly, many of you remark
that the best programs are those that excite and inform students and
teachers. Finally, your testimony--coupled with the recent release of
the Academic Competitiveness Council's (ACC) report on federal STEM
programs--emphasizes a need to reduce the number of programs that are
not evaluated or clearly do not provide a benefit to teachers and
students. Alternatively, faced with a maze of resources, you need help
identifying programs that have been evaluated as successful to know
what may be useful to you. Our challenge in Congress is to target
limited federal funds at programs which leverage relevant federal
resources and also complement the local educational requirements. Then
we will have achieved a win-win scenario to promote STEM literacy at
all levels.
I am particularly pleased to see that today's panel includes
Michael Lach. As an Einstein Fellow in my office from 1999-2000,
Michael provided extremely valuable insight to me on STEM education and
science policy. He has moved on to much grander things, now directing
the science and math curricula for the entire Chicago Public School
system. He has been an outspoken pioneer for effective teaching in math
and science from the time that he started teaching high school science
through the Teach for America program. Granted, I will allow that I am
a little biased since Michael is a physicist by training, but I have
been told by others that he is an exceptional teacher, one that other
teachers look up to as the example they aspire to be. We are fortunate
to have him here with us today. Welcome, Michael.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. If there are other
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, the
statements will be added to the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our nation's future competitiveness
depends on whether or not tomorrow's generation is prepared for the
high-tech jobs of the future.
Enthusiastic, adequately prepared teachers who utilize successful
teaching methods are needed in many of today's math and science
classrooms.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government must invest in math and
science education, as these investments help fuel our nation's economic
growth.
Economists agree that no other investment generates a greater long-
term return to the economy than scientific R&D, and that starts with
educational systems. Research, education, the technical workforce,
scientific discovery, innovation and economic growth are intertwined.
The Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Caucus has reported
that Texas ranked 20th in the Nation on the 2005 National Assessment of
Educational Progress scores for mathematics with a score of 281. The
national average was 278.
Texas did not report on the percentage of Texas middle school
teachers who were certified in math (the national average was 49
percent) or science (the national average was 54 percent).
Sadly, only seven percent of Texas' 12th grade students took the AP
Calculus exam in 2004. Students should be challenged so that they are
able to master these subjects, if we want to compete globally.
Today's witnesses are here to provide a critical view of federal
STEM education programs. Members of Congress need to know what works
and what doesn't work so that we can build policies that offer the most
benefit per taxpayer dollar.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Baird. At this time I would like to introduce the
witnesses on the panel. Ms. Linda Froschauer is the President
of National Science Teachers Association. She is also the K-12
Science Department Chair for the Weston Public Schools in
Weston, Connecticut. It is good to have you with us again. We
always value your remarks and insights. Mr. Michael Lach is the
Director of Mathematics and Science for Chicago Public Schools.
Dr. George D. Nelson is Director of the Science, Mathematics,
and Technology Education and is Professor of Physics and
Astronomy at Western Washington University, my home state. He
is a former astronaut and flew on the Space Shuttle. Mr. Van
Reiner is the President of the Maryland Science Center and
formerly was the President of the Sparrow Point Division of
Bethlehem Steel. And Dr. Iris Weiss is President of Horizon
Research, Incorporated, which specializes in mathematics and
science education and research evaluation. As you can see, we
have a very distinguished and well-qualified panel before us
today to learn from.
I would remind our witnesses--first of all, we have all had
a chance to look at your written testimony. Thank you for
preparing that, some of it quite lengthy, but very, very
informative; but I would remind you that today for the purpose
of testimony--spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each.
There are little lights there that will come on; and as Dr.
Ehlers used to remind people, after the red light comes on, you
have about five seconds and a trapdoor appears underneath your
chair and you disappear from sight, after which Members of the
Subcommittee will have five minutes each to ask questions. This
is a collegial, friendly atmosphere, so we very much look
forward to a good exchange of ideas.
And with that, we will start with Ms. Froschauer.
STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA K. FROSCHAUER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Froschauer. Thank you for this opportunity to present
testimony on behalf of the National Science Teachers
Association.
My name is Linda Froschauer, and I am the President of the
NSTA. For 32 years I have been a science teacher, currently
teaching eighth-grade science, and I am Department Chair at
Weston Middle School in Connecticut.
This is the second opportunity I have had in recent months
to testify before this subcommittee. A few weeks ago I appeared
in support of H.R. 524 which is for Partnerships for Access to
Laboratory Science Grants. I want to sincerely thank the
Members of the Science Committee and the House for passing this
extremely important legislation as part of H.R. 362.
Today I would like to talk about federal STEM education
programs for K-12 teachers. As you know, the vast majority of
STEM education programs are generated from the U.S. Department
of Education and the National Science Foundation. We consider
the NSF to be the engine of innovation for K-12 STEM education.
Information about NSF initiatives and other federal STEM
education programs are promoted extensively through NSTA print
and online channels and on the NSTA website. Combined, these
communication vehicles reach hundreds of thousands of teachers,
teacher leaders, and others in the science education community.
Federal agencies also share information about programs for
science educators at the NSTA conferences which draw
approximately 12,000 teachers each year.
During the last NSTA conference, the National Institutes of
Health featured the NIH Research Zone, a coordinated effort
that involved 27 institutes and centers from NIH professional
societies and other supporting partners. The NIH Research Zone
provided one-stop shopping for teachers interested in
discovering the resources available from the NIH research
community. Workshops and exhibits on NASA's education programs
are also prominent parts of NSTA conferences. These include the
NASA Educator Astronaut Launch where teachers can join NASA's
first educator astronaut, Barbara Morgan, on her upcoming
Shuttle launch. The Student Observation Network, 21st Century
Explorer, and the Engineering Design Challenge allow students
to use NASA data to conduct their own analysis and apply
engineering principles to solve scientific problems.
One of the challenges with many federal education programs,
however, is that they reach only a miniscule proportion of our
nation's science teachers. We must continue to find new and
effective ways to get quality, professional development
programs up to scale so they reach a large number of teachers.
To address this issue, NSTA is working with NASA, NOAA, and
the FDA to develop face-to-face training and online experiences
that we believe have potential to reach hundreds of thousands
of K-12 teachers. Why is professional development so important?
Last year the National Research Council report titled Taking
Science to School, Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8,
said that professional development is key to supporting
effective science instruction in the critical early years of a
child's education. All teachers need opportunities to deepen
their knowledge of the science content. In fact, the NRC and
Taking Science to School Report says that federal agencies that
support professional development should require that the
programs they fund incorporate models of instruction that
combine the four strands of science proficiency, focus on core
ideas in science, and enhance teacher's science content
knowledge, knowledge of how students learn science, and
knowledge of how to teach science.
In conclusion, recent reports have made it clear that
better coordination and communication is desperately needed
among federal agencies, bureaus, divisions, and centers that
are involved with STEM education research and programs. The
federal agencies do not appear to work together to facilitate
the dissemination of research or to discuss possible new ideas
and avoid those duplicative programs. In addition, an inventory
of STEM education programs across the federal agencies would
inform future priorities and initiatives, an oversight entity
at the federal level that works to coordinate STEM education
programs and could work with state and local officials and with
science education stakeholders is critical. Improvements in
STEM education require a commitment of leadership at the local,
State, and federal levels. Education programs at the federal
agencies should continue to play a role in improving STEM
education.
We hope that any changes to existing programs, especially
at the National Science Foundation, that may come about as a
result of this ACC report will be carefully reviewed and
considered. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
address you today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Froschauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda K. Froschauer
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
the National Science Teachers Association. My name is Linda Froschauer,
and I am President of the NSTA. For 32 years I have been a science
teacher and I am currently an 8th grade science teacher and Department
Chair at the Weston Public Schools in Connecticut.
This is the second opportunity I have had in recent months to
testify before this subcommittee. A few months ago I appeared in
support of H.R. 524, the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science
grants. I want to sincerely thank the members of the Science Committee
and the House for passing this extremely important legislation as part
of H.R. 362.
Today I will talk about the Federal STEM education programs for K-
12 teachers.
As you know the vast majority of STEM education programs originate
from the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science
Foundation. Strengthening science and math education is a core mission
of the NSF.
Science education is unique because it is concerned with the
special character of science and its related disciplines--it is at once
a body of knowledge and a dynamic questioning activity. Because of the
nature of science it is important to have scientists involved in
critical questions of science education. It was the recognition of this
interdependence between scientists and the science education enterprise
that drove the identification of science education as a key part of the
NSF agenda when the agency was founded.
We consider the NSF to be the engine of innovation for K-12 STEM
education.
The new NSF Education and Human Resources Division of Research on
Learning in Formal and Informal Settings--known as DRL--is working to
advance discovery and innovation at the frontiers of STEM learning and
teaching. NSF supports the highly innovative models and approaches to
learning in formal and informal settings. NSF works to advance equity
and participation for all, to foster linkages between STEM education
research and practice, and to unite education research and evaluation
activities across the Foundation and with other federal agencies.
The NSF has the capacity to incorporate the best from both the
science and education R&D communities and can enlist scientists,
academicians and researchers in a peer review process that generates
and tests innovations in science-related disciplines for education.
Unlike the Department of Education, the NSF has the ability to tap into
basic cognitive research, fold in new content and new ways of teaching
this content from the disciplines, and explore new technologies for the
delivery of professional development and for assessing teachers and
their students.
One of the most effective education programs at NSF is the Math and
Science Partnerships. An analysis of 123 schools participating in the
NSF MSP program shows continued increases in student proficiency in
math and science since the program was first established in 2002.
Students showed the most significant improvements in mathematics
proficiency, with a 13.7 percent increase for elementary, 6.2 percent
increase for middle school, and 17.1 percent increase for high-school
students. Science proficiency at each level showed marked gains as
well, with a 5.3 percent increase for elementary, 4.5 percent increase
for middle school, and 1.4 percent increase for high-school students.
African-American, Hispanic, and white students showed significant
improvements in elementary level mathematics, as did students
designated as special education or as limited English-proficiency
students.
In addition to working with NSF on a MSP grant, NSTA has worked
directly with federal agencies such as NASA, NOAA, and FDA to develop a
combination of face-to-face training and online experiences that we
believe has the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of K-12
science teachers.
NASA, NOAA, DOT and the FDA have partnered with NSTA to develop
SciPacks on topics supporting their mission. SciPacks are designed for
educators who want or need to learn core science content. SciPacks
contain three to five Science Objects, which are stand-alone, content-
based units aligned with National Science Education Standards and
Benchmarks for Science Literacy. These discrete online learning
experiences are especially beneficial to teachers who are forced to
teach out-of-field, elementary and middle level teachers who lack
degrees in science, or those who need to increase their science
knowledge of a particular content area.
Each SciPak also contains a pedagogical implications section
highlighting age-appropriate concepts and common student
misconceptions. Teachers utilizing SciPaks get individualized e-mail
support from a content expert and can complete a graded assessment
demonstrating content mastery.
SciPacks recently unveiled in the NSTA Learning Center focus on
these content areas: Gravity and Orbits; the Universe and the Solar
System; Earth, Sun and Moon; Coral Reef Ecosystems; Ocean's Effect on
Weather and Climate; Plate Tectonics, The Rock Cycle, Force and Motion
and Energy.
In addition, thousands of teachers have taken advantage of weekly
NSTA Web Seminars on these topics. In addition NSTA Symposiums provide
face-to-face training with experts on these content areas from federal
agencies, who interact one-on-one with K-12 teachers.
Other STEM education programs from federal agencies are promoted
extensively through NSTA print and online channels, and on the NSTA
website. These communication vehicles reach hundreds of thousands of
teachers, teacher leaders, and others in the science education
community.
Federal agencies also share information about programs for science
educators at the NSTA conferences, which draw approximately 25,000
teachers each year.
During the last NSTA annual conference the National Institutes of
Health featured the NIH Research Zone, a coordinated effort that
involved 27 institutes and centers from NIH professional societies and
other supporting partners. The NIH Research Zone provided one stop
shopping for teachers interested in discovering the resources available
from the NIH research community. The groups represented included the
National Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; the National Center for
Research Resources; the National Human Genome Research Institute; the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the National
Institute of General Medical Sciences; the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the National Institutes of Health
Office of Science Education; the National Library of Medicine; and the
Society for Neuroscience.
In addition, the NIH Office of Science Education provides medical
and life science curriculum supplements for grades K-12, as well as
posters and videos promoting health science careers.
Workshops and exhibits on NASA's education programs are also
prominent at NSTA conferences. These include the NASA Educator
Astronaut Launch, where teachers can join NASA's first educator
astronaut, Barbara Morgan, on her flight to the International Space
Station later this summer. NASA is offering a website, classroom
activities and challenges to teachers and students.
Other NASA programs highlighted at the conference include the
Student Observation Network, 21st Century Explorer, and the Engineering
Design Challenge. These programs allow students to use NASA data to
conduct their own analyses and apply engineering principles to solve
scientific problems. The NASA Smart Skies features a web-based
simulator with real world air traffic control motion problems between
two or more planes. Students apply proportional reasoning and distance
rate time relationships to resolve conflicts by changing plane routes
and speeds.
While I cannot speak to the efficacy or the outcomes of these
federal programs, we have found that many of these programs do provide
key research and content to classroom teachers and help to excite
teachers and students about science. One of the challenges with federal
education programs, however, is that they reach only a minuscule
proportion of our nation's science teachers. We must find new ways to
get proven, effective professional development programs up to scale so
they reach a large number of teachers.
Why is professional development so important? Last year the
National Research Council report titled Taking Science to School:
Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 said that professional
development was key to supporting effective science instruction in the
critical, early years of a child's education. The NRC called for a
dramatic departure from current professional development practice, both
in scope and kind.
All teachers need opportunities to deepen their knowledge of the
science content. The NRC also believes that teachers need opportunities
to learn how students learn science and how to teach it. They need to
know how children's understanding of core ideas in science builds
across K-8, not just at a given grade or grade band. Teachers need to
learn about the conceptual ideas that students have in the earliest
grades and their ideas about science itself. They need to learn how to
assess children's developing ideas over time and how to interpret and
respond (instructionally) to the results of assessment.
In short, teachers need opportunities to learn how to teach science
as an integrated body of knowledge and practice--to teach for
scientific proficiency. They need to learn how to teach science to
diverse student populations, and to provide adequate opportunities for
all students to learn science.
We believe federal agencies have a key role in providing programs
that will enhance teacher content knowledge, help them to deliver
effective instruction, and provide insight into how students learn.
It is interesting to note that the NRC report also asserts that
``Federal agencies that support professional development should require
that the programs they fund incorporate models of instruction that
combine the four strands of science proficiency; focus on core ideas in
science; and enhance teachers' science content knowledge, knowledge of
how students learn science, and knowledge of how to teach science.''
Looking to the future we anticipate that the soon-to-be released
Academic Competitiveness Council report on the myriad of federal STEM
education programs will bring about needed changes.
From our observations, there is an overlap in many of the programs
offered at the federal level.
There is no oversight entity at the federal level that works to
coordinate these STEM programs. The federal agencies do not appear to
work together to facilitate the dissemination of research, or to
discuss possible new ideas and avoid duplicative programs.
We believe that better coordination and communication is
desperately needed among federal agencies, bureaus, divisions, and
centers that are involved with STEM education research and programs.
Finally an inventory of STEM education programs across the federal
agencies would inform future priorities and initiatives. Federal
agencies should also work to coordinate their STEM education
initiatives with states, local districts, the higher education
community, and other key stakeholders.
Improvements in STEM education require a commitment of leadership
at the local, state, and federal levels. Education programs at the
federal agencies will always have a critical role to play in improving
STEM education. We hope that any changes to existing programs,
especially at the National Science Foundation, that may be come about
as a result of the Academic Competitiveness Council report will be
carefully reviewed and considered.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you today and
I look forward to any questions you may have.
Biography for Linda K. Froschauer
National Science Teachers Association President, 2006-2007
Linda K. Froschauer, K-8 Science Department Chair at the Weston
Public Schools, in Weston Connecticut, is president of the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA). She began her one-year term on
June 1, 2006.
Froschauer has been a devoted teacher and dedicated leader in
science education. She began her teaching career as an elementary
school teacher in Matteson, Illinois; moved on to middle level teaching
at the Greenwich Public Schools, in Greenwich, Connecticut; and has
been with the Weston Public Schools since 1985. She combines her work
in the classroom with a leadership role in her school, serving as
grades K-8 Science Department Chair/mentor teacher. Outside the
classroom she has worked as an instructor for Chicago's Museum of
Science and Industry; as a writer/consultant for many publications; and
as a field editor, reviewer, and consultant for numerous organizations.
For more than 30 years, Froschauer has been a leader and active
member of NSTA. In 1976, she was named the first Preschool/Elementary
Division Director to serve on the NSTA Board of Directors. She later
worked on many NSTA committees, including the International Convention
Planning Committee, the Preschool/Elementary Committee, and the
Informal Education Committee, and she has chaired both the Awards and
Recognition Committee and the Committee on Nominations. She also has
served as Middle Level Division Director, worked on the Committee and
Board Operations Task Force, and led the development of NSTA's first
Family Science Day, which was held in conjunction with the NSTA
National Convention in Boston.
Froschauer's devotion to science education is evidenced by her
involvement in numerous other professional organizations. She has
served as president of the Connecticut Science Supervisors Association
(CSSA), the National Middle Level Science Teachers Association
(NMLSTA), and the Council for Elementary Science International (CESI).
She is also a member of the Connecticut Academy for Education in
Mathematics, Science, and Technology; the Association of Presidential
Awardees in Science Teaching; and the Society of Elementary
Presidential Awardees. She has been actively involved in Project 2061,
a national effort to improve science education sponsored by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Froschauer was chosen as a Connecticut Science Educators Fellow and
named Weston Teacher of the Year in 1999. Her other awards and
accomplishments include receiving the NSTA Distinguished Teaching
Award, Middle Level, in 2001; National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards certification, also in 2001; the CSSA Charles Simone Award
for Outstanding Leadership in Science Education in 1998; a Presidential
Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching in 1993; and
the Educational Press Association of America's Distinguished
Achievement Award in 1991.
Froschauer earned a BS degree in education from Northern Illinois
University, an MA in science teaching from Governors State University,
and a sixth-year degree in curriculum and supervision from Southern
Connecticut State University.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Ms. Froschauer. Mr. Lach.
STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL C. LACH, DIRECTOR OF MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Lach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to speak to
you about this issue. It is an honor to sit before you along
side colleagues who I have worked with and learned much from.
We have made great progress with mathematics and science
instruction in Chicago. Student performance has risen
considerably over the past five years, and our rate of
improvement is greater than that of the rest of the state. To
do this, we developed a comprehensive plan to coordinate all
aspects of mathematics and science improvement which we call
the Chicago Math and Science Initiative. As part of this work,
we created a vision for high-quality instruction; built the
support infrastructure to provide high-quality, content-rich,
professional development to thousands of teachers over the
course of an academic year; forged partnerships with local
businesses, museums, laboratories, and universities to increase
the content knowledge of our teachers; and enhanced their
after-school offerings to include mathematics and science
enrichment. We have done this in the traditional urban context.
Most of our students are poor, our facilities are crumbling,
and we are limited on resources.
I would argue that there are two major assets of the
federal R&D mission agencies that will help K-12 STEM
education. The first asset is human capital. The scientists and
engineers of NASA, NOAA, NIST, EPA, and the Department of
Energy are the best and brightest in the world. They are the
ones making new discoveries, creating new technologies, and
literally exploring new worlds. The more we can connect
students, parents, and teachers with their insights, energy,
and perspectives, the better.
The second major asset is the facilities. The laboratories
and tools that are part of a federal R&D infrastructure are top
notch, the particle accelerators, the spacecraft, the
computers, the data sets. Most of our students have a very
incomplete picture of the real work of scientists and
engineers. Many teachers have never been part of a real
scientific project. The facilities that are part of the federal
R&D mission agencies should be utilized not only to ground
science learning in a well-defined context but to enable
students and teachers to grasp a vision of what they are trying
to do.
Communication between districts and the federal R&D mission
agencies generally differs by the amount of collaboration that
is intended in the partnership. The projects that are designed
by the federal R&D mission agencies, individual teachers and
schools find them by the usual methods, NSTA mailings and
publications, websites, email lists. We regularly email our
teachers of any opportunities that we hear about, and generally
because of our lack of resources, it is unconscionable for me
not to encourage our teachers to participate in anything.
The more strategic partnerships, programs are often
developed jointly and are the result of an ongoing dialogue so
the strengths of the partnering institutions are all leveraged.
These partnerships require intense collaboration and
flexibility from all sides as well as resources to support and
create and maintain them. In my written comments, I have
mentioned several partnerships we have used with Fermilab and
Argonne National Laboratory.
The federal R&D mission agencies have an important role to
play in improving K-12 STEM education. By leveraging the human
capital and facilities these possess and connecting these to
the existing plans and strategies of districts we will
collectively be able to advance the mathematic and science
achievement of our students.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Michael C. Lach
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here today to speak to you about this issue. It is an honor
to sit before you alongside colleagues whom I've worked with and
learned much from.
I am the Director of Mathematics and Science for the Chicago Public
Schools. The Chicago Public School system consists of over 600 schools,
nearly 25,000 teachers, and more than 400,000 students.
We have made great progress with mathematics and science
instruction in Chicago. Student performance has risen considerably over
the past five years, and the rate of improvement is faster than that of
the state. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2.) To do this, we developed a
comprehensive plan to coordinate all aspects of mathematics and science
improvement, which we call the Chicago Math & Science Initiative. As
part of this work, we created a vision for high quality instruction;
built the support infrastructure to provide high quality, content-rich
professional development to thousands of teachers over the course of an
academic year; forged partnerships with local businesses, museums,
laboratories, and universities to increase the content knowledge of our
teachers; and enhanced our after-school offerings to include
mathematics and science enrichment.
We've done this in a challenging context. Eighty-five percent of
our students come from low-income families. Our resources are low;
Illinois ranks 47th in the Nation in the level of state support for
education. Our capacity is limited--less than five percent of our K-8
teachers possess a State endorsement in mathematics. The Chicago Public
Schools is an extremely decentralized school district. By State law,
decisions about local school budgets, principal contracts, and
curriculum are made by an elected body called the ``Local School
Council,'' not the Chief Executive Officer.
While we feel proud of our accomplishments, we know that we still
have much work to do. An achievement gap remains in many of our
schools. The number of students meeting and exceeding standards remains
far too low. Our high schools, in particular, still have graduation
rates that are not acceptable.
In as much as possible, we connect with external resources to help
us improve mathematics and science in the Chicago Public Schools. Much
of the intellectual design of our work comes from insights my
colleagues on this panel have provided, from Dr. Nelson's leadership,
to Dr. Weiss's insightful evaluations of large-scale change efforts,
and to the National Science Teacher Association's consistent support
for teachers. Most of the funding for our efforts comes from the
district; we work in every manner possible to leverage additional
funding from corporate and university partners in the Chicagoland area.
In particular, we're happy to have several major universities that we
work with in close partnership, and our relationship with Argonne
National Laboratory has resulted in several programs that we have
enacted together.
The gaps we face, and the resource and capacity limitations that we
operate under make it unconscionable for us to turn down assistance. So
my most important point today is that we really depend on the
assistance and partnership of others--including the federal R&D mission
agencies. They have an important role to place in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education in the United States.
I'd argue that there are two major assets of the federal R&D
mission agencies that will help K-12 STEM education. As the Committee
considers the most appropriate way to connect these agencies with K-12
teachers and schools, programs should be designed so that these assets
are highlighted.
The first asset is human capital. The scientists and engineers of
NASA, NOAA, NIST, EPA and DOE are the best and brightest in the world.
They are the ones making new discoveries, creating new technologies,
and literally exploring new worlds. The more we can connect students,
parents, and teachers with their insights, energy, and perspectives,
the better. The people of federal R&D mission agencies can both educate
and inspire our students and teachers. A key priority should be to
leverage this human capital so that they can assist schools and school
districts in their work.
The second major asset is the facilities. The laboratories and
tools that are part of the federal R&D infrastructure are top notch--
the particle accelerators, the space craft, the computers, the data
sets. Most of our students have a very incomplete picture of the real
work of scientists and engineers. Many teachers have never been part of
a real scientific project. The facilities that are part of the federal
R&D mission agencies should be utilized not only to ground science
learning in a well defined context, but to enable students and teachers
to understand a vision of what they're trying to do. A second key
priority of the federal R&D thus is to make the places where science
and engineering are practices accessible in meaningful ways to students
and teachers.
I'd like to highlight a few examples of these that come from my
experience with Argonne National Laboratory and Fermilab.
The Academies Creating Teacher Scientists program
provides summer internships for teachers to conduct scientific
research with ANL scientists.\1\ In this program, both the
human capital and the facilities of ANL are made available to
select teachers in a sustained, supportive manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.dep.anl.gov/p-k-12/acts/
Fermilab's Saturday Morning Physics sessions--in
which I participated as a student--brings students to Fermilab
to learn about modern physics topics and see real scientists in
action.\2\ Similarly, Argonne's distance learning project uses
modern technology to provide the opportunity for CPS students
to meet and interact with professionals in technical fields.\3\
Both of these programs enable students to access the human
capital and facilities of these laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://ed.fnal.gov/talks/fermilab1994/web/
ed-prog-sec-student.html#saturday
\3\ http://www.dep.anl.gov/p-k-12/distancelearning/
The online ask-a-scientist provides a mechanism for
student and teachers to get accurate answers to scientific
questions from practicing scientists.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/
And, in an expression of our work as partners, the
director of education at Argonne participates in our annual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal For A Day project.
Given these comments, a picture emerges about the sort of work that
isn't very helpful. Curriculum development is one. We know from decades
of instructional material development that writing curriculum is a
complicated, difficult process. More acutely, we know that robust
curriculum is necessary but not sufficient for classroom improvement.
In addition to strong materials, teachers need equipment, professional
development workshops, coaching, and good assessments. Within a school,
leaders need to understand how to support curriculum implementation,
and manage improvement throughout grades and courses. Collections of
lessons plans, by themselves, are only a small piece of the puzzle.
The proliferation of state and national standards and content also
makes implementation difficult. Special topics can be motivating and
interesting to both teachers and students, but given the now-famous
finding from the TIMSS study that our curriculum is ``a mile wide and
an inch deep,'' adding more topics to cover only makes things difficult
for teachers. If programs or projects are parochial, they're harder to
connect to our work.
We also know that transforming classroom practice involves
intensive capacity development sustained over time. It doesn't happen
over night--or in a one-day field trip or workshop. A brief visit to a
laboratory or launch can be inspiring--and I don't mean to downplay the
importance of inspiring teachers and students about the world of
science--but real change takes sustained work over time. Within an
overall strategy, there's certainly a need for both.
I want to say a few words about the type of human capital
development that we provide for teachers at the Chicago Public Schools.
Our work falls into three major categories. The first is support for
core instructional materials implementation, focusing on the direct
application of content and pedagogy to the classroom. This is almost
always led by the district, and is difficult to conceive any outside
institutions other than curriculum developers with the capacity to
provide this work. The second is to enhance the content knowledge of
teachers via university course work. The highly qualified teacher
demands of the No Child Left Behind legislation as enacted in Illinois
use course work as the main driver for this work. Seminars and sessions
that don't provide credit for teachers don't enable me to very easily
meet my goals. The third is activities that inspire the study of
science and mathematics; generally, we use outside institutions such as
museums and laboratories to do most of this work.
In the Chicago Math & Science Initiative, the Chicago Public
Schools was able to develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy for
mathematics and science improvement thanks to NSF systemic initiatives.
It took us some time both to arrange the human capital and organization
in order to structure such a strategy, but the results to date are
quite positive. The more the federal R&D mission agencies can align
their work to similar district strategies, the better the chance of
success. Without a clear connection to district's vision, there will be
no traction. A plan enables forward movement. And it takes resources to
develop and drive such plans.
When the proposals come to me as existing plans with little
opportunity for localization, their chance of effectiveness is reduced
considerably. Small programs that are aligned only peripherally to our
strategies often just add complexity. We've had success because of our
commitment to coherence, and the more the federal R&D mission agencies
can align with that, the better. I can't think of any proposals that
have come to me with an evaluation report documenting their
effectiveness.
Communication between districts and the federal R&D mission
agencies generally differs by the amount of collaboration that is
intended in the partnership. For projects that are designed by the
federal R&D mission agencies, individual teachers and schools find them
by the usual methods--NSTA mailings, websites, e-mail lists. We
regularly e-mail our teachers any opportunities that we hear about. For
more strategic partnerships, programs are often developed jointly and
are the result of an ongoing dialogue so that the strengths of the
partnering institutions are leveraged. These partnerships require
intense collaboration and flexibility from all sides.
The federal R&D mission agencies have an important role to play in
improving K-12 STEM education. By leveraging the human capital land
facilities that these institutions possess, and connecting these to the
existing plans and strategies of the district, we'll collectively be
able to advance the mathematics and science achievement of our
students.
Answers
1. How do you find resources for improving science and mathematics
education in the Chicago Public Schools?
Individual teachers find text, lesson plans, and other classroom
resources via the usual methods--NSTA mailings, websites, e-mails. When
the central office learns of opportunities such as this, we distribute
them via e-mail to our schools.
More strategic partnerships--such as the ones described above--come
about via ongoing dialogue with our partners in museums, laboratories,
and universities. These are generally designed together.
2. What resources have you garnered from the federal R&D mission
agencies? How has this contributed to improving your students'
understanding of science?
As mentioned, our partnerships in particular with Argonne National
Laboratory and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have resulted
in several successful programs that connect teachers and students with
the scientists, engineers, and facilities of these institutions.
3. What type of support that the federal R&D mission agencies could
provide would have the most impact on STEM education for your teachers
and students in Chicago Public Schools?
The most productive supports are those that (1) inspire students
and teachers to study science and mathematics and (2) provide students
and teachers with a deep understanding of the real-world work of
scientists and engineers. Supports that are not particularly effective
include (1) lesson plans and curriculum development, (2) workshops that
don't connect directly to specific instructional materials or
university credit. To enable deeper collaboration, resources need to be
allocated with the expressed purpose of connecting K-12 schools and
districts with the federal R&D mission agencies.
Biography for Michael C. Lach
Michael C. Lach is Director of Mathematics and Science for the
Chicago Public Schools, overseeing mathematics and science teaching and
learning in the 500 elementary schools that comprise the Nation's third
largest school district. Mr. Lach began teaching high school biology
and general science at Alcee Fortier Senior High School in New Orleans
in 1990 as a charter member of Teach For America, the national teacher
corps. After three years in Louisiana, he joined the national office of
Teach For America as Director of Program Design, developing a portfolio
based alternative-certification system that was adopted by several
states. Returning to the science classroom in 1994 in New York City
Public Schools, and then back to Chicago in 1995 to Lake View High
School, he was named one of Radio Shack's Top 100 Technology Teachers,
earned National Board Certification, and was named Illinois Physics
Teacher of the Year. He has served as an Albert Einstein Distinguished
Educator Fellow, advising Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) on science,
technology and education issues. He was lead curriculum developer for
the Investigations in Environmental Science curriculum developed at the
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools at Northwestern
University and published by It's About Time, Inc. He has written
extensively about science teaching and learning for publications such
as The Science Teacher, The American Biology Teacher, and Scientific
American. He earned a Bachelor's degree in physics from Carleton
College, and Master's degrees from Columbia University and Northeastern
Illinois University.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Lach. Dr. Nelson.
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE D. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE,
TECHNOLOGY, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, WESTERN WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Nelson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Pinky Nelson, and today I am wearing my
science educator hat.
What resources can the mission agencies focus on? The two
goals of literacy and workforce development, have skilled and
knowledgeable workforce of scientists, engineers and
technicians engaged in cutting-edge science and technology
development focused on missions critical to the country,
research and technology partnerships with industry and
universities, world-class and unique laboratories and
facilities, and the capacity for long-term funding. What
resources do the mission agencies generally lack? Knowledge of
the K-12 education system and how it is structured and
regulated, internal expertise in education research, curriculum
development, effective instruction, or teacher preparation. The
agencies should combine their programs so those that can take
advantage of their strengths and be sure to include appropriate
partners when working in areas where they lack the expertise.
They have the capacity to sustain and grow programs that are
working and axe those that are not.
Possible areas where I think the mission agencies can
contribute effectively include career pathways for high-school
students and mission-related undergraduate and graduate
research. More challenging is participation in K-12 curriculum
development and evaluation, and teacher preparation.
I will briefly discuss the areas of challenge before moving
on to discuss career pathways and support for research. Working
towards achieving universal literacy by improving K-12
schooling requires deep collaboration with professionals across
the education system, often in a non-leadership role, creating
the capacity and improving the system comes first, the
agencies' short and intermediate-term goals come second.
There is a huge inventory of poorly-designed and under-
evaluated mission-related curricula, posters, and lesson plans
and associated professional development rarely used in
classrooms and with no natural home in a coherent standards-
based curriculum. The constant barrage of new resources adds to
the noise in the system and contributes to the mile-wide, inch-
deep problem. However, I do have one positive example. I
recently received a copy of an astronomy curriculum for grades
three to five that was developed collaboratively by NASA and
the Professional Science Educators and Developers at the
Lawrence Hall of Science at UC-Berkley. It is high-quality and
fills a real need for instructional materials at this level. A
collaborative curriculum development model such as this is
rare. Adding the evaluation component could make it exemplary.
My current work includes exploring the preparation of
effective new STEM teachers and helping current teachers
improve their practice. This is not a part-time job or one for
the faint of heart. Agencies should encourage and provide
incentives for their STEM retirees to become teachers. In
addition, they should collaborate with excellent teacher
preparation programs and support their rigorous evaluation.
In high schools and community colleges, agencies can
collaborate with appropriate education organizations and
industry to develop and support career pathways for students,
for example, in high school in high-need areas like photonics
or nanotechnology. The agency can promote its mission through
carefully designed, implemented, and evaluated technology
programs targeting the future workforce. These programs can
take full advantage of the agency talent pool. The NSF Advanced
Technology Education Program has created some effective models
at the community college level. Agencies could expand this
work, bring it into high school, career, and technical
education programs and provide sustaining funding that is not
available from NSF R&D programs.
Research scientists, engineers, and technicians can help
museums or other informal education entities display and
communicate, both in real and cyberspace, the new science and
technology that is coming out of the agencies to excite and
inform students, parents, and voters. Additionally, the
personal stories of STEM workers at all levels, including clear
maps of the paths through school that qualify them for those
jobs can help motivate students to enter career pathways.
Agencies can support undergraduate, graduate, and
postdoctoral students to engage in mission-related research and
then hire the best of them into meaningful jobs. They can
provide undergraduate and graduate students authentic research
experiences in their centers and laboratories, again with the
prospect of meaningful jobs. As a graduate student, I spent two
invaluable summers at the Air Force Cambridge Research
Laboratory solar observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico.
The NASA Space Grant program in Washington State is a
positive example. NASA funds leveraged with a one-to-one match
support around 150 graduate students every year to engage in
STEM research mentored by faculty at institutions throughout
the state, internships at companies, or NASA centers, or
participation on student design teams. Last year 100 percent of
the Space Grant scholar graduates went on to STEM graduate work
or employment. While the program keeps good statistics, it
could benefit from a more sophisticated effort.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of George D. Nelson
Chairman Baird and Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to
accept your invitation to participate in the hearing and provide my
perspective on the STEM education programs of the federal mission
agencies.
My primary perspective comes from my recent roles in STEM education
reform as Directory of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education
at Western Washington University, and my previous position as Director
of Project 2061 at the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. I am also Principal Investigator of a targeted Mathematics and
Science Partnership grant from NSF that brings together 28 regional
school districts, Washington State LASER, three state community
colleges, the Northwest Indian College, and Western Washington
University in an effort to reform science education with a particular
focus on improving K-16 science teacher preparation.
Personal experiences from previous positions have profoundly
influenced my perspective towards STEM education and general education
reform. I have worked as a research astrophysicist, flown three
missions on the U.S. Space Shuttle as a NASA astronaut, served as
Associate Vice Provost for Research at the University of Washington,
and taught at all levels in higher education. I have spent considerable
time thinking about and engaging in discussions with NASA and the
Department of Energy about their K-12 education programs, and served on
numerous advisory committees, commissions, and on boards of directors
including the Pacific Science Center, the Art Institute of Seattle, and
the Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD). I am also
the proud father of a dedicated and outspoken middle school mathematics
and science teacher from Katy, Texas.
This testimony will focus on the role of the federal mission
agencies, but it is always good to keep the big picture in mind. The
American education system is enormous, with over 50 million students
and 3.1 million teachers. Counting the critical role of STEM learning
in the elementary grades, more than half of these teachers are
responsible for teaching mathematics and science. The system is also
decentralized, locally funded and governed, and subject to myriad
regulations. Mr. Lach has provided a compelling picture of the Chicago
system. There are 15,000 other districts in America, each with its own
unique strengths and challenges.
Since the federal mission agencies depend so heavily on both a
literate citizenry for continued support and STEM professionals at all
levels to carry out their missions, it is in the interest of the
agencies to contribute appropriately to achieving two STEM education
goals: 1) universal math and science literacy and 2) significantly
increasing the number and diversity of American students entering and
successfully exiting the STEM pipeline.
I shall now address the Committee's specific questions. To approach
a model for how the federal mission agencies can contribute, it is
reasonable to ask, what resources can the mission agencies focus on the
two goals of literacy and workforce development? Here is my short list.
A skilled and knowledgeable workforce of scientists,
engineers, and technicians engaged in cutting edge science and
technology development focused on missions critical to the
country
Research and technology partnerships with industry
and universities
World-class and unique laboratories and facilities
Long-term funding.
It is also important to ask, what resources do the mission agencies
generally lack?
Knowledge of the K-12 education system, how it is
structured and regulated
Internal expertise in education research, curriculum
development, effective instruction, or teacher preparation.
1. In what ways can federal R&D mission agencies contribute most
effectively to improve K-12 STEM education? Can you give examples of
particularly effective programs?
Taking advantage of their strengths, agency professionals can
collaborate with appropriate education organizations and industry to
develop and support Career Pathways for students in high schools and
community colleges, for example in high need areas like photonics or
nanotechnology. The agency can promote its mission through carefully
designed, implemented, and evaluated technology education programs
targeting the future workforce. These programs can take full advantage
of the agency talent pool. The NSF Advanced Technology Education
program has created some effective models at the community college
level. Agencies could expand this work, help bring it into high school
Career and Technical Education programs, and provide sustaining funding
that is not available from NSF R&D programs.
Research scientists, engineers, and technicians can help museums or
other informal education entities display and communicate--both in
real- and cyberspace--the new science and technology that is coming out
of the agencies to excite and inform students, parents, and voters.
Additionally, the personal stories of STEM workers at all levels,
including clear maps of the paths through school that qualify them for
those jobs can help motivate students to enter the Career Pathways.
My current work includes exploring the preparation of effective new
STEM teachers and helping current teachers improve their practice. This
is not a part-time job, or one for the feint of heart. Agencies should
encourage and provide incentives for their STEM retirees to become
teachers, again making use of their talented workforce. They should
also collaborate with excellent teacher preparation programs and
support their rigorous evaluation. Poor preparation for entering the
classroom results in ineffective instruction and low retention.
2. At the undergraduate level, what type of support could the federal
R&D mission agencies provide that would recruit more students into
pursuing careers in the physical sciences?
Agencies can support undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral
students to engage in mission-related research, and then hire the best
of them into meaningful jobs. They can support students on campuses to
work with faculty engaged in mission-relevant research. They can also
provide undergraduate and graduate students authentic research
experiences in their centers and laboratories--again with the prospect
of meaningful jobs. As a graduate student, I spent two invaluable
stints at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory solar observatory
in Sunspot, New Mexico engaged in cutting edge research with world-
class instruments.
The NASA Space Grant program in Washington State is a positive
example. NASA funds support around 150 undergraduate students every
year to engage in STEM research, mentored by faculty at institutions
throughout the state, internships at companies or NASA centers, or
participation on student design teams. Last year 100 percent of the
Space Grant scholar graduates went on to STEM graduate work or
employment. While the program keeps good statistics, it could benefit
from a more sophisticated evaluation effort.
3. How does the lack of coordination and overarching strategy for STEM
education programs hinder the agencies from making an impact?
There is a huge inventory of poorly designed and under-evaluated
mission-related curricula (posters and lesson plans and associated
professional development) rarely used in classrooms and with no natural
home in a coherent standards-based curriculum. The constant barrage of
new ``resources'' adds to the noise in the system and contributes to
the ``mile wide, inch deep'' problem. Effective curriculum development
requires a deep collaboration with a team of professional curriculum
developers, education researchers, and classroom teachers.
In that light, I do have one positive example. I recently received
a copy an astronomy curriculum for grades 3-5 that was developed
collaboratively by NASA and the professional science educators and
developers at the Lawrence Hall of Science and UC-Berkeley. It is high
quality and it fills a real need for instructional materials at this
level. A collaborative curriculum development model such as this is
rare. Adding a rigorous evaluation component to explore ho well the
curriculum helps teachers teach and students learn could make it
exemplary.
Summary
A focus on 1) partnering with high schools and community colleges
along with appropriate education professionals and industry partners on
mission-related technology education programs for the future technical
workforce, and 2) supporting mission-related research for undergraduate
and graduate students both in agency facilities and on university
campuses could pay major dividends. This would require an achievable
overarching strategy, but not necessarily significant coordination
among the agencies. The critical collaboration would be with STEM
education professionals (not just K-12 teachers), university faculty,
and industry partners.
Biography for George D. Nelson
Dr. George D. Nelson is the Director of Science Mathematics, and
Technology Education and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Western
Washington University in Bellingham, Washington. The program is
responsible for the preparation of future K-12 science, mathematics,
and technology teachers. It is also a research and development center
with a focus on teacher preparation and science, mathematics, and
technology education reform. He is currently the principal investigator
on a $12 million NSF project, the North Cascades and Olympic Science
Partnership.
Prior to joining Western Washington University in 2002, Dr. Nelson
was Director of Project 2061 and a member of the senior staff of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Project 2061 is
engaged in the reform of science, mathematics, and technology education
at all levels with a focus on helping to create a system where all high
school graduates are literate in science, mathematics, and technology.
Under Dr. Nelson's leadership Project 2061 produced a number of ground-
breaking publications including Blueprints for Reform, Designs for
Science Literacy, and the Atlas of Science Literacy. The project also
developed unique and rigorous procedures for evaluating curriculum
materials and assessments, and greatly expanded its professional
development activities.
From 1989 to 1996 Dr. Nelson was Associate Vice Provost for
Research and Associate Professor of Astronomy and Education at the
University of Washington. His administrative responsibilities included
research policy, government-university-industry interactions,
university-K-12 education interactions, and federal relations. He
taught graduate courses in stellar atmospheres and solar physics and
undergraduate courses in general astronomy. In the college of education
he taught an innovative seminar on science education for scientists,
graduate students, and teachers using Project 2061 as the underlying
foundation. During the 1992-93 academic year, Dr. Nelson was a fellow
of the American Council on Education.
From 1978 to 1989 he served as a NASA astronaut and flew as a
mission specialist aboard three Space Shuttle flights. These missions
included the first on-orbit satellite repair in 1984. Dr. Nelson was
the pilot of the first operational flight of the manned maneuvering
unit and the primary extra-vehicular crewman. He also served on the
crew of the flight of Discovery in September 1989 immediately following
the loss of the Challenger and was extensively involved in the rework
of all crew procedures and the re-engineering of Space Shuttle
components and software. He has advised NASA through service on a
number of committees, most recently as Chair the Hubble Space Telescope
Servicing Missions 3A and 3B External Independent Readiness Review
Team.
Dr. Nelson has served on several boards of directors including the
Art Institute of Seattle, Analytic Services Inc., and the Pacific
Science Center. He received his B.S. in physics from Harvey Mudd
College and M.S. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of
Washington. His research interests include science education, education
reform, and radiative transfer and hydrodynamics applied to interesting
problems in astrophysics.
He lives in Bellingham with his wife, Susie. They have two grown
daughters; Aimee Nelson-Engle and Marti Nelson-Frazier and three
perfect grandsons, Pierce, Langston, and Andrew.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Nelson. Mr. Van Reiner.
STATEMENT OF MR. VAN R. REINER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MARYLAND
SCIENCE CENTER, MARYLAND ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Mr. Reiner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Van Reiner, President of the Maryland
Science Center located in Baltimore's Inner Harbor. We have
three levels of interactive, hands-on exhibits, a planetarium,
an IMAX theater, classroom space, and a program space for live
science demonstrations. Each year we admit 100,000 students
attending with school groups to augment their science and
mathematics curriculum. We are a member of the Association of
Science Technology Centers, Incorporated.
We, like hundreds of institutions across the country,
employ what is known as informal education as a way to connect
people with science and technology. Learning by doing is the
basis for our approach. Showing how, rather than stating why,
gives visitors the information they need to make informed
decisions about how to relate the topic at hand. When we are
successful, we go from global to local to individual by giving
the facts, a better understanding of the topic or how it
relates to them, and hopefully a quest for more knowledge.
Motivating students to take interest in science,
technology, engineering, and math, whether or not they choose
to pursue a career in those fields, puts science centers in a
unique position to spark an initial interest.
Collaborations are essential to the success of science
centers, and we have a history of collaborating with the
federal R&D mission agencies. The longest running collaboration
is with NASA. We have co-hosted events with NASA such as having
students participate in televideo conferences with the
astronauts aboard the International Space Station and the
Shuttle, as well as watching a European solar eclipse while
talking to NASA Goddard scientists on board a ship in the Black
Sea. We have helped to develop after-school astronomy
programming and are embarking on a citizen science project to
measure the amount of UV radiation that reaches the earth at
Baltimore's Inner Harbor.
Scientists from federal agencies participate in our
``scientist of the month'' program to interact directly with
our visitors to discuss current research findings. Other
instances with NASA and other agencies are listed in my written
testimony.
Evaluation of these programs and exhibits have been
performed in our institution by us. The accepted practice for
informal education institutions such as ASTC members has been
to do front-end, formative, remedial, and summative evaluations
of the program or exhibit by a third party to be sure that
stated goals of the project are met. These evaluations are
required for NSF or NIH grants, and we use them for other
federally sponsored exhibits and programs. Several of these
evaluations are included in the attachments to my written
testimony, and I apologize for the length of them. [Evaluations
included in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.]
These evaluations are thorough and complete and help us to
know if we have met the requirements of the project and if the
audience understands the subject presented. We feel that
without this evaluation we would quickly lose our relevancy.
Currently we are collaborating with NASA and NOAA on
evaluating a project called Science on a Sphere, the globe
identical to the one that Queen Elizabeth II visited at Goddard
Space Center last week. We have been asked by NOAA to lead the
users group to work with the agencies to develop evaluation
methods specifically for the exhibit as well as the programming
that the group develops around the exhibit. This collaboration
between NOAA and NASA is unique and should be encouraged.
Scientists from the two agencies are working together to ensure
that the data presented is clear and meaningful. Increased
collaboration between federal R&D mission agencies and science
centers can better accomplish the goals of STEM education
programs. The dialogue between federal mission agencies should
be expanded so that the general public and students can be
presented with knowledge in larger and more meaningful ways.
We believe that greater understanding leads to greater
acceptance that science is resident in everything we do. It
just doesn't happen in a laboratory. Science centers are a
resource in every sense of the word and should be viewed as
such. We know how visitors react and how to best present
scientific discovery and scientific progress to the public. We
believe greater utilization of science centers as resources for
federal R&D mission agencies is the best way to help raise the
level of scientific literacy with the general public, including
students. We can, and do augment, the formal classroom
instruction using resources that would be either too expensive
or too impractical for the classroom. I believe that federal
R&D mission agencies should be required to allocate a portion
of their resources to educate the public as is now required by
the National Science Foundation.
I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reiner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Van R. Reiner
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee:
The Maryland Science Center, located at Baltimore's Inner Harbor,
is a private non-profit that had its genesis in 1797 as the Maryland
Academy of Sciences, which is still our parent organization. The
current building was put in service in 1976 and expanded in 2004. The
facility houses three levels of highly interactive, hands-on exhibits,
a planetarium, an IMAX Theater, classroom space, and program space for
live demonstrations on a variety of scientific phenomena.
Each year, Maryland Science Center welcomes over 400,000 visitors
to our facility with about 100,000 students visiting with school groups
to augment their science and mathematics curriculum. Major areas of
concentration--our core programming areas--are Earth system science,
space and aerospace science, health sciences and the human body, and
early childhood education. All of the permanent exhibits at the
Maryland Science Center were designed to be in concert with the
Maryland Department of Education Science Curriculum, and where
applicable, under the influence of The Benchmarks for Science Literacy
published by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science as
part of Project 2061, the National Science Education Standards prepared
under the auspices of the National Research Council, and the Principles
and Standards for School Mathematics from the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
The Maryland Science Center, like hundreds of institutions across
the country and around the world, employ what is known in the field as
``informal education'' as its means of connecting people with science
and technology. Learning by doing is the foundation of informal
education, along with demonstrating practical examples. Building on
that foundation, the role of the science center as distiller and
interpreter of the latest in scientific discovery and connecting the
public, especially school children, to the everyday application of
these advancements, is a key strategy we employ. Showing how, rather
than stating why, gives visitors the information they need to make
informed decisions about how they can relate to the topic at hand. When
we're successful, we go from global to local to individual along a
continuum giving the individual the facts, a better understanding or
how it relates to them, and hopefully, a quest for more knowledge.
Science centers in particular have an ability to affect change by
engaging school children through their use of informal education
methods. Motivating students to take interest in science, technology,
engineering and math, whether or not they choose to pursue a career in
those fields, puts science centers in a unique position to spark an
initial interest.
Collaboration has always been a means to an end for the
institution. Seeking partnerships to ensure that our exhibits and
programs are the best they can be has yielded quality educational and
enjoyable product for our visitors. The Maryland Science Center has
long cultivated a history of working with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), as well as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). Working with these agencies, and
others, we develop permanent exhibits, traveling exhibits, and programs
designed to inform and educate the general public--from those school
children to their parents and teachers--about not only the basics of
science, math and technology, but also the latest events and
discoveries in our core programming areas.
In our core exhibits we use high tech, multimedia update centers
known as Links. Each Link is designed to offer real time investigation
of science topics in the news that are appealing to mass audiences.
When something happens in the world of science and technology, our Link
areas and Link staff key in on the news releases, scientific data, and
information resources to process and present the findings in a
relevant, thought-provoking manner. Our Links are designed to give
visitors who seek cursory, as well as deeper understanding of science
as it happens, a chance to speak with our content experts, and to
explore areas that can be a resource for the quest for deeper
knowledge. Maryland Science Center currently features three Links.
TerraLink focuses on Earth system science, SpaceLink concentrates on
space and aerospace science and BodyLink examines health sciences. The
fabrication and design of these centers was accomplished with input
from the aforementioned agencies, and we continue to interface with
these agencies to stay on top of current research.
In the SpaceLink update center, NASA has been a primary partner.
The partnership has taken many forms. With the Goddard Space Flight
Center, we have helped develop an after school astronomy club format.
The results can be seen at www.afterschoolastronomy.org. This site is a
resource that provides information for students with an interest in
astronomy and put the information to use in practical applications, a
hallmark of informal education. We have also co-hosted individual
events with Goddard such as Sun-Earth Day, where educators from Goddard
are at the Maryland Science Center to explain that we live in the
atmosphere of a star, which has many effects on our planet. We are part
of a larger system and understanding that system is vital to other
scientific endeavors we attempt to explain. This is an annual event
where visitors engage in activities and receive print materials to take
with them that allow them to further explore the topics at home. Again,
relevancy and real world examples--informal education in process.
Maryland Science Center and Goddard also co-hosted an Earth
Explorer Institute where we convened 25 informal educators representing
science centers and museums from across America to discuss and
recommend NASA Earth science programming for informal audiences. As an
outgrowth of that, we are participating in a UV Citizen Science
project. We will enlist citizens to measure the amount of UV radiation
that hits the Earth at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, enter the data into a
nationwide database, and then participate in ongoing work to measure
changes in UV radiation across the country. People are exposed to
scientific equipment, scientific methods, and will be able to
participate in a nationwide study. They also gain a greater
understanding of the implications of changing UV levels as it relates
to their everyday lives.
Maryland Science Center makes its resources available to provide
opportunities for students to witness events such as a solar eclipse.
In August of 1999, a group of students observed a solar eclipse in
Europe via a link with Goddard scientists on board a research vessel in
the Black Sea. Students came to the Maryland Science Center to learn
about the eclipse and participated in two televideo conferences before
and during the event to observe and ask questions.
In partnership with the Johnson Space Center, Maryland Science
Center has hosted Baltimore City School students for four live
downlinks from the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle
since 2001. Students have conversations as well as question and answer
sessions with the astronauts aboard the Station and the Shuttle. Prior
to the downlinks, students visited the Maryland Science Center to learn
about the specific mission and prepare questions for the astronauts.
The missions included the delivery of the Destiny component to the
International Space Station, and the Hubble Space Telescope servicing
mission. After these two missions, the entire Shuttle astronaut crew
involved in the downlink visited the Maryland Science Center to meet
with the students who participated in the conference and the general
public. We were the first informal education institution to have this
opportunity, and mentored other museums on how to replicate the
experience.
With the Space Telescope Science Institute, we were advisors on the
making of a short IMAX film entitled ``Hubble: Galaxies Across Space
and Time.'' This three-minute film has been shown in over a dozen IMAX
theaters nationwide. At the Maryland Science Center, it has had 1,564
screenings for over 110,000 visitors. We have also developed a
planetarium show to explain what the Hubble has allowed us to see and
how those images have helped to shape the way we view the universe as
well as increasing our knowledge of our place in the universe.
Through collaboration, the Maryland Science Center participates in
other smaller programs funded by NASA as part of a larger grant to
another institution. We will create a series of programs and events
highlighting the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt. We
will host a small exhibit, offer a teacher workshop and host a Pluto
Family Science Night. Keying on the recent news and popular culture
references to Pluto's status as a planet or not, Maryland Science
Center will present the latest Pluto information as part of a popular
planetarium show ``Planet Trek.'' In conjunction with the Howard Owens
Science Center in the Prince George's County, Maryland school system,
we are to develop a planetarium program on Pluto and the New Horizons
mission for distribution to school planetariums nationwide--currently
numbering in excess of 600.
In TerraLink, the Earth systems science update center, Maryland
Science Center has partnered with NASA and NOAA to provide ongoing
support for programming including visual material and scientific
expertise. NASA and NOAA scientists periodically visit to work with
students as part of our Scientist of the Month program and on special
programming days such as Earth Day. Students and visitors have a chance
to see science pursuits as both a vocational option and simply as a
means to broaden awareness that science, technology, engineering and
math is not a narrow cast field of inquiry and exploration. The focus
of this program is to provide science and technology careerists as role
models for students as well as being able to offer another thread for
visitors and students to seek out information about how things like
atmospheric phenomena occurs. TerraLink staff and the Science Person of
the Month collaborate to present topics and information to the public
in understandable terms.
Using NASA and NOAA data and visual imagery, as well as utilizing
experts from the agencies in the Science Person of the Month program
currently defines the extent of Maryland Science Center collaboration
with the agencies named in this inquiry. It should be noted however
that prior to the institution's recent expansion and broadening of its
core competencies, the programmatic synergies between Maryland Science
Center and these agencies was limited by definition of scope and
mission.
Currently BodyLink, the Maryland Science Center's health sciences
update center, collaborates and partners with other federal agencies--
primarily NIH, through its Science Education Partnership Award
program--but does not at this time enjoy a relationship with the
agencies named in this inquiry. However, topics like the studies of the
effects on the human body of extended durations of time spent living in
space are of interest to BodyLink staffers and Maryland Science Center
and the opportunities to collaborate and deliver programming similar to
that which is already in place in SpaceLink and TerraLink are currently
tracking with our institutional collaborative goals.
Beyond the Link areas of our core exhibits and programming, and in
partnership with NOAA, Maryland Science Center has embarked on an
exciting project entitled Science On a Sphere (SOS). This is an Earth
visualization system developed by NOAA that projects a wide variety of
data sets onto a large sphere to create dynamic global views of the
entire Earth. Visitors observe hurricane development and prediction,
tectonic plate movement and earthquakes, sea surface temperatures and
their effect on global weather conditions, as well as observe global
warming models and the potential effect on the Earth. Science On a
Sphere is now a permanent exhibit at the Maryland Science Center.
Having this technology also allows us to compare Earth to other planets
and NASA data sets have been converted to show the Moon, Mars, Saturn
and the Sun on the same sphere. We have, in collaboration with NOAA and
NASA, developed Maryland Science Center staff-delivered, visitor-
centered, programs as well as produced prerecorded programs that
explain the images being observed.
We have also developed traveling exhibits. NIST was instrumental in
providing technical information for our Titanic Science exhibit. NIST
performed analyses of rivets from the Titanic hull that were found at
the wreck site to determine the strength level of the rivets, so our
information would be factual. One of the questions surrounding the
Titanic disaster was whether or not the steel used to make the rivets
was of poor quality--and if that might explain how the ``watertight''
features failed. By presenting the data and the surrounding conditions,
visitors were left to their own conclusions as to how the rivets might
have contributed to the Titanic's end.
Although we were not asked to speak directly to our collaboration
with other federal agencies, two examples of Maryland Science Center
collaboration with the National Institutes of Health are funding and
content expertise for a traveling exhibit titled: The Changing Faces of
Women's Health and funding and content expertise for our permanent
health sciences update center BodyLink.
With the exception of Science On a Sphere, the evaluation of
permanent exhibits has been done by the Maryland Science Center. The
accepted practice for informal education institutions, as exemplified
by the Association of Science-Technology Centers, (ASTC), has been to
include a front-end evaluation as part of any project. This involves
determining what the public knows about the subject through focus
groups and questionnaires. The project is then judged as to what is
feasible to build and install, and through prototyping of exhibit
pieces, determining if the public will understand the idea or concept
presented by the various exhibit pieces. When the project is complete,
a summative evaluation is performed to see if the stated goals of the
project have been met. This is done through direct observation and
public feedback solicitation, usually by an independent third party. If
there are changes to be made with the project, a final, remedial
evaluation is made to ensure that the intended knowledge transfer has
been made. (Attachment B and Attachment C accompanying this testimony
illustrate an example of this evaluation process which we completed as
part of our development of our permanent Earth science and dinosaur
exhibit. The exhibit was produced with funding and content support from
NASA).[Located in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.]
With educational programs, the process is similar. Educators are
solicited for areas where an informal experience can add to the
students' understanding of the subject matter. When the programs are
developed and delivered, feedback is given directly by the educators
who bring their students to the center for the educational enrichment.
These accepted evaluation procedures are required for National Science
Foundation or National Institutes of Health grants and have been used
by science museums for other federally-sponsored exhibits and programs.
Using the accepted evaluation practices mentioned above, NOAA, NASA
and the Science On a Sphere users group (made up of all centers with a
sphere installed as well as those centers where spheres are being
installed), have embarked on specific evaluation methods for the
exhibit as well as the programs centered around the exhibit. Each
funded NOAA project contains a detailed evaluation plan. NOAA asked the
Maryland Science Center to lead a discussion of all SOS users on the
different SOS evaluation methods used to date and what method of
prototyping and evaluation will best help science museums develop
understandable exhibits and programs for the target school group
audiences and the general public.
Using front end evaluation (a copy of the full evaluation can be
found in Attachment A; see Appendix 2: Additional Material for the
Record) of the Science On a Sphere exhibit--again conducted by third
party evaluators--Maryland Science Center was able to implement and
utilize the SOS exhibit in response to the feedback collected during
the evaluation process. In our case, we developed specific staff-led
programs to augment the SOS experience for our visitors.
Overwhelmingly, the display of the information and data, the quality of
the presentation, overall appeal of the technology, and understanding
of the purpose of the exhibit was extremely positive. Once operational
at Maryland Science Center however, our exhibits team noticed that when
the SOS exhibit ran in auto-play mode using ``canned'' presentations,
and no staff members were available to augment the presentation and
answer questions about the data being presented, the level of
engagement was short in duration. In general, when the SOS exhibit was
facilitated by Maryland Science Center staffers, questions were
answered, programming could be paused for explanation, and dwell time
(time people spend at a specific exhibit) by visitors was very long in
duration. When the SOS exhibit ran in auto-play mode--meaning the
canned programs, with their taped narrative--the dwell time for
visitors was far shorter. Visitors could not fully comprehend the auto-
play presentations and moved on to other exhibit areas more quickly.
``Canned'' programming for SOS, absent a subject expert who could
interpret the presentation for the casual enthusiast, was at too high a
level. Programmers may have assumed too high a level of understanding
on the part of the museum-goer and the exhibit was losing audience as
the visitor became confused or could not fully understand the
presentation.
In response to this, Maryland Science Center exhibit team members
installed interactive computer kiosks around the SOS exhibit that
offered a more basic interpretation of the imagery and programming
being presented when the exhibit is in auto-play mode. Visitors can
glean basic understanding of the programming's more technical aspects
by viewing a more basic interpretation on the interactive kiosk screen.
Given this more basic knowledge, the visitor is given the tools
necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the original intent of the
more specialized canned programming. Program staff have also inserted
more facilitated programs into the presentation schedule to engage more
visitors more often using the SOS exhibit. To evaluate and measure the
success of the remedial actions the exhibit team completed a dwell time
study of visitor interaction with the SOS exhibit prior to the
installation of the interactive kiosks to create benchmark dwell time
statistics. Now that the kiosks are in place, the dwell time study will
be repeated and the data will be compared to the benchmarks created
prior to the kiosk's arrival. All the information gathered, the
remedial actions employed, and the measures of success are being shared
and reported to the NASA/NOAA led SOS users group so that the exhibit
is as successful as possible at all locations around the country. As
the installation of SOS exhibits began their roll out, greater
collaboration between program creators and informal educators earlier
on could have led to programs that did not need as much remedial
modifications and augmentation. Partnering in the development stage may
have gained SOS more audience and enthusiasm more quickly and in
greater numbers.
The case with SOS illustrates an example of how to improve
scientific literacy. To improve the effectiveness of using informal
education to help raise the level of scientific literacy in the United
States, emphasis should be placed upon how non-classified information
could be made available to the general public. Informal educators such
as ASTC members have the ability to dispense highly technical knowledge
in a manner that the non-scientific public can understand. In the case
of the Maryland Science Center, we employ a cadre of on-the-floor
explainers, many of whom have received training from the various
federal R&D mission agencies to augment their own formal education. For
every hour that we are open, we have staff members ready to engage our
visitors to answer questions or offer ideas that stimulate meaningful
discussions about the subject areas. Our goal is to make gaining this
knowledge engaging and fun, while showing how science and technology
affect our daily lives. In the process, our hope is that we will excite
and encourage some of our student visitors to consider careers in
science and technology.
In the example provided about the installation, evaluation, and
ongoing collaboration with the Science On a Sphere exhibit there is a
working example of how federal agencies and science centers can better
accomplish the goals of STEM education programs. We would encourage
federal agencies to continue to expand ways that researchers and
engineers collaborate with informal science education professionals to
better engage the public. With SOS, scientists were made available to
us, evaluation was encouraged, and NASA and NOAA sought our help in
getting the message out. There was recognition that science centers,
through their use of informal education, know how to engage visitors
and spark their interest in the sciences. We know how visitors react
and how best to present scientific discovery and scientific progress.
And we know how to present it in ways that matter to them as
individuals.
The dialogue with science centers should be expanded--we want
access to the knowledge and the discovery so we can distill, interpret
and present it to the general public and school children in larger and
more meaningful ways. We want to reach greater numbers of people more
often so that scientific discovery becomes as much a part of a person's
everyday life as it can be. We believe that greater understanding leads
to greater acceptance that science is resident in everything we do--it
doesn't just happen in a laboratory. Science centers like the Maryland
Science Center are a resource in every sense of the word and deserve to
be viewed as such--from resources (financial and otherwise) to
expertise and knowledge. We believe greater utilization of science
centers as resources for federal R&D mission agencies is the best way
help raise the level of scientific literacy with the general public,
including school children.
Biography for Van R. Reiner
Mr. Reiner, a native of Lakewood, Ohio, holds a Bachelor's degree
in chemistry from Wittenberg University and a Master's degree in
chemistry from Lehigh University. He also has completed executive
education programs at Duke University and the Wharton School of
Business at the University of Pennsylvania.
He joined Bethlehem Steel in 1974 and spent the first 10 years of
his career as an engineer in the coke oven department at Bethlehem's
Lackawanna, NY, plant. In 1984, he was transferred to the Burns Harbor,
IN, Division serving as Assistant Superintendent, coke oven division.
In 1987 he moved to Assistant Superintendent of the slab mill/plate
mills department and in 1990 was promoted to Superintendent of that
department.
In 1995, Mr. Reiner was appointed Superintendent of the Galvanized
Products Division, an operating unit of Burns Harbor located at
Lackawanna. He became Senior Manager, Operations, for the Burns Harbor
Division in 1997, and President, Bethlehem Lukens Plate, when that
division was formed in May 1998 following Bethlehem's acquisition of
Lukens Inc. He was then named President, Bethlehem Sparrows Point
Division in August 2000.
Professionally, Mr. Reiner is a past member of the board of
directors of the American Institute of Steel Construction. He also held
memberships in the American Iron and Steel Institute, Association of
Iron and Steel Engineers, American Chemical Society, Western States
Blast Furnace and Coke Oven Operators Association.
Since the closing of Bethlehem Steel, Mr. Reiner has served as
interim Director to the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore, MD, and
in March of 2005, was named its permanent President and Chief Executive
Officer.
Mr. Reiner also serves on the Board of the Maryland World Class
Manufacturing Consortia and is a founding member and Treasurer of the
Partnership for Baltimore's Waterfront. In the past, he has served on
the following Boards: Chester County, PA Chamber of Commerce, United
Way of Chester County, Lackawanna, NY Chamber of Commerce, President of
the Board of Lackawanna Community Development Zone.
He and his wife, Shirley, are the parents of three children. They
reside in Bel Air, MD.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Reiner. I would mention that
there is no need to apologize to this committee for providing
additional material and particularly evaluative. We appreciate
the effort you folks have done to evaluate your program
effectiveness and value the information very much.
Dr. Weiss.
STATEMENT OF DR. IRIS R. WEISS, PRESIDENT, HORIZON RESEARCH,
INC.
Dr. Weiss. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing.
My name is Iris Weiss, and I have spent the last three
decades in research and evaluation in STEM education. I would
like to share my thoughts on two issues, the first is how
program evaluation can help the federal R&D mission agencies be
more efficient and effective wherever they choose to focus
their efforts to increase scientific literacy, and the second
is where I believe these agencies should focus their efforts.
To date the federal R&D mission agencies have not had a
great deal of success in evaluating their STEM education
programs. The same can be said for other federal agencies and
for the broader field as well.
How could evaluations be improved? First, the designs of
proposed programs should be critiqued to determine if the
interventions are likely to lead to the desired outcomes and
how broad the impact would likely be, so programs could be
improved before major costs are incurred. To take one example,
the Department of Energy offered science teachers summer
employment in their research labs. Program goals include
deepening participating teachers' knowledge of science and
improving classroom practice at their schools. But a design
critique would suggest that the program would be unlikely to
achieve its classroom impact goal. Few teachers would have the
time and expertise needed to develop student activities that
were accurate, developmentally appropriate, and feasible to
implement with the resources likely to be available, nor would
the participating teachers be likely to have the time to help
other teachers improve their classroom practice. A design
critique might well have predicted what in fact happened.
Teachers appreciated being involved in the program, reported
that it deepened their understanding of scientific content and
scientific research, but it did not have much of an impact on
classroom practice.
Similarly, formative evaluation of pilot programs would
help the agencies be more efficient and effective in their STEM
education efforts. At the pilot stage, the focus is not on
impact but rather on whether the program can be implemented as
intended, how it might be improved, or if it needs to be
discontinued.
There is no question that impact evaluations need to be
improved as well, as the just-released report of the ACC makes
clear. At the same time I believe the challenges associated
with rigorous evaluations of education programs have not been
adequately acknowledged in that report. In addition, effective
evaluations require not only strong research design but also
appropriate outcome measures. Although developing instruments
to assess teacher content knowledge and similar goals is not
the responsibility of the federal R&D mission agencies, I
believe that the lack of appropriate measures will continue to
hamper the mission agencies in efforts to increase their
program effectiveness.
Where should the federal R&D mission agencies focus their
efforts to improve scientific literacy? Based on my
understanding of the complexities of the K-12 education system
and the expertise of these agencies, I believe they should play
a relatively small role in efforts to improve the formal K-12
education system and a larger role in the informal science
arena. For example, current evidence suggests that teacher
professional development is most effective in improving
classroom practice when it is closely tied to instruction. We
know that teacher content knowledge is necessary, but it is
becoming increasingly clear that it is not sufficient. Teachers
also need to learn how to use their instructional materials
well, how to figure out what their students understand and
where they are struggling, and how to make appropriate
instructional decisions based on that information. And teachers
need opportunities to apply what they are learning in their own
classrooms and to get constructive feedback. The federal R&D
mission agencies certainly have the content expertise to
provide professional development, but they have only limited
understanding of K-12 education and they are not well-
positioned to provide professional development that is
practice-oriented and sustained over time. For greater and
broader impact, rather than developing their own programs, I
believe the federal R&D mission agencies should consider making
scientists available to serve as content resources for local
professional development, helping shore up a major weakness of
many of those programs.
In contrast, I believe the federal R&D mission agencies are
very well-positioned to make major contributions in the
informal education arena along the lines we have just heard.
Lack of coherence is not a problem here, as it is when we
talked about curriculum development. In fact, having multiple
pathways increases the likelihood that a large number of people
will benefit from the available resources.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Weiss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Iris R. Weiss
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Research and
Science Education Subcommittee as it explores how the federal R&D
mission agencies can contribute to improved scientific literacy for all
students. There is no question that there is a wealth of scientific
expertise in the various agencies, and considerable interest in helping
to improve K-12 STEM education. Moreover, much of the work of these
mission agencies focuses on areas that are of intrinsic interest to
students, and can help motivate students both to engage in learning
science and to consider STEM careers. With appropriate programs,
carefully designed and well-implemented, the federal R&D mission
agencies can both enhance levels of scientific literacy in the
population as a whole and help ensure an adequate supply of well-
qualified STEM professionals for the future.
It is important to recognize, however, that there are many more
``good ideas'' (i.e., possible programs in areas of relevance to the
agency's mission that have the potential to increase teacher knowledge,
improve classroom practice, and enhance student knowledge and
aspirations) than can possibly be implemented. There are substantial
costs involved in designing, implementing, and evaluating new programs,
and very limited resources available for these activities. Clearly
there need to be criteria for deciding which of the many potentially
good ideas should be implemented by a particular agency, and processes
for deciding how to refine promising programs, which ones to scale up,
and which ones to drop.
The hearing charter makes clear that the goal is to increase the
level of scientific literacy for all students. It is important,
therefore, to consider the nature and scope of the K-12 education
system that the mission agencies are trying to influence--50 states,
more than 15,000 school districts, more than 100,000 schools, and
millions of teachers responsible for STEM education, textbook
publishers, test developers, etc. all making decisions that affect
student opportunities to become scientifically literate. In addition,
while there have been efforts to identify the core understandings that
constitute scientific literacy, the volume of content included in
national and State standards documents is still much more than can
possibly be addressed in depth in the time available. Teachers and
curriculum developers are faced with the unenviable choice of trying to
cover it all, and doing so superficially; or taking seriously the
recommendation for in-depth, inquiry-based learning, and leaving out
some of the required content.
In this context, current and potential programs have to be examined
not only to see if they are effective in terms of adding value to the
participating teachers/students, but also whether there are likely to
be sufficient indirect benefits to a large enough number of students to
make a meaningful difference in overall scientific literacy. At
present, the problem I see with many federal programs, including those
of the R&D mission agencies, is that they have very limited potential
for leverage and in some cases simply add to the confusion.
How can program evaluation help federal programs be more efficient and
effective in improving STEM education?
The federal R&D mission agencies have not had a great deal of
success in evaluating their STEM education programs; the same can be
said for other federal agencies, and for the broader field as well. The
natural desire to address the pressing problems in science education
has taken precedence over the need to ensure that the investments will
in fact have the intended impact. I believe that existing program
evaluation tools and approaches can help increase the likelihood that
STEM education programs supported by the federal R&D mission agencies
(and others as well) will have a broad, positive impact.
Evaluation is useful at various stages of a program. It can and
should be used in (1) critiquing proposed programs to help make
decisions about which ones to offer and to improve their designs; (2)
monitoring program quality both to allow appropriate mid-course
corrections and determine if the program is ready for rigorous
evaluation; and (3) assessing program impact. At present, it appears
that some of the tools and approaches that evaluation has to offer are
used some of the time in some of the STEM education programs supported
by the federal R&D mission agencies; their more consistent application
would help improve the quality, impact, and cost-effectiveness of the
agencies' efforts to enhance overall scientific literacy.
Evaluation as design critique
In terms of program design, the first step any agency needs to take
is to identify needs relevant to their mission and expertise. The
federal R&D mission agencies have been very successful in this regard;
virtually every program they offer can be readily mapped both to the
mission of the agency and to the needs of the designated target
audience(s).
But targeting an appropriate need does not necessarily mean that
the programs are addressing priority needs; one can assume that at
least some students and teachers lack knowledge in any given area of
science, and that many more students and teachers are likely to lack
knowledge in areas at the cutting edge of science. Since any program
aimed at increasing teacher or student knowledge could be justified by
making the case that it addresses an existing need, simply being able
to demonstrate need is not an adequate criterion for making decisions
among potential programs. Given scarce resources, agencies need to be
able to decide which of the many needs that are consistent with their
mission are the most important to address, and which of those they have
the capacity to address well. Only then does it make sense to move
ahead with program development.
Not having been part of the program planning discussions, I can't
tell the extent to which the mission agencies' STEM education program
rationales were made explicit and the various priorities debated. But
my impression from the multitude of topics, grade ranges, and
approaches the various agencies are using is that decisions have been
made based on whether a particular idea was of interest to someone in a
decision-making position, rather than whether the program was part of
an overall, coordinated strategy for maximum leverage on K-12
education.
Even more important than whether a program targets a priority need
is whether the proposed intervention is likely to have the desired
impact; no matter how important the need, ineffective programs are a
wasted investment. Conducting a ``design critique'' of a proposed
program can help improve the design, or in some cases lead to a
decision not to go forward with programs where the odds are stacked
against them. And the very good news is that design critiques are not
an expensive undertaking; they require only modest amounts of time from
people who understand both the system that is being targeted for
improvement and what has been learned in prior efforts.
We need to pay more attention to the fact that STEM education
programs that either have little likelihood of impact, or will impact
only a small number of teachers/students, are not going to make much of
a difference in overall scientific literacy. Again, the criterion of
likely impact based on prior research and the ``wisdom of practice''
seems not to have been uniformly applied in the STEM education programs
offered by the federal R&D mission agencies.
To take one example, the Department of Energy has at various times
offered science teachers summer employment in their research labs, an
expensive undertaking given the costs of salary, transportation, and
lodging. The goals of the program have been to deepen participating
teachers' knowledge of science, and to improve instruction not only in
the participating teachers' classrooms, but in those of their
colleagues at the school as well.
Developing a ``logic model,'' a standard tool in program
evaluation, would have enabled the designers of that program to see
that there were major holes in the program's theory of action, places
where the links between activity and impact were weak at best. One
could readily make the case that teachers would learn more science, and
learn more about scientific research, by being placed in a research
laboratory. However, the science content teachers were learning was
likely to be well beyond what their students would be expected to
learn, and they would not have the sophisticated equipment needed to
carry out the investigations. Few teachers would have the time and
expertise needed to develop instructional activities to make the
activities developmentally appropriate for their students and feasible
to implement with the available resources; nor would participating
teachers have the time to help other teachers apply what they had
learned. Thus, while teachers who participate in these kinds of
programs often report that they gained a great deal from these
experiences, it should not be surprising that the improved classroom
practice that was a major goal of the programs rarely materialized. In
this case and many others supported by federal, state, and local
agencies, considerable resources have been devoted to programs where
lack of classroom-level impact could have been anticipated.
Formative evaluation to enable mid-course corrections and determine if
PROGRAMS ARE READY FOR RIGOROUS EVALUATION
Given the start-up costs associated with the development of any new
program, it make sense to fund only those that have great potential to
begin with, and then based on the lessons learned during implementation
to refine the programs to get the kinks out. Evaluations of the mission
agencies' STEM education programs would also be improved by more
systematic attention to monitoring the quality of program
implementation and use of the resulting feedback.
From an external perspective, the fact that some initiatives have
been modified over time suggests that at least some of the federal R&D
mission agencies employ formative evaluation strategies for at least
some of their STEM education programs. It is less clear whether the
STEM education programs supported by the federal R&D mission agencies
use evaluation for quality control purposes when programs are expanded.
Often the people who design a program, e.g., for teacher professional
development, are able to implement it well, but when the program is
expanded the quality tends to suffer. It is important both to monitor
initial program implementation and fine-tune the design as needed, and
to monitor the quality of implementation during scale up. Ideally,
evaluations of the quality of implementation would include observations
of program activities by people who have expertise in both content and
the target populations; interviews with key stakeholders, including in
many cases students, teachers, administrators, and parents. Often it is
appropriate to collect some interim data on impact to see if the design
needs to be fine-tuned, or additional support provided to program
implementers.
Sometimes a preliminary evaluation provides evidence that a program
is unlikely to achieve its goals, so a more rigorous evaluation is not
necessary. For example, my organization was once asked to evaluate a
statewide program that had the goal of ``transforming elementary
science education.'' One of the primary interventions was having STEM
faculty visit classrooms--typically once a semester--and model for
teachers how to conduct science demonstrations. The client wanted
evidence to see if this strategy was paying off in terms of improved
classroom practice. Recognizing the limitations of survey self-report
data, they asked that we do classroom observations, which would have
required site visits to a fairly large number of treatment and
comparison classes, clearly an expensive undertaking.
From our perspective, finding out that something that could not
possibly work in fact did not work seemed to us to be a poor use of
both our time and taxpayer money; we convinced the client to let us
interview a small number of teachers before committing to a more
extensive evaluation. Teachers told us that (1) they were happy to have
scientists visit their classrooms because the kids enjoyed it and got a
better sense that scientists were like most people, not nerdy beings in
laboratory coats; (2) they thought it would be a good idea if they did
demonstrations like the scientists had done, but acknowledged that they
rarely did so--they didn't know whether the demonstrations would
``work;'' they didn't have the necessary materials; and they were
concerned that they wouldn't be able to answer questions students
raised. In this case we were able to convince the client to forego a
rigorous evaluation, but not, unfortunately, to revamp the clearly
ineffective program.
As another example, if materials have been developed for classroom
use, but initial evaluation data show that teachers aren't using the
materials because of they do not appear to be well-aligned with state
standards, time and effort spent doing a careful evaluation of impact
on student learning would not be warranted. Given the substantial costs
involved, only programs that have a reasonable likelihood of
substantial impact and can be implemented well should be subjected to
rigorous evaluation.
It is particularly important to provide incentives for agency
personnel to use evaluation feedback for program improvement, rather
than allowing people to continue to implement poorly designed,
inadequately implemented, or ineffective programs. Unfortunately, there
appear to be pressures at every level of the system for people to
overstate the success of their programs, highlighting positive aspects
and glossing over problems, which may help explain the observation that
almost everything appears to work, but nothing much changes.
Summative evaluation to assess program impact
What most people mean by program evaluation has nothing to do with
design critique or studying the quality of implementation; rather
evaluation is typically equated with an assessment of the impact of a
particular activity or set of activities. It is important to recognize
that rigorous evaluation is very difficult, and it is therefore not
surprising that the federal R&D mission agencies have encountered many
challenges in assessing the impact of their STEM education programs.
First, as a profession, we lack instruments to measure many of the
outcomes we care about. For example, many STEM education programs over
the last several decades have aimed to deepen teacher content
knowledge, but until recently there were no instruments of demonstrated
validity and reliability that were feasible for use on a large scale;
even now such instruments exist for only a few topics. As a result,
program evaluations have had to depend on notoriously suspect measures,
such as asking teachers if they thought their content knowledge had
improved! Programs targeting student knowledge have faced similar
problems, as it has proven difficult and costly to develop measures of
conceptual understanding; existing instruments are more likely to
assess student knowledge of vocabulary or the apocryphal n steps in the
``scientific method,'' rather than the in-depth understanding sought by
STEM education programs.
Even if appropriate measures were available, program evaluation has
to navigate many other difficult challenges as well. Much attention has
been paid of late to randomized field trials as the ``gold standard''
for evaluating program effectiveness. There is no question about the
value of this approach, but there are many questions about its cost and
feasibility. (It is particularly ironic that at a time when school
districts are very interested in ``research-based'' programs, they are
reluctant to participate in research because of the many pressures they
are dealing with.)
And as the recent report by the American Competitive Council notes,
decisions about education policy and practice shouldn't be based on
single studies, however well-designed. To be most helpful, an
evaluation of program effectiveness should include multiple studies to
answer question not only about whether the program achieves its desired
outcomes, but also with whom and under what conditions. Finally,
summative evaluations need to determine if programs have had unintended
negative consequences.
Where should the federal R&D mission agencies focus their STEM
education efforts?
Based on my understanding of both the expertise of the federal R&D
mission agencies, and the complexities of the K-12 education system, I
believe these agencies should play a relatively small, supporting role
in efforts to improve the K-12 education system, and a more direct and
major role in the informal science arena.
I suspect that was not the advice I was expected to provide, as I
was asked to use what we have learned from research to make
recommendations for the development of programs for pre-service and in-
service STEM teachers. (Before I explain my reasoning, I would like to
point out that the research I and others have conducted on effective
professional development has not progressed as far as one would hope,
for a myriad of reasons. I already mentioned the lack of valid and
reliable measures of teacher learning that are feasible for large-scale
administration. In my view, it is both appropriate and essential that
the Federal Government support such development efforts, as the private
sector has few if any incentives to undertake this difficult and
expensive work. But that is probably an appropriate task for the
National Science Foundation rather than for the federal R&D mission
agencies that are under consideration in this hearing. A second major
problem has been the lack of a system to help ensure the steady
accumulation of knowledge in key areas such as professional development
for STEM teachers, again a challenge more for NSF than for the federal
R&D mission agencies. Much of what we ``know'' about effective
professional development is based on the insights of expert
practitioners, rather than on clear empirical evidence. Richard Elmore
has characterized the emerging consensus not as a substitute for
research, but as a set of sensible propositions that can be used to
guide practice and as hypotheses to be tested.)
Although the research is far from definitive, the emerging
consensus in the field is that professional development is most
effective in changing classroom practice when it is closely tied to
classroom instruction. Although there is no question that teacher
content knowledge is necessary, it is becoming increasingly clear that
teacher knowledge of content is not sufficient. Teachers also need to
learn how their instructional materials can be used to help students
learn science concepts; how to figure out what their students
understand and where they are struggling; and how to appropriate
instructional decisions based on that information. Teachers also need
opportunities to apply what they are learning in their own classrooms;
to share their struggles and triumphs with other teachers; and to get
feedback they can use in improving their instruction. To be effective,
it appears, professional development programs need to be intensive,
extensive, and sustained over time.
The federal R&D mission agencies clearly have the necessary content
expertise, but they have only limited expertise in improving classroom
practice. Thus they do not appear to be well-positioned to make a
substantial contribution to teacher professional development of the
nature and scale needed to increase overall science literacy. A number
of the federal R&D agencies have offered professional programs for many
years, but those programs typically reach only small numbers of
teachers, in many cases ``volunteers'' who tend to be already
relatively strong in content knowledge. To be effective in providing
professional development, the mission agencies would need to create
mechanisms to be able to stay current about what is being learned about
effective professional development, and apply that knowledge to their
professional development programs. And they would have to develop and
maintain on-going relationships with a sufficient number of districts
to make much of a difference.
In my view, rather than having the federal R&D mission agencies
develop and implement their own professional development programs, it
would make sense to have agency scientists available to serve as
content resources for local professional development. It would also be
helpful if agency scientists were available to assist organizations
engaged in the development of professional development materials for
more widespread use.
Similarly, I would not recommend that the mission agencies continue
to develop instructional modules for classroom use. That is not to say
that the materials the federal R&D agencies have developed are of poor
quality, but rather that the K-12 education system lacks incentives for
teachers to find those materials, or once found, to use them in their
classrooms. Many science teachers are already hard-pressed to address
the content included in state standards in anywhere close to the depth
needed to develop student understanding, so adding in supplemental
activities may be a difficult sell. In fact, having the mission
agencies provide activities for classroom use can actually have a
negative effect, adding to the incoherence in the system as different
teachers make different decisions about what to leave out in order to
make room for these activities. The teacher of the next course may well
have some students who have engaged with the topic as addressed in the
``regular'' materials, some with the supplemental activity, others with
both, and still others with neither. In that situation, teachers can't
win no matter what they decide to do.
Just as serving as content resources for others engaged in
professional development would be helpful, in my opinion the federal
R&D mission agencies can contribute to the improvement of the K-12
education system by making relevant data accessible to people who
develop curricula, assisting them in understanding their potential not
only for engaging students but also for helping them learn important
content as outlined in national and State standards.
In contrast to the cautious approach I recommend for involvement in
the formal K-12 education system, I believe the federal R&D mission
agencies are well positioned to make major contributions in the
informal science arena, e.g., through the development of interactive
exhibits for science centers on phenomena of interest to students,
parents, and the general public; speakers' bureaus; activities for
after-school programs; newspaper inserts; television programs, etc.
Informal science education vehicles can also be used by the mission
agencies to help ensure an adequate science pipeline, for example
disseminating information about science career opportunities requiring
different levels of education. The federal R&D mission agencies can
sponsor programs for interested students to interact with scientists,
with special efforts to encourage participation of students from under-
represented groups. Other efforts could target parents, to help ensure
that their children keep their options open by enrolling in elective
mathematics and science courses.
While coordination of efforts among agencies to avoid unnecessary
duplication of either infrastructure or resources is appropriate, lack
of coherence is not an issue as it is in the formal K-12 education
system. Different people will access different resources in different
ways and at different times; having multiple pathways increases the
likelihood that people will benefit from the available resources.
REFERENCES:
American Association for the Advancement of Science/Project 2061.
(1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Banilower, E.R., Heck, D.J., & Weiss, I.R. (2007). Can professional
development make the vision of the standards a reality? The
impact of NSF's local systemic change through teacher
enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and
achievement: The imperative for professional development in
education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S.
(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results
from a national sample of teachers. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Biography for Iris R. Weiss
Iris R. Weiss is President of Horizon Research, Inc. (HRI), a
contract research firm in Chapel Hill, NC specializing in mathematics
and science education research and evaluation. She has had extensive
experience in survey design and analysis and in mathematics and science
education development, evaluation, and policy research. Dr. Weiss
received a Bachelor's Degree in Biology from Cornell University, a
Master's Degree in Science Education from Harvard University, and a
Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Before establishing HRI in 1987, Dr. Weiss was
Senior Educational Research Scientist at the Research Triangle
Institute, where she directed numerous education research, development,
and evaluation projects. Prior to that, she taught science at the high
school level in Ithaca, NY, and Chapel Hill, NC.
Dr. Weiss has directed many of HRI's research, development, and
evaluation projects and is responsible for quality control of all
operations. She participated in the evaluation of NSF's model middle
school mathematics and science teacher preparation and Triad curriculum
programs, served on the assessment working group for the National
Standards of Science Education, and chaired the National Research
Council's Committee on Understanding the Influence of National
Standards. Dr. Weiss has served on numerous advisory boards, and has
provided consultation to the National Science Foundation, the US
Department of Education, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and
the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and several private
foundations.
In addition to directing a series of national surveys of
mathematics and science education, Dr. Weiss coordinated the Inside the
Classroom national observation study. She served as Principal
Investigator for several studies of systemic reform, including the
cross-site evaluation of the Local Systemic Change professional
development program, and co-authored the Handbook for Strategic
Leadership to help mathematics and science educators apply the lessons
learned from those initiatives to their practice. Dr. Weiss is
currently Principal Investigator of a Knowledge Management and
Dissemination project for NSF's Math Science Partnership program and
co-PI of the Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Weiss. Fascinating series of
perspectives from all of you, and I am grateful for your
insights. I will begin the questioning and then in five minutes
or so we will yield to Dr. Ehlers.
One of the terms that came up repeatedly in various
testimony was outcomes and the importance of looking at
outcomes. What would each of you--and I will let each of you
take a shot at this--what would be the most important outcome
that you think could derive from participation by the mission
agencies in the education endeavor? If you had to measure it--
and I recognize frankly some of it is rather ephemeral and may
be difficult to quantify and I respect that. Set aside the
issue--don't define the goal as something measurable, define
something desirable first and we will worry about measure in a
second. What would you think are the most important, left to
right, Ms. Froschauer?
Ms. Froschauer. One of the things I believe that would help
classroom teachers the most, and that is my perspective, is
research that would provide us with information concerning how
best to teach concepts to students so that they truly can
conceptually develop the ideas. The research base in many areas
is lacking, and expanding that research base would be very
valuable. And most of that can be done quite well with some
longitudinal studies and look at how students actually learn
over a long period of time and add to their conceptual
understanding.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Lach.
Mr. Lach. I think what would help most is having the
federal R&D mission agencies measure the way that they connect
students and parents and teachers to the practice of science
through their laboratories and their facilities and the way
that they inspire that same population to get excited about the
world of science and its practice, focus on the informal side.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Nelson.
Dr. Nelson. I would like to see an outcome that would allow
the mission agencies to be full partners with the schools and
the community colleges and the programs that help prepare not
necessarily the very high-end, top 10 percent students who are
going to be scientists and engineers, but help the forgotten
majority of the students below that who are very necessary. We
need three or four or five good technicians for every engineer
we have got in the field. Those students need to be both
excited to participate in a career like that, prepared through
a good K-10 kind of preparation in the schools, but where the
agencies can help is to take the next step through their last
couple of years of high school into community college to
prepare them to work on the cutting edge in the mission
agencies as high-paid, well-prepared technicians and then
support personnel.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Reiner.
Mr. Reiner. In my, or our arena, if you will I think the
mission agencies have a role to play in terms of exciting not
only the students but their parents and the general public
because I think that we need to improve science literacy, we
need to have people understand that science is all around them.
I have a couple anecdotes that I think apply to that. Dr.
Tom Jones, a former Shuttle astronaut, has told me that he
first became interested in astronomy when he looked through the
telescope at the Maryland Science Center as a young child.
Also, the current doctor in charge of the Baltimore Public
Health System remembers going to a science summer camp at the
Maryland Science Center where he dissected a cow's eye, and
that gave him his first example of medicine.
So we have that opportunity, I think the federal R&D
mission agencies can help us in terms of getting people, the
public, students, to relate to the field.
Chairman Baird. I notice in those comments the absolute
centrality of hands-on experience which I know your facility
is--just really the hallmark of your facility and in both those
anecdotes, it was a hands-on experience that excited someone.
Mr. Reiner. There is nothing like the face of a student
who, in interacting with an exhibit, suddenly gets it.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Weiss.
Dr. Weiss. One outcome would be student interest in
science, the wow factor that you referenced. A second would be
general science literacy. We have measured that over time, and
it has been pretty disheartening what the results have been.
And if the agencies choose to work in the formal system, then I
would say the outcome would be improvement at scale, for
example, having science textbooks used by millions of kids have
relevant applications as opposed to just a small number of
people benefiting.
Chairman Baird. The scale issue also is something many of
you mentioned, and I think that is a central question: How do
we scale this up? It is terrific if 100 teachers or 50 teachers
or even only 20 can go to a summer workshop, but how do we
scale it to reach the forgotten majority that Dr. Nelson
alluded to? Maybe we will be able to get to that question in a
moment. I would just conclude that we had a workshop out in my
district with NSF and a bunch of teachers, and someone asked at
one point what do you think the goal should be; and for me, the
essence is, as a science teacher myself actually before this
job, is wonder and discipline. You said the wow factor. I want
somehow, and I think what the agencies can do is the wonder
part. There is nothing like talking to a Space Shuttle
astronaut or somebody under the ocean or dissecting a cow's
eye. That wonder part is critical but the discipline part that
helps them understand it takes some rigor to answer these
questions.
And with that, let me yield appropriately to a gentleman
who knows first hand about that, the Ranking Member. I would
also note the presence of Eddie Bernie Johnson, former Ranking
Member of this subcommittee and a valuable asset to it. Thank
you. Dr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the
testimony. I am a hands-on person as an experimental physicist,
and I am a great believer in hands-on education as well. I am
just curious, of the--you know, we are talking here about
agency programs, agency ideas. How much of them are directed to
the high-school student and how much to the elementary school
student? Let me just get an idea from each of you what you
think it is, let me say the ratio of high-school to elementary
school? Ms. Froschauer?
Ms. Froschauer. I don't know if I can give you an exact
figure on that, however----
Mr. Ehlers. I didn't expect exact figures.
Ms. Froschauer.--there is a great deal more emphasis on
high school than there is on elementary school which we know
needs to--we need to have a shift in that. There needs to be
more emphasis on elementary school because as so many people
have expressed, when you are beginning in their education, we
want to excite students so they actually consider taking more
science as they go through the K-12 system.
Mr. Ehlers. Michael?
Mr. Lach. [no response].
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Dr. Nelson.
Dr. Nelson. I think there has been--it moves around. It is
a moving target. I think recently people have been focused on
middle school, you know, which has been kind of a great
wasteland of education in terms of what the focus and the
coherence of the programs there, so it has been getting a lot
of attention. My impression is it is kind of spread evenly
across the board.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Reiner.
Mr. Reiner. I think the mission agencies would like to
focus on high school. In our case we force them to tailor their
content or we tailor the content to upper elementary and middle
school.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Dr. Weiss.
Dr. Weiss. I haven't a clue.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. That is a perfectly valid answer. I don't
either, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. Years ago
I proposed, and unfortunately that part of the bill got removed
as it went through the process. This is when we still had
Eisenhower funding and we had a clearinghouse in Columbus. I
proposed that that clearinghouse be charged to have a listing,
an Amazon.com type of listing of all of the different units
available from all the different public agencies, from the
corporations, the chemical society, et cetera, et cetera. And
by Amazon.com style I mean teachers who used a particular unit
would send back their evaluations, you know, one star up to
five stars and tell other teachers how they have used it so a
high school chemistry teacher wanting to teach something about
the gas laws would just go to that website, punch in gas laws.
There might be 20 units that would fit, should read the
evaluations, download the best one for her class the next day.
Unfortunately, as I say, that got lost; but I still think it
would be very useful.
The other thing it seems to me would be useful in terms of
the government agencies is some sort of STEM czar, and I don't
mean that literally but something that coordinates all the
different programs because we have an incredible hodgepodge out
there; and how is a teacher to sort them out? How do they
relate to each other? How can you effectually use them in the
curriculum? It seems to me that having the soliciting I talked
about plus some coherence to the Federal Government's efforts
might be very beneficial for all teachers.
Finally, let me just make a pitch. In picking up on what
Mr. Reiner said about getting kids excited. I really think you
have to start in the elementary school very strongly. If we are
going to get the type of technicians we need, and I always say
the jobs of the future require an understanding of the basic
principles of math and science. I mean, I think that is pretty
self-evident. So how do we convey that to the kids? I think you
have to start in preschool already, emphasizing these ideas.
And I am pleased I just managed to get attached to the Head
Start bill last week. The Head Start programs also have to deal
with what we call math readiness and science readiness, just
learning simple skills of classification and enumeration,
things of that sort. If we don't get them started early, they
are not going to do it in middle school. If they don't do it
there, they don't do it in high school, they get to the
university and it is too late. They have to spend six years if
they want to become an engineer. So I think it is crucial that
these programs that we, collective we, develop for use in
school be able to span the spectrum and really develop the
interest.
With that I will yield back.
Chairman Baird. I will yield to Dr. McNerney in one moment
but I would like to give the panelists the chance to respond to
the particular issue Dr. Ehlers raised which seems intriguing
to me. Is there such a clearinghouse as he has described and if
not, would it be useful to you and in what way would it be most
useful?
Ms. Froschauer. There isn't a single clearinghouse for all
materials that I have ever heard of. There have been some
attempts to have clearinghouses for materials, and currently
there is nothing; and it is beneficial to have a clearinghouse.
Something else that is interesting is that currently when
programs come out of an agency such as NSF, there can't be any
kind of a rating system coming from NSF. Actually, they can't
put their good NSF stamp of approval on it and say this is what
everyone should be using. And so it even makes it more of a
dilemma as to what really quality programs are out there for
teachers to pull from.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Lach.
Mr. Lach. There is not a clearinghouse that I know of other
than a web search which I know many of our teachers use. I
would sort of add to the discussion, one of the sensibilities
we have learned in Chicago is that just using curriculum by
itself is necessary but not sufficient to get where we need to
go. I spend an awful lot of time and energy connecting well-
designed curriculum to workshops, to in-school coaching, to
assessments, to leadership development work, to grade-to-grade,
school-to-school sequencing; and I think that part is really,
really important and I would want to make sure any such
clearinghouse really highlighted the connections between all
the things that a teacher has to worry about. If we make it
just a place to download a PDF of a gas law experiment, it is
not going to be--it is necessary but it is not sufficient to
get the kind of change we need.
Chairman Baird. Other comments on that?
Mr. Reiner. On the informal science education, the members
of the Association of Science Technology Centers do share
successful programs; and the website of ASTC is a place that
you can go. Additionally, when we receive an NSF or NIH grant,
we are required to share any findings we get with other member
institutions, but I know of no other clearinghouse.
Dr. Weiss. I would like to comment on that as well. Some
teachers can pull together excellent materials and organize
them into a coherent curriculum, but most teachers have neither
the time nor the capacity to do that; and in our research, when
teachers have been faced with more than they can cover in the
time available, they make choices. But the choices tend to be
based on what they believe is engaging to their students, and a
lot of the prerequisites get lost, the coherent whole of
children getting an opportunity to learn important science goes
away.
So the kind of clearinghouse approach I would recommend
would be to make these ``wow'' factor types of things available
to curriculum developers so they can get into the system at
scale as opposed to through the work of individual teachers.
Chairman Baird. Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the big
challenges we face is that STEM education is hard work. It is
not easy to get a degree in math or physics or engineering. It
takes a lot of hard work. And so part of our job is finding out
what it is going to take to inspire this coming generation to
do that hard work, to get involved and instead of going to the
frat party that they want to go to, to actually do the work and
this starts when they are young. This sort of drive to achieve
something in science or engineering starts when they are young.
Dr. Van Reiner, you had mentioned that you have scientists
come in to your science center. I am wondering, what is the
most effective thing in your observation to get kids wowed, to
get kids excited and inspired about science? Is it direct
interaction with scientists or is it hands-on? What works the
best?
Mr. Reiner. At the early ages, it is definitely the hands
on. As they get into upper elementary or middle school, it is a
combination of the hands on and the direct interaction. I can
remember we had a USGS geologist, a young woman who was
explaining what she did for her job; and this young seventh-
grader said to her, you really like what you are doing, don't
you? And she said yes. And they pay you for that? So I think
that is--I have got a thousand anecdotes. But I do believe that
it is important for the scientist to have a face-to-face time
with the upcoming generation if you will in order to be able to
practice explaining things in everyday language.
Dr. Nelson. I would like to comment on that, too. I think
one of the issues of the pipeline that we don't talk about very
often that is really important is we need to focus on getting
kids in the front end of the pipeline. That is certainly true.
But one of the things I have found in working with lots of
students and trying to convince them that they might be
interested in being scientists or engineers or going to work
and even being science teachers is this notion that the pull on
the other end of the pipeline isn't that strong. A lot of times
people say, well, why should I be an engineer? It is not such a
great job anymore. How attractive is it to get my Ph.D. in
biology when I could get my business degree and become a post
doc for the next eight years, and when I am 40 I might get an
assistant professorship job? So I think we need to work on both
ends of the pipeline to make the jobs for students very
appealing, and the agencies can certainly work on that at the
front end so that students see this as a possibility.
Think back in the '60s when you were going through school
and the community, the government, and everybody else was
paying people to go to graduate school. The universities were
booming, everybody who graduated could get a job right away.
And now we have this huge pool of post docs and others out
there. So the system is different today, and I think that does
have an impact.
Mr. McNerney. I will yield back.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. No questions.
Chairman Baird. Okay. We will go to a second round. This is
very interesting, and I appreciate it greatly.
Let us move to the issue of scale a little bit because that
is something that many of you mentioned and a common thread and
also, Dr. Nelson, you talked about the challenge of--I want to
sort of put out two issues, one is the issue of scale and the
second one is the issue that Dr. Nelson talked about, about
NASA proliferating educational material, posters, pamphlets, et
cetera, but lacking some of the direction, the kind of things
that Dr. Weiss maybe mentioned. So I am going to throw out
those two topics and open it up to any of you about either of
those topics that you want to address, either how we scale
things up or how we watch out for this proliferation of
materials that may be well-intentioned but not well-targeted.
Mr. Lach, you have got direct experience with some of this, a
big-scale system.
Mr. Lach. I know a thing or two about scale. And I think
that is really the key point. A lot of what we have done in
Chicago has been based on Iris' work among others, and I think
what we found out is we may not have all the answers but we
know an awful lot more about how to leverage pretty dramatic
change in a large system. It involves coherence, it involves an
intense focus on capacity building, it means connecting
instructional materials to assessments, to coaching, to
support, it means focusing on leadership, and it means pulling
everybody in the community together, all the museums, the
universities, the labs, you know, to work on this together. It
takes a long time and it takes an awful lot of work.
Chairman Baird. How did you find time for the people and
participating to do this? How did you get their buy-in in that
system?
Mr. Lach. Our work in Chicago began through a series of NSF
systemic initiative grants. It took us several years to sort of
figure out how to use them and how to use them well. And we
began with a--we knew that need. That need was very clear. We
began with a vision that said this is how we are going to move
things ahead. We had 87 different math curriculum in Chicago at
the K-8 level when we started. Now we are down to two at the K-
5 level. In a local-controlled district that takes an awful lot
of convincing and cajoling to do. But other groups would sort
of come along once they would see that sort of coherence. And
it means, you know, tending to your stakeholders. I spent a lot
of time and energy making sure our friends at universities, our
friends at labs and museums understand the role that they are
to play; and we do a lot of back and forth to make sure that
that makes sense.
Chairman Baird. What is your portfolio? Did someone crown
you as the science education czar and give you some authority
or is it just your persuasive personality that gets you through
the day?
Mr. Lach. I was a classroom teacher and had enough of a
loud mouth that was sent to Washington to be a fellow, and then
I learned an awful lot from Congressman Ehlers who sort of gave
me a perspective about scale and about policy that I just
didn't have at the classroom level. And then when I came back
to Chicago, it took a little bit of time but they had me in
charge of science and then science and mathematics.
Chairman Baird. And you are given that respect. People
acknowledge that is your role and they look to you for help and
you get to give some guidance and governance I guess?
Mr. Lach. Yes. I pause because I think--and this is a
little bit of an aside. I think one of the things we are
learning is that instruction and leadership in mathematics and
science is really, really important; and it doesn't exist very
much in the educational system. There is lots of pretty
compelling research now that shows principals and school
leaders, when they lead, the practice of leadership differs
around leading and around mathematics and around science; and
that is not something most of the people--most local and state
education agencies understand and I don't think the system
quite addresses yet. And it is a really important factor if we
are going to leverage the kind of changes we need.
Chairman Baird. Well, we appreciate the work you do, and I
am also very grateful to hear that an NSF grant was used so
well. You may be interested to know in our NSF reauthorization
bill which Dr. Ehlers and I wrote together we have actually
lengthened the time period for some of these demonstration
projects that had been three years and you are out, basically.
So that right when you get things where you have tweaked it
enough to think it is finally working, you get the first class
of students through, then it runs out. We are actually going to
make that longer. It is also nice to know that somebody who has
worked for Dr. Ehlers has gone on to do some great things. Not
a surprise at all. You learned from the feet of the master.
Dr. Ehlers is recognized.
Mr. Ehlers. I am not sure how I could follow that up. Let
me just say that when Michael spent a year in my office, he did
a better job of learning how Congress operates than any fellow
I ever had. He had an instinctive approach. And I think what
really happened when he got back to Chicago is he realized that
if anyone can understand how Congress works they can figure out
how the educational system works.
I think it wasn't a factor also that you arrived there
shortly after the Chicago Public Schools were so-called
privatized and that resulted in much greater centralization of
authority and power, and that is something you could leverage.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lach. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. So it was a combination. But you have done a
beautiful job there. Let me also answer one other question that
I heard raised at some point and I don't recall where or how
but that was about how one propagates this. And the best
example of that I have seen is the American Meteorological
Society offers a summer program for teachers at I think various
grade levels. But one requirement of signing up for that
course, and it is a very good course, it is about a month or
more and the teachers are paid for their expenses, et cetera--I
think there is a stipend--but one requirement is that every
teacher, when they go back to their school system, have to set
up workshops to teach 10 other teachers the same material. And
then those teachers have to make a commitment to propagate it
to their own school buildings. And so in a short time, the AMS
curriculum went from being just taught to a workshop and ended
up with 100,000 teachers using it. And you know, if somebody
looked at that, perhaps it is easier than most to develop a
concise unit. Kids can study clouds and weather and so forth so
you know, there is no expense involved with equipment. But
nevertheless, I thought it was a brilliant idea and something
that we might pursue as well.
I don't have any other questions on my mind at the moment.
I just very much appreciate the breadth of experience
represented here and the comments that you have made. It has
given me a lot of insight of what we should be trying to do
legislatively as well and to take into account the concerns you
have raised. But I don't see any way we are going to break it
without, as Michael has indicated--I believe our emphasis has
to be professional development because before I came here I
worked with a lot of schools and a lot of teachers; and I found
the teachers wanting to teach science well, wanting to teach
math well, but many were scared because they didn't know the
subject material. Many others didn't really--they weren't
scared but they didn't know how to tackle it and do it right.
And professional development is the only way you are going to
deal with that, and that is why the Eisenhower program was a
good thing, even though it didn't always do it well. But that
is something we lost in No Child Left Behind only because the
mechanisms are there but the money was never provided. And so
we actually lost something going from Eisenhower to No Child
Left Behind.
With that I will yield back.
Chairman Baird. Did any others want to comment on the issue
of scale or the other couple of questions?
Dr. Nelson. I would like to make a quick comment on that,
and it relates to professional development, too. One of the
reasons I went back to the university that I went to, Western
Washington University, is that it is a former normal school. It
prepares roughly 500 teachers a year, and with the bulge of
baby boomers moving through the system now, we have a real
opportunity to provide the system with new teachers, with young
teachers, with new ideas. And one of my stated goals at the
university is that I have been at this for five years now. I am
giving myself another five years to say in that time I hope to
be graduating teachers from this institution who don't need
remedial professional development. We can't always continue at
the same model of assuming that the teachers in the schools are
not at the level we want them to be. And so we are working very
hard to try and graduate new teachers who know how to choose
and use the best curriculum that is out there, who know what
good instruction looks like and can have a beginning at least
level of practice for that but also really importantly know how
to collaborate with their peers and to partner with us at the
university and others to improve their instruction focused
around the performance of their students.
So now I am starting to focus on not just teachers, but the
administrators are such a huge role. We are finding in our NSF
grant that probably the biggest factor on whether a school is
making real progress in improving their science education
programs is the principal who can either allow it or not allow
those programs to happen and principal preparation programs
now. Again, we are having a big turnover of principals. We have
an opportunity to prepare administrators who understand what
good instruction is, who can support professional learning
communities of teachers. So hopefully in the future we can--our
professional development will look differently. We will be able
to ratchet it up to a different level.
Chairman Baird. As the son of a principal who talked a
great deal about the challenge of aspiring to be the academic
leader of the institution but being often burdened with the
budgeter, disciplinarian, police, liaison, et cetera, I think
you are right. The academic leadership provided by the
principal is absolutely critical, and I admire the notion that
we are going to graduate people who actually know what they are
doing when they graduate. It really is well put.
Dr. Nelson. Yes, it is not so much the teachers in the
field now don't know what they are doing. It is a different
world. We have learned a lot in the last 20 years, and we are
hopefully going to get that into the system.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Weiss, you had some comments?
Dr. Weiss. Yes, I want to build on what Pinky just said. It
was a while back, a number of years ago, said that we are
putting teachers out in immediate need of a 50,000-mile tune-up
and that unless we improve pre-service education, we will
always be at the point of remediation rather than continuing
education. And we need teachers--like all professionals, we
need continuing education. One of the root causes of the mess
we are in I believe is that teachers are asked to try and
address far too much content. As a result, our preparation
can't be as focused as it needs to be, our professional
development can't be as focused as it needs to be. It is
scattered resources.
A second comment I wanted to make, for reasons I have never
understood, we are doing better in developing systems to
support teachers and principals in mathematics education than
we are in science education. The notion of professional
development materials, models and materials that have been
carefully crafted, evaluated, and improved, scaffolds the
efforts of lots of people and lowers the capacity that is
needed to do these well in the field. Building on what Michael
said, we need efforts, direct efforts, and I don't believe this
is a federal R&D mission agency responsibility, but direct
efforts to build the capacity so that we people our school
systems with people who are ready to take advantage of the
knowledge and tools that are out there. I could go on longer
but I will stop.
Chairman Baird. Very well put. I am going to yield some
time for Dr. Ehlers. He has a follow-up question.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you for yielding. I totally agree with
you on that issue, and in terms of why science takes second
seat to math I think is pretty evident. Everyone thinks that
reading and math is something that everyone should understand.
I find a lot of people who still think that science is only for
someone who is going to be a scientist or an engineer. And even
if they are teachers they don't regard it as highly important.
That is changing. But the way I got into science education was
just when I was a young professor and I was very concerned
about scientific illiteracy and I asked myself, what can I do
as one person? And I decided to set up a special course to
teach future teachers both science and how to teach science.
And I thought that was my role in life until it inadvertently
brought me here.
It is absolutely crucial. And I continue to speak
constantly to university presidents, deans, about the
importance of this and above all something I learned the hard
way, that you have to get the schools of education to work with
the academic departments. Right now almost every campus I
visit, it is not that they dislike each other, they disdain
each other. And the academic folks think the people in the
Department of Education are all aflutter about education,
psychology, and theories of education and they don't know how
to teach themselves. And people in the education department
think about scientists as up in the lofty skies. They don't
know--have the slightest ideas about what it is like to teach
in elementary school. They just don't talk to each other. I
found I had to teach myself the lingo of the educators, studied
educational psychology on my own so that I could communicate
with them; and once that happened, we had a very good
relationship and actually worked together.
But it is tough. The easiest thing to do, easier than
professional development, is to train the teachers right in the
first place. It is going to take a lot of work on a national
scale to make that happen. It is happening, you are doing it,
Dr. Nelson, Arizona State University has done it quite well and
Kansas started some good programs, Western Michigan University
has. So it is coming. It is spreading across the country, but
it is still not highly regarded in the academic world and it
should be. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you for those insights, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Carnahan, five minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the
panel. I apologize for getting here late but I did want to jump
into these questions here. In particular I want to talk about
any successes that you have seen or ideas you can share with us
about how we can do a better job with partnerships between the
front-line teachers and the private sector and other science
resources. I mean, my hometown is St. Louis as we have a wealth
of higher institution entities there, higher education
facilities there, private-sector entitles there like Monsanto,
Boeing, non-profits like Missouri Botanical Gardens and the
Dane Forest Plant Science Center. So we have got this wealth of
science and engineering there in the community, yet we still
seem to have the difficulty getting some of that translated
into the classroom. And so I guess, kind of a two-part
question, how can we do a better job partnering with those kind
of resources to supplement what we do in the classroom, and the
second part of that is with regard to streamlining our teacher
certification process for some of those retirees that maybe
have had full careers in one of those institutions, how they
could become qualified to teach and be a part of really beefing
up what we do on the front line of our schools.
And I would start with Ms. Froschauer.
Ms. Froschauer. Thank you, Congressman Carnahan. It is good
to see you again.
Mr. Carnahan. Good to see you.
Ms. Froschauer. As you know, we recently were in your
town----
Mr. Carnahan. Yes, indeed.
Ms. Froschauer.--for our major and national conference. And
we had the ability to enjoy all of those wonderful science
resources you just mentioned. We had about 10,000 science
teachers there a couple months ago, so it is good to see you.
I do want to say something about the cooperation and
working with agencies. I know that Dr. Nelson had mentioned
things like posters and things of that sort that have come out
of NASA and other agencies are not highly utilized by teachers.
But there are many partnerships and many collaboratives that
have brought about materials and opportunities that have been
very beneficial to science teachers. But they must be done
carefully, they must be well-thought-out. They must be things
that are actually going to be utilized by the teachers or
beneficial to the teachers and translate into student learning.
NSTA partnered with NASA, and in that partnership we considered
what science teachers need. Now, many people have already
alluded to the fact that science teachers are sometimes are
uncomfortable with the content, especially when you get into
elementary grades, middle schools many times, and even a high-
school teacher who may be teaching outside of their discipline.
We know that that content is necessary. We also know that NASA
has the capacity of providing scientists and the people who can
actually contribute the content knowledge. And so we utilized
that content knowledge, that expertise with NASA, pulled it
together into something that would provide teachers with
contact information.
We also know that teachers are busy, and so they want to be
able to gain that content information kind of in an on-demand
sort of basis and so we have provided that actually on the web
so that they can self-instruct, they can also self-evaluate and
actually can develop that content knowledge, and we do that
through something called science objects. And they are
available free.
Mr. Carnahan. Excuse me, is that a specific website,
Science Objects?
Ms. Froschauer. You can go into the National Science
Teachers Association website. You will find science objects,
and that is actually at the front of the wall so that everyone
can have access to them. And we also partnered with NOAA and
FDA on pulling together those sorts of things.
And then during the St. Louis conference for instance we
had many sessions that were delivered by NASA scientists, by
NOAA scientists, and also they had space on our exhibit floor
where they could disseminate materials and share information
with teachers. So there are some very strong partnerships when
you consider what the needs of the teachers are and what the
resources are of the agency and how you could pull those
together to benefit teachers.
Mr. Carnahan. And so you think we can do the same type of
things with local resources as well?
Ms. Froschauer. You certainly can. And I think you probably
already realize that there's a great deal of effort right now
at the state level to have coordinating bodies established
similar to what is being recommended through the NSB Council
and also through the current ACC recommendations, that there
would be a coordinating body that would look at all of the
efforts that are taking place at a state level and that came
out of the governor's report.
Mr. Carnahan. I guess the second part of my question with
regard to potentially being able to certify some of those
retired experts, engineers, scientists that are in communities
like that. Has there been any work going on that has helped to
facilitate that that you're aware of?
Ms. Froschauer. Well, every state seems to have their way
of providing for that kind of certification. There are many
opportunities for people to change a career path and go into
science education, and it doesn't always demand that they go
back to college for four years to get an education degree. It
is actually an alternate path to science teaching. And every
state seems to have a different way of going about that. That
is something else that could really use some coordination
because obviously in some situations it is more successful than
in other situations.
Mr. Carnahan. I guess I will ask this of anyone on the
panel. Are you aware of any--certainly the state certification
process varies widely, but are there any sort of best practices
out there that, you know, a certain state is doing that we
might try to copy or other states could look to as a leader in
that area?
Mr. Lach. One of the problems we have in Chicago is the way
we certify teachers is complicated, it is bureaucratic, and it
is not the same as our neighboring states. So I think there is
possibility for ways to streamline that process and perhaps
find some commonalities about what a high-school biology
teacher or middle-grade science teacher ought to know and be
able to move things ahead.
Let me speak a moment about your previous question which I
think is a fascinating one, sort of how would you think this
through in Missouri or in St. Louis. I think it begins by
having a clear plan, probably at the state or the LEA level.
That takes a fair amount of work to put that together and a
clear theory of action so you would understand why the
different aspects of the plan might result in a boost in
student achievement. If you have a plan you can then position
the various partners to take on different roles of that.
In Chicago, for instance, a big part of our plan is a core
curriculum adoption and implementation. UFC does one of our
math programs, UIC does another, Loyola does our science
programs. They have become implementation centers within the
district to move that along.
The second part of our plan is to increase the content
knowledge of our teachers by taking university courses. We have
10 local universities that we provide tuition stipends for so
teachers can go back to school and earn the state endorsement
in mathematics or science. In our plan we also have a place for
this inspirational, this wow factor. We use the tremendous
museums that are in Chicago, the Museum of Science and
Industry, the Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, others. We the
Argonne and Fermilab. We use a lot of the community resources
to do that inspiration sort of work.
It has only been in the past year or two when we have had
this plan and--we have kept with this plan for four years but
it has only been in the past year or two where I have had
enough political clout to be able to tell someone, you know,
those posters that you are providing and those one-shot lesson
plans, I don't think we really need that. We have got a plan
that is working, we are sticking to that. But it is very, very
difficult to do. We don't have a lot of resources in Chicago.
It is pretty unconscionable to turn them away. Having a plan,
having lots of partners invested in that plan enables us to
bring that coherence and that support.
And the last part of that that I also think that you might
be able to help with is we need tools to sustain those sorts of
plans and that kind of work. That means high level of capacity
in districts and in states for leadership in math and science
education and the appropriate amount of political cover so
those people can make the kind of decisions that are going to
help kids in the long run. It is very, very difficult work. It
is really difficult to scale, and we need lots of resources and
help from you all if we are going to give our kids what they
really deserve.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. I am going to ask Dr. Weiss a
somewhat different question but appreciate the tremendous
insights, and then Dr. Ehlers, and then we will open it up for
final remarks if anybody has any burning issues. So you will
get each--if you have got something you just haven't had a
chance to say, we will get to that, too.
Just one fairly brief question. Dr. Weiss, questions can be
brief, the answers often are much longer but the ACC report
talked about evaluation and the need for a control group
design, outcome studies. I wonder if you have any--personally I
have some mixed feelings about that with the internal and
external validity issues but I would welcome your insights as
an expert in this field.
Dr. Weiss. There is no question that we need to be doing a
more rigorous job of evaluating programs. I think that the
report ignores or underplays some really key issues, one I
mentioned earlier in terms of having measures of outcomes of
interest. Another would be, when people talk about randomized
control trials, they tend, although the report did talk about
this, they tend to not realize that we need multiple such
studies. A program that works in a rich, suburban district, you
can't just now say it is going to work everywhere else, and
that has been a problem.
But the other is the realities of school districts. If we
were going to try and evaluate let us say a good set of
instructional materials, you would want to have some teachers
using it and some other teachers not and you would want to do
that for a long enough period of time so you could look at the
differences. Teachers need opportunities to learn how to use
the materials, practice, get feedback. School districts are not
willing to do that. They can't have two simultaneous programs
going on and create whole systems around it, and in these days
with the pressures, all of the pressures on school districts,
we are in this not-in-my-backyard. Everybody wants research-
based programs but nobody wants to participate in the research
that will generate that knowledge. So I think there is a whole
host of issues, on theoretical grounds you cannot argue. On
practical grounds you can.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers had a question and then we will
conclude in a second.
Mr. Ehlers. Just something I wanted to get on the record.
If there is a lack--first of all, I wanted to ask, if there is
a lack of coordination among federal agencies regarding STEM
education programs, how would you recommend solving the
problem? How should we coordinate it and who should be tasked
with the coordination. Any ideas on that?
Chairman Baird. I nominate Mr. Lach.
Mr. Lach. I was afraid of that. The need is clearly there.
I think what we found in Illinois is that different districts
have different needs so I suspect there would have to be some
sort of statewide localization to address some of those sorts
of things. I think there also needs to be--I would encourage
that the work of the coordinating--this coordinating body, I am
not sure who it should be. I think an important role might be
to provide really formative work to districts and states to
help them get better. I get a report card every year when I see
my test scores, but changing education systems, particular at
scale, is a very complicated, murky business; and if I had a
well-regarded report that told me based on the inputs I am
putting in as well as the outputs, what I need to do a little
more of, what I need to do a little less of, that would help me
organize resources, redeploy my people in a way that would help
sustain that sort of program. In Chicago, we would love that to
be really transparent. We don't have anything to hide. We think
we are doing pretty well, but we know we have a long way to go.
So some sort of public report cards about both the inputs and
our outputs which I think are already public I think would help
us improve and would help make sure that mathematics and
science were really on the agenda of everybody as we move
things forward.
Mr. Ehlers. Does anyone else want to respond? Dr. Weiss.
Dr. Weiss. I think we need research that is focused on a
smaller number of problems of practice. Right now the research
enterprise, it is pretty wide open and so it doesn't tend--we
don't have mechanisms right now for accumulating knowledge on
key problems. Mr. Carnahan talked about best practice. We don't
really have mechanisms now for knowing. I thought about the
question of where are the good, lateral entry programs, and I
suspect I know the parameters of what an effective approach
would be but I don't have any data and I don't know that
anybody has pulled that together. So we need mechanisms for
accumulating knowledge. But we also need incentives for using
that knowledge. I was struck by the comment in the ACC report
that they saw no examples of a federal agency building on the
knowledge or models of another federal agency. So I think it is
capacity issues but it is also incentives issues.
Mr. Ehlers. Who do you think would be the best agency or
person to coordinate all that?
Dr. Weiss. Every candidate that comes to mind has baggage,
so nothing is quite coming to mind right now.
Chairman Baird. The distinguished Ranking Member would be
an outstanding choice.
Dr. Nelson. Can I make one quick comment on that? I
remember back it must have been in the late '80s there was a
group called the Fix-it Committee, the federal Coordinating
Committee on Science and Technology; and it started out with
great promise I think because it was supported at a very high
level from many of the different agencies in the--federal
agencies, and then kind of petered out as the level of
participation filtered down deeper into the organizations. And
it seems like a committee like that that could stay at a very
high level and provide a focus and some level of coordination
supported somehow by Congress or someway. That is what you guys
are good at, right? And would be able to maintain that focus
rather than expecting to--you know, if you could keep a
committee like that going for long enough, you might be able to
bring some kind of a coherence and focus to the program.
Mr. Ehlers. Any other comments? Thank you very much. I
yield back.
Chairman Baird. We have time in an outstanding group like
this. I would open it up if anybody among you has any critical
insights or issues we haven't had a chance to address
throughout questioning that you feel would be a shortcoming if
we didn't raise, let me give you an opportunity now. You don't
have to, but if you feel like there is something that really we
should put down.
Dr. Nelson. I have a brief comment about research that I
would like to make. There is no doubt that if you have a
controlled laboratory condition or you can do controlled
experiments like double-blind drug testing, things that that is
a great way to learn things, but as a research astronomer, I
can tell you somehow astronomers learn things and we can't
control anything. And so it is possible by posing questions
well and by doing a carefully designed observation and
analysis, it is important to learn things about complex
systems. To make a point that we can learn important things
about the education system by carefully--by designing and
carrying out careful observations and analysis of existing
systems, then we can apply so not all research has to be--has
to fit into this narrow----
Chairman Baird. I think that is a great example and maybe a
way of an appropriate analogy but would we have seen some star
programs ourselves today. We didn't necessarily need a double-
blind study to observe the effectiveness of those stars.
Dr. Nelson. Certainly they are important.
Chairman Baird. Let me suggest--we were kicking around as
this hearing moved forward, I think there is so much
information that has been useful today that what we are going
to do, we will have a--we have already scheduled a hearing with
the mission agencies themselves for June 6th. We will provide
the heads of those agencies with the testimony provided by you
folks today because I think it is so outstanding I would hope
they would incorporate the insights in their own work on the
educational front. We are also exploring the idea of possibly
posting this hearing, and Ms. Froschauer, we might like to talk
to you about posting this hearing in some way where it would be
accessible to your members. They could share some of the models
they have heard about how, for example, the science museums are
working, how the graduate education programs are working, how
Chicago is making their changes, how they might design their
research interventions, and then offer comments analogous to
the approach Dr. Ehlers was talking about so that we could
actually get further impact of your profound insights but also
maybe some additional people pitching in and create a little
bit of a dialogue, and that way we have this tool. So we will,
if we may, talk to you about if there is a forum to do that, a
bulletin board kind of model or something like that. Without
any final comments on your part, Dr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Well, put it on YouTube.
Chairman Baird. He said we could put it on You Tube and the
students--well, we do have this extraordinary tool right now. I
was saying to Dr. Ehlers when I was teaching psychology I came
up with a pretty neat way to teach about standard deviations,
little lab experiments you could do, published it in the
Journal of Teaching of Psych if I remember and gosh, that is a
rather inefficient way. It was a nifty little thing and it
worked I think and hopefully some people adopted it and used
it. But with the Internet you can get those things out there so
well if there is a coherent way of using it. So we are going to
try to model that through this hearing itself.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses and our guests
today and the Ranking Member and the staff for all their work
and look forward to continue dialogue; and I am confident this
will actually have some positive impact and appreciate very
much your time and expertise, and the hearing stands adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers
Association
Question submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The witnesses provided a range of views on how R&D mission
agencies can best contribute to STEM education. To what extent is there
a consensus among panelists about what the agencies can do well and
what they are less well suited to do?
A1. Federal agencies should focus primarily on improving student
achievement, teacher quality, and student engagement. Specifically, the
agencies are well suited to:
Make scientific laboratory experiences and equipment available to
teachers and students (Dept. of Energy)
Encourage scientists to work with teachers to further their content
knowledge (Dept. of Energy)
Work with universities, the science community and others on model,
research-based programs to increase teacher effectiveness that can be
replicated (Math and Science Partnerships)
Develop and implement proven, effective, research based
instructional materials and methods (NSF Instructional Materials)
Recruit and retain teachers with majors in STEM fields (NSF, Noyce)
Increase the content knowledge of in service teachers with long-
term, quality professional develop (NSF, Math and Science Partnerships)
Support activities that encourage under-represented groups to enter
and remain in the STEM fields (NSF)
Increase the awareness and interest in STEM through informal
science activities (NSF)
Conduct and disseminate key research in all STEM education fields
(NSF)
Provide undergraduate grants and loan forgiveness for STEM teachers
(Dept. of Education)
The agencies are less well suited to develop curriculum or provide
professional development. If this is done, it should be accomplished
through strong partnerships. Although teachers enjoy receiving posters
and activities for use in their classrooms, these materials do not
support the development of conceptual understanding through a strong
curriculum. In addition, many of the federal agency programs sponsor
smaller, issue based contests and training for educators. These
programs simply do not reach the number of teachers necessary to have
an impact on student achievement.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Michael C. Lach, Director of Mathematics and Science,
Chicago Public Schools
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. You mentioned that the Federal Government could provide some
critical ``political cover'' to decision-makers at local levels to help
advance STEM education. Do you have any ideas on the best mechanisms to
provide that cover/leadership?
A1. To best answer this question, let me take a step backwards and
articulate some of the factors that in my perspective constrain the
system for improving K-12 STEM education.
The general public does not understand science or its
practice. Sadly, most members of the education establishment
(school boards, district offices, administrators, state boards
of education, principals, etc.) share this lack of
understanding about STEM issues.
The political dynamics in most school systems work
against long term solutions. Given that most school boards are
elected to short terms, most superintendents in urban areas
last only a few years, it's difficult to institute broad, 5-10
year plans.
We know much about large scale change, but have far
from a precise understanding about how to move large systems of
schools forward.
These three factors are at the core of our inability to move
solutions forward. I think the potential exists for the Federal
Government to help alleviate some of these issues by establishing:
Now, imagine if every state superintendent and the board president
of the 50 largest school districts received a detailed ``audit'' of
their mathematics and science program once a year. They already receive
a performance report--in the form of the annual test that the state
mandates. Yet test data merely tells states and districts what to
improve, and doesn't help them decide how to improve it. The difference
is critical.
Most districts know the general direction they must travel, but
lack a roadmap that shows them how to get there.
The audit I'm imagining would be conducted by a well-respected,
external organization. It would review the output data, certainly, but
also the inputs--the systems and structures the state or district had
in place that resulted in the outputs. For instance, there's pretty
compelling data that shows a ``managed curriculum'' approach--a
standards set of instructional materials for mathematics and science,
coupled with workshop professional development and in school coaching
support--is necessary for significant improvement. Another example is
local school leadership capacity, as principal understanding of
mathematics and science improvement strategies and processes also is a
major contributor to student achievement. This set of standards or
conditions for state/district improvement would be challenging to
develop, but I'd posit that there exists enough consensus within the
education community that they could be established. In the course of
the audit, a team would visit the state/district, spend some time
digging into both the achievement data and the programmatic data, and
then prepare a public report to be shared. Perhaps the audit or report
uses letter grades or a ranking to indicate the status of key aspects
of a STEM program, so it is easily understood by the public and news
media.
Why would this help? Such a report would highlight both the
summative and formative aspects of systemic improvement to all
interested parties. As the reports were issued each year, trends and
tendencies would emerge, enabling state/district staff to make
adjustments and new decisions in light of their review. If they are
issued with regular frequency from an external organization, much of
the internal politics within states and districts would be muted. If a
board decided to fire a superintendent and change strategies, they'd do
so knowing there will be a report forthcoming that will hold them
accountable to established national understandings. If a superintendent
decided to put a large portion of next year's budget into a new reading
program, the shift in resources would likely reflect negatively on
their STEM education report. A board president could use lukewarm
ratings on such a report to galvanize support for reform efforts
throughout the state or city.
Who could do this work? That's a difficult question, and probably
the biggest problem with this entire idea. I think a research-focused
organization like the National Academies could lead the development of
the standards or conditions for large-scale improvement, probably
commissioning some additional research in the process. I worry that the
National Science Foundation doesn't have enough reach to other federal
agencies--NASA, NIH, DOE, etc.--involved in STEM education, and that
the Department of Education just doesn't have the respect of the
scientific community to pull this off. A new not-for-profit entity,
funded by foundations and business, probably wouldn't have the
credibility either without really strong connections to the Federal
Government, and I can't foresee a business model where this work would
pay for itself in the out years. I'm left thinking that the best
(though imperfect) answer would be a new agency under the governance of
the National Academies--there's enough clout there to handle the
academic needs, and enough impartiality to preserve the inevitable
political fights that will ensue. But that's a considerably more
activist role for them that would entail considerable rethinking of
their organization and mission.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The witnesses provided a range of views on how R&D mission
agencies can best contribute to STEM education. To what extent is there
a consensus among the panelists about what the agencies can do well and
what they are less well suited to do?
A1. I believe that the witnesses exhibited a large degree of agreement,
particularly about the important role that the federal R&D mission
agencies have to play in K-12 STEM education, the fact that much of the
current work merely adds confusion and incoherence to an already
complicated system, and that partnerships with states and district
education agencies are essential if the work is going to significantly
advance student learning.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by George D. Nelson, Director of Science, Technology, and
Mathematics Education, Western Washington University
Question submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The witnesses provided a range of views on how R&D mission
agencies can best Contribute to STEM education. To what extent is there
a consensus among the panelists about what the agencies can do well and
what they are less well suited to do?
A1. I think there is considerable consensus among the panelists. I
would also like to raise one point where there is not disagreement
among the panelists, but not consensus either.
We agreed on the strengths that the R&D mission agencies could
bring to STEM education:
A high quality science and engineering, workforce
engaged in cutting edge research and technology development.
World-class laboratories and facilities.
The capacity to engage in long-term projects.
Existing partnerships with university and industry
researchers focused on mission-related research.
Charters to disseminate the results of mission
research broadly within the government, to industry and to the
general public.
We also agreed on general weaknesses in the agencies with respect
to STEM education:
Lack of knowledge of the K-12 education system, now
it is structured and regulated.
Lack of internal expertise in curriculum development,
effective instruction, and teacher preparation.
Lack of expertise in education research and program
evaluation.
If we accept these ideas, then it makes most sense for the agencies
to target their efforts on informing the public and inspiring the next
generation of STEM workers through the informal education community--
museums and media. Interactions with the formal K-12 education system
should involve close partnerships with STEM education professionals and
education researches/evaluators.
There is some danger that a group deeply engaged its K-12 STEM
reform, like our panel, sees the world predominantly through a single
lens. It brings to mind the old saying, when all you have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. As the only member of the panel with a
background as a research scientist as well as K-12 STEM education
reform, I feel I should comment on the role of the R&D mission agencies
beyond K-12. I believe that the agencies can contribute more
significantly to increasing the quantity and quality of the STEM
workforce by focusing their efforts primarily on supporting faculty and
students to engage in mission-related research.
Given limited funding and the wide range of STEM education
activities that can contribute to the goals stated in the recent
reports Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and the Report of the
Academic Competitiveness Council, each agency should focus their
resources where they can have the largest impact. In the case of the
R&D mission agencies, this is mission-related research as discussed in
my formal testimony.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Van R. Reiner, President and CEO, Maryland Science Center,
Maryland Academy of Sciences
Question submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The witnesses provided a range of views on how R&D mission
agencies can best contribute to STEM education. To what extent is there
a consensus among the panelists about what the agencies can do well and
what they are less well suited to do?
A1. The R&D mission agencies should stay away from writing curriculum
and concentrate on being a content resource. As such, the agencies
should partner with informal education institutions to help communicate
the science behind the research and mission. Educating the general
public will help the formal education institutions by having a
knowledgeable public to reinforce the students' experience in the
classroom.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Iris R. Weiss, President, Horizon Research, Inc.
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. The Academic Competitiveness Council recommended in its May 2007
report that ``Funding for federal STEM education programs designed to
improve STEM education outcomes should not increase unless a plan for
rigorous, independent evaluation is in place, appropriate to the types
of activities funded.'' The report later describes ``rigorous
evaluation'' methods in a hierarchy with experimental methods, such as
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), as being the best methodology for
showing the effectiveness of a program. In cases where an RCT was not
feasible, the next best methodology would be to use a Well-Matched
Comparison Group Study.
Q1a. As an expert in evaluation techniques for STEM education
programs, do you feel that these evaluation techniques are the most
appropriate for determining the effectiveness of STEM education
programs at the federal R&D mission agencies?
A1a. As I noted in my testimony to the Subcommittee, there is no
question that STEM education programs, including those of the federal
R&D mission agencies, should have more rigorous evaluations. Randomized
control trials (RCTs) are an excellent evaluation strategy when
feasible. However, there are a number of constraints to the feasibility
of this approach that were, in my view, not adequately addressed in the
May 2007 report of the American Competitiveness Council (ACC). First,
random assignment to experimental and control groups, or quasi-
experimental designs with well-matched comparison groups for that
matter, are of little use unless there are appropriate instruments
available to measure outcomes of interest. For example, in Goal 2, a
suggested metric for teacher quality is percentage of teachers
demonstrating increased competency in a given area. However, there are
only a handful of measures of teacher competency in specific science
content areas, and even fewer in areas closely aligned with the
missions of the federal R&D agencies, so in many cases even the most
rigorous experimental designs would not provide useful information
about the impact of a program on teacher knowledge. (I strongly
recommend that the federal R&D mission agencies identify a set of key
goals, and that NSF be asked to coordinate the development of
appropriate measures of those goals so the agencies will be in a better
position to judge the effectiveness of their programs in the future.)
Second, in my view the ACC report underestimates the difficulties
and costs of mounting randomized control trials, especially if the
intervention is provided over an extended duration or if the impact
needs to be studied over a substantial period of time. To avoid spill-
over from the experimental to the control group, teachers would need to
refrain from collaborating with one another, which is directly counter
to current recommendations for establishing learning communities within
schools and districts. Alternatively, the school or district rather
than individual teachers could be the unit of random assignment, but
that typically results in a larger and much more costly experiment.
Third, discussions of RCTs as the gold standard for evaluation tend
to focus primarily on judging impact, downplaying the need to
understand not just if a program is effective, but also how it works
and under what conditions. A truly rigorous program evaluation would
include exploring the nature and quality of implementation, as well as
both proximal and distal outcomes, in a variety of contexts; one or two
RCTs or quasi-experimental studies focusing only on the ultimate impact
of a program, e.g., student achievement, leave many important questions
unanswered.
Q1b. What advice would you give the federal R&D agencies for
developing evaluation methods to help them judge which programs are
effective and whether proposed programs will be successful?
A1b. There are many, many needs in science education, and many possible
approaches to improving the situation. But given the magnitude of the
problems and the scarcity of resources for addressing them, it is
important that funding be limited to programs that will make a
substantial difference. In my view, the first step is for each proposed
program--and continuations/modifications of existing programs--to
specify its goals, in effect describing what would count as success.
Agencies would be held accountable for achieving their specified goals,
so there would be an incentive to identify goals that are both
realistic and measurable.
Once the goals of a proposed program are specified, the agency
should describe the theory of action underlying the program design--how
the planned activities are expected to lead to the desired outcomes--
citing available evidence that supports particular elements of the
program design. For example, teacher professional development programs
do not directly affect student attitudes, aspirations, or achievement.
If a professional development program's goals include impact on
students, then a case needs to be made how the program activities will
result in those impacts. A sample theory of action might be:
Professional development activities will focus on concepts A, B, and C
(a small number of important concepts addressed in national standards
for the target grade range that are relevant to the mission of the
agency), providing opportunities for teachers to explore these science
concepts, to learn about applications of these concepts in the work of
the agency, and to consider how their instructional materials can best
be used to develop student understanding of these concepts. Teachers
will gain a better understanding of the content, applications of the
content, and use of their instructional materials, and be able to use
their enhanced knowledge in their instruction. Improved instruction
will enable students to see the relevance of the targeted content,
motivate them to learn these concepts, and lead to improved student
knowledge of those science ideas.
Is the program well designed to achieve its goals? Prior to
expending resources on implementation, it would be important to have
the program design, theory of action, and evidence presented in support
of the design critiqued by a small number of external experts, similar
to the process used by the National Research Council for review of
committee reports. Program designers' responses to these critiques,
indicating how reviewers' concerns will be addressed, would be reviewed
by program managers with input from another external expert acting as
``monitor''; only those programs that appear to have responded
adequately to reviewers' concerns should be allowed to go forward.
The next step that should take place before program implementation
is the design of an evaluation to assess both the quality of
implementation and its impact, using the program's theory of action as
a guide. Suggested connections, for example between program activities
and teacher content knowledge, or between teacher content knowledge and
classroom practice, can be considered as hypotheses to be tested, and
the evaluation plan should describe how that testing will take place.
(It is important to note that an evaluation plan needs to specify both
the measures to be used and the research design that will enable the
evaluation to make the case that any gains that are found are due to
the program and not extraneous influences.) Only programs that can be
adequately evaluated should be considered for funding. It makes little
sense to devote resources to an endeavor if you won't be able to
determine if it is successful.
If a program has a promising design, and can be evaluated, it
should be piloted on a small scale to see if it can be implemented with
quality and to check to see if the proposed measures are sensitive to
the interventions. If not, there may be problems with the program and/
or there may be problems with the instruments, the program should not
be scaled up until these problems are identified and resolved.
Only when a program has cleared these hurdles--a program design
that seems promising based on prior evidence, can be implemented with
quality, and can be adequately evaluated--does it merit broader
implementation, and then it needs to be carefully evaluated to see if
the program is in fact achieving its goals, and under what conditions.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The witnesses provided a range of views on how R&D mission
agencies can best contribute to STEM education. To what extent is there
a consensus among the panelists about what the agencies can do well and
what they are less well suited to do?
A1. I believe there was considerable consensus on a number of issues:
The federal R&D mission agencies have an important
role to play in the informal education arena--including museums
and science centers--in increasing students' interest in
science, encouraging them to consider science careers, and
enhancing science literacy of the general public.
It is typically not helpful for the agencies to
develop posters and activities for classroom use. Even if these
materials are very well aligned with national and state
standards, and many are not, they add noise to an already noisy
system, making it less likely that students will encounter a
coherent science curriculum.
If the agencies are going to be involved in teacher
professional development, they need to partner with groups that
have expertise that goes beyond content knowledge to include
developing teacher pedagogical content knowledge and skill in
applying what they learn to the classroom using the
instructional materials selected by their districts.
Q2. How would these programs need to be designed so that they can
achieve classroom effectiveness?
A2. The teacher professional development programs carried out by the
federal R&D mission agencies have the potential to enhance teacher
content knowledge. (It is difficult to know the extent to which they
have actually done so, as in the absence of appropriate measures,
evaluations of these and many other programs have had to rely on
teacher self-report to assess impact.) Getting transfer to classroom
practice has proven to be more difficult. The evidence we have
available suggests that to foster improved classroom instruction,
professional development needs to be sustained over time, include a
focus on pedagogical content knowledge, such as common student
misconceptions in a specific content area, how to assess student
understanding of the target concepts, and how to use that information
to improve teaching and learning. In my view, the agencies are not
well-positioned to provide sustained, professional development focused
on helping teachers not only learn content, but also apply that content
to their instruction, but if they are going to do so, it would be
helpful if the agencies partnered with groups that have the necessary
expertise.
In contrast, I believe the agencies could make an important
contribution by providing opportunities for prospective secondary
science teachers to have an authentic research experience as part of
their pre-service, or lateral entry, preparation, a much less expensive
and potentially more scalable strategy than current programs targeted
at that goal. Each of the agencies could develop research modules
relevant to their mission and aligned with national standards that
could be incorporated into existing college/university courses, with
college/university faculty and/or agency scientists serving as mentors
depending on the context.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
FEDERAL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry
McNerney [Acting Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Federal STEM Education Programs
wednesday, june 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
The purpose of the hearing is to review the K-16 science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education activities of
federal agencies and to explore current efforts for the improvement of
interagency coordination and evaluation of programs. In addition,
agencies will be asked to respond to the witness testimonies given on
May 15, 2007, about the educators' views on the STEM education programs
at federal R&D mission agencies. The witnesses provided Subcommittee
Members with their suggestions for how those agencies could best
contribute to STEM education nationwide and strongly recommended
closely collaborating with educators in the field when developing
programs.
Witnesses
Dr. Cora Marrett, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and
Human Resources, National Science Foundation; Co-Chair, Education and
Workforce Development Subcommittee, National Science and Technology
Committee
Dr. Joyce Winterton, Assistant Administrator, Office of Education,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. William Valdez, Director, Office of Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science, Department of Energy
Dr. Bruce Fuchs, Director, Office of Science Education, National
Institutes of Health
Overarching Questions
What steps have agencies taken to improve
coordination with other federal agencies' STEM education
activities and, in particular, what is the status of the new
coordinating committee under the National Science and
Technology Committee (NSTC)? To what extent do agencies
collaborate with educators in the states and school districts
in developing STEM education programs?
The recent report of the Academic Competitiveness
Council reinforces the need for better evaluation and
performance metrics for federal STEM education programs. What
plans do agencies have to improve evaluation of STEM programs?
The Subcommittee received testimony at a hearing on
15 May on how the R&D mission agencies could improve the
effectiveness of their STEM education programs. The witnesses
were skeptical of the ability of the R&D mission agencies to
develop curricular materials for formal classroom instruction
and questioned the effectiveness of their teacher professional
development programs to improve teacher classroom performance,
while suggesting that the agencies' most important role is in
informal STEM education. The witnesses also strongly
recommended closer collaboration by the agencies with educators
in the field when developing STEM programs. What are agencies'
responses to the recommendations from these witnesses?
How do the agencies determine priorities for their K-
16 STEM education portfolios? Have the agencies' balance of
programs at graduate/post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and
informal education changed much over the past few years? Is
there a likelihood of a change in that balance in the future?
How do agencies disseminate information about STEM
education programs? What organizations, both government and
private, have agencies partnered with to reach educators in the
field?
Background
STEM Education Funding
In an effort to identify the contributions of federal agencies to
improving STEM education, the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC)
was created in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) and
charged with creating an inventory of STEM education programs across
federal agencies, identifying the effectiveness of those programs,
determining areas of overlap or duplication among programs, identifying
target populations served by the programs, and recommending processes
to integrate and coordinate those programs. After a year long study,
the ACC released a report containing an inventory of $3.12 billion in
funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 for 105 STEM education programs. This
inventory showed that nearly 50 percent of funding was directed toward
Graduate/Post Doctoral programs ($1.4 billion) and another 30 percent
was directed toward Undergraduate Programs ($943 million). K-12
programs received approximately $574 million in funding and informal
education programs received $137 million in funding.
The agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
Technology showed a similar balance of funding for STEM education
programs with about two-thirds of funding going to post-secondary
programs. The National Institutes of Health, whose representative has
been included as a witness in this hearing due to agency's large
investment in STEM education, reported a total of $856 million in FY06
funding with 89 percent dedicated to the Kirschstein National Research
Service Award for graduate/post doctoral fellowships ($761 million).
NIH provided approximately $52 million for K-12 programs (six percent),
$37 million for undergraduate programs (4.4 percent), and $5 million
for informal education programs (0.6 percent).
The ACC set parameters of its inventory, limiting the programs for
inclusion to those ``primarily intended to provide support for, or to
strengthen, science, technology, engineering, or mathematics
education.'' The Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
realizing that many educational activities carried out by the federal
R&D mission agencies are contained within larger programs, worked with
those agencies to provide a more in-depth view of those efforts.
Excluding graduate education programs which already dominate mission
agencies' STEM funding, an additional $256.65 million in FY06
appropriated funds for K-12, undergraduate, and informal education
activities was identified for a total of $1.01 billion in K-16 funding
at NSF and the federal R&D mission agencies. (EPA reported no FY06
funding for K-16 STEM education activities.)
As can be seen in the table in Figure 3 K-16 STEM Ed FY06
Appropriated Funds, roughly an equal amount of funding is dedicated to
undergraduate activities as K-12 and informal education activities
combined.
Evaluation of Programs
Another consistent criticism of federal STEM education programs is
a lack of evaluation methods which would show the level of
effectiveness of a program. The ACC studied evaluation processes used
by the identified STEM education programs and concluded in its report
that ``there is a general dearth of evidence of effective practices and
activities in STEM education.'' The ACC recommended that funding for
any program should not be increased until it can show effectiveness as
determined by rigorous evaluation methods. The report points to
randomized control trials or, when that is not feasible, well-matched
comparison group studies as the optimal methods for determining if a
program is effective.
This sentiment was echoed by the witnesses at the Subcommittee's
hearing on May 15, 2007, Federal STEM Education Programs: Educators'
Perspectives, who explained to Members that the absence of consistent
performance measurements makes choosing among the vast array of
programs difficult and time-consuming. Although all of the witnesses
agreed that evaluations should be improved, two stated that they did
not think that research methodologies such as randomized controlled
trials would be practical or necessary for the majority of programs.
Instead, they recommended that programs focus on developing design
critiques of proposed programs and formative evaluations of current
programs to guide decisions for building highly effective programs.
Coordination and Collaboration
The federal agencies have also been criticized for their lack of
coordination and collaboration between agencies and with state and
district education agencies when developing programs. All of the
witnesses in the May 15th hearing agreed strongly with the need for
more effort by the federal agencies to work with educators in the
field. The Mathematics and Science Director of Chicago Public Schools
explained that materials and programs developed by federal agencies
that do not fit into the district's curriculum and the state standards
only add confusion and distract from the successful program they have
built. The Director of Science, Technology, and Mathematics at Western
Washington University commented, ``There is a huge inventory of poorly-
designed and under-evaluated mission-related curricula, posters, and
lesson plans and associated professional development rarely used in
classrooms and with no natural home in a coherent standards-based
curriculum. The constant barrage of new resources adds to the noise in
the system and contributes to the mile-wide, inch-deep problem.''
In response to this issue, the ACC recommended that the National
Science and Technology Committee (NSTC), which serves as the principal
body for coordinating federal research and development, re-establish
the Education and Workforce Development subcommittee to encourage the
agencies to share knowledge and develop a federal strategic plan for
effectively increasing STEM proficiency nationwide. The NSTC recently
announced the subcommittee will be co-chaired by NSF, the Department of
Education, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cora Marrett, as
the Co-Chair from NSF, has been asked to provide an update on the
status of the NSTC subcommittee in this hearing.
Specific Questions for the Witnesses
Dr. Marrett
As Co-Chair of the NSTC Subcommittee on Education and
Workforce Development, please describe the make up of the
group, current activities, and planned activities.
What steps has your agency taken to improve its
coordination with other federal agencies' STEM education
activities? How has your agency improved its collaboration with
states and districts in developing STEM education programs?
Please describe your agency's commitment to establishing formal
mechanisms to improve in these areas.
The ACC report reinforces the need for better
evaluation and performance metrics for federal STEM education
programs. How has your agency made improvements in its
evaluation of programs? How has this affected your agency's
funding for STEM education programs?
How does your agency determine priorities for its K-
16 STEM education portfolio? Has your agency's balance of
programs at graduate/post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and
informal education changed? Do you foresee a change in that
balance in the future?
How does your agency disseminate information about
its STEM education programs? What organizations, both
government and private, have you partnered with to reach
educators in the field?
Dr. Joyce Winterton
What steps has your agency taken to improve its
coordination with other federal agencies' STEM education
activities? To what extent does your agency collaborate with
educators in the states and school districts in developing STEM
education programs?
The recent report of the Academic Competitiveness
Council reinforces the need for better evaluation and
performance metrics for federal STEM education programs. What
plans does your agency have for improvements in its evaluation
of its STEM programs?
The Subcommittee received testimony at a hearing on
15 May on how the R&D mission agencies could improve the
effectiveness of their STEM education programs. (Witness
statements and video of the hearing can be downloaded at http:/
/www.science.house.gov/publications/hearings-
markups-details.aspx?NewsID=1814). The witnesses
were skeptical of the ability of the agencies to develop
curricular materials for formal classroom instruction and
questioned the effectiveness of their teacher professional
development programs to improve teacher classroom performance,
while suggesting that the agencies' most important role is in
informal STEM education. The witnesses also strongly
recommended closer collaboration by the agencies with educators
in the field when developing STEM programs. What is your
response to the recommendations from these witnesses?
How does your agency determine priorities for its K-
16 STEM education portfolio? Has your agency's balance of
programs at graduate/post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and
informal education changed much over the past few years? Do you
foresee a change in that balance in the future?
How does your agency disseminate information about
its STEM education programs? What organizations, both
government and private, have you partnered with to reach
educators in the field?
Mr. William Valdez
What steps has your agency taken to improve its
coordination with other federal agencies' STEM education
activities? How has your agency improved its collaboration with
states and districts in developing STEM education programs?
Please describe your agency's commitment to improving in these
areas.
The ACC report reinforces the need for better
evaluation and performance metrics for federal STEM education
programs. How has your agency made improvements in its
evaluation of programs? How has this affected your agency's
funding for STEM education programs?
In response to the testimonies given on May 15th by
STEM educators, what do you recommend as the most effective
role your agency can play in improving STEM literacy?
How does your agency determine priorities for its K-
16 STEM education portfolio? Has your agency's balance of
programs at graduate/post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and
informal education changed? Do you foresee a change in that
balance in the future?
How does your agency disseminate information about
its STEM education programs? What organizations, both
government and private, have you partnered with to reach
educators in the field?
Please describe the process you utilized to gather
information for creating a strategic plan for the OWDTS
education programs. Include a synopsis of the information
gathered.
Dr. Bruce Fuchs
What steps has your agency taken to improve its
coordination with other federal agencies' STEM education
activities? To what extent does your agency collaborate with
educators in the states and school districts in developing STEM
education programs?
The recent report of the Academic Competitiveness
Council reinforces the need for better evaluation and
performance metrics for federal STEM education programs. What
plans does your agency have for improvements in its evaluation
of its STEM programs?
The Subcommittee received testimony at a hearing on
15 May on how the R&D mission agencies could improve the
effectiveness of their STEM education programs. (Witness
statements and video of the hearing can be downloaded at http:/
/www.science.house.gov/publications/hearings-
markups-details.aspx?NewsID=1814). The witnesses
were skeptical of the ability of the agencies to develop
curricular materials for formal classroom instruction and
questioned the effectiveness of their teacher professional
development programs to improve teacher classroom performance,
while suggesting that the agencies' most important role is in
informal STEM education. The witnesses also strongly
recommended closer collaboration by the agencies with educators
in the field when developing STEM programs. What is your
response to the recommendations from these witnesses?
How does your agency determine priorities for its K-
16 STEM education portfolio? Has your agency's balance of
programs at graduate/post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and
informal education changed much over the past few years? Do you
foresee a change in that balance in the future?
How does your agency disseminate information about
its STEM education programs? What organizations, both
government and private, have you partnered with to reach
educators in the field?
Mr. McNerney. Welcome to today's hearing, entitled
``Federal STEM Education Programs.'' I personally want to thank
everyone for coming here today. It is a nice audience for the
proceedings of the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education.
This hearing is part of an ongoing assessment that the
Committee is undertaking to determine the role of the Federal
Government in science, technology, engineering, and math
education. We will be hearing today from four federal agencies
about their progress in improving STEM programs. As a
mathematician and someone who believes strongly in the need to
expand educational opportunities for the next generation,
today's hearing holds particular importance for me.
In the past few months, this committee has done a
commendable job in drawing attention to the difficulties that
our country will face if we are unable to increase the number
of future scientists and researchers. From the difficult but
not insurmountable challenges laid out in the National
Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, to
witness testimony from businesses and universities, we have
heard time and again that we need more STEM education graduates
and teachers if we are to compete successfully in the global
economy.
This committee, under the leadership of Chairman Gordon,
has succeeded in passing legislation that will pay significant
future dividends, and will be a great legacy for this Congress.
The issues we are discussing today are no less important. By
hearing from educators on the front lines of the educational
system, as well as the federal agencies that must implement
STEM programs, we are laying out the groundwork for how to
maximize the benefits of existing programs, which will
invariably lead to future initiatives.
Last month, the Subcommittee held a hearing with local STEM
educators to learn their perspectives on federal programs.
During witness questioning, I made a point to highlight what I
believe to be one of the most important aspects of any
discussion on STEM education, and that is how we can reach more
students, and make sure that the United States is not only
keeping up with the rest of the world, but is outpacing other
countries. It is hard work to earn a degree in math or physics,
as our Ranking Member might testify, and we need to make sure
that our federal policies first and foremost benefit our
students.
Our previous witnesses shared with us their recommendations
for STEM education improvements. That included working with
states and districts to align federal programs to local
standards. The witnesses also expressed frustration that there
are currently no consistent guidelines for evaluating STEM
programs across government agencies, and we have asked today's
witnesses to respond to the comments and recommendations from
the previous panel.
In addition, the week before last month's hearing, the
Academic Competitiveness Council released a comprehensive
report on federal STEM education programs. Not surprisingly,
the ACC assessment was the same as that of our witnesses.
Collaboration between agencies and with State and local
governments needs improvement. Programs should be designed
around best practices, and a wide variety of educational
measurements should be simplified into common ones. Each of the
agencies invited to testify this afternoon were deeply involved
in the ACC's process, and we have asked each of them to
communicate today what changes they have made over the past
year in order to achieve these goals.
I am hopeful that today's witnesses will shed some light on
how we have been spending scarce federal dollars on STEM
education, and how we can improve our current practices so that
we are benefiting students from kindergarten all the way up. I
look forward to the discussion with our witnesses and how their
agencies are planning, coordinating, and evaluating their
efforts to improve STEM education.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Vice Chairman McNerney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Chairman Jerry McNerney
Good afternoon, and thanks to everyone for attending today's
proceedings of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. This
hearing is part of an ongoing assessment that the Committee is
undertaking to determine the role of the Federal Government in science,
technology, engineering, and math education. We'll be hearing today
from four federal agencies about their progress improving STEM
programs. As a Mathematician, and someone who believes strongly in the
need to expand educational opportunities for the next generation,
today's hearing holds particular importance for me.
In the past few months, this committee has done a commendable job
in drawing attention to the difficulties our country will face if we
are unable to increase the number of future researchers and scientists.
From the difficult--but not insurmountable--challenges laid out in the
National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report to witness
testimony from businesses and universities, we've heard time and again
that we need more STEM educated graduates and teachers if we can
compete in a global economy.
This committee--under the leadership of Chairman Gordon--has
succeeded in passing legislation that will pay significant future
dividends, and will be a great legacy for Congress. The issues we're
discussing today are no less important. By hearing from educators on
the front lines of the education system as well as the federal agencies
who must implement STEM programs, we're laying the groundwork for how
to maximize the benefit of existing programs, which will invariably
improve future initiatives.
Last month, the Subcommittee held a hearing with local STEM
educators to learn their perspectives on federal programs. During
witness testimony and in questioning, I made it a point to highlight
what I believe to be one of the most important aspects of any
discussion on STEM education and that is how we can reach more students
and make sure that the United States is not only keeping up with the
rest of the world, but out-pacing other countries. It is hard work to
earn a degree in math or physics, and we need to make sure that our
federal policies--first and foremost--benefit students.
Our previous witnesses shared with us their recommendations for
STEM education improvements that included working with states and
districts to align federal programs to local standards. The witnesses
also expressed frustration that there are currently no consistent
guidelines for evaluating STEM programs across government agencies, and
we have asked today's witnesses to respond to the comments and
recommendations from the previous panel.
The week before last month's hearing, the Academic Competitiveness
Council released a comprehensive report on federal STEM education
programs. Not surprisingly, the ACC assessment was the same as that of
our witnesses--collaboration between agencies and with State and local
governments needs improvement, programs should be designed around best
practices, and a wide array of evaluation measurements should be
simplified into common ones. Each of the agencies invited to testify
this afternoon were deeply involved in the ACC's process and we have
asked each of them to communicate today what changes they have made
over the past year in order to achieve these goals.
I'm hopeful that today's witnesses will shed some light on how
we've been spending scarce federal dollars on STEM education, and how
we can improve on current practices so that we're benefiting students
from kindergarten and up. I look forward to the discussion with our
witnesses on how their agencies are planning, coordinating, and
evaluating their efforts to improve STEM education.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here to participate in yet another event centered on STEM
education. You and I, I think, have both spent a good part of
our lives dedicated to education, particularly science,
technology, engineering, and math education.
I do have to clarify that what the S, T, M, and E stand
for, even though everyone in here should be familiar with it,
but I have to do that for anyone who isn't familiar, because
tomorrow, we are going to have debate, discussion, and votes on
two stem cell bills, and so, all the papers are going to talk
about for the next few days is votes on stem cell bills. We are
not talking about a stem cell bill here today. In fact, I think
this is, for the future of our nation, probably considerably
more interesting.
STEM education is a priority for this nation. It has to be
if our nation is to survive, to continue to improve in the
welfare of its own citizens, and frankly, also in the welfare
of the world. Thanks to constantly increasing understanding of
the importance of STEM education to our national
competitiveness, I no longer have to go into a lot of details
on this, but even with this improving awareness of STEM
education, there is still more that the Federal Government can
do to improve K-12 STEM education in the United States, and we
clearly need improvement, because we are still ranked near the
bottom of the developed countries in STEM education.
The Academic Competitiveness Council was created by
Congress to catalog and coordinate the STEM education projects
and programs currently supported by the Federal Government. I
commend the agencies that participated in this endeavor. For
some time, I have been very concerned about the fact that the
Federal Government and its agencies and also some private
entrepreneurs in industry are developing these fantastically
good programs, but there is no overall correlation of how they
should be used in the classroom, how they fit in with the
curriculum, and I think we should be working on that.
I commend the agencies that have participated in this
endeavor. The charge to the Academic Competitiveness Council
was a challenging one, and the report reflects the breadth and
depth of programs that exist at our federal agencies. From the
start, I harbored a general concern that the ACC might
overzealously seek out seemingly duplicative programs, and
inadvertently encourage their demise, which happened a few
years ago with the Math Science Partnerships. Someone in the
basement of the White House noticed that we had two Math
Science Partnerships, one in the National Science Foundation,
one in the Department of Education, and said, ``A ha,
duplication, we must get rid of one.'' Fortunately, this has
not happened in your case on these issues.
I think the ACC report sheds light on the diversity and
uniqueness of the programs that are developed, and sends a
clear message that Congress must authorize adequate evaluation
capacity for federal STEM education programs. It is crucial
that we evaluate these programs with the most appropriate and
rigorous techniques available. Overall, the ACC report provides
a useful foundation for future coordination and collaboration,
so that federal agencies can work together to leverage STEM
resources and communicate successes as well as failures.
I am pleased that the recently reestablished National
Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Education and
Workforce Development will follow through on actions
recommended by the ACC.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
how they are moving towards increasing collaboration, as well
as becoming more educated about the STEM education programs at
their respective agencies.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
STEM education is a priority for this nation. Thanks to a
constantly increasing understanding of the importance of STEM to our
national competitiveness, I no longer must define what the ``S,''
``T,'' ``E'' and ``M'' stand for; today, my colleagues are familiar
with the acronym. Even with this improving awareness of STEM, there is
still more that the Federal Government can do to improve K-16 STEM
education in the U.S.
The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) was created by Congress
to catalog and coordinate the STEM education projects and programs
currently supported by the federal government. I commend the agencies
that participated in this endeavor. The charge to the Council was a
challenging one, and the report reflects the breadth and depth of
programs that exist at our federal agencies. From the start, I harbored
a general concern that the ACC might overzealously seek out seemingly
duplicative programs and inadvertently encourage their demise. Instead,
I think the ACC report sheds light on the diversity and uniqueness of
programs, and sends a clear message that Congress must authorize
adequate evaluation capacity for federal STEM education programs. It is
crucial that we evaluate these programs with the most appropriate and
rigorous techniques available.
Overall, the ACC report provides a useful foundation for future
coordination and collaboration, so that federal agencies can work
together to leverage STEM resources and communicate successes as well
as failures. I am pleased that the recently re-established National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) will follow through on actions
recommended by the ACC.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how they
are moving toward increased collaboration, as well as becoming more
educated about the STEM education programs at their respective
agencies.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. The Chair thanks the gentleman
from Michigan. If there are any Members, I don't see any here,
but if there are any Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing will be valuable to determine how to help the
federal science agencies become more efficient in working together in
their efforts toward STEM education.
As you know, the Academic Competitiveness Council recently studied
evaluation processes used by the various federal STEM education
programs and concluded in its report that ``there is a general dearth
of evidence of effective practices and activities in STEM education.''
The ACC recommended that funding for any program should not be
increased until it can show effectiveness as determined by rigorous
evaluation methods.
Witnesses at the May 15, 2007, Subcommittee hearing on ``Federal
STEM Education Programs: Educators' Perspectives'' concurred with this
sentiment.
The absence of consistent performance measurements makes choosing
among the vast array of programs difficult and time-consuming.
Mr. Chairman, it can safely be said that all Members of this
subcommittee care deeply about our scientific enterprise and are
committed to supporting and streamlining it to most responsibly use
taxpayer dollars.
We hope to determine, from witness feedback, how to work toward
that goal.
Again, welcome to today's witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing to examine the
participation of federal agencies in STEM education and investigate
approaches to improving coordination and evaluation of their programs.
As we have all mentioned time and again, the Rising Above the
Gathering Storm report provided us with both the knowledge that our
nation's standing as the global leader in the STEM field is at risk as
well as solid tools for policy-makers to counteract this worrisome
trend. Chairman Gordon, you have been a tremendous advocate for
improving STEM education in this nation. I am proud to be a Member of
the Committee on Science and Technology--under your leadership we have
successfully moved four major innovation initiatives through the House
just in these past couple months.
I am pleased that today's hearing again focuses on the important
task of ensuring that our STEM programs are working to the best of
their abilities.
I am eager to hear our witnesses' assessments of these agencies'
contributions to STEM education programs so that we can reflect on the
successes and inefficiencies of the programs and seek to make
modifications for improvement. Your first-hand experiences are vital to
maximizing the resources we are offering our nation's aspiring
students.
To all the witnesses--thank you for taking time out of your busy
schedules to appear before us today. I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Mr. McNerney. At this time, I would like to introduce our
distinguished witnesses. First, we have Dr. Cora Marrett, is
that being pronounced correctly? She is the Assistant Director
for the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education
and Human Resources. Dr. Marrett is also the Co-Chair of the
Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee under the
NSTC. Welcome aboard, Dr. Marrett, and she is going to be
chairing the new subcommittee, so it is a big burden on your
shoulders, and I am looking forward to your words.
Our second panelist is Dr. Joyce Winterton. She is the
Assistant Administrator of NASA's Office of Education. Welcome.
Third, we have Mr. Bill Valdez, Director of Office for
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists at the
Department of Energy. Welcome, this afternoon.
And finally, we have Dr. Bruce Fuchs, and he is the
Director of the Office of Science Education at the National
Institutes of Health.
Welcome all, and as our witnesses know, spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes each, after which each Member of the
Committee will have five minutes to ask questions. We will try
and limit you to five minutes, but I understand if you have a
few extra minutes to run over, but we do want to keep things in
line.
So, we will start with Dr. Marrett at this point. Would you
begin your testimony?
STATEMENT OF DR. CORA B. MARRETT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EDUCATION
AND HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Marrett. Thank you very much, Chairman McNerney, and
Ranking Member Ehlers. I do appreciate the opportunity today,
and want to express my gratitude to the entire Subcommittee,
for your longstanding support for excellence in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics education, or STEM.
The National Science Foundation appreciates the interest
expressed by this subcommittee and others in coordination and
evaluation of STEM-centered activities. In fact, the National
Foundation, or NSF, takes pride in the actions we have
undertaken over the years to enhance excellence across all
levels of education and all fields of science and engineering.
We owe our successes to the interactions we have had with
communities of researchers, educators, diverse organizations,
and indeed, other agencies. Those interactions have shaped
significantly the content of our efforts, our evaluation of
them, and our dissemination strategies. We are aware, however,
that we must revisit continually the approaches and connections
we cultivate.
This said, these are some of the ways in which we are
looking at what is the current situation, and how we respond to
the challenges that now exist. The reconstitution of the
Subcommittee on Education and Workforce Development of the
National Science and Technology Council, to which you have just
referred, that reconstitution should help us in NSF strengthen
our ties to other federal agencies. I should note we already
have a number of ties. One of our most recent is a partnership
through a memorandum of understanding with NASA, and I am
delighted that Dr. Winterton and I had an opportunity quite
recently to host a conference in which we had participation
from our other colleagues here at the table and other agencies.
The subcommittee, the reconstituted subcommittee of the
NSTC, the membership for it will come from the agencies
represented on NSTC's larger Committee on Science. The
representatives are to possess substantive knowledge of their
STEM education portfolio within the agency, and these
representatives are to have experience with evaluation research
and, possibly, with the development and application of
performance measures. So, in looking at what we need for that
committee, we realize it is knowledge both of what agencies are
doing, but familiarity to work on these very important issues
of evaluation research performance measures.
The subcommittee that I am referring to will address a
broad range of issues related to STEM education. To use a
phrase that is often heard these days, this will be attending
from K to gray, because the education portfolio does indeed
cover all phases of education and workforce activities. The
subcommittee will provide a forum for exchanges of information
and expertise regarding research and evaluation. On the one
side, then, we have the development, the reconstitution of the
Subcommittee on Education and Workforce Development.
Another important development, of course, is the report you
have referred to from the Academic Competitiveness Council, or
the ACC. As we look at the report, it certainly serves to
enhance our attention to evaluation. Now, within the National
Science Foundation, there has been a requirement that there is
evaluation associated with every program within the Directorate
of Education and Human Resources. In fact, Congress had a lot
to do with the directive that set this as expected.
We have responded and indeed now have a requirement that
all such programs within this part of the organization do have
to be subject to evaluation. But we have other work to do, and
we see ourselves as attending increasingly to such matters as
clarifying the objectives of particular programs. Evaluation
must depend on how clear is the intent of any activity. We see
ourselves as attending far more perhaps to the definition of
concepts, and ensuring that those definitions are shared,
especially with the other agencies that must be involved. These
become fundamental issues to ensure that we will be able to
conduct the rigorous evaluations that we agree must be
essential for determining how resources are being used. In
collaboration with others, we will strive to enhance the
capacity for and knowledge base of such evaluation. There is a
need for expanding the community, the experts who can, in fact,
bring to the matter of evaluation and research the strong
conceptual theoretical work that is essential.
There are, in addition to these matters of evaluation,
extensive possibilities for expanded opportunities to improve
STEM education, opportunities for engaging with others on
research, for example. The hearing that you had with STEM
educators, the inquiries we have received from foundations,
lots of private foundations, industrial groups, the
responsiveness we have received from school districts and
higher education associations, all of these developments prompt
our heightened attention and commitment to collaboration,
collaboration in the cause of excellence.
In closing, then, we at the National Science Foundation
will not rest on our past achievements. Rather, we will
continue to foster and tap the creativity this Nation needs for
the success of our citizenry in the years ahead. I am willing,
of course, to respond to questions. This could be nothing more
than a quick snapshot of what we have in mind, what we have
done, and where we intend to go at the National Science
Foundation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marrett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cora B. Marrett
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify before you
today on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education.
This subcommittee's commitment to excellence in STEM education at
the National Science Foundation (NSF) is well known, and we are
extremely appreciative of your long-standing support.
As you are well aware, the NSF provides leadership at the federal
level to advance learning and discovery in all disciplines of science
and engineering and to foster connections among the disciplines. The
Director of NSF, Dr. Arden Bement, has presented the case eloquently:
``Our job is to keep science and engineering visionaries focused on the
furthest frontier, to recognize and nurture emerging fields, to prepare
the next generation of scientific talent, and to ensure that all
Americans gain an understanding of what science and technology have to
offer.''
The questions for today's hearing center on the coordination of
STEM-related programs, the evaluation of those programs, and the
dissemination of information about effective strategies. These long
have been central concerns for NSF, as is evident in activities we have
undertaken over the years. But we are cognizant of changes looming on
the horizon that will require heightened attention to coordination,
research and evaluation as well as dissemination.
On Coordination and Collaboration.
The National Science Foundation works in partnership with the
research and education community to promote excellence. Hence, for us
effectiveness is indicated in no small part by the connections we
establish and maintain with researchers and educators as well as with
agencies and organizations that share our commitment to excellence in
STEM education. We seek opportunities to foster exchanges on matters
critical to such excellence. An example: the conference held recently
on state standards for mathematics. What gave rise to the conference
were the development by states of different standards, the efforts of
several national organizations to align those standards, and the
interest of state supervisors of mathematics in exchanging ideas and
experiences. The conference, held in February 2007, featured
presentations on recommendations regarding standards and engaged
``users'' of standards--State and district curriculum specialists,
textbook and assessment publishers, K-12 district and teacher leaders,
and representatives from higher education and business. The National
Science Foundation served as a co-sponsor of the conference, along with
Achieve, Inc., the American Statistical Association, the College Board,
the Mathematical Association of America, and the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. The idea for the conference emerged from an
NSF-sponsored entity: the Center for the Study of the Mathematics
Curriculum at Michigan State University. That Center organized the
conference, in concert with the State Supervisors of Mathematics. The
case illustrates that NSF takes a broad approach to the challenges
associated with coordination and collaboration.
Our approach to coordination and collaboration extends beyond the
formal education sector to include important activities in promoting
understanding of science in the wider public. Towards that end, NSF
organized in March 2007 a workshop on informal science activities
conducted through science centers, museums, community projects and the
media. The workshop brought designers of informal science initiatives
together with program evaluators, to generate guides for the evaluation
of such initiatives. The workshop included representatives from other
federal agencies. Again, the action reinforces the theme that NSF
supports coordination through outreach--to various communities and
agencies--on matters relevant to STEM educational policies and
practices.
The informal science workshop demonstrates, too, that NSF both
endorses and seeks to provide leadership on program evaluation. The
evaluation efforts are tailored to the goals and state of development
for any given program. Moreover, NSF invests in research and
evaluation, not just to assess outcomes, but also to build knowledge
about and a community prepared to advance STEM research and evaluation.
A distinctive feature of the NSF STEM education portfolio is its
breadth. Not only does it incorporate program development as well as
research, and the informal as well as formal sectors; it addresses the
pre-college realm, undergraduate and graduate education, post-doctoral
experiences, and the STEM workforce of the Nation. This breadth has
profound implications for the collaborations NSF undertakes, the
evaluations it supports, and the dissemination strategies it pursues.
Subcommittee Questions
Having provided a general context for the questions central to this
hearing, let me now turn more specifically to those questions.
1. As Co-Chair of the NSTC Subcommittee on Education and Workforce
Development, please describe the make-up of the group, current
activities, and planned activities.
In response to the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) report,
the Subcommittee is being re-constituted through representation from
the agencies that comprise the Committee on Science of the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The representatives are to
possess (1) substantive knowledge of STEM education programs within the
given agency's portfolio, and (2) experience with evaluation research
and/or the development and application of performance measures. These
requirements will enable the Subcommittee to meets its initial goal to
coordinate and facilitate implementation of the ACC recommendations.
The Subcommittee is also expected to address a range of issues related
to STEM education at all levels.
2. What steps has your agency taken to improve its coordination with
other federal agencies' STEM education activities? How has your agency
improved its collaboration with states and districts in developing STEM
education programs? Please describe your agency's commitment to
establishing formal mechanisms to improve in these areas.
Past coordination activities include formal memoranda of
understanding with the Department of Education (ED) and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1992 and with the Department of Energy in
1995. Through the Interagency Educational Research Initiative, launched
in 1999, NSF, NIH, and the U.S. Department of Education sponsored a
program of research designed to develop and/or investigate the
effectiveness of educational interventions in classrooms across the
United States.
Earlier this year, NSF signed a memorandum of understanding on STEM
education cooperation with National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). The goal of this partnership is to support the
development of a creative and diverse engineering workforce that
comprehends the technical and social impacts of technology applications
and needs in a rapidly changing environment. Interactions with NASA
precede the memorandum, however, and include our joint participation on
a task force ``to examine the feasibility and benefits of using a
portion of the International Space Station payload resources and
accommodations for education.''
Among the ways in which NSF cooperates with the Department of
Education, these especially warrant notice. A memorandum of
understanding enabled the NSF and ED to fund jointly two of the large
projects in our Math and Science Partnership (MSP) programs. Moreover,
almost two-thirds of the sites in the NSF portfolio have some
involvement as well with the state MSP projects that ED supports.
In 2005 the U.S. Department of Education and the Education and
Human Resources (EHR) Directorate of the National Science Foundation
began collaborating on a Mathematics Education Toolkit. The Toolkit
provides resources for state and district leaders on how to improve
mathematics teaching and learning for Title I students. The Toolkit
represents a response to concerns that states and districts have
expressed. The workshop on standards, cited earlier, provides another
example of the NSF connections beyond the federal level.
The coordination challenges in the years ahead will extend beyond
those found among federal agencies. Increasingly, foundations and
corporations are investing in STEM education and the workforce. The
National Science Foundation has a leadership role within the ACC and is
committed to establishing whatever connections and mechanisms offer
heightened possibilities for innovation in STEM education within the
United States.
3. The ACC report reinforces the need for better evaluation and
performance metrics for federal STEM education programs. How has your
agency made improvements in its evaluation of programs? How has this
affected your agency's funding for STEM education programs?
The emphasis in NSF on program evaluation precedes the ACC report.
A Congressional mandate in 1992 set in motion a systematic plan for
assessment of programs within the EHR portfolio. The approach has
evolved quite significantly over time, from one focused largely on the
monitoring of developments to evaluations of impacts. The evolution has
reinforced the importance of enhanced capacity for evaluation of STEM
programs and accounts, then, for investments NSF has made in increasing
expertise on evaluation.
EHR education programs require project and program evaluations, and
there is now greater emphasis on collecting evaluation information at
the start of a program. The evaluation of a program's value, worth, and
impacts is based on a multiplicity of assessment and review studies.
NSF evaluation efforts range from periodic measures of project
activities to in-depth analyses of a program's success. Quantitative
and qualitative data are obtained to measure a program's success in
achieving its goals.
Our current approach encompasses a multiple method evaluation
framework that combines theory and research to better understand and
assess the R&D educational investment. This methodological pluralism
enables programmatic decision-making to be based on the preponderance
of the evidence from external studies. Through the NSTC, we will work
to improve evaluation for STEM education initiatives across the Federal
Government, including at NSF, to ensure that the most rigorous methods
appropriate are used to assess federal programs.
4. How does your agency determine priorities for its K-16 STEM
education portfolio? Has your agency's balance of programs at graduate/
post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and informal education changed? Do
you foresee a change in that balance in the future?
Issues for the K-16 STEM education portfolio emerge from various
sources. The staff within NSF consists of specialists on STEM education
within given disciplines, researchers with on-going connections to
resources and knowledge, and experts on trends in STEM education in the
United States and elsewhere. The panels that review proposals, the
Committees of Visitors for our programs, and the Advisory Committees
for each directorate keep us abreast of developments and interests. In
recent years, reports on STEM education have yielded many
recommendations, as have the priorities established in both the
Executive and Legislative branches. In determining priorities for NSF
funding, consideration is given to the capacity of external communities
to pursue given lines of inquiry, the activities underway through other
agencies and organizations, and the appropriateness of the topics for
the NSF portfolio.
The Foundation strives to address a broad portfolio for STEM
education, but does not have a formula for investments at each
educational level. The substance of those investments does not remain
static, however, for it must reflect changes over time in knowledge,
national needs, and capacities within our communities and NSF.
5. How does your agency disseminate information about its STEM
education programs? What organizations, both government and private,
have your partnered with to reach educators in the field?
The National Science Foundation disseminates information about its
programs and the results of its investments through various channels.
There are websites for particular programs. These include IGERT.ORG, a
website produced by the Integrative Graduate Education Research and
Traineeship (IGERT) program that seeks to attract to STEM research
groups now under-represented in science and engineering. Communication
and collaboration among MSP partners is promoted through MSPNet.
Similarly, the Center for Learning in Out of School Environments
(UPCLOSE) at the University of Pittsburgh serves to link researchers
and educators who want to enhance teaching and learning in informal
environments.
Publications from the National Academy of Sciences serve to share
widely the results from NSF-investments. Among these: the path-breaking
volumes, Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics, and Taking
Science to School.
Our outreach efforts are extensive. What we intend to undertake in
the near future is an assessment of the effectiveness of our strategies
in reaching under-served communities--of educators, researchers, and
institutions. Such an assessment, to be pursued in connection with our
panels, advisory communities, and public and private partners, may
result in modifications to our outreach efforts.
We in NSF will not rest on past achievements or accolades. Rather,
we will continue to strive to foster and tap the creativity this nation
needs for the success of our citizenry in the years ahead.
Biography for Cora B. Marrett
Dr. Cora B. Marrett is the Assistant Director of the Directorate
for Education and Human Resources (EHR) at the National Science
Foundation (NSF). She leads the NSF's mission to achieve excellence in
U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education
with oversight of a budget of approximately $800 million and a staff of
150. EHR is the principal source of federal support for strengthening
STEM education through education research and development (R&D).
Prior to her appointment at the NSF, Dr. Marrett served as the
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs in the University of
Wisconsin System. Her NSF position is in conjunction with the UW-
Madison Department of Sociology, where she remains a tenured faculty
member.
Earlier, she held the post of Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs and Provost at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Her current position represents a return to NSF. From 1992-1996,
she served at NSF as the first Assistant Director of the Directorate
for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. She received the NSF's
Distinguished Service Award for her leadership in developing new
research programs and articulating the scientific projects of the
directorate.
In addition to her faculty appointment at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, she has been a faculty member at the University of
North Carolina and Western Michigan University.
Dr. Marrett holds a B.A. degree from Virginia Union University, and
M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1968) degrees from UW-Madison. She has an
honorary doctorate from Wake Forest University (1996). She is a Fellow
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Sigma Xi, the Science
Research Society.
In 2005, Dr. Marrett received the Erich Bloch Distinguished Service
Award from the Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network, given
annually to an individual who has made singular contributions to the
advancement of science and to the participation of groups under-
represented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. She is
widely published in the field of sociology, and has held a number of
public and professional service positions.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Dr. Marrett. Now, we will
recognize Dr. Winterton.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOYCE L. WINTERTON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Winterton. Thank you, Chairman McNerney and Congressman
Ehlers. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and have
a discussion that we know is so important around STEM
education.
NASA certainly recognizes the role that education has in
providing that next generation of scientists, engineers, and
people that are experts in technology, that will really advance
the Nation's economic well-being. The United States does have a
tremendous need to sustain our competitive international
collaborations, and we want to keep United States' preeminence
in that area. NASA certainly serves as a contributor towards
that goal.
As was mentioned by Dr. Marrett, we have a growing number
of agency collaborations: our memorandum of understanding with
the National Science Foundation; also, we recently signed a
memorandum of understanding with the Federal Aviation
Administration. So, it was very rewarding, as we signed that,
to see a group of middle school students experiencing our Smart
Skies Initiative, that is a simulated online resource, where
students get a feeling of what it is like to actually land a
sequence of planes safely, using mathematics as part of that
learning, and it was very interesting to see their motivation
of seeing the real world context, and how you apply your math
in a type of job that is in demand.
I do serve on the interagency taskforce to revitalize the
aerospace workforce that has been mandated by Congress, and
through that, we are collaborating with the U.S. Department of
Labor, the NSF, NIH, Department of Energy, Department of
Defense, and looking forward to a substantial look at where we
are currently since the Gathering Storm report, and what needs
to be done to reenergize, and make sure we are on target with
those.
We certainly look at how we can work with other agencies.
For instance, recently, at Johnson Space Center, we conducted a
teacher-to-teacher training that is part of the U.S. Department
of Education's initiative to provide professional development,
and I think we had over 350 teachers who signed up and
participated in that effort in Texas.
As are other agencies, we have a renewed effort to re-look
at what are vigorous metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of
our program, the efficiency, but also, the long-term impact.
How do we know that we are really investing our dollars in the
right place? So, we actually have a specific schedule of how we
will be looking at each of our major programs, and looking at
the impact of those, as well.
So, we are looking forward to our National Academies study
on our pre-college programs that will be available in November,
and again, that will be another opportunity for us to see how
we are doing with those programs, how we can improve, and how
we are meeting our customers' needs.
The role of our agency certainly includes professional
development. Being a former high school teacher, that is close
to my heart, and a teacher educator. And it is very important
for NASA to work closely with educators as we develop resources
in a formal K-12 setting, or as we work with our informal
partners in museums and community-based groups like Boy Scouts,
Girl Scouts, and 4-H.
Some of the things that we are doing, for instance, with
our educator astronaut, who is a mission specialist, and will
be part of our STS-118 launch in August, we have worked with
the International Technology Education Association and the
National Science Teachers Education, to develop resources so
students can actually develop a growth chamber. They can do the
engineering. Obviously, that is a skill we may need some day if
we plan to go back to the Moon and beyond. So, students can use
their science background, their engineering, at an elementary,
middle school, and high school level to develop growth
chambers, and then, we actually have basil seeds that will be
flying on the Shuttle, that they can test, and see if their
growth chamber will actually work. So, that is an example of
the collaboration, making sure that we are connecting to the
existing curriculum, bringing our resources that fit the
standards, and what teachers can afford to do, both cost-
effective and time-wise, because we know that is very important
in the curriculum today.
Our NASA Explorer Schools is an example of how, over three
years, we work with a team within a school. That is a
competitive process. Those educators help us determine what are
the needs in that particular school, how we can meet their
needs, but also, how we sustain that afterwards. In fact, at
the National Science Teachers Association Conference, I had a
teacher from Kentucky come up to me and say, ``I was part of an
Explorer School. I am teaching at a different school now, but I
can tell you I changed the way I teach because of that
experience. I am teaching more real world, using NASA content,
with my students today, so they see where they are going to
apply their science and math.'' She said it has made such a
difference in the responsiveness and interest of her students
in STEM.
Now, we certainly use our Digital Learning Network, which
is an opportunity for us to connect schools to our engineers
and scientists at our centers. That is really what NASA has to
add, our content that is new and relevant, and information that
may or probably isn't in a textbook, our facilities and our
experts and our people. So our Digital Learning Networks, for
instance, I saw a school from the State of Washington in a
dialogue with the scientists at Johnson Space Center. So
through that vehicle, we can reach every school in every state,
even if they are not within a radius where they can travel to
one of our NASA centers, although we certainly encourage that.
We balance our portfolio, looking at higher education,
undergraduate, graduate, and the K-12 as a really important
part of our continuum, to have a pipeline to our workforce, not
only for NASA, but also our contractors. And informal education
is certainly a way to engage the public at large. We look
forward to more opportunities to work with our counterparts in
other agencies, educators, to really make sure we are on target
meeting the needs of educators and students today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Winterton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce L. Winterton
Chairman Baird and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss NASA
activities that support K-16 science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) educational programs.
NASA recognizes the important role education plays in developing
the diverse scientific and technological workforce required to advance
this Nation's economic leadership. The United States has a tremendous
need to build, sustain, and deploy the skilled talent that will be
required to continue America's preeminence in space and aeronautics
research and development in the coming decades. NASA serves as a
contributor for achieving such goals.
To ensure our future explorers will be ready to continue the
journey, NASA is working with one of its most vital partners--
educators. This summer, NASA will ignite the flame of knowledge with
the first space flight of one of NASA's most famous educator. Mission
Specialist and Educator Barbara Morgan will engage students and
educators worldwide from 240 miles above Earth aboard the International
Space Station.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin recently stated, ``The greatest
contribution that NASA makes in educating the next generation of
Americans is by providing worthy endeavors for which students will be
inspired to study difficult subjects like math, science and engineering
because they too share the dream of exploring the cosmos.''
To this end, NASA educational investments are designed to:
1. Strengthen NASA and the Nation's future workforce--NASA
will identify and develop the critical skills and capabilities
needed to ensure achievement of exploration, science, and
aeronautics.
2. Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines through a
progression of educational opportunities for students,
teachers, and faculty--To compete effectively for the minds,
imaginations, and career ambitions of America's young people,
NASA will focus on engaging and retaining students in STEM
education programs to encourage their pursuit of educational
disciplines critical to NASA's future engineering, scientific,
and technical missions.
3. Engage Americans in NASA's mission--NASA will build
strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and
informal education providers. Through hands-on, interactive,
educational activities, NASA will engage students, educators,
families, the general public, and all agency stakeholders to
increase America's science and technology literacy.
Experience has shown that exciting and compelling NASA missions
truly can inspire the next generation of explorers, innovators, and
leaders. NASA's unique program content, people, and facilities can be
leveraged to spark interest, capture imaginations, and guide students
toward careers in STEM fields while increasing their scientific and
technologic literacy to the benefit of the Nation.
To prepare future generations to manage and lead the cutting-edge
research of tomorrow, strategic planning is essential. NASA has
identified strategic goals and objectives that align its portfolio of
education programs with the Human Capital Initiatives under the
President's Management Agenda to build the workforce needed to meet
core competences. All of NASA's education efforts are part of an
integrated Agency-wide approach to human capital management.
NASA Education Programs support multiple goals and sub-goals in the
2006 NASA Strategic Plan. Specifically, the education programs of the
Agency contribute to the following outcomes:
Outcome 1: Contribute to the development of the STEM
workforce in disciplines needed to achieve NASA's strategic
goals through a portfolio of programs.
Outcome 2: Attract students and retain them in STEM
disciplines through a progression of educational opportunities
for students, teachers, and faculty.
Outcome 3: Build strategic partnerships and linkages
between STEM formal and informal education providers that
promote STEM literacy and awareness of NASA's mission.
NASA Education Programs
The manner in which the Agency will achieve these outcomes is
detailed in the NASA Education Strategic Coordination Framework. The
Framework was approved by the NASA Strategic Management Council in 2006
and guides the planning, implementation, assessment and validation of
the following portfolio of programs:
The Higher Education Program focuses on supporting institutions of
higher education in strengthening their research capabilities and
providing opportunities that attract and prepare increasing numbers of
students for NASA-related careers. The research conducted by the
institutions contributes to the research needs of NASA's Mission
Directorates.
The Minority University Research and Education Program (MUREP) engages
under-represented populations through a wide variety of initiatives.
Multi-year grants are awarded to engage minority institutions, faculty
and students in research pertinent to NASA missions. The program
focuses on retaining under-represented and under-served students in
STEM disciplines through completion of undergraduate or graduate
degrees and entry into the scientific and technical workforce.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Program provides K-12 educators
with tools, experiences, and opportunities to further their education
and participate in unique NASA learning experiences to enhance their
knowledge of STEM and inspire pursuit of STEM careers. The program
supports the role of educational institutions, which provide the
framework to unite students, families, and educators for educational
improvement.
Education Technology and Products (e-Education) sustains the research
and development of technology applications, products, services and
implementation of technology-enriched infrastructure in facilitating
the appropriate and effective technology based applications to enhance
the educational process for formal and informal education. In addition,
e-Education identifies projects that will meet the objective of the
President's Management Agenda to provide citizen-centric services
related to NASA Education efforts.
The Informal Education Program is focused on increasing learning,
educating students, educators and the general public on specific STEM
content areas, and expanding the Nation's future STEM workforce.
Projects within the program produce supplemental educational materials
that are standards based and designed to support facilitators who are
trained or qualified in STEM education fields, and are actively working
with participants to further enhance their understanding. Informal
Education Programs also develop content based on educational standards
and learning objectives to supplement and enrich an experience, visual,
or activity.
The breadth of our portfolio, and how these programs have been
implemented nationally, can be illustrated through the following
examples:
Attracting students to the teaching profession, the
NASA Educator Astronaut project uses the visibility and
educational opportunities created by the activities of the
Educator Astronauts to inspire greater K-12 STEM achievement,
promote STEM careers, and elevate public esteem for the
teaching profession. In selecting Educator Astronauts, NASA
identified and trained hundreds of our country's top educators
who are members of the Network of Educator Astronaut Teachers
(NEAT). Approximately 180 NEAT members are now in communities
across America, each conducting workshops that reach about 90
educators per session. These efforts result in strengthening
the STEM skills of approximately 10,000 teachers annually.
NASA Explorers Schools (NES) provide intensive
training and on-site professional development to teachers in
classrooms across the country. The NES project assists middle
schools with improving teaching and learning in STEM education
through professional development, stipends, grants, and
curricular support based on NASA resources. In 2006, 5,339
teachers received intensive training as part of the NES
project. Additionally, our Aerospace Education Services
personnel conducted sessions across the Nation, reaching 13,938
educators in other schools.
In addition to in-service workshops based on our
missions, NASA is committed to the pre-service training of our
future educators. Through the National Pre-Service Teacher
Conference, Pre-Service Teacher Institutes and Online
Professional Development, NASA recruits STEM teachers to
develop the confidence and skills to effectively teach
mathematics and science using cutting-edge technology and
educational materials. Such efforts have led to 200 STEM-
enhanced teachers instructing an average of 25 students per
classroom for three years, impacting a projected total of
15,000 students.
NASA's four Mission Directorates provide
opportunities for students to engage in NASA mission related
experiences. For example, within NASA's Science Mission
Directorate, a broad spectrum of education activities are
sponsored, ranging from kindergarten to post-graduate levels.
All of NASA's science missions and programs are required to
have an education and public outreach component. Through a
competitive, peer-review selection process, NASA provides
funding dedicated to education and public outreach to
researchers. NASA also sponsors graduate and post-doctoral
fellowship opportunities. In addition, the Agency is looking
for new ways to provide increased opportunities for students to
gain greater experience developing and launching their own
science instruments, either in conjunction with science
missions or through its suborbital rocket and balloon programs.
Launched in January 2006 as part of the New Horizons
Mission, the Student Dust Counter is the first student-built
instrument selected by NASA to fly on a planetary mission.
Built by students at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the
counter will monitor the density of dust grains in space. This
data is of particular interest to researchers. Given the nine-
year travel time, discoveries from this mission will engage
today's elementary school student until college when this
spacecraft encounters Pluto.
Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) began its
two-year mission on April 25, 2007, after a flawless ride to
Earth orbit aboard an Orbital Sciences Pegasus XL rocket. AIM
is the first mission dedicated to exploring mysterious ice
clouds that dot the edge of space in Earth's polar regions.
With AIM, Hampton University in Virginia has become the first
Historically Black College and University to lead a NASA
satellite mission. Undergraduate and graduate students from
various STEM disciplines will have an opportunity to join
faculty researchers in the analysis of collected data.
In February 17, 2007, NASA launched five Time History
of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS)
microsatellites to study the Earth's magnetosphere. THEMIS will
help scientists understand how and why space storms create
havoc on satellites, power grids, and communication systems.
Students will work with scientists to unravel a variety of
scientific mysteries.
NASA's support of higher education students is
embodied by the National Space Grant College and Fellowship
Program, which continues to provide fellowships and
scholarships to students across the country. Recent statistics
show that, of the pool of students who completed their degrees,
31 percent were employed in STEM careers and 48 percent
continued their education to the Master's, Ph.D., or post-
doctoral levels. Many consortia have implemented hands-on,
university student-led projects in aeronautics, rocketry,
scientific ballooning, rocketry, and nano- and micro-satellite
development. These types of projects provide the professional
training that enable students to be fully prepared to enter the
STEM workforce.
Portfolio Management Process
Such a diverse portfolio requires effective management of the
Agency's education portfolio both internally and externally, with clear
roles and responsibilities. As the Assistant Administrator for
Education, I am responsible for ensuring that the Education Outcomes as
reflected in the 2006 NASA Strategic Plan are achieved. I serve as both
the head of the Office for Education, managing all responsibilities
assigned to the Office and also as the Chair of the Education
Coordinating Committee (ECC), ensuring the overall planning,
coordination, and integration of the Agency's entire education
portfolio.
NASA's ECC is a collaborative structure that maximizes NASA's
ability to maintain an integrated education portfolio and strategically
manage the implementation of numerous programs, projects and activities
in a distributed system. The committee consists of representatives of
the Agency's Office of Education, the four Mission Directorates that
provide mission related content, and the ten NASA Center Education
Offices, among others. The committee develops education strategy and
supports me in coordinating education efforts throughout the Agency.
The ECC also provides checks and balances for effective internal
control and ensures the successful achievement of education goals and
portfolio effectiveness.
Collaboration and Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
NASA's Office of Education is continually engaged in collaboration
with other federal agencies, including: the Department of Education,
National Science Foundation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Commerce, Smithsonian Institution, Department of the
Interior, and Department of Energy. Additionally, NASA collaborates
with state STEM education coalitions, through the National Alliance of
State Science and Mathematics Coalitions, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. Each of our Centers works
closely with State and local departments of education to ensure that
our resources are tailored to support the needs of the education
community. We have worked hard to ensure that we understand and can
respond to the needs of State or local districts.
Collaboration and coordination also occur in a number of forums in
the Federal Government to ensure that NASA's activities in K-16 STEM
education are complementary and not redundant with the programs of
other federal agencies. Additionally, NASA has actively participated in
the Congressionally-mandated Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC),
which found there is a dearth of evidence of effective practices and
activities in STEM education and made recommendations to integrate and
coordinate federal STEM programs.
In February 2007, NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF)
signed an historic agreement to work together and coordinate efforts to
expand opportunities for promoting STEM education and to broaden the
participation of the under-represented in those areas. The Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between NASA and NSF promotes a comprehensive
knowledge base to be shared between the agencies to address national
challenges and manage the agencies' resources more effectively. It
reflects the goals of the Administration's American Competitiveness
Initiative, whose cornerstone is a commitment to increase investments
in basic research in the physical sciences and engineering, strengthen
K-12 math and science education, and build a well-educated, skilled
workforce. One of the first results of the collaboration was a three
day joint NASA-NSF Research Education Opportunity Conference for
Principal Investigators, Faculty, and Partners. Over three hundred
members of the academic community gathered to be trained on ways to
strengthen their ability to compete for research grants and to leverage
their partnerships with the agencies.
Earlier this month, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) signed an MOU to foster the development of students' skills in
STEM. The agreement supports the FAA's mission to provide the safest,
most efficient airspace system in the world and NASA's mission to
pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and
aeronautics research. The partnership includes a broad range of
cooperative outreach activities. The agencies' initial focus is on a
NASA resource called, ``Smart Skies.'' Smart Skies is an online air
traffic control simulator for students in fifth through ninth grades.
It offers a fun and exciting way to learn math and skills central to
air traffic control while providing multiple modes of problem solving
for students who learn in different ways. The agreement unites the
strengths of both agencies to provide the best of aviation-related
educational products and experiences to the widest possible population
of students and educators.
Sharing Best Practices
Through our work with the ACC, we are strengthening our evaluation
methodologies and sharing some of our best practices, for example:
The Harriett G. Jenkins Pre-doctoral Fellowship Program (JPFP) is a
model of a STEM education pipeline program that can be replicated by
other agencies as a best practice. While the success of the JPFP can
easily be quantified by counting the number of students participants
(121), the number of awards provided to conduct research at a NASA
center (90) or the number of successful mentoring relationships that
were established through this program (121), the greatest
accomplishment of the program is an exceptionally diverse group of
under-represented STEM scholars who are excited about pursuing NASA-
related advanced degrees that will equip them to participate in the
space exploration workforce. To date, the Jenkins project has produced
34 M.S. degrees and 32 Ph.D. degrees in NASA-related disciplines.
Another stellar NASA project identified as a best practice is the
Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Aerospace Academy (SEMAA). The
Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government announced that SEMAA
was among the top eighteen programs in the 2007 Innovations in the
American Government Awards competition. Selected from a pool of nearly
1,000 applicants, these initiatives are being recognized as the
government's best efforts for their novelty and creativity,
effectiveness at addressing significant issues, and potential to be
replicated by other jurisdictions. Finalists presented before the
National Selection Committee at the Kennedy School on May 15, 2007, and
winners will be announced in September.
Evaluation of NASA Education Programs
The Agency's many Education initiatives have not been evaluated in
a comprehensive, rigorous manner to indicate how well all of our
programs are performing in support of our outcome goals. We are
committed, however, to enhancing and improving our evaluation
procedures.
The Agency has taken several major steps to improve the evaluation
function by:
(a) incorporating a detailed evaluation plan into its
Education Strategy Framework;
(b) defining an enhanced set of outcome-based performance
measures; articulating specific roles and responsibilities to
ensure accountability; and,
(c) allocating the resources necessary to support rigorous
evaluations and the overall evaluation function.
A range of processes will be used to capture the total picture of
education across NASA and to assess the education portfolio for its
effectiveness in: achieving the stated outcomes; establishing linkages
within the framework; and determining the level of quality, impact and
comprehensiveness of the portfolio. The ECC will employ an appropriate
mix of methodologies, ranging from basic quantitative data to
qualitative information, to assess the overall condition of the
education portfolio.
Coincident with the adoption of a new education framework and
outcomes in FY06, NASA developed a corresponding set of objectives and
outcome measures. Baselines for these measures are being established
with FY07 data. The outcome measures include, but are not limited to
the following:
Percentage of student participants employed by NASA,
aerospace contractors, universities, & other educational
institutions.
Percentage of undergraduate students who move on to
advanced education in NASA-related disciplines.
Level of student interest in science and technology
careers resulting from elementary and secondary NASA education
programs.
The most significant improvement NASA is making to its evaluation
efforts is to make use of independent, credible evaluators to measure
the effectiveness of education investments. Project-level evaluations
will be conducted on three to five of our major projects each year,
with the objective of evaluating each project at least once every five
years. In collaboration with the National Science Foundation and the
Office of Management and Budget, we are working to determine the best
ways to apply a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) model of evaluation
to demonstrate the impact of our portfolio of programs. Projects that
cannot be reliably evaluated using RCT methods will be evaluated in an
objective and credible manner, conforming to the standards of
professional practices.
Public Awareness and Access to NASA Education Programs
NASA Education is a cross-cutting process that engages the public
in shaping and sharing the experience of exploration and discovery. The
President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA's Education program is
$153.7 million. Through the Office of Strategic Communications, the
Agency is building and maintaining public awareness for the activities
and goals focusing on science, education, aeronautical research and
exploration.
As part of the Agency's long-term strategy in promoting public
awareness, National Education Campaigns designed to build a
comprehensive education initiative that engage diverse audiences with
tailored modes of interaction have become common practice for assisting
the Agency with public engagement and the formation of national and
international visibility and recognition. STS-118, the first Space
Flight of an Educator Astronaut, is a good example of a National
Education Campaign designed not only to engage students and educators
but also increase America's science and technology literacy.
NASA disseminates its education content including STEM-related
materials through resources designed to reach all education audiences--
formal, informal and the public at-large--as well internal
dissemination networks such as Aerospace Education Services Program
(AESP) and Space Grant.
The NASA Portal opens the door to all the resources that NASA has
available. From there, educators can either download materials for use,
or obtain copies from the Central Operations of Resources for Educators
(CORE). CORE is a worldwide distribution center for NASA's educational
material.
The Role of Partnerships
Strategic alliances with non-governmental organizations provide an
immediate springboard as unfunded collaborators to produce, market, and
distribute educational information about NASA's projects and programs.
NASA's partnership with the International Technology Education
Association is one of many venues the Agency uses to reach students and
educators across the country. Other organizations include the National
Science Foundation, National Institute of Aerospace, National Science
Teachers Association, AOL's Kids On-Line, the Girl Scouts of the USA,
Imaginary Lines, and Reader's Digest.
Imagine, with the right partners, what NASA can do to strengthen
and support STEM education. Powerful technologies can enable new
learning environments using simulations, visualizations, immersive
environments, game playing, intelligent tutors and avatars, learner
networking, and usable building blocks of content. These capabilities
can create rich and compelling learning opportunities that meet the
needs of learners while empowering educators to unlock the potential in
each student's heart and mind. NASA can unite with the technology and
education communities in dialogue, understanding and action. Students
and educators can have access to a new renaissance of learning for the
benefit of the Nation and the world.
Conclusion
I would like to commend the Subcommittee for its efforts to improve
K-16 STEM education. The educational achievement of America's next
generation is an issue that reaches our nation at all levels. NASA will
continue to partner with federal, industry, State and local
organizations and invest our resources toward a shared vision to secure
those jobs critical to the 21st century workforce. This means not only
inspiring the next generation of leaders and explorers but also
providing educators with unique resources to support educational
excellence in STEM while improving scientific literacy.
The President, Administrator Griffin, and all of NASA share the
belief that a highly educated and well-prepared workforce has been and
continues to be essential to this country and the Agency. NASA's
investment in education is indeed an investment in America's future.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important
hearing. I am prepared to respond to any questions you may have.
Biography for Joyce L. Winterton
Dr. Joyce Leavitt Winterton, NASA's Assistant Administrator for
Education, directs the development and implementation of the Agency's
education programs that strengthen student involvement and public
awareness of its scientific goals and missions. In this role, she leads
the agency in inspiring interest in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics, as few other organizations can through its unique
mission, workforce, facilities, research and innovations. As Assistant
Administrator for Education, Winterton chairs the Education
Coordinating Committee, an agency-wide collaborative structure that
maximizes NASA's ability to manage and implement its education
portfolio. The ECC works to ensure that the Agency's education
investments are focused on supporting the Nation's education efforts to
develop the skilled workforce necessary to achieve the Agency's goals
and objectives. Before coming to NASA, Winterton served as the Director
of Education Programs for USA TODAY, and developed educational
strategies, resources and partnerships for its K-12 and collegiate
programs. During her nine years at USA TODAY, she created innovative
cross-curricular educational approaches, including case studies,
content development and on-line collaborations. She was the founder and
President of Winterton Associates, a consulting firm that specializes
in working on joint projects with business and industry, education, and
government. The firm has served as the evaluator for National Science
Foundation projects and U.S. Department of Education-funded programs,
including six national skill standards projects since 1991. Winterton's
previous experience includes serving as the team leader for partner
development for the National Future Farmers of America student
organization, where she planned and developed partnerships and
strategies to communicate the benefits of agricultural education and a
student organization with over 450,000 members. She has also been an
education training consultant for FranklinCovey Inc. where she
facilitated time management and personal effectiveness workshops for
national student leadership organizations. In 1986, Winterton became
the executive director of the National Council on Vocational Technical
Education, a Presidential Advisory Council providing recommendations to
the President, Congress and the Secretary of Education. Additionally,
Winterton served as the deputy assistant secretary for vocational and
adult education in the United States Department of Education and was
the first Director of the Presidential Academic Fitness Awards program.
She also was a professional staff member for the U.S. Senate Committee
on Labor and Human Resources. She has served on a number of national
education boards and advisory panels. Winterton has been a high school
teacher, a teacher educator and a home economist in business. She
received the Lawrence Prakken Professional Cooperation award from the
International Technology Education Association and was recognized as an
outstanding alumna from Colorado State University and also the Family,
Career and Community Leaders of America. She earned her Bachelor's and
Master's degrees in home economics education from Utah State University
in Logan. In 1978, she completed her doctorate in teacher education and
administration at Colorado State University in Fort Collins.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Dr. Winterton. Mr. Valdez.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM J. VALDEZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS AND SCIENTISTS, OFFICE OF
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Valdez. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ehlers, thank
you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing.
I have submitted written testimony that makes three points.
First, federal S&T mission agencies, such as the Department of
Energy, have enormous resources that could be devoted to STEM
education and workforce development. Those resources naturally
complement what is offered by the Department of Education and
the National Science Foundation. We are developing partnerships
with other federal agencies, NSF, the Department of Education,
and other organizations that have a strong interest in STEM
education, as a way to leverage our resources within the
Department of Energy.
Second, the Office I manage, Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists, has a great deal of work to do in the
area of program evaluation. We are in the process of developing
a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation program that builds
upon the recommendations of the Academic Competitiveness
Council, and what experts told this committee at the May 15
hearing.
Third, my Office is engaged in an extensive planning
process that is leading to a reprioritization of our programs
to meet today's challenges in STEM education and workforce
development. We are now developing business plans for all of
our programs that describe their goals, resource requirements,
and connection to the DOE mission.
These three points are discussed in more detail in my
written testimony, and I welcome an opportunity to answer any
questions you might have about them. But I would like to take a
moment to discuss one of the questions that you asked in your
May 29 letter of invitation to this hearing. What do you
recommend as the most effective role your agency can play in
improving STEM literacy?
I have had literally dozens of conversations with experts
in the field on this question, including most of my colleagues
at this table, and just in the past two weeks with Frank Owens
of the National Science Teachers Association, Sally Shuler of
the National Science Resource Center, and Iris Weiss of Horizon
Research, who testified at this hearing on May 15. The
conversations I had with these experts, who I consider to be
among the thought leaders in STEM education in the United
States, have led me to the following observations.
All three agreed that DOE programs, which emphasize
experiential learning, hands-on opportunities for students and
educators, and rigorously designed programs at our National
Laboratories, fill a critical void in STEM education and
workforce development. Iris Weiss, for example, said that DOE
needs to provide an authentic research experience well beyond
the brief cookbook experience that students and educators tend
to get even at the undergraduate level. Students and educators
learn by doing. We provide them with an opportunity at our
National Laboratories to learn with some of the best mentor
scientists in the world, but, and this is a very big caution,
our programs must be properly designed to maximize their
effectiveness. This is why we are developing business plans for
all of our programs, and will have those plans reviewed by
outside experts. Our program design must be open, transparent,
and conform with the best standards known to the STEM education
community. Iris Weiss asked me if we really would take their
suggestions and criticisms to heart, and my answer was, ``Of
course.''
All three experts were firm in their belief that we must
find a way to sustain our programs, and link them to what
matters to educators and students. Frank Owens suggested that
DOE partner with NSTA to help develop voluntary national
science certification standards for educators. This would take
two forms: first, making a structured laboratory research
experience part of the voluntary national certification
standards that NSTA is developing; and second, utilizing DOE's
world-class scientific talent to partner with NSTA to develop
their online science content modules.
NSTA will propose a partnership structure to accomplish
this with the Department of Energy. Iris Weiss suggested that
we also work with the Council of State Science Supervisors and
other groups, which we will do. Finally, every expert we have
spoken with has said that we must carefully evaluate our
programs. Iris Weiss and Sally Shuler, who really know this
business inside and out, agree that we currently are only able
to measure improvements to content knowledge and interest in
pursuing a science career after participation in the kinds of
experiential learning programs that we manage, but we currently
cannot measure whether those increases lead to improved test
scores and an ability to perform science. I am very interested
in talking with NSF and my colleagues at the table and other
experts about ways to fill these gaps in knowledge and improve
our program evaluation.
Overall, all three experts agree that federal S&T agencies
need to do a better job of talking with one another, sharing
best practices, and leveraging resources. They expressed
enormous frustration that we don't have a ``one-stop shopping''
resource for programs, evaluation techniques, and outreach.
Even the simple things, such as a common application for K-12
educators who want to enter into a research experience, would
be a big help, they said. The series of hearings that this
committee is holding should help in that regard.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members
of the Committee, for investing your time and energy into
studying this challenge. I look forward to working with you and
your staff, and answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Valdez follows:]
Prepared Statement of William J. Valdez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to discuss the role that the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Office of Science plays in scientific and technical workforce
development and education. We appreciate your strong commitment to
improving science and math education and training in the United States.
The Office of Science is the Federal Government's largest supporter
of civilian basic research in the physical sciences. This basic
research supports the Department's missions in energy, the environment,
and national security. The Office of Science manages 10 national
laboratories and more than 30 major scientific user facilities that
provide the scientific community with state-of-the-art research tools
that help accomplish the Department's goals and maintain U.S.
competitiveness in science and technology.
The Department's most significant contribution to the development
of a scientific and technical workforce has been through the support of
graduate students pursuing advanced degrees, post-doctoral students who
work on research projects, and, to a much smaller degree, hands-on
research opportunities for undergraduate students and K-12 educators
and informal experiential learning opportunities for K-12 students.
These individuals utilize DOE research facilities and work side-by-side
with the scientific and technical staff at the national laboratories.
Those national laboratories are unique settings for research,
mentoring, and collaboration. Through structured and unstructured
workforce development and science education programs at DOE's 17
national laboratories, the power authorities and other DOE facilities,
the Department engages with more than 250,000 students of all ages and
19,000 K-12 educators on an annual basis.
The Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
(WDTS), which I manage, is the only program office in DOE that has a
specific mission in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM) workforce development and education. Our programs reach 600
undergraduate students, 16,000 K-12 students, and 150 K-12 educators
annually. We do this with an $8 million annual budget and under
specific statutory authority (Public Laws 93-438 and 101-510, and most
recently the Energy Policy Act of 2005).
The 17 DOE national laboratories, the power authorities and other
DOE facilities use WDTS funding as ``seed money'' to develop
complementary programs that are designed to meet their local needs. Our
programmatic philosophy is ``nationally designed programs, locally
delivered.'' This model has relied on partnerships within the
Department of Energy and with external organizations.
While WDTS directly funds 600 undergraduate students for summer
internships, the total number of undergraduate research interns at all
of the DOE laboratories is 4,100. Similarly, WDTS directly funds 150 K-
12 educators, but a total of 19,300 K-12 educators are involved in
programs at DOE laboratories and facilities.
Partnerships enable WDTS to coordinate with and leverage the
resources and capacity of the Office of Science (SC). SC works with
more than 300 of the top universities in the Nation, manages 10 of the
biggest national laboratories in the Federal Government, and deals
directly with hundreds of high technology companies.
In recognition of widespread concern about STEM workforce
development, the Secretary of Energy, in 2006, commissioned a review by
the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board of the Department's activities
in STEM education. That review concluded that DOE has a clear role in
STEM education and that partnerships are the primary vehicle we should
use to achieve our goals. The Board stated:
``[A] review of the Department's educational programs as well
as a review of the educational efforts in other federal
agencies, leads us to our conclusion that DOE has a significant
opportunity to enhance STEM education in the Nation. Moreover,
it is clear from our review (as well as from the GAO reports)
that the educational activities of DOE and other federal
agencies could benefit from increased cooperative activities
with one another, with industry, with colleges and
universities, and with science teachers' professional
organizations. In both nationwide influence and in cooperative
partnerships, DOE is already positioned to take a leadership
role. DOE's national laboratories are geographically
distributed over the country, allowing access to teachers
across the Nation. Moreover, the network of national
laboratories is also tightly linked with industrial and
academic resources, giving DOE the ability to forge educational
partnerships that can extend its reach, and therefore also its
capacity to enhance STEM education nationwide.''
As a result of its stakeholder meetings and other outreach efforts,
WDTS has had discussions with a wide range of organizations proposing
partnerships. Let me give you four examples of partnerships that could
make our programs more effective:
WDTS has an existing partnership with the National
Science Foundation (NSF) that illustrates how federal resources
can be effectively leveraged. DOE has the 17 national
laboratories, but NSF has greater access to undergraduate and
educator populations. Our agreement with NSF enables us to
share programs, with a result that in FY 2006 NSF supported 195
educators and students at seven of our national laboratories.
(Table 1)
This is a beginning, but we could do more. DOE mentor
scientists who participate in Office of Science and other DOE
programs have a long history of working with students, and many
have indicated they are eager to expand their efforts. One
resource that could help is the federal laboratory system. The
Federal Government owns more than 250 national laboratories
across the Nation, and many of these have STEM workforce needs
similar to those of DOE. Thus, WDTS could partner with USDA
labs, for example, to prepare the future workforce to support
the expanding bio-fuels industry, or with Department of Defense
laboratories to develop our national security workforce.
WDTS is engaged in extensive discussions with the
Department of Education on better support for the
Administration's Adjunct Teacher Corps initiative. The mentor
scientists at DOE's national laboratories could constitute a
promising potential core of the Adjunct Teacher Corps. Sandia
National Laboratories, which is part of the National Nuclear
Security Administration within DOE, is taking a leadership role
with WDTS to structure a program that would enable us to work
with the Department of Education to achieve the
Administration's goal of placing 30,000 adjunct teachers in the
Nation's classrooms by 2015. If Sandia's pilot program with the
Department of Education is successful, the concept could be
expanded to other federal agencies with national laboratories
and pools of mentor scientists.
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings on May 9, 2007
commented on this emerging partnership: ``When I was in Senator
[Jeff] Bingaman's state of New Mexico I visited a local high
school where scientists from Sandia Labs were teaching
chemistry. We need to make this the norm around the country.''
The core element of WDTS's programs and other
programs carried out at the DOE laboratories is providing
educators and students with hands-on research experience. These
research experiences supplement what students learn in the
classroom and help educators better understand the process of
science. Thus, we want to partner with organizations like
universities and corporate laboratories that have similar
infrastructure to that of the DOE national laboratories. As a
start, we have entered into discussions with a university and a
major non-profit science educational group in Boston about
pilot programs that would share resources and capabilities.
WDTS is developing what we are calling a ``trusted
partners'' approach to reach under-represented populations.
Students and educators tend to learn about our programs
primarily through recommendations from individuals and
organizations whose opinions the students and educators
themselves trust. This is particularly true of students and
educators from under-represented populations who have not built
a trust relationship with the Department of Energy. As a
result, we are exploring partnerships with several national
organizations to help identify their most promising students
and educators for our programs. We have had discussions, for
example, with a major Hispanic communications network about
developing innovative approaches that reach the best and
brightest Hispanic students and teachers for our programs.
Evaluation
I would now like to turn to the need for evaluation and intelligent
program design.
In this regard, I would like to commend the Department of Education
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the work they have
done through the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC). The catalogue
of existing STEM education programs in the Federal Government and the
emphasis the ACC Report places on the need for rigorous evaluation
catalyzed a discussion in Washington, D.C. policy circles about the
need for rigorous evaluation of STEM education and workforce programs.
The ACC Report's recommendations were influential in the
development of WDTS's future direction. This was a discussion that was
much needed because, frankly, WDTS has done a poor job over the past 10
years of rigorously evaluating our programs. As a result, and under the
specific direction of Under Secretary for Science Raymond Orbach, we
are committed to improving our ability to evaluate the impact and
effectiveness of our programs.
We have data that indicate our experiential learning programs are
yielding good results (i.e., promoting interest in STEM fields). We are
in the process of developing a plan for more rigorous study of the
program that will enable us to demonstrate the program's impact. Based
on the results, we will be able to refine the program and pursue the
most effective strategies going forward.
One lesson that was reinforced by the ACC process is that
evaluation and assessment are crucial to the effective design of STEM
workforce programs. For example, during the 1980s and 1990s, the
Department funded rigorous longitudinal workforce studies that enabled
program managers to identify specific future workforce needs. WDTS is
in the process of re-invigorating that effort and within the next 12
months will have completed a pilot workforce study that identifies the
workforce needs, by scientific discipline, for the Office of Science
federal and national laboratory staff.
This workforce study is being done in collaboration with the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). By including the 10
national laboratories managed by the Office of Science and the three
defense national laboratories managed by NNSA (Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Los Alamos
National Laboratory) in the study, we will account for the majority of
the R&D performed by the Department. In future years, we hope to
include other DOE laboratories and R&D programs in this effort.
Identifying gaps
Rigorous evaluation of programs and the use of workforce data from
the analysis that we will do over the next 12 months will enable WDTS
to identify opportunities to improve our STEM workforce development and
education efforts.
WDTS currently manages nine programs for students and educators.
Those programs emphasize experiential learning opportunities for
students and educators, such as the Academies Creating Teacher
Scientists (ACTS) program; and world class celebrations of scientific
achievement for students, such as the National Science Bowl. We have
two decades of experience managing these types of programs and believe
that they are effective and are contributing to our nation's efforts to
improve STEM education and proficiency, although more rigorous
evaluations are in order.
But conversations with our stakeholders and our own internal
analysis have revealed that there are opportunities for our programs to
better achieve their objectives. Let me give you two examples:
One potential gap is in the development of talent in
our federal workforce. While one of our goals is to encourage
students to join federal service, we do not have programs in
place that provide a clear link for them to seek employment
with the Department, such as helping them navigate the
difficult federal hiring process. In addition, we do not have
the workforce assessment tools in place that would inform us
about whether we need more physicists, chemists, or engineers.
The workforce assessment we are doing will help in that regard.
We are also working with DOE's Chief Human Capital Officer, Dr.
Jeff Pon, to develop programs specifically targeted at the
federal STEM workforce.
Another area for improvement is our collective need
to better align agency STEM efforts with larger federal mission
needs. Representatives from various federal agencies have
emphasized the need to work collaboratively to solve our mutual
STEM education and workforce challenges. One result is that my
colleague, Dr. Joyce Winterton of NASA, has taken the
initiative to form a brown bag lunch group of federal science
and technology agencies as a forum for discussion and
collaboration. I am also talking with the Federal Laboratory
Consortium, the Triangle Coalition and a host of other groups
about partnerships designed to bring federal agencies together
with the educational community and industry. We need to work
together and, in fact, a grassroots process supported by
federal S&T agencies has already begun.
Conclusion:
I would like to conclude by highlighting several statistics:
$135 billion--the annual federal investment in R&D
that is managed by 34 agencies
257--federal laboratories that belong to the Federal
Laboratory Consortium and are active in communities nationwide
206,000--federal scientists and engineers (not
including contractors)
When all of these numbers are put together, it is evident that we
have excellent resources for a coordinated federal response to the
Nation's STEM education challenge.
The 34 federal R&D mission agencies--such as NASA, NOAA, DOD, NIH,
USDA and EPA--have a long-term and enduring interest in their
workforces and STEM education. This has been a strong federal resource
that can continue to support our efforts to address the national
challenge of educating the future U.S. workforce and helping to prepare
our citizens for the emerging era of scientific discovery and
innovation.
Thank you for offering me this opportunity to provide a perspective
on this important issue. I look forward to answering the Committee's
questions.
Biography for William J. Valdez
Bill Valdez is the Director of the Office of Workforce Development
for Teachers and Scientists within the Department of Energy's Office of
Science. His responsibilities include developing workforce strategies
for the Department's scientific and technical workforce, and creating
opportunities for students and educators to participate in the Nation's
research enterprise as a means to improving the competitiveness of U.S.
industry and overall scientific literacy.
In addition, Mr. Valdez has been leading an interagency effort,
coordinated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,
that is designed to establish credible outcome measures for basic
research, create new evaluation methods that focus on systems level
analysis, and promote business models that will enable federal R&D
managers to improve investment decisions.
Previously, Mr. Valdez was the Director of Planning and Analysis at
the Department of Energy's Office of Science. His responsibilities
included corporate strategic planning, R&D evaluation, and federal S&T
policy development.
Mr. Valdez was elected as a Fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science in 2006 and is Vice Chair of the Senior
Executive Association's Board of Directors. He was elected to the Board
of Directors of the Senior Executive Association in 2005.
Mr. Valdez has held various positions at the Department of Energy
since 1994, including serving as Executive Director of the DOE R&D
Council and developing evaluation techniques for technology transfer
programs. Mr. Valdez also served at the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy from 1998-99. His responsibilities included co-
authoring a report on strategies designed to improve the future
scientific workforce as the Nation's demographics change, developing
interagency technology initiatives, and advising on international
energy initiatives.
Prior to working at DOE, Mr. Valdez worked as a Senior Project
Manager in private industry where he provided strategic planning
services to Asian and European multi-national corporations.
Mr. Valdez received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Texas
and his Master of Arts in International Economics and Energy Policy
from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Valdez. Dr. Fuchs.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE A. FUCHS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
EDUCATION, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Dr. Fuchs. Thank you, Chairman McNerney and Congressman
Ehlers. I want to thank you for this invitation to appear
before you to discuss some of NIH's STEM programs. It is an
honor for me to appear before this subcommittee that has worked
so hard to improve STEM education in this nation.
I will apologize for the PowerPoint. I am an old professor,
and old habits are hard to break. I would like to briefly
discuss some of the things that I believe federal agencies can
do to help with STEM education in this country. First, we can
partner with outside agencies and experts to design exemplary
model programs for a variety of things, instructional
materials, teacher professional development, and then
rigorously evaluate those programs. It is not that every agency
should get involved in each activity, but I think every agency
can select something to do well. We need to know what works,
what doesn't, and most importantly, why. This kind of in-depth
design and evaluation research is unlikely to come either from
states or private industry working alone.
Second, I believe that the responsible federal agencies,
and this is primarily NSF, Department of Education, and NIH
through its National Institute on Child Health and Development,
need to support high-quality, scientifically based education
research. Unfortunately, we have scientific evidence to support
only a small number of items related to math and science
teaching that we didn't know 25 years ago. We must not be in
the same situation 25 years from now.
Lastly, I would like to suggest that federal scientists,
because of their many interactions with students and scientists
from around the world, have an important insight into what it
takes to compete in today's world. This insight should be used
to help define the world-class standards to which our schools
must aspire. Sadly, many of our states' science and math
standards cannot presently be considered to be world-class.
I would like to tell you briefly about two programs that we
have at the NIH, and illustrate how they are working with
educators in the states. The first is a grants program known as
the Science Education Partnership Award. This is a peer-
reviewed program located within NIH's National Center for
Research Resources. These grants are used to establish
partnerships within a community to enhance the teaching of
science within that community. For example, a partnership might
be developed between a university and a science museum, or a
university and a school district. There are currently 70 active
SEPA grants in 39 states, a number of which focus on
underserved populations within those communities.
The second program I would like to highlight is the NIH
Curriculum Supplement Series. I must say that I agree with the
testimony that you received last month relating to how
difficult it is to develop high-quality instructional
materials. This is a time-consuming and an expensive process. I
believe that we have avoided the pitfalls described by forming
appropriate partnerships. In short, we know what we know, and
we know what we don't know. We have been able to combine the
scientific insights of some of the world's leading scientists,
people like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, with the
professional expertise of some of the most highly respected
curriculum development organizations in this country.
We are currently engaged in aligning our supplements to the
science, math, health, and language arts standards for each
state. We have included, in an online appendix, a sample of
alignments for a number of sample states, and I have included
for Committee Members some examples of curriculum supplements
for you to review. We believe that this project is one way that
we can bring some of the excitement, hope, and promise of NIH
research to schools around the Nation. But they won't help if
they don't get out there, so I would like to close with a brief
discussion of dissemination.
We have worked very hard to let educators know about the
availability of our now 16 different curriculum supplements
aimed at elementary, middle, and high school. At the end of
May, we had had requests from more than 70,000 teachers from
across the country, for almost 285,000 supplement titles. In
the online appendix, I have included maps showing the number
and location of these requests for some sample states. I think
if you, each of you, would look at your home state, as I do,
you can look simply from the requests, and identify various
towns.
I don't have time to show you all these state maps, but I
can give you, show you a national map that gives you a sense of
this. This map places one blue dot in each zip code from which
we have received one or more requests for an NIH curriculum
supplement. Each blue dot could represent one curriculum
supplement or hundreds, but the map does give you a good sense
of where the orders have come from.
The next map is actually a NOAA satellite image of the U.S.
at night, with lights showing approximately the population
distribution across the U.S. Now, if I can successfully toggle
this back and forth, I will give you some sense of how well we
have done at finding people where they live and connecting them
with our curriculum supplement project.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss a few of
our STEM programs. I will be happy to answer any of the
questions that the Committee Members might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fuchs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce A. Fuchs
Chairman Baird and Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to
accept your invitation to participate in this hearing and provide you
with information about STEM education efforts at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the Department of Health and
Human Services.
The mission of the NIH is to uncover new knowledge that will lead
to better health for everyone. NIH has long been involved in directing
programs for the collection, dissemination, and exchange of information
in medicine and health, including the development and support of
medical libraries and the training of medical librarians and other
health information specialists. In 1991, the NIH formed an Office of
Science Education Policy (now the Office of Science Education under the
Office of Science Policy) in the Office of the Director because of
concerns surrounding the state of science education in the Nation.
The NIH Office of Science Education (OSE) coordinates a program to
strengthen and enhance efforts of the NIH to attract young people to
biomedical and behavioral science careers and to improve science
literacy in both adults and children. The function of the OSE is to: 1)
develop, support, and direct program activities at all levels, with
special emphasis on targeting students in grades kindergarten to 16,
their educators and parents, and the general public; 2) advise NIH
leadership on science education issues; 3) examine and evaluate
research and emerging trends in science education and literacy for
policy-making; 4) work closely with the NIH extramural, intramural,
women's health, laboratory animal research, and minority program
offices on science education special issues and programs to ensure
coordination of NIH efforts; 5) work with NIH Institutes and Centers to
enhance communication of science education activities; and 6) work
cooperatively with other public- and private-sector organizations to
develop and coordinate activities.
NIH contributes to K-16 STEM education in three main ways: 1) by
partnering with educators on high-quality model programs to create
instructional materials, conduct teacher professional development, and
support informal science education in museums and science centers; 2)
by conducting rigorous research into science and mathematics learning
and teaching through NIH's National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD); and 3) because of its interactions with scientists
and students from around the world, by helping to understand the
``world class standards'' our students will need to compete in today's
world.
1a. What steps has your agency taken to improve its coordination with
other federal agencies' STEM education activities?
NIH was actively engaged in the Academic Competitiveness Council
(ACC) deliberations. NIH Director Elias Zerhouni joined the ACC at the
invitation of Secretary Spellings and made clear his support for the
process. NIH participated in all three ACC working groups: K-12,
Graduate/Postgraduate, and Outreach and Informal Education.
Dr. Zerhouni has also committed NIH to a leadership role on the new
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Subcommittee on STEM
Education that will follow through on the ACC recommendations. Dr.
Zerhouni appointed Dr. Duane Alexander, NICHD Director, to serve as one
of the co-chairs of the subcommittee, along with Dr. Cora Marrett,
National Science Foundation, and Dr. Russ Whitehurst, Department of
Education.
Additionally, the NIH is in discussions with the Department of
Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
about ways to extend the ACC database (ACC Recommendation #1). By
expanding the program database to include project-level information,
federal program managers with shared interests (e.g., teacher
professional development) would be able to find one another in order to
share information.
1b. To what extent does your agency collaborate with educators in the
states and school districts in developing STEM education programs?
Some of the resources that teachers request from the NIH were not
originally targeted for classroom use. Most of the large number of
publications created by NIH are directed to specific health conditions
or are directed at specific audiences, such as patients, family
members, and health care professionals. However, once these
publications were discovered by science teachers, they began to be
requested for use in classrooms as well. (Two popular examples are of
this type of publication are Inside the Cell, available at http://
publications.nigms.nih.gov/insidethecell/, and Understanding the Immune
System, at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/immune/
the-immune-system.pdf.)
However, today the majority of NIH programs and resources requested
by educators were created expressly for, and with, teachers. Below are
two examples of NIH resources currently available to science educators.
First, the NIH National Center for Research Resources Science
Education Partnership Award (SEPA) Grant Program is the largest single
K-12 (and informal) science education program at NIH. SEPA's goals are:
1) to stimulate career opportunities in basic science and clinical
research by providing inquiry-based curricula to K-12 students,
teachers, and parents; and 2) through SEPA projects at science centers
and museums, to increase the public's understanding of NIH-funded
medical research and to provide information about healthy life style
choices. Because these awards are made to a community organization, the
projects can be specifically designed to meet the needs of that
community. For examples of SEPA-funded projects in selected States, see
Appendix A at http://science.education.nih.gov/HSTC, and for additional
information about SEPA, see http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/
science-education-partnership-awards/.
Second, OSE has collaborated with a number of NIH Institutes and
Centers to create a series of free curriculum supplements (currently 16
titles) for science educators (available at http://
science.education.nih.gov/supplements). Teachers have input into the
development, writing, and editing of each supplement. The supplements
are field-tested by teachers across the Nation and modified to address
their concerns before being released to the public. Our state-level
collaborations have included working with state departments of
education and state-wide education advocacy groups (in New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee) to determine whether a
supplement meets a need in the state-wide science curriculum and to
help with state health education standards development. The North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction has recommended one of the
NIH supplements as a primary resource for their eighth-grade science
teachers since 2005. (http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/curriculum/
science/middlegrades/8thsciencesupport.pdf.)
2. The recent report of the Academic Competitiveness Council
reinforces the need for better evaluation and performance metrics for
federal STEM education programs. What plans does your agency have for
improvements in its evaluation of its STEM programs?
NIH supports the ACC goal of conducting increasingly rigorous
evaluations of its STEM education activities using multiple evaluation
strategies. These strategies will include working toward conducting
randomized controlled trials where appropriate.
NIH has agreed to align its goals and metrics to those defined
through the ACC process. The first NIH-wide meeting of K-12 project
directors was held in April 2007 to discuss this alignment as well as
ways to begin collaborating on increasingly rigorous evaluations.
The science education grants programs at NIH (for example, SEPA
grants) are currently considering changes in their funding opportunity
announcements to require increasingly rigorous project evaluations.
While this process will take some time, OSE is committed to helping the
community (extramural grantees and NIH intramural project managers)
solve the problems it may encounter on the road to rigorous
evaluations.
3. The Subcommittee received testimony at a hearing on 15 May on how
the R&D mission agencies could improve the effectiveness of their STEM
education programs. The witnesses were skeptical of the ability of the
agencies to develop curricular materials for formal classroom
instruction and questioned the effectiveness of their teacher
professional development programs to improve teacher classroom
performance, while suggesting that the agencies' most important role is
in informal STEM education. The witnesses also strongly recommend
closer collaboration by the agencies with educators in the field when
developing STEM programs. What is your response to the recommendations
from these witnesses?
Several witnesses expressed concerns at the May 15 hearing
regarding the potential pitfalls related to developing curricular
materials for formal classroom instruction. Mr. Michael Lach made
comments about the problems of ``adding more topics to cover'' and of
parochial projects' being ``harder to connect to our work'' in terms of
curriculum materials. Dr. Nelson noted, ``There is a huge inventory of
poorly designed and under-evaluated mission-related curricula (posters
and lesson plans and associated professional development) rarely used
in classrooms and with no natural home in a coherent standards-based
curriculum. Effective curriculum development requires a deep
collaboration with a team of professional curriculum developers,
education researchers, and classroom teachers.''
We could not agree more. Development of high-quality instructional
materials is a difficult, time-consuming, and expensive undertaking. It
is true that well-meaning scientists have unwittingly added to Dr.
Nelson's ``huge inventory of poorly designed and under-evaluated''
curricula. We believe that OSE has avoided these pitfalls by proceeding
slowly, doing our homework, understanding where we have expertise, and,
most importantly, understanding where we do not have expertise.
Before starting the NIH Curriculum Supplements Series, we conducted
nearly two years of research, discussions, and interviews with leading
curriculum developers across the U.S. We also conducted focus groups
with educators at a number of conferences around the Nation to
determine whether there was interest in having NIH create supplemental
materials for the classroom. (There was.) We discussed with educators
the topic areas where they felt they needed help and how these might be
fit into biology courses. Interestingly, the teachers also strongly
warned us ``not to let our scientists write the curricula,'' advice
that we took to heart.
When considering what NIH can bring to the creation of supplemental
instructional materials, it is important to note that our employees
include some of the world's leading scientific minds. Dr. Anthony
Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, and Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Human
Genome Research Institute, are only two such individuals who have
contributed their scientific understanding and foresight to the NIH
Curriculum Supplements Series. However, while NIH has this kind of
scientific expertise in abundance, we do not have in-house expertise in
instructional materials development.
Instead, we have sought out professional curriculum development
organizations that are as well known and respected in their field of
expertise as NIH is in its own. We have contracted with BSCS
(Biological Sciences Curriculum Study) and EDC (Educational Development
Corporation), two of the most highly respected science instructional
materials developers in the Nation. Both of these organizations rely on
research into how children learn science, use professional curriculum
developers, and depend on classroom teachers as advisors, writers, and
field-testers. Both of these organizations trace their genesis back to
the early post-Sputnik days and have established long track records of
creating innovative and effective curricula.
NIH curriculum supplements were designed from the start to align
with the National Science Education Standards (NSES). Most States have
used the NSES to create their own standards documents. Since
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, alignment to the NSES
is no longer sufficient. As a result, we are undertaking the task of
aligning each of our 16 curriculum supplement titles to each state's
science, mathematics, health, and language arts standards (34 States
and the District of Columbia are done so far; see Appendix B at http://
science.education.nih.gov/HSTC for samples of alignments of one
supplement to selected States). When this project is complete, we will
be able to demonstrate for each state how a specific NIH curriculum
supplement directly addresses the science and cross-curricular content
standards that educators are expected to cover.
Many educators have reported being especially excited to receive
materials that can transmit some of the thrill and sense of discovery
arising from the latest NIH research as a way to inspire and motivate
their students. Each supplement provides activities for students to
investigate science content knowledge they can apply directly to some
aspect of their daily lives. The fact that the materials cover the
biological concepts that teachers are required to cover but do it
through references to human health and disease is seen as a strong
positive. For instance, in general, children do not get very excited by
studying onion root tips. It is far more engaging to study the
mechanisms that control cell growth by relating it to a human disease
like cancer.
In creating these instructional materials, we were also motivated
by the fact that research into the poor performance of our students in
international comparisons has concluded that curricula in the U.S. are
``a mile wide and an inch deep'' and that content is often years out of
date. The American Association for the Advancement of Science Project
2061 has evaluated many middle and high school science textbooks and
found all of them wanting. None of the 10 evaluated high school biology
textbooks received even a ``good'' rating. We were convinced that
teachers would benefit from free, accurate, interesting, standards-
based instructional materials that incorporate the latest research into
how people learn, so we developed curriculum supplements that allow
students to think like present-day researchers and engage in practical
applications.
The extent to which we have created a curriculum series that is of
interest to educators is indicated by the fact that as of late May
2007, more than 70,000 educators have requested almost 285,000
supplements across the Nation. We would like to emphasize that each of
these supplements has been shipped out in response to a specific
request for that title coming in from an educator. In other words, each
of these requests is a record of a positive action taken by an educator
to come to our website, fill out a post card, send us an e-mail, etc.
(See Appendix C at http://science.education.nih.gov/HSTC for
distribution maps showing how many, and from where, requests have come
for selected States.)
We are also proud to report that NIH curriculum supplements are
frequently used as exemplary instructional resources by university-
based professors engaged in teaching future science teachers in
``methods'' courses. The middle school supplement Doing Science: The
Process of Scientific Inquiry has been especially well received by this
audience. To our knowledge, very few other entities have created
educational materials that are deemed so useful that they are requested
both by STEM teachers and by the university-based professors who train
them.
We created the NIH curriculum supplements as models for how
challenging content can be combined with engaging, realistic situations
to give students the opportunity to think like scientists. For a report
on how the instructional model underpinning the NIH curriculum
supplements aligns with current research into how people learn, see
Appendix D at http://science.education.nih.gov/HSTC.
Last, although we share an enthusiasm for informal science
education, we are concerned by the inequities that would result if it
were our only approach. Many educators, particularly those in small,
rural, or impoverished urban school districts, cannot afford a field
trip to a science center or museum, nor is every school district within
driving distance of a museum, major university, or federal laboratory
installation. We must not forget those teachers and students who
cannot, for financial or other reasons, travel to a wonderful science
museum, or have a scientist visit the classroom. These teachers and
students also deserve to have access to high-quality science
experiences.
I would like to illustrate this last point with a personal
anecdote. I was one of those rare individuals who knew from early
childhood that he wanted to be a scientist. Undoubtedly, this was due,
at least in part, to the post-Sputnik efforts that allowed my parents
to order me pictures of astronauts, rockets, and stars from NASA.
However, living where I did in central Illinois, I was a senior in high
school before I got to meet my first working scientist--after a four-
hour bus ride to Argonne National Laboratory. We have designed the NIH
curriculum supplements to bring some of the excitement, promise, and
hope of NIH research to any school--urban or rural, rich or poor, with
the best laboratory facilities or none at all.
4. How does your agency determine priorities for its K-16 STEM
education portfolio? Has your agency's balance of programs at graduate/
post doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and informal education changed much
over the past few years? Do you foresee a change in that balance in the
future?
Approximately 95 percent of the education activities (in dollar
terms) that NIH submitted to the ACC inventory fell into the
``Graduate/Postgraduate'' category. NIH has no plans to change that
balance.
In the future, this priority setting will be more formal and
coordinated. As previously mentioned, NIH has agreed to align its goals
and metrics to those defined through the ACC process. The first NIH-
wide meeting of K-12 project directors was held in April 2007 to
discuss this alignment as well as ways to begin collaborating on
increasingly rigorous evaluations.
5. How does your agency disseminate information about its STEM
education programs? What organizations, both government and private,
have you partnered with to reach educators in the field?
OSE has created a web site specifically designed to help educators
find NIH resources that meet their needs (http://
science.education.nih.gov). We also responded to input from teachers
regarding the ways that they search for materials (for example, by
topic, by grade level, by resource format). As OSE identifies new NIH
resources, it codes them using this scheme to facilitate easy retrieval
by teachers.
Shortly before our last web site redesign, we began using the
evaluation services of the American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI),
which publishes an e-government Satisfaction Index. ACSI is a cross-
industry measure of consumers' satisfaction. It measures the
performance of over 200 private-sector companies as well as many
government agencies, using scores calculated on data gathered from
voluntary online surveys of randomly selected site visitors. For the
past few years, the OSE web site has been one of the top 10 sites in
the entire government in terms of customer satisfaction.
Since March 2000, site traffic has increased from 17,000 visitor
sessions per month to well over 250,000 visitor sessions per month. Web
pages viewed each month have increased over the same time period from
36,000 to almost 2.5 million.
For the past two years, OSE coordinated an ``NIH Research Zone'' at
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) national conferences. This
year, eight NIH Institutes and Centers joined OSE, along with the
Society for Neuroscience and other organizations. This effort has been
greatly appreciated by the NSTA members. NSTA President Linda
Froschauer cited it as a good example of how NSTA benefits from
interactions with federal agencies in her May 15, 2007, testimony
before this committee. OSE also attends the National Association of
Biology Teachers meetings, the National Middle School Association
meetings, and, on occasion, state meetings of science teachers.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss NIH's STEM education
efforts with you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Bruce A. Fuchs
Dr. Bruce A. Fuchs is currently the Director of the National
Institutes of Health's (NIH) Office of Science Education (OSE). Dr.
Fuchs is responsible for monitoring a range of science education policy
issues and providing advice to NIH leadership. He also directs the
creation of a series of K-12 science education curriculum supplements
that highlight the medical research findings of the NIH. The NIH
Curriculum Supplement Series is designed to meet teacher's educational
goals as outlined in the National Science Education Standards and is
available free to teachers across the Nation. The office also actively
creates innovative science and career education web resources, such as
the LifeWorks career exploration site, accessible to teachers and
students across the Nation. These resources are available at http://
science.education.nih.gov.
Dr. Fuchs is serving on the Education and Workforce Development
Working Group of the National Science and Technology Council and on
working groups of the Department of Education's Academic
Competitiveness Council. He was a member of the K-12 education focus
group for the National Academy of Science's report Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, which was utilized in the Administration's development
of the American Competitiveness Initiative, which President Bush
introduced in his 2006 State of the Union address. In 2005, the
Department of Education asked Dr. Fuchs to serve as the U.S.
representative to the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting on
Best Practices in Math and Science Education. For a number of years,
Dr. Fuchs was the NIH representative to the Department of Education's
National Education Research Policy and Priorities Board. That
experience led to his continuing interest in the debate over how to
make educational research more effective.
Before coming to NIH, Dr. Fuchs--an immunologist who did research
on the interaction between the brain and the immune system--was a
researcher and teacher on the faculty of the Medical College of
Virginia. He had grant support from both NIH's National Institute of
Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. He has a B.S.
in Biology from the University of Illinois and a Ph.D. in Immunology
from Indiana State University. He was born and raised in Springfield,
Illinois.
Discussion
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Dr. Fuchs. And I want to thank all
the witnesses for making the effort. I know it is a challenge
to come over here and prepare yourselves and all, and sit in
front of this committee, so it is very good testimony.
At this point, we will open our first round of questions,
and the Chair recognizes himself for approximately five
minutes, or maybe a little bit longer.
I think the purpose of this hearing is really to give this
committee comfort in what is about to happen in STEM education,
and I see it as this committee's--that is about to be formed,
or is already formed--responsibility to make sure that this is
executed in a way that takes advantage of the resources that
are available. I think it is a large responsibility, so I
applaud, again, all of you for wanting to participate.
I see Dr. Marrett as the leader of this effort, rightly or
wrongly, and so I am going to be picking on you a little bit
more than the others perhaps, but there is no malicious intent
here. Will the subcommittee be developing a strategic plan for
federal STEM education programs to help guide the priorities of
the agencies? Is that something you see a part of your charter?
Dr. Marrett. Yes, I do. This is an important question,
because we are, at this point, developing the charter for the
committee. And as I see it, yes, there has got to be, we must
undertake some activities that will strengthen, enhance what is
taking place with agencies, that will recognize some of the
distinctiveness, but will also work towards the level of
coordination that is going to be expected.
When you ask, then, should there be some impact, some sense
of what the impact should be, we will certainly be looking for
how to think about the entire enterprise, and what is the role
of the individual agencies within that? I am saying this,
expressing to you our desire to have any suggestions, any
questions and ideas, as we develop both the charter and the set
of activities.
Mr. McNerney. Well, will you be developing an annual plan,
then, or some sort of an organization chart that we can look
at? I know that prior to this meeting, the ACC report had
catalogued the way that money is being spent in K-12 education.
That is very important, I think that is, in some sense, the
relatively easy part of this task. We can find out where we are
through a certain amount of research, and we can determine what
our plans are. The real hard part is evaluating what we are
going to get once we start doing it, and I was appreciating Dr.
Winterton's discussion of how some programs had worked, and
they were exciting, and the kids got involved.
It would be nice to have that sort of thing, not codified,
but in some sort of description that people can refer to in a
way that will be helpful. But then again, the question of
evaluation, I think Dr. Valdez mentioned that we can evaluate
programs after they are done, but the problem is that we need
sort of a feedback mechanism, so that when a program is in
progress, we can tell if it is working or not. So, the
evaluation is really the most difficult aspect, in my opinion,
here. So, can we have a comment, Dr. Marrett?
Dr. Marrett. Several comments. I will try to keep them
brief.
One of the things that you also heard during the testimony
is the imperative for enhanced research, STEM education
research, understanding a lot more of what works, under what
conditions, for whom, and through what processes. Since we know
we have got to enhance that a lot more, and I am very
encouraged when I hear my colleagues indicate what that will
mean. That will have to play into the plans for evaluation.
So, on the one hand, we will be proceeding, building on the
knowledge that does exist about evaluation, having those
conversations of what are the appropriate kinds of measures, of
indicators. How do we develop indicators that would be common
enough across the agencies? We will do that, but we won't, I
won't promise that we will have everything on an annual basis
at the beginning, just because there are these very thorny but
important questions about how do we build the knowledge base,
the knowledge base that will be so important for the way the
evaluation activities will have to take place.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I like the sound of using the
scientific method in evaluating this scientific education, but
honestly, that is going to be our challenge. How do we know
when we are succeeding? How do we make sure that the program is
organized well? I think it is going to be important to see that
plan to move forward.
Mr. Valdez, a question, if I have time. I understand that
you have been developing a strategic plan for the Department of
Energy education programs, to ensure that they align with STEM
workforce needs for the future. Would you tell the subcommittee
the process you underwent to determine those educational needs,
and how you used that information to create your strategic
plan?
Mr. Valdez. Yes, the strategic plan, as most strategic
plans, is based on what our stakeholders think we should be
doing, and aligning that to the mission of the Department of
Energy. So, for example, we had a series of nine focus groups,
involving 110 stakeholders, everything from the educational
community to corporate America, to groups representing
underrepresented populations, in a very structured way, talking
about how the Department of Energy, which is a mission agency,
could participate in STEM education and workforce development.
And I think this gets to the heart of what this hearing is
all about. Why would an agency like the Department of Energy be
involved in this? And the reason is because we care about our
future workforce. We support specific disciplines and specific
areas of industrial competitiveness that are important to the
Nation, and as a result, we have to work with the educational
community at all levels, not just K-12, but undergraduate,
postdoc, graduate school, and then continuing lifelong
learning.
So, we developed a process where we brought in members of
all those communities, to help us rationalize the resources
that we have within the Department of Energy, to more
effectively use them. And frankly, our most effective use is
through the National Laboratories. You, Mr. Chairman, were at
Sandia National Labs, and you know that these National
Laboratories are embedded in the communities. They work with
local school districts. They are the experts; and so, we
deliver our products and services through them, and we try to
align the strategic plan in a way that makes full and maximum
use of our National Laboratories.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Valdez. The Chair now
recognizes Dr. Ehlers for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Dr. Fuchs, you mentioned as an old professor,
you felt compelled to use PowerPoint. Let me point out, as a
younger professor, that I think you did the right thing. I have
read a number of these articles about how terrible it is to use
PowerPoint, and we shouldn't use them so much, et cetera. I
have decided all of those are written by people who don't know
how to prepare good slides.
Dr. Marrett, first question for you. You described, you are
going to reconstitute the NSTC, the National Science and
Technology Council's Subcommittee on Education and Workforce
Development, for which I applaud you. It should never have been
disbanded. You described the necessary qualifications as
knowledge and experience.
So, would it also be helpful for you, in that process, to
ensure that a minimum level of experience, or maybe the better
word is stature within their agency, their seniority or
whatever, be required, so that you can ensure that the
appropriate individuals will be at the NSTC's disposal through
this means? And I think you know what I am getting at. I have
nothing against junior personnel. They usually have the best
ideas, but you need some upper level people there to really
make sure that this gets carried out, and that when someone on
your subcommittee goes back home, and says well, we really
should do this, that you don't have some other person there who
frowns and says, well, we really don't have the money in the
budget. But what is your response?
Dr. Marrett. My response is that the way this is being set
up is through the Committee on Science. The Committee on
Science consists of the principals from the agencies. Hence,
when we have asked for their nominees, the assumption is that
whatever the level of the person, that person will have direct
access to the top of the agency. You are quite right that it
will be very important that there will be access to the centers
of communication, to funding, but this is what we anticipate
the direct, the process should help enhance that.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I hope you are right. You may want to
build something into the structure to ensure that.
Next question, I know what the ranking of the budgets of
the agencies are. Obviously, Dr. Fuchs, you have the richest
agency, and then, we go down to NASA, then Energy, and then,
finally, NSF. And we could have lots of arguments of how it
should be. But I am curious how much is spent on education in
each of your agencies. And we will go right to left, and ask
Dr. Fuchs, what does NIH spend on these educational issues?
What is your budget?
Dr. Fuchs. I believe we submitted to the ACC around $800
million worth of activity, and that would have been in the year
when our total budget was about $28 billion.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah. Okay.
Dr. Fuchs. The majority, 95 percent of that, was actually
graduate, postgraduate activity.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. And how much, any estimate how much is K-
12?
Dr. Fuchs. We submitted $36 million worth of K-12
activities, and about $6 million worth of informal education.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Mr. Valdez.
Mr. Valdez. My Office has a budget of $8 million per year.
Through appropriated funds, we think the Department spends
about $20 to $25 million per year on educational activities;
and then, through the National Laboratories, both through
overhead, other kinds of activities, partnerships with industry
and other groups, there is probably about another $30 million
that is spent by the National Laboratories. So that is a total
of about $50 to $60 million.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. And Dr. Winterton, I know NASA spends a
huge amount of money on educational activities. What is yours?
Dr. Winterton. Well, we do spend on education, in various
places within NASA, so within the Office of Education, we plan
on spending about spending about $153 million. Then, we also
have each of our Mission Directorates, who also invest in
education, because it ties, again, directly back to their
missions.
Mr. Ehlers. Right.
Dr. Winterton. So, for the Science Mission, it is about $72
million, for Explorations, $4.8, Aeronautics, $2.8, and our
Space Operation Mission Directorate spends and supports
activities directly of the centers, so if you want those
specifics, I can provide that as well, so----
Mr. Ehlers. I think this gives me a general idea. And
finally, Dr. Marrett, what is----
Dr. Marrett. Yes. For NSF, across the board, it is nearly
$1 billion, but this includes what is spent inside the
Directorate for Education and Human Resources, as well as
outside. So the Directorate itself has a budget of just over
$700 million, but this is where I would again indicate that
there are efforts, every part of the Foundation has education
outreach public service activities that relate to education,
and so, it comes to about nearly $1 billion.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. That is very helpful. It gives me some
perspective, and I may have to speak to Dr. Bodman or Mr.
Rohrabacher about pumping up your budget, Mr. Valdez. I really
appreciate what you have done. I have encountered, in my
experience in the schools, the K-12 schools, products of what
you have done, and I think it is outstanding.
The one part that bothers me, which I have tried to correct
legislatively, but so far have not had enough support, is the
inability of teachers to locate what they may want or need at a
particular time, and so what I have advocated is a
clearinghouse, where all of the programs that you have
available for schools would be listed, and this would be on a
website, and any teacher who wanted to could access that, if
they had a particular unit they were working on, and wanted to
just look at what was available, that teacher could go on the
website, type that in, the units would be displayed.
And I really advocate an Amazon.com type of approach, where
teachers who have used something would then evaluate, and just
write a short evaluative statement, give a ranking from one to
four, and this would be very useful. I hope that we can get
that passed, because I think that would be immensely useful to
the teachers, and would give much greater exposure to what you
have done and what you have solved.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers. The Chair now
recognizes my good friend and mentor from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today, and the
work that they are doing. I don't know if there is anything
really more important in ensuring America's future than to
improve our STEM education. I think it is very critical for our
country. I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I
always point to, and many people have heard this now, my
physics teacher when I was a junior in high school, who really
is the one who inspired me to go ahead and go to college and
major in mechanical engineering, really got me interested and
excited in studying engineering.
A couple of things that I wanted to ask about. First, Dr.
Marrett, the new NSTC Subcommittee on STEM Education is a
subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Science. Do you think
that this is a sufficiently high level organization to get the
agencies' attention, or do you think there should be something
at a higher level than that?
Dr. Marrett. I am quite willing to try it at the level
where it is. There was, in fact, a previous committee that did
exist. The charter expired in last December, and so, it is not
as if this is a brand new activity, and my colleagues, who were
involved before, will know that we have some items that should
come onto that agenda. I know there has been this question of
what should be the level. I think that we can be effective when
there is the level of conversation that is needed, the
planning, wherever, as long as, as Chairman McNerney indicated,
there is the strong connection to the top of agencies and to
the conversations that must take place across and within
agencies. But I am not bothered by the fact that this is being
structured as a subcommittee of the Committee on Science.
Mr. Lipinski. Now, back in November, I spoke to the
National Science Board. They were in Chicago meeting, talking
about STEM education, and right now, we are awaiting their
report and recommendation on what to do on STEM education. I
understand it has been delayed now, until August.
Dr. Marrett, or if any other witnesses have any, do you
have any ideas about what is going to be coming out of this, or
where do you see this going?
Dr. Marrett. Well, let me first thank you very much for the
presentation that you made, and in fact, I heard that it was an
impressive set of comments that you gave. The National Science
Board Committee is in the process of redrafting the report.
That is why I am not sure my colleagues have seen what is
still, for now, an internal document for the National Science
Board, thus it would be difficult for me to describe where
everything is likely to lead, except that I would say it,
again, is likely to reinforce the imperative for our
coordinated efforts, for our heightened attention for what must
take place. So, to that extent, I see it as responding to and
helping to clarify many of the issues this committee has dealt
with, as well as the several reports that people have referred
to.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I am very much looking forward to
seeing that, as I know all of us are. In my last bit of time
here, I wanted to ask Mr. Valdez about some of the programs
that are going on with the DOE labs in helping with STEM
education. I have talked to the Museum of Science and Industry
in Chicago, who is working and has more plans to work with
Argonne National Lab, to try to bring students down to the
Museum to really get them interested, excited about these
various areas.
Now, a couple things that you talked about in your
testimony. First, you describe activities that support K-12
teachers who are involved in research activities at the
National Labs. Has there been an evaluation that DOE has done
about the effectiveness of doing this?
Mr. Valdez. We have not done a specific evaluation of that
program. It is a relatively new program. It is a three year
program. The first cadre of teachers completed their
participation in the program just this past summer, and we have
been developing the evaluation techniques that will enable us
to track what happens to them after they finish the program,
and what they have learned through the program. So, it is too
soon to say whether or not we have evaluated it right.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I definitely want to support that. I
think that is something we should be doing more of, and also,
in addition, something you talked about was that Sandia
National Lab, if the Chair will indulge me to ask one last
question here, at Sandia National Lab, you mentioned how there
is a pilot program for the Administration's Adjunct Teacher
Corps Initiative. Can you explain how this works?
Mr. Valdez. Well, the Adjunct Teacher Corps has a goal of
putting 30,000 adjunct teachers into classrooms by the year
2012 or 2013, I forget which one, and the Department of
Education came to the Department of Energy and said, ``We don't
have the ability to recruit adjunct teachers the way that you
do,'' because adjunct teachers would come from industry,
National Laboratories, working scientists, retired scientists.
We were very excited about working with them, and Sandia
stepped up to the plate, and decided they would pilot the
concept. And so, over the next fiscal year, we are going to
take a look at what Sandia does, and then see if we can model
this to the other 17 National Laboratories in the DOE system.
I think that illustrates what we do at the Department of
Energy. We work, we design programs nationally, but we
implement them locally through the National Laboratories, and
through our other partners. And if you do that, even though our
budget is small, Dr. Ehlers--and I do appreciate your voice of
support for this--the fact of the matter is we reach a lot of
people. You know, through our National Laboratories, we touch
250,000 K-12 students every year, and 19,000 K-12 educators.
The National Laboratories use the money that we have at
Department of Energy headquarters as seed money to then go out
and work with industry, local school districts, and everybody
else, to implement the programs, and it is a very effective
model, and one that I think could be useful for other federal
agencies.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I believe the
Committee was interested in another round of questions, so I
will recognize myself for another five minutes.
Dr. Marrett, will the subcommittee develop and maintain a
catalogue of the federal STEM education programs, as the ACC
did? I think that is important, at least having a quantifiable,
a really quantifiable way to understand the connection and how
money is being spent, whether there is overlap, waste, and so
on.
Dr. Marrett. Because the committee is still being put
together, I have to hesitate to answer some questions about
what the committee will do, but this one, I can be confident
about, because we have already had the conversations that said
yes, the ACC report had, of course, had recommended this kind
of continued compendium of programs, and that will be done. So,
that part is going to certainly be continued, as related to the
ACC process.
I think it is likely, too, that we will come back to an
issue that had been on the table earlier, and that is trying to
understand what the very concepts mean in the programs. As my
colleague Dr. Fuchs has said, that sometimes the term that is
used to describe a program need not mean the same thing from
one place to another. So, as we try to develop a useful
compendium of what takes place, that will mean looking very
much at how the programs are defined to develop something that
will be across the agencies, too, on that front. But yes, we
will be a source of trying to provide that information about
what takes place.
Mr. McNerney. What about priorities? How are we going to go
ahead, or how is the committee going to go ahead and determine
what the priorities are, in terms of resource usage?
Dr. Marrett. I am a bit hesitant to answer that one, on
behalf of all of my colleagues from the committee yet to be
established. I think I would say with some level of confidence
we certainly will be looking at matters of priorities, paying
attention to a lot of the information that is already around
about what the Nation's needs are for now and into the future,
this cannot be just looking at what might have been appropriate
some 20 years ago, but exactly how those will evolve is to be
determined, through a process that we intend to be as engaging
and engaged as possible. For that, I would say we would welcome
any observations you might have.
Mr. McNerney. Well, it was interesting to hear Dr.
Winterton's testimony, because she was talking about inspiring
kids, and that is critically important, because no matter how
many resources we offer, if the generation doesn't accept the
offer and get engaged in the process, then we are not going to
get as far as we need to get.
And I see some of our national challenges as being a tool
for getting kids engaged, the threat of global warming, for
example, a great national and international threat that cannot
only show challenge, in terms of risk, and the fear that that
might bring, but also, the opportunity for intellectual
achievement, for financial success, and so on. So some of these
great national challenges ought to be involved in some way, if
we can get that as a part of the program. I don't know exactly
how, but perhaps Dr. Valdez, you have, or Dr. Winterton, have a
comment on that?
Dr. Winterton. I think, especially, as we have the
opportunity to engage faculty and students directly with our
scientists, through our science missions, or through our space
exploration, so students see the real world application, and we
provide mentorship, so even in high school, students are
working at Goddard Spaceflight Center, and actually doing
research with our scientists.
So, I think it is that really, understanding, you really
have to be very good, not only when you work in our labs, but
when you are working on the International Space Station, with
international colleagues, that they really apply themselves in
their math and their science classes, that they start seeing a
career for them within the aerospace industry, and understand
that it is a great opportunity, that they see the kind of
skills they need, and the competencies to be there.
Mr. Valdez. I am a big fan of prioritizing things, and I
think you need to go back to what are the core capabilities and
the core missions of the federal agencies, and in the case of
the federal mission agencies, I think it really comes down to
two things.
First, we need to be supportive of the workforce and the
missions that we have been entrusted to us by the Congress and
by the U.S. taxpayer. And so, for the Department of Energy, it
is support for energy, environment, national security, and
basic discovery science. And that helps inform what kinds of
programs we should have for STEM education and STEM workforce.
And then, we have a larger responsibility through the
American Competitiveness Initiative, to support STEM education
and literacy in general. And I think this is where your notion,
Mr. Chairman, of having students become excited about science
plays in, and agencies are uniquely placed to have students
become excited, whether it is by going to a DOE National
Laboratory, and seeing the Advanced Photon Source, or riding
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's
ship, you know, an Antarctic ship.
I mean, there are ways that we can do this, but we need to
set those priorities, and rationalize the resources in the
appropriate way.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I agree with the idea, but that only
reaches a fairly small segment of the population, I mean, in
terms of children in inner city schools, I mean, they are not
going to get out to the labs. We need to find a way to reach
out and show them the national need, the national priority, and
the need for them to get engaged for our nation's future, and
that is something that the Committee might consider in its
future debates.
Dr. Marrett. Well, I would say that the Committee will need
to look at a number of options, because what is also been
represented a bit here, and even more so, with some of our
agencies not at the table, is that we work to enhance the level
of excitement, the motivation, through a number of informal
processes, through the activities with Boy Scouts, for example,
with community groups. One is not constrained to the very
formal kinds of settings, and that is where we are also very
interested in what is appropriate for the other kinds of
settings, because we do not intend to leave behind segments of
the population we know that must be important for where the
Nation moves.
Mr. McNerney. Well, my time has expired. I am going to
recognize Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me just make a comment, Mr. Chairman. I
have been through many hearings over the years, and I have been
working on improving math, science education in the K-12 system
for close to 50 years now, but especially in the last 14, in
the Congress. This is the biggest and best audience we have
ever had for this, so I think, Mr. Chairman, we are finally
getting the word out, and people are interested in the topic. I
find that very heartening.
I know that the National Science Foundation declares
education and public outreach as part of research proposals
that are submitted. Is that common in your other agencies as
well, when investigators submit a request for proposal? Do they
have to also include a statement about the educational aspects
that will come out of that?
Dr. Fuchs. It is not a feature in the NIH. It was
considered for a while back in the 1990s, under the previous
Director, and the decision was not to make that similar
requirement, so we don't have that.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Mr. Valdez.
Mr. Valdez. No, it is not part of the Department of
Energy's grant programs.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. And Dr. Winterton.
Dr. Winterton. It is part of our Science Mission
Directorate, so each of their principal investigators with
their science missions are required to do an education and
public outreach plan and implement that.
Mr. Ehlers. And the two agencies that do this, is there the
proposal of how they are going to implement that education and
outreach? Is that considered in deciding whether or not to give
the grant, or is that just sort of an automatic add-on?
Dr. Marrett. No, for NSF, it is critical for what takes
place, because we have got the criteria of intellectual merit
and broader impacts, and in that context of broader impacts,
this is where, generally, the outreach efforts, the education
activities, are to be undertaken. Those, then, become critical
in the decisions made about the awarding of grants. We wrote
this process, trying to think of some ways to make sure that we
can evaluate effectively the outcomes from those efforts.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. So, if someone submits a proposal for an
experiment to measure Einstein's effect in general relativity,
that, the educational part, is considered as well as the
scientific part. Is that true in NASA also, Dr. Winterton?
Dr. Winterton. It is a really critical part of their plan,
and we work closely, and offer our assistance in the Office of
Education, to assist in educational outreach and dissemination
of those opportunities as well.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. And I would just encourage Energy and NIH
to consider doing the same thing. It is a very useful thing. I
also just, Dr. Winterton, you mentioned something about a
mathematical exercise relating to flying. Do you use flight
simulators at all your programs for the schools?
Dr. Winterton. We do have----
Mr. Ehlers. Commercially available flight simulators.
Dr. Winterton. We provide those opportunities through our
centers. Now, the type of simulation the students were doing,
and I know you are a budding pilot, and you might want to try
this simulator, to make sure we are getting the right mission
control experts, is----
Mr. Ehlers. I have already flown a Shuttle.
Dr. Winterton.--is a computer-based simulation, so that
part is available at any school.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah.
Dr. Winterton. So, we like that combination of affordable,
readily available, but you can also go to a center to do the
simulation as well.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay.
Dr. Winterton. And I think through some of our university
and our space grants, that certainly is another opportunity to
provide that in a broader sense.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. And I can't give commercials, but I am
fascinated with the potentials of the X-Plane program, because
it actually allows students to construct their own airplane,
and you have to be fairly sophisticated, at least junior high,
perhaps higher, but it is an incredibly good educational
experience, and the program is $50 or something like that, so
any school could afford to have that.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been an excellent
hearing. The only missing component, and I don't want to
criticize, even though I should, since I am part of the
minority, and that is our job, but there is one other agency
that spends a huge amount of money on K-12 education, and that
is the Defense Department. It is a smaller fraction of their
budget than any of these agencies, but we might want to hear
from them some time, too, about what they are doing.
And they, incidentally, one plus factor of the Defense
Department is their Army Schools, which are located around the
world--I shouldn't say Army--the schools are for their
employees' children--consistently rank higher than the average
American school, particularly in the science and technology,
and also, often equal the countries, the record of the
countries that they are in. So, obviously, the Defense
Department is doing something right in their schools, and we
might be interested in talking to them about that some time.
With that, I will conclude, and thank you again, Mr.
Chairman, for having this hearing.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the Chair thanks the Ranking Member for
his thoughtful comments, and I think that is something that we
would want to move forward with.
And before closing, I would like to thank the witnesses
for, again, spending their afternoon, and also, the members of
the audience. It is a nice day out there, so it is appreciated
that you would come in here to hear our testimony.
And the record will remain open for additional questions
that Subcommittee Members may ask of the witnesses, so be
prepared for that.
And the witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Cora B. Marrett, Assistant Director, Education and Human
Resources Directorate, National Science Foundation
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. Dr. Marrett, the new National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) subcommittee on STEM education is a subcommittee of the NSTC
Committee on Science. Is this of a sufficiently high level
organizationally to get the agencies' attention? Because of the widely
recognized importance of STEM education, shouldn't this be constituted
as a new, independent NSTC committee?
A1. The membership of the STEM Education Subcommittee has now been
established. The timely response from the agencies to the request for
names and the responsibilities of the persons designated suggests that
the subcommittee structure can be effective. The persons selected to
represent their agencies have sufficient oversight for personnel and
budgets to act on behalf of their organizations.
There are substantive reasons for an arrangement that connects STEM
education to the larger Committee on Science (COS). First, the agenda
on STEM education must reflect current developments in the wider realm
of STEM research and development. The connection to the COS, the body
charged with the broader world of research and development, helps
ensure that the priorities for STEM education are aligned with the
directions at the federal level of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics. Second, within the agencies STEM education is
integrated into and not isolated from the objectives agencies have
identified for science and engineering. The subcommittee structure,
then replicates the pattern that agencies employ and have found to be
beneficial.
The structure does not signal that the subcommittee is of secondary
importance in the NSTC complex. The principals for the Committee on
Science regard STEM education as of profound significance for the
Nation and consequently anticipate regular exchanges about the work of
the subcommittee. They, in turn, are committed to facilitating and
participating in exchanges between the subcommittee and any other
relevant NSTC bodies. Likewise, the co-chairs of the subcommittee have
ready access to the principals and aim to work cooperatively with them.
In sum, then, the subcommittee has obtained from the agencies and the
Committee on Science the support it will need to be an effective force
in the pursuit of excellence for education in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
Q2. The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) has recommended that no
funding should be increased for a STEM education program ``unless a
plan for rigorous, independent evaluation is in place,'' which is
defined in the report as being Randomized Controlled Trials or, when
that is not feasible, Well-Matched Comparison Group Studies. One of our
witnesses at the May 15th hearing, Dr. Weiss, stated that this approach
would not be practical for the majority of programs in the federal R&D
mission agencies. I would like to ask our witnesses to respond to Dr.
Weiss' opinion. Is this a practical way of evaluating programs at NASA,
Energy, and NIH? What other types of evaluation methods might be better
suited?
A2. The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) report does indeed
recommend no additional funding to STEM education programs, in the
absence of plans for rigorous, independent evaluation. The report
points out, however, that ``no single design or evaluation methodology
is appropriate for all education studies,'' and ``the appropriate
methodology should be selected based on the maturity of the activity''
(p. 13). Furthermore, it acknowledges that programs can be arrayed
along a continuum that starts ``generally with small-scale studies to
test new ideas and generate hypotheses, leading to increasingly larger
and more rigorous studies to test the effects of a given intervention
or activity on a variety of students and in a variety of settings'' (p.
13). Thus, the report does not advocate for the premature use of
experimental or quasi-experimental methods to determine causality. It
is also important to remember as well that the ACC discussion is
centered on measuring the impact of an educational activity on student
outcomes (p. 15), not educational differences at the institutional or
system level.
The National Science Foundation recognizes the importance of using
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to establish cause-and-effect
relationships between education programs and student outcomes. As Dr.
Weiss stated, and the ACC report supports, RCTs and well-matched
comparison group studies are not always feasible and applicable,
nonetheless. For short-term outreach efforts or efforts to enhance the
institutional structure for STEM education, some activities cannot be
standardized and controlled. For projects federal agencies and others
undertake, the randomized assignment of participants is not always
feasible, practical, or ethical. Thus, the use of RCTs is appropriate
depending on the program design and the research question. The ACC
report recognizes this point; Dr. Weiss sought especially to reinforce
it.
Policy-making bodies frequently draw on evidence from multi-year
studies that use mixed methods. What seems significant for the making
of policy is the rigor of the approach that is taken, coupled with
attention to the question or problem that is central to analysis.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Joyce L. Winterton, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) has recommended that no
funding should be increased for a STEM education program ``unless a
plan for rigorous, independent evaluation is in place'' which is
defined in the report as being Randomized Controlled Trials or, when
that is not feasible, Well-Matched Comparison Group Studies. One of our
witnesses at the May 15, 2007, hearing, Dr. Weiss, stated that this
approach would not be practical for the majority of programs in the
federal R&D mission agencies. I would like to ask our witnesses to
respond to Dr. Weiss' opinion. Is this a practical way of evaluating
programs at NASA, Energy, and NIH? What other types of evaluation
methods might be better suited?
A1. Establishment of standards for the evaluation of Federal STEM
education programs was extensively discussed within the ACC working
groups. A hierarchy of study designs, weighted in favor of a research-
oriented model focused on Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), was
adopted. However, several concerns were raised by NASA and other
working group members. The main concern is that RCTs are primarily
applicable to interventions, defined broadly by the education
evaluation community, as projects with highly specific features that
target a precisely defined audience in order to achieve a specific
outcome under controlled, standardized conditions. There are a variety
of other reasons why RCT models are not practical for some of NASA's
portfolio, including: (a) schools are not typically prepared to match
control and treatment groups; (b) RCTs are complex and costly to
properly implement; and, (c) some of NASA's education projects are not
specific interventions according to the above definition but are
instead designed to enhance the capabilities of the education and
outreach community (e.g., the NASA Explorer Institutes project seeks to
enhance the ability of science centers and museums to use NASA's unique
resources).
NASA is in full agreement that sound, rigorous evaluations should
be implemented to provide the best possible evidence of effectiveness
but the methodologies must be appropriate to the program. NASA supports
and is implementing a definition of rigorous evaluation that includes
RCT-based methodologies, as feasible. Where RCTs are not feasible, NASA
plans to implement alternate evaluation methodologies, commonly called
``Mixed Methods'' approaches, to capture a complete picture of
education investments to determine effectiveness in achieving outcomes,
impact and comprehensiveness. These Mixed Methods are based on the
accepted professional standards for educational evaluations articulated
in The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of
Educational Programs, 2nd edition, (Joint Committee on Educational
Evaluation, 1994). Like RCTs, these rigorous methods will lead to
credible, objective, reliable, and valid evaluations of program
performance and effectiveness. Mixed-methods evaluations use
quantitative data, such as experimental, quasi-experimental, and
correlational studies, and also use qualitative methodologies, such as
case studies, surveys, and focus groups. NASA will use RCTs when
practical and relevant, however the Agency will typically use mixed-
methods evaluations.
NASA has developed and submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget a plan for evaluating each of the Agency's major projects.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by William J. Valdez, Director, Office of Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science,
Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Federal STEM Education Programs
Q1. The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) has recommended that no
funding should be increased for a STEM education program ``unless a
plan for rigorous, independent evaluation is in place'' which is
defined in the report as being Randomized Controlled Trials or, when
that is not feasible, Well-Matched Comparison Group Studies. One of our
witnesses at the May 15th hearing, Dr. Weiss, stated that this approach
would not be practical for the majority of programs in the federal R&D
mission agencies. I would like to ask our witnesses to respond to Dr.
Weiss' opinion. Is this a practical way of evaluating programs at NASA,
Energy, and NIH? What other types of evaluation methods might be better
suited?
A1. The Office of Science's Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS) program fully supports the Academic Competitiveness
Council (ACC) recommendations and has developed a rigorous evaluation
program currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget.
That review program, which is being designed to ensure that the cost is
commensurate with the overall size of the WDTS program, emphasizes
three evaluation protocols that are consistent with the comments made
by Dr. Weiss. Those three protocols, which we believe are appropriate
to the needs of mission agencies such as NASA, the Department of Energy
and NIH, are:
Quasi-experimental approaches that utilize well-
matched groups to understand improvements to the learning of
scientific content, STEM career choices, and improvements to
STEM teaching approaches;
Long-range longitudinal studies of student
participants designed to verify whether WDTS programs are
achieving their goal of contributing to the DOE STEM workforce;
and,
Management effectiveness studies, such as external
reviews by Committees of Visitors, to validate that WDTS
programs are managed efficiently.
This evaluation program is designed for the mission needs of the
Department of Energy, which requires development of a highly qualified
pool of scientific and technical workers in the mission areas it
supports (defense, environment, energy, and scientific discovery).
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Bruce A. Fuchs, Director, Office of Science Education,
National Institutes of Health
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Federal STEM Education Programs
Q1. The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) has recommended that no
funding should be increased for a STEM education program ``unless a
plan for rigorous, independent evaluation is in place'' which is
defined in the report as being Randomized Controlled Trials or, when
that is not feasible, Well-Matched Comparison Group Studies. One of our
witnesses at the May 15th hearing, Dr. Weiss, stated that this approach
would not be practical for the majority of programs in the federal R&D
mission agencies. I would like to ask our witnesses to respond to Dr.
Weiss' opinion. Is this a practical way of evaluation programs at NASA,
Energy, and NIH? What other types of evaluation methods might be better
suited?
A1. It is important to articulate the final goal of federal STEM
education efforts. We should seek to fund programs that really make a
difference in the lives of our children. We want those students with
talent and inclination to consider STEM careers in order to help the
government, and the Nation, meet its need for technical professionals.
But additionally, in an increasingly competitive world, we want all
students to obtain the knowledge and skills (for example, problem
solving and critical thinking) that they will need to find good jobs
and lead fulfilling lives. The kinds of skills that students can learn
in STEM courses will help prepare them for the 21st century--even if
they never put on a white coat or work in a laboratory.
The ACC report does not really define rigorous research as
``Randomized Controlled Trials, or when that is not feasible, Well-
Matched Comparison Group Studies.'' The report does emphasize the
importance of these evaluation methods for ``those study designs whose
purpose is to estimate a project's impact on education outcomes, such
as student math and science achievement.'' But the report also
acknowledges that much of the federal STEM effort does not fall into
this category. The report recognizes that ``no single study design or
evaluation methodology is appropriate for all education studies, and
that the appropriate methodology should be selected based on the
maturity of the activity, the intended use of the data, and the
inferences to be drawn from study results. . ..''
Early in any STEM education research endeavor, most studies will
not be candidates for a randomized controlled trial design. These
studies will more likely focus on classroom observations, developing
early-stage instructional materials or approaches, and generating
testable hypotheses with regard to student performance. The ACC
recognizes that these types of studies ``are a key part of the research
agenda needed to improve U.S. STEM education, can be `rigorous' in
their own context, and can serve as valuable precursors and-or
complements to impact studies.''
However, the goal should ultimately be to determine what works for
students. Promising programs at different stages of maturity should be
identified and subjected to evaluation methods that have increasing
power to discern whether the student outcomes observed are really
related to the program interventions. This goal will push study designs
up the ``hierarchy pyramid'' toward randomized controlled trials.
However, even in these cases, a variety of evaluation methods will be
used to ``complement'' the impact study. This is because we will seldom
be satisfied to know simply whether a particular educational
intervention works or not--we want to know why it succeeds, or fails,
to achieve the intended objective.
We do know more about how to effectively teach STEM subjects to
students than we did a generation ago. However, the number of such
insights that have been rigorously tested and that are known to be
valid for large numbers of students under a variety of conditions is
much smaller than we would like it to be. Carefully applying the
recommendations of the ACC report will help ensure that we are not in
the same situation a generation from now.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of the Office of Education
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Question 1: What steps have agencies taken to improve coordination with
other federal agencies' STEM education activities? To what extent do
agencies collaborate with educators in the states and school districts
in developing STEM education programs?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
leveraging several relationships established through the Academic
Competitiveness Council (ACC) to foster improved coordination among
Federal Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
education activities. For example, such relationships include: (1) the
synthesis of independent evaluations of federal STEM activities (as
previously demonstrated by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration); (2) providing advice to other agencies (e.g., the
National Science Foundation) on how to develop and implement
evaluations programs consistent with the ACC recommendations and
metrics; and (3) seeking external advice and guidance to inform the
design of NOAA STEM education activities (e.g., from the Department of
Education on NOAA's Teacher at Sea Program). NOAA looks forward to
exploring additional opportunities through the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) to build on the collaborative activities
initiated under the ACC.
NOAA is working with educators to develop and improve individual
STEM education programs in many states and school districts. These
programs are designed to support the long-term development of quality
educational programs for all educators and students while,
simultaneously, meeting the goals of NOAA and the Nation. For example
NOAA is working with California on the state's Environmental Education
Initiative, and NOAA is working with Hawaii to develop a Marine Science
Curriculum.
Question 2: The recent report of the Academic Competitiveness Council
reinforces the need for better evaluation and performance metrics for
federal STEM education programs. What plans do agencies have for
improvements in evaluation of STEM programs?
NOAA is taking direct action to improve the consistency, rigor, and
frequency of evaluation activities for each of its education programs.
Specifically, NOAA will measure the effectiveness of all its current
and future education activities using methodologies appropriate to the
types of activities funded. NOAA has recently adopted a program logic
model to inform the design and evaluation of all education activities
in the agency, address the performance metrics of the Academic
Competitiveness Council, and promote consistency, coordination, and
information sharing with other federal entities.
NOAA's Educational Partnership Program (EPP) has adjusted its
operation and implementation activities based on annual client
evaluation; monitored the output and products of its programs against
established performance measures; and assessed program statistics of
students who have trained and/or graduated in STEM fields. In addition,
NOAA's Cooperative Science Centers, which are associated with EPP, were
rigorously evaluated after three years of operation using metrics that
were established previously to evaluate NOAA's Cooperative Institutes.
Evaluation metrics were tailored to address a variety of components
such as education, outreach, research, administration, recruitment,
budgeting, and capacity building being conducted at each of the
Cooperative Science Centers. The accomplishments of each program were
compared to the objectives and performance measures established during
the development phase.
A plan to conduct rigorous, independent evaluation is currently
being established for NOAA's student scholarship programs, which
include undergraduate and graduate fellowships, as well as the Ernest
F. Hollings and Dr. Nancy Foster scholarship programs. Although these
programs have not yet been formally evaluated, it should be noted that
there are established performance measures in place for each program.
Question 3: The Subcommittee received testimony at a hearing on 15 May
on how the R&D mission agencies could improve the effectiveness of
their STEM education programs. The witnesses were skeptical of the
ability of the agencies to develop curricular materials for formal
classroom instruction and questioned the effectiveness of their teacher
professional development programs to improve teacher classroom
performance, while suggesting that the agencies' most important role is
in informal STEM education. The witnesses also strongly recommended
closer collaboration by the agencies with educators in the field when
developing STEM programs. What are agencies' responses to the
recommendations from these witnesses?
NOAA's efforts do not replace or supplant the critical role of the
State and local governments in education. Because there are limited
resources to invest and large needs to support in science education,
NOAA believes investments in formal and informal education are most
effective and efficient at producing outcomes when they supplement or
complement efforts supported by others. NOAA's efforts are aimed at
providing supplemental materials in subject areas where NOAA has unique
expertise and where sufficient public knowledge is required to ensure
understanding and response to warnings, forecasts, and stewardship
efforts. NOAA education maximizes use of place-based learning
opportunities afforded by field offices, including National Marine
Sanctuaries, Sea Grant Colleges, National Estuarine Research Reserves
and Weather Forecast Offices. We often work through external partners,
such as education associations or aquaria and science museums, to
enhance our connections to the public and the education community.
Students and educators are one of many groups of users of NOAA data and
information. The NOAA Outreach Unit in Silver Spring, MD receives over
4,000 unique requests each year for NOAA's education materials from
teachers, students and librarians.
NOAA recognizes that education is primarily the responsibility of
state and local governments. However, state and local education
programs may not specifically focus on topics relevant to NOAA's
mission. For example, the ocean sciences are under-represented in the
national science education standards for grades K-12. In addition,
teacher content knowledge is not always sufficient in the ocean and
atmospheric sciences. As a result, students graduating from U.S. high
schools may not possess sufficient understanding of the earth processes
and phenomena that are the focus of NOAA research, monitoring, and
prediction efforts.
NOAA's informal education activities provide educational
experiences that typically involve taking students to unique settings
outside of the classroom. Informal education combines well-established
educational methods with the excitement of hands-on activities and
field experiences and develops life long interest in the ocean and
atmosphere. NOAA's informal education activities include hosting school
children, community groups, and the general public at NOAA sites,
supporting hands-on experiences in NOAA-related sciences and increasing
the inclusion of NOAA-related topics at science centers, museums, and
aquaria.
Question 4: How do agencies determine priorities for K-16 STEM
education portfolio? Has agencies' balance of programs at graduate/post
doctoral, undergraduate, K-12, and informal education changed much over
the past few years? Is there a likelihood of a change in that balance
in the future?
Most of the investment priorities and the general direction of NOAA
education activities over the past few years has been determined by
Congress--either through legislation (e.g., the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, Sea Grant Act) or through
appropriations language (Environmental Literacy Grants). Other
education activities are supported by across the board percentages
which Congress has instigated (e.g., NOAA-wide in the case of the
Hollings Scholarship Program and Sanctuaries-wide in the case of the
Nancy Foster Scholarship Program). Within these external constraints,
NOAA's process for determining priorities is based on national peer
reviewed competitions focused on advancing earth system science
education. Although there is no formal review process to determine
priorities for funding, the following criteria are used informally:
Proposed projects should:
deliver NOAA-wide benefit;
have hard schedule drivers that require action within
a one to two year time frame;
reach a large, high priority audience;
result in a significant impact on the audience
reached;
increase understanding of NOAA science and service;
leverage partnerships;
build on existing NOAA investments; and
target NOAA priority areas.
Question 5: How do agencies disseminate information about STEM
education programs? What organizations, both government and private,
have agencies partnered with to reach educators in the field?
NOAA relies on partnerships with a variety of government, non-
government, non-profit, and private organizations to disseminate
information about our STEM education programs. Partnerships mentioned
above with State departments of education allow NOAA to directly assist
state efforts to improve STEM-related education in areas specific to
NOAA science (e.g., watershed and environmental education in the states
that are party to the Chesapeake Bay agreement and its education
commitments; environmental education in California; marine science
education in Hawaii).
NOAA also depends heavily on the dissemination networks of State
and university partners for the education programs funded by the
National Sea Grant College Program, the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System, and cooperative research programs including the
Educational Partnership Program, Joint Research Institutes, and
Cooperative Institutes.
Other federal partners, such as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the National Science Foundation, leverage NOAA
investments for broader impact including improving the rigor and
credibility of high school Earth systems science course work and build
centers for Coastal Ocean Science Educational Excellence. In the past
few years, multiple partners joined NOAA to develop Ocean Literacy
Principles to assist teachers in using ocean concepts and examples to
teach state science standards, and similar efforts are underway for
climate literacy. NOAA also partners with the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences to
maintain the currency of the science education standards and benchmarks
disseminated by these organizations.
To reach classroom teachers directly, NOAA partners with
organizations with large teacher membership and distribution networks
and teacher training efforts (e.g., National Science Teacher
Association, National Marine Educators Association, American
Meteorological Society, the Jason Project). NOAA also supports online,
searchable education resource libraries that provide access to
standards-referenced, peer-reviewed education materials and lesson
plans for teachers (e.g., Digital Library for Earth Systems Science,
www.dlese.org; the Bridge, http://www2.vims.edu/bridge/noaa/).
Partnerships are essential to NOAA's informal education efforts to
promote STEM-related education related to NOAA science in the general
public as well as supplementing the activities of the formal education
system. NOAA's partnerships with individual as well as networks of
science centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos produce innovative exhibits
and displays and complementary educational programming. These
partnerships include world renowned institutions such as the American
Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian Institution National
Museum of Natural History, and organizations such as American Zoo and
Aquarium Association, Association of Science-Technical Centers, and
Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers). Partnerships with non-profit,
private, and government organizations also enable NOAA's efforts to
improve public understanding related to STEM through radio and
television programming and public media campaigns.