[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE BOARD'S ACTION PLAN
FOR STEM EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 10, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-63
__________
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
38-056 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
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 RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
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
October 10, 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...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
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................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 18
Ms. Judy A. Jeffrey, Director, Iowa Department of Education,
Representing the Council of Chief State School Officers
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 22
Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell, President, National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 27
Ms. Chrisanne L. Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National
School Boards Association
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Biography.................................................... 31
Dr. Robert J. Semper, Executive Associate Director, The
Exploratorium, Representing the Association of Science and
Technology Centers
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Biography.................................................... 38
Ms. Susan L. Traiman, Director, Education and Workforce Policy,
Business Roundtable
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Biography.................................................... 43
Discussion....................................................... 43
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board.......... 62
Ms. Judy A. Jeffrey, Director, Iowa Department of Education,
Representing the Council of Chief State School Officers........ 65
Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell, President, National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics........................................ 68
Ms. Chrisanne L. Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National
School Boards Association...................................... 69
Dr. Robert J. Semper, Executive Associate Director, The
Exploratorium, Representing the Association of Science and
Technology Centers............................................. 71
Ms. Susan L. Traiman, Director, Education and Workforce Policy,
Business Roundtable............................................ 72
ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD'S ACTION PLAN FOR STEM
EDUCATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Assessment of the National
Science Board's Action Plan
for STEM Education
wednesday, october 10, 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, October 10, 2007, the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee will hold a hearing to receive testimony related to a
proposal from the National Science Board (NSB): ``A National Action
Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.'' This plan, which was
released by the NSB on October 3, proposes a series of steps that the
Board believes will bring greater coherence to the Nation's science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education system and
ensure that students are taught by highly effective STEM teachers.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Steven Beering, Chairman, National Science Board.
Ms. Judy A. Jeffrey, Director, Iowa Department of Education and
Representing the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell, President, National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics and Professor of Education at McDaniel College.
Ms. Chrisanne Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National School
Boards Association.
Dr. Robert Semper, Executive Associate Director, The Exploratorium and
Representing the Association of Science-Technology Centers.
Ms. Susan L. Traiman, Director, Education and Workforce Policy Business
Roundtable.
3. Overarching Questions
Does the NSB Action Plan address the key issues for
improving STEM education: effective coordination of STEM
education reform activities, nationally applied STEM content
guidelines, horizontal and vertical alignment and coherence of
STEM education, and populating classrooms with well qualified
and highly effective STEM teachers? What are the principal
barriers to achieving the recommended changes to the STEM
education system?
Is the proposed National STEM Education Council
needed in order to implement the NSB's recommendations; can it
be made to work as envisioned; will the principal stakeholders,
who must be engaged in order for it to function, embrace the
concept; and can it become self-sustaining?
What are the key issues in attracting STEM majors to
teaching careers; educating them to be effective teachers; and
retaining them in these careers?
What is the federal role in carrying out the
recommendations of the NSB Action Plan?
4. Brief Overview
A consensus now exists that improving STEM education
throughout the Nation is a necessary, if not sufficient,
condition for preserving our capacity for innovation and
discovery and for ensuring U.S. economic strength and
competitiveness in the international marketplace of the 21st
century. The National Academies Rising Above the Gathering
Storm report placed a major emphasis on the need to improve
STEM education and made its top priority increasing the number
of highly qualified STEM teachers. This recommendation was
embraced by the COMPETES bill developed by the Committee, which
was recently enacted.
In the same period that the Gathering Storm report
was being developed, the NSB initiated a process to explore how
to improve STEM education throughout the Nation. As part of
this effort, the Board established a STEM education commission
to advise it on how to accomplish this goal. The Action Plan
that is the subject of this hearing grew out of these
activities.
The NSB Action Plan focuses on coordinating what,
when, and to whom STEM subjects are taught among states
(horizontally) and across grade levels (vertically) and on
ensuring students are taught by highly effective STEM teachers.
At present, there are no consistent STEM content
standards in use among the states and no consistency in the
sequence in which STEM courses are taught. In a highly mobile
society, this causes students who move from one state to
another often to miss exposure to important concepts which they
may not have a later opportunity to master. No formal
mechanisms now exist to foster coordination regarding content
and course sequence among states. Vertical integration of
course sequence and content at different grade levels within
states is beginning to be addressed through P-16 Councils that
several states have initiated.
A chronic shortage of highly qualified STEM teachers
is a major impediment to improved student performance in STEM
subjects. A high proportion of STEM teachers have neither an
undergraduate major nor certificate to teach STEM subjects.
There is a lack of uniformity and rigor in the requirements for
certification of STEM teachers. Individuals with an interest
and capability to pursue STEM degrees have many opportunities
for careers in professions offering higher salaries and better
working conditions.
A central recommendation of the NSB report is to
establish an independent, non-federal, congressionally
chartered National Council for STEM Education. This Council,
which would have representation from all the major public and
private stakeholder groups, would coordinate and facilitate
STEM education initiatives across the Nation. The NSB sees the
Council as having an important role in facilitating a strategy
to define voluntary STEM content guidelines, in developing
consensus-based metrics for assessing student performance, in
serving as a forum on best practices in STEM teaching and
learning, in assisting the states in creating new and
strengthening existing P-16 councils, in developing strategies
to overcome barriers to increasing the compensation for STEM
teachers, in coordinating and disseminating information on
models to attract and support talented students in pursuing
STEM teaching careers, and in fostering the development of
national STEM teacher certification guidelines.
5. NSB Action Plan
Beginning in 2005 the NSB held a series of hearings in different
regions of the U.S. to gather a range of views about how to improve
STEM education. This led to the Board convening a national commission
on STEM education to advise it on specific actions that could be taken
to implement the many recommendations of previous reports, panels, task
forces, and commissions that have called for major reforms of STEM
education. The NSB commission presented their findings and
recommendations to the Board in March 2007 (included as an appendix to
the NSB Action Plan).
The NSB then prepared its STEM education Action Plan, released it
for public comment in August, and then released the final version last
week. The executive summary of the report, as released for public
comment, is in the appendix to this memo, and the full report is
available at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu-com/
draft-stem-report.pdf
6. Questions for the Witnesses
In the invitation letter for the hearing, Dr. Beering was asked to
provide an overview of the NSB's recommendations and the findings that
led to these recommendations. He was also asked to describe the process
used by the Board that led to the priorities reflected in the Action
Plan, including the degree and nature of consultation with STEM
education leaders throughout the Nation, and a description of the
reaction the Board received to the recommendations of the Action Plan
after it was released for public comment.
The other witnesses, who represent various stakeholder communities
engaged in STEM education improvement, were asked to give their views
on the NSB recommendations and to respond to the following questions:
Does the NSB Action Plan address what you see as the
key issues for improving STEM education? Are there specific
actions or policies that you believe are important to
improvement of STEM education that are not included? What are
the principal barriers to achieving the recommended changes to
the STEM education system?
Is the proposed national STEM education council
needed in order to implement the NSB's recommendations; can it
be made to work as envisioned; and can it become self-
sustaining? Do you support establishing this council? Do you
have recommendations for changing the proposed structure or
functions of the council? Furthermore, what role do you
envision for the council in defining the recommended ``national
content guidelines''?
What is the appropriate federal role in carrying out
the recommendations of the NSB Action Plan?
APPENDIX
NSB-07-114
October 1, 2007
A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ADDRESSING THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF THE U.S.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION SYSTEM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The United States possesses the most innovative, technologically
capable economy in the world, and yet its science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education system is failing to
ensure that all American students receive the skills and knowledge
required for success in the 21st century workforce. The Nation faces
two central challenges to constructing a strong, coordinated STEM
education system:
Ensuring coherence in STEM learning, and
Ensuring an adequate supply of well-prepared and
highly effective STEM teachers.
In order to direct attention to pressing issues and concerns in
STEM education and to coordinate and enhance STEM education across
local, State, and federal programs, the National Science Board (Board)
recommends the following:
The U.S. Congress should pass and the President
should sign into law an act chartering a new, independent, non-
federal National Council for STEM Education to coordinate and
facilitate STEM programs and initiatives throughout the Nation,
as well as to inform policy-makers and the public on the state
of STEM education in the United States.
The President's Office of Science and Technology
Policy should create a standing Committee on STEM Education
within the National Science and Technology Council with the
responsibility to coordinate all federal STEM education
programs.
The Department of Education should create a new
Assistant Secretary of Education position charged with
coordinating the Department's efforts in STEM education and
interacting with stakeholders outside the Department.
The National Science Foundation should lead an effort
to create a national roadmap to improve pre-kindergarten to
college and beyond (P-16/P-20) STEM education, drawing on its
national standing in the science and engineering communities
and its expertise in science and engineering research and
education.
In recognition of the lead role of local and State jurisdictions in
the Nation's P-12 education system, the Board recommends that all
stakeholders work together, using the National Council for STEM
Education as the focal point, to provide horizontal coordination of
STEM education among states by:
Facilitating a strategy to define national STEM
content guidelines that would outline the essential knowledge
and skills needed at each grade level;
Developing metrics to assess student performance that
are aligned with national content guidelines;
Ensuring that assessments under No Child Left Behind
promote STEM learning; and
Providing a forum to share and disseminate
information on best practices in STEM teaching and learning.
The Board also recommends that all stakeholders promote vertical
alignment of STEM education across grade levels--from pre-K through the
first years of higher education by:
Improving the linkage between high school and higher
education and/or the workforce; and
Creating or strengthening STEM education-focused P-16
or P-20 councils in each state; and
Encouraging alignment of STEM education content
throughout the P-12 education system.
Finally, the Board recommends actions that ensure students are
taught by well-qualified and highly effective STEM teachers. These
include strategies for increasing the numbers of such teachers and
improving the quality of their preparation by:
Developing strategies for compensating STEM teachers
at market rates;
Providing resources for the preparation of future
STEM teachers;
Increasing STEM teacher mobility between districts by
creating national STEM teacher certification standards; and
Preparing STEM teachers to teach STEM content
effectively.
This Action Plan lays out a structure that will allow stakeholders
from local, State, and Federal governments, as well as non-governmental
STEM education stakeholder groups, to work together to coordinate and
enhance the Nation's ability to produce a numerate and scientifically
and technologically literate society and to increase and improve the
current STEM education workforce. Strategies for producing the next
generation of innovators are not explicitly addressed in this Action
Plan and will require subsequent study. A coherent system of STEM
education is essential to the Nation's economy and well-being.
Chairman Baird. I call to order this hearing to review the
Action Plan for improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics, or STEM education, that was recently released by
the National Science Board. I welcome this opportunity to enter
into a discussion with our panel of witnesses on the steps
necessary to insure that American students receive the
education in STEM fields that they will all need to live
satisfying and productive lives in the increasingly
technological society of the 21st century and that a subset of
our students will need in preparation for becoming future
scientists and engineers and, hopefully, teachers as well.
There is a convergence of views by Congress, the
Administration, and business and industry that STEM education
improvement is a key factor for ensuring the Nation's future
well being and economic competitiveness. The COMPETES Act,
which was signed into law this summer, includes many provisions
aimed at addressing shortcomings in STEM education that were
highlighted in the Congressionally-requested and widely
acclaimed report from the National Academies, the so called
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report.
The National Science Board has now come forward with a set
of recommendations that are intended to make system-wide
changes to improve STEM education throughout the Nation. The
Board's recommendations fall into two principal areas: ensuring
greater coherence in the Nation's STEM education system and
ensuring that all students are taught by highly-qualified STEM
teachers.
Educating more highly-qualified STEM teachers and enhancing
the content knowledge and teaching skills of existing STEM
teachers was the top recommendation of the ``Gathering Storm''
report. This recommendation was in turn the basis for the
teacher education and professional development provision in the
COMPETES legislation. The National Science Board now goes
further by suggesting the need for policies to allow for
increased teacher compensation and for development of more
uniform teacher certification standards across the states.
In addition, the Board suggests specific actions that are
needed to bring about greater coherence in the STEM education
system, something Dr. Ehlers and I are particularly interested
in. These recommendations include, for example, consistent
content standards across states, uniform sequencing of courses
from grade to grade across school systems and states, and
improved linkage between the course content for different grade
levels.
Toda we will explore these proposals with representatives
of various stakeholders involved in STEM education. This is
appropriate because any changes to the STEM education system
must involve active participation by many players. After all,
there are 14,000 school districts in the United States, and any
change to STEM education content and sequence, for example,
would require developing and implementing a national strategy.
The Board makes a specific recommendation for implementing
a national coordination process based on the creation of a
Congressionally-charted, independent council with a wide-
ranging membership. I hope to hear from our witnesses their
views on whether this is a necessary and workable mechanism.
Finally, I would like to thank the National Science Board
for its strong reaffirmation in the report that STEM education
is a core mission of the National Science Foundation. As the
Board and this committee are well aware, STEM education has
been a major component of NSF's activities since the agency's
creation nearly 60 years ago, and the foundation has compiled a
widely-acknowledged record of accomplishment over those years.
I strongly endorse the Board's direction to NSF to develop
a roadmap for overall STEM education activities, including
those funded through the science directorates. This is
consistent with the requirement for a STEM Education plan in
the recent NSF reauthorization legislation. The Committee will
be watching with interest as this planning process unfolds.
I want to thank all our witnesses for their attendance this
morning, and I look forward to our discussion.
I now recognize my friend, the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Dr. Vern Ehlers, for any opening remarks he may
care to make.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
I now call to order this hearing to review the Action Plan for
improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--
education that was recently released by the National Science Board. I
welcome this opportunity to enter into a discussion with our panel of
witnesses on the steps that are necessary to ensure that American
students receive the education in STEM fields that they will all need
to live satisfying and productive lives in the increasingly
technological society of the 21st century and that a subset of them
will need in preparation for becoming future scientists and engineers.
There is a convergence of the views of Congress, the
Administration, and business and industry that STEM education
improvement is a key factor for ensuring the Nation's future well being
and economic competitiveness. The COMPETES Act which was signed into
law this summer includes many provisions aimed at addressing
shortcomings in STEM education that were highlighted in the
congressionally requested and widely acclaimed report from the National
Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
The National Science Board has now come forward with a set of
recommendations that are intended to make system-wide changes to
improve STEM education throughout the Nation. The Board's
recommendations fall into two principal areas: ensuring greater
coherence in the Nation's STEM education system and ensuring that all
students are taught by highly qualified STEM teachers.
Educating more highly qualified STEM teachers and enhancing the
content knowledge and teaching skills of existing STEM teachers was the
top recommendation of the Gathering Storm report. This recommendation
was in turn the basis for the teacher education and professional
development provisions in the COMPETES legislation. The National
Science Board goes further by suggesting the need for policies to allow
for increased teacher compensation and for development of more uniform
teacher certification standards across the states.
In addition, the Board suggests specific actions that are needed to
bring about greater coherence in the STEM education system. These
include, for example, consistent content standards across states,
uniform sequencing of courses from grade to grade across school systems
and states, and improved linkage between the course content for
different grade levels.
Today we will explore these proposals with representatives of
various stakeholders involved in STEM education. This is appropriate
because any changes to the STEM education system must involve active
participation by many players. After all, there are 14,000 school
districts in the U.S., and any change to STEM education content and
sequence, for example, would require developing and implementing a
national strategy.
The Board makes a specific recommendation for implementing a
national coordination process based on the creation of a
congressionally chartered, independent council with a wide ranging
membership. I hope to hear from our witnesses their views on whether
this is a necessary and workable mechanism.
Finally, I would like to thank the National Science Board for its
strong reaffirmation in the report that STEM education is a core
mission of NSF. As the Board and this committee are well aware, STEM
education has been a major component of NSF's activities since the
agency's creation nearly 60 years ago, and the Foundation has compiled
a widely acknowledged record of accomplishment over those years.
I strongly endorse the Board's direction to NSF to develop a
roadmap for its overall STEM education activities, including those
funded through the science directorates. This is consistent with the
requirement for a STEM education plan in the recent NSF reauthorization
legislation. The Committee will be watching with interest as this
planning process unfolds.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for their attendance this
morning, and I look forward to our discussion on this important topic.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here. Thank you for calling this hearing on my, one of my
favorite topics.
Today's hearing will explore the recommendation of the
National Science Board's recently-released report, ``A National
Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
System.'' That gives a very clear description of what we are
talking about here, and it is an extremely important issue.
I understand that the report had its genesis as the Board
was preparing the 2006, Science and Technology Indicators. The
statistics on the state of science and engineering spurred the
Board to create the commission to further explore the startling
data on U.S. science and engineering education. I applaud the
effort. This is an area I have been working in for many, many
years, and this effort has resulted in the report before us.
The report has highlighted two grand challenges:
coordination of STEM education efforts and improving teacher
preparation. Both are extremely important. As the Academic
Competitive Council report revealed, there are many federal
STEM education efforts, but they suffer from a lack of both
evaluation and coordination. Improving coordination is
challenging, even just within the Federal Government, because
each individual program has its merits. Expanding coordination
of STEM education efforts to all levels is an incredible task
that requires a ``Sputnik-like'' moment to unite everyone
around a common goal.
Several public opinion reports have recently highlighted
data showing that parents are not convinced that their kids
must be skilled in math and science to survive in today's
economy. Until we have that buy-in at the grassroots level, it
will be hard for attempts at coordination to be sustained and
successful.
A recent survey I believe highlights part of the problem
when most parents replied that they thought math and science
education in the United States should be improved, however,
something like 80 or 90 percent believe that, but 70 percent
thought that their kids' math and science program was
absolutely fine. So once again there is a disconnect.
I am pleased to see that the Board has also recommended the
establishment of national content guidelines, and I am
heartened that the Washington Post recently reported that
superintendents for Fairfax County and Montgomery County in two
different states, Virginia and Maryland, believe that in order
to properly assess student achievement national content
standards are needed. I have strongly supported national
voluntary guidelines to help ensure that our mobile population
receives a quality education, even if they change schools
several times during their K-12 education. I emphasize the
word, voluntary, because as you all know there is a strong
feeling in the United States against mandatory federal
standards for elementary and secondary education.
But I have introduced H.R. 325, the SPEAK Act, which would
provide incentives for states to adopt voluntary standards in
math and science. Co-sponsor on that is Senator Dodd. I know
that this idea is controversial and look forward to learning
from our witnesses about their views on this issue.
I trust this hearing will help Congress learn about the
best ways we can advance the recommendations presented in the
Board's report, and I thank our witnesses for being here today,
and I especially thank those of you who have worked so hard and
so long on this.
With that I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Today's hearing will explore the recommendations of the National
Science Board's recently-released report, ``A National Action Plan for
Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.'' I understand that the
report had its genesis as the Board was preparing the 2006 Science and
Technology Indicators. The statistics on the state of science and
engineering spurred the Board to create a Commission to further explore
the startling data on U.S. science and engineering education. I applaud
the effort, which has resulted in the report before us.
The report has highlighted two grand challenges: coordination of
STEM education efforts and improving teacher preparation. As the
Academic Competitive Council report revealed, there are many federal
STEM education efforts, but they suffer from a lack of both evaluation
and coordination. Improving coordination is challenging, even just
within the Federal Government, because each individual program has its
merits. Expanding coordination of STEM education efforts to all levels
is an incredible task that requires a ``Sputnik-like'' moment to unite
everyone around a common goal. Several public opinion reports have
recently highlighted data showing that parents are not convinced that
their kids must be skilled in math and science to survive in today's
economy. Until we have that buy-in at the grassroots level, it will be
hard for attempts at coordination to be sustained and successful.
I am pleased to see that the Board has also recommended the
establishment of national content guidelines, and heartened that the
Washington Post recently reported that superintendents for Fairfax
County (VA) and Montgomery County (MD) believe that in order to
properly assess student achievement, national content standards are
needed. I have strongly supported national voluntary guidelines to help
ensure that our mobile population receives a quality education, even if
they change schools several times during their K-12 education.
Consequently, I have introduced H.R. 325, the SPEAK Act, which would
provide incentives for states to adopt voluntary standards in math and
science. I know that this idea is controversial and look forward to
learning from our witnesses about their views on this issue.
I trust this hearing will help Congress learn about the best ways
we can advance the recommendations presented in the Board's report and
I thank our witnesses for being here today.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. If there are other
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, those
will be added to the record at this point.
At this point I would like to introduce our witnesses very
briefly.
Dr. Steven Beering is the Chairman of the National Science
Board. Welcome, Dr. Beering.
Ms. Judy Jeffrey is the Director of the Iowa Department of
Education, and she is here representing the Council of Chief
State School Officers. Ms. Jeffrey.
Dr. Francis Skip Fennell is the President of the National
Council for Teachers of Mathematics and a Professor of
Education at McDaniel College in Westminster, Maryland. Doctor.
Ms. Chrisanne Gayl is the Director of Federal Programs for
the National School Boards Association.
Dr. Robert Semper is the Executive Associate Director of
the Exploratorium in San Francisco, and he is here today
representing the Association of Science and Technology Centers.
And finally, Ms. Susan Traiman is the Director of Education
and Workforce Policy for the Business Roundtable.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes. You will see on the desk there there is a
little light box. If it starts getting yellow and it turns red,
you have about five seconds to wrap up or a trap door
disappears beneath your seat, and you are gone for a long time
to come.
But we will start today with Dr. Beering. We are grateful
for all of your perspectives and look forward to hearing from
you. Thank you all for being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN C. BEERING, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE
BOARD
Dr. Beering. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members
of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be with you again
today and to speak to you about the Board's recently-released
national Action Plan for addressing the critical needs of U.S.
science and technology, engineering, and math education system.
I am Steven Beering, Chairman of the National Science Board and
President Emeritus of Purdue University. The Board appreciates
the strong support and contributions to this plan by many
Members of Congress, including several Members of this
committee. We are delighted that you have chosen to gain
additional comments and insights on the Action Plan from the
important stakeholders and learned experts you have invited
today to provide testimony.
We are all aware of the poor performance of American
students in international assessments at the high school level.
Our students, the future leaders, citizens, and workforce of
our nation, must achieve to high standards and perform better
relative to their international peers. Otherwise, it will be
quite difficult for the U.S. to develop the future
mathematicians, scientists, and engineers needed for the Nation
to continue to lead the world in innovation.
The Board developed this Action Plan beginning in December
of 2005, with a hearing right here on Capital Hill. This was
followed by Board hearings in Boulder, Colorado, and Los
Angeles, California. In March of '06, the Board created a
federal advisory committee. We called it the Commission on 21st
Century Education and STEM to provide advice to the Board.
We are grateful for the significant contributions of the
members of this Commission whose solid advice and
recommendations contributed importantly to this plan. The
Commission's draft report given to our Board in March of '07,
is appended in its entirety to the Board's Action Plan, along
with a list of the Commission's membership. Altogether more
than 90 experts provided input to the Action Plan, either by
serving on the Commission itself or one of its working groups
who are testifying before either the Board or the Commission.
In August of '07, the Board released a draft version of our
national Action Plan for public comment and received nearly 100
responses. These comments were gratifyingly and overwhelmingly
positive. Many respected reports on STEM education have been
published by well-qualified experts over the past two and a
half decades. With this Action Plan, the Board has built on
those reports and prioritized the most important actions that
can be taken by Congress and others in order to make a
significant impact on STEM education in the Nation.
I would like to highlight the two major recommendations in
the Board's plan. These are, number one, insuring coherence in
the Nation's STEM, education STEM, and number two, insuring an
adequate supply of well-prepared and highly-effective STEM
teachers.
The Board has concluded that horizontal coordination of
STEM education is needed among states and vertical alignment
among components of the system from pre-kindergarten through
college. A coordinated system of STEM education means that a
student who starts kindergarten in Kansas, attends middle
school in California, and enters high school in Illinois will
have the opportunity to master the foundational skills needed
for future success and more advanced STEM studies and which are
increasingly needed in the workforce.
The first step towards greater coherence, Federal
Government departments and agencies should coordinate their own
STEM education through the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
Second, we recommend that a new executive position, perhaps
an assistant secretary, be created within the Department of
Education, to coordinate the Department's own STEM programs and
to serve as the focal point for contact between the Department
and other stakeholders.
Finally, and most critically, the Board recommends that
Congress charter a new, independent, non-federal national body
or council for STEM education that would serve as the primary
vehicle for facilitating coordination among all those involved
in STEM education.
STEM education activities or federal agencies should be
coordinated with State and local activities through this
national council. This entity would also facilitate and help to
sustain horizontal coordination among states and vertical
alignment across grade levels.
The Board's second recommendation for STEM education
previously expressed in a range of Board statements and reports
over the last quarter century is targeted to the development
and retention of a high-quality STEM teaching workforce and
profession.
We recognize and congratulate Congress on the valuable
contributions in this area made by the America COMPETES Act. A
number of the Board's recommendations are already addressed by
this Act. What America needs today is the individual and
collective recognition and resolve to compete globally.
In conclusion, our Action Plan addresses the need to take
national action now, involving all stakeholders and all levels
of government. In particular, we urge serious consideration by
Congress of the need for increased and sustained coordination
of STEM education-related activities. We recommend especially
the creation of an independent and non-federal National Council
of STEM Education to bring together all stakeholders to achieve
our mutual goals.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today and
for the long-term, strong support by Congress and this
committee for education and research and science technology,
engineering and mathematics. I will be happy to address your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beering follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven C. Beering
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members of the Subcommittee,
it is a pleasure to speak to you today about the National Science
Board's recently released National Action Plan for Addressing the
Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Education System (NSB-07-114). I am Steven C. Beering,
Chairman of the National Science Board and President Emeritus of Purdue
University. The Board appreciates the strong support and contributions
to this plan by several Members of this committee.
The Board feels that science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education is of critical importance to the Nation
and is delighted that this Committee has chosen to gain additional
comments and insights on the Action Plan from the important
stakeholders and learned experts you have invited to also provide
testimony today. In this written testimony I will first describe the
process for developing the Board's Action Plan, summarize the main
points of the Action Plan, and then describe the public comments
received by the Board on a draft version of the Action Plan. I have
attached as supplemental excerpted statements from select governors.
Process for Developing the Action Plan
The development of this Action Plan has been a long and systematic
process for the Board, beginning in December 2005 when the Board held
the first of three hearings on what actions could be taken to improve
K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education
in the Nation on Capitol Hill. The Board held two more hearings in
February and March 2006 in Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles,
California. A list of those who testified at the Board hearings may be
found in Appendix C of the Action Plan.
In March 2006 the Board established a federal advisory committee to
the Board, the Commission on 21st Century Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The Charge to the Commission
and its membership are listed in Appendices D and E, respectively, of
the Action Plan. The Commission presented a draft report to the Board
in March 2007, which is included as Appendix F of the Action Plan,
including a list of those who testified before the Commission or were
on one of its working groups.
The Board developed its National Action Plan based on all this
input. I personally chaired the hearings the Board held and attended
nearly all of the meetings of the Commission. All together, more than
90 experts provided input to the Action Plan either by serving on the
Commission or one of its working groups or testifying before either the
Board or the Commission. In addition, Dr. Michael Crosby, National
Science Board Executive Director, and Dr. Elizabeth Strickland, from
our Board Office staff held more than two dozen meetings with various
stakeholders to gather input to the Action Plan.
In August 2007 the Board released a draft version of its Action
Plan for public comment and received nearly one hundred valuable and
overwhelmingly positive that I will summarize later in this testimony.
A list of those who provided public comments is included in Appendix G
of the Action Plan.
Summary of Action Plan
Addressing the shortcomings of the Nation's STEM education system
is absolutely essential to the continued economic success of the Nation
and to its national security. It is essential that all American
citizens have the necessary scientific, technological, and mathematical
knowledge and skills to make informed personal choices and voting
decisions and to thrive in the current technologically rich, global
marketplace. In 2003, 18 countries out of 29 countries outperformed the
United States in the science literacy of 15-year-olds on the OECD's
PISA test. American students must achieve to higher standards and
perform better relative to their international peers. Unless there is a
broad pool of K-12 students with a solid foundation in STEM
disciplines, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to develop the
future mathematicians, scientists, and engineers needed for the Nation
to continue to lead the world in innovation--an issue that the Board
plans to address in the upcoming year.
Many respected reports on STEM education have been published by
well-qualified experts over the past two and a half decades. What is
immediately apparent when one reviews these reports is that,
tragically, many of these reports had excellent recommendations for
actions that were never implemented.
In developing this Action Plan, the Board has attempted to
prioritize the most important actions that can be taken by Congress and
others in order to make a significant impact on STEM education in the
Nation. These actions are not, of course, the only actions that could--
or even should--be taken to improve STEM education. Rather, the intent
of the Board in this Action Plan is to call out a few critical actions
that are absolutely essential for significant gains in STEM education
in the Nation.
In order to move STEM education forward in the Nation, the Board
believes that two major issues must be addressed--ensuring coherence in
the Nation's STEM education system and ensuring an adequate supply of
well-prepared and highly effective STEM teachers.
The Nation requires a coordinated system of STEM education. There
is a need for both horizontal coordination of STEM education among
states and vertical alignment among components of the system, from pre-
kindergarten through college. A coordinated system of STEM education
means that a student who starts kindergarten in Kansas, attends middle
school in California, and enters high school in Illinois will have the
opportunity to master the foundational skills needed for future success
in the workforce and higher education.
Second, the Nation requires a supply of well-qualified, highly
effective, and well-supported teachers. Teachers, as you are well
aware, are critically important to student learning in the classroom,
and we must make serious efforts to attract top-quality teachers into
the classroom in STEM disciplines, ensure their preparation for
teaching STEM content is thorough, and effectively support them while
they are in the classroom.
First, the Board strongly feels that increased coordination of STEM
is essential for significant improvements to be made. Coordination
should occur both across the Federal Government and among the Federal
Government and all stakeholders including, in particular, local and
State education agencies and institutions of higher education. The
Board is well aware that local and State governments bear the ultimate
responsibility in the Nation's public education system and does not
challenge this role. The actions being proposed by the Board are
intended to provide mechanisms for the Federal Government to better
support local and State efforts and for local and State education
agencies to interact effectively with each other and other stakeholders
in addition to the Federal Government.
I will not describe in detail all the recommendations in the Action
Plan for this coordination, but rather highlight, briefly, the four
places where the Board feels coordination should occur.
First, without question, the Federal Government must do a better
job of coordinating its own STEM education activities. The Academic
Competitiveness Council report that inventoried federal STEM education
programs for fiscal year 2006 put the spending total for all agencies
at more than $3 billion scattered across 100--some programs--
approximately $575 million of which was for K-12 programs. To maximize
the effectiveness of this spending and these programs, the Board's
recommendation is that all federal agencies coordinate their STEM
education efforts through the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) within the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the
Executive Office of the President. The Board recommends that given the
importance of this issue a full committee on STEM Education be created
within the NSTC.
Second, given the clear, important role that the Department of
Education plays in STEM education, the Board recommends that a new
Assistant Secretary position be created within the Department of
Education to coordinate STEM programs within the Department and to
serve as the focal point for those outside the Department to interact
with the Department on STEM education issues.
Third, much direction is given in the Action Plan to the specific
responsibilities of the National Science Foundation toward STEM
education in the Nation and how it should be prioritizing and focusing
its own activities and partnering with other federal agencies.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Board recommends the
creation of something that does not currently exist and is without
precedent--a National Council for STEM Education. The Board recommends
that Congress charter a new, non-Federal National Council for STEM
Education that would coordinate among all those involved in STEM
education, not just those at the federal level. Potential members of
the Council are shown here. The Council would be made up of
representatives from local and State governments and organizations,
professional STEM educators, the business community, higher education,
private foundations, STEM disciplinary societies, informal STEM
education, and other stakeholders. The Federal Government would be
represented on the Council through representatives from the NSTC
Committee on STEM Education that I described earlier. The role of the
Council would be to coordinate among all its members to ensure that
STEM education in the Nation moves forward. A detailed list of proposed
responsibilities may be found in the Action Plan text.
Now that I have described the ``who'' of the recommendations for
increased coordination, I briefly describe the Board's vision for a
coherent national STEM education system.
The Board's Action Plan recommends that all stakeholders work
together through the National Council for STEM Education to ensure
horizontal coordination among states and vertical alignment across
grade levels. This is particularly important in our highly
geographically mobile society. A 2004 Census Bureau report estimates
that 15 to 20 percent of school-aged children moved in the previous
year, and a 1994 GAO study reported that one out of six students had
attended three or more schools by the end of third grade. In this
context, coordination of STEM learning, which requires the systematic
building of a knowledge base, is critical. Details of each of these
aspects may be found in the text of the Action Plan. Briefly, however,
The Board recommends that all stakeholders work together, using the
National Council for STEM education to provide horizontal coordination
of STEM education among states by:
Facilitating a strategy to define national STEM
content guidelines that would outline the essential knowledge
and skills needed at each grade level;
Developing metrics to assess student performance that
are aligned with national content guidelines;
Ensuring that assessments under No Child Left Behind
promote STEM learning; and
Providing a forum to share and disseminate
information on best practices in STEM teaching and learning.
Additionally, the Board recommends that all stakeholders promote
vertical alignment of STEM education across grade levels--from pre-
kindergarten through the first years of college by:
Improving the linkage between high school and higher
education and/or the workforce; and
Creating or strengthening STEM education-focused P-16
or P-20 councils in each state.
Finally, the Board feels strongly that serious national attention
must be focused on attracting, preparing, and retaining qualified and
committed teaching candidates. The Board recognizes that much was done
in the America COMPETES Act to support STEM teacher preparation and we
are supportive of that. STEM educators should be viewed as a valuable
national resource, and the best and the brightest should be encouraged
to consider pre-college STEM teaching as a profession. Accordingly, the
Board recommends:
Developing strategies for compensating STEM teachers
at market rates;
Providing resources for the preparation of future
STEM teachers;
Increasing STEM teacher mobility between districts by
creating national STEM teacher certification standards; and
Preparing STEM teachers to teach STEM content
effectively.
Although all stakeholders must work to address shortages in the
STEM teacher supply, this is an area where institutions of higher
education must play a large role and communication must increase among
community colleges and four year institutions and among schools of
education and colleges of arts and science and schools of engineering.
To summarize, this Action Plan lays out a structure that will allow
stakeholders from local, State, and Federal governments, as well as
non-governmental STEM education stakeholder groups, to work together to
coordinate and enhance the Nation's ability to produce a numerate and
scientifically and technologically literate society and to increase and
improve the current STEM education workforce.
Summary of Public Comments
The Board received more than 100 public comments on the Action
Plan. The comments came from a broad range of stakeholders--states, K-
12 teachers, disciplinary societies, university faculty and
administrators, mathematicians, scientists and engineers, various
organizations, and parents.
Overall the comments were positive with a number noting their
gratitude for the Board's willingness to address this topic.
The dominant themes that emerged from the comments were:
(1) General support for the National Council for STEM
Education, but suggestions for ways that the Council could be
structured slightly differently. These included increasing the
level of staff support to accomplish the Council's mandate,
including additional specific groups, and suggesting alternate
ways the initial members of the Council could be appointed. A
few raised the concern that the Council could become
ineffective bureaucracy.
(2) Concern that disciplinary societies (and national labs)
were given an inadequate role in the draft Action Plan.
(3) General support for the draft Action Plan statements on
increasing STEM teacher compensation.
(4) Many comments related to a need for a sea-change in public
perception of STEM fields and student interest in these. There
were many recommendations for increased emphasis for this in
the draft Action Plan and for the need for a public campaign to
raise the profile of STEM fields.
(5) Concern that technology, engineering, and mathematics are
not adequately emphasized and that the draft Action Plan was
really more about science than the other disciplines. A
repeated concern raised was that technology and engineering
skills are in particular demand in the 21st century.
(6) Regarding national content guidelines there was a mix of
opinions about the merit of this and concerns about unintended
consequences of the implementation.
(7) Concern that not enough responsibility was assigned to the
colleges of arts and sciences and engineering to be
collaborating with colleges of education to prepare STEM
teachers.
The revisions made to the draft Action Plan in response to the
public comments were adjustments to the language and emphasis of
sections of the Action Plan rather than a significant restructuring of
the Action Plan recommendations.
Concluding Statements
In releasing this National Action Plan, the Board is making a
statement that it feels action must be taken on STEM education now. To
be frank, the United States cannot afford to let the status quo of STEM
education in the Nation continue. If this critically important, yet
often disregarded, issue is not addressed, my grandchildren and the
generations that follow will not have the same opportunities for world
leadership in STEM and standard of living as those of us serving on the
Board today have enjoyed.
Many of the recommendations in the Board's Action Plan--
particularly related to STEM teacher preparation--are consistent with
items in the America COMPETES Act that Congress passed and the
President signed into law in August. Congress is to be congratulated
for the bold steps taken there.
The Board is in agreement that although many of the steps already
taken by Congress and underway in many states through the leadership of
Governors are extraordinarily valuable and important, without a focal
point for coordination, these scattered programs likely will not be
able to effect a large change in the Nation's overall STEM education
system. The Board is convinced that the recommendations made in the
Action Plan for increased coordination of STEM education and, in
particular, the creation of an independent and non-federal National
Council for STEM Education to bring together all stakeholders must be
given serious consideration by Congress.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Biography for Steven C. Beering
Steven C. Beering received B.S. and M.D. degrees and an honorary
Doctor of Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Before
becoming President of Purdue in 1983, he served for a decade as Dean of
Medicine and Director of the Indiana University Medical Center. He
holds appointments as professor of medicine at Indiana University and
professor of pharmacology at Purdue University. He retired from the
Purdue presidency in 2000.
He served on active duty with the USAF Medical Corps from May 1957
to June 1969, achieving the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Beering has held numerous national offices, including the
chairmanship of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the
Association of American Universities. He is a former regent of the
National Library of Medicine.
He is also a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and the
Royal Society of Medicine, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Indiana Academy.
He serves on a number of national and corporate boards, including
NiSource Inc., Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, Inc., Community
Foundation of Northern Indiana, CID Corporation, and Marquis Who's Who.
He is a Trustee of the University of Pittsburgh, and the Universities
Research Association, and is Director Emeritus of the Purdue Research
Foundation.
Beering was appointed to the National Science Board in 2002,
reappointed in 2004, and elected Chairman in 2006.
STATEMENT OF MS. JUDY A. JEFFREY, DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, REPRESENTING THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL
OFFICERS
Ms. Jeffrey. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you. I am testifying today
on behalf of the Chief State School Officers and in my capacity
as Director of Education for the State of Iowa. I was also the
co-chair of a recently-related report from CCSSO regarding math
and science education.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide a State perspective
on the Action Plan. I can tell you that the Chief State School
Officers are playing a key role within our respective states to
improve science and mathematics education.
This is a very high priority for us, and although each
state may be approaching the situation in a little different
way, all believe strongly that STEM education must be a high
priority for us. States have the responsibility for guiding and
leading the local school districts in raising student
expectations, providing rigorous and relevant curriculum, and
helping determine appropriate and instructionally-helpful
assessment techniques.
In Iowa we have developed rigorous and relevant curricular
expectations in math and science with accompanying model
lessons and units to assist our teachers in developing higher-
level thinking and deepen students' learning. We have expanded
the number of middle school and high school sites to implement
a pre-engineering curriculum entitled, ``Project Lead the
Way.''
I know from personal experience in Iowa, along with other
states, we are concerned about recruiting and retaining math
and science teachers. At a time when the Nation and many states
need more engineers, we also need more math and science
teachers. I appreciate and commend the report on the
recommendation to increase STEM teacher compensation and
improve human capital.
States are also busy aligning expectations from pre-K
through 16 by working with business and higher education and
considering their own initiatives to improve articulation,
establish consistent expectations, and expand educational
opportunities for practicing teachers.
States do need help from the Federal Government, and I
agree with the report's recommendation that better coordination
is needed among all federal departments and agencies involved
in STEM education research and programs.
State departments of education face competing requirements
and priorities from different STEM education programs and
efforts, so this recommendation is a step in the right
direction to streamline federal programs.
The last thing, frankly, we need right now as we race to
compete is more bureaucracy. What I need the most right now to
help improve STEM education is the emphasis in the Action Plan
to provide and communicate research on STEM education. As our
teachers work with struggling students and those who do not
believe they can master math and science, we need the most up-
to-date research on how we can better motivate and engage
students in rigorous and relevant learning.
Funding that assists a state to implement innovative models
and actions to engage students' minds and their willingness to
pursue math and science careers is much more helpful than more
bureaucratic processes or directives.
Iowa's high school reform efforts are focusing on creating
teaching approaches that develop authentic, intellectual work
on the part of the students and teaching strategies that engage
students in relevant and meaningful tasks and high-level
skills.
Some specific concerns I have with the STEM Education
Council is the Council's charge to develop STEM's content
guidelines. This effort may easily be perceived as a creation
of national content standards. Since a large number of states
and localities are not involved in the decision-making process,
the Council will not have as much buy-in as is needed for this
type of initiative.
I do believe the Council is not the appropriate vehicle for
the creation of National STEM content standards. Instead, of
national content standards the Council could develop cross-
cutting, integrative areas that move the discussion to what the
intent of STEM education should be. We must embed the
mathematics, science, and technological skills required of
world-class students across the disciplines and within the
career and technical programs and areas.
Our needs are great, but it does not lie in more rules,
more reports, and more oversight. Each teacher deserves high-
quality, ongoing, and on-the-job professional development in
researched-based instructional strategies. Incentives from the
Federal Government to assist states to implement innovative
programs and practices to raise math and science achievement
might just provide some of the keys to unlock America's student
human potential.
What better way for American's education system to take a
front-end, center stage to raise our sights high but engaging
our educator's human spirit and desire to improve student
learning. There is much to do. We are not interested in
duplicate work that is already proceeding, nor should we hinder
our efforts to improve.
Streamlining federal work, helping states in their work,
and providing incentives for innovation would be welcomed by me
and my colleagues.
Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jeffrey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judy A. Jeffrey
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding
the National Science Board's (NSB) Action Plan for science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) education. I am testifying today on behalf
of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and in my
capacity as the Director of the Iowa Department of Education. I was
also the Co-Chair of the Council's Math and Science Education Task
Force in 2006.
Thank you for inviting me to provide a State perspective on the NSB
Action Plan. States play a key role in developing our nation's STEM
education system and have put considerable energy and resources into
improving it. Just in the last year, Iowa developed new rigorous and
relevant curricular expectations in science, expanded Project Lead the
Way accessibility, and implemented a public-private partnership related
to STEM professional development for teachers.
First, I would like to comment on the positive steps the NSB Action
Plan is taking. The report rightly addresses State responsibility for
STEM education and appropriately places emphasis on the critical need
to recruit STEM teachers and develop their skills. I also agree with
the report's recommendation that better coordination is needed among
all federal departments and agencies involved in STEM education
research and programs. State departments of education face competing
requirements and priorities from different STEM education programs, so
this recommendation is a step in the right direction to streamline
federal programs. The Action Plan places needed emphasis on the Federal
Government effectively providing and communicating research on STEM
education, which is a priority for CCSSO and one of our recommendations
for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA).
My fellow chief State school officers and I support coordination on
STEM education among states and national organizations since we learn
from sharing our experiences and ideas and adopting successful
practices from other states. In fact, recommendations from our Math and
Science Education Task Force emphasize working with national
organizations to enhance curricula, instructional materials, and the
STEM education movement more broadly. We also believe that a state has
the responsibility to align P-16 expectations, curriculum, and
licensing requirements to ensure that the State systems are aligned, to
not only create the most powerful opportunities for students but also
to ensure smooth transitions of students. States across this nation are
already engaged in this work.
The national STEM education council seeks to increase collaboration
and coordination among stakeholders; however, the council runs the risk
of creating another level of bureaucracy rather than moving the
conversation on STEM education forward. States are already taking many
steps on their own to build our students' knowledge of science,
technology, engineering, and math and align high school with college
and work expectations. These efforts should receive support from the
Federal Government so promising work can be expanded. Funding that
assists a state to implement innovative models and actions to engage
students' minds and their willingness to pursue math and science
careers is much more helpful than more bureaucratic processes or
directions. Iowa's high school reform efforts are focusing on creating
teaching approaches that develop authentic intellectual work on the
part of the students and teaching strategies that engage students in
relevant and meaningful tasks and high level skills.
There are other specific concerns I have with the STEM education
council. The council's charge to develop STEM content guidelines may
easily be perceived as creation of national content standards. Since a
large number of states and localities are not involved in the decision-
making process, the council will not have as much buy-in for this
initiative. The council may not be an appropriate vehicle for creation
of national STEM content standards. Instead of national content
standards, the council could develop crosscutting, integrative areas
that move the discussion to what is the intent of STEM education. We
must embed the mathematics, science, and technology skills required of
world class students across the disciplines and within the career and
technical courses. Also, one of the responsibilities of the council is
to create a regular report on STEM education in states and the Nation.
This may not be the best use of time and funds for the council since
there is no clear value in producing another report unless it truly
helps states and districts improve their policies.
Changes to STEM education cannot be considered without
acknowledging the current accountability environment states and
districts encounter under NCLB, which can provide a disincentive to
deep, meaningful change in STEM education. Also, as the NSB Action Plan
acknowledges, assessments must match State standards to have a
significant impact. If State standards require students to demonstrate
problem-solving skills and apply their knowledge to real world
situations, then assessments must do the same. Funding and support from
the Federal Government to create better assessments has not been
adequately provided in the past. The report recognizes the importance
of assessment and that states should enhance their math and science
assessment systems. However, the Action Plan does not address how
states would deal with the cost and amount of time it takes to produce
these more complex assessments. I believe that the Federal Government
could play a role in supporting states' development of assessments that
require high-level thinking and are also designed to provide feedback
to teachers that they can use to improve instruction. Iowa is fortunate
to have several companies that are ``experts in assessment'' in our
backyard. But, the types of assessments being discussed are expensive.
States simply do not have the resources currently to develop
assessments that measure what is truly meaningful to measure. At the
same time we must consider where limited funds can best be spent. I
would prefer investing in improving the quality of teaching.
This takes me to another topic with great focus in the report:
professional development. It is a key way that we can improve STEM
education since we must change what occurs in our classrooms if we want
to see changes in student learning. To build on the Action Plan's
recommendations around professional development, there should be
greater emphasis on communicating to education leaders and teachers
what quality really means in professional development and the knowledge
and skills STEM teachers need to be effective. On-going, in-depth, on
the job professional development will hold the greatest promise of
improving teaching and learning. Pre-service programs must also
incorporate STEM learning for elementary school classroom teachers, who
are often young children's primary science educators. The Action Plan
should acknowledge the need for prospective elementary school teachers
to receive challenging math and science content and pedagogy or course
work in their teacher preparation programs.
Overall, I am pleased to see that the National Science Board's
Action Plan for STEM education recognizes the leadership of states and
districts on STEM education issues and seeks to enhance collaboration
and communication between all STEM stakeholders. The Federal Government
should play a role in improving STEM education by increasing
coordination among federal agencies and programs and supporting and
communicating more STEM education research that is useful to educators
and policy-makers. The Federal Government needs to provide assistance
to states and districts to develop and expand innovative programs on
STEM education. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with you
about ways to improve student learning in science, technology,
engineering, and math education.
Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.
Biography for Judy A. Jeffrey
Judy Jeffrey was appointed Director of the Iowa Department of
Education in November 2004. In this role, she provides leadership and
supervision for an educational system that includes 520,000 students in
public and private accredited K-12 schools; 115,000 credit students in
15 community colleges; and 3,500 employees in 10 area education
agencies. Before serving as Director, Judy Jeffrey had been the state's
Early Childhood, Elementary & Secondary Division Administrator since
1996.
Before that, she served 24 years in the Council Bluffs Community
School district in various administrative and classroom teaching
positions. Jeffrey also has been an instructor at Creighton University,
and has taught in other Iowa districts including Cedar Falls and
Goldfield, where she began her teaching career.
She was President of the Council of Chief State School Officers
Deputy Commission from 2001-2003, and currently is a member of the
Chief State School Officers. Jeffrey earned her Bachelor's degree from
the University of Northern Iowa, her Master's degree from Creighton
University and postgraduate work at the University of Nebraska at
Omaha.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much. We have been joined by
the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, and by Dr.
McNerney from California and by Dr. Lipinski as well. Thank you
all.
Dr. Fennell.
STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCIS (SKIP) FENNELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS
Dr. Fennell. Good morning, Chairman Baird and Congressman
Ehlers. My name is Francis ``Skip'' Fennell. I am a Professor
of Education at McDaniel College in Westminster, Maryland.
Today I am here as the President of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics. At this time I will be highlighting
elements of the testimony that you have received.
First, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
about the National Science Board's National Action Plan for
STEM education. NCTM believes that creating a coherent STEM
curriculum and placing a well-qualified, highly-effective
teacher in every STEM classroom are critical goals for this
efforts. Creating an independent national council for STEM
education can reestablish the sustained critical focus in
education that was the hallmark of this country's success in
response to the launch of Sputnik 50 years ago.
Implementing all aspects of the National Science Board's
National Action Plan for addressing the critical needs of the
U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education system could produce significant, and more
importantly, enduring changes in STEM education.
NCTM especially supports those recommendations that
acknowledge the need for more and better STEM teachers. Time
and ago research has shown that the most important factor in
student achievement is the quality of the teacher. All teachers
must understand how students learn. Highly-qualified teachers
of mathematics not only understand but also invest in the
particular culture of their students and school, and they must
actively engage students of diverse backgrounds and strengths
in significant and challenging mathematics.
The creation of an assistant secretary of STEM education at
the Department of Education would bring much needed
coordination among the numerous existing programs that address
STEM education, and the formation of a new, independent, non-
federal national council for STEM education to coordinate
programs nationwide would raise the profile and importance of
STEM education and development.
We also believe that a coherent STEM education roadmap can
be defined through the combined efforts of the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Education. We strongly
encourage capitalizing on the work that is currently being done
on learning and educational practices of the National Science
Foundation. This work can augment and improve instructional
practice and student learning, topics which are currently being
examined by the National Mathematics Panel of which I am a
member.
As the Board noted, one of the most significant challenges
facing the STEM fields and mathematics education is a lack of
curricular coherence. Curricula today are dominated by long
lists of very specific learning expectations. How does a
teacher, typically a generalist, at the elementary school level
identify what is most important at the fourth grade level and
try to deal with that common, perhaps tiring, criticism that
our curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep. Greater
curricular coherence is needed horizontally among states and
vertically across grade levels.
In 2006, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
addressed the coherence issue with the publication of,
``Curriculum Focal Points for Pre-kindergarten through Grade
Eight Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence.'' The focal points
describes the most significant mathematical concepts and skills
for each grade level and presents a way to organize and connect
critical mathematics topics from grade to grade.
The focal points build a foundation for higher-level
mathematics beginning with algebra. Curriculum focal points
present the framework to guide states and school districts as
they design and organize their expectation and assessments.
They are intended to frame discussions that will eventually
guide textbook publishers and assessment developers as well.
The focal points answer the question: What are the key
mathematical ideas or topics on which the others build? Another
mathematics panel topic, the goal is for the focal points to be
used in the development of mathematics curriculum goals that
are more cohesive from grade to grade and from school to
school, and with a high rate of mobility in this country, dare
I say, from state to state.
This process has begun. NCTM has made presentation to work
with more than 20 States, including Oregon and Maryland. They
are now using the focal points to assist them as they revise
State standards and assessments.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't address an element
of a child's education that is often overlooked. As the
National Science Board and other prominent education leaders
have noted, a child's first and perhaps most influential
teacher is a parent. Any call to action must recognize the
critical role that families play in encouraging children and
exposing them to knowledge and ideas about any topic or
subject, including mathematics. This does not mean that all
parents have to solve all the problems, know all the answers,
but they must value the importance of this subject.
In closing, and I cannot tell you how pleased and excited I
am about the attention that mathematics and the STEM
disciplines are receiving. The COMPETES bill, the NSB's plan
and discussions about changes to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act are the fruits of years of effort to bring about
change, and I look forward to seeing where it takes mathematics
education and more importantly, our nation's students.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fennell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Francis (Skip) Fennell
Good morning, Chairman Baird and Congressman Ehlers. My name is
Francis (Skip) Fennell. I am a Professor of Education at McDaniel
College in Westminster, Maryland. I am here today as President of the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).
First, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the
important effort undertaken by the National Science Board to develop a
national action plan for STEM education. NCTM believes that creating a
coherent STEM curriculum and placing a well-qualified, highly effective
teacher in every STEM classroom are critical goals for this effort. In
a national system where every local school board is empowered to decide
what is taught and who does the teaching in every classroom, there are
daunting, but not insurmountable, challenges to achieving these goals.
By establishing an independent National Council for STEM Education, we
can re-establish the sustained critical focus in education that was the
hallmark of this great country's success in response to the launch of
Sputnik 50 years ago. We support the creation of a national council and
are optimistic that it would develop an agenda that would identify and
address the issues that would make a meaningful difference in student
learning. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is very
willing and eager to support this effort.
Before I turn to NCTM's comments on the report, I would like to
address an element of a child's education that is often overlooked by
policy experts and elected officials. As members of the National
Science Board and other prominent education leaders have noted, a
child's first--and perhaps most--influential teacher is a parent. Any
call to action--small or large--must recognize the crucial role that
parents play in encouraging children and exposing them to knowledge and
ideas about any topic or subject, including mathematics. Without
parental support and involvement, it will be very difficult to convince
young people of the urgency and importance of STEM literacy in this
country.
Just as parents must do their part, educators and lawmakers must do
what we can to reach beyond the ``best and brightest'' students,
lending tangible support and extending viable options to all young
people throughout our K-12 system. And it is important that we truly
reach all students and meaningfully address the persistent problem of
achievement gaps in education. This is a challenge for all of us
involved in education, and it is one that we must continually address
in all its forms.
The NSB STEM Action Plan
As you know, in August the National Science Board released a draft
of what is now its final report, ``A National Action Plan for
Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.'' NCTM submitted a
number of comments, expressing support for the overall intent of the
plan and, in general, its recommendations. Implementing all aspects of
the plan could produce significant--and, more important--enduring,
change in STEM education, laying the foundation for high academic
achievement in STEM fields in the future and providing all students
with the knowledge required to be successful, productive citizens.
NCTM especially supports those recommendations that acknowledge the
need for more and better STEM teachers. Time and again, research has
shown that the most important factor in student achievement is the
quality of the teacher. We endorse all efforts to ensure that students
are taught by well-qualified and highly effective teachers. We strongly
support offering resources for their academic preparation, increasing
STEM teacher mobility between districts by creating national STEM
teacher certification standards, and preparing STEM teachers to teach
STEM content effectively.
It is the position of the Council that every student has the right
to be taught mathematics by a highly qualified teacher--a teacher who
knows mathematics well and who can guide students' understanding and
learning. A highly qualified teacher understands how students learn
mathematics, expects all students to learn mathematics, employs a wide
range of teaching strategies, and is committed to lifelong professional
learning.
All teachers must understand how students learn mathematics. They
must know how to plan, conduct, and assess the effectiveness of
mathematics lessons. In addition, they must listen and question,
knowing how and when to make important teaching decisions. Highly
qualified teachers of mathematics not only understand, but also invest
in, the particular culture of their students and school. They dedicate
time and energy both inside and outside the classroom. And they are
adept at actively engaging students of diverse backgrounds and
strengths in significant and challenging mathematical tasks that help
them understand concepts, learn skills, and solve problems.
The creation of an Assistant Secretary of STEM Education at the
Department would bring much-needed coordination among the numerous
existing programs that address STEM education. And the formation of a
new, independent, non-federal National Council for STEM Education to
coordinate programs nationwide would raise the profile and importance
of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education and
development.
Finally, we believe that a coherent ``STEM education roadmap'' can
be defined through the combined efforts of the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Education. Working together and
drawing on the findings and expertise of other agencies and
organizations in the education and scientific communities, these
partners can attain this goal, and its achievement will support and
serve STEM education well. We strongly encourage capitalizing on the
work that is currently being accomplished on learning and educational
practices by the National Science Foundation. This work can augment and
improve current instructional practice and student learning.
The forthcoming work of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel
should also provide guidance on the future for mathematics education.
The panel's report, which will be published and released in February,
continues to emphasize the importance of research on the teaching and
learning of mathematics and the need for high-quality teachers and
curricular coherence, through findings that are reinforced by research.
NCTM's Curriculum Focal Points
As the Board noted in its report, one of the most significant
challenges facing STEM fields and mathematics education is a lack of
curricular coherence in the early grades. Today's mathematics curricula
tend to be dominated by long lists of very specific goals, standards,
objectives, or learning expectations, which present teachers with a
formidable challenge. How does a teacher identify what is most
important and address the common criticism that our curriculum is ``a
mile wide and an inch deep?''
The impact of this lack of curricular coherence is felt in many
ways. For example, student mobility is much greater today than in the
past, and it continues to increase. More and more students are changing
schools, and frequently they must adapt to a completely different
curriculum as a result. Greater curricular coherence is needed
horizontally, among states, and vertically, across grade levels.
In 2006, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics addressed
this issue with the publication of Curriculum Focal Points for
Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence.
Curriculum Focal Points describes significant mathematical concepts and
skills for each grade level. It presents a way to organize and connect
critical mathematics topics from grade to grade. Focal Points are the
related ideas, concepts, skills, and procedures that form the
foundation for understanding, lasting learning, and success in higher-
level mathematics, beginning with algebra.
Curriculum Focal Points presents a focused framework to guide
states and school districts as they design and organize the next
revisions of their expectations, standards, curriculum, and assessment
programs. The focal points are intended to frame discussions that will
eventually inform the decisions of textbook publishers and assessment
developers, as well. They answer the question, ``What are the key
mathematical ideas or topics on which the others build?'' The ultimate
goal would be for these suggestions, the Focal Points, to lead to the
development of mathematics curriculum goals that are more cohesive from
grade to grade and from school to school.
In fact, this process has begun in many states. NCTM has already
made presentations in, or worked with, more than 20 states that are
referring to Curriculum Focal Points as they develop State standards
and assessments. Because mathematics is such an important foundation
for all STEM fields, and because younger students learn mathematics
almost exclusively in the classroom, the early mathematics education of
all students is crucial to the future success of any STEM planning and
policies.
Conclusion
Building on the momentum created by a series of landmark reports
and the tireless work of leaders in education, business, industry, and
government, the Congress in recent months has enacted important new
policies that will potentially fuel this work. You and your colleagues
on the House Science and Technology Committee accomplished much of this
work. We thank you for all your efforts. Mathematics educators are
particularly encouraged by new investments in teacher recruitment and
retention programs, including the changes made to the Noyce Scholarship
program, and a new Math Now initiative, which will help mathematics
teachers teach students who are the hardest to teach. These
innovations, which we hope will be funded, are sorely needed.
In closing, I cannot tell you how excited I am about the attention
that mathematics and the STEM disciplines are receiving. The COMPETES
bill, the NSB's plan, and conversations around changes to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act are the fruits of years of
effort to bring about change, and I look forward to seeing where it
takes mathematics educators and our nation's students.
I will be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
Biography for Francis (Skip) Fennell
Dr. Fennell has experience as a classroom teacher, a principal, and
a supervisor of instruction. He is currently Professor of Education at
McDaniel College and President of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Widely published in articles and textbooks related to elementary
and middle-grade mathematics education, Dr. Fennell has also authored
chapters in yearbooks and resource books published by the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In addition, he has played key
leadership roles with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
the Research Council for Diagnostic/Prescriptive Mathematics, the
Mathematical Sciences Education Board, the National Science Foundation,
the Maryland Mathematics Commission, and the Association for
Mathematics Teacher Educators. On April 29, 2006 he began serving a
two-year term as president of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Dr. Fennell has received numerous honors and awards, including
Maryland's Outstanding Mathematics Educator (1990), McDaniel College's
Professor of the Year (1997), and the CASE--Carnegie Foundation
Professor of the Year (1997). He has also has been the principal
investigator on grants from the National Science Foundation, the U.S.
Department of Education, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, and
the ExxonMobil Foundation. He earned his Bachelor's degree from Lock
Haven University of Pennsylvania and a Master's from Bloomsburg
University of Pennsylvania before receiving a Ph.D. from Pennsylvania
State University.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Fennell.
Ms. Gayl.
STATEMENT OF MS. CHRISANNE L. GAYL, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Gayl. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today.
First, let me express our appreciation for the Committee's
leadership in this area. Science, technology, engineering, and
math or ``STEM'' education, is an important part of the
education and skills that our students need to become
productive workers, good citizens, and intelligent consumers in
the 21st century.
In order to remain effective and relevant, our education
system must be able to provide students with the content,
knowledge, and skills that they will need to pursue STEM-
related careers if they choose and also to adapt to the changes
that society demands.
The National Science Board's Action Plan offers some useful
suggestions on ways that the Federal Government can help to
enrich teaching and learning in these fields. If I leave the
Committee with just one overall impression today, I hope it is
this: NSBA believes that this Action Plan is a step in the
right direction. In particular, its focus on insuring an
adequate supply of well-prepared and effective STEM teachers is
essential to improving student learning.
However, we caution the Committee against some of the
Board's recommendations that could ultimately erode State and
local control over and public accountability for education. I
would like to highlight a few of the key recommendations which
are of particular interest to local school boards.
First, NSBA strongly supports the plan's focus on
developing human capital to meet the need for an abundant
supply of well-prepared STEM teachers. Local school systems
encounter many barriers to recruiting and retaining high-
quality teachers. The clear link between teacher quality and
student achievement, coupled with estimates that two million
new teachers will be needed in the next decade, argues for a
sustained commitment and partnership among all levels of
government to build and maintain a strong teaching force.
NSBA supports an array of incentives, many of which are
included in this report, to recruit and retain teachers,
including performance-based pay, bonuses, alternative
certification programs, and student loan forgiveness.
In addition, NSBA agrees that Congress should help
strengthen teacher preparation programs within universities to
insure appropriate alignment and accountability. Clearly we
must insure that teachers have the content knowledge that their
students will be expected to learn.
NSBA believes that the creation of a STEM education council
could be helpful in coordinating the various STEM-related
initiatives throughout the Federal Government, as well as in
disseminating best practices and developing tools and resources
for educators to use in the field.
However, as proposed, this council would have significantly
greater powers and considerable influence over the direction of
our nation's education policy, with little to no accountability
or oversight. The approach of empowering a National council to
develop academic consent, guidelines, and teacher certification
requirements would divest State and local governments of their
traditional responsibilities and authority over public
education.
NSBA believes that the dissemination of content guidelines
could be helpful in enriching math and science curriculum and
helping communities to set clear expectations for their
students.
However, we caution that it is a slippery slope from
content guidelines to national standards. The Board's
recommendation to align newly-developed content guidelines with
the NAEP test and NCLB-related assessments would create a
situation in which these guidelines really are not voluntary,
since all states are mandated under federal law to participate
in these assessments.
As a result, we believe that it is absolutely critical for
this plan to emphasize flexibility for local and State
education agencies, to choose curricula, and to design
standards that best meet their needs.
Lastly, let me say that while this report addresses many
important areas, it does not mention one significant need: the
provision of hands-on, up-to-date, laboratory equipment and
facilities which are critical in order to successfully
implement a relevant STEM program. Failure to provide such
resources will negate the efforts to implement high-quality
standards and well-prepared teachers.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Board's Action
Plan is an important contribution to the national dialogue on
STEM education. Greater federal leadership is needed in this
area if we are to meet the challenges of the future. Congress
can make an important contribution by providing school
districts with the models, tools, incentives, and resources
that they need to improve STEM education in their communities.
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify here
today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gayl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chrisanne L. Gayl
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the National
Science Board's (NSB's) proposal to improve STEM education.
My name is Chrisanne Gayl. I am the Director, Federal Programs at
the National School Boards Association. Our association represents the
Nation's 95,000 local school board members.
Big Picture
First, let me express our appreciation for the Committee's
leadership in this area. Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM)
education is an important part of the education and skills that
students need to become productive adults and to compete successfully
in the 21st century workforce.
As you know, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that the
U.S. economy will add 1.5 million scientists, engineers,
mathematicians, and technicians (of varying levels) between 2004 and
2014.\1\ We must keep in mind, however that while jobs in the STEM
fields are growing, they still comprise a small percentage of the 18.9
million jobs that are forecasted to be created in the U.S. economy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BLS, Occupational employment projections to 2014; Monthly Labor
Review, November 2005.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, as our world becomes more globally competitive,
knowledge-based, and technologically driven, the need for students to
develop STEM literacy has become more important. Evidence suggests that
businesses of all types are encountering a need for employees with
higher-level skills, regardless of the path that they choose after
graduation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ACT, Inc., Ready for college or ready for work: Same or
different? 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, as individuals and as citizens, we are faced with
decisions every day that demand high levels of understanding and
judgment. A trip to the doctor, for example, often requires an
understanding of statistics and analytical ability so we can compare
the relative merits of particular treatments. As voters, we are called
upon to make choices about issues regarding science such as global
warming and stem-cell research.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Barth, Patte, ``A Common Core Curriculum for the New Century,''
Thinking K-16, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Winter 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the reality is that not all students--not even the majority
of students--will go into STEM-specific jobs, the need for basic STEM
literacy has become necessary in order to be productive workers, good
citizens, and intelligent consumers. As responsible stewards of our
children's future, our education system should be designed to provide
students with the high-level skills they will need if they choose to
pursue STEM-specific career paths, as well as adapt to the changes that
our society demands in order to remain effective and relevant in the
21st century.
Throughout the country local school boards have been working to
strengthen STEM education in a number of ways--through the integration
of new technologies into the classroom, especially in subjects such as
math and science where these tools are core to their real world
application and simulation, offering more online learning
opportunities, and increasing math and science course requirements.
Many school districts have also increased their offering of
rigorous Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Research has shown that
students who take AP courses are more competitive with their
international peers on international assessments, and are more likely
to pursue higher education degrees in science, technology, engineering
and math.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ College Board, Advanced Placement: Report to the Nation 2007.
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod-downloads/about/
news-info/ap/2007/2007-ap-report-nation.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can help to foster these educational successes by
demonstrating greater leadership at the federal level. The National
Science Board's Action Plan offers some useful suggestions of ways that
the Federal Government can elevate the importance of STEM education and
enable opportunities that will enrich teaching and learning in these
fields. As an example, the Federal Government is in the unique position
to assemble the profound knowledge base that exists within these
disciplines and to disseminate information on effective tools, models,
and practices that will strengthen STEM education. Additionally,
Congress can provide valuable incentives to improve teacher quality and
spur local investment in this area.
If I leave the Committee with just one overall impression today I
hope it is this: We believe that this Action Plan is a step in the
right direction for promoting high-quality STEM education in the U.S.
Its emphasis on increasing public appreciation for and understanding of
STEM education is consistent with the key work of local school boards
to engage their communities and ensure support for these initiatives.
In particular, the Plan's focus on ensuring an adequate supply of well-
prepared and effective STEM teachers is absolutely essential to
enhancing student learning in these fields.
However, we caution the Committee against some of the
recommendations in this plan that could ultimately erode State and
local control over education, which is the foundation of our education
system and critical to public support for any initiative. The top-down
approach of creating a national council to set academic content
guidelines and teacher certification requirements is troublesome for
school board members who value local flexibility and must deal with the
day-to-day operational challenges of implementing these policies.
Furthermore, let me say that while the report addresses many
important areas, it does not mention one significant need, the
provision of up-to-date laboratory equipment and modern classrooms,
which are necessary to successfully implement a relevant STEM program.
Such facilities are essential for students to be able to experiment,
create, and get a hands-on feeling for what the world of work is like
in these fields. This scale of modernization will require a large
infusion of capital and clear design guidelines if America's STEM
classrooms are to be appropriately outfitted for the type of
instruction that is envisioned in this report. Failure to provide the
adequate resources to create appropriate classrooms for STEM teaching
will negate the efforts to implement high-quality standards and provide
well-prepared teachers.
In the remainder of my testimony, I would like to highlight a few
of the key recommendations contained in the Action Plan, which are of
particular interest to local school boards.
Qualified Teachers
NSBA strongly supports the focus on ``developing human capital'' in
this plan to meet the need for an abundant supply of well-prepared
teachers in STEM fields, a sine qua non in improving our education
system.
As the report rightly notes, local school systems encounter many
barriers to recruiting and retaining high-quality STEM teachers. The
clear link between teacher quality and student achievement, coupled
with estimates that two million new teachers will be needed in the next
decade to address retirements and turnover, argues for a sustained
commitment and partnership among all levels of government to build and
maintain the teaching force needed to make a positive difference for
America's students.
NSBA supports an array of incentives, many of which are mentioned
in this report, to recruit and retain teachers in high-need STEM
subjects and other areas, including performance-based pay, bonuses,
alternative certification programs, and student loan forgiveness. NSBA
believes that the best approach to increase teacher quality is to
leverage the resources of the Federal Government to encourage the
creation and expansion of a range of strategies, many of which states
and school districts already are implementing.
In addition, NSBA agrees that Congress should help strengthen
teacher preparation programs within universities to ensure appropriate
alignment with academic standards and foster greater accountability
among these programs. Clearly, we must ensure that teachers have the
content knowledge that their students will be expected to know. We
would suggest, however, that teacher preparation programs be aligned
with existing State academic standards, which all states are required
to have in place under No Child Left Behind, as opposed to ``national
content guidelines'' that would be developed by an independent STEM
education council.
Given that the majority of tomorrow's teachers are already in
today's classrooms, we also believe that more attention should be given
to developing and bringing-to-scale high-quality professional
development programs for existing teachers. These programs can play an
important role in updating teachers' knowledge and skills in their
subject area and have been shown to have a positive impact on teacher
retention.
National STEM Council
NSBA believes that the creation of a STEM education council could
be helpful in coordinating various STEM programs and initiatives
throughout the Federal Government, disseminating best practices, and
developing tools and resources that educators can use in the field.
However, as drafted, NSB's plan calls for the creation of an
independent, non-Federal National Council that would have significant
powers beyond these tasks and considerable influence over the direction
of our nation's education policy.
For example, the council would: coordinate the development of
national standards for STEM teacher certification, coordinate and
assist with the development of national STEM content guidelines, and
help states establish and strengthen P-16 councils.
NSBA believes that giving such responsibilities to an independent
national council is in direct conflict with our locally and
democratically-controlled public education system. Such an entity would
divest State and local governments of their responsibilities and
authority over public education, and institute a governance structure
with little or no oversight or accountability that would be responsible
for high-level decision-making.
Although the Board acknowledges in their plan that local and State
governments ``bear the ultimate responsibility in the Nation's system
of public education,'' there seems to be a fundamental mismatch between
what the plan says about the responsibilities of local government and
what it is proposing in terms of the overall scope and mission of the
council. It is worth noting that there are no permanent seats on the
council to be filled by local school board members who are local
governing officials. Yet, this entity would have significant
responsibilities to coordinate among Federal, State, and local
governments and impose its recommendations on such groups.
National Content Guidelines
As noted, one of the council's responsibilities would be to
``coordinate and assist with the development of national STEM content
guidelines for pre-K-12.'' NSBA believes that the dissemination of
content guidelines may be helpful in enriching math and science
curriculum and setting clear learning expectations for students,
however, we caution that it is a slippery slope from content guidelines
to national standards.
The Board's recommendation to align these newly developed content
guidelines with metrics, including the National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP) tests and NCLB-related assessments, would create a
situation in which these guidelines really aren't voluntary since all
states are required to participate in NAEP and to administer math and
science assessments for particular grades under No Child Left Behind.
As a result, we believe it is absolutely critical for this plan to
emphasize that these guidelines should allow flexibility for local and
State education agencies to choose curricula and design standards that
best meet their needs.
As the Board notes in its plan, considerable work has already been
done by a number of groups including the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, and the
Association for the Advancement of Science through its Project 2061, to
develop content guidelines or voluntary standards in various
disciplines. Therefore, we need not reinvent the wheel. However,
consideration should be given as to how such work fits within the
larger context of ensuring that students are college and workforce-
ready.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to say that the National Science
Board's Action Plan is an important contribution to the national
dialogue on STEM education. Greater federal leadership is needed in
this area if we are to meet the challenges of the future. The National
School Boards Association embraces the plan's priority goals--to ensure
greater coherence in the STEM education and to ensure that students are
taught by well-qualified, highly-effective teachers. However, we remind
the Committee that such policy goals must be workable and practical at
the local level in order for them to succeed. Congress can help to make
this happen by providing school districts with the models, tools,
incentives, and resources they need to improve STEM education in their
communities.
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify here today.
Local school board members are encouraged by the attention that this
committee has given to improving STEM education in the U.S. and the
work that it has done to help ensure our children will be able to
compete effectively in global economy. We look forward to continuing to
working with you on this important issue.
Biography for Chrisanne L. Gayl
Chrisanne Gayl joined NSBA in 2005 as Director, Federal Programs
where she is responsible for developing and implementing legislative
strategies to advance the federal policy interests of local school
boards. Her work focuses on a variety of issue areas including
education technology, workforce competitiveness, school health, and
early childhood education. Before joining NSBA, Chrisanne was the
Policy Director at the Workforce Alliance where she oversaw the
organization's direct and grassroots advocacy on federal legislation
and national funding initiatives related to workforce education and
training. She also served as the Federal Representative for former
California Governor Gray Davis, representing the Governor in
Washington, DC on federal education policy, as well other social
issues. Chrisanne holds a Master's degree in Public Policy from
Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute and received her
undergraduate degree from Colby College in Waterville, Maine.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT J. SEMPER, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, THE EXPLORATORIUM, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
Dr. Semper. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Ehlers. It is my pleasure to be testifying on behalf of the
Association of Science Technology Centers in response to the
National Science Board's Action Plan. I am Executive Associate
Director of the Exploratorium, a museum in San Francisco,
representing 348 members of ASTC. ASTC members reach 58 million
children and adults annually in bringing science and technology
and mathematics and engineering to their communities.
It is fitting today that we are having this meeting 50
years after Sputnik. At that time an investment was made by the
Federal Government to change STEM education. Decisions were
made, and things got done. I am a personal product of that
experience. I left fifth grade a happy-go-lucky kid, came back
in sixth grade and found new equipment in the hall, a new
textbook in front of me, and most importantly, a new teacher
who had been trained by an NSF program to take me under her
wing and to teach me science. All along after that through
programs in college and graduate school I was supported by
nationally-supported endeavors about science education, and it
is a rare opportunity for me to actually thank the government,
representatives of the government for that opportunity. Thank
you very much for me but also for many other people in this
country.
What is different 50 years later? Well, in many respects
some of the things are the same, but one big thing is
different. I, or my representative, would not have been here,
because science centers did not exist 50 years ago. There were
science museums doing good work, but the field of science
centers developed actually as a result of the investments made
50 years ago in science education, again, through agencies like
the National Science Foundation and other agencies like NASA.
And why that is important is I think we have a new
landscape now to actually support new endeavors in STEM
education. The rise of science centers, Pacific Science Center
(Seattle) is an early one, and of course, OMSI (Portland) and
The Exploratorium and others are key elements of the
development of the out-of-school movement in science education,
which includes science centers but also media, the Internet,
and other kinds of after-school programs.
These programs offer a supporting structure for science
education that did not exist before, and it is one of the
reasons why the notion of having in the NSB report a coherent
structure and a place at the table for these kinds of agencies
is so critical.
This is really important if we take our view of science
education from the kids' eye view and not the institutional eye
view. If we think of our kids, they basically are in school,
but they also go to museums, they go to museums, they watch
media, they go home and talk with their parents about science,
they have interactions with peers, they go to after-school
programs. This is really important if you realize only 1,000
hours of science instruction is provided K-12 to our students.
That number, 1,000 hours, is not going to change. That is one
half of an adult's working year. We have to look at the entire
system if we are going to actually look at the questions of
improving STEM education.
Therefore, ASTC and the science center community supports
both of the priority recommendations included in the plan
presented by the National Science Board; the coherence in the
Nation's STEM education system and recommendations assuring an
adequate supply of well-prepared and highly-effective teachers.
And I want to point out that science centers are actually able
to play a role in meeting both of these recommendations.
First the coherence issue. It is critical that we engage
all the stakeholders in this process, but, of course, all of
these stakeholders have different funding strategies. The main
school systems are funded by states and local funding with
federal funding coming through the states down to the local
schools and school districts. The science centers community, my
community is funded by local contributions, by philanthropic
contributions, by people paying tickets, money at the door, and
also by national programs that we can compete for. These two
areas do not come in contact very well, and we need to have a
place of engagement so we can understand who can do what best
and how these programs could come together.
Science centers, for example, are effective in providing
research on learning and educational practices. For example,
the Center for Informal Learning at School at my organization
is doing research on how museums can participate in the STEM
education process broadly.
They also are involved in developing human capital in terms
of teacher development. In fact, science centers were involved
in producing about 25 percent of the elementary teacher in-
service training a number of years ago, and we have a number of
teachers, for example, at my institution from around the Bay
Area coming to workshops and becoming a part of a teacher home
at the Exploratorium.
And most importantly science centers also can provide
support for the public appreciation of science and of science
education. There are opportunities for a forum for discussion
in communities about what science education should be like.
We are also supportive of the inclusion of science centers
and other parties in the State P-16 councils. In California our
council includes representatives from districts, from
universities, from community colleges, from workforce, but, for
example, it does not include representatives from libraries,
from museums, from media, all a part of the solution to the
problem. If we can get coordinated and integrated, I think we
can maximize the investment that is being made in each of these
sectors in a strong way.
Looking at the teacher issue, we completely agree that
well-qualified teachers is critical if we are going to reach
under-served students, and there is a lot of research that
shows under-served students get under-qualified instruction.
That has to change. One way to address this would be to
actually develop new forms of professional development for
teachers to go beyond the traditional university model, school
district model, to think of alternatives that might include
institutions like ours in the science center world, or in other
worlds that could help make a new method of development of
teacher education similar to what was done in medical school
100 years ago in terms of professional development.
And finally I would like to address the question of
roadmaps. It is clear that we need a roadmap. We need a
national roadmap for science education in this country. NSF
needs an internal roadmap because we are really faced with an
engineering problem. How do we engineer improvement in science
and science education at large? And a roadmap that is clear and
concise so people can find their role would be very powerful in
that regard.
Thank you for your interest, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Semper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert J. Semper
Chairman Baird, Vice Chairman McNerney, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the findings and recommendations contained in
the National Science Board's Action Plan for STEM Education. My name is
Rob Semper and I am Executive Associate Director of the Exploratorium,
a Museum of Science, Art and Human Perception in San Francisco. The
Exploratorium is one of over 348 science centers and museums in the
United States that are members of the Association of Science Technology
Centers (ASTC). These institutions offer critical science, technology,
engineering and mathematics education in informal settings to over 58
million children and adults every year including specific programs for
students and teachers. I have been asked to represent the views of the
field of these informal science education institutions to the NSB's
Action Plan.
It is fitting that this hearing is occurring 50 years to the week
that this nation was shocked by the launch of Sputnik into addressing
the issue of STEM education in a comprehensive way. As a result of that
experience an investment was made that made a difference and that
difference has been demonstrated by the significant advancement in STEM
leadership that this country has enjoyed since that time. Building on
the existing science education reform work already underway, the
national resolve to invest in STEM education resulted in new curriculum
being developed and disseminated, enhanced professional development of
teachers being provided, and the launching of significant efforts to
promote public engagement in science. New science education research
and development organizations were created to support this work. A STEM
education improvement infrastructure was created. We called on our
universities, our scientists and our schools to work together to
improve the situation and they did. In short the country was galvanized
to do something about the problem.
I am a product of the tremendous effort and investment that was
made at that time to improve science education in this country. Upon
returning to school to start my sixth grade class, I was met with the
scene of crates of lab equipment being unpacked in the hall, newly
minted science textbooks and, most importantly, a sixth grade teacher
who had been trained in an NSF sponsored summer science teacher
institute who took me under her wing as a budding scientist. Later in
high school I was taught physics by an Ex Navy nuclear submarine
engineer who entered teaching through a Department of Defense career
transfer program and in college I attended a summer NASA undergraduate
research program where I learned what it meant to be a scientist
instead of a science student. In graduate school I participated as an
instructor in an NSF sponsored program to introduce a new self paced
science curriculum at the undergraduate level and I spend a summer at
Los Alamos National Laboratory in their graduate student program doing
exciting physics research.
I am mentioning all of this not to impress you with my resume but
to point out that each and every one of these experiences was supported
by the Federal Government and would just not have happened if there had
not been strong federal support for STEM education. And in particular I
want to point out the vital and unique role that NSF played in leading
and supporting this effort over the years. It was their support of
quality programs through their rigorous peer review process of
proposals from universities, schools, museums and education research
labs that provided the research, development and implementation of much
of this work.
Today we are eerily confronting the same concerns as our previous
generation did in 1957. We perceive a threat to our future, we realize
that we need to make an investment in STEM education to mitigate this
threat, and we are asking the Federal Government to help. In many
respects we might think that we are in the same place as 1957 and
indeed many of the proposed solutions today might be similar to those
proposed 50 years ago. But at least in one major respect things are
quite different. The field that I represent here today simply did not
exist.
One of the legacies of the post Sputnik investment in STEM
education was the creation and widespread dissemination of a new kind
of educational institution, the science center. These new places were
born out of the confluence of the investigation-focused science
education reform movement of the late 1950s and the learner-centered
educational movement of the mid to late 60s. They borrowed interactive
exhibits from the science-and-industry museums, the informational
displays of the Worlds Fair science exhibitions, and the science
demonstrations common to schools and universities to create new
institutions that contained collections of ideas rather than things.
These institutions rode the wave of the de-authoritization of formal
education--the dramatic shift toward the empowerment of students and
individuals to be in control of their own learning--that swept through
the country and the world at that time. The oft-repeated statement by
Frank Oppenheimer, the Exploratorium's founder, that ``No one flunks a
museum'' became emblematic of a public education movement that has
spawned hundreds of science centers and has advanced exhibition
development in science museums, natural history museums, zoos,
aquariums, and planetariums worldwide.
These science centers now form a powerful new community-based
resource that can play a significant role in advancing STEM education
nationwide. They serve a significant part of the U.S. population. They
offer experiences that are rich in science, and as importantly,
engaging to visitors of all ages. They are repositories of science-
trained staff that help students gain a deeper understanding of
science, nature and the world around us. They support teacher
professional development activities for grades K-12 and they develop
curriculum. They partner with schools, universities, industry and
community groups to provide STEM education for all citizens. And they
provide a focus of commitment to science in their community that is
both respected and accessible.
For example every year, my organization, the Exploratorium,
welcomes over 500,000 children and adults to a lively exhibit space in
San Francisco that is filled with 500 exhibits on topics as diverse as
light and color, genetics and the brain. We provide the public access
to the latest images from the Mars rover, an opportunity to talk to
scientists working in Antarctica and the science of skateboard wheels.
Our audience includes 100,000 field trip students who come from the
diverse school population of the Bay Area, many of whom are under-
served in STEM. Through the use of the Internet we reach an additional
18 million kids and adults nationwide with online exhibits and teaching
tools developed at our institution. Using the exhibits, our
professional development staff works intensively with over 500 teachers
a year to develop their science teaching skills and actively support an
alumni community of over 2,500 Bay Area teachers who use the museum as
their science home away from home.
The development over the years of this robust group of science
centers and museums, along with the expansion of other out of school
resources such as after-school programs and clubs and science related
media, is an important part of the solution to advancing STEM
education. To successfully make the improvement in STEM education that
we all desire, we will need to make use of all of these opportunities
due to one sobering fact. The average amount of time that a student
will spend in school on science throughout their K-12 career is only
1,000 hours. That is one half of an adult working year. Given the fact
that there is no realistic prospect of increasing this time due to the
competing demands on school time, we simply must take advantage of the
out of school time if we are going to make headway on STEM education.
Response to Specific Questions
It is with this background as a member of the science center and
museum community represented by ASTC that I am responding to the
recommendations of the NSB report and addressing the questions posed to
me by Chairman Baird.
Does the NSB Action Plan address what you see as the key issues for
improving STEM education? Are there specific actions or policies that
you believe are important to improvement of STEM education that are not
included? What are the principal barriers to achieving the recommended
changes to STEM education system?
We support both of the Board's priority recommendations: (1) the
need to ensure coherence in the Nation's STEM education system; and (2)
the need to ensure that students are taught by well-qualified and
highly effective teachers. Our field is pleased that the report
recognizes the importance of informal science education institutions.
They are the catalyst for sparking interest in STEM issues at all ages.
Clearly this interest has overwhelmingly positive future implications
for workforce development, teacher preparation, science interest and
literacy and quality of life. However, we are concerned that our field
is not always considered as part of the solution when the talk turns to
STEM education.
Priority Recommendation A: Ensure Coherence in the Nation's STEM
Education System
This is a key issue for improving STEM education because it
addresses the key barrier to achieving the recommended changes to STEM
education--recognizing the fact that STEM education is not just the
province of the schools and therefore bringing all the stakeholders to
the same table. There are many different things to be gained by this
coherence but let me give you an example from my own field.
While our children (and our teachers) experience science in and out
of school, the systems of formal schooling and out of school learning
opportunities currently do not have a place to talk with each other to
develop a coordinated approach. They are funded by different processes
at the federal, State and local level, they have different (albeit
complementary) goals and they have different strengths and weaknesses.
By stepping back and looking at the STEM learning environment as a
whole with the permanent representation of the informal education
community on both the proposed National Council and the State P-16
Councils, we would have the opportunity to develop the needed coherency
and synergy between these two worlds.
A.1 Actions for Coordination of Key Stakeholders
This action item is an exceedingly important part of this plan from
our perspective. Traditionally as private, non-profit organizations,
science centers get national support for their own educational
activities from peer reviewed grant opportunities primarily at the NSF,
NASA, NIH and the Department of Education. They also provide a venue
for public engagement for the science outreach activities of NSF, NASA,
NIH, NOAA, the Department of Energy and the associated universities and
labs receiving these research dollars. They receive most of their
funding to support their educational work from local philanthropic
giving, local government funding and institutionally earned income. As
independent entities they develop their own agenda. Formal education on
the other had is supported primarily through federal and State funds
and local taxes that is given to the local education agencies and the
school agenda is driven by various policy initiatives supported by the
funders and determined by local school boards and the state.
Coordination of key stakeholders at the national and State level in a
system like this is required if one is to develop a synergistic
approach.
We support the leadership role outlined for NSF in the report and
the development of a coherent internal framework for its own work in
education. Our new century needs leadership in the innovation of STEM
education for the 21st century with a focus on new ideas for
instruction, staff development and the use of new technology. Science
centers are active players in all three domains of identified NSF
leadership--research on learning and educational practice and the
development of instructional materials; development of human capital in
STEM fields, including STEM teachers; and the improvement of public
appreciation for and understanding of STEM. NSF is a key supporter of
our field and it is important that informal science education
institutions maintain an eligibility to apply for funds in each of the
areas in NSF to continue this work in the future.
The report's support for the continued development and funding of
programs that increase public appreciation for and understanding of
STEM is most appreciated by ASTC and our members, as is the specific
mention of museums and informal science education learning environments
in this context. While ASTC agrees that collaboration between all NSF
directorates and offices should be encouraged in this effort, we
strongly believe that any such collaboration should not come at the
expense of the NSF EHR's Informal Science Education program, be it is
scope or mission. This vital, peer-reviewed program, designed to
increased interest, engagement, and understanding of STEM by
individuals of all ages and backgrounds, must remain robust.
A.2 Actions for Horizontal Coordination and Coherence and A.3 Actions
for Vertical Alignment and Coherence
Beyond the national coordination of key stakeholders, science
centers are key participants in local and statewide STEM educational
efforts. We appreciate the report's support for including informal
science education institutions in the newly-created and existing
statewide P-16 councils. It is important that these councils also
develop a broader view of the STEM education landscape if they are to
create coherency in a students' educational life. As institutions we
interact with students all along the educational continuum from field
trips through summer classes to an employer of STEM educated staff. In
some cases our institutions provide facilities and hands on engagement
that schools just cannot provide. Active participation in the statewide
dialogue about STEM education will insure a more coordinated approach
to our offerings and also our ability to provide the many parents who
visit our places information about high quality STEM education.
Priority Recommendation B: Ensure That Students are Taught by Well-
Qualified and Highly Effective STEM Teachers
The focus on the STEM teacher workforce as a high priority is
absolutely important. But in addition to the recommendations presented
in the report I would propose to add one more based on my past
experience in the informal education field and teacher education. We
need a program to develop innovative new models for teacher
professional development, ones that address the issues as dramatically
as the invention of the teaching hospitals and medical schools did for
medical professional education at the turn of the last century.
For example, science centers have historically participated in
teacher professional development activities primarily through peer
reviewed proposals to the NSF and the U.S. Department of Education.
They have made use of their unique environments and scientific staff to
provide in-depth and ongoing professional development to teachers in
their region and in some cases they have become a professional home for
science teachers in their community. The Exploratorium works with
teachers from 140 school districts that exist in the Bay Area providing
a consolidated approach to intensive teacher professional development
for the region. Other science centers such as the Pacific Science
Center in Seattle operate statewide initiatives.
But because teacher professional development is currently only
considered the province of the LEAs and IHEs in current federal and
State legislation, there is little opportunity for science centers to
play the lead role in creating new community based teacher professional
development models. Opening up eligibility for funding as the prime
award winner to non-profits with the experience and capability to do
good work is critical if we are to develop alternative approaches. A
program to actively create new models of professional development will
lead to the dramatic change in STEM education that we are all seeking.
Is the proposed national STEM education council needed in order to
implement the NSB's recommendations; can it be made to work as
envisioned; and can it become self-sustaining? Do you support
establishing this council? Do you have recommendations for changing the
proposed structure or function of this council? Furthermore, what role
do you envision for the council in defining the recommended ``national
content guidelines''?
It is clear that a coordinating function at the national level with
membership of all of the stakeholders is critically needed if we are to
maximize our investment of resource. Currently there does not exist a
venue for this discussion that is both specific to STEM and inclusive
of all of the potential players. This is in addition to the need for
coordination of Federal Government's response to the issue. Therefore
ASTC is intrigued by the idea of a National Council for STEM Education,
and appreciates the Board's recommendation that informal science
educator should be represented in its membership. We would recommend
that an informal science educator should hold a permanent seat rather
that a rotated one, however, especially given the role that informal
science institutions play in student and teacher education.
What is the appropriate federal role in carrying out the
recommendations of the NSB Action Plan?
While many of the reports recommendations concern initiatives that
are clearly at the State and local level, the fact that much of the
current funding for the improvement of STEM education comes from the
federal coffers means that it is an important federal role to establish
mechanisms to provide coordination amongst the involved parties and to
develop a STEM education improvement roadmap for the country.
It is also the federal role to provide the investment in innovation
for STEM education and the national support for STEM education
improvement. To this end we would strongly endorse the reports
recommendation that the National Science Foundation (NSF) exercise a
significant leadership role in research and development, STEM workforce
development and public STEM engagement and the Board's recommendation
that NSF develop an internal agency roadmap toward this end.
In closing I would like to thank you for offering me the chance to
testify on this very important issue. I look forward to answering any
questions that you may have.
Biography for Robert J. Semper
Rob Semper is Executive Associate Director and Director of Program
for the Exploratorium in San Francisco and is responsible for leading
the institution's work in developing programs of learning and teaching
for the public and educators using exhibits, workshops, media and
Internet resources. Dr. Semper is the principle investigator on
numerous science education, media and research projects including
leading the National Science Foundation sponsored Center for Informal
Learning and Schools, a research collaboration between the
Exploratorium, U.C. Santa Cruz and King's College, London which studies
the relationship between museums and formal education. He is also Co-PI
on the NSF funded Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, a
national network of science centers designed to foster engagement of
the public with the nanotechnology field. He leads numerous research
and development projects in new media including wireless networks,
hand-held computing and advanced Internet applications.
Over the past fifteen years Dr. Semper has guided the development
of the award winning Exploratorium Website that has explored the role
of museums in the online world including the development of on-line
field trips to locations of scientific research. He has been executive
producer for a number of NSF and NASA supported Webcast/Website
projects including Origins that provides on-line field trips to science
observatories worldwide, four Solar Eclipse Webcasts and the Ancient
Observatories project that originated live from Chaco Canyon and
Chitzen Itza. Before this, Dr. Semper was a Schumann fellow at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education and director of the creative
collaboration between Apple Computer and Lucasfilm Ltd. formed to
develop interactive multimedia education projects. Previous to this
since joining the Exploratorium in 1977, he has lead numerous exhibit
development, teacher enhancement and media development projects focused
on science education for the public, teachers and students. Dr. Semper
was elected to be a 2006 American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) Fellow and was the recipient of the 2006 NSTA's Faraday
Award for Science Communication, the 1994 NSTA's Informal Educator of
the Year award and the 2000 Association of Science Technology Center's
Award for Innovation for the Exploratorium's leadership in developing
on-line media. He has served on numerous advisory boards including the
George Lucas Educational Foundation National Advisory Board and the
AAAS Committee on the Public Understanding of Science. Dr. Semper has a
Ph.D. in physics from Johns Hopkins University and was a post-doctoral
student at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and a faculty member at St.
Olaf College in Northfield, MN before joining the Exploratorium in
1977.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Semper.
STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN L. TRAIMAN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE POLICY, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
Ms. Traiman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members
of the Subcommittee, good morning. I am Susan Traiman, Director
of Education and Workforce Policy at Business Roundtable, and
like Dr. Semper a beneficiary of the post-Sputnik investment,
although I didn't go into STEM, I did have a loan to go to
college from the National Defense Education Act.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on
STEM education and the recent report from the National Science
Board. I want to thank Dr. Beering and the members of the
National Science Board for their important work on behalf of
U.S. STEM education.
Business Roundtable, as many of you know, is an association
of chief executives of leading corporations with a combined
workforce of more than 10 million employees and $4.5 trillion
in annual revenues.
Our CEOs are united in their concern about STEM education
in the U.S. They understand that STEM education is a critical
underpinning of both national economic competitiveness and
individual success in the modern workforce.
From Norm Augustine, who was our taskforce on education
chairman 11 years ago, to our current education taskforce
chairman, Art Ryan, the CEO of Prudential Financial, CEOs
believe that expanding the talent pool of Americans with a firm
grounding in STEM disciplines is a critical element of the
innovation agenda the United States must pursue in order to
remain competitive in the 21st century.
The National Science Board identifies two central
challenges to STEM education in the U.S.; insuring coherence in
STEM learning and insuring an adequate supply of well-prepared,
highly-effective STEM teachers. Both challenges have been the
subject of countless reports and federal and State initiatives
of the past 20 years, and both reflect the overall problems and
dysfunctions with the K-16 education system in the United
States or non-system in the U.S., as well as issues that are
unique to STEM.
Business Roundtable is in complete agreement with the
National Science Board that the critical bottleneck in U.S.
STEM education is the inadequate supply of well-qualified,
highly-prepared teachers. That is why our member CEOs were so
enthusiastic about the STEM education legislation moved by this
committee and enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act. And
as you well know, the potential impact of this critical
legislation depends on what happens to its appropriations this
year and in future years.
One of the best features of the America COMPETES Act is its
emphasis on expanding programs that have the demonstrated
record of success such as the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program
and the Math and Science Partnership Program. Time and again,
in fact, since the post-Sputnik years we learn over and over
that well-intentioned STEM initiatives fail because of
inadequate attention to teacher preparation and professional
development.
From No Child Left Behind to the Higher Ed Act to America
COMPETES Act, we need to build on lessons learned about what
will produce results.
And we also need to be open to new models that address
issues such as the need to increase compensation for STEM
teachers despite longstanding resistance to recognizing
performance or market demands in determining teacher pay.
Nearly every one of the National Science Board's
recommended actions for increasing the number of well-qualified
STEM teachers and improving the quality of STEM teacher
preparation have been endorsed by Business Roundtable and the
national business organizations that are partners in Tapping
America's Potential coalition or TAP, a business coalition
committed to improving STEM education in the United States. So
we agree that the Board has it right with respect to teachers.
When it comes to the Board's recommendations for improving
integration and coordination of STEM education programs, I
would urge caution. I should emphasize that the views I am
about to share with you are my own, since Business Roundtable
has not come to an official position on this particular aspect
of the Board's report.
For CEOs of leading global companies, the idea of 50
different State-specific standards for what students need to
know and be able to do in STEM is absurd. U.S. performance on
international assessments makes it clear that the appropriate
comparison is not between states but between states and our
international competitors. In this context State-specific
standards defy logic, but history and politics often create
conditions where logic defying outcomes prevail.
The National Science Board also recommends creating new
government structures to achieve vertical and horizontal
integration in STEM education. In an ideal world the Board's
recommendations might make sense, but I fear they don't account
for the history and the politics that got us where we are
today.
In my written testimony I go into some detail about the
political and historical pressures that have caused education
standards wars over the past 20 or so years where very
reasonable and modest proposals to establish voluntary
standards didn't result where we want them to be. And that is
why we are not supporting the creation or development of
voluntary national standards and assessments as part of the
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
In the follow up to this I can address some of your
questions about why the recommendations for this new council
may create more problems than it attempts to solve.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Traiman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan L. Traiman
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members of the Subcommittee.
Good morning. I am Susan Traiman, Director of Education and Workforce
Policy at Business Roundtable.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and the recent
report issued by the National Science Board, A National Action Plan for
Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education System.
Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers
of leading corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10
million employees and $4.5 trillion in annual revenues. The chief
executives are committed to advocating public policies that foster
vigorous economic growth; a dynamic global economy; and a well-trained
and productive workforce essential for future competitiveness.
America's business executives are united in their concern about
STEM education in the United States. They understand that STEM
education is the critical underpinning of both national economic
competitiveness and individual success in the modern workplace. In
2005, Business Roundtable, together with fourteen other national
business associations, created the Tapping America's Potential
campaign, or TAP, with the goal of doubling the number of American
science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates with
Bachelor's degrees by 2015. Business Roundtable members believe that
expanding the talent pool of Americans with a firm grounding in STEM
disciplines is a critical element--perhaps the critical element--of the
innovation agenda that the United States must pursue in order to remain
competitive in the 21st Century. Several of our members served on the
committee that issued the National Academies report, Rising above the
Gathering Storm, and Norm Augustine, the committee's Chairman, is a
former Chairman of Business Roundtable's Education Task Force.
Business Roundtable endorsed, and worked actively for the passage
of, the vital STEM education legislation that originated with this
committee and which was enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act.
The potential impact of this legislation depends on what happens to its
appropriations this year and in future years.
In your invitation, you have asked me to comment on the National
Science Board report. My remarks reflect the sentiments I am hearing
from business leaders, as well as my experience working on these issues
at the federal, State and local levels.
The National Science Board identifies two central challenges to
STEM education in the United States: ensuring coherence in STEM
learning and ensuring an adequate supply of well-prepared, highly
effective STEM teachers. Both challenges have been the subject of
countless reports and federal and State initiatives over the past
twenty years. And both reflect the overall problems and dysfunctions
with K-16 education in the United States as well as issues that are
unique to STEM.
On Coherence and the recommendation to ``Develop Nation STEM
Content Guidelines'': For CEOs of leading global companies, the idea of
50 different State-specific standards and assessments for what students
need to know and be able to do in STEM is absurd. U.S. performance on
international assessments such as the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) makes it clear that the appropriate
comparison for education performance is not between states, but between
states and our international competitors. In this context, State-
specific standards defy logic. But history and politics often create
conditions where logic-defying outcomes prevail.
The National Science Board recommends creating new governance
structures to achieve vertical and horizontal integration in STEM
education. In an ideal world, the Board's recommendations might make
sense, but I fear that they do not account for the history and the
politics that got us where we are today.
We have been down this road before and our experience suggests that
caution may be in order. When Business Roundtable first got involved in
standards-based education reform in the early 1990s, CEOs focused at
the State level, which is where the primary responsibility for
education standards resides. CEOs identified nine essential components
of a successful education system and either joined or created State
business coalitions to advocate for systemic education policy reform.
This marked two major shifts for business--first, a move away from the
``adopt a school'' approach toward changing the State education
policies that affect all schools and students and second, a move away
from single silver bullet solutions toward systemic reform with aligned
policies based on high academic standards for all students. At the
time, to the extent that states had standards, they tended to be
minimum competency. While advocating for change at the State level
during the 1990s, Business Roundtable also endorsed proposals by both
the Bush (I) and Clinton Administrations for voluntary national
standards and tests. However, both the Bush and Clinton initiatives
were resoundingly rejected.
The actual development of national standards started with math
through a non-governmental initiative by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) in 1989. Textbook companies quickly
aligned their materials with the NCTM math standards, and the Federal
Government funded other professional groups to develop national
standards in their content areas. The quality of the standards produced
by these national subject-matter groups varied widely. To reach
consensus, authors added rather than subtracted standards and many were
so voluminous that there would be no time left to teach other subjects.
Meanwhile, states began to develop their own standards in core academic
subjects, frequently adapting their work from the national documents.
Similar to the national standards, the quality of States' standards
was, and continues to be, inconsistent.
By the mid-1990s, criticism from across the political spectrum
about the quality and content of the standards--both national and
State--threatened to end standards-based reform. To rescue the
movement, governors and business leaders created Achieve in 1996 to
help states benchmark and improve their standards, as well as align
them with assessments and accountability. It was clear at that juncture
that State level standards were the only politically viable approach,
but business leaders hoped that comparisons of quality and
identification of State and international exemplars by Achieve would
help push states in a common direction.
Shortly before President George W. Bush was inaugurated in January
2001, he invited a group of Business Roundtable CEOs to a meeting where
he told them that his first initiative would be federal education
legislation and asked for their support. Business Roundtable helped
lead the business community's involvement in shaping and passing the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). One of the most controversial parts of
the bill required all states to participate in the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP). Business leaders understood that NAEP
was necessary to provide a common metric that enabled comparisons
between states because NCLB accountability was based on states' own
standards and tests. During the debate, Members of Congress were
assured that NCLB would not lead to national standards and tests.
Republicans, in particular, sought that clarification because they
viewed national tests as a Clinton idea, forgetting that the first
proposals for national testing and federal funding for the development
of national standards in core academic subjects happened under the
leadership of President George Herbert Walker Bush and then Secretary
of Education Lamar Alexander. So NCLB as originally passed reinforced
the role of each state to develop its own standards and assessments, as
well as its own definition of proficiency and cut score for proficiency
on its own test.
Just last week, a new analysis of where 26 states set the
proficiency bar by Northwest Evaluation Associates and the Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation revealed wide variations between passing scores in
reading and math across the states. That math should be easier in one
state than another is bizarre in a global economy.
Although it continues to be absurd in our international economy for
states to have different standards in reading and mathematics, the
business community is not currently promoting the development of
voluntary national standards and assessments as part of the
reauthorization of NCLB. To put it simply, we do not believe that
federal involvement at this juncture would be helpful in moving a
process that is gaining ground at the State level. Working with
Achieve, nine states are collaborating on the development of a common
end-of-course test for Algebra 2. Thirty states are working to align
their requirements for high school graduation with the expectations of
higher education and the workplace. For now, the best approach is to
include incentives in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind for
states to raise and align their standards and assessments so that
students graduate from high school ready for post-secondary education
and the 21st century workforce, and then backward map those standards
for each grade so that they are vertically aligned.
It is important for the U.S. to get to ``national content
guidelines'' or ``voluntary national standards'' or whatever euphemism
is ``politically correct'' for national standards. However, I believe
that a federally-initiated effort under the purview of a National
Council for STEM Education is likely to be counterproductive, at this
point, in light of the history and politics that continue to surround
this issue. It also is likely to produce guidance that has not
realistically addressed the tradeoffs in establishing priorities for
what students need to know and be able to do that will be essential for
schools that also need time to teach history, English, foreign
languages, the arts and other important content.
You have specifically asked for my view on the recommendation to
establish a STEM education council. Business Roundtable does not have a
position on this matter but, for myself, I am skeptical. Someone once
said that collaboration is an unnatural act between non-consenting
adults. People also tend to be willing to collaborate if it is with the
other person's money. I am all for more coordination and collaboration
between federal agencies with responsibility for STEM education but it
is difficult to enforce meaningful collaboration without budget
authority. I am not convinced that a new layer of coordination with no
real authority will improve the situation. Also, many of the worthwhile
recommended activities could be accomplished within the existing
mission of agencies.
On STEM teachers: Business Roundtable couldn't agree more that the
critical bottleneck in U.S. STEM education is the inadequate supply of
well-qualified and highly prepared STEM teachers. That is why our
member CEOs were so enthusiastic about the STEM education legislation
moved by this committee and enacted as part of the America COMPETES
Act--because it focused on producing more well-qualified STEM teachers.
One of the best features of the legislation is its emphasis on
expanding programs that have a demonstrated record of success, such as
the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, the Mathematics and Science
Partnership program, and the Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP), also known as the ``tech
talent'' program at NSF. Time and again--in fact since the post-Sputnik
years--we learn over and over that well-intentioned STEM initiatives
fail because of inadequate attention to high-quality teacher
preparation and professional development. From No Child Left Behind to
the Higher Education Act to the America COMPETES Act, we need to build
on lessons learned about what will produce results.
Nearly every one of the National Science Board's recommended
actions for increasing the number of well-qualified STEM teachers and
improving the quality of STEM teacher preparation have been endorsed by
Business Roundtable and the national business organizations that are
partners in the TAP coalition. The July 2005 TAP report makes specific
recommendations that are very similar to those of the National Science
Board, including:
Promoting market- and performance-based compensation
and incentive packages to attract and retain effective STEM
teachers;
Creating professional development and technical
assistance to fill gaps in teachers' content knowledge; and
Establishing incentives for colleges and universities
to strengthen preparation programs for prospective STEM
teachers.
In conclusion, Business Roundtable is on the same page as the
National Science Board in terms of the depth and urgency of the problem
with regard to STEM education in the United States. Like the Board,
Business Roundtable believes the highest priority for STEM education
policy should be recruiting, training and retaining many more well-
qualified STEM teachers.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Steven Beering
and the members of the National Science Board for their important
efforts on behalf of U.S. STEM education. Business Roundtable looks
forward to working with the Board to strengthen U.S. STEM education and
support NSF's STEM education programs.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Biography for Susan L. Traiman
Susan Traiman is Director of Public Policy at Business Roundtable
where she oversees the Roundtable's work with chief executive officers
of leading corporations interested in improving education performance
and workforce competitiveness in the United States. Recently cited as
``the most influential chief executive lobbying group in the U.S.'' by
the Financial Times, Business Roundtable members are at the forefront
of public policy, advocating for a vigorous, dynamic global economy.
Currently the Roundtable, working with fourteen other national business
organizations, is leading the ``Tapping America's Potential'' campaign
to double the number of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics graduates with Bachelor's degrees by 2015.
Prior to joining Business Roundtable, Ms. Traiman was Education
Policies Studies Director at the National Governors Association where
she worked with governors on the first National Education Summit and
the development of National Education Goals. She also was a senior
associate with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational
Research and Improvement where she served on the staff of the National
Commission on Excellence in Education and contributed to its landmark
1983 report, A Nation at Risk. Before coming to Washington, D.C., she
worked at the State level for a regional technical assistance center
and at the local level as a seventh grade social studies teacher.
Ms. Traiman has a B.A. in American Civilization and M.S. in
Education from the University of Pennsylvania.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. I thank the witnesses for a very diverse
set of perspectives on this issue, and I commend the staff for
having put together a group of folks with different
perspectives from different important bodies.
I will recognize myself for five minutes, and then we will
proceed with questions from other Members of the panel.
One of the issues that puzzles me is that we, when we look
at our nation's competitiveness with other countries, national
testing, virtually all the countries that we are trailing
behind have national standards and national curricula. I am a
ski instructor and also learned to scuba dive recently, and I
will tell you, my understanding of both those areas of
recreational pursuits is that wherever one goes in the country,
if one is going to be a PADI-certified diver, all the divers
all across the country got similar training. And so too with
ski instructing. Now, there will be individual variations, and
you get sometimes good teachers, sometimes bad, but if you go
through a PADI diving course, wherever you are in the country,
those instructors had a similar curriculum, you have a similar
book all across the country.
It puzzles me that we can't seem to get around that. To be
perfectly blunt I think local control is a shibboleth but not a
policy. And so I don't, I want to raise that question, and the
vision I would ask is we talk about, and all of you said in a
degree that teacher training is the core, and yet what are we
training the teachers for? Are we training a teacher in
Colorado to not teach in Iowa? Are we training a teacher in
Iowa to not teach in Wisconsin?
And I want to throw that out there. I am an advocate of at
least exploring very seriously this notion of some form of
national curriculum at least on a voluntary basis in science
and math education, and I am interested, I will just throw that
out there, in the pros and cons of that. Why can't we do it,
why shouldn't we do it?
Dr. Fennell?
Dr. Fennell. Well, I would like to speak in support of your
frustration, not that you are frustrated, but I see the same
frustrations. We have at the moment 49 of our 50 states that
have curriculums out there, in particular Pre-K through eight
mathematics, and they range from somewhere in the 30 objectives
all the way to over 100, depending upon how you count. And yet
if you get underneath that, I don't know anybody in this room
or anywhere else who wouldn't want elementary-age children to
know how to add and subtract well and similarly with
multiplication, division, and later on be pretty proficient in
their work with fractions and so forth, all leading to algebra.
Our work with the Focal Points, our work with now close to
half of the states in this country, my work with the National
Math Panel where we are pretty close to suggesting benchmarks
for all students as they move into algebra is pretty important.
If we want to be competitive with those other cultures that you
alluded to, if we want to make sure our kids are ready for
higher-level mathematics, if we would like more students ready
for a math-intending, science-intending career, that has to
happen.
Ms. Gayl. I would like to just address that on behalf of
local school boards. We would say that as a Nation of 300
million plus individuals and 50 million school children with a
vast array of resources and differences of opinion, that we
need to allow room for experimentation in curriculum and
instruction. And at NSBA we don't believe in a one-size-fits-
all approach. We think it is very important to allow for local
flexibility so that those closest to the ground who are in our
classrooms, teaching our students can stress particular
priorities and values that exist within their own communities.
Ms. Jeffrey. You will notice in my testimony I did not say
I didn't support national standards. What I mentioned is I
didn't think this was the appropriate body to move towards
that. I do believe that there probably is a time and a place,
and this may very well be the time and place, by which there is
some national consensus about what children or students should
know and be able to do.
At the same time, I believe there must be a great deal of
flexibility for states and local school districts to really be
able to raise their expectations beyond perhaps what a national
expectation might be, but in that they should be voluntary, at
least at the beginning, because it takes a long, long time to
integrate into curriculum align curriculum and really do the
work appropriately.
Chairman Baird. Do you feel that, Ms. Jeffrey or others,
the work that has been done, I mean, we talk a lot about we
need research, we need trained teachers. You have got some good
models. I know our state does. Many other states are doing,
many local school boards, and yet we seem to not believe that
we can say, look. ``You do it this way, it is working for you,
can't we share that idea with another curriculum? Can't we look
what the experts in mathematics are saying, and use that?''
But you are saying some other body might be the way or some
other way to get at that.
Ms. Jeffrey. Well, what I am saying is, for instance, we
have the Focal Points from the National Council of Teacher of
Mathematics. I think it is a great document, and when we co-
chaired, I co-chaired the CCS Math and Science Task Force, we
referred to that document as something that should be basically
a foundation for states to really look at as they constructed
their own standards and their own curriculum.
So I think much of the work has been done, and we just need
to draw a consensus across what this really needs to look like.
Chairman Baird. I am going to yield, we will get back, you
will have a chance. Dr. Ehlers may follow a similar line, and I
would yield, recognize him for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, thanks for the introducing the topic.
There will be another two hours on that.
It was just interesting listening to the different
perspectives that emerge, and this is something that is
discussed a lot around here. And I was impressed by your use of
the word, chivalrous. I didn't realize you were an Old
Testament scholar.
But, really, that is, I think, an apt description, because
that is what it is in the Congress. Just, we, no national
standards, no national standards, and I have introduced a bill
on voluntary standards, and even that, everyone characterized
it as a bill to create national standards, which it doesn't,
but it certainly is a step in that direction.
The question I ask myself is, you know, there is a small
town in southwestern Minnesota, roughly 1,000 population, and
it is, the name is Edgerton. It has been around quite awhile,
it was a farming community for many years, and you recall about
1880, 80 percent of our population was farmers. You get to
1920, or less, actually about 1907, you know, only a hundred
years ago, it was still about 60 percent agriculture. It was
very easy for the local board to decide on a good curriculum
because there was very little movement out of the community.
But today that community sends people all over the world. I
happen to come from that community. I meet friends from that
community. One good friend who taught at Yale, another one who
is teaching in Pennsylvania at a university. A lot of them are
farmers, a lot of them have moved to Minneapolis, are working
in the shops there, the factories.
It is a different world today, and to say that the local
school board has to have final, absolute control over
curriculum is thinking 100 years ago. I am sorry, Ms. Gayl, but
it is a different world.
What makes it even more different now is our competition in
the world with all the over countries. And if you look at the
TIMS scores, the PISA scores, all the international scores
comparing our high school graduates with other countries, then
look at the list and look at who is at the top of the list,
they are small, homogeneous countries who have the same program
throughout the entire country. It just aids in teaching.
And as you know, I used to teach, and I also worked a lot
with elementary schools and with the kids. First of all, Mr.
Fennell, I thank you for bringing up the role of parents. It
has always bothered me that all these reports we read ranging
from a nation at risk onward, they don't mention the role of
the parents, but in my experience working with the schools, the
single biggest factor in the success of a student is to have at
least one interested and involved parent at home. That is
crucial.
But when you get to the curriculum, because of the mobility
of the country, 1880, in Edgerton, Minnesota, if one percent of
the population moved over the course of five years, that was
news. That made the local newspaper. But today's world the
average family moves every four years, and it is very easily
possible for a student, a young child to be in a school in the
fall semester and studying fractions in math, and then around
Christmastime the family moves to another school system, which
studies fractions in the spring. The student gets a double dose
of fractions, but if these schools in their other semesters
were teaching percentages or something like that, the student
never learns it. It is absurd. There has to be at the very
least we have to have uniformity of sequence, and I don't
consider that national standards. I consider that national
agreement. Let us accommodate to our changed world, people
move, let us make sure they all get the same subject in the
same semester so that when students move, it doesn't really
matter.
That is particularly true in an urban area such as one I
represent. I have talked to school principals. In fact, I was
talking to one school principal once. He had a student who had
transferred four times in one year, and it is possible in my
particular area because of the structure a student can move
within a one-mile area at most and still be in four different
school systems with four different moves. We clearly have to
address the problem.
And maybe you don't like my bill, maybe you don't like
other proposals, but we have to address the problem. Now, I
would be interested in hearing any--well, I can't. My time is
up.
Chairman Baird. I will yield the gentleman additional----
Mr. Ehlers. Well, I gave the sermon. Now it is time for the
call if any of you want to comment.
Ms. Traiman. Business leaders couldn't agree with you more.
As I said, it is absurd for each local community to make these
decisions, but going in this direction doesn't mean each local
community teaches everything in the same way. If a community is
near a river, a community is near an ocean, a community is in
an urban area, they may teach the same concepts in a very
different way.
But the question before us is what role should the Federal
Government have. So if there is agreement we need to move in
this direction, the judgment that we have made is that right
now if the Federal Government got involved, it would cause us
to have more controversy and less consensus moving in this
direction.
And so I am totally making this up but if you had a choice
between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation moving this
forward and the Federal Government moving this forward, and I
have no insight into the Gates Foundation, the better direction
right now in terms of our politics would be to not have the
Federal Government involved.
Chairman Baird. So after November of next year presumably
would be a superior time I would----
Mr. Ehlers. Well, since you said you were just making that
up, maybe you belong in the Congress as a matter of fact. I
think, let us just clarify this, and then I will yield.
I think the issue is sequence and concepts. If you get
agreement on those, that goes probably 80 to 85 percent of the
way. Furthermore, I don't want the Congress to make the rules.
Our bill gives it to NAGBE. Maybe you have a better choice to
make it, but I think the government should be out. We are just
saying let us see if we can't develop a national consensus to
at least have the same sequence and teach the same concepts in
that sequence.
Thank you.
Chairman Baird. I think Dr. Ehlers and I are both of a
position that, where if you are a parent and you move to
another school district, you need to not feel like your kid is
going to come out of sequence and similarly, if you are a
teacher and you are moving to a different school area or you
got trained in one university and you teach in a different
state, you don't have to relearn everything. The inefficiencies
of that for our economy and for our kids' learning strike us as
just wasteful in a time when we can't afford to be inefficient
in facing global competition.
Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say I am
deeply appreciative of the discussion on national standards.
But Dr. Beering, I want to thank you for your efforts in
preparing the NSB Action Plan. One of the central
recommendations is the creation of a national council for STEM
education. How do you respond to concerns that that would just
create another level of bureaucracy? Is that something, I am
sure that is something that has been discussed.
Dr. Beering. Yes, indeed. In fact, of all the responses we
have had, the very similar comments were received as we heard
around the table this morning. I want to emphasize what we are
recommending is a non-federal, independent body that would
recommend and advise and stimulate and catalyze a national
effort for content. And it is not a new bureaucratic instrument
that would substitute itself for existing bodies that have
those charges.
So we are not concerned that if the right people with the
right attitudes, people that particular structure that they
couldn't be very helpful to individual school boards.
I would emphasize that there are 14,000 individual school
boards, so to get consensus among 14,000 school boards is hard
to imagine.
I would like to add a university comment since I have the
floor, and that is that the preparation of teachers is so
crucial. I think we have all agreed that we want to have very
well-prepared individuals. At my university of Purdue where I
have worked now for 25 years, we establish the college of
education which mandates that each student who opts for a
specific field major in that field and has a major in the
participating college. For example, a math teacher has to be a
math major. That has been achieved with cooperation through the
School of Science.
Another thing we are doing that is very unique, we
guarantee our graduates so if a given school board is unhappy
with our math teacher graduate, we will be happy to take him
back and retool them.
Mr. McNerney. That would be good in the medical profession,
too. So----
Dr. Beering. Right.
Mr. McNerney.--thank you for that testimony, and I would
say that since it is not a federal, it wouldn't be a federal
bureaucracy, it wouldn't be paid for by federal taxes, which
makes it more appealing to us at a certain level.
Dr. Fennell, I am a mathematician, so I appreciate you
coming and the work that you have done. I share your desire to
close the gap, the achievement gap, and do you think that the
recommendations in the NSB plan will do that, will help close
the gap, the achievement gap?
Dr. Fennell. Well, I think that as you look at this thing
called mathematics achievement in this country, we are
constantly confronted with mixed messages. A week ago you read
about the National Assessment of Educational Progress Report
results where in mathematics we have the highest scores in
grade four and grade eight that we have had in history and a
continuing trajectory upward. At the same time we have high
school students taking more, if you will, higher-level
mathematics than at any other time.
At the same time, at precisely the same time, we are not
nearly as competitive internationally as we would like to be.
Report from the American College Testing Bureau indicates that
far too many of the students who go to college are not ready
for college mathematics, even though they have taken those
higher-level mathematics courses.
If there is anything that causes this issue of coherence to
rear its head, it is this story that I am trying to tell you. I
mean, we are all over the place. You can't expect a fifth grade
teacher to be knowledgeable about a hundred and some objectives
and figure out which ones to emphasize when that child is then
going to move in two weeks to another state and be placed in
another curriculum with another teacher from another
perspective.
And, again, I think the notion that is coming, Mr. Ehlers,
I have heard your comments for years about the notion of
voluntary curriculum that would allow us to consider what is
really essential, and I believe we can get around those
essentials. And then allow the kind of independence that we
would support in school districts that are unique in terms of
particular environment, particular student clientele, and the
like.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Semper, I want to thank you
for coming out from the Bay Area. I represent part of the Bay
Area. You have talked about research and learning, what excites
kids. How do you disseminate that to a more national body of
teachers?
Dr. Semper. I can tell both maybe a local story and a
national story.
Locally, this summer we had forums on elementary science
education for the whole Bay Area. We brought together people
from all the Bay Area districts, from the informal science
centers of which there are five or six in the Bay Area, from
the universities, to talk about what would a good elementary
science program look like. And we had people present what is
known from research, people present what is known for the
various curricula that are being adopted, and we had a public
forum, which had not only the representatives I mentioned, but
also school board members and parents.
That kind of local opportunity to talk about education is
very rare. People don't get a chance to do it in, I would say,
a more neutral environment. When parents go to school, they are
sort of in a situation where it is not a necessary comfortable
environment to talk about the education for their kids.
So the idea of having local conversations about this I
think is very powerful, and one could extend that to national
conversations about the same thing. We don't really talk about
what we mean about science education from the perspective of
all of the players, and I think that is the kind of dialogue
that is absolutely critical.
I might say what is interesting about this national
council, of course there are a lot of issues about it, but
there is actually no place where everyone can get around a
table together in a fairly neutral way to talk about what we
know and what we can do about things. It actually doesn't exist
because most of the forums are driven by one party or another
for very good reasons. There is no neutral place to do it.
But I would say the local--let me go back; I think the
local conversation about science education, about any education
in a community would be one way to actually move forward on
this issue collectively.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for
calling this hearing, because it is very, very important, and
it is something that has concerned me and I know concerns you
as an educator to have a good panel like this to give us their
background, their information on it, because it is kind of a
battle going on for minds today and to what thrust we are
trying to put them as they go to junior college or to a
university. And how many of them steer clear of science and
math, and it is a statistical battle that we are really kind of
losing on engineers.
You know, STEM is an acronym, and it stands for, you all
know what it stands for, Scientific, Teachers, engineering,
Math, and it looks like it has science on one end and math on
the other, and the science to push the technology, and the
math, the other end to push engineers. And let me just zero in
on engineers right now.
It is my understanding that we are flat, internationally we
are losing that battle. We may be training more of their
engineers than we should be, but we, I think seem like we have,
we graduated 100,000 or something like that, substantially
fewer than even India does and not even a fourth of what China
does.
Now, I don't know what type engineers they are turning out,
but I think it is important, and I like that acronyms of
science, technology, engineers, and math a lot better than I
like the one NAFTA. We had a, you know, we have NAFTA, the A
should have stood for act, but it doesn't. It stood for
agreement, and I think they put it on there that way to where
they wouldn't have to try to get two-thirds of the votes of the
Senate to confirm some type treaty or something like that.
Anyway, both the Senate and the House passed NAFTA, and it
has turned out okay. Of course, most of the foundations in my
state have been built south of the Rio Grande than they are
north of the Rio Grande, but that is part of the, I guess,
overall plan for it.
But I was interested very much in Mrs. Gayl's testimony,
and she talked about the lane between teacher quality and
student achievement, and that is what we have got to tie. We
have to tie those together someway. Need a partnership of all
levels of government, and I want to give the Chairman an
awareness of in Texarkana, Texas, they have a school called
Texas High, and we also have University of Texas A&M at
Texarkana there. Those two institutions work closely together,
and the voters of Bowie County where Texarkana is, voted to
build a high school built around science and technology,
science and math. And I don't know if you all area aware of
that, but it is, I have dedicated and cut the ribbon to it and
then I thought I was going to be there this last year as
chairman of science, space, and technology, but I was there as
the, what am I, Doctor? Ranking Member, not Chairman.
But, we, I had in mind attending this, being called
Chairman when I was there, but it didn't happen.
Anyway, you talked about strengthening teacher preparation
programs with universities. That is happening right today, and
there is some real patterns to follow there. It goes on with,
and I think you pointed out that teachers preparation programs
ought to be aligned with existing state academic standards, and
that is, of course, as you pointed out, No Child Left Behind
requires that.
I guess the question I want to ask is how would we do that?
Dr. Semper also alluded to it. I guess, Mrs. Gayl, how do you,
what do you have in mind when you say that Congress can provide
valuable incentives to improve teacher quality and spur local
investment in STEM education?
This Chairman is doing that. He is pushing it. He has got
it off and going. Now, what do we do, how do we do to bring
them closer together? They brought them together up in
northeast Texas because they have those students that are still
in high school that are getting credits from Texas A&M in math
and science. What are your other suggestions on that, Ms. Gayl?
Ms. Gayl. First of all, I would like to point out that some
of the incentives provided for in the COMPETES Act in terms of
scholarships----
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Ms. Gayl.--for students and also programs which at the
university level partner the teaching component and the
academic component to train teachers, you know, effectively in
these subjects are very important. What I would say is that
there needs to be greater coordination among universities and
the programs in these universities with the local level.
You point out that this is happening in some areas, but in
others there is a real resistance among the universities to do
this.
But I would also point out as well that, well, and you
highlight, Congressman Hall, that we are also very supportive
of having some real accountability for teacher preparation
programs, and we believe that they should be aligned, and they
should be teaching what the state academic content standards
are as opposed to national content guidelines, which is
recommended by the Board. But it is a similar type of alignment
that we are looking for.
Additionally, I just point out, though, that the majority
of tomorrow's teachers are in today's classrooms, and so what
we need is a very strong teacher preparation, professional
development component as well, because it is not enough just to
address the new teachers that will be being trained, but we
need to work more effectively with the teachers that we do
have.
Mr. Hall. Why the resistance from universities?
Ms. Gayl. Excuse me? I am sorry.
Mr. Hall. Why the resistance from universities? Now, I can
see a resistance from anybody in high school. When I was in
high school, I liked history and the only part about English I
liked was when we had English literature. I wasn't too good on
conjugating the verb to be, and I have never found a way to
work that into conversation anyway since then.
Ms. Gayl. You know, I could only really----
Mr. Hall. And unlike Dr. Ehlers, I was not very much of a
student. I made four Fs and a D on time, and my dad whipped me
for spending too much time on one subject. So that is the type
of student I was. Everything over 70 was wasted. So I am the
kind of guy that really we need to be reaching out to to get
them interested in science and mathematics and to fill out the
word STEM.
Ms. Gayl. Uh-huh. Well, I think we would certainly be
supportive of that. I can only, you know, speak from my
experience, but in trying to work with the university
community, you know, they are the protectors of free thoughts,
and they don't like anybody telling them what to do. So that
could be challenging, but I think one of the ways we might be
able to bridge this gap, there are some really interesting
programs for dual enrollment credit that are going on right
now----
Mr. Hall. Uh-huh. Yes.
Ms. Gayl.--between high schools and colleges or also with
community colleges in particular, and I think that those sort
of partnerships can help to better coordinate our K through 16
system.
Mr. Hall. I think my time is up, but I think Mrs. Traiman
also mentioned Norm Augustine, who is, I think, one of the
really great Americans, and I don't know why a guy like him
can't be one of that bunch running for president right now.
I yield back my time. I don't know if he is a Republican or
Democrat. I would like to know that. Like Dr. Ehlers suggested
that you run for Congress. I would like to know where you live
before I agree with that.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. I thank my good friend. His modesty about
his academic background, some of you know that, what was it,
Ralph? Eighteen you were flying fighters off aircraft carriers.
So he says that so we adjust. Exactly. Is today your birthday?
Mr. Hall. No, not really.
Chairman Baird. Oh, all right. But he raised a very good
number of points.
Dr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start
off by thanking Dr. Semper, I know you had thanked the
government through us for what we had done to help you. I would
like to thank you for the Exploratorium. I was a grad student,
got my Master's degree out of Stanford, and I have been to the
Exploratorium a few times. I love that place.
So I wanted to, if Dr. Ehlers could preach a sermon up
there, let me take a minute or two to advertise a little bit. I
think partnerships are a great idea, and one way to do this in
a bill that I am working on introducing next week is to put in
grants that go to partnerships between DOE labs and museums to
work on projects that help STEM education, and so it is a bill
for anyone who is here or watching, listening that I am
planning to introduce this next week, but I think it is a great
way to encourage partnerships between the energy labs and
museums to help with STEM ed.
I think that partnerships between colleges, universities,
and elementary and secondary schools are also very important.
Partnerships with corporations out there, industry, I know that
there is something that is coming up in my district. I have
Bolken, who has quarries all over the country, is doing a
program, bringing students from one of my local schools there.
I think these are types of things that are really neat to
encourage, and I also want to add that parents I certainly
think are really probably the most important part of the
puzzle.
But finding ways to get everyone to work together for STEM
education I think is very important. I have a degree in
engineering before, some say I went to the dark side and got a
Ph.D. in political science, although I have to say that I use
as much math in political science, in my research as I ever did
as an engineer with statistics being so important.
So I just wanted to throw out there, Dr. Fennell had sort
of touched on this a little bit. We are trying to make sure
that all kids in America sort of have the basics that they need
in STEM ed. How do we, how exactly, what suggestions do you
have to encourage those who are going to take a particular
interest, who are going to go on and be an engineer or
mathematicians, how do you work with them early on sort of to
encourage that beyond what, your other students who are not
going to go into those fields? What, how do you do that?
I want to start with Dr. Fennell and anyone else who wants
to comment.
Dr. Fennell. It is a great question, one that I think is
critical to some of the implications coming from the report.
That is the issue of highly-qualified teachers, teachers who
know their mathematics, teachers who are comfortable in their
classrooms with the culture of their school, and are able to
frankly see when kids are ready to move on, when kids, some
kids might need additional support and stay right in that
classroom. Some kids may need to be accelerated through at a
rate, but that rate needs to be carefully monitored.
One of the things that we are seeing in this country, as I
mentioned before, is movement to higher level of mathematics.
By that I mean the courses that some of you had when you were
in high school are offered earlier. And that is wonderful for
the kids who are ready for that. Let us insure that they have
that sort of critical foundation, that strong background before
they are able to do that.
But the population you are talking about are the next
engineers, that Mr. Hall referred to--the people that we want
to turn onto this subject and find a way to keep them invested
in it. That is not to say, as well that we want, when everybody
comes out of that education an opportunity to value the
subject.
Because of the time of the year it is, fall, and you see
lots of people playing sports, I was struck by something; I saw
four times within the last week. That is a whole bunch of
parents cheering kids on playing soccer. Trust me. They know
nothing about that game. And so I was thinking, jeez, wouldn't
it be nice if they had the same sort of zeal and interest about
something else that they may not know as much about as we would
like them to be, to know, i.e., mathematics, but encourage
them, allow them to play for the next team, allow them to
travel, to be on the travel team and all that that offers and
or allow them to get the support they need to achieve. I think
it must happen.
Ms. Jeffrey. I would like to address your question also. We
are working much earlier with our students beginning at eighth
grade and in middle school to really think about their career
pathways and putting together an eighth grade plan. This really
establishes with their parents the goals that they hope to have
for themselves and trying to keep them on track through their
high school years.
We also have a large percentage of our juniors and seniors
in high school attending community colleges courses or dual
credit courses and linking those aspirations right into their
post-secondary training, which begins to really attract
individuals into post-secondary education that may never have
gone there before.
We also have an initiative under way, and we haven't talked
much about this, community college instructors. We really are
in an effort right now in Iowa to raise the level of expertise
and the quality of the community college instructors because
more and more of our high school students are going into
community colleges rather than into the four-year universities
for lots of reasons: close to home, not as expensive, and also
directly accessible to them.
So those are some of the efforts that we have underway to
sort of create those seamless transition for students. We also
have career academies that are occurring between our community
colleges and our high schools in Iowa, mass science career
academies where students can actually go and attend classes
different from their high schools, bioscience academies, pre-
engineering academies. We are working to establish all of those
kinds of hubs that students can attend beyond their regular
high school courses. So there are ways to get this done.
Ms. Traiman. One quick thing on that. Sadly for a lot of
kids who might get excited, for example, about being an
engineer, the door is closed very early, and it is because of
math. Kids can get very excited about science. They can even
get excited about engineering, but if they don't have success
in the prerequisite math course, they are not going anywhere in
engineering or in science, and we really need to put more focus
on making sure that math doesn't close those doors. Even though
we are doing better on NAEP in math, we are not doing well
enough.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. We will do a brief second round of
questions if we may.
Dr. Beering, you have specifically spoken about a non-
federal proposal and yet the response from other panelists is
grave concern that that might nevertheless become some new
bureaucratic mechanism.
I guess my question to the panelists would be, and Ms.
Traiman, you mentioned that in effective, 14,000 different
systems is not really a good way to go if you have got a
national interest in a skilled workforce. And yet you are
suspect of a federal panel for reasons you obliquely describe
as political but for some reason don't want to go into
operationally what that means.
But if not the approach described by NSB, which is
particularly specifically not a governmental entity, what
approach do we use to try to get greater coherence and
coordination, both vertical and lateral? What alternative
approach might work better than what NSB with the effort in
this document has come up with?
And by the way, other than Bill and Melinda Gates because I
am familiar with them. They do great work, but there is a fair
bit of bureaucracy there, and they would still have to get
14,000 school boards to somehow buy in. So there is no magic
bullet out there, but what is a better approach?
Ms. Traiman. One of the things to learn from the past is
that there have been efforts both governmental and non-
governmental to establish voluntary national standards in the
subject areas. Some of them produced good products. Some of
them, you know, went by the wayside because they weren't very
strong. But one of the serious problems they had is that the
people who have an interest in each subject area loaded up with
more than can fit in a single school day. So there is no time
left for history or English or foreign language or any of the
other subjects.
So one concern about this entity is that if it is only
purview is STEM, it doesn't have to make the critical tradeoffs
of not just what scientists and people in that field think is
important, but what in a school year or school day makes sense.
Chairman Baird. Very good point.
Ms. Traiman. That is one problem. The political problem is
this in terms of any federal funding for it right now. Deciding
what is important for students to know and be able to do brings
in value judgments, and these will have to be made no matter
what political entity or whether it is government funded or not
government funded. But if this starts out federally funded, you
get situations where Members of Congress may introduce
amendments saying such and such can't be included in this, you
know, restricting from the get go. If we approve creation of
this, it can't address this particular subject in science.
And that is the concern. It is not Republican and
Democratic politics.
Chairman Baird. It is the system of representative
government itself.
Ms. Traiman. Right. Which----
Chairman Baird. I see----
Ms. Traiman.--the alternative is----
Chairman Baird. This hearing stands adjourned.
Ms. Traiman. I guess I am not running for Congress. The
alternative is actually something that is happening right now.
There is a voluntary association of states working with an
organization called Achieve. Its board is half Governors and
half CEOs, and they are starting at the end point saying when a
student graduates from high school, what does that student need
to know and be able to do, they are starting in reading and
math, to be ready for post-secondary education and the 21st
century workforce.
And then from that endpoint they are back mapping what
would that mean in tenth, eighth, you know, every single grade
essentially back to kindergarten. It is a long process, and
each state right now is doing on its own, but they are now,
they made a decision in about nine of the states to develop a
common end-of-course Algebra II test. Nobody from the
government is telling them to do it. They just realize it is
cost effective to go in that direction. Algebra II in
Washington State isn't different than Algebra II in Michigan.
And so one way for the Federal Government would be to
provide incentives for states to move in that direction rather
than giving this to a federally-funded entity at this juncture.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Beering.
Dr. Beering. As you think about the people who would make
up this council, it would look a whole lot like this panel, and
so I would ask my colleagues at the table here what can you
imagine that would incent the average American family and the
average American parent to get with it and to have its students
and its kids get excited about science, math, and the
international competitiveness? What do we have to do?
Dr. Fennell. I think the potential of the non-Federal
Government panel that you suggest has the potential, as you
say, to get people who are connected with, if you will, the
informal science education or mathematics education or science
education and or those other fields to think about what would
be important. NCTM regularly works with Achieve. We are very
aware of what, of their work with nine, actually that, I
believe, has now grown to 13 or 14 states, who are thinking
about a common Algebra II test.
However, I would say that not, even though people teach
this thing called Algebra II in a lot of different ways, there
is not necessarily a universal definition of what that is. It
is not as simple as it sounds, but the point is that people are
willing to come to the table and think about what is important
for all kids. And that also goes back to Susan's question
earlier, and that is if, in fact, we see mathematics as a
roadblock for certain kids as they think about ending,
considering science-intending careers, then we need to find
ways to kind of work toward opening that gate for all kids,
because everybody is in the classroom.
Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Baird. Sure. Be happy to.
Mr. Hall. I might ask you why do they keep teaching all
that stuff in math? You know, you are in the war, as a Navy
cadet we had ground school, and I always had a course in
celestial navigation, and it washed out more pilots than not
being able to land on a carrier did. Washed out I would say
two-thirds of the pilots, that one course did.
So you have, golly, geometry, pure math, trigonometry,
calculus. Why don't you quit teaching all them hard courses,
and you would get more of us interested in math?
Dr. Fennell. Can I respond to that?
Mr. Hall. I wish you wouldn't. I am just trying to fix some
way----
Dr. Fennell. I was going to give some of your language back
to you.
Mr. Hall. I am trying to get some way that youngsters get
interested in math, and we have to, folks like you have to
entice them some way.
Yes, please, go ahead.
Dr. Fennell. Well, it comes back to something I said
earlier in the testimony, and that is it is really important
that we get parents and frankly----
Mr. Hall. Absolutely.
Dr. Fennell. I mean, there is a popular book going around
right now called, ``Math Doesn't Suck.'' Well, you know, there
is something wrong about the message there. Anybody who has
ever been in a classroom and has had the parent sit down with
them at the parent-teacher conference and say, you know, I was
never good in math either, well, that is not the point. The
point is this subject unlocks doors. It allows Mr. Lipinski to
use an engineering background in the halls of government. It
allows people to fly planes, think about big ideas that might
be situations involving chemistry and all kinds of other
things.
Now, my problem is I represent 100,000 teachers around this
country is to make sure that kids not only get that, but find
out that it is something that is of value to them. If it going
to be easy necessarily? No. And by the way, I don't think that
is a bad thing. There is a lot of things that we do that are
hard, and you come out the other side of that realizing, you
know what? That was really good that I did that. And that is
where we want to be I think with all this.
Mr. Hall. In soccer I was watching my eight-year-old
granddaughter play, and the ball went right off to the soccer
goal there, and I said, kick it in, babe, kick it in, babe, and
she looked at me with her hand on her hip and her lip out, and
growled at me, you know, and looked at me. Somebody else kicked
it out, took her out, and I walked over, and I said, why didn't
you kick it in? She said, Paw Paw, you don't know anything
about soccer. It wasn't my time. I took her right out to Wal-
Mart, and we got a soccer ball and a goal. So she needed some
pure math, I guess.
Dr. Fennell. That is right.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. I yield back to time I didn't have.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much. That is tough to follow,
but I do want to build on something that Mr. Hall said earlier.
The--when he referred to China. I take, what I sense here
and what I have sensed among the American public, they don't
understand the urgency of this situation. China and India
decided about 20 years ago that they had to do this for
economic survival in today's world, and they went, and it is
easy for China. It is a totalitarian system. You will study
math. And so they did it, and they have done very well.
In fact, last year China graduated more English-speaking
engineers than the United States did. In addition to that, they
graduated six times as many as we did, whereas 20 years ago
they graduated half as many.
There is a real urgency to this, and we can't dither around
and say, well, you know, we will try this, we will try this, we
will try that.
That leads up to a question. I gathered some of you are
very concerned about the national council, and I also heard a
number of comments, we don't want the government running this.
I would simply point out that in the same time many of you
praised the post-Sputnik activity, National Defense Education
Act, and so forth, these were government-run programs. You
can't rule out the government per se.
Now, I am not a great fan of the government running it, but
there has to be some cohesive mechanism to pull this altogether
and get it done. Right now we are getting, some of you
mentioned community college. Right now community colleges are
doing more to save us than any other educational entity,
because they are making up for the deficiencies in the
elementary and secondary school and serving as a springboard to
the colleges and university.
But the question is, you know, if you don't want the
Federal Government to do it or if you don't like the council,
what would you like better?
And Ms. Jeffrey, you are a trained administrator. Would you
feel better if you were running it? Do you think it would be a
good idea?
Ms. Jeffrey. Well, I have to tell you that K-12 educators
are very interested in doing the right things, and the Chief
State School Officers have been in this discussion for over a
year and are very interested in working together to sort of
create this common framework. But having the people who are
most impacted by these decisions as part of the process is
absolutely crucial.
Mr. Ehlers. Uh-huh.
Ms. Jeffrey. And that is, I mean, the Chief State School
Officers are involved in this discussion. They are the
representative of each of the states who are charged with the
responsibility for K-12 education in their states, along with
their governors, and really want to take a very active role in
this discussion.
So we would much prefer that bodies that represent us are
very actively involved I guess is the best way to put it.
Mr. Ehlers. Won't the school boards feel the same way?
Ms. Jeffrey. Well, I am sure they do.
Mr. Ehlers. My real question is how do we coordinate? We
have no desire to impose this. I don't think the Congress or
the Federal Government wants to impose it, but there has to be
an action mechanism and a guidance mechanism. And the urgency
has to be imparted to the people.
I just wrote an article which appeared Monday in my
hometown paper, and I understand the Hill picked it up and put,
has it on their blog if you want to read it. Its title is
``Where is Sputnik When We Need It.'' Because we really need
another Sputnik now and to provide the national energizing and
collaboration.
I may be interested in any other ideas you might have that
would help us.
Ms. Gayl. I would just point out that at the National
School Boards Association we are not opposed to a federal
council in this regard. We think it could be particularly
helpful in coordinating the various programs that exist
throughout the Federal Government, and we think it can provide
some very real great tools and resources. And we are also
supportive of the idea of content guidelines.
What we are concerned about is this being perceived as a
sort of top-down approach that would be telling school
districts and states what to do, and so I think we need to, you
know, tread carefully in this area, because in order for a
movement like this to really take place, it needs to start with
the parents, with the local communities, and they have to buy
into the plan.
And I think that there are some real ways that we can do
this to incentify folks at the local level to do that, but we
certainly wouldn't want to see a bureaucracy or entity crated
out there that wouldn't report to the Federal Government, that
wouldn't report to the locals, that wouldn't report to the
states, that would be perceived as telling people in their
communities what they needed to learn and to know.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, I don't think any of us want a tell-down
system, but we do need a top, and the real question is is how
can we pull this together? How can we energize it? How can we
get it moving?
And you know, what we really need, and this goes along with
Mr. Hall's comment about why the pilots flunked out, they had
to learn celestial navigation. Today we use GPSs and so forth.
But what you really need is a top and a guidance mechanism.
Now, you don't need a force mechanism, but you do need a
guidance mechanism. So whatever you can do to help us put this
together we would appreciate.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Baird. I think we have done the inverse of No
Child Left Behind.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I think I have exhausted my time,
but I just tell this group here how fortunate we are to have
people like you that will give your time, that have prepared
yourself to bring you to thing point, and we are very fortunate
to have Dr. Ehlers on this committee, knowledgeable, with
background that is unbelievable, and Dr. Baird of academia that
is above and beyond.
So you have some good things going for you up here, and we
really do, I personally appreciate each of you giving your time
it took to get here, the time to prepare, and the time to go
home.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Baird. Very well said, Mr. Hall. I thank the
panelists. This is such an important issue, and we could go on
at great length. The sense clearly is that there is an absolute
commitment, and some great people doing some really great work,
and one of the paradoxes is here we are with this fantastic
country that is acknowledged as a world leader, really sound
people like we see before us today, and yet when it translates
down to our average child out there in the field, they are not
necessarily getting the level of achievement that we want.
And what we are trying to do with this series of hearings
that we are having on this committee is tap into the expertise
and knowledge and real-world experience of folks such as
yourself and try to figure out where best to go.
And I thank all of you. I thank NSB for the great work and
all the people who participated in this presentation. But it is
so valuable to have further insights into the pros and cons of
what has been proposed. This is not by any means the end of
this. As you saw with the America COMPETES Act and the
leadership of Chairman Gordon, the Chairman of the overall
Science Committee, and the leadership of Nancy Palosi is
absolutely committed to improving our education opportunities
for our kids.
We intend to actually operationalize some further measures
that will actually continue to move this forward. My personal
commitment, and I believe that of all of our colleagues is that
every child born in America will have an opportunity to have
the top quality science education, science and math education
regardless of where they are born, with quality teachers, with
curricula that makes sense, and with career paths that are
linked in some ways to the curricula and teaching that they
receive along the way.
And we believe that there is an important federal role
because it is of our national interest to accomplish this. It
is not enough for us as a representative of the United States
Congress to say, well, there are 14,000 school districts, some
are going to get it right, some are going to get it abysmally
bad, and if your kid happens to have the good luck to be in
those districts where they are getting right, terrific for you,
and too bad for the other kids and too bad for our country that
we have lost those kids' contributions.
So finding a way to balance that is our goal, and your
insights today have helped us move towards that. I thank our
panelists, and with that we, you just heard that the vote has
been called, so that is timely. And with that this hearing
stands adjourned with the gratitude of the Committee.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. We heard testimony from NSF not too long ago (following the
release of the ACC report) which indicated the agency believes that the
subcommittee on education under the NSTC is sufficient to carry on the
work of the ACC. Your report recommends that the subcommittee of the
NSTC be elevated to a full committee. Can you explain how this would
change the power, perception, or function of the committee?
A1. The Board feels that the critical importance of STEM education to
the Nation merits attention at a full committee level. At a full
committee level coordination of STEM education would receive more
direct attention from the heads of agencies, an increased level of
staff support, and a more impactful position for coordination of
federal STEM activities within the Administration.
Q2. Most of your recommendations rely on the National Council to take
a lead in activities. Who do you anticipate providing the necessary
sustained leadership?
A2. In order for the National Council for STEM Education to be
effective, its non-federal members will need to assume joint
responsibility for the Council's success. The Board recommends that the
initial co-chairs of the Council be a State governor and a chief State
school officer. Strong leadership by the initial Council co-chairs and
a significant commitment by the Council staff will be essential to the
success of this Council. Our Action Plan has requested a seat for the
Board on the Council to demonstrate our support of and long-term
commitment to this effort.
Q3a. Independent of legislation, what are the NSB's next steps?
A3a. The Board is committed to sustained support of this Action Plan
and will continue to provide advice to Congress and other stakeholders
as requested. In its role as the oversight and policy-setting body for
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Board will oversee NSF's
implementation of our guidance to it in the Action Plan, beginning with
a presentation by NSF on this subject at the Board's December 2007
meeting.
Q3b. Do you plan to revisit/revise the idea of a National Council?
A3b. No. The Board feels its recommendation and general outline for a
National Council for STEM Education are of sufficient detail to allow
Congress to charter such a Council without interfering with
Congressional discretion to structure the Council as it deems best.
Q4a. Is there any entity on which to model the independent council
that provides comprehensive coordination?
A4a. Currently there is no national coordinating body for STEM
education; however, a few potentially instructive models do exist.
First, the National Council for STEM Education could be viewed as a
national version of a State P-16 (or P-20) council, which many states
have in place. In some states, P-16 councils have been effective policy
mechanisms for coordinating among a state's early-childhood, K-12, and
higher education systems and among local business and industry, school
systems, and the community at large--in effect drawing all stakeholders
together. Effective State P-16 councils, for example, allow local
education agencies to coordinate their high school curriculum with
entrance requirements for a State's institutions of higher education
and with what employers expect high school graduates to know.
Second, at the national level, Achieve, Inc., a non-profit
organization led by State governors and business leaders, is an example
of how states can work together voluntarily on K-12 education issues.
Although not STEM focused and not inclusive of all STEM stakeholders,
Achieve has been successful in providing a structure for a substantial
number of states to voluntarily adopt common K-8 mathematics standards
and, through the American Diploma Project Network, to increase high
school graduation standards.
Finally, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National
Research Council could be an instructive model from another field. The
TRB has a mission to ``provide leadership in transportation innovation
and progress through research and information exchange, conducted
within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multi-
modal.'' It provides ``opportunities for information exchange on
current transportation research and practice; management of cooperative
research and other research programs; analyses of national
transportation policy issues and guidance on federal and other research
programs; and publications and access to research information from
around the world.'' The members of the TRB represent many stakeholder
groups, and the TRB is funded by contributions by all stakeholders.
Q4b. How does this body acquire the respect of the classroom teacher
and partnership of the local school district?
A4b. The Board's recommendation is that the National Council would have
a practicing classroom teacher and representative of a local school
board as permanent members of the Council, ensuring that these
perspectives are always present on the Council.
Q4c. Would this entity really be the first of its kind?
A4c. Yes.
Q5. It seems that all of the witnesses agree that better STEM
coordination is needed. Please share what you think a successful model
for improved coordination in STEM would look like, and/or how a single
body responsible for STEM coordination could be supported by all
stakeholders.
A5. In a truly coordinated system of STEM education, a student would
have the opportunity to master, in a systematic way, key concepts in
STEM learning. In addition, STEM teachers would be thoroughly prepared
during their pre-service training with both the content knowledge and
pedagogical skills needed to be effective teachers and kept up-to-date
in that content knowledge with continual, relevant professional
development. In a coordinated system, the K-12 system, the higher
education system, and business and industry would all work together to
ensure that students are provided with high-quality and up-to-date STEM
content. In addition, parents and the informal STEM education community
would be heavily involved in encouraging rigorous STEM teaching and
learning.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In your testimony, you state that ``the Federal Government must do
a better job of coordinating its own STEM education activities.'' How
well is this currently being done within NSF? How does the EHR
directorate interact and coordinate with the STEM education activities
within the RRA directorate divisions?
A1. In its guidance to NSF in the Action Plan, the Board states that
the EHR and R&RA Directorates should be doing a better job of
coordinating their STEM education efforts than is currently being done.
The Board will be following up with the NSF leadership on this issue
beginning with its request for a presentation by NSF to the Board at
the Board's December 2007 meeting. As outlined in a January 31, 2007
letter from me to Congressman Holt (who asked that the Board examine
this issue), the Board has begun a significant effort in the past year
to review the evaluation mechanisms for and results of NSF's EHR
programs so that these findings may be used to enhance EHR programs
within the EHR Directorate, across the R&RA Directorates, and in the
context of the Nation.
Q2. You mention that some public comments expressed concern that
National Laboratories weren't given an adequate role in the process.
Should the National Labs be involved at all, and if so, what should
their role be?
A2. In response to concerns from the National Labs, the Board added to
the final version of the Action Plan an explicit statement that the
National Labs be included with other relevant federal agencies on the
Office of Science and Technology Policy's NSTC Committee on STEM
Education to allow them to coordinate their efforts within the Federal
Government. The Board also added a statement in the final Action Plan
noting that the National Labs ``. . .provide content expertise that
could be effectively utilized to improve STEM teacher preparation.''
This content expertise could also be utilized for professional
development of teachers already in the classroom.
Q3. With regard to the concern that not enough is being done to get
colleges of arts, sciences and engineering to collaborate with colleges
of education in preparing STEM teachers, do you think that Congress has
adequately addressed that concern in the America COMPETES Act?
A3. Although the Board is supportive of many of the measures taken in
the America COMPETES Act and congratulates the President and Congress
on enacting this legislation, it remains concerned that without a
coordinating mechanism, the scattered programs outlined in the
legislation will not be adequate to stimulate a significant
transformation of the Nation's STEM education system.
In the case of the programs for baccalaureate degrees in STEM with
concurrent teacher certification at the Department of Education (Sec.
6113) and the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at NSF (Sec.
7030), the America COMPETES language does attempt to promote
collaboration between colleges of education and colleges of arts,
sciences, and engineering. Although this is a good step, encouraging
such collaboration is an issue that needs to be addressed not only
within individual teacher preparation programs at institutions of
higher education, but across the system. A national coordinating body
such as recommended by the Board would be extremely useful in ensuring
that lessons learned from these two programs are disseminated and
inform the development of other programs.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Judy A. Jeffrey, Director, Iowa Department of Education,
Representing the Council of Chief State School Officers
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Sometimes it can seem that states want the Federal Government to
provide funds with ``no strings attached.'' What are the reasonable
guidelines to attach to federal STEM funding? With many states
undertaking STEM education efforts, is there any alignment from state-
to-state with these initiatives? How do we get beyond each state doing
its own thing?
A1. States believe and understand that guidelines must be attached to
any Federal Government funding, as states attach guidelines to money
they allocate to districts and schools. States embrace accountability
as an important tool in education reform and believe STEM funding
should be tied to outcomes for students. Reasonable guidelines would
not prescribe simply one test that would be the measure for success,
but allow for multiple ways to measure learning and progress that are
valid and reliable. States do not believe that the Federal Government
should attach provisions to funding that dictate a narrow way to
accomplish the goal of improving STEM education since a one-size-fits-
all system will not serve the needs of all students and school
circumstances. States need the flexibility to continually innovate to
meet local needs.
States are working to create more aligned STEM education systems.
Thirty states are part of the American Diploma Project Network to align
K-12 curriculum, standards, assessments, and accountability policies,
including those for STEM education, with the demands of college and
work. Thirteen states are also working with Achieve, Inc. to develop
specifications for a common end-of-course exam in Algebra II. States
also coordinate their STEM activities through grants they receive from
organizations such as the National Governors Association and the
National Math Science Initiative. All of these opportunities involve
State information-sharing and collaboration to produce the best STEM
education programs and systems possible. Creating more opportunities
for states to collaborate, while giving states the room to adapt to
meet their individual contexts, can help continue to bolster alignment
on STEM education between states.
Q2. Going along with a National Council concept, how could states be
more involved (beyond those described in the report) in the development
of content guidelines?
A2. CCSSO supports voluntary, shared standards among states. States are
also interested in developing shared standards in other areas besides
math and science and would prefer that all of the voluntary standards
be created in a manner that facilitates joint dialogue and a
comprehensive approach. Having separate groups develop voluntary
standards could lead to fragmentation whereby 21st century skills are
not embedded within the academic subject areas.
Q3. Can you expand on your statement that the Council could determine
``what the intent of STEM education'' is?
A3. We must have a larger discussion on how to embed mathematics,
science, engineering, and technology skills across the curriculum to
create meaningful, deep learning experiences that will replicate real-
world STEM experiences. Creating stand-alone content guidelines that do
not address how to teach and integrate STEM education will not
transform STEM teaching to the extent that is needed. It is crucial
that students, regardless of the career pathway they choose, be
afforded learning experiences through real-world, relevant learning
activities.
Q4. Are your concerns about the Council solvable through changing the
way it is chartered, led and funded? Do you identify with the unmet
need that the Board is trying to address through the Council? If so, do
you have an alternative vehicle to suggest?
A4. States identify with the unmet need the Council is trying to
address of providing better coordination between STEM education
programs. In particular, as I mentioned in my testimony, I see the most
critical roles of the Council as increasing coordination among federal
agencies and programs and supporting and communicating more STEM
education research that is useful to educators and policy-makers.
Q5. Is there any entity on which to model the independent council that
provides comprehensive coordination? How does this body acquire the
respect of the classroom teacher and partnership of the local school
district? Would this entity really be the first of its kind?
A5. I do not know of any.
Q6. It seems that all of the witnesses agree that better STEM
coordination is needed. Please share what you think a successful model
for improved coordination in STEM would look like, and/or how a single
body responsible for STEM coordination could be supported by
stakeholders.
A6. The body should be composed of respected members in the field who
are empowered to oversee and establish accountability provisions for
the coordination of efforts across the Federal Government. It would
even better serve the states if the body would reach beyond
coordination to a process whereby duplication would be eliminated and
efforts would be coordinated and integrated to meet the needs of
states.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You mention in your testimony that you would prefer that limited
funding be invested in improving the quality of teaching versus
assessments. How would you go about improving the quality of teaching
with limited resources?
A1. Limited federal funding will never be able to reach all teachers in
a state. However, we have found that the dollars set aside for Reading
First have served our state very well. The federal funds initiated the
conversation on improving children's early literacy skills by providing
start-up costs and requiring evaluation of results. Thus, the state
developed a plan, worked with a few schools, modeled what should be
done to change teaching practices, monitored implementation, and
tracked student data. This process in Iowa was scaled-up to include
more schools, through individuals that were trained in the original
design with State and local funds. STEM teaching could be improved
through a similar approach of providing targeted funds to improve
teaching.
On-going, in-depth, on the job professional development will hold
the greatest promise of improving teaching and learning in STEM
education.
Q2. You express some skepticism about a national council creating more
bureaucracy and that federal funding may be better spent helping states
implement innovative ideas. Please expand upon Iowa's high school
reform efforts to create ``teaching approaches that develop authentic
intellectual work on the part of the students and teaching strategies
that engage students in relevant and meaningful tasks and high
levels.'' Is this program currently receiving federal funding, and if
so, through what program?
A2. The Iowa Department of Education has engaged in a professional
development effort to enhance the instruction that high school content-
area teachers use in their classrooms. The professional development
effort provides training and ongoing technical assistance to teams of
teachers from high schools in Authentic Intellectual Work developed by
Fred Newmann (Emeritus Professor of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Wisconsin-Madison and former director of the National
Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools) and colleagues. This
instructional model sets standards for teaching academic subjects that:
maximize expectations of intellectual rigor for all
students
increase student interest in academic work
support teachers taking time to teach for in-depth
understanding rather than superficial coverage of material
provide a common conception of student intellectual
work that promotes professional community among teachers of
different grade levels and subjects, and,
most importantly, equip students to address the
complex intellectual challenges of work, civic participation,
and managing personal affairs in the contemporary world.
The instructional model focuses on student construction of
knowledge through disciplined inquiry to produce discourse, products,
and performance that have value beyond high school. At present, there
are teams (administrators, teachers, and regional support personnel)
from nine Iowa high schools participating in this endeavor. The goal is
provide access to the professional development to all high schools in
Iowa by developing a cadre of experienced in-state trainers using
qualified participants from the 2007-08 effort and from the 2008-09
effort, which is planned to engage another 30-40 high schools.
This model is being supported through a direct State appropriation.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Francis (Skip) Fennell, President, National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Is there any entity on which to model the independent council that
provides comprehensive coordination? How does this body acquire the
respect of the classroom teacher and partnership of the local school
district? Would this entity really be the first of its kind?
A1. I think such an independent council could resemble but have a
different focus from the Mathematics and Science Education Board (MSEB)
which operates within the National Academies of Science. I think the
Conference Board for the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), which represents
ALL mathematics societies/organizations in this country in the area of
mathematics and includes several mathematics education organizations
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), National Council
of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM), Association of State Supervisors
of Mathematics (ASSM), Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators
(AMTE), and others) could serve as a resource for mathematics
participation for such an independent council. I would think that a
similar ``umbrella'' ``Conference Board'' for the sciences,
engineering, and technology probably exists and would provide sources
for potential council members. I believe the proposed council should
involve educators at every level, this would include, from my field,
mathematics teachers, mathematics supervisors, mathematicians, and
mathematics educators. In short, with proper balance and a plan for
meaningful involvement the independent council could work--and, is
needed.
Q2. It seems that all of the witnesses agree that better STEM
coordination is needed. Please share what you think a successful model
for improved coordination in STEM would look like, and/or how a single
body responsible for STEM coordination could be supported by all
stakeholders.
A2. I can envision a Coordinating Council, with rotating leadership,
that would include representatives from the major science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics organizations in this country. I would
ensure (bias here is noted) that teacher organizations (NCTM, NSTA) are
well-represented on the Council. As noted, above, I think a sort of
``expanded and re-focused MSEB'' (see above) could provide a template
for organization. I think ``layers'' of responsibility would allow for
inclusion by all stakeholders from STEM, with designated ``sub-
committees'' with each particular areas of focus (e.g., Pre-K-12 STEM
education, teacher education, etc.). Hope this provides at least a
``seed'' for thinking about council organization.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Chrisanne L. Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National
School Boards Association
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. As I understand it, the goal of national content guidelines are to
help teachers know what their kids need to learn and when. Do you have
any input on the struggles of how we get beyond an over-packed
curricula and the mobility of our students? Do you think that some
coherence could be useful to the students?
A1. Certainly in today's education system, choices need to be made
about what students should know and be able to do, and when. Given the
plethora of content that exists, the limited school day, and a host of
other factors, it is necessary to set priorities and make tough
choices. The real issue is not that we must choose, but rather who is
responsible for doing it. NSBA believes such decisions are best left to
State and local authorities who have the constitutional authority over
education.
NSBA believes efforts to align State standards and ensure greater
coherence among subjects and grade levels would be useful for students
as well as practitioners. An independent council could help to
coordinate efforts between states so that they can learn from one
another and find commonalities that may exist. However, we caution
against a one-size-fits-all national model or curriculum that could
stifle innovation and creativity and dismiss the geographic, cultural,
and economic differences in the United States. NSBA believes that
diversity among students' educational experiences play an important
role in fostering a range of talents and multiple levels of knowledge
that are important in a democratic society. Furthermore, we are mindful
that most mobility among students occurs within states, and do not see
this is a compelling reason to adopt a uniform system of education.
Local school board members value states' efforts to convene content
specialists, representatives of higher education, and practitioners to
lend their expertise and make recommendations about content guidelines
and benchmarks. NSBA recognizes that in the areas of math and science,
in particular, there may be a greater level of agreement on content
than in other disciplines, such as in history where there may be moral
and/or ethical concerns about the interpretation of events.
Q2. Is there any entity on which to model the independent council that
provides comprehensive coordination? How does this body acquire the
respect of the classroom teacher and partnership of the local school
district? Would this entity really be the first of its kind?
A2. In establishing an independent council, we can learn from past
coordinating efforts as to what is important and useful. In order to
acquire the respect of teachers and work with local school districts,
NSBA believes that a national coordinating body must:
Recognize that education is primarily a State and
local function for which the federal role should be one of
support and assistance rather than direct regulation.
Involve the participation of local governing
officials and practitioners that are responsible for the day-
to-day education of students.
Have substantial knowledge and understanding of our
system of government as well as the impact of and interplay
between local, State, and federal policies and programs.
Support, promote, and advocate on behalf of public
education at the national, State, and local levels.
Encourage and promote collaborative efforts among all
levels of government, federal agencies, and the Nation's
educational organizations and support groups.
Recognize the cost of all federal education programs
on local school districts and the costs associated with
implementing federal mandates.
Neither mandate or coerce states into adopting
specific standards or assessments; or penalizes states that do
not wish to adopt specific standards or assessments.
While this list is not exhaustive, it does lay the groundwork from
which to build on what would be necessary in the creation of any
independent body that would be tasked with comprehensive coordination
of our education system.
Q3. It seems that all of the witnesses agree that better STEM
coordination is needed. Please share what you think a successful model
for improved coordination in STEM would look like, and/or how a single
body responsible for STEM coordination could be supported by all
stakeholders.
A3. NSBA supports a model that would enhance the coordination of STEM
programs and enable opportunities that will enrich teaching and
learning in these fields. Such an entity must include all relevant
stakeholders and value the traditional role of states and local
government in education. In addition, NSBA stresses that this model
include substantial representation from outside of academia that are
responsible for the day-to-day education of students and implementation
of programs.
NSBA believes that the primary functions of this entity should be:
the coordination of various STEM programs and initiatives throughout
the Federal Government and among states, dissemination of best
practices in the field, development of tools and resources that
educators can use to improve instruction, and creation of a high-level
public information campaign about the importance of STEM education. In
NSBA's view, the role of this body would be largely informative and not
involve direct policy-making.
The Federal Government is in the unique position to assemble the
profound knowledge base that exists within these disciplines and to
disseminate information on a national scale that can help to strengthen
STEM education throughout communities. Additionally, Congress can help
to provide valuable incentives and resources, outside of the creation
of a coordinating entity, that can improve teacher quality and spur
local investment in STEM (See answer to next question.)
Question submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Please describe what you have in mind when you say that ``Congress
can provide valuable incentives to improve teacher quality and spur
local investment'' in STEM education.
A1. NSBA supports an array of incentives to recruit and retain teachers
in high-need STEM subjects including performance-based pay, hiring
bonuses, alternative certification programs, and student loan
forgiveness. The Federal Government can help to encourage the creation
and expansion of these strategies through pilot programs and funding to
support states and school districts that wish to implement these
policies.
In addition, NSBA agrees that Congress should help strengthen
teacher preparation programs within universities to ensure appropriate
alignment with academic standards and foster greater accountability
among these programs. We suggest that teacher preparation programs be
aligned with existing State academic standards, which all states are
required to have in place under No Child Left Behind. More attention
should also be given to developing and bringing-to-scale high-quality
professional development programs for existing teachers. These programs
can play an important role in updating teachers' knowledge and skills
in their subject area and have been shown to have a positive impact on
teacher retention.
Lastly, Congress can help school districts to leverage local
resources by helping to provide funding for up-to-date laboratory
equipment and modern classrooms, which are necessary to successfully
implement a relevant STEM program. These facilities are essential for
students to be able to experiment, create, and get a hands-on feeling
for what the world of work is like in these fields. This scale of
modernization, however, typically requires a large infusion of capital
and often local resources are not enough to ensure that classrooms are
appropriately outfitted for high-level STEM instruction.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Robert J. Semper, Executive Associate Director, The
Exploratorium, Representing the Association of Science and
Technology Centers
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Is there any entity on which to model the independent council that
provides comprehensive coordination? How does this body acquire the
respect of the classroom teacher and partnership of the local school
district? Would this entity really be the first of its kind?
A1. One possible model would be the existing state PK-20 or P-20
education councils. Made up of a diversity of education stakeholder,
some of these councils have succeeded in bringing coherence to the
diverse educational system. They gain respect by the careful inclusion
of all of the relevant stakeholders in a situation where no single
special interest can dominate the discussion. As far as I know there
has been no equivalent version of a STEM focused P-20 council at the
federal level.
Q2. It seems that all of the witnesses agree that better STEM
coordination is needed. Please share what you think a successful model
for improved coordination in STEM would look like, and/or how a single
body responsible for STEM coordination could be supported by all
stakeholders.
A2. A successful model would imply the creation of mechanisms for the
various parties to find their proper and desired role in the
conversation. At the federal level, a coordinated approach would
require the various federal agencies to develop a coordinated work plan
or roadmap for research and implementation. One successful example from
the world of science and engineering that I know the subcommittee is
familiar with is the coordination function that the National Nanoscale
Initiative provides. The NNI has been very successful in creating a
roadmap for the country for the development of nanotechnology research
and implementation where the different parts of the research enterprise
can find a home. The creation of this roadmap took both a vision and a
significant series of discussions with all of the stakeholders to
create a place for everyone. This lead to significant support by all of
the stakeholders because the vision made sense as a whole. Of course
doing this on an issue like education with its federal, State and local
components would be more difficult. Nevertheless I think that this kind
of engineering approach to the problem might be needed.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Susan L. Traiman, Director, Education and Workforce
Policy, Business Roundtable
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Your testimony shows you have ``been down the road before'' on
trying to align STEM standards. What do you think would need to change
for national content guidelines to be beneficial instead of counter-
productive? Is there anything within our grasp, or do you see this as
unattainable in the next decade?
A1. In 1996, to help break the deadlock over national education
standards, America's governors and business leaders created Achieve, a
voluntary effort to raise State academic content standards, better
align those standards with the demands of the modern workplace and
post-secondary education. Working through Achieve, nine states are
collaborating on a common end-of-course test for Algebra 2. Thirty
states are working together through Achieve to align their individual
State high school graduation requirements with the expectations of
colleges and universities for entering student proficiency in math and
English and the expectations of employers for entering worker
proficiency in math and English.
There is increased interest from Governors and chief State school
officers in working with Achieve using this bottoms-up standards-
setting approach to reach of common core of standards. I can envision
this process moving forward over the course of the next decade,
especially as states' interest in bench-marking standards with the
world's top-performing countries increases. As a result, there is a
path toward a common core of voluntary national standards in the
majority, if not all, states, with some variation among states added to
the core. From the vantage point of the business community, in a global
economy, it doesn't make sense for states to have different standards.
We just don't want to see federal action inadvertently get in the way
of the real progress that is being made in the states today. And, yes,
we have sent that happen before as my October testimony before the
Subcommittee indicated.
Q2. Is there any entity on which to model the independent council that
provides comprehensive coordination? How does this body acquire the
respect of the classroom teacher and partnership of the local school
district? Would this entity really be the first of its kind?
A2. Business Roundtable does not have a position on the National
Science Board's recommendation to establish a STEM education council
but, as I testified before your Subcommittee, it is my personal view
that establishing an independent coordinating body with no budget or
oversight authority likely would not be effective. Your question about
the need for buy-in on the part of stakeholders, particularly teachers
and local school administrations, to ensure success goes to the heart
of the matter. State P-16 and P-20 STEM councils are attempting to do
this, with great variation in their effectiveness.
I can't speak definitively as to whether the STEM education
council, as proposed by the National Science Board, would be the first
of its kind. I am not aware of any such prior entity but I cannot say
for sure.
Q3. It seems that all of the witnesses agree that better STEM
coordination is needed. Please share what you think a successful model
for improved coordination in STEM would look like, and/or how a single
body responsible for STEM coordination could be supported by all
stakeholders.
A3. In my view, the greatest need for coordination is knowledge
transfer about what is working and what is not working to improve STEM
education across the U.S. Achieve and other organizations are in a
position to facilitate voluntary coordination/communication among
participating states. They have realized some success but progress is
slow. The good news is that the attention focused on STEM education by
Congress has had an impact. States and districts are looking for best
practices. Perhaps the best federal role at this stage would be to
support research on the different models to determine effectiveness as
well as using technology to more rapidly advance best practices.