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.
