[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM:
VIEWS FROM THE FIELD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
90-162 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Research
NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ZOE LOFGREN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAVID FINGER Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
JAMES HAGUE Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 30, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant,
SUNY-Brockport
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 63
Financial Disclosure......................................... 68
Mr. Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York
Oral Statement............................................... 69
Written Statement............................................ 70
Biography.................................................... 71
Financial Disclosure......................................... 72
Mr. Jeffrey M. Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School
District, New York
Oral Statement............................................... 72
Written Statement............................................ 74
Biography.................................................... 75
Financial Disclosure......................................... 76
Dr. M. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP
Grant, University of Texas, El Paso
Oral Statement............................................... 76
Written Statement............................................ 79
Biography.................................................... 84
Financial Disclosure......................................... 85
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP
Grant, Michigan State University
Oral Statement............................................... 86
Written Statement............................................ 88
Biography.................................................... 106
Financial Disclosure......................................... 107
Discussion....................................................... 108
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant,
SUNY-Brockport................................................. 126
Mr. Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York.. 127
Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District,
New York....................................................... 128
Dr. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP
Grant, University of Texas, El Paso............................ 129
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP
Grant, Michigan State University............................... 131
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of the Museum of Science, Boston, MA................... 134
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: VIEWS FROM
THE FIELD
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:33 p.m., in
Room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Implementation of the
Math and Science Partnership Program:
Views From the Field
thursday, october 30, 2003
12:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
2325 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Thursday, October 30, the Subcommittee on Research of the House
Science Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the implementation of
the Math Science Partnership (MSP) Program at the National Science
Foundation (NSF). The MSP Program, part of President Bush's No Child
Left Behind initiative, was authorized by the House in last year's NSF
Authorization Act, which was signed into law in December. The program
provides grants to partnerships of universities and school districts
(and sometimes businesses) to improve K-12 math and science education.
This hearing will be the Congress's first look at how this major new
initiative is working.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Osman Yasar (Oz-mon Yash-ar), lead researcher for
the Targeted MSP award at the State University of New York
(SUNY) Brockport. Dr. Yasar is a professor and chair of the
computational science department at SUNY College at Brockport.
He established the first undergraduate program in computational
science in the United States and, prior to SUNY, he was a staff
scientist at the Center for Computational Sciences at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Mr. Ed Chi (Chee), Science Teacher at Brighton School
District in New York. Mr. Chi teaches science to 7th and 8th
grade students at Twelve Corners Middle School in Rochester,
New York. Twelve Corners Middle School is the sole institution
educating students in grades 6-8 in the Brighton School
District.
Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, at Rochester City
School District in New York. Mr. Mikols has been a teacher with
the Rochester City School District since 1993, and he has
taught courses ranging from pre-algebra to AP calculus.
Currently, Mr. Mikols is the Secondary Mathematics Lead
Teacher, which makes him responsible for providing professional
development to other secondary school math teachers. Mr. Mikols
received his B.A. in Mathematics and Master of Science in
Mathematics Education from SUNY-Geneseo, and he is currently
enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in School
Administration.
Dr. Susana Navarro (Nav-ARR-o), lead researcher for
the Comprehensive MSP award at the University of Texas at El
Paso (UTEP). Dr. Navarro is the founder and the head of the El
Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, a city-wide effort
to improve the academic achievement of El Pasoans. Prior to the
Collaborative, Dr. Navarro served as National Director of
Research and Policy Analysis of the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund and Executive Director of the
Achievement Council. She graduated from the University of
Texas-El Paso with a degree in political science and she
continued her graduate studies at Sanford University, where she
ultimately earned her Ph.D. in educational psychology.
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy (Fer-RINI-Mun-dy), lead
researcher for the comprehensive MSP grant at Michigan State
University. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and
Math Education in the College of Natural Science at Michigan
State University, where she is also a Professor of Mathematics
and Teacher Education. Prior to joining Michigan State, Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy co-founded the SummerMath Program for Teachers at
Mount Holyoke College and she has been the principal
investigator of several research and teacher education grants.
She also has served as a Visiting Scientists at NSF's Teacher
Enhancement Program and as Director of the Mathematical
Sciences Education Board at the National Research Council.
3. Overarching Questions
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
How will awardees ensure that participants--
mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education
as well as K-12 teachers and administrators--are active in the
program, drawing on the expertise of all partners? What role,
if any, will businesses or non-profit organizations play in the
partnership?
How will awardees provide meaningful, high quality
training for pre-service and in-service teachers? How will this
close the gap between the research findings on the way students
learn and actual classroom practice? How will improvements in
teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
How will reform efforts align with each State's
challenging math and science standards and accountability
measures? What sort of in-depth, quantitative evaluation will
be conducted? And how will the results be disseminated?
Are the awards a sufficient size to develop and test
new education reform models? How will the partnerships
coordinate with State educational agencies to foster and
sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?
4. Brief Overview
For decades, educators and policy-makers have seen
statistics that demonstrate a lackluster performance of U.S.
students in math and science. Results from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress show that a majority of U.S.
students score below ``proficient'' in math and science, and
the Third International Math and Science Study highlight our
problems relative to other countries (see below).
In response, Congress enacted two bills--the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 and the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001--and created Math and Science
Partnership Programs at the Department of Education and the
National Science Foundation.
These partnerships were to work together, with the
National Science Foundation supporting model programs that
create partnerships between the departments of math, science
and engineering at colleges and universities with school
districts to improve math and science proficiency for K-12 math
and science teachers and students. The Department of Education
was tasked with bringing the reform efforts to scale with
grants to States and school districts.
The annual authorization for the Department of
Education partnership program is $450 million for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2002 and such sums for the next five fiscal years. The FY
2002 appropriation was $12.5, but the FY 2003 appropriation
grew to $100.3 million. The authorization for the National
Science Foundation partnership program is $200 million for FY
2003, $300 million for FY 2004, and $400 million for FY 2005.
The FY 2002 appropriation was $150 million and the FY 2003
appropriation was $127.5 million. The President has requested
$12.5 million and $200 million in FY 2004 for the Department of
Education and National Science Foundation partnership programs
respectively.
5. Background
As part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-368), the Congress established the Math and Science
Partnership Program in response to President Bush's challenge to leave
no child behind in education. Underlying this effort was data that
showed that U.S. eighth and twelfth graders did not do well either by
our own measurements or by international standards.
Student Achievement in Math and Science
The most recent results of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) show that the trend for student achievement is
generally up over the last 30 years, yet large numbers of U.S. students
demonstrate a mastery of only rudimentary mathematics. In fact, 31
percent of 4th graders, 34 percent of 8th graders and 35 percent of
12th graders scored below ``basic.'' Students in the basic category
cannot demonstrate even partial mastery of the material that is
appropriate for their age group, with, for instance, few 4th graders
even knowing how many fourths make up a whole.
These low levels of achievement are more likely among minority
groups and among children from low-income backgrounds. In the 2000
NAEP, 68 percent of African American 8th graders scored below basic in
math compared to 23 percent of white students. And the achievement gap
in NAEP math scores between white and black students and between white
and Hispanic students has remained relatively unchanged since 1990.
On the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS),
an assessment that evaluates the math and science performance of 4th,
8th and 12th grade students from 42 different countries, U.S.
performance relative to other nations declined with increased
schooling. While U.S. children scored above average in elementary
school, those in 12th grade--including our most advanced students--
ranked among the lowest of all participating countries, outperformed by
nearly every industrialized nation and ahead of only Cyprus and South
Africa.
These scores are disappointing and the reasons for them are
complex. Yet one thing is certain--U.S. students are not getting a math
and science education that will allow them to learn to their greatest
ability. And their lessons neither engage nor challenge them. As a
result, unacceptably low numbers of students are motivated to enroll in
physics or chemistry and only 20-25 percent of graduating high school
seniors have completed enough mathematics to be ready to study science
or engineering. Because students who require remedial education are
less likely to consider majors that require prerequisite classes in
math, such as those in the physical, engineering and computer sciences,
lack of preparation at the high school level clearly plays a role in
many students' decisions to choose a major other than those in science,
mathematics, engineering or technology. It is therefore no surprise
that science and engineering degrees as a percentage of the population
of 24 year olds have remained virtually constant at 5-6 percent. Within
this group, women and minorities are seriously under-represented.
Legislation
Raising student achievement is the focus of No Child Left Behind,
an initiative by President Bush to fundamentally reform K-12 education.
As part of this five-year effort, Math and Science Partnerships
Programs seek to unite the activities of higher education, school
systems and business in support of improved math and science
proficiency for K-12 students and teachers. This is in large part a
response to national concerns regarding too many teachers teaching out
of field, too few students taking advanced course work and too few
schools offering challenging curricula.
Ultimately, two programs were created. The first established a
competitive, merit-based grant program at the National Science
Foundation (NSF), as part of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-368). As enacted, this program would award grants to partnerships
between institutions of higher education and one or more school
districts to improve math and science education. Funds would be used to
develop innovative reform programs that, if proven successful, would be
the key to large-scale reform at the State level. The second was housed
at the Department of Education and was created by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110).
Although similarly titled, the programs were created to be
complementary to--not duplicative of--each other. Specifically, NSF was
to fund innovative programs to develop and test new models of education
reform, thereby remedying a lack of knowledge about math and science
research, while the Department of Education would broadly implement and
disseminate new teaching materials, curricula and training programs. In
so doing, the Education Secretary was required to consult and
coordinate with the NSF Director.
NSF's Math and Science Partnership Program
NSF's Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program competitively
awards grants to institutions of higher education, or other eligible
nonprofits, and their partners--one or more school districts--to
improve K-12 math and science education. In particular, the MSP Program
must have the active participation of a math, science, or engineering
department (as opposed to the education department) at the college or
university, and the collaborations must be well-grounded in sound
educational practices. Funds are required to be used for activities
that improve K-12 math and science education, consistent with State
standards, which may include:
recruiting and preparing students for careers in K-12
math and science teaching,
offering professional development for math and
science teachers;
offering pre-service and in-service programs to help
math and science teachers use technology more effectively;
developing distance learning for teachers and
students;
developing a cadre of master teachers;
offering teacher preparation and certification
programs for people who want to switch careers and begin
teaching;
developing tools to evaluate MSP activities;
developing/adapting K-12 math and science curricular
materials that incorporate contemporary research on the science
of learning;
developing initiatives to increase and sustain the
number, quality and diversity of pre-K-12 teachers of math and
science, particularly in under-served areas;
using professionals to help recruit and train math
and science teachers;
developing or offering enrichment programs for
students;
providing research opportunities for students and
teachers; and
bringing scientists, engineers and other
professionals to the classroom.
NSF supports two types of partnerships--Comprehensive and Targeted.
Comprehensive projects are funded for a five-year period for up to $7
million annually, depending on the scope of the project. These projects
are intended to implement change in mathematics and/or science
education practices in both institutions of higher education and in
schools and school districts to result in improved student achievement
across the K-12 continuum. Targeted projects focus on improved K-12
student achievement in a narrower grade range or a disciplinary focus
in mathematics and/or science and are funded for up to $2.5 million a
year for up to five years. In addition, the MSP Program funds Research,
Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) projects, which provide
large-scale research and evaluation capacity and assist Comprehensive
and Targeted awardees in the implementation and evaluation of their
work.
The first competitions for MSP were held in FY 2002, for which $160
million was appropriated, and resulted in seven Comprehensive awards,
17 Targeted awards and 12 RETA awards. More recently, on October 2, NSF
announced the award of $216.3 million in funding for the second year of
the MSP Program, with five Comprehensive awards, seven Targeted awards,
and 10 RETA awards.
Education
The MSP Program at the Department of Education, which is authorized
by Title II, Part B of the No Child Left Behind Act, requires
partnerships to include a State educational agency, the engineering,
math, or science department of an institution of higher education and a
high-need school district. Partners are required to use their grants
for one or more specific activities. Among them are the following:
professional development to improve math and science
teachers' subject knowledge;
activities to promote strong teaching skills;
math and science summer workshops;
recruitment of math, science or engineering majors to
teaching through signing and performance incentives;
stipends for alternative certification and
scholarships for advanced course work;
development or redesign of more rigorous standards
aligned math and science curricula;
distance learning programs for math and science
teachers; and
opportunities for math and science teachers to have
contact with working mathematicians, scientists and engineers.
Unlike the NSF program, where funds are awarded competitively, the
MSP Program at the Department of Education turns into a formula program
to States when the amount appropriated exceeds $100 million. In FY
2002, $12.5 million was appropriated for this program, but, in FY 2003,
the appropriations hit the trigger ($100.3 million) and the funds were
allocated to the States by the program's need-based formula.
6. Award Abstracts on the MSPs run by Hearing Witnesses (verbatim, as
provided to NSF)
Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics/Science Education (PROM/
SE)--(Michigan State)
Award Number: 0314866
Start Date: September 1, 2003
Expires: August 31, 2008 (Estimated)
Expected Total Amount: $35,000,000.00 (Estimated)
Investigator: Joan [email protected] (Principal Investigator)
Sponsor: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
NSF Program: MSP--Comprehensive Awards
Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education
(PROM/SE) is a five-year effort by a joint partnership between Michigan
State University (MSU) and five consortia of school districts in
Michigan and Ohio. The consortia includes three Intermediate School
Districts in Michigan, Ingham, Calhoun, and St. Clair County, and two
consortia in Ohio, the High AIMS Consortium and the SMART Consortium.
The sixty-nine districts represent the broad range of social, economic,
and cultural characteristics found in the United States as a whole
being situated in large urban cities (Cleveland and Cincinnati) and
their suburbs, in medium size cities with large minority populations
such as Lansing, and in very rural areas such as those in St. Clair and
Calhoun Counties.
The Partnership utilizes a unique combination of research and
practice. Detailed data from all students and teachers using
instruments from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS) is gathered. On the basis of these data Action Teams of
mathematicians, scientists, teacher educators and K-12 personnel
collaborate to develop more focused and challenging content standards,
align standards with instructional materials and improve mathematics
and science teaching. Evidence-based and content focused professional
development improves the subject matter knowledge of over 4,500
teachers of mathematics and science. Associates for mathematics and for
science are fully prepared and engaged in the complex work of helping
undertake substantial reform in all 715 schools. The mathematics and
science opportunities for approximately 400,000 students improve and
tracking disappears in all schools by 2006.
Eight hundred pre-service students participate and MSU reforms the
preparation of future teachers through revision of pre-service
education courses and programs. Partner sites mirror the diversity of
the Nation as a whole and the prototype is exportable and replicable on
a larger scale.
El Paso Math and Science Partnership
Award Number: 0227124
Start Date: October 1, 2002
Expires: September 30, 2007 (Estimated)
Expected Total Amount: $29,319,178 (Estimated)
Investigator: Susana [email protected] (Principal
Investigator)
Sponsor: U. of Texas-El Paso, University Ave. at Hawthorne, El Paso,
TX 79968
NSF Program: MSP--Comprehensive Awards
The El Paso Math and Science Partnership (El Paso MSP) includes the
three urban school districts that encompass El Paso, nine rural school
districts in El Paso and Hudspeth counties, the University of Texas at
El Paso (UTEP), El Paso Community College, the Region 19 Education
Service Center, and El Paso area civic, business and community
organizations and leaders.
The El Paso MSP is aimed at improving student achievement in
mathematics and science among all students, at all pre-K-12 levels, and
at reducing the achievement gap among groups of students. The goals of
the partnership include:
fully engaging university and community college
leadership and mathematics, science, engineering and education
faculty in working toward significantly improved K-12 math/
science student achievement;
ensuring the number, quality and diversity of K-12
teachers of mathematics and science across partner schools,
particularly schools with the greatest needs;
building the capacity of area districts and schools
to provide the highest quality curriculum, instruction and
assessment, and to ensure the highest level achievement in
mathematics and science for every student;
ensuring the K-16 alignment of mathematics and
science curriculum, instruction and assessment, to ensure that
students graduating from area high schools are prepared to
enroll and be successful in mathematics, science and
engineering courses at UTEP and El Paso Community College; and
prioritizing research on educational reform and pre-K-16
partnerships.
SUNY-Brockport College and Rochester City (SCOLLARCITY) Math and
Science Partnership: Integrative Technology Tools
for Pre-service and Inservice Teacher Education
Award Number: 0226962
Start Date: January 1, 2003
Expires: December 31, 2007 (Estimated)
Expected Total Amount: $3,385,448 (Estimated)
Investigator: Osman Yasar (Principal Investigator)
Sponsor: SUNY-Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420
NSF Program: MSP--Targeted Awards
Abstract
The project is proposed by a partnership between SUNY-Brockport,
Rochester City School District (RCSD) third largest in New York State
with the lowest achievement scores and Brighton Central School District
(BCSD) with similar gaps among under-represented groups yet with one of
the highest overall achievement rates in the State. Additional partners
are the Shodor Foundation and The Krell Institute. The primary goal for
the partnership is to improve student outcomes in mathematics and
science in grades 7-12 by creating a multi-agency approach for the
recruitment and professional development of mathematics and science
teachers. A Computational Mathematics Science and Technology (CMST)
approach to learning science is employed in which students and teacher
are engaged in fieldwork, laboratory experiments, mathematical
modeling, computer simulation and visualization.
CMST employs math models to describe physical phenomena therefore
bringing a new perspective about the usefulness of math as a tool in
real life. The method is designed to make science and mathematics
concepts more easily comprehensible. A Challenge program incorporating
CMST is providing tools and motivation for 200, grades 7-12 students,
under the supervision of participating teachers. The approach in
addition to teaching science concepts is designed to promote teamwork,
collaboration and new strategies for problem solving. A component of
the comprehensive professional development program for mathematics and
science teachers is a four-week summer institute each year serving a
total of 240 teachers. In addition there is a Master's degree program
for 30 teachers. Pre-service education programs at SUNY-Brockport are
being revised and new courses are to be introduced to assure an
improvement in the quality quantity and diversity of the new teacher
workforce.
7. Questions for Witnesses
Dr. Yasar
How will you ensure that participants--
mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education
as well as K-12 teachers and administrators--remain active in
the program? What role, if any, will the Shodor Foundation and
the Krell Institute play in the partnership and in continuing
the reforms after the award period expires?
What type of professional development will your
partnership provide? How will you accommodate the unique
professional development needs of individual schools,
especially since they vary widely in terms of student
achievement? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge
and pedagogy be assessed?
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test
your education reform model and achieve your partnership goals?
What sort of in-depth, quantitative evaluation will
be conducted? And how will the results of this evaluation be
disseminated?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy
How will you ensure that participants--
mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education
as well as K-12 teachers and administrators--remain active in
the program? How will you tailor your program to the unique
needs of the sixty-nine participating school districts?
What type of professional development will your
partnership provide for pre-service and in-service teachers?
How will you engage the nearly 4,500 teachers of math and
science, all at different levels of ability and knowledge, in
your reform efforts? How will improvements in teacher content
knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test
your education reform models and achieve your partnership
goals? How will the partnerships coordinate with State
educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort
after the award period expires?
Dr. Navarro
How will you ensure that participants--
mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education
as well as K-12 teachers and administrators--remain active in
the program? What role, if any, will businesses and non-profit
organizations play in the partnership?
What type of professional development will your
partnership provide for pre-service and in-service teachers?
How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy
be assessed?
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test
your education reform models and achieve your partnership
goals? How will the partnerships coordinate with State
educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort
after the award period expires?
Mr. Chi and Mr. Mikols
How has the SUNY-Brockport MSP Project helped
teachers and administrators understand and embrace the need to
teach to high quality, standards-based math and science? Based
on what you know--and have experienced to date--are the
participating schools getting closer to providing high quality
math and science education for all students?
How have the professional development opportunities
provided by the MSP Project been different from other teacher
training programs in terms of content, duration and intensity?
What do you believe is the greatest barrier to
bringing the latest and best research on math and science
education into the classroom? Based on what you know, is
teacher practice in the classroom changing?
Based on your experience, how do we recruit and
retain the best math and science teachers? How has the MSP
Project addressed--or failed to address--these issues?
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee on Research will come to
order. I want to welcome everybody here today. I apologize for
the delay in the starting time.
As a farmer, I use the analogy that our meeting today is a
little bit about protecting our seed corn. What we are after,
especially in this post-9/11 era, is a situation where we are
going to have to be a little less dependent on students from
other countries coming into our university systems to do our
research. NSF reports that almost half of our research is still
being done by foreign students who, through new regulations,
are now under a little greater pressure to leave our country
after they finish their postgraduate or graduate work.
Last year, during the consideration of legislation to
authorize the Math and Science Partnership Program, I asked our
witnesses to consider the following question: if education,
especially in the early years, is more the lighting of a fire,
an interest, rather than filling a container with knowledge,
when is the fire lit? And several of the witnesses said
probably between four years old and six or seven years old. To
get that kind of an interest early on and then the follow-up
question, of course, is how do you kindle that fire to keep it
going through the rest of high school and through college?
The results from the most recent Third International Math
and Science Study, the TIMSS study, as well as evidence all
around us, demonstrate, I think in very stark terms, the need
to improve math and science achievement for all students. Our
witnesses today are experts in that area. We look forward to
your suggestions and ideas as we move ahead, and the situation
is that while U.S. students are nearly first in the world in
science, and above the international average in mathematics in
grade four, this leadership or predominance is short-lived. In
fact, the longer U.S. students are in school, the farther they
fall behind. By twelfth grade, U.S. students rank among the
lowest of all participating countries, and ahead of only two
countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
In response to this data, President Bush proposed the Math
and Science Partnership. We moved ahead legislatively to put
that into action. We have had it for the fiscal years '02 and
'03. Now, we are moving into '04. Through its awardees, the
Math and Science Partnership Program also seeks to address, in
a comprehensive manner, the weaknesses in U.S. math and science
education. While recognizing that there is no one factor that
makes all the difference, we do know that kids can't learn what
their teachers don't truly understand. We also know that too
many standards lack the necessary academic rigor, or they maybe
exist in name only, having not yet been linked with assessments
and professional development and curricula and classroom
practice.
Our goal here today is not to, I think, point a finger of
blame at anybody. Our goal is to join the search for solutions
and to underscore two fundamental truths: that all children can
learn, and that no child should be denied the math and science
spark that is so important in our new technological age.
Today, I am especially pleased to welcome true experts in
education reform, teachers and educators and implementers of
our new Math and Science Partnership Program, and as you can
imagine, my colleagues and I spend a lot of time talking about
you, but perhaps too little time listening to you. It is such
an important endeavor, and so crucial to the economic success
of the United States.
As we look at other countries that are copying our ways of
producing, trying to be as efficient as we are, what is going
to keep us at the cutting edge, it would seem to me, is the
math and the science and the evolving research of developing
new products that people want to buy, and developing the kind
of methods to produce those products that allow us to be
efficient and competitive with, ultimately, the price we sell
the product for.
In conclusion, let me thank you again for being here, and
before we get to our witnesses, I would call on Representative
Eddie Bernice Johnson. She took us down to Texas last year to
study a similar situation of how we do a better job moving
ahead in math and science, so Representative.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Smith
I want to welcome everyone here for what I hope will be a series of
hearings on the Math and Science Partnership Program and the
implementation of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2002 generally.
Last year, during the consideration of legislation to authorize the
Math and Science Partnership Program, I asked our witnesses to consider
the following question: if education is more the lighting of a fire
than the filling of a container, when is that fire lit for math and
science and what keeps it burning?
They all had different answers. Some said third grade. Others said
kindergarten. And still others said pre-school. Yet they all agreed
that our greatest failure--and our greatest challenge--was that too
many children failed to experience the spark at all. As a result, too
few pursued math and science education.
Results from the most recent Third International Math and Science
Study (TIMSS)--as well as evidence all around us--demonstrate in stark
terms the need to improve math and science achievement for all
students. While U.S. students are nearly first in the world in science
and above the international average in mathematics in grade four, this
predominance is short-lived. In fact, the longer U.S. students are in
school, the farther they fall. By 12th grade, U.S. students rank among
the lowest of all participating countries and ahead of only Cyprus and
South Africa.
In response to this data, President Bush proposed the Math and
Science Partnership Program as part of his comprehensive No Child Left
Behind reform initiative. This program was created to support
partnerships between colleges and universities and elementary and
secondary schools but it also sought to challenge long held practices
and to support innovative projects in math and science.
Through its awardees, the Math and Science Partnership Program also
seeks to address in a comprehensive manner the weaknesses in U.S. math
and science education. While recognizing that there is no one factor
that makes all the difference, we do know that kids can't learn what
their teachers don't truly understand. We also know that too many
standards lack the necessary academic rigor or they exist in name only,
having not yet been linked with assessments, professional development,
curricula, and classroom practice.
Yet, our goal here today is not to point the finger of blame. Our
goal is to join in the search for solutions and to underscore two
fundamental truths--that all children can learn and that no child
should be denied the math and science spark that will carry them
through their formal education and into the world of work.
Today, I am especially pleased to welcome true experts in education
reform--teachers and education researchers. As you can imagine, my
colleagues and I spend a lot of time talking about you, but perhaps too
little time listening to you. So it is indeed a great honor to have you
here to explain how you are using the Math and Science Partnership
funds to light the spark of interest and improve the achievement of all
students.
I would also be interested to know how we can encourage even more
businesses and private organizations--perhaps through recognition or
awards--to join in these partnerships and help extend our reach to more
students and teachers. I know I speak for the entire subcommittee when
I say that we look forward to your testimony.
In just a moment, I will proceed with introductions but I will
first recognize Ranking Member Johnson for whatever statement she may
wish to make.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this
initial hearing on the implementation of the National Science
Foundation's Math and Science Partnership Program. I especially
would like to thank Dr. Susana Navarro, who is leading the El
Paso Math and Science Partnership, for appearing today. Her
project involves several urban and rural school districts, and
has an important goal of working to reduce the achievement gap
often seen by disadvantaged students.
During the last Congress, the Science Committee examined in
some depth the question of how to improve science, math and
technology education for all students in the Nation's schools.
We looked at such issues, at improving teacher training and
professional development, developing more effective curriculum,
making use of education technologies and stimulating greater
student interest in science.
The Committee's inquiries led to legislation whose
centerpiece was the Math and Science Partnership Program. I had
been trying to pass it for years. The program--I was the wrong
party--the program was subsequently enacted as part of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act last year.
The key components of the partnerships program, in my view,
are to obtain a serious commitment of time and effort from
science, math and engineering faculty at the participating
institutions, to institute changes at all the participating
institutions that will lead to lasting educational improvement
and to assure that the program has built-in and effective
mechanisms to assess program outcomes.
Today, we will hear from some awardees from the Math and
Science Partnership Program. I hope we will learn how they form
their partnerships and get a sense of the level and engagement
of the participants from academia and the schools. I am also
interested in the kinds of educational activities that the
partnerships will focus on, and to what extent they are guided
by research findings on human development and learning.
While I am pleased to see that a few minority serving
institutions have been able to participate as partners in the
Math and Science Programs, three historically black
universities, Tuskegee, Fayetteville State and Lincoln
University, the Northwest Indian College and the University of
Puerto Rico, which are not African-American, of course, I am
quite disappointed that no minority serving institutions have
been granted an award as a lead partner, and this is
particularly disturbing, considering the roles of HBCUs and
other minority serving institutions play among institutions of
higher education to increase this nation's supply of math and
science teachers in the minority communities.
Finally, I would like to welcome any recommendations from
the panel on ways to strengthen the National Science
Foundation's partnerships program, including any suggestions
for improving the administration of the program.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this
hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to discussion. If there
is anyone in the house from the number one science and
engineering high school in the country, which is in my
district, I would like to acknowledge them. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses
today to this initial hearing on the implementation of the National
Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership Program.
I especially would like to thank Dr. Susana Navarro, who is leading
the El Paso Math and Science Partnership, for appearing today. Her
project involves several urban and rural school districts and has an
important goal of working to reduce the achievement gap often seen for
disadvantaged students.
During the last Congress, the Science Committee examined at some
depth the question of how to improve science, math and technology
education for all students in the Nation's schools. We looked at such
issues as improving teacher training and professional development,
developing more effective curriculum, making use of educational
technologies, and stimulating greater student interest in science.
The Committee's inquiries led to legislation whose centerpiece was
the Math and Science Partnerships Program. The Program was subsequently
enacted as part of the NSF Authorization Act last year.
The key components of the partnerships program, in my view, are to
obtain a serious commitment of time and effort from science, math and
engineering faculty at the participating institutions, to institute
changes at all of the participating institutions that will lead to
lasting educational improvements, and to assure that the program has
built-in and effective mechanisms to assess program outcomes.
Today, we will hear from some awardees from the Math and Science
Partnership Program. I hope we will learn how they formed their
partnerships and get a sense of the level of engagement of the
participants from academia and the schools. I am also interested in the
kinds of educational activities the partnerships will focus on and to
what extent they are guided by research findings on human development
and learning.
While I am pleased to see that a few Minority Serving Institutions
(MSIs) have been able to participate as partners in the Math and
Science Program (three Historically Black Universities, Tuskegee,
Fayetteville State and Lincoln Universities, Northwest Indian College
and the University of Puerto Rico), I am quite disappointed that no
MSIs has been granted an award as a Lead Partner. This is particularly
disturbing considering the roles HBCUs and other MSIs play among
institutions of higher education in increasing this nation's supply of
math and science teachers in our minority communities.
Finally, I would welcome any recommendations from the panel on ways
to strengthen the NSF partnerships program, including any suggestions
for improvements in the administration of the program.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and
thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look
forward to our discussion.
The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for calling this important hearing on the National
Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership (MSP). Every program
we design here in the Science Committee, every initiative we fund at
NASA or at the DOE or elsewhere, will be critically dependent on having
qualified scientists and engineers to fill the tech jobs of the future.
All of our great plans could be pipe dreams if we don't make the
appropriate investment in our children. That investment could pay huge
dividends in the future, if we help give kids the skills in math and
science that will place them on the cutting edge in their careers to
come.
Unfortunately, we have not been making the right investments, and
it shows. For decades, American children have been performing poorly in
science and math when compared to their international counterparts, or
when measured against American standards. Across the board, about one
third of kids cannot even score the ``basic'' level on standardized
tests. It seems that a large proportion of our children are being left
behind. Those children from low-income families, or minority groups are
especially at risk.
This poor performance does not bode well for the future of our
scientific endeavors or our high-tech economy. That is why the Congress
moved in 2002 to establish the MSP in the NSF Authorization Act of
2002. The program will provide grants to enable collaborative efforts
amongst schools, universities, colleges, and the private sector to
improve the experiences of K-12 children in science and math. This
program is meant to compliment the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Now that we have had a year or so to let this program work, I think
it is an excellent time to get some input on how things are going at
the ground level. Unfortunately, the Congress has not yet fully funded
these programs. In fact, for FY 2003, MSP was funded at a level just a
bit more than half of its authorized level. So, it probably has not yet
had much of an effect. However, hopefully we can get some indications
of challenges and pitfalls from the field that will enable us to tune
the program, or maybe motivate appropriators to fund this program fully
in the future.
I thank the panelists for taking the time out of their busy
schedules to share their experiences with us today. I especially
welcome the teachers. Your classrooms are where the rubber hits the
road. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, and just a moment. Allow me to
introduce our great witnesses today.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is the lead researcher for the
Comprehensive MSP grant at Michigan State University. Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Math Education
in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University,
where she is also a professor of mathematics and teacher of
education. Prior to joining Michigan State, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy
co-founded the SummerMath Program for Teachers at Mount Holyoke
College and she has been the principal investigator of several
research and teacher education grants, both at Michigan State
University and the University of New Hampshire. She also has
served as a visiting scientist at NSF's Teacher Enhancement
Program.
Dr. Osman Yasar is lead researcher for the Targeted MSP
award at the State University of New York at the SUNY-
Brockport. Dr. Yasar is a professor and Chair of the
Computational Science Department at SUNY College at Brockport.
He established the first undergraduate program in computational
science in the United States and prior to SUNY, he was a staff
scientist at the Center for Computational Sciences at the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Mr. Ed Chi, science teacher at Brighton School District in
New York. Mr. Chi teaches science to seventh and eighth grade
students at Twelve Corners Middle School in Rochester, New
York. Twelve Corners Middle School is the sole institution
educating students in grades six to eight in the Brighton
School District, so we will look forward to a person on the
ground on your suggestions of dealing with students.
Mr. Jeffrey Mikols is a math teacher, Rochester City School
District in New York. Mr. Mikols has been a teacher with the
Rochester School District since 1993, and he has taught courses
ranging from pre-algebra to AP calculus. Currently, Mr. Mikols
is the secondary mathematics lead teacher, which makes him
responsible for providing professional development to other
secondary school math teachers, and Mr. Mikols received his
B.A. in mathematics and master of science in mathematics
education from SUNY in Geneseo and--is that right, Geneseo?
Mr. Chi. Geneseo.
Chairman Smith. Geneseo. And he is currently enrolled in
the certificate for advanced study in the school
administration.
Dr. Susan Navarro, lead researcher for the Comprehensive
MSP award at the University of Texas at El Paso. Dr. Navarro is
the founder and head of the El Paso Collaborative for Academic
Excellence, a city-wide effort to improve the academic
achievement of El Paso students. Dr. Navarro has served as
National Director of Research and Policy Analysis of the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Dr.
Navarro, we appreciate you being here. You also graduated from
the University of Texas in El Paso with a degree in political
science. And again, thank you all for being here and for
sharing some of your thoughts with us, and Dr. Yasar, we are
asking you to proceed with your first testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. OSMAN YASAR, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE
TARGETED MSP GRANT AT SUNY-BROCKPORT
Dr. Yasar. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the
Committee, I am honored to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
I was born in Turkey, so I went through a different public
school system. I came here for a graduate education, and
several things that--bring me into this project, certainly one
is that I have a child in the school system at Brighton, 13
years old, whose interest in science may be slipping away, so I
am really interested in helping her school and herself.
Another effort that I have been involved with is, as you
said, in the Department of Computational Science, one of a kind
in the country. This is a unique way of approaching
mathematics, science and computing, in an integrated way. We
have great results at the college level, and the idea of taking
that to K-12 to raise the interest of students was very
interesting, and I thank the NSF and the review panels for
allowing us this opportunity to work on this.
I might report right away that our project has been very
successful in terms of creating enthusiasm in teachers and
students. I am sure you will be hearing from Mr. Mikols and Mr.
Chi about their experience. This project involves SUNY College
and two school districts, an urban school district and a
suburban school district. This is a pretty common pattern in
the country. Rochester, with 35,000 students and Brighton, with
3,000 students.
Rochester has been experiencing very low achievement rates,
as low as 11 percent in eighth grade mathematics, so there is a
definite need there. Brighton's role here is not only to
benefit from our unique methodology, using technology, but also
to give to the partnership through its experience and so on.
We also have two national organizations, Shodor Education
Foundation and Krell Institute. I have colored them on my
presentation. Their role is to bring to us their experience
from the national level, as well as help us disseminate the
result.
Texas Instruments is part of this partnership. We use their
specialists, training specialists. The Xerox Corporation's role
is to offer internships to our students, both in high school
and at the college level, and then to disseminate our results
in the local community, we work with the Monroe County School
Boards Association and New York State Education Department. We
have partnered with another NSF MSP project, the Council of
Chief State Schools Officers, to use their evaluation
instrumentation.
And now, recently, we have been invited to work with
another partnership program under NSF named PACI (Partnerships
for Advanced Computational Infrastructure). I believe this is
also reviewed under this committee.
Mr. Chairman, this partnership project is not only
partnership in school districts and colleges. Certainly, the
goal is to improve student achievement and interest, both at
the public schools and colleges, and as you may see in other
projects in this program, raising quality and quantity of
teachers is the key here.
Another partnership that goes on under this umbrella is the
partnership of mathematics and science as topics. And this, I
believe, is our approach. We have taken an integrated approach
to mathematics and science, in a way, to present the
mathematics and technology in a context of applications. This,
we believe, raises student interest and so on.
Our way to achieve this goal is certainly to offer
professional development to teachers and faculty members in the
college through training and mentoring, through support,
including technology scholarships and stipends, and through
team approaches and peer networking.
From students' point of view, teachers with new pedagogies,
using technology in an integrated approach, as well as
scholarships, is a way that our team has chosen to attack this
problem.
In the past year, we held a summer institute that brought
together 56 teachers from two school districts, and the
training brought together math and science and technology
teachers. All of them were subject to the same material. All of
them had a chance to work together to see how useful
mathematics is in the context of applications and so on. Again,
our approach is well documented in the testimony here. We
believe this offers a layered approach and inquiry-based
approach, some of the things that are very new for a project
like ours.
Under professional development, we have an education
component and a challenging component to make sure the needs of
many schools and individuals are also addressed here. I will be
skipping to my last slide here to sum up. The results of our
training so far have been evaluated by independent consultants,
and 100 percent of teachers have rated this very successful,
and they want to come back the next year. This is an ongoing
training and education opportunity for teachers as well as
students. We are very hopeful that the dissemination of this
project and the lessons learned here will help others in the
country as well.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Yasar follows:]
Chairman Smith. I am going to proceed the way you are
arranged in my book, so Mr. Mikols, if you would--if you're
comfortable in going next.
Mr. Mikols. Sure. Okay. Again, I asked the----
Chairman Smith. Actually, I see Mr. Chi is ahead of you in
my book.
Mr. Mikols. Oh.
Chairman Smith. So it is not your turn.
Mr. Mikols. Oh. Then I will--let me turn mine off.
Mr. Chi. There we go.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Chi, excuse me, please.
STATEMENT OF ED CHI, SCIENCE TEACHER, BRIGHTON SCHOOL DISTRICT,
NEW YORK
Mr. Chi. That is not a problem, Chairman. First, I would
like to thank everyone on the Committee for the invitation to
come and speak.
And I first would like to begin with talking about why the
MSP program is a necessary program. First, it is truly
interdisciplinary. Through it, I have learned, and I have also
shown my students, that no subject is an island. I often hear
in my class that--they see, they are beginning to see
connections between science and math and technology. And it
often astounds them, because I guess in the past, they have
seen each subject treated as an individual, and not together in
a group, so this is one of their first opportunities to see all
these different disciplines coming together in one activity.
Also, it is truly interdisciplinary in the fact that it
incorporates math and technology into the science classroom. We
are using math and we are using technology to do science in our
classrooms, and I often hear my students say ``Wow, this class
is getting to be more like a math class than a science class.''
They are often checking to see if they are in the right room.
So, I think that is testimony in itself that the program is
working.
Another reason why this is a necessary program is because
it is truly unique. I have attended many programs for
professional development, and very few have really put together
teachers that are in fact helping to shape the program as well.
There is a youthful energy to everyone in the program, because
we are--we feel as though we are on the cutting edge, and that
is inspiring us and that is motivating us, and we are bringing
that into the classroom as well.
Also, there is long-term continuous collaboration going on.
Oftentimes, the second workshop is done, we get a little
handout rating the workshop, but there has not been a clear
cutoff point for this program. It is continuous. There is
continuous collaboration going on between teachers in the
classrooms and professors at the college, and amongst teachers
between districts. And we also feel that the program and its
administrators are invested in us. We feel as though we are--I
hate to put it this way, but we feel as though we are star
players in this program, and we definitely appreciate that.
Secondly, how is the MSP program achieving its goals? We
are collaborating with teachers. Teachers are talking to each
other. There is open conversation going on. We are not just
isolated in our own classrooms any more. They have also helped
us to develop meaningful lesson plans. We have been able to
overcome our initial fear of technology being incorporated into
the classroom. They are exposing us and forcing us to be
adventurous with our teaching styles. We have also been able to
hone existing skills, any prior knowledge or any existing
skills. We are able to advance and also we are able to share
this with fellow colleagues. There is collaboration with
administrators. There are plans to have a get together to
discuss our mission statement with administrators all over the
districts that are involved.
Also, we are getting students excited and interested, and
ultimately, that is what we want. The simulation programs and
the modeling programs have put them in charge. They are in
charge of their own learning. They are beginning to--they are
the creators of their learning, and they are pulling the
strings, and by taking us, by that I mean the teachers, by
taking us out of the driver's seat and putting them into it,
they are beginning to own their education. They are--because
they are so inspired--they go beyond where we would typically
bring them.
There are, of course, some barriers to achieving our goals.
There is always administration who aren't always as supportive
as they could be, in terms of valuing technology and seeing it
as an important component of education. Then there are also
teachers who feel as though they themselves are not savvy
enough to take on the responsibility and take on the skills
that are required to teach technology and incorporate it into
the science and math classroom, but the program is slowly but
surely taking teachers who are savvy and teachers who are
willing to take risks, and bringing them into the school, so
that they can inspire students, and at the same time, because
we have inspired students, other teachers are curious as to
what we are doing to inspire students, and therefore, that is
sort of a contagious atmosphere where other teachers can take
some of that fear away and dive into the technology as well.
And that is really all I have to say for today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Chi
How has the SUNY-Brockport MSP Project helped teachers and
administrators understand and embrace the need to teach to high
quality, standards-based math and science? Based on what you know--and
have experienced to date--are the participating schools getting closer
to providing high quality math and science education for all students?
The CMST program has made plans to speak to and collaborate with
participating teachers and their administrators. Their goal is to share
the CMST mission statement with these administrators and seek ways to
support the efforts of the CMST teachers and coaches. At Twelve Corners
we have taken steps to load modeling software onto school networks and
share activities and knowledge with faculty at department meetings. The
students in my classes have expressed great interest in receiving
training on modeling software and creating opportunities to allow them
to take charge of their learning.
How have the professional development opportunities provided by the
MSP Project been different from other teacher training programs in
terms of content, duration and intensity?
The content was technologically intensive yet practical. We could
see ways to integrate them into our own programs. There was a constant
theme of interdisciplinary approaches to these activities. They made
every attempt to include math, science and technology into every aspect
of the training. This was no small feat.
Most professional development workshops end when the presenters and
facilitators hand out evaluation forms. The CMST has kept their promise
to continue the collaboration well beyond the end of the summer
program. We communicate via weekly teacher's logs and coach's logs.
There have been invaluable meetings where we have offered feedback and
suggestions on ways to make the program more effective. I feel as
though I am partly responsible for shaping the CMST program not just
participating in it. Perhaps it is because this is a young program in
Brockport or because the people are confident enough in their own area
of expertise to listen to others. Whatever the reason I feel a true
sense of collegiality here.
What do you believe is the greatest barrier to bringing the latest
and best research on math and science education into the classroom?
Based on what you know, is teacher practice in the classroom changing?
For myself thus far the greatest barrier has been the lack of
technology available in the schools. This can stifle the efforts of the
teacher to incorporate meaningful activities in the classroom. If it
was not for the talents of the CMST faculty I would be unable to
provide my students with the ability to explore the connections between
science, math and technology in my classroom in a meaningful way.
Based on your experience, how do we recruit and retain the best
math and science teachers? How has the MSP Project addressed--or failed
to address--these issues?
Good pay incentives, access to technology plus the support to get
it into the hands of students and use it effectively in the classrooms
attracts good teachers and keeps them. I will admit that the pay,
technology, and support incentives provided by the CMST program drew me
in, and has meet and exceed my expectations.
Biography for Ed Chi
Ed Chi teaches science to 7th and 8th grade students at Twelve
Corners Middle School in Rochester, New York. Twelve Corners Middle
School is the sole institution educating students in grades 6-8 in the
Brighton School District.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Chi, very good, thank you. Mr. Mikols.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. MIKOLS, MATH TEACHER, ROCHESTER CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW YORK
Mr. Mikols. Again, I would like to thank this committee for
inviting me to speak and give testimony about what it is that
we have experienced. And in my role as a lead teacher in the
Rochester City School District, I am in a unique--I have a
unique opportunity to promote change, and as you, Mr. Smith,
mentioned with the TIMSS Report, the concern that we have as to
how the United States is doing is something I share within our
own district. Our district, right now, as Dr. Yasar has
mentioned, is not a high performing district right now, and it
is a burden that we all carry, and we realize that the need for
change is extremely important.
And technology is one of the mechanisms we can use to
change the way that teachers are approaching math and science.
Technology, for many kids, in and of itself, is very, very
interesting to them. I have two young sons at home, and just
get them a Game Boy and they are clicking away, and they have a
great time with that. But perhaps more importantly, what
technology does is it facilitates investing in topics of
student interest. They find something that they are interested
in, and the use of technology lets them gather information,
draw conclusions, verify conclusions in a way that is much
quicker than we have ever been able to do before, so this use
of technology is very appropriate.
Technology has made it possible to change the way teachers
approach math and science, and they can make lessons that are
exciting and relevant to student interest. That is the key
thing. Teachers can teach what they think is important, but
until it gets down to the point where students are pursuing
things that are directly relevant to them and interesting to
them, they are not going to achieve to where we want them to be
achieving.
In my role, I do conduct quite a bit of professional
development, and having been trained in the Summer Institute,
and also having some prior experience with graphing
calculators, we have made that a priority in our district, that
all schools should have teachers that are competent in using
these tools with their students. Additionally, there were other
tools that we used in the CMST [computational math, science,
and technology] program, such as STELLA, AgentSheets, Excel,
and a lot of these tools are things that are so applicable to
what students would find interesting, and still cover the types
of mathematical and scientific content that are required in
standards.
In our district, as I mentioned, we are low achieving, but
making teachers aware that these avenues are available, and
that change is necessary, this is one of the first steps that
we can make toward improving math and science education in our
district.
The CMST program, under the MSP project, has offered some
excellent opportunities in terms of professional development.
The Summer Institute was extremely well-staffed with
knowledgeable professors, and a lot of us went in not knowing
how to use a lot of the tools that were being used, and we were
provided with very quick feedback that was extremely helpful.
The MSP project also provides ongoing training during the
school year, with the expectation that teachers trained are
going to continue using the training. That is extremely
important, because when you talk about implementing
professional development effectively, if there is no follow-up
to that professional development, it is rare that that change
is going to have any kind of long-lasting effect. And so there
are regular checkpoints along the way to make sure that
teachers who were trained in this program are continuing to
work in the things that they were trained in and having direct
implementation into the classroom lessons that they are
preparing.
Some of the barriers that I would like to discuss, one of
them is perhaps financial. It is not the greatest barrier,
because I think there are--through the availability of grants
and other types of monies, the types of tools that we use can
be available for students. I think the greatest barrier is,
perhaps, the lack of willingness for teachers to change their
practice. We were discussing over lunch that many times,
teachers feel uncomfortable in changing their practice and John
Dewey used a term called cognitive dissonance, which mentioned
that until people feel uncomfortable, real learning doesn't
occur. Once they feel uncomfortable and feel the need to take
on something, to do something about that discomfort, then
people will pursue that and learn something from it. Teachers
may be very, very reluctant to work in these different kinds of
changes that we are asking them to, but in a sense, that
discomfort is a good sign, because they realize that they need
to do something different, so it is very important that they
are pursuing those things.
In terms of recruiting the best teachers, and I know I am
getting very close to running out of time, so I want to make
this one last point, in terms of recruiting the best possible
teachers, we need to reach our students early and we need to
make them lovers of mathematics and science at an early age,
and if we can do that, the likelihood that they are going to
pursue a career in math and science teaching I think goes up.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikols follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey M. Mikols
I have been a teacher for the Rochester City School District since
1993. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Master of Science in
Mathematics Education from the State University of New York College at
Geneseo. I am currently enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in
School Administration from the State University of New York College at
Brockport. During my tenure with the Rochester City School District, I
have had the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses from Pre-
Algebra in the seventh grade to Advanced Placement Calculus to seniors.
I am currently the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher. I am responsible
for providing professional development to mathematics specialists
assigned to each of our secondary buildings. These building specialists
then provide this professional development to the teachers in their
building. Additionally, I work in classrooms with teachers modeling,
coaching, and serving as resource to them.
Testimony
I have had the opportunity to be a participant in the CMST Program
at the State University of New York College at Brockport. As a
participant in the MSP Project, I received four weeks of intensive
training in technology, with the intent of applying this to classroom
lesson planning. We were trained on the Texas Instruments TI-83+
graphing calculator, STELLA, AgentSheets, and Interactive Physics. I
had the opportunity to apply this training to writing lesson plans that
incorporate the use of technology. As the Secondary Mathematics Lead
Teacher of the Rochester City School District, I have begun to train
teachers to implement technology and promote change in the mathematics
classroom.
The SUNY-Brockport MSP Project has helped teachers and
administrators by providing training in technology based approaches to
mathematics and science lessons. Technology has made it possible to
change the way teachers approach mathematics and science to make
lessons that are exciting to students and relevant to their interests.
New York State Educational Standards specifically target the use of
technology as methods of communication and information gathering
systems. The natural curiosity of students concerning technology has
enabled teachers to design and carry out lessons that involve an
inquiry approach.
In the Rochester City School District, I have made it a priority to
begin training building specialists on the TI-83+ graphing calculator
so they can train the teachers in their individual buildings. We have
trained these specialists in lessons from eighth grade curriculum up to
eleventh grade curriculum. The earlier our students are proficient with
graphing calculators, the more they will benefit from them as they move
through the high school curriculum. Teachers that participated in the
CMST Summer Program are beginning to implement training they received
into their classroom and are producing high quality lessons. This is a
primary step in improving math and science education in our schools.
The professional development provided by the MSP Project has been
different than other professional development I have received on many
levels. The MSP Project provides teachers with direct training on
specific methods to change mathematics and science teaching. Teachers
were trained on the technology and then asked to reflect and implement
what they learned in planning classroom lessons. The Summer Institute
was well staffed with knowledgeable professors. Questions pertaining to
the programs we were trained on were answered efficiently yet
thoroughly. The training went very fast at times, but there was support
available. The MSP Project provides ongoing training during the school
year with the expectation that teachers trained are going to continue
using the training they received throughout the school year. There are
regular checkpoints of accountability in place to ensure that teachers
are doing this. The participating teachers have each been assigned a
coach to provide help where necessary. This ongoing training and
accountability are essential for any professional development to have a
lasting effect on the way teachers conduct their practice.
I believe that the greatest barrier in implementing the latest and
best research into the classroom is teachers not changing their
practice. This failure to change practice is partially because of lack
of training and awareness of alternative methods, but also because
teachers do not admit the need to change is necessary. The MSP Project
is a good model to approach this problem. It has provided teachers with
the necessary training and subsequent support to facilitate change in
classroom practice. As teachers implement technology into their
lessons, and students learn more and enjoy mathematics and science
more, it is my belief that other teachers who are reluctant to change
their practice will take notice of the improved student outcomes and
want to change as well. I have begun trying to implement this change in
approach with building specialists in my district. The specialists have
been very eager to be trained on the TI-83+ graphing calculator, so the
potential for change at their individual buildings is a reality. I have
seen teachers in classrooms beginning to implement graphing calculators
into their lessons, and they are realizing the benefits of using them.
The best way to recruit high quality mathematics and science
teachers is to create students that love to learn these subjects. If
high school students enjoy learning these subjects and see the
relevance in their lives that these subjects have, there is a better
chance that these students will consider teaching these subjects as a
career. There must be exciting opportunities for students to experience
technology and real life application in mathematics and science. The
MSP Project has tremendous potential to foster this type of interest.
Many students have a natural interest in technology and how it is
applied. Recently, the MSP Project hosted an Interactive Physics Day
where students from Rochester City Schools and Brighton Central schools
received the opportunity to see how technology relates to Physics. I
believe the MSP Project could make more inroads into the individual
schools by presenting demonstrations for students to participate in.
The benefits of teaching mathematics and science must be ``advertised''
more effectively and earlier in the students high school career.
Teaching must be made a first choice, not a career to fall back on.
Biography for Jeffrey M. Mikols
I have been a teacher for the Rochester City School District since
1993. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Master of Science in
Mathematics Education from the State University of New York College at
Geneseo. I am currently enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in
School Administration from the State University of New York College at
Brockport. During my tenure with the Rochester City School District, I
have had the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses from Pre-
Algebra in the seventh grade to Advanced Placement Calculus to seniors.
I am currently the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher. I am responsible
for providing professional development to mathematics specialists
assigned to each of our secondary buildings. These building specialists
then provide this professional development to the teachers in their
building. Additionally, I work in classrooms with teachers modeling,
coaching, and serving as resource to them.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Dr. Navarro.
STATEMENT OF M. SUSANA NAVARRO, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE MSP GRANT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, EL PASO
Dr. Navarro. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson and
Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to share with
you the work of the NSF-funded El Paso Math and Science
Partnership.
Over the past decade, the NSF has been a valuable partner
in supporting improved math and science instruction and
achievement across the El Paso community. What the MSP now
provides is an opportunity to bring together partners across
our entire community, K-16, toward the shared development and
implementation of high quality practices aimed at improving
academic achievement among all students.
Over the last decade, the community of El Paso has
distinguished itself as one that is deeply committed to
ensuring academic success among all of our youngsters. Our
strong focus on education in El Paso reflects the reality that
there is so much at stake in ensuring that this growing,
largely Hispanic community is able to create opportunities for
its more than 700,000 citizens and over 155,000 students.
Currently, our per capita income lags behind both the State
and the Nation, and the median household income ranks sixth
lowest in the U.S. The overall educational attainment of our
citizenry is low as well. Just 68 percent of the population
aged 25 and older have earned a high school diploma and fewer
than 16 percent of El Pasoans hold bachelors degrees or higher.
Against these tremendous odds, the El Paso community has
demonstrated its commitment to high academic achievement and we
have shown that we can do it. For example, the achievement gap
of which Member Johnson spoke of, as measured by TAAS
mathematics, is at its lowest point since El Paso's NSF-funded
systemic reform efforts began in 1994. From a high that year of
21 points between Hispanic and white students and 27 points
between African-American and white students, the gap has been
reduced to 5.7 and 7.9 points respectively.
In addition, enrollment in college preparatory math and
science courses, which we consider absolutely key, has
increased significantly over the past year, with over three
fourths of our students, of all of our students, now enrolled
in algebra I, geometry, algebra II, biology and chemistry. This
is a radical shift from what occurred----
Chairman Smith. From one of the other, or all of them?
Dr. Navarro. All of our students, over three fourths of all
of our students.
Chairman Smith. I mean all of those courses, they are in
one of those courses?
Dr. Navarro. That is right.
Most significantly, pass rates improved greatly over the
past year. Notably in geometry, where 86 percent of students
passed the course, and in chemistry, where 78 percent of
students passed the course. These increases in enrollment and
pass rates represent possibly the most important aspect of NSF-
supported work in El Paso schools.
And yet, enormous challenges remain, particularly in fully
preparing students for math and science success in college. We
have made great strides K-12. It is ensuring that students are
able to make that leap and be able to do well in college math
and science. That is what we are very much focused on now.
Shared concerns about this and other challenges have
brought together 12 El Paso area school districts with the El
Paso Community College and the University of Texas at El Paso
to focus on identifying strategies for ensuring the academic
success of all of our youngsters. We are grateful that funding
for the El Paso MSP will allow us to address these critically
important problems.
The El Paso MSP is built around five key priorities. These
include one, increasing and sustaining the quantity and quality
of pre-K-12 math and science teachers, absolutely a burning
issue for us. Two, building the capacity of schools and
districts to effectively support efforts to improve math and
science instruction and achievement. Three, aligning curriculum
instruction and assessment of math and science to ensure that
what is taught reflects shared expectations for students from
kindergarten through university. Four, promoting efforts to
increase college going rates among El Paso area students,
because if they don't go to college, they can't get degrees in
math and science and then go and do research and other things
with math and science. And five, conducting research that
advances knowledge and understanding about the systemic
improvement of math and science instruction. Strategies
addressing each of these priorities focus on local needs,
though many have relevance to communities across our country,
which we hope will benefit from the lessons that we learn in
MSP.
Let me quickly tell you about some of the lessons that we
have learned in the over 13 months of implementing MSP so far.
First, we have learned that this work absolutely must be done
K-16, that is from kindergarten through university and beyond.
Reforming K-12 will only work for the long-term if our teacher
preparation programs and colleges and universities have
themselves improved, if they, too, are focused on the best
national content standards, if they are also aggressively
working toward fully engaging students in the learning process.
And given that teacher preparation encompasses the entire
university, not just colleges of education, those that educate
prospective teachers in the core subject areas, the colleges of
science, the departments of mathematics, colleges of liberal
arts, must also work toward improving teacher quality.
A second lesson learned is that partnerships must address
the issue of K-16 curriculum alignment. What does that mean? It
really means seamlessly linking what is taught at each point in
the education continuum, from elementary, middle and high
school, with what is expected and taught at community college
and at university. The MSP Math and Science Alignment Project
brings together K-12 teachers of math and science, as well as
math faculty from community college and faculty from U. Tex.
colleges of education, engineering and science.
A major goal of the initiative is to develop course
outlines along with curriculum frameworks that will be
implemented by teachers across the twelve districts. These
outlines and frameworks provide clear and specific information
about math and science content at each grade level that
students must understand and be able to do, and the level of
rigor at which they must be able to do them. This really takes
standards to the next level, because standards are a great big
mass of things that, while helpful, don't provide the direction
to teachers that is needed in order for teachers to know what
is most important, and the level at which students need to know
that particular topic in mathematics or science. Our frameworks
are helping to do that.
And the final lesson learned is that we have to provide a
full and robust set of support and assistance mechanisms
necessary for building school capacity. We do that by working
with teachers. We also do that by working with faculty members,
deans, superintendents and the like, but we put our greatest
emphasis on teachers. In my written testimony, you can see the
kinds of things that we do with teachers, but I guess I want to
close by just saying that what drives our work is our absolute
belief in what students deserve, the importance of focusing on
equity and partnerships.
We are delighted and very thankful to have this opportunity
to do more of the work that we have been doing and to do it at
a level that we have not done before, so thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Navarro follows:]
Prepared Statement of M. Susana Navarro
Greeting and Overview
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee,
I am pleased to be here today to share with you the work of the
National Science Foundation-supported El Paso Math/Science Partnership
(MSP), and the opportunities that it provides for students across El
Paso. Over the last decade, the National Science Foundation has been a
valuable partner in supporting improved math and science instruction
and achievement across the El Paso community. What the MSP now provides
is an opportunity to bring together partners across the community, K-
16, toward the shared development and implementation of high quality
math and science content and instructional practices aimed at improving
student achievement among all students.
Over the last decade, the community of El Paso has distinguished
itself as one that is deeply committed to ensuring academic success
among all students. In fact, education has come to be seen as a key
element in improving the quality of life in our community, which is
working very hard to turn around life chances for its large and growing
population. Our strong focus on education in El Paso reflects the
reality that there is much at stake in ensuring that this growing,
largely Hispanic community is able to create opportunities for its
700,000 citizens. Currently, our per capita income lags behind both the
State and the Nation, and the median household income ranks sixth
lowest in the United States. The overall educational attainment of our
citizenry is low as well. Just 68 percent of the population (aged 25
and older) has earned a high school diploma and fewer than 16 percent
of El Pasoans hold a Bachelor's degree or higher.
Against these tremendous odds, the El Paso community has
demonstrated its commitment to high academic achievement among all
students. For example, the achievement gap, as measured by TAAS
mathematics, is at its lowest point since El Paso's NSF-funded systemic
reform efforts began in 1994. From a high that year of 21.2 percentage
points between Hispanic and White students, and one of 26.7 points
between African Americans and Whites, the gap has been reduced to 5.7
and 7.9 points respectively in 2002. In addition, enrollment in college
preparatory math and science courses has increased significantly over
the past year, with over three-fourths of all students across the MSP
districts now taking Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Biology and
Chemistry. Most significantly, pass rates improved greatly over the
past year--notably in Geometry (86 percent) and Chemistry (78 percent).
These increases in enrollment and pass rates represent possibly the
most important impact of NSF-supported work in El Paso schools.
And yet, enormous challenges remain, particularly in fully
preparing students for math and science success in college. Shared
concerns about this and other challenges has brought together 12 El
Paso area school districts with the El Paso Community College and the
University of Texas at El Paso to focus on identifying strategies for
ensuring the academic success of our young people. We are grateful that
funding for the El Paso MSP will allow us to address these critically
important problems.
Key Components of the El Paso MSP
The El Paso Math/Science Partnership is built around five key
priorities identified as critical to ensuring the academic achievement
and opportunities for future success of El Paso area students. These
include: one, increasing and sustaining the quantity and quality of
pre-K-12 mathematics and science teachers; two, building the capacity
of schools and districts to effectively support efforts to improve math
and science instruction and achievement; three, aligning curriculum,
instruction, and assessment of math and science education to ensure
that what is taught reflects shared expectations for students from
kindergarten through university; four, promoting efforts to increase
college-going rates among El Paso area students; and five, conducting
research that advances knowledge and understanding about the systemic
improvement of mathematics and science instruction. Strategies
addressing each of these priorities focus on local needs, though many
have relevance to communities across the Nation, which we hope will
benefit from the lessons we learn in MSP.
Increasing and Sustaining the Quantity and Quality of Pre-K-12
Mathematics and Science Teachers
The first key element of the El Paso MSP addresses our efforts to
increase and improve the quantity and quality of certified math and
science teachers across our twelve partner districts. Strategies
include roles for partners at UTEP, EPCC, the El Paso Collaborative for
Academic Excellence, the Region 19 Educational Service Center, as well
as participating districts, and range from increasing the number of
fully certified math and science teachers, to providing intensive
professional development to in-service teachers, to encouraging high
school students to consider careers in math and science teaching.
Among the most notable accomplishments in the last year, are the
enhancement of a Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics (MATM) and the
establishment of a Master of Arts in Teaching Science (MATS) program.
Currently, 15 high school Mathematics teachers and 21 Science teachers
are supported by the El Paso MSP and enrolled in courses leading to a
Master's degree. In addition, a Pre-MAT program has been established to
support prospective Master's participants who do not have the required
prerequisites--most notably in college-level Calculus. Through the El
Paso MSP, UTEP faculty have also developed a Physical Science degree
plan for the MATS focusing on Physics and Chemistry.
Identifying and supporting prospective teachers is also taking
place through promotion of alternative certification for prospective
teachers with math and science backgrounds, high school teaching magnet
programs and the recruitment of undergraduate engineering students into
secondary math/science teaching.
Local concerns--that also reflect national trends--pertaining to
support for new math and science teachers are being addressed through a
newly established teacher induction program, into which new teachers
have been enrolled and participate in an intensive two-year support
program.
Intensive support for current teachers is being provided through
MSP-supported Staff Developers--a highly qualified cadre of math and
science master teachers--who provide professional development,
sustained and connected over time, in teachers' classrooms. The focus
of the Staff Developers' work includes support for teachers in covering
topics and activities most central to improving the quality of their
teaching.
Building School and District Capacity
The second key element of the El Paso MSP focuses on supporting the
improvement of math and science instruction in pre-K-12 classrooms via
leadership at the school and district levels, as well as support for
increased parent engagement.
The MSP recognizes that a factor critical to implementing and
sustaining standards-based instruction is the ability of school
administrators to facilitate and actively support teacher efforts for
improving teaching and learning. Principal Academies include attention
to results-based reform efforts, data analysis, strategic planning, and
content-focused coaching aimed at the successful implementation of the
K-16 math and science curriculum frameworks. In addition, regular,
ongoing meetings are held with superintendents and other district
leaders to ensure coherence, consistency, ownership, and support for
all MSP goals and activities.
Finally, the El Paso MSP recognizes the role of parents and the
community in supporting math and science reform. Key efforts include
monthly meetings for parent teams from area schools addressing the
importance of high-level mathematics and science for preparation for
higher education, and the role parents play in supporting greater
student achievement. Parents' sessions also address State standards,
and the rigors and demanding nature of the State assessment.
Discussions also center on the expectations of students and
implications of the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act. Community engagement
through the El Paso MSP has also focused on preparation for higher
education.
Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment of Mathematics and
Science Education
To support students in achieving higher levels of mathematical and
scientific understanding in preparation for higher education, the El
Paso MSP is working with mathematicians and scientists from UTEP and
EPCC, along with pre-K-12 teachers, in developing high level
mathematics and science curriculum course frameworks that will guide
instruction and assessment at all levels. To date, frameworks have been
developed in K-12 mathematics, Algebra I and Algebra II. This year,
work is commencing with Geometry, and Chemistry and Physics.
The institutionalization of the curriculum frameworks will be
carried out through the development and enactment of policies
pertaining to the implementation of the frameworks across local
districts, EPCC and UTEP. Also critical will be the alignment and
integration of the frameworks with instruction provided by post-
secondary educators, including math/science teacher faculty at both
higher education institutions.
Increasing College-Going Rates
Along with the improvement of science and mathematics education, a
priority of MSP is to ensure that increasing numbers of El Paso area
students recognize the importance of a post-secondary education and
early preparation for college. The fourth key element of the El Paso
MSP focuses on: 1) increasing college-going rates through the THINK
COLLEGE NOW Initiative; 2) increasing attention to the work of
counselors in supporting students' preparation for higher education;
and, 3) implementing the College of Engineering's Infinity Project--a
curriculum for high school students that addresses concepts and skills
related to engineering.
Implementing a Research Agenda that Advances Knowledge and
Understanding about the Systemic Improvement of Mathematics and
Science Instruction
The final key element in the El Paso MSP recognizes that research
on the impact of MSP efforts informs critically important decisions
about what works, where, and under what conditions. Priorities include
the implementation of math/science field based research pedagogical
laboratories, which are underway; research training for El Paso MSP
Staff Developers and District Directors; and the awarding of small
research grants to teachers.
Responses to Specific Questions
How will you ensure that participants--mathematicians, scientists,
and engineers from higher education as well as K-12 teachers and
administrators--remain active in the program? What role, if any, will
businesses and non-profit organizations play in the partnership?
The involvement of El Paso MSP partners across higher education and
pre-K-12 institutions, as well as in the business and non-profit
community, is focused on building a long-term commitment toward shared
goals for the students in the El Paso community. This commitment starts
with the leadership at higher education institutions and school
districts--many of whom play key roles in the El Paso MSP. Beyond the
fulfillment of the priorities laid out, these leaders are focused on
ways in which our partnership can sustain itself for the long term. The
University of Texas at El Paso, for example, has committed to
graduating more credentialed mathematics and science teachers and
increasing the number of teachers holding math and science masters
degrees. MSP districts, too, are committed to continue prioritizing and
supporting mathematics and science education after MSP, including the
use of district resources to support continued intensive professional
development and acquisition of the best standards-based math and
science materials. El Paso MSP partners, including business, community
organizations and civic leaders, will continue to participate actively
in promoting key MSP priorities, including making presentations to
students, parents and community groups about the importance of math and
science literacy and of going to college.
What type of professional development will your partnership provide
for pre-service and in-service teachers? How will improvements in
teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
Professional development for both pre-service and in-service
teachers will be provided to increase and sustain the quantity and
quality of pre-K-12 mathematics and science teachers. Teachers' content
knowledge will also be enhanced by the K-16 curriculum alignment
frameworks that include expectations about what student should know and
be able to do from kindergarten through higher education.
Assessing the impact of these efforts in supporting both teacher
content knowledge and pedagogy will occur through a combination of
strategies. Teachers receiving a Master's of Arts in Teaching either
Mathematics or Science will be required to have attained Master's-level
content knowledge in order to graduate. At the same time, prospective
teachers coming to the profession through alternative certification and
engineering backgrounds will be expected to have mastered their content
knowledge in order to proceed with their certification. The familiarity
of both pre-service and in-service teachers with the rigorous content
addressed in the frameworks, and its integration into classroom
practices will also be measured. Classroom teacher observation
protocols and surveys, for example, will provide a guide for formative
evaluation of teachers' progress in implementing the content addressed
in the frameworks.
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education
reform models and achieve your partnership goals? How will the
partnership coordinate with State educational agencies to foster and
sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?
The support we have received from the National Science Foundation
has been extremely beneficial in allowing us to develop and refine our
reform models from which longer-term implementation and sustainability
can be built. This work is an enormously costly proposition. Over the
past 20 years, we have seen first-hand that making the transformations
expected through the partnership are expensive and take significant
time. What has been so valuable is the significant NSF investment in
promoting the value of our pre-K-16 partnerships and those in other
communities. This leadership and attention to our work has also allowed
the El Paso MSP to more effectively leverage resources from our own
community.
Though we do not directly coordinate our efforts with the Texas
Educational Agency, we continue to share products and lessons from the
work of the El Paso MSP. One key example, will be the broader
dissemination of the mathematics and science curriculum frameworks,
which have applicability across every school in the State.
Plans for Evaluation of the El Paso Math/Science Partnership
As you can see, the El Paso MSP is an ambitious initiative with
multiple and interrelated components. Thus to evaluate it, we must
monitor the implementation and results of many strands of activity
within a clear, overarching framework. Our evaluation has two key aims:
accountability through the rigorous measurement of results; and ongoing
improvement in our programs.
We believe in holding ourselves accountable for measuring change in
the lives of young people. We have begun with the identification of key
objectives and benchmarks for which indicators have been developed to
measure the major outcomes of the Partnership. Examples include trends
regarding the percent of area students passing the mathematics and
science portions of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, and
the percent of students completing a college-preparatory high school
program. We use student data to identify the overall results of our
efforts and to highlight areas in which more work is needed. Looking at
student achievement and attainment over time is an indispensable part
of our work, and we appreciate federal support for the collection and
rigorous analysis of student data.
In order to enhance our program we utilize evaluation planning,
data collection and reporting that include the systematic monitoring of
interrelated program improvements intended to contribute to success on
each outcome indicator. We examine the extent to which we are achieving
our numerical benchmarks and track backwards to examine interim steps
and program interventions that influenced their outcomes.
Because we are committed to improving the programs that our
partnership has launched in El Paso, we need to gather and
systematically analyze evidence about those programs in our own
context. We welcome this nation's growing commitment to supporting
experimental research in education, while recognizing that full-blown
experimental trials cannot provide all the answers that our MSP
partnership needs. We have programs in place right now that have
achieved varying degrees of success which we need to understand in
detail. While we await better answers from the education research
community, we are working with an external evaluator to conduct
comparisons and analyses, on the ground, in our own classrooms.
The program elements of the El Paso MSP are intended to make a
difference in the supply of well-qualified math and science teachers,
in school and district leadership, in classroom practices, and
ultimately in student achievement. Our evaluation plan takes into
account that all partners have roles to play, and multiple new and
established programs to support. Thus, our evaluation plan will focus
attention on the following: the implementation of key program elements
across participating districts, schools, and post-secondary
departments; the short-term results of implementation; and how the
presence or absence of particular program elements contributes to
longer-term results.
For example, we will analyze enrollment and completion statistics
in a college-preparatory core curriculum, by district, feeder pattern,
and student group. Where students are not completing this curriculum at
the desired rate, we will identify the courses they are not completing
and the program interventions in those subjects that they have or have
not experienced. We will also analyze relevant data on school
leadership, counseling, and classroom practices affecting those
students. These comparative analyses of different conditions and
supports across schools will point the way to improvement in our
efforts.
Similarly, we will look at the rates at which prospective teachers
are entering and completing each of the pathways to certification
introduced or enhanced through support from the El Paso MSP. Profiles
of typical enrollees in each pathway will be compared. Through surveys
of participants (and non-participants, such as engineering students who
do not choose to enter teaching), we will identify reasons for entry
and persistence in these certification routes.
Staff Developers' work will be analyzed from several related
perspectives. Teachers and Lead Learners will provide data on the kinds
of support they receive from Staff Developers. Through classroom
observation, we will follow-up to measure the results of this support
infrastructure. The work of Staff Developers will also be examined as
one component in a more comprehensive system of teacher induction and
support that may help in teacher retention as well as the improvement
of classroom practice. We will identify facilitating mechanisms and
barriers to effective staff development that may exist in district and
State policies, principals' actions, teachers' schedules, and the
learning opportunities available to the Staff Developers themselves.
The evaluation questions about alignment will also be addressed
through measures of the enacted curriculum. In addition, we will look
at progress in curriculum alignment all the way from elementary through
post-secondary education.
The research component of the El Paso MSP will be a subject of our
evaluation in its own right, as a significant intervention intended to
engage classroom teachers, post-secondary faculty, and others in
systematic reflection on practice and results. We will study the
operations of such key elements as the collaborative working
relationships between post-secondary faculty and pre-K-12 teachers,
which have traditionally proved difficult to establish. We will also
incorporate the results of teacher research into our inquiry.
In summary, by tracking back from key benchmark indicators to the
specific mechanisms intended to affect them, by understanding instances
of success and failure and by taking into account the mutually
reinforcing nature of related program efforts, we expect to generate
reports that are realistic, useful, and analytically sound. Evaluation
is helping us hold ourselves accountable for results, and it is helping
us strengthen our programs as we go forward.
Lessons Learned
Let me share with you some of the lessons we have already learned
over the 13 months of implementing MSP. First, we have learned that
this work must be undertaken K-16. Reforming K-12 will only work for
the long-term if our teacher preparation programs in colleges and
universities have themselves improved, if they too are focused on the
best national content standards, if they are also aggressively working
toward fully engaging students in the learning process. And, given that
teacher preparation encompasses the entire University, not just
Colleges of Education, those that educate prospective teachers in the
core subject areas--the Colleges of Science and Liberal Arts--must also
work toward improving teacher quality.
A second lesson learned is that partnerships must address the issue
of K-16 curriculum alignment, that is, seamlessly linking what is
taught at each point in the education continuum--from elementary,
middle and high school--with what is expected and taught at community
college and at university. The MSP Mathematics and Science Alignment
brings together K-12 teachers from all MSP school districts, MSP staff
developers, as well as mathematics faculty from the El Paso Community
College, and faculty from UTEP's Colleges of Education, Engineering and
Science. A major goal of the initiative is to develop course outlines
along with curriculum frameworks, that will be implemented by teachers
across the twelve districts. Those outlines and frameworks provide
clear and specific information about math and science content at each
grade level that all students must understand and be able to do and the
level of rigor demand at which they must be able to do them in order to
prepare for college level mathematics and science. The outline is
mapped to textbooks and materials used by the districts and is not
limited to any one adopted mathematics program. We have completed work
on Algebra I and II, as well as K-8 and are beginning work on Geometry,
K-8 science and the high school science courses.
A third lesson learned is that we must ensure a full and robust set
of support and assistance mechanisms necessary for building school
capacity. Our professional development work is focused on building
knowledge and leadership about school improvement and institutional
change among principals and other site administrators, district
leaders, college and university faculty and deans. We have, however,
prioritized teachers and making sure that all who teach math and
science are fully qualified. MSP is helping to do that through
increasing the number of teachers certified and earning masters in math
and science. In addition, we also provide professional development to
ensure a deep understanding of concepts, among in-service teachers to
the point where they can build student capacity to do high level math
and science. We not only focus on content but also on pedagogical
content. That is, implementation of instructional practices appropriate
to specific math and science concepts. This deepening of knowledge and
practice requires a reorganization of where and how we deliver
professional development. The majority of that development is now
provided in classrooms by MSP staff developers, thus bridging the
teacher learning and practice gap. Through all of this professional
development work, we continue to raise issues of teacher and
administrator beliefs and attitudes about who can learn--and who
cannot--and support educators to begin to come to terms with their
beliefs and the impact of those beliefs on their students' achievement.
Conclusion
Woven throughout this brief picture of our MSP work I trust that
you've been able to see the elements that are critical to us:
Equity
Partnerships--in particularly K-16 partnerships
Deep commitments and understanding about what all
children deserve.
This is work very much in progress. We've had our share of things
that have worked very well--and those that haven't. Through it all we
remain committed to continuing to learn what it takes to bring about
real and lasting improvements for every single student in our
community.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify, and for
your interest in the El Paso Math/Science Partnership. I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
Biography for M. Susana Navarro
Susana Navarro graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso
with a major in political science in 1968. After working at the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights in Washington on a landmark study of Mexican
American education, she began her graduate studies at Stanford
University, where she received her Ph.D. in educational psychology in
1980.
After earning her doctorate, she worked with the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) for five years as National
Director of Research and Policy Analysis. From 1985 until early 1991,
she worked with the Achievement Council, a statewide non-profit
organization in California, which she helped create, as Associate then
Executive Director.
In 1991, she returned to El Paso, where with regional education,
business and civic leaders, she founded the El Paso Collaborative for
Academic Excellence, an organization which she has headed since its
inception. The Collaborative, a city-wide effort to improve academic
achievement among all young El Pasoans, is now in its twelfth year of
operation and has become a national model for urban school reform. Dr.
Navarro's work has been featured in numerous national publications,
including Education Week, The Chronicle of Higher Education and Phi
Delta Kappan. She serves as Principal Investigator for the El Paso
Mathematics and Science Partnership, a $30 million grant, which was
awarded to the Collaborative in 2002. In addition to MSP and other
grants from the National Science Foundation, the Collaborative has
received support for its systemic reform work from the Pew Charitable
Trusts, the U.S. Department of Education, the Lucent Foundation, Exxon
and the Coca Cola Foundation, among others.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR
THE COMPREHENSIVE MSP GRANT AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith and
Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear here
before the Subcommittee and provide testimony on the Math
Science Partnership Program, and in our particular case, the
project PROM/SE, which is currently at its very early stages of
implementation at Michigan State University, in collaboration
with our five partner consortia.
I am the co-leader of PROM/SE with my colleague at Michigan
State, Dr. William Schmidt, who had a lead role in TIMSS, the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study. This effort
has just been launched in the past month. We are grateful to
the National Science Foundation for this opportunity to have a
major impact on mathematics and science learning, and frankly,
we are daunted by the enormity of the task.
PROM/SE is a comprehensive research and development effort
to improve mathematics and science teaching and learning in
grades K-12. It is based on assessment of students and
teachers, improvement of standards and frameworks, and the
preparation and professional development of teachers.
I emphasize that our partnership is a research and
development effort. We are committed to understanding through
this work how the multiple models for improving teaching and
learning that we will build within PROM/SE actually will impact
student learning in a range of ethnic, cultural, racial and
economic settings that are so diverse that they mirror the
diversity of the Nation.
PROM/SE is a partnership among six entities. Five of these
are K-12 consortia of school districts in Michigan and Ohio,
together with Michigan State University. The project is large
in scope. We intend to impact nearly 400,000 students through
work with hundreds of teachers across nearly 70 school
districts.
The goals are straightforward. First, we intend to use
empirical evidence as a basis for our efforts to improve
mathematics and science learning. We will assess students in
grades three through twelve using TIMSS-like instruments and
other instruments that are being designed currently, and we
will survey teachers and administrators about their
instruction, about their contexts and about their curricula.
Secondly, we will work with our partners to develop and to
agree upon challenging content standards that will work to
align instruction and assessment in those local districts with
these standards. Mathematicians, scientists, school leaders,
all together will work to accomplish this design of standards
and action teams that bring together people from higher
education and from the K-12 partners.
Third, we are interested in designing professional
development that helps all teachers have the capacity to teach
to these high standards, and that emphasizes subject matter
knowledge in ways that support teachers in their daily work in
classrooms. The professional development involves a model of
building level associations, called PROM/SE associates, as well
as the technologically-based resource system that will be
designed, again, by our mathematicians, scientists and
educators.
Fourth, at Michigan State University, we are engaged in
rethinking the ways in which future teachers are prepared to
teach, to high standards in mathematics and science, and the
MSP part of that work will be particularly focused in science.
Fifth, and ultimately, we are aiming to improve students'
learning and achievement across our districts, across our
partner sites and across the diversity that our project
encompasses.
In the TIMSS study, analysis of the curriculum standards in
the high-achieving countries showed that those standards were
mathematically and scientifically coherent. These tables
indicate down along the rows, essentially, a progression of
subject matter, from more straightforward, fundamental concepts
to more advanced concepts, and the columns suggest in which
grades these topics are typically treated across the high-
achieving countries, and you see, basically, this pattern of a
focus on depth, on central ideas, on beginning and ending ideas
across a relatively small grade span, and then moving on to
more sophisticated ideas.
In PROM/SE, we will work on standards and frameworks that
emphasize significant ideas in mathematics and science and that
convey high expectations for all students, and that are well-
articulated across the grades. TIMSS also provides the kind of
analytic tools that we will use as a starting point for our
decision-making and for gathering evidence.
Let me say more about what I mean by that. This table, or
this diagram, shows down in the lower right-hand corner the
results of student performance on an item about seesaws and
fulcrums. The graph on the left, and that student achievement
spans grades three through twelve, and you see an upward trend,
in the graph to the left, you see that achievement trend again,
and above it, in the line graph, you see how much time is
devoted to the teaching of this topic across the grades three
through eight. You can imagine that as we put together sets of
items and take these sorts of measurements, and take a look at
what is going on in our partner districts, we will be able to
tell lots of stories, in particular about what is happening
within areas of the content, and these analyses will provide us
with the basis for our work in PROM/SE.
The professional development efforts in the projects will
use this evidence. Structurally, the model rests, in part, on
our work with PROM/SE associates. These will be teachers who
represent schools across the partnership and will serve as
resources, coaches and math science experts for their
colleagues. We will build technological resources that these
teachers can access at all levels.
Very briefly, because we are just beginning, the five-year
project begins with assessment and identification of the
associates, continues with data analysis standards revision and
professional development. PROM/SE provides a number of
opportunities as well as challenges. Let me discuss them.
First, despite the scale of the project, our approach, with
this emphasis on data and evidence, we hope will allow us to
customize the PROM/SE activities to local needs. Districts will
be able to select the areas of mathematics and science content
that they feel need special attention and work together with
the PROM/SE team to focus on those areas.
It is our hope that the professional development we provide
will be layered in ways that enables teachers with differing
needs to access it in individual ways. For example, more
seasoned teachers who are looking to refresh their subject
matter knowledge will need to be able to access this material
in one way. Newer teachers who are looking for interesting
lesson ideas and ways to support their day to day practice may
need to access it in a different way, and we are hopeful that
we will be able to produce materials and compile materials that
allow all of these sorts of options.
We are already learning that an initiative such as PROM/SE
involves building new ways of communicating among
mathematicians, scientists, educators, classroom teachers and
school administrators. This is about building new communities
with strong communication channeled through them.
We will be producing standards that we hope can serve as
national models, and finally, I reiterate that we are strongly
committed to research, to learning about how change and
improvement can be effected and sharing what we learn
nationally through this project.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferrini-Mundy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joan Ferrini-Mundy
Good afternoon Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and Members
of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee
and provide testimony on the Math and Science Partnership Project--
PROM/SE--presently at the early stage of implementation at Michigan
State University. Michigan State University and its five K-12
partners--St. Clair County, Ingham County, and Calhoun County
Intermediate School Districts in Michigan, and the High AIMS and SMART
consortia in Ohio--have joined in Project PROM/SE (Promoting Rigorous
Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education), and on September 26,
2003 were notified that their $35,000,000 Math Science Partnership
project would be funded by the National Science Foundation. At Michigan
State University, Dr. William Schmidt and I are the co-leaders of this
effort.
Partnership goals
PROM/SE has four goals:
Gather empirical evidence as a basis for revising
content standards, aligning instructional materials with those
standards, and monitoring student learning.
Improve mathematics and science opportunities for all
students, especially those from under-represented and
disadvantaged groups by developing more coherent, focused and
challenging content standards; aligning standards with
instructional materials; and eliminating tracking in grades K-
8.
Improve mathematics and science teaching so it is
aligned with standards, through subject specific professional
development.
Reform the preparation of future teachers so that
teachers at all levels are ready to teach challenging
mathematics and science to diverse student populations.
Our theory of how to improve achievement for all children is
simple: we need to understand what students know, what standards
expect, and what teachers teach, and work to improve all three. At the
outset, students in grades 3-12 across the partner sites will be
assessed in mathematics and science, using items from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), as well as other
instruments. Teachers will be surveyed about background, knowledge,
preparation, and topics that they teach, and districts will be surveyed
about their standards, instructional materials, and professional
development. On the basis of data, we will review and revise standards,
analyze alignment of standards with curriculum and teaching practice,
and provide professional development for teacher leaders, teacher
participants, and guidance counselors. Related reform in the MSU
teacher education program will be undertaken during this same five-year
period together through Teachers for a New Era, a project funded by the
Carnegie Corporation.
Lessons learned to date
Although our MSP funding has only recently been announced, this
group of partners has been working together to design and envision our
effort for more than two years. In particular, the partners share a
commitment to the use of data and evidence as key tools in the revision
and strengthening of standards and the design and implementation of
professional development of teachers so that teachers will be well
equipped to teach to high standards. The ultimate goal is improved
learning and achievement in mathematics and science for all students.
We are learning that it is crucial to build on the infrastructures
that exist in each of these distinct K-12 partners, including the
professional development efforts already underway through local
resources in all of these areas, and the grade-by-grade standards that
are being developed in States to address No Child Left Behind. For
instance, MSU has collaborated extensively with our partner in the St.
Clair ISD through a project called Promoting Results in Science and
Math (PRISM). Initiated in 2000, PRISM is a multi-year collaboration
between the ISD and MSU to evaluate and improve the quality of the
curriculum and teaching for all students. The first phase involved a
thorough analysis of the curriculum. TIMSS assessments were
administered in May 2001 to about 17,000 students in grades 3-12. Using
these data, St. Clair ISD began in the fall of 2002 the design and
implementation of a reformed curriculum and of a customized
professional development approach based on the data. St. Clair's
experience serves as a showcase for the partnership's evidence-based
approach.
Our extensive baseline data-gathering will ensure that we can
tailor our program to the unique needs and circumstances of our 69
participating school districts. Each will have access to the results of
students' performance and analysis of standards and teacher practice,
so that it will be possible to build on a base of knowledge that serves
as the foundation for continued improvement.
We also are learning that the enormous challenges of communication
and relationship building are central in a project of this magnitude.
Engaging school personnel in decision-making and implementation of
project ideas from the outset, helping stake-holders within the school
communities come to understand and develop commitment to the premises
of PROM/SE, and enabling the project working groups to build new
cultures and norms that span mathematics, science, education, and the
world of the K-12 schools, are crucial to the success of PROM/SE.
Ensuring that participants remain active in the program
In addition to the hundreds of teachers and school leaders who will
have direct roles in the program, and the thousands of teachers who
will benefit from the professional development resources that will be
designed, more than 50 Michigan State University scientists,
mathematicians, and education faculty have agreed to participate in
various roles in the project. They will be able to be part of the
assessment design and analysis, the design and implementation of the
professional development, and the revision and analysis of standards.
Two of the MSU co-PIs, Dr. Peter Bates (Chair of the Department of
Mathematics) and Dr. George Leroi (Dean of the College of Natural
Science) are well positioned to promote and reward the engagement of
MSU faculty.
The design of the project relies on sustained participation of
personnel in the K-12 sites, including Site Coordinators and PROM/SE
Associates, who will work closely with MSU faculty in all aspects of
the project. We anticipate that PROM/SE will generate new
collaborations and relationships among groups that have not
traditionally engaged together in work of this type. Such
collaborations are likely to lead to new project and spin-off efforts
during the five years of PROM/SE, and, we hope, in the post-PROM/SE
years as well.
Tailoring PROM/SE to the unique needs of the participating school
districts
With its emphasis on evidence-based improvement, PROM/SE is
designed to be responsive to the particular and unique needs of the
participating partners. We anticipate finding certain areas of
mathematics and science that are strong in some sites, and that need
improvement in others, and will build a comprehensive professional
development system that allows these sites to access the key areas in
which they wish to focus. In addition, because we will be examining
local standards in use in the districts, together with data about
teachers' instruction, we will have a baseline for articulating the
different emphases and instructional priorities across the partner
sites. We will build accordingly on these differences in all project
efforts.
Because our five K-12 partners span a range of socioeconomic and
contextual situations, we also stand to learn a great deal about the
ways in which this variation interacts with efforts to improve
standards and instructional practice. This requires acknowledging and
understanding the differences among the participating districts.
Professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers
Richard Elmore describes the challenges that today's accountability
climate creates for teachers in schools: teachers, administrators, and
guidance counselors are being asked to ``do something new--engage in
systematic, continuous improvement in the quality of the educational
experience of students and to subject themselves to the discipline of
measuring their success by the metric of students' academic
performance'' (Elmore, 2002, p. 3). He goes on to assert that few
people in K-12 schools are prepared, either through their education or
previous experience, to do this. Indeed, our approach in PROM/SE is to
help teachers build and use tools, based on evidence, that will help
them in this new climate, and to model how this might be achieved
nationally. The PROM/SE professional development (PD) model will have
as a unique resource the detailed evidence base that allows us to build
on information about student achievement, teachers' understanding of
the subject matter, the nature of district standards and their
alignment with instructional materials. Teachers need to know where
students have difficulty, what kinds of difficulties they have, and how
to help them overcome them, while moving toward significant content
goals in mathematics and science.
Elmore makes the interesting point that ``if most of what teachers
learn about practice they learn from their own practice, it is
imperative to make the conditions and context of that practice
supportive of high and cumulative levels of achievement for all
students'' (Elmore, 2002, p. 19). This has implications for where,
when, and how professional development occurs; it needs to be
physically close to where the teaching occurs; it needs to happen while
teachers are teaching; and the curriculum of professional development
needs to be based on the content and challenges that arise for teachers
in classrooms. Our model involves a combination of summer experiences
and academic year offerings, as well as virtual professional
development. By involving principals and counselors, as well as
district leaders, we are addressing context and conditions. Our
strategy combines a teacher-leader (coaching) model with a technology-
based PD curriculum.
Because the students we are trying to impact are located in all of
the more than 700 school buildings that our partnership encompasses and
because we wish to leave no child behind, we are committed in our PD to
``leaving no building behind.'' This means identifying a resource
person for mathematics and for science (the same person for elementary
schools) in each school together with the principal and in the case of
secondary schools, a counselor as well. The role of PROM/SE Associates
will be to understand the data, the way that the data can be used to
drive improvement, and the notion of tying instruction and
instructional materials to challenging and coherent standards. And, it
will be teams of PROM/SE Associates, working with MSU personnel and
other district leaders, who actually do the revision of the district
and partner standards--an important element for their own professional
development.
The professional development for the Associates will occur during
summer institutes, weekend workshops in the academic year, and
virtually through on-line offerings. The first summer institutes will
focus on the revision of standards on the basis of information about
student achievement, teacher characteristics, and district context.
Associates will also have opportunities to learn about leadership,
coaching, and working with their peers to improve mathematics and
science teaching. Associates will be prepared to work locally in their
districts on the standards revision process, on using student data, and
on helping teachers work with a wide array of instructional practices
and materials to align them with local standards. The Associates will
begin their work with the larger group of Teacher Participants in
partner-site based weekend workshops and in summer institutes.
Associates will be involved in providing site-based, ongoing PD for
teachers in their districts in the ensuing academic years.
Through the PROM/SE Associates and the MSU-based PROM/SE staff, we
ultimately plan to provide PD directly for about 25 percent of the
teachers of mathematics and science in our partner sites; these 4500
teachers will have opportunities to come to summer institutes and
academic year workshops sponsored through the project, and to work
directly with the District Associates in their buildings. The remaining
12,500 teachers of mathematics and science in the partner sites also
will benefit from the activity of PROM/SE; the data and evidence to be
gathered in each partner site will be widely available, and the revised
content standards will be a resource for all teachers.
Research indicates that professional development should be focused
on a well-articulated mission, aimed at improving student learning,
content driven, derived from analysis of student learning of specific
content in a specific setting, based on instructional materials that
the teachers are using, and connected with the specific issues of
instruction and student learning in the context of actual classrooms
(see, for example, Ball, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Elmore, 2002, p.7;
Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). The PROM/SE PD model will incorporate all
of these views, and will have as a unique resource the detailed
evidence base that allows us to build on information about students'
learning and teachers' understanding of the subject matter. We regard
the ongoing professional development of teachers in the partner sites
as the most crucial intervention of our PROM/SE activity. Our
professional development has three main goals. We will enable teachers
to:
use evidence about student learning to influence
their teaching practice
use coherent and rigorous content standards as a
guide to providing all children with opportunities to learn
challenging mathematics and science
employ instructional practices and materials in ways
that align with those standards
At this time we envision these professional development activities
to be organized topically and to span the K-12 spectrum. Mathematics
and science topics will ultimately be determined by what we learn from
the data-gathering phase, but we can predict some areas at this time:
functions; rational numbers and proportional reasoning; and data and
statistics, for example, in mathematics, and properties and changes of
matter, structure and functions of living systems, and structure of
earth systems in science. In our planning discussions, the K-12 partner
sites have expressed a number of needs for their teachers, which
include: ``how to help teachers develop and implement more rigorous and
coherent curriculum'' (St. Clair County), ``how to build capacity for
coaching and building-level support'' (Ingham), ``getting a handle on
data collection and how to use data'' (High AIMS), and ``doing gap
analysis, and delivering the content effectively'' (Calhoun). The
partners express a sense that teachers' subject matter knowledge for
different areas of the curriculum is uneven, and are concerned that
teachers who seem to ``have the content'' are still unable to ``deliver
the curriculum.''
After teachers have participated in summer institutes and project
workshops, the project will also provide academic year connection to
PROM/SE virtually, through a variety of on-line professional
development resources for teachers, designed in a virtual PROM/SE
Professional Development System. The idea is to establish--beginning
with the initial assessment--a culture of collaborative learning, goal-
setting and lesson planning, implementation, assessment and evaluation
similar to that observed in Japan (Jacobs et al., 1997; Stigler &
Hiebert, 1999). We envision using technology both as a repository for
resources designed especially for this project, as well as material
selected and embedded into our project context. For example, video-
conferencing may make possible the sharing of progress, ranging from
full district reports on particular innovations, to crafted lessons by
a particular group of teachers in a given school. We will examine
various platforms, as possible tools to help teachers ``make their
teaching visible'' by creating their own video library of their
practice and by developing their capacity to interact with these
videos. PROM/SE Associates will be prepared to help teachers in their
districts videotape lessons in the focal topic areas for site-based or
on-line professional development discussions and will encourage the
sharing of these videos within schools as well as across schools within
and beyond their district. We will promote the use of monitored chat
rooms as well. We will also expand and adapt a set of on-line courses
already successfully implemented at MSU to facilitate professional
development as part of the Virtual PD; these courses eventually will
become part of a set of master's offerings for in-service teachers
interested in refreshing their mathematics and science content
knowledge.
Assessing improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy
Beginning with the baseline assessment activities, we will be
designing and using new tools for examining teaching knowledge and
practice. Over the course of the project we plan to design special
studies in selected areas to look more deeply at the relationship of
teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as it
relates to student achievement and to classroom practice. This
collection of coordinated research studies will allow us to gain a
deeper understanding of these complex relationships. These studies will
be designed in consultation with our National Advisors and with the
project evaluator.
Coordination with State agencies
MSU faculty in the PROM/SE team have been deeply involved in
efforts to revise the Michigan Department of Education Mathematics
Standards, and thus have current connections with key State officials
involved in assessment and standards. In addition, personnel from the
Michigan and Ohio Departments of Education will be invited to serve as
members of the project advisory boards and action teams. We will pay
particular attention to the maintenance and growth of these
relationships over time so that State personnel come to know the
capacity that will be generated through PROM/SE, in terms of school and
university faculty who can become engaged in State efforts in
mathematics and science education.
Sufficient resources to develop and test our models
We have found that, with the announcement of PROM/SE, a number of
districts are inquiring about joining the project--and the PROM/SE
Executive Management Team is developing policies and guidelines for the
addition of new partners, with the notion that new partners will need
to bring their own resources to this effort.
PROM/SE is an ambitious project of enormous scope and complexity.
The project team holds as a high priority the idea that we will conduct
research around the activities of PROM/SE, so that this effort can
provide us with models and understandings of how improvements of this
type can be implemented in a range of contexts. We believe the
resources are indeed sufficient for the implementation that is planned
in PROM/SE, but to conduct the kind of research and evaluation that can
truly help us learn from this project and others like it will require
additional resources.
Conclusion
The Math Science Partnership Program provides an exciting
opportunity for significant improvement of mathematics and science
teaching and learning across educational levels beginning in the
earliest grades and through the undergraduate years. The improvement
toward which all of us in the MSP Programs strive should not be the
sole measure of the success of this substantial investment. In
addition, we need, as educators and citizens, to learn from the MSP
program about the ways in which models, embedded experiments and
innovations, and particular implementations of different theories of
action all interact with these improvement efforts. Resources and
capacity for building strong research agendas around the MSP programs
would seem to be essential to ensure a lasting and sustained benefit
from this important set of initiatives.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. L. (1997). Developing mathematics reform: What don't we know
about teacher learning--but would make good working hypotheses.
In S.N. Friel & G.S. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF
Teacher Enhancement in K-6 Mathematics (pp. 77-110). Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom
performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers
College Record, 102(2), 294-343.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and
achievement. Albert Shanker Institute.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and
mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Price, J. & Jacobs, J.E. (1997). Teaching, Learning, and Learning
Teaching: The Exxon/Cal Poly Conference on the Preparation and
Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers. Reston VA:
NCTM.
Stigler, J.W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from
the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom.
New York: The Free Press.
Biography for Joan Ferrini-Mundy
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and
Mathematics Education in the College of Natural Science at Michigan
State University, where she is also a Professor of Mathematics and
Teacher Education. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy has worked in mathematics teacher
education since 1982 when she co-founded the SummerMath for Teachers
Program at Mount Holyoke College. Since that time she has been the
principal investigator of several State, federal, and foundation grants
in research and teacher education, both at the University of New
Hampshire, where she was on the Mathematics Faculty for 16 years and
directed the Master of Science for Teachers Program, and at MSU.
Ferrini-Mundy served as a Visiting Scientist in NSF's Teacher
Enhancement Program (1989-91), and as Director of the Mathematical
Sciences Education Board at the National Research Council (1995-1999).
She received the Louise Hay Award for Contributions to Mathematics
Education from the Association for Women in Mathematics in 1999, and
won awards for teaching and for public service at UNH, as well as the
Balomenos Award from the New Hampshire Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. Ferrini-Mundy has been active in the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (e.g., Chair of the Writing Group for
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, member of the Board of
Directors, Chair of the Standards Impact Research Group), the American
Mathematical Society, and the Mathematical Association of America.
Currently, Ferrini-Mundy serves as co-PI of the MSU Teachers for A
New Era Initiative, a reform of the MSU Teacher Education Program,
funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and partner foundations.
Ferrini-Mundy also directs an NSF-funded research project, ``A Study of
the Algebra Knowledge for Teaching'' and is a Co-director of the NSF-
funded ``Study of the Development of Leaders in Mathematics and Science
Education.'' With Dr. William Schmidt, she serves as co-leader of the
recently awarded NSF Math and Science Partnership project ``Promoting
Rigorous Outcomes in Science and Mathematics Education'' (PROM/SE). She
served on the Mathematical Sciences Education Board RAND Mathematics
Study Panel (2000-2002), the NAEP Mathematics Assessment Framework
Committee (2002), the ACHIEVE Mathematics Advisory Panel (1999-2002),
the TIMSS 2003 Expert Panel (2002-2003), and the NSF EHR Mathematics
Education Portfolio Review Expert Panel (2003-present). Ferrini-Mundy's
publications include edited books, textbooks, chapters, and papers. She
is a frequent presenter at national and international meetings, and
participates as an advisor to several mathematics and science education
projects and initiatives across the Nation. Her research interests span
calculus teaching and learning, the development of teachers'
mathematical knowledge for teaching, and K-12 mathematics education
reform.
Discussion
Chairman Smith. Thank you. I am going to start with you,
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. What do you mean by improving math and
science learning? What does that mean?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. At a surface level, it means seeing
achievement scores go up, and we are----
Chairman Smith. Whose--so----
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy [continuing]. Absolutely committed to
that. The students, K-12 students.
Chairman Smith. Quality or quantity, how do you balance
quality and quantity?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I think we have to aim for both. We want
all students to show gains. We also want them to be learning
significant mathematics, important math and science skills, as
well as concepts, and so a big piece of our emphasis will be on
meeting and understanding. We want these students to be able to
use their mathematics and science, to apply it, to move to the
next level with understanding. And so a lot of this involves
designing assessments and working with assessments that let us
take a look at those kinds of features.
Chairman Smith. Any other comments in this area? Dr. Yasar?
Dr. Yasar. I know we are looking at the achievement scores,
but that--it may not tell the whole story, so in student
attitude and interest and their progress over a number of years
could tell us that students have learned from these projects.
Chairman Smith. I am glad to see representatives from our
educational area of NSF here, and from the Department of
Education. I mean just from my Michigan farms, a barnyard
standpoint, it seems to me like you need a capable teacher and
a capable student, and then you need motivation and balance and
that sort of comes down to the classroom. Mr. Mikols, Mr. Chi,
how do you motivate an unmotivated student, or isn't that the
right question?
Mr. Chi. Well, I would like to take a stab at trying to
answer that question. I think if we start with what that
student is interested in, I am sure that we could find the
science and find the math that is inherent in anything that
they are interested in. I think part of the reason why they
feel unmotivated is because they lack control, that they are
not pursuing interests that they have, and I think that being
able to seek out the concepts that are inherent in anything
that they are interested in is a way to draw them into the
science classroom and the math classroom and the technology
classroom. I think the MSP project provides that opportunity to
have a network available to any teacher to try to cross
disciplines and try to bring students in a variety of different
subjects.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Mikols, any thought then, and then Dr.
Navarro.
Mr. Mikols. Yeah, just to go with what Mr. Chi said, a lot
of time, student interest is so crucial, and if we can allow
students to pursue something that is of interest to them, and
then try to tie the mathematics and the science to that, then
the students are more likely to be motivated, because it is
something of their choosing. It is something of their design.
And allowing them to design the kinds of questions that then
need to be asked to pursue the problem that they are trying to
solve, and then working in the content with that. And
sometimes, it is just a matter of also offering students a
sampling of some of the different things that technology is
capable of doing, and exposing kids to things that they,
perhaps, haven't seen or thought of before, as well. And if you
can kind of mix those two ideas together, allowing some choice
for the student, but also opening things up for them, then
perhaps that will help with the motivation of students.
Chairman Smith. You had a comment, Dr. Navarro.
Dr. Navarro. What we have done is tried to get scientists
and engineers into the classroom to begin to show practical
applications of math and science learning. That begins to kind
of pique the interest of students, and we also try and provide
them information about what they can do, not only in terms of
practical applications of math and science, but how it has
implications for employment opportunities for the future, and
what the employment opportunities will result in financially
and in a variety of ways. That gets the interest of lots of
students.
Chairman Smith. You mentioned how important it was, K-16.
How about the technology that is moving into the assembly line
for a lot of these students that--I don't know what percentage
of your students go on to college, but how important do you
think just the math and science ability is going into the new
technology of computerized pressing and stamping operations and
molding operations?
Dr. Navarro. Well, that is one of the things that we have
realized, that it is tremendously important not just for
students that are going on to college, but for all students
that are hoping to try and find a job that will provide them a
living wage, and we are trying to make clear to students what
the linkages are between what they learn in math and science,
and again, what they will do in even a regular kind of job. It
doesn't necessarily have to be a college level job. That we
have found to be a tremendously important piece of information
that students and especially parents don't understand now, so
parents are less asking us why do my kids have to take Algebra
I and Algebra II. I think they are increasingly understanding
it because of the presentations we have made to parents, not
just educators, but business people as well.
Chairman Smith. Yes, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I think on this point, particularly in
mathematics, emphasis on some of the sorts of skills and
processes of the discipline can be really compelling in trying
to make the case that this prepares all people for all sorts of
workplaces, so problem-solving, reasoning, justification,
inquiring, being able to formulate conjectures, the sorts of
things that don't necessarily show up on lists of topics of
content, but that are crucial to the teaching of math and
science.
Chairman Smith. I think I had better move on. My time has
gone up, but we will do enough rounds to get all of your
answers and part of my questions. I mean, part of the goal of
this hearing is should we--is there anything we need to do in
changing NSF, the way we are peer reviewing, the way we are
modeling the goals of this science math partnership effort? So
we are looking for improvements of direction, how much
knowledge is out there that we probably might try to capture
some of the knowledge that is out there. Mr.--Dr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has given me a title
that I haven't earned yet.
Chairman Smith. You have earned it.
Mr. Honda. Well, I appreciate the presence of the witnesses
and your experiences, also, and they are all sort of
compartmentalized in terms of your area of expertise and
practice. But what I have heard was that they need to be
integrated and they need to be applied accordingly. To the
classroom teacher, Mr. Chi, and to Mr. Mikols or Mikols, I
appreciated your field-based experience and your insights. And
my question would be, given that experience and given those
insights, you have talked about, I guess, to paraphrase, sort
of integrating the subject matters and not compartmentalize
them is a critical thing, because we tend to school our
youngsters to compartmentalize everything from the get-go, and
by the time they are in high school or middle school, you know,
every subject is separate and they shouldn't be integrated. And
I think that that is a large mistake in something that, as a
policy, that may be a suggestion that you may want to think
about for board members. So I guess my question would be, based
upon your experience, which you have gathered now and some
insights, what policy changes would you recommend to the board,
not to superintendents, they are the implementers, but to the
board, so that you can enhance the kinds of things you see.
Integrating teacher energies and encouraging integrated
approaches to curriculum development and instructions, where
science and math are integrated with English and history,
because we want to have our youngsters feel that they have some
roots in some of the history. For instance, the Mayans had
astronomy and math as well developed as the Arabs and the Moors
had, and they both developed the concept of zero. You know,
youngsters from ethnic backgrounds are not taught that, that
they have a history, and so that can be integrated. It is going
to take a lot of work in terms of team building among the
instructors, but are those ideas that could be turned into
policies for school boards?
And then, as the national policy, should we be looking at
that rather than only curriculum development? Teacher
preparation, it seems to me, critical from what I am hearing,
and rather than only looking on--focusing on kids, I assume all
kids can learn, so my question is what policy implications do
you look at in terms of teacher preparation at a national
level? What you have experienced personally, I think, becomes
very powerful. My question to the researchers and the teachers
are--what you have learned now, is that replicated in--if you
do the research on literature, and if that is so, why are we
not making that next step? What is that next step in terms of a
national policy, so that we can move away from focusing on
student achievement, and talk about national expectations? And
it may come down to us putting resources where our mouth is,
and stop blaming the victims.
So, those are my questions. You may not have time to
respond to them all orally, but if you have a written response
that you wouldn't mind sharing, I would love to read it, and I
appreciate all of your experiences.
Dr. Yasar. Can I comment? There may be things to be done,
not only at the school district level, but also at higher
education. As you know, the target in our project is----
Chairman Smith. Turn your microphone on.
Dr. Yasar. Sorry. To have a formal education in CMST, in
other words, MST. If MST certification were recognized at the
station education departments, where teacher candidates get
their certification in MST, rather than just in mathematics or
in science and technology, they could be very useful in the
school districts. I have--some of my students who graduated
from other programs, who were exposed to education in math,
science and technology, in the school districts, they are
teaching not only mathematics, but also science and technology.
And for school districts, this is going to take care of a huge
need, because most computer science graduates go to industry,
and school districts have problems finding teachers who can
teach technology. They go to math teachers and say can you
teach this, they say no. I didn't receive a formal education.
So, through the training, or formal education, or State
education departments creating MST certification, we could have
teachers who are able to teach in more than one area, and team
teaching, of course, is also another solution in the districts,
and I believe that is what is going on in other projects at
this point.
Mr. Honda. You know, Mr. Chairman. Just a real quick
comment. I think I also heard from Mr. Chi that there is a need
for teachers as a profession to always tell ourselves that we
are only good teachers when we constantly remain students, and
that somewhere along the line, we stop being students, and we
get stuck in our instructional capabilities, and we forget that
students need to learn constantly and so should teachers, and
so that--I appreciated that insight. I hope that always stays
with you, and becomes a strand in the policy and philosophy. I
think perhaps we have lost--also, perhaps in your written
response, you might want to discuss the concept of equity in
education, because I suspect that equity does not exist even in
one school district. And then I guess the other one is where is
instruction? Where can it be conducted? Does it have to be in
the four walls? Stepping back from our institutionalized
thinking of instruction, are there ways that we can maximize
technology, the presence of technology in other places and look
at different ways? You have the toughest job in the world, and
you are not being compensated properly, but I appreciate your
stick-to-it-iveness in education and I just want to thank you.
Chairman Smith. We will do a second round and a third round
and a--we will try not to wear you out too much. We appreciate
what you have done to get here. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, how are you
going to go about discovering what works and making that kind
of report? At Michigan State, is that a five-year project, or a
four-year?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Five.
Chairman Smith. How--and then, what would be--is there
going to be in a fashion that we can put it out across the
country, is it--how usable is it going to be?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. We hope it will be usable. I mean, as I
have mentioned, we are just starting, and we are just trying to
create a shape for this project. We will begin with this
building of a sort of baseline set of data. So, we will look at
where students are, what teachers----
Chairman Smith. Is your mike on?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. It says it is on. We look at where
students are, what teachers are doing--is that--what kinds of
standards are in place. We will try to summarize that
information and then track that as this project unfolds. We
also expect, because this is so large, that different parts of
the project, different districts, different schools, even
different buildings, will use variations of professional
development. Some might do a sort of coaching model, where
teachers work with their colleagues inside classrooms to
support their instruction. Others might move more into a
technology-oriented, Web-based sort of e-learning.
Chairman Smith. Did your proposal include dissemination?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes. Yes, our sense will be that we will
conduct a range of studies within the big project and create a
plan for actually producing that into a form that is
disseminatable and shared with the White House.
Chairman Smith. Do we have, and I don't know, maybe I
should ask the question to you--of all the knowledge out there,
of all of our efforts to improve the way we teach and learn,
has somebody got that on a database someplace that you can--
that researchers can go pick out different studies that have
taken place over the last 100 years, and do we have that?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. There are examples of that. There are
also syntheses, wonderful research syntheses. The National
Research Council produced a report called ``Adding It Up: A
Mathematical Proficiency for All Students.'' That compiles
research about mathematics teaching and learning for grades K-
8, and there are examples like that and folks access those
sorts of things.
Chairman Smith. Do we have any initial--Mr. Chi, Mr.
Mikols--do we have any initial data, or do you have suggestions
on--I don't know what to call them, demonstrations, hands-on
projects that tend to stimulate interests? Does that work in
your classrooms? Do you use it?
Mr. Mikols. Yeah, we use hands-on projects, and----
Chairman Smith. Well, with your technology and computers
and----
Mr. Mikols. Right. And as Mr. Honda was asking, is there a
mechanism in place where we could require students to
incorporate the different disciplines. In my district, they
mandate that students have a certain number of hours of
community service, so why we can't mandate that there is some
sort of project that is hands-on and technology-based that is
interdisciplinary as part of a requirement for a student to
graduate. I don't know why that couldn't be possible, and it
could be something that is of a student's choosing. I have done
several different projects in conjunction with science
teachers, and those have been effective, measured mainly by
reactions from the students. They are--the projects that I have
done have been with advanced placement students, I have taught
advanced placement calculus, and I did them in conjunction with
an advanced placement biology teacher, and the response that we
get is that this was an extremely worthwhile project that they
learned a lot, and it incorporated technology and it is
something that they would be able to use, and it is something
that they talk a lot about.
We have also done hands-on projects with some of our
younger students as well, and they are appreciative of the fact
that they do have some say in what it is that they are
learning, and it is tied to content that is linked to
standards, so----
Chairman Smith. The question as far as any guidance or
suggestions to the National Science Foundation. What were
your--what might be--what were your major barriers to
implementation? Should there be any changes in terms of future
partnerships? Any thoughts you have on was there sufficient
outreach by NSF, in anything other than saying you're approved?
Yeah, Mr. Yasar.
Dr. Yasar. NSF brought together MSP projects last year in
January, and there is going to be another one in this coming
January for all these projects to interact and discuss how to
build a culture of evidence, so there is a lot of emphasis on
that. We are all aware that money has been put into education
for many years, but we need to do things differently. As we try
different things, we need to build in a culture of evidence, of
evidence-based, and there is a great emphasis on that. NSF also
expected all the MSP projects to develop strategic plans. I am
so thankful that they require that, because we took our grant
proposal probably 10 degrees deeper in developing an evaluation
plan that addressed student progress, teacher--impact on
teacher, and we hope that at the end of the five year period,
we will have a lot of data to contribute to this evidence base.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Dr. Navarro, I sort of got the
impression from some of your comments that the money coming in
allowed you to continue the good things you are doing. Is there
an endpoint? Are we discovering something that eventually other
schools without being given additional Federal money grants,
can continue the kind of effort?
Dr. Navarro. I mean, I think that there are many things
that are coming out of the MSPs and the previous NSF-funded
efforts that will provide direction to districts and schools
that don't get these funds. The reality, though, is that if you
have a large school system, as we do with the close to 160,000
students in it, and you are trying to get them from where they
are now, how they are teaching math and science, the level of
knowledge that their teachers have, and you want to get them to
a dramatically new place, it seems to me that additional
resources will be needed. That is what MSP is allowing us to
do, and engaging the full resources of higher education
institutions----
Chairman Smith. But you will continue----
Dr. Navarro [continuing]. To help us do that.
Chairman Smith [continuing]. The quality program that you
have instigated after the Federal funding stops?
Dr. Navarro. Absolutely. We have gotten commitments from
higher education institutions and the districts to continue
this, and they are finding ways of building it in--slowly but
surely--into their budgets and into their own strategic plans.
Chairman Smith. One of the complaints many teachers have is
that the faculty and institutions of colleges, university,
higher education, have the content knowledge, but are often
somewhat weak on what it takes to be a teacher and teach that
knowledge. Any comments that any of you might have in terms of
this Math Science Partnership in helping--and should we move in
the direction of helping cure some of those problems, or is it
a problem?
Dr. Navarro. I think that if you--if I could just--I think
if you get people to the table, K-16, without a notion that the
higher ed people are going to be kind of telling the K-12
people what to do, or that they are the only ones with the
content knowledge, I think that that helps enormously. People
come together at the same place, at the same table, in our MSP,
and that helps everyone understand that we all have something
to learn from one another, and that there are plenty of content
experts at K-12 as well, and that there is a lot to be learned
about teaching and learning at the higher education level from
K-12 people.
Chairman Smith. Any other thoughts on this issue, Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. No. I would echo what Dr. Navarro has
said, and add that when people are at the table on sort of
equal footing, it is also quite interesting when the K-12
folks, the classroom teachers in particular, start to raise the
real issues that they face in their teaching, and the subject
matter questions that K-12 math and science teachers face are
hard, and they are different from the subject matter questions
that professional mathematicians and scientists face, and that
professional mathematicians and scientists can't always figure
out the best way to help a child understand what a fraction is,
or the best way to help a child understand what place value is
about, and so when you get them together and really looking at
the problems of teaching, I think you do find an equal footing.
Chairman Smith. So, will anything in your particular
project proposal, going through Michigan State, look at the
ability to light my fire, and excite kindergarten and first
grade and second grade students in science, math, in relation
to their science and math training, as opposed to their
teaching abilities and love of students?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right, I mean, our hope is to try to
bring those together, to put them in a place where those two
conversations are going on at the same time, with people who
have strong content knowledge and strong knowledge of teaching.
Chairman Smith. I have a question for you, Mr. Chi, and
you, Mr. Mikols. We often find that those schools with the
lowest levels of academic achievement have teachers with the
lowest levels of skills and knowledge, and in many cases, these
teachers want to do the very best for their students, but are
unable, due to a lack of information or education. Upon
graduation, were you prepared to teach your State's standards
in math and science, and generally, moving it away from a
personal question, what do you see as the possible lack of
students coming from the education--the university system and
going into teaching of science and math in K-12? Starting with
you, Mr. Chi, and then you, Mr. Mikols.
Mr. Chi. Well, just to address, sort of at the same time,
your question before, I think the MSP program has really
encouraged a collaboration between higher education and
teachers in the middle school and teachers in the high school
system, and because of that, there has become an increased
awareness on the part of the teachers in higher education, in
the colleges and universities, that--of the different kinds of
issues and problems that are faced by teachers in the high
school and middle school. Because of that, they are becoming
more sensitive, and as a result, they are better able to
approach their students as well, and so I think there is a
little bit of a rubbing off. There is content being
disseminated from the colleges to the high school and middle
school level, and there is a sensitivity to pedagogy and the
intricacies of teaching to the college and university
professors as well.
As far as how prepared I was, in terms of my college and
university experience related to my ability to teach my content
area, which is science, I feel that I was extremely well-
trained, and I came out of college with a plethora of skills to
better present the topics and to increase student interests in
my classroom. So I feel pretty fortunate in that area.
Chairman Smith. And that was--be a combination of the
curricula that you--that--whatever the--that you took while you
were in school, or some of your own initiatives, or a
combination, I suspect?
Mr. Chi. Well, where I attended college, which was SUNY-
Geneseo, I was there as a secondary education major, and, being
a content specialty of biology, it was almost as though I was
double majoring, where I had a very rigorous content in terms
of my biology background and my science background, and at the
same time, there was a very intense training, in terms of the
pedagogy, so I feel I was very well balanced when I came out.
Chairman Smith. And Mr. Mikols, then we will move on to Mr.
Gingrey.
Mr. Mikols. The comment that was made that low achievement,
many times, is linked to schools with high teacher turnover and
having a large population of teachers that are uncertified or
not adequately trained. That is true. And one of the schools in
my district, that I am working in, because it is a cited school
from the State as a low-performing school. They have a
population of 1,200 students and they had one returning teacher
in their math department for this school year, so the idea that
we are training teachers and then losing them the next year,
and then having brand-new teachers come in and having to
retrain them again, and then when that pool of qualified
teachers runs out, we are having to go to hiring uncertified
teachers to fill those positions, and it is a huge problem.
There is a college in our area, Roberts Wesleyan College,
that has a program in conjunction with the city school district
that is allowing students to take a teaching job. I am sorry, I
shouldn't say students, because it is--you are thinking of high
school students, but they are allowing people to take a
teaching job while they are students at Roberts Wesleyan
achieving their teacher certification. So we are dealing with
many, many teachers that don't have a lot of training, and they
are being put right in the classroom. So, the recruitment issue
that I think the MSP program can enhance, to me that is huge.
We have to attract teachers early and often that are highly
qualified that are thinking of teaching as a primary career,
not something to fall back on once other things have not been
successful.
Professional development is another thing: you just can't
overemphasize the value of quality professional development
that is ongoing, that is accountable, that takes teachers and
moves them out of their comfort zone to get them to change and
become learners of stuff that is going to be helpful to
students.
I will close with one other statement. I graduated from
Geneseo as well in 1992, with a degree in mathematics, and part
of our curriculum was graphing calculators back then, so I feel
well prepared, in the sense that even 10, 11 years ago, the
need for technology was known then, and I felt like I was ahead
of the game with that.
To get certified, I had the degree in mathematics, and then
we also had to minor in education, so then we also had pedagogy
courses that helped us to take that content and deliver it in
ways that would be effective in the classroom.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize
for having to step out. I may have missed, obviously missed
some of the questions, so if I am--if it has already been
asked, just forgive me. I obviously didn't hear the answer.
When I was in school, all math courses were taught, I think,
Mr. Honda may have touched on this a little bit earlier, as
stand alone courses. I mean, I can remember, you know, taking
algebra and geometry and trigonometry and finally, when I got
to college and was introduced to calculus, everything was just
kind of stand alone, and it wasn't--I never really enjoyed math
as much as I think I should have. I never really thought that
there was any connection between math and physics and
chemistry, but as I went through college, and approached my
Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry, I finally realized
that all of this stuff, at some point, sort of comes together.
It all is the same basic thing, but I never understood that
until I was almost a college graduate and about to disappoint
my pure science teachers and go to medical school.
But I guess my question for any of you, maybe in particular
the high school teachers, Mr. Chi and Mr. Mikols, if there were
some way at the outset, and let us call the outset the eighth
or ninth grade, to explain to students, maybe an introductory
course to mathematics, so that they understand that, at some
point in their career, all of this is going to come back
together, and it is going to have some real meaning to them and
some real utility, and it is not just passing another course,
and each and every one is stand alone and there is no rhyme or
reason to it, and that is the experience I had. Now, that is a
long time ago, I have to admit, I hate to admit, but there has
just got to be some way to excite youngsters to math and
science, and I want to hear what your thoughts are in regard to
that, because maybe it is happening. I don't--I was a school
board member before I became a State Senator, before I became a
Member of Congress, but I didn't see it as a school board
member, and you know, I went into a lot of schools. It is still
like, ugh, you know, I have got to sign up for chemistry or
physics or whatever, and this nerd concept and all of that
stuff, you know, you get. Members of Congress, I think, don't
want to sign up for the Science Committee. There is still a
little bit of that mentality, excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
We have got some great scientists on the Committee, some
Ph.D.s, and I am honored to be a Member of this committee, and
to serve on Chairman Smith's Subcommittee, but you know what I
am saying. It is that mentality that we just need to get
beyond, because this is a world in which, you know, science is
exciting and, I mean, you know, somebody mentioned earlier
possibly having someone come into the classroom, whether it is
a surgeon or maybe the F-18 fighter pilot that I had the honor
to fly with recently in full flight gear, and to talk about
aviation, physics and that sort of thing and negative gravity.
It is just, you know, so if you all would comment on that
particular suggestion of an introductory course to mathematics
where people at the very beginning would understand that there
is something to this, and not just everything stand alone.
Mr. Chi. Well, I think where we need to sort of begin is to
change the perception about what the typical scientist is. I
think you sort of touched upon that a little bit, and many
students have a misconception that a person who is involved in
the mathematics and the sciences is stiff and nerd-like or what
have you, but to broaden their perspective and to show them
that a fighter pilot, an aviator, a criminologist, is doing
science and using mathematics and incorporating technology into
their field, I think that will broaden their perspective on
what it means to be involved in the sciences. That is a first--
that is an important first step, and to get students
interested, I think--I would hate to put it this way, but
somewhat, we need to disguise some of these activities and
mention the science and the mathematics later on, introduce
them as fun, interesting topics to investigate, and then later
on, sort of reveal to them that there is some science and there
is some mathematics and there is some technology involved in
these activities, these fun catch activities are scattered
through our curriculum in Brighton, and oftentimes, the
``sleeper student'' who is just cruising through and just
trying to pass the course may suddenly be sparked with some
interest when we are getting ready to drop a 10 pound pumpkin
out of a window, when we start to discuss the idea of gravity,
and it is those activities that, as you pointed out earlier,
grab and get student attention, and those are some of the
activities that need to be incorporated into some of these
curriculums, or curricula.
Mr. Gingrey. Dr. Yasar.
Dr. Yasar. You just gave me an opening, and on your
display, I have a system that I just--it took me probably, if
you were watching, 10 or 20 seconds to build, and we have
offered this to students. I don't know if there are any physics
Ph.D.s here, but I can put a system up here in a minute and in
10 seconds, I said, and it will take a physics professor 10
pages of handwriting and probably an hour to develop equations
of motion and predict the system. Here, we have a tool that
allows not only me, but only--but also middle school students
to simulate a physical system. And any student, or any person
who sees this, asks the question, wow, what can I do with this?
Well, they can do all kinds of things.
So, a layered approach using technology, layered approach
means I show you something, get your interest. I don't tell you
what it is taking to do this. I hide the mathematics and the
laws behind this. You don't need to know the physical--physics
laws, and you don't need to know how to solve a mathematical
equation. I show you this, you build an interest, and then you
come with more questions. Then I introduce to you the
mathematics.
I believe the threatening aspect of mathematics is that it
involves multiple steps. That is why students are afraid of
taking up on mathematics, and I think this is the largest
problem in mathematics and science education.
Mr. Gingrey. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you. I think this is a great
example, if you can keep it there. So bump this discussion up
now to the teacher preparation world, where the segmentation
and the sort of compartmentalization that you mentioned that
you experienced in high school continues. People who are in
mathematics departments divide themselves up, the topologists
are different from the analysts are different from the
algebraists, and the courses that are taken in mathematics or
in physics or in chemistry are still quite separate from one
another. And yet you think about what knowledge a teacher would
need to bring to bear with this task, with this model in place,
how they would necessarily need to use their mathematics and
their physics in concert, how they would need to understand how
those ideas worked together to apply to this situation. It is
not likely, I would venture, that the physics and mathematics
that they have studied in college necessarily prepares them for
handling a piece of curriculum that has the richness of this
thing that we are looking at right now.
So, your question leads into very interesting and difficult
challenges in teacher education. How do we offer capstone
courses or integrative kinds of experiences for the prospective
teacher, so they could do the sort of thing that I think you
are pointing toward, which seems very promising and
interesting.
Dr. Navarro. Right, and I would just add that just as you
are saying, Joan, about the issue of teacher preparation as
being the place where you really want to try and bring all of
those elements together, one of the issues that I think we
would have to address is the issue of curricula, and how do we
provide the kinds of curricula that help synthesize all of this
for students, so that not necessarily when--would we wait until
they get into high school, but in their early school
experiences, we are helping them see how they need to bring all
of these elements together. And we have to make that easy for
teachers to do, because even given the best teacher
preparation, they still will be guided by the curricula that
they have, and that is where we need to make the linkages and
synthesize this knowledge for them.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I know I have used up all of my
time, and I apologize for that, and if there is another round,
maybe we can continue on this, or do we--can we hear from----
Chairman Smith. I will take my next five minutes now and
then give it to you. Some schools have decided, some school
boards have decided that at the minimum, every student has to
take algebra and pass it, as a qualification for graduating
from high school. And it was interesting, the reaction of a
couple students that said well, they didn't like the math. It
was really too much work, but as long as it is a requirement,
they are going to do it. Says it takes a little extra homework,
and so I am not sure where the motivation--I mean, it is
obvious where the motivation comes from in this one. I wanted
to ask the question, also, about parents, and anything in our
studies, or should we encourage some of the studies to involve
parents in this whole effort of exciting math and science
education? Who would like to--and how do you do it? How should
we research it? Or should we have a special effort in some of
the requests for proposals that include that? Anybody wish to
respond?
Dr. Navarro. Well, I will just talk a little bit about the
first issue that you raised, and also link it to parents, and
that is we really believe that we have to expect more of
students before they will recognize how important it is to
deliver on things, so that one of the things that we did was
work closely with our partner districts to support them in
requiring that all students take three to four years of college
preparatory mathematics and science in order for students to
graduate. We strengthened that when we realized that some
schools, and schools with the largest number of poor and
minority students were most likely to be waiving lots of their
students from those requirements.
Now, we limit the requirements to just 10 percent, but
parents were a very big part of this, because some of the
parents were just very upset, why does my child have to take
algebra II? Why does my child have to take chemistry? It is
very hard, it requires too much homework, and I think that is
where these presentations on the part of key business and
community leaders are really crucial. Parents, once they
understand that this will enhance the ability of their children
to do well in the world of work, to earn far greater lifetime
incomes, are easy to be persuaded. Now, you also have to
provide supports for students so that they can take these
courses and do well, and that there is tutoring available and
that sort of thing. Parents will require that, but we have been
very successful in providing education, particularly to key
leaders within each of the communities, each of the school
communities, so we are focusing on three or four parent leaders
and provide them the education and training, the information
that is needed, and then they reach larger sets of parents back
at the school.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Gingrey, I am going to let you get
this.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Mikols, I think
you were going to respond to my question and didn't get a
chance.
Mr. Mikols. Yeah, the point that you were bringing out is
where do the kids start to see the link between math and
science, and where is the interest level. We know by shows like
CSI that that interest is there, it is just how do we get it
into the classroom, and Dr. Yasar was talking about layering
things and Dr. Navarro was saying well, this is not something
that should just be something that is from grades twelve
through sixteen, but where do we begin it? And one of the tools
that we have used in the CMST program is a tool called STELLA,
and it is a program that you can use to make mathematical
models of rates of change, and we have made a program that
models half-life, and half-life, I think, is a fairly easy
topic for even younger students, fifth, sixth, maybe seventh
grade, to grasp of what is happening, but the program is
layered in the sense that it does take quite a bit of thinking
to make the program, so that is something that you could offer
to students of--at the higher levels, but to use the program,
that is something that sixth, seventh and eighth grade students
could do and get it, a good idea of how mathematics is used to
discuss what half-life is, and there are different graphs, and
the analysis of graphs is something that kids and adults need
to know how to do.
So this is just an example of one of the tools that we have
had in CMST that does take math and science and link it
together in such a way that you could present that to students
of varying degrees of sophistication in math and science.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy wanted to respond. Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I wanted to just pick up from this and
come back to your question about parents. The sorts of
instructional approaches that you are hearing about here, this
notion of integration of math and science, this notion of
hands-on and inquiry-oriented model, base sorts of teaching.
That kind of instruction looks unfamiliar to lots of parents,
particularly when you say well, this really is mathematics, or
this really is physics. It doesn't look like the mathematics or
the physics that parents may have studied themselves, and so
the education piece is really crucial in looking at different
models for how to help parents see the value of this kind of
course work and at the same time, understand that these
approaches have promise, and that children will learn something
useful even from something that might look quite unfamiliar to
a parent. I think those are really hard questions and continued
efforts along those lines are needed.
Chairman Smith. My short version has been that--telling
parents that Social Security is going broke and maybe their
retirement security depends on how well their kids do in math
and science.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. That is good.
Dr. Yasar. I don't want to put my school district on the
spot, but there is some difference in terms of parental
involvement in these two school districts. At Brighton,
teachers are running away from parents. At City School, parents
are running away, we can't find them. So, you could attribute
some of the low success, you know, achievement, to lack of
parental involvement at the City, and I believe there is an MSP
project already that targets parental involvement, so we need
to see more of that.
Chairman Smith. The phone call I got is, there is somebody
that came through security that shouldn't have gotten through
security, so I told my guards to--Mr. Gingrey, we will start
your five minutes, Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your
suggestion about a Social Security scare tactic is not a bad
one, because you know of what you speak. I have heard you do
many special orders on what is going to happen to Social
Security if we don't reform it. But while we are waiting on
that, I did want to ask about the idea of paying math and
science teachers more, particularly at the high school level. I
know a lot of times that it is a third rail to mention that to
any of the education establishment. In no way to suggest that
the arts and language and history and other things are not
extremely important, but it is tough to teach math and physics
and chemistry, and it takes--in my opinion--a really dedicated
and very intelligent teacher to do that, and if we had a Mr.
Chi or a Mr. Mikols in every high school in the country, we
wouldn't have a problem. I am very, very impressed with your
testimony and--of everybody that is here who has testified, but
you know, I have always thought that--and I know in some school
districts maybe it is an optional thing that they can do at the
local level, but you just can't expect bright teachers that we
need to teach math and science, to stay in a low-paying
profession, although I know there is other gratification, other
reasons why you do it.
What do you think about that? What do you think about the
idea of--in every school, paying more to math, science and
physics teachers, and I am talking about the pure science and,
you know, you--we might quabble over what is science, but I am
talking about math, physics and chemistry. Can you comment on
that?
Chairman Smith. I think the two teachers might----
Mr. Mikols. Yes. Yeah, I would be the first one to say
sure, you know, that is a great idea. But it is a question of
market. You know, you have a certain supply, you have an
overwhelming demand, and I think what we can try to do, by
offering more money to people to go into math and science
teaching, is to increase the supply of math teachers, because
right now, in my district, we don't have enough, and financial
benefit is one thing that may get people to consider a career
in the Rochester City School District. And you know, with our
passing rates at the eighth grade exam, what they are, we are
looking at lots of different options, and one of the things
that has been mentioned is paying stipends to teachers to go
from some of the higher-performing schools, and some of the
teachers with proven success and experience to go to some of
these schools that are on the cited list as low-performing, to
try to get them to go and lend their expertise and their
experience so that these other teachers that I told you about,
that are making up the huge overwhelming majority of their
staff, that are extremely inexperienced, have someone who is
skilled and has a lot of experience to go to, so--and maybe
money is the way to do that.
Dr. Navarro. We have provided additional resources at
several points in the continuum. First, there are through NSF-
funded scholarships and fellowships, more students studying
math and science and going into education at the secondary
level in math and science that are receiving help with tuition
and fees, so those scholarships and fellowships is a draw for
students, particularly in our low income area. Secondly, a
number of the districts have found it necessary, because of the
severe shortages, particularly of secondary teachers, to offer
those additional stipends for teachers that are fully certified
in math, science to go into the high schools, and so that has
been an important aid in getting some additional teachers that
are fully certified into these high schools.
One of the arguments that people have made in our community
is that if individuals graduating with a degree in science can
move into industry and get jobs at $50,000 plus, what is it
that, beyond their concern for their fellow human beings, is
going to draw them to schools where we know the demands are
great, and sometimes, the challenges are enormous, so if there
is a small financial incentive for doing that, we think that it
can be used effectively.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, we have a course at the Federal level.
We have done a number of things and as we move toward the final
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, there is more--
there is going to be, hopefully, more loan forgiveness for math
and science teachers and at the local levels, I think a lot of
school systems will pay an incentive, a bonus, if you will, for
a math or a science teacher to go into a high need area, and
that is great. But I mean, I think, and I think you have
answered my question, that you just literally, at the very
outset, the generic starting salary should--there should be--
because again, and you mentioned, I think, Mr. Mikols, about
supply and demand. I think that is the bottom line, that we
just don't have enough of you guys and gals that, you know, are
math and science teachers, and we need to incentivize you, to
not only start in that direction, but to stay there.
Chairman Smith. We are going to wind this up pretty soon. A
couple questions I have got is I have been encouraging my
schools of education that turn out any teacher to start
requiring a basic course in math and science, so whether they
are teaching English or phys ed or whatever, they have at least
a little understanding in math and science that maybe helps in
some of the questions that might be asked, some of the
stimulus, some of the--prevent some of the teachers from saying
well, boy, don't ask me, I never did as good at it and it
didn't hurt me.
Any comments? Shall I keep doing that?
Dr. Navarro. Yes. Absolutely. We require an increasing
number of courses for all teachers, and I think it is now up to
something in the range of 28 credit hours in mathematics and
science for all teachers, irrespective of what they are going
to be teaching. The big issue for us is who is teaching those
courses at the post-secondary level, and that is one of our
challenges in MSP is to make sure that the university faculty
members that are teaching those courses can excite these
teachers rather than frighten them, make sure that those
prospective teachers get more excited rather than--about math
and science, rather than come to feel that their initial
perceptions that this was not something I wanted to learn were
right.
Chairman Smith. Are any of your MSPs partnering in any way
with the private sector?
Dr. Navarro. We are working with our Chambers of Commerce
to do these presentations at the middle school level about--in
particular, about ensuring that students know why they should
go to college, and also why they should study math and science.
That is something that has worked very well. The business
people love to make those presentations. They come into contact
with real teachers and students, and we help them understand
what the issues are, so we provide a script for them, they can
tailor it to a certain extent.
Chairman Smith. I mean we put----
Dr. Navarro. They like doing it.
Chairman Smith. We specifically put it in the legislation
that it has got to be a university and it has got to be a K-12,
but with the option of partnershipping with the private sector
and as we were discussing before we put the gavel down, there
are a lot of companies out there that are trying to enhance at
least their--the math and the science interest in their
schools, and so a lot of companies do a lot of work, and I
would hope, somehow, to NSF or wherever, we need to--we are
going to start looking at some of the work that they are doing.
Dr. Yasar.
Dr. Yasar. In Rochester, Xerox gets a lot of its employees
from the city school district or others, so they have an
interest in supporting education through scholarships and
internships. I think that is a great example for MSPs. Can I
add a comment? It may not be directly related to business. We
talked about teachers, and I know there is a lot of burden on
them. We could make things a little bit easier for students,
and please note that I went to school in a different country,
where students were given 15 minutes breaks between classes.
They had time to relax, plus they stayed in one classroom,
rather than racing between different classrooms. I think we put
a lot of burden on students, and not giving them enough time
for break, it just builds the tension in them. Second, time
management, class management, becomes a burden on them. So,
these may be other factors you may consider in--for schools to
restructure their classes and so on.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Gingrey, do you have any more
questions?
Mr. Gingrey. I would like each one of you, maybe, if you
would like, to conclude with about a minute on anything that
you would like to pass on to the Committee. What happens is the
other Members of the Committee will review the testimony and
anything that you would like to add, starting with you, Dr.
Ferrini-Mundy.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes, I would just again thank you for
the opportunity to speak here today, to say that I think,
although we are new at it, that this MSP program looks very
promising. I think that there will be some things that NSF
seems already to be doing that may become quite crucial.
Connecting these projects, I mean it is obvious just from the
conversation here that we can learn from each other and if the
Agency is able to really enable us to do that, that will be
crucial, and also, to build up this commitment, I think, to
evidence, to sharing research findings, to learning from these
projects. I think it could be a wonderful contribution to the
improvement of mathematics and science learning.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Yasar.
Dr. Yasar. I want to thank you for inviting me, and I want
to thank NSF and the Federal Government for the opportunity. I
have never been so excited about a project, so whatever
education, 25 years of education I had, it all comes to a
culmination here, and the integrated math and science
education, I never found a champion program under DOE or NSF
for years, and MSP gave us that opportunity, and brought school
districts and higher education and industry together, so I
would like you to support this program, as long as and as much
as you could. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chi.
Mr. Chi. Well, I would like to address something that was
brought up earlier. I forget which one. One of you mentioned
equity in one of your comments, and I think the MSP program
has, through its funds, has provided access to some of the
technologies, to peoples that might not necessarily be able to
get their hands on that technology, be it for financial
reasons, economic reasons, and by narrowing the gap between the
haves and have-nots, I believe that we are coming closer to a
place and time where people have access to and skills in
technology that will open up opportunities for them that they
might not otherwise have, if it wasn't for programs like this.
Mr. Mikols. Again, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear here.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Mikols.
Mr. Mikols. And just with the job I have to do with my
district, we realize that change is necessary. Change can be
fearful, but we also realize that change is possible and that
change represents growth, and through programs like the CMST,
where we are able to use technology to allow students to take
on a larger role in the responsibility of their learning, we
see that it is crucial.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Navarro.
Dr. Navarro. I think this is--I have been doing this work
for about 20 years. I think MSP is the hardest work I have ever
done, that our community has ever done, and I just hope that as
we run into the inevitable difficulties and complications of
this, that there will be an understanding that the difficulty
and the problems are part of the process, and that we can learn
from those and share our understanding and that NSF and
Congress will understand when we run into these problems and
will see it as an opportunity to really learn much more about
what it takes to really excite and light the fire in young
people about math and science.
Chairman Smith. Again, thank you all, not only for being
here, but for the work that you do to improve math and science
education. That is, I think, so important to our future. And
one last request I would have of you. If you would consider
answering any questions that staff thinks that maybe we didn't
answer, that we asked, that we should have asked, and defining
Mr. Honda's question that he wanted you to respond to, if you
would--we would send those to you and if you might respond, we
would appreciate it.
With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant,
SUNY-Brockport
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K-12 educational
framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to
subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the
idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including
such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. The most effective way to implement a fully integrated approach
would be through a mechanism or a tool that demonstrates the interplay
of subject matters. Today, many disciplines in humanities and sciences
use simulation and modeling technology to advance knowledge and
discovery. There must be a curriculum in schools that draws upon
modeling-based computational and information technologies. There is
need for quality professional development to train teachers how to use
a curriculum that is student centered, multidisciplinary, and uses
technology effectively. Furthermore, there is need for a
multidisciplinary education and preparation teachers. No real change
could occur at K-12 without changes in our colleges.
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to
students at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a
national level?
A2. Assessments and standards on the State and eventually the federal
level should address a multidisciplinary approach. Use of technology to
promote such an approach could be easily sold to students. As
traditional, lecture-based classroom roles are changing, educators and
students work collaboratively in more open-ended teaching and learning
experiences. The motivational aspect of technology is a principal
reason that educators try so hard to master and apply technology tools.
Perhaps the best way to sell this model is to pilot such a
multidisciplinary (integrated) curriculum. Government funding should be
made available to schools and communities. School administrators could
push to mandate projects at all grade levels that require a
multidisciplinary approach. School boards must have tangible evidence
that this approach works if they are going to buy into it. Satisfied
students and teachers demonstrating achievement of State and national
standards will be very convincing. A concerted effort by federal
funding agencies and professional societies could help bring national
attention and endorsement.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher
training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared
to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. State Education Departments need to issue multi-area teaching
certifications. An example is a certification in math, science, and
technology (MST). There are many advantages of such a combined MST-
certification to its holders, including improved employability and
adjustability to changing job environment and school needs.
Universities need to offer degree programs with necessary credits to
satisfy certification requirements in more than one area. Teacher
preparation and training programs need to incorporate a
multidisciplinary and technology-based education. An example is our MSP
project at the SUNY College at Brockport.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New
York
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K-12 educational
framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to
subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the
idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including
such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. In my opinion, the project portfolio based model would be able to
take a more integrated approach to the subject matter. Not only can
science, mathematics, literature and social studies be included but
also art and technology. In this model, students approaching the end of
their high school studies are required to create a portfolio with an
overarching theme of their own choosing. Their choice must be submitted
well in advance of their presenting their portfolio to a team of their
teachers. The portfolio would include an exploration of the historical,
literary, scientific, even the artistic and technological aspects of
their topic. For example, a student may choose Civil War America as
their overarching theme. The student can include a paper on the Red
Badge of Courage, an analysis of the cotton plant's life cycle and
explanation of its transformation from seed to fabric to fulfill the
Literature, Science and Technology requirements. The student can create
a paper analyzing the consequences leading up to the Civil War. At a
set time students will present their portfolio to a team of their
teachers where the student will be interviewed about their experience
and the process of creating their portfolio.
Q2. Do you have any suggestions on how this model could be sold to
school boards at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved
on a national level?
A2. To my knowledge, many schools have tried this model in the recent
past. However, it has since fallen out of fashion. However, I feel
colleges and universities who train teachers can continue to include
this model in their educational foundations courses.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher
training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared
to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. State University of New York College at Geneseo had an educational
foundations course that required students from a variety of disciplines
to work on a portfolio-based assessment project. During this project,
teams of students chose themes and put together a sample of such a
portfolio. We also created assessment rubrics and critiqued other
student teams' projects.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jeffrey M. Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School
District, New York
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. LWhat approaches and policies could move the K-12 educational
framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to
subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the
idea of teaching just math and science together, bat also including
such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. There must be curriculum used in schools that support such a model.
Many teachers use creativity in planning lessons that will engage
students and address a multidisciplinary approach There exists
curricula, however, created by experts in education that have been
carefully researched, planned, arid field tested that is ready for
teachers to use. Using such curricula does not absolve teachers from
planning lessons, it just gives them a place to start their planning
process. There are curricula, some funded by NSF, that take a
multidisciplinary approach that is not solely math and science linked.
It would not be wise to roll out this type of curriculum without
training. This emphasizes the need for quality professional development
to train teachers how to use a curriculum that is student centered,
multidisciplinary, and uses technology effectively. It is also
important that a school district adopts a curriculum such as this for
K-12. I currently work in a school district where there is a
traditional mathematics curriculum used K-5, a multidisciplinary,
student centered, conceptual based mathematics curriculum used in
grades 6-8, then a traditional mathematics curriculum used in grades 9-
12. It is confusing to students to go from a traditional approach to a
student centered approach, then back to a traditional approach.
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to
students at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a
national level?
A2. State assessments often determine what teachers value as important
to train their students on. Assessments on the State and eventually the
federal level should address a multidisciplinary approach. There must
be research presented to local school boards that demonstrates that
this approach will work with the demographics in their community.
Another important component is to show that this curriculum is aligned
with local, State, and national assessments. It is not sufficient to
teach to any test, but ignoring assessment components is not a valid
option, either. Perhaps the best way to sell this model is to pilot
such a curriculum and demonstrate student work and allow teachers and
students to present to school boards what it is they are learning and
how they enjoy this model of learning. School administrators should
push to mandate projects at all grade levels that require a
multidisciplinary approach. School boards must have tangible evidence
that this approach works if they are going to buy into it. Satisfied
students and teachers demonstrating achievement of State and national
standards will be very convincing.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher
training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared
to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. Professional development is the key to implementing effective
change in an education system. There are many crucial components to
effective professional development. Professional development must be
embedded in the regular school day with actual classrooms and students.
Teachers can use their training with their target audience while being
supervised and coached by expert teachers. Theoretical training about
what should happen in the classroom is not enough. Teachers must have
the opportunity to experience what should happen first hand. Expert
teachers could coach, co-teach, model, and help with planning the
teacher being trained. This support must be ongoing. Professional
development must be nurtured over a period of time. A one time training
during an all day session with no follow-up will not lead to the type
of change necessary for this model to work. Establishing model
classrooms where multidisciplinary, student centered curricula are
being used would be an effective way to allow trainee teachers to see
first hand the effectiveness this type of environment provides. These
model classrooms provide opportunities for the ongoing professional
development that is necessary. Teachers being trained could visit at
any time and see exactly what they are being told they should establish
in their own classroom.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by M. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive
MSP Grant, University of Texas, El Paso
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K-12 educational
framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to
subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the
idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including
such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. It is my view that a fully integrated approach to subject matter
would not necessarily require that all disciplines be taught together,
but that students draw from different disciplines in learning all
subjects. It is also critical that students have a strong grasp in core
areas--particularly reading fluency, comprehension and writing--in
order to be successful in all content areas.
My colleagues and I at the El Paso Collaborative for Academic
Excellence, recognize the importance of literacy in ensuring that
students are successful in all subjects. Because of this, we are
implementing the Literacy in Action initiative as a key strategy for
assisting students facing increasing language laden content in all
subjects, but particularly in mathematics and science. Our work in
Literacy prepares students to think at deeper levels and drew on the
skills necessary for reading in the various content areas--including
math and science--using informational/expository texts.
To address the need for reading in the content areas, full time
Literacy Leaders work collaboratively with teachers in piloting and
revising a writing curriculum produced to support capacity building
needs. By utilizing the writing curriculum there has been an increase
in comprehension and application in the classroom. A priority continues
to be the use of text analysis, particularly in non-narrative forms of
writing, as a way of helping students to increase their ability to read
and comprehend content in standards-based curricula in mathematics,
science and other content areas. As a result of our work in Literacy,
we can report: higher than expected student scores on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which also exceeded the
state average; improved student writing selections as shown through an
increase in length and complexity both in general course work and state
writing assessments; an increased number of hours of professional
development in classrooms and through non-traditional forms such as
book groups and small grade-level study groups; higher levels of
professional discourse due to professional reading and discussions;
restructuring of school budgets to prioritize increased funds for the
purchase of informational/expository texts; and increased participation
by secondary teachers participating in professional development
activities, including the Guest Author series.
Relevant policies for promoting strong skills in literacy to
support learning across all content areas, could include requirements
that teachers across all subject areas receive sufficient professional
development pertaining to key components of literacy.
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to school
boards at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a
national level?
A2. In promoting the integration of content areas--particularly a more
comprehensive approach to literacy--it is important to recognize first
that discipline-based standards and testing determine what is taught in
the classroom, and that efforts to better integrate core subject areas
need to be reflected in the standards, textbooks and other curriculum
materials, and ultimately tests for which students and schools are
being held accountable.
An emphasis on ensuring that teachers are effectively trained to
integrate key competencies--particularly focused on literacy--into all
subjects is where the greatest difference can be made. This requires
that sufficient time and resources be allotted for professional
development.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher
training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared
to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. Teacher preparation typically reflects the value of singular
content specialization and training has been emphasizing content
specialization rather than inter-disciplinary approaches. At times,
there are important reasons for this--particularly at the secondary
level where students sometimes are taught by teachers without a degree
in their field. It must also be recognized, however, that within higher
education--faculty tend to focus on their own disciplines. Despite
these challenges, however, the importance and value of applying high-
level skills, in literacy for example, to all content area cannot be
diminished.
In addition to encouraging higher education faculty to emphasize
the importance of literacy in training teachers, Congress may want to
consider funding demonstration projects--within higher education
institutions and school districts--to promote inter-disciplinary
coordination among university faculty, across colleges and departments.
Once these models are evaluated, it would then be useful to share best
practices and lessons learned.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive
MSP Grant, Michigan State University
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K-12 educational
framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to
subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the
idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including
such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. The concept of a ``fully integrated approach to subject matter'' in
K-12 education is both tantalizing and daunting. Intellectually, the
idea that curriculum might be organized in an elegant way so that main
ideas and themes are taught through a rich mix of contexts across the
academic disciplines is highly appealing. There have been efforts to
move in this direction, including various middle school ``thematic''
approaches to instruction, including team teaching that couples
teachers of social studies with teachers of science, large projects for
students that take up some major problem such as global warming, and
use it as a setting from which to address key ideas in the academic
areas of science, mathematics, the language arts, etc. A common
pairwise ``integration'' is often proposed between mathematics and
science, and there have been some curricula over the years. (E.g., In
the 1970s, the Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools
project (USMES) was funded at the Education Development Center by the
National Science Foundation based on recommendations by Cambridge
Conference on the Correlation of Science and Mathematics in Schools.
This was an elementary integrated mathematics and science curriculum.
More recently, COMAP has produced Mathematics: Modeling Our World, a
grades 9-12 standards-based curriculum. Each unit of the program is
based on a theme, such as medical lab testing and the broad range of
mathematics that is used in that field.) These materials are
attractive, interesting, and highly engaging for students and teachers.
However, they are not widely used.
The challenges with integration are quite substantial. First of
all, K-12 curricular organization in the U.S. historically has been by
subject matter. When integration is broached, new agreements about
curricular goals need to be reached, and inevitably, even when only two
areas are being integrated (such as mathematics and science), the
traditional curricular goals of one area take a back seat to those of
the other, for practical reasons. So, for instance, a curriculum
organized around interesting themes that have a science orientation is
likely to take up mathematical tools and applications that are needed
to advance the ideas of the science, but might not take up other areas
of mathematics that have been considered essential in the U.S.
curriculum for years.
So, given that I am somewhat hesitant to claim that a fully
integrated model is reasonable, I certainly would agree that more
integration in the K-12 system would be desirable. What policies and
approaches would help support the system in this direction? Here are a
few ideas:
Provide funding for the continued development,
implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of K-12
instructional materials that are interesting models of
integration
Support research that helps us learn about the impact
of integrated instructional materials on student learning and
achievement in traditionally valued areas of the school
curriculum
Design assessment tools to measure ``integrated''
understanding. In addition, if high stakes assessments, such as
those that will be used by states in NCLB, explicitly addressed
students' understanding of key integrative themes and ideas,
then possibly instructional practice might shift.
In closing, however, I cannot underscore how ambitious it would be
to move in a concerted way toward more systemic integration in K-12
education. There are enormous conceptual obstacles (disagreement about
what is meant by integration, what areas of the curriculum should be
integrated, in what ways, what would be left out, etc.), capacity
issues (teachers are not prepared in ways that help them to do this
kind of integration; universities are organized along disciplinary
lines and so reform in undergraduate education would be needed as
well), and resource issues (very few suitable instructional materials
exist, assessments need to be designed, etc.).
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to school
boards at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a
national level?
A2. Again, this question assumes that a strong model could be designed
that would be defensible within the education community. Taking that
assumption (which I feel is unrealistic), then to ``sell'' this to
school boards, as well as nationally, it seems, would require having
solid educational research, conducted over several years, to
demonstrate the impact of the model, and variations of it, on student
learning under a wide range of conditions (e.g., in urban settings,
with teachers who are well prepared, in communities with strong
involvement of local business, etc.). Because an integrated approach
would require rethinking of educational standards in states and
nationally, a massive effort in assessment and research, keyed to the
new ``integrated'' goals, would be needed. Such a program of
conceptualization, development, research, and refinement is probably at
least a 15-year undertaking.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher
training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared
to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3.
In teacher education, introduce integrated courses
(e.g., mathematics and science, or mathematics and language
arts) in the subject matter preparation of teachers
Provide funding for the continued development,
implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of instructional
materials for use with pre-service and in-service teachers that
are interesting models of integration
In terms of policy, we would need shifts in teacher certification
policies at the State level, and in the definitions of ``highly
qualified teachers'' that are part of NCLB.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record