- BROADENING PARTICIPATION IN STEM

[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

BROADENING PARTICIPATION IN STEM

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010

__________

Serial No. 111-85

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-843 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education

HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
VACANCY
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director
MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MOLLY O'ROURKE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S

March 16, 2010

Page
Witness List..................................................... 2

Hearing Charter.................................................. 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Marcia L. Fudge, Vice Chair,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 9

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9

Witnesses:

Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Head of the Directorate for Education and
Human Resources Programs, American Association for the
Advancement of Science
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 24

Dr. Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor of Higher Education,
University of Southern California, and CO-Director of the
Center for Urban Education
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 34

Dr. Keivan G. Stassun, Associate Professor of Physics and
Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, and Co-Director of the Fisk-
Vanderbilt Master's-To-Ph.D. Bridge Program
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 50

Dr. David Yarlott, President of Little Big Horn College, and
Chair of the Board of Directors for the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 54
Biography.................................................... 83

Ms. Elaine L. Craft, Director of the South Carolina Advanced
Technological Education National Resource Center, Florence
Darlington Technical College
Oral Statement............................................... 84
Written Statement............................................ 87
Biography.................................................... 93

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor of Higher Education,
University of Southern California, and CO-Director of the
Center for Urban Education..................................... 112

Ms. Elaine L. Craft, Director of the South Carolina Advanced
Technological Education National Resource Center, Florence
Darlington Technical College................................... 115

BROADENING PARTICIPATION IN STEM

----------

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Committee on Science and Technology
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel
Lipinski [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

hearing charter

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

Broadening Participation in STEM

tuesday, march 16, 2010
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building

1. Purpose

On Tuesday, March 16, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology will hold a
hearing to examine institutional and cultural barriers to broadening
the participation of students pursuing degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM), efforts to overcome these barriers
at both mainstream and minority serving institutions, and the role that
Federal agencies can play in supporting these efforts.

2. Witnesses:

Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, Head of the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources Programs, American Association
for the Advancement of Science

Dr. Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor of Higher
Education, University of Southern California and Co-Director of
the Center for Urban Education

Dr. Keivan Stassun, Associate Professor of Physics &
Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, and the Co-Director of the
Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program

Dr. David Yarlott, President of Little Big Horn
College, and Chair of the Board of Directors for the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium

Ms. Elaine Craft, Director of the South Carolina
Advanced Technological Education National Resource Center,
Florence Darlington Technical College

3. Overarching Questions:

What is the current status of underrepresented groups in
science and engineering? How do these data vary by discipline and type
of institution? What role do different types of institutions, such as
minority serving institutions and institutions that primarily serve
undergraduates, play in broadening participation?
What are the greatest challenges to achieving more
diversity in science and engineering? How do challenges vary by type of
institution and demographic subgroup? Are there policies, programs or
activities with demonstrated effectiveness in increasing the
participation, recruitment, and degree attainment of underrepresented
groups in STEM?
What role can the Federal Government play in addressing
challenges and barriers to broadening participation in STEM? How are
programs at NSF in particular helping to broaden participation in STEM,
and how do those programs need to be changed, if at all? How can
existing programs and institutions best leverage each other's expertise
and experience toward a common goal of increasing diversity in STEM?

4. Background

According to a recent report by the National Science Board, Science
and Engineering Indicators 20101,\1\ undergraduate enrollment in higher
education has risen steadily from 14.5 million in 1993 to 18.7 million
in 2006, with increases projected to reach 20.1 million in 2017. In
conjunction with increased enrollment, the number of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) bachelor's degrees has
also risen to nearly 486,000, and for the last 15 years STEM degrees
have accounted for one-third of all bachelor's degrees awarded. The
composition of individuals earning bachelor's degrees in STEM has
changed over time. Since 2000, women have earned more than half of all
STEM bachelor's degrees, but this percentage varies widely among fields
with women being disproportionately underrepresented in physics,
computer science, and engineering. The number of minorities receiving
bachelor's degrees in STEM has also grown slightly, with black students
earning eight percent of all degrees in 2007, Hispanic students earning
eight percent, and Native Americans earning 0.7 percent, up from seven
percent, six percent and 0.5 percent in 1995, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seindl0/start.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these gains, concern remains over the number of minority
students earning STEM degrees. The proportion of STEM bachelor's
degrees earned by minority students (17 percent) is much lower than the
representation of minorities within the U.S. population (37 percent).
Also, the fraction of the college age population, ages 18-24,
represented by minorities is expected to grow to 55 percent in 2050,
heightening concerns that the current gap may continue to widen. At the
same time, the need for a background in STEM is becoming increasingly
more important, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics projecting that
STEM occupations will grow by 21.4 percent between 2006 and 2016,
compared to the projected growth in all other occupations of just 10.4
percent. Furthermore, as students progress past the undergraduate level
in their academic careers, the gap among ethnic groups becomes more
evident with just 11 percent of STEM doctoral degrees awarded to
underrepresented minorities. Trends also indicate that there have been
marginal increases in the participation of underrepresented minorities
at the faculty level. In 2007, within the top 100 research
universities, just four percent of the faculty members in biology were
underrepresented minorities, with computer science, physics, and civil
engineering having minority representation of three percent, three
percent, and six percent, respectively.\2\ In light of shifting
demographics and the growing importance of STEM, many companies and
experts believe we must further the development of this untapped talent
pool, as we will be relying on them to make future discoveries and
innovations as well as to fill the skilled workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Nelson, Donna. 2007. A National Analysis of Minorities in
Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities. http://
chem.ou.edu/djn/diversity/Faculty-Tables-FY07/
FinalReport07.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many experts have also asserted that broadening the participation
of underrepresented minorities in STEM holds the added benefit of
creating a diverse learning environment for all STEM students. Research
has demonstrated that a diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds
increases creativity, and a leads to a stronger, more productive
workforce overall.

The Role of NSF

In 1980, Congress passed the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act, which called on the National Science Foundation
(NSF) ``to promote scientific and engineering literacy and the full use
of the human resources of the Nation in science and engineering.'' NSF
has taken this charge seriously, incorporating broadening participation
related goals throughout its strategic plan. For fiscal year (FY) 2011,
NSF has requested $788 million for programs and activities with either
a specific focus or an emphasis on broadening the participation of
underrepresented groups and/or the types of institutions engaged in
STEM education and research.
NSF's broadening participation programs are supported primarily
through the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate. The types
of activities supported by EHR include: improving research capabilities
at minority-serving institutions; developing effective recruitment and
retention strategies for underrepresented groups; improving the
transition of students across educational junctions; research to
understand and address gender-based differences in STEM education and
workforce participation; and direct financial support for
underrepresented students. In addition to the broader activities
supported by EHR, NSF's research directorates support programs and
activities targeted toward specific disciplines. For example, the
Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering has a
program specifically for broadening participation in computing; the
number of undergraduate degrees earned in computer science has been
declining over the last few years and historically the field has not
been pursued by underrepresented minorities or women.
Of particular note in the EHR budget is the proposed restructuring
of programs to broaden participation in. STEM at the undergraduate
level. NSF is proposing a new comprehensive broadening participation
program that builds on three existing programs: Historically Black
Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) and Tribal Colleges
Undergraduate Program (TCUP), and newly invites proposals from Hispanic
Serving Institutions, citing the mandate in Sec. 7033 of the COMPETES
Act. Funding for this newly consolidated program would be $103 million
in FY 2011, a $13 million or 14.4 percent increase from the total FY
2010 funding for HBCU-UP, LSAMP and TCUP.
During the March 10 Subcommittee hearing \3\ on NSF's FY 2011
budget request, the NSF Director, Dr. Arden Bement, provided a more
detailed description of NSF's vision for the consolidated program. Dr.
Bement stated that the goal of the program was to build on the
successes and lessons learned from the targeted programs, and to put
the combined program in the position to grow not only within NSF, but
to create opportunities to leverage the program and its activities
across Federal agencies and with the private sector. Four potential
funding tracks within the comprehensive program were also outlined.
Specifically, the program would include: 1) Louis Stokes Model
Alliances: this track would be based on the current program and would
establish inter-institutional networks, including at least two
minority-serving institutions, for the sharing of information and the
development of curriculum; 2) Transformational Initiatives: this track
would focus on building capacity and the integration of research and
education with an emphasis on activity-based learning and educational
transition points; 3) Targeted Initiatives: this track recognizes the
differences between institution types as well as cultural differences
among underrepresented groups, and would support focused efforts that
address those specific needs; and 4) Research: this track would
complement the other tracks and support research on specific barriers
and issues, but would also address grand challenges in broadening
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings-markups-details.aspx?newsid=2753

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Role of Other Agencies

Other Federal science and engineering agencies such as NOAA, NASA,
and DOE also support programs designed in whole or in part to increase
the number individuals from underrepresented groups entering STEM
fields. The types of activities supported by these agencies generally
include building research capacity at minority-serving institutions,
providing financial support to students from underrepresented groups
who are pursuing STEM degrees related to the mission of the agency, and
providing research and other hands-on experiences to students,
including summer internships.

5. Questions for Witnesses

Dr. Shirley M. Malcom

1. What is the current status of and trends for the
involvement of underrepresented groups in science and
engineering? How do these data vary by discipline and type of
institution? What are the greatest challenges to achieving more
diversity in science and engineering?

2. Please describe AAAS's efforts to increase the
participation of women and underrepresented minorities in
science and engineering careers, including the consulting
services and legal resource materials provided to individual
universities and colleges by the Center for Advancing Science &
Engineering Capacity.

Dr. Alicia C. Dowd

1. Please provide an overview of your research on diversity in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). What
are the greatest challenges to achieving more diversity in
STEM? What are the particular challenges for increasing the
participation of Hispanic students in STEM fields? Are there
policies, programs or activities with demonstrated
effectiveness in increasing the participation, recruitment, and
degree attainment of underrepresented groups in STEM?

2. What are the current research gaps for understanding and
addressing STEM diversity? Is the current National Science
Foundation (NSF) support for research in these areas adequate
in terms of both the level of funding and the nature of the
programs supporting such research? Do you have any
recommendations for changes to NSF's existing portfolio of
diversity and diversity research activities?

3. How can existing programs and institutions best leverage
each other's expertise and experience toward a common goal of
increasing diversity in STEM?

Dr. Keivan Stassun

1. What are the greatest challenges to achieving more
diversity in science and engineering? To what extent do these
challenges vary by discipline? What are the particular
challenges for a major research university such as Vanderbilt?

2. Please describe the Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters to Ph.D. Bridge
Program, including a description of the development of the
inter-institutional partnership, how the program has changed
and expanded over its history and any characteristics that you
feel are central to the program's success. What do you believe
are the challenges to replicating the successes of this program
at other institutions, including at other major research
universities?

Dr. David Yarlott

1. As Chair of the Board of Directors for the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium, please describe the role of Tribal
Colleges and Universities (ICUs) in broadening the
participation of Native American students in STEM fields,
including a description of how these institutions, and the
challenges they face in implementing successful STEM programs,
compare to other minority serving institutions and to
mainstream institutions.

2. Please describe the STEM programs at Little Big Horn
College. Are there programs or activities that have been
effective at increasing recruitment and degree attainment in
STEM? How is Little Big Horn College partnering with other
institutions in STEM? What are some of the unique challenges
Little Big Horn College faces in STEM education and are these
challenges similar across TCUs?

3. What role has the NSF's Tribal Colleges and Universities
Program (TCUP) played in the development of STEM degrees and
programs at Little Big Horn College and at other TCUs? How has
the TCUP program served your institution's needs, and how does
this program need to be changed, if at all?

Ms. Elaine Craft

1. Please provide a description of your institution, its STEM
programs, and the demographics of your student population and
faculty. How do the demographics within your STEM programs
compare to the demographics institution-wide, and to the
demographics of the community you serve?

2. Does your institution have particular policies, programs
and activities with demonstrated effectiveness in increasing
the participation, recruitment, and degree attainment of
underrepresented groups in STEM? How does your institution
interact or partner with other institutions and organizations
to achieve these goals? What do you believe are the greatest
challenges to achieving more diversity in science and
engineering?

3. What role can the Federal Government play in addressing
challenges and barriers to broadening participation in STEM?
How are programs at NSF in particular helping to broaden
participation in STEM, and how do those programs need to be
changed, if at all? How can existing programs and institutions
best leverage each other's expertise and experience toward a
common goal of increasing diversity in STEM?
Ms. Fudge. [Presiding] Good morning. This hearing will now
come to order.
Good morning and welcome to today's Research and Science
Education Subcommittee hearing on broadening the participation
of individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM fields. In
the last three years, this Subcommittee has held four hearings
focused specifically on the barriers to increasing the interest
and participation of women in STEM. Today, we want to get a
better understanding of the unique obstacles faced by
individuals from different racial, cultural, and socioeconomic
backgrounds, and hope to identify both common challenges and
opportunities to widen the STEM pipeline. As many of you know,
we are in the process of examining the state of National
Science Foundation programs authorized under the 2007 America
COMPETES Act, with the goal of strengthening the NSF's research
and education missions, including programs related to
broadening participation.
Science and engineering have become steadily more important
not only in our daily lives, but also to the economic strength
and competitiveness of the United States. We have heard many
times that we, as a Nation, need to produce more scientists and
engineers, as well as a more STEM-literate workforce to fill a
growing number of technical jobs. But we will find it much more
difficult to develop the well-trained STEM workforce we need if
we continue to overlook significant portions of the talent
pool. We need to do a better job of developing all of the STEM
talent the Nation has to offer, especially because changing
demographics mean that by the year 2050, 55 percent of the
college population will be from groups that are currently
minorities.
Studies show that regardless of background, one-third of
all incoming freshmen plan to major in a STEM field, but the
fraction of students completing STEM degrees varies widely by
race. Between 32 and 38 percent of all minority students
intending to pursue an undergraduate STEM degree actually get
one. When you compare these numbers to the 58 percent of white
students and 74 percent of Asian students who do successfully
complete their undergraduate STEM degrees, it raises several
concerns.
First, we need to identify and address the preparatory,
cultural and institutional barriers faced by underrepresented
groups. But these numbers also remind me that the attrition
rates, especially in fields like computer science or
engineering, are too high regardless of demographic.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
what is working, what obstacles remain, where we go from here,
and how the Federal Government can help. Again, I am
particularly interested in any recommendations the witnesses
may have about the broadening participation programs managed by
the NSF. This is a particularly timely issue given the
Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget, in which they propose
consolidating many of the NSF's existing broadening
participation programs into a single comprehensive framework.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today and I look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Vice Chair Fudge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vice Chair Marcia L. Fudge
Good morning and welcome to today's Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on broadening the participation of individuals
from underrepresented groups in STEM fields. In the last three years,
this Subcommittee has held four hearings focused specifically on the
barriers to increasing the interest and participation of women in STEM.
Today, we want to get a better understanding of the unique obstacles
faced by individuals from different racial, cultural, and socioeconomic
backgrounds, and hope to identify both common challenges and
opportunities to widen the STEM pipeline. As many of you know, we are
in the process of examining the state of National Science Foundation
programs authorized under the 2007 America COMPETES Act, with the goal
of strengthening the NSF's research and education missions, including
programs related to broadening participation.
Science and engineering have become steadily more important not
only in our daily lives, but also to the economic strength and
competitiveness of the United States. We have heard many times that we,
as a nation, need to produce more scientists and engineers, as well as
a more STEM-literate workforce to fill a growing number of technical
jobs. But we will find it much more difficult to develop the well-
trained STEM workforce we need if we continue to overlook significant
portions of the talent pool. We need to do a better job of developing
ALL of the STEM talent the Nation has to offer, especially because
changing demographics mean that by 2050, 55 percent of the college
population will be from groups that are currently minorities.
Studies show that regardless of background, one-third of all
incoming freshmen plan to major in a STEM field, but the fraction of
students completing STEM degrees varies widely by race. Between 32 and
38 percent of all minority students intending to pursue an
undergraduate STEM degree actually get one. When you compare these
numbers to the 58 percent of white students and 74 percent of Asian
students who do successfully complete their undergraduate STEM degrees,
it raises several concerns. First, we need to identify and address the
preparatory, cultural, and institutional barriers faced by
underrepresented groups. But these numbers also remind me that the
attrition rates, especially in fields like computer science or
engineering, are too high regardless of demographic.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what is
working, what obstacles remain, where we go from here, and how the
Federal Government can help. Again, I am particularly interested in any
recommendations the witnesses may have about the broadening
participation programs managed by the NSF. This is a particularly
timely issue given the Administration's FY 2011 budget, in which they
propose consolidating many of the NSF's existing broadening
participation programs into a single comprehensive framework.
I thank all the witness for being here today and I look forward to
your testimony.

Ms. Fudge. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for an
opening statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today's hearing is indeed an opportunity to gain insight
into how Congress can best support participation of
underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering
and math. While we have had success with some of the Federal
programs targeted at attracting and retaining these students in
STEM, the overall numbers are still discouraging. Strengthening
STEM education is essential to the future of American economic
competitiveness and it is also essential to the future of the
students involved because that is where the jobs will be, and
we must prepare our students for the jobs of the future. The
lack of underrepresented minority participation in these areas
is a great hindrance that must be remedied.
The National Science Foundation has requested almost $800
million in fiscal year 2011 for programs with a specific focus
or an emphasis on broadening the participation of
underrepresented groups in STEM education and research. I am
curious to learn how program successes can be leveraged and
what changes are needed for us to consider. In particular, the
consolidation that has been proposed as a matter of concern to
me and I think everyone. I am not automatically against the
change, it is just that I believe we have to carefully examine
what this implies and what the likely results will be.
It is my hope that the witnesses testifying today will
offer this committee insight into ways to better support STEM
education for all students as we continue to explore the
appropriate Federal role. I look forward to the testimony of
our distinguished panel. I thank each and every one for being
here today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Today's hearing is an opportunity to gain insight into how Congress
can support participation of underrepresented minorities in science,
technology, engineering and math. While we have had success with some
of the Federal programs targeted at attracting and retaining these
students in STEM, the overall numbers are still discouraging.
Strengthening STEM education is essential to the future of American
economic competitiveness, and the lack of underrepresented minority
participation in these areas is a great hindrance that must be
remedied.
The National Science Foundation has requested almost $800 million
in fiscal year 2011 for programs with a specific focus or an emphasis
on broadening the participation of underrepresented groups in STEM
education and research. 1 am curious to learn how program successes can
be leveraged, and what changes are needed for us to consider.
It is my hope that the witnesses testifying today will offer this
Committee insight into ways to better support STEM education for all
students as we continue to explore the appropriate Federal role. I look
forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel, and I thank them
for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
The report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'', along with
others, showed that our Nation is as not graduating as many STEM
professionals as other countries. Members of this committee are
interested in correcting the reasons we are falling behind.
For this reason, I along with many others on this committee today
introduced the original COMPETES bill which was signed in to law on
August 9th, 2007. Today, nearly three years later we now are beginning
to see some of these critical programs take effect.
Mr. Chairman, the fraction of college age population ages
represented by minorities is expected to grow to 55 percent in 2050.
The proportion of STEM bachelor's degrees earned by minorities is much
lower than the representation of minorities within the U.S. population.
In order to keep America competitive in fixture years, we have some
work to do.
Many policymakers, educators, and other professionals worry that
the ability of the United States to produce enough scientists will fall
short unless action is taken to develop the potential of under-utilized
minorities. In order for our Nation to remain competitive, a more
diverse group of students must be recruited to science study and be
equipped to thrive.
Women also continue to be under-represented in most STEM fields, we
must do more to create opportunities to educate and retain them,
especially at the university faculty level. A National Academies
publication called, ``Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the
Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,'' provides
specific policy directives to help accomplish this goal.
Based on the National Academies' recommendations, I introduced the
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering
Act. I believe this legislation is a good step in the right direction.
We must obtain gender equity in the sciences.
NSF ``Broadening Participation'' programs are particularly
effective in encouraging women and under-represented minorities to
pursue STEM careers. I note that the Administration's 2011 Fiscal
Budget proposes to drastically alter these critical programs at NSF by
combining them under one umbrella in a wide-ranging program to compete
for funding.
I, along with many of my Colleagues on the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Diversity and Innovation Caucus are concerned that this
proposal may decrease the effectiveness of individual programs which
engage students at Historically Black, Tribal, and Hispanic-serving
colleges.
In 2007, I offered an amendment which was incorporated in the
original America COMPETES law which ``directs the National Academies of
the Sciences to compile a report, to be transmitted to the Congress no
later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, about
barriers to increasing the number of underrepresented minorities in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields and to identify
strategies for bringing more underrepresented minorities into the
science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce.''
It concerns me and others on this committee that nearly three years
later this report is yet to be seen. As legislators, we have seen the
statistics showing minorities are falling behind the rest of the pack
in the sciences. We are now interested in policy directions to correct
these statistics. I am keenly interested in hearing the expertise of
today's witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Ms. Fudge. At this time I would like to introduce our
witnesses. Dr. Shirley Malcom is the head of the Directorate
for Education and Human Resources Program for the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Alicia Dowd is
an Associate Professor of Higher Education as well as Co-
Director of the Center for Urban Education at the University of
Southern California. Dr. Keivan Stassun is an Associate
Professor of Physics and Astronomy as well as the Co-Director
of the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program at
Vanderbilt University. Dr. David Yarlott is the President of
Little Big Horn College and Chair of the Board of Directors for
the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. And lastly,
Ms. Elaine Craft is the Director of the South Carolina Advanced
Technological Education National Resource Center at Florence
Darlington Technical College in South Carolina. Welcome, all.
As our witnesses should know, we will each have five-
minutes--you will each have five minutes for your spoken
testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
record for the hearing. When you all have completed your spoken
testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have
five minutes to question the panel.
We will start with Dr. Malcom.

STATEMENT OF DR. SHIRLEY M. MALCOM, HEAD OF THE DIRECTORATE FOR
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

Dr. Malcom. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
on the critically important topic of broadening participation
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM.
With Congressman Ehlers announcing his retirement, I would like
to thank him for his strong and steadfast support for STEM
education.
I will focus my remarks on women, minorities and persons
with disabilities in STEM. At the bachelor's level, women are
near or above parity in most STEM fields except physics,
computer science and engineering. Even though the doctorate
numbers have increased, women are not present among STEM
faculty at levels that might be expected.
In trying to understand the patterns of any group in any
field, it is important to look at the levels of representation
as well as the trends over time. The levels of bachelor's
degrees for women in engineering and computer science are about
the same, around 20 percent, but that 20 percent represents a
slight improvement over the decade in engineering and a
significant decline in computer science, far below its all-time
high of 37 percent in 1984.
It is important to unpack the numbers in order to
understand how to move them. In the physical sciences, if we
look at minority participation, it is driven by the chemistry
numbers. Physics numbers remain low. Underrepresented
minorities' improvement is actually being driven by women, with
underrepresented males underparticipating in all fields as well
as in STEM. The numbers have been moving in part because of
programs such as the National Science Foundation's Louis Stokes
Alliance for Minority Participation and the HBCU-UP
[Historically Black Colleges-Universities Undergraduate
Program] well as the more programs at the National Institute of
General Medical Sciences in the NIH [National Institute of
Health].
Persons with disabilities have been recognized by AAAS for
about 35 years as a community that deserves special focus and
intervention in STEM education and careers. We are not able to
present the same kind of data as we are for participation of
this community as we did for women and minorities, however. The
issues here deserve more focus as we consider how to support,
with education and training, U.S. veterans who are returning
from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan with significant
disabilities.
How did we get to this point--modest improvement without
parity in participation? At the K-12 levels, there are failures
in policy at every level, from the individual school and
district to the State and Federal Government. The initiatives
that have been proposed are steps in the right direction's but
by themselves they are not enough. We have to build out beyond
schools to support learning, not just education. AAAS has
experience in engaging community-wide initiatives and is
convinced that such approaches have merit. But we have to be
careful not to become fixated on the idea that you have got to
fix K-12 before you can move the numbers in STEM. We know too
many examples of where that is not the case. Even with strong
K-12 performance, young women get lost to STEM, and even with
inadequate K-12 preparation many minority-serving institutions
are able to move underrepresented minorities into STEM. So this
is not a simple story.
College pathways differ for students from different
population groups. Many students go to community college
because of cost or geographic proximity. These schools have
large enrollments of underrepresented minorities. They play a
significant role in the education of teachers and in the
retraining for the new economy.
In days when the state institutions were segregated by law,
HBCUs [Historically black Colleges and Universities] were
really the only options in higher education for many black
students in the South. But even as students have begun to
exercise other options with regard to undergraduate education,
HBCUs remain the leaders as the top baccalaureate origin
institutions for black students who received STEM doctorates
between 2003 and 2007.
A number of institutions have been designated as Hispanic
serving. Except for those in Puerto Rico, however, few of these
institutions were expressly established to address the
political, social and cultural needs of these populations.
Producing leaders for STEM means we must pay attention to
the doctoral numbers. At present, there is reason for concern
about Ph.D. production of domestic students, period, in all
fields of engineering as well as in mathematics, physics and
computer science, where in 2007 temporary residents received
over half of all doctorates in those fields.
We have enjoyed progress at the doctoral level and beyond
because of programs from the NSF such as the Alliances for
Graduate Education and Professoriate.
But moving ahead, I want to announce five concerns. The
fragmented nature of the Federal response that begs for
coordination at an NSTC-like [National Science and Technology
Council] level, the scale of the resources that are being
expended that do not approach the scale of the problems that
are to be addressed. The consolidation, I believe, is ill
advised at this point. We have some fields that are especially
difficult, such as physics and computer science, that warrant
special attention, and in the faculty and advancement issues we
must be attentive to the fact that we need to diversify our
faculty at the same time in order to accomplish the
diversification of our student populations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Malcom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shirley M. Malcom
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
critically important topic of broadening participation in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is
the largest multidisciplinary scientific society and publisher of the
journal Science. The association encompasses all fields of science,
engineering, mathematics, biomedicine and their applications. Our
commitment to and involvement in education extends from pre-
Kindergarten through post-graduate and into the workforce.

Women in STEM
I want to begin my discussion of this topic with some evidence that
this is an important policy issue that deserves national attention. In
2006 women received almost 58 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded
in the United States and almost 51 percent of the bachelor's degrees
awarded collectively in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics, the so-called STEM fields. Their representation in STEM
ranged from highs of over 77 percent of psychology and almost 62
percent of biological sciences bachelor's degrees to lows of 19.4
percent and 20.2 percent, respectively, of engineering and computer
science bachelor's degrees. (See Figure 1).The story of participation
that each field tells is an interesting one. Among the low performing
fields, for example, the engineering levels represent a slight
improvement from a decade ago; but the representation in computer
science has declined from the percent of women in the field a decade
ago.
In trying to understand the patterns, it is important not only to
look at levels of representation, but also at trends over time. Are
things better or worse? And what accounts for the patterns that we see?
Broad field designations can hide a ``multitude of sins.'' For example,
the representation in the physical sciences is driven by increases in
chemistry, where women received almost 52 percent of bachelor's degrees
in 2006, as opposed to physics, where they received less than 21
percent. Similarly in the social sciences, women received about 31
percent of bachelor's degrees in economics and 70 percent of such
degrees in sociology in 2006.

Underrepresented Minorities in STEM
Un-packing the numbers is critical to understanding how to move
them. This is even more the case when considering participation of
minorities in STEM. Interestingly, underrepresented minorities are as
likely to be present among the STEM bachelor's pool as they are among
the pool for all fields. In 2006 African Americans received 9.1 percent
of all bachelor's degrees awarded and 8.7 percent of STEM bachelor's
degrees, this while representing 12.4 percent of the total population
in the United States. Hispanics, meanwhile, received 8.1 percent of all
bachelor's degrees and 8.0 percent of STEM bachelor's degrees. American
Indians/Alaskan Natives received 0.7 percent of all degrees and 0.7
percent of STEM bachelor's degrees in 2006. On the other hand, Asian
Americans/Pacific Islanders are more likely to be in the STEM pool than
their representation among all bachelor's degree recipients in 2006,
9.7 percent versus 6.7 percent, respectively. White, non-Hispanic
degree recipients received 67.2 percent of STEM bachelor's degree and
69.7 percent of bachelor's degree recipients for all fields. It should
be noted, however, that White, non-Hispanic recipients of bachelor's
degrees in STEM represent a declining proportion of degree recipients
over the past decade, while the reverse is true for all other groups.
Another important trend for underrepresented minorities is that
their present levels are being driven by women. Underrepresented
minority males are under-participating in all fields including STEM.
Again, as we look at the individual groups we see a vast set of
differences within and across fields. For African Americans,
participation levels ranged from highs of 11.6 percent of bachelor's
degrees in computer science, 10.5 percent in psychology and 10.3
percent in social sciences to lows of 1.5 percent and 2.8 percent,
respectively in earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences and agricultural
sciences. For Hispanics, representation levels were highest for
bachelor's degrees in psychology (9.4 percent) and social sciences (8.9
percent) and, as for African Americans, lowest in earth, atmospheric
and ocean sciences, and agricultural sciences at 3.6 percent and 3.8
percent, respectively (See Figure 2).
Once again, broad fields hide wide variations of participation. For
example, African Americans received 6.6 percent of 2006 bachelor's
degrees in the physical sciences. This representation is being driven
by chemistry, where they received 7.6 percent of degrees awarded. In
contrast, they received 3.7 percent of 2006 physics bachelor's degrees.
Interestingly, of 166 bachelor's degrees awarded in physics to African
Americans in 2004, 49 percent of these were awarded by Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). http://www.aip.org/statistics/
trends/highlite/minority/table5.htm
For Hispanics in the social sciences, the 10.3 percent of
bachelor's degree in 2006 conceals the differences in participation
between economics, where they represented fewer than six percent of
degree recipients, and sociology, where they received well over ten
percent of bachelor's degrees.

Persons with Disabilities in STEM
Persons with disabilities have been recognized by AAAS for almost
thirty-five years as a community that deserves special focus and
intervention in terms of STEM education and careers. Yet we are unable
to present the data on participation for this community as we did for
women and minorities. This lack of systematic data makes it difficult
to paint a clear picture of the presence of members of this community
within STEM education or workforce and to identify field-specific
obstacles.
Our extensive networks of and experiences with the community of
scientists and engineers with disabilities have led us to a number of
conclusions as to the needs and potential of persons with disabilities
in STEM:

Today, advances in medical science, cognitive
interventions and assistive technologies have made it possible
to take advantage of the talent and perspectives available for
STEM that are resident among persons with disabilities more
than ever before.

The focus within STEM on ``ability rather than
disability'' makes these fields attractive career and
employment options for persons with disabilities.

The major barriers to persons with disabilities are
often in the area of ``employment,'' though AAAS has developed
a number of partnerships with government and the private
sector, where we have been able to successfully place
scientists and engineers with disabilities in internships, many
leading to full employment and advancement potential.

The issues here deserve more focus particularly as we consider how
to support, with education and training, U.S. veterans who are
returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan with significant
disabilities.

A Total Pathways Perspective

Although I began this testimony focusing on bachelor's degrees in
STEM for under-participating groups, I want to acknowledge the larger
issues of ``pathways to STEM,'' from K-12 education to graduate
education leading to the doctoral degree.

A Focus on K-12
Many of the challenges with retention and time to degree for
underrepresented minority students can be traced back to inadequate
early preparation in K-12:

Students who leave high school without the
prerequisites for success in college, such as four years of
rigorous mathematics and science instruction.

Lack of access to Advanced Placement courses.

Attendance in schools with poor facilities and poorly
prepared faculty.

Lack of expectations for students to enter and be
successful in STEM fields.

And the list goes on. In many cases these factors relate to
failures of policy at every level, from the individual school and
district to the state and Federal Government, from local teacher
placement and assignment policies to a focus on meeting No Child Left
Behind requirements to the exclusion of opportunities for learning.
Proposed initiatives to provide resources to support STEM education
transformation, to increase standards, to push for more rigorous
courses, and to require accountability by disaggregated groups are
steps in the right direction. But, by themselves, they are not enough.
Engagement with the resources of entire communities, colleges and
universities, youth-serving groups, faith-based groups and others is
needed. Students actually spend a small fraction of their waking hours
in formal education settings. We must build out beyond schools to
support learning, not just education. AAAS has experience with engaging
such groups in ``community-wide'' initiatives, and we have evidence
that such approaches have merit.

Community Colleges
There are many roads that students take, whether they are
``traditional'' students who enter higher education immediately
following high school or so-called ``non-traditional'' students who
pursue such education some years after completion of high school or
acquiring a GED.
The pathways to STEM education and careers via community colleges
are different for students from different population groups. Over 38
percent of African American, 51 percent of Hispanic and 42 percent of
American Indian/Alaskan Native students are enrolled in community
colleges. In addition, 20 percent of those who go on to become teachers
begin in community colleges. Fifty percent of teachers attended
community college at some point, and about 40 percent completed some of
their mathematics and science preparation in the community college.
All of these factors cry out for more focused attention on this
critical component of the STEM pathway. Many students choose to go to
community college because of the lower cost of such institutions;
others choose to attend community colleges for reasons of proximity to
their home community. The older age of typical community college
students is indicative that many individuals use the institutions as a
``second chance,'' for retraining and/or seeking new educational and
career prospects. Students who are under-prepared often use the open
access to community colleges as a way to make up the deficiencies;
still others, especially in states where there is strong competition
for slots in the university system, take advantage of the rules around
``articulation'' to access the university. Whatever the reason, one
cannot consider the pathways to STEM without considering the role of
community colleges. Tribal colleges represent a special case, serving
populations that are geographically isolated in ways that respect local
needs and cultural traditions.

HBCUs and HSIs
Other roads to STEM come through Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). In the
days when state institutions were segregated by law, HBCUs were the
only options for higher education for Black students, especially in the
South. As options opened up for African American students to attend
previously all-White institutions in the region, the proportions of
African American undergraduates who were enrolled in HBCUs fell, from
30 percent in 1976 to 18 percent in 2006. Yet, despite the shifting
population of African American students in higher education, including
some of the most competitive students, HBCUs outperformed other
institutions in the proportion of 2004 bachelor's degrees awarded to
African Americans in chemistry (39 percent) and mathematics (37
percent) and remained leaders as the top 10 baccalaureate origins
institutions for Black students who received STEM doctorates between
2003 and 2007. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tabf-7.pdf
A number of institutions have been designated as ``Hispanic-
serving.'' Except for those in Puerto Rico, however, few of these
institutions were expressly established to address the political,
social and cultural needs of these populations. Their designation has
emerged over time as their demographics have changed. And many such
institutions have, in like manner to HBCUs, emerged as disproportionate
contributors to STEM fields and as baccalaureate origins institutions
for Hispanics who received STEM doctorates. A mixed group of HSIs and
non-HSIs made up the top 10 list of baccalaureate origins institutions.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpolpdf/tabf-8.pdf

The Road to the Doctorate and Beyond
Attending to the issue of Ph.D. degree production for women and
underrepresented minorities depends, of course, on the adequacy in
numbers and preparation of the bachelor's degree production process, as
well as the efforts that are made to attract, retain, mentor and
support STEM students in graduate education (See Figure 3). While the
progress in this arena has been slower than we have wished it is
important to note the successes that have emerged due, in part, to a
number of NSF-funded programs.
Prominent among the efforts to increase the numbers of
underrepresented minority doctorates in STEM is the NSF Alliances for
Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP). For over ten years,
AAAS has been the research arm and technical assistance provider to
AGEP. In this role we work with our partner, Campbell-Kibler
Associates, to collect data on enrollment and degree production from
the individual Alliance institutions and monitor and report on the
collective findings. The most recent report, released in February 2010,
indicates an almost 50 percent increase in the average number of Ph.D.s
awarded to underrepresented minorities in natural sciences and
engineering fields over the three year period 2007-09 when compared
with the average for the baseline years of 2001-03.
This is a stunning result and points to what is possible when
research, monitoring, use of collaborative, evidence-based models and
institutional leadership and commitment come together. Of course
questions could be raised about the output of non-AGEP institutions
among doctoral degree granting institutions, especially given the
regular research support that most receive from Federal and other
sources. Some examples of critical questions of commitment that need to
be addressed are: the significant levels of graduate school debt that
underrepresented minority students incur on their way to the doctorate;
the primary forms of support that they indicate (e.g., less likely to
indicate research assistantships); and the adequacy of the mentoring
they receive. Often the stories that emerge are those related to
isolation and failure to find community.
Women's presence within the doctoral population is more
significant, though this differs greatly by field. In 2007, women
received over 50 percent of doctorates in all fields and over 40
percent of STEM doctorates. Women were 49 percent of biological
sciences doctorates and almost 73 percent of psychology doctorates. But
they were only 20.9 percent of engineering doctorates and 20.5 percent
of computer science doctorates. Compared with participation levels in
1998, there have been gains in all fields surveyed (See Figure 3).
Women have received a significant proportion of STEM doctorates for
well over a decade. Yet they are not appearing among the STEM faculty,
especially among leading research institutions, at proportions that
should reasonably be expected given their presence in the available
pool of candidates; nor are they being retained and advanced in the
ranks. Another NSF-funded program has taken on the challenge of
addressing these issues. ADVANCE has focused on the institution-
specific challenges of understanding and affecting the policies and
processes that govern identifying, recruiting, hiring and promoting
faculty as well as the
system impediments that often lead to the loss of talented women
faculty. These would include issues such as: parental leave and ``stop
the clock'' policies; spousal/partner hires; transparency of the
requirements for promotion and tenure and so on. Many of the obstacles
relate to the desire for women (and men) to be able to integrate the
personal/family and career aspects of their lives.
Recent Nobel Laureates Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider
addressed these issues directly in interviews after the announcement of
their award as they talked about the need for institutions to
reconsider the male models upon which the job expectations of STEM
faculty are based; e.g., to consider part-time (as well as part-time
tenure track) and other more flexible arrangements. This is not an
issue of being able or ``good enough'' to do the science. And
separating the aspects of careers that are necessary and those that are
simply ``tradition'' has been a critical component of department and
institutional reviews and responses. Often included in this work have
been studies of the ``climate'' and attitudes that surround the
departments and decision making regarding hiring and promotion. While
every ADVANCE grant has been differently focused to respond to the
particulars of each institution, the focus of all has included research
and evidence-based models that can then inform programs and practices.
Some data are available on STEM doctorates with disabilities.
Looking just at STEM doctorate recipients who reported disabilities in
2007, we find ``learning'' and ``physical/orthopedic'' disabilities as
the leading forms of disabilities reported. They were less likely than
persons without disabilities to have received their doctorates in STEM
fields (over 66 percent versus over 51 percent of all degrees awarded).
The leading field for Ph.D.s for both doctorate recipients with and
without disabilities was biological sciences (11.2 versus 15 percent of
all doctorates awarded, respectively).
In STEM fields, postdoctoral experiences provide important training
in conducting independent research and establishing a research agenda:
functions that are critical to becoming a STEM faculty member. Not much
is known about the postdoctoral experiences of minority and women
scholars; however, it is essential that underrepresented groups benefit
from mentoring from STEM faculty in Research I universities.

Greatest Challenges to/Needs for Achieving Diversity in STEM

The processes of providing quality education to all in STEM, to
enabling individuals to choose careers in these fields and to
supporting the success of STEM professionals are many and complex.
Challenges to broadening participation in STEM vary by group, by field
and level, but include many of the issues listed below.
K-12 STEM Education (Issues affect especially underrepresented
minorities and persons with disabilities)

Quality of K-12 education (rigorous standards and
courses and appropriate support, facilities, technology and
other resources to meet these standards)

Preparation of students in mathematics and science as
well as reading

Teachers who are well prepared to support student
learning in STEM and who have high expectations of all students

Access to the right K-12 courses and to career
guidance

Opportunities for out-of-school experiences to
reinforce STEM learning and careers

Undergraduate STEM Education

Better introductory courses and better teaching:
focusing on cultivating an interest rather than weeding
students out

Early access to experiences that support SIEM,
including undergraduate research

Financial access to institutions of higher education
for STEM students

Debt as a deterrent to continuous enrollment,
progress to degree and consideration of graduate study

Support for community colleges to enable them to more
adequately play a pathway role, including better articulation

More support for institutions that are shouldering a
disproportionate role in bringing underrepresented minorities
to STEM

More accountability on Research I institutions to
take responsibility for student success in STEM

Real physical and attitudinal accessibility to STEM
programs (``beyond the ramps '')

Graduate-level and Beyond

Provide a ``mix'' of support that research has deemed
most effective in ensuring student progression through to the
doctorate, including fellowships/traineeships, research
assistantships, and teaching assistantships

Burden of rising tuition rates and creating
mechanisms to reduce debt

Isolation and lack of supportive environment and
effective mentoring

Need for skill building that addresses other aspects
of job requirements, beyond research

Encouragement and career guidance, including more
guidance on what students can do outside of academia

Opportunities for network development, publishing,
presenting and interacting in a global environment

Opportunities for post-doctoral experience to support
career development

Workforce

Flexibility in the structure of employment and
positions (e.g., part-time, shared, etc.)

Valuing diversity and what it brings to the
workplace, the classroom and the lab

Transparency in expectations and in what is needed
for promotion

Fair and transparent processes in hiring, promoting
and advancing, especially with regard to STEM faculty

Issues Specific to Persons with Disabilities

Definitional issues, including the situation for
individuals with apparent vs. non-apparent disabilities

Disclosure concerns (risking discrimination or shifts
in attitude, e.g., with the disclosure of a non-apparent
disability)

Issues regarding age of onset of disability and its
differential impact on education and careers

Generational differences (the situation is quite
different for persons who began education and/or careers prior
to the passage of laws related to non-discrimination)

Differences related to presence and/or availability
of assistive technology which can ameliorate (though never
cancel) the impact of a disabling condition

AAAS Efforts to Broaden Participation in STEM

AAAS has a long history of efforts to increase the participation of
girls and young women, underrepresented minorities and persons with
disabilities and to enhance the status of these groups in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics-- The association has
communicated this commitment to equal opportunity through its mission
statement, its programs, and its governance. This work is consistent
with the AAAS mission to ``advance science, engineering, and innovation
throughout the world for the benefit of all people.'' To fulfill this
mission, the AAAS Board has set out broad goals that include
strengthening and diversifying the science and technology (S&T)
workforce and fostering education in science and technology for
everyone.
The AAAS Directorate for Education and Human Resources that I head
combines concerns around diversity of the STEM community with issues
related to strengthening STEM education for everyone, from pre-K to
post-graduate, and public engagement to promote STEM literacy overall,
with special attention focused on efforts to:

Increase participation of women, underrepresented
minorities (African Americans, American Indians and Hispanics)
and persons with disabilities in science, mathematics,
engineering and biomedical education and careers.

Heighten the visibility and promote the advancement
of these groups in STEM.

Raise awareness and recognition of the barriers faced
by these groups and help to remove them.

Increase the involvement of these groups within the
activities of the AAAS as well as in the larger STEM
enterprise.

We make progress in these areas by exploring how programs, policies
and practices combine to determine the shape of STEM. While we work
across the issues presented for the different groups we work to
understand where concerns may overlap as well as where they may differ.
We know that context matters and that it is important to know when we
should ``lump'' as well as when we must ``split.'' For example, we came
to understand quite early that the situation for minority women in
science and engineering is unlike the situation either for White women
or for minority men, and that even within the category of minority
females, differences of history, culture and expectations play a key
role. On the other hand, the lack of transparency in university hiring
and promotion has a detrimental effect on the retention of all
underrepresented groups, and this concern may be addressed as a single
issue or a ``theme with variations.''
We have pursued models that have been attentive to differences and
similarities in our search for effective strategies for addressing
different elements of the complex ecosystem of STEM education and
careers. And at every turn, even as we target, we work to effectively
mainstream issues related to diversity.
In many ways we credit our work with persons with disabilities for
bringing this aspect clearly into focus. While persons with
disabilities may be the programmatic and statistical category that we
use, the needs of each individual are unique given the
``particularistic'' nature of each disability and especially as these
play out in each educational or job setting. A person may have a
disability, but a person can also be disabled by an unsupportive
environment.

Overview of AAAS Programs

Teachers for Diverse Student Populations. We have developed
projects to cultivate teacher leaders in mathematics and science for
middle schools in the District of Columbia through a master's program
developed in collaboration with George Washington University, funded by
the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. In this program
veteran teachers get critical subject matter instruction as well as
courses that focus on emerging insights in the learning sciences,
effective pedagogy and the use of technology. The emphasis is on
developing ``change agents'' who can work with their peers to improve
student performance in schools serving diverse student populations. We
not only affect area schools; we also develop and test interventions as
possible national models.
Careers for the Future. Another current project is focusing on
introducing students, their parents, teachers and counselors to STEM
careers, looking especially at those related to energy and the
environment. This NSF-funded ITEST project introduces quality
curriculum, career exploration, appropriate role models, projects, and
a focus on learning both in and beyond the school day. We are
interested not only in undertaking the project, but also in learning
from it. For example, does it make a difference to have learning
coherence across a program, and does ``dosage'' matter? That is, what
is the difference in the learning of students who are engaged in
multiple program elements?
Learning in Out-of-School Environments. We use science and
technology-focused clubs and ``gaming'' to support student learning. We
have been able to demonstrate through evaluations of our Kinetic City
out-of-school clubs, for example, that students not only learn the
science, but they also improve in reading and writing. ``Find out what
will work, and make it as accessible as possible,'' has been a guiding
principle of our work.
Undergraduate Teaching. At the level of higher education, through a
current partnership that involves both disciplinary and education units
of the National Science Foundation along with HHMI and the MORE
Division of NIGMS of NIH, we are working to address the larger issue of
the quality of introductory college courses in biology. We are a
partner in bringing together a community of practice that seeks to
create a movement to develop courses that will more effectively engage
students and advance their understanding of the nature of science,
instead of courses that turn them off and leave them ``science
averse.''
Building Institutional Capacity. Returning to the notion of the
``personalized nature'' of barriers and opportunities, nowhere is this
issue more clear than in the work of the AAAS Center for Advancing
Science and Engineering Capacity directed by Dr. Daryl Chubin. This
``fee for service'' consulting organization, embedded within AAAS,
works with institutions to help them build internal capacity to respond
to the need to better serve all STEM students and to diversify their
student populations and faculty. Center staff and consultants help to
move lessons learned across institutions even as they address the needs
of particular departments, schools and colleges. Center clients have
included many different types of institutions (e.g., an undergraduate
research program at Harvard; a ``scholars'' program at LSU) and funded
programs (e.g., NSF GK-12; NSF Broadening Participation in Computing).
The work has included evaluation, technical assistance and training.
Currently the Center is engaged in addressing an issue that touches
every higher education institution in the country. Given the current
structure of laws, regulations and court decisions, how do institutions
put in place programs, policies and practices to achieve diversity
among undergraduate and graduate STEM student populations and faculty
that are both effective and legally defensible?
Early efforts (from the mid-1960s through the 1970s) undertaken by
colleges, universities, school systems, agencies and others to broaden
participation in STEM often took the form of so-called ``special
programs,'' projects set aside for different groups to respond to the
particular challenges and barriers that each circumstance might
present. A series of district and Supreme Court decisions, along with
the passage of anti-affirmative action referenda in a number of states,
raised serious concerns as to whether certain practices and programs
might be able to withstand legal challenge. For example, in the 1995
post-Adarand review of programs at the Federal level, a number of NSF
programs were discontinued.
In universities, post-Adarand concerns and the absence of guidance
after the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger Michigan
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court led to confusion in universities
about what was and was not allowed. Outside of clarifying what was
permissible in admissions decision-making the rulings were silent in
addressing concerns related to aspects so critical in STEM education
such as outreach and support programs. It was not clear how the
institutions might capture the educational value of diversity noted by
Justice O'Connor and address the national need to develop a diverse
STEM workforce.
Following a conference held in 2004, in partnership with the
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME), and co-
publication in the same year of Standing Our Ground: A Guidebook for
STEM Educators in the Post-Michigan Era, we began to consider what more
could be done to help clarify what might be possible to advance STEM
diversity even in light of legal and judicial constraints.
AAAS and NACME co-sponsored a meeting in 2008, with the support of
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation that included academic, corporate and
legal representatives to discuss the legal barriers to and the
compelling national interest of advancing diversity in STEM. From that
gathering was born the idea of undertaking a deep analysis, both legal
and programmatic, to identify initiatives and practices capable of
satisfying both requirements for effectiveness and legal defensibility.
This initial meeting has resulted in follow-up workshops with
continued support from Sloan and now the National Science Foundation as
well as AAAS and our partner organization, the Association of American
Universities (AAU). The project has:

Identified and partnered with two law firms who,
through considerable pro bono work, have identified the bodies
of law that applies both to student and faculty employment
issues.

Developed materials to guide institutional leaders
through the analysis of the law and its implications as related
to diversifying STEM students and faculty.

Conducted a pilot workshop with ten AAU institutional
teams, including the general counsel and provost or
representative of each institution.

Revised and refined the materials in response to
feedback.

Held a second workshop to disseminate the materials
as well as to test the format of the sessions.

In these workshops there are opportunities for extensive networking
among counsels and provosts, and chances to consider issues from both
education/mission concerns as well as through a legal frame. We are
currently seeking support to enable us to adapt the materials and case
studies to other types of institutions and to expand the dialogue
beyond the research universities that belong to AAU. A number of higher
education organizations have written letters of support and signaled
their interest in having this work extended to their membership.

The Federal Role in Broadening Participation

President Obama has articulated both the need for attention to
education in STEM and the value of engaging the broadest base of talent
in these fields. This leadership, coupled with coordination across the
Federal Government and thoughtful implementation of evidence-based
efforts, can do much in addressing broadening participation in STEM.
Improving K-12 Education for All. Effective implementation of Race
to the Top, for example, by emphasizing STEM and success for all
students in science, mathematics and literacy, could over time affect
the challenge of weak preparation that too many minority students bring
to higher education. But it will be important to know that the affected
populations are being served, that attention to diverse learners is a
part of the overall strategy, and that communities are engaged beyond
the school walls and the school day.
Coordination of Programs. At the same time that this support seeks
to affect the infrastructure for learning from the statehouse to the
school room, Federal science agencies and departments need to be able
to support the development of programs and strategies that are
``mission specific'' and that can ensure that an expanded talent base
also includes people who bring the skill sets specific to their mission
and needs. Overarching this needs to be a coherent plan for talent
expansion and development that is coordinated through an NSTC-type
mechanism. This is not the time for misplaced concerns about the
``duplication of effort.'' Any agency charged with carrying out a
mission needs the authority to help construct the future human
resources pool required to advance its mission.
Coherent Approaches to Community College Support. Given the fact
that community colleges are enrolling so many underrepresented minority
students, there is a need to carefully craft support strategies for
these institutions that can enable them to do a better job, both of
providing education in technical and allied health fields but also in
the transfer of STEM students to four-year colleges and universities.
There is a need to do this while being honest about the strengths that
community colleges could bring to a total pathways approach to STEM and
as access points for higher education, as well as about the weaknesses
they currently display in moving such a small proportion of their STEM
students to the next level. In many states expenditures for students in
community colleges fall below levels for either K-12 or four-year
colleges. Because these institutions are continually being called upon
to do ``more with less'' and to serve so many different missions,
injections of funding need to be targeted and purposeful to address the
concerns relevant to smoothing the pathway to STEMM.
Money Matters. We have begun to understand how significant the
financial impediments may be for those pursuing graduate study in STEM,
and that the accumulation of undergraduate and graduate debt may be a
serious deterrent to underrepresented minority and low-income students.
Addressing the access and financial aid issues at both undergraduate
and graduate levels is not just a matter of ``throwing money,'' but
merits thoughtful consideration as to the conditions surrounding
support. For example, providing stipends associated with undergraduate
research participation accomplishes at least four worthy outcomes at
the same time: providing a positive educational experience; reinforcing
a commitment to STEM and aiding in retention; providing a source of
needed financial support; and linking students to potential mentors. At
the graduate level mixed forms of support over time (a portable
fellowship or traineeship coupled with a research assistantship, which
may help reinforce mentoring relationships and build a publications
record) may be the smartest form of investment. For many fields of
science and all fields of engineering, domestic students of every race
and ethnicity are falling further behind in receipt of doctorate
degrees. We need to understand how debt and the opportunity costs of
graduate education might be affecting these results. In cases where we
are looking to the talent of the future to innovate and address global
challenges of water, food security, health, climate change, loss of
species diversity, and many others, we must invest in the development
of the talent base.
Role of the NSF. As with the corporate leaders who in our 2008
workshop spoke so compellingly of the need to utilize the full extent
of the nation's talent base to support STEM, we have acknowledged
consistent commitment to the idea of broadening participation in STEM
by the leadership of the National Science Foundation. The NSF has a
special role, emerging from the mandate of its organic act as well as
through the provisions of the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act of 1980 to see to concerns related to STEM education
the health of the human resources base for STEM.
Many of NSF's efforts are hitting the right targets (for example,
Broadening Participation in Computing). Computing is an area in special
need of attention. As noted earlier the participation trend lines for
women in computer science, for example, are headed in the wrong
direction. There is a real irony that women received their largest
percentage (37.2 percent) of bachelor's degree in computer science in
1984! Since that time their participation has plummeted to a little
over 20 percent. Meanwhile U.S. citizens and permanent residents
received only about 37 percent of the Ph.D.s in computer and
information sciences in 2008. AAAS, through the Capacity Center, has
been a partner with the NSF program, assisting institutions to
understand how to monitor and assess progress toward their goals.
The ADVANCE program has provided commendable leadership in helping
institutions assess and address their processes, policies and
procedures to support women faculty in the areas of hiring, promotion,
tenure and development of family-friendly environments that ultimately
benefit all. The program of Alliances for Graduate Education and the
Professoriate (AGEP) has demonstrated what is possible in increasing
the numbers of underrepresented minority Ph.D.s through supporting
alliances of doctoral degree granting and minority serving
institutions. The programs aimed at strengthening HBCUs and Tribal
Colleges are affecting the capacity of those institutions to make a
difference for their students in the quality of preparation and the
diversity of fields of study. The Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation (LSAMP) Program is helping to increase the bachelor's
production of underrepresented minority students in STEM, fostering
alliances of majority and minority institutions in the process. In the
case of HBCUs we see the impact of their work as they make a
disproportionate contribution to the STEM Ph.D. production of African
Americans. And I anticipate that a carefully crafted program of support
for HSIs with demonstrated capacity to support the success of Hispanic
students in STEM could make a similar contribution.
The challenge is not the program goals themselves, but the modest
scale of the investments! The programs need to be used as critical
components to a portfolio approach to broadening participation. In the
2011 documentation to the proposed NSF budget, there is considerable
language about consolidation of such programs. Looking at efforts to
date it is not clear that such a major consolidation is desirable or
prudent at this time. To what extent is the rest of NSF's budget being
used in support of the integration of research and education in ways
that support broadening participation? Why are the overwhelming
majority of research universities doing so little to advance the
broadening participation goals of the Foundation? Can we track the
current impact of the ``broader impacts'' criterion on broadening
participation goals?
How much is being invested in sharing lessons learned from program
investments in broadening participation efforts beyond the community
that is currently committed and active? At this point it is important
to continue investing in initiatives that seek to identify and test
effective broadening participation strategies in departments and
institutions. At the same time we must transfer lessons learned in ways
that mainstream the concerns into the directorates and divisions of the
Foundation, and from them into the institutions they support, as part
of the regular way that the NSF's business is done, without introducing
``lethal program mutations'' where the true intent or practices of
initiatives are lost.
When undertaking any efforts at mainstreaming, it is crucial to
monitor progress, to insist on the use of evidence-based strategies,
and to provide technical assistance and capacity building. The risk is
great in mainstreaming, however, of losing sight of the special and
particular needs, histories and issues of different types of
institutions, and different groups in the context of different fields.
It is critical to know when to lump and when to split.
Despite the difficulty of doing the work related to broadening
participation, there are institutions that have enjoyed some success in
this goal while others have not. Leadership and political will must
combine with successful strategies. There are effective efforts that
can be mounted that are legally defensible. But first you must want to
make a difference.

Appendix

Biography for Shirley M. Malcom
Shirley M. Malcom is Head of the Directorate for Education and
Human Resources Programs of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS). The directorate includes AAAS programs
in education, activities for underrepresented groups, and public
understanding of science and technology. Dr. Malcom serves on several
boards--including the Heinz Endowments and the H. John Heinz III Center
for Science, Economics and the Environment--and is an honorary trustee
of the American Museum of Natural History. In 2006 she was named as co-
chair (with Leon Lederman) of the National Science Board Commission on
21st Century Education in STEM. She serves as a Regent of Morgan State
University and as a trustee of Caltech. In addition, she has chaired a
number of national committees addressing education reform and access to
scientific and technical education, careers and literacy. Dr. Malcom is
a former trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. She is a
fellow of the AAAS and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She
served on the National Science Board, the policymaking body of the
National Science Foundation from 1994 to 1998, and from 1994-2001
served on the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology. Dr. Malcom received her doctorate in ecology from
Pennsylvania State University; master's degree in zoology from the
University of California, Los Angeles; and bachelor's degree with
distinction in zoology from the University of Washington. She also
holds 16 honorary degrees. In 2003 Dr. Malcom received the Public
Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences, the highest award
given by the Academy.

Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Dr. Dowd.

STATEMENT OF DR. ALICIA C. DOWD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND CO-DIRECTOR
OF THE CENTER FOR URBAN EDUCATION

Dr. Dowd. Representative Fudge, Ranking Member Ehlers and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the honor of addressing
you here today. My name is Alicia Dowd. I am Co-Director of the
Center for Urban Education and I am a Professor at the Rossier
School of Education at USC. I would like to start by talking
about the current situation.
The Committee has taken up the issue of broadening
diversity in STEM fields in an era of urgent need to improve
the Nation's infrastructure, environmental sustainability,
security and manufacturing. Yet currently we are experiencing a
loss of talent from STEM as each year African American, Latina,
Latino and American Indian students start their college studies
as STEM majors, but then leave those fields at high rates. In
alarming numbers, students across the country graduate from
high school unprepared to do college-level mathematics and
experience dead-end remedial classrooms in college. The
students who have been most poorly served in their primary and
secondary schooling are too often assigned the least well-
prepared teachers in colleges with the lowest level of
resources.
So the question is, what can we do about this situation?
Some work has already been done. With funding from NSF and
other Federal agencies, STEM faculty, administrators and
counselors have built on research findings to develop model
programs that help students navigate college and complete STEM
degrees. These include supplemental instruction, orientation,
summer bridge programs, peer tutoring and intrusive advising.
However, these practices do not go far enough. Most
problematically, they are typically focused on fixing students
rather than on fixing instructional practices in STEM. They
need to be supplemented with work at the core of higher
education. This means in classrooms through curriculum reform
and through new pedagogies.
We know that active learning, focused on real-world problem
solving, engages students of all backgrounds. Research shows
that African American, Latino and female students find added
value in applying their scientific learning to problems of
communities and society. To encourage active learning and
applied problem solving in STEM, we need to invest in bold
experiments that reorganize the curriculum and break down
disciplinary silos.
But another major challenge must be acknowledged. The
racial climate of STEM classrooms and programs is too often
negative. Recent research documents that racial stigma and
discrimination create significant barriers to the participation
of underrepresented racial ethnic groups in STEM. To improve
diversity, we must use the tools of culturally responsive
pedagogy to dispel the negative racial climates created when
students are treated as if they are all alike. One factor that
perpetuates this issue is that our STEM teaching force is not
as diverse as the student body. We teach as we were taught and
unwittingly reproduce harsh campus climates that too often
devalue racial and ethnic diversity. The new STEM teaching
force should have the cultural competencies to dispel any sense
of racial discrimination, bias or racial stigma. This is
imperative.
The most important step NSF can take, therefore, is to fund
interdisciplinary research of STEM pedagogy and the racial
climate of STEM classrooms and learning environments.
Scientists and social scientists can conduct studies together
to determine the kind of professional development and support
professors need to adopt new pedagogies. Change must come at
the institutional levels and with prominent educational
leadership. To enable this change, the development of rigorous
and comprehensive evaluation strategies is needed. These must
include evaluation of student outcomes, of program
effectiveness in reaching performance benchmarks as well as
evaluation of faculty development and organizational change
processes.
Change cannot be limited to individual institutions. As the
majority of Latino students are enrolled at community colleges
today, to improve the participation of Hispanic students in
STEM, structural reforms must cross the boundaries of two-year
colleges and four-year universities to allow students to
transfer and earn bachelor's degrees and graduate degrees. In
addition, Hispanic students are heavily enrolled in Hispanic-
Serving Institutions. Funding that enhances the mission focus
and Hispanic-serving focus of these institutions will have a
central role to play in improving Latina and Latino
participation in STEM.
In closing, let me affirm that we do not face an
aspirations gap among African American, Latina and Latino and
American Indian students for participation in STEM. We have an
opportunity and an education gap. Notably, we have the tools to
close that gap if we have the will. I have no doubt that our
investments in diversity in STEM will be repaid through greater
productivity and innovation.
It has been my privilege to address this committee. I thank
you for your attention to my remarks and I will be happy to
elaborate on my comments or my written testimony in response to
your questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dowd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alicia C. Dowd
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to inform your deliberations
concerning the issues of diversity in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM). I am honored to share my research findings and
recommendations with you. The committee has taken up the issue of
broadening diversity in STEM fields in an era of urgent need to improve
the nation's infrastructure, environmental sustainability, security,
and manufacturing. Currently we are experiencing a loss of talent from
STEM, as each year African American, Latina and Latino, and American
Indian students start their college studies as STEM majors, but then
leave those fields at high rates. The National Science Foundation's
(NSF) role in addressing these problems is under review. You have asked
me to address, in particular, the challenges of increasing the
participation of Hispanic students in STEM fields.
In this testimony, I first describe the context of higher education
for Hispanic students, who attend community colleges and Hispanic
Serving Institutions (HSIs) more than other students. I then discuss
the value of NSF funding in two broad categories: (1) student services,
academic support programs, and curricular reform; and (2) scholarships
and fellowships. While recognizing the value of expanded student
services and academic programming, I raise concerns that current
approaches do not address the fundamental problem of the negative
racial climate in STEM classrooms and programs. In conclusion, my
recommendations emphasize the need for consortium based and
interdisciplinary collaboration in curriculum reform, particularly in
mathematics education. I also call for the adoption of more robust and
comprehensive evaluation standards to evaluate the impact of NSF
funding on diversity in STEM.
In making these recommendations, I draw on findings from a three-
year NSF-funded study (STEP-Type 2) called Pathways to STEM Bachelor's
and Graduate Degrees for Hispanic Students and the Role of Hispanic
Serving Institutions, for which I serve as principal investigator. This
study involved statistical analyses of college financing strategies and
the impact of debt on graduate school enrollment; interviews with
ninety faculty, administrators, and counselors at Hispanic Serving
Institutions; and the development of instruments to assess
institutional capacity for expanding Hispanic student participation in
STEM. I also draw on my experiences as an educational researcher and
methodologist, a review panel member for research proposals submitted
to the NSF and the Institute for Education Sciences (TES), and as co-
director of the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of
Southern California. CUE's mission is to conduct socially conscious
research and develop the tools needed by institutions of higher
education to produce equity in student outcomes.

Hispanic Students in Higher Education and STEM \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For further information, data sources, and references, see
Benchmarking the Success of Latina and Latino Students in STEM to
Achieve National Graduation Goals by Alicia C. Dowd, Lindsey E. Malcom,
and Estela Mara Bensimon (December, 2009, USC Center for Urban
Education) and Improving Transfer Access to STEM Bachelor's Degrees at
Hispanic Serving Institutions through the America COMPETES Act by
Alicia C. Dowd, Lindsey E. Malcom, and Elsa E. Macias (forthcoming
March 2010, USC Center for Urban Education).

Two types of institutions play a much greater role in the education
of Hispanic students in comparison to students of other racial-ethnic
groups: community colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs,)
which are defined by the Federal Government as institutions with 25% or
more Hispanic full-time equivalent student enrollment. More than half
of all Hispanic college students enrolled in post-secondary education
attend a community college. In 2006, the enrollment of Hispanic
students in U.S. community colleges was 932,526, which compares with
903,079 Hispanic students enrolled in four-year institutions. Hispanic
college students are enrolled in HSIs in such large numbers that
approximately half of all Latina and Latino undergraduates enrolled in
four-year universities can be found at just a fraction (10%) of four-
year universities. As a result, a large proportion (40%) of the
bachelor's degrees awarded to Hispanic students in all fields of study
are awarded by HSIs.
In 2006-07, 265 institutions of higher education were classified as
Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). Almost half of these were
community colleges. The other half were divided between public and
private not-for profit four-year universities (with a small number of
private not-for profit two-year institutions). Hispanic students and
Hispanic Serving Institutions are heavily concentrated in the
Southwestern states, where over half of the HSIs are located (see
Figure 1). However, several states outside the Southwest are also home
to HSIs, including Florida, Illinois, and New York, and fifty-one HSIs
are located in Puerto Rico. More institutions will be classified as
HSIs in other states as the Hispanic population continues to grow.
Although approximately 40% of the bachelor's degrees awarded to
Hispanic students in all fields of study are awarded by HSIs, this
proportion is lower in STEM fields. Only 20% of the bachelor's degrees
awarded to Hispanic students in STEM fields are awarded by HSIs. Only a
small percentage of Hispanic STEM baccalaureates (6.5%) earn the
bachelor's degree at an HSI after having earned an associate's degree.
In her analysis of NSF's National Survey of Recent College
Graduates (NSRCG) \2\ for our study of Latino Pathways to STEM Degrees,
Professor Lindsey Malcom of the University of California Riverside
found that Latino community college transfers who first earn
associate's degrees have lower access to STEM bachelor's degrees at
academically selective and private universities than their counterparts
who do not earn an associate's degree prior to the bachelor's. These
transfer students who held associate's degrees were more likely to
graduate from Hispanic Serving Institutions (32.1% with an associate's
degree compared to 16.8% without one) and from public four-year
institutions (83% as opposed to 62.9%). However, they were less likely
to graduate from academically selective institutions (42% with an
associate's degree compared to 59% without one) or from a research
university (25.3% as opposed to 43.5%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For details, see Malcom, L. E. (2008). Accumulating
(dis)Advantage? Institutional and financial aid pathways of Latino STEM
baccalaureates. Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles. CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis also showed differences in the fields of study in
which students earned their bachelor's degrees. HSIs had greater
success than non-HSIs in graduating Latinos in several STEM fields of
critical importance in the workforce, particularly computer science and
mathematics. However, transfer students who first earned associate's
degrees were less likely to earn degrees in those fields of study at
HSIs.
These figures would change if we used a different definition of
transfer students (for example those who transferred after the
equivalent of one year of study, or 30 credits), but they illustrate
that certain pathways to STEM bachelor's degrees are not as readily
accessible for students who start out in community colleges. Notably,
those institutions that provide the greatest access to graduate degrees
(academically selective and research universities) are least accessible
to Latina and Latinos who earn associate's degrees. As a result, the
proportion of STEM doctoral degrees awarded to Hispanic students
(estimated at less than. 5%) severely lags the proportion of Hispanics
in the U.S. population (around 15%). Our study indicates that access to
STEM bachelor's and graduate professions can be expanded for Hispanic
students by improving access to STEM bachelor's and graduate degrees
through transfer from community colleges.
Expanded transfer access is necessary because although Hispanic
participation in STEM fields has risen, it has not kept pace with
Hispanic population growth. Growth in the number of bachelor's degrees
awarded to Hispanic students has occurred primarily in non-science and
engineering fields. From 1998 to 2007, there was a 64% increase in the
number of non-science and engineering bachelor's degrees awarded to
Hispanic students, as compared to an increase of only 50% in science
and engineering degrees awarded to Hispanic students.
Furthermore, most of that 50% growth occurred primarily in the
social sciences and psychology rather than in the biological sciences,
engineering, computer sciences, and other fields categorized as STEM
fields. The lower participation of Hispanic students in STEM is not due
to lack of interest. A recent report by UCLA's Higher Education
Research Institute demonstrates that Hispanic students enter college
with the same aspirations to earn STEM degrees as students of other
racial-ethnic backgrounds.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hurtado, S., Pryor, J., Trail, S., Blake, L.P., DeAngelo, L., &
Aragon, M. (2010). Degrees of Success: Bachelor's Degree Completion
Rates among Initial STEM Majors. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the number of STEM bachelor's degrees awarded to Hispanic
students grew over the past decade, the rate of growth in the number of
STEM degrees awarded at other levels (associate's, master's and
doctoral) was quite flat. Approximately 6,000 associate's degrees were
awarded to Hispanics in science and engineering fields in 2007, a
relatively low number given the large population of Hispanics enrolled
in community colleges. These figures reflect the fact that many
community college students from all racial-ethnic groups are placed in
remedial mathematics classes at community colleges. There is
considerable variation by state, but it is not uncommon for the rate of
remedial placement to be as high as 50% at community colleges and in
some colleges that figure can reach as high as 90%. Remedial
instruction in mathematics is also common at the four-year level, but
the rates of remedial placement are lower, nearer to 20% or 30%.
Improving teaching and learning in mathematics instruction is therefore
a high priority for increasing the numbers of STEM degrees awarded to
Hispanic students.

National Science Foundation (NSF) Support for Diversity in STEM

Student Services, Academic Support Programs, and Curricular Reform

NSF currently funds special programs at community colleges and
four-year institutions that aim to increase the number of students
earning STEM degrees by providing enhanced student services and
academic advising. Typical strategies focus on recruitment,
orientation, faculty and peer mentoring, and intrusive advising to
inform students if they are running into trouble academically or to
guide them in making good academic choices. These strategies are
primarily designed to reduce the difficulties of navigating college by
providing students with information and extra support. Other programs
go farther by offering learning experiences designed to better engage
students in scientific study, such as through intensive summer research
programs, learning communities, and supplemental instruction. A subset
of the student services and academic support programs place a
particular emphasis on increasing the numbers of students from
underrepresented racial-ethnic groups in STEM.
The value of these special programs is supported by research that
indicates such approaches are ``best practices'' for keeping students
in college. However, the most common program designs implemented by NSF
grantees are not informed by studies of the racial climate of STEM
classrooms and programs. Recent research documents that racial stigma
and discrimination create significant barriers to the participation of
underrepresented racial-ethnic groups in STEM. A sampling of recent
studies and reports illustrates this point:

A literature review issued in 2009 documenting the
``Talent Crisis in Science and Engineering'' points to
``traditions and stereotypes'' that create low expectations,
bias, and race discrimination as a primary cause of the loss of
talent in STEM fields.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Sevo, R. (2009). The talent crisis in science and engineering.
Retrieved February 1, 2009, from SWE-AWE: http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/
ARPResources.aspx

A book published in 2009 titled ``Standing on the
Outside Looking In: Underrepresented Students' Experiences in
Advanced Degree Programs'' captures the experiences of African
American, Latina, and Latino graduate students of color. It
documents hostile learning environments and experiences of
marginalization and exclusion based on race and ethnicity,
class, gender, and language among students of color in STEM
fields and Latinas in doctoral and professional programs in the
health sciences.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Gasman, M., Perna, L. W., Yoon, S., Drezner, N. D., Lundy-
Wagner, V:, Bose, E., et at. (2009). The path to graduate school in
science and engineering for underrepresented students of color (pp. 63-
81) and Gonzalez, J. C. (2009) Latinas in doctoral and professional
programs: Similarities and differences in support systems and
challenges. In M. F. Howard-Hamilton, C. L. Morelon-Quainoo, S. M.
Johnson, R. Winkle-Wagner & L. Santiague (Eds.), Standing on the
outside looking in: Underrepresented students' experiences in advanced
degree programs (pp. 103-123).

A report issued in 2010 on ``Diversifying the STEM
Pipeline: The Model Replication Institutions Program'' raises
concern about the lack of ``buy in'' among faculty and senior
leadership at participating campuses towards the goal of
increasing access and success in STEM education for minority
and low-income students.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Diversifying the STEMpipeline: the Model Replication
Institutions Program (n.d.). Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher
Education Policy (IHEP).

A research article published in 2009 emphasizes that
African American students participate in mathematics education
with an acute awareness of the dynamics of race and racism in
their lives. Successful students embrace a mathematics identity
and an identity as African Americans, but this often comes only
through a great deal of struggle and perseverance.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics. Teachers
College Record, 111(2), 295-338.

Programs that do not address the fundamental problem of the
negative racial climate in STEM fields are, therefore, unlikely to have
a substantial impact to increase diversity.
There is a second problem that limits the potential of such
interventions. They are not primarily designed to transform STEM
education at its heart: in the classroom and the core curriculum. They
tend to be program based and therefore seldom bridge the boundaries of
different disciplines and types of institutions. There is a risk that
the improvements in mentoring, advising, supplemental instruction, and
laboratory instruction that may be brought about by the special
programs that have been funded will remain on the periphery and not
have a broader impact on STEM education.
Through the case study component of the USC Center for Urban
Education's (CUE) study of Latino Pathways to STEM Degrees, researchers
under the leadership of Professor Estela Mara Bensimon, co-director of
CUE and co-principal investigator of this NSF-funded study, interviewed
ninety faculty, administrators, and counselors at three universities
and three community colleges, all of which were Hispanic Serving
Institutions. Many of these individuals were employed by or affiliated
with NSF-funded programs designed to improve diversity in STEM fields.
These respondents often described and shared data with us showing
programs intensively focused on a small number of Hispanic students
relative to the entire Hispanic student body. As often as not, those we
interviewed worked in isolation and were not part of robust networks of
faculty and administrators engaged in changing the STEM curriculum. For
some the isolated nature of the work led to a sense that the goal of
improving Hispanic student participation and degree completion in STEM
fields was not supported by the college leadership. These results led
us to question whether interventions through special programs can be
adequate to the task of substantially increasing the number of Hispanic
students being awarded STEM degrees.
This committee has already heard testimony on February 4, 2010 from
Dean Karen Klomparens of Michigan State University and Professor Robert
Mathieu of the University of Wisconsin at Madison regarding the
importance of creating active learning in STEM education and providing
faculty with the know-how (through professional development) to bring
about active learning. I endorse their testimony and note that in
regard to diversity issues in STEM, active learning and ``real world''
problem-solving approaches hold promise to reduce the sense of
alienation of underrepresented racial-ethnic groups too often
experience in STEM fields. Studies show that students of color value
the opportunity to serve communities and address social problems
through their college coursework.
However, as important as active learning and real world problem
solving is, even this solution is not sufficient in and of itself to
substantially improve diversity in STEM fields. Active learning can be
incorporated without attention to the root problem of the racial
discrimination, stigma, and alienation experienced by underrepresented
students in STEM fields. NSF has played an important role in supporting
experimentation in the STEM curriculum. Future funding will be valuably
invested by ensuring that curricular innovation and reform occurs in
the core curriculum and with the majority of faculty members involved.
Such initiatives will also need to directly engage and be designed to
tackle the problems of racial discrimination experienced by too many
students who then depart STEM.

Scholarships and Fellowships

Current NSF funding invests considerably in research and graduate
fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students, including students
from underrepresented racial-ethnic groups, in STEM fields. Many
studies indicate that targeted financial aid is extremely important and
that grants of this type improve students' persistence and degree
completion in college. Scholarships and fellowships also reduce
students' need to borrow for post-secondary education at the
undergraduate and graduate level.
This is of particular importance when we consider diversity in STEM
because debt can have a more negative impact on underrepresented
students. An analysis by Professor Lindsey Malcom of the University of
California Riverside of NSF's National Survey of Recent College
Graduates (NSRCG), conducted as part of the CUE's study of Hispanic
student pathways to STEM degrees, found that cumulative undergraduate
debt among STEM bachelor's degree holders (measured in relative telius
in comparison with the typical amount of debt at the graduate's
institution) had a more negative effect on graduate school enrollment
right after college among Hispanic STEM baccalaureates than among
students of other racial-ethnic backgrounds. We do not interpret these
findings as a sign of risk aversion among Hispanic students, as some
analysts have inferred, because the Hispanic STEM bachelor's degree
holders in the study tended to have a higher amount of debt than the
typical graduate in their graduating class. The findings suggest a
reluctance to incur more debt for graduate or professional study, which
is a typical financing pattern except for those students who receive
graduate fellowships. They illustrate the importance of scholarships
and fellowships in improving Hispanic student participation in STEM
fields and professions. They also provide support for policies that
offer student loan forgiveness to students who work in socially valued
professions such as mathematics education and clinical health care.

Recommendations

Summary

Through NSF funding, we have made valuable investments in the
development of student services and academic support programs to help
students navigate the complexities of college and the STEM curriculum.
However, a broader strategy is required to reduce the negative campus
climates experienced by Hispanic students and other racial-ethnic
minorities. This is because stereotypes of underrepresented students--
representing them as unable to succeed or disinterested in STEM--are
pervasive in society, schools, and post-secondary education. The
``treatment'' of special programs in relation to the overall problem is
insufficient because they tend to take place at the margins rather than
the core of higher education.
This is not to say that special advising and student services
programs are not part of the necessary remedy--they are. The work in
this area has identified workable strategies for providing students
with additional information, support, and direction. However, the next
generation of studies and experimental programs must explore models of
even more fundamental organizational change in terms of curriculum
design, assessment of student learning, and faculty and administrator
rewards.

Areas for Future NSF Support

The area in greatest need of pedagogical innovation is remedial and
basic skills mathematics instruction. Community college students in
particular must experience success in mathematics to gain the
competencies needed to earn degrees in biological, agricultural and
environmental sciences, and in engineering, which are fields with
limited transfer access for transfer students who earn their bachelor's
degrees at HSIs.
To encourage diversity and active learning in STEM, we must invest
in bold experiments in curriculum and pedagogical reform that are
informed by the principles of culturally responsive pedagogy. Priority
should be given to initiatives that include a focus on integrating
mathematics education in real world problem solving. These experiments
should involve people from multiple scientific, social science, and
educational research disciplines. As well as being interdisciplinary,
they should be ``intersectoral,'' bringing faculty, administrators and
counselors from different types of institutions into close
collaboration. Consortia involving community colleges, four-year
comprehensive institutions, and research universities in regional
service areas are needed to improve transfer access for Hispanic
students from community colleges to STEM bachelor's and graduate
degrees.
Few observers of American politics and society would disagree that
racial issues are among the thorniest in the U.S. Yet, to broaden
participation among racial-ethnic groups underrepresented in STEM
requires attention to the underlying racial dynamics of STEM education.
We cannot fix problems of diversity without acknowledging the problems
of racial marginalization and stigma and stating the intent to fix
them. Toward that end, a body of research knowledge has emerged that
provides concrete and practical steps faculty can take to introduce
culturally responsive pedagogies in classrooms and other instructional
settings.
A powerful tool for shaping the objectives and methods adopted by
recipients of NSF funds is the Program Solicitation (or request for
proposals.) A valuable first step in broadening participation in STEM
fields would be to convene a panel of experts in culturally responsive
pedagogy alongside scientists and social scientists to develop the
language for a program solicitation. Their charge would be to write a
Program Solicitation that makes the study of the racial dynamics of
instructional environments in STEM a central component of curriculum
and pedagogical reform.
The criteria for award decisions should also support the mission
focus of proposals from HSIs that propose specifically to develop the
Hispanic serving capacity of their institution (and similarly the
mission focus of historically black colleges and universities and
tribal colleges). This can be indicated by staffing, hiring,
professional development, and evaluation criteria that involve a
critical mass of Hispanic faculty and administrators in program
implementation and a large proportion of Hispanic students on a campus
(or located in institutional service areas) in program participation.

Evaluation

Campuses will be able to achieve more widespread involvement in
STEM reform by engaging STEM faculty at the department and college
levels in self-assessment of their educational practices and beliefs
regarding the causes of student success and lack of success. Reflective
practices are needed to comprehend the complexities underlying student
experiences of racial stigma and discrimination.
The methods of benchmarking can be used to create a more
comprehensive evaluation system that measures program effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness, student outcomes, faculty development, and changes
in organizational policies. There are three valuable strategies, which
are called performance, diagnostic, and process benchmarking.\8\ Each
has a different application and can be used together for a more robust
measurement and implementation design:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For further information, see Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V. P. (2007).
Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of ``best practice.''
In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher Education (Vol. 22, pp. 57-
119): Springer Publishing.

Performance benchmarking is used to establish
baseline performance and to set and evaluate progress towards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
improvements in student transfer and degree completion.

Data collected at the program proposal stage should
demonstrate the capacity to observe the progress of
cohorts of students at key curricular milestones and
transitions and to disaggregate data by racial-ethnic
groups.

Data collected for program evaluation should compare
the progress of students enrolled in the program or
affected by the initiative in comparison to a group
that was not involved.

Diagnostic benchmarking involves assessing one's own
campuses practices against established standards of effective
practice, as documented in the research and professional
literature.

The principles of culturally responsive pedagogy
provide standards for diagnostic benchmarking for
curriculum and instruction.

The sociological concept of ``institutional
agents,'' as developed by the sociologist Ricardo
Stanton Salazar \9\ and applied in the context of STEM
post-secondary education in collaboration with
researchers at the Center for Urban Education, provides
diagnostic standards for administration, counseling,
and mentoring specifically designed to provide support
to students from racial-ethnic minority groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair:
the school and kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Process benchmarking involves closely investigating
the changes in organizational policies, procedures, and
practices that are needed to implement effective practices in a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
particular campus context with fidelity.

Self assessment instruments have been developed by
the Center for Urban Education \10\ and other
organizations to assist campuses in observing the
racial-ethnic dimensions of instructional and
administrative practices. The outcome of process
benchmarking is data-informed decision making for
ensuring program effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghome, D. E., Bauman, G. L., &
Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. Journal of
Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126; and Dowd, A. C. (2008). The community
college as gateway and gatekeeper: Moving beyond the access ``saga'' to
outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-419.

Process benchmarking is particularly valuable when
it is carried out within consortia where trust develops
over time so that participating campuses become willing
to share their data and engage collaborators in problem
solving. Strategies that are effective at one campus
may not work at all on another because of differences
in resources, personnel, and institutional culture, so
the capacity for data-informed problem solving is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
necessary.

Campuses will benefit from resources to develop their evaluation
capacity prior to implementing large-scale programmatic or curricular
reform. One valuable way to acquire this capacity is by serving as a
peer evaluator to a partnering institution in a peer group.
By using these three types of benchmarking procedures, campuses can
evaluate instructional effectiveness in producing greater diversity in
STEM and increasing the number of Hispanic students who are awarded
STEM degrees. In sum, these are strategies for organizational learning,
professional development, and pedagogical innovation. For too long, our
approach to improving diversity in STEM has been overly focused on the
``demand'' side of the problem, on ``fixing'' presumed student deficits
through attempts to improve their aspirations, motivation, or
willingness to succeed. In contrast, these recommendations focus on
fixing the ``supply'' side of the problem by improving the quality of
STEM education. Research conducted at the Center for Urban Education
demonstrates that the most important starting point for broadening
participation in STEM is to reframe the lack of diversity as problems
of institutional practices and practitioner knowledge,\11\ which
unwittingly create a negative racial climate harmful to students from
racial-ethnic minority groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of
practitioner knowledge in the scholarship of student success. The
Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469; and Bensimon, E. M., Rueda,
R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity, and
practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan, 18(3), 28-45.

Biography for Alicia C. Dowd

Alicia C. Dowd, Ph.D., is an associate professor of higher
education at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of
Education and co-director of the Center for Urban Education (CUE). Dr.
Dowd's research focuses on political-economic issues of racial-ethnic
equity in post-secondary outcomes, organizational learning and
effectiveness, accountability and the factors affecting student
attainment in higher education.
Dr. Dowd is the principal investigator of a National Science
Foundation funded study of Pathways to STEM Bachelor's and Graduate
Degrees for Hispanic Students and the Role of Hispanic Serving
Institutions. Through this study, CUE is examining the features of
exemplary STEM policies and programs to identify ways for
institutions--both Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSls) as designated
by the U.S. Department of Education, and non-Hispanic Serving--to
increase the number of Latino STEM graduates.
Dr. Dowd has served as the principal investigator of several major,
national studies of institutional effectiveness, equity, community
college transfer, benchmarking, and assessment. The results of these
studies have been published in numerous journals including the Review
of Educational Research, the Harvard Educational Review, the Journal of
Higher Education, the Review of Higher Education, Research in Higher
Education, and Teacher's College Record.
As a research methodologist, Dr. Dowd has also served on numerous
Federal evaluation and review panels, including the Education Systems
and Broad Reform Panel and the National Education Research and
Development Center panels of the institute for Education Sciences (IES)
and NSF's Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent
Expansion Program (STEP-Type 2) review panel. She was also a member of
the technical working group consulting on the evaluation design for the
Academic Competitiveness and SMART (science, mathematics, technology)
grants awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. Currently she is a
member of the advisory group for the Congressional Advisory Committee
on Student Financial Aid (ACSFA).
Dr. Dowd was awarded the doctorate by Cornell University, where she
studied the economics and social foundations of education, labor
economics, and curriculum and instruction. Her undergraduate studies
were also at Cornell, where she was awarded a bachelor of arts degree
in English literature.

Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Dr. Stassun.

STATEMENT OF DR. KEIVAN G. STASSUN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, AND CO-DIRECTOR
OF THE FISK-VANDERBILT MASTER'S-TO-Ph.D. BRIDGE PROGRAM

Dr. Stassun. Congresswoman Fudge, Ranking Member Ehlers, a
fellow physicist, I might add, and members of the Subcommittee,
I am Keivan Stassun, Associate Professor of Astronomy at
Vanderbilt University and Adjunct Professor of Physics at Fisk
University as well as Co-Director of the Fisk-Vanderbilt
Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program. I would like to focus my
remarks this morning on the need for more American citizens
earning Ph.D.s in STEM fields, and the role of the Federal
Government in furthering that goal.
Madam Chairwoman, it is in the Nation's interests to
sustain a vital pipeline of Americans earning doctoral degrees
in STEM fields. These Ph.D.s represent our national brain trust
in science and engineering. They are the leaders of our world-
class laboratories, the principal investigators of Federal R&D
initiatives, the teachers and role models for subsequent
generations of America's explorers. It matters that these
future STEM leaders reflect the face of America.
Yet today, as you heard from Dr. Malcom, less than half of
all STEM Ph.D.s awarded in the United States go to citizens of
the United States, and U.S. citizens who are underrepresented
minorities comprise only four percent of all STEM Ph.D.s
awarded by U.S. institutions. We are very effectively training
the STEM leaders for the rest of the world. One consequence is
that we have few American minorities on the STEM faculty at
major research universities. Even with an immediate five-fold
increase in the production of minority STEM Ph.D.s, we will not
achieve parity relative to the U.S. population for another 30
years. This is no time for gradualism.
It is with this imperative that the Fisk-Vanderbilt
Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program was initiated six years ago as
a STEM faculty-led collaboration between Fisk, a venerated
Historically Black University, and Vanderbilt, a major research
university, both in Nashville, Tennessee. Since then, Fisk has
become one of the top ten producers of physics master's degrees
among all U.S. citizens, and no institution awards more
master's degrees in physics to black U.S. citizens. In 2009,
just five years after its inception, the Fisk-Vanderbilt bridge
program graduated its first Ph.D. Overall, the program's
retention rate is 92 percent and Vanderbilt is on track to
award between five and ten times the number of minority Ph.D.s
in physical sciences as our peer institutions. Our most recent
cohort alone represents a 100 percent increase in the national
production of minority Ph.D. astrophysicists.
One of our key strategies is to actively scout out American
students with unrealized potential for STEM careers. This idea
of scouting talent for our laboratories the way we do for
athletic teams represents a departure from `business as usual'
for Vanderbilt, which, like most universities, has
traditionally relied on metrics such as GRE scores to rank its
Ph.D. applicants. But in the globalized 21st century, American
students are simply being outperformed on these metrics by
their peers from China, India and other nations who apply to
our laboratories in large numbers.
In the Fisk-Vanderbilt program, we get to really know our
students. By completing a two-year master's degree at Fisk
under the mentorship of Fisk and Vanderbilt faculty, the
students have a chance to show what they are made of, excelling
in our tough graduate courses, making discoveries in our
laboratories and demonstrating the traits we seek in promising
young students: creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, grit. These
are the traits that distinguish American students from their
peers around the world and which will always be at the heart of
our global leadership and competitiveness.
But the bottom line is that faculty leaders dedicated to
diversity in STEM are the single-most important ingredient in
our success. The intensive one-on-one student mentoring that is
so central to the Fisk-Vanderbilt model depends absolutely on
faculty who already shoulder extensive demands in the form of
teaching, managing world-class laboratories and producing
tangible returns on Federal R&D investment. We do it because we
view diversity in STEM as a national priority for reasons that
are at once strategic, moral, competitive, even patriotic.
STEM faculty are also entrepreneurial people who respond to
Federal incentives in R&D funding. A promising example is the
NSF Career Awards. These are among the most prestigious grants
that a STEM faculty can receive, requiring both cutting-edge
research and what NSF calls `broader impact', which explicitly
includes broadening participation as a goal. NSF Career Awards,
to several of us at Vanderbilt, have been instrumental in
launching our careers, helping us to secure tenure and
catalyzing the Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge Program's success.
Authorizing other Federal agencies such as NASA and DOE to
adopt NSF'S broader impacts language or something like it would
be a powerful way for Congress to incentivize and reward the
STEM faculty and other researchers who lead the Nation's
broadening participation charge.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I would be happy to answer any questions from the
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stassun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keivan G. Stassun
Associate Professor of Astronomy, Vanderbilt University \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Physics & Astronomy, VU Station B 1807,
Nashville, Tennessee, 37235
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjunct Professor of Physics, Fisk University \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of Physics, 1000 17th, Ave. N., Nashville,
Tennessee, 37208
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Director, Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program
Director, Vanderbilt Initiative in Data-Intensive Astrophysics (VIDA)
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Keivan Stassun, associate professor of astronomy at
Vanderbilt University, adjunct professor of physics at Fisk University,
and co-director of the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge
Program. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. It is a
privilege and an honor to tell you about the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-
to-Ph.D. Bridge program specifically and my thoughts on broadening
participation in STEM fields more generally.

The Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.vanderbilt.edu/gradschool/bridge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(additional comments and supporting material in Appendix
A):

By completing a Master's degree at Fisk under the guidance of
caring faculty mentors, students develop the strong academic
foundation, research skills, and one-on-one mentoring relationships
that will foster a successful transition to the Ph.D. at Vanderbilt.
The program is flexible and individualized to the goals and needs of
each student. Courses are selected to address gaps in undergraduate
preparation, and research experiences are provided that allow students
to develop--and to demonstrate--their full scientific talent and
potential.
The Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program is intended
for:

Students who have completed baccalaureate degrees in
physics, chemistry, biology, or engineering.

Students motivated to pursue the Ph.D. but who
require additional coursework, training, and/or research
experience.

How the program works, in a nutshell:

Earn a Master's degree in physics, chemistry, or
biology at Fisk, with full funding support.

Along the way, get valuable research experience with
caring, dedicated mentors. Emerge with the solid preparation
for entry into a world-class Ph.D. program, and the ongoing
support of a network of dedicated mentors.

Get fast-track admission to a participating
Vanderbilt Ph.D. program, with full funding. Participating
Ph.D. programs at Vanderbilt currently include: astronomy,
physics, materials science, biology, and biomedical sciences.

Key milestones achieved by the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D.
Bridge Program include:

Since 2004, the program has attracted 35 students, 32
of them underrepresented minorities \4\ (URMs), 59 percent
female, and a retention rate of 92 percent (see Appendix A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Underrepresented minorities (URMs) are defined as U.S. citizens
and permanent residents who are of African-American, Hispanic, or
Native American descent.

The first Bridge Program Ph.D. was awarded (in
materials science) in 2009, just five years after the program's
inception.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Read an article about the first Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge Program
Ph.D. recipient: http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltview/
articles/2010/02/26/crossing-the-bridge.108290

The Bridge program is on track to award ten times the
U.S. institutional average number of URM Ph.D.s in astronomy,
nine times the average in materials science, five times the
average in physics, and two times the average in biology (the
biology track was newly added in 2008). The most recent
incoming cohort alone includes more URB students in astronomy
than the current annual production of URM Ph.D. astronomers for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the entire U.S.

Bridge students have been awarded the nation's top
graduate fellowships from NSF and NASA.

In 2011, Vanderbilt will achieve the distinction of
becoming the top research university to award Ph.D.s to URMs in
astronomy, physics, and materials science.

Already, as of 2006, no U.S. institution awards more
Master's degrees in physics to Black U.S. citizens than Fisk.
Fisk has also become one of the top 10 U.S. institutions
awarding the Master's degree in physics to U.S. citizens of all
ethnic backgrounds [data source: American Institute of
Physics].

Extramural grants from NSF and NASA--supporting
Bridge graduate students, faculty, and related undergraduate
research--now exceed $25M.

The Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program started in
2004 with one student in each of astronomy, physics, and materials
science. Catalyzing elements for initiating the program included the
following:

An NSF CAREER award to Prof. Keivan Stassun, which
included collaborative research between Vanderbilt and Fisk
faculty and students, with a major goal of training URM Ph.D.s
in astronomy as a centerpiece of the ``broader impacts''
component of the award.

A NASA MUCERPI grant jointly to Fisk and Vanderbilt,
centered on collaborative research between Fisk and Vanderbilt
faculty and students, with a major goal of training URM Ph.D.s
in NASA-related STEM disciplines.

An NSF IGERT grant jointly to Vanderbilt and Fisk,
centered on collaborative research between Vanderbilt and Fisk
faculty and students, with a major goal of training URM Ph.D.s
in materials science.

Supportive administrators at both universities
committing significant institutional funds as match to the
above grants (e.g. tuition waivers), and directives permitting
cooperation of the university bureaucracies, including course
cross-registration and reciprocal access to university
resources (e.g., research facilities, libraries, student
services).

Soon after the program's inception, it was recognized that the
``bridge'' from Fisk to Vanderbilt needed to be formalized in order to
establish clear guidelines by which a student successfully ``crosses
the bridge'' and to ensure clear lines of responsibility,
accountability, and support Specifically:

Each of the disciplinary ``tracks'' with the Bridge
program (astronomy, physics, materials science) has concrete
requirements for students to successfully make the transition
from the Fisk master's degree program to the Vanderbilt Ph.D.
program, including specific graduate level courses that must be
passed and specific requirements for research performance.
These guidelines are approved by the respective deans at both
universities.

Two program co-directors, one each at Fisk and
Vanderbilt, have been formally appointed by the provosts of
both universities. These co-directors have official
responsibility for administration of the Bridge program and are
directly accountable to the provosts of the two universities.

A program Steering Committee was established, with
faculty leaders at both universities in each of the
disciplinary tracks. These faculty leaders provide oversight,
guidance, and tracking of student progress.

A formal mentoring structure is in place, providing
each Bridge student with ``scaffolds of support'' that help to
ensure a successful transition across the bridge. This
includes: (i) assignment of two faculty co-mentors, one from
Fisk and one from Vanderbilt, for each student; (ii) a monthly
``professional development seminar'' aimed at demystifying the
process of reaching the Ph.D. for these students who, almost
without exception, are the first-generation in their families
to pursue higher education; (iii) a peer-to-peer mentoring
structure allowing more senior Bridge students to help guide
and counsel the students crossing the bridge behind them in a
spirit of camaraderie; (iv) development of a ``mentoring
management console'' for careful tracking of individual student
progress, enabling Bridge faculty to identify potential problem
cases early and to intervene quickly with additional support/
resources as needed to prevent students from slipping through
the cracks; and (v) dedicated administrative support staff
(program coordinators) at both universities, providing an
additional layer of mentoring support and a one-stop go-to
person on each campus to help students solve bureaucratic/
logistical problems that may arise.

In 2007, the Bridge program began to identify additional
disciplinary tracks that could be introduced in order to expand the
program's scale and impact. In addition, the Bridge program has begun
to partner with additional institutions in order to (i) better connect
Bridge students with mentors and cutting-edge research opportunities in
the broad array of areas of interest to the students, and (ii) increase
the pool of quality students whom we could recruit to our program.

So far, a biology track has been added and
formalized, including assignment of faculty leaders in biology.
A new track in chemistry is under development.

Several junior faculty leaders involved in the
expansion of the Bridge program have now received prestigious
NSF CAREER awards, including: Prof. Shane Hutson (biophysics),
Prof. Eva Harth (chemistry), Prof. Kelly Holley-Bockelmann
(astrophysics).

Core partners now include: Boston University,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Optical
Astronomy Observatories, National Solar Observatory, NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center, Delaware State University, and
University of Hawaii at Hilo.

There are two major characteristics of the Fisk-Vanderbilt
Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program that we believe are central to its
successes:

1. The Bridge program's basic design and structure--a
``bridge'' from the master's degree at an HBCU to the Ph.D. at
a major research university--is grounded in research on the
educational pathways that URMs in STEM follow en route to the
Ph.D. In particular:

a. Minority Serving Institutions \6\ (MSIs) represent
large--and largely untapped--pools of URM talent in
STEM. For example, the top 15 producers of African
American physics baccalaureates in the U.S. are all
HBCUs, and just 20 HBCUs were responsible for producing
fully 55 percent of all African American physics
baccalaureates in the U.S. between 1998 and 2007.\7\
Moreover, these institutions are successful at placing
students in Ph.D. programs. Among the U.S.
baccalaureate-origin institutions of African American
STEM Ph.D. recipients for the years 1997-2006, the top
8, and 20 of the top 50, were HBCUs \8\ (see Appendix
A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MSIs include Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Tribal Colleges and
Universities (ICUs), as defined by the U.S. Department of Education.
\7\ AIP Statistical Research Center, Enrollment and Degrees Survey.
\8\ Burrelli, J., & Rapoport, A. 2008, ``Role of HBCUs as
Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients,''
NSF 08-319.

b. URMs who earn Ph.D.s in STEM fields are about 50
percent more likely than their non-URM counterparts to
have earned a ``terminal'' master's degree (i.e. not a
master's degree earned as part of a Ph.D. program.\9\
before eventually transitioning to a Ph.D. programs.
The number of MSIs with research-active faculty, and
that offer advanced STEM degrees, has undergone
dramatic growth. For example, the number of MSIs
offering Master's degrees in the physical sciences or
engineering has increased over the past decade by 79
percent, and the number of URMs earning Master's
degrees from these institutions increased
correspondingly by 533 percent (see Appendix A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Lange, S. E. 2006, ``The Master's Degree: A Critical Transition
in STEM Doctoral Education'', Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Washington.
Syverson, P. 2003, ``Data Sources'', Graduate School Communicator,
XXXVI, 5

2. Because of the critical nature of the master's-to-Ph.D.
transition, at the heart of the Bridge program's model is the
concept of facilitating a successful transition to the Ph.D. In
collaboration with researchers at the Columbia University
School of Law, we have identified the following four key
components that are critical to facilitating a successful
transition to the Ph.D., and that are deliberately put into
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
practice by the Bridge program:

a. Build and sustain research-based partnerships
between Fisk and Vanderbilt faculty. Joint research is
the engine of institutional collaboration, the basis
for extramural funding, and provides a concrete
``performance-based metric'' by which to assess student
ability and promise for a research based Ph.D.

b. Identify students with unrealized potential;
recruit and support ``diamonds in the rough'' who can
be honed for top-notch Ph.D. level work given adequate
mentoring and preparation.

c. Continually monitor student performance and remain
alert to small inflections in trajectory; do not wait
for small missteps to accumulate and derail an
otherwise promising student. Detect potential problems
early and intervene with support quickly and often.

d. Leverage professional networks; connect students
with the broader STEM community for mentorship and
research opportunities.

e. In addition, the program includes these key
elements to ensure successful student transitions:

` Full financial support. Rationale: Financial
burden should not be an impediment to
participation and satisfactory progress.

` Joint advisory committee of both Fisk and
Vanderbilt mentors.Rationale: Track student
progress and ensure student readiness for
Ph.D.-level work.

` Publication-quality Master's thesis through
research in both Fisk and Vanderbilt labs.
Rationale: Develop relationships with faculty
who serve as mentors, advisors and advocates.
Demonstrate readiness for Ph.D.-level work
through core competencies that are more
predictive of success than simple numerical
metrics such as GRE scores.

` Course requirements at both Fisk and
Vanderbilt. Rationale: Demonstrating competency
in core courses is essential to showing promise
for Ph.D. study.

There are three main challenges to replicating the successes of the
Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program at other institutions,
including at other major research universities:

1. Dedicated faculty leaders at both of the bridged
institutions are the single most important ingredient. In lieu
of a critical mass of URM STEM faculty who may identify with
the goal increasing diversity in STEM as a core personal
commitment, faculty ``bridge builders'' will likely need to be
motivated and incentivized through institutional and external
rewards (such as recognition in the tenure process and through
the prestige associated with NSF CAREER awards). In truth, we
expect that this will remain a fundamental challenge for
replicating the program. The faculty leaders in the Fisk-
Vanderbilt Bridge program view diversity in STEM as a priority
for reasons that are at once strategic, moral, competitive,
even patriotic--such passion and deep commitment are difficult
to blueprint, export, or mass produce.

2. The type of intensive, ongoing, one-on-one student
mentoring that is so central to the Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge
model is very difficult to ``scale up,'' depending as it does
on a commitment of time and energy from faculty mentors who
already shoulder extensive demands on their time in the form of
teaching, mentoring other students, managing a world-class
research laboratory and team, university administrative duties,
and of course a commitment to continually produce top-notch
research. Fortunately, even incremental increases in the number
of URM STEM Ph.D.s at one institution can represent significant
gains on a national scale. For example, an institution that
produces one URM Ph.D. per year in physics will produce more
than five times the national average. Ph.D.s are earned one
student at a time, and every single URM Ph.D. makes a
difference in the national numbers.

3. A challenge is to identify capable, promising URM students
for Ph.D. study, who may come from small minority-serving
institutions and/or may not have GRE scores that are
competitive in comparison to the talented foreign students who
apply to our programs in large numbers. The Fisk-Vanderbilt
Bridge program is built on the belief that there exists a large
pool of talented URM students--who have already progressed to
the baccalaureate level in STEM--with the promise and potential
to continue successfully to Ph.D. level. The challenge, in
other words, is to learn to recognize ``unrealized potential''
in a student, to recognize and nurture the human traits that
make for a great scientist but that are not easily quantified--
creativity, ingenuity, genius even. The Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge
program does this through an ``audition'' approach: By the time
a student has crossed the Bridge, there is no need to guess
whether the student has ``what it takes'' for a Ph.D. or to
rely solely on ``by the numbers'' metrics--we know the student,
have actually watched him/her perform in the laboratory. We
therefore enjoy a much richer set of data about our incoming
students than is usually available in Ph.D. admissions.
Challenges to Achieving more Diversity in STEM
(additional comments and supporting material in Appendix
B):

Three major challenges to achieving more diversity in science and
engineering are:

1. The very low production rate of URM STEM Ph.D.s limits the
number of URM faculty in STEM available to serve as mentors and
role models. Some gains have been achieved over the past few
decades in the overall number of URMs earning baccalaureate
degrees in STEM disciplines, yet the number of URMs earning
Ph.D.s in STEM disciplines remains very small (less than four
percent of all STEM Ph.D.s awarded by American universities).
Taking my own field of astronomy as an example, a recent survey
of all 51 astronomy and astrophysics Ph.D.-granting programs in
the U.S. counted a total of just 17 individuals who identify as
URMs among the full-time faculty (2 percent of all astronomy
and astrophysics faculty).\10\ Consequently the number of URM
faculty available to train, and to serve as role models for,
the next generation of URM students in STEM remains extremely
limited. An immediate five-fold increase in the production rate
of URM STEM Ph.D.s over the coming decade is required if we are
to achieve parity relative to the U.S. population within 30 to
35 years (see Appendix B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Nelson, D., & Lopez, L. 2004, ``The Diversity of Tenure Track
Astronomy Faculty,'' American Astronomical Committee on the Status of
Minorities in Astronomy, Spectrum Newsletter, June 2004.

2. American citizens no longer earn the majority of STEM
Ph.D.s awarded by the U.S. Global competition in STEM has
become fierce; the dominance of American students in STEM
graduate programs is no longer a given. In fact, American
citizens now constitute the minority (44 percent) of Ph.D.
recipients from American graduate programs, across all STEM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disciplines (Appendix B).

3. The vast majority of Ph.D. programs are underutilized as
training grounds for URM STEM Ph.D.s. A disproportionate number
of URM Ph.D.s in STEM disciplines are produced by a very small
number of institutions--just 27 institutions produce fully one-
third of all URM STEM Ph.D.s (see Appendix B). These
institutions represent two very narrow segments of the higher
education system in the U.S.: A few MSIs that award Ph.D.s
(e.g. Howard University, University of Puerto Rico), and the
very top-ranked major research universities (e.g. University of
Michigan, University of California Berkeley). The overwhelming
majority of Ph.D.-granting research universities (particularly
second-tier research universities such as Vanderbilt) are
generally underutilized as training grounds for future URM
Ph.D.s in STEM.

Two noteworthy variations by STEM discipline are as follows:

1. The small proportion of STEM Ph.D.s awarded to URMs is most
acute in the physical sciences. For example, URMs receive just
two percent of all Ph.D.s awarded by American universities in
physics and astronomy. Such small percentages in turn mean very
small absolute numbers, making it a challenge for most URM
Ph.D. students to find role models, cohort or community during
their Ph.D. training. In astronomy, for example, the average
Ph.D.-granting institution produces 1 URM Ph.D. every 13 years.

2. There is now emerging at the baccalaureate level a very
large national pool of URM talent in the computational sciences
and in several sub-disciplines of engineering. The overwhelming
majority (80 percent) of these college-educated URM computer
scientists and engineers exit the higher education system at
the baccalaureate level. There is an opportunity to further
develop this talent toward Ph.D.s through interdisciplinary
programs that combine the ``pure'' STEM disciplines (e.g.
physics, biology) with ``applied'' skills such as systems
engineering, high-performance computing, and informatics.

Two particular challenges for a major research university such as
Vanderbilt are the following:

1. The challenge of identifying the most promising STEM
students for Ph.D. training. Selecting the best students for
STEM Ph.D. study is not a perfect science. Major research
universities such as Vanderbilt have traditionally relied on
certain quantitative and standardized metrics, such as Graduate
Record Examination (GRE) scores and undergraduate grade-point
average (GPA). However, many of our domestic STEM students are
being out-performed on these metrics by their peers from China,
India, and other nations. A straight ``by the numbers''
approach to Ph.D. admissions therefore results in a major
underutilization of our domestic STEM talent. The challenge for
a major research university such as Vanderbilt, therefore, is
to maintain our high standard for excellence while identifying
new ways of assessing student potential for the human traits we
most value (e.g. creativity, innovativeness, entrepreneurial
spirit, leadership, grit). These traits continue to distinguish
American students from their peers around the world and are at
the heart of our global leadership and competitiveness.

2. The challenge of connecting the value of broadening
participation to the merit basis by which STEM faculty are
assessed, promoted, and rewarded. The STEM faculty at a major
research university are the engines of discovery, as well as
the mentors and role models for the next generation of STEM
Ph.D. students. It is imperative that STEM faculty be motivated
and incentivized to lead the broadening participation charge. A
particularly promising example is the NSF CAREER \11\ awards.
These are among the most prestigious grants that a young STEM
faculty member can receive, and it requires both a cutting-edge
research program and ``broader impact'' including broadening
participation. Indeed, the NSF CAREER awards to several young
faculty (including especially women and URM faculty) at
Vanderbilt in the past few years have been instrumental in
simultaneously launching their careers and catalyzing the
successful Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge program for
broadening participation (described above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm summ.jsp?pims id=503214

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Role in Broadening Participation in STEM

The Federal Government can play a very important role in addressing
challenges and barriers to broadening participation in STEM are as
follows. In particular, the government should continue to link the
national interest in broadening participation in STEM to Federal R&D
initiatives, particularly in the context of development and full
utilization of the domestic STEM workforce. There are at least three
inter-related components to this:

1. Individual principal investigators. Individual researchers
(e.g, faculty at research universities) are the ``front lines''
in America's STEM competitiveness imperative. These
entrepreneurial individuals can and do respond to Federal
mandates in R&D funding programs. The NSF's ``broader impacts''
criterion, which explicitly includes broadening participation
language in the evaluation of all funding proposals, is an
excellent model for accomplishing this. Similarly, the NSF
CAREER awards program, which recognizes and supports America's
top junior STEM faculty innovators, is another excellent
example by which the broadening participation goal can be
linked to the national system of incentives and rewards for
America's best and brightest.

2. Research universities. The Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act [SEEOA) and Executive Order 11246 remain in
effect and apply to virtually all research universities.

3. Federally funded research centers and Federal funding
agencies. Major research facilities funded and/or operated by
the Federal Government or its contractors can play a critical
role of leadership by example. Research centers such as the
National Solar Observatory, the Department of Energy national
labs, the NASA centers (e.g. Jet Propulsion Laboratory), and
others, are major government R&D employers of the STEM labor
force, and therefore rely critically on a healthy STEM
workforce pipeline. However, with the exception of NSF
facilities (NSF is explicitly mentioned in the SEEOA language),
most of these Federal research centers generally do not include
``broadening participation'' language in their hiring or
funding evaluation criteria. Extension of the NSF ``broader
impacts'' criterion to the other Federal funding agencies (Le,
DOE, NASA, NOAA, NIH, NISI) could be a powerful step forward.

We suggest three recommendations with respect to NSF specifically:

1. The NSF ``broader impacts'' criterion, as discussed above,
used in the evaluation of all funding proposals considered by
the agency has had a very positive effect in motivating
individual investigators specifically, and universities more
generally, to address the broadening participation imperative.
The NSF CAREER awards program in particular is a promising
model for linking the prestige of our best STEM university
faculty to the goal of broadening participation in STEM.

2. Within NSF, some Divisions have taken the initiative to
develop funding programs that specifically enable research-
based collaborative partnerships between MSIs and major
research universities (including NSF-funded research centers)
with the goal of training URM students toward STEM Ph.D.s.
Examples include the PREM \12\ and PAARE \13\ programs. In
addition, the Innovation through Institutional Integration
(a.k.a. I-cubed) program administered by the Education and
Human Resources (EHR) Directorate has supports innovative
programs that broaden participation in STEM and that
specifically attend to ``critical educational junctures'' such
'as the Master's-to-Ph.D. transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The PREM (Partnerships for Research and Education in
Materials] program is administered by the NSF Division of Materials
Research (DMR) in the Math and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate.
\13\ The PAARE (Partnerships for Astronomy and Astrophysics
Research and Education) program is administered by the NSF Division of
Astronomical Sciences (AST) in the Math and Physical Sciences (MPS)
Directorate.

3. There is a need for additional ``training grant''
opportunities through NSF to support the basic research
training of Master's and Ph.D. students. The NSF IGERT \14\
program is a very good example of a competitive and effective
training grant program, with an emphasis on interdisciplinarity
and on emerging new STEM sub-fields (such as the Vanderbilt-
Fisk IGERT in nano-scale science and engineering). The IGERT
program does not generally support graduate student training in
more established areas of STEM research; there is an ongoing
need for graduate students including URM Ph.D. students to
receive training and development in these established fields.
Examples of standing training grant programs exist at other
Federal agencies, such as NIH, that could serve as templates
for the development of a more general training grants program
through NSF. Indeed, the model of NSF's own Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program, which is a
general training grants program at the baccalaureate level,
could be fruitfully applied at the post-baccalaureate,
Master's, and Ph.D. levels. In lieu of such training grants,
Vanderbilt has so far committed $2M in institutional funds to
support training of Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeships
(IGERT) is an NSF-wide program.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before
the Subcommittee today. I look forward to answering the Subcommittee's
questions and working together to broaden participation in the STEM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fields.

Appendix A: Additional Comments and Supporting Material for the Fisk-
Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program

MSIs (including HBCUs, HSIs, and TCUs) represent large--and largely
untapped--pools of URM talent in STEM. For example, the top 15
producers of African American physics baccalaureates in the U.S. are
all HBCUs, and just 20 HBCUs were responsible for producing fully 55
percent of all African American physics baccalaureates in the U.S.
between 1998 and 2007.\15\ In comparison to majority institutions,
which in 2006 produced on average 9,0 URM bachelor's degrees per
institution per year in physics, computer science, and engineering,
MSIs produced on average 36.1 URM degrees per institution per year in
these disciplines (data from NSF WebCASPAR). Moreover, these
institutions are successful at placing students in Ph.D. programs. For
example, among the U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of African
American STEM Ph.D. recipients for the years 1997-2006, the top 8, and
20 of the top 50, were HBCUs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ AIP Statistical Research Center, Enrollment and Degrees
Survey.
\16\ Burrelli, J., & Rapoport, A. 2008, ``Role of HBCUs as
Baccalaureate-Origin Institutions of Black S&E Doctorate Recipients,''
NSF 08-319.

The number of MSIs with research-active faculty, and that offer
advanced STEM degrees, has undergone dramatic growth. The growth of MSI
Master's degree programs in particular is striking. For example,
between 1987 and 2006, the number of MSIs offering Master's degrees in
the physical sciences or engineering increased by 79 percent, and the
number of URMs earning Master's degrees from these institutions
increased correspondingly by 533 percent (from 119 URM degrees in 1987
to 753 in 2006; data from NSF WebCASPAR). Consequently, as shown in the
chart below, URMs who earn Ph.D.s in STEM fields are about 50 percent
more likely than their non-URM counterparts to have earned a
``terminal'' master's degree (i.e. not a master's degree earned as part
of a Ph.D. program) before eventually transitioning to a Ph.D.
program.\17\ Thus the Master's degree is a critical, and previously
poorly understood, stepping stone for many URMs in STEM. Moreover, the
transition from the Master's to the Ph.D. is therefore a critical
educational juncture at which students without suitable mentoring and
guidance may be lost from the STEM Ph.D. pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Lange, S. E. 2006, ``The Master's Degree: A Critical
Transition in STEM Doctoral Education'', Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Washington.
Syverson, P. 2003, ``Data Sources'', Graduate School Communicator,
XXXVI, 5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program Facts & Figures

In 2006, U.S. institutions awarded to Black U.S.
citizens 12 Ph.D.s in physics (out of 637 U.S. citizen Ph.D.s;
1.9%) [data from NSF]. The average per Ph.D.-granting
institution in the U.S. is 1 minority Ph.D. in biology,
physics, materials science, and astronomy every two, five,
nine, and 13 years, respectively.

The Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge program is on track to
award ten times the U.S. institutional average number of
minority Ph.D. recipients in astronomy, nine times the average
in materials science, five times the average in physics, and
two times the average in biology (the biology track was newly
added in 2007). Our most recent incoming cohort alone includes
more minority students in astronomy than the current annual
production of minority Ph.D. astronomers for the entire U.S.

Our Bridge students have been awarded the nation's
top graduate fellowships from NSF (GRF and IGERT) and NASA (see
Table 1 below).

Extramural grants received to support the Bridge
program--support for graduate students, faculty, and related
undergraduate research--now exceed $25.1M (see Table 2 below).

Vanderbilt and Fisk now provide significant
institutional support in the form of tuition waivers, RA
stipends, and administrative support (see Table 2 below).

Table 1.--Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program Students to Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity/ Admit Undergraduate Current
Student Gender * Year Institution Discipline Institution/Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Babaloloa A/M 2004 University of Materials UA Huntsville
Ilorin, Nigeria (faculty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. LeBlanc H/M 2004 UMET, Puerto Rico Astronomy Vanderbilt (NASA
Fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Harrison A/M 2004 ChicaMaterials Case Western
Univ. (IGERT fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Jackson A/F 2004 Fisk University Physics Wright State (USAF
Co-op)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Rigueur A/M 2004 Fisk University Physics Vanderbilt (IGERT
fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Alexander A/M 2005 Florida A&M Univ. Physics Dropped out,
status unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Bodnarik W/F 2005 USAF Academy Astronomy Vanderbilt (NASA
Co-op)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Harrison A/F 2005 Xavier University Materials Vanderbilt (IGERT
fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Isler A/F 2005 Norfolk State Astronomy Yale (NSF graduate
Univ. fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Jackson A/M 2005 Norfolk State Materials Vanderbilt (IGERT
Univ. fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Jones A/F 2005 Grambling State U. Materials Vanderbilt (IGERT
fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Van H/M 2005 UMET, Puerto Rico Biology Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Zambrano H/F 2005 UMET, Puerto Rico Astronomy Dropped out (now
at UTB)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Foster A/M 2006 UMBC Astronomy Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Ruffin A/F 2006 Tennessee State U. Physics Oak Ridge National
Lab
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Campbell A/M 2006 Rhodes CollegePhysics Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Santos H/M 2006 UMET, Puerto Rico Physics Dropped out,
status unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Walker A/F 2006 Alabama A&M U. Materials Vanderbilt (IGERT
fellow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Cooper A/F 2007 Rust CollegeBiology U Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Gunther W/F 2007 Austin Peay State Materials Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Palladino W/F 2007 Hofstra U. Astronomy Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Mack A/M 2007 UNC ChaAstronomy Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Parker A/M 2007 Austin Peay State Materials Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Morgan A/F 2007 Tennessee State U. Astronomy Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Bastien A/F 2008 U. Maryland Astronomy Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Jean H/F 2008 U. New Hampshire Biology Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Richardson A/M 2008 Fisk University Astronomy Vanderbilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Haynes A/F 2007 Tennessee State U. Astronomy Fisk (MS expected
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Colazo H/M 2008 Fisk University Astronomy Fisk (MS expected
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Kamai N/F 2008 U. Hawaii Astronomy Fisk (MS expected
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Harris A/F 2008 Grambling State U. Astronomy Fisk (MS expected
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Lawrence A/F 2008 Clark UBiology Fisk (MS expected
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Satchell A/F 2008 Saint Paul's U. Biology Fisk (MS expected
2010)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Cogswell A/F 2009 Florida State U. Physics Fisk (MS expected
2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Williams A/M 2009 Morehouse Univ. Astronomy Fisk (MS expected
2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ethnicity/Gender: H=Hispanic, A=African American, N=Native Hawaiian, W=White, F=Female, M=Male.

Table 2.--Funding Received to Date Supporting Bridge Students and Faculty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Program Years Lead Faculty (PI in boldface) Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF CAREE2004-09 K. Stassun (Vanderbilt) $1M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA MUCERPI2004-07 A. Burger (Fisk), K. Stassun $800K
(Vanderbilt), E. Collins (Fisk), D.
Ernst (Vanderbilt), S. Morgan
(Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF CREST2004-14als E. Collins$9.4Mk), A. Burger
Sci. (Fisk), W. Lu (Fisk), S. Morgan
(Fisk), R. Mu (Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE, DHS, DOD, NASA Materials 2004-09 A. Burger (Fisk) $3.5M
Science
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF REU 2004-10 E. Collins$600Kk), A. Burger
(Fisk), S. Morgan (Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF REU 2007-10 D. Ernst (Vanderbilt), K. Stassun $300K
(Vanderbilt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF PAARE (AST) 2008-13 K. Stassun (Vanderbilt), A. Burger $2.2M
(Fisk), K. Holley Bockelmann
(Vanderbilt), M. Watson (Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF CAREE2009-14 K. Holley-Bockelznann (Vanderbilt) $1.1M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF I-Cubed2009-14 K. Stassun & R. McCarty $1.25M
(Vanderbilt), S. Rosenthal
(Vanderbilt), E. Collins (Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOEd GAANN 2009-12 K. Stassun, D. Ernst (Vanderbilt), $900K
E. Collins (Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanderbilt Provost VIDA \18\ 2007-12 K. Stassun (Vanderbilt) $2M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanderbilt A&S Dean Biological 2008-11 D. Webb (Vanderbilt), J. Ike $150K
Sciences \19\ (Fisk), K. Stassun (Vanderbilt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisk Provost Physics/Biology 2004-14 E. Collins$937Kk), S. Morgan
\20\ (Fisk), J. Ike (Fisk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Vanderbilt Office of the Provost provides support for stipend/tuition for 4 Bridge students per year and a
full-time program coordinator.
\19\ The Dean of Vanderbilt Arts & Science provides seed support for 1 Bridge student per year in Biological
Sciences (stipends + tuition).
\20\ Fisk provides full tuition waivers for approximately 6 Bridge students per year in these Master's degree
programs.

Appendix B: Additional comments and supporting material for Challenges
to Broadening Participation in STEM

The very low number of underrepresented minorities (URMs) earning
doctoral degrees in STEM disciplines is a problem in need of focused
attention and rapid improvement. Individuals who exit the higher
education STEM pipeline with baccalaureate degrees are in an excellent
position to join the national STEM workforce with fulfilling and
gainful employment. However, it remains a critical national interest to
sustain a vital pipeline of individuals earning doctoral degrees in
STEM. These are the best and brightest of our national brain trust: the
future leaders of our world-class laboratories, the future principal
investigators of federally funded R&D initiatives, the future teachers,
mentors, and role models for subsequent generations of America's
explorers. It matters, therefore, that these future STEM leaders
reflect the ``face of America.''
Graduate STEM programs in the U.S. have become increasingly
effective in the training of STEM leaders for the rest of the world.
Indeed, in many STEM disciplines, the proportion of all Ph.D.s awarded
to non-US citizens or permanent residents now exceeds 50 percent. As
one example relevant to one Federal agency (NASA), in 2008 there were
265 Ph.D.s awarded by U.S. institutions in aerospace, aeronautic, and
astronautical engineering, of which 121 were awarded to U.S. citizens
and permanent residents; that is, less than half of all Ph.D.s awarded
in these NASA-related disciplines are now being awarded within the
domestic U.S. STEM workforce. More generally, 44 percent of all STEM
Ph.D.s are awarded by U.S. institutions to U.S. citizens and permanent
residents \21\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Data source: Survey of Earned Doctorates (NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/
USDA/NASA).

To be sure, graduate students from other countries contribute
greatly to the intellectual community at an institution like
Vanderbilt, and bring much to the institution in terms of diversity. At
the same time, however, large segments of the U.S. population remain
grossly underutilized. Over the period 1999-2006, U.S. citizen URMs
represented on average just four percent of all STEM Ph.D.s awarded by
U.S. institutions (see chart above), whereas these groups comprise more
than 30 percent of the Ph.D.-age population of the U.S. Foreign
students earned almost five times as many Ph.D.s in 2006 than did URM
citizens of the U.S. As noted by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation report,
Diversity and the Ph.D.: ``educating the world's students while
neglecting significant groups of the national population is a vast
inequality at the highest academic level''.
Low as is the overall representation of URMs in STEM fields, some
disciplines prove particularly challenged. In general the physical
sciences show the most severe underrepresentation of URMs. For example,
in physics and astronomy the proportion of Ph.D.s awarded to URMs in
1999-2006 averaged just barely over two percent, again compared to the
more than 30 percent that URMs represent in the Ph.D.-age population of
the U.S. In 2008, U.S. institutions awarded to Black U.S. citizens just
15 Ph.D.s in physics (out of 905 U.S. citizen Ph.D.s; 1.7%) [NSF Web-
CASPAR]. Of course, Ph.D.s are earned one individual at a time, each
within a department at one institution. It is at this level of
granularity that the challenge of broadening participation must be met.
For example, in physics the statistics translate into an average of 1
URM Ph.D. per Ph.D.-granting institution every five years. In materials
science, it is 1 URM Ph.D. per institution on average every nine years.
In astronomy, it is 1 URM Ph.D. per institution on average every 13
years.
One consequence of this very low URM Ph.D. production rate is that
there continues to be a very small number of URM STEM faculty at major
research universities to serve as mentors and role models for the next
generation of URM STEM Ph.D.s. Taking astronomy as an example, a recent
survey of all 51 astronomy and astrophysics Ph.D.-granting programs in
the U.S. counted a total of just 17 individuals who identify as URMs
among the full-time faculty (2 percent of all astronomy and
astrophysics faculty) \22\. These Ph.D.-granting programs today
collectively award approximately 41 URM Ph.D.s per year
(data from American Institute of Physics), an average per Ph.D.-
granting institution of 1 URM Ph.D. every 13 years \23\. Over the past
20 years this represents a slight increase in absolute number from
31 URM Ph.D.s in 1988. The corresponding fraction of URM
Ph.D.s has been roughly flat at 2-4 percent of the total \24\, while
the proportion of URMs in the U.S. population grew by 33 percent during
this same time period (from 20.9 percent in 1988 to 27.0 percent in
2008; data from U.S. Census). Over the past decade, the proportion of
URM Ph.D.s in physics and astronomy has been a factor of 2 smaller than
in all other science and engineering (STEM) fields, and a factor of 4
smaller than in all fields. On average about three percent of the STEM
workforce turns over each year. To achieve parity in the number of URMs
entering the stream of permanent astronomy and astrophysics positions,
and assuming similar attrition rates among URM Ph.D.s as for astronomy
and astrophysics Ph.D.s as a whole, the number of URM Ph.D.s would need
to increase from 5 per year to approximately 40 per year, an eight-fold
increase. At this pace, the field overall could achieve parity in 30 to
35 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Nelson, D., & Lopez, L. 2004, ``The Diversity of Tenure Track
Astronomy Faculty,'' American Astronomical Committee on the Status of
Minorities in Astronomy, Spectrum Newsletter, June 2004.
\23\ Stassun, K.G. 2005, ``Building Bridges to Diversity'',
Mercury, 34 (3), 20
\24\ These fractions are relative to U.S. citizen and permanent
resident Ph.D.s only. Since foreign students account for approximately
50% of all physics and astronomy Ph.D.s awarded in the U.S. (Ref:
Survey of Earned Doctorates), the true fraction of Ph.D.s earned by
URMs is a factor of 2 smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inside Higher Ed (3/11/2010, Jaschik) \25\ reports that a study
from Cornell University's Higher Education Research Institute ``finds a
statistically significant relationship between [URM] students who plan
to be a science major having at least one [URM] science instructor as
freshmen and then sticking to their plans. The finding could be
significant because many students (in particular members of URM groups)
who start off as science majors fail to continue on that path--so a
change in retention of science majors could have a major impact.''
Joshua Price, who authored the report on the study, said, ``These
results suggest that policies to increase the [URM] representation
among faculty members might be an effective means of increasing the
representation of [URMs] who persist and ultimately graduate in STEM
fields.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/11/race
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mentoring and training of URM STEM Ph.D.s is not shared equally
among Ph.D.-granting institutions. Indeed, fully one-third of all URM
STEM Ph.D.s in the U.S. are produced by just 27 institutions. As shown
in the table below, these 27 institutions represent two distinct groups
of institutions: (1) The few MSIs that award Ph.D.s (such as Howard
University, University of Puerto Rico, Carlos Albizu University), and
(2) the very top-ranked Ph.D.-granting institutions (such as University
of Michigan, University of California Berkeley, Harvard University). In
comparison, the overwhelming majority of Ph.D.-granting programs in the
U.S. on average produce single-digit numbers of URM STEM Ph.D.s, or
none at all. These Ph.D.-granting programs, representing broadly the
second-tier of research universities, are currently underutilized for
broadening participation of URMs in attaining STEM Ph.D.s.
Engaging URM individuals from a broader base of ``applied'' STEM
backgrounds could substantially, and quickly, expand the pool of
qualified individuals in areas of the ``pure'' disciplines that are
likely to experience growth in the coming decade. For example, the
development of new instruments for high-energy physics experiments, for
space-based astrophysics missions, for climate-change research, etc.,
will require technical expertise from a variety of engineering
disciplines, including systems engineering and design, and innovations
in detector technologies stemming from materials science. Similarly,
the increasing importance of high-performance computing and
informatics-based approaches--for large scale simulations, for data-
intensive surveys, for data-mining infrastructures across all STEM
disciplines--will require expertise that may be tapped from the ranks
of computer science graduates.

In 2006, for example, URMs earned a total of 17,813 baccalaureate
degrees in physics, computer science, and engineering [data from NSF
WebCASPAR]. In comparison, 3,598 (20.2 percent) of these earned a
master's degree, and 292 (1.6 percent) went on to earn a Ph.D. Thus the
pool of URMs with relevant STEM training is substantial, but an
overwhelming majority of these individuals currently exit the higher
education pipeline with a bachelor's degree. The opportunity to
pipeline URM STEM baccalaureates into advanced degrees in STEM
disciplines is large.

Biography for Keivan G. Stassun
After earning B.A. degrees in physics and in astronomy from the
University of California at Berkeley in 1994, Stassun earned the Ph.D.
in astronomy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2000. Stassun
then served as assistant director of the NSF-funded GK-12 program at
UW-Madison, connecting STEM graduate students with public K-12 schools
both to enhance K-12 science teaching and to provide leadership
development for STEM graduate students. He then served for two years as
a NASA Hubble Space Telescope postdoctoral research fellow before
joining the Vanderbilt faculty in 2003.
A recipient of a CAREER award from NSF and a Cottrell Scholar Award
from the Research Corporation, Stassun's research on the birth of stars
and planetary systems has appeared in the prestigious research journal
Nature, has been featured on NPR's Earth & Sky, and has been published
in more than 40 peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. In 2006, the
Vanderbilt Initiative in Data-intensive Astrophysics (VIDA) was
launched as a $2M pilot program in astro-informatics, with Stassun as
its first director.
The Stassun research group includes four postdoctoral associates,
seven doctoral students, seven master's students, and numerous
undergraduate interns. Now an associate professor of astronomy at
Vanderbilt, Stassun is also adjunct professor of physics at Fisk
University, and serves as co-director of the Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-
to-Ph.D. Bridge Program.
Since 2004, the Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge Program has attracted 34
students, 31 of them underrepresented minorities (60% female), with a
retention rate of 92%. The first Ph.D. to a Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge
student was awarded in 2009, just five years after the program's
inception. In 2011, Vanderbilt will achieve the distinction of becoming
the top research university to award the Ph.D. to underrepresented
minorities in physics, astronomy, and materials science. Already, Fisk
has become the top producer of Black U.S. recipients of the master's
degree in physics, and one of the top ten producers of physics M.A.
degrees overall. The Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge Program is supported by
institutional funds from Vanderbilt and Fisk as well as extramural
grants from NSF and NASA.
From 2003 to 2008, Stassun served as chair of the American
Astronomical Society's Committee on the Status of Minorities, as a
member of the Congressional FACA Astronomy & Astrophysics Advisory
Committee, and presently serves on the advisory board for the NSF-
funded Institute for Broadening Participation and on the Workforce and
Diversity Committee of the Associated Universities for Research in
Astronomy.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Stassun.
The Chair will now recognize Dr. Yarlott.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID YARLOTT, PRESIDENT OF LITTLE BIG HORN
COLLEGE, AND CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE AMERICAN
INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

Dr. Yarlott. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
Committee, my name is Baluxx Xiassash--Outstanding Singer. I am
a member of the Uuwuutasshe Clan and also a child of the
Uuwuutasshe Clan of the Apsaalooke, or Crow, Indians. The Crow
Reservation is located in south central Montana and contains
about 3,000 square miles, a territory larger than the State of
Rhode Island.
In the early 1980s, my tribe established Little Big Horn
College with the goal of creating a lasting tradition of higher
education for a good path into the future for the Crow people.
I am proud to say that I am a product of my tribe's commitment
to higher education. As a student, I graduated from Little Big
Horn College. As a faculty member, I taught at the college.
Later after earning advanced degrees, I became an
administrator, and now, as President of Little Big Horn
College, it is my responsibility to keep building the path into
the future for my people, a path that includes new technologies
needed for environmental science and partnerships in emerging
STEM fields.
On behalf of Little Big Horn College and the 35 other
tribal colleges and universities that comprise the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium, thank you for inviting me
here to testify on cultural and institutional barriers to
broadening student participation in STEM programs. I am pleased
to comment on efforts to overcome these barriers at tribal
colleges and provide a few recommendations on strategies for
improving Federal agency support to ensure that all Americans,
including the first Americans, can succeed in high-quality STEM
education programs and successfully enter a national STEM
workforce.
This morning I will speak briefly on three topics: the
tribal college movement, the role of tribal colleges in the
NSF's TCU [Tribal Colleges and Universities] program and
broadening participation of American Indian students in STEM
fields and the challenges and barriers we face, and possible
strategies for improving STEM broadening participation
programs.
Mr. Chairman, because I do not know how well acquainted you
or the members of the Committee are with tribal colleges, I
will try to give you a brief sketch of our institution. Simply
put, American Indian tribal colleges and universities are
young, geographically isolated, poor, and almost unknown to
mainstream America. Our institutions are also extraordinarily
effective catalysts for revitalization and change, so much so
that we have been called ``higher education's best-kept
secret''. Tribal colleges are planting seeds of hope for the
future, sustaining native languages, cultures and traditions
and helping to build stronger tribal economies and governments.
Yet the oldest tribal college is actually quite young. My
institution, Little Big Horn College, celebrated its 30th
anniversary this year. Our oldest institution, Dine College,
turned 40 last year.
The tribal college philosophy is simple: to succeed,
American Indian higher education must be locally and culturally
based, holistic and supportive. That education system must
address the whole person: mind, body, sprit and family. In only
a few short decades, tribal colleges have grown from very
humble beginnings to thriving academic centers. Little Big Horn
College began in the early 1980s in two trailers and a garage
that was serving as a barn. In the early years, our college had
about 30 students. Today, the college averages more than 400
students each semester.
Although tribal colleges and universities have made
unprecedented strides in addressing the higher education needs
of American Indians, much work and many challenges remain. Of
all groups in the United States, American Indian students have
the highest school dropout rates in the country. Less than half
of all American Indian high school students actually graduate.
If these students eventually do pursue higher education, it is
most often through tribal colleges, which like other community
colleges are open-admission institutions.
In addition to offering daily preparation and testing,
tribal colleges face challenges with remediation developmental
education. On average, more than 75 percent of all TCU students
must take at least one developmental course, most often pre-
college mathematics. It goes without saying that a tremendous
amount of TCU resources are spent addressing the failings of
the K-12 education system. For this reason, TCUs have developed
strong partnerships with their K-12 feeder schools. We are
working often through our NSF-TCU [Tribal Colleges and
Universities Program] programs to engage young students early
on and consistently in community and culturally relevant
science and math programs. However, most of our STEM programs
operate on soft competitive funding, and prior to NSF-TCUP,
most tribal colleges were unable to secure the resources needed
to build high-quality STEM programs. We simply were not able to
compete successfully in STEM programs sponsored by NSF and
other Federal agencies.
Beginning in fiscal year 2001, NSF-TCUP changed this by
making available a central capacity building assistance and
resource to tribal colleges. In less than ten years, NSF-TCUP
has become the primary Federal program for building STEM
capacity at tribal colleges. The program can be credited with
many success stories. More American Indians are entering STEM
education and STEM professions. Little Big Horn College went
from three to four science students in the late 1990s to more
than 50 science majors today. STEM faculty are becoming more
effective and engaged. At my college, we have gone from a STEM
faculty that was completely non-Native to seven Crow STEM
faculty, five of whom are alumni of the college. Students are
becoming involved in cutting-edge and community-relevant
research in significantly greater numbers. For the past few
years, we have had an exciting summer robotics program at
Little Big Horn College.
Partnerships between TCUs and major research institutions
are emerging as our capacity grows in the areas of research and
education, including pre-engineering. We believe that NSF-TCUP
could serve as a model for our Federal agencies working with
our institutions to overcome barriers to broadening
participation.
However, outside of the TCU program, NSF is broadening
participation effort has not been entirely successful.
Throughout our history, states and mainstream institutions have
taken advantage of tribal colleges and their students, adding
us to their grant proposals and including our students in their
statistical reports without ever speaking to us or even
notifying us that we are being used to help them secure
funding. As NSF's broadening participation requirement has
grown in importance, the number of proposals from mainstream
institutions seeking to include tribal colleges has increased
dramatically. TCU faculty simply are not competitive in NSF-
sponsored grant competitions because our institutions lack the
funding needed to hire experienced researchers and adequate
support staff including grant writers and assessment
professionals.
Another problem facing TCUs is the size and remoteness of
our rural institutions. `How many students are we going to be
able to impact' is a common question for our small
institutions. How many Native students are in mainstream
university science programs? The answer is typically one to
three students based on self-reporting.
My testimony includes several recommendations, but this
morning I will only mention a few. First, we urge you to
sustain the NSF TCU program as a separate program designed to
meet the unique needs of our students. Given the limited pool
of TCU applicants, 33 accredited TCUs, and the need to build
STEM programs from the ground up, awards made under NSF-TCUP
must be for a period of ten years, or alternatively, five years
with ongoing support for an additional five years, provided the
programs meet appropriate NSF criteria for satisfactory
progress. This is consistent with other successful NSF
capacity-building programs. NSF program staff should not cut
the pie into even smaller and smaller pieces by prioritizing
purpose within NSF-TCU program new areas. TCUs should be
allowed to design projects that meet our community's needs as
long as they are consistent with the overall goals of the NSF
program. We request assistance in enforcing and measuring
compliance with a requirement that any collaborative proposal
involving TCUs must include letters of support and commitment
from the TCUs or AIHEC. This will stop ongoing abuses by
mainstream institutions to game the broadening participation
requirement. In the 1990s, through NSF's Tribal College Rural
Systemic Initiatives, 20 TCUs partnered with the local school
districts to lead whole system change involving parents, tribal
governments, schools and private sector. We urge you to look
into the outcomes of the program and consider reestablishing
it.
Over the past few years and as a result of changing law and
policy, EPSCoR programs are finally beginning to include TCUs
and state-based programs. While we would offer a specific TCU
EPSCoR, if that is not possible, we ask that all EPSCoR
programs at TCU states clearly articulate, with funding
commitments, their outreach to TCUs. EPSCoR programs should be
held accountable to work with tribal colleges as they work with
state-supported public institutions.
My written testimony includes several other recommendations
which we will be pleased to discuss with you at your
convenience. I will conclude this morning by saying that we are
grateful, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share our
story, our successes and our needs with you today. We look
forward to working with you to achieve broader participation in
STEM degree programs to achieve our Nation's post-secondary
education and STEM workforce goals. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Yarlott follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Yarlott
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, on behalf
of my institution, Little Big Horn College in Crow Agency, Montana and
the 35 other tribally-chartered colleges and universities that
collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, thank
you for inviting me to testify on the institutional and cultural
barriers to broadening student participation in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematic degree programs. I am pleased to comment on
efforts to overcome these barriers at Tribal Colleges and Universities
and to provide a few recommendations on strategies for increasing and
improving Federal agency support for efforts to ensure that all
Americans, including the First Americans, can succeed in high quality
STEM education programs and successfully enter the national STEM
workforce.
My name is Baluxx Xiassash--Outstanding Singer. I am a member of
the Uuwuutasshe Clan and also a child of the Uuwuutasshe Clan of the
Apsaalooke or Crow Indians. The Crow reservation is located in what is
now south-central Montana and contains about 3000 square miles--a
territory larger than the state of Rhode Island--of rolling hills, high
plains, grasslands, badlands water and wetlands. In the early 1980s, my
tribe established Little Big Horn College, forging a new tradition in
education to nurture Crow Indian professionals whose life work would
build the Crow community. The goal was to establish a lasting tradition
of advanced training and higher education, for a good path into the
future for the Crow People. I am proud to say that I truly am a product
of my tribe's commitment to higher education: as a student, I graduated
from Little Big Horn College; as a faculty member, I taught at the
college. Later, after earning advanced degrees, I became an
administrator, and now, as president of Little Big Horn College, it is
my responsibility to keep building the path into the future for my
people, a path that includes new technologies, Native and environmental
science, and partnerships in emerging STEM fields.
This morning, I will speak briefly on three topics: The Tribal
College Movement in general; the role of Tribal Colleges in broadening
participation of American Indian students in STEM fields and the
challenges and barriers facing our institutions as we carry out this
work; and finally, the role of the National Science Foundation's TCU
program in helping our institutions to develop STEM degree programs and
possible strategies for improving the program. I ask that my written
statement, along with attachments, be included in the Hearing Record.

BACKGROUND: THE TRIBAL COLLEGE MOVEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I do not know how well acquainted you or the members
of this Committee are with Tribal Colleges and Universities, as I do
not believe we have ever testified before you, or interacted with you
or your staff prior to last month. Perhaps you do not know of our near
daily struggles to survive as the most poorly funded institutions of
higher education in the country, or of our tremendous successes, from
our work to build self esteem and change the life and future of a
student through a nurturing educational environment that is culturally-
based and relevant to that student, to our efforts to build stronger
and more prosperous Tribal nations through the restoration of our
languages, applied research on issues relevant to our land and our
people, workforce training in fields critical to our reservation
communities, and community-centered economic development and
entrepreneurial programs.
American Indian tribally chartered colleges and universities are
young, geographically isolated, poor, and almost unknown to mainstream
America. Our institutions are also extraordinarily effective catalysts
for revitalization and change--so much so that we have been called
``higher education's best kept secret.''
Located in some of the most rural and impoverished regions of this
country, Tribal Colleges are planting resilient seeds of hope for the
future; nurturing and sustaining languages, cultures, and traditions;
and helping to build stronger tribal economies and governments. Yet,
the oldest Tribal College is younger than many of the people in this
room. My institution, Little Big Horn College, celebrated its 30th
anniversary this year. Our oldest institution, Dine College on the
Navajo Nation, turned 40 last year.
The Tribal College philosophy is simple: to succeed, American
Indian higher education must be locally and culturally based, holistic,
and supportive. The education system must address the whole person:
mind, body, spirit, and family. Today, the nation's 36 tribal colleges
are located throughout Indian Country: all seven tribes in Montana and
all five in North Dakota have colleges. Tribal Colleges are also
located in the Southwest, the Great Lakes, and the upper Northwest. We
are expanding in all regions, including Alaska and Oklahoma, and
through distance education programs, our colleges are reaching all of
Indian Country.

In only a few short decades, Tribal Colleges have grown from very
humble beginnings to thriving academic centers. Little Big Horn
College, for example, began in the early 1980s in two trailers and a
garage that was serving as a barn. In the early years, the college had
about 30 students. Today, the college averages more than 400 students
each semester and focuses on 10 degree programs in areas critical to
our tribe's economic and community development.

Little Big Horn College, like all Tribal Colleges, is first and
foremost an academic institution, but because of the number of
challenges facing Indian Country--high unemployment, poorly developed
economies, significant health issues, and lack of stable community
infrastructures--Tribal Colleges are called upon to do much more than
provide higher education services. Tribal Colleges, such as Little Big
Horn College, often run entrepreneurial and business development
centers. Many TCUs are the primary GED and Adult Basic Education
provider on their reservations, and all TCUs provide a variety of
evening, weekend training and para-professional programs for tribal
employees, BIA and IHS staff; K-12 schools, tribal courts and justice
system staff, and many others. TCUs operate day care centers, health
promotion and nutrition programs, community gardens, and often, the
community library and tribal museum or archives. Tribal Colleges have
strong partnerships and linkages with the local K-12 education system,
offering Saturday and summer ``bridge'' programs for high school
students, running summer camps for youth, and providing after-hours
gymnasiums and computer labs for young people.

In terms of agriculture and land-based programs, Tribal Colleges
are working diligently to sustain our lands and waters. With 75 percent
or more of all tribal land being forested or agriculture based,
sustaining our environment is of critical importance to our people.
Several TCUs are involved in climate change research and education
projects, funded by NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. This semester, 15 TCUs launched a distributed, online
Introduction to Climate Change course, developed collaboratively from a
Native perspective through funding awarded to AIHEC by NSF.
Perhaps most important, Tribal Colleges are actively and
aggressively working to preserve and sustain their own tribal languages
and cultures. All TCUs offer Native language courses, and in fact,
passing a language course is a condition of graduation from a TCU. In
some cases, the tribal language would have been completely lost if not
for the Tribal College. Turtle Mountain Community College in Belcourt,
North Dakota, was established primarily for this purpose, and over the
years, its success in preserving and revitalizing the Turtle
Mountain Chippewa language has been unparalleled. Fort Belknap
College in Montana runs a K-6 language immersion school, right on
campus. At the White Clay Immersion School, children learn the White
Clay language and culture in addition to subjects they would normally
study at any other school.
Many TCUs offer unique associate and bachelor degree programs, as
well as in-service training, in elementary education. At the TCUs,
teacher education programs follow cultural protocols and stress the use
of Native language in everyday instruction. Well over 90 percent of
teachers who graduate from a TCU teacher education program begin
teaching on the reservation shortly after graduation, providing
positive role models to Indian children.
Finally, Tribal Colleges are accountable institutions, always
striving to be more accountable to our fenders, our students, and our
communities. Several years ago, AIHEC launched an ambitious and
landmark effort called ``AIHEC AIMS,'' which is a comprehensive data
collection system for TCUs, created by tribal college faculty and
presidents, community members, funders, students, and accrediting
agencies, aimed at improving our ability to measure and report our
successes and challenges to our key stakeholders. Today, each Tribal
College reports annually on a comprehensive set of 116 qualitative and
quantitative indictors allowing us, for the first time, to share the
true story of our success with funders, and most important, with our
communities.
Tribal Colleges have advanced American Indian higher education
significantly since we first began four decades ago, but many
challenges remain. Tribal Colleges are poor institutions. In fact,
Tribal Colleges are the most poorly funded institutions of higher
education in the country:

(1) First: Tribal Colleges are not state institutions, and
consequently, we receive little or no state funding. In fact,
very few states provide support for the non-Indian students
attending TCUs, which account for about 20 percent of all
Tribal College students. However, if these students attended a
state institution, the state would be required to provide the
institution with operational support for them. This is
something we are trying to rectify through education and public
policy change at the state and local level.

(2) Second: the tribal governments that have chartered Tribal
Colleges are not among the handful of wealthy gaming tribes
located near major urban areas. Rather, they are some of the
poorest governments in the nation. In fact, three of the ten
poorest counties in America are home to Tribal Colleges.

(3) Finally, the Federal Government, despite its trust
responsibility and treaty obligations, has never fully-funded
our primary institutional operations source, the Tribally
Controlled Colleges & Universities Act. Today, the Act is
appropriated at about $5,784 per full time Indian Student,
which is less than half the level that most states fund their
institutions.

To continue to thrive and expand as community-based educational
institutions, Tribal Colleges must stabilize, sustain, and increase our
basic operational funding. Through tools such as AIHEC AIMS, we hope to
better educate the public, lawmakers, and Federal officials about the
cost-effective success of our institutions. Through opportunities such
as this, we hope to share with the Congress and others how we are
helping to meet the challenges facing our tribal nations.

TRIBAL COLLEGE STEM PROGRAMS: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NSF-TCIIP

Although Tribal Colleges and Universities have made unprecedented
strides in addressing the higher education needs of American Indians,
much work and many challenges remain.
Of all groups in the U.S., American Indian students have the
highest high school drop-out rates in the country. A 2010 report
published by the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at
UCLA's Graduate School of Education and Information Studies revealed
that less than 50 percent of all American Indian high school students
actually graduate. If these students eventually pursue higher
education, it is most often through the Tribal Colleges, which like
other community colleges are open-admission institutions. In addition
to offering a significant level of GED preparation and testing, Tribal
Colleges face challenges with remediation and developmental education.
On average, more than 75 percent of all TCU students must take at least
one developmental course, most often pre-college mathematics. Of these
students, our data indicates that many do not successfully complete the
course in one year. Without question, a tremendous amount of TCU
resources are spent addressing the failings of the K-12 education
systems.
For this reason, TCUs have developed strong partnerships with their
K-12 feeder schools are actively working, often through their NSF-TCU
programs, to engage young students--early on and consistently--in
community and culturally relevant science and math programs.
Because of the challenges TCUs face in engaging under-prepared
students in STEM, improvement and innovation in science and mathematics
education programs have been areas of great interest to most Tribal
Colleges. However, the challenges to successful delivery of
comprehensive STEM programs at the TCUs are also significant. Prior to
NSF-TCUP, most Tribal Colleges were unable to secure the resources
needed to build high quality STEM programs because we were not able to
compete successfully in existing STEM programs sponsored by NSF and the
U.S. Department of Education--most likely because we lacked the
required Ph.D.-level principal investigators, could not demonstrate the
``impact numbers'' because of our size and remote locations, or simply
could not afford the professional grant writers available to the much
larger and fully resourced mainstream institutions.
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001, NSF-TCUP changed this by making
available essential capacity building assistance and resources to
Tribal Colleges, either through direct funding or by leveraging funding
from other sources. In fact, in less than ten years, NSF-TCUP has
become the primary Federal program for building STEM capacity at the
nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities. NSF-TCUP has served as a
catalyst for capacity building and change at Tribal Colleges, and the
program can be credited with many success stories, as detailed below.
In fact, in terms of impacting enrolled members of federally recognized
Indian tribes, the only data on the success of American Indians in
higher education, and in STEM degree programs in particular, is
collected by Tribal Colleges and Universities.
In implementing NSF-TCU programs, Tribal College administrators
have attempted to take a broad view and systemic approach to their STEM
needs, maximizing the return on NSF's investment through leveraging
support from foundations and other Federal programs. TCUs now have
greater capacity to address the STEM education and research needs of
the tribal communities they serve in holistic and culturally relevant
ways, which have been shown to increase retention and completion. More
American Indians are entering STEM education and more are entering STEM
professions, as demonstrated by enrollment and completion increases of
200 to 300 percent or more in some cases. STEM faculty are becoming
more effective and engaged STEM instructors and researchers. Students
are becoming more engaged, and with guidance from their faculty, they
are becoming involved in cutting-edge and community-relevant research
in significantly greater numbers. Classrooms and laboratories are
better equipped. American Indians are more aware of the importance of
STEM to their long-term survival, particularly in areas such as climate
change. Partnerships between TCUs and major research institutions are
emerging in areas of education and research, including pre-engineering.
Examples of successful STEM programs at the Tribal Colleges, funded
by the NSF-TCU program, include:

Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, North Dakota

Established BS programs in Environmental Science and
Secondary Science Education

Enhanced student recruitment and retention efforts

Created numerous student research opportunities

Integrated traditional knowledge in STEM instruction

Outcomes

20 student research projects presented at scientific
conferences; prior to NSF-TCUP funding, no presentations had
been given by students

Dramatic increase in average STEM enrollment: tenfold
increase since 2004 (from 3 students to an average of 30
students)

Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College, Hayward, Wisconsin

Providing scholarships to STEM majors

Improved access to STEM courses through alternative
teaching modalities (e.g. distance learning)

Incorporated Ojibwa traditional ecological knowledge
into 41 courses to improve STEM literacy and establish cultural
connections with STEM disciplines

Outcomes

Realized a significant improvement in student
retention (88% retention for scholarship recipients)

380% increase in STEM courses offered online,
reflecting burgeoning demand on the part of students

Sisseton Wahpeton College, Agency Village (Sisseton), South Dakota

Established a Computer Science and Technology degree
program

A BS degree program in Information Technology is
being submitted for accreditation

Partnering with area K-12s on a mathematics literacy
program

Providing professional development opportunities for
STEM faculty and staff

Outcomes

Establishing a local resource pool of trained
computing professionals where there had been none before

Reducing number of high school graduates requiring
remedial math courses

Providing a strong general science curriculum that is
preparing students to pursue STEM fields of study

Turtle Mountain Community College, Belcourt, North Dakota

STEM enrichment programs offered at area K-12 schools

Expanded STEM course offerings, supplemented with
computer aided instruction

Developing an environmental science degree program

Establishing research partnerships with four-year
institutions

Outcomes

Traditional ecological knowledge-centered outreach
activities motivate area students to pursue STEM at TMCC

300% increase in STEM graduates

Significant increase in the percentage of STEM majors
at the college

College of the Menominee Nation, Keshena, Wisconsin

Acquired/upgraded science and physics labs on main
and branch campuses

Hired Ph.D. level SIEM faculty to develop and offer
new programs

Established new Materials Science and Pre-Engineering
programs

Established successful STEM Scholars and Leaders
student retention programs

Outcomes

Menominee students have access to a variety of high
quality STEM programs with good career potential

CMN is developing high quality research programs

STEM programs are achieving high levels of student
retention and transfer

Fort Berthold Community College, New Town, North Dakota

Establishing an Elementary Teacher Education Program
with an emphasis on Math and Science

Working with area middle and high schools to improve
student enrollment in STEM courses

Encouraging student transfer to Baccalaureate
programs in STEM

Established student research program

Outcomes

Improved preparation of incoming freshmen in SIEM

Significantly increased number of students majoring
in STEM and continuing on to four-year institutions to pursue
BS and advanced degrees

Oglala Lakota College, Kyle, South Dakota

Established high quality online STEM courses

Acquired state of the art science labs

Providing K-12 STEM teacher professional development

Established research collaborations with South Dakota
universities

Outcomes

Established a tribal STEM workforce in environmental
science with graduates working in tribal agencies responsible
for land and resource management, water quality, among others

Improved quality of STEM instruction in area K-12
schools

Conducted locally relevant environmental research

Despite the success of the NSF-TCU program and its demonstrated
impact on American Indian STEM participation, we believe that the
program must have increased support from the Administration and the
Congress. We need such a commitment as we work to address the growing
technology, science, and math crises facing our communities. The need
for increased funding for the NSF-TCU program is well documented. In
fact, between 2001 and 2007, NSF-TCUP funding was essentially static,
as it has been again since 2008.

Further, since 2004, the percentage of proposals funded has
declined each year, reaching an all-time low in 2009.

In 2009, less than 30 percent of all proposals were funded, out of
a pool that includes only 33 eligible Tribal Colleges and Universities.
Clearly, the need for STEM-related funding at TCUs is not being
fully addressed by available funding.

SYSTEMIC CHALLENGES TO BROADENING PARTICIPATION

We believe that the National Science Foundation and NSF-TCUP, in
particular, could serve as a model for how Federal agencies could
support strategies to alleviate institutional and cultural barriers to
broadening participation of students pursuing science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees and professions. However,
outside of the NSF-TCU program, significant barriers to participation
still exist and NSF's ``broadening participation'' effort has not been
entirely successful. In fact, in some cases, it has had the effect of
doing harm to Tribal Colleges and adversely impacting American Indian
STEM education, as mainstream institutions seek to improve their
chances to be competitive in grant competitions.
Throughout our history, states and mainstream institutions have
taken advantage of Tribal Colleges and our students, adding us to their
grant proposals and including our students in their statistical
reports, without ever speaking to us or even notifying us that we are
being used help them secure funding. Needless to say, we rarely receive
any funding, technical assistance, or outreach when these proposals are
successfully reviewed and awarded, and traditionally, we had no way of
knowing how NSF or the awardee dealt with the lack of TCU inclusion
after the award was made.
Over the past several years, as NSF's broadening participation
requirement has grown in importance, the number of proposals from
mainstream institutions seeking to include Tribal Colleges--without our
knowledge or only after the proposal is completely developed--has
increased dramatically. In fact, the situation became so frustrating
that in early 2008, the AIHEC Board of Directors, on which the
presidents of all accredited TCUs sit, approved a motion urging Federal
agencies to adopt a policy that that any proposal for Federal funds,
which directly or indirectly names Tribal College(s) or AIHEC in the
proposal, but is not submitted by a Tribal College or University or
AIHEC, must include documentation confirming that Tribal College
administration or AIHEC, as relevant, is fully informed of and supports
the college's role in the proposed project. The goal of this motion is
to ensure that fewer proposals are funded that include TCUs without our
knowledge or agreement and therefore fail to address the TCU priorities
in a manner that is likely to prove successful, or whose project budget
fails to include the resources necessary for the TCU to accomplish
stated goals.
I am pleased to report that in the last year or two, we have
noticed an increasing awareness among NSF program officers about the
need for Tribal Colleges to be truly engaged as partners in proposal
preparation and program implementation. We can cite specific examples,
including one situation this year, in which a proposal was submitted by
a researcher at a mainstream institution to provide STEM faculty and
student development involving Tribal Colleges, but without any
indication of input from the TCUs and certainly without any expressions
of support. The researcher contacted AIHEC only after the NSF program
officer specifically told the researcher to reach out to TCUs. Clearly,
NSF's internalization of its broadening participation commitment has
led to an increased awareness by program officers, and we believe this
was a key factor in the program officer's directive to reach out to the
TCUs.

Other Current Realities.
According to faculty and administrators at the Tribal Colleges, TCU
faculty simply are not competitive in NSF-sponsored grant competitions,
when compared to research faculty at major universities. Heavy teaching
loads, responsibilities to other institutional programs, and
obligations to participate in community activities severely limit the
time TCU faculty have to write proposals, conduct research, and develop
manuscripts for publication. Further, the institutions themselves lack
the funding needed to hire experienced researchers and adequate support
staff, including grant writers and assessment professionals. (See
``Background'' above on funding levels.) One TCU faculty member
testifying before the NSF's Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science
and Engineering stated that her institution had applied for an NSF
grant outside of the NSF-TCU program on three occasions, at the
recommendation of the NSF program officer. However, the project was not
funded, despite high peer review scores and a demonstrated need,
because the TCU lacked an adequate Ph.D.-level faculty member to serve
as principal investigator in the Native science research.
Another problem facing TCUs is the size and remoteness of our rural
institutions. These factors are often viewed negatively when panelists
review TCU grant proposals and when we begin potential partnership
negotiations with faculty members from larger universities. ``How many
students are they going to be able to affect?'' is a common question,
one TCU faculty reports. His response to this question is, ``How many
Native American students are in your science programs?'' The answer is
typically 1-3 students, based on self-reporting. The faculty member's
institution, Sitting Bull College in Fort Yates, North Dakota, enrolls
nearly 30 American Indian students in the Environmental Science program
alone. Without NSF-TCUP, these students would not have been reached.
We are often told that TCU proposals are eliminated from
competition by panelists and program officers who do not understand the
unique situations of Tribal Colleges and our students. We are trying to
build a community, not just a single program. Many of our efforts focus
on developing basic math, science, and writing skills, along with
showing students that opportunities they never dreamed of are possible,
but only to the extent that we can be successful in securing funding.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION ONE: Maintain and increase targeted funding for Tribal
College and University STEM Infrastructure,
Education, and Research Programs.

Given NSF's proposal in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget to eliminate
the TCU program and instead offer one program for several different
types of minority-serving institutions, our first recommendation is to
maintain this vitally needed program, and to the extent possible,
provide increased funds to ensure equitable participation by all TCUs.
We believe it is important to note that NSF's decision was made without
publically providing any research or analysis in support of the
proposal and without discussion or, in the case of tribally-charted
institutions of higher education, without consultation.
We urge the Federal Government, led by the National Science
Foundation, to show an authentic commitment to broadening participation
in STEM by honoring this nation's commitment to build the
infrastructure of all segments of the U.S. academic and research
community. In our view, this is the only way to guarantee that ALL
Americans, including the First Americans, can fully and actively
participate in the effort to achieve our collective STEM education and
research goals. Given the unique needs of Tribal Colleges and
Universities, the government-to-government relationship between
federally recognized Indian tribes and the Federal Government, the
Federal Trust Responsibility, and the programs' demonstrated success
and need, we believe that it is imperative to maintain and expand
funding for the NSF-TCUP.
Historical Justification. In the early 1980s, just as Little Big
Horn College was establishing itself in two old trailers and a barn,
the National Science Foundation established the national supercomputing
centers program because ``American researchers were at a serious
disadvantage for gaining access to leading-edge high performance
computers when compared to colleagues from other countries or to
[researchers in key Federal agencies.] NSF leadership recognized that
the lack of a suitable infrastructure was hampering important basic
research . . ..''
Congress infused NSF with resources, which funded the national
centers, along with roughly 80 institutions of higher education. The
foundation for today's technology infrastructure was in place at key
institutions of higher education, and academia was on its way to cyber-
enhanced research and education.
But that world did not reach Crow Agency, Montana or Rosebud, South
Dakota. Not one Tribal College was funded during those early days, nor
for many subsequent years. No one from the tribal college community
even participated in the discussions and debate in 1984, or later in
1994 when the program was up for reconsideration. And so, where are the
Tribal Colleges today, vis-a-vis mainstream institutions and many
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and hundreds of Hispanic
Serving Institutions (and even the state-supported Native Hawaiian and
Alaska-Native serving institutions)? Today, our institutions are where
these groups were in their early developmental days, before the
infusions of Federal funding. How do our institutions get to where
other institutions are today, so that we can begin to compete on an
even playing field? The same way the other institutions did: through
support and collaboration with Federal agencies, led by the National
Science Foundation, and through collaborations with other institutions
of higher education around this country and the world.
Tribal Colleges, no less than any other institution, deserve the
opportunity to grow. We should, and must, be part of the future of
technology-mediated STEM education and research in this country and the
world. And if inclusion means that funding must be dedicated to help
the Tribal Colleges and other minority serving institutions build their
infrastructures, then it must be done, just as it was in the past for
others. They demanded no less. Why should we?
If this is not done, TCUs will continue to be missing from the list
of institutions participating broadly in NSF programs. ``Broader
participation'' will apply to all but reservation-based American
Indians and their tribally-chartered institutions of higher education.
We know that this will be the case because today, most if not all, TCUs
are unable to successfully compete in NSF programs beyond TCUP,
primarily because of a lack of understanding and serious consideration
by program officers and peer reviewers, as described above.

RECOMMENDATION TWO: Length and Focus of NSF-TCUP Awards

Given the limited pool of TCU applicants (33 accredited TCUs) and
the need to build--often from the ground up--and sustain S I EM
programs for a length of time deemed sufficient to achieve improvement
at all levels, NSF should be directed to:

1. Make grants under the NSF-TCU program for a period of ten
years, or alternatively, five years, with ongoing support for
an additional five years (without the need to re-enter a
program competition), provided the programs meet appropriate
NSF criteria for satisfactory progress; and

2. Refrain from expanding or prioritizing purposes within the
NSF-TCU program in new areas (e.g. K-12 teacher education,
which previously had been supported by NSF under the Urban and
Rural Systemic Initiatives) until sufficient funding exists to
meet the basic STEM needs of TCUs and reliable data
demonstrates a significant improvement in basic STEM education
participation and completion rates across TCUs.

We recognize that a need exists to address STEM education at all
levels. However, funding is severely limited under the NSF-TCU
program--it has not grown significantly over the years. Therefore,
should NSF personnel believe that additional areas need to be addressed
or additional programs established, beyond those proposed by TCUs under
the general NSF-TCU program, new funding should be requested or
designated, rather than reprogramming funds appropriated for vital
basic STEM education and research programs. This is particularly
important when the new funding priorities established under programs
such as NSF-TCUP would replace programs eliminated elsewhere within
NSF.
Under the existing NSF-TCUP, funding should be permitted to address
critical areas of need, including:

Research and development of culturally relevant STEM
curriculum, for all grade levels, including in Native
languages;

STEM outreach and partnerships among TCUs and K-12
feeder schools and 13-16 programs/institutions to ensure
seamless pathways into STEM professions

Best practices in addressing gateway and bottleneck
courses that are necessary for students pursuing STEM degrees
and professions

Innovative and collaborative curriculum development

Comprehensive student support services

Faculty development and support

Acquisition of laboratory equipment/instrumentation

Acquisition and application of emerging technologies

Expansion of undergraduate research capacity and
opportunities

Partnerships with other institutions of higher
education, including mainstream and MSIs, for research and
technology assistance (possibly using the AN-MST model, which
was a project funded by NSF to EDUCAUSE, involving the three
primary MSI communities)

Increased technical assistance and project management
assistance for awardees, as explained above.

RECOMMENDATION THREE: Take steps to ensure that proposals and programs
impacting Tribal Colleges and their students
include adequate consultation and partnerships

We request assistance in enforcing and measuring compliance with a
requirement that any collaborative proposal involving TCUs in which a
non-TCU is the lead institution must include, among the supporting
documents, letters of support and commitment from the TCU signed by an
authorized representative of the institution or the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium. (For more information, please see
Attachment A).

RECOMMENDATION FOUR: Consider re-invigorating the NSF's ``Rural
Systemic-Tribal College Initiative'' or
establishing a new grant program to increase
partnership opportunities between TCUs and 5-12
schools and programs

In the 1990s, through the National Science Foundation's Tribal
College Rural Systemic Initiative (TCRSI), 20 TCUs partnered with their
local school districts to achieve successful and sustainable
improvement of STEM programs at the K-14 level. Founded on the
assertion that all students can learn and should be given the
opportunity to reach their full potential, Tribal Colleges led the
effort to achieve ``whole system change.'' Parents, tribal governments,
schools and the private sector are working with the colleges to:

Implement math and science standards-based curriculum
for all students;

Implement math and science standards-based assessment
for all schools;

Implement math and science standards-based
professional development for teachers, administrators, and
community leaders; and

Integrate local Native culture into math and science
standards-based curriculum.

The close working relationship between the TCUs and K-12 schools
was paying off, according to the National Science Foundation, which
reported that successful systemic reform had resulted in:

Clear evidence that the program is significantly
enhancing student achievement and participation in science and
math;

Significant reductions in the achievement disparities
among students that can be attributed to socioeconomic status,
race, ethnicity, gender, or learning styles;

Implementation of a comprehensive, standards-based
curriculum aligned with instruction and assessment, available
to every student served by the system and its partners.

Convergence of all resources that are designed for or
that reasonably could be used to support science and math
education--fiscal, intellectual, and material--both in formal
and informal education settings--into a focused program that
upgrades and continually improves the math and science program
for all students.

Broad-based support from parents, policy makers,
institutions of higher education, business and industry,
foundations, and other segments of the community for the goals
and collective value of the initiative.

Despite its demonstrated success, the program was terminated some
years ago. This is the type of program that should be reinvigorated and
strongly supported by the Congress and NSF.

RECOMMENDATION FIVE: Expand EPSCoR inclusion and encourage NSF to use a
centralized approach to learn about the capacity
and needs of Tribal Colleges & Universities

Over the past few years and as a result of changes in law and
policy, senior level NSF administrators have begun developing
strategies to better serve TCUs and American Indians. For example, in
FY 2010, the NSF's Engineering Directorate committed funds to TCUP to
support pre-engineering activities at TCUs. Following long-needed
changes in program requirements, EPSCoR programs are finally beginning
to include TCUs in state-based programs in more meaningful ways.
Although several EPSCoR states are home to TCUs, North Dakota and New
Mexico have taken notable steps to include TCUs. For the past few
years, the North Dakota EPSCoR program has allocated funding to support
a statewide Tribal College liaison, although the liaison is housed at
the state university rather than a TCU, and it is providing relatively
limited program funding to support EPSCoR activities at TCUs in the
state. Recently, we have been told that NSF's Biology Directorate has
been developing strategies to outreach to the TCUs. While we are
encouraged by this effort, we respectfully suggest that the National
Science Foundation could be more effective if it would work through our
central organization, AIHEC, to discuss our needs and capacities and
develop realistic outreach strategies. Approaching TCUs through a
centralized source and capitalizing on the expertise of our Board's
STEM Committee is a cost effective strategy for engaging our
institutions.
A centralized model could also be used to coordinate a program
whereby NSF would take the lead in developing and implementing a cross-
cutting Federal initiative in which Federal agency officials and
program officers spent a summer (or equivalent time period) in Indian
Country and serve as mentors to STEM programs at TCUs and Indian-
serving K-12 schools.

RECOMMENDATION SIX: Encourage coordination and leveraging of various
NSF programs to help build TCU capacity

We believe that NSF should launch a coordinated effort to empower
and encourage TCUs to link programs and opportunities to better meet
the needs of American Indian students. For example, NSF-TCU programs
could be more effectively linked with EPSCoR, as discussed above, as
well as the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation and other
existing NSF-supported programs across Directorates. Further, the
National Science Foundation could establish faculty exchange programs,
among Minority Serving Institutions, as well as with faculty at
mainstream institutions and national research laboratories.

RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: Technical Assistance for and about TCUs and new
research involving the challenges confronting
efforts to broaden participation among American
Indians

Based on a motion of the AIHEC Board of Directors, which comprises
the presidents of all the nation's accredited TCUs, we recommend that
any grants or contracts for technical assistance under the NSF-TCU
program should be awarded to an Indian organization, which the NSF
Director finds is nationally based, represents a substantial American
Indian constituency, and has demonstrated expertise in Tribal Colleges
and Universities and American Indian higher education. This will help
ensure that the unique needs of TCU students, faculties, and
institutions are addressed effectively and efficiently in a context
that optimizes TCU-focused capacity building. We urge that technical
assistance be provided to the TCUs so that we are more competitive in
grant competitions, and that technical assistance be provided to NSF
and other Federal science agencies to ensure that they understand and
are responsive to the unique needs and characteristics of Tribal
Colleges and Universities and American Indian students.
We also recommend that the National Science Foundation fund
research examining the challenges to STEM engagement that American
Indians face to STEM engagement, including a study to evaluate the
capacity of the TCUs' physical infrastructure to support high quality
STEM programs, research on underlying risk factors, and sociological
studies designed to better understand the social dynamics impacting
STEM education in Indian Country, and dissemination of best practices
and model programs.

RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: Blue Ribbon Panel on MSIs and Cyberinfrastructure

We believe it would be productive for the Congress to direct the
National Academy of Sciences or the National Science Foundation to
establish a ``Blue Ribbon Panel on Minority Serving Institutions and
Cyberinfrastructure,'' with the goal of producing a report and action
plan for ensuring the active inclusion of minority serving institutions
(MSIs, including TCUs, Hispanic-serving Institutions, and Historically
Black Colleges and Universities) in Cyberinfrastructure development,
research, and education programs. In addition, we recommend that
Congress encourage or mandate each Directorate within the National
Science Foundation to study and report on its efforts to engage
American Indians in its programs.
We are grateful, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share our
story, our successes, and our needs with you today. We look forward to
working with you to achieve broader participation in STEM degree
programs and to achieve our nation's post-secondary education and STEM
workforce goals. Thank you.

Biography for David Yarlott
David E. Yarlott, Jr. is a member of the Crow Tribe of Indians. He
is a member of the Greasy Mouth Clan and also a child of the Greasy
Mouth Clan. He also is a member of the Nighthawk Society. Dr. Yarlott's
education began in the local Crow Indian Reservation primary schools
and high school in Hardin, MT. He attended Little Big Horn College for
several years before transferring to Montana State University-Bozeman,
where he obtained his bachelor's and master's degrees in business and
an Ed.D. in Adult, Community, and Higher Education. He earned an A.A.
in Business Administration from Little Big Horn College. He obtained a
U.S. patent on an invention, a tool used in suppressing grass fires.
Prior to becoming president, Dr. Yarlott served Little Big Horn
College as Dean of Academic Affairs, Department Head of Business,
Faculty Council President, Student/Faculty Representative to Board of
Trustees, Faculty (business courses), advisor (American Indian Business
Leaders, Student Bookstore, coordinator for the Johnson
Entrepreneurship Grant, consultant (natural resources curriculum. For
the Crow Tribe of Indians, he acted as liaison for Crow Tribal
Forestry, director of Apsaalooke Nation Hotshot Crew (Developed),
consultant for Economic Development and Planning, and president of the
Montana Indian Fire Fighters Steering Committees. Dr. Yarlott work for
the U.S. Forestry Service in the Gallatin National Forest for seven
years and with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in forestry for 13 years.
For ten years he worked the family farm.
President Yarlott is a member of the American Indian College Fund
Board (AICF) (past chair), National Business Education Association
(NBEA), American Indian Higher Education Consortium (MEG) (current
chair), National Indian Education Association (NIEA), Crow Economic
Development Association, Hazardous Substance Research Centers, Montana
State ``Shared Leadership Committee,' NASULGC, USDAIAIHEC Leadership
Group, and Montana Correctional Enterprise (appointed by governor).
He has received many honors, including TRiO Achiever Award
(Regional)--ASPIRE; Award of Excellence--Montana State University-
Billings; ``Pathmakers''--one of five selected as outstanding Crow
Members making a difference for the Crow People--LBHC; Achievement
Award--Crow Nation; Accomplishment Award (Developing a Physical Fitness
Program and establishing a Fire Engine Training Program)--USFS; Scott
Hanson Memorial Award (For initiative, caring & leadership)--USFS;
Business Scholarship (Graduate)--National Center (Mesa, AZ);
Certificates of Appreciation for Outstanding Performances (three
Years)--USFS; Phyllis Berger Memorial Scholarship--Montana State
University; Outstanding Senior Native American Student--Montana State
University; Grace Rosness Memorial Scholarship--Montana State
University; and Harriet Cushman Memorial Scholarship (three Years)--
Montana State University.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Yarlott.
Ms. Craft.

STATEMENT OF MS. ELAINE L. CRAFT, DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTH
CAROLINA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION NATIONAL RESOURCE
CENTER, FLORENCE DARLINGTON TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Ms. Craft. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers,
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, good morning. I am
pleased to be with you today to provide a community college
perspective on broadening participation in STEM. I have seen
firsthand that when we are successful, business thrives, lives
are changed for the better and personal financial success
impacts entire families and the national economy.
Today I will share information about the two-year technical
and community college environment in which I work, results from
National Science Foundation funding that has broadened
participation in STEM, changed lives for the better and
supported economic development. I will also suggest a place in
the academic pipeline that I believe is in need of major
improvement if we are to hope to further broaden participation
in STEM.
Community and technical colleges enroll more than 11
million students. We educate the most diverse students in
higher education. We are the primary educators of highly
skilled STEM technicians. These technicians are the Nation's
first line STEM practitioners. They are critical to global
competitiveness. Our country needs more technicians than it
does scientists or engineers. The ratio generally ranges from
three technicians to one scientist or engineer to sometimes as
many as 12 to 15 technicians to one scientist or engineer. In
this particular photo, you see Dr. Moira Gunn, host of the
radio programs Tech Nation and Biotech Nation aired by National
Public Radio with Willard Cooper. Willie is an engineering
technology graduate of Florence Darlington Technical College
[FDTC]. He now has a career as an engineering technician with
ESAB Cutting and Welding in Florence, South Carolina. He was on
the program with Dr. Gunn at an NSF Advanced Technological
Education, or ATE, conference in Washington 18 months ago.
Willie is married. He has four daughters. He is in the South
Carolina National Guard. He was deployed to Iraq while he was
in the engineering technology program. He returned to the
program, graduated and now he has been tapped for officer
candidate school in the National Guard and he has been deployed
again, this time to Afghanistan.
Grant funding from the National Science Foundation has
enabled us to prepare faculty to teach more effective ways
using industry-type problems and teamwork. In this picture, you
see technology gateway class of students who had to learn to
use math, physics, technology and communications effectively to
solve a problem and to build this model of their solution for a
class presentation.
STEM programs at our institution support economic
development. Graduates are ready for both the workplace and
college transfer. Diversity in programs is improved with the
NSF-funded initiatives. This photo is of Shelton Fort. He is a
civil engineering technology student at Florence Darlington
Tech. He has now graduated. He was working for an architect and
he was designing the steeple on the church. You may able to see
it on his computer monitor. He was justifiably proud of his
work, but the big smile you see on his face is because he had
just gotten engaged that day.
In addition to increased diversity, graduation rates soared
with our NSF initiatives. Gains were attributed to placing an
emphasis on retaining STEM students at the beginning of
programs, where most dropouts occur. The graduation rates
improved from 15 percent to 40 percent after we changed the way
we taught the first year of our engineering technology courses.
In this picture, you see Nateesa Clester Oliver. She completed
a civil engineering technology degree at Florence Darlington
Technical College. Her bachelor of science degree is in
engineering technology at Francis Marion University. She is
currently enrolled in a graduate program in project management
at Brenau in Georgia.
African American success rates in engineering technology
[ET] increased from 15 to 39 percent with our programs. The
gains resulted from improving teaching methodologies that
specifically addressed learning styles. Through teamwork and
class and special activities for female ET students,
underrepresented students experienced a sense of belonging.
Meet Takeesha Boatwright. She completed a degree in computer
science at Florence Darlington Tech and is currently completing
her bachelor's degree in computer science at Coastal Carolina
University.
Industry-sponsored student internships have been a big part
of our program. Full-time enrollment and on-time graduation can
be rare for community and technical college students who must
work while attending college, and both are major retention
factors. Industry-paid internships encourage full-time
enrollment. Internships also augment learning. Broad economic
benefit results when students transition from minimum-wage to
high-wage employment. These students were working 40 hours a
week making minimum wage. When they started their industry
internships, they could cut back to 20 hours a week with the
new high wages they were making. In this picture you see Shawn
Jackson and Brad Tindell working at Honda of South Carolina
where they make all-terrain vehicles and personal watercraft.
Scholarships promote on-time graduation, high grades and
improved retention. We were able to reduce the time to
graduation for our engineering technology students from 3.8
years to 2.2 years through a combined change in the way we
taught our program and the scholarship support that allowed the
students to be full time. The National Science Foundation
supports our Tech Star scholarships through the S-STEM program
[Scholarships in Science Technology, Engineers and Math]. To
date, this program has a 95 percent graduation rate.
The story doesn't stop here. At FDTC, successful strategies
and educational materials developed with NSF funding are now
being used in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The ATE
program, scholarships, and STEM programs at NSF have helped
make this possible. In this particular slide, you will see some
students at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia.
Through our partnership with the National Dropout Prevention
Center at Clemson University, we are now looking at our
teaching and learning strategies as dropout prevention
strategies for high schools. The students you see in the
picture were on the verge of dropping out of high school. They
had already failed the science portion of the Georgia exit exam
once and were not attending school regularly. We provided them
with STEM-based hands-on projects that answer a question ``why
am I learning this'' every day. They have had five cohorts in
the program now. The success rate on the same exit exam in
Georgia was 85 percent for the first cohort. They got 100
percent in the fall of 2009 with the fifth cohort.
Significant challenges remain in broadening participation.
The two girls you see in this photograph attended our college's
summer technology camp. What will happen to them? Will they be
underprepared students? Will they struggle with success in STEM
when they reach college? According to the ACT, in 2009 only 23
percent of our students graduating from high school that were
tested were college ready. If they are underprepared, will they
be disappointed to find that in our remedial programs that they
are required to participate in, that that there is no relevant
STEM in those courses?
Underrepresented students face non-academic and academic
hurdles. First-generation students, when they attend college,
may not understand that textbooks are no longer distributed by
the district but have to be purchased and at high prices. They
may not understand that there is no cafeteria that provides
free or reduced-price lunches. They are on their own now, also,
for transportation. And they haven't learned the habits of
success. They didn't take rigorous high school science and math
and they haven't been prepped to do well on placement tests
when they come to the college as more advantaged students have
been. The bottom line is, is that we are losing many potential
STEM students after they enter college but before they actually
begin their degree programs. Lengthy remediation that is not
related to their major discourages program completion. This
particular photo is a Hispanic engineering technology student
named Dennis Olivares. His brother John is now a student in our
program and is one of our Tech Star scholars.
The STE of STEM, science, technology and engineering, is
needed much earlier in the college experience. Current practice
in remediation omits these three important subjects.
Engineering technology students Patrick Cannon and Blake
Wallace are working on a robot in class. Students not yet ready
to enter the curriculum could benefit from similar experiences.
The major challenge in broadening participation in STEM may be
that underrepresented populations in STEM are most likely to
also be underprepared for success in STEM. Community and
technology colleges lack the needed resources and incentive to
reform and ramp up these STEM programs. Science, technology and
engineering faculty need to be involved and they are already a
scarce resource in our institutions. Research-based teaching
methodologies work. We have plenty of research that shows that.
But faculty struggle to use teaching methodologies that were
not the way they were taught. Faculty development is needed.
As outcomes from our NSF funding show, changes can be
stimulated with targeted funding initiatives. The NSF ATE
program has been a phenomenal catalyst for improvement in
technician education nationally and should be used as a model
for improving and infusing the science, technology and
engineering into courses that address the needs of
underprepared students. Done well, this could significantly
broaden participation in STEM, perhaps more than any other
single improvement in higher education.
Chairman Lipinski. Ms. Craft, if you can wrap up?
Ms. Craft. STEM success stories include the ones like the
gal in the middle of this picture, Pamela Sansbury. Pamela was
saved early. She came to the college, wanted to do cosmetology,
said she wanted to do hair. We discovered she had math ability
and directed her to engineering technology instead. Today, she
is a national trainer for robotics manufacturer ABB, very
successful, looking after her three daughters.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elaine L. Craft

Introduction

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, I appreciate having this opportunity to testify
about broadening participation in STEM--science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. My name is Elaine Craft, and I am an
employee of Florence-Darlington Technical College located in Florence,
South Carolina. I am a chemical engineer, and I have worked in industry
and. for many years in STEM education in technical and community
colleges, first as a teacher and administrator and more recently as
Principal Investigator and Director of a National Science Foundation-
funded Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Center dedicated to
increasing the quantity, quality, and diversity of highly skilled
engineering technicians to support our nation's economy.
The term ``technician'' is not always understood. The technicians
that I will be referring to are the same ones that are the focus of the
National Science Foundation Advanced Technological Education program,
known as the A-T-E program. These technicians require rigorous college-
level academic preparation in STEM that is far more than a high school
education but generally less than a four-year degree. Technician
education programs are often associate degree granting programs.
Industry-recognized certifications may be included. It is not uncommon
for a scientist to design an experiment, and then for one or more
technicians to perform the laboratory work to conduct the experiment;
similarly, an engineer's design is likely to be installed, tested,
maintained, and repaired by an engineering technician. Most employers
require more technicians than scientists or engineers. The most
successful companies recognize that the quality of this component of
their workforce gives them a competitive edge in the global economy.
Early in my career, I worked in a research facility for the Monsanto
Chemical Company. I had a team of six engineering technicians assigned
to me who implemented my designs and kept my pilot plant and testing
operations functional. I experienced first-hand the absolutely critical
role of technicians in research, manufacturing, and all engineering
endeavors.
Technicians are hands-on, STEM practitioners that shoulder the
responsibility for making most of our science, technology, mathematics,
and engineering applications work. The preparation of these highly
skilled technicians is an important part of the academic mission of the
nation's two-year technical and community colleges. The demand for
technologically sophisticated technicians is growing steadily in
response to ``baby boomer'' retirements and advances in science and
technology. Even in the current difficult economic environment,
graduates of up-to-date technician education programs at two-year
technical and community colleges are in high demand, and the jobs pay
well. Students completing these programs have the option of entering
the workforce immediately, or they may transfer to senior institutions
to complete baccalaureate or higher degrees in STEM disciplines.
Today you are addressing the topic of broadening participation in
STEM. A powerful way to do this is to attract and retain diverse
students in STEM-focused programs at the community college level.
Technical and community colleges enroll more than 11.6 M students and
provide accessible higher education in every congressional district,
whether rural, suburban, or urban. Since community colleges also enroll
a higher percentage of minority students than any other sector of
higher education, maximizing student recruitment and the effectiveness
of STEM-based programs in these institutions provides a great
opportunity and a very fertile environment for broadening participation
in STEM.
My remarks today will demonstrate how National Science Foundation
grant funding to Florence-Darlington Technical College is already
contributing to the goal of broadening participation in Sl'IM, but
there is still more work to be done. First, let me tell you about the
college.

Florence-Darlington Technical College (description and demographics)

Florence-Darlington Technical College is one of 16 two-year
colleges making up the South Carolina Technical College System. The
South Carolina Technical College System functions as the state's
community college system, but it was founded with an economic
development mission. Florence-Darlington Technical College is located
near the intersection of Interstate Highways 95 and 20, half-way
between Maine and Miami, in the northeastern quadrant of the state.
This year, the college has an enrollment of more than 5,200 students in
its academic programs and thousands more in non-credit continuing
education courses. According to the American Association of Community
Colleges, approximately two-thirds of the nation's community colleges
are the size of Florence-Darlington Technical College or smaller.
Florence-Darlington Technical College offers the following non-
medical, Associate Degree STEM programs of study:

Associate of Science

Associate Degree, Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering Technology

` Civil Engineering Technology Concentration

` Graphics Technology Concentration

Electronics Engineering Technology

Electro-mechanical Engineering Technology

Associate Degree, Automotive Technology

Associate Degree, Machine Tool Technology

Associate Degree, Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning; and,

Associate Degree, Telecommunications Systems
Management (computer science)

The college also offers an extensive selection of Allied Health
programs, such as nursing and dental hygiene.
The Florence-Darlington Technical College service area population
is approximately 45% minority, and the college student population is
approximately 50% minority. In comparison, the college faculty
population is 23% minority. Demographics of the students enrolled in
medical STEM programs are predominantly female (92%) but racially
diverse (32% minority). Enrollments in non-medical STEM programs
demonstrate the progress that is being made at the college in
addressing the challenge being addressed by this Congressional
Subcommittee, with enrollment in these programs that is now 27% female
and 40% minority.

Effective Institutional Policies, Programs, and Activities

Florence-Darlington Technical College has policies, programs, and
activities designed to increase diversity and broaden participation in
all aspects of the college. Dr. Charles W. Gould, president, has led by
example and created a culture of inclusiveness at every level of
college operations. In recent years, the college has increased its
internal research capacity and now has the necessary data to identify
and address specific challenges students face from the time they enter
the college through graduation. For example, a recent study pointed out
an alarming achievement gap between African American and other students
in entry-level science courses. Additional research is being conducted
to understand why these students are struggling and guide faculty and
administrators in designing interventions to address the underlying
causes for the difference in success rates. Already, it is clear that
differences in prerequisite STEM skills and knowledge are a major
factor. My recommendation is for this subcommittee to address this
issue in strengthening the STEM educational pipeline.
Much of the progress made in broadening participation in S1 EM at
Florence-Darlington Technical College has resulted from targeted STEM
initiatives that have been made possible by the National Science
Foundation A1E program. With NSF funding, research-based innovations
have been implemented with excellent results. In mid-1990, state-wide
data for South Carolina's technical colleges indicated that only 12% of
students entering engineering technology programs graduated, and 85% of
those who graduated were white males. Additional research showed that
the drop-out rate for engineering technology students is highest in the
first year of study, which is made up primarily of core STEM subjects
such as mathematics and physics. To increase student success rates in
engineering technology programs and to broaden participation, a new,
first-year curriculum was developed to better address the way students
learn and to incorporate workplace readiness skills such as problem-
solving and teamwork. Florence-Darlington Technical College was one of
seven colleges that implemented the new Engineering Technology first-
year curriculum developed by the South Carolina ATE Center.
NSF ATE initiatives at Florence-Darlington Technical College have
achieved the following results: enrollment in engineering technology
programs has doubled and the time it takes a student to graduate with
an associate degree in engineering technology has been reduced from 3.8
years to 2.2 years. Using 1998 statewide baseline data, graduation
rates at Florence-Darlington have increased from 12% to more than 40%
and African-American enrollment has increased from 15% to 39%. The
gains were attributed to faculty preparation that improved teaching
methodologies and use of the new curriculum that supported better
teaching methods; introduced problem-based learning; integrated content
across mathematics, physics, technology, and communications; and
encouraged teamwork among students and instructors.
Because so many two-year technical and community college students
must work while attending college, time-to-graduation is rarely the two
years that the phrase ``two-year college'' implies. Research data show
that the longer the educational pursuit extends beyond two years for
associate degree programs, the higher the dropout rate. Reducing time-
to-graduation was addressed as a critical retention strategy, and the
challenge was addressed in two ways. First, the credit hours required
for engineering technology associate degrees were reduced to align with
recommendations of the Technology Accreditation Commission of the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (TACIABET). Next,
the challenge of converting part-time students to full-time students
was addressed with the addition of an industry-sponsored paid
internship program that included scholarship support for interns. For
the first time, students were provided with the opportunity to replace
a 40-hour/week, minimum-wage job with a 20-hour/week internship that
paid twice as much and enhanced their classroom instruction. These
program improvements were implemented as part of a National Science
Foundation ATE project that shortened time-to-graduation for
engineering technology students from 3.8 years (range 2.0-7.0) to 2.2
years (range 2.0-2.4) while simultaneously providing industry with job-
ready, experienced candidates upon graduation.
Florence-Darlington Technical College serves an economically
disadvantaged student population. Approximately 68% of the student body
received financial aid in the form of Pell grants for the fall 2009
semester. A National Science Foundation Scholarships in STEM (S-STEM)
grant award has made full-time enrollment possible for academically
capable but financially challenged students. The S-STEM ``Tech Stars''
scholarships at Florence-Darlington Technical College have been awarded
to 140 students enrolled in non-medical STEMdisciplines. To date, 95
(80%) of the scholarship recipients have graduated with 82 Tech Stars
graduating on time and with grade point averages of 3.0 or higher.
Twenty-eight scholarship recipients are currently enrolled.
The success that has been achieved by Florence-Darlington Technical
College has been supported and made possible by grant funding from the
National Science Foundation, but the story does not stop there. It is
perhaps even more important to note that over the past five years, the
SC ATE Center has spread these innovations to educators across the
country. Community colleges in more than 25 states from California to
Maine and Wyoming to Texas are using one or more of the strategies that
were tested and proven successful at Florence-Darlington Technical
College. For example, the SC ATE faculty development model was used
last year in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina and the
internship model in Colorado. As a result of our partnership with the
National Dropout Prevention Center at Clemson University, the SC ATE
Center's curriculum model is now being tested as a dropout prevention
strategy in Georgia and South Carolina high schools with very promising
results. Interest is growing as more high schools seek effective
solutions to the dropout problem. Peer mentoring has become an
important part of the work of the South Carolina ATE Center, and
strategies for broadening participation are among those more often
shared.

Challenges in Broadening Participation in STEM

While we have found some effective ways to broaden participation
and increase student success, impact has been primarily on those
students who are qualified to enter rigorous STEM-based programs like
engineering technology. Unfortunately, too many students enter
community and technical colleges without the pre-requisite knowledge
and skills to be successful. I believe that one of the greatest
challenges to broadening participation in STEM resides in the part of
the academic pipeline where underprepared students entering college are
served. According to a recent study from Jobs for the Future (http://
www.jff.org/), nearly 60 percent of students enrolling in U.S.
community colleges must take remedial classes to build their basic
academic skills. For low-income students and students of color, the
figure topped 90 percent at some colleges.
We are losing far too many potential STEM students at the point
when they are required to complete additional academic preparation
prior to becoming eligible to enroll in their chosen curriculum.
Students deemed underprepared to enter their chosen program may be
returning after years of being out of school, possibly facing
challenges with English as a second language, and/or may be among the
many who have not traditionally done well in school and/or did not take
the necessary courses in high school to successfully pursue STEM
programs in college. These students are ``at risk'' when they enter our
institutions, and many are often first-generation college students.
They face both academic and non-academic barriers to success.
A recent project at Florence-Darlington Technical College funded by
the South Carolina Education and Economic Development Act uncovered
many of the non-academic barriers to student success. It was discovered
that first-generation college students often do not understand what
differences they will encounter when attending college. For example,
they may not know that lunch is no longer provided. They may not know
that textbooks are not distributed by the institution but rather must
be purchased by the student. A $175 price tag on a college physics book
is shocking to most of us, but it is even more shocking and out-of-
reach to them. They have parents who do not understand their role in
providing information for the Federal financial aid application. While
facing and adapting to these and many other non-academic barriers, they
face academic challenges as well.
Consider the typical steps required for the underprepared student:

The way we provide pre-curricular preparation can actually create
an academic barrier, especially for aspiring STEM students. Placement
testing targets only mathematics, reading, and English. There is little
consideration of critical science and technology pre-requisite
knowledge required for most STEM majors. Typically, none of the
English, reading, and mathematics content in remedial, developmental or
transitional studies contains the language of science and engineering,
and there is no obvious correlation between what they are being asked
to learn and the interest they may have in S I EM. Often these pre-
curriculum courses are taught in a way that is a vivid reminder of the
school environment where they did not excel before. Because this pre-
curricular coursework bridges between what has been learned by the
student prior to college and the baseline competencies expected for
entry-level STEM coursework in college, it is overlooked in funding
legislation and, by extension, does not get included in funding
opportunities that could stimulate improvement. As data reported by
Jobs for the Future illustrate, in every case, students from
underrepresented populations in STEM are dominant among those needing
additional preparation to be successful. While we wish this additional
preparation were not necessary, I encourage you to consider this a
point in the educational process that is ripe for improvement, and
where improvement could produce considerable impact and broaden
participation in STEM. New work and innovative thinking is needed about
how to invite and initiate the underprepared student into a STEM-
focused world with interesting activities and effective ways for
diverse learners to succeed. Reading and English instruction should
include the language and knowledge of science. Community and technical
colleges are skillful in nurturing diverse and underprepared students
but do not have the resources to completely re-build the way we offer
instruction for these students. What is needed is legislation and
funding that will stimulate the development of activities that are rich
in technology applications directed towards learning STEM and
introducing STEM programs and careers. Mathematics should be taught
from application to theory using problem-solving and real-world
applications that answer the question ``why am I learning this?''
While the National Science Foundation ATE program effectively
connects high school programs and teachers to community college
technician education and includes related STEM faculty development,
more attention and funding opportunities are needed to specifically and
effectively close the often overlooked but gaping ``hole'' in the
academic STEM pipeline where we lose far too many capable but
underprepared students, especially those from populations
underrepresented in STEM. The NSF ATE program has funded a number of
successful bridge programs, but these programs have typically been
discipline specific. The outcomes from successful bridge programs can
be used to guide the work that will be necessary to generalize pre-
curriculum preparation at community colleges for all STEM disciplines.
One challenge to infusing STEM in pre-curriculum studies is that this
work will require the involvement of faculty from all STEM disciplines
where currently only mathematics faculty are involved. Thus, pre-
curriculum study will need to be enriched and expanded both in terms of
what is taught, how it is taught, and by whom. Rigorous evaluation will
be needed to determine what works and what does not work so that
successful strategies can be broadly disseminated and replicated.
In summary, the one-size-fits-all strategy currently used in
remedial, developmental, or transitional studies in our country is
simply not meeting the needs of underprepared students who wish to
enter STEM or STEM-based programs. If broadening participation in STEM
careers is a priority for our nation, then that priority should be
demonstrated much sooner in the college experience of more students.
Funding specifically to replace traditional pre-curricular English,
reading, and mathematics with STEM-rich and relevant content delivered
in part by STEM-knowledgeable faculty using the language and laboratory
equipment of science, active learning, and inquiry-based teaching
methods will broaden participation in STEM by improving student success
from that point forward in the academic pipeline, especially for
underrepresented minorities.
Although there is a substantial body of research demonstrating that
better teaching methodologies produce better student outcomes, there
are still far too many educators wed to traditional academic practice.
My experience in working with faculty to change teaching is that it
takes more time to accomplish the transformation than is provided
through typical funded projects of three or four years. Funding
opportunities that encourage continued use of better teaching
methodologies for longer periods of time are needed to help develop
stronger communities of practice that are more likely to be sustained.
Like wearing a retainer once braces are removed from your teeth by the
orthodontist, support for improved teaching methods needs to be
provided for a longer period of time after the initial faculty
development to prevent teachers from lapsing back into more
comfortable, but less effective teaching practices. Faculty development
should be an integral component of all initiatives to broaden
participation in STEM.

Conclusion

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to share this information about the work
being done at Florence-Darlington Technical College and the South
Carolina Advanced Technological Education Center of Excellence. Funding
from the ATE Program at the National Science Foundation has been
transformative for our institution and for technician education in this
country. Your support for this program is having a significant impact
on broadening participation in STEM. Because of the NSF ATE Program, it
has been possible for us to explore and discover successful ways to
broaden participation in STEM and support our nation's economy in
fields of emerging as well as traditional technologies.

Biography for Elaine L. Craft
Elaine L. Craft has served as Director of the South Carolina
Advanced Technological (SC ATE) Center of Excellence since 1994. The SC
ATE Center is dedicated to increasing the quantity, quality and
diversity of highly skilled technicians to support the American
economy. Currently, she serves as Co-Principal Investigator for the SC
ATE National Resource Center for Expanding Excellence in Technician
Education. As SC ATE Director, she has served as principal
investigator, project manager, and project developer/grant writer for
multiple National Science Foundation grants for the South Carolina
Technical College System and Florence-Darlington Technical College. The
SC ATE Center is widely known for developing and broadly sharing
successful educational models and practices in technician education,
with a particular emphasis on the first year of study. An independent
study conducted by Western Michigan University in 2003 ranked the SC
ATE Engineering Technology Core, cross-disciplinary, project-based
curriculum, 4.0 on a 0-4 scale for ``its effectiveness in helping
students learn the knowledge and skills and/or practices needed to be
successful in the technical workplace.''
In 2005, Elaine Craft founded SCATE, Inc., a 501(c)(3), not-for-
profit corporation affiliated with Florence-Darlington Technical
College, Florence, South Carolina. SCATE Inc. promotes systemic change
in Advanced Technological Education and helps sustain and expand the
work and impact of the SC ATE Center. Through SCATE, Inc., successful
practices in STEM and technician education, with a focus on rigorous
evaluation, are being provided nationally to broaden participation and
enhance advanced technological education and workforce development.
Ms. Craft received a baccalaureate degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Mississippi and MBA from the University of South
Carolina. In addition, she has completed additional graduate studies in
mathematics. Early in her career, Ms. Craft worked as a chemical
engineer for Union Carbide and the Monsanto Chemical Company. More
recently, she has held both faculty and administrative positions within
the South Carolina Technical College System. She served as vice chair
of the SC Governor's Math and Science Advisory Board and has been
honored with numerous awards including the South Carolina Governor's
Award for Excellence in Science. Mrs. Craft received the Innovator in
Education Award at the Eastern Regional Competency Based Education
Conference in 2009 and was named Administrator of the Year for
Florence-Darlington Technical College in 2007. Her other awards include
the National Institute for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness
David Pierce Leadership Award, National Leadership Forum Achievement
Award for Outstanding Partnership (Jobs for the Future), and Educator
of the Year and Medallion of Excellence from Northeastern Technical
College. Ms. Craft served on the National Science Foundation Advisory
Committee for GPRA 2006-08 and has been an advisor to the National
Science Board.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
Before we begin our questioning, I want to apologize to our
witnesses for my absence at the beginning. Right now, health
care reform is trumping everything, and when you are called to
a health care reform meeting, you go, so I apologize, but
fortunately we did have Ms. Fudge, who is the Vice Chair of the
Subcommittee, who has worked very hard on this issue. I thank
Ms. Fudge for filling in at the beginning, and with that, I
will recognize Ms. Fudge for five minutes for the first round
of questions.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank all
of you.
Before I get to my first question, I would like to say to
Dr. Stassun that I think that the collaboration you have with
Fisk is fabulous. If we are talking about engaging young
people, especially minorities, to collaborate with a school
that is full of minorities who already understand the rigors of
what an education really is about I think is phenomenal, so I
just want to congratulate you for your work, and I would love
to see more people do the same kinds of things.
Dr. Stassun. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge. My first question is to Dr. Dowd. Dr. Dowd, you
referenced a report that found many faculty and senior
leadership don't buy into increasing access to and success in
STEM education for minority and low-income students.
Additionally, you cited research that emphasizes that African
American students participate in mathematics education with an
acute awareness of the dynamics of race and racism in their
lives. In short, you have seen that racial stigma and
discrimination are barriers to the participation of
underrepresented racial ethnic groups in STEM courses. Among
many other concerns, this information clearly demonstrates the
need for more diverse STEM faculty.
I firmly believe in the power of role models. After all,
you can't be what you don't see. So students don't see
scientists that look like them. They have a hard time
envisioning themselves as scientists. However, Dr. Malcom
stated that despite the observed increase in the number of
Ph.D.s awarded to minorities, there is not a corresponding
increase in the number of minority faculty members. My question
is, as we work to increase the number of racial and ethnic
minorities receiving Ph.D.s, how can we simultaneously
encourage them to teach, and what are the barriers to
minorities becoming faculty members? Either of you, Dr. Dowd,
and then Dr. Malcom, if you would like to respond as well.
Dr. Dowd. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. First I would
like to offer a definition of racism in the sense that racism
can be understood as social processes where we create
hierarchies, and in the case of racism we use race as the
categories by which to assign those social hierarchies. In
consideration of entry to the faculty, we see in the numbers
very low participation on the part of Latinos and African
Americans, as you stated. Mentoring is extremely important, and
mentors and role modeling--mentors can play very important
roles as role models but in addition they can be active in
understanding how to direct their students, doctoral students
included, to resources that they need to gain entry to social
networks and to doctoral study at prestigious institutions. So
when we look, for example, at Hispanic students who enrolled in
community colleges, the pathways to highly selective and
prestigious doctoral programs at research universities are
fairly narrow. Understanding how to navigate those pathways is
difficult, and without the assistance of a role model and
mentor to engage actively in problem solving and to direct
students towards those resources, is very difficult. So I will
turn it over to Dr. Malcom.
Dr. Malcom. As Dr. Dowd said, there is a real issue with
regard to the fact that institutions tend to recruit from peer
institutions and therefore if you are not receiving your degree
from one of the institutions that happen to be within the peer
group, it is very difficult to break in. Now, there are ways to
overcome that. For example, by taking a post-doc in a
prestigious institution, it is possible to overcome some of
that. But part of it relates to the fact--and I think that the
ADVANCE program really found this out--is that there are really
processes within institutions around hiring of faculty that
don't necessarily work to expose the most diverse group of
people to put into the pool to begin with. African Americans,
for example, are more likely to say that they want to teach and
go on to the faculty. The question is whether or not we
actually have the pathways that can help them to move from the
identification to the recruitment to the actual hire, and that
is a complex process that involves, in many cases, the
judgments of the existing faculty, as well as efforts that
might be made in order to really reach out beyond the usual
suspects to identify people who may be available and highly
qualified to go into that applicant pool.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. And just a last question quickly if
you could, I remember reading in someone's testimony that there
is a belief that debt is a deterrent for minorities wishing to
pursue graduate degrees in STEM, and I just want to know, is
there a lack of financial support, and is it the most
significant barrier to students' ability to pursue advanced
degrees? Anyone?
Dr. Dowd. In collaboration with Dr. Lindsey Malcom of the
University of California at Riverside at the Center for Urban
Education, we studied the effects of debt on graduate school
enrollment among bachelor's degree holders in STEM fields, and
we see that debt is negative, particularly for Hispanic
students, in pursuing graduate enrollment. So the use of
scholarships and fellowships is probably one of the most
important, or the funding of scholarships and fellowships is
the most important thing that NSF can do in addition to what I
focused on in my remarks, which is engaging in scholarship on
active learning.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Ms. Fudge.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Johnson, who has also done
a wonderful job as always. She has been very interested in
every piece of legislation and is looking out for this issue.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My first question will be to all the members of the panel.
In 2007, I offered an amendment which was incorporated in the
original America COMPETES law, which, I quote, ``directs the
National Academies of Sciences to compile a report to be
transmitted to the Congress no later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act about barriers to increasing the
number of underrepresented minorities in science, technology,
engineering and mathematic fields and to identify strategies
for bringing more underrepresented minorities into the science,
technology, engineering and mathematics workforce.'' We don't
have this report yet, and yet we are now looking at the
reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. I would like to
get from you specific policy directives that you would give to
help eliminate these current barriers for minorities.
Dr. Malcom. I will begin by a couple--I want to underscore
Dr. Stassun's comments with regard to the need to have broader
impacts criteria and actually applied more across the board. I
do think that this has made a difference within the NSF. I was
on the Science Board and actually a member of the criterion
committee at that time, and I do think that it tends to reset
the culture in the institutions. I do think that we have issues
with regard to not only debt at the undergraduate level, but we
have issues with regard to graduate school debt, and that debt
tends to be highest among those groups that really can actually
least afford it. But I would say that it isn't just about
fellowships and traineeships. The kind of money one gets
actually does matter. When money is actually associated with
the training process, that is, that you have research
assistantships and the like, it gets you entry into the lab, a
key to the door and relationship with a mentor that is likely
to be deeper and yet we basically are less likely to see
African Americans reporting that they are getting, for example,
research assistantships. In many cases, the faculty will choose
to use those resources to support their international students
because they do not carry the same requirements as the
traineeships and fellowships do with regard to U.S.
citizenship.
Now, I think that there are all kinds of issues around the
notion of debt, and it is raising a real problem. I do think
that there are also issues that relate to the lack of diversity
among faculty. We are seeing research that says that it
matters, at least for--recent research that came out last week
about African American faculty and the effect of African
American faculty on African American students' encouragement,
support and retention into STEM. So I think that there is a
whole panoply of things, some that cost new resources, some
that don't. They just require different behavior and, really,
the will to actually do things in a different way.
Ms. Stassun. I will echo Dr. Malcom's echo of my
recommendation to authorize other Federal funding agencies to
adopt something like NSF's broader impacts language. I see
myself as a front lines researcher, somebody who runs a lab and
works one-on-one with students, and I, for personal reasons,
bring a strong commitment to diversity in STEM, but what I see
among my colleagues is that many of them who may not be able to
initially relate to the broadening participation charge for
personal reasons nonetheless are very entrepreneurial people
and they see the broader impacts mandate from NSF. They want
the prize of an NSF Career Award. They want to bring in the
resources that are needed to build and sustain a world-class
laboratory. And so they learn pretty quick how to effectively
respond to broader impact and to broadening participation.
Dr. Dowd. In my written testimony, I elaborate on the
notion of not only requiring performance benchmarking to show
the impact of programs on producing additional students with
degrees, but also diagnostic benchmarking in order to use best
practices in ways that can be applied then to understand the
organizational and structural changes needed within
institutions, and in that respect we can also require what is
called `process benchmarking' whereby institutions look to
peers and change their practices in order to achieve the
performance benchmarks that are desired.
Dr. Yarlott. For tribal colleges and for American Indians,
I think for us, the lack of capacity to pursue these types of
grants has been a detriment to us, but we also lack role models
historically. But that is changing through this process, and
the more American Indians that go into these STEM fields
provides for opportunities seeing that, you know, others like
us have gone on to be successful in those areas. So with us,
originally it was because of the lack of resources to go after
these types of grants and making people aware of them, but now
those things are changing for us. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
The Chair will now recognize Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for
dashing out but I had to give a talk to a group of students
downstairs who are holding a session, and it is really
heartening. One of them happened to be from my district, but it
was kind of amusing because he has done some astrophysical work
looking at galaxy clusters and so forth, and flying in on a
plane yesterday, I read a paper from a former colleague at
Berkeley who is doing the same and using it to verify
Einstein's theory of general relativity and also the very
likely existence of dark matter in the universe, and I find
that really interesting that a high school student, I guess he
was a beginning college student, could do research of that
magnitude because the data is all there on the Internet and he
was--you know, it is not exactly Nobel prize winning but it is
very serious work and it is really heartening to see young
people tackling those problems.
I appreciate the testimony I heard, and it is really
striking, and I just--this is frustrating to me because I have
trouble relating to some of the problems that people have. I
had my own set of problems when I went off to college because I
had been home schooled due to illness and I was completely
maladjusted, which you still see occasionally. Otherwise I
probably wouldn't be in Congress. But in any event, it is a
tough go for minorities to come out from their situation where
they are and getting into a totally different world--I observed
that with students I have helped. At the same time, I think one
of the problems is, and it is not just for minorities, it is
for many, someone mentioned the problem, I think it was you,
Shirley, something about males underrepresented in certain
areas, and if you don't have the right role models and you
don't have the right experiences as a child, sometimes it is
very difficult, and we don't place enough emphasis on that. I
would love to give a set of Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs to
every child born in the country, male or female, and have them
have that experience of assembling things, making things, and
especially making things run.
Dr. Dowd, you used a term that I wanted to have you amplify
on. You talked about the need for a new pedagogy, and could you
explain in a little more depth what you mean by that and how it
applies to this issue?
Dr. Dowd. Yes. Thank you. When I use the expression ``new
pedagogy,'' I am thinking of the use of formative assessments
within classroom settings and other learning environments
whereby professors gain a sense of their students' development
as learners and ask the question of themselves and other
students each day, what have you learned here today, so that
the emphasis is not on some evaluation with testing only but
also on what students learn. To do this, professors need a set
of skills that is not only content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge but also race knowledge. In this way, instruction can
take account of the fact that learners are always in the
process of developing new identities, new identities as college
students, new identities affiliated with racial ethnic
identification and new identifies as scientists, which is so
important in terms of the passion for learning.
Mr. Ehlers. OK. That is helpful.
Something that was absent from the discussion when you were
talking about minorities, no mention of Asian or Oriental
students. Why not? What is different about them? Dr. Malcom?
Dr. Malcom. They overparticipate in STEM compared to their
total numbers within the college population. Now, that does not
mean that there aren't issues with regard to Asian Americans
who are participating in these fields. We are not, for example,
necessarily finding them in leadership roles, even then we find
them among the faculty and we find them getting the degrees,
and they are not necessarily--Asian Americans are not
necessarily a monolithic group. You have Hmong Filipino, for
example, where those numbers and Pacific Islanders may look a
lot more like underrepresented minorities while Korean,
Japanese and Chinese may look different. So I think that this
notion of disaggregation and unpacking the numbers, I think it
applies in that particular case as well as in some of the other
examples that we have seen.
Mr. Ehlers. Now, why is that? Why the difference? Are these
cultural differences?
Dr. Malcom. Some are cultural, some are socioeconomic, and
I think that the real issue is that this is such a complex
picture. It almost has to be looked at department by
department, community by community in order to really
understand how to actually meet individual students' needs, and
that is, I think, the plea that Dr. Dowd is making, that we
have got to get underneath a lot of this. But in cases where
there is a strong sense of family push and support for certain
fields, we see students oftentimes moving into those fields. At
the same time, you will see that the Asian American student
populations are not necessarily in the social and behavioral
sciences fields at the same level that they might be in areas
such as engineering or computer science.
Mr. Ehlers. When I was teaching at Berkeley, we had an
arrangement with the Turkish university that we would exchange,
or we would take some of their students, at least at the
master's level and perhaps Ph.D., and work with them in the lab
directly. I was really struck by how lack of certain things in
the background makes it difficult, things that you might not
think of, but for example, they had never worked on a car. Now,
I don't regard working on a car being a mechanic as crucial to
becoming a physicist, but they had no idea how to deal with
equipment, how to handle it, and I just realized we really had
to go back to step one and talk about what the equipment does,
how you control it, how you use it and so forth. It never
occurred to me before that that could be a major roadblock to a
particular group of people, and I suspect you are having some
of that in the minority issue here.
Dr. Dowd, you had another comment?
Dr. Dowd. I just wanted to speak to the question in regard
to Asian students. Asian students also face racism and face
limitation to their access of certain fields of study and
certain professions. In the sciences, they are not necessarily
underrepresented in the aggregate, but as Dr. Malcom pointed
out, that is not true among different ethnic groups, so Asian
students are also important in this discussion in understanding
the differences and using the data available to us to look in a
disaggregated sense is important, so better data that enables
us to see the smaller units of analysis in terms of different
ethnic groups is necessary. And I would just return to this
notion of racism operating in the system of creating
hierarchies within our society, and testing does that, so when
we overemphasize Asians as a model minority, that is also, I
would say, damaging towards the participation of Asian students
in higher education as a whole.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
I will now recognize Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Craft, you, in your testimony, attributed gains in STEM
graduation rates to faculty development, including improved
teaching methodologies and the use of new curricula. Can you
elaborate for the panel how these changes were implemented?
Ms. Craft. Dr. Dowd described part of what we are doing,
which includes a lot of the formative assessment strategies.
Often we teach from application to theory rather than the
traditional theory to application. This helps the student
understand why they are learning something, and creates a `need
to know', and we find that if you create a need to know, then
they become very inquisitive and they want to learn more and
you can actually teach them how to learn, how to, you know--
there is a lot of lip service given to self-directed learners
and that sort of thing, but how do you make that happen? And
this is one of the ways in which you do that, giving them real-
world problems to solve, teaching them how to work in teams,
teaching a problem-solving process so that--I mean, essentially
we are having to prepare students today to work in technologies
that haven't yet been invented, to solve problems that we don't
we have yet.
Mr. Tonko. And you said that they are also implementing
these across the country with many other institutions?
Ms. Craft. Yes, it started with a collaboration among the
technical colleges in South Carolina and then, you know, piece
by piece we have spread it across the country.
Mr. Tonko. And they are seeing, I would think, the same
sort of improvements?
Ms. Craft. Where you can get the teachers to actually
change their teaching methodologies, you do get these
improvements, yes.
Mr. Tonko. And Dr. Dowd, in your testimony, you state that
there are certain pathways to STEM bachelor's degrees that just
aren't necessarily part of that process from the community
college, that there should be, what I read into it, greater
access into the matriculation route toward a bachelor's degree.
Why is this? Is there anything that can be done to improve that
access? It seems to me, if the community colleges are the
campus of choice, shouldn't we have those bridges to STEM
degrees that would advantage the student?
Dr. Dowd. Yes, improving transfer and improving
articulation I think are a really important part of this
equation for increasing the numbers of Hispanic students
earning bachelor's as well as graduate degrees in STEM. I
believe that faculty collaboration between two-year college
faculty and university faculty in developing curricula and
aligned programs and degrees is very important, and also
providing encouragement to states to allow community colleges
to offer degrees in STEM fields in community colleges is also
important. While bachelor's degree numbers have improved for
Hispanic students in STEM, associate's degree numbers are
fairly flat, so we have, I would say, a supply problem in
providing enough spaces within community colleges and STEM
fields, and part of this is hiring a new generation of faculty
who can engage students in this area.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I noted that we did a lot to move the
President's push to provide more community college assistance
might just respond to that dilemma in a way that allows us to
offer the space and cultivate the two-year degrees than bridges
to the four-year.
All of you as a panel, or most of you, if not all, made
mention of some 60 to 90 percent of students enrolled in
community college as requiring or participating in remedial
programming. Is there something that should be done in the
remedial layer in that exercise that encourages STEM
connection? Is there something that we should be doing beyond
what is being done now that would really advance that? Ms.
Craft.
Ms. Craft. As I pointed out, what I have found is that the
total--remedial studies are typically reading, English and
math. There is no science, engineering or technology there. And
those other three topics are never taught in the context of
STEM and STEM careers, and I think that can make a huge
difference for these students.
Mr. Tonko. Does anyone else on the panel have a comment?
Yes, Dr. Dowd.
Dr. Dowd. Yes. The mathematics curriculum in remedial or
developmental education is highly segmented into skill-based
study so that, for example, in a California community college,
a student would need to take three to four classes in
mathematics before they earn any credits that will count
towards transfer for a bachelor's degree. This can take years.
So dismantling this process of a long segmented skill-base
study into curricula that are connected to careers, occupations
and actual problem-solving would be beneficial to shorten the
length of time needed to earn degrees and to engage students.
Mr. Tonko. So where should the push come, then, to make
those improvements, to make those reforms happen? Should it be
left to the individual states or should there be some sort of
incentive program from the feds? What would make that come
around in a way that really feeds the STEM----
Dr. Dowd. I think that NSF's focus on transformative
initiatives focused on pedagogy and curriculum reform will
provide the incentives for colleges to work together to reshape
their curriculum, and I do believe that that is important.
Mr. Tonko. Dr. Malcom?
Dr. Malcom. Let me underscore that in a perfect world,
there would be no need for remediation, but the world is----
Mr. Tonko. Good point.
Dr. Malcom. --not perfect. I do think that we do have to
continue to look at K-12 and what is actually happening at the
high school level. I think that the points that have been made
about the fact that the mathematics instruction needs to be
grounded and connected to something that is real, so that
students really get it about why you have to do this, as well
as having pedagogical strategies that actually support their
learning, but I think that we haven't really explored the
limits of technology in terms of being able to develop things
that really are online where students can support their own
learning a lot more and have a way of beginning to kind of,
first of all, figure out our where their deficiencies might be,
and then being able to work together in order to address them.
So I think that this is something that, once identified as a
problem, there is an opportunity to really do some
experimentation and some sharing in order to try to get over
it.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair, I know I am over my time, but if I
could just close with one related question. Is there enough
dialog between community colleges and the pre-K-12 setting, are
they feeding back what they are seeing and then hopefully
inspiring some sort of reforms in that pre-K? I think the
elementary setting is one that really needs to advance science
and tech and especially with, you know, so many of the students
not really realizing that technical side of the elementary
setting.
Dr. Malcom. I am concerned that we really have not had the
kind of mathematics instruction, period, that we need. It has
been heavily focused on getting past the next test as opposed
to being able to actually use it in real-world settings. I am
hopeful that with the kind of standards conversations that are
going on now that states that--that people who have
responsibility from K through postgraduate will have
conversations about what the expectations are, about what
students will need to go from one level to the next. Some of
the states are setting up these councils so that there is this
kind of conversation that goes beyond, but I agree with you
that it needs to start early. But it needs to be different, and
that is the part where we really haven't been engaged to date.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Dr. Dowd.
Dr. Dowd. NSF's funding can be used to encourage faculty at
all levels, K-12, community colleges and universities, to come
together and to think about how is math best taught, what is a
mathematics pedagogy that is appropriate to new technologies
including online mediated learning, and currently those
boundaries are pretty hard in terms of little collaboration
across sector and I think that incentives to collaborate are
needed.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Was Dr. Stassun going to say
something or----
Dr. Stassun. I would be happy to add a remark but I want to
respect your time.
Mr. Tonko. Go ahead.
Dr. Stassun. I think, Congressman, that you put your finger
on something terribly important with respect to this idea of
understanding the pathways that students take as they move
through the various stages and steps in the higher education
system. When we created the Fisk-Vanderbilt Master's-to-Ph.D.
Bridge Program, it was specifically data driven. It was
incredibly enlightening for me to learn not only the very, very
important role that historically black colleges and
universities and other minority-serving institutions continue
to play in educating our talented minority students in STEM,
but specifically to learn that if you look at the different
pathways that minorities in STEM and their non-minority
counterparts take en route to a Ph.D. in STEM, they are very
different. A non-minority student will traditionally take the
path where you earn a baccalaureate degree at Institution A and
then a master's degree or perhaps forego the master's degree
altogether and a Ph.D. at Institution B, one transition.
Underrepresented minorities in STEM, on the other hand, are 50
percent more likely to take a path that is baccalaureate degree
at Institution A, a terminal master's degree at Institution B
and then a Ph.D. at Institution C. And so in creating our
program we did it specifically to tap into that pathway that
the students are already taking and have been blazing on their
own for decades. We have, in essence, tapped into that,
surrounded it with deliberate mentorship and preparation, but
most importantly, engaged the students in a spirit of handoff
so that we don't just say, you know, here is piece A, here is
piece B, here is piece C, we hope that you traverse those steps
successfully. Rather, we do a deliberate mentoring handoff from
one stage to the next, and I think that idea of understanding
the pathways and of preparing deliberate handoffs from one step
to the next through collaboration between institutions is very,
very important.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It just reminds me of the some of the
campuses that I have been familiar with where when they have
built or extended those campuses, they wouldn't lay the
sidewalks down that were all planned. They would allow the
paths to be developed and they would put the sidewalk there. I
think we should be doing the same thing here with curriculum.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I wonder what it is that causes people like me to
be intimidated by science so by the time I had gotten to maybe
8th or 9th grade, I decided that it wasn't for me. But I think
that in part maybe it is hard to teach. I don't know. I wonder
if it is hard to teach science. When I got to law school, what
I found is, law is very easy to teach because it is all about
stories and cases that are really stories about human endeavor
and you can get into the stories. But the challenge, it seems
to me, with science, at least the way it was taught to me, was
that it seemed somewhat rote to start with and it didn't seem
to connect up. In law, you know, Your Honor, it will connect
up. If you are asking a series of questions that don't really
seem to make sense, you say to the judge, Your Honor, it will
connect up, and sometimes he or she will let you keep going. So
in the case of science, I wonder if the challenge is getting it
to connect up early enough that people start seeing the
connections and get excited about it. The people that I know
that have gotten excited about science, like my kids, for
example--I have got five kids--they are very excited about
science, but somehow along the way they saw the connection
sooner than I did.
Am I just idiosyncratic here in my experience or is that
the case? Do we have to have some inspiration early on to make
the connections, perhaps hands on? What is it that makes it so
that people get these connections and get fired up?
Dr. Stassun. If I may, my personal experience is that I was
told as a young boy and all the way through elementary school,
middle school, high school and even going into college, I heard
from teachers constantly, Keivan, you are going to be a great
scientist or mathematician, you are very good at science. I
heard that phrase over and over again all my life. And it
wasn't until I was an advanced undergraduate in college and got
involved in a real astronomical research project with a mentor
that I realized I had been told my whole life I was excellent
in science and up until that point I had never done science. I
had learned about science. I had learned the facts and the
algorithms of science and I was quirky enough and idiosyncratic
enough to be satisfied with that. But I think you are putting
your finger on a very, very important point, and that is,
whether it is hands-on or discovery-based learning or other
methods, some way of giving students who have the talent and
the ability very, very early on to experience what science is
all about, which is actually not about knowing the answers but
about asking the right questions and having some skill and idea
about how to pursue answering those questions.
Mr. Inglis. Yes, sir.
Dr. Yarlott. By no means I am really an expert in science,
but my experience is that with our students, with American
Indians, we don't have those positive role models to begin
with. Then those that are teaching in our K-12 programs don't
have a strong background in those areas, so I think they feel
uncomfortable in teaching the STEM areas, most specifically,
math.
A number of years ago through a NSF-TCUP program called the
Rural Systemic Initiative Program, we were able to work with
the K-12 programs and just when we got to the point where we
thought we got everything squared away, where we were doing our
jobs really well, that program went away, so we are faced with
that same problem again, and through those processes at our
tribal colleges, for instance, in our situation, we went from
three to four science majors to over 50 now and it is through
those types of developments that we were able to reach down
into the K-12 programs and then advancing that to our community
colleges.
Mr. Inglis. Is the future going to be that we have these
super-inspirational teachers that appear to students on the Web
individually so that, in other words, a student then can access
the best teacher in the world who is so excited about making
the connections in geometry such that that student can get
online with that professor or watch a lecture? Is that the
future, or is the future trying to get the proficiency of these
classroom teachers who sometimes don't get the connections
themselves? It's like David McCullough says, we should only let
historians teach history because if you have got somebody that
got a degree in education and they are trying to teach history
and they are not excited about history, they are going to bore
all the students. So if you have somebody at M.I.T. who is
really great at teaching science, and I think M.I.T. is doing
this online, right? You can go and get the best professors ever
telling you about something of their area of expertise. You get
excited about it, right? So which is the future? Ms. Craft, do
you think it is trying to get the proficiencies up in Florence
and Greenville and Spartanburg or do you think it is connecting
Florence and Greenville and Spartanburg to M.I.T.?
Ms. Craft. I think it is going to be a combination simply
because of student learning styles, and I think that the
interdisciplinary approach, and several of my colleagues have
mentioned that in their talks as well. For instance, if you do
a science project, it is never just a science project. You
can't do a science project if you are not also doing math. You
can't do a project if you are not doing communications. So it
is a matter of connecting, as you said, connecting the dots,
and when we teach in silos and our faculty don't have
opportunities to see what is going on in the related subjects
and how they fit together, I think we have got a big faculty
development challenge as well.
Mr. Inglis. You know, when I was in law school, UCC,
Uniform Commercial Code, is pretty dry but Bob Scott was the
dean of the University of Virginia Law School and he loves the
UCC. He is absolutely passionate about the UCC. And it made him
the most incredible professor for teaching what probably most
lawyers in the room would think was the most horrible course
they ever had in law school. Bob Scott made it fascinating
because every lecture, he would come in there excited, ``You
can't believe what we are going to learn today about this
connection between article 2 and article 3.'' So that is what I
hope for our students is people like Bob Scott teaching them
things that--you know, UCC is pretty exciting if you get it,
but I am not saying that I still remember all of it, I tell
you, it has been a while ago.
But anyway, Dr. Malcom, you look like you want to add
something to that.
Dr. Malcom. Yes. I just wanted to say that every person who
comes into the world is a scientist. They discover the world
that is around them. They discover their own versions of the
physical laws. They discover their own version of, is that
thing alive or is it not alive. They are an open door. I think
that we basically kill off a large part of that curiosity and
enthusiasm with uninspired teaching. No one really wants to go
into a classroom and be a terrible teacher. So the question
then becomes, well, how do we help people to become inspiring
teachers? One of the first things is that the way that teachers
are actually educated is a real issue, and that is, are they
taught their own science and mathematics in ways that are
exciting and engaging. This is a complex system. We are not
going to address the issues that relate to teachers until we
address the issues that relate to the people who taught them
and the ways in which they become inspired and excited and that
they gain a command of the subject area.
We have a program here in the District of Columbia where we
work with veteran teachers, and in this particular case, this
is a partnership with George Washington University in a
master's of practice program, and while we give them the
pedagogy and information about learning, the learning sciences,
what we now know about how people learn and engage, we go back
and we make sure we give them content and give it to them in a
way that they can give to someone else, that they get excited
and enthusiastic about it and they are able to pass it on and
also engage their students.
I hope that we don't look to any one spot to try to find
the answer because this is a systems problem, and we have to
think about how we engage every part of it in order to really
give kids the opportunity to retain their birthright as
scientists.
Mr. Inglis. That is very interesting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am way over time. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Inglis. I would be happy to.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
I appreciate your comments, Dr. Malcom, and when I began
teaching, I asked myself what could I do as one person to deal
with some of the problems that we are talking about, and I
started a special course for future elementary school teachers
teaching them physical science, which was a required course,
but I also expanded that to talk about how to teach science,
which created some problems for the department of education,
which was very concerned about me getting into their turf. But
one thing I did which turned out to be very fascinating, I told
the students at the beginning, the very first class, what I was
up to and said, in my experience, virtually every teacher I
knew taught as they had been taught, and I said I want you to
try to break that chain, so they each to have to have a little
notebook, they had to carry it with them all the time, and
every Friday they had to turn in examples that they had seen in
classes that they were taking of a good teacher doing something
exceptionally good or a bad teacher doing something
exceptionally bad or anything in between, and they had to
analyze it and write just 100 words at most, and then I would
once a month share those with the students and we would talk
about it. It was really fascinating, and the students initially
of course begrudged it but then they really began to enjoy it.
I insisted they were not allowed to write down the names of the
professors involved and we were just going to talk about
pedagogy. It is something I would recommend for anyone teaching
future teachers because it makes them, for the first time in
their lives, think about how they are being taught and
analyzing whether it is good, bad or indifferent. But it gave
me a lot of insight too into what the students really need and
want, because that came out of there too. So it was a
fascinating exercise and, you know, if I had the time and
didn't get diverted into politics, I would have enjoyed doing
summer institutes on that with teachers and just try to analyze
it.
Yes, Dr. Dowd.
Dr. Dowd. Your comments give me greater appreciation of
your question before in regard to new pedagogies, because
apparently you did the new pedagogy when you started with your
interest in this area. But the process you described, of data
collection and careful data analysis about instructional
practices, is in fact at the heart of my recommendations in
regard to what--I call the process `benchmarking' but which is
also known as inquiry. Inquiry is a reflective process, about,
how is what I am doing contributing to the success of my
students, and so that type of data collection is really
necessary to reframe this problem from problems with students
to problems of practice. And at the Center for Urban Education,
with funding from the NSF, we are currently in a dissemination
phase of our grant and we are designing what we call our STEM
toolkit, and the toolkit includes protocols and materials that
instructors can use to engage in this type of data collection
and reflection about their own practices as teachers.
Mr. Ehlers. I should have met you 40 years ago. But I did
have one firm rule. I announced at the first class of the year
that every day I was going to tell a joke, and my jokes were
terrible and so they weren't going to enjoy them and the only
way they could stop me is to come with their own jokes, and it
just set a totally different frame in the classroom right from
day one. The joke became the joke, in other words, and we had a
lot of fun with that.
Yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I almost hate to
keep going on or change the subject because I think this one
certainly is really critically important. It gets down to the
heart of what we are talking here, but I will start by
recognizing myself for five minutes. I just wanted to add on, I
am not going to make any comments about Mr. Inglis and not
being interested in science. He just slipped out of the room.
I always--it is like Dr. Malcom said, I have always thought
of it as we all come into the world as scientists. I thought
maybe it was just me. I wound up going on and getting a couple
degrees in engineering, Ph.D. in political science, but I
always think that naturally we look--try to figure out the
world, and it is a scientific process. In science, talking
about pedagogy and analyzing how we are teaching, if we are
teachers, as I was doing before I was elected here, I think the
science of analyzing how am I teaching, what am I doing. But it
is very difficult and it takes time and effort to be able to do
that, but it certainly is critical.
I remember going back earlier in my life, I didn't--when I
was in grade school, I don't think it was a particularly
advanced school that I was in by any means, but when I was in
7th or 8th grade, they asked if any students wanted to go and
teach sort of science to 2nd and 3rd grade, something like
that, and so I did that, and I still remember some of the
things that I did at that time trying to teach the younger kids
about rain and where rain comes from and what that does in
terms of growing and trees and things like that, and another
one on magnetism, which I remember didn't work out very well. I
still remember that. But again, it is a good way. We have to
keep working on better teaching at all levels.
Now, this is going to be--it is sort of more fun talking
more generally, sort of at the lower levels, but I want to ask
a question, you know, relating to what Dr. Malcom had suggested
in her testimony, that major research universities need to be
more accountable and take responsibility for students' success
or lack of success in STEM. So I am interested in sort of two
things, one general, one more particular to what we are
addressing today. First, how can the Federal Government
incentivize this type of self-assessment and improvement? And
second, since a lot of money goes to these institutions in
support of NSF broader impacts requirement, how can broader
impacts proposals be better applied and leveraged to yield
better results in broadening participation? We want to make
sure as we are reauthorizing the NSF and America COMPETES that
we are spending the money in the best way possible and
providing the incentives that are necessary at our major
research universities. So how can this be done better? I will
start with Dr. Malcom.
Dr. Malcom. I think that Dr. Stassun probably said it best,
that faculty are very entrepreneurial and that they will
basically figure it out if they are required to do something
about it, and the broader impacts criteria actually holds a
real opening for being able to do more and to do better. But I
think that there has to be an accounting with regard to those
issues as well. Let me explain what I mean. If I submit a
proposal to the National Science Foundation, one of the things
that they are going to ask me is, how did I do on the last
money I gave you. So I have to report on the accomplishments
from the previous funding. Now, I report on the technical side,
but I don't necessarily have to report on the broader impacts
side. And I think just that particular piece, having to
actually report on both aspects, the technical as well as the
broader impacts, and beginning to do some kind of an audit or
reflection on the part of committees of visitors and other
kinds of processes within the Foundation could have a real
major impact. But rather than just to have it seem like it is a
carrot issue, why not begin to actually reward, with
recognition, those places that come up with exemplary broader
impacts? We recognize teachers, outstanding teachers. We
recognize outstanding researchers. We recognize young
investigators. We recognize all kinds of things. Why not begin
to recognize when someone has done a particularly solid piece
of work with regard to these issues and that they can actually
make a case and present the evidence that in fact that they
have done this?
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
Dr. Dowd.
Dr. Dowd. I would second that the evaluation process for
NSF grantees can create incentives for the organizational
learning and faculty learning that is needed to make a
difference, and so moving beyond just measuring effectiveness
of particular programs and asking, in what ways has an
institution learned as a result of the incubator of best
practices that is going on at a program level, is part of the
expectation that should be set. So evaluations should move
towards broader impacts at the institutional level, not just at
the level of programs, and we can, for example, develop surveys
of faculty beliefs about their own effectiveness or efficacy in
increasing diversity in STEM fields. That is just an example.
For example, at the Center for Urban Education, we are
developing indicators of faculty effectiveness in engaging
around issues of diversity. And so we can use these types of
surveys, not just to ask about students, are you engaged or are
you motivated, are you expending effort, but then to ask that
question on the faculty side of the equation and on the
institutional side as well.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Stassun?
Dr. Stassun. Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize again that
unfortunately, currently NSF is on its own as a Federal funding
agency with explicitly requiring this kind of language in the
evaluation of funding proposals that are submitted to it. I am
referring specifically to the broader impacts language. It
would help tremendously, I think, if that kind of priority and
explicitness were present in the other Federal funding carrots
that are available to entrepreneurial researchers.
The second thing that I would add, however, is that perhaps
ironically, it is often the case through NSF funding programs,
specifically those that are focused on broadening
participation, that one of the reasons there is not currently a
higher level of accountability for progress that was made,
lessons that were learned in previous grants that were awarded
is because very often a grantee, a recipient of an NSF funding
award focused on broadening participation, will very often be
excluded from going back for a second round of funding in order
to have the opportunity to demonstrate, here is what we
accomplished with the first round, here is what we learned,
here is the metrics, here is the data, here is how we can show
that we are performing and that we deserve to at least be
considered for another round of funding.
On the research side, on the technical side, what we do as
researchers is--and we are very incentivized and motivated to
do this--is we keep careful track of the products of our
research, of what comes out of the previous round of funding
because we know in three, four or five years we are going to
have to write another proposal to NSF and say we are ready for
the next stage of our program and here are the specific
concrete products of the last investment that you made in us.
Not having the opportunity to do that in multiple rounds or
multiple stages of innovation and development on the broadening
participation side I think is currently a limitation for
tapping into the entrepreneurial spirit of these researchers.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Yarlott?
Dr. Yarlott. I don't disagree with any of the other panel
speakers. I agree with the evaluation in a broader sense. When
we start talking about evaluations at tribal colleges, they
tend to take a look at numbers, and at tribal colleges, when we
are dealing with small numbers of students and how it impacts
just the numbers themselves, then the question would be, are we
being successful. But on the other side, what it impacts is
that it is just not the students or the faculty members that
are being impacted but the families and the communities, how
the word of mouth and how it goes out and how it impacts a
whole community, how we are able to change policies within
school systems and so forth. So the broader impacts is what is
really key to us at tribal colleges, because we do lack the
resources to continue to move forward as far as competing for
these kinds of grants, when you have faculty and staff that
carry on multiple tasks within the system, because we are
understaffed to begin with. For example, some of our faculty
members, aside from teaching 15 to 16 credit loads, they are
also managing other Federal grants, so it is those kinds of
things that it really does impact in a broader sense for us at
tribal colleges. Thank you.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
With that, I think we are going to complete the testimony
for today. I want to thank our witnesses for all their
testimony and answers to the questions here. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional statements from
Members and for answers to any follow-up questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses.
Thank you again. The witnesses are excused and the hearing
is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Alicia C. Dowd, Associate Professor of Higher Education,
University of Southern California, and C-Director of the Center
for Urban Education

Questions submitted by Vice Chair Marcia L. Fudge

Q1. I liked your idea of convening a panel of experts in culturally
responsive pedagogy alongside scientists and social scientists to
develop the language for a program solicitation. Could you please
elaborate on your vision for this Program Solicitation? How else can
the Federal Government assist in encouraging faculty to introduce
culturally responsive pedagogies in classrooms?

A1. In regard to your first question, I envision that NSF would convene
a Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM Review Panel, which would be a
standing panel of seven educational experts appointed to a three-year
term. Panel members would be charged with providing ongoing guidance to
NSF about how to incorporate culturally responsive teaching and
pedagogy into STEM through NSF supported research and programs.
NSF's director should appoint the panel based on nominations from
presidents of the major academic professional associations.\1\ Selected
nominees should be those whose scholarship demonstrates a significant
contribution to the development and application of culturally
responsive pedagogy in and outside of STEM fields. (I include other
fields because the bulk of this work has been conducted outside of STEM
fields.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In education and the social sciences, these associations
include the American Educational Research Association, American
Sociological Association, American Psychological Association, and
American Anthropological Association. In STEM disciplines it includes
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American
Mathematical Society, the American Mathematical Association for Two-
Year Colleges, American Physical Society, American Society for
Engineering Education, and numerous field-specific associations in
biology, chemistry, geology, engineering, technology, and other
sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the work of Dr. Gloria Ladson Billings of the University
of Wisconsin Madison, Dr. Geneva Gay of the University of Washington,
and others, culturally responsive pedagogy (also known as culturally
responsive or culturally relevant teaching) has the following
characteristics:

1. A focus on student learning and achievement, based on

a. Teacher recognition of students' ability to learn;

b. Teacher recognition of students' prior knowledge
and cultural assets;

c. A curriculum that invites students to question and
assume an active role in shaping social structures,
including those that create forms of institutional
racism and perpetuate racial bias through educational
practices;

2. Teachers and students have cultural competence, which means

a. Students don't experience a conflict between their
racial or ethnic identity and succeeding in school or
college;

b. Teachers can apply knowledge of their students'
cultural backgrounds in their teaching and curriculum
development.

c. Historical and contemporary forms of racism and
racial bias are acknowledged in the curriculum.

3. Sociopolitical awareness, because

a. For both teachers and students, education is
understood to be for the public good and includes the
aim of creating a better society.

To judge the quality of the scholarship of panel nominees and their
suitability for service on the Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM
Review Panel, NSF's director should ask noted scholars such as Dr.
Ladson Billings, Dr. Gay, Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon (University of
Southern California), Dr. Brian Brayboy (University of Utah), Dr. Kris
Gutierrez (UCLA), Dr. Sylvia Hurtado (UCLA), and Dr. Danny Martin
(University of Illinois Chicago) to form a selection advisory
committee. Subsequently, committee members will nominate their
successors for appointment by NSF's director and they may institute
staggered terms of appointment.
The first charge of the Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM
Review Panel should be to review and recommend revisions to the
language of current Program Solicitations in NSF's Broadening
Participation portfolio (including in the categories of Broadening
Participation Focused and Broadening Participation Emphasis). The
revised Program Solicitation language should communicate to Principal
Investigators the standards for review of proposals, such that priority
will be given to funding STEM educational programs and research that
incorporate or develop culturally responsive educational practices.
The second charge to the Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM
Review Panel should be to articulate research and evaluation standards
for improving our knowledge of the educational practices that are
culturally inclusive and that reduce racial bias in STEM classrooms.
NSF's Broadening Participation at the National Science Foundation:
A Framework for Action (August, 2008) planning document lists several
strategic action items that can also be guided by the Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy in STEM panel. These include:

Provide training to NSF program officers;

Diversify the pool of Program Solicitation reviewers;

Orient proposal reviewers to NSF's broadening
participation goals;

Provide learning opportunities for Principal
Investigators;

Provide guidance concerning promising practices and
models;

Evaluate broader impacts.

The Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM Review Panel should
advise on the development of training and orientation materials and
strategies. The members should also articulate research priorities.
In regard to your second question, I first note that the
application of culturally responsive pedagogy has been fairly limited
in STEM college classrooms and learning environments. STEM faculty who
undertake this work will be innovators. They will require support
through peer networks to communicate what they learn for broader change
in the culture of STEM classrooms. In this context, the Federal
Government can best assist in encouraging faculty to introduce
culturally responsive teaching in their classrooms by creating a
prestigious fellowship that would provide funding for sabbatical leaves
for well regarded STEM faculty to immerse themselves in the development
of a STEM-focused culturally responsive pedagogy.
Criteria for awarding sabbatical funding should include:

The quality of the design of a sabbatical project to
expand the applicant's knowledge of culturally responsive
teaching;

The applicants' demonstrated capacity to collect and
analyze data on his or her own teaching relative to the
characteristics of culturally responsive teaching;

Willingness to engage in reflective practice about
what is required of STEM faculty to engage in culturally
responsive teaching (e.g. the challenges and rewards);

A dissemination plan for communicating what is
learned with peers (e.g. through conference presentations,
workshops, and journal articles);

A plan for broader impacts on institutional and
disciplinary practices;

Responsiveness on feedback from reviewers in revising
resubmitted applications.

Ideally, the sabbatical funding will enable a year of immersion in
the study of culturally responsive pedagogy, the development of
innovative STEM curricula, and experimentation with new teaching
practices. Implementation of the dissemination plan may occur towards
the end of the sabbatical leave or in the following years. Applications
from small groups of STEM faculty from institutions of different types
(e.g. community colleges and research universities) who jointly design
and implement coordinated projects should be given priority.
To promote alliances across different types of institutions, awards
should be distributed among faculty from two-year colleges, liberal
arts colleges, research universities, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges.
Fellowship recipients should be asked to convene together once in the
fall and once in the spring during their sabbatical leaves to share
ideas. Previous fellowship recipients should be asked to serve as peer
mentors and to review applications in subsequent years.
If instituted, the Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM Review
Panel should be asked to play a role in determining the elements of the
sabbatical fellowship Program Solicitation, eligibility and review
criteria, and objectives by which to evaluate the effectiveness of this
approach to faculty development and STEM curricular change. The program
evaluation should include an assessment of the participants' subsequent
leadership roles in their disciplines and at their institutions in
transforming STEM curricula; teaching and self assessment practices;
student recruitment, selection and assessment criteria; and faculty
professional development.
I appreciate this opportunity to expand on my recommendations and
will be happy to clarify these ideas as needed.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Elaine L. Craft, Director of the South Carolina Advanced
Technological Education National Resource Center, Florence
Darlington Technical College

Questions submitted by Vice Chair Marcia L. Fudge

Q1. The industry-sponsored paid internship program you described in
your testimony sounds like a great way to not only address the
financial difficulties that students face, but also to give them real-
world technical experience. Could you provide some detail on how this
program was established, and how can Members of Congress help to
incentivize partnerships such these?

A1. Industry-sponsored, paid student internships are integral to an
organized employer collaboration with Florence-Darlington Technical
College. The Advanced Technological Education Industry Consortium was
founded almost eleven years ago to address the shared challenge among
local employers of a shortage of highly skilled engineering technicians
that are required for their businesses to be globally competitive. At
the time of the organizational meeting, the college was not producing
enough engineering technology graduates to meet employer needs. As a
result, employers often found themselves in a no-win cycle of hiring
talent away from other local employers. A major local industry hosted
the meeting that started the initiative. Meeting participants agreed
that the goal should be to increase the overall pool of qualified
technicians to support local employment needs, and that an internship
program augmented by scholarship support would be implemented in
collaboration with the college. The internship program was designed to
effectively employers to ``grow their own'' talent and future
workforce. Employers agree to hire student interns at the same starting
salary and not to employ the students full-time until they graduate. As
part of the agreement, financial need (tuition, fees, books/supplies)
for a participating students that remains unmet after other Federal
financial aid and college scholarships have been awarded is paid by the
employer who hires the intern.
Tax credits for providing paid internships would stimulate broader
business/industry participation, especially among smaller businesses.

Q2. In your testimony, you mentioned that between 60 and 90 percent of
students enrolled in community colleges must take remedial classes
before they can earn credits toward their STEM degrees. However, it was
also noted during the hearing, that many of the first year STEM degree
courses are designed as ``weed out'' courses, creating an initial
barrier for students to overcome in the pursuit of a STEM degree. How
can we improve these gateway courses and overall learning experiences
so that students are encouraged, rather than discouraged, to pursue
degrees and careers in STEM?

A2. Students who are underprepared to be successful in STEM courses are
currently placed in developmental reading, English, and/or mathematics
courses that have no science, technology, or engineering content and
thus have no relevance to STEM careers and provide no encouragement or
information that would stimulate a student to pursue a STEM career.
Mathematics is the only part of STEM that is taught at the
developmental level, and it is taught out of context and is seen as a
barrier to a student's advancement rather than as a critical basic
skill that is used in science, technology, and engineering.
Developmental education has changed very little over the years and is
rarely, if ever, a funding priority for colleges although the numbers
of students requiring this service continues to grow.
Grant-funded projects supported by the National Science Foundation
have demonstrated that when underprepared students are provided with
hands-on, relevant learning opportunities, these students can master
important STEM content/skills and be encouraged to pursue STEM careers
in biotechnology, engineering technology, nursing/health sciences and
other STEM careers that are in high-demand. The most significant action
Members of Congress can take to improve the current system is to
provide financial incentives to enable and encourage educators to
reform developmental studies specifically to increase the number of
diverse students who pursue STEM careers. Grant funding to two-year
technical and community colleges should specifically encourage these
educational organizations to improve the developmental, pre-curriculum
learning experiences for all students by adding science, technology,
and engineering courses and/or imbedding STEM content, applications,
and hands-on inquiry-based learning within developmental studies.
Financial support for the recruitment and preparation of sufficient
numbers of STEM faculty to make this transformation possible will be
critical to success and should also receive targeted funding support.