President Bush's decision to make education reform a top priority and
Congress's need to reauthorize the Department of Education's elementary
and secondary education programs raised the visibility of education
last year, and the topic seems destined to remain in the spotlight this
year. While the Department's elementary and secondary programs have
now been reauthorized in H.R. 1, the "No Child Left Behind Act,"
the process of implementing that legislation has just begun, and FY
2003 funding for those programs must be determined. Additionally, the
House Science Committee plans to work on a reauthorization of the National
Science Foundation, which also houses a number of programs designed
to improve science and math education.
As reported in earlier FYIs, H.R. 1 eliminated the Department's
Eisenhower Professional Development program, which had an annual set-aside
of $250 million in recent years for science and math teaching. Instead,
it established a program of Math and Science Partnerships between universities
science and math departments, states, and school districts, funded at
$12.5 million, as the only program in the Department dedicated specifically
to improve math and science instruction. For FY 2003, the President's
request for this Education Department Partnership program is again $12.5
million, which is far from sufficient to reach all states and have the
intended nationwide impact on math and science instruction. AIP has
joined with 20 other societies, including APS, AGU, AAPT and AAS, to
endorse a statement
calling on Labor-HHS-Education appropriators to fund these Math and
Science Partnerships in FY 2003 at $450 million, the level authorized
for the program in H.R. 1.
A Math and Science Partnership program was also funded last year within
NSF. This program, which will award competitive, peer- reviewed grants,
received $160 million in FY 2002, and $200 million has been requested
for FY 2003. (For FY 2002 at least, because of its minimal funding,
the Education Department's Partnership program will be run as a subset
of the NSF Partnership program.) The House Science Committee and its
Subcommittee on Research have already held several hearings on science
and math education issues, and several science education bills from
last year await further action. H.R. 1858, the National Mathematics
and Science Partnerships Act, would authorize, within NSF, not only
the already-begun Partnership program but also scholarships to encourage
more people to go into math or science teaching, stipends to provide
teachers with research experience, centers for education research, and
expanded funding for the National Digital Library; this bill was passed
by the House last year. H.R. 100 would authorize an NSF grant program
for universities to train master teachers for K-9 science and math,
and was passed by the Science Committee last year. Companion legislation
for both bills is pending in the Senate. If the Science Committee produces
an NSF reauthorization bill, it is possible that these separate education
bills could be incorporated as provisions of that larger bill. It is
not apparent whether there is interest in the Senate for passing these
education bills or a full NSF reauthorization.
At a March 20 House Science Committee hearing spotlighting the 2001
Presidential Math and Science Teaching Awardees, teachers had an opportunity
to comment on what the federal government can do to help improve K-12
science and math education. Almost unanimously, over a dozen educators
emphasized federal support for mentoring and professional development
programs. Without assistance for the first three to five years, and
ongoing training in the latest teaching methods and curricula, they
said, teachers often end up teaching as they were taught, and history
has shown that this has failed the majority of students in math and
science.
Teacher after teacher reiterated that they, now receiving recognition
as the nation's best educators, had achieved that level of success through
the professional development opportunities made available by Education
Department and NSF funding. The message was that good teachers are made,
not born. "Professional development is unanimously one of the most
powerful things we can do to [help] teachers touch children's lives,"
testified one teacher. "We are your successes," said another;
professional development opportunities and partnerships with universities
"made me what I am today." A third declared, "staff development
is absolutely, hands-down, 110 percent, the most important thing that
should be looked at" for federal funding. Several pointed out that,
although federal funds have supported development of new and better
curricular materials and teaching methods, a great many teachers, especially
those in rural areas and those who have not specialized in science and
math teaching, are not aware of those resources or are hesitant to try
them. Many decried the loss of the Eisenhower funding and wished to
see the program reestablished.
Another common theme was concern over the current emphasis on annual
standardized tests. While well-crafted continuing assessment linked
to the curriculum can provide effective feedback on teaching, one witness
said, standardized testing often reflects student socio-economic factors
instead. "Testing doesn't show the whole story;" another stated;
it must be "put in perspective." Research Subcommittee Chairman
Nick Smith (R-MI), whose subcommittee will draft the NSF reauthorization,
noted that he was carefully recording the witnesses' comments.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl