[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
K-12 SCIENCE AND MATH EDUCATION
ACROSS THE FEDERAL AGENCIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 30, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-798 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina AL GREEN, Texas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
VACANCY
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
March 30, 2006
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Minority Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 12
Written Statement............................................ 17
Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 18
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.... 19
Prepared Statement by Representative Lynn Woolsey, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 20
Prepared Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Member,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 20
Witnesses:
Ms. Margaret Spellings, Secretary, Department of Education
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 29
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 35
Ms. Shana L. Dale, Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 37
Biography.................................................... 41
Brigadier General John J. Kelly, Deputy Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 47
Dr. James F. Decker, Principal Deputy Director, Office of
Science, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
Biography.................................................... 57
Discussion....................................................... 58
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Margaret Spellings, Secretary, Department of Education....... 82
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation.. 90
Ms. Shana L. Dale, Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration........................................... 93
Brigadier General John J. Kelly, Deputy Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration................................................. 95
Dr. James F. Decker, Principal Deputy Director, Office of
Science, U.S. Department of Energy............................. 96
K-12 SCIENCE AND MATH EDUCATION ACROSS THE FEDERAL AGENCIES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
K-12 Science and Math Education
Across the Federal Agencies
thursday, march 30, 2006
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Thursday, March 30, 2006, the Committee on Science of the U.S.
House of Representatives will hold a hearing to examine how federal
agencies can improve their individual and collective efforts to
strengthen K-12 science and math education.
2. Witnesses
Ms. Margaret Spellings is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Education (ED).
Dr. Arden L. Bement is the Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF).
Ms. Shana Dale is the Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA).
Brigadier General John J. Kelly (ret.) is the Deputy Undersecretary of
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Dr. James Decker is the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of
Science at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
3. Overarching Questions
To what extent and how are the federal agencies
involved in K-12 math and science education coordinating their
efforts? What are their individual roles? To what extent and
how do they ensure that their individual programs are
complementary?
Are there uniform evaluation tools that agencies do
or could use to determine the effectiveness of their programs?
How do individual federal agencies strike a balance
in their portfolios among K-12 math and science programs that
are designed to encourage students who show great promise and
interest, programs that are designed to help students who are
struggling academically, and programs that are designed to
attract girls, under-represented minorities or students from
low-income families? Should every federal agency administer
programs for each subgroup of students or are some agencies
better served by targeting specific populations, such as those
who are academically promising and/or under-represented?
4. Background
Brief Overview
The quality of K-12 math and science education has been a growing
national concern. Most recently, the National Academy of Sciences'
report Rising Above the Gathering Storm pointed to the relatively poor
performance of U.S. students in math and science as a threat to the
Nation's long-term economic health. Numerous reports in recent years,
including the Academy report, have called for renewed efforts to
improve K-12 education, particularly by attracting top students into
teaching and improving the training of both current and future teachers
to deepen their understanding of, and comfort with, math and science
content. Prompted by such recommendations, the Science Committee has
pushed for years to enhance federal K-12 math and science education
efforts, particularly at NSF.
NSF and ED are the two primary federal agencies with responsibility
to improve K-12 math and science education. Other federal agencies have
also run a variety of programs to improve and promote math and science
education, often because they have scientists and research facilities
that can be tapped for such activities. Those agencies, including DOE
and the NOAA, also feel a commitment to keeping science strong in the
U.S. since performing research is part of their missions. In addition,
Congress has earmarked funds for education programs and grants in some
of the agencies, particularly NOAA and NASA.
The range of education programs across the agencies can be seen as
a strength--allowing program diversity and ensuring that all available
federal science resources are contributing to K-12 education. But that
diversity has also provoked concerns periodically that the federal
efforts are uncoordinated and include many programs that are too small
to make a difference or are otherwise ineffective and that the
education programs are a distraction from agencies' primary missions. A
report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in
October 2005 found that at least 13 agencies conduct programs designed
to strengthen math and science education and raised questions about the
lack of evaluation of a number of the programs. In February 2006,
Congress created the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC), a cabinet-
level group tasked with coordinating and evaluating the federal role in
math and science education.
Coordination could provoke a different set of concerns if it leads
to all federal programs fitting a single mold, dominated by No Child
Left Behind, which some critics charge has led to a reduced focus on
science education in the schools. For example, a survey released this
week by the Center on Education Policy found that most schools are
increasing their focus on reading and math by reducing instruction in
other areas, including science. However, others point out that
proficiency in math is needed to progress in science so that the
emphasis on math skills hardly detracts from the effort to improve
science achievement. Moreover, testing in science under the No Child
Left Behind Act will begin in 2007, and the preparation for these
assessments should place a renewed emphasis on science, as seen in the
design of new science tests and the reform of science courses to align
them to state standards.
GAO Report
In October 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), at the
request of Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, attempted to
inventory the federal programs that were designed to increase the
number of students or graduates in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields or to improve the quality of education in
those areas. The GAO report examined education programs at all levels,
from kindergarten to graduate school, not just the K-12 fields that are
the focus of this hearing. Among other things, GAO found the following:
In fiscal year 2004 (FY04), 13 agencies\1\ spent a
total of $2.8 billion for 207 programs that were designed to
increase the number of students and graduates or to improve
educational programs in STEM fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 13 federal agencies are as follows--National Science
Foundation, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Department of Commerce, Department of Education,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health,
Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of
Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Indian Health Service,
and Health Resources and Services Administration. The Department of
Defense, while identified by GAO as having STEM programs, did not
participate.
Of the 207 programs, 103 had not been evaluated,
including 17 programs that had been operating for more than 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
years.
94 of the programs identified were funded at less
than $1 million and 51 were funded between $1 and $5 million.
Six federal agencies spent the bulk (about $2.6
billion) of the reported funding for STEM education. The
largest amount of funding was at the National Institutes of
Health, followed by NSF, NASA, ED, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Health Resources and Services Administration
(within the Department of Health and Human Services). The
remaining agencies spent a combined total of $154 million.
According to GAO, the report took one year to complete due, in
large part, to the amount of time agencies took to provide GAO with
comprehensive information on their education programs. Also, since GAO
relied primarily on self-reporting by agencies, the inventory is not a
definitive list of STEM education programs or activities. (For example,
the Science Committee is aware of programs that were not included in
the survey, including several programs at NASA and the Department of
Defense.)
Academic Competitiveness Council
Partly in response to the GAO report, Congress established the
Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC), a cabinet-level group tasked
with coordinating and evaluating the federal role in math and science
education. Established in the Budget Deficit Reduction Act (Public Law
109-171), the ACC is chaired by the Secretary of Education and includes
``officials from federal agencies with responsibilities for managing
existing federal programs that promote mathematics and science.'' ACC
is responsible, within a year, for (1) identifying all federal programs
with a mathematics or science focus; (2) identifying the target
populations being served by such programs; (3) determining the
effectiveness of such programs; (4) identifying areas of overlap or
duplication in such programs; and (5) recommending ways to efficiently
integrate and coordinate such programs.
The ACC met for the first time on March 6, 2006, about a month
after the Act creating it was signed into law. The ACC, in conjunction
with the Office of Management and Budget, will inventory existing
federal math and science education programs, sort these programs by
program focus or goals, and then evaluate the effectiveness of the
programs. Within one year, the ACC is required to submit to each
Congressional committee with jurisdiction over a federal program
identified as promoting math and science education a report detailing
the ACC findings and recommendations, including recommendations for
legislative or administrative action. The Budget Deficit Reduction Act
provided ED with $50,000 to support the ACC's activities.
Prior to the creation of the ACC, there was already an existing
mechanism for coordinating math and science education, established by
Executive Order. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is
a cabinet-level council, overseen by the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), which serves as the principal means to
coordinate the federal research and development enterprise. NSTC
established a subcommittee on education in 2003, but it has been
relatively dormant.
American Competitiveness Initiative
In addition to proposing the doubling of the combined budgets of
the NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and DOE's
Office of Science over the next 10 years, President Bush's American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), proposes the creation and expansion
of a number of programs specifically targeted at improving K-12 math
and science education. To implement ACI, the President's budget request
proposes $380 million for programs at ED, including:
expansion of the Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate (AP/IB) program to support an additional 70,000
AP/IB math and science teachers;
creation of an Adjunct Teachers Corps to encourage up
to 30,000 math and science professionals to become adjunct high
school teachers;
creation of ``Math Now for Elementary Students'' to
help elementary school teachers learn proven methods and
practices of math instruction; and,
creation of ``Math Now for Secondary Students'' to
promote research-based instruction to improve upper level math
proficiency.
ACI also provides for the evaluation of federal science,
technology, engineering and math programs, and proposes an additional
$5 million to support the ACC's evaluation efforts.
Key Federal Agencies
NSF and ED are the two agencies of the Federal Government that
share primary responsibility for programs in K-12 education. While ED
is responsible for K-12 education across all disciplines and is
experienced in addressing the systemic problems of education, including
such varied challenges as student diversity (i.e., English language
learners, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and students with
special needs) and school financing, NSF is specifically concerned with
improving math and science education. Another key difference between
the two agencies is that ED funding is generally distributed by
statutory formulas (usually based on student population and income),
while NSF funding is competed for nationally and projects are chosen by
peer review.
U.S. Department of Education
ED currently administers a budget of about $88.9 billion per year
(that covers more than K-12 programs)--$57.6 billion in discretionary
appropriations and $31.3 billion in mandatory spending--and operates
programs that touch on every area and level of education. ED's current
programs strongly emphasize equitable educational opportunity for all,
and most major K-12 spending programs are designed either to equalize
available funding among schools or school districts or to help specific
groups of students, such as English language learners or those with
special needs. In addition, while some ED programs, such as Reading
First, are subject-specific, the vast majority of ED's programs allow
states and school districts flexibility in choosing what sorts of
programs or disciplines federal funding will be used to support.
The Math and Science Partnership at ED (ED MSP) is the one program
that specifically seeks to increase the academic achievement of
students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content knowledge
and teaching skills of classroom teachers. Allowable uses of funding
include professional development opportunities, recruitment bonuses and
performance incentives for qualified math and science teachers, and
scholarships for advanced course work in math and science. Funding for
ED MSP ($182 million in FY06), is, like most ED programs, distributed
from the Federal Government to all 50 states by a statutory formula,
based on state factors such as population and poverty. The amount of
funds awarded to the states in FY05 ranged from approximately $888,000
for small states like Delaware to $24 million for large states like
California. Each state then distributes the funding, on a competitive
basis, to partnerships of school districts, schools, and an institution
of higher education. According to Congressional Research Service
analysis of ED awards, funding at the local level can range from
$20,000 to $3.3 million, but it is not clear if this amount is for a
single year or for a multi-year award.
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, which established NSF,
directs NSF to support and strengthen math and science education
programs at all levels. Other statutes, notably the Education for
Economic Security Act (Public Law 98-377, signed in 1984), have
expanded this authority. Most recently, the Science Committee created
additional education programs at NSF in the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368).
NSF carries out its K-12 mission by supporting a variety of math
and science education activities, including teacher training (both in-
service and pre-service), curriculum development, education research,
and informal education at museums and science centers. A recent
reorganization of K-12 education has divided NSF's activities into
three categories: the development of more effective tests in math and
science, improving science teaching and learning, and translating the
results of education and cognitive research into classroom practice.
Like all NSF programs, funds for education projects are awarded
through a national, competitive process that draws on a wide variety of
experts from outside government for peer review of proposed activities.
While most federal agencies make little effort to evaluate the
effectiveness of their math and science education programs, NSF
requires an evaluation component to be included in individual education
projects, and also has commissioned evaluations of NSF's overall NSF
education programs. NSF has sought outside advice on how to perform the
evaluations. For example, a National Academy of Sciences committee in
2004 provided recommendations to further improve program and project
evaluations at NSF.
Most NSF education programs are housed in the Education and Human
Resources (EHR) Directorate. The President's budget proposes $816
million for EHR in FY07, a level that only begins to restore cuts EHR
experienced in previous years (dropping from $944 million in FY04 to
$797 million in FY06). Funding for the K-12 programs within EHR
experienced similar declines in that period, with ``formal'' K-12
programs\2\ going from $118 million in FY04 to $93 million in FY06 and
the NSF's Math and Science Partnership Program (NSF MSP) dropping from
$139 million in FY04 to $63 million in FY06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``formal K-12 programs'' are the Instructional Materials
Development Program, the Teacher Professional Continuum Program, and
the Centers for Learning and Teaching Program, which were combined to
form the Discovery Research K-12 program in the recent reorganization
of NSF EHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush proposed the creation of the NSF MSP as part of his
original No Child Left Behind initiative, and NSF MSP was authorized as
part of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. Congress then created a
complementary (and similarly titled) program at ED as part of the No
Child Left Behind Act. The NSF MSP program funds partnerships between
universities and local school districts to strengthen the content
knowledge of elementary and secondary schoolteachers. The grantees are
expected to run innovative reform programs that, if successful, would
be the key to large-scale reform at the State level. Unlike ED MSP, NSF
MSP funds are competitively awarded at the national level, and the
grants range from $2.5 million per year for up to five years for
targeted programs to $7 million per year for comprehensive efforts to
improve math and science teaching and learning across the K-12
continuum.
In addition to NSF MSP and the ``formal'' K-12 programs, NSF also
runs the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, created by the NSF
Authorization Act of 2002. The Noyce program awards grants to colleges
and universities to award scholarships to top math and science majors
or minors in return for a commitment to teach at the elementary or
secondary school level two years for each year of support received.
Universities may also use the grant funds to support programs to help
these prospective teachers obtain their certification and prosper in
their new profession. In FY06, the program was funded at $9 million,
and $10 million is requested for FY07.
Outside of EHR, NSF supports education through its ``broader
impacts'' criteria for all research grants awarded through its Research
and Related Activities account. Applications for NSF research awards
are reviewed not only to determine the merit of the proposed research
activity, but also to determine how the activity will promote teaching,
training and learning, broaden the participation of under-represented
groups, and provide larger benefits to society.
Other Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Energy
DOE runs its K-12 programs out of both headquarters and its
National Laboratories, focusing primarily on supporting of mathematics,
science and engineering education programs by using the personnel,
facilities, equipment and resources of its laboratories to assist local
schools, teachers and students. DOE's activities include providing
research experiences for students intending to become math or science
teachers, providing training for teachers who agree to become ``teacher
leaders'' in math and science, and supporting academic competitions in
science and math for high school students. The impetus for these
programs often comes from individual National Labs, whose commitment to
education often depends on the leadership at the lab. According to DOE,
$86 million was spent on education activities at all levels in FY05,
with $8 million specifically allocated for K-12 education.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Additional funding from DOE's undergraduate activities, funded
at $40 million in FY05, may have supported teacher training in math and
science but a breakdown of this funding was not available at the time
of the charter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's involvement in education, particularly at the graduate level,
go back to its predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission.
Congressional support for DOE's educational programs has varied over
time, with Congress sometimes encouraging these programs and sometimes
discouraging them. In FY95, Congress appropriated $70 million to the
DOE Office of Science Education and Technical Information for science
education activities, including undergraduate research activities at
DOE laboratories, graduate and faculty fellowships, teacher development
programs and K-12 outreach. In FY96, Congress abolished the Office of
Science Education and Technical Information, reduced funding for
science education, and centralized the remaining education programs
within the Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science). In
FY97, Congress eliminated all funding for university and science
education programs at DOE but, in FY97 and FY98, required that line
programs should sponsor the education programs. Most recently, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a set-aside of 0.3 percent of the
applied energy program research and development funding to support DOE
Office of Science education programs, and several new programs were
created at the undergraduate and graduate levels, again affirming the
role of the agency in education.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA's organic act, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958,
directs the agency to expand human knowledge about space. As part of
this effort, NASA's K-12 education activities include workshops and
internships for teachers and students offered by NASA's centers,
professional development for science and math teachers, and providing
materials and visiting astronauts to schools, museums and science
centers. Specifically, NASA K-12 education programs include the
Educator Astronaut Program, which selects three teachers to become
members of the Astronaut Corps, and the NASA Explorer Schools program,
which brings together teachers and administrators to improve STEM
teaching and learning in low-income schools.
In recent years, NASA education has been organized in a number of
different ways, from being consolidated into an ``Enterprise'' on par
with other NASA activities, such as space flight, to being spread out
throughout the agency. Today, NASA education is centralized in the
Office of Education, which contains five program areas,\4\ including
one for Elementary and Secondary Education. Funding for Elementary and
Secondary Education at NASA totaled $29 million in FY06. (Many NASA
earmarks are focused on education activities; according to NASA, in
FY06, 72 earmarks, totaling $82 million, were located within the $162
million budget of the Office of Education.) The National Aeronautics
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155)
requires NASA to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct a review
and evaluation of NASA's precollege science, technology, and
mathematics education programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The other program areas include Higher Education, e-Education,
Informal Education and Minority University Research and Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the activities funded through the Office of
Education, NASA promotes education and outreach as an integral
component of every major research and development mission, spending an
additional $150 million on activities at all educational levels through
its Mission Directorates. For instance, as part of the Materials
International Space Station Experiment, NASA researchers worked with
high school students to analyze the effects of low orbit on a variety
of materials.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA's K-12 activities focus on improving understanding of Earth
and ocean sciences through such activities as teacher training and the
development of educational materials.
NOAA's Office of Education serves as the primary point of contact
for NOAA on education activities and coordinates the programs within
the agency whose primary purpose is education. The FY06 budget for the
Office was about $38 million, but there is no breakdown available for
K-12 education. Historically, many of NOAA's education programs at the
K-12 level have been funded through Congressional earmarks. The
Administration believes that earmarks accounted for about half of the
FY06 budget for the Office.
Earmarked programs include the creation of a high school Earth
system science laboratory course ($4 million in FY06), and several
regional education and training programs to support hands-on
environmental experiences ($7 million in FY06). Congress has also added
funding to programs that promote the sciences through scientific
expeditions, like JASON, which uses live broadcasts to share the
discoveries of research at sea with students and teachers. Past JASON
expeditions have ``taken'' students on such missions as an exploration
of the Titanic and the discovery of zooplankton in Monterey Bay.
In addition to formal K-12 education activities, NOAA conducts
informal education through its support of marine sanctuaries and
reserves, funds lesson plans and teacher professional development in
ocean sciences, and supports a ``Teacher at Sea'' program, which allows
elementary teachers to go aboard NOAA research and survey ships to
deepen their understanding of the ocean.
Legislation
While this hearing is not designed to focus on any specific
legislation, several bills have been introduced to strengthen STEM
education in response to the various reports and commissions on U.S.
competitiveness. Most of these bills seek to improve K-12 math and
science education through teacher recruitment or training programs. For
instance, S. 2198, Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act,
and H.R. 4434, introduced by Congressman Bart Gordon, authorize NSF to
award scholarships to students majoring in STEM education who
concurrently pursue their teacher certification, per the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' Rising Above the
Gathering Storm report. S. 2197, PACE-Energy, also establishes a
scholarship program for students in STEM fields and supports the
creation of a part-time, three-year Master's degree in math and science
for teachers at DOE, not NSF. In addition, S. 2197 creates other new K-
12 programs at DOE, including incentives to help states create math and
science ``specialty schools'' and new training and research
opportunities for K-12 teachers and students at the National
Laboratories.
In addition to the competitiveness bills, other relevant introduced
legislation includes H.R. 50, the NOAA Organic Act, which establishes
as a NOAA mission educating the public about the Earth's oceans and
atmosphere and fostering the public's ability to understand and
integrate scientific information into considerations of national
environmental issues. The Science Committee passed H.R. 50 last
session.
5. Questions for Witnesses
The panelists were each asked to address the following questions in
their testimony before the Committee:
What are the one or two most important steps the
Federal Government should be taking to improve K-12 science and
math education and what is the role of your agency in taking
those steps? What is the single most effective program your
agency runs to help take those steps? How do you know that that
program has been effective?
In general, how does your agency evaluate its
programs? Have you examined the evaluation techniques of other
federal agencies and departments and, if so, do they have
techniques that you have made use of or plan to make use of?
How have you ensured that your agency's activities in
K-12 math and science complement those of other federal
agencies and departments in the following areas:
1) attracting students to the teaching profession;
2) providing pre- and in-service teacher training;
3) developing curricula; and
4) supporting informal learning.
How do you decide how to strike a balance in your
portfolio among K-12 math and science programs that are
designed to encourage students who show great promise and
interest, programs that are designed to help students who are
struggling academically, and programs that are designed to
attract girls, under-represented minorities or students from
low-income families (whatever their level of proficiency)?
Should every federal agency administer programs for each
subgroup of students or are some agencies better served by
targeting specific populations, such as those who are
academically promising and/or under-represented?
Chairman Boehlert. The hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone here this morning to what I
think is an historic hearing. Never before have all the primary
federal agencies with responsibility for science and math
education appeared together before the Congress, either the
House or the Senate. This is history-making.
We wanted to bring these five agencies together publicly to
make a few key points. First, all five of these agencies have
important roles to play in K-12 science and math education.
Second, they each need to design their programs by drawing on
their unique strengths and resources. We need not, and indeed
should not, have a single, monolithic way of approaching
education. And third, while we need a multiplicity of programs,
those efforts need to be coordinated.
Coordination doesn't mean that every program has to fit a
single mold, and coordination doesn't mean that agencies should
not have some overlapping efforts. As with research funding, a
strength of our system is that more than one agency may be
working in a field. But coordination does mean that any overlap
should be intentional and justified, and that agencies should
be drawing on each other's expertise and experiences.
Moreover, every agency must be evaluating its programs, and
must share both the evaluation methods and results, so that we
can continue to improve both the way programs are evaluated and
the evaluations themselves.
What the Committee is going to want to hear today is how
each agency views its role in K-12 science and math education,
how it coordinates that role with others, and how it evaluates
its programs.
The Committee will be keenly interested in your answers,
because every single one of us believes that K-12 science and
math education is the ultimate key to our future prosperity and
strength, and one might say survival as a Nation. This is,
indeed, a national security issue of the highest magnitude. As
the National Academy pointed out in its recent ``Rising Above
the Gathering Storm'' report, improvement of K-12 education
needs to be the keystone of an innovation agenda.
Over the next two months, this committee will develop and
report out legislation designed to enhance our nation's efforts
in this area. Mr. Gordon has already introduced legislation, as
I am sure he will point out, and rightly so, and we will be
doing so as well in the near future. I think Mr. Gordon and I
are in complete agreement that a focus of that legislation
needs to be doing a better job of attracting more top science
students and math into teaching and enhancing the knowledge of
current teachers in those areas.
I think there are a number of current programs we need to
expand that already do that, such as the Noyce Scholarship
Program at the National Science Foundation, I might add
inadequately funded, but a good program, and I am sure there
are other examples that could be expanded that we will hear
about today. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, but we do
need to be sure it can cover more ground.
One element of achieving that is, of course, ensuring that
our education programs are adequately funded, and I would just
note that what I have said before: this committee is committed
to seeking better funding for NSF's education programs. A lot
of people are wishing all the time for improvements in
education. Well, all the wishes in the world won't do the job
if the resources don't support those wishes. The programs are
underfunded in what, in most ways, is a very bold and forward-
looking Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal for science and math.
I know the--excuse me, I know the Administration shares our
commitment to revitalizing science and math education, but it
will take some more money and some more ideas beyond what has
already been suggested. And I look forward to working with all
of our witnesses today to build on the excellent foundation the
President has founded. But I don't just like having a good
solid foundation. I want to build on that foundation. Once
again, let me stress, I view this as a national security
imperative.
And I hope this will not be the last time the four of you
appear before us together, because we need to work as a team.
That has to be our approach, to pursue a coordinated, yet
pluralistic approach to education, to ensure our nation's
future success.
Mr. Gordon.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
I want to welcome everyone here this morning to what I think is an
historic hearing. Never before have all the primary federal agencies
with responsibility for science and math education appeared together
before the Congress.
We wanted to bring these five agencies together publicly to make a
few key points. First, all five of these agencies have important roles
to play in K-12 science and math education. Second, they each need to
design their programs by drawing on their unique strengths and
resources; we need not, and indeed should not, have a single,
monolithic way of approaching education. And third, while we need a
multiplicity of programs, those efforts need to be coordinated.
Coordination doesn't mean that every program has to fit a single
mold, and coordination doesn't mean that agencies should not have some
overlapping efforts. As with research funding, a strength of our system
is that more than one agency may be working in a field. But
coordination does mean that any overlap should be intentional and
justified and that agencies should be drawing on each other's expertise
and experiences.
Moreover, every agency must be evaluating its programs, and must
share both the evaluation methods and results, so that we can continue
to improve both the way programs are evaluated and the evaluations
themselves.
What the Committee is going to want to hear today is how each
agency views its role in K-12 science and math education, how it
coordinates that role with others, and how it evaluates its programs.
The Committee will be keenly interested in your answers because
every single one of us believes that K-12 science and math education is
the ultimate key to our future prosperity and strength as a nation. As
the National Academy pointed out in its report Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, improvement of K-12 education needs to be the keystone
of an innovation agenda.
Over the next two months, this committee will develop and report
out legislation designed to enhance our nation's efforts in this area.
Mr. Gordon has already introduced legislation, as I'm sure he will
point out, and we will be doing so as well. I think Mr. Gordon and I
are in complete agreement that a focus of that legislation needs to be
doing a better job of attracting more top science students and math
into teaching and enhancing the knowledge of current teachers in those
areas.
I think there are a number of current programs we need to expand
that already do that, such as the Noyce Scholarship Program at the
National Science Foundation (NSF). And I'm sure there are other
examples of programs that could be expanded that we will hear about
today. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, but we do need to be sure
it can cover more ground.
One element of achieving that is, of course, ensuring that our
education programs are adequately funded, and I would just note now
what I've said before: this committee is committed to seeking better
funding for NSF's education programs. They are underfunded in what in
most other ways is a very bold and forward-looking fiscal 2007 budget
proposal for science and math.
I know the Administration shares our commitment to revitalizing
science and math education. But it will take some more money and some
more ideas beyond what the Administration has suggested. And I look
forward to working with all of our witnesses today to build on the
excellent foundation the President has provided.
I hope this will not be the last time that all of you appear before
us together because we need to work as a team to pursue a coordinated,
yet pluralistic approach to education to ensure our nation's future
success.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
statement, I submit a letter signed by the majority of the
Democratic Members of the Science Committee. This letter
asserts the Minority Members' rights under the House Committee
Rules to select additional witnesses to be called to testify on
the pending subject matter, for at least one additional
hearing.
Now, those are the magic words. Let me tell you what we are
talking about. The Majority has the right to call all
witnesses, or to set up all hearings. The Minority has no
rights to set up a hearing, but the Minority does have a right
to have one little witness. The Majority can have two
witnesses, 20 witnesses, 40 witnesses, but the Minority is
protected, in that they have one witness. Now, it seems if we
are going to be talking about math and science education here
today, that it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a teacher join
this panel from a real world view. We were denied that
opportunity, and so, for that reason, I will request that we
have another opportunity to do that.
I say that for all of you that are here, maybe here for the
first time, there is no animosity between the Chairman and the
Ranking Member, but we have certain responsibilities. Now, with
that said, let me do what I normally do after the Chairman
makes his remarks. I concur wholeheartedly and enthusiastically
with his remarks. I compliment the Chairman and Congressman
Ehlers, particularly on their leadership in going to the
Administration and making them aware of the real need, and the
strong support in Congress for additional STEM funding. They
were leaders. They helped get this done, and I compliment them
for that. And I am pleased that we are having this hearing
today to review the efforts to improve the K-12 STEM education.
The importance of STEM education for the Nation's future
well being has been stressed in many reports over the past few
years, most recently by the Augustine report. We are all
familiar with now, the National Academy's ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm.'' The Gathering Storm report laid out specific
recommendations for actions the Nation needs to take now to
remain competitive in the 21st Century. The report's key
recommendation focused on K-12 STEM education, and it
identifies the area of greatest need: teachers.
The report points out that 69 percent of middle school
students in the United States were taught by teachers with
neither a college major in math, or certification to teach
math. Similarly, 93 percent of these students receive
instructions in physical sciences from teachers with no major
or certificate in the field.
Two weeks ago, the Research Subcommittee held a hearing on
undergraduate STEM education. One of the witnesses was Carl
Wieman, a distinguished physics professor who received the 2001
Nobel Prize. Dr. Wieman is concerned about science education,
and has put his money where his mouth is. He is using his Nobel
award funds to improve the undergraduate physical science
education programs.
He has said in the hearing, and I quote: ``Unless you
improve science education at the college level first, you are
wasting your time and money on trying to make major
improvements in K-12.'' I think Dr. Wieman and the Augustine
report have it exactly right.
The K-12 STEM education priorities ought to be to improve
the undergraduate education of new teachers, and to increase
substantially the professional development opportunities for
current teachers, in order to raise their subject knowledge and
their teaching skills.
The second important message that came out of the Research
Subcommittee hearing was strong agreement from the panel of
witnesses that the National Science Foundation should be the
major player in the federal efforts to improve STEM education.
Unfortunately, the K-12 STEM education component of the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative has different
priorities, and assigns different agency roles.
It focuses most of the resources on curriculum development,
and places all responsibility on the Department of Education,
ignoring potential contributions from the National Science
Foundation, or other federal agencies that support K-12 STEM
education efforts.
I look forward to learning the rationale for these from
Secretary Spellings and Director Bement, as well as other
witnesses.
The Augustine report rightly states that laying the
foundation for a scientifically literate workforce begins with
developing outstanding K-12 teachers in science and
mathematics, and I believe this is a goal that can and must be
achieved.
I hope to come away from this hearing having gained
confidence that the agencies represented here are developing
plans and programs to help meet that goal.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me just tell you the bottom line.
Once again, I compliment you. I think you had a great deal of
influence on getting the Administration to come forth with this
additional STEM funding, but when you look at where they are
spending it, 70 percent of these new dollars are being spent
for math curriculum development. Yeah, we need that, but do 70
percent of the funds need to be in that particular area?
The other area of concern is, for over 50 years, the
National Science Foundation has been a leader in K-12
education. We have an existing program that is acknowledged to
work, yet over the last few years, the Administration has cut
it 47 percent. So, if we are going to be taking this new money,
it would seem that we could best spend it by funding existing
programs that we know work. That is an opinion, rightly or
wrong, that I would like for this panel to address.
And let me say to Secretary Spellings, this is not a
reflection on you. From all that I--this is our first
encounter. I don't know we really called this meeting, but our
first encounter. From all that I have seen, read, and heard,
you are bringing a common sense to Department of Education, and
improving that situation there. That is a very important
Department, but that is a big, unwieldy Department, and it
seems to me, you have got your hands full, and it would be a
good day's work just to make, you know, work what you have got
going there. And so, it is not a reflection on you or your
ability, or the importance of the Department of Education. It
is trying to use, I think limited funds in a way that we know
that works, and letting you use your skills to make the
Department work better with the responsibilities that you have.
So thank you all for being here with us today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you have convened this hearing to review
federal efforts to improve K-12 science, technology, engineering and
mathematics education--or STEM education for short.
The importance of STEM education for the Nation's future well being
has been stressed in many reports over the past few years, most
recently by the Augustine report from the National Academies, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.
The Gathering Storm report lays out specific recommendations for
actions the Nation needs to take now to remain competitive in the 21st
century. The report's key recommendations focus on K-12 STEM education,
and it identifies the area of greatest need--teachers.
The report points out that 69 percent of middle school students in
the U.S. are taught by teachers with neither a college major in math
nor certification to teach math. Similarly, 93 percent of these
students receive instruction in physical sciences from teachers with no
major or certification in the field.
While things are a bit better for high school students, we still
find 31 percent of students nationally are taught math by teachers
without majors or certification in math, and 63 percent by teachers
without majors or certification in the physical sciences.
Two weeks ago the Research Subcommittee held a hearing on
undergraduate STEM education. One of the witnesses was Carl Wieman, a
distinguished physics professor who received the 2001 Nobel Prize in
Physics. Dr. Wieman is concerned about science education and has put
his money where his mouth is. He has been using his Nobel award to fund
efforts to improve undergraduate physics education.
He said at the hearing, and I quote, ``unless you improve science
education at the college level first, you are wasting your time and
money on trying to make major improvements in K-12 [education].''
I think Dr. Wieman and the Augustine report have it exactly right.
The K-12 STEM education priorities ought to be to improve the
undergraduate education of new teachers and to increase substantially
the professional development opportunities for current teachers, in
order to raise their subject knowledge and teaching skills.
The second important message that came out of the Research
Subcommittee hearing was strong agreement from the panel of witnesses
that NSF should be a major player in federal efforts to improve STEM
education. Unfortunately, the K-12 STEM education component of the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative has different
priorities and assigns different agency roles.
It focuses most of its resources on curriculum development and
places all responsibility on the Department of Education, ignoring
potential contributions from NSF or other federal agencies that support
K-12 STEM education efforts.
I look forward to learning the rationale for these choices from
Secretary Spellings and Director Bement, as well as from our other
witnesses.
To gain the maximum advantage from the relatively small federal
investment in K-12 STEM education, it is important to identify and
concentrate on replicating programs that work. This is only possible if
effective mechanisms are in place for program coordination, planning,
and assessment across the government.
Although such mechanisms exist on paper, there is little evidence
they actually work. The subcommittee charged with this role under the
National Science and Technology Council has been invisible.
A new entity, the Academic Competitiveness Council, or ACC is now
being established as a result of legislation passed this year. Chaired
by the Secretary of Education, it was tasked to identify federal STEM
programs, evaluate program effectiveness, identify duplication, and
recommend how to integrate and coordinate these programs. In short, the
ACC was tasked to do what the NSTC subcommittee was presumably
responsible for doing.
I hope to hear what the status is of this new effort at
coordination and planning and to find out whether there is any basis
for hope that it may succeed. Without strong congressional oversight,
I'm not confident the ACC will be any improvement.
The Augustine report rightly states that ``laying the foundation
for a scientifically literate workforce begins with developing
outstanding K-12 teachers in science and mathematics.'' I believe this
is a goal that can and must be achieved. I hope to come away from his
hearing having gained confidence that the agencies represented here are
developing plans and programs to help meet that goal.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back my time.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
I am pleased the Committee is holding this hearing today.
Bolstering the science, technology, engineering, and math education of
our children is one of the most important issues facing our nation.
Without a strong education in these areas, our country will not thrive.
I am thrilled that many of my colleagues and the Administration
recognize the need and are taking steps to address K-12 STEM
educational improvements.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the President's call to maintain
the competitive ability of the United States in an increasingly
innovative world economy. His American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)
requests focused funding on areas that will improve STEM education and
promote domestic innovation and economic productivity. It is a bold and
ambitious approach to keeping America at the forefront of research and
education by increasing the numbers of highly qualified math and
science teachers, expanding high school advanced placement offerings,
and providing workforce skills training to some 800,000 workers
annually.
While I am heartened by the commitment the Administration's request
shows for the fundamental research budget at National Science
Foundation (NSF), I would like to register my concern that the
education programs at the NSF as well as other agencies have not been
included in the ACI. NSF is the primary federal supporter of science
and math education; it underwrites the development of the next
generation of scientists and engineers. While the overall budget of NSF
increases almost eight percent, the Education and Human Resources
directorate experiences a modest 2.5 percent increase and a dramatic
restructuring. This is a continuing, but distressing, trend for NSF to
move away from their K-12 educational mission and to focus solely on
graduate education and activities to broaden participation in STEM
fields. Decreasing the role of NSF in education seems very shortsighted
when we are currently facing the challenge of adequately preparing our
students to enter science and technology fields.
The ACI dedicates new funds to a ``Math Now'' Initiative to improve
math in elementary and middle schools. While I am certainly pleased the
President is focusing on this area at the Department of Education, I
believe we need to have a parallel ``Science Now'' Initiative to
isolate and promote effective science teaching. Tackling the
disciplines one by one does a disservice to our students. Even with our
limited resources, we must find ways not to rob a child of science
education because we believe they should learn other subjects first.
Each child deserves a strong background in math, reading and science. A
Science Panel could also examine the issue of high school sequencing of
science course work. Because our nation is extremely transitory,
coupled with the local structure of education, a student who changes
school districts may miss a year of science because the course work is
not offered in the same order. There must be an optimal sequence to
offer such course work and a Science Panel could help determine this.
The emphasis today is coordination. It is imperative that the
agencies work together on STEM education, acknowledging common goals
and leveraging limited resources. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses how their agencies are coordinating their STEM education
efforts, and about their unique strengths.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
our committee to review federal programs that support science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at K-12 grade
levels.
Building a high quality education system today is the key to
ensuring a strong future for America. Today's hearing will closely
examine the focus and priorities of current STEM education programs
because the quality of K-12 math and science education has been a
growing national concern.
Most recently, the National Academy of Sciences' report Rising
Above the Gathering Storm pointed to the relatively poor performance of
U.S. students in math and science as a threat to the Nation's long-term
economic health. Numerous reports in recent years, including the
Academy report, have called for renewed efforts to improve K-12
education, particularly by attracting top students into teaching.
Further, studies suggest the need to improve the training of both
current and future teachers to enrich their understanding of the math
and science curriculum. As a senior Member of the Science Committee, I
have supported increased funding for federal K-12 math and science
education efforts to ensure that our students--the future scientists,
technologists, engineers, mathematicians, workers, and others
responsible for our nation's future innovations, our national security,
our economy, and our quality of life-receive a world class education in
the sciences and mathematics.
The Department of Education and NSF are the two primary federal
agencies with responsibility to improve K-12 math and science
education. However, the President's American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI) requests $380 million for STEM education activities, all at the
Department of Education. Does this imply that the other agencies that
support STEM education do a poor job at administering effective
education programs?
Further, STEM education activities across agencies are supposed to
be coordinated by the Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee
of the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on
Science. However, I am unhappy to learn that little planning and
coordination has been carried out by the subcommittee. I would like to
know what has the subcommittee been doing since its establishment in
2003?
Last, I would like to express my concerns with the findings of a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report done last October that
revealed 103 of 207, or almost half, of the current STEM education
programs have never been evaluated, including seventeen programs that
have been operating for more than fifteen years.
As an oversight committee, I hope we can work together to assist
the federal agencies to coordinate their efforts to ensure their
individual programs complement one another, without losing their
effectiveness or focus. Our children's education is not only the key to
their personal success, but also to the success of our country's
economic growth.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
I welcome the witnesses. Today's hearing is valuable because it
gathers together leaders of several federal agencies with the potential
to make major changes in STEM education in America.
The issue of K-12 education in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (also called STEM), is of critical importance.
America is losing is competitiveness in these areas, as is
evidenced by a loss of jobs in knowledge-intensive industries.
My District, the 30th District of Texas, contains a majority of
individuals who belong to racial and ethnic minorities.
These minorities represent a tremendous untapped resource of
domestic STEM talent.
The Federal Government can do more when it comes to encouraging
minorities to pursue STEM careers.
I would like to see greater collaboration and cooperation among the
federal agencies, especially with regard to minority outreach.
Collaboration between government and industry should occur to a greater
extent, and I would like to know how the Science Committee can
facilitate those important partnerships.
Teachers who are well-paid, well-prepared and passionate about STEM
should be in our classrooms, inspiring students at the elementary and
middle school levels.
STEM should be presented within the context of the thrill of
discovery and challenge of creativity, not only the drudgery of
memorization.
Ranking Member Gordon has introduced several pieces of legislation
to encourage teacher development and strengthen our STEM education
workforce.
I have co-sponsored that legislation and urge Congress to move on
those good efforts.
As the Science Committee strives to direct and encourage policies
to strengthen federal efforts to improve STEM education, it is my hope
that today's witnesses will benefit from this exchange of ideas and be
able to work together, in partnership with Congress, to better serve
America's youth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn Woolsey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing. Math and
science education is a critical subject for our nation's future.
In It's a Flat World, After All Thomas Friedman explained that
America's historical economic advantages have disappeared now that
``the world is flat, and anyone with smarts, access to Google, and a
cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation fray.''
In the 1800s, economic competition was local. By the 1900s, it was
national. And today, as we know, economic competition is international.
People in my hometown of Petaluma aren't competing for jobs just
with people in San Francisco, or even in Chicago or New York--they are
competing with people in New Delhi and Beijing.
Which means that for our country to continue to lead the world in
innovation, we must make our education system the best in the world.
In particular, we must be the best in math and science, which are
more important than ever as we move further into the information age.
And so, I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say about
their efforts in this area.
But, I must also remind everyone that at the same time that the
President has touted his American Competitiveness Initiative, he has
frozen funding for early childhood education, underfunded the No Child
Left Behind Act by $55 billion, and cut student aid by $12 billion.
Those numbers represent our failure to help millions of low- and
middle-income children realize their potential and their dreams.
And that's bad not only for those children and their families, but
it is bad for American competitiveness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Michael M. Honda
Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon, thank you for holding
this important hearing today. I also thank the witnesses for making the
time to be with us today. I only wish that it would have been possible
to have some witnesses from outside the Administration who would be
free to give us an independent assessment of the current STEM education
programs that we have in place and the proposals that the President has
put forth in his budget and State of the Union address. I believe that
an outside perspective would have been very useful in informing the
Committee, and I am disappointed that the Minority was not permitted
one here today.
There are a number of major questions that I hope to hear answers
to today. The President's American Competitiveness Initiative focuses
almost exclusively on the development of curriculum for math, while the
Augustine Report suggests that focusing on teacher education and
professional development are the greatest areas of need. Why does this
difference exist?
The budget request de-emphasizes the role of the National Science
Foundation in K-12 STEM education, while at the same time evaluations
have shown that the Math and Science Partnerships program has produced
substantial improvements in student performance and all NSF programs
score highly in assessments. What is the motivation for this change at
NSF?
And while the ACI includes $380 million in new funding for STEM
education programs at the Department of Education, at the same time the
budget request cuts over $1 billion in funding for several programs
that improve science and math achievement and improve the chances
under-represented students will attend and graduate from college. How
is this budget consistent with the President's statement in the
description of the American Competitiveness Initiative that ``the
bedrock of America's competitiveness is a well-educated and skilled
workforce''?
I hope that we will get some answers to the serious questions that
have been raised, although I am skeptical that this panel of
Administration-only witnesses will provide those answers. I believe
that we will need to hold future hearings on this matter and bring in
some independent, outside voices to provide additional perspective on
these issues.
Chairman Boehlert. And now, for our distinguished
facilitators. The panel consists of: Ms. Margaret Spellings,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, Madam Secretary;
Dr. Arden Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation,
Doctor; Ms. Shana Dale, the Deputy Administrator of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, welcome home;
Brigadier General John Kelly, the Deputy Undersecretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, General; and Dr. James Decker, the Principal
Deputy Director of the Office of Science at the U.S. Department
of Energy, Dr. Decker.
It is good to see you all here, and it is good to see this
team together, and it is so important that this team work well
together, and unlike in the past, when I can recall days when
we had to introduce people from the Department of Education to
the National Science Foundation, including at the very top,
supposedly working together, the first time they ever met each
other. That is not the case with this panel. You work well
together, and we want to help you work even better, more
effectively.
So with that, we will go first to you, Madam Secretary.
STATEMENT OF MS. MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Secretary Spellings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here. Congressman Gordon, thank you for
your comments. I look forward to our dialogue today.
Thank you to each Member of the Committee, and thank you
for inviting me today. I would like to congratulate you first,
Mr. Chairman, on your 24 years of service to this Congress and
to the American people, and I hope that whatever your life
holds next, that we will not lose your very strong voice for
children and competitiveness, and all that we have to do
together, so please bear that in mind.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President's
Competitiveness agenda today with the Committee that has been a
leading advocate to ensure that America remains the world
leader in innovation and research. While testifying before this
committee is a departure from my normal Hill appearances, I
think it underscores the need to rely on government-wide
resources if we are going to give our students the skills to
compete, work, and lead in the global economy, and I have no
doubt that the House Education Committee could benefit from
hearing from my colleagues on this panel today, as well.
As all of you know, our children aren't growing up in the
same world we did. You can't pick up a newspaper or magazine
these days without reading about global competitiveness,
especially in math and science. While we sleep at night,
accountants in India do our taxes, radiologists in Australia
read our CAT scans, technicians in China build our computers.
In a recent Newsweek cartoon, there is a--they poke fun at
outsourcing NCAA office brackets even. As other nations race to
catch up, there is mounting evidence that our students are
falling behind, and I know you all have heard the numbers, but
they do bear repeating.
Our 15 year olds rank 24th of 29 developed nations in math
literacy and problem solving. Almost half of our 17-year-olds
don't have the math skills to work as a production associate at
a modern auto plant. We know that 90 percent of the fastest
growing jobs require post-secondary education, and yet, fewer
than half of our students graduate from high school ready for
college level math or science. Every year, a million students
drop out of high school, and nearly five out of ten African-
American and Hispanic ninth graders do not graduate from high
school on time, in a day and time when most of the jobs require
post-secondary education.
Wherever I go, like you, I hear from governors, business
people, educators, and parents that our students are not
prepared, and if we are going to move in a new, positive
direction, we must make high schools more rigorous, and
encourage students to take more advanced math and science
classes. Employers today need workers with pocket protector
skills, creative problem solvers with strong math and science
backgrounds. Whether children and adults want to be auto
mechanics or cancer researchers, they must have these skills.
The President's American Competitiveness Initiative will
devote $380 million to strengthen K-12 math and science
education, and importantly, it will build on the success of No
Child Left Behind, which is getting results all across our
country, and increase academic rigor across the board.
Overall, the Department of Education will increase funding
for our programs in these critical areas by about 51 percent.
The President has called for the formation of the National Math
Panel, a coalition of experts to help us identify the best
research on proven strategies to teach these skills, and his
budget also includes $250 million for a new Math Now Initiative
that will give elementary and middle school students the
academic foundation necessary to succeed in rigorous math
classes in high school, such as advanced placement.
Our challenge today is that nearly 40 percent of our high
schools offer no such classes, and that must change, especially
when we know that just taking one or two AP courses increases a
student's chance of graduating from college on time. The
President has called for $122 million to prepare 70,000
teachers to lead advanced placement and international
baccalaureate classes in math/science, and critical foreign
languages. His budget includes $25 million to help recruit
30,000 math and science professionals to become adjunct high
school teachers in these critical areas.
This urgent work is before us, and we must do what works.
As policy-makers, we must focus on results. We have looked at
data to see what policies are most effective for students, and
where we can save taxpayers' money, or operate more efficiently
by eliminating and consolidating programs that aren't getting
results for our students. According to the GAO, thirteen
different government agencies, including yours and mine, spend
about $2.8 billion on 207 different programs for math and
science education, almost half of them receiving less than $1
million. These programs are in their own silos with little or
no coordination between them, or linkage to No Child Left
Behind's goals of raising student achievement for all students.
It is a thousand flowers blooming, and maybe even a few weeds
throughout the government.
So, let us ask ourselves some pointed questions. What are
our goals for these programs? Do we have a consensus on what
the goals should be? Who is our client? Are we spending
millions to train teachers who possess a strong math or science
knowledge base already, or are we reaching the teachers who
need the training the most? Do we want these programs to
produce an educated workforce, Nobel prizewinners, or both?
Congress created the American Competitiveness Council,
which I chair, to answer questions like these, and align our
efforts around shared strategic goals. At the beginning of
March, the President and I led the first meeting to begin the
process of evaluating how well these math and science programs
are working, and improve coordination between them. We must
align our efforts with the principles of No Child Left Behind.
By continuing to hold schools accountable for getting all
students to grade level in reading and math by 2014, and by
giving local policy-makers and educators the resources,
authority, and research base to do what is best.
It is not just for reading and math. We will have science
assessments in place by 2007, and the President has called for
them to be a part of the accountability system as well. As
leaders and policy-makers, as parents, it is our job to look
down the road, and make sure our kids are prepared for the
future. As the President said in the State of the Union: ``If
we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will
ensure that America succeeds in the world, and if we raise our
expectations, our students will rise to the challenge.''
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Spellings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margaret Spellings
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
importance of education to maintaining our global leadership, and the
President's proposed serious and innovative reforms that will prepare
our children to become leaders themselves.
THE CHALLENGE: TO INNOVATE EDUCATION
America has long been innovation's home. When faced with a
challenge, we invent the answer: from the first telephone to global
satellite communications; from the first computer to the World Wide
Web; from the Wright Brothers to Neil Armstrong. To Americans,
innovation means much more than the latest gadget. It means creating a
more productive, prosperous, mobile and healthy society. Innovation
fuels our way of life and improves our quality of life. And its well-
spring is education.
Throughout his Administration, President Bush has made innovation
and education top priorities. The President worked with you and your
colleagues in the Senate, to pass the most far-reaching education
reform in decades, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB has
brought high standards and accountability to public schools and sparked
a mathematics and reading revival in the early grades.
While the United States is leading the world in science and
technology and making strong reforms to its education system, the rest
of the world is not standing still. America no longer holds the sole
patent on innovation. Inspired by our example, countries such as China,
India and South Korea have invested heavily in education, technology,
and research and development. America now has billions of competitors
throughout the world, challenging us to set our sights even higher.
Our educational leadership has been challenged as well, with many
developed nations' students outperforming ours in international tests,
particularly in math and science, an ominous sign for many American
schools. These test scores are linked to a lack of challenging course
work. According to some estimates, America's share of the world's
science and engineering doctorates is predicted to fall to 15 percent
by 2010.
This global challenge requires bold action and leadership. America
has done it before. Following the Soviet Union's 1957 launch of
Sputnik, the world's first satellite, Congress passed and President
Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense Education Act of 1958
(NDEA). NDEA encouraged more college and university students to pursue
degrees in engineering and it brought the public and private sectors
together as partners to capture the interest, imagination and
dedication of American students. And it worked. Within a decade, the
number of science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United
States annually had tripled, accounting for more than half the world's
total by 1970.
Today, America faces challenges more difficult and complex than a
single satellite. The spread of freedom is spurring technological
innovation and global competition at a pace never before seen. This
trend makes it increasingly important that our economy be more flexible
and responsive, to make sure that we continue to lead in innovation and
technological development and to make sure we have a workforce that has
the skill sets necessary to do so.
Education is the gateway to opportunity and the foundation of a
knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy. Employers are increasingly
looking for workers who have analytical, technical and problem-solving
skills.
We have to run to keep up. A high school diploma, once desirable,
is now essential, and, increasingly, insufficient. About 90 percent of
the fastest-growing occupations of the future will generally require
some post-secondary education. It is therefore unacceptable that among
all ninth-graders in public schools, about three in ten do not graduate
on time; or that for black and Hispanic students the figure is about
five in ten. If current trends continue, by 2012, over 40 percent of
factory jobs will require post-secondary education, according to the
National Association of Manufacturers. And yet, almost half of our 17-
year-olds do not have the basic understanding of math needed to qualify
for a production associate's job at a modern auto plant.
Improving education is critical not only to America's economic
security, but also to our national security. Today, not one but 3,000
satellites circle the Earth. U.S. soldiers use the latest
communications and surveillance technology to fight the global war on
terrorism. Advanced math skills are used to identify and undermine
terrorist networks. Government and the private sector engineer new ways
to protect lives and infrastructure from harm. And the effort to spread
freedom to other nations and cultures demands speakers fluent in
languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, and Russian. Addressing these
challenges will advance opportunity and entrepreneurship at home and
promote democracy and understanding abroad.
Rigorous instruction, high standards and accountability are helping
to raise achievement levels among American students, particularly in
the early grades. As all students work to achieve proficiency in math
and reading by 2014, an innovative education reform effort is needed.
America's civic, political and business leaders agree: To sustain
our quality and way of life, we must act now. And President Bush is
leading the charge by proposing investments and reforms through a
number of key initiatives that I would like to outline today.
THE ANSWER: PRESIDENT BUSH'S EDUCATION AGENDA
President Bush's answer to America's challenge begins with the
American Competitiveness Initiative. This multi-agency Initiative will
commit $5.9 billion in FY 2007, and more than $137 billion over the
next 10 years, to strengthen education, promote research and
development and encourage entrepreneurship. In the research arena, it
will increase our investment in physical science and engineering
research, the results of which will fuel technological innovation for
decades to come. In the education arena, the initiative will bring
together leaders from the public sector, private sector and education
community to better prepare our students for the 21st century. The
initiative will place a greater emphasis on math instruction from the
earliest grade levels. It will ensure that high schools offer more
rigorous course work, including Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate courses in math, science and critical-need foreign
languages. It will inform teachers of the most effective, research-
based approaches to teaching math. It will encourage professionals in
those fields to become teachers themselves. And it will evaluate all
federally funded math and science education programs to ensure the most
effective use of the taxpayers' dollars.
The President's High School Reform initiative will help ensure that
a diploma becomes a ticket to success for all graduates, whether they
enter the workforce or go on to higher education. It will bring high
standards and accountability to high schools by aligning their academic
goals and performance with the No Child Left Behind Act. Through
assessments and targeted interventions, it will help educators raise
achievement levels and close the achievement gap. It will also help
alleviate the dropout problem by focusing more attention on at-risk
students struggling to reach grade level in reading or math.
Finally, the President's National Security Language Initiative,
announced on Jan. 5, 2006, will help more American students master
critical-need foreign languages to advance global competitiveness and
national security. This joint project, in collaboration with the
Department of State, Department of Defense and the Director of National
Intelligence, will train teachers and aid students in those fields.
THE CHALLENGE: KNOWLEDGE OF MATH AND SCIENCE
In this changed world, knowledge of math and science is paramount.
In the words of BusinessWeek, ``It's a magnificent time to know math.''
``Math entrepreneurs'' are translating the world into numbers--which
translates into big salaries. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, new and replacement job openings requiring science,
engineering or technical training will increase by more than 24
percent, to 6.3 million, between 2004 and 2014.
Of all of the recommendations contained in the National Academies'
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the highest priority is to
vastly improve K-12 math and science education. Schools must help
students develop the skills they will need to compete and succeed in
higher education and the workforce, which are increasingly connected in
this changed world. All Americans must be technically adept and
numerically literate--regardless of their chosen occupation--so that
they can make informed decisions and enjoy advancement in their
careers. And this technically and numerically literate population must
also yield additional practitioners of math, science, and engineering
to meet the needs of academia and industry well into the future.
Industry must do its part to ensure that career opportunities provided
to those with training in math, science and engineering are as stable
and financially rewarding as other jobs, such as medicine, law and
finance.
We clearly have a long way to go. High school test scores in math
have barely budged since the early 1970s. And less than half of high
school graduates in 2005 were ready for college-level math and science
course work, according to ACT.
In 1983, the landmark A Nation at Risk report recommended that high
school students be required to take a minimum of three years of math
and three years of science to graduate. Yet today, only 22 states and
the District of Columbia require at least this amount to graduate in
the class of 2006. Even fewer require high school exit exams (which are
often administered in 10th or 11th grade, leading many employers and
universities to discount the results). Just one State--Alabama--calls
for current students to take four years of both science and math to
graduate.
A major part of the answer is teacher training. When we compare the
U.S. education system with that of the top performing countries, we
find several significant differences, most notably that a much lower
proportion of U.S. math and science teachers actually have a degree in
the area in which they are teaching. Because our elementary schools
employ generalist teachers who are required to teach all academic
subjects, most have degrees in education and have completed little or
no course work in math or science. Three out of four fourth-grade math
and science teachers in the U.S. do not have a specialization in those
subjects. And students from low-income communities are far less likely
than their more affluent peers to have teachers certified in the
subject they teach. With two-thirds of our math and science teachers
expected to retire by 2010, we have a challenge to produce new teachers
to fill that gap, but we also have an opportunity to change the way in
which new teachers are trained so that future teachers will have
greater content knowledge in math and science.
Strengthening math and science standards is an economic imperative,
for the Nation and for individual citizens. According to Department
statistics, students who take advanced math courses in high school
(such as trigonometry, precalculus and calculus) are far more likely to
earn a Bachelor's degree. Additionally, students from low-income
families who acquire strong math skills by the eighth grade are 10
times more likely to finish college than peers of the same
socioeconomic background who do not.
Still, old attitudes about math die hard. A recent survey
commissioned by the Raytheon Company found that 84 percent of middle
school students would rather clean their rooms, take out the garbage or
go to the dentist than do their math homework. According to the
Business Roundtable, just five percent of parents say they would ``try
to persuade their child toward careers in science, technology,
mathematics or engineering.'' Many people still view math and science
as ``nerdy'' subjects with little relevance to the ``real world.'' Like
it or not, that world has changed forever.
THE ANSWER: AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative seeks to
improve learning and instruction in mathematics and science.
The Department of Education's proposals within this Initiative are
as follows:
National Math Panel: Based on the influential
National Reading Panel, the National Math Panel would convene
experts to evaluate empirically the effectiveness of various
approaches to teaching math, creating a research base to
improve instructional methods for teachers. It would lay the
groundwork for the Math Now program for grades K-7 to prepare
every student to take and pass algebra;
Math Now for Elementary School Students: Like the
successful and popular Reading First program, Math Now for
Elementary School Students would promote promising, research-
based practices in mathematics instruction and prepare students
for more rigorous math course work in middle and high school;
Math Now for Middle School Students: Similar to the
current Striving Readers Initiative, Math Now for Middle School
Students would diagnose students' deficiencies in math
proficiency and provide intensive and systematic instruction to
enable them to take and pass algebra;
Advanced Placement-International Baccalaureate (AP-
IB) Incentive Program: The AP-IB Incentive Program would train
70,000 additional teachers to lead AP-IB math and science
courses. It would increase the number of students taking AP-IB
tests to 1.5 million over the next five years with the goal of
tripling the number of passing test-takers to approximately
700,000;
Adjunct Teacher Corps: The Adjunct Teacher Corps
would provide funding to match contributions from States and
the private sector to train 30,000 qualified math and science
professionals to become adjunct high school teachers by 2015;
and
Including Science Assessments in NCLB: NCLB requires
every State to develop and administer science assessments once
in each of three grade spans by the 2007-08 school year, and
including these assessments in the accountability system will
ensure students are learning the necessary content and skills
to be successful in the 21st century workforce.
OTHER MATH AND SCIENCE INITIATIVES
Academic Competitiveness Grants and SMART Grant
Program: This higher education grant program was a key
component of the Higher Education Reconciliation Act.
This program will build on the success of the Pell
Grant program and benefit more than 500,000 students in need.
Academic Competitiveness grants will provide
increased funds for low-income students who take a
rigorous academic curriculum in high school. Grants in
the amount of $750 will be awarded to qualified first-
year college students who completed a rigorous high
school program; grants in the amount of $1,300 will be
awarded to second-year students who completed a
rigorous program and who maintain a 3.0 average in
college.
SMART grants will go to college juniors and seniors
studying math, science or critical-need foreign
languages who also maintain a 3.0 GPA. This will
encourage more students to go into fields that improve
America's security and competitiveness.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: This program
supports the American Competitiveness Initiative by providing
state formula grants to help improve students' academic
achievement in rigorous math and science courses. It also
assists teachers by integrating proven, research-based teaching
methods into the curricula.
Expanded Teacher Loan Forgiveness: This popular
program offers up to $17,500 (up from $5,000) in loan
forgiveness for highly qualified math, science and special
education teachers serving challenging, low-income schools and
communities.
ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS COUNCIL
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, signed into law by the President
on February 8, 2006, created an Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC)
chaired by the Secretary of Education, and consisting of Federal
Government agencies with education programs in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Its mission under law is to
identify all federal education programs with a math or science focus,
determine the effectiveness of each program, identify areas of overlap,
and recommend ways to efficiently integrate and coordinate in the
future. The Council will also ensure that these programs, which focus
on elementary and secondary education and teacher training, are aligned
with the principles of No Child Left Behind, as appropriate.
The first ACC meeting took place on March 6, 2006, at the White
House with the President and the respective Secretaries and directors
of the agencies with STEM education programs. The Department of
Education is now working with the Office of Management and Budget to
form a working group with the appropriate senior staff from each of
these agencies to begin taking inventory of their various STEM
education programs. A report to Congress is due February 2007.
THE CHALLENGE: ACCELERATING OUR SCHOOLS' PROGRESS
Innovating and improving America's schools will not occur
overnight. It took time for eight other developed nations to surpass
America's high school graduation rate among adults aged 25 to 34; and
it will take time for the United States to regain its leadership. We
must start by accelerating our progress.
A comprehensive problem demands a comprehensive solution, extending
from kindergarten through high school graduation. The good news is that
educators and policy-makers are learning more and more about what
works. A half-century ago, the United States turned the threat of
Soviet competition into proof of our ability to improve our schools and
quality of life. Just four years ago, the United States turned a
growing achievement gap into the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.
The law set a course for proficiency for all students in the core
subjects of reading and math by the year 2014. Students in grades three
through eight are now learning under high standards. Teachers are using
proven instructional methods in reading. Schools are being held
accountable for results. Parents have more information and choices. And
states have more flexibility to spend federal K-12 education resources,
which have increased by 41 percent since 2001.
The early results are in. Across the country, academic achievement
has risen significantly in the earliest grades, with math scores at
all-time highs, including among African American and Hispanic students.
In the last two years, the number of fourth-graders who learned their
fundamental math skills increased by 127,000 according to Department
data. Long-term trends show that more reading progress was made among
nine-year-olds between 1999-2004 than in the previous 28 years
combined. Meanwhile, according to the Nation's Report Card, the
achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American
nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at
all-time lows. Educators use terms like ``amazing,'' ``stunning'' and
``remarkable'' to describe the progress on long-term NAEP.
No Child Left Behind has set the goal of every child achieving, but
the states and schools themselves have done the heavy lifting to
implement curriculum standards and assessment protocols that they will
use to meet these standards. For the first time, all 50 states have
unique accountability plans in place, with real consequences attached.
The results can be seen in schools like Maryland's North Glen
Elementary. In 2003, just 57 percent of North Glen's students were
proficient in reading, while 46 percent were proficient in math. Those
numbers have skyrocketed to 82 percent and 84 percent, respectively.
Another example is Charles L. Gideons Elementary School in Atlanta.
The number of its students meeting Georgia's standards in reading has
increased by 23 percentage points since 2003. For math the news is even
better: a 34 percentage-point improvement during the same period. The
National Math Panel will examine schools like this one that have made
significant progress to determine ``what worked'' in improving
mathematics education and performance. If we better understand what
worked at these model schools, we can then use programs like the new
Math Now program to disseminate these principles and practices to
teachers across the country.
A district-wide success occurred in Garden Grove, California.
Three-fourths of the Garden Grove Unified School District's students do
not speak English. Nearly 60 percent are from low-income families.
Nevertheless, all but two of the district's 67 schools met or exceeded
their Adequate Yearly Progress goals under the law.
The No Child Left Behind Act was designed to improve achievement.
But it has also shown us what is achievable as a nation. Educators,
administrators and public officials are working together, united behind
a worthy goal. Now it's time to apply the Act's successful principles
to our nation's high schools.
There is not a moment to waste. Governors and business leaders are
united in calling for urgent reform. Every year approximately one
million students drop out of high school, costing the Nation more than
$260 billion dollars in lost wages, taxes and productivity over the
students' lifetimes. A high school graduate can expect to earn about
$275,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than a student who
doesn't finish high school; a college graduate with a Bachelor's degree
can expect to earn about $1 million more. Dropouts are also three-and-
a-half times more likely to be arrested, according to reports. A key
goal of the President's High School Reform Initiative is to address the
academic needs of at-risk students so that they stay in school,
improving their quality of life and that of their fellow Americans.
THE ANSWER: THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH SCHOOL REFORM INITIATIVE
The President's High School Reform Initiative would hold high
schools accountable for providing high-quality education to all
students. And it would help educators implement strategies to meet the
needs of at-risk high school students. The proposed program would make
formula grants to states to support:
The development, implementation and evaluation of
targeted interventions designed to improve the academic
performance of students most at risk of failing to meet state
academic standards; and
Expanded high school assessments that would assist
educators in increasing accountability and meeting the needs of
at-risk students.
Interventions would be designed to increase the achievement of high
school students; eliminate achievement gaps between students from
different ethnic and racial groups and income levels; and help ensure
that students graduate with the education, skills and knowledge
necessary to succeed in post-secondary education and in the technology-
based global economy.
A key strategy would be the development of individual performance
plans for students entering high school, using eighth-grade assessment
data in consultation with parents, teachers and counselors. Specific
interventions could include programs that combine rigorous academic
courses with vocational and technical training, research-based dropout
prevention activities, and the use of technology-based assessment
systems to closely monitor student progress. In addition, programs that
identify at-risk middle school students for assistance would help
prepare them to succeed in high school and enter post-secondary
education. This includes college preparation and awareness activities
for students from low-income families.
The President's proposal also would require states to develop and
implement reading and mathematics assessments in two additional grade
levels in high school, building on the current NCLB requirement for
testing once in grades 10-12. The new assessments would inform
strategies to strengthen school accountability and meet the needs of
at-risk students.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT:
Striving Readers: First funded in 2005, this program
would be expanded significantly to reach more secondary
students reading below grade level, which puts them at risk of
dropping out. Students would benefit from research-based
interventions coupled with rigorous evaluations. Schools would
benefit from activities and programs designed to improve the
overall quality of literacy instruction across the entire
curriculum.
THE CHALLENGE: PROMOTING FREEDOM AND UNDERSTANDING
America faces a severe shortage of people who speak languages that
are critical to its national security and global competitiveness:
According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, less
than one-fourth of public elementary schools report teaching
foreign languages, even though a child's early years are the
best years in which to learn a new language.
Less than one percent of American high school
students study Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, Korean,
Russian or Urdu-combined.
Less than eight percent of undergraduates in American
universities take foreign language courses, and less than two
percent study abroad in any given year.
While only 44 percent of U.S. high school students were studying a
foreign language in 2002, learning a second or even a third foreign
language is compulsory for students in the European Union, China,
Thailand and elsewhere.
More than 200 million children in China study English. By
comparison, only about 24,000 elementary and secondary school children
in the United States study Chinese. Many students in other nations
begin learning another language before they're even 10 years old. They
will have an edge over monolingual Americans and others in developing
new relationships and business connections in countries other than
their own.
THE ANSWER: THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL SECURITY LANGUAGE INITIATIVE
Critical-need foreign language skills are necessary to advance the
twin goals of national security and global competitiveness. Together
with the Department of State, Department of Defense and the Director of
National Intelligence, the Department of Education proposes to offer
grants and training for teachers under President Bush's National
Security Language Initiative.
The Initiative would increase the number of Americans who speak and
teach foreign languages, with an emphasis on critical-need languages.
It will strengthen and refocus the Foreign Language Assistance Program,
and will initially enable 24 school districts across the country to
create partnerships with colleges and universities to develop critical-
need language programs. Among the critical-need languages targeted
under the initiative are Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and
Russian, as well as languages in the Indic, Iranian and Turkic
families.
The National Security Language Initiative will also provide funding
to create a Language Teacher Corps, with the goal of having 1,000 new
critical foreign language teachers in U.S. schools by the end of the
decade. And it will enable the creation of an ``e-Learning Language
Clearinghouse'' and expanded Teacher-to-Teacher seminars to assist
foreign language teachers anytime, anywhere.
CONCLUSION:
Our schools helped make the 20th century the ``American Century.''
The 21st century remains to be claimed. But Americans have never backed
down from a challenge. This changing world offers another opportunity
for Americans to shine, and the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative and the rest of his education agenda will help set the
course.
America's schools have made great progress in improving academic
achievement in the early grades. But like athletes or musicians,
children of all ages must work hard each and every day if they wish to
compete, perform and succeed, and their schools must show them the way.
The President's education agenda will help prepare the students of
today to become the successful leaders--the pioneers, discoverers and
Nobel Prize winners--of the next American Century.
I look forward to working with Congress on implementing these bold
initiatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I am happy
to answer any questions you have.
Biography for Margaret Spellings
On January 20, 2005, the United States Senate confirmed Margaret
Spellings as the eighth U.S. Secretary of Education.
During President George W. Bush's first term, Spellings served as
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy where she helped craft
education policies, including the No Child Left Behind Act. She was
also responsible for the development and implementation of White House
policy on immigration, health, labor, transportation, justice, housing,
and other elements of President Bush's domestic agenda.
Prior to her White House appointment, Spellings worked for six
years as Governor George W. Bush's Senior Advisor with responsibility
for developing and implementing the Governor's education policy. Her
work included the Texas Reading Initiative, the Student Success
Initiative to eliminate social promotion, and the Nation's strongest
school assessment and accountability system. She also made
recommendations to the Governor for key gubernatorial appointments.
Previously, Spellings served as Associate Executive Director of the
Texas Association of School Boards.
Born in Michigan, Spellings moved with her family at a young age to
Houston, Texas, where she attended public schools. She graduated from
the University of Houston with a Bachelor's degree in political
science.
As the mother of two daughters, one school-age and one college-age,
Spellings has a special understanding of the issues facing parents and
students today. Her daughter Mary is a freshman in college, and her
daughter Grace attends a public middle school. Spellings is the first
mother of school children to serve as U.S. Secretary of Education.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Dr. Bement.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Bement. Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you on topics of great importance, the National
Science Foundation's role in improving K-12 science and math
education, as well as the ways our efforts complement those of
other federal agencies.
Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your
years of service on this committee, and for your strong and
steadfast support for the National Science Foundation, as well
as the educational activities that you have fostered over the
years. Your service in the House may be coming to an end, but
your contributions will live on forever.
If I may briefly touch on some of the areas where NSF
programs make a unique contribution to ensure that every
student has the opportunity to learn challenging science,
technology, engineering, and math. As you know, we are
proposing a realignment of our Education and Human Resources
Directorate to establish a Division of Research on Learning in
Formal and Informal Settings. This realignment will make
programs supporting a range of activities work better together.
The programs will focus on new materials and curricula, teacher
preparation, new pedagogical techniques, educational activities
outside of the classroom, new technologies applied to
education, and research on learning.
In line with the Administration's focus on the vital
national priority of K-12 STEM education, NSF will also
initiate a new effort in 2007 called Discovery Research K-12.
This program will focus research on three well-defined grand
challenges: first, developing effective science and mathematics
assessments; second, improving science teaching and learning;
and third, introducing cutting edge discoveries into classrooms
to improve STEM content and enrich the learning experience.
This last challenge is also being addressed through the
Research and Related Activities Directorates, that participate
with the EHR Directorate through specifically developed
programs, such as graduate student involvement in the
classroom. It is important to note that NSF programs support
all subgroups of students, from those holding great promise to
those struggling academically, and from those under-represented
in STEM fields, to those from low income families.
NSF considers advice from a diverse set of outside sources,
in order to strike a balance among the programs reaching out to
various groups. For over 50 years, NSF has engaged prominent
scientists, mathematicians, and educators in the development of
K-12 instructional materials. From this experience, we realize
that education systems are complex. Change sometimes comes
slowly, and there are few, if any, quick fixes.
As with all basic research, many of NSF's investments in
research and education require years to develop, and thus,
outcomes can only be judged retrospectively. Nevertheless,
assessing the performance of our programs is critical to all of
the Foundation's strategic planning efforts. NSF employs
multiple, mixed methods approach to evaluation. The
effectiveness and impact of our investments are determined by
using both qualitative and quantitative techniques, including
external assessment by Committees of Visitors, and the Advisory
Committee for Government Performance and Results Act
Performance Assessment, and by using the analytical Program
Assessment Rating Tool developed by OMB.
Our science education programs have additional evaluation
requirements. All EHR solicitations require every education
portfolio, program, and project to have a sound, data-driven,
standards-based evaluation. Selected education programs have an
online data collection system, to monitor program activities on
an annual basis. Third party evaluations are also used to
determine the impact of various programs, and in any given
year, approximately one third of the education programs will be
evaluated.
NSF is not alone in this awareness of the need to evaluate
the effectiveness of its programs. Through interagency groups
organized under the auspices of the National Science and
Technology Council, NSF is taking a leadership role, along with
the Department of Education, to share effective evaluation
activities and practices.
This multi-agency working group on evaluation is part of a
larger interagency group co-chaired by NSF and the Department
of Education, focusing on education and workforce development.
Through this working group, EHR has prepared and distributed a
packet of NSF-evaluated resources to the member agencies.
Most recently, NSF has collaborated with the Department of
Education on the MSP programs, defining program linkages
necessary to manage our two parallel, but separate programs for
greatest effectiveness. NSF has also participated with the
Department of Education in both the Title I Taskforce and the
Title I Toolkit, which aimed to improve mathematics learning,
and identify resources for state and district leaders.
And in conclusion, in line with the Administration's
American Competitiveness Initiative, NSF has specific missions
to prepare and sustain a world-class STEM workforce for the
future, and to foster the scientific literacy of our students
and our citizens. We look forward to contributing significant
advances to these larger national efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify,
and I will be happy to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Chairman Boehlert and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you on topics of great importance, the
National Science Foundation's (NSF) role in improving K-12 science and
math education as well as the complementary efforts with those of other
federal agencies.
NSF believes that federal agencies must work in concert to ensure
that every student has the opportunity to learn challenging science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Today, I will describe
examples of NSF's unique contributions to our nation's larger effort to
strengthen K-12 education. NSF's investments in discovery, learning,
and innovation have a longstanding record of boosting the Nation's
economic vitality and competitive strength.
Today's young people face a world of increasing global competition.
We depend on the excellence of U.S. schools and universities to provide
students with the wherewithal to meet this challenge and to make their
own contributions to America's future. This larger context provides a
rationale for setting ``bolstering K-12 education'' as one of NSF's
four priorities for fiscal year 2007.
To maintain America's preeminence in science and engineering, we
must augment our nation's research enterprise by fostering innovation
in K-12 science and mathematics education. Sustained federal support
will be critical to a comprehensive approach, including:
Research on STEM learning for both teachers and
students;
Development of challenging STEM instructional
materials;
Assessment of student and teacher knowledge;
Evaluation of project and program impacts; and
Implementation of proven STEM interventions in the
Nation's schools.
NSF Education and Human Resource (EHR) Directorate Programs
The Foundation's K-12 STEM education programs are administered
primarily through the Education and Human Resource (EHR) Directorate,
although programs in the Research and Related Activities Account also
support K-12 education and outreach activities. Within the EHR
directorate, all programs focus on educational research, development,
and evaluation in the STEM disciplines.
For example, within EHR's proposed Division of Research on Learning
in Formal and Informal Settings, programs will support a range of
activities, including research on: (1) learning; (2) developing and
testing new materials and curricula; (3) new pedagogical techniques;
(4) content and pedagogy education for K-12 teachers; (5) educational
activities outside of the classroom; and (6) the application of new
technologies to education.
These programs are vital cogs in our nation's K-12 STEM education
machinery. The role of the NSF in K-12 science and mathematics
education is to support research and development pilot-studies in the
areas of cognitive science, education, curriculum development, and
teacher professional development resulting in the production of
materials and practices which can be evaluated empirically and then
made available by NSF and/or other agencies. Examples of projects of
which the NSF is proud include the Merck Institute for Science
Education's summer institutes and the University of Pennsylvania
Science Teachers Institute's Master's programs. Examples of other
interesting programs and projects follow.
In line with the Administration's focus on the vital
national priority of K-12 STEM education, NSF will invest in a
new effort in 2007. Discovery Research K-12 focuses research on
three well-defined challenges: (1) developing effective science
and mathematics assessments for K-12; (2) improving science
teaching and learning in the elementary grades; and (3)
introducing cutting-edge discoveries into K-12 classrooms. The
program builds on our previous efforts in curriculum
development, capacity building, and teacher preparation, and
will provide additional information on how to strengthen K-12
science and math education.
EHR's new Research and Evaluation on Education in
Science and Engineering program will fund two types of
projects. Synthesis projects will identify areas where the
knowledge base in either evaluation or education research is
sufficient to support strong scientific claims, identify areas
of importance to education research and practice, and propose
methods for synthesizing findings and drawing conclusions that
will inform our work across the K-12 landscape. Empirical
projects will identify areas that have the potential for
advancing discovery and innovation at the frontiers of STEM
learning.
In 2007, we will also increase funding for the
Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K-12 Education program, or GK-
12, in order to support an estimated 1,000 graduate fellows.
This program has been particularly successful in encouraging
effective partnerships between institutions of higher education
and local school districts by pairing graduate students and K-
12 teachers in the classroom.
The Robert Noyce Scholarship program encourages
talented STEM majors and professionals to become K-12
mathematics and science teachers. For example, the Dowling
College Noyce program is addressing the critical shortage of
science and math teachers in the Long Island and New York City
areas by providing scholarships for math and science majors in
the teacher-training program. Also with Noyce funding, Wayne
State University and Detroit Public Schools are increasing the
number of individuals with strong science and mathematics
backgrounds who are teaching in Detroit schools through their
``Teaching for the Future'' initiative. All Noyce Scholars are
paired with faculty mentors who work with the Scholars during
their college years as well as their early careers.
Through the Master Science Educators program, the
State of Oregon has trained 166 volunteer 4-H Wildlife Stewards
who work in partnership with 4-H Extension and local schools
across the state. These volunteers have assisted over 13,400
students and nearly 450 teachers in creating, using, and
sustaining wildlife habitat education sites on school grounds
for improving science learning. The program has won 18 State,
regional, and national awards including the 2005 Wildlife
Society National Group Achievement Award.
Through the Math and Science Partnership (MSP)
program, NSF assumed important responsibilities to build
capacity for implementing the President's No Child Left Behind
vision for K-12 education. NSF's MSP is a research program to
develop and assess the impact of innovative partnerships
between higher education departments of mathematics and
science, schools of education, and local school districts on
improving K-12 student achievement in mathematics and science.
NSF is currently evaluating data collected from the on-going
MSP projects to identify promising materials and methods that
can be disseminated across the country through the consolidated
MSP program at the Department of Education.
This extensive list of examples underscores that NSF programs
support all subgroups of students--from those holding great promise to
those struggling academically and from those under-represented in STEM
fields to those from low-income families. NSF considers advice and
information gathered from a diverse set of outside sources, including
direct indications of Congressional interest; studies produced by the
National Research Council; workshops and national conferences sponsored
by NSF; reviews conducted by the National Science Board; and NSF's own
strategic planning and budget reviews by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in order to strike a balance among the programs reaching
out to various groups of students.
To maximize our reach, we also support complementary enrichment
activities that support school-based STEM curricula and standards and
provide opportunities for in-depth learning and engagement beyond the
school day. We also hope to interest young people in science at an
early age and strive to help maintain that interest.
For example, ``PEEP and the Big Wide World,'' is an
award-winning animated series that gives wings to the
innovative idea of teaching science to preschoolers. This show
is the newest addition to The Learning Channel's and Discovery
Kids' commercial- and sponsor-free programming block, ``Ready
Set Learn!'' Actress Joan Cusack narrates the show, which
breaks new ground by teaching toddlers basic scientific
concepts and skills like measuring, comparing, and estimating.
In another example, NSF is funding a demonstration
project called NSF Academies for Young Scientists, which
engages K-8 students in out of school STEM learning while
helping teachers develop and adopt strategies that effectively
retain students' interest in STEM and prepare them for
secondary-level work.
The need for steady, sustained investment is
illustrated by the success of Connected Mathematics, a middle-
school curriculum now estimated to have between 20 and 25
percent of the middle-school textbook market. It is the best
selling set of materials for that market by its publisher. The
project, supported long-term by NSF and Michigan State
University, is paying off with a documented improvement in
student mathematics achievement on district and state tests.
For over 50 years, NSF has engaged prominent scientists,
mathematicians, and educators in the development of K-12 instructional
materials. From this experience, we realize that education systems are
complex. Change sometimes comes slowly, and there are few, if any,
quick fixes. Supporting the research and development that enables the
development of creative, sound STEM education models and strategies
requires steady-stream resources. As part of this iterative process,
NSF encourages proposals to refine educational questions and problems
that need addressing, create model experiments, identify appropriate
test beds and partners, and finally to observe and evaluate the changes
over time.
Integration of Research and Education
By supporting hands-on, inquiry-based learning and direct exposure
to contemporary scientific methods and discoveries, NSF makes
additional important contributions to K-12 education. We value highly
the integration of research and education, a concept permeating all of
our programs.
This agency-wide priority is being addressed through the Research
and Related Activities (R&RA) Directorates in partnership with the EHR
Directorate. We reflect the need for this integration in our merit-
review process through a criterion known as ``Broader Impacts.''
Therefore, research grants commonly include specific educational
activities for K-12 students.
In some cases, Foundation programs purposefully mandate the
integration of research and education. For example, NSF's CAREER
program, which provides stable and enabling research funding for junior
investigators, explicitly requires educational activities, many of
which involve K-12 students.
On the other hand, K-12 teachers gain hands-on experience in
science through NSF's Research Experiences for Teachers program.
Supported by R&RA Directorates, this program places K-12 teachers in
the laboratories of NSF-supported researchers. The educational
components of NSF-supported Science and Technology Centers also improve
K-12 education through activities, such as workshops, curricula
development, and research internships for students and teachers.
Numerous other programs within our R&RA Directorates target the
improvement of K-12 education. Some examples follow.
Science of Learning Centers, which are large-scale,
long-term Centers, extend the frontiers of knowledge on
learning of all types and create the intellectual,
organizational, and physical infrastructure needed for the
advancement of learning research.
Geosciences Teacher Training improves the quality of
geosciences instruction at middle and high school levels.
Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence
promote ocean education as an exciting vehicle to interest
students in science and enhance science education.
Program Assessment
As with all basic research, many of NSF's investments in research
and education require years to develop and, thus, outcomes can be
judged only retrospectively. Nevertheless, assessing the performance of
our programs is critical to all of the Foundation's strategic planning
efforts.
NSF employs a multiple, mixed-methods approach to evaluation. The
effectiveness and impact of our investments are determined in multiple
ways using qualitative and quantitative techniques, including external
assessment by Committees of Visitors and the Advisory Committee on
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Performance Assessment,
and by using the analytic Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
developed by OMB. PART assesses program performance in four areas:
purpose, strategic planning, program management, and program results.
It also complements and reinforces GPRA, emphasizing the link between
budget and performance. Resulting PART ratings inform the budget
process and highlight areas in need of improvement.
Our science education programs have additional evaluation
requirements.
All EHR solicitations require every education project
to have a sound project-level evaluation.
Selected education programs have a program-specific
on-line data-collection system to monitor program activities
and outputs, such as the number of students obtaining STEM
degrees, on an annual basis and to document trends over time.
Third-party program or thematic evaluations are also
used to determine the impact of various programs. These studies
are conducted so that in any given year approximately a third
of the education programs will be engaged in evaluation
planning and evaluation capacity building efforts, another
third will be involved in on-going evaluation studies, and the
other third will have recently completed their independent
evaluation studies.
Interagency Coordination
NSF is not alone in its awareness of the need to evaluate the
effectiveness of its programs. Notably, the Academic Competitiveness
Council (ACC), which is led by Secretary Spellings and includes
representatives from federal agencies with STEM education programs, had
its initial meeting on March 6th. The ACC will identify and assess
federal math and science education programs and make recommendations
for coordinating federal spending on STEM education. In addition,
through interagency groups organized under the auspices of the National
Science and Technology Council, NSF is taking a leadership role along
with several other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education
(ED), to share program successes and develop government-wide strategies
for addressing educational needs as well as making information and
programs more accessible to the external community.
NSF also works with other federal agencies in a variety of other
ways. For example, Dr. Donald Thompson, the Assistant Director for
Education and Human Resources, is part of the ``Tiger Team,'' along
with his counterparts at the National Institutes for Health (NIH), the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), ED and DOE. The
team focuses on STEM education issues that the agencies can
collaboratively address, including creating better science assessments.
Additionally, NSF has had a particularly active collaboration with ED
since the early 1990's. The results include the co-funding of major
studies, such as the National Research Council's Adding it Up: Helping
Children Learn Mathematics (2001) and Learning and Understanding:
Improving Advanced Study of Science and Mathematics in America's High
Schools (2002), as well as active participation in Department of
Education initiatives, such as the Mathematics and Science Initiative
(2000-2005) that planned and executed Mathematics and Science Summits
for the Nation.
Most recently, NSF has collaborated with ED on the MSP programs--
defining program linkages necessary to consolidate the programs at the
Department of Education. NSF has also participated with ED in the Title
I Taskforce on improving the learning of mathematics in Title I schools
as well as the co-development of a pilot version of a Title I Toolkit
(2005-present) to identify resources for state and district leaders on
improving mathematics teaching and learning in Title I schools.
In summary, NSF complements the efforts of the other agencies
through our focus on research and development for education in order to
strengthen the infrastructure in STEM education. These efforts include
attracting students to the teaching profession; providing pre- and in-
service teacher training; developing curricula; supporting informal
learning; and funding education research. Other agencies, especially
ED, have a greater responsibility for implementation.
Conclusion
In line with the Administration's American Competitiveness
Initiative, NSF has specific missions to prepare and sustain a world-
class STEM workforce for the future and to foster the scientific
literacy of all of our citizens. Ideally, all students should have
access to a series of challenging STEM opportunities that begin at the
elementary level and continue seamlessly as they progress through their
secondary school careers.
Further, the Nation's competitiveness depends on fostering
creativity and innovation in all Americans. NSF takes this idea very
seriously, and all of our programs seek to broaden participation in
STEM by attracting and retaining under-represented groups in the STEM
enterprise. All proposals to NSF must address two criteria:
intellectual merit and broader impact.
We look forward to continuing to contribute our important parts of
the larger K-12 education equation. I hope the breadth of the provided
examples signifies the importance of this issue to NSF.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on a topic
of great importance to the Nation. I would be happy to respond to any
questions you might have.
Biography for Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science
Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since
February 22, 2004.
He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, where he had been Director since Dec. 7, 2001. Prior to his
appointment as NIST Director, Bement served as the David A. Ross
Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and head of the School
of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held appointments
at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials
Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a
courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was
Director of the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium
for the Intelligent Management of the Electrical Power Grid.
Bement served as a member of the U.S. National Science Board from
1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF activities and also serves as a
policy advisory body to the President and Congress. As NSF Director,
Bement will now serve as an ex officio member of the NSB.
He also chaired the Commission for Engineering and Technical
Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the National
Research Council; was a member of the Space Station Utilization
Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory
Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department of Energy's
Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory.
Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in
industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice
President of Technical Resources and of Science and Technology for TRW
Inc. (1980-1992); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering (1979-1980); Director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA
(1976-1979); Professor of Nuclear Materials, MIT (1970-1976); Manager,
Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department,
Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and Senior Research
Associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
He has been a Director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord
Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee
for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado
School of Mines, a Master's degree in metallurgical engineering from
the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical
engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate
degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, and an honorary
doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University. He is
a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Doctor. Ms. Dale.
STATEMENT OF MS. SHANA L. DALE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Dale. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member Gordon, and
Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to come before
you today, and talk about the Nation's goals in regards to
enhancing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education (STEM).
To begin with, I would like to thank you, Chairman
Boehlert, for your outstanding leadership of this committee,
and for your longstanding and very effective support of math
and science education. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.
Thank you.
NASA shares the concerns of the President, Nation, and this
committee regarding the need to increase public understanding
of scientific inquiry, and to maintain America's capability to
continue as a world leader in science and technology. Related
to these overarching issues, we have very specific concerns
about NASA's ability to carry out its bold mission goals over
the long haul, which is directly tied to the health of
America's science and math education system. Our aerospace
workforce is aging, and much of the talent in our science and
engineering workforce is approaching retirement.
Accordingly, we are preparing the pathway for the next
generation with great anticipation, and while NASA does not
have the primary mission of education, we believe that through
our unique mission, workforce, and facilities, we can certainly
make a positive difference in helping our colleagues in the
Department of Education, and those in other federal agencies
like the National Science Foundation, to improve STEM
education.
NASA, through the genuine excitement that our mission and
research activities generate, is committed to inspiring student
interest in STEM careers across the broad spectrum of American
education. NASA's educational activities are designed to
engage, educate, and employ our nation's talented youth. As
contributors to achieving the Nation's goals, NASA is committed
to three primary objectives which can support improvement of
STEM education in our country.
First, we intend to strengthen NASA and the Nation's future
workforce by identifying and developing the critical skills and
capabilities needed to ensure achievement of the Vision for
Space Exploration and other important science and aeronautics
research goals.
Second, we hope to attract and retain students in STEM
disciplines through a progression of educational opportunities
for students, teachers, and faculty related to science and
math. In this regard, we are quite proud of the fact that the
JFK School of Government at Harvard recently chose the NASA
Explorer Schools Program as one of the top 50 government
innovations of the year. The Explorer Schools establishes a
three year partnership between NASA and school teams of
teachers, administrators, and students from diverse communities
across the country to help improve teaching and learning in
science, math, and technology. The Explorer Schools Program is
now entering its fourth year, and we thank the Committee for
your strong support for this effort.
Finally, NASA seeks to engage all Americans in our missions
through hands-on, interactive, educational activities that
engage students, educators, families, and the general public in
ways that will increase America's science and technology
literacy. Whether it is through using the Internet as a means
of engagement and education, or our partnerships with the
country's great science centers and museums, we are constantly
striving to engage the public in our exploration and research
activities in new and exciting ways.
I look forward to discussing with you the full range of
NASA's STEM activities, including our collaboration with our
fellow agencies through the Academic Competitiveness Council
that Secretary Spellings chairs, and again, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dale follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shana L. Dale
Chairman Boehlert and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about the Nation's evolving goals
to enhance the quality of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education.
NASA shares the concerns of the President, Committee, and Nation
regarding the lack of public understanding of scientific inquiry; an
aging aerospace workforce; a shrinking pipeline of students with
science and engineering skills; a shortage of mathematics, science, and
technology teachers; and, a threat to America's capability to continue
as a world leader in science and technology.
Not only are these fields at risk, but STEM education is required
for many careers in the 21st century workplace and the analytical and
critical thinking skills learned through these fields of study are
essential in numerous career fields.
For nearly 50 years, NASA's journeys into air and space have
developed humankind's understanding of the universe, advanced
technology breakthroughs, enhanced air travel safety and security, and
expanded the frontiers of scientific research. These accomplishments
share a common genesis: Education.
As a critical component of achieving NASA's mission, the Agency's
education activities reflect a diverse portfolio of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Higher Education, e-Education, Informal Education,
and Minority University Research and Education Programs (MUREP).
Through its unique mission, workforce, and facilities, NASA is leading
the way to inspire interest in STEM careers, as few other organizations
can. Our efforts have also made significant impacts in engaging under-
served and under-represented communities in STEM.
Accordingly, we are preparing the pathway for the next generation
with great anticipation. These ``explorers and innovators of the new
millennium'' must fully represent our nation's vibrant and rich
diversity. Furthermore, we will support our nation's universities,
colleges and community colleges by providing exciting research and
internship opportunities that ``light the fire'' and ``fuel the
passion'' for a new culture of learning and achievement in STEM.
NASA's educational activities are designed to inspire, engage,
educate, and employ our nation's talented youth. As contributors to
achieving the Nation's goals, NASA is committed to three primary
objectives to help improve the state of STEM education in our country:
Strengthen NASA and the Nation's future workforce--
NASA will identify and develop the critical skills and
capabilities needed to ensure achievement of the Vision for
Space Exploration, science, and aeronautics.
Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines
through a progression of educational opportunities for
students, teachers, and faculty--NASA will focus on engaging
and retaining students in STEM education programs to encourage
their pursuit of educational disciplines critical to NASA's
future engineering, scientific, and technical missions.
Engage Americans in NASA's mission--NASA will build
strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and
informal education providers. Through hands-on, interactive,
educational activities, NASA will engage students, educators,
families, and the general public to increase America's science
and technology literacy.
Education is led by the Assistant Administrator for Education, who
has agency authority for ensuring a balanced portfolio to achieve our
three outcomes. The Assistant Administrator for Education ensures all
aspects of NASA are maximizing their potential to highlight the
Agency's people, resources, and facilities in support of the Nation's
education efforts to develop the skilled workforce necessary to achieve
the Agency's goals and objectives.
The success of NASA's education portfolio depends upon strategic
planning across the Agency. Close coordination through high-performing
teams is required among NASA's Office of Education, Mission
Directorates, Centers, the Office of Human Capital Management, the
Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and other Mission Support
offices to ensure that workforce requirements are identified and met,
and that education efforts are aligned and focused on building the
future workforce.
Evaluation of NASA Education Programs
The Assistant Administrator for Education ensures a rigorous
evaluation of the Agency's education portfolio. The portfolio is
routinely evaluated to document performance, validate that planned
outcomes have been achieved, drive improvements in program
implementation, and ensure the integration of our education programs in
our missions. Direct linkages between NASA's scientific and engineering
activities and the Agency's education efforts ensure that they are
unique, provide hands on experience, and not redundant with the
programs of other federal agencies.
The objectives for NASA's education evaluation are to ensure that
(a) program activities are adequately documented, (b) the extent to
which intended outcomes have been achieved is determined, (c) necessary
improvements to program operations are identified, and (d) information
is available to support data-driven decision-making about the
individual and collective components of the education portfolio. It is
also critical that NASA K-12 education programs in both formal and
informal environments reinforce and augment local, State, and national
learning improvement goals.
Three complimentary components form the core of the NASA education
performance measurement approach toward which the Agency is working.
The first component, Evaluation, ensures that performance results of
all NASA-supported education activities are documented. The evaluation
process ensures that all required data are collected in a systematic
manner by project managers who are accountable for performance
reporting linked to pre-defined outcomes. The second component, Review,
is designed to verify and validate performance. Through the review
process, evidence pertaining to project effectiveness and impact will
be collected, analyzed, and reported. NASA will make extensive use of
independent, credible evaluators to conduct validation studies. The
final component, Assessment, will inform decisions about the total
Agency education portfolio in terms of NASA's unique contribution to K-
12 student learning and teacher training at both pre- and in-service
levels. Decisions made through the assessment process will include
factors such as gaps or redundancies in the portfolio, emergent career
needs of NASA, direct linkage to the learning and professional
development needs of the education community, and budget priorities
maximizing the use of limited resources.
Collaboration and Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
As the Agency has strengthened its portfolio and evaluation
criteria, we have recognized the need to engage new partners and
alliances in achieving our collective goal. Through partnerships,
NASA's Office of Education is continually and collaboratively engaged
with other federal agencies, including the Department of Education, the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Commerce, as well
as with the state coalitions, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. territories. Collaboration and coordination takes place in
a number of forums. For example, the Assistant Administrator for
Education serves as NASA's representative on the Subcommittee on
Education and Workforce Development, under the President's National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science.
Shortly after the State of the Union, the Assistant Secretary of
Education, Henry Johnson, invited NASA and others to discuss potential
collaboration opportunities. We are currently reviewing our portfolio
of educational programs to assess NASA's participation. In addition, I
serve as the NASA member on the Academic Competitiveness Council,
chaired by Secretary Spellings, whose inaugural meeting on March 6th
identified a plan of action to respond to the 2005 enacting legislation
to address STEM education across the Federal Government. This
initiative will enable us collectively to implement quality programs
focused on our future.
Increasing the number of students involved in NASA-related
activities at the elementary and secondary education levels will
inspire more students to pursue higher levels of study in STEM courses.
To meet this country's future needs, we have to tap into the talent
that is before us.
Budget for NASA Education Programs
The FY 2007 budget request for NASA's Education programs is $153.3
million. NASA's Education budget request sustains our commitment to
excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education to ensure that the next generation of Americans can accept
the full measure of their roles and responsibilities in shaping the
future and meeting the workforce needs to implement the Vision for
Space Exploration.
The Agency's ability to fulfill its mission requirements is coming
under increasing pressure as it competes for limited resources. This is
particularly true in education where the continued growth in
Congressionally-directed items is eroding NASA's ability to carry out
its educational objective of contributing to the development of the
STEM workforce in disciplines needed to achieve NASA's strategic goals.
For FY 2006, more than one-half of the funding available for NASA's
education efforts will be applied to these Congressionally-directed
items. NASA acknowledges the Congress' commitment to STEM education and
will honor Congressional direction before funding programs NASA
requested in the budget. However, the redirection of funding has
resulted in delays and/or cancellation of planned scholarships, grants,
cooperative agreement notices, and other support for the education
community across the Nation. It has had a direct impact in NASA's
ability to meet existing commitments to students, teachers, faculty,
universities and institutions. In implementing our new education
framework and strategy, NASA is working with recipients of the
Congressionally-directed items to align these initiatives toward
overall Agency goals and priorities (workforce, pipeline, and public
benefit). We look forward to working with the Congress to capture the
strengths of these institutions and through peer-review processes have
a strategic, focused impact in the areas cited by the National
Academies, the Administration and the Congress to further the Nation's
competitiveness. NASA seeks the assistance of Congress in reducing
earmarks in the FY 2007 budget process.
NASA Education Programs
Let me illustrate a few examples of the unique innovative projects
that NASA makes available to support students across our nation:
Our Educator Astronaut Program selects outstanding educators to become
permanent members of the Astronaut Corps. The program uses the
visibility and educational opportunities created by the activities of
the Educator Astronauts to inspire greater K-12 STEM achievement,
promote STEM careers, and elevate public esteem for the teaching
profession. In selecting our Educator Astronauts, we identified
hundreds of our country's top educators. We have captured their energy
through the Network of Educator Astronaut Teachers. They are now in
communities all across America, engaging their schools and communities
in NASA education activities and informing them of NASA resources
(content, people, and facilities).
The NASA Explorer Schools form three-year partnerships with NASA.
Focused on under-served or under-represented populations, the program
is designed for education communities at the 4-9 grade levels. We
assist middle schools improve teaching and learning in STEM education
through significant structural (professional development, stipends,
grants) and curricular support based on NASA resources.
The Science Engineering Mathematics and Aerospace Academy Program
(SEMAA) reaches K-12 minority students that are traditionally under-
represented in careers involving STEM. Students meet during school,
after school or on Saturday mornings and during the summer to engage in
hands-on, interactive learning sessions that are specifically designed
for each grade level.
Between the International Space Station, the space shuttle, sounding
rockets and high altitude balloons, NASA's Education Flight Projects
provide hands-on experiences to inspire and motivate students to pursue
studies and careers in STEM through participation in NASA research
applications. NASA is using its unique assets like the C-9 better known
as ``The Vomit Comet'' to allow students to study microgravity; we're
launching student experiments more than 25 miles above the Earth on
sounding rockets; and our astronauts make phone calls from 240 miles
above Earth's atmosphere to students to involve them in current
research aboard the International Space Station. All these
opportunities take advantage of our flight hardware projects provide
real, hands-on experiences to inspire the minds, imaginations, and
career ambitions of America's young people.
Teacher training for Worlds beyond Our Own captures the excitement and
discovery surrounding planetary exploration. NASA and the Johns Hopkins
Applied Physics Laboratory developed workshops and materials to assist
educators in capturing the excitement surrounding NASA's New Horizons
mission to Pluto that launched in January 2006. New Horizons is the
fastest spacecraft ever launched from Earth, on board one of America's
most powerful rockets, and will be traveling the farthest distance of
any NASA spacecraft to begin its primary mission. Students will grow up
with this project. Today's elementary school students will be in
college when this spacecraft encounters Pluto.
In addition to in-service workshops based on our missions, NASA is
committed to the pre-service training of our future educators. Our 11th
annual Pre-Service Teacher Conference was keynoted by one of America's
finest and most recognized teachers, Jaime Escalante. The conference
was created to help undergraduates and aspiring teachers develop the
confidence and skills to effectively teach mathematics and science
using cutting-edge technology and educational materials only NASA can
provide. Over 500 students and faculty from approximately 55 schools,
representing 35 states participated this year.
Museums and Science Centers are developing activities and materials to
inspire, educate, and engage students, educators and the general
public. They are also hosting professional development opportunities
for formal and informal education professionals across the Nation. For
example, NASA and the Children's Museum of History, Natural History,
Science and Technology in Utica, N.Y. unveiled two new exhibits at the
museum last year. The exhibits ``Why We Explore'' and ``Space Station
Imagination'' provide an overview of the history and future of space
exploration. Astronaut Ed Lu, a veteran Space Station astronaut, who
spent six months aboard the International Space Station, hosted the
unveiling.
NASA's Great Moonbuggy Competition allows high school and college
students' to race into the future and cross the surface of the Moon
without leaving the Earth. Teams from the United States and Puerto Rico
design human-powered vehicles to compete in NASA's annual Great
Moonbuggy Race. The race was inspired by the lunar rover vehicles
astronauts drove on the Moon during three Apollo missions. This year's
event, which is open to the media and public, runs April 7-8 at the
U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Conclusion
We must encourage every segment of our population--girls and boys
alike--from every walk of life, of every color and creed, to reach out
and prepare for the opportunities of the 21st century. Building a
pipeline of science and engineering talent to serve in the coming
decades as we implement the Vision for Space Exploration to continue
America's preeminence in space and aeronautics research and development
can and must be done. NASA's mission is one of dreams, vision and
exploration--characteristics that are ingrained in the American spirit
and the underpinning of innovation and economic competitiveness. Our
investment in STEM education is to nurture the next generation of
Eileen Collins, Carl Sagan, Norm Augustine, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I would like to commend the Committee for their efforts to improve
K-12 STEM education. NASA looks forward to continuing to serve as a
contributor to STEM education as well as other national needs. Again,
thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important
dialogue. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have for
NASA.
Biography for Shana L. Dale
Nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United
States Senate, Shana L. Dale began her duties as Deputy Administrator
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on November 14,
2005.
As Deputy Administrator, Dale serves as the Agency's second in
command and oversees the day to day work of NASA's functional offices,
such as the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of General
Counsel and Strategic Communications.
Before coming to NASA, Dale was Deputy Director for Homeland and
National Security for the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), Executive Office of the President. She co-chaired the National
Science and Technology Council's Committee on Homeland and National
Security and supervised work of the subcommittees. Dale previously
served as the Chief of Staff and general counsel at OSTP. In this
position, she led and managed the staff officials involved with
homeland and national security, legislative affairs, press operations,
legal and ethical issues, the federal research & development budget,
and internal budget and administration.
Earlier in her career, Dale served as the Assistant Vice Chancellor
for Federal Relations at the University of Texas System, Federal
Relations Office in Washington. In addition, Dale has 10-plus years of
service on Capitol Hill including her tenure as Staff Director to the
House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Dale also served on the
Board of Directors for Women in Aerospace for four years.
Prior to serving as Staff Director, Dale was the Republican
Assistant Legislative Director and counsel on the Space Subcommittee.
She was appointed to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology in
March 1991, as the Republican counsel on the Subcommittee on Science.
Dale also served on the House Public Works & Transportation Committee.
Before moving to Washington, Dale was employed in private practice
in San Diego, California. She received her Bachelor's with honors in
management information systems from the University of Tulsa and her law
degree from California Western School of Law. She is a member of the
bars of California and the District of Columbia, and is admitted to
practice before the United States Supreme Court.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Ms. Dale. General
Kelly.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN J. KELLY, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Brigadier General Kelly. Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member
Gordon, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to discuss with you NOAA's evolving education role.
Before I start, I also would like to join my colleagues in
thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your service to the Nation, and
most specifically, for the wise advice and support you have
given us in NOAA these many years.
While NOAA is one of the smaller agencies with a federal
science role, we believe our education activities have been
successful in helping prepare students for careers in science,
and in teacher professional development.
As a science mission agency, the core competencies of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are essential
for us to do our job. Internally, we require highly educated
scientists, and externally, an informed public who understands
and knows how to use observations and forecasts to make wise
decisions that affect both our daily life and the economy.
Consequently, we aim to educate the public and K-12 students in
oceanic and atmospheric sciences, support and train science
teachers, and provide scholarships and professional development
opportunities to graduate and undergraduate students. NOAA's
educational activities are varied, and based on six
authorizations. The Administration's proposed NOAA Organic Act
would consolidate diverse mandates and provide permanent NOAA-
wide educational authority.
In 2003, Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, my boss, the Under
Secretary of Oceans and Atmospheres, set environmental literacy
as a NOAA-wide priority. Since then, we have established an
Education Council, reconstituted and recently energized NOAA's
Office of Education, and appointed a Director of Education, all
designed to develop a coherent strategy for NOAA, and to ensure
the most effective use of our limited education funds. Our
priorities include developing core performance measures, and
improving coordination and collaboration within NOAA and with
other federal agencies. NOAA is focusing on suggestions made in
the GAO's report on STEM education, and I will briefly
highlight some of the programs directed at these activities,
with an emphasis on K-12.
The Teacher at Sea Program, run by our Office of Marine and
Aviation Operations, has given 430 teachers from 47 states and
three countries unique opportunities to do science on NOAA
research and survey vessels. Participating teachers repeatedly
tell us how these hands-on experiences help them inspire
students, and foster a lifelong interest in science and
education careers.
Our JASON project uses multimedia tools and cutting edge
technology to engage middle school students in science, and
provides teacher professional development activities. Our
Office of Ocean Exploration and Research has developed over 200
hands-on lesson plans correlated to the National Science
Education Standards. In 2004, 300,000 copies of those lesson
plans were provided to teachers.
NOAA has worked with the American Meteorological Society to
provide supplemental classroom materials, instructional
resources, and training to more than 100,000 teachers, to help
them fulfill the Earth science certification requirement for No
Child Left Behind. We also strive to leverage public interest
surrounding current events into educational opportunities. In
2005, after the tragic Indonesian tsunami, we developed,
produced, and distributed a tsunami education resource kit that
was made available to 8,000 K-12 teachers.
We are also working with TERC, a private education research
company, to assess the degree to which ocean sciences are
currently represented in state science education standards, and
to promote recognition of Earth science as a rigorous high
school level laboratory science course. We are also taking
steps to encourage minorities and women to pursue advanced STEM
degrees. In 2001, we established the educational partnership
program to provide financial assistance to Minority Serving
Institutes. To date, more than 2,000 students have been
provided research opportunities at that program's Cooperative
Science Centers.
The Sea Grant, John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship
Program has placed more than 550 graduate students at federal
science agencies, and in Congressional offices for one year
fellowships focused on ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues.
The program has an exceptional record for attracting women.
Since the year 2000, 71 percent of the Knauss fellows have been
women. And I would like to note that program participants are
now serving on several Congressional committee staffs,
including the House Science Committee.
NOAA's informal education programs have also introduced
students to oceans and atmospheres by providing educational
opportunities outside of the classroom. Our 13 marine
sanctuaries and 27 estuary reserves provide children with
hands-on learning in natural laboratories. Our Science on the
Sphere Program, a suspended, six foot diameter globe used at
many science centers and museums, to show animations of the
oceanic, atmospheric, and land systems, provide a unique
opportunity for visitors to get an increasing understanding of
how the planet and its natural processes operate as a system.
We believe the best way to ensure the Nation's scientific
leadership and global competitiveness is to excite students at
an early age, and provide opportunities for them to pursue
science careers. NOAA is dedicated to making tools and learning
experiences available to students, which we believe ultimately
will enable them to better help our mission and serve the
Nation.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I again look
forward to entering into a dialogue with you later.
[The prepared statement of Brigadier General Kelly
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General John J. Kelly
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to discuss the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA's) education program. I am Jack Kelly, Deputy Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere. NOAA supports and appreciates the actions taken
by Members of the Committee to focus on academic excellence through
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education
programs.
As a federal science agency that relies on a highly trained
scientific and technical workforce, NOAA has a vested interest in
encouraging young people to become interested in science and eventually
pursue higher education and careers in science fields. NOAA believes
that federal science agencies have a unique role to play in ensuring an
integral connection between science and education.
As was articulated in Blueprint for Change: Report from the
National Conference on the Revolution in Earth and Space Science
Education (Barstow, 2002): ``NASA, USGS, NOAA and other agencies have.
. .[a] treasure trove of satellite imagery, animations, interactive
maps and other visualizations for ready access by schools and the
general public. The Internet helps students see how Earth's forces
affect their daily lives and provides. . .links for further
exploration. Such efforts should be continued and expanded, including
developing related educational materials to help teachers and students
take better advantage of these resources.''
NOAA's mission is directed at serving our nation's need for oceanic
and atmospheric information to support economic, social, and
environmental prosperity. Fulfilling this mission requires more than
the delivery of accurate and precise scientific information; it also
demands a public that is sufficiently empowered to translate scientific
information into appropriate actions to protect lives, property, and
the environment.
NOAA's education programs are focused on enhancing STEM education
activities in subject areas where NOAA has unique expertise and where
public responsiveness to warnings, forecasts, and stewardship efforts
is important for meeting its mission. NOAA not only conducts scientific
research and monitoring, but also manages marine areas that provide
real world, practical connections between science and the environment.
Public programs in these natural laboratories build a stewardship ethic
by showing how individuals' actions have direct impact on the
environment. Because NOAA's mission is highly applied and directly
related to decisions people make day to day, our education programs can
highlight relationships between science and resource management
decisions and forecasts and warnings. Further, NOAA's data and
information services are provided on a consistent basis and have direct
relevance to the events the general public experiences daily. This
relevance makes the information of strong interest to educators as
demonstrated by the roughly 6,000 requests from teachers, students and
librarians for NOAA education materials that are received each year by
the NOAA Outreach Unit in Silver Spring, MD.
In 2003, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy
(Ret.), Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
recognized a need to develop a formal education program in NOAA,
reconstituted the NOAA Office of Education, and appointed a Director of
Education, and established an Education Council. One of the primary
goals of the office and council is to develop performance measurements
for each education program in the agency to quantify their
effectiveness. These entities are also responsible for coordinating
education activities within NOAA and with other federal agencies, and
serving as a single contact source for all education issues for NOAA.
We also note that, while NOAA has authorities under specific programs,
passage of the Administration's proposed NOAA Organic Act would provide
permanent, NOAA-wide authority to disseminate information and conduct
education and outreach.
NOAA invests in strategic education activities directed toward K-12
formal education and teacher professional development, opportunities
for students pursuing STEM-related careers, and informal education
activities in order to achieve our mission goals and promote
development of a highly competent national workforce to support our
future professional requirements.
In this testimony, I will focus on three areas where NOAA conducts
education activities relevant to K-12 formal education and teacher
professional development, higher education opportunities for students
pursuing STEM-related careers, and informal education activities.
K-12 Formal Education and Teacher Professional Development
NOAA activities to enhance classroom-based STEM-related education
are broadly focused on efforts to improve the degree to which NOAA-
related disciplines are addressed in education standards, are infused
in science curricula, and are present in teacher professional
development. This multi-faceted approach is critical because reports
suggest that few teachers are empowered to teach in STEM-related
fields. Before It Is Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century,
reports that more than one in four high school mathematics teachers and
nearly one in five high school science teachers lack even a minor in
their main teaching field. Furthermore, more than 12 percent of all new
hires enter the classroom without any formal training; another 14
percent start work without meeting the teaching standards of their
states.
Ocean Literacy is a joint public and private partnership effort to
address deficiencies in the K-12 education standards highlighted by the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. This project represents the collective
effort of numerous partners including NOAA and other federal entities,
the National Geographic Society, Centers for Ocean Sciences Education
Excellence, and the National Marine Educators Association, to bring
together the ocean community to identify the knowledge required to be
considered ocean literate in accordance with the National Science
Education Standards for K-12 education. This collective effort resulted
in a definition of ocean literacy comprised of seven essential
principles, supported by detailed fundamental concepts, which educators
can use to fulfill the eight national science education standards and
meet the science requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, when
those requirements take effect.
NOAA is building on its involvement in this effort by funding TERC,
a private education research company, to assess the degree to which
ocean sciences are currently represented in state science education
standards. NOAA is also working with TERC to promote recognition of
Earth science as a rigorous laboratory science course at the high
school level. Although there are no nationally-recognized or
nationally-adopted science education standards, in 1996 the National
Research Council published recommended National Science Education
Standards, which have formed a framework for the standards developed in
some states. Earth science education is one of the three essential
science areas addressed in the National Science Education Standards
(NRC 1996) and preliminary results of an assessment commissioned by
NOAA suggest that Earth science is included in every state's education
standards. However, evidence shows that only 24 percent of our nation's
students take a high school Earth science course prior to graduation,
and Earth science is often times viewed as a less-rigorous course
intended for non-college bound students. NOAA is supporting activities
of TERC to revolutionize high school Earth science education by
developing a model lab-based high school Earth system science course
featuring a combination of field work, classroom experiments, and
computer access to data and visualizations.
Through a partnership with the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA), NOAA provides supplemental education materials and
improves teacher content knowledge in science topics relevant to NOAA's
mission. Specifically, NOAA has already supported the development of
classroom materials related to corals and estuaries, and several others
related to climate and weather topics are in development. The concepts
presented in these classroom materials will be reinforced by on-line
and in-person teacher professional development courses and symposia
offered through NSTA to their members. By partnering with the largest
professional organization of science teachers in the United States,
NOAA expands the impact of our science education activities by
leveraging NSTA's expertise and extensive network of teachers.
NOAA partners with the American Meteorological Society (AMS) to
create supplemental material for use in K-12 classrooms. NOAA has
provided support to AMS's DataStreme Atmosphere and DataStreme Oceans
programs, which train K-12 teachers in oceanic, atmospheric, and
hydrologic sciences through pre-college teacher training and
instructional resource material development. To date, over 100,000
teachers have received NOAA-relevant AMS training and instructional
resources, which may help some teachers fulfill their Earth Science
certification requirements and achieve ``highly qualified'' status
under the No Child Left Behind Act.
The JASON Project receives support from NOAA to use multimedia
tools and cutting-edge technology to engage middle school students in
scientific research and expeditions led by leading scientists. Dr. Bob
Ballard, discoverer of the sunken ocean liner Titanic, has transmitted
his discoveries to millions of students in classrooms around the
country, via satellite and Internet broadcasts. The JASON Project also
provides on-site and on-line teacher professional development supported
by the National Science Teachers Association.
NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OE) has developed
over 200 hands-on, inquiry-based lessons correlated to the National
Science Education Standards. Scientists and educators explain the
science behind each NOAA Ocean Exploration expedition for classrooms.
The lessons are designed to introduce educators to ocean scientists and
explorers, their research and explorations, and tools and resources
that will interest students in NOAA-related science and exploration
efforts. In 2004 alone, the Ocean Explorer Web site had requests for
over 300,000 downloads of pages of these lessons. In 2005, the
Education Section of the site tripled in bandwidth used due to dramatic
increase in site usage. Formal evaluations conducted on this
professional development program indicate that participating teachers
felt better empowered to expose their students to ``real'' science. As
a result, students report ``discovery of a potential career area.''
Through the OceanAGE (Another Generation of Explorers) section of the
Ocean Explorer Web site, students can interact virtually with the likes
of Bob Ballard and Shirley Pomponi through video-based interviews as
they learn why these premier ocean explorers chose careers in ocean
science.
NOAA education also leverages public interest surrounding current
events into educational opportunities. In 2005, after the Indonesian
tsunami, NOAA developed and produced a tsunami education resources kit
for K-12 teachers by compiling existing education materials and
simulation models from across NOAA. To date, NOAA has distributed 8,000
kits to teachers nationally. This year, NOAA has produced a Hurricane
Education packet in response to heightened national interest after
Katrina and the record breaking 2005 tropical storm season. NOAA
anticipates distribution of approximately 10,000 packets at the
National Science Teachers Association meeting next week.
NOAA's local and regional facilities and fleet of ships and
aircraft offer unique locations and platforms for teacher professional
development opportunities. Since its inception in 1990, NOAA's Teacher
at Sea program has enabled more than 430 teachers, from 47 states and
three countries, to participate in real research and experience life at
sea. Administered by NOAA's Office of Marine and Aviation Operations,
the program gives teachers the chance to go to sea aboard NOAA research
and survey vessels.
STEM-Related Higher Education Opportunities
NOAA actively serves students with a variety of opportunities to
develop academic excellence and scientific rigor. Many graduates of
these education programs continue their professional careers in the
sciences and work for NOAA or partner institutions. The collective
efforts of all these opportunities are aimed at increasing the size and
diversity of the pool of future candidates for STEM-related
professional positions.
NOAA's Educational Partnership Program began in 2001 and provides
financial assistance, on a competitive basis, to Minority Serving
Institutions (MSIs) to increase programs and opportunities for students
to be trained and graduate in sciences that directly support NOAA's
mission. The program consists of four core components: Cooperative
Science Centers, Environmental Entrepreneurship Program, Graduate
Sciences Program, and the Undergraduate Scholarship Program.
Four Cooperative Science Centers have been designated
at MSIs with graduate degree programs in NOAA-related sciences.
To date, NOAA has provided formal training and research
opportunities for 2,050 students at these centers. External
teams of scientists have reviewed the centers to determine the
effectiveness of student recruitment, training and graduation.
The Environmental Entrepreneurship Program provides
financial assistance to increase the number of students at MSIs
who are proficient in both environmental studies and business
enterprises. The Program facilitates linkages among MSIs, NOAA,
and the private sector.
The Graduate Sciences Program offers training and
work experience to exceptional female and minority students
pursuing advanced degrees in the environmental sciences. NOAA
provides program participants with tuition, a housing
allowance, travel expenses, and a salary for an annual 16-week
work period at a NOAA facility, and the students are mentored
by scientists while performing research. After completing the
program, participants commit to employment at NOAA based on the
length of their training. To date, the Graduate Sciences
program has hired 27 graduates as NOAA scientists.
The Undergraduate Scholarship Program has sponsored
69 students majoring in NOAA-related sciences at MSIs to obtain
tuition assistance and participate in two ten-week summer
internships. Forty-one students have completed the program,
with 28 going on to graduate school.
The Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program, named in honor of the
late, distinguished NOAA scientist and Assistant Administrator,
recognizes outstanding scholarship and encourages independent graduate
level research--particularly by female and minority students--in
oceanography, marine biology, and maritime archaeology. Congress
authorized the Program, as described in the National Marine Sanctuaries
Amendments Act of 2000, soon after Dr. Foster's death in June 2000, as
a means of honoring her life's work and contribution to the Nation. To
date, 22 students have received scholarships, 18 of whom were women.
The National Sea Grant program offers several opportunities for
graduate students through the John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship.
The Knauss fellowship, established in 1979, provides a unique
educational experience for graduate students who have an interest in
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources and in the national policy
decisions affecting those resources. The program places highly
qualified graduate students at NOAA, NASA, the Department of the
Interior, NSF, and Congressional offices for a one-year paid
fellowship. The program is named in honor of one of Sea Grant's
founders, former NOAA Administrator John A. Knauss. Since its
inception, there have been over 550 Knauss fellows and annual program
participation by females has averaged 71 percent since 2000.
The Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program recruits and prepares
students for public service careers with NOAA and other natural
resource and science agencies as well as for careers as teachers and
educators in oceanic and atmospheric science. This year, the first
Hollings Scholars are expected to participate in summer internships
with NOAA labs and facilities. The Hollings Scholarship Program
currently funds more than 100 students in ocean and atmospheric
sciences, math, computer science, social science, and education.
Informal Education
NOAA's informal education activities provide educational
experiences that typically involve taking students to unique settings
outside of the classroom. Informal education combines well established
educational methods with the excitement of hands-on activities and
field experiences and develops life-long interest in the ocean and
atmosphere. NOAA's informal education activities include hosting school
children, community groups, and the general public at NOAA sites,
supporting hands-on experiences in NOAA-related sciences, and
increasing the inclusion of NOAA-related topics at science centers,
museums, and aquaria.
NOAA is uniquely positioned to allow citizens to experience
directly how a federal science agency manages our nation's natural
resources and the importance of those resources. NOAA has 13 marine
sanctuaries and 27 estuarine research reserves that provide students
and the general public with hands-on experiences within these natural
laboratories. These outdoor and engaging educational experiences
provide direct application of the multi-disciplinary science NOAA
conducts, and promote stewardship. School field trips to these sites
enrich and supplement the classroom curriculum. Education coordinators
at each site offer a variety of educational experiences tailored for
the local community and school districts.
Programs such as Sea Grant, the National Marine Sanctuaries, and
the National Estuarine Research Reserves offer comprehensive education
programs that provide NOAA with the critical connection to the needs of
the local communities that these place-based programs serve. These
programs provide topically relevant and standards-based education
programs and materials founded on an integration of NOAA's multi-
disciplinary approach to understanding and predicting changes in the
Earth's ecosystem.
Infusion of NOAA-related science topics into public venues for
learning about science further promotes our ability to reach broad and
diverse audiences and increase understanding of Earth system dynamics.
One example of how we are increasing coverage of NOAA topics in
museums, science centers, and aquaria is through public exhibits of
NOAA's Science On a Sphere, a 3-D visualization tool of NOAA's global
data. In June 2004, an evaluation of Science On a Sphere conducted at
the Maryland Science Center indicated Science On a Sphere is a powerful
and effective data visualization tool that engaged the public. Visitors
reported significant increases in knowledge on Earth system dynamics
and increases in their understanding about interconnections of these
dynamics after viewing the Science On a Sphere exhibit. This program is
providing us with an unprecedented opportunity to incorporate NOAA data
and increase understanding about the Earth as an ecosystem.
NOAA's Need for STEM Education Improvements
In conclusion, thank you for this opportunity to describe NOAA's
education programs with your committee. The successful performance of
NOAA's mission depends on having access to the best meteorologists,
oceanographers, cartographers, biologists, chemists, and engineers to
conduct our work. Like many science-based agencies, many of NOAA's
senior scientists are eligible for retirement this year. NOAA needs to
attract well-qualified and trained candidates utilizing a variety of
scholarship and fellowship programs that support education and training
in NOAA-related sciences. The best way to ensure NOAA's scientific
leadership and global expertise in oceanic and atmospheric research,
observations, and forecasting, and environmental and ocean health, is
to have the best and the brightest students, from a diversity of
backgrounds, become fascinated with science education and the
environment in which we live. NOAA's education program actively
supports this objective.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on this topic. I am happy to respond
to any questions the Committee may have.
Biography for Brigadier General John J. Kelly, Jr., (USAF ret.)
Brigadier General (USAF retired) John (Jack) J. Kelly, Jr. serves
as the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He is
responsible for the day-to-day management of NOAA's domestic and
international operations. In addition, General Kelly is the United
States principal representative with the World Meteorology Organization
(WMO) and is responsible for U.S. interactions with the WMO.
General Kelly has 39 years of experience in all facets of the
weather field, including 21 years at the senior executive level in both
government and private industry. He has broad experience in leading
science-based service organizations, introducing change, and using and
implementing technology and science.
General Kelly served as senior advisor on weather services for the
Department of Commerce and conducted a bottom-up review of the NOAA
National Weather Service (NWS) operation, plus NOAA and NWS management,
planning, and budget policies and processes. He was NOAA's Assistant
Administrator for the Weather Service from 1998 to January 2004.
In the private sector, General Kelly was Director of Weather
Systems for GTE Information Systems from 1994 to 1996. There he
directed GTE's weather and aviation services business line and was
responsible for client satisfaction and interface, strategic planning,
business development and sales, profit and loss, and program
management.
General Kelly retired from the Air Force in 1994 after serving for
31 years. His duties covered the entire spectrum of the weather field,
from operational forecaster to chief scientist, to staff officer. He
retired as Director of Weather Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.
General Kelly holds a Bachelor's degree in chemistry from Seton
Hall University and a Master's degree in public administration from
Auburn University. He also completed leadership programs at the Air
Force Command and Staff College and the Industrial College of Armed
Forces. General Kelly is an American Meteorological Society Fellow and
has received numerous U.S. and international awards.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, General. Dr.
Decker.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES F. DECKER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Decker. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
Department of Energy's role in math and science education, and
the K-12 education programs in the Office of Science.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my thanks to you for
your long service to the Nation as a Member of Congress, and
leadership that you have displayed here on this committee.
Thank you.
I want to begin with a short personal story. Nearly 50
years ago, the Soviet Union surprised the world by launching
Sputnik, the first ever satellite in space. Sputnik was a great
shock to this country, and led to a major effort to gain the
lead in space by making major new investments in science and
engineering. The Sputnik challenge was the main reason I chose
a career in science. I grew up in a very small rural town in
upstate New York, didn't have a clue about careers in science,
never met a scientist, but I was fortunate to have very good
science and math teachers, and I liked science. The Sputnik
challenge, which came along when I was in high school, had two
features that attracted me to a career in science. First, it
was a science and technology challenge that was important to
the country. Second, I thought there would be jobs in science.
The promise of jobs should not be underestimated as a key
factor in a student's career choice.
Many of my colleagues have similar stories about why they
chose a career in science. It was a result of good science and
math teachers, a national challenge, and a promise of
employment. The Sputnik challenge resulted in a large influx of
students into science, engineering, and mathematics from which
the country benefited for nearly 50 years. That generation of
scientists has reached retirement age.
The Department of Energy is largely a science and
technology agency. This gives us a strong vested interest in
STEM education. The Department and its laboratories today face
the challenge of an aging scientific and technical workforce
that must be rebuilt, and we are very concerned about the
pipeline that produces the talent needed to fill our critical
need. The Department's primary contribution to the science
education pipeline is through the support and training of
graduate students. It is a natural byproduct of our support of
research in universities, and also, many graduate students
supported by other federal agencies receive a portion of their
training at the Department's scientific user facilities.
The Office of Science also provides some direct support for
K-12 target STEM education programs for in-service K-12
teachers, and undergraduates training to be K-12 teachers.
These programs use the scientific personnel and research
capabilities of the Department's laboratories to engage
teachers in an environment aimed at making the connections with
the science and technology principles they teach. The
capabilities at the laboratories are used to build teachers'
content knowledge and skills through a research experience and
a continuing mentorship by laboratory scientists and master
teachers.
We hope through this program to train teachers who can act
as agents of change in their school districts, to help raise
the quality of STEM teaching and the level of student
achievement. What we are finding is that the teachers who
participate in these programs at the national labs are becoming
teacher-leaders in their education communities.
We are pleased that the National Science Foundation has
joined us in supporting these programs. The Department's
laboratories have not only enthusiastically participated in the
Office of Science-sponsored education programs, but on their
own, they have, for many years, conducted programs for both K-
12 students and teachers, largely through volunteer efforts of
the scientific staff. These laboratory programs touch tens of
thousands of students and teachers every year.
Finally, I want to mention the National Science Bowl,
sponsored by the Office of Science, because it is the type of
event that brings recognition of academic achievement in STEM
fields, and inspires students to become more interested in
STEM. The National Science Bowl is a highly regarded
educational event that continues to grow every year in
reputation among students, educators, science coaches, and
volunteers. More than 1,800 high schools from across the Nation
participate regionally in fast-paced problem solving events,
with the highest performing team from each region coming to
Washington, D.C. to participate in the national event.
This annual event has generated student enthusiasm for
learning about science by engaging 110,000 students during its
16 year history. The National Science Bowl has been so
successful that in 2002, we initiated the Middle School Science
Bowl, and it has also become a great success. This year, the
finals for the National Science Bowl will be held April 27
through May 1 here in Washington. I would like to invite all
the Members of this committee, as well as the witnesses to
observe the finals.
As we as a Nation attempt to address the issue of
attracting more students into careers in science, engineering,
and mathematics, as outlined in the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative, we should learn from the Sputnik
experience, and recognize the power of those inspirational
challenges that capture the imagination of young students. The
American Competitiveness Initiative, that focuses on the
Nation's competitiveness in the global economy, and the
President's Advanced Energy Initiative can begin to focus the
attention of the Nation on two important challenges that are
intimately linked.
These initiatives represent two examples where there are
clear national challenges, a commitment by the President to
seek funding to attack those challenges, and an opportunity to
attract the young talent into scientific and technical fields
that will be essential to address those challenges. The
Department of Energy remains committed to its role in training
the next generation of scientists, engineers, and teachers to
take on these challenges.
And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee, for inviting me to testify today, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Decker follows:]
Prepared Statement of James F. Decker
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
the Department of Energy's (DOE) role in math and science education and
the K-12 education programs of the Office of Science. The DOE's most
significant contribution to education, broadly defined, over the years
has been through our support of graduate students pursuing advanced
degrees and by providing opportunities for undergraduate students and
K-12 teachers to utilize our research facilities and work with the
scientific and technical staff at the laboratories, which are unique
places for research, learning, and collaboration. Our long history of
support of programs for students and teachers has helped establish a
culture at the National Laboratories where mentoring and learning are
encouraged and supported. For more than 30 years, the DOE National
Laboratories have provided mentor-intensive research internship and
fellowship opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students
studying in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields. Since 1989 we have also supported programs that bring K-12
teachers into the National Laboratories to work with researchers and
build content knowledge and skills that they then take back to their
classrooms.
The two most important ways the Federal Government can improve
science and math education is to help ensure that there is a highly
qualified teacher in every classroom and second, to help ensure that
students have the opportunity in their schools to study science and
math every day of the school year and every year throughout their K-12
education. The No Child Left Behind Act has put great emphasis on
providing a qualified teacher in every classroom. Providing
opportunities for professional development for STEM teachers is an area
where DOE and the National Laboratories have played and will continue
to play a valuable role.
The role of the Department and particularly the Office of Science
in STEM education is complementary to the efforts of other federal
agencies. Our collaboration with the National Science Foundation (NSF)
in various programs is especially productive and effective in bringing
students from NSF funded programs to our National Laboratories;
strengthening transfer of teacher research experiences to classrooms;
curriculum development that strengthens our mission, and increasing
science literacy. In contrast, work on specific curricula is more a
responsibility of State and local education communities across the
country.
I would note here that, the Department of Energy's overall role in
K-12 education is small. In the Office of Science, for example, our
current budget for the Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists (WDTS) is just over $7 million. For Fiscal Year 2007 we have
requested almost $11 million--a significant increase, though WDTS is
small relative to the programs of other more education-focused federal
agencies. In addition, however, it should also be noted that the
National Laboratories conduct independent, overhead-funded K-12
education programs that reach out to thousands of students every year.
With annual spending of roughly $8 million dollars these are truly
community-based programs, developed and sustained by strong local
support and participation.
The Office of Science and STEM Education
The DOE Office of Science sponsors fundamental research programs in
basic energy sciences, materials and chemical sciences, nanoscale
science, climate change, genomics, life sciences, fusion energy
sciences, high energy physics, nuclear physics, and advanced scientific
computing. The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio of
research at more than 275 colleges and universities nationwide. This
year, we are funding the work of about 23,500 scientists, including
more than 10,000 Ph.D.s, graduate students, undergraduates, and
postdoctoral researchers at the Nation's institutions of higher
learning.
The Office of Science is also the steward of 10 world-class
laboratories with unmatched capabilities for solving complex
interdisciplinary scientific problems, and we fund research at DOE's
seven other National Laboratories as well. The DOE National Laboratory
system is the most comprehensive research system of its kind in the
world and the backbone of American science. The Office of Science also
builds and operates the world's largest suite of scientific facilities
and instruments, used annually by more than 19,000 researchers to
extend the frontiers of all areas of science.
The Office of Science has played a fundamental role in training
America's scientists, engineers, and teachers for more than 50 years.
Today we offer a range of workforce development programs for teachers
and scientists to provide opportunities for scientific discovery and to
ensure that this nation has the scientific workforce we will need in
the 21st century.
In science, the mission of research and the mission of education
are inextricably linked. There is no more powerful spur to interest in
science than hands-on experience in cutting edge research in a well-
equipped laboratory. I believe the DOE has played a valuable role in
math and science education at the K-12, undergraduate, and graduate
levels by providing young scientists and teachers with in-depth
exposure to the world of science through hands-on experience at our
advanced facilities. While other Offices within the Department support
undergraduate and graduate research, the Office of Science, through its
Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, supports
the majority of programs that target K-12 education.
Preparing K-12 Teachers for the Classroom
It is widely recognized that the most effective means for improving
student performance is through the training and continued support of
the professional development of elementary and secondary school
teachers (Educational Leadership, March 2002). In a survey of thousands
of STEM graduate students, conducted by the NSF in 2002, 84 percent of
those surveyed stated that they had chosen to pursue a STEM field
career by the time they left high school. This suggests that K-12
teachers play a critical role in increasing the size and quality of the
science, technology, and engineering workforce. Unfortunately, various
studies including the Glenn Commission Report, A Report to the Nation
from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
the 21st Century, 1999; Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2005, from
the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Prospering in the Global
Economy of the 21st Century; and ``Tapping America's Potential: The
Education for Innovation Initiative,'' 2005, led by the Business
Roundtable have indicated that the teaching pool in mathematics and
science is inadequate to meet the current needs in K-12 schools across
the Nation.
According to the Glenn Commission Report, classes in K-12 math and
science are often taught by unqualified and under-qualified teachers
who have little or no formal training in math or science (citing Linda
Darling-Hammond, Supply, Demand, and Quality in Mathematics and Science
Teaching. Briefing for the National Commission on Mathematics and
Science Education for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C., September,
1999.):
More than one in four high school mathematics teachers and
nearly one in five high school science teachers lack even a
minor in their main teaching field.
About 56 percent of high school students taking physical
science are taught by out-of-field teachers, as are 27 percent
of those taking mathematics. These percentages are much greater
in high poverty areas. Among schools with the highest minority
enrollments, for example, students have less than a 50 percent
chance of getting a science or mathematics teacher who holds
both a license and a degree in the field being taught.
This finding is troubling because research indicates students who
are taught by well-prepared science, math, and technology education
teachers achieve at higher levels in class performance and on
standardized exams. Citing What Matters Most: Teaching for America's
Future, 1996, by the National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future, and state studies correlating National Assessment of
Educational Progress rankings with teacher qualifications, the Glenn
Commission notes:
Evidence of the positive effect of better teaching is
unequivocal; indeed, the most consistent and powerful
predictors of student achievement in mathematics and science
are full teaching certification and a college major in the
field being taught. Better math and science teaching is
therefore grounded, first of all, in improving the quality of
teacher preparation and in making continuing professional
education available for all teachers.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires States to fill the Nation's
classrooms with teachers who possess content knowledge in the field in
which they teach and requires, beginning in school year 2007-08, that
states measure students' progress in science at least once in each of
three grade spans (3-5, 6-9, 10-12) each year. The measuring of
students' performance in science over several years also has the
potential to provide a valuable measurement of the effectiveness of
federally funded teacher training programs and efforts to increase the
number of qualified teachers in the classroom.
DOE K-12 In-Service Teacher Professional Development Programs
All of the studies cited emphasize the importance of well-prepared
science and math teachers in the classroom. As noted earlier, since
1989 DOE has played a role in providing professional development for K-
12 teachers. Since the early 1950's, DOE and its predecessor agencies
have been major contributors to the preparation and training of the
next generation of scientists. DOE continues this effort through
mentor-intensive research experiences at the National Laboratories for
students, teachers, and faculty at all levels of education.
The Office of Science created its current in-service teacher
professional development program targeting the Nation's K-12 STEM
teachers in 2004. The primary goal of the Laboratory Science Teacher
Professional Development (LSTPD) program is to create a cadre of STEM
teachers who have the proper math and science content knowledge and
scientific research experience to perform as leaders and agents of
positive change in their local and regional education communities. In
developing this program our WDTS office reviewed the best practices in
teacher professional development identified by the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
the American Institutes for Research. Several professional development
models for teachers were also considered, including: the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards, ``Five Core Propositions'' and
Loucks-Horsley and colleagues' ``Fifteen Strategies for Professional
Development.'' A primary expected outcome of the program is that
teachers who participate will better educate and inspire students to
study and become more involved in academic and extracurricular STEM
activities, eventually raising student achievement on standardized
tests and ultimately leading to more well-prepared students pursuing
STEM majors in college. To achieve these results, the program provides
K-12 classroom teachers with long-term, mentor-intensive professional
development through scientific research or research-like opportunities
at the National Laboratories over a three-year period.
Each teacher selected for the program makes a three-year
commitment. Teachers are recruited nationwide and apply through an
online system. Teachers are selected from a wide variety of demographic
and educational backgrounds and are chosen on the basis of their
qualifications as teachers of science and whether the National
Laboratory they have chosen can provide the necessary developmental
support in the particular subject-matter area where the teachers have
identified a need. Participants' program placement is based upon their
self-identified areas of content knowledge that need strengthening and
on the laboratory's ability to meet that need. Participants receive a
weekly stipend and housing allowance for the period they are at the
laboratory. They also receive monetary support to help them extend what
they have learned to their classrooms, purchase supplies for laboratory
equipment and technology, connect students via classroom activities to
National Laboratory research, continue contact and collaboration with
other participant teachers and laboratory scientists, make return
visits to the laboratory, and communicate their experiences at
professional conferences and in publications.
The participants can choose from two different types of laboratory
experiences. The first is primarily a Laboratory Research Experience
where the teacher conducts research under the guidance of a lab
scientist. This experience is most popular among high school teachers
and is eight weeks long. The other is a more modest approach, known as
the Research Institute Model, where teachers work in small groups doing
mock research projects under the guidance of educators and lab
scientists. This approach, which runs four weeks, is most popular with
elementary and middle school teachers.
All LSTPD teachers are provided guidance and mentorship by a
``Master Teacher.'' The Master Teacher not only has experience and a
proven record of teaching excellence, but s/he is also familiar with
the National Laboratory environment. The Master Teacher helps the
participating teachers prepare a three-year professional development
plan, guided by initial evaluation of the teachers' command of subject
matter in the courses that they teach. This reflection and
collaboration process has been shown in educational research to be
fundamental to successful implementation of teacher professional
development. The teacher assessments and delivered outputs will
ultimately track the effects of the program on student science and math
achievement.
The LSTPD program has funded 115 teachers to participate in a pilot
program that began in 2004; the first cohort will complete the three-
year program this summer. The FY 2007 budget request for the program
will increase the number of teachers participating to more than 300,
and the Office of Science is in the process of planning to offer the
program at all 17 DOE laboratories in the summer of 2007. Although the
program is new and small, it has already had positive impact on its
participant teachers, as described later in this testimony.
DOE Program for Future K-12 Teachers
The Office of Science also funds the Pre-Service Teacher (PST)
summer internship program for undergraduate students who are working
toward teacher certification in K-12 science, mathematics, and
technology. The program places between 40 and 60 undergraduate students
at one of seven National Laboratories. This program allows future
science and math teachers an opportunity to work with and learn from
DOE scientists, researchers, and mathematicians before they enter K-12
classrooms to teach science and math. Participants spend ten weeks with
scientists or engineers working on projects related to the laboratory's
research programs and build content knowledge and skills through their
research experience.
Participants also attend professional enrichment activities,
workshops, and seminars that help them apply what they learn to their
academic programs and the classroom, help them understand how to become
members of the scientific community, and help them improve their
communications skills. Each participant has well-defined outcomes that
include a research abstract, research papers, poster presentations, and
an educational module that develops their laboratory experience into
something they can use in the classroom. A Master Teacher reviews each
of the participant's outcomes, and the participants' science abstracts
are graded and published in Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists annual peer-reviewed Journal of Undergraduate Research.
Program Evaluation
Evaluation of the Office of Science's teacher professional
development programs is a two-part process which can generally be
divided into short-term collection and review of teacher and student
outcomes and longer-term teacher and student outcomes that are formally
reviewed and assessed by outside organizations. Short-term evaluation
occurs each year and is both ``formative'' in that it generates small
adjustments in how the program is being conducted and ``summative'' in
that hard data are used to determine whether the program is addressing
what it is intended to address.
The LSTPD program, for example, requires teachers to self-identify
their weaknesses in science and to define how they will address those
weaknesses in their research experiences. Teachers also document in a
portfolio how their experiences in the laboratory influence their
classroom teaching and how they provide leadership in their schools and
in their districts. This information is generally formative in nature.
Additionally, there are tangible outcomes that each teacher
produces that can be objectively evaluated. These range from research
papers based on their research performed at a National Laboratory to
lesson plans that attempt to transfer the content knowledge they have
gained at a National Laboratory to their students in the classroom.
This information is summative in nature.
Both the formative and summative data are compiled and reviewed by
the WDTS staff and a yearly meeting of all 17 laboratories is convened
to discuss outcomes of the teachers and what adjustments, if any,
should be made. At a certain point, programs are evaluated by an
outside organization. This evaluation is done after the program has
operated long enough to demonstrate its proposed outcomes and with
enough participants to yield a sample size sufficient for reliable
evaluation.
Initial Evaluation of LSTPD
Initial evaluation of the LSTPD program has relied on self-
assessments of the participating teachers and assessments of the
teachers by laboratory education staff. The evaluation of the LSTPD is
in part based on components completed by the participants: 1) a content
knowledge self-assessment; 2) a professional development plan; 3) a
professional practice inventory; and 4) an education module that is
submitted by each participant. Several teachers have also submitted
research abstracts, papers, and posters related to their research at
the National Laboratories. As indicated above, the program requires the
teachers to collect data that will support the program evaluation, and
those data become useful to the participants in their classrooms and in
their own professional development.
An independent educational testing and evaluation company,
WorldViews, LLC, conducted an external evaluation of the pilot year of
the program and provided its report in May 2005. The report stated:
The LSTPD Program in its pilot year was an overall success.
Significant credit goes to the LSTPD Program managers and
participating science mentors at each of the participating
laboratories, and the Office of Science LSTPD leadership and
staff. A variety of professional development models were
employed to a wide range of audiences.
These professional models include those of the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards and Loucks-Horsely's ``Fifteen
Strategies for Professional Development.'' WorldViews, LLC, conducted
its evaluation based upon interviews, work samples and surveys, basing
success on statistically significant increases in teacher work sample
quality and respondents' evaluations of the program to pre- and post-
measures.
Other yearly evaluation indicators of LSTPD program success
include: 1) a less than five percent attrition rate for the three-year
program; 2) one-third of the middle school teachers in the LSTPD
program at DOE's Jefferson Laboratory have opted to move from the mock
research institute format of teaching to one based on their independent
research experience with scientists and researchers at the laboratory,
the embedded research model; 3) a number of LSTPD teachers have won
national education awards, including recognition as Albert Einstein
Distinguished Educator Fellows, Milken Educator Award Winners, and
Expert Environmental Teachers; and 4) LSTPD teachers are becoming
science teacher-leaders in their communities and in their professional
circles.
Evidence of this leadership by LSTPD teachers comes from their
presentations of professional development workshops at several national
conferences. Teachers from the LSTPD program at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO, provided two workshops to teachers at
the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in
Science (SACNAS) national conference in Denver, CO. Teachers from
Argonne National Laboratory provided a workshop at the National Science
Teachers Association (NSTA) regional conference in Chicago, IL.
Additionally, LSTPD teachers will be providing workshops at the
national NSTA conference in April 2006. Several LSTPD teachers are
applying to participate in collaborative projects with the Department
of Education's Teacher-to-Teacher Corps. LSTPD teachers from Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory have also created an applied physics
summer class targeted at high-school students who do not have the
opportunity to take physics at their schools.
Full Evaluation of the LSTPD Program
A full evaluation of the impact of this program will be done in
2008. At that time, the evaluation will cover at least 500 participants
who have finished a full three years in the program. Evaluation at the
five year point in the program allows enough time to reliably track not
only the impact on the quality of the teaching, but also any impact on
students. Evaluation will include but not be limited to: 1) evidence of
improved content knowledge through testing of teachers, review of
teacher work portfolio, technical/scientific publications and
presentations, classroom assessments by outside evaluators; 2) evidence
of leadership, shown by teachers organizing/presenting workshops and
instituting new classes or programs in their respective school systems
such as AP courses, science fairs, Science Bowls; 3) and evidence of
impact on students, as shown by more students taking advanced or
elective science and math courses and participating in science fairs
and Science Bowls, more students pursuing science, math, and
engineering majors, and improved standardized test scores. This
evaluation will be repeated in year ten of the program.
Evaluation of Pre-Service Teacher program
The PST program gives undergraduates planning to become science or
mathematics teachers the opportunity to experience how science is
performed and to improve both their direct knowledge of the scientific
process and their communications skills. The evaluation of the PST
program is primarily based on the quality of the participants'
submitted research papers, abstracts, and oral presentations, as a
measure of their knowledge gained and skills acquired during the
program. The submission rate of these required deliverables is better
than 95 percent for each year of the program since it began in the
summer of 2000. The abstracts are graded by an outside panel of
educators who are all Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellows.
PST participants have typically scored slightly above the mean grades
in abstracts compared to participants in similar internship programs
for other undergraduate students at our National Laboratories. The PST
participants, as a group, have also been more likely to have their
research papers accepted for publication in the Journal of
Undergraduate Research compared to other undergraduate students in
similar internships at our National Laboratories. PST participants have
also presented their work at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science national conference.
Continued Evaluation of DOE Programs
In addition to evaluation of students' deliverables, all of the
National Laboratories are also evaluated by WDST staff to determine
that they are meeting the program criteria and guidelines, such as
conducting mentor training sessions and providing academic,
professional, and social activities for their interns. Each National
Laboratory's education office is also evaluated every year on its
execution of all of its education program elements, as well as all
other Office of Science-administered programs, by a panel of Einstein
Fellows and the Office of Science WDTS office.
For the past four years, particularly in teacher training, the WDTS
has been working with the National Laboratories to help them align
their education programs with the main principles of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) The WDTS office is currently compiling an inventory of
all the DOE education activities through the programs and the
Laboratories and their respective funding levels. This inventory will
include evaluations that were done on our education programs and will
support DOE participation in the Academic Competitiveness Council
(ACC).
The ACC, which was established by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
(P.L.109-171, Sec. 8001) and signed by the President on February 8th
2006, is reviewing science and math education programs across federal
agencies. At the Council's first meeting its Chair, Secretary of
Education Margaret Spellings stated, ``Currently, there are more than
200 programs that focus on math and science, spread across 13 agencies,
all of whom were represented today. Our goal is to gauge effectiveness
and better coordinate these programs. Over the next several months, we
will be looking at the data to see what policies are working for
students, and where we can use taxpayers' dollars more efficiently. One
of the best ways to do that is to align programs with the principles of
NCLB, focusing on accountability, assessment, scientifically based
research, local control, and results for students.''
K-12 Programs Led by the National Laboratories
The scientific and technical staffs at the National Laboratories
have not only enthusiastically participated in the Office of Science-
sponsored education programs, but have also initiated independent
overhead-funded programs to engage K-12 schools in their respective
communities. Each laboratory has a number of outreach programs to their
local schools. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL) offers a popular nanoscience lecture series at the lab on
several Saturdays throughout the year. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and LBNL have been instrumental in helping their respective
States establish State teaching standards and guiding the design of
various statewide initiatives in science education. Thomas Jefferson
National Accelerator Facility has a training program for local K-12
science teachers which has shown a significant impact on student
achievement.
Most of the laboratories offer short eight-week summer internships
for high-school students. Fermi National Laboratory in Chicago has the
Lederman Education Center through which it offers a number of
workshops, training programs, and science kits for K-12 students and
teachers. Brookhaven National Laboratory has a Science Center that
offers similar programs and hosts over 25,000 guests per year. The
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has the Edward Teller Center
that offers training for teachers on various technical subjects, such
as DNA isolation and gene duplication, that teachers might wish to
perform in their schools but do not have the training to do so. Most of
the National Laboratories also host educational websites that provide a
rich set of resources and extensive activities for educators and
students at all levels.
Working with Other Federal Agencies
Federal agencies develop education programs based on their
respective strengths. The Department of Energy's strength is our
scientists and engineers and research capabilities at the National
Laboratories, and we play to that strength in both our own support of
K-12 education and in leveraging our activities with other agencies
such as the NSF. We do not believe it is DOE's role to support
curriculum development, and we are seldom involved with school systems
directly. The exception is the individual local programs at some of the
National Laboratories. We also recognize that DOE's contribution to K-
12 education programs is quite modest relative to some other federal
agencies. Our strength is in actually ``doing'' the exciting and
cutting edge science, and what we offer to K-12 education is the
opportunity to transform teachers of science into ``teacher
scientists.'' We believe that we can excite tomorrow's future young
scientists and engineers by helping to form motivated and knowledgeable
teachers today.
DOE meets regularly with other federal agencies like NSF, NASA, NIH
and NOAA to discuss their math and science education programs. We work
through the National Science and Technology Council and with our Albert
Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellows, who work in Congress and other
federal agencies for one year. The Office of Science has a strong
relationship with the NSF in support of science and mathematics
education, and we collaborate broadly. In 1999, for example, DOE began
a partnership with the NSF ``Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation'' and the National Laboratories to pair future teachers
with a Master Teacher and a laboratory scientist to build content
knowledge and skills through a summer research experience at the
National Laboratories. This allows NSF's undergraduate pre-service
teachers to have access to the same opportunities as our own PST
program students.
In 2000, the DOE partnered with NSF to support a new module for the
popular NSF-supported Active Physics curriculum. This helped the DOE
meet its goals for energy education under its Rebuild American program
in line with the National Science Education Standards. The ``Home
Module to Active Physics'' followed the content, design, and
pedagogical format of the NSF-supported Active Physics Curricula,
helping student understand energy conservation and the relationship of
energy and matter.
As mentioned above, the DOE also meets with the Department of
Education periodically. In a recent meeting regarding alignment with
NCLB, the DOE agreed to coordinate some of the activities of the
teachers participating in the DOE Laboratory Science Teacher
Professional Development Program to help the Department of Education in
its Teacher-to-Teacher training program. We will provide some of the
teachers the Department of Education needs, teachers who are highly
trained in the subjects that they teach and are teacher leaders in
their communities.
DOE does not support K-12 education programs designed to target a
particular gender, minority, or economic class. The LSTPD teachers and
PST undergraduates are selected from broad geographical regions,
representing both rural and urban populations. These in-service and
future teachers are building science and math content knowledge and
teaching skills that have the potential to positively impact the
education of the diverse student groups they teach, irrespective of
gender or socioeconomic differences.
Inspiring Young Minds in Science and Mathematics
The National Science Bowls
To inspire young minds and promote science literacy and enthusiasm
for math and science, DOE conducts the National Science Bowl and the
National Middle School Science Bowl. These annual events have generated
student enthusiasm for learning about science by engaging over 110,000
students over the years.
The National Science Bowl is a highly regarded educational event
that continues to grow every year in reputation among students,
educators, science coaches, and volunteers. It is a very exciting
educational experience--an annual ``grassroots'' program in which more
than 1,800 high schools from across the Nation participate in regional
events, with the highest performing team from each region then coming
to Washington, DC, to participate in the national event. The regional
and national events are primarily volunteer programs where several
thousand people (teachers, parents, and even undergraduates from local
colleges) dedicate weeks of their time to support educational events
and reward students for their enthusiasm and commitment to STEM.
Since its inception in 1991, more than 110,000 high school students
have participated in regional tournaments leading up to the national
event. In Washington, students meet many DOE and non-DOE scientists and
are given a rare chance to learn firsthand about the wide variety of
careers in science. The 2006 National Science Bowl(r) will be held
April 27-May 1, 2006, here in Washington, DC, and you are all invited
to come and observe this exciting educational event.
It is well recognized that the middle-school years are critical in
attracting and retaining student interest in science and math. There
are two events at the Middle School Science Bowl: an academic event in
mathematics and science, and an activity to design, build, and race
hydrogen fuel cell model cars. The academic event is a fast-paced
question and answer format where students solve problems about Earth,
life, physical, and general sciences and mathematics. The model
hydrogen fuel cell car competition challenges students to design,
build, and race model hydrogen fuel cell cars to help them understand
the future energy challenges that our nation is facing. Students who
win in regional events enjoy a trip to a National Laboratory and
participate in a final three-day event designed to capture their
interest and reward them for their hard work. The inspiration students
receive by interacting with scientists and engineers at this age can be
a very positive, even a transforming experience and lead them into STEM
careers.
Other Inspiring Programs: The World Year of Physics
The activities associated with the celebration of the World Year of
Physics is another example of a series of programs that the Office of
Science has sponsored to inspire and capture the interest of young
minds in science inside and outside of the classroom. In 2005, in
coordination with researchers at universities nationwide and the DOE
National Laboratories, DOE celebrated the 2005 World Year of Physics
through a year-long program of activities and materials highlighting
how physics enables advances in science and contributes to our quality
of life. In celebration of the centennial of Albert Einstein's
``miracle year,'' 1905, when he published four papers that laid the
foundations of much of physics as we know it today, the Office of
Science co-sponsored a new PBS NOVA program, ``Einstein's Big Idea.''
The NOVA program aired on PBS stations nationwide in October 2005.
Library guides about the program were distributed to 16,000 libraries
nationwide, and teacher's guides were sent nationwide to 15,000 high-
school physics teachers, 3,700 middle school physics teachers, and 400
middle school science chairs. Several of the National Laboratories held
special lectures, symposia, and education events for local middle and
high school students and the surrounding communities.
A DOE/Office of Science website was also created to educate the
public about the significance of Einstein's revolutionary work,
describe the role of physics in various science and technology fields,
publicize events, and highlight the work of DOE-sponsored physicists.
The ``DOE Physicists at Work'' website continues to profile the work of
young physicists conducting research in the universities and National
Laboratories funded by the Office of Science. Several activities
coordinated by the American Physical Society were also co-sponsored by
the Office of Science. These included the PhysicsQuest, an outreach
event held on the grounds of the Institute for Advanced Studies in
Princeton, NJ, that took over 100,000 middle school students through a
series of experiments on a hunt to finding Einstein's ``missing
treasure,'' and Physics on the Road, a project that provided materials
and equipment for teams of students and faculty from colleges and
universities to perform physics demonstrations at schools and other
public venues across the Nation.
Conclusion
The Department of Energy's strength with regard to education is in
using its scientists, engineers, and research facilities at the
National Laboratories to provide transforming fellowship, internship,
and post-doctoral programs. The multi-disciplinary, team-centered,
scientific culture of the National Laboratories is an ideal setting for
teachers to make the connections between the science and technology
principles they are asked to teach. The extensive mentoring expertise
of our laboratory scientists provides the basis for lasting
relationships that allow teachers to remain connected to the scientific
community once they return to the classroom.
By incorporating K-12 STEM teachers into the scientific community
of the National Laboratories, teachers are provided many of the tools
they need to improve their professional performance, their leadership
abilities in the STEM education communities, and most importantly,
their students' achievement. While the laboratories are not positioned
to support the training of the thousands of STEM teachers in need, the
modest numbers of teachers who are building content knowledge and
leadership skills at our National Laboratories will become agents of
reform and change, not only taking their skills back to the classroom,
but also teaching those skills to other teachers through workshops and
seminars.
There is a growing recognition that the standard of living we enjoy
and the security of our nation rests on the quality of the science and
technology education we provide America's students from elementary
through graduate school. The DOE and the Office of Science remain
committed to its role in training America's scientists, engineers, and
teachers to help ensure that we will have the scientific workforce we
will need to stay on the cutting edge of science and technology and to
maintain our nation's competitiveness in the 21st century.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Biography for James F. Decker
James F. Decker is the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of
Science (SC) in the Department of Energy (DOE). He has held this
position since 1985, and has concurrently served as Acting Director for
approximately six years on five separate occasions between April 1987
and March 2002.
As Principal Deputy Director, Dr. Decker is the senior career
executive who directs the day-to-day technical and management
activities of an organization that is the third largest federal sponsor
of basic research in the United States and is viewed as one of the
premier science organizations in the world. The SC fiscal year 2005
budget of $3.6 billion funds programs in high energy and nuclear
physics, basic energy sciences, magnetic fusion energy, biological and
environmental research, and computational science. SC, formerly the
Office of Energy Research, also provides management oversight of 10 DOE
non-weapons laboratories, supports researchers at more than 275
colleges and universities nationwide, and builds and operates the
world's finest suite of scientific facilities and instruments used
annually by more than 19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all
areas of science.
Dr. Decker has held several other positions within DOE. In 1973 he
joined the Office of Fusion Energy, Office of Energy Research, as a
plasma physicist. He subsequently became the Director of the Division
of Applied Physics, where he was responsible for all theoretical fusion
and basic experimental plasma physics research, the magnetic fusion
energy computer network, and evaluation of novel fusion concepts. Dr.
Decker later served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the
Office of Energy Research, and as the Director of the Scientific
Computing Staff.
Before joining DOE, Dr. Decker was a physicist at Bell Telephone
Laboratories where he conducted research in plasma physics and worked
on ion implantation for integrated circuit development.
He received a B.S. degree from Union College in 1962, a M.S. degree
from Yale University in 1963, and a Ph.D. in physics, also from Yale
University, in 1967.
Dr. Decker has received several awards from DOE as well as two
Presidential Meritorious Rank Awards. He also is a member of several
high-level domestic and international science policy advisory
committees.
Dr. Decker was born near Albany, New York. He is married and has
two children.
Discussion
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, and I want to thank all of
our distinguished panel of witnesses for your kind opening
remarks, but General Kelly, yours were particularly meaningful
to me as a two striper who was a clerk in the MP during my
years in the Army, I never had a General say such nice things
about me. Thank you, sir.
Brigadier General Kelly. You are welcome.
Chairman Boehlert. I won't tell my colleagues what some of
them said. I would like each of you, this is a thought
question, but I would like each of you, other than the
Secretary of Education, to describe briefly why you are in the
education business. What does your agency bring that is unique
to the table? I will start you, Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Yes, the reason we are in the education
business is that the future of science and technology depends
on a well educated workforce, and that has to be nurtured all
the way back to kindergarten, and even before kindergarten, and
if any element of that pipeline or that progression is not
nurtured, the whole column collapses, so we have to be fully
engaged.
The primary effort that we bring to bear is in evidence-
based teaching, improving content, combining content with
pedagogy, developing instructional materials and
instrumentation, developing methods for evaluating assessment
tools in terms of their reliability, their credibility, and
their validity, so that we can measure real changes based on
whatever baseline we establish, and determine real changes, not
only in teacher performance, but also in student performance.
So that, fundamentally, is what we are all about.
In addition, the Foundation also has a responsibility,
especially under the ACI, the American Competitiveness
Initiative, to develop the STEM workforce for the future. That
means in addition to investing in the best science and math
education the Nation can provide, it is also important that we
fill the ranks, that we build capacity among our workforce in
understanding and being able to solve problems that require
math and science education.
Chairman Boehlert. Now, one of the things, if I were
helping you with your answer, I would point out that NSF is
peer-reviewed, and that is a real strength that I think you
bring to the table, as opposed to just formula grants based
upon numbers.
Ms. Dale.
Ms. Dale. I would say the first element is self-serving on
the part of NASA. We have a workforce that is nearing
retirement, and we need to be continually interested in making
sure that we have a pipeline of students that are interested in
STEM education, and we are actually working on the higher
education programs and projects that continue these students on
in the process, whether they go into NASA or somewhere else in
the aerospace community, or into another high-tech area.
I think what NASA uniquely brings to the table is, frankly,
our missions actually inspire kids. As you have no doubt heard
before, NASA Administrator Griffin has talked about the impact
of particular projects when he was a kid. Now, obviously,
Sputnik, and then, the development of the Apollo program, and
those programs actually have an impact on kids along the way to
start to enter science, technology, engineering, mathematics
fields.
In particular, one recent example is the New Horizons
project launched to Pluto. We had the first student-built
instrument on a planetary mission on that project. That is
incredibly engaging for young people. These are students at the
University of Colorado at Boulder who actually had the
opportunity to build this. So, providing opportunities for
students to actually have hands-on experience and build
hardware for spacecraft, I think is our unique niche in this
one.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. General Kelly.
Brigadier General Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would say there is a self-serving part of it, and
that is, we need scientists to replace people who have the
color of the hair that I have, and the other thing is, we have
a large number of scientists, and--I didn't want to go down
that path. The one thing that is true about scientists are the
vast majority of them love to work with children, and love to
impart their love of science to children, so we have a
workforce that wants to do it.
The unique thing that I believe NOAA brings to the table is
we are what I will call scientific practitioners. We don't deal
with abstract science. We use science to solve real world
problems, be they an ocean problem, be they making a weather
forecast, and so, we have an opportunity to bring students into
the workplace, work with scientists, and see how one can use
science to help the citizens of the country.
And another reason, and I said it in my testimony, is that
if you are going to make effective use of many of the products
that NOAA produces, you need to know something about science,
and so, an educated public is important, and so, we work to do
that.
Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Decker.
Dr. Decker. We also have a very vested interest in science
and technology. If you look at the Department's missions in
energy, national security, environmental cleanup, and in
science itself, science and technology is obviously critical to
success in accomplishing the Department's missions, and
clearly, we want the best scientists and engineers working on
our problems.
A second reason why we are really interested in the science
education, I think, is the capabilities that we can bring to
the problem through our national laboratories. They are a great
resource. We have used them to bring students and teachers into
the laboratories to give them a research experience, to improve
their content knowledge, that they can take back to their
classrooms. And that resource has been recognized, I think, by
other agencies. NSF has joined us in supporting programs to
bring teachers into our laboratories, and NIH has also recently
joined us in bringing students into our laboratories.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My father was a farmer, and after World War II, he, like a
lot of folks, took advantage of the GI Bill, and went to MTSU,
it was Middle Tennessee State Teachers College at that time,
and got a degree in agriculture. I came along, and farming
wasn't enough, you know, to pay all the bills, so he became a
teacher. And he taught high school science, and coached the
girls' basketball. Now, my father was a decent, good man and a
bright guy, but I don't know what he knew less about, teaching
girls--or coaching girls' basketball or teaching high school
science. And he--it would have been difficult for him, Mr.
Decker, to, I think, inspire you, because he didn't have the
background in science that he needed to teach that course. And
so, I concur with Gathering Storm, and most every report we
see, is that it is--the place you start is with the teachers,
and educating the teachers.
Now, Commissioner, or Secretary Spellings, I voted for No
Child Left Behind, to the chagrin of many folks at home.
Unfortunately, I think it has been underfunded and
overregulated, although you are bringing some flexibility and
common sense to it, and I congratulate you for that. But I am
concerned that the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative is also underfunded, and I am afraid, potentially,
not properly prioritized, as I mentioned earlier. Of the $380
million that is being presented, $250 million of that is
designated for developing math coursework for elementary and
mid schools. That is 70 percent. Now, that might be a good
figure if you had a bigger overall figure, and I wish you did,
but we won't get into that today.
And so, I guess my question to you is with most all the
reports saying that we need to put our attention on encouraging
students to go into collaborative math/science education
programs in college, as well as taking existing teachers and
raising their skill level, it seems that, and not just in math,
but across, you know, in math/science, and other areas, it
seems that what this program is doing is focusing on developing
a better syllabus for teachers, only in those sort of math/
science area--or the math areas.
Can you enlighten me?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir, I can. Thank you for the
opportunity to do that.
Let me first say that I completely agree with you that the
teacher is key and essential, and that is, you know, where we
are losing the battle, no doubt about it. That is why the
President has called for ramping up advanced placement classes,
and pre-advanced placement classes--many of those courses are
taught in middle schools--so that we can make sure that folks
like your dad have the necessary competencies.
Mr. Gordon. That is a very small part of the money that you
are spending.
Secretary Spellings. It is $122 million of the $380 million
initiative. Let me speak to Math Now. And I do want to come
back to advanced placement, because we know it is a scalable,
proven model. We need to get beyond kind of these onesies and,
you know, anecdotal incubators of program, into something that
is more widespread, more scalable, and aligned to state
standards and the requirements of No Child Left Behind, in my
opinion.
With respect to Math Now, one of the things that I observe
as we go around through schools is that in our elementary and
middle schools, we lack a compelling research base, like we
have in reading, not about particular curriculum products, but
about the core tenets of effective practice. We need to develop
that, and we need to fund those things just as we have done
with Reading First.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you about the competitive nature
of those grants. The perfect model, I think, is a large program
that is scalable and competitive, just like we have done in
reading with Reading First. We ought to do that notion in math.
The important thing about the math/science partnership that
we at the Department of Education run is that it is aligned to
No Child Left Behind. While it is a formula grant, we said get
your kids on grade level by 2014, and so, it is a combination
of these things.
Mr. Gordon. Am I incorrect in the way I am reading this,
that $250 million of the $380 million is designated for
development of math coursework for elementary and middle
schools?
Secretary Spellings. It is to establish--help to establish
a research base and fund programs that are based on that,
whether they are--some of the activities that NSF has developed
a research understanding around or----
Mr. Gordon. Isn't' that a relatively narrow focus?
Secretary Spellings. No, sir. I believe that one of the
things that is--that we are so challenged with is that the
reason that we lose kids, and have a lack of students studying
in our high schools is that we are not getting the pipeline
right. We are not getting our elementary and middle school
curriculum right. We are not seeding enough higher thinking,
higher order thinking early enough, which needs to be done in
that sixth through eighth grade kind of period.
Mr. Gordon. But is a teacher that doesn't have the
background, even if they have a better syllabus, I mean--it
looks to me like what you are trying to do is--and it is not
that we shouldn't be doing this, but just in terms of
priorities, $250 million of the $380 million is going to
develop a better syllabus for only in math and only in
elementary and in middle schools.
Secretary Spellings. That is also for teacher training,
absolutely. Just like Reading First. Reading First is the--a
model that says get a research base, get a program that is tied
to that research base, and use that information to train your
teachers, and that is what we mean to do with Math Now, pointed
at elementary and middle schools.
Mr. Gordon. Well, I compliment you on this program. Once
again, I think it is underfunded and too narrow in scope, and I
hope that we will have a chance to work more on it, and I----
Secretary Spellings. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. I hope that you will call upon the expertise of
the National Science Foundation that has had fifty years of
well accepted and good programs.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Where is Sputnik when we need it? I have said that in a lot
of different speeches over the years, and that is the basic
problem. I have been in this business for 40 years now,
starting in 1966, when as a very young physics professor,
concerned about what was called, pardon me, mathematical
illiteracy and scientific illiteracy at that point, I asked
myself what can a young, insignificant physics professor do,
and I decided to devote my energies to training future teachers
in both science and how to teach science. And that has served
me well in this position now.
But the big problem is grabbing the public's attention. As
an example, a recent poll I saw said almost all parents agreed
that having proper math and science education was an important
issue in today's world. Sixty percent of them said they thought
their children already had an adequate training in math and
science. In other words, they just don't get it. They don't see
the problem. So, we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Secretary Spellings, I am going to address most of my
questions to you, although I have many questions for everyone,
but--and I really appreciated the work you have done, both in
the White House, and in the Department. You have been a breath
of fresh air in Washington in many ways, and I hope the
bureaucracy doesn't beat you down.
But I have several questions to pose to you, and in
thinking about this problem, what can you do in your
Department? NSF has a long history of working with us. They
have good programs. They have done a superb job. You are
breaking new ground with the Department of Education, and the
question is what is an appropriate and effective federal role
in this issue of math/science education, because as you know,
there is a great aversion in certain segments of the public to
the Federal Government doing too much. It seems to me, and I am
asking your opinion on these, that teacher training is a very
important thing that we can do. That seems to be the biggest
problem at the moment. Developing teachers' acquaintance with
and familiarity with and confidence in their ability to do math
and science and to teach it.
My question is, should the Federal Government also, then,
apply, develop some teacher training standards to be used
throughout the country, so that we have some sense of
uniformity in this country? Something else, I think the Federal
Government should do it. It is a very important thing. It is
not determining curriculum, but we have a unique problem,
because we are such a mobile nation, and as you know, both math
and science are sequential in nature, and yet, we have
different programs all over the country which use different
sequences. So, it is very well possible for a math student, who
is enrolled in a school where they teach percentage in the fall
and fractions in the spring, transfers midyear, and get two
semesters of one of those, let us say fractions, and no
training in percentages at all. It seems to me it makes sense
to develop a national sequencing of math and science programs
that all curricula would have to meet. We wouldn't specify the
curricula, but at least, let us unify the sequence, because so
many people move so often, and I have an urban district. It is
not uncommon for children to go to four different schools in
one year. The national average is one change every four years,
and we have to address that problems.
Reviewing and approving curriculum material, at least
saying what is good and appropriate and what is not, seems to
me to be a federal role, maybe not done by your Department, but
perhaps supported by your Department. AAAS does that. To a
certain extent, other agencies, but most teachers, I find, and
school boards, and administrators, don't know which are the
good math programs, which are the poor ones, which are the good
science programs, and which are the poor ones. Another
possibility is standardized teachers' tests or credentialing.
There is--that is done on a voluntary basis. Maybe that has to
be extended.
And another major problem that we face on a national level
is the inconsistency of graduation requirements and university
and college entrance requirements, and I, time after time, I
come across cases where students are really in tough shape,
because what they had in high school doesn't match what they
need in their higher educational institution, and could your
Department serve as an agency to develop some standard approach
in that nationwide?
I would appreciate your reaction to these.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you
have some very unique perspectives, since you serve both on
this committee, and on the House Education Committee, which
really gives you an understanding of No Child Left Behind, and
all that that is about, as well as the needs here and the
interests here.
You asked, I think, the most powerful question, really, at
the beginning, and that is, what is the proper and appropriate
federal role, and then, there are these various offshoot
issues, including teachers, alignment, and all of the things
that you mentioned, which I would love to speak to you.
But I think firstly, with No Child Left Behind, we said
that we expected every state to develop standards in math and
science, that we expected them to develop measurement systems
around those standards, and that we expected every child to get
to grade level by 2014. So, I wonder about curriculum products
that federal agencies develop, are they aligned to state
standards? We have built a tremendous appetite, as you know,
for getting to that goal line, but if those things are not
coordinated with and aligned with, I am afraid that we are
building a road to nowhere, maybe a little bit, with federal
products that are not aligned with those goals.
Also, No Child Left Behind, as you know, is a powerful
driver of this focus on results, and I think that ought to be
our watchword throughout the government. My other observation,
and you talked about it, it is what I call the tell us what to
do, and we will do it phenomenon. I mean, this lack of
understanding about what are the core principles, what are the
core elements to effective curriculum products? Like we have
done in reading, phonemic awareness, phonics, alphabetic
principle, and the like. What are those correlates in math, and
I think we do have--and science. The sequencing issue. I do
think we have a responsibility to do those sorts of things, and
I think the National Math Panel, that will be a joint effort of
all of us, can be a part of that.
Finally, I think what we need to do, and most powerfully,
particularly as we look at the results before us, we must go to
scale on some effectiveness programs. We, you know, this is
from my state days, the programs that were funded by the
Department of Education or NSF in the old days, brought many
times, our most capable teachers together, who were teaching
four and five AP classes, largely at magnet schools, for summer
institutes. They loved getting together, fed on each other,
perhaps it helped them stay in the classroom longer. But what
we need to work on is Representative Gordon's dad, the people
who are in our classrooms today, teaching out of field. How are
we going to get them and their skills ramped up and ratcheted
up very quickly? That is, to me, the raging fire.
The other thing, I think, and I know you know, and this
body voted on it yesterday as part of the Higher Ed
Reauthorization, is the need to get more expertise in the
classroom from the community broadly. Why can't a NASA
scientist teach in our schools? How can we find ways to
engage--I know IBM has committed 1,200 of their mid-career
professionals into the teaching professions. How can we get
other expertise from the community into our classrooms?
Finally, let me address some of the particular things that
you mention. I spoke to the teacher issue. We need to make sure
our client is the teacher who lacks the skill, not our most
capable, most engaged teachers. The sequence issue, the
National Math Panel can, I think, be helpful, and I completely
agree with you about the lack of alignment between high schools
and higher education, and my hope is that through the Academic
Competitiveness Grants that you all just authorized as part of
the reconciliation, which will provide additional Pell aid, and
requires me as Secretary to define a rigorous course of study,
determine who has taken that, and describe for each State,
actually, each State will determine one, and make some
linkages, finally, between the expectations of our higher
education and the kind of student and preparation that is
coming out of our high schools. We have put some incentives for
students, and for the system on the table, $790 million worth
of resources this very year, and I think that can be a powerful
tool in doing that.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The gentleman's
time has expired. Madam Secretary, this committee doesn't build
bridges to nowhere--well, committee. We chart a pathway to the
future.
Ms. Hooley.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Spellings, first of all, I want to thank you for
your openness and your willing to look at some common sense
reform of No Child Left Behind, particularly growth models, and
I would love to work with you and share with you some of this
information that I have.
I have a couple of questions. As you know, I am sitting at
this table. We have a lot of agencies that have been very
supportive of STEM education efforts, and they have done a
great job. And in fact, when there was the Program Assessment
Rating Tool, or PART, if you looked at what NSF did, all of
their programs, 10 of their programs, have been assessed, and
they all received the very highest rating.
So, my question is, on the basis of past performance alone,
why the NSF has not been included in the education component of
the American Competitiveness Initiative, and why are NSF's K-12
STEM education programs targeted for a seven percent cut in
this '07 budget.
The second question is we find that elementary school math
and science curricula frequently focuses on exploration and
observation of natural objects and emphasis of trial and error.
However, as students move into junior high and high schools,
the curriculum tends to shift to textbook-dominated, with
little emphasis on exploration. Why does this shift occur, and
is that decision based on scientific findings?
And then, the third question that I have for the entire
panel is what needs to be done to recruit and train more math
and science teachers? What programs have worked, what programs
have not worked, and what role can this committee help--play in
helping this cause?
Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you, Congresswoman. I look
forward to visiting with you offline about the growth model
notion, too. I am very excited about the prospects that that
might have----
Ms. Hooley. Great.
Secretary Spellings.--for No Child Left Behind as well. Let
me first say the National Science Foundation absolutely is part
of the Academic Competitiveness Initiative, as all the agencies
represented here are, and I think they would tell you that. We
are working closely together, as part of the Academic
Competitiveness Council, that was recently created, and as
well, on other initiatives that Dr. Bement spoke to in his
opening statement, so that we are absolutely working together,
and intend to do more of it, and appreciate the opportunity to
talk together today.
With respect to exploratory, the exploratory aspect of
curricula, those decisions, and those observations, as you said
through local textbook adoptions and so forth, are largely made
at the state level, and we at the Department of Education, and
to my knowledge, I don't know that anyone here opines on the
worth of that, but those are local decisions, local curriculum
decisions, set around local standards and so forth, and so----
Ms. Hooley. Do we have any--but I think it would help if we
had some scientific basis about this is the best way to teach
math or science. I mean, really--or not.
Secretary Spellings. Well, and that is what I think we are
trying to get at with the National Math Panel. What are the
correlates? What is the proper sequence? What are the proper
techniques? What are the correlates to what we know best about
reading instruction that can be applied to math? As local
school boards evaluate, and states evaluate curriculum products
and textbooks, what ought they be looking for as the key
elements of success? And I don't think at the federal level, we
have done a very clear job of helping them understand that.
With respect to teacher recruitment, I think we have to
work on lots of fronts. I think we have to get additional
resources from the community broadly. We have to train our
existing teachers, who are teaching out of field, and help,
many times, not at their election, obviously, get them the
skills necessary. If they are teaching biology when they are
certified in math, let us help them get biology-certified
through advanced placement and other models. And I think we
obviously need to expand programs like Troops to Teachers,
Teach for America, and all those sorts of things that have
helped us get new career professionals into our schools.
Ms. Hooley. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to respond to
that last question about what do we do to recruit math and
science teachers?
Dr. Bement. Yes. Thank you. Let me draw examples from two
programs within the National Science Foundation. One, the Math
and Science Partnership. This is the largest program we have
ever engaged in that brings higher education together with K-12
education in order to improve content proficiency, and also, to
get more STEM faculty at the universities or institutes of
higher learning engaged with education, as far as pre-service
education is concerned.
Now, just to give you the numbers, we are currently
engaging 1,000 STEM faculty at 150 institutions of higher
learning. We have 50 corporate partners that are involved in
this as well, and it is all to improve content. The other thing
that I would like to touch on is our Teacher Professional
Continuum, because it is not enough to prepare teachers and get
them to the school. It is a question of can you retain them
over a long period of time, because the turnover in well-
trained teachers is a waste in the system, and it is something
that we have to deal with, and while salaries is often held up
as a major issue as far as retention, there are a lot of other
issues as well. It has to do with resources. It has to do with
professional development over time. So our Teacher Professional
Continuum starts right from the stage of recruitment, and takes
each of the various steps, to determine how we could reduce the
barriers, and how we can improve the retention of teachers
through professional development, and through those two means,
getting higher education faculty involved in content
development, and also in retaining teachers, we feel that we
are making a contribution.
Ms. Hooley. Yes.
Ms. Dale. I was just going to add real quick that
obviously, it will be a longer-term process, in terms of
developing the best ways to recruit math and science teachers
into the area. One thing, and I know we have talked about this
previously, but given a workforce in the science agencies that
you see up here, that are nearing retirement, I think this
should probably be a much more active effort getting these
scientists and engineers that are retiring, and figuring out
ways in which they can transition into being science and math
teachers throughout the country.
Ms. Hooley. Thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr.
Reichert.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehlert. And we have 11 minutes on this vote, so
the chair's intention is to have Mr. Reichert conclude his
time, and then have a wee pause, as we dash over and dash right
back. We will try not to inconvenience you too much.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make this
quick. I do have to say, however, I am not one of the
professors or scientists on the committee. My background is law
enforcement. I was afraid of science. My son, however,
graduated with a major in math economics, and a minor in
biology. My grandson and granddaughter are thoroughly involved
in and excited about science. They are eleven and nine years
old, so there is some progress being made, at least in our
family.
I want to say that, just a couple of quick questions. Are
the scientists or engineers providing the research experiences
required to undergo any sort of training? There has been
discussion about that.
Secretary Spellings. Do scientists----
Mr. Reichert. Are the scientists or engineers providing the
research experiences required to undergo any sort of training?
Secretary Spellings. In teacher licensure and teacher
participation?
Mr. Reichert. Yes.
Secretary Spellings. Most states, and No Child Left Behind,
through the Highly Qualified Teacher Provisions, requires
content knowledge for teachers. It leaves to states to describe
how they do that, through their State licensure programs and
the like, so it does vary around the country, to the extent
that happens, but the law does require that they have a content
basis, as opposed to a pedagogical basis.
Mr. Reichert. Anyone else? You each run math and science
partnership programs, and these programs were specifically
designed by Congress to enhance coordination between NSF and
the Department of Education. How are you coordinating your
activities?
Dr. Bement. Well, let me say several ways in which we are
coordinating our activities, and let me first emphasize that it
occurs at every level within the two agencies. At the agency
level, at the program level, and also, at the project level.
And at the agency level, we are very much involved in
cosponsoring studies, like at the National Academy of Sciences,
for example, on education. I am involved in a very important
board in the Department of Education. And at the program level,
the Math and Science Partnership between NSF and the program at
the Department of Education is very much intertwined. For
example, two-thirds of the partners that we support in the 31
states are very closely coupled with the state math and science
partnership programs that are supported by the Department of
Education, so there is a direct transfer of not only
information, but knowledge, between the two programs.
Furthermore, we both have an MSPNet, Math and Science
Partnership Net, which disseminates information from both of
our programs to the general public, and beyond that, we are
working with the Department on their Math Panel, and also,
their Science Panel, to exchange experience, and I would say
that in some of the toolkits that they are developing, some of
the information and evidence that goes into the construction of
those toolkits is coming out of the NSF Math and Science
Partnership program, so we are linked in many ways, all the way
from the agency level to the project level.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. Let me answer the question this way,
and that is, and I love that NSF's motto is ``Where Science
Begins,'' and Dr. Bement talked about the four million students
that are touched by their programs. We have 40 million students
in our K-12 system broadly, and so, I think, you know, we look
to NSF to incubate and provide information about some things
that work, and then, we at the Department of Education, aligned
around No Child Left Behind's requirements for results for all
students, try to help get those to scale through state math and
science partnerships and the like. So it is very much a hand-
in-glove sort of effort.
Mr. Reichert. Thank you. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehlert. Six minutes to go. Well, we are going to
have to go over and vote. Would you like to be recognized? You
can get it in like in three or four minutes?
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehlert. You are recognized.
Mr. McCaul. And I will be very brief. I was meeting with
the President yesterday in the White House, Madam Secretary,
and he said what a great job you are doing, and I always think
that that is important to hear what your boss is saying.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you for that.
Mr. McCaul. I think you have great security.
Secretary Spellings. And thanks for that, too.
Mr. McCaul. And thank you for the work you are doing. I am
from Austin, and had the University of Texas and I want you to
comment just real briefly, because our time is limited, on the
advanced placement program, as it has worked in Texas, and how
the Administration intends to apply that nationwide through the
new initiative the President has talked about. And then lastly,
the private sector angle, which you have referenced to, I think
it is so important that we integrate that with the public
school system.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you for that medium speed pitch
over the plate question. As you know, advanced placement,
particularly since Bush served as governor of Texas, has been a
huge priority of not only the government officials, but also
the private sector and the philanthropic sector, like through
the O'Donnell Foundation, and we have seen tremendous
improvement, particularly with our minority students. The
President was in town, in Dallas, at Townview Magnet School,
just a few weeks ago, and saw just these tremendous kids, so-
called at-risk kids, all of them knocking the top off these
advanced placement tests. We have learned that providing
incentives not only for students, but for teachers to get
interested and participate in those programs, has provided
major, major value added, and the results are there. Since you
are from Austin, also my hometown, I also want to put in a plug
for the U-Teach Program that the National Academies report is
so high on as well, which has people first as mathematicians
and scientists, and then teachers, and that, too, has been very
supported by the private sector and the philanthropic sector as
well, so----
Chairman Boehlert. Madam Secretary, I am going to ask you
to pause, as we go over to vote, but the Texans love it, and I
just want to refer to Dr. Decker, who had the advantage of
being born in upstate New York and raised in upstate New York.
We will take a wee pause.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Committee recessed, to
reconvene the same day at 11:53 a.m.]
Mr. Ehlers. [Presiding] Please. By that, I mean please sit
down.
Okay, we have an unusual situation. There was supposed to
be one vote. It is turned into two votes, because the Minority
Leader is taking this opportunity for a privilege motion on the
floor. So, I--other vote, I would come back, Mr. Boehlert would
vote, and then come back, but he is detained there, and so I
will preside in the meantime.
It is a bit unusual. There are no Minority Members here. I
would be happy to recognize any if they show up, but I will
proceed with various questions in the meantime.
First of all, I want to thank all of you very much for
being here, and one comment I would make, which is not a
question, but I know it is a concern to Secretary Spellings,
because we have talked about it before, and also to some of
you. You have all done a fantastic job of developing good
educational programs, which are of great value to many
different schools. I could pull in a number of other members
from other departments, they are doing the same thing. I can
pull in the American Chemical Society, and a number of
professional societies. They are doing the same thing.
I developed an idea some years ago, unfortunately could not
persuade enough people here to pass it into law, but I proposed
that one legitimate good program the Federal Government could
do would be to develop a website in which all of these
different programs that are developed by you, by the private
sector, by educational institutions, would all be on that
website, and then, there would be reviews from users, just as
amazon.com has reviews from readers. Teachers who use the
programs would write in their reviews, give anywhere from one
to five stars, and would--and you would have a complete system,
or a good catalog, so any teacher teaching a topic could go to
that website, say today, I am going to talk about guppies, or
today, I am going to deal with the gas laws in my high school
chemistry class, whatever, just type in the issue, there might
be five or six special programs that would come up. The teacher
could read the reviews, download everything she needed for the
one she picks as the best, and we could go on with this.
Everyone I have talked to thinks this is a wonderful idea.
It could be done either in the National Science Foundation or
the Department of Education. My idea originated to do it as
using the Eisenhower Clearing House, which existed at that
time, which has fallen on bad times. It doesn't matter how it
is done, but I--it really bothers me that all of you are doing
this great work, and much of it, it just gets publicized by
word of mouth from one teacher to another. We have to, as a
government, systemize that, so that every teacher everywhere in
this country has access to all these programs, and can take
advantage of all the good work you do.
Okay, you can tell that my dad was a pastor, because I have
just given you a sermon, and now, go forth and do good work.
Dr. Bement. Amen.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah, amen. So, try to set this up and make it
a working element.
I have several additional questions. One problem that I
think we have in education is that every program, and not just
yours, but every program, tries to aim at every student, from
the most gifted to the most challenged. Now, how do you balance
your programs, to make sure that our top students are getting
what they need to be encouraged to go on, while still making
sure that the equity is such that students who cannot succeed
without special attention can still make the grade in your
different programs? And this time, we will start right to left,
so Dr. Decker, do you have any comments or ideas on that? How
do you meet the needs of every student? What ideas do you have?
Dr. Decker. Dr. Ehlers, actually----
Mr. Ehlers. Could you turn on your microphone, please?
Dr. Decker. It is on.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, just pull it closer to you, then.
Dr. Decker. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, the programs that we run
are mostly aimed at teachers, and what we have seen through our
way of choosing teachers for those programs, we have done it by
their national programs, we are selecting teachers from
different areas of the country, urban areas, rural areas, and
we are, I think, through that program, sort of affecting
students at all levels. The diversity of students, the poor
students, the good students, and that has been kind of our
approach to it. We really focus on the teachers.
Mr. Ehlers. And what about your program in Argonne
Laboratory? You have two things going on. What was it, Dardene
School at Argonne, but also Leon Letterman was doing some
things out of Fermilab. Weren't they aimed at students?
Dr. Decker. Yeah, the--I am not familiar with the one at
Argonne. The Letterman School, I think really is sort of an--if
I remember right, it is----
Mr. Ehlers. I guess it is on Fermilab, both of them.
Dr. Decker. Yeah, that is--correct.
Mr. Ehlers. That is aimed at students, correct?
Dr. Decker. Yeah, that focuses on--it is more of an
institute that focuses, really, on the good students, if I
recall correctly, and at this point, I don't believe that the
Department directly supports that school.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. General Kelly.
Brigadier General Kelly. That is a tough question, Chairman
Ehlers.
As I mentioned in my testimony, we have six different
mandates which require us to tackle the total spectrum of
education. We try to encourage the best and the brightest, and
at the same time, we have got programs to attract females,
under-represented minorities, and students from low income
families, regardless of their academic ability. So, you will
find ours is an eclectic mix, and we haven't been able, I
don't--first of all, I don't think we can just focus on--given
the existing authorizations, on the best and the brightest of
the youth. We have got to take a much broader approach to it.
Mr. Ehlers. I totally agree, and let me just--an editorial
comment. That is essential for the survival of manufacturing in
this country, because we need workers who understand the basic
principles of mathematics and science in the workplace, or they
simply won't have jobs, and we can't compete. Ms. Dale.
Ms. Dale. Achieving the right balance, in terms of under-
represented students, students that are really gifted, et
cetera, is actually one of the charges that Secretary Spellings
has given us, within the context of the Academic
Competitiveness Council, which she chairs, and it is something
that we will actually be grappling with over the coming months.
And I would like to take this opportunity to thank Secretary
Spellings and her leadership at the Department of Education,
because I think what she is doing, in terms of, you know, a
separate Tiger Team with NASA, NSF, Department of Education,
Department of Energy, the agencies that you see up here, that
have been meeting for quite some time to gain synergies within
education, but also, this Competitiveness Council.
It is extremely important to pull all these elements
together within the Federal Government, and focus on; do we
have unnecessary duplication? Are we actually creating the
right synergies, and also, another thing that is critically
important within NASA, do we have the right evaluation tools?
And I think we do in some of our programs, but not all, and we
will be looking for best practices as we go through this
interagency coordination.
Specifically within NASA, we have a mix of how we target.
In terms of the best and the brightest, we target them through
a graduate research program, and also, our undergraduate
research program, and those are opportunities for both
internships, and also, money for fellowships. We are also
targeting intensely under-represented communities, those that
are not typically represented in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, and that comes through a whole
host of programs in NASA, including Explorer Schools, SEMAA,
which is the Science, Engineering, Mathematics Aerospace
Academy, the Minority Undergraduate Science and Technology
Scholarship Program, and several other. But I think it is
something that we will continue to grapple with under Secretary
Spellings' leadership.
Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Yes, thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
I will cite three programs to give an example. One is our
ATE program, which focuses on community colleges, and tries to
bridge from community colleges to secondary education and K-12
schools, and also, the bridges between community colleges and
four year colleges or universities, and to, again, provide
content preparation, and reduce the loss of students through
lack of retention.
The second program would be a series of programs in
broadening participation to get more under-represented
minorities, more women, more persons with disabilities, to
enter the STEM field, and then, to provide them support, either
scholarship support or motivational support, all the way
through to the doctorate, if necessary, a bridge to the
doctorate.
The third area I would cite is our GK12 fellowship program,
which brings graduate students into the elementary and
secondary schools, primarily to overcome some of the
misunderstandings on what inquiry-based means and what rigor
means. In the minds of some teachers, rigor is memorizing the
periodic table, whereas to a scientist, what rigor means is
being able to go into the periodic table, and understanding the
relationship of structure to properties for a particular
element. And in the case of inquiry-based learning, to many
teachers, that means I ask the questions, and the students have
to answer the questions, whereas what our graduate students are
trying to impart is no, it is the other way around. We need to
teach the students to ask the questions, but also, to develop
evidence to help back up their understanding of the answer.
So, in these ways, we are not only dealing with the most
gifted students, but also, the people that are the students
that have issues having to do with learning, learning
disabilities, or perhaps, need more motivation, need role
models, need encouragement, as they go through their education.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great
question. As you know, that is exactly what No Child Left
Behind is all about is every single group of students, poor,
minority, special education students, and the like, and I
think, you know, we have put the highway in place to hold
ourselves accountable for the achievement of each of those
students.
My experience is, as I travel around, is we are starting to
see states and localities stretch their accountability systems
and round out their accountability system with additional
curricular areas, and as well, let us ask ourselves not just
how many kids are merely passing the tests, or on grade level,
but how many kids are acing the test? How many superstars do we
have, and continuing to raise the bar for all students.
I am a firm believer in what gets measured gets done, as
you know, and I think when we put that kind of focus, we will
see those sorts of results. As you know, No Child Left Behind
also has a teacher focus. The dirty little secret in education,
not so secret any more is with some of our most experienced,
most effective teachers are in our least challenging
educational environments, and vice versa. And with the highly
qualified teacher provisions, and the enforcement abilities
there, you heard me talk about the 40 percent of the high
schools who offer no advanced placement, I think that is the
first place we go to focus on, you know, our most effective
professionals allocated and charged with educating some of our
most challenged students, particularly, as you said, if we
intend for those people to be employed in the workforce of the
21st Century.
I appreciate Administrator Dale's comments about the
Academic Competitiveness Council. I have given them the
assignment to look at who is their client, as we look at these
various programs, and find ourselves with the right mix of our
most gifted, as well as every student, and the opportunity that
they may or may not have in this changing world.
Mr. Ehlers. Excuse me. I am going to have to learn more
about the Tiger Team. It sounds intriguing. And I assume you
are all using Macintosh computers, too, with the new Tiger
Operating System. I had to get that one in. I hope that your
idea of what you can measure gets done, if that comes to the
Congress, it could really revolutionize things around here.
Secretary Spellings. Uh-oh.
Mr. Ehlers. Quick question for Dr. Decker. There is a lot
of interest in some quarters, not all, but in some quarters, in
creating a statute giving a lot of additional--creating a lot
of additional programs at the Department of Energy. My bias is
more towards giving clear education authority to the
Department, and then letting you build on existing efforts.
Are there any gaps in your programs now that you would most
like to fill, and what would you spend additional educational
funds on? Furthermore, do you need any new legislation to
create any new, specific effort? Maybe you weren't even aware
of the interest around here in writing this, statutory
instructions for you.
Dr. Decker. I don't believe we----
Mr. Ehlers. Pull your microphone closer again, there.
Dr. Decker. Oh, I am sorry. It wasn't on.
Mr. Ehlers. Oh. Okay.
Dr. Decker. Sorry.
Mr. Ehlers. That could explain it.
Dr. Decker. Dr. Ehlers, I am not intimately familiar with
those bills. I am not aware of any additional authorities that
the Department needs in education. In our current programs,
where we bring K-12 in-service teachers, and pre-service
teachers in, we are expanding by about a factor of three or so,
and with our '07 budget request.
Could we do more? The answer is probably, and we will
certainly look at that for the future.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Thank you. Secretary Spellings, I would
just like to continue, getting back to this Academic
Competitiveness Council. I assume that is what you call the
Tiger Team. What is the purpose of it, how are you going to
measure success? How are you going to determine which programs
are continued or expanded, and which programs are eliminated?
And I am particularly concerned, because I know the National
Science Foundation, which has always been the bulwark of math/
science education, has lost funding in the last few years, and
I hope that this is not a forerunner of some continuing
deleterious effects for the Foundation.
Secretary Spellings. No, sir. It is not. And that would not
be our agenda at all. This Competitiveness Council was created
as part of the Deficit Reduction Act at the early part of this
year, and we have already met. I have given them the
assignment, firstly, of inventorying each and every program,
who it serves, and what is their evidence--what sort of
evaluation have they undergone, and so, they are hard at work
doing that. We intend to have the work of this group completed
within a year, by February of next year.
I think we all know that we wouldn't be having this hearing
if we were using the $3 billion that we spend in this
government at my Department and all the rest of them as
effectively as possibly, and that we need to make sure that we
are as smart as we can be with the programs we have, and as
well as figuring out what the gaps are, and what we need to
fill in, and for whom. And so, the first order of business is
to inventory each of those, share information about overlaps
between them, and then bring some of these policy issues to the
forefront for you, as well as for us in the Administration.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to comment on
that here? Who is all involved in that? NSF and NASA, all of
you are?
Secretary Spellings. Plus the National Institutes of
Health, plus the Justice Department, in various things they do
over there. And just a full complement of federal agencies that
are specified in the statute.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I will
probably have to go, and Mr. Boehlert should be back
momentarily, so----
Dr. Bement. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Dr. Bement. If you have a moment, I would like to bring to
your attention something that came to my attention yesterday,
which I think would be of interest to you.
This is a newspaper article from the Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette reporting on the Franklin Regional School District, and
their performance in an international competition. The Franklin
Regional fourth graders scored second highest in the world on
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, and--
actually, they tied with Korea, and in the higher grades, the
tenth grade students actually scored second highest in the
world, just a little bit below Sweden, and if you look at their
proficiency scores on the state tests, for both math and
reading, in eighth grade, 90 percent of the school people
scored proficient or advanced in math, 86 percent did so in
reading, and in grade three, the figures were 92 percent in
math, and 85 percent in reading. Really quite an outstanding
achievement.
Mr. Ehlers. There are a number of those remarkable success
stories in our nation, and the point is to spread the wealth,
so to speak, and make sure that that----
Dr. Bement. The reading scale----
Mr. Ehlers.--those are not uncommon situations----
Dr. Bement. Right.
Mr. Ehlers.--but very common. I think that is the goal we
all have. With that, I will be happy to yield the chair back to
its rightful owner, Congressman Boehlert.
Chairman Boehlert. Excuse the rude interruption. The
Speaker doesn't check with the Chairman of the Science
Committee to determine the schedule, and we are reverting back
over on the floor right now to the old fashioned partisanship.
I have never seen partisanship at a higher level in this
institution in all my years here, and I came 42 years ago as a
young staff member, and I have never seen the level of
tolerance sink to greater depths. It is unfortunate. So, we
have got a privilege resolution over there now that we are
dealing with.
Be that as it may, let me ask, and we are not going to keep
you here, because you have all got other demanding schedules.
What we will do is submit some additional questions in writing,
and we would very much appreciate timely responses, but the one
thing, Madam Secretary, this is your first appearance before
us, and you probably will notice the smile on the face of the
gentleman to your left, because he knows, when he comes up
here, we are like a paid cheerleading squad for NSF, but we--I
happen to think very strongly, and this is shared by my
colleagues, that NSF does so many things the right way, and so,
once again, I want to salute you.
But I also don't neglect paying attention to other
departments, and when you come here before this committee, it
is not for confrontation. It is for cooperation. We are trying
to sort of sort things out, and figure out the best way to
proceed. And so, we are not trying to play gotcha with our
questions, but we are really trying to elicit something more
than just what is on the script, and whether it is this
Administration or any Administrations. Of course, people from
the executive branch are going to come up and put the best
light on what their contribution is to the program under
discussion, and--but we try to get beyond that, and one of the
things that I have been disturbed about for the longest time is
the fact that we are not able to attract to the classroom some
of the best and brightest for teaching positions, and
particularly, in the math and science area. It is not that our
classrooms are filled with teachers who are not committed, who
are not dedicated. They are, but in so many instances, we have
our youngsters being taught maybe calculus or chemistry by
someone who majored in French or history, dedicated,
professional teachers, but not a major in their disciplines.
So, many years ago, partnering with a colleague of mine
across the Capitol, Senator Jay Rockefeller, we developed a
scholarship for service program. Initially, it was called the
Boehlert-Rockefeller Program, and that didn't excite many
people, so we renamed it after the founder of Intel. It is now
called the Noyce Scholarship Program. And I think that
personifies some of the problem areas that we are talking
about, and were brought to light in the ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'' report, which got a lot of people's
attention, and I am glad it did. We have this program that
provides stipends, scholarships, if you will, for juniors and
seniors in college, majoring in science, math, or engineering,
in exchange for an agreement to teach two years in our public
school system for every year of the stipend. But the problem
has been, it initially was not funded at all. We had
authorizations, and we had feel-good press releases saying we
have authorized this program, but authorizations aren't worth
anything in and of themselves, unless they are followed by
appropriations, and to the credit of the current
Administration, we started funding the program, but only at a
modest level, $9 million. That is all NSF has to work with.
So, I would imagine if I asked all of you for an
indication, could you use more money, you would all raise your
hand and say yes, but I know the process, and these are
difficult, challenging budgetary times. But I would like to
close with Dr. Bement addressing the question of scholarship
for service, and is it working, and do you have any anecdotal
information you can share with us?
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it is working. It
is a very important program, and our evaluations have been very
positive. It is my goal to continue to increase this program.
You will note that even though it is at a very small level, we
were able to get it up about 11 to 12 percent in the '07
budget, but it--and I agree with you. It deserves more funding.
Chairman Boehlert. And Madam Secretary, we are moving on a
trend, and we are doing it in some other agencies, and Mr.
Rohrabacher of our committee has been particularly enamored
with this concept, scholarship for service, and we have added
that to NASA's authorization. Does that make a lot of sense to
pursue that approach?
Secretary Spellings. Sure, and we have done some other
things that are akin to that. Loan forgiveness, that has been
raised to $17,500 from $5,000 for teachers who are going to
teach in those fields, and the Academic Competitiveness Grants,
the additional Pell resources that you all have just made
available to folks who are studying in those fields. I mean, I
think there are different approaches to do this, but you know,
the more teachers we can get in our schools that have math and
science capability, the better off we are going to be, no
doubt.
Chairman Boehlert. And what do I tell the youngsters of
America of all persuasions, that an education, early, solid
foundation in the math and sciences open up unlimited
opportunities and career fields, and but--and I think they get
that message, but then, when they graduate from college, Johnny
and Suzie, for example, outstanding academic record, great
resume, in terms of their proficiency in the sciences or math,
and--but they are facing the prospect of maybe a $25,000
outstanding loan obligation they have got to begin paying back,
and Johnny and Suzie might want to get married and start
raising their own family, and we can understand that. So, do
they take the offer to teach in the school system, or do they
follow the dollars and get maybe twice what they would get if
they go in the academic route, if they go with the Fortune 500
company. More often than not, they follow the dollar for all
the reasons I previously mentioned, so I just would hope that
you would continue to be as supportive as you have been, and we
will work with you to try to convince the people downtown, as
they develop the budget numbers, to provide more money in this
arena, because it really works, and it achieves a desired
objective.
With that, let me recognize Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I know you have to leave, but there are
two of us that are left, and we would like very much to just
make comment, at least. My comment is, I so hope you are using
this passion and brilliance that you have brought here today--I
mean, you are an amazing woman, thank you--to help the
Administration get the big picture about freezing early
childhood education, about under-funding No Child Left Behind,
and about student cuts that are equaling--student aid cuts over
$12 million, so--billion dollars. So, I just hope you will take
that out of here, and know you have got a lot of people behind
you, and appreciate who you are.
You ask the question, why can't a NASA scientist teach in
the classroom? Well, I have to tell you--I am not a NASA
scientist. I was a management consultant, human resources
consultant before I became a Member of Congress, and I was
invited to teach at the community college, and teach basic
human resources management, and you know, I have got the
personality and the energy, and I certainly had the smarts, but
you know what? I taught this class, and then, we would have a
test, and I would have true and false questions that true and
false were both right. I didn't know how to write a test. I
mean, that is why what we need, you know, if you bring experts
in the field, they have got to--I mean, maybe the scientist
wouldn't have to give a test, but there is something lacking,
and we need to help those other people. So, that would be
something I thought was important.
And then, the other--a quick question. People say to me,
``Woolsey, you have been there fourteen years. What is the best
trip you have ever been on?'' And without a question, the
Antarctica. South Pole, Science Committee. There is nothing
like it. But the most important impression that I got out of it
was summertime, science and math teachers coming to the
Antarctica, working in the labs at McMurdo Station, and
learning and getting reinvigorated for coming back to the
classroom, and carrying out their discipline. We----
So, my question is, are we doing enough of this? Are we
funding it? Is--not for Members of Congress. It was very, very
good for us, every one of us. But for the educators, the
teachers. Ms.--Dr.----
Dr. Bement. We have a program called Research Experience
for Teachers, and this is one of the programs that you are
making reference to, but we involve teachers in all kinds of
programs throughout the Foundation. Some of them may deal with
oceanography. Some of them may deal with long-term ecological
research sites, and if we involve the teachers, we also involve
the students. So, this is a very important intervention in
developing motivation, and also, in increasing interest in the
STEM fields especially.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. General Kelly.
Brigadier General Kelly. We have two programs, one I
mentioned in my testimony, Teacher at Sea, and while, we can't
duplicate the Antarctic, we can, at least, put a teacher on a
NOAA vessel that is out on a research mission, and they go our
for extended periods of time, and our experience is that it
does just what you said. It really revitalizes, reenergizes the
teacher, and quite frankly, she becomes a bigger advocate for
science than he or she was before they went.
We also have, at a smaller level, over the summer, we
attempt to get teachers into some of our weather forecast
offices, to work with forecasters and at our National Training
Center. And our experience is, if you can get the teacher with
practicing scientists, there is almost a natural chemistry that
goes between both of them, and that helps. And your answer to
your question, what federal bureaucrat would you know that you
would ask could you do more, who would say no, no, I couldn't
do more. Of course, anyone would----
Ms. Woolsey. No, no. Of course, we could.
Brigadier General Kelly. Yeah. You certainly could do more.
Ms. Woolsey. All right. Thank you, I am going to yield.
Chairman Boehlert. And this is the final question, because
we made a commitment to our panel, who are very busy people.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I assume that Ms.
Woolsey, when she said her best trip was to Antarctica, the
best company on her trip was her trip to Iraq.
Ms. Woolsey. That was a good one.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Spellings, my questions are for you. I very
much agreed with your discussion with Ms. Woolsey that
decisions about how to teach math and science should be based
upon tough minded determinations about what works and what
doesn't, and that that should be based upon clear-eyed,
methodologically sound, dispassionate research. I have a couple
of questions.
First of all, the charter school study from 2004. That
was--the final volume of that was not published by the
Department. It became public because the New York Times filed a
Freedom of Information Act request. It turned out that the
study concluded that charter school students were not doing as
well, were not performing as well, as students in traditional
public schools.
Your Department said that the reason it was not published
was not that--the conclusions were politically inconvenient. It
was because it was scientifically unsound. It was bad science.
It was methodologically unsound. The conclusions were not
supported by the data, whatsoever. It was bad science. I assume
that that critique was reduced to writing, that there was a
report, there were memoranda, there was correspondence.
Ms. Spellings, Secretary Spellings, would you release that,
those written documents that contain your Department's
critique, so the scholars in the area can both look at the
report, and your Department's criticisms of it, and judge both?
Would you agree to do that, Ms. Spellings?
Secretary Spellings. Congressman, I will go back and
investigate that. My memory is, a somewhat distant memory, is
that there was division among the peers and so forth. Let me
investigate what was at issue, but certainly, materials of the
Department of Education that are not specifically precluded are
available through the Freedom of Information Act and the like.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Well, then a second study was on
bilingual education, and again, that has not been released yet.
We understand that the Department decided not to release it,
again, based on the same kind of criticism about the soundness
of the science behind it, which concluded that bilingual
education programs worked better for students for whom English
was a second language than did English only instruction. The
Bush Department--the Bush Administration's view has been that
English only is the preferred method of teaching, and this
study commissioned by the Department reached a different
conclusion. Again, it was not released. I understand that the
Department has now agreed with the scholars who performed it
that they can release it on their own without the distribution
or the stamp of approval.
Would you also release the--any documents within the
Department that contain the Department's criticism of the
methodology of that study?
Secretary Spellings. I will certainly investigate both of
those things, and get back with you about all of that
information. Let me clarify, though, that the Department of
Education does not have an opinion for or against English only.
No Child Left Behind is about doing what gets kids onto grade
level by 2014, and those are decisions that are made at the
state and local level.
Mr. Miller. Okay. But Madam Secretary, you would agree that
the usual scholarly method is to publish a report, and have the
scholars who prepared that report defend, in public, criticisms
of their methodology and of their conclusions, and that by
releasing both the Department's critiques and the reports
themselves, we can have that debate, the scholars can have that
debate.
Secretary Spellings. So long as it meets particular
standards of evidence and the like. When the Department of
Education, or NSF, or any of these agencies puts their seal of
approval----
Mr. Miller. Right.
Secretary Spellings.--on a piece of work, it carries
tremendous weight.
Mr. Miller. Yeah. Madam Secretary, I am not asking the
Department to put the seal of approval on. What I want to know
is why the Department did not.
Secretary Spellings. Let me----
Mr. Miller. And if I assume that that has been reduced to
writing, those criticisms reduced to writing, if those could be
released, so the scholars in the area could look, take a hard,
dispassionate look at the study, the methodology, the
conclusions, and the Department's criticisms, the reason the
Department said that it would not put a stamp of approval or
release those results, we could have a debate, a helpful
debate, within the scholars in this field.
Secretary Spellings. I will certainly follow up on the
issues you have raised, Congressman. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. And then finally, I understand the Department
has ten regional research laboratories. Our staff on this
committee has gotten anonymous notes thrown over the transom
that those regional offices do regularly release reports that
do, with wide fanfare and circulation, that support the
Administration's policies, but there are various reports that
have not been released, again because the criticism is that
they are methodologically unsound, that they were bad science,
but there seems to be a pattern of those reports being the ones
that do not support the Administration's policy preferences.
Will your Department release any reports prepared by the
educational research regional research labs, and the criticisms
of them within the Department, so that scientists or scholars
in this area can judge the methodology, the research, the
conclusions, and the criticisms of them?
Secretary Spellings. I am not familiar with these
allegations about the research labs that you have mentioned,
and so, let me likewise investigate those, as well.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Do you know if----
Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Miller--the gentleman's time has
expired, and we have been generous going over the time, and we
will give you every opportunity to submit additional questions
in writing.
Mr. Miller. Okay.
Chairman Boehlert. But we do have a commitment, and we
are--overextended our time.
Thank you all so much for serving as resources to this
committee. We are in this together. Let us go forward. Hearing
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Margaret Spellings, Secretary, Department of Education
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. What are the one or two most important steps the Federal
Government should be taking to improve K-12 science and math education
and what is the role of your agency in taking those steps? What is the
single most effective program your agency runs to help take those
steps? How do you know that that program has been effective?
A1. The most important role the Federal Government can take to improve
K-12 math and science education is to effectively implement the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB provides the framework for
setting standards and measuring progress against them. Reading and math
are the foundational skills of science. Without mastery of both,
knowledge of the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
fields is impossible. We must continue to hold schools accountable for
teaching all children to the highest standards in the early grades
under NCLB. And we must expand NCLB's accountability principles to our
high schools, while helping older students who have fallen behind in
reading and math. It is important that our high schools graduate more
students with strong skills in the STEM fields--not only to prepare
them for the challenges they'll face in college and the global
workforce, but to encourage them to enter STEM fields themselves.
With regard to your questions on the single most effective K-12
math and science program administered by my agency, the only program
administered by the Department of Education that focuses exclusively on
K-12 math-science is the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program.
Because that program has not yet been through a rigorous evaluation, I
am unable to make any definitive statement about its impact or
effectiveness.
Q2. What do you think constitutes a quality program evaluation? Are
there examples from your department or others of program evaluations
that could serve as models? Which federal agencies have been most
effective at conducting program evaluations? How is the Academic
Competitiveness Council going to determine the effectiveness of the
various federal education programs?
A2. Science teaches us to rely on research and data before reaching
conclusions. In teaching science and math, educators must know,
practice, and share what works. We must therefore insist on research-
based instructional practices and data-driven education policies. Part
of the work of the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) is to review
the evaluations for all federal math and science programs. The ACC has
asked each agency to submit information on the evaluations for each of
its programs. Once this information is received the Council will
consider the extent to which those studies incorporate the elements of
a rigorous evaluation, such as randomized controlled trials or well-
matched comparison groups. The Council will then determine, based on
that review, which Federal STEM programs have real evidence of
effectiveness as demonstrated through rigorous evaluations.
Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. During the hearing, Mr. Miller inquired into the Department of
Education's reasoning behind refusing to publish the two DOE sponsored
studies.
The first incident involved the completion of the third part of a
long running study evaluating charter school performance in educating
children. SRI International conducted the study and produced a final
report in 2004. The study concluded that children in charter schools
didn't perform as well in state testing as children in traditional
public schools. However, the results of the study weren't publicized
because the Department of Education refused to release them.
The second case brought up by Rep. Miller involved a final report
prepared by a Department of Education commissioned panel on bilingual
education. Funded with $1 million, the expert panel surveyed the
existing research and concluded that bilingual education works better
in educating children for whom English is a second language than does
an English only approach. Once again, the Department of Education
refused to publish the results of the study. After months of
negotiation, the Department released its copyrights to a private
publisher.
Mr. Miller asked that the Secretary release Departmental records
that explain the rationales for failing to put these reports out as
Department of Education reports. However, there are consequences to
these actions that stretch beyond the rationale for a decision to
publish or not. One consequence of the Department withdrawing its
support for these reports is that, even if an outside publishing scheme
can be arranged by the report authors as in the case of the bilingual
education study, such publications will lack the broad, publicly-
subsidized distribution and promotion that would come with the
Department's support. Reports that have the advantage of Departmental
subsidy are much more readily available to the public and the expert
community than reports that are denied such support.
To say it another way, ``officially'' sanctioned reports come to
enjoy the subsidy of the taxpayer in advertising and distribution, thus
advantaging them in public discourse on education policy. Reports that
are not so lucky must make their own way as best they can, assuming the
authors are granted the right publish, making it much harder for those
reports to muscle their way into public discussion.
Please provide to the Committee a description of how the
Department provides for the release of approved reports. In other
words:
What kind of public relations effort is made (news
releases, advertisements in educational publications, mailings
to researchers or practitioners, web efforts, contracts with
outside sources to assist in raising the visibility of the
report)?
How many copies of a major research report are
typically printed?
Are copies of the report made available through DVD,
Web pages or through other means of distribution? Who bears the
costs of these alternative distribution means?
In distributing printed copies of reports approved by
the Department, what proportion of recipients are typically
charged for copies of the report?
A1. Prior to receipt of these questions, we responded to Representative
Miller, who had already written directly to the Department about these
reports. I have enclosed a copy of our response.
In response to your other questions, publication practices within
the Education Science Institute and across the Department vary
depending on the type of report, the subject matter, and the audience
for the report. For example, the Institute recently released the
National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report to Congress. The report
was announced through the Institute's listserv, 700 paper copies were
printed, and it is available for downloading through the Institute's
web page. There was no press release and no public relations effort.
This is the normal pattern for IES reports, except that most are not
printed--the Institute depends on web distribution of pdf files as the
primary means of public access. A very small number of IES reports
receive extensive publicity. For example, reports from the National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the most recent being the
assessment results for science, are released at press conferences, are
generally covered by news outlets such as C-SPAN, are printed in runs
of thousands, have dedicated web sites, and are supported by briefings
and outreach to States, associations, Congress, and the press. Other
reports in this category are the annual report on the Condition of
Education and the recent report from the National Assessment of Adult
Literacy. All printed reports of the U.S. Department of Education are
available free to the public from Ed Pubs.
Q2. Over the past year, accusations have come to the attention of
Committee staff regarding a ``scrubbing'' of the Department of
Education's Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database.
ERIC is a database of education related literature.
Would you please inform the Committee whether any
citations of any material, in any form, have been removed (or
otherwise shielded from being reported in a search) from the
ERIC database during the past year?
Have the criteria for including materials in the ERIC
database changed at all since 2001?
If any items have been removed from the database, or
made otherwise unavailable, please index each item removed, and
list the reason the item was removed from the database. We
would prefer to learn that no items have been removed or made
unavailable to searching and we hope you can reassure us on
this score.
A2. With regard to the question about the possible ``scrubbing'' of the
Institute's Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database, I
assure you that no ``scrubbing'' has occurred. There have been a
relatively small number of deletions from the system for particular
technical reasons. For example, a small number of full-text entries
have been removed at the request of copyright holders, and duplicate
entries have also been removed. Additionally, a technical error
occurred in the fall of 2005 when a content aggregator working under a
subcontract with ERIC downloaded to the ERIC site a massive number of
records containing basic bibliographic information--8,768 of these
records (e.g., obituaries and news items) were subsequently removed
because they were not appropriate for ERIC. With these small
exceptions, all historical records in ERIC are intact.
Further, we have recently launched an initiative to digitize
historical holdings, which are now largely on microfilm. This will
substantially enhance public access to the ERIC database.
The criteria for including materials in the ERIC database have
changed since 2001. Prior to 2004, the work of ERIC was carried out by
16 separate clearinghouses, each with its own procedures and standards
for including materials in the ERIC database. With the award of the new
ERIC contract in 2004, we adopted new standards and criteria for
selecting journals and non-journal materials for the ERIC database that
are applied by content experts working for ERIC. The selection criteria
are described at http://www.eric.ed.gov. The new ERIC is more
comprehensive, cost-effective, and user-friendly than the previous
version of ERIC.
Q3. Regarding Reading First, please provide the Committee with
information regarding conflict-of-interest assessments or disclosure of
interest requirements that the Department conducts when you:
appoint advisory panels;
award grants;
award contracts.
If the materials are too voluminous, you may answer this question
by reference to those materials, but please provide the referenced
materials to the Democratic staff.
A3. In awarding Reading First grants, the Department convened expert
review sub-panels that evaluated State applications against statutory
criteria and made recommendations to Reading First program officials as
to whether an application should be funded or needed to be revised to
address certain deficiencies. Applications that met all established
criteria were recommended for funding.
The statute does not require the Department to screen the review
panelists for conflicts of interest. The panelists are not hired by the
Department as government employees and are therefore not subject to the
federal conflict-of-interest laws and regulations. Furthermore, as a
formula program, Reading First is not subject to the procedures we
generally use in panels that evaluate discretionary grants. However,
although not required by statute to do so, the Department did screen
panelists for potential conflicts of interest. Applying the basic
criteria used in screening panels in the discretionary grant area, we
required expert reviewers to complete a questionnaire about direct and
indirect conflicts of interest, including their connection to potential
grantees and to commercial products that might be identified in
applications.
The Office of the General Counsel and the program office
administering the program reviewed and evaluated the questionnaires to
determine if any conflict of interest existed, and the program office
used those determinations in forming the review panels. In some
instances, we eliminated a reviewer from consideration because we
determined that he or she had too many conflicting interests to serve
effectively as an expert reviewer. In some other cases, an identified
potential conflict of interest was resolved by ensuring the proposed
reviewer did not review the proposal giving rise to the potential
conflict. For example, proposed reviewers who were employed by a State
government were not assigned to review the proposal submitted by their
State. Likewise, a proposed reviewer who either authored or co-authored
a commercial product mentioned in a particular proposal was not
assigned to review that proposal. All proposals were screened prior to
review assignments to ensure that no reviewer was assigned to review a
proposal from which he or she was recused. In most instances, no direct
or indirect conflict was identified.
In response to the third question, awarding contracts related to
the Reading First program, the Department has used only Department
staff as reviewers. All Department staff serving as contract reviewers
have been advised by the Department's Contracts and Acquisition
Management (CAM) office about conflict-of-interest requirements, and
have signed the standard disclosure forms used by CAM for this purpose.
It is also my understanding that CAM staff followed their normal
procedures to help ensure that the contractors selected had no
organizational conflicts of interests.
In response to a recent Inspection Report issued by the
Department's Office of Inspector General concerning the Reading First
program, I have committed to have staff from our Grants Policy and
Oversight Staff and the Office of the General Counsel to review and
expand the protocol for reviewing potential conflicts of interest when
the Department uses outside review panels, to include both formula and
discretionary grant panels. We are taking other steps to address the
recommendations in the Inspection Report.
Q4. At the hearing, you made the claim that, ``Long-term trends show
that more reading progress was made among nine-year-olds between 1999-
2004 than in the previous 28 years combined.'' Could you please
disclose the factual basis for this claim? In your response, please
include the underlying data supporting this assertion.
A4. In 1971, the average reading score for nine-year-olds on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress long-term trend assessment
was 208. By 1999, the average reading score had risen to 212, a gain of
four points. In 2004, the average reading score was 219, a gain of
seven points from 1999. The seven points is larger than the four-point
gain made between 1971 and 1999.
Q5. The Department of Education funds ten regional research labs
around the country. Committee staff have received information that
those labs are required to submit any item that they wish to post on
their web site to the Department for approval prior to posting, if the
item was produced with any Departmental money.
Does the Department have such a requirement for any
or all of its regional labs?
If so, when was this policy instituted?
If so, does the Department simply approve or
disapprove of the materials or does the Department actively
edit the substance of the materials?
A5. The Institute has recently re-competed its 10 regional educational
labs. The new contract requires each lab have a web site hosted by the
Institute and that materials posted to the lab's web site conform to
the Institute's data-quality requirements. There are four reasons for
this requirement. The first is that the Institute is responsible by law
for ensuring that reports that are generated by its contractors meet
the scientific standards set out in the Education Sciences Reform Act.
The second is that, in many cases, the regional lab contracts represent
a small fraction of the business of the corporate entities that hold
lab contracts. Under previous practice, the regional labs posted
content on their web site that was supported by the Institute and mixed
it together with content that was supported by other funders. A user
finding content on the web site of, for example, the Northwest Regional
Education Laboratory had no easy way to determine the provenance of
that content and could easily assume that it was done pursuant to the
lab contract and met the standards of the Institute. The third reason
is that having the lab web sites hosted at the Institute allows all of
their content to be indexed and searchable by users through the same
portal and search process that subsumes other reports and materials
produced by and for the Institute. The fourth reason is economy--the
marginal costs for the Institute to host 10 regional lab web sites is
small compared with the costs of each of those labs hosting its own web
site.
Q6. The Department of Education funds a company to operate a ``What
Works Clearinghouse (WWC).'' The WWC web page indicates that their
mission is to ``provide educators, policy-makers, researchers, and the
public with a central and trusted source of scientific evidence of what
works in education.''
Just this month a very prominent researcher on math education, Dr.
Alan Schoenfeld of Berkeley, published an account of his efforts to
advise the WWC in their efforts to devise standards for evaluating what
works to improve math instruction. Dr. Schoenfeld was invited by WWC to
produce an essay for a special edition of the journal ``Research in
Middle Level Education Online'' with a plan for WWC to publish a
hardcover version subsequently.
Dr. Schoenfeld wrote his essay, which challenged the methods used
by WWC to evaluate math education research. Dr. Jere Confrey, an expert
in education methods who has chaired a prestigious 2005 National
Research Council panel on math curriculum assessments, also produced an
essay. Her essay criticized the very underpinnings of the WWC effort.
WWC staff produced their own papers which they intended to publish as
well to make the case for what they had accomplished and why they were
taking the approaches that they had. The end result would have been a
very lively survey of WWC's approach to evaluating education research
designed to generate discussion in the education research and policy
community.
According to Dr. Schoenfeld, the Department barred WWC from
publishing its essays, thus killing the special edition of the journal
and the book. While Schoenfeld and Confrey were free to publish their
work if they wanted to, the Department's step effectively suppressed
dialogue in the education research community and amounts to censorship.
If WWC has to submit its work to the Department for
clearance by political appointees, in what meaningful sense is
WWC independent from the Department? Why should they be
considered a ``trusted source of scientific information'' when
their work is subject to censorship by the Department?
The Department has made repeated claims in recent
years that it wishes to use science to guide its policies.
However, the actions reported by Dr. Schoenfeld reflect an
effort to suppress publication and dissemination of ideas,
opinions and findings. Such a step flies in the face of good
practice in the research community. Please explain how
suppressing informed discussion and publication is consistent
with scientific values?
The information provided by the Department indicates
that the Math, Now! panel is to be modeled on the National
Reading Panel. One of the criticisms of the reading panel is
that they didn't have the time or resources to do an adequate
review of the full scope of literature on reading. The
Department has apparently used WWC to search the Math education
literature and evaluate it. It would be useful to know if what
WWC has identified as ``meaningful'' research will act as the
filter for what you would have a math panel consider as valid
research. Will the work of the WWC be used in any way to
support the proposed ``Math, Now!'' panel?
A6. Professor Alan Schoenfeld has asserted that the Institute
``suppressed'' a report he wrote that was critical of the processes
used by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), a project of the Institute
carried out by contract with the American Institutes for Research
(AIR). Dr. Schoenfeld was hired by AIR to serve as a content advisor
for a review of mathematics materials and curricula. AIR proposed to
the Institute that it would edit an issue of an on-line journal
published by the National Middle Schools Association that would contain
essays by Dr. Schoenfeld and others. This activity was not covered
under the terms of the contract and AIR was informed that time spent on
it could not be charged to the government. Consequently, AIR withdrew
from the project. Dr. Schoenfeld was informed of this and notified that
he was free to pursue publication of his essay on his own. He did so.
Nothing was suppressed or censored.
With respect to the question about the relationship between the WWC
and the National Mathematics Panel, I expect that the Math Panel will
find the WWC reviews of mathematics curricula useful. But the Math
Panel will set its own standards of evidence and will determine what it
considers meaningful research.
Q7. In response to a question at the hearing, you mentioned that other
agencies that sponsor STEM education activities will be involved in the
education component of the American Competitiveness Initiative, even
though the funding is designated only for programs at the Department of
Education.
In what ways will other agencies participate in the
initiative?
Do you anticipate any funds being transferred from
the Department of Education to other agencies?
A7. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes to double the
collective budgets of NSF, DOE Office of Science and NIST Core. By
increasing research funding, ACI funding will contribute significantly
to the training of STEM undergraduates, graduate students and post-docs
who are integrally involved in this research. In the case of the NSF,
the President's budget request includes increased funding for the
Education and Human Resources Directorate as well as the research
directorates.
I would also like to note that ACI includes a STEM evaluation
program that aligns with the work of the Academic Competitiveness
Council (ACC). Through the ACC, all agencies with STEM education
programs are coming together to determine which programs are most
effective in improving STEM education at all levels and to consider how
to optimize the federal investment in STEM education.
The President's 2007 budget request does not transfer any programs
from Education to other agencies.
Q8. Will the Academic Competitiveness Council develop a coordinated,
cross-agency STEM education budget with identified priorities and
agencies roles and responsibilities, and if not, why not?
A8. The ACC will be focusing on areas as set forth in the statute--to
identify federal education programs with a mathematics and science
focus; identify the target populations being served by such programs;
determine the effectiveness of such programs; identify areas of overlap
or duplication in such programs; and recommend ways to efficiently
integrate and coordinate such programs. The improved integration and
coordination of STEM education programs that results from the ACC will
help focus these efforts while still allowing the agencies to
prioritize among these and other programs to achieve their mission
needs.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The President's American Competitiveness Initiative includes $380
million in new funding for STEM education programs at the Department of
Education. However, at the same time, the budget request cuts over $1
billion in funding for several programs that improve science and math
achievement. Programs are eliminated that help to close the digital
divide; that boost college preparation and graduation rates among high-
risk students--including rigorous college math and science prep
classes; and that ensure high-risk students stay in school and earn
high school diplomas--the students we will need to attract to science
and math to ensure we meet future demands for scientists and engineers.
Two of the programs eliminated, TRIO Upward Bound and GEAR UP,
received passing grades in OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
assessment process. Students participating in TRIO Upward Bound are
four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than those
students from similar backgrounds who do not participate in the
program.
Such programs are important because, although Blacks and Hispanics
constitute about 24 percent of the U.S. population, they fill only 10
percent of science and engineering positions in the U.S. workforce
(Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006). The education programs
eliminated in this budget proposal are the kinds of programs that will
help address this imbalance.
How is this budget proposal consistent with the
President's statement in the description of the American
Competitiveness Initiative that ``the bedrock of America's
competitiveness is a well-educated and skilled workforce''? Why
isn't it simply false advertising to tout funding increases
largely for some limited math curriculum development, while
slashing $1 billion from education programs that will add to
the well-educated and skilled workforce the President rightly
says is essential for American competitiveness?
A1. The Administration is proposing $380 million for programs in the
American Competitiveness Initiative to strengthen the capacity of
schools to improve instruction in mathematics and science. We believe
that these activities should be a national priority. Keeping our
competitive edge in the world economy requires focused policies that
lay the groundwork for continued leadership in innovation, exploration,
and ingenuity. America's economic strength and global leadership depend
in large measure on our nation's ability to generate and harness the
latest in scientific and technological developments, and improving K-12
students' abilities in mathematics and science is the first step in
that process.
Because of limited resources, the President is seeking to eliminate
programs that are ineffective or duplicative, or do not reflect an
appropriate federal role in education. In some cases, program
activities are allowable under other existing programs. For example,
districts seeking funds to integrate technology into teaching and
learning may use other federal program funds, such as funds from their
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants and Title I Grants to Local
Educational Agencies. The President's proposed High School Reform
initiative would provide a more comprehensive and more effective
approach to improving high school education and focusing on increasing
student achievement for all students. States and local school districts
could choose the most promising strategies to meet these critical
goals, including continuing activities that grantees carry out under
programs like GEAR UP and TRIO's Talent Search and Upward Bound.
Q2. What are the reasons for eliminating successful education programs
that target high-risk students and that have been shown to be
effective, particularly since they also help improve science education?
A2. The Administration believes that a more comprehensive approach to
addressing the needs of high school students is long overdue.
Redirecting funds from programs like TRIO's Upward Bound and GEAR UP to
the proposed High School Reform initiative would eliminate a disjointed
approach that has not served all students well.
The Administration's PART assessment of Upward Bound found that the
program is ``Ineffective'' because it has limited overall impact on
high school and early college outcomes. Although roughly two-thirds of
Upward Bound students enroll in college, research data suggest that the
majority of Upward Bound participants would have enrolled in college
regardless of their participation in the program. Upward Bound was
found to have significant effects for higher-risk students with low
educational expectations, but services have not been sufficiently well
targeted to these students.
GEAR UP is another program that has not been able to demonstrate
results in achieving key outcomes, such as increasing high school
graduation and college enrollment rates. The PART assessment of GEAR UP
found positive early results, but no data are available to determine
whether GEAR UP services lead to positive long-term impacts. More
importantly, GEAR UP services, like those of Upward Bound, are not
designed to meet the needs of all students in all schools.
The Administration's High School Reform proposal would provide
States with the flexibility to better prepare all students for college,
especially low-income students and students who attend schools that
fail to make adequate yearly progress under NCLB. Additionally, it
would require a State plan for improving high school education and
increasing student achievement, and it would hold States accountable
for improving the academic performance of at-risk students, narrowing
achievement gaps, and reducing dropout rates. More so than programs
like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, the High School Reform proposal would
give States the resources and flexibility to focus on critical needs
that affect all their students, including such things as adequate math
and science preparation.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. What are the one or two most important steps the Federal
Government should be taking to improve K-12 science and math education
and what is the role of your agency in taking those steps? What is the
single most effective program your agency runs to help take those
steps? How do you know that that program has been effective?
A1. To maintain America's preeminence in science and engineering, we
must augment our nation's research enterprise by fostering innovation
in K-12 science and mathematics education. Sustained federal support is
critical to a comprehensive approach, including:
Research on science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) learning for both teachers and students;
Development of challenging STEM instructional
materials;
Assessment of student and teacher knowledge;
Evaluation of project and program impacts; and
Implementation of proven STEM interventions in the
Nation's schools.
NSF has specific programs that address each component of this
within its comprehensive approach.
The Foundation's K-12 STEM education programs are administered
primarily through the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate,
although programs in the Research and Related Activities Account also
support K-12 education and outreach activities. Within EHR all programs
focus on educational research, development, and evaluation in the STEM
disciplines.
For example, within EHR's Division of Research on Learning in
Formal and Informal Settings programs support a range of activities,
including research on: (1) the integration of formal and informal
learning; (2) developing and testing new materials and curricula; (3)
new pedagogical techniques; (4) content and pedagogy education for K-12
teachers; (5) educational activities outside of the classroom; and (6)
the application of new technologies to education. These programs are
vitally important cogs in our nation's K-12 STEM education machinery.
As with all basic research, many of NSF's investments in research
and education require years to develop and, thus, outcomes can be
judged only retrospectively. Nevertheless, assessing performance of our
programs is critical to all of NSF's strategic planning efforts. NSF
employs a multiple, mixed-methods approach to evaluation. In general,
our investments are judged to be effective. The impacts of our
investments are determined in multiple ways using qualitative and
quantitative techniques, including external assessment by Committees of
Visitors (COVs) and the Advisory Committee for Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) Performance Assessment, and by using the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) developed by OMB. PART assesses program
performance in four areas: purpose, strategic planning, program
management, and program results. It also complements and reinforces
GPRA, emphasizing links between budget and performance. All the
programs within NSF's People goal have been rated effective by the
PART. In addition, NSF's science education programs have additional
evaluation requirements:
All EHR solicitations require every education project
to have a sound project-level evaluation.
Several programs have contractual support for
program-specific on-line data collection systems to monitor
program activities and outputs on an annual basis and to
document trends over time. Other programs have made grant
awards for an annual self-assessment monitoring collection or
an annual program data collection system. (See Attachment A.)
Third-party evaluations are also used to determine
the impact of various programs. These studies are conducted so
that in any given year approximately a third of the education
programs will be engaged in evaluation planning and evaluation
capacity building efforts, another third will be involved in
on-going evaluation studies, and the final third will have
recently completed their independent evaluation studies and
will be in the process of assessing the results of the
evaluation. While the bulk of NSF's programs are found to be
fully successful in these evaluations, NSF uses the results
from these evaluations to improve programs that are not rated
fully successful.
NSF is not alone in its awareness of the need to evaluate the
effectiveness of its programs. The Academic Competitiveness Council
(ACC) is an effort led by the Department of Education to identify and
assess federal math and science education programs and make
recommendations for coordinating federal spending on STEM education.
ACC representatives from all of the federal agencies with STEM
education programs have been meeting since early March.
Q2. The National Science Foundation administers many education
programs through the Education and Human Resources Directorate but it
also supports education activities within the research directorates.
How do you coordinate these activities across the foundation? How do
you share best practices within the foundation, from program to program
or directorate to directorate?
A2. Coordinating education activities across NSF is a priority. We
strive to integrate research and education through our programs and
funding activities. This is done in many different ways. Most of the
coordination is through program director interactions. In addition, EHR
has periodic joint senior staff meetings with each of the research
directorates to discuss existing collaborations and identify additional
opportunities for cross-directorate collaborations. These meetings
provide ample opportunity to coordinate education activities across the
Foundation.
Best practices are shared within the Foundation in similar ways.
For example, NSF's Science and Technology Centers (STCs) have an
Education and Outreach component and STCs are now explicitly evaluated
on research, education, diversity, and knowledge transfer--to the point
where they have strategic plans for education and diversity. This is a
direct attempt to ensure that the education activities of STCs
incorporate best practices in both education and diversity. A similar
process exists for Engineering Research Centers in the Directorate for
Engineering's Division of Engineering Education and Centers.
One of EHR's roles in most cross-disciplinary initiatives like
nanotechnology and the former Foundation-wide Information Technology
Research (ITR) Priority Area is to promote best practices in the
integration of research and education based on knowledge gained through
education activities in EHR. This normally takes the form of
incorporating some form of assessment into the cross-disciplinary
activities.
EHR Program Officers are often involved in discipline specific
education and outreach programs such as Broadening Participation in
Computing in the directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering and Cyberinfrastructure Training, Education, Advancement
and Mentoring in the Office of Cyberinfrastructure.
In addition, during recent meetings of the National Science Board's
Committee on Education and Human Resources, various NSF Assistant
Directors have provided briefings on their activities that support the
integration of research and education.
Attachment A
Evaluation Activities for NSF's Science Education Programs
The following programs have contractual support for a
program-specific on-line data collections system to monitor program
activities and outputs, such as the number of students obtaining STEM
degrees, on an annual basis and to document trends over time:
Math and Science Partnership
Centers for Research Excellence in Science and
Technology
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeships
Robert Noyce Scholarship Program
Graduate Research Fellowships
The following programs have made grant awards for an annual
self-assessment monitoring collection or an annual program data
collection system:
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Undergraduate Program
Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
Model Institutions for Excellence
Advanced Technological Education
Alliances for Graduate Education and the
Professoriate
It is anticipated that approval for the implementation of
monitoring systems for the STEM Talent Expansion Program and the
Informal Science Education program will be granted in FY 2006.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Shana L. Dale, Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. What are the one or two most important steps the Federal
Government should be taking to improve K-12 science and math education
and what is the role of your agency in taking those steps? What is the
single most effective program your agency runs to help take those
steps? How do you know that that program has been effective?
A1. One step already taken is for federal agencies to continue to
replicate the National Reading Panel model, which determined the
instructional model and content for reading. This process is already in
work with the recently announced National Science Panel. Second, the
Government should review science and math content developed through
federal agency research and development programs and then assess how
this content can be used to support teacher pre-service and in-service
education. Each of these areas is being taken up by the recently formed
Academic Competitiveness Council chaired by the Secretary of Education.
With regard to NASA's role, in the first example, NASA is working
with other federal agencies bilaterally (NSF & Education) &
multilaterally (Department of Education-coordinated Tiger Team and the
National Science and Technology Council Committee on Science
subcommittee on Education, Workforce & Diversity) to provide input to
the development of the recently announced National Science Panel. In
the second example is NASA's Langley Research Center pre-service
program which uses the Agency's unique content, people and facilities
to train pre-service educators. NASA's unique program content is
provided for in-service teacher training through NASA's Network of
Educator Astronaut Teachers, NASA Explorer Schools and the Aerospace
Education Services Program, each of which develops NASA-based content
consistent with and complementary to the national and individual state
education standards.
NASA's Explorer Schools (NES) program is one of many innovative
projects focused on STEM education that the Agency makes available to
support students, teachers, and families in all 50 States, DC and
Puerto Rico. The NES program was recently chosen as one of the Top 50
Government Innovations for 2006 by the Ash Institute for Democratic
Governance and Innovation. Through this selection, the NES program was
recognized for being one of the most innovative, creative and results-
oriented efforts in the Government according to the award criteria. The
National Selection Committee on Innovation in American Government will
name the most innovative agencies, from among the top 50, in July
during a ceremony in Washington.
NES provides school teacher & administrator teams working with
under-served or under-represented populations at the 4-9 grade levels
with enhanced teaching and learning in STEM education through
professional development, stipends, grants and curricular support based
on NASA resources.
NES performance is annually measured and analyzed through internal
and external data collected from surveys, focus groups and observations
of all target audiences; students, teachers, and families. This
includes a formal assessment by Wheeling Jesuit College experts in
education evaluation. Measures of success include:
Benefits to Teachers
Teachers were asked to identify specific benefits and
challenges they encountered when implementing the program. 90
percent of surveyed team leads responded that they were
satisfied with the program. 94 percent expressed they benefited
``a lot to some'' from the program. School teams report the
program had a rejuvenating effect on them.
Teachers who have been teaching for ten or twenty
years repeatedly acknowledge the impact NES has in expanding
their instructional capabilities in addition to building their
confidence for teaching science and mathematics. Following
extensive training in specific areas, teachers feel more
confident in presenting NASA-focused material to their students
while at the same time being able to better convey its
relevance. A fifth grade science teacher in the Program
observes, ``I am not just teaching the facts but am able to
explain why these things are important and how they are used in
the world.''
Benefits to Students
88 percent of surveyed team members have indicated
the NES program benefited students. Results from student
questionnaires indicate the program increased student interest
in STEM disciplines as a result of exposure to exciting NASA
science resources and curriculum, astronaut visits,
communication with NASA scientists through DLN, and special
student and family events. Across the data sources, students
report being inspired by attending a NASA Explorer School.
Students report learning more about STEM topics and
show interest in pursuing more STEM experiences and knowledge.
Students showed significant growth in how successful they think
they will be in a career requiring scientific ability. Although
data is not available for all schools, early indicators show an
increased performance on homework, school tests, and even state
achievement exams. At Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, the NES
Team focused on engaging students with more challenging
learning opportunities. Pre- and post-tests indicated that the
new teaching methods were extremely effective in delivering
content and sparking student interest. ``Our school scores
increased from a level 3 (on a scale from one to five) to a
level 5. We had earned the distinction of being an exemplary
school. When we further evaluated the scores, we recognized the
impact of NES participation in significant ways.''
Increased Use of Technology
The NES program increased technology use by students
and teachers by providing schools with funds to purchase
technology, such as video-conferencing equipment and with
opportunities for connectivity to other schools and science
experts. ``We have obtained video-conferencing equipment and
our students have been able to participate in distance learning
with NASA Centers.'' Teachers rated the impact of the program
on their use of the knowledge and skills in the application of
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and geography at
a level of 4.5 on a scale of one to five and the impact of the
program on their use of the knowledge and skills in
instructional technology for students at 4.5.
Q2. NASA administers education programs through the Office of
Education but it also supports education activities in other
organizational units, including mission directorates, centers, and
other offices. How do you coordinate these activities across NASA? How
do you share best practices within NASA, from directorate to
directorate or center to center?
A2. The Assistant Administrator for Education is the responsible
official for ensuring all aspects of NASA are maximizing their
potential to highlight the Agency's people, resources, and facilities
in support of the Nation's education efforts to develop the skilled
workforce necessary to achieve the Agency's goals and objectives. The
primary mechanism for this close coordination is the Education
Coordinating Committee (ECC).
Chaired by the Assistant Administrator for Education, the ECC
includes representatives from Office of Education, each Mission
Directorate and NASA Center, the Office of Human Capital Management,
the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and other Mission
Support offices as needed to ensure that workforce requirements are
identified and met, and that education efforts are aligned and focused
on building the future workforce. Members of the ECC speak
authoritatively on behalf of their organizations.
The ECC is a collaborative structure that maximizes NASA's ability
to maintain an integrated education portfolio and strategically manage
the implementation of numerous programs, projects and activities in a
distributed system. To accomplish the Education Outcomes outlined in
the NASA Strategic Plan, the ECC plans and strategizes collaboratively,
allowing the Assistant Administrator of Education to assess and
evaluate the health of the entire education portfolio. The ECC provides
an overarching Agency structure where issues are fully discussed. The
ECC also provides checks and balances for effective internal control
and ensures the successful achievement of education goals and
portfolio. With input from the ECC, the Assistant Administrator for
Education maintains control of architectures, strategy and top-level
requirements, while Mission Directorates and the Office of Education
maintain control of schedules and budgets for their own programs. NASA
Centers execute and implement programs, projects, and activities and
have a voice on the ECC to ensure coordination, integration, and
teamwork.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Brigadier General John J. Kelly, Deputy Under Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1a. What are the one or two most important steps the Federal
Government should be taking to improve K-12 science and math education
and what is the role of your agency in taking those steps?
A1a. The Federal Government should help state and local officials
ensure there is a strong connection between Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and everyday science
applications to help motivate students and enable them to see the value
of their education. The Federal Government needs to hold states
accountable for ensuring that every math and science course is taught
by a teacher who is highly qualified in those subjects, as is required
by the No Child Left Behind Act. NOAA works to understand the Earth
system in the areas of weather, climate and ecosystems and for
providing that information to the public to inform decision-making to
increase social, economic, and environmental prosperity. NOAA is able
to provide daily, applied examples of the importance and applications
of these sciences for the general public, as part of a larger effort to
increase interest and performance in the sciences. NOAA is an active
participant on the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC). The Council
provides a forum to coordinate the federal effort in science,
technology, engineering and math education to establish common goals,
harmonize approaches, and develop consistent standards of evaluation.
NOAA is involved in all three of the ACC working groups, K-12, higher
education, and informal education.
Q1b. What is the single most effective program your agency runs to
help take those steps? How do you know that that program has been
effective?
A1b. The only K-12 program in which NOAA is proposing to participate in
FY 2007 is The JASON Project. JASON, founded in 1989 by Dr. Robert D.
Ballard, is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered in
Ashburn, VA. Its mission is to inspire in grade-school students an
interest in science, math, and technology through hands-on, real-world
scientific discovery. NOAA has requested $1 million in our FY07 budget
for The JASON Project, which has previously been supported by NOAA
(FY05-06) through earmarked funds. The $1 million request is the
appropriate level for this program given the current constrained fiscal
environment.
The JASON Project focuses on scientific expeditions with
supplemental science and geography curricula. JASON reaches a million
fourth-ninth grade students and 20,000 teachers every year and combines
authentic science and classroom curriculum with video and tele-presence
to enhance environmental and scientific literacy and to promote NOAA
sciences.
Q2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
administers education programs through the Office of Education but it
also supports education activities in other operating branches, such as
the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Ocean
Service. How do you coordinate these activities across NOAA? How do you
share best practices within NOAA, from branch to branch?
A2. The NOAA Office of Education serves as the primary point of contact
for NOAA on education issues. The Director of Education coordinates
with NOAA programs for which education is an important element, through
the Education Council and other education mechanisms as appropriate and
administers programs within NOAA whose primary purpose is education.
Programs administered through the Office of Education include the
Educational Partnership Program, Environmental Literacy Grants, and the
Hollings and Nancy Foster Scholarship programs.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James F. Decker, Principal Deputy Director, Office of
Science, U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
Q1. What are the one or two most important steps the Federal
Government should be taking to improve K-12 science and math education
and what is the role of your agency in taking those steps? What is the
single most effective program your agency runs to help take those
steps? How do you know that that program has been effective?
A1. We are of the opinion that the two most important ways the Federal
Government can improve science and math education is first to help
ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom and
second, to help ensure that students have the opportunity in their
schools to study science and math every day of the school year and
every year throughout their K-12 education. The President's ``No Child
Left Behind'' initiative has put great emphasis on providing a
qualified teacher in every classroom. Providing opportunities for
professional development for science and math teachers is an area where
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the national laboratories have
played and will continue to play a valuable role.
One education program that we feel has been effective in this
regard is the Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development
(LSTPD) activity within our Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists program. Created in 2004, LSTPD is an in-service teacher
professional development program targeting the Nation's K-12 science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) teachers with an emphasis on
middle and high school. The primary LSTPD goal is to create a cadre of
STEM teachers who have the proper math and science content knowledge
and scientific research experience to perform as leaders and agents of
positive change in their local and regional education communities. A
primary expected outcome of the program is that participating teachers
will better educate and inspire students to study and become more
involved in academic and extracurricular STEM activities, eventually
raising student achievement on standardized tests and ultimately
leading to more highly qualified students pursuing STEM majors in
college. To achieve these results, the program provides K-12 classroom
teachers long-term, mentor-intensive professional development through
scientific research or research-like opportunities at the national
laboratories over a three-year period.
The evaluation of the LSTPD is in part based on components
completed by the participants: a content knowledge self-assessment; a
professional development plan; a professional practice inventory; and
an education module that is submitted by each participant. Several
teachers have also submitted research abstracts, papers, and posters
related to their research at the national laboratories. The program
uses the teachers to collect data that will support the program
evaluation and also be useful to the teachers in their classrooms and
in their own professional development.
An independent educational testing and evaluation company,
WorldViews, LLC conducted an external evaluation in May of 2005 and
found the program to be a success in its pilot year. A full evaluation
of the impact of this program will be done in 2008. Evaluation will
include but not be limited to: evidence of improved content knowledge
through testing of teachers; review of teacher work portfolio,
technical/scientific publications, and presentation; classroom
assessments by outside evaluators; evidence of leadership shown by
teachers organizing/presenting workshops and instituting new classes or
programs in their respective school systems such as Advanced Placement
courses, science fairs, and science. bowls; and evidence of impact on
students, as shown by more students taking advanced or elective science
and math courses and participating in science fairs and science bowls,
more students pursuing science, math, and engineering majors, and
improved standardized test scores. This evaluation will be repeated at
year ten of the program.
Q2. The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science administers
education programs through the Office of Workforce Development for
Teachers and Scientists but it also supports education activities in
other ways, including through overhead-funded programs at the National
Laboratories. How do you coordinate these activities? How do you share
best practices within DOE, especially among the National Laboratories?
A2. Each year the Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
(WDTS) program convenes a meeting of representatives from all the
national laboratory education offices to discuss how the laboratory
educational programs can be leveraged and how the laboratories can work
together. During this four-day meeting, laboratory education directors
and staff review the past year's results and evaluations, and share
best practices and outreach efforts. They also set the plans for how
the laboratories will work together in common national programs, such
as those in teacher professional development.
WDTS also provides a central online system for all the laboratories
to list their educational opportunities and through which students,
mentors, and faculty can.
Question submitted by Representative Bart Gordon
Q1. The energy authorization bill passed last year has important
initiatives in science and technology education including the Science
and Engineering Education Pilot Program (SEEPP) headed by Oak Ridge
Associated Universities contained in Section 983. In light of the
President's increased interest in science education in the State of the
Union Address, will the Administration use the requirement to spend 0.3
percent of its energy research and development budget on science
education to get a jump start on this and other priority science
education efforts?
A1. The Energy Policy Act authorizes appropriations for Section 983 for
FY 2007, 2008, and 2009 under the Energy Enhancement Fund. Office of
Science staff have met with representatives of the university consortia
regarding their initial proposals and have begun investigating how we
would work towards ensuring a productive end. There is no funding in
the 2007 budget for this pilot program. The Department of Energy (DOE)
has not yet formulated a response to the 0.3 percent budget assessment
called for under the Energy Enhancement Fund.
This issue has been somewhat overtaken by events including the
recent establishment of the statutorily-mandated Academic
Competitiveness Council (ACC). We are reluctant to move forward with an
entirely new program at DOE until the ACC completes its inventory of
Federal math and science education programs and presents findings and
recommendations on a government-wide basis.