Federal Involvement Seen as Crucial to Science Education Reform
As a number of FYIs over the past year have indicated, diverse reform efforts in K-12 science and math education are occurring on a number of fronts, both within and outside the federal government. An October 29 House Science Committee hearing reviewed the federal role in improving science education and asked the question: is the federal government coordinating its many programs for maximum effectiveness? Committee Vice Chair Vern Ehlers (R-MI), who has run this series of hearings, recalled that prior witnesses (see FYI #125 ) blamed the lack of a national consensus for the current fragmented, “mile-wide and inch-deep” science and math curricula that students face. He saw a federal role in encouraging such a consensus nationwide.
Clifford Gabriel of OSTP described the federal role as “catalytic,” and listed some federal efforts at coordination across various agencies. The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has formed a Panel on Education, and the Cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which is undergoing reorganization, will probably set up a Working Group on Science Education for interagency sharing of information and resources. But, he added, “we need to do a better job in coordination.”
The Chair of the PCAST Panel on Education Technologies, David Shaw, noted that one of the panel’s recommendations (see FYI #107 ) called for a major program of research on the effectiveness of educational reform attempts, leading to large-scale “clinical trials” of the sort only the federal government could finance. Current federal funding for education research is not sufficient, he said. The panel’s report calls for it to be ramped up to approximately $1.5 billion per year. Gordon Ambach, Executive Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, said because science and math education is a national priority, a special case exists for federal involvement in this area. He named four key activities where, he said, no state or locality could provide the resources necessary: research and assessment; curriculum development; teacher recruiting and development; and use of educational technologies. All four areas, he claimed, are currently underfunded.
James Rutherford of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (also a member of the American Association of Physics Teachers and The American Physical Society), argued that, contrary to what is often claimed, a strong consensus - developed “pretty much free of government support” - does exist among scientists and science educators on what should be taught at each grade. The problem is getting the word out to teachers, administrators, and school boards across the country, he said, and doing so requires activity at a national level. He agreed that one “overwhelmingly predominant” role for the federal government is performing educational research: “There is no other source that can generate the resources we need in the long run to improve education.”
Questioned about the current dispute in Congress over President Clinton’s proposed national tests for reading (4th grade) and math (8th grade) in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, Ambach said in his opinion the conflict was not about testing on a national basis, which has been done by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (see FYI #128 ) for over 30 years, but about a change from testing a sample of students to testing on an individual basis. However, he asserted that policymakers would not have measures of student achievement and educational quality unless national and international assessments were performed. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) expressed concern that students would only be taught what was needed for the test. Ambach, echoing a sentiment repeated numerous times during the hearing, stressed the importance of developing assessments that accurately match the standards for what students are expected to know. Inquiring about another matter related to the Labor-HHS bill, Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) asked whether the Eisenhower Grants for teacher professional development should be included in educational block grants to the states. Ambach objected strongly, saying that in order to make progress in specific areas of math and science education such as development of standards, research, and professional development, funds must be specifically targeted and the activities must be carried out at a nationwide level.
According to recent reports on the Labor-HHS bill, House and Senate conferees decided on October 29 against including the Eisenhower Grants and many other Department of Education programs in a block grant. Conferees also agreed to allow the Administration to continue with its plan for voluntary national tests in reading and math, if the tests are developed by an independent entity like the National Assessment Governing Board. However, under the contemplated legislation, the tests could not be implemented until approved by Congress. This condition might prompt a presidential veto.
