Science Committee Reviews Ehlers’ Science Education Bills

Support, praise, and bipartisanship marked a pair of recent House Science Committee hearings reviewing two of the bills introduced by Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) to improve the nation’s K-12 science, math, engineering and technology (SMET) education. The positive atmosphere was barely even diminished for long when Science Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) berated the witness from NSF for not submitting her testimony in time for the May 17 hearing, and refused to let her testify. “It is insulting to the committee,” Sensenbrenner told the witness. “You get an ‘F’ for today.”

Ehlers’ bills (H.R. 4271, 4272, and 4273) would, respectively, authorize enhancements to science and math education efforts within NSF and the Department of Education, and expand tax provisions to encourage activities benefitting SMET education. Ehlers, a former physicist and physics educator, has admitted that his bills only represent a first, politically achievable step in a longer campaign. He is still seeking feedback on the measures, which so far have gained bipartisan support and over 50 cosponsors each.

Although the Science Committee reviewed H.R. 4271 and H.R. 4272 in hearings on May 17 and June 20, it only has jurisdiction over the former bill, which authorizes programs within NSF’s Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate. The second measure, which addresses Department of Education programs, has been referred to the Education and the Workforce Committee. However, after a bruising and inconclusive battle over a larger bill to reauthorize the Education Department in the Senate, and the potential for the same in the House, many think it unlikely that the Education Committee will take up Ehlers’ H.R. 4272 this year.

The witnesses at the May 17 hearing, educators and an industry representative, supported the bill targeting NSF. They particularly applauded the provision authorizing NSF grants for Master Teachers to provide support and assistance to K-8 teachers, and urged the initiative be expanded through 12th grade. John Boidock of Texas Instruments lauded the bill’s attempts to encourage private-sector involvement in the SMET education effort and cited a provision, originally authored by Democratic committee member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), which directs industry support and resources to the neediest schools. A substantial portion of the discussion revolved around industry’s need for a trained workforce, and current calls for more H-1B visas to supply the demand for high-tech workers. “Without a doubt,” Boidock stated, “education is the long-term solution to ensuring that U.S. high tech companies have access to qualified workers.”

The statement of Judith Sunley, NSF Acting Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources, was not included in the hearing record. Based on an unofficial copy, the testimony states that NSF already has strong programs that adhere to “both the spirit underlying the bill and the types of actions suggested,” and warns against specific legislative mandates that limit the agency’s flexibility.

At the June 20 hearing, witnesses were again supportive, this time of the legislation affecting Department of Education programs. Len Simutis, Director of the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (ENC), said “we welcome the opportunity H.R. 4272 would provide to increase the products and services that ENC will be able to provide to educators” by evaluating, and maintaining a searchable database of, educational programs, curricula and materials.

One of the provisions gaining the most support, but also provoking the most discussion, authorizes the Education Department to support summer institutes for teacher professional development. Both Diane Bunce of the Catholic University of America and Audrey Champagne of the State University of New York at Albany cautioned that such an initiative must be linked to in- service workshops during the school year that reach all teachers. Bunce noted that, because of family responsibilities or discomfort with their abilities, many teachers would choose not to attend summer institute programs. The importance of follow-up sessions after the summer program was also emphasized.

Bounce and Champagne concurred with the idea of making mentors available to novice teachers, but there was some confusion between this provision and one in the NSF-targeted bill on Master Teachers. Bunce called for the two programs to be coordinated.

Another major discussion topic common to both hearings was the importance of teacher training in education technologies. Several witnesses pointed out that faculty members involved in preparing future teachers often share the same phobias about technology and do not use it effectively, and therefore do not make good role models.

Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI), Chair of the Science Committee’s Basic Research Subcommittee, commented that he has proposed a draft NSF reauthorization bill (H.R. 4500) which contains a set-aside, within NSF’s EHR budget, of $25 million specifically for educational research, including research into SMET learning. (His bill would authorize $726.7 million for the FY 2001 EHR budget, 4.4 percent less than requested and 0.4 percent over current funding.) Smith’s bill may soon be taken up by the full committee, and it is possible that some or all of Ehlers’ provisions relating to NSF might be incorporated into it. It is of note that Ehlers’ bills do not specify whether the programs they authorize are to be funded through new money or money taken from the programs already existing.

The next likely step to watch will be the Science Committee’s mark-up of the NSF reauthorization bill.