[House Report 107-505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Rept. 107-505
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
UNDERGRADUATE SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
_______
June 12, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3130]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
3130) to provide for increasing the technically trained
workforce in the United States, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that
the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill............................................10
III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................10
IV. Summary of Hearings............................................12
V. Committee Actions..............................................13
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................15
VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section).............16
VIII. Committee Views................................................20
IX. Cost Estimate..................................................32
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................32
XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........34
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............34
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........34
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................35
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................35
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................35
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........35
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........35
XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................36
XX. Exchange of Committee Correspondence...........................37
I. Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Undergraduate Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Education Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Studies show that about half of all United States post-
World War II economic growth is a direct result of
technological innovation, and science, engineering, and
technology play a central role in the creation of new goods and
services, new jobs, and new capital.
(2) The growth in the number of jobs requiring technical
skills is projected to be more than 50 percent over the next
decade.
(3) A workforce that is highly trained in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology is crucial to
generating the innovation that drives economic growth, yet
females, who represent 50 percent of the United States
population, make up only 19 percent of the science,
engineering, and technology workforce.
(4) Outside of the biomedical sciences, the number of
undergraduate degrees awarded in the science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology disciplines has been flat or
declining since 1987, despite rapid population growth and a
significant increase in undergraduate enrollment over the same
period.
(5) The demand for H-1B visas has increased over the past
several years, suggesting that the United States is not
training a sufficient number of scientists and engineers.
(6) International comparisons of 24-year olds have shown that
the proportion of natural science and engineering degrees to
the total of undergraduate degrees is lower in the United
States than in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom,
and Canada.
(7) Technological and scientific advancements hold
significant potential for elevating the quality of life and the
standard of living in the United States. The quality and
quantity of such advancements are dependent on a technically
trained workforce.
(8) Reversing the downward enrollment and graduation trends
in a number of science and engineering disciplines is not only
imperative to maintaining our Nation's prosperity, it is also
important for our national security.
(9) The decline of student majors in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology is reportedly linked to poor
teaching quality in these disciplines and lack of institutional
commitment to undergraduate education as compared to research.
(10) Undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology faculty generally lack any formal preparation for
their role as undergraduate educators. In addition, faculty
members are generally not rewarded, and in some cases are
penalized, for the time they devote to undergraduate education.
(11) Faculty experienced in working with undergraduate
students report that undergraduate research experiences
contribute significantly to a student's decision to stay in an
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or technology
major and to continue their education through graduate studies.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS
In this Act--
(1) the term ``academic unit'' means a department, division,
institute, school, college, or other subcomponent of an
institution of higher education;
(2) the term ``community college'' has the meaning given such
term in section 7501(4) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7601(4));
(3) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the National
Science Foundation;
(4) the term ``eligible nonprofit organization'' means a
nonprofit research institute or a nonprofit professional
association with demonstrated experience delivering science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology education, as
determined by the Director;
(5) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term in section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); and
(6) the term ``research-grade instrumentation'' means a
single instrument or a networked system of instruments that
enable publication-quality research to be performed by students
or faculty.
SEC. 4. TECHNOLOGY TALENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Technology
Talent Act of 2002''.
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Director is authorized to award grants,
on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of
higher education with physical or information science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology programs for the
purpose of increasing the number and quality of students
studying and receiving associate or baccalaureate degrees in
the physical and information sciences, mathematics,
engineering, and technology. An institution of higher education
that is awarded a grant under this section shall be known as a
``National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Talent
Expansion Center''.
(2) Requirements.--
(A) Number.--The Director shall award not fewer than
10 grants under this section each year, contingent upon
available funds.
(B) Duration.--Grants under this section shall be
awarded for a period of 5 years, with the final 2 years
of funding contingent on the Director's determination
that satisfactory progress has been made by the grantee
during the first 3 years of the grant period toward
achieving the increases in the number of students
proposed pursuant to subparagraph (E).
(C) Principal investigator.--At least 1 principal
investigator for each grant awarded under this section
must be in a position of administrative leadership at
the institution of higher education, and at least 1
principal investigator must be a faculty member from an
academic department included in the work of the
project.
(D) Subsequent grants.--An institution of higher
education that has completed a grant awarded under this
section may apply for a subsequent grant under this
section.
(E) Increases.--
(i) Institutions of higher education with
baccalaureate degree programs.--An institution
of higher education that awards baccalaureate
degrees and desires to receive a grant under
this section shall propose in its application
specific increases in the number of students
who are United States citizens or permanent
resident aliens obtaining baccalaureate degrees
at the institution within the physical or
information sciences, mathematics, engineering,
or technology, and shall state the mechanisms
by which the success of the grant project shall
be assessed.
(ii) Community colleges.--A community college
that desires to receive a grant under this
section shall propose in its application
specific increases in the number of students
who are United States citizens or permanent
resident aliens pursuing degrees,
concentrations, or certifications in the
physical or information sciences, mathematics,
engineering, or technology programs or pursuing
credits toward transfer to a baccalaureate
degree program in the physical or information
sciences, mathematics, engineering, or
technology, and shall state the mechanisms by
which the success of the grant project shall be
assessed.
(F) Recordkeeping.--Grantee institutions shall
maintain, and transmit annually to the National Science
Foundation, in a format indicated by the Director,
baseline and subsequent data on undergraduate students
in physical and information science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology programs. Such data shall
include information on--
(i) the number of students enrolled;
(ii) student academic achievement, including
quantifiable measurements of students' mastery
of content and skills;
(iii) persistence to degree completion,
including students who transfer from science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology
programs to programs in other academic
disciplines; and
(iv) placement during the first year after
degree completion in post-graduate education or
career pathways.
(G) Priority.--The Director may give priority in
awarding grants under this section to institutions of
higher education whose application--
(i) indicates a plan to build on previous and
existing efforts with demonstrated success,
including efforts involving industry, in
improving undergraduate learning and teaching,
including efforts funded by Federal grants from
the National Science Foundation or other
agencies; and
(ii) provides evidence of a commitment by the
institution's administration to support and
reward faculty involvement in carrying out the
proposed implementation plan for the project.
(c) Uses of Funds.--Activities supported by grants under this section
may include--
(1) projects that specifically aim to increase the number of
traditionally underrepresented students in the physical or
information sciences, mathematics, engineering, or technology,
such as mentoring programs;
(2) projects that expand the capacity of institutions of
higher education to incorporate current advances in science and
technology into the undergraduate learning environment;
(3) bridge projects that enable students at community
colleges to matriculate directly into baccalaureate physical or
information science, mathematics, engineering, or technology
programs, including those targeted at traditionally
underrepresented groups in such disciplines;
(4) projects including interdisciplinary approaches to
undergraduate physical and information science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education;
(5) projects that focus directly on the quality of student
learning, including those that encourage--
(A) high-caliber teaching, including enabling faculty
to spend additional time teaching participating
students in smaller class settings, particularly in the
laboratory environment, by, for example, providing
summer salary or other additional salary for faculty
members or stipends for students;
(B) opportunities to develop new pedagogical
approaches including the development of web-based
course strategies, distributed and collaborative
digital teaching tools, or interactive course modules;
and
(C) screening and training of teaching assistants;
(6) projects that--
(A) facilitate student exposure to potential careers,
including cooperative projects with industry or
government that place students in internships as early
as the summer following their first year of study;
(B) provide part-time employment in industry during
the school year; or
(C) provide opportunities for undergraduates to
participate in industry or government sponsored
research;
(7) projects that assist institutions of higher education in
States that participate in the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to broaden the science,
engineering, mathematics, and technology student base or
increase retention in these fields;
(8) projects to encourage undergraduate research on-campus or
off-campus;
(9) projects that provide scholarships or stipends to
students entering and persisting in the study of science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology;
(10) projects that leverage the Federal investment by
providing matching funds from industry, from State or local
government sources, or from private sources; and
(11) other innovative approaches to achieving the purpose
described in subsection (b)(1).
(d) Assessment, Evaluation, and Dissemination of Information.--
(1) Project assessment.--The Director shall require each
recipient of a grant awarded under this section to implement
project-based assessment that facilitates program evaluation
under paragraph (2) and that assesses the impact of the project
on achieving the purpose stated in subsection (b)(1), as well
as on institutional policies and practices.
(2) Program evaluation.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall award at
least 1 grant or contract to an independent evaluative
organization to--
(A) develop metrics for measuring the impact of the
program authorized under this section on--
(i) the number of students enrolled;
(ii) student academic achievement, including
quantifiable measurements of students' mastery
of content and skills;
(iii) persistence to degree completion,
including students who transfer from science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology
programs to programs in other academic
disciplines; and
(iv) placement during the first year after
degree completion in post-graduate education or
career pathways; and
(B) conduct an evaluation of the impacts of the
program described in subparagraph (A), including a
comparison of the funded projects to identify best
practices with respect to achieving the purpose stated
in subsection (b)(1).
(3) Dissemination of information.--The Director, at least
once each year, shall disseminate information on the activities
and the results of the projects assisted under this section,
including best practices identified pursuant to paragraph
(2)(B), to participating institutions of higher education and
other interested institutions of higher education.
(e) Underrepresented Groups.--In carrying out the program authorized
by this section the Director shall strive to increase the number of
students receiving baccalaureate degrees, concentrations, or
certifications in the physical or information sciences, mathematics,
engineering, or technology who come from groups underrepresented in
these fields.
(f) Reports.--
(1) List.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall develop, and
disseminate to institutions of higher education, a list of
examples of existing institutional and government efforts
relevant to the purpose stated in subsection (b)(1).
(2) Interim progress report.--At the end of the third year of
the program authorized under this section, the Director shall
transmit to the Congress an interim progress report of the
evaluation conducted under subsection (d)(2).
(3) Final report.--Not later than 6 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the
Congress a final report of the evaluation conducted under
subsection (d)(2).
(g) Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish an advisory
committee, that includes significant representation from
industry and academic leaders, for the grant program authorized
under this section. The advisory committee shall--
(A) assist the Director in securing active industry,
and State and local government, participation in the
program;
(B) recommend to the Director innovative approaches
to achieving the purpose stated in subsection (b)(1);
and
(C) advise the Director regarding program metrics,
implementation and performance of the program, and
program progress reports.
(2) Duration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act shall not apply to the advisory committee established under
this subsection.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this
section--
(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary thereafter.
(i) Related Programs.--The Director shall give consideration to
achieving the purpose stated in subsection (b)(1) by awarding grants to
institutions participating in the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority
Participation.
SEC. 5. INSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
(a) In General.--The Director shall award grants, on a merit-
reviewed, competitive basis, to institutions of higher education to
expand previously implemented reforms of undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology education that have been
demonstrated to have been successful in increasing the number and
quality of students studying and receiving associate or baccalaureate
degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology.
(b) Uses of Funds.--Activities supported by grants under this section
may include--
(1) expansion of successful reform efforts beyond a single
course or group of courses to achieve reform within an entire
academic unit;
(2) expansion of successful reform efforts beyond a single
academic unit to other science, mathematics, engineering, or
technology academic units within an institution;
(3) creation of multidisciplinary courses or programs that
formalize collaborations for the purpose of improved student
instruction and research in science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology;
(4) expansion of undergraduate research opportunities beyond
a particular laboratory, course, or academic unit to engage
multiple academic units in providing multidisciplinary research
opportunities for undergraduate students;
(5) expansion of innovative tutoring or mentoring programs
proven to enhance student recruitment or persistence to degree
completion in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology;
(6) improvement of undergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education for nonmajors, including
teacher education majors; and
(7) implementation of technology-driven reform efforts,
including the installation of technology to facilitate such
reform, that directly impact undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology instruction or research
experiences.
(c) Selection Process.--
(1) Applications.--An institution of higher education seeking
a grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may require. The application shall
include, at a minimum--
(A) a description of the proposed reform effort;
(B) a description of the previously implemented
reform effort that will serve as the basis for the
proposed reform effort and evidence of success of that
previous effort, including data on student recruitment,
persistence to degree completion, and academic
achievement;
(C) evidence of active participation in the proposed
project by individuals who were central to the success
of the previously implemented reform effort; and
(D) evidence of institutional support for, and
commitment to, the proposed reform effort, including a
description of existing or planned institutional
policies and practices regarding faculty hiring,
promotion, tenure, and teaching assignment that reward
faculty contributions to undergraduate education equal
to, or greater than, scholarly scientific research.
(2) Review of applications.--In evaluating applications
submitted under paragraph (1), the Director shall consider at a
minimum--
(A) the evidence of past success in implementing
undergraduate education reform and the likelihood of
success in undertaking the proposed expanded effort;
(B) the extent to which the faculty, staff, and
administrators are committed to making the proposed
institutional reform a priority of the participating
academic unit;
(C) the degree to which the proposed reform will
contribute to change in institutional culture and
policy such that a greater value is placed on faculty
engagement in undergraduate education and that a
commensurate reward structure is implemented to
recognize faculty for their scholarly work in this
area; and
(D) the likelihood that the institution will sustain
or expand the reform beyond the period of the grant.
(3) Grant distribution.--The Director shall ensure, to the
extent practicable, that grants awarded under this section are
made to a variety of types of institutions of higher education.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
SEC. 6. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Director shall award grants, on a merit-
reviewed, competitive basis, to--
(1) institutions of higher education;
(2) eligible nonprofit organizations; or
(3) consortia of institutions and organizations described in
paragraphs (1) and (2),
for professional development of undergraduate faculty in support of
improved undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education.
(b) Uses of Funds.--Activities supported by grants under this section
may include--
(1) support for individuals to participate in scholarly
activities aimed at improving undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education including--
(A) sabbatical funding, including partial or full
support for salary, benefits, and supplies, for faculty
participating in scholarly research in--
(i) science, mathematics, engineering, or
technology;
(ii) the science of learning; or
(iii) assessment and evaluation related to
undergraduate instruction and student academic
achievement;
(B) stipend support for graduate students and post-
doctoral fellows to participate in instructional or
evaluative activities at primarily undergraduate
institutions; and
(C) release time from teaching for faculty engaged in
the development, implementation, and assessment of
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education reform activities following
participation in a sabbatical opportunity or faculty
development program described in this subsection; and
(2) support for institutions to develop, implement, and
assess faculty development programs focused on improved
instruction, mentoring, evaluation, and support of
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
students, including costs associated with--
(A) stipend support or release time for faculty and
staff engaged in the development, delivery, and
assessment of the faculty development program;
(B) stipend support or release time for faculty,
graduate students, or post-doctoral fellows from the
host institution or external institutions who are
engaged as participants in such faculty development
programs; and
(C) support for materials, supplies, travel expenses,
and consulting fees associated with the development,
delivery, and assessment of such faculty development
programs.
(c) Applications.--An entity seeking a grant under this section shall
submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Director may require. The
application shall include, at a minimum--
(1) a description of the activities to be carried out under
the proposed project and the projected impact of the project on
undergraduate majors and nonmajors enrolled in science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology courses or programs;
(2) a plan for assessment of the outcomes of the proposed
project;
(3) a plan for dissemination of information regarding the
activities and outcomes of the proposed project; and
(4) evidence of institutional support for implementation of
the proposed project, including commitment to appropriate
faculty sabbaticals and release time from teaching.
(d) Annual Meeting.--The Director shall convene an annual meeting of
awardees under this section to foster greater national information
dissemination and collaboration in the area of undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are to be authorized to
be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this
section $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
SEC. 7. ACCESS TO RESEARCH-GRADE INSTRUMENTATION.
(a) In General.--The Director shall award grants, on a merit-
reviewed, competitive basis, to institutions of higher education to
support the acquisition of research-grade instrumentation and to
support training related to the use of that instrumentation.
Instruments provided through awards under this section shall be used
primarily for undergraduate research, undergraduate instruction, or
both, in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology.
(b) Eligible Institutions.--Grants may be awarded under this section
only to institutions of higher education that award fewer than 10
doctoral degrees per year in disciplines for which the National Science
Foundation provides research support.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are to be authorized to
be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this
section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
SEC. 8. UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH EXPERIENCES.
(a) In General.--The Director shall award grants, on a merit-
reviewed, competitive basis, to institutions of higher education,
eligible nonprofit organizations, or consortia thereof to establish
sites that provide research experiences for 10 or more undergraduate
science, mathematics, engineering, or technology students. The Director
shall ensure that--
(1) at least half of the students participating at each site
funded under this section shall be recruited from institutions
of higher education where research activities in science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology are limited or
nonexistent;
(2) the awards provide undergraduate research experiences in
a wide range of science, mathematics, engineering, or
technology disciplines;
(3) awards support a variety of projects including
independent investigator-led projects, multidisciplinary
projects, and multiinstitutional projects (including virtual
projects);
(4) students participating in the projects have mentors,
including during the academic year, to help connect the
students' research experiences to the overall academic course
of study and to help students achieve success in courses of
study leading to a baccalaureate degree in science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology;
(5) mentors and students are supported with appropriate
summer salary or stipends; and
(6) all student participants are tracked through receipt of
the undergraduate degree and for at least 1 year thereafter.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this
section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
SEC. 9. DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT INFORMATION.
The Director shall ensure that all National Science Foundation-
sponsored undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or
technology education projects, including those sponsored by National
Science Foundation research directorates, shall disseminate via the
Internet, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Scope, goals, and objectives of each project.
(2) Activities, methodologies, and practices developed and
implemented.
(3) Outcomes, both positive and negative, of project
assessment activities.
SEC. 10. EVALUATION.
(a) In General.--The Director, through the Research, Evaluation and
Communication Division of the Education and Human Resources Directorate
of the National Science Foundation, shall evaluate the effectiveness of
all undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or technology
education activities supported by the National Science Foundation in
increasing the number and quality of students, including students from
groups underrepresented in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology fields, studying and receiving associate or baccalaureate
degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. In
conducting the evaluation, the Director shall consider information on--
(1) the number of students enrolled;
(2) student academic achievement, including quantifiable
measurements of students' mastery of content and skills;
(3) persistence to degree completion, including students who
transfer from science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
programs to programs in other academic disciplines; and
(4) placement during the first year after degree completion
in post-graduate education or career pathways.
(b) Assessment Benchmarks and Tools.--The Director, through the
Research, Evaluation and Communication Division of the Education and
Human Resources Directorate of the National Science Foundation, shall
establish a common set of assessment benchmarks and tools, and shall
enable every National Science Foundation-sponsored project to
incorporate the use of these benchmarks and tools in their project-
based assessment activities.
(c) Dissemination of Evaluation Results.--The results of the
evaluations required under subsection (a) shall be made available to
the public.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and once every 3 years thereafter, the
Director shall transmit to the Congress a report containing the results
of evaluations under subsection (a).
SEC. 11. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY ON UNDERGRADUATE
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.
(a) Study.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Director shall enter into an arrangement with the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to
perform a study on the factors that influence undergraduate students to
enter and persist to degree completion in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology programs or to leave such programs and
matriculate to other academic programs, as reported by students.
(b) Transmittal to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the
Congress a report containing the results of the study under subsection
(a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriation.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this
section $700,000 for fiscal year 2003, to remain available until
expended.
SEC. 12. MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--
(1) The Director shall establish a program to award grants to
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Alaska Native-Serving Institutions, Native
Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and tribally controlled colleges
and universities to enhance the quality of undergraduate
science, mathematics, and engineering education at such
institutions and to increase the retention and graduation rates
of students pursuing baccalaureate degrees in science,
mathematics, or engineering.
(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a merit-
reviewed, competitive basis.
(b) Program Components.--Grants awarded under this section shall
support--
(1) activities to improve courses and curriculum in science,
mathematics, or engineering disciplines;
(2) faculty development, including support for--
(A) sabbaticals and exchange programs to improve the
faculty's research competency and knowledge of
technological advances;
(B) professional development workshops on innovative
teaching practices and assessment;
(C) visiting faculty, including researchers from
industry; and
(D) faculty reassigned time or release time to mentor
students or to participate in curriculum reform and
academic enhancement activities;
(3) stipends for undergraduate students participating in
research activities in science, mathematics, or engineering
disciplines on-campus or off-campus at industrial,
governmental, or academic research laboratories; and
(4) other activities that are consistent with subsection
(a)(1), as determined by the Director.
(c) Application.--An institution seeking funding under this section
shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Director may require.
SEC. 13. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Core Science and Mathematics Courses.--Section 3(a) of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i(a)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``, and to improve the quality of their core
education courses in science and mathematics'' after
``education in advanced-technology fields'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``and in core science and
mathematics courses'' after ``advanced-technology fields''; and
(3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``in advanced-technology
fields'' and inserting ``who provide instruction in science,
mathematics, and advanced-technology fields''.
(b) Articulation Partnerships.--Section 3(c)(1)(B) of the Scientific
and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i(c)(1)(B)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding after clause (ii) the following new clauses:
``(iii) provide students with research experiences at
bachelor-degree-granting institutions participating in
the partnership, including stipend support for students
participating in summer programs; and
``(iv) provide faculty mentors for students
participating in activities under clause (iii),
including summer salary support for faculty mentors.''.
(c) Advanced Technological Education Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish an advisory
committee on science, mathematics, and technology education at
community colleges consisting of non-Federal members, including
representatives from academia and industry. The advisory
committee shall review, and provide the Director with an
assessment of, activities carried out under the Advanced
Technological Education Program (in this section referred to as
the ``Program''), including--
(A) conformity of the Program to the requirements of
the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992;
(B) the effectiveness of activities supported under
the Program in strengthening the scientific and
technical education and training capabilities of
community colleges;
(C) the effectiveness of the National Science
Foundation and institutions receiving awards under the
Program in disseminating information to other community
colleges about activities carried out under the Program
and about model curricula and teaching methods
developed under the Program;
(D) the balance of resources allocated under the
Program for support of national centers of excellence,
individual institution grants, and articulation
partnerships; and
(E) other issues identified by the Director.
The advisory committee shall make recommendations to the
Director for improvements to the Program based on its reviews
and assessments.
(2) Advisory committee reports.--The advisory committee
established under paragraph (1) shall report annually to the
Director and to Congress on the findings and recommendations
resulting from the reviews and assessments conducted in
accordance with paragraph (1).
(3) Duration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act shall not apply to the advisory committee established under
this subsection.
(d) National Science Foundation Report.--Within 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit a report
to Congress on--
(1) efforts by the National Science Foundation and awardees
under the Program to disseminate information about the results
of projects;
(2) the effectiveness of national centers of scientific and
technical education established under section 3(b) of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 in serving as
national and regional clearinghouses of information and models
for best practices in undergraduate science, mathematics, and
technology education; and
(3) efforts to satisfy the requirement of section 3(f)(4) of
the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Science Foundation--
(1) for activities to improve core science and mathematics
education in accordance with section 3(a) of the Scientific and
Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i(a)), as
amended by subsection (a) of this section, $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2003 through 2007;
(2) for acquisition of instrumentation in accordance with
section 3(a)(4) of the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act
of 1992--
(A) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(B) $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(C) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(D) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(E) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) for support for research experiences for undergraduate
students in accordance with section 3(c)(1)(B) of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
1862i(c)(1)(B)), as amended by subsection (b) of this section,
$750,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
II. Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to make improvements in
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
education and to increase the number of graduates of programs
in these areas.
III. Background and Need for the Legislation
As U.S. economic growth continues to depend largely upon
advances in science and technology, the nation's continued
prosperity is linked inextricably to the ability to produce a
technologically sophisticated workforce. However, since 1986,
while the percentage of degrees awarded in the biological and
social sciences has increased sharply, there has been a
troubling decrease in the percentage of U.S. baccalaureate
degrees awarded in the physical sciences, engineering,
mathematics, and computer science. In contrast, Asian and
European countries have shown strong growth in degree
production in all science and engineering fields and Asian
institutions of higher education produce approximately six
times as many engineering degrees as do U.S. institutions.
The limited numbers of students pursuing science,
mathematics, and engineering degrees appears to be a result of
at least two factors: too few students who enter college
wanting to major in one of those fields, and too many students
who initially show such interest changing their minds during
the first two years of their college education. Evidence of a
decline in the percentage of freshmen choosing to enter and
remain in mathematics and science-based majors first became
apparent in the mid-1980s, as a result of a number of studies.
Researchers determined that 40 percent of science, mathematics,
and engineering undergraduates left the major, and that most
did so within the first 2.5 years of the undergraduate
experience. Similarly, a 2002 report by the U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Educational Statistics showed
that fewer than 50 percent of students who intend to major in
science and engineering fields complete a science or
engineering degree within five years.
There is some evidence that poor K-12 preparation in
mathematics has a significant impact on a student's decision to
enroll in undergraduate science, mathematics and engineering
coursework. According to NSF's Science and Engineering
Indicators 2002, more than 40 percent of freshmen at public
two-year colleges and 22 percent of freshmen at public four-
year colleges required remedial work in reading, writing or
mathematics. Among its science and engineering disciplines,
approximately 28 percent of first-year students intending to
major in the social and behaviorial sciences and 25 percent of
those intending to major in biological or agricultural science
reported the need for remedial mathematics instruction. Fifteen
percent of engineering and physical sciences majors reported a
similar need for remedial mathematics instruction. A recent
survey also found that students are facing increasing demands
on their time, with nearly 75 percent of today's college
students engaging in at least part-time work and 25 percent
working full time.
However, factors not under the control of institutions of
higher education, such as preparation at the K-12 level and
non-academic workload, seem unlikely to provide the entire
explanation for the current situation. While it has been
difficult to determine the precise factors that precipitate an
individual student's decision to leave a science or engineering
major, a number of signs point of factors such as poor teaching
and limited mentoring. For example, a 1997 study of students
who scored high (above 650) on the mathematics section of the
SAT I and who declared majors in science, mathematics and
engineering showed that both those who switched out of science,
mathematics and engineering majors and those who persisted in
these majors through graduation had similar complaints of poor
teaching and difficulty in getting help with academic problems.
The authors of this study were unable to identify the precise
factors that differentiated the ``switchers'' from the
``survivors,'' but anecdotal evidence highlighted the positive
impact of intervention by a faculty member at a crisis time in
the student's academic or personal life.
Some experts who are critical of the current undergraduate
education enterprise have pointed to factors such as lack of
rewards for faculty engaged in undergraduate education, poor
facilities, limited equipment and supplies for education-based
activities, and a ``survival of the fittest'' mentality in
science, mathematics and engineering departments as likely
additional reasons for the high attrition rates evident in
science and engineering programs.
Adding to the complexity of the problem is the diversity of
undergraduate institutions in the U.S. Although research-
intensive universities produce most of the engineering degrees
and a large proportion of the natural and social science
degrees at the undergraduate level, student enrollment at those
institutions represents less than 30 percent of the total
undergraduate enrollment nationwide. Comprehensive universities
and colleges account for approximately 23 percent of the total
U.S. undergraduate enrollment, and liberal arts institutions
for approximately 7 percent. Two-year colleges account for
nearly 40 percent of the total undergraduate enrollment, and
yet their impact on the number of science and engineering
baccalaureate degrees conferred remains largely unrecognized
since many students transfer to a four-year institution without
first earning an associate degree. The diversity of U.S.
institutions of higher education should be regarded as a
strength, and not a liability, in improving scientific literacy
broadly and in increasing the number of science and engineering
graduates in particular, but it is clear that reform must not
be a one-size-fits-all endeavor.
While current data provide no clear guidelines or best
practices regarding undergraduate education reform, both the
National Research Council's Committee on Undergraduate Science
Education \1\ and the National Science Foundation (NSF) \2\
have made a number of recommendations regarding institutional
arid departmental reforms necessary to improve undergraduate
science and engineering education. Those recommendations
include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council Committee on Undergraduate Science
Education, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education,
Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology, 1999.
\2\ National Science Foundation, Shaping the future: New
expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering and technology, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take an institutional approach to change and
ensure that the undergraduate education activities of
the institution are a high priority;
Give all students math and science literacy
so that all students can function in a technologically
sophisticated world and so that more students can
prepare for careers in science and engineering;
Help faculty improve their teaching through
the incorporation of research on learning into the
classroom and through the inclusion of collaborative
and active learning, discovery and inquiry in the
classroom;
Increase opportunities for undergraduate
research so that all students, and especially students
majoring in science and engineering and those preparing
to be teachers, are engaged in the excitement of new
research findings;
Expand interdisciplinary teaching to better
reflect the increased workplace emphasis on
interdisciplinary approaches; and
Include industry and potential employers in
planning curricular changes.
This Act addresses each of the recommendations above and
provides activities and funding intended to foster and
facilitate improved undergraduate education at all institutions
and for all students. The Act is focused on reforms that will
improve student learning and increase the number and quality of
science, mathematics, engineering and technology majors. In
addition, this Act provides the framework for a national
evaluation of ``what works'' through the identification of
causal relationships between practices and outcomes.
IV. Summary of Hearings
On Wednesday, March 7, 2002, the Subcommittee on Research
of the Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the
current state of undergraduate mathematics, science, and
engineering education, to learn about successful models of
undergraduate education reform, and to hear recommendations for
additional programs and opportunities that could advance the
reform effort. Witnesses provided comments on and
recommendations for additions to H.R. 3130, the Technology
Talent Act of 2001, introduced by Chairman Boehlert and Rep.
Larson on October 16, 2001. The Committee heard testimony from
faculty and administrators at Sinclair College, James Madison
University, the University of Colorado-Boulder, Swarthmore
College, and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Witnesses
addressed the need for increased access to instrumentation for
the purposes of undergraduate teaching and research, additional
research opportunities for undergraduate students, better
mechanisms for tracking students, and improved institutional
policies that reflect a commitment to undergraduate education
reform.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Research
of the Committee on Science held a hearing to receive testimony
on ways to determine the appropriate funding levels for NSF.
The hearing witnesses included professors of engineering,
economics and geology as well as a representative of General
Electric Company. While the hearing was primarily focused on
establishing criteria to be used in setting NSF budget levels,
much of the testimony focused on the need to improve the
education of undergraduates in science, mathematics and
engineering. In particular, testimony was offered regarding the
benefits of mentoring students and engaging them in research
experiences beginning in middle school and continuing
throughout the undergraduate years.
On Monday, April 22, 2002, the Subcommittee on Research of
the Committee on Science held a field hearing in Dallas, Texas
to receive testimony on K-12 and undergraduate science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education.
TheCommittee heard testimony from representatives of the Dallas
Independent School Board, Southern Methodist University, the University
of Texas at Arlington, Jarvis Christian College, Texas Instruments,
ExxonMobil, and Lockheed Martin. The witnesses examined challenges for
improving K-12 and undergraduate STEM education; explored educational
programs that could be developed or expanded to fill current gaps and
stimulate STEM education reform; and discussed industry needs for a
diverse and scientifically literate workforce for the 21st century.
V. Committee Actions
On October 16, 2001, Science Committee Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert and Rep. Larson introduced H.R. 3130, the Technology
Talent Act of 2001, a bill to provide for increasing the
technically trained workforce in the United States.
The Subcommittee on Research met on May 9, 2002, to
consider the bill. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
was offered by Chairman Boehlert, Mr. Larson, Research
Subcommittee Chairman Smith (MI), and the ranking member of the
Research Subcommittee, Ms. Johnson (TX). In addition to making
technical corrections to the bill, the amendment (1) restricted
disciplines included in the Technology Talent program to the
physical and information sciences, mathematics, engineering and
technology; (2) required the NSF Director to award
Instutitional Reform grants to expand previously implemented
undergraduate reform activities that have proven to be
successful in increasing the number and quality of students
receiving degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology; (3) required the Director to award grants for
professional development of undergraduate faculty in support of
improved undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education; (4) required the Director to award grants
to institutions of higher education to support the acquisition
of research grade instrumentation and to support training
related to its use; (5) required the Director to award grants
to establish sites that provide research experiences for 10 or
more undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology students; (6) required that all science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology projects sponsored by
NSF disseminate project information and results via the
Internet; (7) required the Director to evaluate the
effectiveness of all undergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education activities supported by
NSF; and (8) required a study on the factors that influence
undergraduates to enter and complete degrees in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology programs. The
amendment was adopted by a voice vote. Ms. Johnson moved that
the Subcommittee favorably report the bill, H.R. 3130, as
amended, to the Full Committee on Science with the
recommendation that it be in order for the amendment, in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Subcommittee, to be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five minute rule at Full Committee, and that staff be
instructed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill
as amended. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by
a voice vote.
The Full Committee on Science met on Wednesday, May 22,
2002, to consider the bill. An amendment making technical
changes to the bill was offered by Chairman Boehlert. An
amendment was offered by Ms. Woolsey that would require the
Director to strive to increase the number of underrepresented
students receiving baccalaureate degrees in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology and to require the
program evaluation to include disaggregated data reflecting
minority enrollment and graduation rates. Mr. Baca offered an
amendment that would establish a Minority Serving Institutions
Undergraduate Program to award grants to enhance the quality of
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at
qualifying minority-serving institutions. Mr. Baird offered an
amendment that would amend the Scientific and Advanced
Technology act of 1992 by: (1) expanding the purpose of NSF's
Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program to include
improvement of core math and science courses; (2) expanding the
activities under the articulation partnerships section to
include student research experiences at four year institutions;
(3) establishing an ATE program Advisory Committee; and (4)
authorizing additional funding for acquisition of state-of-the-
art instruments required for science and technology education.
These four amendments were merged into one En Bloc amendment,
which was passed by a voice vote. Mr. Hall moved that the
Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 3130, as amended, to
the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do
pass and that the staff be instructed to make technical and
conforming changes to the bill as amended and prepare the
legislative report and that the Chairman take all necessary
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice
vote.
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
Authorizes NSF to provide grants to institutions
of higher education to increase the number and quality of
graduates from science, mathematics, engineering and technology
programs. Allows priority to be given to institutions with
proposals that build on existing, successful efforts. Requires
awardees to submit to the Director annual reports outlining
their success in achieving the goals outlined in their
application. Requires the Director to award a grant to an
independent organization to evaluate the impact of the program
and identify the best practices. Authorizes $25 million for
fiscal year 2003, and such sums as necessary thereafter.
Requires NSF to provide grants to institutions of
higher education to expand successful science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology reform beyond a single course to an
entire department as well as to improve science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology courses for non-majors. Requires
grantees to provide multidisciplinary research opportunities
for students and expand tutoring or mentoring programs to
enhance recruitment and completion of a degree. Requires
applicants to submit a description of the previously
implemented reform effort and requires the Director to assess
the feasibility of the proposed expansion. Authorizes $15
million per year for fiscal years 2003-2007.
Requires NSF to provide grants to institutions of
higher education, non-profits, or consortia thereof, for
professional development projects aimed at improving science,
mathematics engineering, and technology teaching. Allows grants
to cover sabbatical funding, salary support, and stipends for
graduate students and post doctoral fellows as well as support
for mentoring undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology students. Requires the Director to hold an
annual meeting of all awardees to foster information
dissemination and collaboration. Authorizes $8 million per year
for fiscal years 2003-2007.
Requires NSF to provide grants to institutions of
higher education to support the acquisition of research grade
instrumentation, which must be used primarily for research,
instruction, or both, in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology courses. Authorizes $10 million per year for fiscal
years 2003-2007.
Requires NSF to provide grants to institutions of
higher education, non-profit entities, or consortia thereof, to
establish sites that provide research experiences for ten or
more undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology students. Requires that at least half of the
students participating at each site come from an institution
where there is little or no science, mathematics, engineering,
or technology research activity. Requires that awards also
include a wide range of science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology disciplines as well as appropriate summer stipends
or salary for mentors and students. Authorizes $10 million per
year for fiscal years 2003-2007.
Requires the Director to evaluate the
effectiveness of all undergraduate activities supported by NSF
and every three years to submit a report to Congress detailing
the results.
Requires the National Academy of Sciences to
perform a study detailing the factors that influence students
to pursue a degree in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology or to leave those majors for other disciplines.
Authorizes $700,000 for fiscal year 2003 which is to remain
available until expended.
Requires the Director to award grants to minority
serving institutions to enhance the quality of science,
mathematics, engineering and technology education. Allows
grants to support activities to improve courses and curriculum,
faculty development, and stipends for undergraduate students.
Amends the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act
of 1992 by expanding the purpose of the ATE program to include
improvement of core math and science courses and student
research experiences at four-year institutions. Authorizes the
Director to establish an advisory committee on science,
mathematics, engineering and technology education at community
colleges to evaluate the effectiveness of activities supported
under the ATE program, and the effectiveness of NSF in
disseminating information to other community colleges. Provides
additional funding for acquisition of state-of-the-art
instruments required for science and technology education at
community colleges.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (By Title and Section)
Sec. 1. Short title
The ``Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology Education Improvement Act''.
Sec. 2. Findings
Discusses the impact of technological advancement on
economic growth and the concern that inadequate numbers of U.S.
graduates in science and technology fields will slow the pace
of U.S. technological advancement. Discuss weaknesses in
current undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education--including poor teaching and lack of
institutional reward for teaching as a scholarly activity--that
may contribute to the declines in enrollment in some areas of
science, mathematics and engineering.
Sec. 3. Definitions
Defines the terms ``academic unit'' to mean a department,
division, institute, school, college or other subcomponent of
an institution of higher education; ``community college'' to
have the meaning given in section 7501(4) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7601(4));
``Director'' to mean the Director of NSF; ``eligible nonprofit
organization'' to mean a nonprofit research institute or
professional association with demonstrated experience
delivering science, mathematics, engineering or technology
education; ``institution of higher education'' to have the
meaning given in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)); and ``research-grade
instrumentation'' to mean a single instrument or a networked
system of instruments that enable publication-quality research
to be performed by students or faculty.
Sec. 4. Technology talent
Designates this section as the Technology Talent Act of
2002 and authorizes the Director to award on a competitive,
merit-reviewed basis, no fewer than ten five-year grants to
institutions of higher education to increase the number and
quality of students receiving degrees in the physical or
information sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology.
Requires applicants to propose strategies for generating
specific increases in the number and quality of students
studying toward and receiving these degrees. Allows the
Director to give priority in awarding grants to institutions
that plan to build on past success in improving undergraduate
education, and suggests possible uses of funds. Requires that
awardees provide annual reports to NSF on their progress toward
meeting the goals identified in their application. Continued
participation in the program beyond the third year is
contingent upon demonstrated progress toward meeting the
specific goals contained within the application. Requires the
Director toaward at least one grant or contract to an
independent organization to evaluate the program and identify best
practices in undergraduate education.
Authorizes $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and such sums
as may be necessary thereafter to carry out this section.
Sec. 5. Institutional reform
Requires the Director to award merit-reviewed, competitive
grants to institutions of higher education to expand previously
implemented reforms of undergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering or technology education that have been successful
in increasing the number and quality of students studying and
receiving degrees in these areas. Allowable uses of funds
include: (1) the expansion of successful efforts beyond a
single course or group of courses to an entire academic unit;
(2) expansion of successful reform efforts beyond a single
academic unit to another science, mathematics, engineering or
technology academic unit; (3) creation of multidisciplinary
courses or programs that formalize collaborations between
various academic units; (4) expansion of undergraduate research
opportunities; (5) expansion of innovative tutoring and
mentoring programs; (6) improvement of science and mathematics
education for non-majors, including education majors; and (7)
implementation of technology-driven reform efforts that impact
undergraduate instruction or research experiences.
Requires institutions funded under this section to provide
evidence of support for, and commitment to, the proposed reform
effort including implementation of policies and practices
regarding faculty hiring, promotion, tenure and teaching
assignment that reward faculty contributions to undergraduate
education equal to, or greater than, scholarly scientific
research. Instructs the Director to ensure, to the extent
practicable, that grants awarded under this section are made
available to a variety of types of institutions of higher
education. Authorizes $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007 to carry out this section.
Sec. 6. Faculty development
Requires the Director to award merit-reviewed, competitive
grants to institutions of higher education, eligible nonprofit
organizations, or consortia thereof, for professional
development of current and future faculty to improve
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
education. Permits funds to be used to support individual
professional development opportunities, including sabbatical or
stipend support to enable faculty to engage in research in
science, mathematics, engineering, technology, the science of
learning, or educational assessment; stipend support for
graduate students and post-doctoral fellows to participate in
instructional activities at primarily undergraduate
institutions; and release time from teaching for faculty
engaged in the development, implementation, and assessment of
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering and technology
education reform activities.
Also permits funds to be used to support institutions
seeking to develop and implement faculty development programs
focused on improving instruction and mentoring, as well as
evaluations of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering
and technology students. Requires the Director to convene an
annual meeting of awardees under the section to foster greater
national information dissemination and collaboration in this
area. Authorizes $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007 to carry out this section.
Sec. 7. Access to research-grade instrumentation
Requires the Director to award merit-reviewed, competitive
grants to institutions of higher education that award fewer
than 10 doctoral degrees per year in disciplines that are
supported by NSF research grants to support the acquisition of
research-grade instrumentation. Requires that instruments
acquired through awards under this section be used primarily
for undergraduate research, instruction, or both. Authorizes
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
Sec. 8. Undergraduate research experiences
Requires the Director to award merit-reviewed, competitive
grants to institutions of higher education, eligible nonprofit
organizations, or consortia thereof, to establish sites that
provide research experiences for 10 or more undergradaute
science, mathematics, engineering or technology students.
Requires the Director to ensure that at least half of the
students participating at each site are recruited from
institutions of higher education where research is limited or
nonexistent and that awards reflect the range of science,
mathematics, engineering or technology disciplines supported by
NSF. Requires the Director to support a variety of types of
projects including multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional
projects and requires that all student participants have
mentors throughout the academic year. Requires awardees to
track student participants through receipt of the undergraduate
degree and for at least one year thereafter. Authorizes
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
Sec. 9. Dissemination of project information
Requires the Director to ensure that all NSF-sponsored
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or technology
education projects, including those sponsored by NSF's research
directives, disseminate via the Internet information regarding
the scope, goals and objectives of each project; the
activities, methodologies and practices developed and
implemented; and the outcomes--both positive and negative--of
project assessment activities.
Sec. 10. Evaluation
Requires the Director to evaluate the effectiveness of all
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, or technology
education activities supported by NSF in increasing the number
and quality of students studying and receiving associate or
baccalaureate degrees in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology. Requires the Director to establish a common set of
assessment tools for use by grant recipients in their project-
based assessment activities. Requires the Director to
disseminate the results of the evaluations described in this
section to the public and transmit to Congress a report
containing the results of evaluations described in this section
every three years. Requires the Director to evaluate and report
the effectiveness ofundergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering and technology programs on increasing the number and
quality of students, including disaggregated data indicating the number
of traditionally underrepresented students, who receive baccalaureate
degrees in these areas.
Sec. 11. National Academy of Sciences study on undergraduate
recruitment and retention
Requires the Director to enter into an arrangement with the
National Research Council to perform a study of the factors
that encourage undergraduate students to enter and obtain
degrees in science, mathematics, engineering and technology
programs or to leave such programs and matriculate to other
academic programs. Requires the Director to transmit a report
of the results of this study to Congress not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this section.
Authorizes $700,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 12. Minority-serving institutions undergraduate program
Requires the Director to establish a program to award
grants to minority-serving institutions to enhance the quality
of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering education at
such institutions and to increase the retention and graduation
rates of students pursuing baccalaureate degrees in those
areas. Provides support for activities aimed at improving
course and curricular materials, at providing faculty
development opportunities in scholarly research or in improving
instruction and assessment capabilities, and at engaging
students in academic and industry research experiences.
Sec. 13. Advanced technological education program
Amends and expands the Scientific and Advanced-Technology
Act of 1992 to include support for improvement of core science
and mathematics courses, including engineering and computer
technology courses at community colleges that prepare students
for transfer to four-year institutions. Expands activities
supported under the Articulation Partnerships section of the
1992 Act to include stipends for students engaged in
undergraduate experiences at four-year institutions and support
for faculty who serve as mentors to those students engaged in
such research activities. Establishes an advisory committee
that must include industry and academic representatives to
evaluate, report, and make recommendations annually regarding
the effectiveness and compliance of the ATE program with the
1992 Act. Requires the Director to report on efforts to
disseminate information about ATE-sponsored programs, the
effectiveness of the national centers of excellence in serving
as national and regional resources and clearinghouses, and
efforts to maintain an accessible inventory of projects funded
under this program. Authorizes $5,000,000 annually for fiscal
years 2003 through 2007 for activities related to the
improvement of core science and math education courses;
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $3,500,000 for fiscal year
2004, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; $4,500,000 for fiscal
year 2006, and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 for support the
acquisition of state-of-the-art instruments required for
preparing students in science and advanced technology; and
$750,000 for support of research experiences for undergraduate
students at four-year institutions as part of Articulation
Partnerships grants.
VIII. Committee Views
The Committee believes that undergraduate science, math,
engineering and technology reform efforts have not been
successful enough in achieving the changes in institutional
culture that are required to better prepare increased numbers
of undergraduate students in science, mathematics, engineering
and technology. In addition, the Committee has concluded that,
despite nearly twenty years of undergraduate education reform
efforts, there is little understanding of the factors that
truly influence a student's decision to enroll in, or withdraw
from, a major in a science, mathematics, or engineering field.
The programs authorized by this act are designed not only
to address a number of barriers to high quality undergraduate
education, such as inadequate facilities and poor preparation
of faculty for their role as educators, but also to determine
empirically those factors key to a student's success in science
and engineering courses and majors. In addition, this Act
provides opportunities and incentives for institutions to
implement changes in policies and practices that will increase
the number and quality of students who study, and ultimately
earn degrees, in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology.
The Committee strongly believes that NSF is well positioned
to run these programs given its historical relationship with
institutions of higher education and its past work in the area
of undergraduate education reform.
Section 4--The Technology Talent Act of 2002
The Technology Talent Act of 2002 was sparked in part by
concern over U.S. dependence on foreign workers in some areas
of science and engineering--as evidenced by increasing H1-B
visa petitions--and suggestions by Stanford economist Paul
Romer that a disconnect exists between the private sector, with
its demand for scientists and engineers, and the educational
system, whose policies and practices are driven more by
internal decisions and historical practices than by external
supply and demand pressures.
However, the Committee does not envision the Technology
Talent Act of 2002 as a remedy to any particular workforce
shortage. Recognizing the difficulty in accurately predicting
future workforce needs, the Committee believes that directing
funds solely toward today's specific workforce shortages risks
leaving the nation unprepared to meet the challenges and
demands of tomorrow. Rather, the primary goal of the Technology
Talent program is to ensure that the Nation has a continuing
supply of science, mathematics, engineering and technology
majors both to maintain our leadership in technological
innovation and to ensure a scientifically and technologically
literate citizenry.
The Technology Talent Act of 2002 provides incentives to
institutions of higher education to implement programs,
activities, and services that will have a direct impact on the
number and quality of graduates in the physical and information
sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology. The
Committee values the contributions of the biological and social
sciences, and the decision to focus this particular program on
the physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology
in no way indicates that support for the biological or social
sciences should be reduced or eliminated from any other NSF
research or education activity. The Committee recognizes the
success these disciplines have had in increasing the number of
their graduates, and encourages other science and engineering
disciplines to adopt and implement strategies that have been
successful in the social and biological sciences.
For the purposes of this section, the physical sciences
include such fields as chemistry, physics, astronomy, and earth
and atmospheric sciences, while the information sciences
include such fields as computer science and bioinformatics.
Mathematics includes such fields as theoretical and applied
mathematics, and engineering includes such fields as electrical
engineering, chemical engineering, bioengineering, biomedical
engineering, aeronautical and astronautical engineering,
computer engineering, software engineering, civil engineering,
mechanical engineering, and materials engineering. The
Committee strongly encourages the participation of
interdisciplinary programs such as ones focused on
nanotechnology, that prepare students for the contemporary
workplace and that teach students to assimilate and transfer
ideas from one science or engineering discipline to another.
The term ``technology'' is intended to mean those programs
offered primarily by two-year colleges that train individuals
for direct employment by the high technology sector including
information technology, engineering technology, computer
technology, and biotechnology. The Committee assumes that
students completing two-year technology degrees will be able to
enter the workforce directly or transfer to a four-year school
where credits earned under the technology degree could be
applied toward a baccalaureate degree in a related area.
To qualify for funding under the Technology Talent Act of
2002, an institution of higher education must state a specific
goal for increases in student enrollment and graduation that
will result from the implementation of the proposed project,
for all academic disciplines included in the proposed project.
In addition, the applicant must provide a clear programmatic
plan for meeting those projections. The Committee believes
strongly that an institution of higher education must not
reduce the rigor of its curriculum nor the standards by which
student success is measured to increase enrollment and
completion rates. An institution of higher education seeking
funding under this section, therefore, must describe the
metrics by which student performance will be measured and by
which the quality of the instructional program will be
evaluated.
The Committee recognizes that many two-year colleges do not
allow students to select majors or earn degrees in particular
academic areas and may award degrees broadly in the arts or
sciences. In such cases, those programs that prepare students
for transfer to baccalaureate degree programs in the physical
and information sciences, mathematics, engineering and
technology, or that provide concentrated program of study or a
certificate in one or more of those academic areas, do qualify
for funding under this section. The Committee understands that
many students transfer to four-year institutions prior to
completing the associated degree at the community college. The
Committee intends that, for the purposes of this section, a
student's transfer to a physical or information science,
mathematics or engineering program at a four-year institution
or completion of a certificate program in one of these areas be
considered a successful outcome equal to graduation from a
community college program.
The Committee intends that awards made under this section
be five years in duration to allow adequate time to plan,
implement and assess the activities proposed by the awardee.
The Committee believes that by the third year of the grant, the
awardee should have made significant progress toward the
enrollment and graduation goals stated in the grant
application. While the Committee recognizes that programmatic
changes may not result in increased graduation rates for at
least four years, the Committee believes that by the end of the
third year of the grant, indications of future success, such as
increased enrollment and retention rates, should be observable.
The Committee assumes that an institution that is not making
progress toward its projected goals and is not likely to
achieve the projected increased by the end of the funded period
will not receive the final two years of funding for an award
made under this section.
Because the focus of the Technology Talent Act of 2002 is
increasing the number--while maintaining or improving the
quality--of graduates in the specified academic areas, and
because the final two years of funding depend upon demonstrated
progress by the awardee during the first three years, the
Committee believes that accurate record keeping and reporting
are an important requirement of the program. Therefore, each
grantee must report annually the number of students enrolled in
the academic programs funded under their award and must track
and report each student's academic performance, persistence to
degree completion, and placement during the first year after
graduation. The Committee assumes that a web-based data
collection portal, similar to the one designed and used for
NSF's Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics scholarship
program, will be established and operated by NSF to streamline
the collection of student enrollment, graduation and
performance data.
It is the objective of the program to increase the number
and quality of new majors rather than to encourage the transfer
of students from one science, mathematics, or engineering
discipline to another. Section 4(b)(2)(F) requires awardees to
collect the data necessary to demonstrate that the projects
funded through this program successfully attract new students
into these majors and retain them through to graduation (or in
the case of a community college, transfer to a four-year
institution). The Committee also expects that NSF will ensure
that the program as a whole meets this objective of attracting
new students to these majors.
In accordance with section 4(e), the Committee expects NSF,
in selecting projects for support under this program, to take
into consideration proposals that have promise for increasing
the numbers of women and minorities pursuing and persisting in
studies in these fields. Success in this regard should also be
considered as one criterion for making subsequent awards under
the program.
The Committee believes that it should be up to the awardee
institution to determine the particular metrics for evaluating
student achievement. However, the Committee strongly believes
that these metrics must be quantitative in nature and enable
meaningful determinations of the quality of student academic
achievement. These metrics might include grade point average,
the use of standardized assessments, or other discipline-
developed quantitative measures of student academic
achievement.
The Committee believes that an important indicator of the
quality of an educational program is the placement of graduates
in either jobs or advanced educational programs. For this
reason, institutions receiving funding under this section must
determine placement of students within the first year after
their graduation in a job or advanced educational program.
The Committee understands that tracking students can be
particularly difficult for community colleges where students
frequently transfer to different institutions prior to degree
completion. A community college awardee under this section
therefore may establish procedures for tracking transfer
students that include student-reported information, or data
from four-year institutions to which these students are likely
to transfer.
The Committee recognizes the value of innovation in
advancing the goals of the Technology Talent Act of 2002 but
understands that results are also likely to come from the
implementation of programs and practices already proven to have
had success in increasing student enrollment and graduation
rates. For that reason, the Committee encourages the Director
to give priority to those institutions of higher education
whose proposals build on successful previous efforts. In
particular, the Committee recognizes that activities support
under NSF's Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
(LSAMP) program have been successful in increasing the number
of underrepresented minority student in science and engineering
and, in accordance with section 4(i), expects NSF to consider
grants to institutions participating in LSAMP as one approach
in meeting the goals of the program established under this
section.
The Committee also recognizes the important of faculty in
helping students through critical points in their academic
careers and, therefore, encourages the Director to give
priority to institutions of higher education that support and
reward faculty for their productive involvement with
undergraduate students. The Committee also strongly encourages
institutions of higher education to work with industry in
designing effective curricula, student internship programs, and
student assessment activities and to leverage the federal
investment with matching funds from industry, state or local
government sources, or private sources.
As is the case in all reform programs, the Committee
believes that it is imperative that the activities supported
under this section be evaluated to determine causal
relationships between practices and outcomes. It is important
that reform efforts help determine which activities have the
greatest impact on student enrollment and graduation rates in
each of the academic disciplines supported under this section
and in relation to different student demographics and
institutional types. Activities that are highly successful in
one institution setting may not be effective or even possible
to implement in another one. Therefore, the Director is
required to implement a comprehensive assessment and evaluation
program intended to identify best practices based on desired
outcomes as well as student and institutional characteristics.
This assessment and evaluation program must include project-
based assessment as well as program-wide evaluation.
Project-based assessment is intended to evaluate the
effectiveness of each project funded under this section and to
identify those activities that were most important to the
overall success of the awardee in meeting the projected
increases in the number and quality of graduates and in
achieving positive changes in institutional policies and
practices in support of those goals. The Committee believes
that project-based assessment should be fully planned and
implemented at the outset of the funding period so that
adequate baseline data can be collected and analyzed. It is
important for each awardee to report both positive and negative
findings related to the work supported under this section, as
negative results are as important to increasing understanding
of best practices as are positive ones. The Committee expects
awardees to utilize appropriate controls and standards in
performing the assessment.
While individual projects must report project-based
outcomes, the Committee also expects NSF to thoroughly evaluate
and compare the results of all projects supported under this
section to identify those elements of undergraduate education
reform that are most critical to increasing the number and
quality of science and engineering graduates. For that reason,
the Director is instructed to retain the services of an
independent evaluative organization to develop metrics for
measuring the impact of the Technology Talent program on
student enrollment and graduation rates, student performance as
measured by quantifiable means, and student placement following
graduation.
Because the independent evaluator will rely heavily on data
collected and reported by grantees, the Committee recognizes
that the evaluator must inform each awardee of the data that
must be collected prior to the awardee initiating the proposed
activities. Therefore, the Director is to contract with the
independent evaluator within 180 days of the enactment of this
section so that the evaluation metrics can be developed and
disseminated to all awardees in a timely manner.
The Committee believes that NSF can play an important role
in helping institutions of higher education engage in effective
reform activities simply by providing information about current
and prior reform efforts. The Committee expects that the
Director, inreports that summarize the evaluation of particular
programs, such as those specified in sections (4)(f)(2) and (4)(f)(3),
will include a comparison of enrollment and graduation trends at
institutions supported by the Technology Talent program as well as
those that are not.
The Director must establish an advisory committee that can
secure active participation by industry and state and local
governments in this program, and can recommend innovative
strategies to meet the goals and evaluate the impact of the
program. The Committee believes that a Committee of Visitors,
typically established by NSF for the purpose of program
direction and evaluation, would fulfill the requirement for the
Advisory Committee described in section (4)(g) so long as the
constitution and responsibilities of the Committee of Visitors
reflect that of the Advisory Committee described by this
paragraph.
Section 5--Institutional reform
The Committee is aware that a number of NSF-funded
undergraduate education reform programs have enabled
institutions of higher education to implement small-scale
efforts to improve individual courses and programs. However,
the Committee believes that to be truly effective, reform
efforts must encompass entire academic units and drive
significant cultural changes in education practice and
institutional policy. The Committee feels that additional
investment in those institutions that have demonstrated their
capacity for reform through small-scale efforts is an important
step towards implementing reforms that will have an impact on
greater numbers of undergraduate students.
This Act requires the Director to create a new program to
meet the goals of section 5, or to modify an existing program
to do so. Institutional reform grant funds may be used for
activities that expand successful reform efforts beyond a
single course or group of courses to achieve reform within an
entire academic unit or within another academic unit at the
awardee institution. The Committee strongly encourages the use
of Institutional Reform funds to create multidisciplinary
courses or programs that formalize collaborations among various
science, mathematics, engineering and technology departments or
between schools of science and engineering and schools of
education for the purpose of improving the education of future
K-12 teachers.
In awarding Institutional Reform grants, the Director must
consider the quality of the reform effort proposed, the
likelihood of success based on the results of past reform
efforts, and evidence that those engaged in the previous effort
will play a key role in the proposed effort. The Committee
strongly believes that an important element of institutional
reform is the commitment by the institution to implementing
hiring, promotion and tenure policies that reward faculty for
contributions to undergraduate education. The Committee intends
that this program help drive cultural changes at institutions
of higher education so that teaching and mentoring are valued
as important faculty scholarly activities. The Committee
believes that if faculty are to invest time and energy in
productive education reform activities, they must do so knowing
that they will receive professional advancement and reward for
their work.
Section 6--Faculty development
The Committee is concerned that most undergraduate science
and engineering faculty have received little or no training to
prepare them for their roles as undergraduate teachers and
mentors. Without training; faculty tend to teach as they were
taught, often using ineffective methods and perpetuating the
``survival of the fittest'' culling process for science and
engineering majors.
The Committee views sabbatical research opportunities as an
important way to enhance undergraduate faculty performance in
both research and teaching. In addition, to better prepare
future faculty for their role as undergraduate educators and
mentors, the Committee feels that it is very important to
provide opportunities for graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows to receive instructional training. Therefore, the
Faculty Development program established by this section
includes stipends to graduate students and post-doctoral
fellows for the purpose of participating in an undergraduate
education training opportunity.
The Committee realizes that some institutions of higher
education, professional societies and non-profit entities have
been successful in developing programs that engage a number of
faculty in professional development and undergraduate reform
activities, and this Act provides support for these programs.
The Committee encourages NSF to include adjunct faculty as
participants in these programs. Similarly, the Committee
encourages NSF to consider the unique needs of teaching
assistants and to encourage institutions of higher education to
provide instructional training to teaching assistants as part
of NSF-supported faculty development programs.
Section 7--Access to research grade instrumentation
Currently, NSF provides support for small instruments used
in undergraduate classroom laboratory settings (primarily
through the Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement
Program) and for faculty research (primarily through the
Research at Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and the Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI) program). However, NSF has no
program to fund the purchase of research-grade instruments for
the primary purpose of undergraduate instruction or
undergraduate research. NSF and the scientific community have
emphasized the positive impact that undergraduate research
appears to have on student performance as well as on student
persistence through degree completion and the decision to
pursue graduate education. Therefore, the Committee believes
that all institutions that educate undergraduate students--
including liberal arts institutions, comprehensive
undergraduate institutions, and community colleges--ought to
have access to sophisticated instruments to engage
undergraduate students in meaningful research experiences.
The focus of the program described in section 7 is to
provide instruments to those institutions that lack research
infrastructure, defined under this section as institutions of
higher education--including community colleges--that award
fewer than ten total doctoral degrees per year in the natural
and physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology
disciplines. The Committee also strongly encourages the
Director to use funds established under this Section to provide
supplemental funding tocommunity colleges funded under the
Advanced Technological Education Act of 1992 to support the purchase of
research-grade instruments.
The Committee believes that instruments purchased primarily
for the purpose of undergraduate instruction and research may
also be used for the purpose of faculty research as long as the
faculty research does not interfere with use of the instrument
by undergraduate students.
The Committee is concerned that NSF's Research at
Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program does not have a
definitive program budget; rather, funds to support a request
for instrumentation or research support made under an RUI
solicitation must come from the general research budget. The
Committee recognizes that research conducted at institutions
focused more on undergraduate education than on research is
often of high quality and importance and provides significant
benefits for the undergraduate students involved in the work.
However, because these institutions often lack access to high
quality research facilities, graduate students, and post-
doctoral fellows, their research output is typically lower than
that of more research-oriented institutions. As such,
undergraduate education-focused institutions typically face
significant obstacles when competing against research-intensive
institutions for limited instrumentation funding. The Committee
believes that RUI funds should be set aside from core research
funds and that awards made under the RUI program should be
tracked and assessed as if the RUI program were a distinct
program with designated funds.
Section 8--Undergraduate research experiences
The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program
at NSF provides opportunities that are often ``turning points''
in the lives of many future scientists and engineers. The REU
program is currently divided into two tracks: supplemental
awards to existing research grants that support one or two
students in a summer research experience, and site awards that
provide formal research opportunities for ten or more students
at a particular institution.
For REU site awards under section 8, the Committee charges
the Director with ensuring that at least half of the students
included in any given site come from institutions, that
including community colleges, where research is limited or non-
existent. The Committee intends that the term ``limited'' mean
institutions where a few but not all faculty are engaged in
research, where the research infrastructure is rudimentary,
where scholarly research activity is not a primary factor in
promotion and tenure decisions, or where faculty research does
not result in the publication of scholarly papers.
The Committee recognizes the importance of mentoring in
enriching a student's research activities, and believes it is
most appropriate to engage faculty from the REU student
participant's home institution to serve as a mentor during the
academic year, in order to facilitate stronger connections
between the students' home institution and the REU site. The
Committee also encourages the Director to give priority to
those proposals that engage faculty from a variety of
institutions in the activities of the REU site.
The Committee is concerned that the NSF does not have
mechanisms in place to fund large, multidisciplinary REU sites.
As a result, institutions may be managing REU awards in
different academic disciplines separately and opportunities for
students to engage in multidisciplinary research or to interact
with students in other discipline areas may be lost. The
Committee encourages the Director to establish funding
mechanisms for larger, multi-disciplinary REU Sites to
streamline the management of programs at awardee institutions
and to provide expanded opportunities to students. In addition,
given the ability to link geographically distant campuses and
facilities, the Committee encourages the Director to allow
`virtual' collaborative efforts to be included in the portfolio
of NSF-funded REU Sites. The Committee believes that virtual
collaboration can be especially productive for students engaged
in computer science-related research experiences. The Committee
encourages the Director to allow professional societies and
non-profit associations to act as facilitators of REU
collaborative programs that involved a number of campuses.
Professional societies can be instrumental in linking a number
of campuses and in providing national outreach to students to
inform them about REU opportunities.
Finally, in order to ensure that students in a wide variety
of disciplines have access to research experiences, this
section requires the Director to establish mechanisms to ensure
that the REU Site portfolio reflects the diversity of academic
disciplines supported by NSF funds. The Director is also
required to evaluate the REU program to determine its impact on
student persistence to degree completion and enrollment in
graduate level programs in science, mathematics and
engineering.
Section 9--Dissemination of project information
The Committee has found that it can be difficult to locate
specific information about NSF-funded projects, such as the
precise methodologies, activities, practices and materials
being developed and implemented by awardees. Even harder to
find can be information regarding positive and negative
outcomes of the funded work beyond a few published articles in
professional journals or from NSF-sponsored meetings for
principal investigators. The Committee views NSF-funded work as
being intrinsically valuable not only to the funded
investigator, but to the community at large. Therefore, this
Act requires the Director to ensure that all undergraduate
science, mathematics, engineering or technology education
projects disseminate complete information about the activities,
progress outcomes and assessment of their projects via the
Internet. The Committee expects that NSF will establish
program-based web sites that will provide links to appropriate
project-based or institutional web sites, and that information
about undergraduate activities funded by the Research and
Related Activities Directorates will also be included.
Section 10--Evaluation
The Committee believes that evaluation of the outcomes and
impact of undergraduate education activities is as important as
the development and implementation of the activities
themselves. However, evaluation and assessment have
historically received less attention and funding that other
sponsored activities. In many of the programs sponsored by
NSF's Education and Human ResourcesDirectorate, the primary
mechanism for review of projects is self-assessment, whereby the
principal investigator for a grant, or a consultant hired by that
investigator, conducts the assessment of a project's progress and
results.
Self-evaluation is an important part of the development and
implementation process as it keeps the investigator's work
aligned to the project goals and objectives and helps the
investigator meet those goals, time deadlines, and budgetary
constraints. On the other hand, self-evaluation or assessment
can be narrow and biased toward positive results, is often
times not a priority during the early development and
implementation stages of the work, and frequently is given too
little time and money. In addition, many superb educators and
scientists lack any training in evaluation and assessment
methodologies and may be poorly equipped to design and
implement a comprehensive assessment plan or to interpret
evaluative data.
Funds requested for evaluation are frequently reduced
during the NSF budget negotiation process and the size and
duration of typical awards make it impossible to conduct an
informative evaluation. A three-year grant rarely provides time
for the implemented work to be refined or for positive results
to be realized in improved student performance. As a result of
these difficulties, much of the current project evaluation and
assessment is heavily reliant on subjective measures such as
attitudinal surveys or on uninformative data such as numbers of
teacher or student participants. Assessment rarely includes
performance-based evaluation, largely because the short
duration of grants precludes the involvement of adequate
numbers of students necessary to make the assessment relevant
or valid.
For these reasons, the Committee believes that it is very
important for NSF to take a much more active role in project
and program evaluation and to help investigators plan and
execute valuable and informative assessments and evaluation.
The Committee recognizes the expertise of NSF's Research,
Evaluation, and Communication Division within the Education and
Human Resources Directorate and calls on the Division to assist
the Foundation in developing assessment benchmarks and tools
that will enable sponsored investigators to improve their
project-based assessment and evaluation activities and to
provide data that is valuable to the Foundation for the purpose
of comparative analysis and program evaluation. These
benchmarks and tools should enable the Foundation to evaluate
the effectiveness of all undergraduate education activities
supported by all NSF directorates in increasing student
enrollment and completion of science, mathematics, engineering
and technology courses (for non-majors) and programs (for
majors); student academic achievement; and placement in careers
or advanced education following degree completion. Particularly
promising projects should be subjected to extended evaluation,
through supplemental funding or an award to an independent
evaluative organization, to enable long-term evaluation of the
project's activities and impact.
The Committee does not expect NSF to develop assessment
instruments or tests that will be used to assess student
performance. Rather, NSF should enable project managers to
collect the data and implement the performance benchmarks and
tools that will allow a retrospective determination of ``what
works'' and provide a cumulative basis for best practices. The
purpose of such assessment and evaluation is to provide
feedback that will improve the system and inform others of
successful approaches, and to begin establishing causal
relationships between practices and outcomes. The Committee
expects the Director to make the results of such evaluations
public.
Section 11--National Academy of Sciences study on undergraduate
recruitment and retention
The Committee believes that while there is much speculation
about the reasons for declining enrollments in some areas of
science while graduation rates are soaring in others, these
justifications are largely speculative and lack grounding in
research, and it is time to look more carefully at successful
models to determine ``what works.'' Therefore, section 11
requires the Directors to enter into an arrangement with the
National Research Council to perform a study on the factors
that influence undergraduate students to enter, and persist to
degree completion in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology programs or to leave such programs and matriculate
to other academic programs, or to leave college altogether. The
Committee expects that student reported data regarding reasons
for declaring an interest in, for persisting to degree
completion, or for exiting a program in science, mathematics,
engineering and technology be utilized in generating the
report.
Section 12--Minority-serving institutions undergraduate program
The Committee recognizes that the size and quality of the
scientific and engineering workforce could be expanded
significantly if the largely untapped population of
underrepresented minority students were engaged in high-quality
science, mathematics, engineering or technology programs.
Population projections indicate that the number of white males
entering the higher education pipeline will decline after 2010
while the number of minority students and women will continue
to increase. The program established under section 12 is
specifically aimed at enhancing the quality of undergraduate
science, mathematics, and engineering education at minority-
serving institutions including Hispanic-Serving Institutions,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-
Serving Institutions, Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and
tribally controlled colleges and universities. The Committee
expects that grants awarded under this program will be used:
(1) to improve courses and curricular materials; (2) for
faculty development including faculty sabbatical and exchange
opportunities in research and technological advancement; (3)
for professional development workshops on effective teaching
practices and assessment; (4) to support visiting faculty
including researchers from industry; (5) to allow faculty
release time for the purpose of mentoring students or
participation in curriculum reform or academic enhancement
activities; and (6) for stipends for undergraduate students
participating in academic or industry research activities.
Section 13--Advanced technological education program
The Committee recognizes the important contributions
community colleges make toward training students in technical
fields, in providing associate's degree programs in science,
mathematics, engineering and technology, and in preparing
students for transfer to four-year collegeswhere they will earn
baccalaureate degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering. In
addition, many students who will become pre-K through 8th grade
teachers start their education at a community college. The nation's
1,600 two-year institutions educate nearly 5.5 million students and
award approximately 550,000 associates degrees annually, with only
approximately 30,000 of those degrees awarded in the science and
engineering areas. However, these statistics can be misleading, as many
community colleges provide strong science and engineering education to
students who transfer to four-year colleges and universities prior to
completing the associate's degree. The Committee is concerned that
little data exists on the role community colleges play in the
undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering and technology
enterprise, particularly with respect to community college students who
ultimately earn baccalaureate degrees in science, mathematics,
engineering or education. Therefore, the Committee encourages NSF to
collect more information on community colleges as part of the National
Survey of College Graduates.
NSF, in accordance with the Scientific and Advanced-
Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i(a)), established a
highly successful program, the ATE Program, that has
facilitated the training of thousands of highly skilled
technical workers through a variety of projects and 16 Centers
of Excellence and Large-Scale Dissemination Projects. Given the
success of the ATE program in increasing the number and quality
of technical workers, the Committee believes that this program
could make equal or greater contributions to the core science,
mathematics, engineering and technology courses offered to
students enrolled in associate's degree or transfer programs in
these areas. Therefore, the Committee amended the 1992 Act to
authorize activities for the improvement of core education
courses in science and mathematics, including courses in
engineering science and computer technology, which are required
for students transferring to a four-year institution to pursue
baccalaureate degrees. In addition, the Committee has
explicitly authorized appropriations for instrumentation under
the ATE program to encourage NSF to increase the allocation of
resources allowed for the acquisition of state-of-the-art
instrumentation through grants awarded under the ATE Program as
an important contributor to improving science and technology
courses. The Committee understands that these courses serve a
wide variety of students including science, mathematics and
engineering majors, non-majors, and teacher education majors.
By improving the science and mathematics course work available
to students at community colleges, the Committee feels that
students who attend community colleges will have a higher
degree of scientific and mathematics literacy, and will pursue
and be successful in science, mathematics and engineering
majors.
The Committee strongly favors the creation and
strengthening of bridge programs that facilitate the transition
of students from community college to four-year institutions,
as supported by the Articulation Partnerships authorized by the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992. Testimony from
the Committee's March 7, 2002 hearing showed that including
community college students in undergraduate research
experiences at four-year institutions has an enormous impact on
both the likelihood that the community college student would
ultimately transfer to a four-year institution to earn a degree
in science, and on the likelihood that the student would pursue
higher education in science following completion of the
baccalaureate degree. For this reason, the Articulation
Partnerships section of the 1992 Act is amended to authorize
support for students participating in research experiences at
undergraduate institutions and support for faculty mentors
involved in those research activities.
To ensure that the ATE Program is meeting the goals and
objectives of the 1992 Act, the Committee instructs the
Director to establish an advisory committee on science,
mathematics, and technology education at community colleges
composed of academic and industry representatives. The advisory
committee may be constituted as a new committee or may be an
extension of the Committee of Visitors already established for
the ATE program as long as the membership and scope of work of
the Committee of Visitors is consistent with section 13(c) of
the bill. The role of the advisory committee is to review and
assess the activities carried out under the ATE program
including conformity of the program to the 1992 Act, the
effectiveness of activities supported under the program in
strengthening the science, mathematics and technical training
capabilities of community colleges, the effectiveness of NSF
and institutions supported under the program in disseminating
information about activities carried out under the program, and
the balance of resources allocated between national centers of
excellence, individual projects, and articulation partnerships.
IX. Cost Estimate
A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
H.R. 3130 does not contain new budget authority, credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
3130 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 4, 2002.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3130, the
Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology
Education Improvement Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen
Gramp.
Sincerely,
Steven Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3130--Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology Education Improvement Act of 2002
Summary: H.R. 3130 would authorize various initiatives at
the National Science Foundation (NSF) related to undergraduate
education in science, math, engineering, and technology. The
bill would authorize grants to academic institutions and
nonprofit entities for programs that would increase the number
of undergraduates pursuing scientific degrees, expand research
opportunities for undergraduate students, develop faculty,
implement certain institutional reforms, and improve access to
research instrumentation at certain universities. In addition,
H.R. 3130 would direct NSF to establish a special grant program
for institutions that serve minority students, including
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), and tribally controlled colleges and
universities. Finally, NSF would be required to fund a study by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on students'
perspectives on why they would or would not pursue an
undergraduate degree in these fields.
Assuming appropriations of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing this bill would cost a total of
$500 million over the 2003-2007 period. The bill would not
affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply.
H.R. 3130 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. The bill would benefit public universities and
community colleges by authorizing grant programs to increase
the number of U.S. students obtaining degrees in nonmedical
science and technology. Any costs incurred by public
investments and community colleges would be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3130 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 250
(general science, space, and technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level............................. 0 145 147 149 151 154
Estimated Outlays......................................... 0 17 81 123 136 142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
necessary amounts would be appropriated near the beginning of
each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the pattern of
existing education programs at NSF. Unless otherwise specified
in the bill, CBO assumes that funding levels would be adjusted
annually for inflation.
H.R. 3130 would specify funding levels for some--but not
all--of NSF's educational activities. The bill would direct NSF
to establish at least 10 ``talent expansion'' centers that
would focus on increasing the number of undergraduates in
scientific fields and would authorize $25 million for 2003 and
such sums as may be necessary thereafter for the centers. It
also would authorize about $53 million for fiscal years 2003
through 2007 for grants for certain reforms at educational
institutions, faculty development, instrumentation,
undergraduate research opportunities, and certain existing
programs focused on improving the quality of undergraduate
education.
In addition, CBO estimates that H.R. 3130 would authorize
an average of $70 million a year for grants to institutions
serving minority students. NSF expects to spend a total of $27
million in 2002 for grants to HBCUs and tribally controlled
colleges and universities, which includes institutions serving
Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. CBO estimates that
expanding this program to include Hispanic-Serving Institutions
would cost another $40 million in 2003 if the level of support
is similar to that provided to the other institutions. Finally,
the estimated funding for 2003 includes $700,000 authorized by
the bill for a NAS study.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 3130 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. The bill would benefit public universities as well
as community colleges by authorizing grant programs to increase
the number of U.S. students obtaining degrees in nonmedical
science and technology. Any costs incurred by public
universities and community colleges would be voluntary.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Government: Elyse Goldman; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Patrice Gordon.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 3130 contains no unfunded mandates.
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
The Committee on Science's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of
H.R. 3130 are to improve undergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering and technology education for all students and to
increase the number of graduates of programs in those areas.
The Committee requires that all of the programs authorized
under the Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
Technology Education Improvement Act be awarded on a
competitive, merit-review process. This process is expected to
ensure that only those projects that hold the most promise for
increasing the number and quality of graduates of science,
mathematics, engineering or technology programs and for
increasing the quality of undergraduate science, mathematics,
engineering and technology education will receive funding.
While increasing the number of science and engineering
graduates is the primary goal of this Act, it is imperative
that the rigor of the undergraduate program and quality of
graduates not be compromised simply in the interest of
increased numbers. Rather, all efforts to increase student
enrollment should be supported with parallel efforts to improve
the quality of each student's undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering and technology experience.
The decades-long engagement in undergraduate education
reform has highlighted the need to engage undergraduate
students in productive interactions with faculty through
research experiences and mentoring programs, yet the mechanisms
by which these activities are most effectively introduced
remain largely unclear. The precise factors that lead to a
student's decision to pursue or persist in a science or
engineering degree program, or to transfer out of such a
program are also not well understood. For those reasons, this
Act requires that all of NSF-funded undergraduate science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education projects and
programs be subjected to rigorous assessment and evaluation
such that a national clearinghouse of best practices for
increasing student enrollment, persistence and achievement
evolves.
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 3130.
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
The functions of the advisory committee established by H.R.
3130 are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another
existing advisory committee.
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act
The Committee finds that H.R. 3130 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or
tribal law.
XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 3 OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1992
SEC. 3. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
(a) National Advanced Scientific and Technical Education
Program.--The Director of the National Science Foundation
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Director'') shall
award grants to associate-degree-granting colleges, and
consortia thereof, to assist them in providing education in
advanced-technology fields, and to improve the quality of their
core education courses in science and mathematics. The grant
program shall place emphasis on the needs of students who have
been in the workforce (including work in the home), and shall
be designed to strengthen and expand the scientific and
technical education and training capabilities of associate-
degree-granting colleges through such methods as--
(1) the development of model instructional programs
in advanced-technology fields and in core science and
mathematics courses;
(2) the professional development of faculty and
instructors, both full- and part-time, [in advanced-
technology fields] who provide instruction in science,
mathematics, and advanced-technology fields;
* * * * * * *
(c) Articulation Partnerships.--
(1) Partnership grants.--(A) * * *
(B) Each eligible partnership receiving a grant under
this paragraph shall, at a minimum--
(i) counsel students, including students who
have been in the workforce (including work in
the home), about the requirements and course
offerings of the bachelor-degree-granting
institution; [and]
(ii) conduct workshops and orientation
sessions to ensure that students are familiar
with programs, including laboratories and
financial aid programs, at the bachelor-degree-
granting institution[.];
(iii) provide students with research
experiences at bachelor-degree-granting
institutions participating in the partnership,
including stipend support for students
participating in summer programs; and
(iv) provide faculty mentors for students
participating in activities under clause (iii),
including summer salary support for faculty
mentors.
* * * * * * *
XIX. Committee Recommendations
On May 22, 2002, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Science favorably reported the Undergraduate Science,
Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education Improvement
Act, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment.
XX. Exchange of Committee Correspondence
Committee on Science,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2002.
Hon. John Boehner,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehner: Thank you for your letter of June 5,
2002, regarding H.R. 3130, the ``Technology Talent Act of
2001,'' which was referred to the Committee on Science and in
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and
ordered favorably by this Committee on May 22, 2002. I
appreciate your willingness to refrain from holding a hearing
or markup on H.R. 3130 in order to have this legislation
considered expeditiously by the House.
I agree that waiver of consideration by your Committee does
not prejudice the Education and the Workforce Committee's
jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this or any similar
legislation and it will not be considered as precedent for
consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to your
Committee in the future. I will support your request to the
Speaker for the appointment of conferees from your Committee
with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of your
Committee should a conference with the Senate be convened on
this or similar legislation.
I will include our exchange of letters in the Science
Committee's report to accompany H.R. 3130. Thank you for your
cooperation on this issue.
Sincerely,
Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman.
------
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2002.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehlert: Thank you for working with me
regarding H.R. 3130, the ``Technology Talent Act of 2001'',
which was referred to the Committee on Science and in addition
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and ordered
favorably reported by your Committee on May 22, 2002. I
understand your desire to have this legislation considered
expeditiously by the House; hence, I do not intend to hold a
hearing or markup on this legislation.
In agreeing to waive consideration by our Committee, I
would expect you to agree that this procedural route should not
be construed to prejudice the Committee on Education and the
Workforce's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this or
any similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent
for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my
Committee in the future. I would also expect your support in my
request to the Speaker for the appointment of conferees from my
Committee with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of my
Committee should a conference with the Senate be convened on
this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your including our exchange of letters
in your Committee's report to accompany H.R. 3130, which I
understand you intend to file this week. Again, I thank you for
working with me in developing this legislation and I look
forward to working with you on these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
John Boehner,
Chairman.