Conferees on the FY 2002 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill
(H.R. 3061) provided substantially less targeted funding than last year
for enhancing science and math education, as was reported in previous
FYIs. In the conference report, however, conferees encouraged states to
continue their current level of effort to improve science and math
instruction by making use of funds available for improving overall
teacher quality. When the conference report came before the House floor
for a vote on December 19, Representatives Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) and Rush
Holt (D-NJ) - the two physicists in Congress - sought clarification from
House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ralph
Regula (R-OH) that science and math instruction was an important
priority of the conferees. Selected portions of the floor discussion are
quoted below:
HOLT: "Mr. Speaker, someone who casually observes
the education part of this bill might think we will be spending less
on math and science teacher programs this year than last, and as the
United States falls increasingly behind the rest of the world in math
and science performance, we need to pay attention to this area. The
conference report states, 'The conferees believe that providing
high-quality math and science instruction is of critical importance to
our Nation's future competitiveness, and agree that math and science
professional development opportunities should be expanded.' It is my
understanding from this that it is the intention of the committee that
no less money than last year be spent on teacher training for math and
science; is this correct?"
REGULA: "Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I would
assure the gentleman...we consider math and science teacher training
to be an important part of preparing our students for the future. I
assure my colleague that the conferees have provided adequate funding
to allow the same or even increased effort in science and math teacher
training. The conferees intend that, at a minimum, the current level
of effort in science and math development be
maintained."
Rep. Ehlers then continued the discussion with Chairman
Regula:
EHLERS: "Over the past few months, much attention
has been placed on the poor state of our Nation's K-12 math and
science education. International tests place our students in the
bottom third of industrialized nations in their performance in
science, and dead last among those nations in high school
physics.
"The 2000 NAEP [National Assessment of Education Progress]
results recently announced found no improvement in science literacy in
the 4th and 8th grades, and a decline in science performance in grade
12 since 1996. This is simply unacceptable. Our country desperately
needs more people trained in math and science. Over the past few
years, I have advocated improving our Nation's science education
programs and increasing the Federal funding for professional
development for our Nation's math and science teachers.
"Mr. Speaker, this bill consolidates funding for the
Eisenhower program, which was the primary professional development
program for math and science teachers, into the Title II Teacher
Quality Grant program, which will receive an appropriation of $2.85
billion. The conference report states that as much as $375 million was
actually expended on math and science in fiscal year 2001, and that
the conferees therefore strongly urge the Secretary [of Education] and
the States to continue to fund math and science activities within the
Teacher Quality Grant program at a comparable level in fiscal year
2002. ...[I]t is my understanding that the intention of the conferees
is that no less than $375 million be expended on math and science
professional development in fiscal year 2001; is that
correct?"
Regula responded as follows:
REGULA: "Mr. Speaker, the answer is the gentleman is
substantially correct. The report language does state that States
should spend a comparable level on math and science professional
development as was spent in fiscal year 2001. The conferees consider
math and science education vitally important to our Nation's future
competitiveness and believe that such spending should be enhanced in
the future."
EHLERS: "Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, the bill
allocates only $12.5 million for the newly created Math and Science
Partnership program. The conference report states that the conferees
strongly urge the Secretary and States to utilize funding provided by
the Teacher Quality Grant program, as well as other programs provided
by the Federal Government, to strengthen math and science education
programs across the Nation.... [I]t is my understanding that the
intention of the [conference] committee is to strongly encourage
States to use funding under the Teacher Quality Grant program to fund
the Math and Science Partnerships; am I correct?"
REGULA: "Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan is
substantially correct. The conference report strongly encourages
States to utilize the $2.85 billion allocated to Title II [Teacher
Quality] dollars toward math and science
activities."
* * * * *
One additional factor may affect how much money the states put toward
improving science and math education. The recently-passed Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), an authorization bill which consolidated
and reformed many Education Department programs, contains flexibility
provisions that allow states and school districts to use up to half of
certain categories of federal education funds (exempting Title I funds
for low-income students) for any ESEA-authorized purposes they wish.
This could mean that, once a state receives its portion of the $2.85
billion in Teacher Quality funding, it may be able to use half of that
portion for education-related activities other than improving the
quality of teaching and instruction. Some states and school districts
will participate in demonstration projects that allow them even greater
flexibility in using Education Department money.
Audrey T. Leath
Media and Government Relations
Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301)
209-3094