Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering · ing careers during elementary and secondary edu-cation, and the early stages of higher education. While examining

Elementary and Secondary Education forScience and Engineering

December 1988

NTIS order #PB89-139182

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Elementary and Secondary Educationfor Science and Engineering-A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-SET-41 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600594

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this technical memorandum)

Foreword

Choice, chance, opportunity, and environment are all factors that determine whetheror not a child will grow up to be a scientist or engineer. Though comprising only 4percent of our work force, scientists and engineers are critical to our Nation’s continuedstrength and vitality. As a Nation, we are concerned about maintaining an adequatesupply of people with the ability to enter these fields, and the desire to do so.

In response to a request from the House Committee on Science and Technology,this technical memorandum analyzes recruitment into and retention in the science andengineering pipeline. Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineer-ing supplements and extends OTA’s June 1988 report, Educating Scientists and Engi-neers: Grade School to Grad School.

Students make many choices over a long period, and choose a career through acomplicated process. This process includes formal instruction in mathematics and sci-ence, and the opportunity for informal education in museums, science centers, and recrea-tional programs. The influence of family, teachers, peers, and the electronic media canmake an enormous difference. This memorandum analyzes these influences. Becauseeducation is “all one system, ” policymakers interested in nurturing scientists and engi-neers must address the educational environment as a totality; changing only one partof the system will not yield the desired result.

The Federal Government plays a key role in sustaining educational excellence inelementary and secondary education, providing effective research, and encouraging

change. This memorandum identifies pressure points in the system and strengthens theanalytical basis for policy.

D i r e c t o r

Ill

Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and EngineeringAdvisory Panel

Neal Lane, ChairmanProvost, Rice University, Houston, TX

Amy BuhrigSpecialist EngineerArtificial IntelligenceBoeing Aerospace Corp.Seattle, WA

David GoodmanDeputy DirectorNew Jersey Commission on Science

and TechnologyTrenton, NJ

Irma JarchoChairmanScience DepartmentThe New Lincoln SchoolNew York, NY

Hugh LowethConsultantAnnandale, VA

James Powelll

PresidentFranklin and Marshall CollegeLancaster, PA

Rustum RoyEvan Pugh Professor of the Solid StateMaterials Research LaboratoryPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA

Bernard SagikVice President for Academic Affairs’Drexel UniversityPhiladelphia, PA

I Currently President, Reed College.‘Currently Professor of Bioscience and Biotechnology.

William SnyderDean, College of EngineeringUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, TN

Peter SyversonDirector of Information ServicesCouncil of Graduate Schools in the

United StatesWashington, DC

Elizabeth TidballProfessor of PhysiologySchool of MedicineThe George Washington UniversityWashington, DC

Melvin WebbBiology DepartmentClark/Atlanta UniversityAtlanta, GA

F. Karl WillenbrockExecutive DirectorAmerican Society for Engineering EducationWashington, DC

Hilliard WilliamsDirector of Central ResearchMonsanto CompanySt. Louis, MO

Dorothy ZinbergCenter for Science and International AffairsHarvard UniversityCambridge, MA

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panelmembers. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this technical memorandum.

OTA assumes full responsibility for the technical report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and EngineeringOTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy CarsonScience, Education, and Transportation Program

Daryl E. Chubin, Project Director

Richard Davies, Analyst

Lisa Heinz, Analyst

Marsha Fenn, Technical Editor

Madeline Gross, Secretary

Robert Garfinkle, Research Analyst

Manager

Other Contributors

The following individuals participated in workshops and briefings, and as reviewers ofmaterials produced for this technical memorandum. OTA thanks them for their contributions.

Patricia AlexanderU.S. Department of Education

Rolf BlankCouncil of Chief State School

Officers

Joanne CapperCenter for Research Into Practice

Dennis CarrollU.S. Department of Education

Ruth CosseyEQUALS ProgramUniversity of California, Berkeley

William K. CummingsHarvard University

Linda DeTureNational Association of Research

in Science Teaching

Marion EpsteinEducational Testing Service

Alan FechterNational Research Council

Michael FeuerOffice of Technology Assessment

Kathleen FultonOffice of Technology Assessment

James GallagherMichigan State University

Samuel GibbonBank Street College of Education

Dorothy GilfordNational Research Council

Reviewers

Richard BerryConsultant

Audrey ChampagneAmerican Association for the

Advancement of Science

Edward GlassmanU.S. Department of Education

Kenneth C. GreenUniversity of California,

Los Angeles

Michael HaneyMontgomery Blair Magnet School

Thomas HiltonEducational Testing Service

Lisa HudsonThe Rand Corp.

Paul DeHart HurdStanford University

Ann KahnNational Parent Teacher

Association

Daphne KaplanU.S. Department of Education

Susan Coady KemnitzerTask Force on Women, Minorities,

and the Handicapped in Scienceand Technology

Dan KunzJunior Engineering Technical

Society

Cheryl MasonSan Diego State University

Barbara Scott NelsonThe Ford Foundation

Gail NuckolsArlington County School Board

Louise RaphaelNational Science Foundation

Shirley MalcomAmerican Association for the


Willie Pearson, Jr.Office of Technology Assessment

Mary Budd RoweUniversity of Florida

James RutherfordAmerican Association for the


Vernon SavageTowson State University

Anne ScanleyNational Academy of Sciences

Allen SchmiederU.S. Department of Education

Susan SnyderNational Science Foundation

Julian StanleyThe Johns Hopkins University

H a r r i e t T y s o n - B e r n s t e i nConsultant

Bonnie VanDornAssociation of Science-Technology

Centers

Betty VetterCommission on Professionals in

Science and Technology

Leonard WaksPennsylvania State University

Iris R. WeissHorizon Research, Inc.

John W. WiersmaHuston-Tillotson College

Linda RobertsOffice of Technology Assessment

George TresselNational Science Foundation

vi

ContentsPage

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapterl .

Chapter2.

Chapter3.

Chapter4.

Chapter5.

Chapter6.

Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Formal Mathematics and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Teachers and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Thinking About Learning Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Learning Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Improving School Mathematics and Science Education. .,... . ......109

Appendix A. Major Nationally Representative Databaseson K-12 Mathematics and Science Education and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

Appendix B. Mathematics and Science Education inJapan , Great Br i ta in , and the Sovie t Union . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Appendix C. OTA Survey of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................144

Appendix D. Contractor Reports ......,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....146

vii

Preface

This technical memorandum augments OTA’sreport, Educating Scientists and Engineers: GradeSchool to Grad School, ’ focusing on the factorsthat prompt students to plan science and engineer-ing careers during elementary and secondary edu-cation, and the early stages of higher education.While examining the problems and opportunitiesfor students, OTA offers no comprehensive as-sessment of the system of American public edu-cation. Rather, it takes this system as the contextfor understanding, and proposes changes in pre-professional education.

Most educators and parents regard science andmathematics as basic skills for every high schoolgraduate. By upgrading mathematics and scienceliteracy—making more graduates proficient inthese subjects—most believe that the pool of po-tential scientists and engineers would be larger andmore diverse. At the same time, broader appli-cation of basic skills in mathematics and sciencewould benefit the entire U.S. work force. Perhapsthen concern for the future supply of scientists andengineers, as one professional category of work-ers among many, would recede as an urgent na-tional issue.

As this is not the case, the problem of educat-ing scientists and engineers is unabating; the scru-tiny of schools, teaching standards, and studentoutcomes is intensifying; and calls for improvedFederal action grow louder, As Paul Gray, Presi-dent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy said: “Americans must come to understandthat engineering and science are not esoteric questsby an elite few, but are, instead, humanistic ad-ventures inspired by native human curiosity aboutthe world and desire to make it better. ”2

OTA takes a long view of the science and engi-neering pipeline and does not dwell solely on thosewhose scientific talents are manifested at earlyages. The science and engineering pipeline includesall students during elementary and much of sec-

IU. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, EducatingScientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad Schoof, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: June 1988).

2Paul E. Gray, “America’s Ignorance of Science and TechnologyPoses a Threat to the Democratic Process Itself, ” The Chronicie ofHigher Education, May 18, 1988, p. B-2.

ondary schooling. But as students move towardundergraduate and graduate school, smaller pro-portions form the talent pool. Students makechoices over long periods and are influenced bymany factors; this complicates analysis and makesit difficult to ascertain specific influences or theirdegree of impact on careers.

Although most students’ career intentions areill-formed, some decide to pursue science andengineering early in life and stick with that deci-sion. This “hard-core group” is joined by manycompanions later on. Chapter 1, Shaping the Sci-ence and Engineering Talent Pool, concerns boththe hard core and those whose plans are moremalleable. As this latter group is uncertain aboutwhat major to choose, it may be more suscepti-ble to parents’ wishes, financial incentives, andthe attractiveness of science and engineeringcareers. Whether students respond to a profes-sional “calling” or hear the call of the marketplace,they are lured to some careers and away fromothers—and schools are agents of this allure.

For many children, the content of mathematicsand science classes and the way these subjects aretaught critically affect their interest and later par-ticipation in science and engineering. Chapter 2,Formal Mathematics and Science Education, re-views concern over the pace and sequence of theAmerican mathematics and science curriculum,the alleged dullness of many science textbooks,and the extent to which greater use of educationaltechnology, such as computers, could improve theteaching of mathematics and science.

This responsibility falls primarily on the teach-ing profession, together with school districts andteacher education institutions. Chapter 3 ,Teachers and Teaching, discusses predicted short-ages of mathematics and science teachers, andconcern about the poor quality of teacher train-ing and inservice programs in all subjects, Thequality of teaching, in the long run, depends onthe effectiveness of teachers, the adequacy of theirnumbers, and the extent to which they are sup-ported by principals, curriculum specialists, tech-nology and materials, and the wider community.Teachers of mathematics and science need to beeducated to high professional standards and, like

1

. . . ..

2

members of other professions, they also need toupdate their skills periodically.

At the same time, research on teaching of math-ematics and science suggests that some techniques,not widely used in American schools, can improveachievement, transmit more realistic pictures ofthe enterprise of science and mathematics, andbroaden participation in science and engineeringby women and minorities. Chapter 4, ThinkingAbout Science Learning, asks: How can more stu-dents be successful in science and mathematics?Does science and mathematics education searchfor and select a particular type of student, onewith a certain learning style? This chapter de-scribes other efforts to correct misconceptions(held both by students and teachers), spur creativ-ity, develop “higher order thinking skills, ” andto place more students on pathways to learningscience and mathematics.

The out-of-school environment offers oppor-tunities to raise students’ interest in and aware-ness of science and mathematics. Chapter 5,Learning Outside of School, highlights “informaleducation” activities that draw strength from thelocal community—churches, businesses, volun-tary organizations, and their leaders. All are po-tential agents of change. All are potential filtersof the images of science and scientists—often neg-ative, almost always intimidating-transmitted bytelevision and other media. Science centers andmuseums, for example, can awaken or reinforceinterest, without raising the spectre of failure for

those who lack confidence in their abilities. In-tervention programs, aimed especially at enrich-ing the mathematics and science preparation ofwomen, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities,can rebuild confidence and interest, tapping poolsof talent that are now underdeveloped.

The problems that face mathematics and sci-ence education in the schools are complicated andinterrelated. Chapter 6, Improving School Math-ematics and Science Education, proposes a sys-temic approach to these problems, requiring aconstellation of solutions. Reforms, however, tendto be incremental. Change in any one aspect ofmathematics and science teaching, such as course-taking, tracking, testing, and the use of labora-tories and technology, is constrained by otheraspects of the system, such as teacher training andremuneration, curriculum decisions, communityconcerns and opinions, and the influences ofhigher education.

Finally, this report illuminates the gulf betweenknowing and doing, between recognizing “whatworks” and replicating it. On many educationalissues, experts are groping to specify the bound-aries of their ignorance; on others, there are mas-sive data on causes and effects, but little wisdomon how to implement change. It is this latter needthat invites Federal initiative, whether “seeding”a program or showing how various partners mightcollaborate to approach a nagging problem in anovel way. The Federal Government is pivotal forsustaining the policy climate and catalyzingchange: If there is a national will, there is a way.

Chapter

Shaping the Science andEngineering Talent Pool

,

— . —— .————

CONTENTSPage

Preparing for Science and Engineering Careers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6The Pipeline Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6Influences on the Future Composition of the Talent pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

High School Students’ Interest in Science and Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Persistence and Migration in the Pipehne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Academic Preparation of Science and Engineering v. Conscience Students. . . . 12

Interest and Quality of Science- and Engineering-Bound Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Interest in Science and Engineering Among Females and Minorities. . . . . . . . . . 16Schools as Talent Smuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20

BoxBox Pagel-A. Never Playing the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

FiguresFigure Pagel-1. Popularity of Selected Fields Among 1982 High School Graduates

Intending to Major unnatural Science or Engineering, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . 9l-2. Persistence In, Entry Into, and Exit From Natural Science and Engineering

by 1982 High School Graduates Planning Natural Science or EngineeringMajors, 1980-84.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

l-3. Planned Major in High School of College Students Majoring in NaturalScience and Engineering, by Field, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

l-4. Interest of 1982 High School Graduates in Natural Science andEngineering, by Sex, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17

l-5. Interest in Natural Science and Engineering by College-Bound 1982 HighSchool Graduates, by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

TablesTable Page1-1.

1-2.

1-3.

Academic Characteristics of High School Graduatues Planning Natural -

Science and Engineering Majors and Other Majors,

Comparison of Students Who Persisted unnatural Science and EngineeringWith Those Who Entered These Fields, From High School Sophomore to

Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Conscience Interest With ThoseWho Entered a Natural Science and Engineering Major, From High SchoolSophomore Through College Senior Years, 1980-84 .. .. . ... +.. . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter 1

Shaping the Science andEngineering Talent Pool

To the Committee (the President’s Science Advisor-y Committee], enhancingour manpower supply is primarily a matter of quality not quantity, not amatter of diverting more college students to science and engineering, but of

providing for more students who have chosen this career routethe opportunity to continue their studies.

Jerome Wiesner, 1963

All scientists and engineers were once children:Families, communities, and the ideas and imagespresented by books, magazines, and televisionhelped form their attitudes, encouraged their in-terest, and guided them to their careers. Schoolsrefined their talents and interests, prepared themacademically, and gave them confidence by rec-ognizing their aptitude and achievement.

The importance of families and other out-of-school influences on this process can hardly beoveremphasized. Students form opinions andlearn about science and scientists from familiesand friends, from the media, and from places suchas science centers and museums, summer camps,and summer research experience. Equally, fam-ilies, friends, and the media can dull interest inscience. Nevertheless, it is largely schools, throughpreparatory courses in mathematics and science,testing methods, and teaching practices, that de-termine how many young people will preparesufficiently well for science and engineeringcareers (and for other careers). It is in the Nation’sinterest to see that schools provide the widest pos-sible opportunities, and the best possible educa-tional foundations for the’ study of science andengineering.* Some schools meet these goals, but

IUnless otherwise noted, this technical memorandum is con-cerned exclusively with students’ interest in naturaJ science and engi-neering subjects. The adequacy of the preparation of future socialscientists is not considered.

many do not. A small minority of determined stu-dents no doubt can triumph over poor teaching,inadequate course offerings, and overrigid or bi-ased ability grouping or tracking. For most—evensome of the most talented—these failings of theschools can kill interest and waste talent.

Of particular concern are women and some ra-cial and ethnic minorities, who together representa large reservoir of untapped talent. Minoritiesin particular will make up larger proportions ofthe population in the future. Identifying andmotivating talented minority youngsters is an in-creasingly important necessity for schools.

Concern about the quality of science and math-ematics education is also part of a broader con-cern about the Nation’s schools. The objectives,funding, quality, and content of American edu-cation are all currently being debated, and a va-riety of remedies have been proposed.2

2Nationa] Commission on Excellence in Education, A ~ati~n AtRisk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).The sequel, Secretary of Education William Bennett’s American Edu-cation: Making It Work, does not quell the concern. Also see Na-tional Science Board, Educating Americans for the 21st Century(Washington, DC: Commission on Precollege Education in Mathe-matics, Science, and Technology, 1983); Paul E. Peterson, “Eco-nomic and Policy Trends Affecting Teacher Effectiveness in Math-ematics and Science,” Science Teaching: The Report of the 1985National Forum for School Science, Audrey B. Champagne and Les-lie E. Hornig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Association forthe Advancement of Science, 1986).

5

6

PREPARING FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CAREERS

In theory, the preparation of those intendingto become scientists or engineers is assumed tobe more intensive than that required of the en-tire school population. In practice, the interest ofboth groups must be stimulated. All students needfundamental preparations in mathematics and sci-ence in the early years of school. The broad goalof improving the understanding of science andtechnology by all high school graduates (oftencalled scientific or technological literacy) is veryclosely tied to that of educating future scientistsand engineers. Only at the high school level,where the courses chosen by each stream divergesignificantly, does this tie begin to loosen.

The Pipeline Model

The path by which young people approachcareers in science and engineering is commonlyvisualized as a kind of pipeline. Students enter thepipeline as early as third grade, where they be-gin to be channeled through a prescribed level andthen sequence of preparatory mathematics andscience courses. This channeling pervades the un-dergraduate and graduate studies that train andcredential them as professionals. Many studentsdrop out along the way, losing interest or fallingbehind in preparation. Few, it is generallythought, enter the pipeline after junior highschool. In fact, students’ intentions remain vola-tile until well past high school, with substantialnumbers entering the pipeline (by choosing sci-ence and engineering majors) by their sophomoreyear of college. Many late entrants are relativelyill-prepared, however, and may suffer attritionon their path to a baccalaureate.

The pipeline model projects the supply of fu-ture scientists and engineers on the basis of thedemographic characteristics of successive birth co-horts. But this process is complicated. Careerchoices, perceptions of opportunities, knowledgeof employment markets, and other influencesdraw students into and out of the talent pool.Changing educational standards and practices alsoinfluence the size of this pool.

The education system thus can be thought ofas a kind of semipermeable, or leaky, pipeline,

with many points of entry and exit through whichdifferent students pass with different degrees ofease. Entrance to and persistence in this semi-permeable pipeline vary with job opportunitiesas well as with individual propensities towardknowledge and personal fulfillment. In fact, fieldsof science and engineering offer widely differentincentives that reflect economic and social trends.Thus, the semipermeable pipeline should bethought of as branched, with openings into di-verse job markets and careers.

Influences on the Future Compositionof the Talent Pool

These observations suggest that the talent poolcan be enlarged, and changing demographics sug-gest that it must be enlarged. If schools were moregenerous in identifying talent, and urged college-preparatory mathematics and science courses onmore students (not just those who believe they“need” them for career purposes), both the sizeand quality of the talent pool would be improved.Our scientists and engineers would be more nu-merous, better trained, and drawn from a popu-lation more representative of American society.

Yet the Federal Government is limited in its im-pact on elementary and secondary education:schools are State and local responsibilities. Re-search, curriculum development, demonstrationprojects, equity, and leadership (“jawboning”) aretraditional Federal roles, but applying the resultsto classrooms is up to the State education author-ities and the 16,000 local public school boards.Change, in this environment, is slow to come.Another reason for a limited Federal role is thatscience and mathematics education is but one partof a constellation of educational activities. Teach-ing, testing, and tracking practices are deeplyembedded within the schools. Improvements inscience and mathematics education are closely re-lated to reforms in education overall.

Demographic Trends

Almost all of those who will be the collegefreshmen of 2005 were born by 1987. Knowledgeof current birth patterns allows us to make very

7

reliable forecasts of the size and the racial and eth-nic composition of the college-age population forthe next 18 years, and very good estimates evenfarther into the future.3

There are two prominent trends already appar-ent. The first is that the number of 18-year-oldsis declining, and will bottom out by the mid-1990s. The second is that racial and ethnic mi-norities today form an increasing proportion ofthe school age population.4 However, the abso-lute number of Black 18-year-olds is currently fall-ing, just like the number of white 18-year-olds (butthe Black birthrate remains higher).

In general, America’s schoolchildren will lookincreasingly different from past generations. AsHarold Hodgkinson writes:

. . . there will be a Black and Hispanic (Mexican-American) Baby Boom for many more years. His-panics will increase their numbers in the popula-tion simply because of the very large numbers ofyoung Hispanic females. These population dy-namics already can be seen in the public schools.Each of our 24 largest school systems in the U.S.has a “minority majority, ” while 27 percent of allpublic school students in the U.S. are minority.. . . Looking ahead, we can project with confi-dence that by 2010 or so, the U.S. will be a na-tion in which one of three will be Black, Hispanic,or Asian-American.5

What is unclear is how this demographic tran-sition will transIate into college attendance andpursuit of science and engineering degrees. Vari-ations by region and social class, as well as eth-nicity, complicate predictions. These are somecurrent trends:

JThe ~ctual size of the co]]ege freshman c]ass is also determinedby the number of older people that enter higher education. At themoment, many people older than the traditional college-going ageare indeed entering higher education. In 1985, over 37 percent ofthose enrolled in college were 25 years of age and older. U.S. De-partment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment, Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education:A Statistical Report (Washington, DC: 1987), p. 122.

‘U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, EducatingScientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988),pp. 8-9.

sHarold L. Hodgkinson, Higher Education: Diversity Is OurMiddle Name (Washington, DC: National Institute of IndependentColleges and Universities, 1986), p. 9. Asian-Americans are wellrepresented in science and engineering; they are categorically ex-

●

●

●

●

●

A continued drop in the number of minor-ity high school graduates who enter college,due to the increased attractiveness of theArmed Forces and disillusionment with thevalue of a college degree in today’s job mar-ket. (Overall, college attendance is currentlyholding level, owing to the increased num-bers of older students enrolling and a currentsmall increase in the number of high schoolgraduates. )A continuing increase in the size of the Blackmiddle class, whose children enroll in highereducation at about the same rate as do thechildren of white middle-class families.Continuing high dropout rates for Hispanics,only about 40 percent of whom completehigh school.Rising concentrations of Hispanics in theSouthwest and California (enrollment inCalifornia’s public schools is already “minor-ity majority”).Significant increases in the number of highschool graduates in the West and Florida dur-ing the next 20 years, along with declines ofas much as 10 to 20 percent in New England,the Midwest, and the Mountain States.b

Educational Opportunity andthe Demographic Transition

The participation of females, Blacks, andHispanics in science and engineering has increasedsubstantially during the last 30 years, but is stillsmall relative to their numbers in the general pop-ulation. 7 Success in preparation for science and

eluded from OTA’s discussion of educationally disadvantaged mi-norities.

‘Jean Evangelauf, “Sharp Drop, Rise Seen in Graduates of HighSchools, ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 4, 1988, pp.A28-A43.

W.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, DemographicTrends and the Scientific and Engineering Work Force—A Techni-cal Memorandum (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, December 1985), ch. 5. Discussion of women and minoritiesin science and engineering often concerns their low level of partici-pation relative to men and whites. Accurate description of this sit-uation depends on definitions and meanings of the terms “under-representation” and “overrepresentation. ” The benchmark most oftencited for an “equitable” level of participation is one where the eth-nic, racial, and sex composition of the science and engineering workforce closely approximates that of the general population. But thereis no analytical reason why such a balance should exist. Still, thissocial goal encompasses the widely embraced motives of promot-ing equal opportunity, maximizing utilization of available talent,

(continued on next page)

8

engineering careers takes commitment, work, andinspiration, all of which the education system issupposed to promote. If achievement testing,tracking, sexism, and racism in the classroom, orsome combination of these and other factors, pre-vent success, it is because the system ignores in-dividual differences in intellectual developmentand discourages capable students from becomingscientists and engineers. Such an outcome wouldbe tragic for the Nation.

The science and engineering talent pool is notfixed either in elementary or in secondary school.A determined core group is joined by a “swinggroup” of potential converts to science and bylate-bloomers, so that the future supply of stu-dents who will take degrees in science and engi-neering is not determined solely by the size anddemographic composition of each birth cohort.The past interest and performance of female and

(continued from previous page)

and aligning the objectives and conduct of science and engineeringwith the societal value of broad participation.

Comparisons on minority work force participation should gen-erally be made with regard to age, because racial and ethnic com-position varies by birth cohort. Other considerations may includeregional demographic variations, enrollment and educational sta-tus, and economic status of the reference population. Another dif-ficulty is that “Black,” “Hispanic,” and “white” are imprecise terms.They are largely an arbitrary, albeit simple, way of classifying apopulation. There are often bigger differences within each groupthan there are among the groups. The professional and educationalstatus of various groups deserves a more accurate description than“underrepresentation” and “overrepresentation” convey.

Photo credit: Lawrence Hall of Science

Schools need to adjust to an increasing proportionof minority children.

minority students in science and engineering fieldsis a tenuous basis for concluding that a shortageof scientists and engineers is inevitable. Ratherthan accept demographic determinism, 8 O T Ahas chosen to investigate the formation of the sci-ence and engineering pool in high school and as-sess how the structure of schooling identifies, rein-forces, and perhaps stifles aspirations to careersin science and engineering.

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ INTERESTIN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

8A. K. Finkbeiner, “Demographics or Market Forces?” Mosaic,vol. 18, No. 1, spring 1987, pp. 10-17.

To find out how high school students come tosee natural science and engineering as potentialcareers, OTA analyzed the Department of Edu-cation’s High School and Beyond (HS&B) data-base, which describes the progress of a sample ofthose who were high school sophomores in 1980by surveying them at 2-year intervals after1980.’ Students in the sample were asked each

‘Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers:An Analysis of the High School-College Transition,” OTA contractorreport, 1987. The High School and Beyond database also includesdata from a sample of high school seniors in 1980. A followup onboth of these cohorts was conducted in 1986, but the results were

year their planned majors, if they were to attendcollege.

OTA found that, as high school sophomoresin 1980, nearly one-quarter of students were in-terested in natural science and engineering majors.

reported too late to be included in the OTA analysis discussed here.This database also includes information on those planning socialscience majors, but these have not been considered here. For anal-ysis of the 1972 cohort, see Educational Testing Service, Pathwaysto Graduate School: An Empirical Study Based on National Lon-gitudinal Data, ETS Research Report 87-41 (Princeton, NJ: Decem-ber 1987). For an inventory of national databases on K-12 mathe-matics and science education, see app. A.

9

As seniors, almost as many were still interestedin these majors, although their field preferenceshad shifted somewhat. Two years later, 15 percentof the original group of students were in collegeand planning science or engineering majors. l0

However, as the following discussion will show,this 15 percent was not simply the remnant ofthose who had expressed interest earlier. In fact,only about 20 percent of this 15 percent indicatedscience and engineering majors at all three timepoints in this survey. In other words, many were

l~o~t of the dec]ine in interest in natural science and engineer-

ing majors is due to the overall decline in the proportion of the samplegoing to college. When a more select group is considered—not justhigh school graduates, but those who are contemplating attendingor are in college—the proportion planning science and engineeringmajors is 27 percent as high school sophomores, 28 percent as seniors,and 24 percent as college sophomores. Unlike the larger sample ofall high school graduates, the more select group of college-boundhigh school graduates decreases in size over time, as some studentswho contemplate going to college do not attend, or drop out, andare consequently defined out of the sample at those times (in thiscase, 1980 or 1982). No data are available on the number of stu-dents that subsequently graduated in science and engineering. Thesample reported here for 2 years after high school graduation willbe referred to as “college sophomores, ” even though some were fresh-men or not enrolled continuously in college.

either new entrants to the pipeline altogether orstudents whose interests in both science and con-science majors were volatile. Another strikingfinding was the substantial number of “nontradi-tional” students in that 15 percent; about one-quarter of them had not been in the academic cur-riculum track of high school, for example.

To explore variations in students’ interests indifferent science and engineering fields, OTA de-fined four broad field categories—health and lifesciences, engineering, computer and informationsciences, and physical sciences and mathe-matics.” (See figure l-l.) The most popular field

1] Classification of students among fields was based on questionsin the High School and Beyond survey and on a reduction to fivefield categories: life and health sciences, engineering, computer andinformation sciences, physical sciences and mathematics, and con-science majors. Life and health sciences included those intendingmedical professions, including nursing. “Technology” majors werenot included in the engineering category because students indicat-ing this interest tend to pursue vocational training. Social scienceswere excluded from the science field categories and included in con-science majors. Thus, for this analysis, conscience majors includedbusiness, preprofessional, social sciences, vocational/technical, andhumanities. Social science majors (including psychology) are con-sidered in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Higher


Figure l.l.— Popularity of Selected Fields Among 1982 High School GraduatesIntending to Major in Natural Science or Engineering, 1980-84°

2 4 % of students a

23% of students a

studentsa

Phys ica l sc iences /m a t h e m a t i c s

Computer sc ience

Engineer ing

Li fe /heal th sc iences

1980 1982 1984High school High school Collegesophomores seniors sophomores

ape~Cen~ of a “~tiOn~llY ~ePre~entative ~a~Ple of 1982 high ~~h~~l graduates (n = 10,739) who plan to major in natural science or engineering (NSE). If the sample iS

restricted to an increasingly select group of only those high school graduates who plan to go or have not ruled out going to college, the percent interested in NSEincreases: 270/0 of high school sophomores (n =9,538), 280/. of high school seniors (n =8,817), and 24°/0 of college sophomores (n =8,583). (The number of college-bound students decreases with time because some students planning college do not attend or drop out.)

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the HighSchool Class of 1982, ” OTA contractor report, July 20, 1987, pp. 21-22, Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.

10

category at all three time points was health andlife sciences. The next most popular field was engi-neering. In the college sophomore year, engineer-ing was overtaken by computer and informationscience, which was generally the third most popu-lar field. Physical sciences and mathematics werethe least popular potential college majors.

Persistence and Migrationin the Pipeline

Although these data confirm the net loss of stu-dents from intended science and engineeringmajors, they need to be supplemented by data on


Education for Science and Engineering, ” background paper, forth-coming. Movement into and out of specific conscience fields felloutside the purview of this report. However, the data revealed that,within this categoxy, a single major—business-engaged an increas-ing proportion of of all students: 10 percent at sophomore year,13 percent at senior year, and 15 percent in college. No other singlemajor matched the growing appeal of this field.

the number of students who moved into and outof the pipeline. Figure 1-2 documents the flow ofstudents out of and into science and engineeringfields, and into the four field categories, over theintervals formed by the three survey points(sophomore year of high school, senior year ofhigh school, and sophomore year of college).

Between sophomore and senior years of highschool, the figure shows that, in every field cate-gory, more students came into each of the fourfields than persisted in them. Movement in fromthe conscience category was more common thanmovement between science field categories. Pat-terns of persistence were less clear during the tran-sition from senior year of high school to sopho-more year of college. In all field categories exceptengineering, more students moved in than per-sisted.

Overall patterns of persistence are presented infigure 1-3, which shows the proportion of those

461 \ \

2,599 cont inuein N S E

/ 1,016 t on o n - N S E

/ /1,497 t on o n - N S E

NOTE: This pipelhre traces those students who, at some point, planned to major in natural science or engineering (NSE), out of a nationally representative sampleof high school graduates (n = 10,739). “Re+ntrents” chose NSE es high school sophomore, “left” NSE es high school seniors, but chose en NSE major in college.Only 300 students, or less than 1OO/., stayed with the same field within NSE at stl three time points; the majority of NSE students changed field preferenceswithin NSE at least once.

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the HighSchool Class of 1982,” OTA contractor report, July 20, 19S7, pp. 29-35. Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.

71

college sophomores who were intending to main the case of physical sciences and mathematics,jor in natural science and engineering, and had and computer and information sciences, andalready expressed interest in these field categories about 25 percent for each of the other two fieldat the two earlier time points. A surprisingly small categories. Students planning engineering majorsnumber of students persisted in the same field cat- appear to have been the most persistent, since 60egory at all three time points—about 10 percent percent of those declaring this intention during

Figure 1-3.—Planned Major in High School of College Studentsby Field, 1980=84—

Senior year only

Sophomore year only

Both years

Neither year

Senior year only

Sophomore year onlyBoth years

Neither year

Senior year only

Sophomore year onlyBoth years

Neither year

Majoring in Natural Science and Engineering,

Sophomore year Senior year1980 1982

\

/

Col lege major1984

Majoring inl i fe /heal th sc iences

( n = 5 7 4 )

Majoring inengineer ing

( n = 4 0 6 )

Senior year only ‘ ----------------------------Sophomore year only .

Both years

)

Majoring inphys ica l sc iences /

Neither year ma them a tics

( n = l 4 7 )

NOTE: This figure presents the high school history of college students majoring in natural science and engineering (NSE), showing when they expressed plans to majorin their chosen college field. A large proportion of college NSE majors did not plan to major in their chosen field in high school; however, most planned tomajor in some NSE field, Based on a cohort of students who were high school sophomores in 1980.

SOURCE: Valerie E, Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the HighSchool Class of 1982,” OTA contractor report, July 20, 1987, p. 35. Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.

12

their high school senior year (and 34 percent ofthose in the sophomore year of high school)stayed with their plans. *2

OTA’s analysis of the HS&B survey shows thatnatural science and engineering attract some newadherents both in the later years of high schooland the early years of college. The die is not castin the early stages of the educational process; somestudents (approximately equal in number to thosealready in the high school science and engineer-ing pool) enter that pool long after many analystsassume that definitive career choices have alreadybeen made. The interest is there; the challenge fac-ing educational institutions is to capitalize upon it.

Academic Preparation of Science andEngineering v. Conscience Students

The challenge of preparing future scientists andengineers is much more than simply sparking in-terest in students; it calls equally for preparationthrough coursework and a willingness to bringnew entrants to the pipeline “up to speed. ” Dataon new entrants reveal a mixed picture: many are

121t is i~PO~t~nt t. note that this figure identifies only those whopersisted in the same field category (and not those who persistedin science), although the data indicate few field differences in thenumbers of students who entered each field category from consciencemajors.

very well prepared, but others take nontraditionalroutes and thus require extra help in mathematicsand science courses.

Table 1-1 shows some of the characteristics ofstudents planning natural science and engineer-ing majors at the three survey time points. It alsoshows that the proportion of this group thatscored above average on the HS&B achievementtest13 increased at each time point. About two-thirds of those students interested in science andengineering majors in 10th and 12th grades scoredabove average on these tests, but more than three-quarters of those planning such majors as collegesophomores did so. This finding suggests thatmany of the new entrants to the pipeline are likelyto be of high ability.

In addition, the proportion of students plan-ning natural science and engineering majors whohad been enrolled in the academic curriculumtrack increased at each time point until it reached75 percent in the college sophomore year. Never-theless, the corollary of this finding—that 25 per-cent of those seriously planning science and engi-

13This test score is a composite of scores in reading, vocabulary,and mathematics from tests designed especially for the High Schooland Beyond survey and administered to the students when they werehigh school sophomores (in 1980). It has been highly correlated withother achievement tests.

Table 1-1 .—Academic Characteristics of High School Graduates Planning Natural Scienceand Engineering Majors and Other Majors, at Three Time Points

1980 1982 1984high school high school college

Characteristic sophomores seniors sophomores

Students planning natural science and engineering majors:Percentage of sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 23 15Percentage scoring above 50°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 65 69 79Percentage scoring above 75°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 39 44 53Academic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 64 74General and vocational tracks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 36 26

Students planning other majors:Percentage of sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 38 44Percentage scoring above 50°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 63 66 67Percentage scoring above 75% on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 36 37 37Academic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 56 60General and vocational tracks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 44 40

Undecided major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21 3

No college plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 18 38KEY: HS&B=High School and Beyond survey.

SOURCE: Valerie Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition,” OTA contractor report, 1987, based on theHigh School and Beyond survey.

13

neering majors enrolled in the vocational andgeneral tracks in high school (with presumablyless access to college-preparatory courses inmath-ematics and science)—indicates that the scienceand engineering pipeline contains some late-comers. Significant numbers of students are ac-tive participants in the college segment of the sci-ence and engineering pipeline without two of thetraditional credentials of a future scientist andengineer: high ability manifested early on and aca-demic track preparation.]’

In a separate analysis (see table 1-2) of studentswho entered the pipeline from conscience fields,either in their high school senior or college sopho-more years, OTA found that these students, onaverage, had lower scores on achievement teststhan did those who persisted in science at all threetime points. The “in-migrants” to science and engi-neering majors had taken fewer mathematics andscience courses and were more likely to be Black,Hispanic, or female than their “determined” sci-

“Nevertheless, the High School and Beyond data for 1980 highschool sophomores had not yet followed through to college gradu-ation, and so cannot be used to estimate what proportion of this“nontraditional” group succeeded in earning science and engineer-ing baccalaureates.

ence peers. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the im-migrants had been in the academic curriculumtrack and had high school and college grade pointaverages (GPAs) comparable to those who per-sisted in science and engineering throughout.

In a further comparison of those who switchedfrom a conscience to a science field during theirlast 2 years of high school with those who per-sisted in a conscience field (see table 1-3), statis-tically significant differences were found in thecourse-taking patterns of the two groups. Im-migrants to the science and engineering pipelinewere more likely to have taken algebra II, calcu-lus, chemistry, physics, or biology than their con-science peers, and subsequently recorded higherGPAs in mathematics and science courses. Still,they were on average less well prepared than thosewho stayed with science plans from their highschool sophomore to their college sophomoreyears.

The analysis of the high school class of 1982illuminates several findings that demand rethink-ing of how the science and engineering pool forms.Taken together, these findings lend support to therecent observation of the National Academy of

Table 1-2.—Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Natural Science and Engineering With ThoseWho Entered These Fields, From High School Sophomore to College Sophomore Years, 1980-84

Persisted in Persisted in NSE, Entered NSE fromsame field but switched fields a conscience field

Characteristic N = 298 N = 277 N = 1,004Demographic characteristics:Percent Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 15Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 10Percent female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 30 48

High school experiences:Number of math courses taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.0 2.7Number of science courses taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 3.3 3.0GPA in math courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.8 2.7Score on HS&B Achievement Testa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.5 58.3 55.0Score on mathematics portion of SAT/ACT testsb . . . . . . . 516 541 500College experiences:College GPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 2.8 2.8Percent attained college sophomore status by 1984 ... , . 90 76 75%n HS&B Achievement Test, mean score = 50, standard deviation = 10bscore ,s presented on same scale as the mathematics portion of the SAT, where students had taken the ACT mathematics test, their SCOW waS converted to all equivalent

score on the SAT scaleKEY GPA = grade point average

HS&B = High School and Beyond surveySATIACT = Scholastic Aptitude Test) American College Testing programNSE = natural science and engineering

SOURCE Valerie Lee, “ldentlfy!ng Potential Sclentlsts and Engineers An Analysls of the H Igh School .College Transltlon, ” OTA contractor report, 1987, based on theHigh School and Beyond survey

14

Table l-3.—Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Conscience interest With Those Who Entered aNaturai Science and Engineering Major, From High School Sophomore Through Coiiege Senior Years, 1980-84

Persisted with a Entered a natural scienceconscience field and engineering major

Characteristic N = 2,337 N = 799

Percent female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 53bPercent Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11bPercent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10Score on HS&B achievement test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.8 54.0Percent unacademic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 63Mathematics GPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.5b

Science GPA... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.6b

Courses taken (percetage with 1 year or more)Mathematics

Algebra l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 70Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 59Algebra 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 44bTrigonometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 25b

Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 13b

Computer programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 b

ScienceBiology 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 56Advanced biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 21bChemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 39bAdvanced chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7bPhysics 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 26b

Advanced physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3b%nHS&B Achievement Test, mean score = 50, standard deviation = 10.blndicates that the differen~ebet~een thet~ogroupswas statistica~y significant atp < 0,05.

NOTE: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.KEY:GPA = grade point average.

HS&B = High School and Beyond survey.

SOURCE: Valerie Lee, ”ldentifying potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High Scho0PCo~e9e Transition:’ OTA contractor report, 1987, based on theHigh School and Beyond survey.

Science’s Government-University-Industry Re- occupational direction a student is taking. More-search Roundtable: over, the influences affecting different groups

vary.15

There are no magic one or two points in a stu-dent’s life that are-crucial to career choice. At ISGovemment.University-lndUSt~ Research Roundtable, lVurtur-every educational and developmental stage facing Science and Engineering Talent (Washington, DC: National. .tors come into play that shape and reshape the Academy Press, 1987), p.34.

INTEREST AND QUALITY OF SCIENCE= ANDENGINEERING-BOUND STUDENTS

Interest in science and engineering, clearly, is and engineering majorsnot enough. The ultimate health of the science and above average GPAs,engineering work force also depends on another scores, achievement testkey factor— the quality of students. l6 Science kers of quality.

have traditionally hadcollege admission testscores, and other mar-

16There is ]ittleaKreement on how the “c!uality” of high school. .students should remeasured.Achievement test scoresare only one and learning how to learn more effectively. Because there are noindicator. Justasimportant arestudents’ understancling oftheprocess consistent data on these latter attributes, achievement test scoresof science, attitudes toward science and engineering, language skills, are here used as proxy for quality.

15

In recent years, somewhat fewer college fresh-men with “A” or “A-” high school GPAs havechosen science and engineering majors, while in-creasing numbers name preprofessional and busi-ness majors. Yet the proportion of science- andengineering-bound students who score above 650(of a maximum of 800) on the Scholastic Apti-tude Test (SAT) mathematics test17 has increasedsomewhat between 1975 and 1984. About 44 per-cent of those who score above the 90th percen-tile on the SAT mathematics test say they planscience and engineering majors. The average scoreof all those scoring above the 90th percentile onthe SAT mathematics test increased from 623 to642 in the last 5 years.18

It is widely believed by college educators thatthe quality of high school students who are plan-ning science and engineering majors may bedeclining compared to their predecessors. Whilethis belief has probably been held by all teacherswho try to transmit knowledge to their juniors,there is little evidence to support it. Although SATscores are an imperfect measure of the quality ofstudents, the average SAT score of all studentsplanning science and engineering majors declinedbetween 1975 and 1983 (parallel to the decline inscores of the entire population of test-takers dur-ing the period from 1963 to 1981). The SAT scoresof this group, however, have risen somewhat since1983. The sources of increases and decreases inSAT scores provoke complicated and controver-sial debates in educational assessment, but thereis some consensus that about one-half of the long-term decline during the 1960s and 1970s in theSAT scores was due to changes in the composi-tion of the population of students taking the test.The remaining decline has been attributed to de-creased emphasis on academic subjects by schools,

‘7However, many science- and engineering-bound students takethe American College Testing program test instead of the Scholas-tic Aptitude Test. Data on the science- and engineering-bound amongthe American College Testing program takers are not available.

Wn particular, there are indications that highly talented whitemales, a traditional source of scientists and engineers, are increas-ingly being attracted to these majors. Mechanisms for increasingthis group’s participation need to be devised as well as those to in-crease the participation of women and minorities. See Office of Tech-nology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 11. Also see National ScienceBoard, Science and Engineering Indicators 1987 (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), pp. 24-25, app. table 1-7.

and social factors. The recent increases are evenless well understood.”

Overall interest in science and engineering ap-pears to have increased since the time of the ma-jor longitudinal study centering on the high schoolclass of 1972.20 Since that time, there have beenconsiderable shifts among fields within the scienceand engineering majors, often in response to em-ployment markets. For example, the late-1970sand early -1980s saw a rapid increase in interestin engineering and computer science majors (fresh-man interest and college enrollment in engineer-ing approximately doubled during that time), butsome decline of interest in physical science majors.

International Comparisons

There is also current concern that America’sbest students are of inferior quality compared withtheir peers in other countries. Two recent in-ternational comparisons of achievement scoreslargely support this concern, but do not defini-tively explain the causes of these differences (al-though they suggest the curriculum as a culprit).In particular, interpretation of these data is com-plicated by major differences in the structure ofeducation in different countries. (More detail onthe mathematics and science educational systemsof other countries is found in app. B.)

International comparison data are availablefrom the Second International Math Study (SIMS)from 1981 to 1982, and the Second InternationalScience Study (S1SS) from 1983 to 1986.2’ These

19National Science Board, Science Indicators: The 1985 Report(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985), p. 128.National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 18, p. 22. See also U.S.Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Educational Achievement;Explanations and Implications of Recent Trends (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1987).

2“T.L. Hilton and V.E. Lee, “Student Interest and Persistence inScience: Changes in the Educational Pipeline in the Last Decade, ”Journal of Higher Education, vol. 59, September/October 1988, pp.510-526.

zlThese studies were conducted under the auspices of the Inter-national Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement,a nongovernmental voluntary association of educational research-ers. See International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement, Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Pre-liminary Report (Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1988); WillardJ. Jacobson et al., The Second IEA Science Study–U.S., revisededition (New York, NY: Columbia University Teachers College, Sep-tember 1987); Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachieving Cur-riculum: Assessing U.S. School Mathematics From an International


16

data indicate that the performance in most sci-ence and mathematics subjects of U.S. science-and engineering-bound students is inferior to thatof their counterparts in many other countries, in-cluding Japan, Hong Kong, England and Wales,and Sweden. One finding from the science studiesis that the proportion of each nation’s cohort of18-year-olds who take college-preparatory sciencecourses is apparently smaller in the United Statesthan in other countries.22

Data from the first international mathematicsand science studies (done in 1964 and 1970, re-spectively) indicate that the United States laggedbehind other nations even then. For example, inthe first international science study, students inAustralia, Belgium, England and Wales, Finland,France, the Federal Republic of Germany, theNetherlands, Scotland, and Sweden scored abovetheir peers in the United States (Japan did not par-ticipate). And, in the similar mathematics study,students in the United States scored lower thanall of the above countries as well as Japan. Be-cause there were few common test items betweenthe first and second tests, and because data onthe demographic and other characteristics of thegroups tested were not collected at both timepoints, it is difficult to determine reliably fromthese studies whether achievement in the UnitedStates (or in any other country) has improved ordeclined. These studies suggest that, comparedwith other countries, the United States has fared,and continues to fare, poorly in the mathemati-(continued from previous page)

~erspective (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987),pp. 22-30; F. Joe Crosswhite et al., Second International MathematicsStudy: Summary Report for the United States (Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics, May 1985), pp. 4, 51, 61-68, 70-74; Robert Rothman, “Foreigners Outpace American Studentsin Science, ” Education Week, Apr. 29, 1987, p. 7; Wayne Riddle,Congressional Research Service, “Comparison of the Achievementof American Elementary and Secondary Students With ThoseAbroad—The Examinations Sponsored by the International Asso-ciation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), ” 86-683 EPW, June 30, 1986.

22For example, in these data, only 1 percent of American highschool students are reportedly enrolled in chemistry and physics,but this refers only to seniors in high school who had taken secondyear chemistry and physics, not all students who took these courses(Richard M. Berry, personal communication, August 1988). In can-ada, the numbers are 25 and 19 percent for chemistry and physics,respectively, and, in Japan, 16 and 11 percent, respectively. Note,however, that these enrollment data for the United States paint aconsiderably more pessimistic picture than earlier data on course-taking patterns has revealed (see ch. 2), and, due to small samplesizes, are subject to considerable uncertainty.

cal and scientific preparation of its future workforce.

Interest in Science and EngineeringAmong Females and Minorities

Females and the members of some racial andethnic minorities are represented in most fields ofscience and engineering in numbers far below theirshares of the total population, a difference thatemerges well before high school .23

Female interest in science and engineering isconcentrated in the life and health sciences, andless so in more quantitative fields such as engi-neering and the physical sciences and mathematics(figure 1-4). Black and Hispanic high schoolseniors are about one-half as likely to be inter-ested in careers in the physical sciences and math-ematics as whites, and Blacks are about one-halfas likely to be interested in engineering (figure 1-5).24 Some of this difference may be due to thefact that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely togo on to college than whites.

Why are females and minorities less likely thanmales and whites, respectively, to major in sci-ence or engineering? What can be done about it?Discussion of these issues arouses vigorous debate,which stems in part from deeply embedded so-cial attitudes and expectations about the roles andcontributions of females and racial and ethnic mi-norities to American society, the professions, andspecifically to the science and engineering workforce .25

Differences Between the Sexes inInterest in Science and Engineering

There are considerable differences by sex in thenumber of students interested in science and engi-neering fields. Of those interested in life and health

~For an overview, see office of Technology Assessment, oP.cit., footnote 4, chs. 2 and 3.

24Lee, op. cit., footnote 9.‘sSee, for example, Sandra Harding and Jean F. Barr (eds. ), Sex

and Scientific Znquiry (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,1987); Willie Pearson, Jr. and H. Kenneth Bechtel (eds. ), Educationand the Coloring of American Science (New Brunswick, NJ: Rut-gers University Press, forthcoming); Madaine E. Lockheed et al.,Sex and Ethnic Differences in Middle School Mathematics, Science,and Computer Science: What Do We Know? (Princeton, NJ: Educa-tional Testing Service, May 1985).

Figure l-4.–lnterest of 1982 High School Graduates in Natural Science and Engineering, by Sex, 1980-84

30%

—

—

—

—

—

16%


Computer sc ience

Engineer ing

Life sciences

sciences, about one-half are males and one-halffemales. Many fewer females, however, are in-terested in fields with a significant mathematicalcomponent, such as physics, chemistry, and engi-neering. Interestingly, at the baccalaureate level,females are well represented in mathematics itself.

Males and females appear to differ strongly intheir interest in highly quantitative sciences.Somewhat more males than females enroll in highschool courses leading to these fields, but not somany more as to explain the size of the differencein interest between the sexes. Females also tendto score lower on mathematics achievement tests,even when allowances are made for the fewercourses they take compared to males. The exactcauses of these differences in interest, course-taking, and achievement test scores have not beendetermined and remain a controversial subject forresearch .26

ZbFo~ a recent overview, see Valerie E. Lee, “When and WhyGirls ‘Leak’ Out of High School Mathematics: A Closer Look, ” pre-

Many researchers believe that the differencesare primarily or totally caused by the differen-tial treatment that boys and girls receive frombirth. Parents, friends, teachers, and counselors,it is argued, encourage males to be interested inmathematics and science and discourage females.Over time, females come to feel less confidentthan males about mathematics, come to believethat they do not have mathematical “talent,”study mathematics less intensively, and hencescore lower on achievement tests. Interest in this“environmental” hypothesis has led researchersto try to ascertain whether sex differences in in-terest or test scores can be related to thesefactors .2’

sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA, April 1986 (unpublished paperavailable from ERIC). Research that proclaims the biological inferi-ority of females in mathematical (especially spatial) domains hasbeen seriously questioned (discussed below).

ZTFor example, Sm patncia B. Campbell, “What’s a Nice Girl Like

You Doing in a Math Class?” Phi Deha Kappan, vol. 67, No. 7,Marc! 1986, pp. 516-520. According to a recent national survey,


18

Figure 1-5.–Interest in Natural Science and Engineering by College= Bound 1982High School Graduates, by Race.Ethnicity, 1980-84 -

30%

26%

25%

22%

16%

Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White


C o m p u t e rsciences

Engineer ing

L i f e / h e a l t hsciences

NOTE: The samde is limited to those high school graduates who, as high school so~homores in 1980, Nanned to go to or had not ruled out attending college (whiten =7,541; Black n = 1,321; Hispani~ n =760). ~f the sample Is restricted even fu”rther to those students who stay in the college pipeline after high school sopho-more year, the percent interested in natural science and engineering increases; among college sophomores, to 260/. of Blacks (n = 718), 24°/0 of Hispanics (n =434),and 230/. of whites (n =5,208).

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the HighSchooi Ciass of 1982,” OTA contractor report, Juiy 20, 1987, pp. 24-26. Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.

Others maintain that the differences are muchmore pervasive than can be explained by differen-tial patterns of treatment and, therefore, thatphysiological differences between the sexes are atwork. At the beginning of the decade, one studysuggested that differences in the structure and(continued from previous page)few students agree that mathematics is a subject more for boys thangirls. In 1986, 6 percent of 13-year-olds and 3 percent of 17-year-olds agreed with this statement, although each of these percentageshad increased from 2.5 and 2.2 percent, respectively, in 1978. SeeJohn A. Dossey et al., The Mathematics Report Card: Are We A4eas-uring Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 NationalAssessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988),pp. 98-99.

function of the brain allow males to visualize spa-tial relationships better than females.28 Thishypothesis was based on analysis of scores on themathematics portion of the SAT (a test designedfor 11th and 12th graders) achieved by samplesof highly talented 8-year-old males and fe-males. 29 This hypothesis has been roundly criti-

zsc p Benbow and J.C. Stanley, “Sex Differences in Mathemati-. .cal Ability: Factor Artifact?” Science, vol. 210, 1980, pp. 1262-1264;C.P. Benbow and J.C. Stanley, “Sex Differences in MathematicalReasoning Ability: More Facts,” Science, vol. 222, Dec. 2, 1983,pp. 1029-1031.

29A representative criticism is found in A.M. pallas and ‘.A.Alexander, “Sex Differences in Quantitative SAT Performance: New

cized by many researchers on several counts andis not widely accepted.

It is unlikely that the controversy over the ori-gin of gender-related differences in demonstratedmathematical ability will be resolved any timesoon, as so many different factors must be con-trolled in studies making male-female compari-sons. OTA concludes that effective steps can betaken to encourage females to enter science andengineering without detailed knowledge of thereasons for sex differences in mathematics achieve-ment and for interest in science and engineering.

There is no evidence that the rate of learningof mathematics by males and females is different.If there are differences in the preparation for, ori-entation to, or talents of males and females in sci-ence, they can be remedied. Among such remediesare programs to sensitize parents, teachers, andcounselors to their conscious and unconsciousdifferential treatments of boys and girls.30 Schools,

Evidence on the Differential Coursework Hypothesis, ” AmericanEducational Research Journal, vol. 20, No. 2, 1983, pp. 165-182.For a review of studies and instructive methodological commentaryon the debate, see Susan F. Chipman and Veronica G. Thomas, “TheParticipation of Women and Minorities in Mathematical, Scientific,and Technical Fields, ” Review of Research in Education, Ernst Z.Rothkopf (cd. ) (Washington, DC: American Educational ResearchAssociation, 1987), pp. 403-409.

‘OMyra Pollack Sadker and David Miller Sadker, Sex EquityHandbook for Schools (New York, NY: Longman, 1982); Jane ButlerKahle and Marsha Lakes Matyas, “Equitable Science and Mathe-matics Education: A Discrepancy Model, ” Women: Their Under-representation and Career Differentials in Science and Engineering,Linda S. Dix (cd. ) (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1987), pp. 5-41.

Photo credit William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Females and minorities are an undertapped source ofscientists and engineers.

19

and especially guidance counselors, can help sig-nificantly by encouraging females who do wellin mathematics to take advanced mathematicscourses. Schools should also encourage femalesto participate fully in hands-on scientific experi-ments. The encouragement of females to pursuescience and engineering careers must counter con-tinuing and pervasive, albeit decreasing, discrimi-nation against females in the science and engineer-ing work force, as indicated by lower salaries fornew graduates and fewer females in tenuredfaculty positions.

Reasons Why Minorities Are NotWell Represented in Science

Blacks show interest in science and engineer-ing and, in particular, in careers in engineering,mathematics, and computer science .31 The chal-lenge is to convert this interest into well-preparedfuture scientists and engineers.

Development of interest and talent in scienceand engineering by Blacks is stultified by theirrelatively lower average socioeconomic status andmore limited access to courses that prepare themfor science and engineering careers. Minoritiesalso sense hostility from the largely white scienceand engineering work force and develop low ex-pectations for themselves in science and mathe-matics courses. For some, sadly, success in aca-demic study is scorned by their minority peers as“acting white. ” Larger proportions of minoritiesdrop out of high school than do whites, reducingthe potential talent pool for science and engineer-ing. And far fewer Black males than Black femalesprepare for college study, a pattern which is in-creasingly common as Black males favor military

“Jane Butler Kahle, “Can Positive Minority Attitudes Lead toAchievement Gains in Science? Analysis of the 1977 National Assess-ment of Educational Progress, Attitudes Toward Science, ” ScienceEducation, vol. 66, No. 4, 1982, pp. 539-546; Mary Budd Rowe,“Why Don’t Blacks Pick Science?” The Science Teacher, vol. 44,1977, pp. 34-35. Lee, op. cit., footnote 9. Data from the most re-cent National Assessment of Educational Progress show that 48 per-cent of Blacks in grade three said that they would like to work ata job using mathematics v. 38 percent of white students. Studentsin grades i’ and I I were asked a different question, whether theyexpected to work in an area that requires mathematics. In grade7, 46 percent of whites and 39 percent of Blacks said yes and in gradeII, 4.5 percent of whites and S1 percent of Blacks said yes. See Dos-sey et al., op. cit., footnote 27, pp. 95-100.

20

service or become convinced that even a collegedegree is no guarantee of a good job.”

Schools, school districts, and States need to domuch more to help minorities gain access to sci-ence and engineering careers. Teachers need to besensitized to minority concerns and to involve allstudents in mathematics and science experiences,such as laboratory experiments. Schools need todevelop better guidance counseling, and inculcatehigher expectations for minorities among coun-selors, teachers, and students. Schools and schooldistricts also need to improve their course offer-ings and ensure that all students have access to

32Signithia Fordham, “Recklessness as a Factor in Black Student’sSchool Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory,” HarvardEducational Review, vol. 58, No. 1, February 1988, pp. 54-84;ERIC/SMEAC Information Bulletin, “A Review of the Literatureon Blacks and Mathematics,” No. 1, 1985.

SCHOOLS AS TALENT SCOUTS

The goals of excellence and equity both dependon taking full advantage of the Nation’s talent.Doing so depends on having schools act in largemeasure as talent scouts. Instead, the schools haveoften acted as curricular traffic cops, encourag-ing the obviously talented, and culling out thosewho do not display the conventional signs of abil-ity and drive at an early age. Too many students“never play the game” of science. (See box l-A. )The result is a waste of talent.

Similar wastes of nonscientific talent undoubt-edly take place. The importance of high school

the preparatory courses leading to a science andengineering degree. And States and school districtsneed to ensure that schools with high minoritypopulations receive a fair share of financial, teach-ing, and equipment resources, given that suchschools are often in poor areas.33

Undertaking such reforms will be difficult foran education system that changes very slowly. Inany event, such actions still will not overcomewider societal pressures that minorities believe de-ter them from science and engineering careers.Specific intervention programs (discussed in ch.5) are needed to overcome these deterrents.

‘3A Veritab]e flood of successfu] interventions with IIIiI’IOritY stu-

dents, in schools and out, is detailed in Lisbeth B. Schorr, WithinOur Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage (New York, NY:Anchor Press Doubleday, 1988), especially chs. 8-12.

preparation in science and mathematics to futuresuccess in these careers, though, makes waste par-ticularly serious in these fields. In the future,schools will need to cast their nets wider in iden-tifying potential scientists and engineers, going be-yond the standard model of talent. The growingethnic and cultural diversity of young Americansmakes this task both more challenging and moreimportant. The remainder of this report will de-tail the steps schools and communities might taketo meet this national need.

21

Box l-A.—Never Playing the Game

Learning science —its theories, its parameters, its context-can be likened to learning all the rules ofa sport-the facilities needed for playing, the scoring, the timing, the uniforms. To prepare to play, onemust develop physical skills by means of strenuous exercise and conditioning. Such skill development canspan great time periods and demand much energy, commitment, and sacrifice. But, most potential playersare willing to devote whatever time and work are needed to succeed, because once they reach the playingfield, their effort will be rewarded.

In typical science teaching, we ignore the lessons we might learn from sports. We pronounce sciencea fantastic game—that all should learn to play it. We spend years teaching background material, laws,rules, classification schemes, and verifications (disciplines) of the basic game. We plan activities for ourstudents designed to develop in them specific skills that the best scientists seem to possess and use. Webelieve that proficiency with these skills is an important part of an education in science. It is as if we weredeveloping conditioning exercises to train our students for the science they may actually do at a future time.

Unfortunately, however, our students rarely get to play—rarely get to do real science, to investigatea problem that they have identified, to formulate possible explanations, to devise tests for individual expla-nations. Instead, school science means 13 years of learning the rules of the game, practicing verification-type labs, learning the accepted explanations developed by others, and the special vocabulary and the pro-cedures others have devised and used.

If potential athletes had to wait 13 years before playing a single scrimmage, a single set, a single quar-ter, how many would be clamoring to be involved? How many would do the pull-ups and the sit-ups?How many would learn the rues if there were no rewards-until college—for those who had practicedenough to play?

We expect much in science education! Could one of our problems be too much promise of what sci-ence is really like at a date much too far removed from the rigor and practice science demands? Thirteenyears of preparation is a long time to wait before finding out whether a sport (or career) is as satisfyingas one’s parents and teachers suggest it will be.

To prepare for the game of science for 13 years without even an opportunity to play is a problem{Like athletes, science students may need to play the game frequently, to use the information and skills theypossess, and to encounter a real need for more background and more skills. Such an entree to real sciencein school could result in more students wanting to know and wanting to practice the necessary skills. Now,we lose too many students with only the promise that the background information and skills we requirethem to practice will be useful.

Paul Brandwein asserts that most students never have a single experience with real science throughouttheir whole schooling. He has written that we would have a revolution on our hands if every student hadbut one experience with real science each year he or she is in school. Are we ready for such a revolution?Can we afford not to clamor for it?

To spend 13 years preparing for a game, but never once to play it, is too much for anyone. Teachersand students alike are more motivated when they experience real questions, follow up on real curiosity,and experience the thrill of creating explanations and the fun of testing their own ideas. Real science mustbecome a central focus in the courses we call science-across the entire K-12 curriculum.SOURCE: Quoted from Robert E. Yager, ‘Never Playing the Game,” The ti”ence Teacher, September 19SS, p. 77.

Chapter 2

Formal Mathematics andScience Education

CONTENTSPage

The Nation’s Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Components of Mathematics and Science

Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Typical Mathematics and Science

Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Problems With Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Use of Computers in Mathematics and

Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4Variation Among Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Standardized Achievement Testing . . . . . 39Patterns of High School Course

Offerings and Enrollments . . . . . . . . . . . 41Tracing addability Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . 45

The Double-Edged Sword . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Effects of Grouping Practices . . . . . . . . . . 48Science Education and Track-Busting . . . 50

BoxesBox2-A.

2-B.

2-C.

PageThe Special Role of the Science andEngineering Research Communities inMathematics and Science Reforms . . . 29LearningAboutScience and Processesof Advancing Scientific Knowledge . . 31National Geographic Society (NGS)Kids Network: Studentsas Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

FiguresFigure Page

2-1. Funding of Elementary and SecondaryEducation, by Source, 1980-87 . . . . . . . 25

2-2. Public and Private School Enrollmentsand Revenues, by Source, 1985-86 . . . . 26

2-3. Typical Course Progression inMathematics and Science. . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2-4. Curriculum of a Mathematics/Science/Computer Science Magnet Programfor the Class of 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2-5,

2-6.

2-7.

2-8.

PageTime Spent Using Computers inMathematics and Science Classes, byGrade, in Minutes Per Week,1985-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGraduates Who Took Calculus. . . . . . . 46Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGraduates Who Took Physics . . . . . . . . 46Track Placement by Race/Ethnicityand Sex, High School Graduatesof 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

TablesTable Page2-1. Most Commonly Used Mathematics -

2-24

2-3,

2-4<

2-5.

2-6.

2-7.

2-8.

and Science Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Courses in Computers Taken byMathematics and Science Teachers . . . 37Trends in Mathematics Course-Taking, 1982-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGraduates Who Went on to Next“Pipeline” Mathematics Course AfterCompleting the Previous Course . . . . . 43Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGraduates Who Went on to Next“Pipeline” Science Course AfterCompleting the Previous Course . . . . . 44Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGraduates Who Have Taken CollegePreparatory Mathematics Courses bySex, and Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGraduates Who Have Taken CollegePreparatory Science Courses by Sex,and Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Science-Intending Students AmongHigh School Graduates of 1982,by Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 49

Chapter 2

Formal Mathematics andScience Education

There has been widespread concern among scientists and educators alike overthe failure of the instructional programs in the primary and secondary schoolsto arouse greater interest and understanding of the scientific disciplines. . . .There is general agreement that much of the science taught in schools todaydoes not reflect the current state of knowledge nor does it represent the best

possible choice of material for instructional purposes.

Hearings before the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 1958

For most people, science education begins andends in school mathematics and science classes.Science and mathematics education, however,cannot be analyzed in isolation from the overall

THE NATION’S SCHOOLS

About 75 percent of each birth cohort nowgraduates from high school. Elementary and sec-ondary education takes place in over 100,000schools, employing 2.5 million teachers and en-rolling about 45 million students. ] It costs $170billion per year, about $4,000 per student—or 4percent of the annual gross national product.’Public education, including higher education, isthe single largest component of State spending.Nationally, the States’ contribution to the cost ofpublic school education is about 49 percent of thetotal; 45 percent comes from local sources and theremaining 6 percent from the Federal Govern-ment. The Federal Government’s contributionpeaked at about 10 percent of the total from 1978to 1980.3 (See figure 2-l. ) The balance among lo-cal, State, and Federal funding varies significantlyfrom State to State, however. New Hampshire has

IU. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Researchand Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Edu-cation Statistics 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, May 1987), tables 3, 4, 5, 59. Data on the number ofpublic schools is from 1983-84, that on private schools from 1980-81. The number of school districts is from 1983-84. Student enroll-ment data is an estimate for fall 1986, number of teachers are esti-mated full-time equivalent excluding support staff for fall 1986.

‘bid., table 21. Data are estimates for 1986-87.‘Ibid., table 93 (preliminary data for 1984-85).

national system of K-12 education, The nationalpattern of schooling mixes diversity of control anddecisionmaking with a surprising uniformity oforganization and goals.

the highest proportion of local funding, at 90 per-cent; Hawaii has the highest proportion of State

Figure 2-1 .—Funding of Elementary and SecondaryEducation, by Source, 1980-87 (constant 1987 dollars)

150 “ /

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Yect rSOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-

tics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987(Washington, DC 198~, p. 107;and unpublished data

25

26

funding, at 89 percent; and Mississippi has thehighest proportion of Federal funding, at 16.5 per-cent.4 The bulk of the cost of education is inproviding buildings and paying salaries forteachers and other staff. A tiny proportion is spenton instructional materials, such as textbooks andlaboratory equipment.’ Private schools arefunded from tuition charged to students, althoughthey also receive tax benefits and participate insome Federal aid programs. They enroll about 10percent of students.’ (See figure 2-2. )

4Hawaii is the only State to have only one school district. Thatis, the public schools are, in effect, State run rather than school boardrun.

‘For example, over one-half of public expenditures on elemen-tary and secondary schools in 1979-80 went to “instruction, ” pri-marily teacher salaries. U.S. Department of Education, op. cit., foot-note 1, table 96. According to data from the American Associationof Publishers, the average school district spent $34 on instructionalmaterials per pupil in 1986, of a total spending of $4,000 per pupil,just under 1 percent. Also see Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, testimonybefore the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Tech-nology of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar.22, 1988.

bThe system of public schools is paralleled by an extensive sys-tem of private education for which parents pay tuition (in addition

Figure 2-2.— Public and Private School Enrollmentsand Revenues, by Source, 1985-86

PUBLIC

$146 bill ion

PRIVATE

Local

Although control over public education is inthe hands of the States and the school districts,schooling across the Nation displays remarkableuniformity. 7 Compulsory education generallybegins at age 6, in grade 1; for those who persist,free public schooling ends in grade 12 at age 18.There are three commonly used school classifi-cations: elementary (kindergarten to grade 5, 6,or 7); middle or junior high (grade 6, 7, or 8 tograde 8 or 9); and high (grades 9 or 10 to 12).Schools award grades on a scale that normallystretches from 1 to 4, curricula and course titlesare fairly uniform, and a student’s grade pointaverage is nationally recognized as a measure ofthe student’s progress.

The Nation’s 84,300 public schools are con-trolled and run by autonomous school districts,subject to State laws and systems of organization.These school districts are of very unequal size:the largest 1 percent educate 26 percent of stu-dents, while the smallest 43 percent educate only4 percent of students. The trend is toward con-solidation of smaller districts, and the number ofschool districts has fallen in so years from 120,000to slightly less than 16,000 today.8 Most schooldistricts, although geographically coextensive withlocal governmental units such as counties and cit-ies, raise their own funds through local taxes andbond issues, and are run by locally elected schoolboards. In other districts, funding and control arethe responsibilities of counties and cities.

Just as education nationally displays diversityand uniformity, so it is with mathematics and sci-ence education. The National Science TeachersAssociation estimates that at least 50 percent (8.3

to the taxes that support public schools). The majority of privateschools are of religious foundation.

7See, for example, Barbara Benham Tye, “The Deep Structure ofSchooling, ” I%i Delta Kappan, December 1987, pp. 281-284.

W.S. Department of Education, op. cit., footnote 1, tables 5, 59,60, 62. Data on the distribution of students among school districtsare from fall 1983. Data on the number of public schools are for1983-84. An often overlooked element of local control in educationis the composition of school boards. Ninety-five percent of the 97,000

. - - . . school board members in the United States are elected. They make

( 3 9 . 7 m i l l i o n e n r o l l e d ) ( 5 . 6 m i l l i o n e n r o l l e d )

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statlstlcs

policy on everything from school lunch menus to textbook adop-tion affecting 40 million students. Jeremiah Floyd, National SchoolBoards Association, remarks at Workshop on Strengthening andEnlarging the Pool of Minority High School Graduates Preparedfor Science and Engineering Career Options, Congressional BlackCaucus Braintrust on Science and Technology, Washington, DC,Sept. 16, 1988.

27

million) of the high school population enrolled ina science class in 1986.9 In 1981-82, 78 percent ofhigh school students (9.9 million) were enrolledin mathematics courses. *O To provide these

courses in 1985-86 required a work force of about100,000 science teachers and 173,000 mathematicsteachers, who together made up about 30 percentof the secondary school teaching force .11

‘%lational Science Teachers Association, Survey Analysis of U.S.Public and Private High Schools: 1985-86 (Washington, DC: March1987), p. 5. A 1981-82 analysis indicated about the same numberof enrollments in high school science courses, Evaluation Technol-ogies, Inc., A Trend Study of High School Offerings and Enroll-ments: 1972-73 and 1981-82, NCES 84-224 (Washington, DC: Na-tional Center for Education Statistics, December 1984), p. 17.

1°Evaluation Technologies, Inc., op. cit., footnote 9, p. 16.

‘lNational Science Teachers Association, op. cit., footnote 9, p.2; National Education Association, Status of the American PublicSchool Teacher, 1985-86 (West Haven, CT: 1987), p. 11, table 17.(The National Education Association estimates that 11 percent and4.5 percent of elementary school teachers that specialize in a sub-ject area teach mathematics and science, respectively. )

COMPONENTS OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CURRICULA

For many children, the content of mathematicsand science classes and the way these subjects aretaught critically affect their interest and laterparticipation in science and engineering. The ef-fectiveness of different teaching techniques isaddressed in the next chapter, but this section re-views the controversies over the typical Americanmathematics and science curriculum, the allegeddullness of many science textbooks, and the ex-tent to which greater use of educational technol-ogy, such as computers, could improve the teach-ing of mathematics and science .12

Many mathematics and science educators arecritical of the quality of the mathematics and sci-ence curricula in use in most schools. They seethe curricula as slow-moving, as failing to drawlinks between scientific and mathematical knowl-edge and real-world problems, and as relativelyimpervious to reform .13

lz5imi1ar criticisms are made of the entire K-12 curriculum thattaccording to many observers, fails to draw links between separatecourses or between its content and the workings of the outside world.A recent Carnegie Foundation report called for “. . . a kind of peace-time Manhattan Project on the school curriculum. . . .“ which would,, . . . design, for optional State use, courses in language, history,science and the like and . . . propose ways to link school contentto the realities of life. ” The Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching, Report Card on SchooJ Reform: The TeachersSpeak (Washington, DC: 1988), p. 3. See also Fred M. Newman,“Can Depth Replace Coverage in the High School Curriculum,” PhiDelta Kappan, January 1988, p. 345.

*3Attempts were made to improve mathematics and science cur-ricula in the 1960s via several projects funded by the National Sci-ence Foundation. These projects did have some success, and haveaffected overall curricula in these subjects in particular by stressingthe use of practical experiments. Details on these federally fundedprograms appear in ch. 6.

Typical Mathematics andScience Curricula

The mathematics and science curricula in usein schools are fairly standardized, due to the wide-spread use of the Scholastic Aptitude Test andAmerican College Testing program for college ad-missions, college admission requirements, theworkings of the school textbook market (whichensures considerable uniformity of content), andthe need to accommodate students who transferfrom one school to another. Nevertheless, thereare important differences in the problems of cur-ricula between mathematics and science .14

In mathematics, grades one to seven are de-voted to learning and practicing routine arithmet-ical exercises. In grade seven, the more advancedstudents may move on to take courses that pre-pare them for algebra, but the most commonlyoffered class is “general mathematics. ” The mostable and motivated take algebra in grade eight (iftheir school offers it), and there is some evidencethat the number of algebra classes in grades sevento nine is rising.l5 In higher grades, students goon to courses in advanced algebra (also knownas algebra II), geometry, trigonometry, and eitherprecalculus or calculus (where these are offered).(See figure 2-3.) About 10 percent of each cohort

14See, on science curricula generally, Audrey B. Champagne andLeslie E. Hornig (eds. ), The Science Curriculum: The Report of the1986 National Forum for School Science (Washington, DC: Amer-ican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987).

151ris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Scienceand Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: ResearchTriangle Institute, November 1987), pp. 24-25.

28

Figure 2.3.—Typical Course Progressionin Mathematics and Science

Grade

1

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Mathemat ics— Science

Ar i thmet ic General science

o 100 0 100Percent of students taking course

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

of high school graduates persist in mathematicslong enough to take a calculus course.

The abstract and undemanding pace of themathematics curriculum at all levels has beenwidely criticized recently. Many mathematics edu-cators believe that there is too much emphasis onarithmetical drill and practice, as opposed to anemphasis on understanding mathematical con-cepts and applications. Many highly able studentsin mathematics, likely future science and engineer-ing majors, report that the average curriculumproceeds at too slow a pace.l6 The fact that hand-held calculators—in widespread use in everydaylife nationwide for over a decade—are still rarelyfound or used in mathematics (and science) class-

16&njamin s. B]oom (cd.), Developing Talent in young people

(New York, NY: Ballantine, 1985), pp. 303-311; Lynn Arthur Steen,“Mathematics Education: A Predictor of Scientific Competitiveness, ”Science, vol. 237, July 17, 1987, pp. 251, 252, 302.

rooms is particularly criticized. A 1985 surveyfound that about one-half of mathematics and sci-ence classes in grades 10-12 used calculators atsome point, but the proportion was much lowerin earlier grades (14 percent in the case of gradeK-6 mathematics classes). ” Another surveyfound that almost all students reported that ei-ther they or their family owned a calculator, butless than one-quarter said that their schools hadcalculators for use in mathematics classes .18

Many mathematics educators also note that themathematics curriculum was largely left out ofearlier reform efforts, which concentrated mainlyon science. The experiments in “new math” lefta bad taste in many mouths, and there still re-mains deep suspicion among teachers, parents,and school boards of attempts to develop a “new”mathematics curriculum. Nevertheless, mathe-matics educators are using international compar-isons of curricula, teaching practices, and achieve-ment test scores to demonstrate the inferiority ofmany American mathematics curricula .19 TheNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics isundertaking a consultation program to developcurriculum and assessment standards for schoolmathematics, and the Mathematical Sciences Edu-cation Board, part of the National Research Coun-cil, is launching a broad-based reform programdesigned, in part, to alert parents, school boards,and teachers of the need to improve school math-ematics. (See box 2-A. ) Particular efforts are alsobeing made to improve the teaching of calculus—increasingly taught in high school and, by manyaccounts, appallingly taught at the collegelevel.’”

I’Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, tables 24 and 31, pp. 48, 56.‘8John A. Dossey et al., The Mathematics Report Card: Are We

Measun”ng Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 NationalAssessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988),p. 79.

“Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachieving Curriculum:Assessing U.S. School Mathematics From an International Perspec-tive (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987); andRobert Rothman, “In ‘Bold Stroke, ’ Chicago to Issue Calculatorsto All 4th-8th Graders, ” Education Week, Oct. 14, 1987.

‘“National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, “Curriculumand Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics: Working Draft,”unpublished manuscript, October 1987; Robert Rothman, “MathGroup Sets New ‘Vision’ for Curriculum, ” Education Week, Nov.11, 1987, p. 5; and Lynn Arthur Steen (cd.), Calculus for a NewCentury; A Pump, Not a Filter (Washington, DC: MathematicalAssociation of America, 1988).

29

BOX 2-A.-The Special Role af the fkkmce ~‘E@ne=k&,pmw’~ Co-titi-blWb@kW, “, “ d m ~& , “: -

S c i e n c e i s a n a c t i v e e n d e a v o r . In facilities all ower the world, scientists, engi-neers, and technicians form research -Commwtitks providlt tlw ccdkagues, verification,peer review, and legitimacy of the researd @r@*. M@mb@!s of these communities also prepare futuregenerations of researchers. Many nwrn~,af - curnmuai~ have ar!t x interest in science edu-c a t i o n , e v e n a t t h e p=ollege level, f~~~~ with co&iiiR’bR%ating t h e j o y a n d b e a u t yof ~ience and with nurturing fut~ w+- oft&k %%t,’ e th~, obv@s potential linkages betweenmathematics and science educa- and the practice of sciewR and engineering, there is still a continuingneed to forge those linkages. t ,-

Teachers and educators often lament that research ~~”~vek ~P@ them and re-main indifferent to the early preparation of future taknt. %Q u qctent, there will always be friction be-tween th- groups; many scientists disdain educatom, WkI!R IW sw = ~relY mas-produced and dis-seminating yesterday’s knowledge, Deeper mutual- * needed.

Two major initiatives are under way to b- A _ education: the AmericanAssociation for the Advancementt of Science’s Projwt 3061 and%dw Ma@mwtic al Sciences Education Board,based at the National Research Council. Proje@ 2061 @g#kra gpip uf prominent scientiststo reform science and mathematics education for the next%!. comet ~1 n=t returnto Earth. The Project has three phases: content~. -tio~l’tidation, and educationaltransformation. In the first phase, the gro~p is ‘@<d&i& the science, technology, and mathe-matics that all high school graduates ~atdd hwff aa@Ed phase, these “goals for learning” willtransmute into educational guidelines for curriciila, schd cqanization, tmcher training and support, andtesting methods. Finally, in the third ph-: . . ,

. . . the strategies and mechanisms neded to reform Am- in* &&t of the intellectual framew-ork of Phase I and the educational @delines of P&M II will b estabW $md monitored. This phase willhave to be a highly cooperative, nation- effort WMdI W d- reSOWCWS# rno~to~ props, and, ~ gen-eral, provide direction and continuity of effort.1

The Mathematical Sciences Education Board was estak4ished in Uctobgr 1985 with the aim of launch-ing a major reform effort for elementary, secordary, *’@d~i%&l@e teadhbg of mathematics, focusingin particular on curricula. ’l”he primary purposed t&,&wr&$”. . . tOprc@d@ a continuing national over-view and assessment capability for mathematics edwaticm.” The Board works under the auspices of theNational Research Council, and on it sit mathenwticiqns, risM@matiQ educators, and people familiar withschools and school systems. The Board is wmkin$ ~ public understanding of school mathe-matics issues, raising national expectations for madwma-’ _ ~d lem~ ~d rea~~g a cOn-

~n It kpkxwv to help States and schoolsensus on goals and education fw future matdistricts improve their perfo~ ● .

IP. Jalm$ RukdOFd et al., TrOjtGt 206$: %& $rkx Cunidffm: 77te Report of the 1986 NationaI Fommfor SchooJWence. Au&g B. ~arid Mle E. adg W%) &mdatha for the Mvancement of Science, 19S7),pp. 61-65.

Zynn Arthur Staezl (d.), Calculw fore New C@tarp A Pump, N@’”a F##er., DC: Mathematical Aaaociation of America, 19SS).

In science, until grade eight, most students take taught separately, and teachers fail to draw thegeneral science cou~ses. In grade nine, upon trans-fer to high school, they typically take general sci-ence, biology, then chemistry, earth science, andfinally physics. About 20 percent of high schoolgraduates persist in science long enough to takephysics .2] In many schools, these courses are

link; and contrasts among the different science dis-ciplines. The typical order of their presentation—biology, chemistry, physics—is deeply ingrainedin the culture of American school science, butsome teachers feel that other arrangements wouldbe better, and would draw more effective links

‘*In 1987, 20.1 percent of high school graduates earned minimalcredits in physics, up from 13.9 percent in 1982. Westat, “1987 High

School Transcript Study, ” unpublished tabulations for the “Nationat Risk Update Study, ” May 1988, p. 110.

30

with mathematics courses. (For comparison, see science educators are deeply critical of typical sci-figure 2-4, which outlines the order of courses fol- ence textbooks, which they say concentratelowed by a science magnet school in which this largely on defining terms without explaining theirtraditional order is reversed. origin and the scientific concepts that they de-

scribe. Science, they say, ends up being presented

Problems With Textbooks

Most mathematics and science in schools istaught with the aid of textbooks, which are anarea of considerable controversy (more so in sci-ence than in mathematics).22 Many scientists and

~A 1985.86 su~ey of teachers indicated that over 90 percent ofmathematics and science classes in grades seven to nine used a pub-

lished textbook or program, a proportion which has remained levelsince 1977. About two-thirds of elementary science classes use them,as do over 90 percent of elementary mathematics classes. The sur-vey also found that most teachers claimed to cover at least 7S per-cent of the book that they used. See Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15,tables 14 and 19. A similar survey of students found that three-quarters of students in grade 7 and 11 reported using mathematicstextbooks in classes daily, and only 4 or s percent, respectively,“never” used textbooks in class. In grade three classes, more useis made of workbooks or ditto sheets than textbooks. See Dosseyet a]., op. cit., footnote 18, p. 78.

Figure 2-4.–Curriculum of a Mathematics/Science/Computer Science Magnet Program for the Class of 1991

YearGrade 9

I s tsemester

2ndsemester

Grade 10

I s tsemester

2ndsemester

Grade 11

1stsemester

2ndsemester

Grade 12

I s tsemester

2ndsemester

MathematicsCourse sequence

Magnet FunctionsA&B

(1 credit)or

Magnet PrecalculusA,B,C

AnalysisA&B

(1 1/2 C r e d i t s )

Analysis II(1/2 credit)

orLinear Algebra

orDiscrete Mathematics

orExcursion Topics inMath

Guided Research,InternshipCooperatives,University courses,etc.

Science

Advanced Science 1Physics

(1 credit)

Advanced Science 2Chemistry

(1 credit)

Advanced Science 3Earth Science

(1/2 credit)

Advanced Science 4Biology

(1 credit)

Advanced mini-courses,research, internships,university courses,special topics,cooperatives, etc.

(variable credit)

Examples:Climatology,Tectonics,Metallurgy,Cellular physiology,Biomedical seminar,Thermodynamics,Optics,Cooperatives

Seminar

Research andExperimentationTechniques forProblem Solving 1including:

Probability andStatistics

Research Methods( 1 / 2 C r e d i t )

Research andExperimentationTechniques forProblem Solving 2

(1/2 credit)

(1/2 Credit)

Research andExperimentationTechniques forProblem Solving 3

(1 credit)

Guided senior projectinvolving researchand/or developmentacross discipline lines

(1 credit)

Computer Science

Fundamentals ofComputer Science A

(1/2 Credit)

Fundamentals ofComputer Science B

(1/2 Credit)

Algorithms andData Structures A

(1/2 credit)

Algorithms andData Structures B

(12 Credit )

Advanced topics insemester and mini-courses, universitystudy, special topicsessions, projects

(variable credit)

Examples:Analysis of

Algorithms,Graphics,Survey of Languages,Computer

Architecture &Organization,

Game Theory

NOTE: Elective courses for grades 11, 12 include options like: Advanced Placement courses. Game Theow, ToDoloaY, Mathematical Proarammina, Abstract Alaebra.Cooperative Languages, Robotics, Computer Architecture, Systems Design, Organic Chemistry, Quantitative ;nalysis, Astrophysic~, Plant P%ysioiogy, Befiaviorand Brain Chemistry, Calculus in BiologylEcology.

SOURCE: Montgomery Blair High School, Silver Spring, MD, September 1987.

as a monolith of unconnected and unchallenge-able “facts,” which are learned only by those stu-dents with extraordinary memories and with anoverriding determination to pass the standardizedtests of their ability to recall such definitions. (Theneed to address “facts,” as well as their interpre-tation and construction, is discussed in box 2-B. )As a result, students find the textbooks boring.For example, one recent review by a science edu-. . . * . , . .cater ot a newly revised biology textbook notes:

tion, to explain concepts or to explain biology,and it is rich in absurdity. The writers reduce thetopic of “scientific methods” to two paragraphswithin a confusing passage on “The Origin ofLife.” . . . The book . . is attractive but scientif-ically meaningless.

[The book] presents a frenetic display of facts–a smothering blanket of facts—and it will not in-spire scientific thinking in any student or teacher.At most, it will impart an artificial and shallowsense of learning while it damages imagination

[This] product offers facts, pseudofacts and and creativity .23cliches in a matrix of rote sentences and plentiful 23National Center for Science Education, Inc., Bookwatch, vol.pictures. It continually fails to integrate informa- 1, No. 1, February 1988,

.

32

The evidence is that both the economics of text-book publication and the politics of textbookselection result in “watered-down,” poorly writ-ten, but attractive and fact-filled textbooks.24

Some educators bitterly criticize the process oftextbook “adoption” (approved for use statewide)used in 22 States. These States have a great dealof control over the content of the books. As a re-sult, textbooks are designed to meet adoption cri-teria in the few key States such as Texas and Cali-fornia (in kindergarten to grade eight only) thatguarantee the largest market if the book is ap-proved. States that do not have textbook adop-tion mechanisms consequently have a more lim-ited choice of textbooks, because publishers arereluctant to incur the cost of producing new vol-umes for these smaller markets.

Because of the pressure to include material thatwill satisfy textbook adoption committees and inorder to outdo rival publishers, textbooks typi-cally are large and heavy, profusely illustrated,are often printed in full color, but are surprisinglyuniform in content. The books typically increasein size and weight with each edition, becomingmore expensive, harder to carry, and more diffi-cult for students to take home and study. The text-

24For criticism of the general textbook situation and suggestionsfor policy reform, see Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, A Conspiracy ofGood Intentions: America’s Textbook Fiasco (Washington, DC: TheCouncil for Basic Education, 1988). Also see Tyson-Bernstein, op.cit., footnote 5; and Richard P. Feynman, Surely You’re Joking, Mr.Feynman: Adventures of a Curious Character (New York, NY: Ban-tam Books, 1986), pp. 262-276.

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Formal education relies heavily on textbooks marketedby major publishing companies. Most educators find

that these textbooks vary greatly in quality.

books often include a huge quantity of material,in order to ensure that each State’s recommendedscience curriculum is covered and that all inter-est groups are mollified. However, many impor-tant but controversial aspects of science, mostnotoriously the theory of evolution, may be omit-ted or given inadequate treatment.

Interest groups lobby State textbook adoptioncommittees to ensure that their own viewpoint isincluded, but the effect is that new text and pic-tures are added—material is rarely deleted. Ulti-mately, depth is sacrificed for breadth. And, be-cause the adoption process typically involves anexpert panel that quickly skims each volume, thetextbooks often are designed to have key wordsin prominent places and be attractively packaged.The result is often textbooks that are a “lowestcommon denominator” of inoffensive facts, lim-ited in conveying to students the process of con-structing new scientific knowledge or the uses thatare made of it. Some have described science text-books as “glossaries masquerading as textbooks.”Often, the “facts” themselves are old or entirelydiscredited. As a recent analysis of the process oftextbook adoption notes:

We have dozens of powerful ministries of edu-cation [States] issuing undisciplined lists of par-ticulars that publishers must include in the text-books. Since publishers must sell in as manyjurisdictions as possible in order to turn a profit,their books must incorporate this melange of test-oriented trivia, pedagogical faddism and incon-sistent social messages. . . . Under current selec-tion procedures, those responsible for choosingthe best among available books seem blind to theincoherence and unreadability of the book be-cause they are merely ascertaining the presenceof the required material, not its depth or clarity .25

In economic terms, the textbook market is quiteconcentrated, as indicated in table 2-1. For exam-ple, almost half of all elementary mathematicsclasses and 37 percent of all elementary scienceclasses use one of the three most commonly usedtextbooks in these grades. Only a few textbookpublishers supply much of the market. Yet a num-ber of smaller publishers happily coexist along side

25Tyson-Bernstein, A Conspiracy of Good Intentions, op. cit.,footnote 24, pp. 7, 109-110; also see National Science Board, Science& Engineering Indicators, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1987), pp. 35-36.

33

Table 2-1 .—Most Commonly Used Mathematics and Science Textbooks

Percentage ofclasses that

Publisher Title use book

Science, grades K-6:Silver Burdett . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D.C. Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, grades 7-9:Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, grades 10-12:HoIt, Rinehart, Winston. . . . . .HoIt, Rinehart, Winston. . . . . .Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, grades K.6:Addison-Wesley . . . . . . . . . . . .D.C. Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scott, Foresman . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, grades 7-9:Houghton Mifflin . . . . . . . . . . .D.C. Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scott, Foresman . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, grades 10-12:Houghton Mifflin . . . . . . . . . . .Houghton Mifflin . . . . . . . . . . .HoIt, Rinehart, Winston. . . . . .

Science: Understanding Your Environment 17Accent on ScienceScience

Focus on Life SciencePrinciples of ScienceFocus on Physical Science

Modern BiologyModern ChemistryChemistry: A Modern Course

Mathematics in Our WorldMathematicsInvitation to Mathematics

Algebra: Structure and MethodMathematicsMathematics Around Us

Algebra: Structure and MethodGeometryAlgebra With Trigonometry

1010

988

1495

1615

7

744

1482

SOURCE: Iris R Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 National Survey of Scierrce and Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park,NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), tables C.1 and C.2.

the major publishers, supplying either materialsfor parts of courses or entire texts.” Neverthe-less, it is not a huge market since it is estimatedthat, in 1986, the total sales of instructional ma-terials was equivalent to about $34 per student(only about 1 percent of the annual cost of edu-cation per student) .27

Despite these gloomy assessments, a recent sur-vey of mathematics and science teachers foundthat only a minority of them were concernedabout textbook quality. When asked whether thepoor quality of textbooks was a serious problemin their school, 11 percent of K-6 science teachersand 5 percent of grade 10-12 science teachers saidyes. Fewer than 8 percent of mathematics teachers

26A 1985-86 survey found that 10 publishers (Addison-Wesley;Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; D.C. Heath; HoIt, Rinehart, Winston;Houghton Mifflin; Laidlaw; MacMillan; Merrill; Scott, Foresman;and Silver Burdett) accounted for at least three-quarters of allmathematics and science textbooks at all levels, and that two pub-lishers accounted for almost one-half of each of elementarymathematics and science textbooks. See Weiss, op. cit., footnote15, pp. 32-37.

2Tyson-Bernstein, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 13 and table II. Basedon data from the Association of American Publishers, 1986.

thought it was a problem. Between 15 and 25 per-cent of teachers thought that the quality of text-books was somewhat of a problem. Factors suchas large class sizes, inadequate access to com-puters, lack of funds for equipment and supplies,inadequate facilities, poor student reading abili-ties, and students’ lack of interest were cited tobe more serious problems. Indeed, teachers ratedthe organization, clarity, and reading level of text-books favorably. Elementary teachers had morefavorable ratings of textbooks than did second-ary teachers.28

Textbooks pose several contradictions: mostteachers seem (rightly or wrongly) to like the text-books they use, many outside reviewers are skep-tical of the scientific worth of many mathematicsand science textbooks, there are apparently nooverwhelming barriers to entry to the market, andpowerful political and economic forces shape thedynamics of the textbook market. Devising “bet-ter” textbooks is not enough, for they must beadopted to be used and they are likely, on present

‘sWeiss, op. cit., footnote 15, pp. 40-42 and tables 20, 21, and 71.

34

evidence, to be severely corrupted in the process.The best teachers have the ability to go beyondthe material in textbooks, to provide supplemen-tary material and examples, and to weave the con-cepts that the books try to explain into some co-herent whole. But many teachers do not have thetime, energy, or authority to use materials otherthan the approved texts.

Overall, the deficiencies, if any, in currentmathematics and science textbooks stem from thedivorce between the buyers and users of text-books. Greater teacher involvement in textbookselection, a more courageous selection of mem-bers of textbook selection committees by States,and a greater participation by qualified scientistsand engineers in the textbook adoption processwill help, but not rectify, the problem .29

Use of Computers in Mathematicsand Science Education

Computers offer new approaches for learningmathematics and science for all children, and helpprepare students for college courses and techni-cal careers that will demand familiarity with thetechnology .30 If used well and imaginatively,computers can increase students’ interest and im-prove learning, particularly for both the most and

‘qThere is a Federal role, too. The National Science Foundationhas issued a “publisher initiative” that outlines criteria for neededstudent assessment materials in baseline science development projectsfor the elementary grades and middle school. Since 1987, the Na-tional Science Foundation has funded seven “Troika” programs,, . . . intended to encourage partnerships among publishers, schoolsystems, and scientists/science educators for the purpose of develop-ing and disseminating a number of competitive, high quality, alter-native science programs for use in typical American elementaryschools. ” See the National Science Foundation, Science and Engineer-ing Education Directorate, Instructional Materials Development Pro-gram, “Publisher Initiative” and “The ‘Troika’ Program, ” unpub-lished documents, July 1988.

~his discussion centers on the now-familiar desktop personalcomputer or computer with keyboard and/or mouse input. Someschools have networked computers, or links with computers at othersites. Some schools, in particular science-intensive schools, havemore powerful computers, computerized laboratory instrumenta-tion, and computer-aided data processing equipment. Other infor-mation technologies, such as interactive videodiscs, are also powerfullearning tools but they are less widespread than computers. Calcu-lators, present in increasing numbers of classrooms, are having agreater effect than computers, because they reach many more stu-dents and are more readily linked in teachers’ minds with existingcurricula items, such as arithmetic. For more detail, see U.S. Con-gress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools forTeaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September 1988).

least advanced students. But the educational im-pact of computers is limited when the rest of theclassroom environment stays the same. Conclu-sive research on effectiveness is meager .31

Computer technology and software are evolv-ing. Educators are still discovering both positiveand negative impacts on students, classrooms, andlearning; how best to use the technologies to im-prove learning; and what support is needed inteacher training, curriculum modification, and re-search. Use of computers by teachers and studentsis still quite limited, although their availability andthe equality of access enjoyed by different schoolsand students is improving. The use and future im-pact of computers depends on familiar featuresof the rest of the school system: curricula, time,quality of overall science and mathematics instruc-tion, and, most of all, the comfort and compe-tence of teachers with computers.

Nature and Extent of Use

The potential of computers is slowly being real-ized. Regular computer use is not extensive, al-though almost all schools now have at least somecomputers available. Primarily because of thesmall number of computers relative to students(the computer-to-student ratio in science classesis estimated to be 1:15 in middle school and rang-ing from 1:10 to 1:17 in high school, which ishigher than the average in all subject areas), com-puters are most commonly used as infrequent en-richments rather than as an integral part of sci-ence teaching.32 About one-third of high schoolmathematics teachers use computers in the class-room. 33 Nevertheless, much of this is occasional

JIHenV J. Becker, Center for Research on Elementary and Mid-dle Schools, “The Impact of Computer Use on Children’s Learning:What Research Has Shown and What It Has Not,” unpublishedmanuscript, 1988.

32Sylvia Shafto and Joanne Capper, “Doing Science Together, ”Teaching, Learning and Technology: A Digest of Research WithPractical Implications, vol. 1, No. 2, summer 1987, p. 2. A 1985survey found that over 90 percent of schools had access to com-puters, but that only in about one-quarter of mathematics and scienceclasses was this equipment readily available. Often, it is shared withother classes, or kept in special-purpose rooms that must be sched-uled in advance. Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, table 68.

JJBecker found 17 percent for middle and secondary schools,while the National Science Teachers Association found 26 percentfor all schools with a grade 12 (all secondary schools and a few mid-dle schools). See Henry Becker, “1985 National Survey, ” Instruc-tional Uses of School Computers, No. 4, June 1987; and National

35

use, and amounts to a small fraction of instruc-tional t ime.3 4 A 1985 survey noted that

. . . there is only the hint that secondary schoolscience instruction might be profoundly affectedby computers. The impact is largely still in thefuture.” 35

Computers are not used intensively in scienceclasses. (See figure 2-5. ) In secondary school, only5 to 10 percent of computer use is for science; inelementary school, it is about 1 percent. Therehas been a slight decrease in the number of sci-ence programs available over the past 5 years,especially in chemistry and physics.

A unique application of computers in scienceis in the microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL),where computers can simulate experiments orprocess and display data obtained from simulatedexperiments. 36 (See box 2-C. ) The use of sciencelaboratories in science teaching has declined formany reasons, but computers can reduce some ofthe barriers to laboratory work, such as the ris-ing cost of supplies, purchasing and maintainingequipment, concerns about safety hazards and lia-bility, limited teacher competence in experimentalwork, the complexity of some experimental pro-cedures, and the “one time—look quick” natureof many laboratories.37 MBLs can also help chil-

Science Teachers Association, “Survey Analysis of U.S. Public andPrivate High Schools: 1985-86,” unpublished document, March 1987.

34A 1985+6 survey found that, in grades 10-12, 10 Percent of

mathematics classes and 5 percent of science classes used computersin their last lesson, but one-third of courses of each type used themat some point. Elementary students spend more time with computersthan secondary students, but still two-thirds of K-6 mathematicscJasses and 85 percent of K-6 science classes report not using com-puters at all “last week.” Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, pp. 48, 58,59, tables 24, 32, 33. Another recent survey has found computeraccess for learning mathematics to be relatively equitable across thesexes, races, and ethnicities, although high-ability students are morelikely to report that they have access than are low-ability students.About one-third of high school juniors have taken a computer pro-gramming course. Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 18, pp. 82-86.

35 Becker, op. cit., footnote 33, p. 11.~Shafto and Capper, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 1. However, com-

puters are used much more widely in the science classroom thanin the laboratory.

37Alan Lesgold, “Computer Resources for Learning, PeabodyJournal of Education, vol. 62, No. 2,1985, cited in Shafto and Cap-per, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 4. A 1985 survey found that the num-ber of mathematics and science classes that had used “hands-on”activities in their most recent lesson had declined at all grade levels(with the sole exception in K-3 mathematics) since 1977. For exam-ple, while 53 percent of grade 10-12 science classes in 1977 reportedusing hands-on activities, in 1985 only 39 percent did. Weiss, op.cit., footnote 15, table 25, p. 49.

Figure 2.5.—Time Spent Using Computers inMathematics and Science Classes, by Grade,

in Minutes Per Week, 1985-86

Mathemat ics

I K - 6 7 - 9 1 0 - 1 2

Science

I K - 6 7 – 9 1 0 - 1 2 I

SOURCE: Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 hlational Survey of Science andMathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Trian-gle Institute, November 1987), p. 59

dren learn the process of science and research—hypothesis formation, testing, asking “what if”questions, gathering and analyzing data—at theirown pace. Students using MBLs have showngreater understanding of basic principles and skillssuch as graphing data than students in regular lab-oratories. w

Besides limited access to machines, other im-portant barriers to more extensive use of com-puters are teachers’ lack of familiarity with thetechnology and the lack of educational software(computer programs). Surveys indicate that com-paratively few mathematics and science teachershave taken courses either in the instructional usesof computers or in computer programming. Onlya bare majority of secondary mathematics teach-ers have taken either of these courses (table 2-2).

About one-half of educational software is de-voted to topics in mathematics, science, and com-puter literacy. Mathematics was one of the firstapplications of educational computing, and con-

340 ffice of Technology Assessment, Op. Cit., footnote 30~ Ch” 5‘

36

f" J

" .~

37

Table 2-2.—Courses in Computers Takenby Mathematics and Science Teachers

Percentage of teachersthat have taken

Instructionaluses of Computer

computers programmina

Mathematics teachers:Grades K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 17Grades 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 24Grades 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 46Grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 64

Science teachers:Grades K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11Grades 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 21Grades 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 33Grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 33SOURCE Ins R Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and

Mathematws Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research TriangleInstitute, November 1987), tables 39, 40, 41, and 44,

tinues to be the subject where students are mostlikely to encounter computers. More software isavailable for mathematics than for any other sub-ject area, although most of it is for learning andpracticing basic skills.” For example, interactivecomputer graphics can be powerful in helping chil-dren construct graphs and visualize algebraic andgeometric functions.

Computer Impacts, Opportunities, and Needs

Computers offer the potential for individual-ized instruction. If carefully developed and used,computers and software can open doors to math-ematics and science for students, particularly fe-males and minorities, who traditionally have hadlimited interest or success in these courses. Inmany settings, however, computers can also rein-force existing patterns and stereotypes: boys tendto crowd girls away from computers, affluent chil-dren benefit from computers at home and moreextensive access at school. Little is known as yetof the impact of different kinds and intensity ofcomputer use on interest in, and preparation for,different college majors.

Computers also make it possible to offer coursesthat might not otherwise be available. Distance

3gIbid.

learning or packaged computer courses can en-rich the schooling of advanced high school stu-dents or rural students in schools with limitedcourse offerings. Likewise, familiarity with com-puters is becoming expected of incoming collegestudents, particularly in science and engineering.If students do not have the opportunity to workwith computers, computers may become yetanother barrier to attainment of educational goals.

A pressing need is to help current science andmathematics teachers become comfortable usingcomputers in the classroom and laboratory. Al-though most new teachers being trained are ex-posed to computers, many of them still report notbeing comfortable using them.40 Technolog y

training has unique aspects that distinguish it fromother inservice training, in particular a need forspecial facilities and equipment. Teachers musthave generous access to computers to use themeffectively.

Continuing research on learning and evalua-tions of the effectiveness of computer-aided edu-cation are needed. Trials of different schools andlearning structures would help in evaluating thestrengths and weaknesses of computer technol-ogies. The challenge is to measure the process oflearning, and not just the content and outcomesof acquired knowledge. Another need is develop-ment of computer-integrated curricula, whichbuilds the strengths of computers into curriculafrom the start rather than appending them to ex-isting curricular frameworks.

The Federal Government has helped schoolsacquire computers, supported research on theiruses and their integration with curricula, and tosome extent augmented private sector devel-opment of hardware, software, and services .4]Some Department of Education funds, althoughnot specifically targeted to computers, have

4OLe$~ than ~ne.third of recent graduates fee] prepared to teachwith computers. See ibid., p. 98.

411bid., and Arthur S. Melmed and Robert A. Burnham, “NewInformation Technology Directions for American Education: Im-proving Science and Mathematics Educationr ” report to the Nationa]Science Foundation, unpublished manuscript, December 1987.

38

helped schools acquire hardware and software.Title II of the Education for Economic SecurityAct of 1984 (see ch. 6) has supported teacher train-ing. The National Science Foundation has beeninstrumental in software development, network-ing among schools, and teacher training. Federalinfluence has been small compared to that fromequipment manufacturers or vendors (amongwhom Apple has been prominent) and privatefoundations. 42 States are active in the movement

‘The Federal Government could promote software development.Melmed and Burnham, op. cit., footnote 41, pp. 12-13, suggest that

VARIATION AMONG SCHOOLS

As any parent knows, schools vary in a myriadof ways; their location, control, and funding mayaffect their children’s progress. For example, thereis some evidence that private Catholic schools areespecially effective at channeling their studentstoward academic college education, owing to thepersonal attention and high expectations they givetheir students.43

OTA did not analyze data on the special fea-tures of mathematics and science instruction inprivate schools compared with public schools.Rather, it considered the contrasts among urban,suburban, and rural public schools, as related totheir respective socioeconomic settings and expec-tations of parents and other taxpayers. For exam-ple, urban school districts often have poor taxbases and cannot readily raise funds for educa-tion. Suburban school systems have much less dif-ficulty and can attract good teachers. There arecontinuing pressures for some suburban and ur-

43James S. Coleman and Thomas Hoffer, Public and PrivateHigh Schools (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1987) is a recent anal-ysis of this proposition. Although this analysis does not specificallyseparate out mathematics and science education, the authors con-clude that the ethos of the community surrounding a school, in-cluding taxpayers and parents, is more important in explaining thesuccess of private schools than are particular actions that the schooltakes. Some argue that the political and bureaucratic milieux withinwhich public schools operate harms them. See John E. Chubb andTerry M. Moe, “No School Is an Island: Politics, Markets, and Edu-cation, ” The Brookings Review, fall 1986, pp. 21-28. Other analystshave found that any advantage in the outputs of private school sci-ence experiences are balanced by the strong self-selectivity of pri-vate school students. See John R. Staver and Herbert J. Walberg,“An Analysis of Factors That Affect Public and Private School Sci-ence Achievement, ” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol.23, No. 2, 1986, pp. 97-112.

to improve basic skills (including mathematics andscience literacy), in which computers are playingan increasing role.

the Federal Government fund four mathematics and four sciencecurricula to meet the goal of a science and mathematics course eachyear of high school. A rough estimate is that such developmentwould cost about $2 million ($1 to $4 million) per course. Develop-ment should include review of old and existing curricula. Distribu-tion and maintenance might total 25 percent of development costs,but could be recovered through a school user fee, Trials would needto be several years long.

ban school systems to merge or to share funds andresources, in the interests of both racial and fi-nancial equity. The health of inner city schoolswill be particularly important in encouraging mi-nority youth to pursue science and engineeringmajors. The 44 largest urban school systems, rep-resented by the Council of Great City Schools,enroll about 10 percent of the entire school pop-ulation, but 33 percent of the Blacks and 27 per-cent of the Hispanics in public schools. Theseschools also enroll a disproportionately largenumber of students whose family incomes are be-low the poverty line.44 Data from the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)assessments of science and mathematics achieve-ment indicate that students in disadvantaged ur-ban areas score an average of about 20 percentlower than the national average, while those insuburban areas score about 5 percent higher thanthe national average.45

“WiIIiam Snider, “Urban Schools Have Turned Corner But StillNeed Help, Report Says, “ Education Week, vol. 7, No. 2, Sept. 16,1987, pp. 1, 20. Also see Bruce L. Wilson and Thomas B. Corco-ran, Places Where Children Succeed: A Profile of OutstandingElementary Schools, Report to U.S. Department of Education, Of-fice of Educational Research and Improvement (Philadelphia, PA:Research for Better Schools, December 1987).

45U.S. Department of Education, op. cit., footnote 1, table 79.This statement is based on mathematics data for 1981-82 and sci-ence data for 1976-77. Due to cutbacks in the Department of Edu-cation’s funding for the National Assessment of Educational Progress,a limited science assessment was conducted in 1981-82 with fund-ing from the National Science Foundation. Data from that assess-ment were not tabulated by the geographic location of respondents,so cannot be used in this comparison. The 1986 assessment in math-ematics shows continued gains by Black and Hispanic students inall three age categories (9, 13, and 17). See Dossey et al., op. cit.,footnote 18.

3 9

Rural school systems face different problemsin providing high-quality education, particularlyin advanced mathematics and science, to geo-graphically dispersed populations. While the daysof the one-school school district are passing, ru-ral districts still find it difficult to provide optionaladvanced mathematics and science courses andto attract the best teachers. These problems willgrow worse in areas of rural America that con-tinue to experience economic declines. Experi-ments are under way in some areas with distancelearning technologies and regional science highschools. ”

Standardized Achievement Testing

Students take many kinds of tests throughouttheir schooling to measure their learning and mas-tery of skills. Such tests are used to sort studentsamong classes and tracks, to evaluate performa-nce, to check for special abilities (see section inch. 4 on programs for gifted and talented students)or learning disabilities, and to inform the collegeadmissions process. Tests of basic competenciesof high school graduates are growing in favor aspart of the movement toward increased educa-tional accountability. A 1985 survey found that11 States required such tests of high school grad-uates, and 4 had plans to institute such tests.47

Many of these tests are of the familiar stand-ardized multiple-choice type. Scores report stu-dents’ progress both in absolute terms and rela-tive to the performance of their peers. Such testsare inexpensive to administer; scoring is oftendone by computer.

But testing is controversial on several counts.It is said to deter many students from preparingfor science and engineering careers. The tests arealso said to convey racial, cultural, and gender

biases against women and ethnic minorities thatostensibly lead to lower scores .48 Some claimthat testing has a pervasive harmful effect on thecurriculum: teachers invite students to parrot backfacts they have memorized, with the result thatstudents’ higher order thinking skills are not ex-ercised. 49 A recent issue of the Newsletter of theNational Education Association’s Mastery inLearning Project put the issue most dramatically:

Perhaps it has been the failure to understandintelligence —how it is nurtured or stunted, howit works, how it should be measured, even whereit resides—that has done the most damage to theeducation of children.

Because the workings and the vulnerability ofthe intellect have been so dimly understood byso many, teaching has often been rigidly fact-driven, heavily demanding of linguistic, logical,linear thinking skills, and often neglecting thoseaspects of learning that involve imagery, intuitive-ness, manual and whole body skills, and feelings.

Partly because of this failure of understanding,educational testing companies have continued toproduce, states to require, and schools to admin-ister, paper and pencil tests that, in purportingto measure students’ achievement, have succeededonly in labeling and limiting it. w

The current practice of educational testing ap-pears to constrict the pipeline for future scientistsand engineers. It measures only a limited rangeof abilities and is often misused to deny studentsaccess to courses and encouragement that mighttip the balance toward their becoming scientistsand engineers. Alternative tests are being devisedto address, in particular, knowledge of theprocesses of science, familiarity with experimentaltechniques, and higher order thinking skills, butthe nagging problem will be resistance to theirreplication and large-scale adoption both for class-room use and in the college admissions process.5]

*E. Robert Stephens, “Rural Problems Jeopardize Reform,” Edu-cation Week, Oct. 7, 1987, pp. 25-26. A new federally sponsoredproject called ACCESS, in northwest Missouri, is designed to ex-pand rural students’ access to higher education in all subjects. Leg-islation has been introduced to set up similar programs in otherStates. See Robin Wilson, “U.S.-Backed Project in Missouri Aimsto Help Rural Youths Overcome Farm Troubles and Continue TheirEducation, ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 27, 1988, pp.A37-A38.

47U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “StateEducational Testing Practices, ” background paper, NTIS #PB88-155056, December 1987.

wNeverthe]=s, it is important to note that Asian students tYPi-

cally do better than other groups on the mathematics portion ofthese tests, indicating the difficulty of pinning down exactly whatform any racial and cultural biases take.

49A comprehensive review is found in Norman Frederiksen, “TheReal Test Bias: Influences on Teaching and Learning, ” AmericanPsychologist, vol. 39, No. 3, March 1984, pp. 193-202.

‘National Education Association Mastery in Learning Project,Doubts and Certainties, vol. II, No. 6, April 1988, p. 1.

SIThe Aswssment of performance Unit of Great Britain’s Depart-ment of Education and Science, for example, has devised tests ofstudents’ skills in conducting experiments and in interpreting these


40


Students are tested early and often in schools; this canhelp in evaluating their learning progress, but it also

profoundly affects the curriculum.

The biggest controversies in testing, as it affectsthose who will major in science and engineering,have concerned the Scholastic Aptitude Test(SAT) and the American College Testing pro-gram, one of which almost all intending collegestudents take prior to admission .52 Because these(continued from previous page)results. These tests have been replicated by the National Assessmentof Educational Progress and in the advanced placement biology ex-amination. Fran et al., A of Higher-OrderThinking Skills Assessment Techniques in Science and Mathematics(Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress, No-vember 1986). Also see Robert E. “Assess All Five Domainsof Science, ” The Science Teacher, October 1987, pp. 33-37; andGeorge E. Hein, “The Right Test for Hands-on Learning, ” Scienceand Children, October 1987, pp. 8-12.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, EducatingScientists and Engineers: Grade to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988),pp. 35-36. Also see Elizabeth Greene, “SAT Scores Fail to Help Ad-mission Officers Make Better Decisions, Analysts Contend, ” TheChronicle of Higher Education, July 27, 1988, p. A20.

tests are given great weight in admissions deci-sions by colleges and universities, any deficien-cies in the preparation or administration of thesetests could lead to “misassignment” of studentsamong colleges and majors, or the failure of stu-dents to be admitted to college at all. Standardizedtests have been important in college admissionsfor many decades, because they are economicalto administer and measure students nationallyagainst a common metric. But criticism of, in par-ticular, the SAT by activist groups such as theCambridge-based National Center for Fair andOpen Testing (FairTest) and others in educationis leading a small but increasing number of col-leges and universities to drop their requirementfor applicants to take the SAT.53

Females, Blacks, and Hispanics, on average,score lower than males and whites on the mathe-matics and verbal portions of these tests. In rela-tion to disparities on the mathematics portion,some argue that this difference arises from therelatively poor preparation and limited numberof mathematics and science courses taken by thesegroups. But others say that subtle biases in thetests’ design and administration are a cause ofsome of the disparity .54

One important trend in testing is the increas-ing number of advanced placement programs be-ing offered by schools. These programs give highschool students college credit in a particular sub-ject, based on the results of an examination whichinvolves both multiple-choice and written re-sponses. Many argue that this makes the advancedplacement a better test, although it is more ex-pensive than regular college admissions tests (cost-ing over $50 per test). The number of such testsbeing taken is increasing about 13 percent annu-ally, and about 20 percent of all secondary schools

53David Owen, None of the Above (Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin, 1985); Robert Rothman, “Admission Tests Misused, SaysCollege Leader,” Education Dec. 9, 1987, p. 5. reportsthat at least 40 colleges now do not require either the Scholastic Ap-titude Test or the American College Testing program for college ad-mission. When colleges do not use these tests, they increase theweight that they place on other components of the admissions proc-ess, such as student transcripts, student essays, teachers’ and coun-selors’ recommendations, and in-person interviews. These compo-nents arguably allow candidates to present a much fuller impressionof themselves as potential college students than do simple scoreson standardized tests.

Science Board, op. cit., foonote 2S, p. 23, whichsides with the “poor preparation” hypothesis.

41

and 10 percent of high school graduates now par-ticipate. About one-third of the examinationstaken are in mathematics and science. 55

Patterns of High School CourseOfferings and Enrollments

Along with family encouragement and expec-tations, preparation in high school mathematicsand science courses is vital to success in college-level science and engineering studies. Students’exposure to the traditional college-preparatorysequence of mathematics and science courses isrestricted by both the course offerings of theirschools and their willingness to take those courses.Minorities in particular often have less access toadvanced mathematics and science courses, be-cause school districts with high minority enroll-ments often cannot afford to offer many suchcourses. Offerings in rural and urban schools aregenerally more limited than those in suburbanschools.

Even when advanced courses are offered, stu-dents who could benefit from them often fail totake them. The point at which students are firstallowed to decide which mathematics or sciencecourses they are to take is widely believed to bean important fork in the educational pipeline forfuture scientists and engineers. Once students failto pursue the normal preparatory sequence ofcourses, it becomes hard for them to catch up.

Research indicates that there is a positive corre-lation between the number of advanced highschool mathematics and science courses taken andtwo educational outcomes: achievement testscores and students’ intentions to major in scienceand engineering.5b Correlations between mathe-matics or science course-taking and achievementtest scores have been found in analyses of data

“Jay Mathews, “Tests Help ‘Ordinary’ Schools Leap Ahead, ”Washington Post, May 14, 1987. In 1985-86, 7,201 schools partici-pated out of 30,000 secondary schools nationally. Garfield HighSchool in Los Angeles, featured in the recent movie “Stand and De-liver, ” has become one of the top 10 schools in the Nation for thenumber of students who take and pass the advanced placement cal-culus test. Garfield is located in a poor and predominantly Latinoneighborhood.

S“The correlation between outcomes such as these and the num-ber of mathematics courses tends to be stronger than that with thenumber of science courses.

from both the NAEP mathematics assessment of1982 (for mathematics courses) and the 1980 HighSchool and Beyond (HS&B) survey of the sopho-more cohort (for both mathematics and sciencecourses) .57 These findings were sustained evenafter statistical allowance was made for student’srace, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and earliertest scores. A strong correlation between highschool mathematics course-taking and the majorchoices of college students was found in an OTAanalysis of the 1980 HS&B cohort, even whenmany other factors were statistically con-trolled .58

Mathematics course-taking, presumably due toits sequential nature, appears to be more impor-tant for success in later science and engineeringstudy than science course-taking. The CollegeBoard recently noted in Academic Preparation forScience, a handbook that advises high schoolteachers about what colleges would like them toteach, that knowledge of scientific skills and fun-damental concepts will be more important to stu-dents than the number of high school sciencecourses they have completed.59

It is difficult to be sure that the number of math-ematics and science courses taken is a principalinfluence in the decision to major in science orengineering. 60 However, such courses do keepstudents in the pipeline,

Course Offerings and Enrollments

Students cannot take courses their schools donot offer. Only a few schools offer the complete

“Josephine D. Davis, The Effect of A4atbematics Course Enroll-ment on Ra~”al/’Ethnjc Differences in Secondary School MathematicsAchievement (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, January1986); and Lyle V. Jones et al., “Mathematics and Science Test Scoresas Related to Courses Taken in High School and Other Factors, ”Journal of Educational Measurement, vol. 23, No. 3, fall 1986, pp.197-208.

‘aValerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers:An Analysis of the High School-College Transition, ” OTA contractorreport, 1987.

59The College Board concludes that the amount of high schoolscience course-taking makes relatively little difference to students’subsequent college performance in science. OTA is skeptical of thisconclusion. See below and College Entrance Examination Board,Academic Preparation in Science: Teachhgfor Transition From HighSchool to College (New York, NY: 1986), pp. 14-16. See also RobertE, Yager, “What Kind of School Science Leads to College Success?”The Science Teacher, December 1986, pp. 21-25.

‘College Entrance Examination Board, op. cit., footnote 59, pp.14-16.

89-1 j6 o - 88 . 2

42

range of college-preparatory mathematics and sci-ence courses, a deficiency that has persisted formany years.6l Data on course offerings and en-rollments are plagued with inconsistencies. For ex-ample, courses with the same titles may havedifferent content while those with near-identicalcontent may have different titles. Inconsistenciesin data make the task of comparing schools,States, and years very difficult.

The most recent data on course offerings comesfrom the 1985-86 National Survey of Science andMathematics Education, sponsored by the Na-tional Science Foundation.62 This survey usedthe same course classification system as a 1977survey, permitting comparisons over time. Over90 percent of high schools offer at least algebraI, algebra II, and geometry, but advanced courseofferings are more limited. Only about 31 percentof schools offer a full calculus course (althoughsome senior-year mathematics courses may in-clude an introduction to calculus), and 18 percentoffer a course leading to the advanced placementexamination in calculus. In science, over 90 per-cent of high schools offer at least 1 year of biol-ogy and chemistry, and 80 percent offer 1 yearof physics.

Since 1977, mathematics course offerings haveincreased somewhat, though the proportion ofschools offering calculus has remained constant.Science course offerings have increased slightly.In general, schools offer only one section of thesecollege-preparatory courses. It is not clear whetherthis outcome restricts or reflects demand for suchcourses. For example, 23 percent of U.S. highschools offer only one section of biology and 52percent offer only one section of physics.63

‘*Some advanced courses are offered to high school students bycommunity colleges, but there are no national data on thisphenomenon.

b2Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15. No separate data are available onofferings and enrollments in laboratory courses; data on the amountof time different mathematics and science classes spend on labora-tory work is included in ch. 3.

b3These data are confirmed by a National Science Teachers Asso-ciation survey. See Bill G. Aldridge, “What’s Being Taught andWho’s Teaching It,” This Year in School Science 1986: The ScienceCurriculum, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hornig (eds. )(Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement ofScience, 1987), ch. 12.

Data on course enrollments in mathematics andscience indicate that the proportion of high schoolgraduates that have taken college-preparatorymathematics and science courses is very small(again see figure 2-3). While 77 and 61 percentof students took algebra I and geometry, respec-tively, only 20 percent took trigonometry andonly 6 percent took calculus. In science, 90 per-cent took biology, but only 45 percent tookchemistry I and 20 percent took physics. All ofthese proportions (except for calculus) representincreases from 1984.64

Another analysis of the same database, whichused a somewhat different course classification,suggests that, even where courses are offered, en-rollments are low. About 80 percent of the stu-dents to whom the course is available enroll inalgebra I, 48 percent in geometry, and about 20percent in trigonometry. Similarly, in science,while almost all students to whom it was offeredtook biology, about one-third of the students withthe chance to take chemistry did so as did only10 percent of the students offered physics.65

More recent data from the 1985-86 NAEP inmathematics provide a “snapshot” view of enroll-ments in mathematics classes (see table 2-3, butnote that the classification of courses used herediffers from that used in other tables). These datasuggest that advanced course-taking in mathe-matics remains at a small proportion of 17-year-olds, although there were some very small in-creases between 1982 and 1986. Because these datawere taken from 17-year-olds, who have the sen-ior year of high school to go before graduation,they do not provide a complete picture of highschool course-taking.

These findings send a clear message: offeringsof pipeline mathematics and science courses areconstrained. More importantly, even when theyare offered, only tiny numbers of students takethem.

‘iWestat, op. cit., footnote 21. Data from 1982 are presented inthe U.S. Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics, “Science and Mathematics Education in American HighSchools: Results From the High School and Beyond Survey, ” NCES84-211b, Bulletin, May 1984, tables A-3, A-4, A-5. In general, Asianstudents are two to four times as likely to take advanced biology,chemistry, and physics courses than other minority students.

bSEva]uation Technologies, Inc., op. cit., footnote 9.

43

Table 2-3.–Trends in Mathematics Course-Taking, 1982-86

Percentage of 17-year-olds by the highest level of mathematics course they have taken

Course Year Total Males Females Black Hispanic White

Pre-algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19821986

Algebra I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19821986

Geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19821986

Algebra II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19821986

Pre-calculus or calculus . . . . . . . . 19821986

2419161814173940

57

2519161713153939

68

2419171815183940

55

3431201810162931

43

3725212412162428

36

3217151715174142

57

SOURCE: John A. Dossey et al,, The Mathematics Report Card: Are We Measuring Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National Assessment (LawrenceTownshlplPrinceton, NJ Educational Testing Service, Inc., June 1988), table 8.2,

Females and Minorities Lag in Course-Taking confirmed in data collected for the 1985-86 NAEP

Females, Blacks, and Hispanics, according to mathematics and science assessments.66 Tables 2-4 and 2-5 show that, as one follows the normalthe HS&B survey, fall behind their white male

peers in enrollments in high school advanced ‘iFor mathematics data, see Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 18,mathematics and science courses. This finding is pp. 116-117. Science data are due to be published in fall 1988.

Table 2.4.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Went on to Next“Pipeline” Mathematics Course After Completing the Previous Course

Percentage that took Percentage that took Percentage that took Percentage that tookgeometry after algebra II after trigonometry after calculus afterpassing algebra passing geometry passing algebra II passing trigonometry

sex:Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 55 43 31Females ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 52 34 30

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by sex:Males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 62 55 47Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 61 45 41Race/ethnicity:Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 28 28Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 55 29 29White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 54 40 30

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by race/ethnicity:Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 56 45 48Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 62 48 31White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 62 50 43

(Urbanicity of school:Urban high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 55 36 25Suburban high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 52 40 33Rural high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 55 39 26Regional differences:New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 76 32 50Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 54 40West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 45 48 9West South Central. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 62 32 19Curricular track:General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 41 27Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 61 45 36Vocational. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 35 19 11NOTE: The source from which this tabulation is derived does not include the total numbers of students in these samples. Also the data (as originally reported) do

not indicate the actual order in which the courses were taken, only that the students had taken these courses before graduating from high school. To this extent,the tabulation forces an artificial formalism on the order of course-taking.

SOURCE: C. Dennis Carroll, Mathematics Course Taking by 1980 High Schoo/ Sophomores Who Graduated in 1982 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, April 1984),

44

Table 2.5.-Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Went on to Next“Pipeline” Science Course After Completing the Previous Course

Percentage that took Percentage that took Percentage that tookbiology after passing chemistry after physics after

general science passing biology passing chemistry

Sex:Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by sex:Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Race/ethnic/ty:Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by race/ethnicity:Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Urbanicity of schoolUrban high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Suburban high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Rural high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Regional differences:New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Curricular track:General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Vocational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3937

5950

212842

324357

334136

47492928

215915

4731

6140

332740

434151

394037

44442035

234422

NOTE: The source from which this tabulation is derived doesnot include the total numbers of students in these samples. Also thedata (as originally reported)donot indicatetheactual order inwhichthecourses were taken,only that thestudertts had taken these courses before graduating from high school. Tothisextent,the tabulation forces an artificial formalism on the orderof course-taking.

SOURCE: JeffreyA.Owinms, Scierrce CourseTakingby 1980Hi@r Schoo/So@romores WhoGraduafedin W82(Washin@on, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education, NationalCente~for Edu~ation S t a t i s t i c s , A p r i l l@34j -

sequence of mathematics and science courses de-signed as preparation forcollege-level study insci-ence and engineering, there is constant attritionin all categories of students. The attrition of fe-males, Blacks, and Hispanics is much greater thanthat of white males. Black and Hispanic 17-year-olds instead are more likely to report that theirhighest mathematics course was pre-algebra thanwhite students.

For example, while 5.6 percent of all high schoolgraduates in 1982 took calculus, only 2 percentof Blacks and 2.4 percent of Hispanics did. Thesituation showed little change by 1986, accord-ing to NAEP data, although Hispanic students haddoubled their participation in pre-calculus or cal-culus classes in that time. The gender difference,however, is not so pronounced: 5 percent of fe-males and 6.1 percent of males take calculus.

Another way of examining these data is in termsof the proportion of students—by sex, race, andethnicity—that go on to take a higher mathe-matics or science course after successfully com-pleting the last one. Tabulations of these transi-tion percentages, based on a Department ofEducation analysis of the HS&B survey, appearin tables 2-6 and 2-7.

The data clearly show that females and minor-ities drop out of the normal sequence of courses.In mathematics, females drop out after taking al-gebra 11 and fail to take trigonometry; they alsoforgo physics after taking chemistry. Blacks andHispanics similarly fall out after trigonometry, al-though fewer of them move from algebra to ge-ometry than do whites. These disparities arestronger among the “high-talent” groups of thosewho earned As and Bs on the previous courses.

45

Table 2-6.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Have TakenCollege Preparatory Mathematics Courses by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity

Subject All Males Females Asian Black Hispanic White

Algebra I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 61 65 65 53 54 66Algebrall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 31 31 44 22 19 34Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 49 68 33 28 53Trigonometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 6 16 4 5 8Other advanced mathematics . . . . . . 13 14 13 30 5 7 15Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 5 15 2 2 6SOURCE U.S Department of Education, Nattonal Center for Education Statistics, “Science and Mathematics Education In American High Schools Results From the

High School and Beyond Survey, ” NCES 84-211 b, BulletIn, May 1984, table A-5

Table 2-7.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Have TakenCollege Preparatory Science Courses by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity

Subject All Males Females Asian Black Hispanic WhiteGeneral science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 24 33 34 29Basic biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 73 76 78 74 69 75Advanced biology ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 9 13 6 5 9Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25 24 41 19 13 27Advanced chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 3 8 2 2 4Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 13 9 11 12 15Physica l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 15 8 27 6 5 13Advanced physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 5 1 1 2Unified science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 26 17 34 21 27SOURCE: U S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statlstlcs, “Science and Mathematics Education In American High Schools Results From the

H(gh School and Beyond Survey,” NCES 84.21 lb, BulletIn, May 1984, tables A-4 and A.5

High-talent females drop out after algebra I, al-gebra II, and trigonometry. Very few high-talentBlacks take calculus, compared to whites, possi-bly indicating the paucity of calculus offerings inschools with high minority populations.Hispanics’ persistence in science and mathematicscourse-taking is low throughout.

The data underscore the advantage studentsgain from attending suburban high schools ratherthan urban or rural ones. They also show a sig-nificant geographic disparity in persistence inmathematics and science course-taking. Persist-ence rates in the New England and Mid-Atlanticregions are some 50 or more percent higher thanin West North Central, West South Central, andMountain regions. (See figures 2-6 and 2-7. )

These findings are supported by an analysis ofdata from the 1982 NAEP mathematics assess-

ment, which found that, regardless of curriculartrack, racial composition of the school attended,grade or achievement level, Black and Hispanicstudents lagged in enrollments in advanced math-ematics classes compared with their whitepeers.”

Black enrollments in high school science coursesvary significantly according to geographic region,parental expectations (especially those of mothers),and high achievement in other subjects such asEnglish. 68 Black students in the Mid-Atlantic re-gions were more likely to take science courses,while those in the Pacific and the East South Cen-tral regions were least likely to take sciencecourses.

TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING

67Davis, op. cit., footnote, 57, p. 74.“8Ellen O. Goggins and Joy S. Lindbeck, “High School Science

Enrollment of Black Students, ” Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, vol. 23, No. 3, 1986, pp. 251-261.

AbiIity grouping is practiced nearly universally ual judgment. Students who display the conven-in American schools. Guidance counselors and tional attributes of the potential scientist or engi-teachers sort students by ability as early as the neer are encouraged to pursue the mathematicsthird grade, using standardized tests and individ- and science courses that will prepare them for

46

Figure 2-6.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Took Calculus

nd

Figure 2-7.— Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Took Physics

SOURCE: US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,“Science and Mathematics Education in American High Schools: Results From the

High School and Beyond Study,” NCES 84-21 lb, Bulletin, May 1984, table A-3

these careers. Proponents claim that students in-terests are reinforced by exposure to those of theirsimilarly enthusiastic peers. Others are directedtoward other courses and careers. What we havehere is a double-edged sword.

The Double= Edged Sword

Tracking or grouping is intended to help pre-vent the quick learner from trampling over theslow learner and the slow from delaying theprogress of the quick. In short, tracking is sup-posed to give all students a fair chance (and helpteachers maintain control). Comparisons andlabels, however, are inevitable. Tracking is widelybelieved to both harm and help students’ self--esteem, progress, achievement, socialization, andeducational and vocational destinations. Becauseits effects are varied and not readily measurable,it has been a very difficult issue for educationalresearchers to study.

Many students’ career options are narrowed bythis sorting. Those who fail to display the signsof early promise, and those whose home life oridiosyncrasies place academic or social obstaclesin their paths, may find themselves shunted asidefrom the mathematics and science preparationthat makes possible further study of science orengineering. Many of these students have the abil-ity and the desire to pursue these careers. Aboutone-quarter of those who go on to major in sci-ence or engineering were in a nonacademic trackin high school. Generally, their relatively poormathematics and science preparation makes it dif-ficult for them to keep up in college, and they areat risk of attrition. Thus, ability grouping, if ap-plied too clumsily or rigidly, may lead to thewaste of talent.

Minority leaders, both within and outside theeducation community, have complained thattracking perpetuates racism, The evidence is thatthe practice is a structural impediment to students’progress to advanced study in science and engi-neering. Nevertheless, inconsistencies in defini-tions between surveys that include informationon tracking often yield misleading comparisons.In particular, it is not possible to state with anycertainty whether enrollments in the academic orgeneral tracks, either in total or by race or gen-

47

der, are declining through time. Figure 2-8, takenfrom High School and Beyond data, shows theproportion of students, by race and gender, thatwere enrolled in each high school curriculum trackin 1982, but these data are not necessarily con-sistent with other surveys. @ It is clear, however,that students are enrolling in courses in muchmore varied patterns than they used to: they fre-quently mix courses designed for the general,vocational, or academic track. To this extent, thestranglehold of tracking is loosening.

The principal objection to tracking or abilitygrouping is that it can become a self-fulfillingprophecy, changing the behavior of students,students’ peers, teachers, and parents towardmembers of a particular group. For slow-trackedstudents the technique stifles aspiration by rein-

Wsimi]ar data are reported in Davis, OP. cit., footnote 57/ P. 23,based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)1981-82. More recent data from the 1985-86 NAEP mathematicsassessment put the proportion of 17-year-olds enrolled in the aca-demic track at 52 percent, in the general track at 38 percent, andin the vocational track at only 10 percent. Dossey et al., op. cit.,footnote 18, p. 119.

Figure 2.8.—Track Placement by Race/Ethnicityand Sex, High School Graduates of 1982

TOTAL

Men

Women

White

Black

Hispanic

SOURCE U S

Academic General VocationaI

I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I

o 20 40 60 80 100Percent in track

Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.

48

Science-intensive schools often have sophisticated, costly equipment.

forcing feelings of low status and, worse, by feed-ingstudents’ beliefs that they have been left be-hind and can never catchup. It deprives this groupof the stimulation provided by high achievers,which can help promote development of the be-havior and skills of learning. Some writers havesuggested that grouping and tracking is a primarymeans of maintaining the status quo, preventingthe upward mobility of the poor and minoritiesand excluding them from preparation for profes-sional occupations such as science and engi-neering. 70

R. Hare, “Structural Inequality and the Endangered Sta-tus of Black Youth, ” Journal Negro Education, vol. 56, No. 1,1987, pp. 100-110; Joel Spring, The American High 1942-1985: Varieties of Historical Interpretation of the Foundations andDevelopment of American Education (New York, NY: Longman,1986); and William Snider, “Study Examines Forces Affecting Ra-cial Tracking, ” Education Week, Nov. 11, 1987, pp. 1, 20.

Effects of Grouping Practices

For all the controversy, research on the effectsof grouping is far from conclusive, even when ituses simple output measures such as achievementscores. This inconclusiveness might be taken asevidence that other important factors, such as stu-dents’ socioeconomic status and teaching quality,are more important in predicting educational out-comes than the existence of tracking.

Research on the effect of ability-based group-ing practices in elementary schools has found thatgrouping makes little or no difference to the mostable students, but does have a considerable retard-ing effect on the less able students. n A 1968

71 Robert E. “Ability Grouping and Student Achievementin Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis, ” prepared for

49

study of tracking in secondary schools by the Na-tional Education Association found that for eachstudy that showed a gain in achievement scoresacross the ability spectrum another study showeda net loss. The exception was the lowest abilitylevel, which had uniformly slightly more lossesthan gains .72

To examine the effects of tracking on studentsintending majors in science and engineering, OTAused the High School and Beyond database.73 Inthe survey’s random sample of about 12,000 highschool sophomores in 1980, 25 percent of thosestudents planning science and engineering majorsby their senior year and scoring above averageon the HS&B achievement test had been enrolledin the general and vocational tracks. Comparedwith their academically tracked peers, this groupwas of lower socioeconomic status and had aslightly lower average achievement test score. Bythe end of high school, they had taken about oneless mathematics course and their overall gradepoint average was about one-quarter of a pointlower. Their average SAT score was about 6 8points lower. They were less likely to go to col-lege and more likely to enroll in a junior collegethan members of the academically tracked group.Table 2-8 displays some characteristics of the twogroups .74

the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Researchand Improvement, Grant No. OERI-G-86-OO06, June 1986.

72Robert E. Fullilove, “Images of Science: Factors Affecting theChoice of Science as a Career,” OTA contractor report, 1987. TheNational Education Association study is quoted in James E. Rosen-baum, “Social Implications of Educational Grouping, ” Review ofResearch in Education, David Berliner (cd.), vol. 8 (Itasca, IL: F.E.Peacock Publishers, 1980), pp. 361-401. For other research, seeGlenna Colclough and E.M. Beck, ‘The American Educational Struc-ture and the Reproduction of Social Class, ” Sociological Inquiry,vol. 56, No. 4, fall 1986, pp. 456-476; Beth E. Vanfossen et al., “Cur-riculum Tracking and Status Maintenance, ” Sociology of Edum-tion, vol. 60, April 1987, pp. 104-122; and Gerald W. Bracey, “TheSocial Impact of Ability Grouping, ” Phi Delta Kappan, May 1987,pp. 701-702.

73Lee, op. cit., footnote 58.74A regression analysis indicated that, for these students, track

placement was a stronger predictor than class, race and ethnicity,or gender of the number of academic mathematics courses that stu-dents took in high school. From a national pwspective on the pro-duction of scientists and engineers, this finding attests to the cen-trality of students’ preparation in high school mathematics. Animportant new national longitudinal survey being conducted by JonMiller at Northern Illinois University, funded by the National Sci-ence Foundation, should disentangle many of the influences of earlymathematics and science learning. The study is following a cohort

Table 2“8.—Science-lntending Students AmongHigh School Graduates of 1982, by Track

Group fromnonacademic

tracksCharacteristics N = 428

Group fromacademic

trackN = 1,147

Demographic characteristics:Percent Black. . . . . . . . . . . . 3Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 6Percent female . . . . . . . . . . 40

High school experiences:Score on HS&B

Achievement Testa . . . . . 55.9Number of advanced

mathematics coursestaken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0

Average high school gradepoint average . . . . . . . . . . 2.8

Score on mathematicsportion of the SAT orACT b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457

College experiences:Percentage who had

enrolled in college byFebruary 1984 . . . . . . . . . . 67

Percentage in 2-yearcolleges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

College grade pointaverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8

55

41

59.2

3.1

3.0

525

89

24

2.9KEY: HS&B = High School and Beyond survey

SAT = Scholastic Aptitude TestACT = American College Testing program

%n HS&B Achievement Test, mean score= 50. standard deviation= 10bscores are normalized to those for the SAT, with a range of O to 800

SOURCE: Valerie Lee, “ldentlfying Potentlai Sclentlsts and Engineers AnAnalysis of the High School-College TransitIon,” OTA contractor report,September 1987; based on the High School and Beyond survey

Other data indicate that academically tracked17-year-olds are more than twice as likely thanthose in other tracks to survive to algebra II inthe normal sequence of high school mathematicscourses, and about five times as likely to surviveto pre-calculus or calculus .75 Tracking does havesome positive effects on the academically trackedscience-intending stream, however, for it gener-ally ensures their continuing participation andpreparation in the science and engineering pipe-line, by increasing the probability that they willtake pipeline mathematics and science courses.

For those who run afoul of the system—by rea-son of race, class, attitude, or bias—access tohigh-quality, academic mathematics and science

from grade eight onwards, and is surveying family, social, and schoolvariables that might affect science and mathematics learning, atti-tudes, and behaviors.

‘5 Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 18, table 8.3.

50

courses is lost and their expectations are dulled.Nevertheless, the academic track is not the rightplace for all students. A corollary problem is theearly age at which tracking occurs, putting manystudents at a considerable disadvantage when theyenter middle and high school. The need is for sys-tems to practice tracking efficiently but flexibly.

Science Education and Track= Busting

In the context of science and mathematics edu-cation, the “efficiency” and “flexibility” of track-ing may be incompatible with the notion—andtoday the more commonly heard prescription—of “science for all. ”

Unless students very early acquire both a basicconceptual science vocabulary and a zest for

learning and problem solving, they are extremelyunlikely to take science courses—or to succeed ifthey do. . . . [Needed, then, is] a baseline sciencecurriculum that will provide all students with aconsistent and coherent overview and an in-tegrated body of knowledge during the elemen-tary and high school years.76

What may appear to be “special pleading” for sci-ence and mathematics might then also be seen asone rationale for “track-busting. ” Put anotherway, a change in expectations of students’ capa-bility will have to precede changes in both teach-ing and learning.

“George W. Tressel, “Priestley Medal Address” (letter), Chem-ical & Engineering News, Sept. 19, 1988, pp. 3, 39. Also see Ge-orge W. Tressel, “A Strategy for Improving Science Education, ” pre-sented to the American Educational Research Association, Apr. 8,1988.

Chapter■ ■

3

Teachers and Teaching

#

CONTENTSPage

The Teacher Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53The Possibility of Mathematics and Science Teacher Shortages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Certification and Misassignment of Mathematics and Science Teachers. . . . . . . 58

The Professional Status of the Teaching Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63The Quality of Mathematics and Science Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Options for Improving the Quality of Mathematics and Science Teachers. . . . 66

Teaching Practices and Student I-earning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

BoxesBox Page

3-A. Reasons Why Physics Teachers Leave High School Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . 563-B. Mathematics and Science Relicensing Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

FiguresFigure Page

3-1. Career Paths of 100 Newly Qualified Teachers, About l Year AfterGraduation, 1976-84. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3-2. Starting Salaries for Teachers, Compared to Other Baccalaureates inIndustry, 1975-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3-3. Amount of Inservice Training Received by Science and MathematicsTeachers During 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3-4. Percentage of Mathematics and Science Classes Using Hands-on Teachingand Lecture, 1977 and 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

TablesTable Page

3-1. Mathematics and Science Teachers, by Race and Ethnicity, 1985-86 . . . . . . . 583-2. Mathematics and Science Teacher Certification Requirements by State,

June 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593-3. Guidlelines for Mathematics and Science Teacher Qualifications Specified

by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and theNational Science Teachers Association (NSTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3-4. College-Level Coupes Taken by Elementary and SecondaryMathematics Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3-5. College-Level Courses Taken by Elementary and Secondary ScienceTeachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Chapter 3

Teachers and Teaching

I'll make a deal with you. I’ll teach you math, and that’s your language. Withthat you‘re going to make it. You’re going to go to college and sit in the firstrow, not in the back, because you’re going to know more than anybody.

Jaime Escalante, 1988

America’s schools will shoulder important newresponsibilities in the years to come, Well-educated workers of all kinds are looked on in-creasingly as economic resources.l Schools, par-ents, communities, and government at all levelsare expected to educate a population that willgrow more ethnically diverse in an economy thatis increasingly reliant on science and technology.International competition will be invoked as aspur to excellence. The need for full participationby minorities and females will become a chronicnational concern. Nowhere will these pressuresbe felt more strongly than in the education of sci-entists and engineers. The pressures, in short, willfall squarely on mathematics and science teachers.

It is a burden the teaching profession, togetherwith school districts and teacher education insti-tutions, is ill-equipped to meet. Fears of shortagesof mathematics and science teachers now and inthe future abound, and there is great concernabout the poor quality of teacher training and in-service programs. The quality of teaching, in thelong run, depends on the effectiveness of teachers,the adequacy of their numbers, and the extent to

‘See, for example, National Commission on Excellence in Edu-cation, A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, April 1983).

THE TEACHER WORK FORCE

Without a teacher to explain, respond, and ex-cite students’ interest, formal education is dull andlimited. Scientists and engineers tell many storiesabout their inspiring teachers. 2 Yet the effect

2A decade-old series of autobiographies sponsored by the AlfredP. Sloan Foundation, including books by Freeman Dyson, Peter

which they are supported by principals, curricu-lum specialists, technology and materials, and thewider community. Teachers of mathematics andscience need to be educated to high professionalstandards and, like members of other professions,they need to update their skills periodically.

At the same time, research on the teaching ofmathematics and science suggests that some tech-niques not widely used in American schools canimprove achievement, transmit a more realisticpicture of the enterprise of science and mathe-matics, and broaden participation in science andengineering by females and minorities. These tech-niques have been adopted slowly. Practical ex-periments and class discussion, for example, areslighted by many teachers in favor of lectures,book work, and “teaching to the test. ” Smallgroup learning, in which students cooperate to ac-complish tasks, is also rare, although a few Statesare making room for it in their educational pre-scriptions. Teachers themselves seldom have op-portunities to exchange information with theircolleagues in other schools. Increasing such oppor-tunities—for teachers and students alike—couldhave significant effects on, among other things,the size and quality of the national science andengineering talent pool.

Medawar, Lewis Thomas, S.E. Luria, and Luis W. Alvarez, havebeen resoundingly successful at capturing the “. . perceptions ofthe individual who did the science—of how it was done, ” and aredesigned to be “. . . important for the next generation of scientistsin high school and college. ” See John Walsh, “Giving the Muse aHelping Hand,” Science, vol. 240, May 20, 1988, pp. 978-979. Thelatest in the Sloan series is by 1986 Nobel laureate Rita Levi-Montalcini, h Praise of Imperfection; Jkly Life and VVork (New York,


53

54

that a good mathematics and science teacher hason a student’s propensity to major in science andengineering cannot easily be evaluated quantita-tively.

There are two major, and related, challengesthat affect mathematics and science education: thefirst is the potential for a shortage of mathematicsand science teachers, and the second is the needto improve the quality of teaching. Some fear thatStates and school districts will simply lower cer-tification and hiring criteria standards in the faceof possible shortages. Shortages are likely to causeproblems in certain States and school districts,especially in the supply of minority mathematicsand science teachers. But improving the qualityof mathematics and science teaching is as impor-tant as addressing shortages.

Science and mathematics teachers are part ofthe entire teaching work force. In many ways,there are few differences between mathematicsand science teachers and teachers of other sub-jects. Each are covered by the same labor con-tracts, belong to the same teacher unions, sharethe same working conditions, and are normallypaid the same salaries.3 Similarly, mathematicsand science teachers share in the low esteem with


NY: Basic Books, 1988). Also see Daryl E. Chubin et al., “Scienceand Society,” Issues in Science& Technology, vol. 4, summer 1988,pp. 104-105.

3An ongoing controversy related to the entire teacher work forceis the role of unions. Some people think that teacher unions, throughtheir sometimes stubborn resistance to change, are the cause of manyproblems in education. These problems include the difficulty in fir-ing poor teachers and in staffing “difficult” schools, the devotionto the “seniority” principle (rather than teacher’s merits) shown inallocating salary increases, and the potential barrier to meaningfulreforms erected by the granting of “tenure” to teachers. Others thinkthat teacher unions can be of great help in providing a single pointof negotiation for many aspects of teachers’ working lives and con-ditions, forging teachers into a profession based on common, self-specified norms and goals of conduct, and encouraging teachers tobecome more reflective of their tasks. There are two main teacherunions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Edu-cation Association. Their leaders are visible in the national debateon reforming American education, often calling for greater publicspending on education, and their positions have frequently been atodds with those of the U.S. Secretary of Education. There is no in-dication that the form and extent of union activity in mathematicsand science teaching is any different from that for teaching as a whole(although there are special professional associations of such teachers,such as the National Science Teachers Association and NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics). The positive and negative im-pacts of teacher unions are not considered further in this report.

which many Americans hold teaching and pub-lic education in general.’

In mathematics and science teaching, there areimportant differences between teacher prepara-tion and assignments in elementary schools andsecondary schools. Elementary teachers teachmany unrelated subjects, while secondary teachersconcentrate on particular subjects, such as math-ematics or science (although many do both, orteach several different science fields). Accordingly,most elementary teachers are not specialists in anysubject. They normally hold baccalaureate degreesin education and have had relatively little scienceand mathematics coursework (if any) at college.Most secondary teachers, however, have takenmany mathematics and science courses in college;some have an undergraduate degree in these dis-ciplines. 5

The Possibility of Mathematics andScience Teacher Shortages

Many observers are worried about possible fu-ture shortages of teachers, and, reportedly, insome geographic areas it is already difficult to hireadequate numbers of mathematics and scienceteachers.6 It is widely believed that shortages of

4For example, surveys show that the percentage of Americansthat would like their children to become public school teachers hasfallen from 75 percent in 1969 to 45 percent in 1983. In a similarsurvey in 1981, Americans ranked clergymen, medical doctors,judges, bankers, lawyers, and business executives as being in profes-sions with higher prestige and status than public school teaching.Only local political officeholders, realtors, funeral directors, andadvertising practitioners were ranked lower. Stanley M. Elam (cd.),The Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Polls of Attitudes Toward Education1969-1984: A Topical Summary (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa,1984).

‘Most new teachers were education majors in college. Many,however, were single subject (such as physics) majors directly in-ducted into the teaching force or are taking supplementary educa-tion courses. The utility of the education major is under seriousreconsideration at the moment and several groups have proposeda wide-ranging overhaul of teacher education. This is discussed laterunder “Preservice Education. ”

%5ee National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators–1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987),pp. 27-32; and Linda Darling-Hammond, Beyond the CommissionReports: The Coming Crisis in Teaching, RAND/4-3177-RC (Wash-ington, DC: Rand Corp., July 1984). Henry M. Levin, Institute forResearch on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Edu-cation, Stanford University, “Solving the Shortage of Mathematicsand Science Teachers, ” January 1985, finds that shortages, in someform, have existed for 40 years, primarily because of the low sala-ries offered to mathematics and science teachers.

55

teachers of all kinds are imminent due to an in-crease in the number of teachers approachingretirement and a decrease in the number of col-lege freshmen planning to become teachers dur-ing the last decade. In the aggregate, these trendsaffect the size of the teacher work force. But itis events in the middle stages of teachers’ careersas well that predict future supply and demand.For example, many fully qualified teachers leavethe profession (perhaps to start families), and maybe lured to return to schools in due course.

To estimate whether there will be a shortage,and what its effects might be, it is necessary tohave data on the future work plans of the exist-ing teaching work force, the rates of entry to andexit from it, the extent to which these rates changein response to market signals, and what measuresmight reduce the effect of any shortage. A con-

Figure 3-l.— Career Paths of 100 Newly Qualified

ceptual model of entry to and exit from the teacherwork force is depicted in figure 3-1.

Current estimates of the rates of entry to andexit from the teaching work force are very poorand often inconsistent.7 It is not possible, there-fore, to determine with any certainty whether

7L nn 0150n and Blake Rodman,Y “Is There a Teacher Shortage?

It’s Anyone’s Guess, ” Education Week, June 24, 1987, pp. 1, 14-16;and Blake Rodman, “Teacher Shortage Is Unlikely, Labor BureauReport Claims,” Education Week, Jan. 14, 1987, p. 7. Data, muchof it conflicting, is collected and reported by the National Educa-tion Association, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the De-partment of Education, The inadequacy of databases on teachersis also revealed through the absence of reliable estimates of the num-ber of uncertified teachers teaching or the number teaching outsidetheir field of certification. The Center for Education Statistics is con-ducting a new survey, the results of which should be available inearly 1989. Simultaneously, the National Academy of Sciences isexamining future research needs on this issue, while the Council ofChief State School Officers is also trying to assemble disparate Statedata.

Teachers, About 1 Year After Graduation, 1976.84

Not teaching

18

Did not apply

20

NOTE: “Newly qualified teachers” are defined as those graduates who were eligible for a teaching certificate or who were teaching at the time of the survey (and whohad never taught full time before receiving this bachelor’s degree). Bachelor’s graduates are surveyed about 1 year after graduation.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on combined data from U.S. Department of Education, ‘(Recent College Graduate Surveys of 1976-77, 1979-80,and 1983 -84,” unpublished data. Career pattern is similar in all years,

there will be a shortage, what its effects might be,or what the special aspects of the problem willbe for mathematics and science teaching. Someaspects include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

How intensified competition for new scienceand engineering baccalaureates will reducethe already small incentives for new gradu-ates to consider mathematics and scienceteaching careers.The extent to which mathematics and scienceteachers who are already qualified but work-ing in other occupations could be lured backto classroom teaching in response to highersalaries or changes in working conditions.The extent to which working and retired sci-entists and engineers could be retrained to en-ter the teaching work force. Several programsare attempting to retrain such people.How attrition of existing teachers (currentlybetween 5 and 10 percent annually) can bereduced. 8 (See box 3-A. )The extent to which changes, such as the in-troduction of less restrictive certification re-quirements, the use of uncertified teachers,and the assignment of existing teachers outof their main teaching fields to teach mathe-matics and science classes, could covershortages.How the use of part-time teachers, masterteachers, or teaching assistantships couldcompensate for any shortages.The extent to which greater use of technol-ogies, including computers, video recorders,and distance learning techniques, could re-duce the need for mathematics and scienceteachers. 9

8A survey of teacher attrition, based on followups of the Na-tional Longitudinal Survey of 1972, is in Barbara Heyns, “Educa-tional Defectors: A First Look at Teacher Attrition in the NLS-72, ”Educational Researcher, April 1988, pp. 24-32. One surprising find-ing of this and other studies (such as the U.S. Department of Edu-cation’s Survey of Recent College Graduates) is that a large num-ber of those who complete teacher training programs never, in fact,teach. In the 9 years between 1977 and 1986, one-quarter of thosequalified never taught, and 40 percent of those who became newlyqualified teachers in 1983-84 had not become teachers by 1985. Seealso Richard J. Murnane, “Understanding Teacher Attrition, ” Flar-vard Educational Review, vol. 57, No. 2, May 1987, pp. 177-182,which finds that chemistry and physics teachers in Michigan in the1970s were likely to leave teaching faster than were biology andhistory teachers.

There is no evidence that technology replaces teachers. The useof satellite, cable, and other telecommunications technologies en-

Box 3-Am-ReasQns Why ?%y$ics TeachersLeave High 5chool Teaching

A 1983 survey repm=ted some of the reasonswhy physics tmchers leave tfmcl@.* Thosewith a $mduate degree in physics can r@!ddy findwell-paying jobs in industry; eitb they neverenter tlw teaching profession or thy hastily de-

part. In gener& the survey found, physicsteachers l~a~e %* the foh+ving reasons:

● Xnstmcfional Mxm@xies are poorlyequippwl ~d budgets are inadequate for

t%making knprovemert● It is diffid tO remain profemiondy active.

Them are seldom funds for teachers to at-tend pdeskmd In@ings to keep tlp-tU-d~te with scientific li*aratu&~ *-,0$ tQ WU3?t d ShU@ -OH With tW3Ch”

em in other s@wols. This feeds a sense ofisolation.

● Accountability to local, S@#e, and I%derdbodies has multiplied both teacher paper-work and administrative duties.

. There is ~ lack of identification by mostschool dninistrators with the problemsthat intarferewith quality science teaching.School administrators, the smey reports,are often not interested in improving*teaching.

● There is a lack of respect within the localcmnrmmity. Like teachers of all subjects,physics teachers areoftencriticized in schoolboard meetings as be~ ~eedy and ineffi-dent, particukady when funding decisionsare made.

● Voters do not support the tdwols, as evi-denced by the wi!hgness to vote downschool bond i$sues in the ea.rly-1980s, evenat the expense of reductions in the size andquality of the teaching work force. Thisstro~ pressure to cut taxes is especidy evi-dent in smaller communities whose demo-graphics favor needs other than those of thestudent population.

reasozw Wily phy$cs teachm kave ttacMn& see Beverly&hFiWtm and Wibm H. K&Y, 8’VWW I%- Ltavu T*-irqL’’Z?&da T-y, !kpmN$w 1*. pp.-32”37. Al@ sseAnWican4!#ociatkm oW&y&%T=clwr% mR@h$ -m, =d -catjwrs af the H* Skhuol F%ydcs T- (Co&# park. w:

A thi# &sh+l mea$mmdum

Fkom *MW-S7M-tkmwi&$tmWyd WlO&KkWllmWafPhMicsw York,NY: AmWkaIl Institut@ of Physics, 19ss).

57— .

Some secondary school principals are havingdifficulty hiring science teachers and (to a lesserextent) mathematics teachers. The 1985-86 Na-tional Survey of Science and Mathematics Edu-cation found that 70 percent of secondary schoolprincipals said that they were having difficulty hir-ing physics teachers, 60 percent were having dif-ficulty with chemistry and computer scienceteachers, and over 30 percent were having diffi-culty locating biology and life sciences teachers.The survey found that few schools had incentiveprograms to attract teachers to shortage fields;retraining programs are the more commonmethod of supplying shortage fields.10

After years of declining interest among collegefreshmen in becoming teachers, there has been anupturn since 1986.1’ A 1985-86 survey estimatedthat about 20 percent of science and mathematicsteachers are expected to retire in the next dec-ade.12 The result of these opposite trends is any-body’s guess, so speculations abound.

Salaries

Many policy makers and educators point to thegenerally low level of teachers’ salaries and claimthat neither the number nor the quality of math-ematics and science teachers can be improved untilthese salaries are increased substantially .13 In

ables school districts to provide instruction from one site to manysites—but teachers are not replaced. Instead, these distance learn-ing projects aggregate sparsely populated classrooms of two or threestudents to more “regular” sized classrooms (Linda Roberts, Officeof Technology Assessment, personal communication, September1988)

‘“Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Scienceand Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: ResearchTriangle Institute, November 1987), tables 72, 73.

I I For the recent upturn in co]lege freshmen interest in educationmajors, see Robert Rothman, “Proportion of College Freshmen In-terested in a Career in Teaching Up, Survey Finds, ” Education VVeek,vol. 7, Jan. 20, 1988, pp. 1, 5. Eight percent of 1987 college fresh-men planned teaching careers, up from 4.7 percent in 1982, but wellbelow the 20 percent level in the early 1970s. The number of physicsbaccalaureates entering teaching also increased from only 23 in 1981to about 100 in 1986 (of a total of 5,214 physics degree recipientsin 1986). Physics Today, “Survey of Physics Bachelors Finds ThatMore Plan to Teach, ’r September 1987, p. 76.

‘zWeiss, op. cit., footnote 10, p. 64, table 36.‘3 Salaries are important, but are not the only factor that affects

whether teachers enter or remain in teaching. Working conditionsand the wider societal perception of the value of school teachingare also important influences. See, for example, Russell W. Rum-berger, “The Impact of Salary Differentials on Teacher Shortagesand Turnover: The Case of Mathematics and Science Teachers, ”Economics of Education Review, vol. 6, No. 4, 1987, pp. 389-399.

fact, teachers’ salaries are rising. In real terms,average annual public school teacher salaries fellduring the 1970s by about 10 percent from theirall-time high in the early 1970s. By 1984-85, theyhad risen to just under what they were in 1969-70. The mean teacher salary in 1986 was about$25,000, but with large variations among theStates. 14 The effects of these increases on teachersupply and quality, which take time to show up,may yet be very positive. Already, there is someincreased interest among college freshmen inteaching careers.

The attractiveness of different occupations tonew college graduates is shaped by the immedi-ate starting salaries as well as prospective long-term earnings. Students with considerable debtsfrom their baccalaureate education, it is argued,need a substantial source of income to start pay-ing off these debts. Starting teaching salaries haveconsistently been lower than those in other profes-sions, and have not increased as rapidly duringthe last decade. (See figure 3-2. )

A particular controversy for mathematics andscience teachers is whether they should be paidmore than other teachers in order to attract peo-ple to fill shortages. A recent survey indicated thata majority of secondary mathematics and scienceteachers would support differential pay of thiskind, and many principals are also in favor of this.Support among those who teach mathematics andscience at the elementary level is weaker. Tradi-tionally, teacher unions have argued that teachersshould be paid the same, regardless of their sub-ject specialization .15

Minority Teachers

Because of the declining proportion of Blacksand Hispanics entering college and because of theexpanded career options now open to them, the

Rumberger finds that the disparity between engineering and math-ematics ‘science teaching salaries has some effect on teacher short-ages and turnover; the disparity, however, offers far less than a com-plete explanation.

‘qFor example, between 1969-70 and 1984-85, Alaska teacher sal-aries dropped by 34 percent in real terms, whereas those in Wyo-ming and Texas rose by 14 percent. U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Edu-cation Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, klay 1987), tables 51-53.

IsWeiss, Op, cit., tootnote 10, table 7~.

58

Figure 3-2.-Starting Salaries for Teachers,Compared to Other Baccalaureates in Industry,

1975.87 (constant 1987 dollars)

$35,000

L

Public school

10,0001975 1980 1985

Year

NOTE: Uses gross national product deflator. Industry estimates of salary offersare baaed on a survey of selected companies; this may tend to inflate sal-aries slightly. The teacher data are “minimum mean” salary, from the Na-tional Education Association, and probably are underestimates. Variousother salary surveys report slightly different data. However, the basic mes-sage remains the same: teachers are paid much less than most other bac-calaureates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstrecf of the Urrited Sfates(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1888), p. 130; basedon data from The Northwestern Endicott-Lindquist Report, North-western University.

number of minorities electing teaching careers isdeclining. There are, in the first instance, com-paratively few Black or Hispanic mathematics andscience teachers. Data from a recent survey (seetable 3-1) indicate that the majority of Blackteachers are in the elementary grades; only 3 per-cent and 5 percent, respectively, of mathematicsand science teachers in grades 10 to 12 are Black.Only 1 percent of teachers of both these subjectsare Hispanic. For now, the proportion of minor-ities in the teaching force is increasing slightly,but several commentators warn of future short-ages of minority teachers, particularly in mathe-matics and science. Such a shortage poses particu-lar problems to schools with high minorityenrollments, denying minority children role

Table 3-1 .- Mathematics and Science Teachers,by Race and Ethnicity, 1985.86 (in percent)

Subjectand grade Black Hispanic Whi te o ther a U n k n o w n

MathmaticsK-3 . . . . . . 10 1 84 0 44-6. . . . . . . 12 2 84 0 27-9. ., . . . . 6 1 90 1 310-12 . . . . . 3 1 94 1 1

ScienceK-3 . . . . . . 9 4 82 1 44-6. . . . . . . 8 4 86 1 17-9. . . . . . . 5 1 88 1 410-12 . . . . . 5 1 92 2 1

ajncludes Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian, and pacifiC Islander.

NOTE: Some rows do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 ~atior?al Survey of Science arrdMathematics Educafiorr (Research Triangie Park, NC: Research Trian-gle Institute, November 1987), table 35

models (among other things that minority teachersprovide). Making higher education more attrac-tive and attainable for future Black and Hispanicteachers will help increase the supply of the mi-nority teaching force.l6

Certification and Misassignment ofMathematics and Science Teachers

Each State sets specifications, designed to en-sure a minimum level of professional competence,for the academic preparation of teachers. Thesespecifications, which take the form of require-ments for a minimum number and combinationof college-level courses in mathematics, science,and education, are enforced through certificationand periodic recertification of teachers. Certifi-cation requirements vary considerably from Stateto State (see table 3-2), and there are differencesin the extent to which they are enforced. TheStates may also require examinations, such as theNational Teachers’ Examination, for either initialcertification or later recertification .17

1%hirley M. McBay, Increasing the Number and Quality of Mi-nority Science and Mathematics Teachers (New York, NY: CarnegieForum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching asa Profession, January 1986); Patricia Albjerg Graham, “BlackTeachers: A Drastically Scarce Resource, ” Phi Delta Kappan, April1987, pp. 598-605; and Blake Rodman, “AACTE outlines plan toRecruit Minorities Into Teaching, ” Education Week, Jan. 13, 1988,p. 6.

17At the elementary level, most teachers are certified as elemen-tary teachers without particular specialization, but, at the second-ary level, some specialization in certification is the norm. Aboutone-half of the States license secondary teachers to teach in any sci-ence subject, while others restrict certification to a particular field,

(continued on p. 60)

59

Table 3-2.—Mathematics and Science Teacher Certification Requirements by State, June 1987

Course credits by certification fieldBiology, Teaching Supervise

Science, Chemistry, Earth General methods: teachingMath Broad-field Physics Science science science/math experience

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 52 27 27 27 Yes 9Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None None None None No NoneArizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 30 Yes 8Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 24 24 24 No 12wksCalifornia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 45 No a

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b b b Yes 400hrsConnecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 18 21 No 6Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 39-45 39 36 Yes 6District of Columbia.. . . . . . . . 27 30 30 30 30 Yes 1 semFlorida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20 20 20 Yes(S) 6Georgia (effective 9/88) . . . . . . 60qtr 45qtr 40qtr 40qtr Yes(M) 15qtrGuam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 NO NoneHawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 45 20 20 No 6Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 24 24 Yes 5Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 36 36 36 Yes 9 w k slowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 24 24 24 Yes YesKansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 48 30 30 No 9-12Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 20 32 No 9Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 Yes 6Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 36 24 24 36 Yes 6Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 36 36 36 36 Yes 300 hrsMichigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 36 30 30 No 6Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c 1 qtrMississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 32 32 Yes(S) 6Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 20 20 20 Yes 8Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30qtr 60qtr 30qtr 30qtr 30qtr Yes IOwksNebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 45 24 24 Yes 320hrsNevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 36 16 16 16 No 8New Hampsshire . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b b b b b

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 30 No c

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 24 24 24 Yes 6New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 36 36 36 No YesNorth Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 6North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 8Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 60 30 30 30 Yes a

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 40 40 40 No 12wksOregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 45 45 45 45 Yes(M) 15qtrPennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 Yes 3(S)5(M)Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 Yes 6South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 30 12 18 Yes(M) 6South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 12 12 18 No 6Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36qtr 48qtr 24 qtr 24qtr 24qtr Yes 4Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 48 24 24 No 6Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 12Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 18 18 18 Yes NoneVirginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 24 24 30 No 6Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 NA NA NA NA No YesWashington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 51 24 24 No 15West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c c

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 54 34 34 34 Yes 5Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 30 12 12 12 No 1 courseKEY: Course credits = semester credit hours, unless otherwise specified; qtr = quarter credit hours, M = mathematics only, S = science only;NA = not available,

blank space = no certification offered.al semester full time or 2 semesters half time—California; supervised teaching experience and 300 hours clinicallfield-based experience—Ohio.bceflification requirements determined by degree-granting institution or approved competency-based Pro9ramcMajoror minor—f.Jofih Dakota, Utah; 213 to 40 percent of prOgrarn-MinrleSOta and North carolina; courses rnatctled With job requirements—West Virginia

SOURCE Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade, Sfate Educatiorr Po/ic/es ffe/afedto Science arrdkfafhernaf)cs (Washington, DC Council of Chief State School Officers,State Education Assessment Center Science and Mathematics Indicators Prolect, November 1987), table4

60


There are few minority teachers in mathematics and science to serve as role models forBlack, Hispanic, and Native American children.

As part of the education reform movement, teachers teach without certification, either becausepolicy makers have tightened certification stand- they are new to the State and are working toards in the hope of raising the quality of teach- achieve accreditation (and are teaching on aning. Altering certification requirements may be “emergency” basis) or because they are teachingan easy control on the system for policy makers subjects other than those which they are certifiedto enact, but have little effect on actual classroom to teach .18 An increasing number of sciencepractices and teaching quality. However, some on the extent to which “uncertified” teachers are in charge

p of mathematics and science classes are fragmented and often such as physics. In each case, typical requirements are 24 to 36 sistent. Analysts differ on the interpretation of uncertified: sernester-hours of college-level science courses. Ken times the term is interpreted as including those without any kindence Teacher Certification Standards: An Agenda for Improvement, ” of certification, sometimes it includes teachers who are certified butRedesigning Science and Technology Education: 1984 Yearbook are teaching out of their main field of competence or certificationthe National Science Teachers Association, Rodger W. By bee et al. (the two are not always the same), and other times it is used to

) (Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, elude teachers who have provisional or emergency certification, but1984), pp. 157-161. not full certification. (To the extent that there is great flexibility to

61

teachers, in particular, appear to be teaching sub-jects that they are either not licensed or not qual-ified to teach. A 1986 survey of 39 States (enroll-ing 28 percent of the student population) estimatedthat between 6 and 15 percent of all science teach-ers were uncertified in the field they were hiredto teach. Biology had the lowest proportion ofuncertified teachers, while earth and general sci-ence had the highest. About 8 percent of mathe-matics teachers were uncertified in that field.l9

The proportion of uncertified mathematics andscience teachers was greatest in the Southeast re-gion of the country. A 1985-86 survey indicatesthat as many as 20 percent of science teachers ingrades 10 to 12 are not certified to teach thecourses they are teaching: 4 percent are not cer-tified at all, 6 percent have provisional certifica-tion, and 5 percent are certified in other fields (theremainder are presumably those certified in onescience subject but teaching another). This samesurvey found that, of teachers of mathematics ingrades 10 to 12, 4 percent were not certified atall and 4 percent had only provisional certifica-tion, while 10 percent were certified in fields otherthan mathematics. In total, 14 percent of theseteachers were teaching courses that they were un-certified to teach .20

National data from the National Science Teach-ers Association (NSTA) indicate that the notionthat a high school science teacher teaches only onescience is increasingly a myth. And many scienceteachers teach mathematics or conscience subjectsas well. On average, about 8 percent of the courseassignment of secondary science teachers is inmathematics, and 5 percent is in conscience sub-jects. For example, about half of the teaching loadof chemistry teachers is in chemistry, 12 percent

issue such certification, States and school districts have an easy wayto rectify any concerns about the number of uncertified teachersin the classroom. ) Principals reportedly prefer often to retain exist-ing uncertified teachers in classes where they have developed rap-port with the class than introduce new, inexperienced, but fully cer-tified teachers who would have much more difficulty teaching theclass.

“Joanne Capper, A Study of Certified Teacher Avadability inthe States (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers,February 1987). These data are drawn from State needs assessments,mandated under Title II of the Education for Economic Security Actof 1984; the data analysis was funded by the National Science Foun-dation.

‘“Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, table 46.

in biology, and 15 percent in physics and generalphysical science.21

This pattern is reflected in the teaching of allsubjects at the secondary level. The National Edu-cation Association estimates that 83 percent of allsubject specialist secondary teachers devote alltheir teaching time to teaching the field that wastheir college major; 7 percent spend between 50and 100 percent of their time in that field; andonly 10 percent spend less than 50 percent of theirtime teaching in that field.22

While States condemn teaching without ade-quate certification, critics of the system of certifi-cation note that States tacitly condone it by per-mitting waivers of requirements and by failing toenforce certification requirements.23 To the ex-tent that shortages exist, States, school districts,or principals must choose whether it would be bet-ter to have a poorly qualified teacher teaching ascience class than to have no teacher and no classat all.

A number of States have developed alternativecertification routes for mature entrants to theteaching profession, particularly those who arealready qualified scientists, engineers, or techni-cians. These programs focus particularly on re-cruiting mathematics and science teachers. A re-cent study estimates that there are 26 s u c hprograms nationally, and some have attractedFederal funding.24

‘lBill G. Aldridge, “What’s Being Taught and Who’s TeachingIt, ” The Science Curriculum: The Report of the 1986 National Fo-rum for School Science, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hor-nig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, 1987), pp. 207-223.

22National Education Association, Status of the American Pub-lic School Teacher 1985/86 (West Haven, CT: National EducationAssociation, 1987), table 18. These data are based on a definitionof misassignment as teachers assigned outside their main collegepreparatory field. This is an imperfect measure, because someteachers are qualified to teach in subjects that were not their col-lege major.

~American Federation of Teachers /Counci] for Basic Education,

Making Do in the Classroom: A Report on the Misassignment ofTeachers (Washington, DC: 1985); Aldridge, op. cit., footnote 21,1985, p. 84.

ZiThese programs enjoy some success, but data on their impactare very limited. Anecdotal evidence suggests that those who makesuch transitions are not likely to be the best and the brightest intheir fields of origin, but there is no way (yet) of judging their qual-ity relative to teachers in the field they have joined. See LindaDarling-Hammond and Lisa Hudson, Rand Corp., “Precollege Sci-ence and Mathematics Teachers: Supply, Demand, and Quality, ”


62

These programs look promising, and could beexpanded in the interests both of the quantity andquality of the entry-level science and mathematicswork force. New York City has a program torelicense teachers of subjects other than mathe-matics and science in these fields. (See box 3-B. )

(continued from previous page)mimeo, 1987, p. 51; Shirley R. Fox, Scientists in the Classroom:Two Strategies (Washington, DC: National Institute for Work andLearning, 1986); and Nancy E. Adelman et al., An Exploratory Study

In an interesting initiative in Hammond, Indiana,a chemistry teacher works part time in a local steelcompany and part time in the local high school.His salary is shared by the school district and thecompany, and some of his classes are taught inthe industrial research laboratory. This arrange-ment originated in the enthusiasm of the teacherand the local community, and could be replicatedelsewhere .25

25 Brent Williamson,of Tea&-er AJtemative Ce~ification and Retraining P>ograms-(Wash- high school teacher, personal communica-ington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc., October 1986). tion, February 1988.

63

THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS OF THE TEACHING WORK FORCE

Concern about teacher shortages and qualitycomes at a time when the teaching profession asa whole feels embattled and undervalued, but alsorecognizes its key role in education and in edu-cation reform. Seemingly endless commissionreports have cited the need to give greater status,more recognition, and higher salaries to teach-ers. 26 Although teachers aspire to belong to aprofession, few feel that they truly do. Manyargue that administrators and school boards, notteachers, define standards of conduct in schools,teaching methods, and curricula. Teachers areconstrained by many rules and regulations, manyof which conflict with each other and which,taken together, sap the enthusiasm of many teach-ers. In some ways, the process of increasing re-quirements and paperwork is a kind of “de-skill-ing” of the teaching work force: the skill ofteaching is removed from teachers and given tothose who make and enforce the “rules. ”27

One way of redressing the balance is to giveteachers more say in setting the professional qual-ifications and standards for membership in theteaching force. The recommendation of the Car-negie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession fora national certification board is being imple-mented; its first members were nominated in May1987. Eventually, such certification might replaceState certification. Parallel moves are afoot in the

‘bSee, for example, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, ANation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (New York, NY:Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986); NationalCommission for Excellence in Teacher Education, Call for Changein Teacher Education (Washington, DC: American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education, 1985); National Science Board,Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, andTechnology, Educating Americans for the 21st Century (Washing-ton, DC: 1983); and Paul E. Peterson, “Did the Education Com-missions Say Anything?” The Brookings Review, winter 1983, pp.3-11. See also The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement ofTeaching, Report Card on School Reform: The Teachers Speak(Washington, DC: 1988), which characterizes recent reforms as in-volving greater regulation of easily manipulated elements of edu-cation (such as graduation requirements, testing for minimum com-petency, requirements on teacher preparation, and tester testing)rather than renewal. Teachers have largely not been involved in thesereforms, only ordered to undertake them. Nearly one-half of teachersreport that morale in teaching has actually fallen since 1983, whenthe current wave of reforms began.

~7Martin Carnoy and Henry M. Levin, Schoolin g and Work inthe Democratic State (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1985), pp. 157-158.

mathematics and science teaching profession. In1984, NSTA estimated that about 30 percent ofall secondary mathematics and science teacherswere either “completely unqualified or severelyunderqualified” to teach these subjects .28 NSTAlaunched its own certification program for scienceteachers in October 1986. The fact that many“single-subject” teachers teach a good deal of othersciences and mathematics has led NSTA to de-vise a two-track secondary certification program:one for general science teaching, the other forsingle-subject science teaching. Currently, fewerthan one-third of the science teaching force wouldmeet NSTA’S standards.29 The guidelines of bothNSTA and the National Council of Teachers ofMathematics (NCTM, set in 1981) are listed in ta-ble 3-3.

The Quality of Mathematicsand Science Teachers

Mathematics and science teacher quality is noteasily measured.30 There are three related andcommonly used indicators of teacher quality: pos-session of State certification, conformity to guide-lines established by such bodies as NSTA andNCTM J and the amount of college-level course-work that teachers have had (on which the othertwo indicators are based). Many commentatorscaution against equating course preparation withteacher quality. Nevertheless, reliable data existonly for this measure and it is the one used here,along with teachers’ own perceptions of their con-fidence and abilities.31

28K.L. Johnston and B.G. Aldridge, “The Crisis in Science Edu-cation: What Is It? How Can We Respond?” Journal of College Sci-ence Teaching (September/October 1984 ), quoted in National Sci-ence Board, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 37.

wJohn Walsh, “T’eacher C.erti[ication program under waY, ” sci-ence, vol. 235, Feb. 20, 1987, pp. 838-839; and Robert Rothman,“Science Teachers Laud Certification Program, But Few Seen Qual-ified, ” Education Week, Apr. 8, 1987, pp. 6, 10.

30See, generally, Darling-Hammond and Hudson, op. cit., foot-note 24.

31Rolf K. Blank and Senta A. Raizen, National Research Coun-cil, “Background Paper for a Planning Conference on a Study ofTeacher Quality in Science and Mathematics Education, ” unpub-lished working paper, April 1985. Unfortunately, few people seemto have asked the consumers of this teaching, the students, whatthey think of their teachers’ abilities. Better ways of measuring qual-ity might be either to observe teachers’ performance in the class-


64

Table 3=3.—Guidelines for Mathematics and Science Teacher Qualifications Specified by the NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)

NCTM guidelines NSTA standards

Early elementary school -

The following three courses, each of which presumes aprerequisite of 2 years of high school algebra and 1 yearof geometry:

1. number systems2. informal geometry3. mathematics teaching methods

Upper elementary and middle schoolThe following four courses, each of which presumes aprerequisite of 2 years of high school algebra and 1 yearof geometry:

1. number systems2. informal geometry3. topics in mathematics (including real number sys-

tems, probability and statistics, coordinate geometry,and number theory)

4. mathematics methods

Junior high schoolThe following seven courses, each with a prerequisite of3 to 4 years of high school mathematics, beginning withalgebra and including trigonometry:

1. calculus2. geometry3. computer science4. abstract algebra5. mathematics applications6. probability and statistics7. mathematics methods

Senior high schoolThe following 13 courses, which constitute an under-graduate major in mathematics, and which each presumea prerequisite of 3 to 4 years of high school mathemat-ics, beginning with algebra and including trigonometry:

1-3. three semesters of calculus4. computer science

5-6. linear and abstract algebra7. geometry8. probability and statistics

9-12. one course each in: mathematics methods,mathematics applications, selected topics, and thehistory of mathematics

13. at least one additional mathematics elective course

Elementary level1. Minimum 12 semester-hours in laboratory- or field-

oriented science including courses in biological,physical, and earth sciences. These courses shouldprovide science content that is applicable to elemen-tary classrooms.

2. Minimum of one course in elementary sciencemethods (approximately 3 semester-hours) to betaken after completion of content courses.

3. Field experience in teaching science to elementarystudents.

Middle/junior high school level1. Minimum 36 semester-hours of science instruction

with at least 9 hours in each of biological or earthscience, physical science, and earth/space science.Remaining 9 hours should be science electives.

2. Minimum of 9 semester-hours in support areas ofmathematics and computer science.

3. A science methods course designed for the middleschool level.

4. Observation and field experience with early adoles-cent science classes.

Secondary levelGeneral standards for all science specialization areas:

1. Minimum 50 semester-hours of coursework in one ormore sciences, plus study in related fields ofmathematics, statistics, and computer applications.

2. Three to five semester-hour course in sciencemethods and curriculum.

3. Field experiences in secondary science classroomsat more than one grade level or more than onescience area.

Specialized standards1. Biology: minimum 32 semester-hours of biology plus

16 semester-hours in other sciences.2. Chemistry: minimum 32 semester-hours of chemistry

plus 16 semester-hours in other sciences.3. Earth/space science: minimum 32 semester-hours of

earth/space science, specializing in one area (as-tronomy, geology, meteorology, or oceanography),plus 16 semester-hours in other sciences.

4. General science: 8 semester-hours each in biology,chemistry, physics, earth/space science, and applica-tions of science in society. Twelve hours in any onearea, plus mathematics to at least the precalculuslevel.

5. Physical science: 24 semester-hours in chemistry,physics, and applications to society, plus 24semester-hours in earth/space science; also anintroductory biology course.

6. Physics: 32 semester-hours in physics, plus 16 inother sciences.

SOURCE: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Science Teachers Association

The national teaching force has good creden- least a master’s degree.32 A 1985-86 surveytials; over so percent of all teachers now have at found, in grades 10 to 12, that 63 percent of sci-(continued from previous page) ence teachers and 55 percent of mathematicsroom or to evaluate the outcomes of teaching through the progressmade by students (which is becoming more common as States up- 32National Education Association, Status of the American Pub-grade course requirements for high school graduation). lic School Teacher 1985-86 (West Haven, CT: 1987), tables 1-2.

65

teachers had earned degrees beyond the baccalaur-eate. The same survey also found that 40 percentof mathematics teachers had degrees in mathe-matics, and 60 percent of science teachers haddegrees in a science field.” By contrast, only 1to 2 percent of mathematics and science teachersat the elementary school level had degrees in thesefields.

The National Survey of Science and Mathe-matics Education gathered its data from about4,500 teachers from all grades in 1985-86.34 Thesurvey showed that many elementary mathe-matics and science teachers have taken very fewcollege-level courses in these subjects, while sec-ondary teachers of these subjects have much moreextensive preparation. (See tables 3-4 and 3-5. )

The survey indicated that over 85 percent ofelementary science teachers have taken at least onecourse in methods for teaching elementary schoolscience, and about 90 percent have taken at leastone college-level science course (typically biology,psychology, or physical science).35 However, al-though 90 percent of elementary mathematicsteachers have taken at least one course in methodsfor teaching mathematics, only about 40 percenthave taken at least one college-level mathematicsclass. Most have taken instead mathematicscourses especially designed for elementary math-ematics teachers. Elementary school teachers feelgood about mathematics; 99 percent feel well-qualified to teach it, compared to 64 percent whofeel well-qualified to teach science, particularlyphysical science. About 80 percent of elementarymathematics and science teachers enjoy teachingthese subjects. Inservice training is also not reach-ing many elementary teachers; more than 40 per-cent report that they have had no inservice train-ing in the last year, and another 25 percent havehad less than 6 hours in total during the year.

About 90 percent of junior high and high schoolmathematics and science teachers have taken atleast introductory biology in college, over 70 per-cent have taken general physics, 50 percent geol-ogy, and 80 percent general chemistry. Many have

33 Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, tables 38, 46.~Ibid. For the higher grades, data are reported in two categories:

teachers in grades 7 to 9 and grades 10 to 12; here they are summa-rized as averages for grades 7 to 12 combined.

‘sIbid., tables 39-40.

Table 3-4.—College-Level Courses Taken byElementary and Secondary Mathematics Teachers

Percentage of teacherswith courseb

Elementary Secondary

Course titlesa K-3 4-6 7-9 10-12

General Methods ofTeaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Methods of TeachingElementary SchoolMathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Methods of Teaching MiddleSchool Mathematics. . . . . . . 14

Methods of TeachingSecondary SchoolMathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Supervised StudentTeaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Psychology, HumanDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Mathematics for ElementarySchool Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 89

Mathematics for SecondarySchool Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 11

Geometry for Elementary orMiddle School Teachers . . . 17

College Algebra,Trigonometry, ElementaryFunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Advanced Calculus. . . . . . . . . .Differential Equations . . . . . . .Geometry c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Probability and Statistics . . . . 21Abstract Algebra/Number

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Linear Algebra. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Applications of Mathematics/

Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . .History of Mathematics . . . . . .Other upper division

mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sample N = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

93 90 93

90

27 37 25

83

87

90

21

21

3712

727

246

53 80

79 81

84 87

80 8767 8939 6339 6167 8059 76

48 6948 69

34 3926 37

37 63671 565

%mits courses in computer programming and instructional uses of computersbEmpty ~ells mean data were not reported in original tabulation.Cupper division geornet~ in case of elementary teachers

SOURCE: Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 National Survey of Science andMathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research TriangleInstitute, November 1987), tables 40, 44

specialized in biology and life sciences; few havespecialized in physical sciences. About one-halfhave taken at least eight courses in life science,but only 14 percent of them have had eight coursesin chemistry, and 10 percent eight courses inphysics and earth sciences. As a group, over 90percent of secondary science teachers enjoy teach-ing science, although 35 percent think that scienceis a difficult subject to learn. %

“Ibid., tables 41, 44.

66

Table 3-5.—College-Level Courses Taken byElementary and Secondary Science Teachers

Percentage of teacherswith courseb

Elementary SecondaryCourse titlesa K-3 4-6 7-9 10-12General Methods of Teaching . . 95Methods of Teaching

Elementary SchoolScience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Methods of Teaching MiddleSchool Science . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods of TeachingSecondary School Science . .

Supervised Student Teaching . . 77Psychology, Human

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Biology, Environmental, Life

Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Physical Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Earth/Space Science . . . . . . . . . . 39No science courses . . . . . . . . . . 5Only one science course . . . . . . 18Two science courses . . . . . . . . . 40

Life Sciences:Introductory Biology . . . . . . . . . .Botany, Plant Physiology . . . . . .Cell Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecology, Environmental

Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genetics, Evolution. . . . . . . . . . .Microbiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Physiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zoology, Animal Behavior . . . . .

Chemistry:General Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . .Analytical Chemistry. . . . . . . . . .Organic Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . .Physical Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . .Biochemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physics:General Physics. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electricity and Magnetism . . . . .Heat and Thermodynamics . . . .Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Modern or Nuclear Physics . . . .Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Earth/Space Sciences:Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Physical Geography . . . . . . . . . .

Other:History of Science . . . . . . . . . . .Science and Society . . . . . . . . . .Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample N = . . . . . . . . . ........431

95

88

20

87

88

8737216151

51240

273

94

30

6183

85

917054

6255486364

7630512125

731816151211

4056272639

21188

658

94

20

8279

87

857358

6364536571

9247

3234

812824262318

3649201925

231612

1,050%mits courses in computer programming and instructional uses of computersbEmpty ~ells mean data were not reported in original IahlationSOURCE: Iris R Weiss, Reporf of the 1985-86 Aratfonal Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC’ Research TriangleInstitute, November 1987), tables 39 and 41

Of mathematics teachers in grades 7 to 12, over80 percent have had at least college algebra,trigonometry, or elementary functions, and about70 percent of them have had calculus. Still, about7 percent feel inadequately qualified to teachmathematics, and over 25 percent had not takena college course for credit in the last 12 years (55percent during the last 5 years). Over 50 percenthave not had more than 6 hours of inservice edu-cation during the last year. This translates intoa lack of confidence in teaching skills. About 20percent of elementary teachers felt very well-qual-ified to teach mathematics and science respec-tively; another 20 percent felt they were not well-qualified to teach science.37

Options for Improving the Quality ofMathematics and Science Teachers

More States indicate shortages of quality sci-ence and mathematics teachers than of teacherswith appropriate qualifications to teach these sub-jects. Credentials are not enough. Most Stateshave attempted to alleviate their shortagesthrough higher teacher salaries, and some also usespecial loan and staff development programs formathematics and science teachers in order to re-tain good teachers and retrain teachers from otherfields. Iowa, for example, grants loans to currentteachers to upgrade their skills in mathematics andscience teaching, and sponsors summer traininginstitutes. Idaho uses Title II funds to providescholarships to potential science or mathematicsteachers who want to be recertified in these sub-ject areas.

At least 26 States have inservice teacher train-ing programs for science and mathematics instruc-tors, most involving loans or scholarships topromote additional coursework. The TeacherSummer Business Training and Employment Pro-gram in New York partly reimburses industry forscience, mathematics, computer, or occupationaleducation teachers employed by business and in-dustry during the summer. In Kentucky, Title IIfunds support the Science Improvement Projectin low-income districts with histories of lowachievement,

37See National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 27-28.

67

About 10 States now offer alternative certifi-cation programs for prospective mathematics andscience teachers. For example, Utah awards “Emi-nence Certificates” to qualified professionals suchas engineers and doctors, which allows them toteach up to two classes per day. Other, more inno-vative means of recruiting new mathematics andscience teachers include hiring teachers from over-seas. (California and Georgia recruit science andmathematics teachers from the Federal Republicof Germany, and Kansas City, Missouri, has im-ported teachers from Belgium. ) Florida holds anintensive teacher job fair each June, called “TheGreat Florida Teach-In, ” designed to attract andplace new teachers.

The quality of the mathematics and scienceteacher work forces can be improved before peo-ple enter the classroom as teachers (generally re-ferred to as preservice) or when they are activelyteaching (inservice). Given the low labor turnoverof the teaching force, between 5 and 10 percenteach year in all subjects,38 the way to upgradeteaching quality is via inservice programs. Yetthere is considerable national anxiety about theperceived deficiencies of preservice teacher prep-aration in all disciplines .39

Preservice Education

While many talented people do become teach-ers, it is sometimes suggested that teacher educa-tion is not challenging.40 Critics further chargethat teacher preparation programs fail to make

effective links between courses on mathematicsand science and those on education, and there-fore, teachers are unable to convert courses onclassroom teaching techniques and theories oflearning. In addition, such courses convey a sim-plistic view of science as a monolithic collectionof facts, embodied in enormous textbooks, giv-ing students a false impression of the nature ofscientific inquiry.

Teachers agree that experiments and hands-onactivities are more effective than book work, butfeel the overriding need to cover material in en-cyclopedic fashion. The extensive use of factualrecall tests creates incentives to cover the content,rather than process, of the subject matter. Thus,teacher preparation may be more telling than theirclassroom practice. In college, prospective teach-ers model their attitudes and teaching practiceson those of their college professors and, indeed,on their own school teachers. They employ theteaching techniques, such as lectures and rotememorization, that they were either forced to suf-fer or benefited from when they were students.School district curriculum guides and testing fuelteachers’ reliance on tools for covering conceptsand facts, one by one, without drawing links andbrightening the big picture of science. Preferencemay signal a lack of alternatives; teachers mayhave neither the tools nor the opportunity to be-come comfortable with them to change their ap-proach.

%ational Education Association, op. cit., footnote 32, table 13;Blake Rodman, “Attrition Rate for Teachers Hits 25-Year Low, StudyFinds, ” Education Week, Oct. 14, 1987, p. 8.

Wor an overview, see Frank Ambrosie and Paul W. Haley, “TheChanging School Climate and Teacher Professionalization,” NASSP[National Association of Secondary School Principals] Bulletin, vol.72, January 1988, pp. 82-89. The following two sections are basedin part on Iris R. Weiss, OTA Workshop on Mathematics and Sci-ence Education K-12: Teachers and the Future, Summary Report,September 1987.

%Jational Science Board, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 25. As BernardR. Gifford, Dean of the School of Education, University ofCalifornia-Berkeley, puts it: “What’s wrong with schools and de-partments of education today is very simple. Education suffers fromcongenital prestige deprivation. ” See Anne C. Roark, “The Ghettoof Academe: Few Takers (Teacher Colleges ),” LOS Angeles Times,Mar. 13, 1988, p. 6. A new book dissects the origins and repercus-sions of this prestige deprivation on university campuses. See Ger-aldine Joncich Clifford and James W. Guthrie, Ed School. A Brieffor Prok.siona] Education (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,1988).


Most reports on reforming education single out theimportance of improving the status, appeal, and quality of

the teaching profession.

68

There is still no complete model of what themathematics and science teacher curriculumshould be. Simply requiring more mathematicsand science courses for certification will not auto-matically improve teacher quality, given the con-tent of these courses and the way they are oftentaught. The National Science Foundation (NSF),for example, has recently begun a program to de-velop new models for preservice preparation ofmiddle school teachers.

One particular controversy in mathematics andscience teacher education is whether futureteachers should be expected to have a baccalaure-ate degree in a discipline plus some professionaltraining. At present, many teachers at the elemen-tary level earn baccalaureate degrees in education,but 97 percent of elementary mathematics teachersand 95 percent of elementary science teachers havea degree in subjects other than science or scienceeducation. At the high school level, however, 40percent of mathematics teachers and 60 percentof science teachers have a degree in those subjects,and another 36 and 24 percent, respectively, havea degree in mathematics and science education ora joint degree in a mathematics and science sub-ject and science and mathematics education .41

Several groups that have studied the future ofthe teaching profession in the current reformmovement have looked at this issue. The HolmesGroup (an informal consortium of educationdeans in research universities) has attached pri-ority to upgrading elementary and secondaryteachers’ specific knowledge by insisting that theyhave a baccalaureate degree in a subject area. TheHolmes Group has also called for much greateruse of specialized teaching, and for more subject-intensive preparation of those teachers.42 SO far,only Texas has changed its certification require-ments in this way; after 1991, new entrants to the

“Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, table 45.‘*The Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Teachers (East Lansing, MI:

1986). See also Lynn Olson, “An Overview of the Holmes Group, ”Phi Delta Kappan, April 1987, pp. 619-621. Subject-intensive prep-aration may be unrealistic for elementary school teachers. Just askan elementary teacher what she teaches and the response will be“children” or “grade n“; a secondary school teacher will respondwith “science” or “math. ” Most parents would probably take com-fort that their child is being taught by someone who believes theirprimary allegiance and responsibility is to children, not subjects(Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement ofScience, personal communication, August 1988).

profession in Texas will have to have both a dis-ciplinary degree and no more than 18 course-hours of education courses.43

Currently, NSTA and NCTM both require con-siderable amounts of subject-specific courseworkof applicants for their own certification programs.Content, rather than titles, of the courses futureteachers take is essential; there is a large grey areathat colleges and universities can exploit in spe-cific subject areas (such as mathematics educa-tion). But the long-term trend is to emphasize spe-cific skills for specific subjects rather than generic“education” courses.

Preservice education of science and mathe-matics teachers presents a surfeit of issues and littleconsensus over how to address them. College de-partments of science and mathematics preparetheir students to become scientists or engineers,not teachers of these subjects. Few, if any, coursesare offered that give prospective teachers a senseof what scientists do or how science and mathe-matics impact on workday activities and societalproblems. Can teachers be blamed for not tak-ing what is not offered, or for not executing intheir classrooms what they were unable to experi-ence as students (i.e., the apprenticeship role)?This “no-fault” explanation distributes the respon-sibility for the perceived shortcomings of the neo-phyte teacher.44 It also transfers part of the bur-den to inservice training.

The Importance of Inservice Training

Once teachers are in place, as in any profes-sional work force, they need periodic updatingand time to consider how they could do their jobsbetter. At present, inservice training is also neededto remedy the inadequacies of many teachers’ pre-service preparation. A recent survey indicates thatthere has been an increase in the amount of in-service training taken during the school year,which has come at the expense of college-level

43Lynn Olson, “Texas Teacher Educators in Turmoil Over Re-form Law’s ‘Encroachment’,” Education Week, vol. 7, No. 14, Dec.9, 1987, p. 1.

441f scientists want to prescribe what science is worth knowing,they must be willing to collaborate with teachers in deciding whatscience is worth teaching. When should phenomena just be experi-enced and the underlying scientific principles withheld? Such a ques-tion beckons to an interdisciplinary team of scientists, teachers, childdevelopment specialists, and psychologists for answers.

69

course-taking on weekends and during vacations.Three-quarters of teachers now report taking in-service courses during the school year, comparedwith 59 percent 15 years ago,45

Another recent survey found that most math-ematics and science teachers, at all grade levels,had spent less than 6 hours on inservice educa-tion in 1984. (See figure 3-3. ) Secondary teachershad spent more time on inservice education thanelementary teachers; over 10 percent of mathe-matics and science teachers in grades 10 to 12 hadtaken more than 35 hours of inservice educationduring the last year.”

A leading policy issue is who should be respon-sible for inservice education. As employers, school

4sNational Education Association, op. cit., footnote 32, tables44-4.5.

4’Weiss, op. cit., foonote 10, table 56. This difference in inser-vice education time may simply reflect greater opportunity affordedsecondary school teachers, not lesser interest on the part of elemen-tary teachers,

Figure 3-3.—Amount of Inservice Training Receivedby Science and Mathematics Teachers During 1985-86

35+ h o u r s

1 6 – 3 5

6 – 1 5

< 6

N o n ea

K - 67 - 9

1 0 - 1 2 ‘- 6 7 - 91 0- 1 2

Science Mathemat ics

alncludes about 10 percent with unknown time.

NOTE’ Science and mathematics teachers were asked how much inserwce train.ing in science they received m the past 12 months. Inservice training in-cludes attendance at professional meetings and workshops, but not formalcourses for college credit Sample sizes range from about 560 to 1,050,varying with grade level and field

SOURCE Iris R Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science andMafherrrat/cs Education (Research Triangle Park, NC Research Trian-gle Institute November 1987), p 92

districts should be primary supporters of sucheducation, but it is among the first budget itemsto be cut in periods of austerity. In practice,teachers are often expected to arrange and payfor such education themselves. While many teach-ers do participate, commentators suggest thatthere is a large pool of mathematics and scienceteachers who are never reached.47

Perhaps most lacking is a national commitmentto the continuing education of science and math-ematics teachers. Such education comes in manyforms, including multiweek full-time summer in-stitutes, occasional days to attend professionalmeetings, and provision of relevant research ma-terials and work sessions on how to translate theseinto practice. In some areas, contacts betweenschools, school districts, scientific societies, Stateeducation agencies, and universities exist and arefruitful, but other areas are devoid of this sup-port. Teachers need much better information thanthey are getting, particularly because of rapidchanges in science and educational technology. ’s

The Federal Government supports inserviceteacher education through both Title II of the Edu-cation for Economic Security Act program of theDepartment of Education and the NSF TeacherEnhancement Program. In the 1960s, NSF fundeda large program of summer and other institutes,based at universities, for mathematics and scienceteachers. (See ch. 6.) Generally, these institutesseemed to have had positive effects, and their per-ceived excesses (for example, an emphasis onknowledge of science content) could be reducedwere the concept to be revived. The bulk of thefunds in the previous program went to collegesand universities; local school districts could nowbe partners in such education.

Another important Federal role could be a re-gional system of mathematics and science educa-

47This explanation raises the issue of incentives. For what doesan elementary school teacher get “credit”? How do teachers per-ceive the relative priorities of different subject areas, e.g., languagearts v. mathematics?

46A recent proposal is for 8 to 10 federally funded science edu-cation centers, spread around the country, which would developcurricula, train teachers, set up networks, and conduct research.See Myron J. Atkin, “Education at the National ScienceFoundation—Historical Perspectives, An Assessment, and A Pro-posed Initiative for 1989 and Beyond, ” testimony before the HouseSubcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Com-mittee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar. 22, 1988, pp. 14-17.

tion advisors. School administrators need train-ing, too; they would work with school districtsin disseminating the results of (at least federallysponsored) educational research, and affectingclassroom practice. This role would be similar tothat of county Agricultural Extension agents. TheNational Diffusion Network, currently restrictedto conveying effective teaching curricula, is an ex-isting mechanism for disseminating research in-formation. Finally, the Federal Government mightassist in linking teachers through informal meet-ings and electronic message networks. The Statesupervisors of science are already planning sucha network.

Conclusions on Mathematics andScience Teacher Quality

The effect that good mathematics and scienceteaching has on students’ propensity to major in

science and engineering is not readily measured.Schools must lead, inform, and interest studentsin mathematics and science, and teachers are thefront line. At the moment, many only inform andsome probably dull students’ interest in mathe-matics and science. On paper, the teaching profes-sion is relatively well-qualified, and has had a sig-nificant (and increasing) amount of teachingexperience. The teaching force needs inserviceeducation, however; this presents an enormoustask. School districts, States, and teachers (whohave already had and paid for a college educa-tion) are unlikely to undertake this alone. Untilschool districts and States make mathematics andscience teacher quality a high priority, student in-terest in and preparation for careers in science andengineering are not likely to flourish.

71

TEACHING PRACTICES AND STUDENT LEARNING

There are several teaching techniques that couldbe used more widely to boost both students’ learn-ing and interest in mathematics and science. Inrecent years, a considerable body of literature on“effective schools” has been assembled. This re-search has been synthesized for teachers, prin-cipals, and administrators to read.49 There is anurgent need to write and disseminate more syn-theses of this kind in other educational researchareas. so

One technique in both mathematics and scienceeducation is experimentation. Experiments, espe-cially when they are related to physical phenom-ena that students encounter in everyday life, arewidely credited with improving students’ attitudestoward and achievement in science. According toa recent survey, teachers think that hands-on sci-ence is an effective teaching method, yet few useit .51 If experiments are properly planned, stu-dents learn that science advances by curiosity,

‘4QNorthwest Regiona] Educational Laboratory, Effective SChOOf-ing Practices: A Research Synthesis (Portland, OR: April 1984); andJames B. Stedman, Congressional Research Service, “The EffectiveSchools Research: Content and Criticisms, ” 85-1122 EPW, unpub-lished manuscript, December 1985. Becoming aware of, readingabout, and knowing how to apply the lessons learned, of course,are very different (Audrey Champagne, American Association forthe Advancement of Science, personal communication, August1988),

501n the case of mathematics and science education, the federallyfunded ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Envi-ronmental Education issues quarterly and annual reviews of researchdesigned for practitioners rather than researchers. The NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) also com-piles summaries of current research applications in science educa-tion. The NARST series is titled Research Matters . . . To the Sci-ence Teacher, and is published on an occasional basis through Dr.Glenn Markle, 401 Teacher College, University of Cincinnati, Cin-cinnati, OH 45221. The ERIC series is a set of regular research digestsin mathematics, science, and environmental education, publishedby the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environ-mental Education, 1200 Chambers Rd., Columbus, OH 43212. See,for example, Patricia E. Blosser, “Meta-Analysis Research on Sci-ence Education, ” ERIC/SMEAC Science Education Digest, No. 1,1985. Finally, an ongoing project conducted by the Cosmos Corp.,in collaboration with several educational associations and fundedby the National Science Foundation, is collecting data on exemplarymathematics and science curriculum and teaching practices for dis-semination nationally. See J. Lynne White (cd.), Cata)ogue of Prac-tices in Science and Mathematics Education (Washington, DC:Cosmos Corp., June 1986).

5’Eighty percent of high school science teachers agree thatlaboratory-based science classes are more effective than lecture-basedclasses, while only about 40 percent reported that they had usedthe technique in their most recent lesson. Weiss, op. cit., footnote10, tables 25, 28.

manipulation, and failure. Mistakes are a normalpart of science. The use of textbooks that empha-size the “facts” discovered by science, on the otherhand, reinforces the popular (but mythical) viewthat science is a logical, linear process of ac-cumulating knowledge.

Science experiments raise achievement scoresand can often trigger positive attitudes toward sci-ence among students. Nevertheless, concernsabout the cost and safety of experiments inhibitthe amount of laboratory work offered, as do thelimited facilities many schools have for this kindof teaching. Experiments require equipment andare more costly than lectures .52

Indications are that the amount of hands-onmathematics and experimental science is diminish-ing. (See figure 3-4. ) A recent survey found thatthe percentage of science classes in 1985-86 usinghands-on activities has fallen somewhat since 1977at all grade levels. Hands-on activities were mostcommon in elementary classes; only 39 percentof science classes in grades 10 to 12 used the tech-nique (down from 53 percent in 1977). In mathe-matics, there have been similar declines, with thesole exception of an increase in the use of hands-on techniques in grades K-3.53

Other proposed teaching practices that mightimprove mathematics and science instruction in-clude the use of open-ended class discussions,small group learning, and the introduction oftopics concerning the social uses and implicationsof science and technology (often called science,technology, and society, or STS). In particular,

Szlndeed, experiments are a logistical nightmare for manyschools: It takes teacher’s valuable time to set up and tear downlaboratories, assemble materials and equipment, take safety precau-tions, cue teacher’s aides, etc. The costs—financial and otherwiw-torun an experiment are often seen as prohibitive.

53Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, table 25; Robert Rothman,“Hands-On Science Instruction Declining, ” Education Week, Mar.9, 1988, p. 4. Data from the 1985-86 National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress show that 78 percent of grade 7 students and 82 per-cent of grade 11 students report “never” having laboratory activi-ties in mathematics classes. Nineteen and 15 percent of students inthese grades, respectively, reported having laboratory activities ei-ther weekly or less than weekly. See John A. Dossey et al., TheMathematics Report Card: Are We Measuring Up? Trends andAchievement Based on the 1986 Nationa~ Assessment (Princeton,NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988), p. 75.

72

the practice of dividing classes into small, mixed-ability groups of five or six students to work onproblems collectively, rather than solve them byindividual competition, is widely practiced inelementary schools in Japan and is reported to beeffective for students of all abilities. Its use is in-creasingly being advocated for the United States.The newly approved elementary mathematics cur-riculum in California is designed for the use ofthis technique, in anticipation of its wider appli-cation.” A recent survey found that over one-half of all students never did mathematics in small

T. Johnson and David W. Johnson, “Cooperative Learn-ing and the Achievement and Socialization Crises in Science andMathematics Classrooms, ” Students Science Learning: PapersFrom the 1987 National Forum for School Science, Audrey B. Cham-pagne and Leslie E. Homig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science, 1987), pp. 67-94; and RobertE. Slavin, Cooperative Learning: Student Teams (Washington, DC:National Education Association, March 1987).

groups; only 12 percent of 3rd graders, 6 percentof 7th graders, and 7 percent of 11th graders re-ported using this technique daily. The survey con-cluded:

Instruction in mathematics classes is character-ized by teachers explaining material, workingproblems on the board, and having students workmathematics problems on their own. . , .

Considering the prevalence of research suggest-ing that there may be better ways for students tolearn mathematics than by listening to theirteachers and then practicing what they have heardin rote fashion, the rarity of innovative instruc-tional approaches is a matter for true concern .55

Because so few of these new practices are used,too many of the Nation’s mathematics and sci-ence high school classes consist of teachers lec-

et al., op. cit., foonote 53, pp. 74-76.

73

Figure 3-4.— Percentage of Mathematics and ScienceClasses Using Hands-on Teaching and Lecture,

100

8 0

0

1977 and 1985.86

SOURCE Iris R Weiss, Reporf of the 1985%8 ~ationa/ Survey of Sc/ence arrdMathematics Education (Research Trianale Park, NC Research Trian-

turing about abstract material directly from text-books, Research on teaching practices and studentlearning indicates that if teaching were better ori-ented to the way students learn, and took accountof how they fit classroom knowledge into theiroften inaccurate world views (culled from a va-riety of sources), students would likely learn moreand “better. ”56

Pleas for attentiveness to individual needs andlearning styles possessed by different studentsshould not be mistaken for a solution to the prob-lems set forth in this chapter. Mathematics andscience teachers are one pivotal working part inthe social system known as “school. ”

‘bSometimes a simple change of procedure can make a world ofdifference. Anne Arundel County, MD, is hoping for just suchmarked results, announcing its intentions of assigning the “best”teachers to students most in educational need. Will teacher assign-ment alone change the educational experience? Similarly, will thepromotion of “master teachers” upgrade the classroom performanceof teachers and students? These are school experiments intended tochange the fit of the pieces in the learning puzzle.

gle Institute, November 1987), p 49. -

Chapter 4

Thinking AboutLearning Science

4-1. State-Funded Schools That Specialize in Science, Mathematics,

Chapter 4

Thinking About Learning Science

We should spend less time ranking children and more time helping themidentify their natural competencies and gifts and cultivate them. There are

hundreds of ways to succeed, and many, many different abilitiesthat will help you get there.

Howard Gardner, 1983

After chapters on students, schools, andteachers, it might seem odd to ask in a separatechapter: How do students learn science and math-ematics? No answer will be found in the follow-ing pages. Indeed, this question now occupiesseveral cadres of scholars and educators—neuro-scientists, learning theorists, school psychologists,and an abundance of classroom teachers. Educa-tional policy analysts have the luxury of politelyraising the question, acknowledging its complex-ity, and substituting a slightly more tractable setof questions: How can more students be success-ful in science and mathematics? Does science andmathematics education search for and select a par-ticular type of student? Is a certain learning stylefavored in the teaching and learning of these sub-jects? If so, is a self-fulfilling prophecy at work?If a certain kind of learning style is appropriateto science or mathematics, can it be promotedthrough programs for “gifted” or “talented” stu-dents? What can be done to correct rnisconcep-tions (held both by students and teachers), to spurcreativity, to develop “higher order thinkingskills, ” and to place more students on pathwaysto learning science and mathematics? l T h i s

chapter presents a select menu of needs, takingfew orders for satisfying them.2

for teaching mathematics and science students, and educational re-search on teaching and learning. Both are built on the premise thatstudents’ own experiences and intuitive explanations of scientificphenomena fuel learning. For example, see Educational Technol-ogy Center, Making Sense of the Future (Cambridge, MA: HarvardGraduate School of Education, January 1988); Audrey Champagneand Leslie Homig, Students and Science Learning (Washington, DC:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987), chs.1-2; Jan Hawkins and Roy D. Pea, “Tools for Bridging the Culturesof Everyday and Scientific Thinking, ” ]ournal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, vol. 24, No. 4, 1987, pp. 291-307; Rosalind Driver,The Pupil as Scientist7 (Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press,1983); ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environ-mental Education, Science Misconceptions Research and Some Im-plications for the Teaching of Science to Elementary School Stu-dents, Science Education Digest No. 1 (Columbus, OH: 1987); ERICClearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Edu-cation, Secondary School Students’ Comprehension of Science Con-cepts: Some Findings From Misconceptions Research, Science Edu-cation Digest No. 2 (Columbus, OH: 1987); and Cornell University,Department of Education, “Proceedings of the Second InternationalSeminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Scienceand Mathematics, ” 1987.

‘The revision of this chapter has benefited especially from thecommentary of Audrey Champagne, American Association for theAdvancement of Science, personal communication, August 1988.

‘Two foci of Federal support (by the National Science Founda-tion and the Department of Education) have been new environments

STUDENTS AND SCIENCE LEARNING

Students need to discover and recognize how suits of scientific inquiry.3 If students’ develop-they best learn; this aids in relating their intui- ment of reasoning and analytic skills is closelytive knowledge to the knowledge conveyed in the

3For some of this pioneering work, see Joseph D, Novak and D.classroom. Techniques have been devised to help Bob Gowin, Learning How To Learn (New York, NY: Cambridgechildren bridge their prior conceptions to the re- University Press, 1985).

77

78

linked to their assimilation of knowledge aboutparticular subjects, it makes little sense to divorcethe two in teaching science. Methods of inquiryand analysis, acquired via laboratory and hands-on experiences, have to be taught together withfacts about particular problems or fields. All thistakes time, and it maybe that the amount of ma-terial covered in the typical science curriculumshould be reduced, reserving instruction time forthe use of hands-on techniques.4

The need to increase emphasis on problem solv-ing and thinking skills is often referred to as im-

other interactive technologies pear to be very promising in facilitating students’ construction ofscientific and mathematical phenomena, and some teaching pack-ages have been designed for this purpose. In designing effective sci-ence and mathematics education programs, experts in particular sci-entific fields need to pool resources with cognitive scientists andpracticing teachers. See Barbara “A Mathematician’s Re-search on Math Instruction, ” Educational Researcher, vol. 16, No.9, December 1987, pp. 9-12.

proving students’ higher order thinking skills or“creative thinking. ” Higher order thinking is theability to infer and reason in an abstract way,rather than merely memorizing and recalling sin-gle items of information. These skills have alwaysbeen important, but many analysts believe thatthey will be part of the “new basics” for tomor-row’s high-technology work forces

‘There is, however, no generally agreed on framework that de-fines the distinction between a higher order skill, a lower order skill,or any other kind of thinking skill. See Audrey B. Champagne, “Def-inition and Assessment of the Higher Order Cognitive Skills, ”

Matters . . . To the Science Teacher (Cincinnati,OH: University of Cincinnati, 1987); Lauren B. Resnick, Educationand Learning (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1987); Lynn Steen, “The Science of Patterns,” Science, vol. 240, Apr.29, 1988, pp. 611-616; Richard J. Harvard University,Graduate School of Education, “U.S. Education and the Produc-tivity of the Work Force: Looking Ahead, ” unpublished paper, June1988; and Educational Leadership, “Teaching Thinking Through-out the Curriculum, ” vol. 45, April 1988, pp. 3-31.

Pboto credit William Mills. Montgomery County Public Schools

Science awards, contests, and fairs bestow public recognition on science achievers and providehands-on experiences for many students.

79

The concept of higher order thinking may bea metaphor for drastic reform of schools; validor not, many States are investing money in it.6

A particular focus of this trend is testing, whichis widely believed to be one of the main forcesthat perpetuates lower order thinking skills in thepresent day curriculum. In a sense, two relatedtrends—a transition in the generally accepted the-ory of student learning and the pressure for ahigher level curriculum—could lead to positiveimprovements in student learning of mathematicsand science. But change will be slow in coming.7

Learning Styles

There are more similarities in how people learnthan there are differences. However, there ismounting evidence that different modes (such asoral, written, and diagrammatic presentation ofmaterial) are effective with different students.These differences are believed to exist both amongindividuals and groups.8

Individual differences have been clear toteachers for years. Some students concentrate onrote memorization of facts, some explore withtheir hands, others are much more visual and re-spond best to graphical and pictorial presentationof material, while others learn via more abstractimagery. Research is beginning to clarify thesedifferences and to explore their implications forteaching and learning.

Various models of learning styles have been de-vised. Each is designed to help teaching becomemore closely attuned to the ways different stu-dents learn, although so far these models have hadlimited effect in classroom practice and none is

‘See, for example, Rita Dunn and Shirley A. Griggs, LearningStyles: Quiet Revolution in American Secondary Schools (Reston,VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1988).

7A recent initiative, called Project XL, by the U.S. Patent andTrademark Office, together with the Departments of Commerce,Energy, and Education, aims to develop inventive thinking and prob-lem-solving skills in students. See Virginia Sowers, “Patent OfficeSpearheads Creative-Thinking Project,” E~”neering Times, vol. 10,No. 4, April 1988, p. 9.

8For example, some suggest that whites and Blacks, as well asmales and females, often have characteristically different learningstyles. Not surprisingly, the hypothesis that learning styles differby race, ethnicity, and gender is highly controversial (discussedbelow).

generally accepted.’ This research builds on along tradition of studies by philosophers, psy-chologists, and cognitive scientists that tracesdifferences in learning to cultural and family back-grounds. Some differences, however, are physio-logical in nature, such as whether students workbest at night or in the morning, and their suscep-tibility to extremes of light, sound, and heat. Howthese differences apply to the learning of scienceand mathematics is just beginning to be clarified.But the heavy focus of elementary and second-ary mathematics and science courses on the learn-ing and regurgitation of discrete, abstract facts hasalready alerted the science education communityto the need for more hands-on programs, in or-der to break down this misleading image of whatscience is like.l0

Since science and engineering have been histori-cally populated by white males, it has been as-sumed that teaching approaches that are successfulwith this population are appropriate for all stu-dents. It is further alleged that departures fromthese approaches are not rewarded, and thus per-petuate the factors that deter women and mostracial and ethnic minorities from considering sci-ence and engineering careers. Such deterrents arereflected in the prejudice and discrimination oper-ating in these fields. (See box 4-A. )

As a result of this concept of how science shouldbe taught and learned, science education in theUnited States, some assert, is obsessed with thetesting knowledge of facts to the exclusion of four,

gchristine 1 Bennett Comprehensive hfu)ticu~tura] Education.’

Theory and P;actice (Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1986), chs. 4-5.A series of eight filmstrips produced by Madison Workshops (Dept.E-W/1379 Grace Street, Madison Schools, Mansfield, OH, 449o5)are now available under the title “Learning Styles—An Alternativefor Achievement. ” The films cover the following themes: researchand learning style instruments, classification of instructional mate-rials to accommodate student learning styles, brain dominance andlearning styles, an explanation for parents, the gifted student, anapproach to homework, and students with specific needs. Engineer-ing educators are also beginning to address the importance of match-ing teaching and learning styles in their students. Richard M. Felderand Linda K. Silvermanr “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engi-neering Education, ” Engineering Education, vol. 78, No. 7, April1988, pp. 674-681.

IOFor examp]e, see Mary Budd Rowe’ “Minimizing Student Lossin Freshman and Sophomore Science Courses, ” Research in Col-lege Science Teaching, vol. 5, No. 5, May 1976, pp. 333-334; andPaul J. Kuerbis, “Learning Styles and Science Teaching, ” NARSTResearch Matters . . To the Science Teacher (Cincinnati, OH:University of Cincinnati, n.d. ).

80

Box 4-A.-A Black Learning Style?

The relation between scientific values and learning styles is reflected in the concern to improve highschool completion rates among “at-risk” students. A recent booklet, written by the New York State Educa-tion Department to help teachers of at-risk students improve completion rates, included discussion of min-ority learning styles. A storm of protest among both minority and majority politicians and educators en-sued.1 The booklet $tates:

.urderstanding various learning styies is . . . important, Several reseadwrs have noted that the traditional&&room iS built, for the most part, around the Anglo-American cultural learning styks which emphasizes themartipuiatiorts of objects such as books, iisterting stations, learning centers, programmed instruction and so forth.Children’s racial, ethnic and emotional backgrounds and cukures irtfiuence the manner in which they learn con-cepts and process information. For example, qualities noted in African-Americans include:

● the tendency to view things in their entirety and not in isolated parts;● a preference for inferential nwmning rather than deductive or inductive reasoning;● the tendency to approximate space, number and time instead of aiming for complete accuracy;● an emphasis on noveky, personaI freedom, and distinctiveness; and● a ~istmm to becoming “word” dependent, but developing a proficiency in nonverbai as well as verbai

comrrtunication.zThe existence of a Black learning style partly reflects the acceptance of Black culture in American soci-

ety. At issue is whether differences arise primarily for socioeconomic or for cukural reasons, and whichsource is dominant. Some argue that the cukural attributes derived from membership of a particular socialclass are more important than cultural differences based on race. Others suggest that Blacks have createda unique Blacb%merican culture, rooted in African traditions but adapted by the American experience,that outweighs socioeconomic factors.3

Several educators have argued that the cultural style and world view of Blacks had been “bastardized”by the dominant culture (the “AngioMhropean cosmology”) ~d by its educational system. White chikirenare never asked to span and understand bath Black and white cultures, let alone the subcukures withineach of them, in the way that Black chikken are. Specifically, some claim that Black English should beaccepted as a distinctive variant of standard English. The difference arises from the strong orai, rather thanwritten, tradition of Black culture. Blacks use a more descriptive, metaphorical, context-dependent lan-guage, with few synonyms, compared with standard English. They favor the second-person (“you”) ratherthan the third-person (“he/she”). The result is a language that is more conversational, poetic, and symbolicthan that used by whites; the style in which things are said, for example in-public speeches, can be as imp-ortant as its content. Some argue that the idioms and concepts of Black English actually inhibit traditionalmathematics and science learning. However, these same observers believe teaching can be modified andthat, ultimately, Black English is as capable of expressing mathematical concepts as is standard English,although it may use different forms.’

A related difference occurs between the intellectual heritages and styles of inquiry of Blacks and white-Europeans. Some Blacks argue that African-American culture is more affective and “cognitively-united”in a faith-reason-emotion interdependence than is the prevailing white-European culture. Researchers onBlack cognitive style speak of a “feeling intelligence” and the “aesthetic mind.” They are suggesting thatthis style is built on what people feel and experience, and analyzes the world against that background,rather than through the European traditions of a world of universal facts and knowledge and a divorcebetween analysis within the mind and the feelings of the body.s

Norton & Co., WS7).%ecau!w comnonly Ueed teacMniJ rddquea are rootad ill the Sumpaan tradition, they can be ruthkaa with Biacka’dfferent cultund ad intellec-

tual heritage. The educational ayetem beats the “affective” out of students; M higheet due ia the neutral ktumaty le teachirig format, in whkh thelecturer shuns emotional involvement, eye contact, or voice modukion, and the studanta are paeaive aborbem of facta. See Ja-A. A&mm Weat-ern Educational %@ems in Conflict With Learnina StYIea of lbfhtoriw Studenta,” Prmented at the Second National Confmnce on BIack Student lUten-tion in Higher E&cation, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 4,-1%%

81

Not all Black educators agree on the importance, or even the existence, of a Black learning style inscience and mathematics. They point out that there is a single accepted language of scientific and mathe-matical concepts that students who wish to progress in these fields must understand. Thus, although theremight be different teaching approaches, they must all converge on the universally accepted language andcontent of mathematics and science.

Learning style differences may also apply to Native Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.One study of the Navajo culture suggests that, in that culture, students learn skills by watching a compe-tent adult performing the action and then gradually taking over more of the action. Finally, the studentgoes off to perform the skill in private, to verify that he or she has mastered the skill. All this is accom-plished with a minimum of oral communication. In schools, however, students are expected to acquireand demonstrate skills almost simultaneously, to test them in public (in front of the teacher and other stu-dents), and to learn and test skills orally. It is argued that this clash of styles of learning can seriously in-hibit learning by Navajo students.6

Science and mathematics education that recognizes diversity will contribute more to the health of sci-ence and engineering than one of narrow gauge that alienates bright, creative, risk-taking students. Sciencewould both benefit and change from this recognition, as the skills that the existing system culls out wouldrefine definitions of scientific “productivity” and “creativity.”

‘Christine I. Bennett, Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice (Newton, MA: A1lyn & Bacon, 1986), pp. 96-97.

and possibly other, domains: processes, creativ- courages those whose talents lie in the other fourity, attitudes, and applications.11 In their mostcolorful summaries, some observers have arguedthat the United States, by accident rather than bydesign, practices “Westist, sexist, and testist” sci-ence education .12 This approach, if accurate, ismore harmful than simply deterring women andminorities from entering science, for it also dis-

‘] Robert E. Yager, “Assess All Five Domains of Science, ” TheScience Teacher, vol. 54, No. 7, October 1987, pp. 33-37.

1%ee Howard Gardner, “Beyond the IQ: Education and HumanDevelopment, ” Nationa/ Forum, vol. 68, No. 2, spring 1988, pp.4-7, and accompanying articles in this special issue, under the title“Beyond Intelligence Testing. ”

domains and who might also contribute toscience. 13

13 Evelyn Fox Keller, a scholar of women in science, hasvigorously championed this point of view. She states that:

The exclusion of values culturally relegated to the female domain hasled to an effective ‘masculinization’ of science—to an unwitting alliancebetween scientific values and the ideals of mascullntty embraced by ourparticular culture. The question that directly follows from this recogni-tion is. To what extent has such an alliance subverted our best hopesfor science, our very aspirations to objectivity and universality?

See Evelyn Fox Keller, “Women Scientists and Feminist Critics ofScience, ” Daedalus, vol. 116, No. 4, fall 1987, p. 80; and EvelynFox Keller, “Feminism and Science, ” Sex and Scientific Inquiry, San-dra Harding and Jean F. O’Barr (eds. ) (Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press, 1987), pp. 233-246.

SCIENCE-INTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTS

One institutional response to individual andgroup differences in learning has been the crea-tion of educational environments that give stu-dents greater exposure to mathematics and sciencethan they get in regular schools and classes. Someschools specialize in these subjects. Many schoolsalso provide special classes, including those inmathematics and science, for the so-called giftedand talented, Many students also participate inscience outside the classroom, for example, in re-search participation programs in science labora-tories. (See ch. 5.) Special schools and classes areclearly designed to have special effects on chil-

dren, such as nurturing or maintaining their in-terest, or expediting and enriching their progressthrough the regular mathematics and science cur-riculum. This section reviews data on the extentof these special environments and the effects theyhave.

An Overview of State Programsand Schools

A few States have established special regionalor statewide schools for mathematics and science,often in conjunction with private funding from

82

industry. Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, NorthCarolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginiadirectly fund statewide schools that provide spe-cialized subject area study. (See table 4-l. ) A to-tal of 15 States sponsor, in whole or in part,schools that focus on science and mathematics;and two more are reportedly making plans to fol-low suit.

In addition or as an alternative to specialschools, a number of States sponsor summer en-richment programs in mathematics and science.These activities are less costly than special schoolsand consequently more popular with the States.Twenty States offer summer programs in scienceand mathematics, although some of them haveonly very small enrollments. Florida appropriatedover $1.2 million last year for such programs.

More than 30 States also have programs de-signed to improve the participation of women andminorities in science and mathematics. SeveralNorthwestern States have programs designed forNative Americans..14 Various States have begunsponsoring special recognition programs for stu-dents in mathematics and science, such as Statefairs and knowledge bowls. California’s GoldenState Examination, established under the Hughes-Hart Educational Reform movement in 1983, isdesigned to identify and recognize honors-levelachievement by students in specific subject areas,which include mathematics and science, and is themost comprehensive State-sponsored program na-tionally.

Many recognition and award programs are pri-vately supported by professional organizations orbusiness and industry, or jointly supported byseveral sources (including State and Federal Gov-ernment). These types of programs often beginat the local or regional level and end at the na-tional level; Invention Convention and Math-Counts are examples. The Westinghouse ScienceTalent Search and the West Virginia NationalYouth Science Camp are privately funded nationalrecognition programs.

14 Council of Chief State School Officers, Equity and Excellence:A Dual Thrust in Mathematics and Science Education (Washing-ton, DC: November 1987).

Table 4-1 —State-Funded Schools That Specializein Science, Mathematics, and Engineering

Illinois● Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, Aurora

Louisiana● Louisiana School for Science, Mathematics, and the

Arts, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches

Michigan● Kalamazoo Area Mathematics and Science Academy

North Carolina● North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics,

Durham

Pennsylvania● Pennsylvania Governor’s School for the Sciences, at

Carnegie-Mellon University● Pennsylvania Governor’s School for Agriculture,

Pennsylvania State University

Texas● Science Academy of Austin

Virginia● New Horizon Magnet School for Science● Roanoke Governor’s School for Science and

Mathematics, Roanoke. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and

Technology, Alexandria● Central Virginia Governor’s School for Science and

TechnologySOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on Education

Commission of the States, Survey of State kritiafives to ImproveScience and Mathematics Education (Denver, CO: September 1987);and data from the National Consortium of Specialized Schools inMathematics, Science, and Technology.

Science= intensive Schools

Science-intensive schools provide special envi-ronments for the study and practice of science andmathematics. Such schools are thought to attractstudents interested in science and engineering (in-stead of converting students to such careers), butnational data are lacking to support or refute thiscontention. Such schools tend to attract teachersas well, and are reputed to provide high-qualityinstruction in mathematics and science. They aregenerally popular with parents, if for no other rea-son than they expand the choices beyond theneighborhood public school.

There are three types of science-intensiveschools: well-established city-sponsored mathe-matics and science schools; State-sponsoredschools; and magnet schools in urban areas, cre-ated to promote racial desegregation, which havemathematics or science as their theme. (See box4-B. )

83

Box 4-B.—Science-Intensive Environments: Two Examples

I. The Governor’s School of Science and Mathematics, Durham, North CarolinaThis school became the first publicly financed residential high school in the United States devoted to

science and mathematics when it opened in 1980. Funded directly by the State legislature, together withprivate donations, it has become a unique and exciting model for precollege science and engineering education.A recent survey found that about 80 percent of its graduates went on to science and engineering majorsin college and two-thirds went to college within the State.*

The school is located in a former hospital in Durham, North Carolina, and is part of the educationaland scientific infrastructure that fuels the continuing economic development of the Research Triangle region.The Governors’ School, however, differs considerably from a regular school, It is not run by a school board,but is under the governance of the University of North Carolina system, and its teachers are exempted fromcertification requirements, an innovation that has attracted many who would otherwise teach only at thecollege level (half of the teachers have doctorates). The school enrolls 475 juniors and seniors drawn fromall over the State, though enrollment is scheduled to rise to 600 by 1991, and many of the students areresidential. In the first 4 years of its operation, the school received $19 million from the State and $7 mil-lion from private sources, mainly companies. Education at the school is about four times more expensivethan the average for the State, costing about $10,000 per student annually. Admission to the school is onthe basis of test scores, high school grades, student essays, interviews, and home school recommendations,The school’s admissions committee pays particular attention to ensuring a gender, racial, ethnic, and geo-graphic balance of its enrollment. In 1984, 47 percent of those enrolled were female and 16 percent wereBlack, Hispanic, or Native American.

The school stresses individual inquiry and group cooperation, Its goal is to enrich the traditional highschool curriculum rather than accelerate it. The school particularly encourages students to become involvedin research at nearby Duke University in Durham, the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina State University in Raleigh, and with firms at Research Triangle Park.2 More than 4,000 teachersfrom other schools in the State have participated in teacher training workshops held at the school. Suchcooperation is valuable because the other schools in North Carolina are not nearly so lavish as the Governor’s .School and have not had much attention devoted to them.

2. Kansas City, Missouri, Magnet SchoolsThe public schools in Kansas City, Missouri, have recently announced plans to implement, by 1992,

what some have described as “the most comprehensive magnet school court order in history, ” under whichall secondary and half of all elementary schools would be designated magnet schools.3 The Kansas Cityschool system currently enrolls 36,000 students, of which 62 percent are BIack and 6 percent are other mi-norities. This program of extensive magnet schools has followed long and messy court litigations that havereached the Supreme Court twice, involving the surrounding suburban school systems, the State of Mis-souri, and a multitude of parents along the way. The program’s costs are estimated at $196 million over6 years, part of which will be borne by Federal funds, and part by increased State and local taxation.4

The basis of the magnet program now being implemented is that students can follow the same themefrom grade 1 to grade 12, with more choice of themes being offered at the higher grades. The themes rangefrom the conventional ones of science and mathematics, computers, and visual and performing arts, toenvironmental science, engineering technology, health professions, law and public service, the military,Latin grammar, and classical Greek.

The Kansas City magnet school program is the most ambitious, and potentially most exciting, in thecountry. Those who will implement it face many problems, including those of funding, renovating build-ings, overcoming considerable local and political suspicion, and finding enough teachers. For example, at-tempts have already been made to bring in teachers with the requisite skills from Belgium.

*Quoted in Education Week, June 24, 19S7, p. c24. Also see Charles R. Eilber, “The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics,” PhiDelta Kappan, June 1987, pp. 773-777.

@ is not ~le= ~~t ~latio~ip, if ~y, North Carolina Central universi~, a historically Black institution located in Durham. has with the ~hoolof Mathematics and Science.

%e following is based on Phale D. Hale and Daniel Levine, “The Most Comprehensive Magnet School Court Order in History: It’s Happeningin Kansas City, ” presented at the Fifth International Conference on Magnet Schools, Rochester, NY, May 4, 1987.

fTom Mirga ~d William Snider, “Mi~ufi Judge ~ts steep T’= I-Iikes for Desegregation plan,” EdUCatjOn Week, SePt. ~, 1987.

84

Some large city school systems have had inten-sive science and mathematics schools for manyyears; examples are New York City, Chicago, andMilwaukee. One of the best known is the BronxHigh School of Science in New York City. Theseschools were founded in the early years of thiscentury, when publicly funded high schools werea novelty, and were strongly prevocational in na-ture. These schools have strong national reputa-tions for the quality of their programs and the dis-tinguished scientists and engineers among theiralumni. Each is publicly supported alongside regu-lar schools in the same district.”

These schools offer a broader range of coursesin mathematics and science than regular schoolsand normally are far better equipped. Laboratorywork is a regular feature of courses, and, often,the schools have good linkages to local firms andresearch laboratories. These linkages help provideequipment, mentors, and, for some students, op-portunities for participation in research. Teachersat these schools are often freed by school boardsfrom many of the regular constraints on curricu-lum, and can work together with their colleaguesto devise more coherent sequences of materialthan are customarily used. And, because studentsare generally enthusiastic and talented, teachersare keen to teach in these schools. In addition toscience and mathematics, students take the othersubjects they would take in a regular school.

A new organization, the National Consortiumof Specialized Schools in Mathematics, Science,and Technology, was established in April 1988to share experiences among and represent science-intensive schools. The initial meeting of the con-sortium included 27 schools, and more havejoined since. The consortium is planning meetings

‘sBecause of the novelty of most of these schools, data on theeventual fates of their graduates are not yet available. The cityscience-intensive schools also have surprisingly little systematic in-formation on their graduates. One study, conducted 20 years agoby the Bronx High School of Science, is rumored to have shownthat 98 percent of its students go on to college, with less than halfmajoring in science or engineering. One thing is certain: only a tinypercentage of each State’s high school students attend such schools.This, of course, raises questions of costs and benefits to all—students,teachers, and “regular” schools—who are part of a school systemthat includes a special school.

for both students and faculty in science-intensiveschools. l6

Magnet schools differ from the other two typesof science-intensive schools in that their primarygoal is to promote racial desegregation rather thanscience education. Such schools, which normallyhave a predominantly minority enrollment, of-fer enhanced programs of instruction in particu-lar areas or “themes” designed to draw studentsfrom a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds.Popular themes include emphases on particularsubject areas, such as science and mathematics;on teaching methods, such as Montessori pro-grams; or on educational outcomes, such as con-centration on “the basics” or preparation for col-lege attendance. Magnet school programs havebecome a popular alternative to forced busing,and have grown in number from none 20 yearsago to over 1,000 today .*7

Magnet School Issues

Since the original objective of promoting racialdesegregation has largely been achieved, magnetschools are now rapidly evolving with the trendtoward increased choice in public education. Theconcept of “schools of choice” is now an impor-tant force in education. School districts that em-ploy magnets are realizing that all their schoolsnever were the same; each has its own culture andinterests. Rather than maintaining uniformity, theconcern is to develop schools of different special-ties and emphases and to capitalize on the spe-cial advantages of each school and community .18

*’The consortium is currently headquartered at the Illinois Math-ematics and Science Academy, Aurora, IL.

l~here are n. current data on the number of magnet schools ‘a-tonally. A 1983 survey put the number at about 1,100, of whichabout 25 percent had a mathematics or science theme. The magnetprograms are located in more than 130 of the largest urban schooldistricts. See Rolf K. Blank et al., Survey of Magnet Schools: Analyz-ing a Model for Quality Integrated Education, contractor report tothe U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: James H.Lowry & Associates, September 1983). For a survey of magnetschools see Editorial Research Reports, Magnet Schools, vol. 1, No.18., May 15, 1987.

‘education Week, “The Call for Choice: Competition in theEducational Marketplace, ” vol. 6, No. 39, June 24, 1987, supplement.

.—

85

Magnet schools raise many issues. Among themare whether the introduction of such schools cre-ates a two-class school system—magnet and non-magnet. Magnet schools are also, on average,more expensive to run than nonmagnet schools.Another issue is the potential drain of talented stu-dents and teachers from the rest of the school sys-tem. Since local politics and school organizationsvary so considerably nationwide, there are nosimple rules for resolving these issues.

The school district’s choice of admissions sys-tem to magnet programs is especially important.In Philadelphia, for example, the reliance placedon admissions tests by the magnet schools hasbeen controversial because of its adverse effectson Black and Hispanic students. Alternatives toachievement test scores as the method of admis-sion include home school recommendations, lot-teries, and queues. The latter two methods are be-coming increasingly popular.

Almost universally, students and parents citethe choices that they are given in magnet systemsas inspiring them to have higher expectations ofpublic education than they had before. Higher ex-pectations should lead to better performance.There is some evidence, however, that while mag-net programs improve the quality of educationin schools or school districts with a high minor-ity enrollment, minority students are sometimesless likely than white students to be admitted tomagnet programs. This is because magnet pro-grams are generally designed to draw white stu-dents into predominantly minority schools, thegoal being an enrollment that better reflects theracial and ethnic composition of the school dis-trict. In some cases, limits have been put on mi-nority enrollment so that the composition targetsfor the school can be met. Such limits can reduce,in the end, the access of minority students to mag-net programs .19

From a public policy perspective, magnetschools are promising but unproven. They are de-

‘gEugene C. Royster et al., Magnet Schools and Desegregation:Study of the Emergency School Aid Act Magnet School Program,contractor report to the U.S. Department of Education (Cambridge,MA: Abt Associates, Inc., July 1979).

signed to promote the goals of equity and excel-lence simultaneously, at somewhat increased cost.Anxieties about the cultivation of elites seemlargely to have been diffused in most workingmagnet systems. Superintendents, administrators,principals, and teachers report enjoying workingin magnet schools, and the magnet schools are ef-fective mechanisms for minority advancement.The key is that magnet schools move the burdenof rules, monitoring, certification, and controlfrom administrators, school boards, and Statesto teachers and principals.20 This enthusiasm,however, must be tempered by another realiza-tion: in many school districts, students do noteven have the opportunity to learn science inelementary school. In addition, most schools facea serious shortage of equipment for teaching sci-ence, as well as cutbacks in resources availablefor offering “wet” laboratories in high schools. Inshort, the existence of magnet schools is no pan-acea to the problem of making a sequence of sci-ence and mathematics instruction accessible tomore students.

Programs for Gifted andTalented Students

An increasing number of States and school dis-tricts are making special provisions for studentsthey consider to be especially “gifted and tal-ented. ” Twenty-three States now mandate suchprovisions, and more are considering such a pol-icy. State spending on such provisions is rising .2]

‘“Linda M. McNeil, “Exit, Voice and Community: MagnetTeachers’ Responses to Standardization, ” Educational Policy, vol.1, No. 1, 1987, Pp. 93-113.

“The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted,“The 1987 State of the States’ Gifted and Talented Education Re-port, ” mimeo, 1987, lists State programs in some detail. In addi-tion, the Council for Exceptional Children estimates that 1S Stateshave special certification requirements for teachers of the gifted andtalented. State and local expenditures have increased and are nowabout $384 million (about $150 per gifted and talented child). SeeCouncil for Exceptional Children and the Association for the Gifted,testimony before the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Second-ary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education andLabor, on H.R. 3263, The Gifted and Talented Children and YouthAct of 1985, May 6, 1986. Industry is also becoming more active,for example, through mentor programs. Gifted and talented pro-grams are quite common in other countries where nurturing the bestminds and talents is defined as a necessity. See Bruce M. Mitchell


86

These programs cover all subjects, including per-forming arts, languages, mathematics, and sci-ence. Nevertheless, the provision of programs forthese students remains controversial for two rea-sons: the difficulty of defining criteria for iden-tifying giftedness and talentedness, and the equityand social implications of giving these studentsspecial treatment.

While it is to be anticipated that the ranks ofthe gifted and talented are especially productiveof future scientists and engineers, there are no dataon the number of such students that eventuallymajor in science and engineering. The Council ofExceptional Children, an advocate for gifted andtalented education (as well as special educationof the learning disabled and handicapped), esti-mates that there are about 2.5 million gifted andtalented students nationally, or about 5 percentof all students. Other estimates put the numberat 5 million .22

There is little consensus nationally on the char-acteristics of the gifted and talented. Standard-ized multiple-choice intelligence and achievementtests are widely used to sort students; those whoscore above threshold values on these tests are ad-mitted to gifted and talented programs. Becauseof heavy reliance on such tests, there is some sug-gestion that labeling is prone to cultural, class,and racial bias. The process of labeling as giftedand talented does not appear to be color-blind;it has been estimated that only 13 percent of thegifted and talented are Black and Hispanic stu-dents, whereas about 25 percent of all school stu-dents are Black and Hispanic. As a result of thesepossible biases and of differing cutoffs and defi-nitions of gifted and talented, the proportion ofeach State’s school-age population labeled asgifted and talented varies considerably. One studytook 18 commonly used criteria for giftedness andfound that, when applied to fifth-grade suburban


and William G. Williams, “Education of the Gifted and Talentedin the World Community, ” Phi Delta Kappan, March 1987, pp.531-534.

zzDefinitions of “gifted, “ “talented,” and “special” students tendto fluctuate with the annual amounts of Federal and State fundingavailable in these categories. This is also why a demographic bulgein a particular grade will disqualify students from “GT” (gifted andtalented) classes that they took in the previous grade. The criteriaare arbitrary, but their interpretation (e.g., all those in the nth per-centile and above) is often rigid.

Minneapolis classes, 92 percent of the studentscould be labeled gifted in some way.23

The basic issue in identifying the gifted andtalented is whether individuals so labeled shouldmerely have demonstrated good progress and highachievement in schoolwork or whether theyshould have some truly extraordinary skills thatmay be undeveloped or unexpressed. Critics ofgifted and talented programs suggest that mostprograms merely identify those who have donewell in the existing system of education. In otherwords, the existing intelligence and achievementtests measure only a limited range of the “gifts”and “talents. ”

Both proponents and opponents of special pro-visions for the gifted and talented agree that otherdimensions besides “intelligence” and “achieve-ment” should be explored and used. Such dimen-sions might also include intellectual, creative,artistic, leadership, and physical and athletic abil-ities. Techniques for labeling need to address eachof these domains separately .24 Some States, suchas Illinois and Mississippi, are making special at-tempts to bring students with different strengthsinto gifted and talented programs.

Even if there were agreement on what gifted andtalented means, the provision of special programsis politically and socially contentious. Proponentsof special provisions for the gifted and talentedrely on a conviction that such students possessextraordinary talents not possessed by the entirepopulation, and that these talents should be de-veloped to the fullest possible extent. Opponentsconsider the creation of such programs to be elitistin nature, in practice serving the middle and up-per class students almost exclusively.

Federal support for gifted and talented educa-tion programs is provided under Chapter 2 of theEducation Consolidation and Improvement Act.One estimate suggests, however, that only about20 percent of school districts use any of their

~~uren A. Sosniak, “Gifted Education Boondoggles: A Few BadApples or a Rotten Bushel,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 68, March 1987,pp. 535-538.

zqRobert J Sternberg and Janet E. Davidson (eds. ), Conceptionsof Giftecfness (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1986); and Howard Gardner, “Developing the Spectrum of HumanIntelligence, ” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 57, No. 2, 1987,pp. 187-193.

87

Chapter 2 funds for gifted and talented educa-tion.25 Several bills introduced in the I00th Con-gress were designed to fund model programs foreducating the gifted and talented, training theteachers of such students, and expanding researchon gifted education.

The Department of Education’s Office of theGifted and Talented was disbanded in 1981. Thereare calls for its reinstatement to “. . . carefully co-ordinate the use of limited federal resources andto provide a much needed focal point of nationalleadership.’’” The recent reauthorization of Fed-eral education programs includes a provision re-quiring the Department of Education to set up aNational Center for Research and Developmentin the Education of Gifted and Talented Childrenand Youth.” Center proponents argue that Fed-eral support has a catalytic role vis-a-vis Statesand school districts, and that the current reformmovement has neglected the gifted and talentedin favor of the mainstream and learning disabled.

The Council for Exceptional Children estimatesthat only one-half of gifted and talented studentsreceive any kind of special assistance, and thatsuch assistance itself is limited so that most giftedand talented students still spend substantial por-tions of time mainstreamed in ordinary classes.The Council estimates that about $400 million na-tionally is spent each year on such special assis-tance, but only about $10 million of Chapter 2funds are spent on such programs. Some support

‘sEllen Flax, “Economic Concerns Aiding Programs for Gifted, ”Ecfucation FVeek, vol. 6, No. 33, May 13, 1987, pp. 1, 17.

‘“Ibid. Also see The Council for Exceptional Children and theAssociation for the Gifted, testimony before the Senate Subcom-mittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities of the Committee onLabor and Human Resources, on Reauthorization of Chapter 2 ofthe Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, July 16, 1987,p. 7.

‘TPublic Law 100-297, “Conference Report to Accompany H.R.5,” Report 100-567, April 1988, p. 115.

also comes from Title II of the Education for Eco-nomic Security Act. Some of this funding has beenspent on science-intensive schools, such as theNorth Carolina School of Science and Mathe-matics, which is sometimes included under therubric of “gifted” education. Proponents arguethat this funding, even though it is increasing, isstill too little. There is, however, increasing in-terest within the private sector in such programs.In addition, several university-based programs,such as those at Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, andDuke, identify talented individuals, includingthose in mathematics and science, and provide en-richment programs for them during the summer.

Given that gifted and talented children havebeen identified and that special provision will bemade for them, the basic educational issue is this:whether gifted and talented programs should fo-cus on enriching students’ exposure to the exist-ing curriculum or encouraging them to acceler-ate their progress through that program so thatthey complete the traditional sequences of highschool courses a year or two early. A related de-bate concerns whether students should receive en-richment or accelerated classes in all subject areasor only in single subjects, such as mathematics.A final issue is whether such focused instructionshould be provided in dedicated “special” schools,or as an adjunct to the regular school curriculum.

For able students stifled in the conventional,slow-moving educational system, gifted and tal-ented classes can provide relief and progress suitedto their intellectual and emotional needs. Suchclasses can also help keep such students in school;many of those who drop out of school are bored,but gifted, children. The basic argument for spe-cial treatment of the gifted and talented is thatwithout it these students would be ignored or un-challenged by the existing school system.

CLOSING THOUGHTS: A LARGER MENU?

The debate over gifted and talented studentsbegs very different questions about educationalmethods than the debate over alternative learn-ing styles. The problem addressed by educatorsconcerning different learning modes is the nega-tive reinforcement and frustration many other-

wise talented people experience in the traditionalclassroom. In mathematics and science learning,this has tended especially to be the case withwomen, and racial and ethnic minorities. Theteacher of gifted and talented students faces adifferent problem. These students have already

88

demonstrated some proficiency or success in thepresent system; the educator’s task is to sustainstudent interest and progress.

Both issues have similar implications for scienceand mathematics education: How can more stu-dents be successful in science and mathematics?What does it mean to be talented in science ormathematics? How should such talent first beidentified, and then nurtured? Are special schoolsor programs needed? Will innovative curriculathat reflect new insights into how students learn—and how different their learning styles maybe—spark the interest and fulfill the potential that

teachers and parents often recognize in their chil-dren? Will new thinking about learning penetratethe schools? Will it be effective in “calling” morestudents to science and mathematics, helping themfulfill expectations (rather than ill-foundedprophecies), while propelling them to the nexteducational stage and, ultimately, a career in sci-ence and engineering?

These questions reflect high expectations for sci-ence and mathematics education. Indeed, thischapter has glimpsed a larger menu of issues,needs, and signs of progress.

Chapter 5

Learning Outside of School

Pftoto cnIdIl: Don Mills, Ontario SclenC6 c.tIter

CONTENTS

The Importance of Families . . . . . . . . . . . .The Public Image of Science. . . . . . . . . . . .

Television Images of Science . . . . . . . . .Students’ Images of Science . . . . . . . . . .The Potential of Educational TelevisionThe Informal Environments Offered by

and Science Museums . . . . . . . . . . . . .Intervention and Enrichment Programs . .

Intervention ProgramsEnrichment Programs.

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box5-A.5-B.

5 - c .

5-D.5-E.5-F.

Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Science Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5

Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97The EQUALS Program . . . . . . . . . . . .

Learning by Teaching: The Explainer Program at San Francisco’sExploratorium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . .National Council of La Raze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .American Indian Science and Engineering Society . .Philadelphia Regional Introduction for Minorities toDuke University Talent Identification Program.. . . .

TableTable

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Engineering . ........104. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Page

S-I. Estimated Proportions of Target Populations That Participate in InformalScience and Engineering Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 5

Learning Outside of School

The children who see colored shadows on the wall in the Exploratorium havenot “learned” something you can test. But years later, when a teacher triesto explain light patterns and perception,

deep background that will

National concern about the excellence of Amer-ican schools has sometimes detracted from the rec-ognition that children learn a great deal out ofschool. The influences of family, friends, the me-dia, and other features of the environment out-side of school are profound.

The out-of-school environment offers oppor-tunities to raise students’ interest in and aware-ness of science and mathematics. Table 5-1presents estimates of the proportion of the school-age population that participate in science-relatedinformal education activities. Such informal activ-ities draw strength from the local community—churches, businesses, voluntary organizations,and their leaders. All are potential agents ofchange. All are potential filters of the images ofscience and scientists transmitted by television andother media. These images are often negative—nearly always intimidating—and shape youngpeople’s views of science as a career.

Science centers and museums, for example, canawaken or reinforce interest, without raising thespectre of failure for those who lack confidencein their abilities. (As Frank Oppenheimer, founderof San Francisco’s famed Exploratorium, noted,“Nobody flunks a museum.”) Intervention pro-

THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILIES

Family circumstances are pivotal influences oncareer choice. Parents’ occupations, attitudes, in-comes, residences, and socioeconomic class areall reflected in their children’s lives. Much of achild’s initial learning about the world, and aboutreading, speaking, and writing, takes place in thefamily. Families can give children a head start in

this experience will be a part of themake learning easier.

George W. Tressel, 1988

Table 5-1 .—Estimated Proportions of TargetPopulations That Participate in Informal Science

and Engineering Education Programs

Occasional viewers of 3-2-1 Contact—50 percent of 4- to 12-year-oids

Regular viewers of 3-2-1 Contact—30-35 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Did a science-related activity after viewing 3-2-1 Contact—25 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Visit a science center or museum--25 percent of school-age students each year

Visit a science center or museum—50 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Visit an aquarium or zoo—90 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Take an inservice course at a science center or museum—Less than 1 percent of teachers

Participate in an intervention program—Less than 1 percent of Black and Hispanic students

Participate in an intervention program—Less than 0.1 percent of female students

Enroll in a weekend or summer science enrichment program—0.1 percent of high school graduates

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

grams, aimed especially at enriching the mathe-matics and science preparation of females, Blacks,Hispanics, and other minorities can rebuild con-fidence and interest, tapping pools of talent thatare now underdeveloped.

preparing for school, in progressing through theeducational system, and shaping perceptions ofcareers. 1

‘This is the motivation for the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science’s LINKAGES Project, and particularly for theappeal for minority parental involvement in their children’s educa-tion, as illustrated by The College Board, Get Into the Equatjon:

(contlnueci on ne~t page J

91

92

Although it can be illustrated in many ways,the strong influence of families is indicated by bio-graphic data on winners of the Westinghouse Sci-ence Talent Search (WSTS). The WSTS is one ofAmerica’s oldest high school competitions in thesciences. Between 1942 and 1985, it awarded $2million to 1,760 young scientists. Its winners havegone on to earn five Nobel Prizes, two Fields Me-dals, and four MacArthur Foundation (“genius”)Awards. Two surveys of previous winners, oneconducted in 1961 and another in 1985,2 suggest(continued from previous

and Science, Parents and Children (New York, NY: CollegeEntrance Examination Board, September 1987).

A. Edgerton, Science Early Identification andContinuing Development (Washington, DC: Science Service, Inc.,1961 ); and Science Service, Inc., Survey Westinghouse Science

Search Winners (Washington, DC: Westinghouse ElectricCorp., November 1985).

that parents, close relatives, or teachers playedcritical roles in their decisions to become scien-tists. Male family members were especially im-portant influences (the bulk of the winners weremale). For example, in the 1985 survey, 35 per-cent of winners had fathers who were professionalscientists or engineers. Among other influences,62 percent of the WSTS sample cited a professoror a teacher as playing a major role in their ca-reer decision, and 44 percent reported that theybecame interested in their current professionalfields in high school.

Parental involvement in education has alwaysbeen recognized as important. An innovativemathematics program called Family Math, basedat the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, Cali-fornia, is designed to encourage parents to work


Parents are instrumental in shaping their children’s attitudes toward education.

93

with children in solving problems and learningmathematics. Having parents learn somethingabout science and mathematics will, in turn, helpchildren learn..

3

‘David Holdzkom and Pamela B. Lutz, k’esearch JYithin Reach:Science Education; A Research Guided Response to the Concerns

THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF SCIENCE

The public image of science and engineeringconveyed by television and the other media is am-biguous. On the one hand, science is portrayedas being of great benefit to economic progress andto health. On the other, it is portrayed as a sinis-ter force that bestows power on its adherents andis manipulated by inhumane people.4 In anycase, the process of scientific and technologicaladvance is poorly understood by the public. Whilethe sometimes dismal image of science is one partof the cacophony of discouraging signals that anaspiring young scientist receives (and will certainlycause some students to shun science), evidencesuggests that poor images of science are probablynot a leading cause of students’ failing to pursuecareers in these fields. Academic preparation ulti-mately is far more important. s

Television Images of Science

The public image of science has been studiedin a number of separate settings over the years.One study dissected the content of network prime-time dramatic programs between 1973 and1983. ’ The study found that: 1) some aspect ofscience and technology appears in 7 of every 10dramatic television programs; 2) doctors are morepositively portrayed than are scientists; and 3) sci-entists are not as successful in their on-screen oc-cupations as other occupational groups. In fact,for every scientist in a major role who fails, twosucceed, whereas for every doctor who fails, five

‘See, for example, Spencer Weart, “The Physicist as Mad Scien-tist, ” Physics Today, June 1988, pp. 28-37.

‘The following is based on Robert Fullilove, “Images of Science:Factors Affecting the Choice of Science as a Career, ” OTA contractorreport, September 1987.

‘George Gerbner, “Science on Television: How It Affects Pub-lic Conceptionsr ” Issues in Science and Technologyr vol. 3, No. 3,winter 1987, pp. 109-115.

of Educators (Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory,1984), pp. 192-202; Beth D. Sattes, Educational Services office, Ap-palachia Educational Laboratory, “Parent Involvement: A Reviewof the Literature, ” unpublished manuscript, November 1985; JeanSealey, Appalachia Educational Laboratory}, “Parent Support andInvolvement, ” R&D Interpretation Service Bulletin in Science, n.d.;Jean Kerr Stenmark et al., Family Math (Berkeley, CA: Regents ofthe University of California, 1986); and The College Board, op. cit,,footnote 1,

succeed, and for every law enforcer who fails,eight succeed. The study also documented a linkbetween these images and viewers’ attitudes andconcluded that, while television dramas generallypresented positive images of science, the more thatviewers see, the more they perceive scientists asodd and peculiar.

Television is a pervasive influence on many stu-dents’ lives.7 It is argued that the effects of tele-vision viewing may be strongest for children un-der 11 years old, because up until that age childrenare continuing to develop interpretive skills andsophistication in analyzing the content of mate-rial. 8 Children’s attitudes toward televised ma-terial will be influenced, in other words, by whatthey have seen and learned of the world. As chil-dren grow older, television is critical in the for-mation of an understanding of social relationshipsand of the social forces that govern adult life. Thiswindow on the adult world may be particularlyimportant in shaping attitudes toward careers andoccupations, because adolescents have few socialcontacts outside their own age group. ”

Television viewing can have positive and neg-ative effects. It can promote racial and sexualstereotypes and perceptions of occupational segre-gation, or help change attitudes toward the races

Unpublished data from the mathematics and science assessmentsof the 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicatethat 24 percent of Blacks in grade 11 and 44 percent of Blacks ingrade 7 watch 6 hours or more of television daily, compared to 9percent and 24 percent for the whole populations in grades i’ and11, respectively (Marion G. Epstein, Educational Testing Service,personal communication, June 1987).

8Fullilove, op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 30-3b,“Gary W. Peterson and David F. Peters, “Adolescents’ Construc-

tion of Social Reality: The Impact of Television and Peers, ” Youthand Soc~ety, VOI. 15, No. 1, September 1983, pp. 65-85. Also seeJoan Ganz Cooney, “We Need a ‘Sesame Street’ for Big Kids: Tele-vision Can Help Our Children Learn Math and Science for the ‘90s, ”Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1988, pp. 16-17.

94

and sexes, depending on the content of program-mingo

10 Heavy television viewing reduces thetime students spend on homework, thus depress-ing their academic performance. However, tele-vision viewing by adolescents is reported to haveremained roughly constant over the time that, forexample, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores havefallen.”

From a policy perspective, however, even if alink between television portrayals of science andengineering and career aspirations were estab-lished, the challenge would be to design televisionprogramming that could affect those aspirationspositively. Research suggests that it is easier tochange attitudes, and therefore aspirations, thanto change behaviors .12

Students’ Images of Science

In a nationwide study sponsored by the Amer-ican Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) in 1957, high school students were askedto compose short essays describing their impres-sions of scientists and their work. Margaret Meadand Rhoda Metraux wrote a composite descrip-tion of science and of scientists from their read-ing of 35,000 such essays .13 They found that:

The number of ways in which the image of thescientist contains extremes which appear to be

1°Fullilove, op. cit., footnote 5.1lMark Fetler, “Television and Reading Achievement: A Second-

ary Analysis of Data From the 1979-80 National Assessment ofEducational Progress, ” presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer-ican Educational Research Association, April 1983; and BarbaraWard et al., The Relationship of Students’ Academic Achievementto Television Watching, Leisure Time Reading and Homework(Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, September 1983).Television viewing has been cited as one of the possible causes forthe decline in the Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of America’s college-bound students that occurred in the 1970s. See College Entrance Ex-amination Board, On Further Examination: Report of the AdvisoryPanel on the Scholastic Aptitude Test Score Decline (New York,NY: 1977). See also, U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office,Educational Achievement: Explanations and Implications of RecentTrends (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Au-gust 1987), pp. 69-71.

121cek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes andPredicting Social Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1980); and J. Baggaley, “From Ronald Reagan to Smoking Cessa-tion: The Analysis of Media Impact ,“ New Directions in Educationand Training Technology, B.S. Alloway and G.M. Mills (eds. ) (NewYork, NY: Nicholds Publishing Co., 1985).

13 Margaret Mead and Rhoda Metraux, “Image of the ScientistAmong High-School Students, ” Science, vol. 126, Aug. 30, 1957,pp. 384-390.

contradictory-too much contact with money ortoo little; being bald or bearded; confined to workindoors, or traveling far away; talking all the timein a boring way, or never talking at all—all rep-resent deviations from the accepted way of life,from being a normal friendly human being, wholives like other people and gets along with otherpeople.

A 1977 study, 20 years after the work of Meadand Metraux, found that perceptions had changedlittle. Over 4,OOO children from kindergarten tograde five in Montreal, Canada, were asked todraw pictures of what they thought a scientistlooked like. The dominant image of scientistsfound by Mead and Metraux a generation earlierwas held by younger students as well. In addi-tion, more elements of the stereotype appear asstudents advance through the grades.14

The Potential ofEducational Television

Educational television can be a powerful wayto introduce new images and teach students. Aprominent example is the Children’s TelevisionWorkshop’s 3-2-1 Contact, funded by the Na-tional Science Foundation (NSF) and the Depart-ment of Education, and broadcast daily on mostpublic television stations. This show’s target au-dience is children 8 to 12 years old (although manyyounger children watch as well). Its aim is to in-terest these students in science, with particular em-phasis on female and minority children. Exten-sive research has been done on this series. It isestimated that the series is seen in nearly one-quarter of all households with at least one childunder 11 years old. Themes in 3-2-1 Contact areechoed in series-related science clubs and a maga-

“David Wade Chambers, “Stereotypic Images of the Scientist:The Draw-A-Scientist Test,” Science Education, vol. 67, No. 2, 1983,pp. 255-265, The stereotypes apparently persist into adulthood, al-though for many citizens the ambivalence toward science never sub-sides. Etzioni and Nunn found in a review of national public opin-ion polls on the attitudes of Americans toward science that mostAmericans value science for its contribution to the Nation’s highstandard of living; similarly, Americans hold generally favorableopinions of scientists and trust their judgment. But images of whata scientist does remain fuzzy, and opinions on science vary signifi-cantly by age, education, region, socioeconomic class, and person-ality type. Amitai Etzioni and Clyde Nunn, “The Public Apprecia-tion of Science in Contemporary America, ” Science and Its Public:The Changing Relationship, G. Holton and W.A. Blanpied (eds. )(Boston, MA: D. Reidel, 1977), pp. 229-243.

95

zinc, and it is estimated that one-half of all viewershave done some science-related activity,*’

The impact of a television message may dependmore on the characteristics of the viewer, suchas his or her age, than on the characteristics ofthe message. OTA finds no compelling supportfor the hypothesis that poor images of science bythemselves deter students from science and engi-neering careers. Television is a powerful force,both for good and for bad, but its effect also de-pends on the prior experience and knowledge ofviewers.

“Research Communications, Ltd., “An Exploratory Contact Viewership, ” National Science Foundation contractor

report, June 1987.

The Informal Environments Offered byScience Centers and Science Museums

Science centers and museums aim to bring sci-ence alive with exhibits and displays that showscientific phenomena in action, and dedicatedstaffs determined to spark interest in science. Theyhave important positive effects on students’ atti-tudes toward science and knowledge of physicalphenomena.

Science museums were first set up to house andarchive the achievements of science and technol-ogy through artifacts such as experimental appa-ratus, machines, field notes, and pictures. As atti-tudes toward science and science learning havechanged, new institutions, called science centers,have sprung up with the primary aim of excitingand educating visitors in science and technologyrather than of chronicling its history. 1“ Indeed,this development was presaged by science mu-seums. At the turn of the century, the DeutschesMuseum in Munich, West Germany, was the firstscience museum to invite the public to participatein its exhibits, and to introduce cutaways andworking models to encourage the public to learnabout how things work rather than what theylook like. This model was soon copied for use inthe new Chicago Museum of Science and Indus-try in the 1930s. The preeminent example of a sci-ence center is the Exploratorium, in San Francisco,which opened in 1972.

Today, both science museums and sciencecenters use “hands-on” exhibits to illustrate sci-entific principles through “object-based learning”that schools and school systems often cannot pro-vide because the equipment is too expensive orunavailable .17 Science centers are also makingincreasing use of new technology such as com-puters, video, and videodiscs, both as exhibits intheir own right, and as a means of illustrating sci-entific and technological concepts.

Sheila “Science Centers Come of Age, ” Science & Technology, 4, No. 3, spring 1988, 70-7s.

Michael Templeton, “The Science Museum: Object Lessonsin Informal Education, ” Annual 1987, Marvin (cd. )(Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, forth-coming ).

96

Learning in Science Centers

The learning that occurs in a science center isgrounded in the relevance of science to practicaldaily life, in arousing curiosity, and in allowingpeople to explore and explain for themselves.Most important, it has no particular aim; no testsare in sight, no goals are prescribed or proscribed,and visitors are free to choose the exhibits thatthey would like to explore in detail and to ignorethe rest. The function of these centers, from thepoint of view of the education of future scientistsand engineers, is not so much to teach scientificconcepts, as to interest students and to relate ab-stract learning in schools to experience of howphysical phenomena work and can be altered byhumans.

Nationally, there are about 150 centers andmuseums dedicated to improving public under-standing of science and technology; an umbrellaorganization, the Association of Science-Technol-ogy Centers (ASTC), represents most of thesecenters. A recent survey by ASTC indicated thatthese 150 centers had about 45 million visitors in1986, up from 32.5 million in 1979.18 part of thisincrease is due to expansion in the number of sci-ence centers; over one-half opened after 1960, and16 percent opened after 1980. The survey suggeststhat as many children and young people as adultsvisit the centers. Probably about 6 million chil-dren and young people come on school trips. In-terest in science centers is very high. Once largelythe preserve of large cities, centers are now be-ing built in many smaller towns, cities, and ruralareas.

The people who work in science centers areskilled at helping both adults and children learnabout science. Science centers’ target audience isthe population that is curious but not confidentabout science. About 100 science centers conductmathematics and science teacher training pro-grams, funded by school districts, States, or Ti-tle 11 funds from the Federal Government. Theseprograms often aim at elementary and middleschool teachers, many of whom have almost nogrounding in science. About 65,000 teachers par-

lsThe~e and data cited below are from Association of Science-Technology Centers, “Basic Science Center Data Survey 1988, ” un-published.

Photo credit: Nancy Rodger, Exploratorium

Science centers, which allow children to touch andplay with equipment and exhibits, expose them to

scientific concepts in an appealing setting.

ticipated in such programs in 1985. Few centershave programs for high school teachers.19

Science centers have developed close workingrelations with school systems in the areas in whichthey serve, while remaining independent of them.This unique role is often cited as being useful, be-cause it allows the centers to take risks and ex-periment in science education in ways that schoolsystems find difficult. Nancy Kreinberg, Direc-tor of the EQUALS program (see box 5-A) basedat the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, Cali-fornia, has put it this way:

We are in the schools, but we are not of theschools. We are in the community, but we don’trepresent one faction of the community. We areseen as representing a lot of different interests, andI think that is an enormous source of strength thatevery science center has to offer .20

A novel program run by the San Diego SchoolDistrict sends every fifth grader in the city tospend a week at Balboa Park, the city’s museumdistrict. A special team of teachers spends theweek with the students, exploring both art andscience museums. Although designed primarily toassist racial desegregation (the students are formed

‘9Jacalyn Bedworth (cd.), Science Teacher Education at Mu-seums: A Resource Guide (Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers, 1985).

~OAssociation of Science-Technology Centers, Natural Partners:How Science Centers and Community Groups Can Team Up to in-crease Science Literacy (Washington, DC: July 1987).

9 7

Box 5-A.—The EQUALS Program

EQUALS is a program designed to improve theawareness of gender- and race-related issues inmathematics and science education. It. encom-passes projects for teachers, counselors, adrnini~trators, parents, and school board members topromote the participation of female and minoritystudents in mathematics and computer courses.EQUALS provides curriculum materials, staff de-velopment seminars, and family learning oppor-tunities. It is located at the Lawrence Hall of Sci-ence (University of California at Berkeley). Since1977, 14,000 California educators and 9,000 edu-cators from 36 other States and abroad have par-ticipated in EQUALS courses. Sites have beenestablished across the United States.

Evaluation data from extensive interviews andquestionnaires indicate that EQUALS programsincrease student enrollment in advanced scienceand mathematics classes, improve attitudes andinterest in related occupations, enhance theprofessional growth of teachers, and, perhapsmost importantly, encourage parent involvementin the schools (the Family Math Program is cur-rently being evaluated with National ScienceFoundation funds). EQUALS publications, in-cluding We All Count in Family Math and I’mMadly in Love With Electricity and Other Com-ments About Their Work by Women in Scienceand Engineering, are geared for use in all typesof “classrooms,” since the emphasis is on hands-on, active problem solving. Materials in Span-ish are also available and widely used.SOURCE: EQUALS Program, Lawrence Hall of Science, Univwaity of Califor-

nia at Serkeley.

into heterogeneous groups of 5 to 10 studentsdrawn from different schools, neighborhoods,races, and ethnicities), the program makes use ofexisting facilities that are neither available toschools nor would readily fit into existing schoollearning patterns and curricula.21

Costs and Benefits

A recent survey indicates that the average sci-ence center costs about $1.5 million per year torun, and that most charge between 75 cents and

“Judy Diamond, Natural History Museum, San Diego, personalcommunication, June 1988.

$5 for admission.22 About 40 percent of expensesincurred by the average center are defrayed byadmissions, memberships and other fees, andfrom sales of souvenirs and food; State and localdistricts pay, on average, about 28 percent of thecosts, while corporations contribute another 10percent. The average contribution of the FederalGovernment to ASTC member centers is 6 per-cent, but the bulk of this goes to the three centersit wholly supports .23 The remaining centers re-ceive, on average, just 2 percent of their incomefrom Federal sources.

Several Federal programs fund science centers,including the Informal Science Education Programof NSF, the National Endowment for the Human-ities, the National Endowment for the Arts, theInstitute of Museum Services, and the Departmentof Education’s Secretary’s Discretionary Fund.Only the Institute of Museum Services will con-tribute toward routine operating expenses (andit sets a limit on its contribution of $75,000 permuseum per year); the other sources will fundonly particular programs and novel educationalprojects. Indirect Federal support has in the pastalso come from contributions of equipment andfacilities. (Seattle’s successful Pacific Science Cen-ter, for example, is housed in the United Statespavilion built for the 1962 World’s Fair, whichwas given free to the center. )

Evaluations of the effects of science centers onstudents are limited. The research that has beendone indicates that science centers can be effec-tive arenas to demonstrate aspects of the naturalworld, but have more limited impacts in convey-ing understanding of the scientific concepts under-lying particular exhibits. Visitors often acquirelasting memories of phenomena, such as the for-mation of a rainbow by the use of a prism, butare less readily able to explain what they have seenor give the proper scientific terms that describethe phenomena. Written information beside ex-hibits is not often well assimilated. Visitors thus

ZZA]l data in this paragraph are from Association of Science-Technology Centers, op. cit., footnote 18. Note that this databaseexcludes a few science centers and museums that are not associa-tion members.

~~These three centers are the Air and Space Museum and the Na-tional Museum of American History in Washington, DC (both partof the Smithsonian Institution), and the Bradbury Science Museum,Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.

98

build up a good intuition of how things work,based on their experience of phenomena, but lit-tle analytical knowledge. Students who are usedto figuring things out for themselves, ignoring in-structions, often find science centers interesting;the style of learning that science centers employis radicalIy different from that in formal class-rooms where the emphasis is often on obeyingrules and memorizing facts.

Learning that takes place in science centers isthus difficult to measure using conventional testsof factual recall (which do not demonstrate “lear-ning” at all), but is clearly important. When fami-lies visit and explore exhibits together, parentscan often become more confident about scienceand hence more supportive of any interest thattheir children might develop.24 An interestingstudy of the “Explainer” program at the Explorato-rium, in which nonscientifically inclined but en-thusiastic high school students explain particularexhibits to visitors, found that, 10 years later,former Explainers were still very interested andconfident in science, academic pursuits, and workexperiences. (See box 5-B. )

ASTC is working to improve attendance anduse of science centers by females and minorities,and is encouraging its members to form links with

24 Diamond, op. cit., footnote 21.

community and service organizations in the fe-male and minority communities, such as the Na-tional Urban League, Girls Clubs of America, andthe National Action Council for Minorities inEngineering. 25 Several foundations are helpingfund such outreach programs. Minority students,in particular, often need to be encouraged to de-velop interests in science and engineering, and sci-ence centers can help build their confidence inthese areas. Several science centers have heldhighly successful “camp-ins,” in which studentsor teachers spend a whole night learning and play-ing in a science center,

Informal Learning

Informal education, then, is not just museumsand science centers. Informal learning also takesplace through reading, watching television, visit-ing libraries, and participating in clubs. It is thisadditional informal education, as one NSF stafferputs it—4-H Clubs, Girl’s Club of America, GirlScouts—that warrants”. . . a concerted effort togive kids direct hands-on experience. ”26

‘sAssociation of Science-Technology Centers, op cit., footnote18. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’sOffice of Opportunities in Science, through its LINKAGES project,has been the source of many activities spearheaded by the Associa-tion of Science-Technology Centers.

2’George W. Tressel, “The Role of Informal Learning in ScienceEducation, ” presented to the Chicago Academy of Sciences, Nov.14, 1987, p. 11.

INTERVENTION AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMSSome kinds of informal education programs are

designed to enrich, or even replace, traditionalschooling in mathematics and science. One formis the “intervention program, ” designed to im-prove educational opportunities for special groupsnot often well served in regular classrooms (par-ticularly females and minorities). Other programsfor the entire school population allow students toparticipate, for example, in science experimentsin research laboratories, including Federal labora-tories, or to enhance their progress through theregular school mathematics and science curricu-lum. These programs are known as enrichmentprogams,

Intervention Programs

Ideally, all students would have access in schoolto high-quality courses in mathematics and sci-ence, and their teachers, fellow students, and guid-ance counselors would be sensitive to the overtand covert racism and sexism that interferes withlearning. In ‘practice, however, the quality ofcourses is very uneven, and social attitudes stilldeter females and minorities from pursuing fur-ther science and engineering study. While schoolsare reforming and improving the situation, changeis slow and certainly lagging the demographicchanges already occurring. Negative attitudes

99

Box 5-B.—Learning by Teaching: The Explainer Program at San Franasco’s Exploratorium

One of the most powerful ways to learn is by teaching others. The Explainer program at San Fran-cisco’s Exploratorium, a science center designed to offer visitors maximum involvement with scientificphenomena and experiments, gives a small group of enthusiastic just this chance. Explainers arelocated around some of the Exploratorium’s exhibits to help visitors by conducting demonstrations, an-swering questions, and sparking discussion about the concepts that the exhibits convey. The Explainer pro-gram is intended both as a service to visitors to the ExpIoratorium, and as a work and educational programto give teenagers an appreciation for science and for learning.

The Exploratorium recruits Explainers from local high schools for their enthusiasm for working withthe public, rather than for their interest in science as such. The program deliberately reaches out to stu-dents outside the academic and science mainstream; good grades or interest in science are not prerequisites,and in fact are not desired. Potential Explainers have to be friendIy and keen to help visitors, and representdiversity among the population. Over one-half of Explainers are from minority groups; they are equallydivided between males and females.

Explainers are hired for a 4-month session, are paid an hourly wage, and receive about sO hours ofpaid training before and during the job. The program costs the Exploratorium about $250,000 per year(or about $4,000 to $5,000 per Explainer). Most Explainers work only one session.

An evaluation of nearly 900 alumni of the Explainer program was conducted in 1985-86. 1 Former Ex-plainers universally report that their stint at the Exploratorium was a tremendous learning and social ex-perience, as well as a boost to their self-esteem. One of the greatest benefits the Explainers cited was work-ing intensely with a small, diverse group (15 to 20 Explainers work with visitors at any one session), andenjoying professional camaraderie with the Exploratorium staff. Explainers acquired confidence in theirability to learn about subjects they had previously thought inaccessible. They learned to deal with not know-ing “all the answers”; they also developed communication and people skills that they later found valuableat college and in the workplace.

Among the comments made by former Explainers were these:There would be times when something didn’t catch my interest in class, but it did when I learned it

here. It was hands on. There was actual proof. It wasn’t something read from a textbook.I learned to tolerate a lot of my own mistakes. . . . You learn to appreciate that you can learn from

those that know better. Once at an eye dissection, I got into a conversation with an ophthalmology student.I’d be explaining things but all of a sudden I was learning new stuff by talking to this guy.

It got rid of a stigma for me and let me go and pursue science, which is really what I wanted to doin the first place. I found out that, yeah, you can enjoy science and you’re not weird if you do, so whynot? Before, I would just keep it to myself, I never told anybody that I read science books before I came here.

That was one of the key things to come out of the Exploratoriuxn experience: becoming a people-orientedperson. When you explain something and you see the spark in people’s eyes, you are enriching them. Youare giving them something, and in return you’re getting the feeling that you are enriching their lives.

Part of the reason I liked it a lot was that it gave me the feeling that I was teaching for the first time.1 was showing people things instead of always having them shown to me.

In sum, the curiosity and desire to learn that Explainers acquired stayed with them in their later lives. ,Women were much more likely than the men to report that they becae interested in science and engi-

neering and improved their communication skills as a result of the ExpIainer program. Students who werealready interested in science and engineering strengthened their confidence; other students gained generalself-esteem and were encouraged to go to college.

The Explainer program also helps visitors enjoy themselves and learn. Explainers can particularly helpreach their peers—other teenagers who traditionlly have been tough customers for science centers and

IJudy Diamond et al., The Exploratorium, ‘The Exploratorium Explainer Program: The Long-Term Impact on Teenagers of Teaching Science tothe Public and a Survey of Science Museum Programs for High School Students, ”mimeo, June 19s6. The Explainer program has operated since theopening of the museum in 1%9. For the study, 32 representative alumni were interviewed at length, and a questiomaire was developed on the basisof those interviews and sent out to former Explainers. Other information on Explainers was gathered from interviews with museum visitors and appli-cants to the Explainer program.

100

toward careers in science and engineering con-veyed by influences outside schools, such as themedia, families, and friends, will not readily bealtered.

Against this background, special efforts to in-tervene must be made in order to attract and en-courage females and minorities in science andengineering. Most of these efforts, though few innumber, take place out of school during students’free time. Although intervention programs haveonly been in existence for about 20 years, manysuccessful techniques have been developed forboosting the self-image, enthusiasm, and academicpreparation of females and minorities for scienceand engineering careers. Indeed, some of thesetechniques (such as stressing the relevance of sci-ence understanding to everyday experiences, theuse of small groups, and participation in hands-on activities) clearly warrant dissemination to theentire population of students.

The Content and Reach ofIntervention Programs

The Office of Opportunities in Science ofAAAS collects data on intervention programs,and is an enthusiastic advocate of them.27 Theprograms differ from each other considerably interms of their longevity, bases of operation,sources of support, goals, and quality. Universi-ties, museums, and research centers house the

?,TA~~~iC~~ A~~ociation for the Advancement of Science, Office

of Opportunities in Science, “Partial List of Precollege Mathematicsand Science Programs for Minority and/or Female Students byState, ” unpublished manuscript, July 1987;and Shirley M. Malcomet al., Equity and Excellence: Compatible Goals; An Assessmentof Programs That Facilitate Increased Access and Achievement ofFemales and Minorities in K-12 Mathematics and Science Educa-tion, AAAS 84-14 (Washington, DC: American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Office of Opportunities in Science, De-cember 1984).

majority of intervention programs, and manyserve junior high and high school students. Mosteffective intervention programs involve learningscience by doing, rather than through lectures orreading; working closely with small groups ofother students; contact with attentive advisors,mentors, and role models who foster self-confi-dence and high aspirations; and an emphasis ondisseminating information about science and engi-neering careers. Intervention programs for minor-ity students often reach a high percentage offemales as well, both minority and majority.Evaluations suggest that early, sustained interven-tion can bring minority achievement to the samelevel as that of white males.

AAAS has examined exemplary interventionprograms and has found that they have strongleadership, highly committed and trainedteachers, parental support, adequate resources,a sustained focus on careers in science and engi-neering, clear goals, and continual evaluation.Many combine academic and informal learning,and involve teachers and parents. They often fo-cus on enriching students’ experiences in science,rather than in providing remedial treatment forthe poor quality experiences that most studentshave had from formal education; many also stresstechniques, such as peer learning, that help stu-dents learn how to learn. The intervention pro-grams that work best start early in students’educational careers and have a long-term focus,with the ultimate goal of making successful in-tervention techniques part of the normal appa-ratus of the school system.

Most intervention programs require extraordi-nary staff commitment and support, and are noteasy to replicate in other locations. The mosttalented teachers and leaders can only fully servea limited number of students, even using technol-

89-126 0 - 88 - 3

101

ogies such as distance learning. Some programshave, however, been replicated. Perhaps the mostsuccessful is the Mathematics, Engineering, andScience Achievement (MESA) program based inBerkeley, California. MESA-modeled programsnow operate in about 10 other States.

Differences Among Intervention Programs

Intervention programs recognize the differentproblems that can face females and minorities inscience and engineering. Most females, for exam-ple, have access to the high school science andmathematics courses that they would need for sci-ence and engineering careers; the issue is one ofself-image and self-confidence. Some female stu-dents mistakenly believe they do not even needto take optional mathematics and science coursesfor entry to science and engineering majors in col-lege. In addition, during group work in class-rooms, male students frequently dominate exper-imental equipment and computers, leaving femalestudents taking notes and acting as “secretaries. ”In all-female intervention programs, each studentcan fully participate in operating equipment andenjoy the whole experience of making scientificobservations. Intervention programs need to fo-cus on encouraging an interest in science and im-proving student self-confidence in mathematicsand science.

Many minorities, on the other hand, do nothave access to the necessary mathematics and sci-ence courses and are less likely than whites to planto attend college. While many Blacks and His-panics are interested and aware of science andengineering careers—historically a route to socialmobility—they lack the preparation to enterthem. Accordingly, intervention programs needto improve the probability that minorities will beprepared to attend college at all, and then focuson improving their learning of mathematics andscience .28

Within the minority population, however, thereare significant differences that affect the designof intervention programs. Many Mexican-Ameri-cans come from poor rural backgrounds and have

strong family bonds, but tend to receive little en-couragement at home for “book learning. ” Cuban-American students often come from well-educatedfamilies and do very well in academic coursework.Black students in northern cities may be awareof the rewards of science and engineering, but areoften poor and enrolled in poorly funded schoolsystems; their access to necessary courses islimited. Black students in the South, however, aremore likely to live in rural areas, and have lessknowledge of (and correspondingly, interest in)science and engineering careers. Programs forBlack students are needed early in their educa-tional careers, because deficiencies in preparationaccumulate at an early age. Asian-Americans areoften very well prepared for science and engineer-ing careers, but those from territories of the UnitedStates with significant Asian populations, PacificIslanders such as American Samoa, tend to lackpreparation. Boxes 5-C, 5-D, and 5-E illustrate avariety of intervention programs.

Funding Intervention Programs

Despite the effort that has been put into devel-oping intervention programs in the last two dec-ades, and the urgent need for them, there is stillonly a modest number of programs and, collec-tively, they reach only a small proportion of theirtarget populations. The leaders of several majorintervention programs meet as the National Asso-ciation of Precollege Directors (NAPD), whichestimates that intervention programs reach 40,000minority students annually (or less than 1 percentof the total minority student population). But25,000 participants in NAPD programs have grad-uated from high school, over half to major in sci-ence or engineering .29 Expansion is limited bothby the shortage of individuals prepared to com-mit the time and energy necessary to initiate theseprograms and by lack of funding. A local baseof support seems to be an essential ingredient ofsuccess.

Some intervention programs owe their originsto Federal funding. Many today are supported byStates, foundations, and industry. Federal funds,

28For discussion of the more general goal, see Gloria DeNecochea, “Expanding the Hispanic College Pool: Pre-College Strat-egies That Work, ” Change, May/June 1988, pp. 61-65.

*qJoel B. Aranson, “NSF Initiatives—A Minority View, ” Oppor-tunities for Strategic Investment in K-12 Science Education: Optionsfor the National Science Foundation, Michael S. Knapp et al. (eds. )(Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), vol. 2, p. 112.

89-136 0 - 88 - 4

102

Box 5-C.-National Council of La k

The National Council of La I&a is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has program Qffices inPhoenix, Edinburg (Texas), and Los Angeles. Over the Iast several years, the organizatiort b dawbpedand demonstrated five innovative community-based approaches to improve the educMomd status ofHispanics. Three of the five projects cater to precollege students in special %&risk” populatkms; the othertwo focus on the needs of parents and teachers. Origid support was provided by the American Can Co.Foundation, and further funding has come from AT&T and Carn@e Corp. ~ants. Pr-tiI@nsas~ty,Phoenix, and Houston recently received grants from Time, Inc. and the Xerox Corp. Projects in Severalother cities have community and foundation funding.

The council’s educational programs supplement school offerings, their ratkmale being mat enrichtnmtprograms improve the educational experience of Hispanic children more than do re- p-arns thatrepeat school lessons. The counciI serves as a national advocacy cwganizatitm to encourage $ystemcare-

forms in teacher training, continuing education, and effective sclmd practices. Ptoject coordinators amconfident that much change can be initiated through community-generated local pmjacts, The fivecommunity-based approaches are the Academia del Pueblo, Project Success, Project fkcord Chwtce, Par-ents as Partners, and the Teacher Support Network.

The problems of early academic failure and the large number of Hispanic chikkm wh~ muat repaatgrades are addressed by the Academia de~ Pueblo, which provides after-scbd and mmmm %ackies”for elementary school-aged children. These efforts help students meet and exceed gmde prornntiotirequire-ments. Project Success provides career and academic counseling to help j@or M@ stude@s r~ theirexpectations and to support their eventuzd progress to h@ tiwl gr~uat~. Pr~ject _ @w~ tv-gets dropouts using volunteer mentors and tutors. The Parents as P~tners -am was dw- to r@rt-f o r c e t h e c o n c e p t t h a t p a r e n t s a r e e f f e c t i v e teadwrs, a concept that”is k,~sxcommunities. l%is project trains and assists paregts to encourage and be tut~~~ th& a. T& Te#wrSupport Network brings together cwnrnunity resources to train and support M _ h~ nonff~dcteachers who work with Hispanic children.

The council assists demonstration sites with the necessary tra’ “ arid twhnkal ‘ “’ *go impk--dtiment the models, and monitors and evaluates the projects. The courtdemonstration projects. A necessary component of any council program is tkb develb-t ofp$@k@urtdSpanish language skills, either as an in@grd component of the curriculum orasa second hirqpx~’. k &Mi-tion, the council is assisting the Association of Science-Technology Centers to identify M_ communi#y-based organizations with a mathematics and science education focus to encourage their partiapatkm inscience centers and museums.

however, play an important base role. Since many and age; intervention programs began to attractintervention programs piggy-back on existing fa-cilities in schools, science centers, research lab-oratories, and universities, the programs arerelatively inexpensive. They are labor- not capital-intensive, and many have budgets of several hun-dred dollars per student. (College-level programstend to be more expensive, sometimes around sev-eral thousand dollars per student, although thissum might include tuition and scholarshipsupport. )

Intervention programs were one outgrowth ofthe civil rights movement of the 1960s. Federallaw eventually was extended to address manyforms of discrimination, by race, sex, handicap,

Federal funding as a way of breaking down someof the barriers to full participation of these groupsin science and engineering. One source of thefunding was the Women’s Educational Equity Actof 1974, administered by the Department of Edu-cation. Another was grants for State programs,funded under Title IX of the Higher EducationAmendments of 1974. Federal funds have oftenacted, and been most effective, as seed fundingto initiate intervention programs; if successful,such programs have sometimes then been fundedby States and industry in their community.

By contrast, NSF historically has not empha-sized either intervention programs or other ways

103— — — .

Photo credit: William Mi//s, Montgomery County Pub//c Schoo/s

Intervention programs, like the summer research programs for Hispanic students shown here, give students a chanceto work together on real research projects.

Box 5-D.—American Indian Science and Engineering Society

The American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) is a nonpolitical national organizationof American Indian scientists and engineers. The society’s primary purpose is to expand American Indianparticipation in science and engineering careers and to promote technical awareness among other Indians.Since it was founded in 1977, AISES has grown to represent 61 tribes in 36 States and Canada. Projectsare designed to encourage academic excellence at all education levels. The precollege programs coordinateteacher training seminars and summer enrichment programs, provide materials (including computers), in-troduce role models through science fairs and camps, sponsor competitions, coordinate student chapters,and publish newsletters and videotapes. Collegiate programs include mentorships, internships, and work-shops. The Collegiate Chapter Program includes an annual 2-day conference for leadership training andfocuses on providing scholarship information and peer support at 35 institutions. Professional programsare also available for Indian scientists and engineers.

Funding sources are public and private, including the National Science Foundation, the Departmentof Education Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Hewlett Packard, and Hughes Aircraft. The society also earns some income from the pub-lication of Winds of Change, a quarterly magazine designed to disseminate information on educationalopportunities and AISES activities, and to promote involvement of Indian and non-Indian participants inIndian concerns. To benefit from AISES programs, schools and agencies must affiliate with the society.The society’s annual conference brings together Indian students, the affiliates, and non-lndian professionalsfrom the public and private sectors.SOURCE: American Indian Science and Engineering Society, Boulder, CO.

104

taining financial aid. Enrollment

PRIME serves more than 3,000 students each year. Recent statistics show that 92 percent of PRIMEhigh school graduates college, and 73 percent of those enter technical and/or engineering programs.Eighty-five percent earn baccalaureate degrees.

‘‘* ..

of improving the “career chances” of females andminorities in science and engineering. NSF pro-grams that have had some success include: theWomen in Science program (1974-76, 1979-81);the Resource Centers for Science and Engineer-ing program, aimed at minorities (1978-81); andthe Research Apprenticeship for Minority HighSchool Students (1980-82). None of these pro-grams was reestablished when NSF’s Science andEngineering Education (SEE) Directorate was re-born in 1983, although the Research Apprentice-ship for Minority High School Students and theResource Centers program have recently beenresurrected. With these two exceptions, none ofSEE’s current programs directly address “under-represented” groups. Programs for these groupshave not been well funded through other NSF ef-forts, although some receive funding (for exam-

ple, through Science and Mathematics EducationNetworks, and Teacher Enhancement). SEE en-courages the submission of proposals for projectsto address underrepresented groups.30

Funding sources for intervention programs havevaried according to the program’s target popula-tions. Mission agencies have set different priori-ties. NSF and the Department of Education haveestablished intervention programs for females;foundations, the military, and other Federal agen-cies (such as the Department of Health and Hu-man Services, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, and the Department of Energy)

While the National Science Foundation proposed two specificminority programs for fiscal year 1988 and is planning more, theirapproach has been criticized as insufficient for the magnitude of theproblem. See ibid., pp. 111-112.

105

have tended to fund programs for minorities.Overall, however, there have been few sustainedfunders of “women in science” programs. Muchtargeted human resource support is done institu-tionally to categories such as historically Blackcolleges and universities. But this support, too,seems modest relative to the number of lives theyare supposed to change and careers they claim tolaunch.”

Initially, intervention programs were based out-side schools. Schools, in fact, have often beenviewed by advocates of intervention programs aspart of the problem rather than part of the solu-tion. But in recent years, schools have increas-ingly begun to work with intervention programssuch as the METRO Achievement Program inChicago. Interventions such as the Ford Founda-tion’s Urban Mathematics Collaborative workdirectly with mathematics teachers outside the

310TA research found that benefactors scale down their gifts tofit their expectations of success when historically Black institutionsare involved. Foundations that give $1 million to an Ivy Leagueschool will give an institution with primarily minority enrollment$100,000 for the same activity. Also see Tom Junod, “Are BlackColleges Necessary?” Atlanta, vol. 27, October 1987, pp. 78-81.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that intervention and enrichment pro-grams are a valuable supplement to formal edu-cation. The expectations and attitudes of parentsand teachers; differential access to courses, in-strumentation, and educational technologies; andlack of information or mentoring by role modelslead many female and minority students awayfrom science and engineering careers. The mag-nitude and complexity of the problem requires alarge and continuing effort.

Experience with intervention programs has pro-vided considerable knowledge on elements of suc-cessful models to replicate in future programs. Thereasons why intervention programs have failed,not surprisingly, have tended not to be well doc-umented.

school systems in the cities that the programserves; this frees teachers from the organizationaland attitudinal constraints that such systems en-gender. It is important that intervention programscomplement efforts to improve the formal edu-cation system.

Enrichment Programs

Many programs are designed to enrich or speedthe progress of talented individuals through sci-ence and mathematics courses. Several Federallaboratories, most prominently those of the De-partment of Energy, provide summer researchparticipation programs that allow students to ex-perience science in the flesh by active participa-tion in real research. While there is no conclusiveevidence that such programs change students’ ca-reer destinations, they have a potent effect in con-firming student inclinations that research can befun. Several universities operate summer coursesin mathematics and science for talented individ-uals. The best known are the Center for the Ad-vancement of Talented Youth at The Johns Hop-kins University and the Talent IdentificationProgram at Duke University. (See box 5-F. )

When provided with early, excellent, and sus-tained instruction and guidance, the achievementlevels of females and minorities in science andengineering can match those of any other student.In other words, there are no inherent barriers toparticipation. The Federal role in intervention pro-grams is to encourage new starts, possibly to ex-pand funding, and to provide networks for theelements of successful programs to be dissemi-nated and shared. Some programs should bebased in schools, while others should not. Tai-loring each to the needs of specific populations,circumstances, and problems, is, in this domainas well as in many other areas of education, thekey to success.

106

Improving ScChapter 6

hool Mathematics

CONTENTSPage

The Systemic Nature of the Problems Facing American Schools. . .............109Incremental and Radical Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..110Local and State Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........110

Federal Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................115The Federal Interest in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education. . ..........115Evaluation of Federal Science and Mathematics Education Programs. . . .. ....118Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 . . . . . . . . ........123Data and Research Funded by the Department of Education and the

National Science Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...126Education Programs in the Mission Research Agencies . . . . . . . . . ............127

Rethinking the Federal Role in Mathematics and Science Education. . ..........131

BoxesBox Page

6-A. Opportunities for Future Investment in K-12 Mathematics and ScienceEducation: Recommendations by SRI International to NSF’s Science andEngineering Education Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...111

6-B. Problems in Evaluating Science Education Programs . ...................1196-C. 4-H: Five Million Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................130

FigureFigure Page

6-1. Distribution of Federal Funds Appropriated Under Title II of the Educationfor Economic Security Act of 1984 . . . . . . . . ............................124

TablesTable Page

6-1. Summary of Kinds of Local Initiatives to Reform K-12 Mathematics andScience Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................112

6-2. Comparison of Recommended and Actual Amounts of Time Devoted toMathematics and Science in Elementary Schools . .......................114

6-3. Recommended Number of Courses in Mathematics and Science Needed forHigh School Graduation, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..114

6-4. Summary of Mission Agency K-12 Mathematics and Science EducationPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................128

Chapter 6

Improving School Mathematicsand Science Education

Now when 1 say “education, “ I’m going beyond what is in NSF’S Science andEngineering Education Directorate and looking at the education capabilitiesand programs of the foundation [NSF]. We have the responsibilitycapabilities along the whole educational pipeline. 1 don’t think

agency, whether State or Federal, has that mission.

to advanceany other

Erich Bloch, 1988

The American system of public schooling islarge, diverse, and stolid. Pressure to reform vari-ous features of the system, especially curricula,graduation standards, and the education ofteachers, has been building since at least the early-1980s, and some change, much of it led by theStates, has been realized. The “education reformmovement, ” as it is called, has drawn strength andencouragement from leaders in government, edu-cation, business, and higher educational Much

of the pressure for reform has been bolstered byeconomic arguments, stressing the need for inter-national competitiveness and the industrial advan-tages of a well-educated work force.

ing Office, 1983); and Gerald Holton (cd.), “ ‘A Nation at Risk’Revisited, ” The Advancement of Science, and Its Burdens (Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

‘See, for example, National Commission on Excellence in Edu-cation, A IVation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-

THE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF THEFACING AMERICAN SCHOOLS

The problems that face mathematics and sci-ence education in the schools are complicated andinterrelated. In the broadest sense of the term,they are systemic. Reforms of any one aspect ofmathematics and science teaching, such as course-taking, tracking, testing, and the use of labora-tories and technology, can and have been under-taken. But each change is constrained by otheraspects of the system, such as teacher training andremuneration, curriculum decisions, communityconcerns and opinions, and the requirements andinfluences of higher education.2 Very little anal-

PROBLEMS

ysis has been undertaken of the costs and bene-fits of different kinds of improvements that couldbe made in mathematics and science education.A recent review suggested that schools’:

. . . influence on learning does not depend on anyparticular educational practice, on how they testor assign homework or evaluate teaching, butrather on their organization as a whole, on theirgoals, leadership, followership, and climate. . . .These organizational qualities that we consider tobe the essential ingredients of an effective school—such things as academically focused objectives,

‘Iris R. Weissr OTA workshop summary, September 1987; F.James Rutherford, “Activities in Precollege Education, ” Competi-tion for Human Resources in Science and Engineering in the 1990s,Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC: Commission on Profes-sionals in Science and Technology, Oct. 11-12, 1987), pp. 60-65;

Arthur G. Powell et al., The Shopping Mall High School: Winnersand Losers in the Educational Marketplace (Boston, MA: Hough-ton Mifflin, 1985); and Ernest L. Boyer, High Schoo): A Report onSecondary Education in America (New York, NY: Harper & Row,1983).

109

110

pedagogically strong principals, relatively autono-mous teachers, and collegial staff relations—donot flourish without the willingness of superin-tendents, school boards, and other outside au-thorities to delegate meaningful control overschool policy, personnel, and practice to theschool itself. Efforts to improve the performanceof schools without changing the way they areorganized or the controls they respond to willtherefore probably meet with no more than mod-est success; they are even more likely to beundone.3

Incremental and Radical Reforms

Against this background, a case can clearly bemade for “starting all over” with a new systemof organizing, administering, and even fundingschools. The education system has evolved in-crementally, and, during the last 200 years, hasadapted to changing societal expectations, ex-panded its reach to almost the entire populationof students up to age 18, been influenced by thechanging economy of the United States, and re-sponded to judicial intervention in many aspectsof its organization, including its financing. Thesechanges have been made on the superstructure ofexisting culture and practices, and have not nec-essarily resulted in the “best” system. But start-ing all over is not practical or politically feasible:too much is invested in the current system ofmathematics and science education. The bestshort-term focus, therefore, will be on incrementalimprovements within the existing system.4

In 1985, Congress asked the National ScienceFoundation (NSF) to commission a special studyof investment options for NSF to undertake in sci-ence and mathematics education. The contractor,SRI International, was asked to identify specificniches that the Science and Engineering EducationDirectorate of NSF could fulfill, given the exist-ing structure, experience, and expertise of theAgency. The report of this study, published in

3John E. Chubb, “Why the Current Wave of School Reform WillFail, ” Public Znterest, No. 90, winter 1988, pp. 28-49. Also see PeterT. Butterfield, “Competitiveness Plank Seven—Education: The Foun-dation for Competitiveness, ” Making America More Competitive(Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 1987), pp. 69-76.

4For the perspective of the former Secretary of Education, seeWilliam J. Bennett, American Education: Making It Work (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, April 1988), esp. pp.23, 31, 35, 41, 45.

June 1987, makes many concrete suggestions ofways NSF could use its special experience and ex-pertise.’ Ten current areas for future NSF invest-ment are listed in box 6-A. The SRI report alsodiscussed the trade-off between incrementalchange and wholesale renovation, arguing thatwhile incremental improvements may not be theway to effect fundamental change, far-reachinginnovations in science education not grounded inthe current elementary and secondary school sys-tem will simply not be adopted.’

For now, incremental reform is the likely wayAmerican mathematics and science education willbe improved. The remainder of this chapter ex-amines some improvements that are taking placeand others to be contemplated, against the back-ground of intersecting local, State, and Federalinterests.

Local and State Initiatives

Local and State initiatives could go a long waytoward improving elementary and secondarymathematics and science education. Much can beand is being done to improve mathematics andscience education at the local level of the schoolboard and the school, from introducing magnetprograms to re-equipping science facilities.

The many different initiatives spawned byschools and school districts are difficult to sum-marize because they do not form part of a singleState, regional, or national plan. This does notdetract from their importance; they can be highlybeneficial. In 1983, the American Association ofSchool Administrators (AASA) sent a question-naire to 1,500 school administrators, mainly su-perintendents. From these and other data, AASAcompiled a list of the top 10 most common ac-tions already being taken by school districts toimprove mathematics and science education. (Seetable 6-l. )

‘Michael S. Knapp et al., Opportunities for Strategic Investmentin K-12 Science Education: Options for the National Science Foun-dation, Summary Report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June1987). Also see Robert Rothman, “NSF Urged to Assert Itself in Pushto Improve Education, ” Education Week, Sept. 9, 1987, p. 12.

Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 36-39. This chapter drawson the SRI report in discussing various National Science Founda-tion elementary and secondary mathematics and science educationefforts.

111

Box 6-A. —Opportunities for Future Investment in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education:Recommendations by SRI International to NSF’s Science and Engineering Education Directorate

Opportunities to Devising Appropriate Content and Approach

● Redesign and improve existing mathematics curricula at all grade levels. The amount of repetitive com-putation should be reduced, and the amount of effort devoted to other topics, such as the skills of mathe-matical problem solving, probability and statistics, and computer sciences, should be expanded.

● Redesign the way in which elementary school science is taught. Elementary school science, despite NSF’sattempts in the 1960s to develop ‘“hands-on” curricula, is still very limited in scale and depth. NSF hasbegun an initiative in this area.’ Similary, one priority should be to redesign and improve middle andhigh school curricula.

● More effort shouId be made to match mathematics and science education with the needs and backgroundsof students, particularly females and minorities. The reach of existing programs and curricula must beextended, but experiments are also needed to tailor teaching to the special needs of each type of learner.

Opportunities to Strengthen the Professional Community● The people who assist mathematics and science teachers, such as lead teachers, curriculum specialists,

and science and mathematics coordinators, need more help and support. Multiyear training programs,recognition programs, and development of stronger alliances between higher education and school dis-tricts would enhance this support function.

● The number training to become mathematics and science teachers needs to be increased, and their train-ing improved. NSF could enhance the “professionalization” of the teaching force, the content of teachertraining courses, and the utilization of knowledge about teacher recruitment and training programs.

● Strengthen the informal science education community. Educators out of schools—on television and inmuseums and science centers-are becoming increasingly important. These people need training and profes-sional development, and would benefit from larger networks and closer collaboration,

Opportunities to Leverage Key Points in Educational Infrastructure● improve and expand publishing capabilities in mathematics and science education. An emphasis on

broadening the base of learners will require new and different teaching materials: current materials arelargely aimed at the “science- and engineering-bound.” Collaborative programs with existing publisherswould help improve the textbook publishing process, and promotion of alternative publishing routeswould help provide a diversity of materials that the current mechanisms of market operation are notable to support.

● Improve testing and assessment methods and practices in mathematics and science. The growing powerof testing over curricular and teaching decisions indicates the urgency of developing and implementingtests that measure a broader range of skills, concepts, and attitudes than current fact-oriented tests. NSF’sskill at research and development gives it special expertise in managing research programs in testing.

● Work with State mathematics and science education reform leaders. Interest among these leaders in im-proving the teaching of these subjects is strong, but their familiarity with the educational issues involvedis limited. NSF could assist State-level groups to devise and implement reforms, and to develop networks.

● Expand the proven power of informal education programs and assist their assimilation into schools. Theseprograms are effective at reaching and motivating large and diverse groups of students. Innovations areneeded, as is better outreach to more communities.

T1w National Science Foundation’s first solicitation in this area, in fiscal year 19s6, addremed elementary mathematics curricula, and resulted insix MWXI&, A second solicftatkm, also in fiscal year 1986, addressed elementary science curricula and aimed to develop “. . . partnerships among pub-Iiahers, achool ayatema and scientists/s&rtat educatcws for the purpose of providing a number of competitive, high quality, alternative science programsfor use in typical Ater@tt -entary schools.” Among these latter awards has been the Technical Education Research Center’s project in linking com-puters and _ learning. A H&d round of awards wits made in May 1988. See National Science Foundation, Directorate for Science and EngineeringEducation, “Summary ofknts, H 19S4-86: Instructional Materials Development Program,” NSF86-85, unpublished document, March 1987; NationalScience Foundation, Program SoIication, “Programs for Elementary School Science Instruction II,” NSF 87-13, unpublished document, 1%7; science,“NSF Announces Plans for Elementary Science,” vol. 235, Feb. 6, 1987, p. 630; and “N. S.F. Gives $7.2 Million for ‘Hands-On’ Science Material, ” &ka-tion JVeek, May 2S, 1988, p. 19. On elementary science curricula generally, see Marcia Reecer, “Pointing Out and Disseminating,” Science and Children,vol. 24, No. 4, January 1987, pp. 16-18, 1s8-160.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988, based on Michael S. Knapp et al., Opportunities for Strategic lrrvestrnent jn K-z.2 Sc/ence Education: Options for the NationalScience Foundation, Summary Report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), pp. 10-16.

112

Education policy begins at the local level.

States are playing an increasing role in K-12education, through finance, curriculum andgraduation requirements, and assessment andmonitoring. Most States are funding a growingproportion of the cost of public elementary andsecondary education (see figure 2-1 in ch. 2),spurred by the warnings contained in the rash ofeducational reform reports of the early 1980s.7

This activity has been chronicled in recent sur-veys by the Education Commission of the Statesand the Council of Chief State School Officers(CCSSO). 8

These two reports document the ways in whichStates have become more active in four areas:

. curriculum requirements;● assessment of the extent to which curriculum

‘National Governors’ Association, Results in Education–1987:The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education (Washington, DC: 1987),pp. 36-37. “State,” as used here includes the District of Columbia,Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.

8Education commjs5ion 0[ the Shih%, SUrVeY of s~a~e ‘n;tiatjves

to Zmprove Science andkfathematics Education (Denver, CO: Sep-tember 1987); Jane Armstrong et al., “Executive Summary: The Imp-acts of State Policies on Improving Science Curriculum, ” preparedfor the Education Commission of the States, unpublished manuscript,June 1988; and Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade, State Educa-tion F’o)icies Related to Science and Mathematics (Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education AssessmentCenter Science and Mathematics Indicators Project, November 1987).For State actions in relation to all subjects, see ibid.; and Denis P.Doyle and Terry W, Hartle, “Leadership in Education: Governors,Legislators, and Teachers, ” Phi Delta Kappan, September 1985, pp.21-27.

Table 6-1.—Summary of Kinds of Local Initiatives toReform K.12 Mathematics and Science Education

The 10 most common and frequent actions being taken byschool districts:

1. Revise, reconstruct, and strengthen the science and math-ematics curricula. Committees are at work discarding oldcontent, adding new units, and expanding the scope and

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

sequence in established and new offerings. A major aimis to bring about an articulation of offerings, in kinder-garten through grade 12.Generate new activities to retrain, reeducate, and lend ahelping hand to classroom practitioners. Inservice edu-cation, in doses more massive than ever before, goes onat an ever-increasing pace within school systems and oncollege campuses. Cooperation with colleges and univer-sities is at a high level on behalf of both science and math-ematics.Modernize and expand facilities needed for science, pro-viding better-equipped laboratories for upper grades, andoffering teachers suitable working space for elementaryhands-on science activities.Make available new textbooks and other instructional ma-terials for science and mathematics. They buy “packagedprograms” (STAMM, COMP, SCIS, ESS), but, above all,districts develop their own curriculum guides, teacher re-source handbooks, and units for students—all geared tolocal district philosophy, aims, and objectives.Raise requirements for the study of science and mathe-matics, often under the spur of State legislation, at timesby decision of boards of education. The big push is towardmore years of science and mathematics at the second-ary level, and more time spent on task in the elementarygrades.Monitor science and mathematics programs more closelythan ever before. They assess, evaluate, and measure.Methodology, content, and student achievement areunder close scrutiny at all times by principals, but moreoften by specialized personnel using new tools and in-struments.Go into partnerships with industry, higher education, andcommunity groups. Out of these cooperative efforts—also called alliances and consortiums-come advancedcontent (from scientists and mathematicians); new oppor-tunities for inservice education (from colleges and univer-sities); and greater support for science and mathematicsprograms (from community and civic groups.)

8. Devise new programs to attract and hold students whohave so far been largely bypassed by science and math-ematics education—Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians,and other minorities.

9. Support, with greater interest than ever before, extracur-ricular activities for science and mathematics students.They seek the establishment of clubs and encouragegreater student participation in science and mathematicsfairs, olympiads, and other competitions—both for theable and the average student.

10. Seize the role of advocacy, sensing this is the time andopportunity to rebuild and strengthen the science andmathematics curriculums.

SOURCE: The material in this table is from Ben Brodinsky, Improving ~ath andScience Education (Arlington, VA: American Association of School Ad-ministrators, 1985), pp. 29-30.

113

requirements are met;● providing special programs for female, mi-

nority, gifted and talented, handicapped, andlearning disabled students; and

• recruitment of mathematics and scienceteachers and improvement of their skills.

Most of these initiatives are too recent to havebeen evaluated, and it is difficult to say which areeffective and which not. CCSSO is developing aset of indicators for mathematics and science edu-cation to allow State-by-State comparison as wellas national evaluation of trends.9

There is increasing corporate support of K-12mathematics and science education, but its over-all amount remains very small compared withpublic spending.l0 Industry can also contributevaluable resources in kind, such as equipment,trained scientists and engineers, and site visits.Much of this attention is driven by industrial con-cerns about the poor quality of high schoolgraduates—the entry level work force to manyfirms–rather than the question of who will be-come scientists and engineers.

Course and Curriculum Requirements

States are trying to control and expand whatstudents learn by means of curriculum require-ments, tightened graduation requirements, andencouragements to teachers and students to ad-dress higher order thinking skills. With respect tograduation requirements, anecdotal data suggestthat college admission requirements may be moreimportant than State policies for the college-bound in science and engineering. Indeed, the

‘For the pitfalls of making and interpreting State-by-State com-parisons of student performance, see Alan L. Ginsburg et al., “Les-sons From the Wall Chart, ” Educational Evaluation and Policy Anal-ysis, vol. 10, No. 1, spring 1988, pp. 1-12.

IOA recent estimate is that total spending in 1986 by 370 compa-nies was about $40 million (6 percent of total corporate spendingon education), up from $26 million in 1984. See Council for Aidto Education, Corporate Support of Education 2986 (New York,NY: February 1988); Anne Lowrey Bailey, “Corporations Startingto Make Grants to Public Schools, Diverting Some Funds Once Ear-marked for Colleges, ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 10,1988, pp. A28-30; and Ted Kolderie, “Education That Works: TheRight Role for Business, ” Harvard Business Review, September/ Oc-tober 1987, pp. 56-62.

trend toward tightening graduation requirementsmay actually be deleterious for this group, bystretching existing teaching resources in mathe-matics and science too thinly.

Many States have begun to issue reasonablydetailed curriculum guidelines, and a few, suchas California, have comprehensive guides builtaround an integrated approach to curriculum de-velopment, textbook adoption, and teacher train-ing. Curriculum guides in mathematics and sci-ence are used by 47 States; most of these guidesare not actually mandatory for school districts.Policies on the amount of time that should bedevoted to mathematics and science in elemen-tary schools have been adopted by 26 States. Ofthese States, most recommend, but do not require,that about 100 to 150 minutes per week be spenton K-3 science, and 225 to 300 minutes per weekbe spent on K-3 mathematics. For grades four tosix, normal recommendations are 175 to 225 min-utes per week on science and 250 to 300 minutesper week on mathematics. (See table 6-2.)*’

All but seven States (and all but four of the fullyconstituted States) set formal requirements for theaward of a high school graduation diploma. (Seetable 6-3. ) (The Constitution of Colorado ex-plicitly forbids the State from setting such require-merits. ) Almost all of the States that do set for-mal requirements have, since 1980, steadilyincreased the number of mathematics and sciencecourses that students must take. Of 47 States thatset requirements, 36 require 2 courses in mathe-matics and 39 require 2 courses in sciences, Dela-ware, Florida, Guam, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsyl-vania, and Texas each set a higher standard, re-quiring at least one more mathematics course fora total of three.

“Blank and Espenshade, op. cit., footnote 8, table I. There is nosound estimate of the average length of the elementary school dayavailable. In 1984-85, it was estimated that the average public schoolday in elementary and secondary schools included about 300 min-utes (5.1 hours) of classes. U.S. Department of Education, Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, Center for EducationStatistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1987), table 89.

114

Table 6-2.—Comparison of Recommended andActual Amounts of Time Devoted to Mathematics

and Science in Elementary Schools

Teacher estimates of average numberof minutes per day spent on subject

Actual ActualGrades/subiects in 1977 in 1986 Recommended

Mathematics:K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 38 45-604-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 49 50-60

Science:K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 20-304-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 38 35-45NOTE: There is no estimate of the average length of the elementary school day

available. In 1984-85, it was estimated that the average public school dayin elementary and secondary schools included about 300 minutes (5.1hours) of classes. U.S. Department of Education, Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Edu.cation Statistics 1987 (VVashlngton, DC: U.S Government Printing Office,May 1987), table 89.

SOURCE Actual amounts of time from Iris R Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 ~a.tiona/ Survey of Sc/ence and Mathematics Education (Research Trian-gle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), table 1, p12 Recommended times from Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade,State Educat ion Po//cies Related to Science and kfafherrrafics(Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Edu-cation Assessment Center Sc!ence and Mathematics IndicatorsProject, November 1987), p 2

However, control of the number of mathe-matics or science courses alone is a relatively bluntpolicy tool, for it disregards the curricular con-tent of those courses. In addition, mandating ex-tra courses in mathematics and science will be oflittle use if there are too few well-qualified teachersavailable to teach them. Indeed, some argue thatincreasing graduation requirements may actuallyharm the college-bound in science and engineer-ing, for teachers of the specialized courses thatthese students now take will be transferred toteach more mainstream courses. Schools withalready poorly equipped science laboratory facil-ities will be asked to spread thin resources eventhinner. Thus, tightening graduation requirementsmust be part of a balanced strategy that also pro-vides adequate teaching and facilities for the newmandated classes in mathematics and science.

Even where States set mandatory minimum re-quirements, schools and school districts may set

IJBen Brodinsky, improving Math and Science Education (Ar-lington, VA: American Association of School Administrators, 1985),pp. 7-8. Some argue that the trend toward increased control overclassroom teaching and learning is both a distinguishing trait ofAmerican education and a major weakness. See Arthur E. Wise,“Legislated Learning Revisited, ” Phi Delta Kappan, January 1988,pp. 328-333.

Table 6.3.—Recommended Number of Coursesin Mathematics and Science Needed for

High School Graduation, by State(for class of 1987 unless specified)

Courses forCourses for advanced/honors

regular diploma diplomaMath Science Math Science

Alabama (1989) . . . . . . . .Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . .Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas (1988) . . . . . . .California. . . . . . . . . . . . .Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut . . . . . . . . . .Delaware ., . . . . . . . . . . .District of Columbia . . .Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia (1988). . . . . . . . .Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Idaho (1988). . . . . . . . . . .Illinois (1988). . . . . . . . . .Indiana (1989) . . . . . . . . .lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas (1989) . . . . . . . .Kentucky . . .Louisiana (1988) . . . . . . .Maine (1989) . . . . . . . . . .Maryland (1989) . . . . . . .Massachusetts . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . .Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi (1989) .Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . .New Jersey (1990) . . . .New Mexico . . .New York. . . . . . . . . . . .North Carolina . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . .Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . .Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania (1989) .Puerto Rico. . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island (1989) . . . .South Carolina .South Dakota (1989) .Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . .Texas . . . . . . . . . . .Utah (1988) . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia (1988) . . . . . . . . .Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . .Washington (1989) . . . . .West Virginia . . . . . . . . .Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . .Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 22 22 25 combined2 2Local board3 22 22 23 32 23 32 22 222 2Local board2 23 23 32 23 2Local boardLocal boardOa Oa

2 22 22 1Local board22 23 23 22 22 22 22 12 22 23 32 22 23 22 22 23 22 25 combined5 combined2 22 22 22 2Local board

3

43

4

4

3

3

2 a

3

33

3

43

3

3

3

3

2 a

2

33

aNew York State Regents courses for credit toward Regents diploma. Minneso-ta has no State requirements for grades 10-12, 1 math and 1 science requiredfor grades 7-9.

KEY: Combined = 3 mathematics and 2 science or 2 mathematics and 3 science;Local board = requirements determined by local school boards.

SOURCE Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade, State Education Policies Relatedto Scierrce and Mathematics (Washington, DC: Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, State Education Assessment Center Science andMathematics Indicators Project, November 1%37), table 2.

115

higher standards. Most of those States that do nothave minimum requirements set recommendedgraduation requirements and apply strong pres-sure on districts to abide by them; some States,such as Michigan, even offer financial incentivesto those that do.

Several States, including Indiana, Kentucky,Idaho, Virginia, Texas, and Missouri, now offeradvanced or honors diplomas designed explicitlyfor the college-bound, that require additionalcoursework or demonstration of competence(again see table 6-3). New York has long offereda “Regents” examination, designed for the college-bound. Data suggest that this examination is ef-fective in encouraging students to take morepreparatory mathematics and science courses thanis common in other States. 13

Assessment of What Students Learn

States are making efforts to ensure that teachersaddress higher order thinking skills in science andmathematics teaching, either through teacher

1‘Penny A. Sebring, “Consequences of Differential Amounts ofHigh School Coursework: W’ill the New Graduation RequirementsHelp?’ Educational Evaluation and Poliq Analwis, vol. 9, No. 3,fall 1987, pp. 258-273.

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

State and local programs have long been sup-plemented by Federal efforts.15 Although theseprograms have been controversial politically, be-cause of the constitutional limitations on Federalinvolvement in education, many in mathematicsand science education have been reasonably suc-cessful in meeting their stated objectives. They arereviewed below.

Given the generally accepted importance ofeducation to the national economy, the FederalGovernment has long had not only an interest ineducation issues, but also a mandate to redressinequities in access and provide opportunities forvarious disadvantaged groups. From the time of

“See Deborah A. Verstegen, ‘Two Hundred Years of Federalism:A Perspective on National Fiscal Policy in Education, ” /our-na/ otEducation F/nance, vol. 12, spring 1987, pp. 516-548.

training programs, curriculum frameworks, orthrough competency testing programs. The Mis-souri Mastery and Achievement Test, for exam-ple, has been designed to include items that as-sess higher order thinking skills. Higher orderthinking, although much sought after, is difficultto define and there appears to be little agreementon how it can be taught.

Statewide testing programs are used in 4 6States, indicating a broad response to the publicpressure for accountability. But only 30 of theseStates include science knowledge in these tests,whereas 43 include mathematics. Five States(Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, and Ver-mont) delegate responsibility for assessment toschool districts or schools themselves. A recentOTA survey found that 21 States now require stu-dents to pass a minimum competency test in des-ignated basic skill areas prior to graduation. Fif-teen States include mathematics in such tests andfive include science. CCSSO found that 30 Stateseither have, or are planning, competency tests inmathematics, and 6 States in science. 14

“U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, State Edu-cational Testing Practices, “ Background Paper, NTIS ~P1388-155056,December 1987

the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Govern-ment has indirectly supported education throughfinancial and land contributions. In 1862, whenthe U.S. Office of Education was established, thatrole was augmented by the task of informationgathering, research, and analysis. At the turn ofthe century and for the next 20 years, in responseto the increasing industrialization of the Nation,the Federal Government began to take an interestin manpower needs and training and, under Fed-eral law, sought to promote vocational training.

The Federal Interest in K-12Mathematics and Science Education

Large-scale Federal funding of basic research be-gan after World War II, when demand for re-search scientists and engineers was strong. NSF,

116

created in 1951, was given a mandate to ensurethe adequacy of science and engineering educa-tion and manpower at all levels. NSF’s prime edu-cation goal, however, was the cultivation andeducation of enough scientific talent to fuel thenew research-intensive industries and national lab-oratories. Ever since, NSF has made a significantcontribution, by leadership and funding, to sci-ence education, but skewed toward students des-tined for science and engineering careers.

Serious concerns about the adequacy of math-ematics and science education developed in themid-1950s, as Cold War competition with theU.S.S.R. and the baby boom population strainededucational resources. Significant NSF involve-ment in science education, however, originatedwith the “Sputnik crisis” of the late-1950s. TheNational Defense Education Act of 1958 was abold new law to bolster supplies of scientific andother skilled manpower. The act gave grants toschool districts to improve or build laboratory fa-cilities and sponsor teacher training in mathe-matics and science, as well as foreign languageinstruction. Congress increased funding for sci-ence education at NSF, to the point where edu-cation was apportioned at about one-half of NSF’sbuclget. 16 The 10 years following Sputnik werethe “golden years” of NSF’s mathematics and sci-ence education effort, highlighted by funding forteacher training institutes, curriculum develop-ment, informal education, and research partici-pation programs for high school students and theirteachers.

Federal funding for education in all subjectsreached its zenith in the early -1960s, when anxi-ety about regional, economic, and racial dispari-ties in educational provision led Congress to adoptambitious programs of support for underpriv-ileged students. The Federal role in promoting eq-uity became generally accepted as a consequenceof the implementation of these programs, whichwere successful in achieving their limited goals .17

“Myron J. Atkin, “Education at the National Science Founda-tion: Some Historical Perspectives, An Assessment, and A ProposedInitiative for 1989 and Beyond,” testimony before the House Sub-committee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Commit-tee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar. 22, 1988.

17Michael S. Knapp et al., Cumulative Effects of Federal Educa-tion Policies on Schools and Districts: Summary Report of a Con-

The Reagan Administration’s policy of dimin-ishing, if not removing, Federal involvement ineducation was enacted by major cuts in educa-tion programs at the beginning of the 1980s. Fed-eral support fell from about 8 percent to 4 per-cent of total national education expenditures. The“new federalism” ideology held that funds wereto be apportioned among States on an entitlementbasis; States should be allowed to spend funds asthey saw fit, and not necessarily in accord withany Federal policies or programs.18 In 1981-82,the Science and Engineering Education Directorate(SEE) of NSF was disbanded. However, this lat-ter move was most unpopular with mathematicsand science educators and in 1983, under pres-sure, the SEE Directorate was resuscitated.19

By 1984, continuing anxiety about internationaleconomic competitiveness and the apparentlypoor quality of public schooling led Congress topass the Education for Economic Security Act(EESA), designed to promote teaching of mathe-matics, science, and foreign languages. Title 11 ofthis act directs the Department of Education toprovide grants to school districts and States to im-prove the teaching of mathematics, science, com-puter science, and foreign languages that are crit-ical to national economic well-being. Althoughthe Administration has proposed extending thecriteria for funding under this program to all sub-ject areas, this proposal has not been supportedin Congress. Title II was part of the package ofeducation programs reauthorized in 1988; the newname for Title 11 is the Dwight D. EisenhowerMathematics and Science Education Act.20

The Federal Division of Laborin Science Education

Today, Federal mathematics and science edu-cation programs are enjoying a resurgence of

gressionally Mandated Study (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International,January 1983).

‘8See Paul Peterson, When Federalism Works (Washington, DC:The Brookings Institution, 1987).

*’The power of the science education lobby is described in MorrisH. Shames, “A False Alarm in Science Education, ” Zssues in Sci-ence & Technology, vol. 4, spring 1988, pp. 65-69.

*°For a synopsis of elementary and secondary education legisla-tion introduced in fiscal year 1988, including that targeted to sci-ence and engineering education, see U.S. Congress, CongressionalResearch Service, Major Legislation of the Congress (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1988), Issue No. 3,pp. MLC-016 - MLC-021.

717

funding and considerable bipartisan support, evenin the current stringent budgetary climate. Theycome from three sources:

●

●

●

NSF, which is generally recognized as thelead agency for mathematics, science, andengineering education;

the Department of Education, which hasoverall charge of Federal education pro-grams, but within which mathematics andscience education is a relatively low priority;and

mission agencies that have a direct interestin developing a pool of skilled scientific tal-ent; such agencies include the Department ofEnergy (DOE), the Department of Agricul-ture (USDA), the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH), and the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA).

There is an important difference between NSFand the Department of Education in the scale ofthe programs that each mounts, Whereas NSF’sentire budget is now somewhat under $2 billionannually (and is principally spent on research),that for the Department of Education is about $20billion. Although most of the Department’s pro-grams provide funding either on a categorical ba-sis to providers of education or to ensure equi-table access to education, the Department has oneprogram specifically addressed to K-12 mathe-matics and science education: Title II of the EESA.Appropriations for Title 11 have been compara-ble to NSF spending on precollege education, butrepresent only a few percent of the entire spend-ing of the Department of Education. The dollars,however, are distributed to the States in a for-mulaic way, with little technical assistance to im-plement their use or monitor their impacts. Nospecial interest in programmatic mathematics andscience education at the Department of Educationis apparent.

Some argue that mathematics and science edu-cation programs conducted by NSF might flour-ish were they relocated in the Department of Edu-cation. Proponents say that the Department ofEducation would not concentrate only on thebrightest and best students and on funding pro-posals from rich research universities the way NSF

does.21 In addition, some note that NSF is mostcomfortable in dealing with and through univer-sities and, until recently, has made few efforts towork closely with States and school districts, asfavored by the Department of Education. NSF isnow attempting to improve its working relation-ships with the States. Giving a greater role to theDepartment of Education in mathematics andscience education programs is rejected by mostof NSF’s existing clients in the scientific and sci-ence education research communities, among

whom the Department of Education has littlecredibility. 22

Consideration of the propriety of Federal edu-cation programs is, at root, a highly ideologicalbattle and invokes constitutional concerns. Froma public policy perspective, it is important to ex-amine whether and how Federal funding of math-ematics and science programs changes the actionsthat State and local bodies would otherwise havetaken. Do Federal programs merely replace fundsthat would otherwise have been raised by Stateand local sources or do they allow States and lo-cal school districts to do things that they wouldnot or could not otherwise do? Conversely, doFederal programs merely encourage States and lo-cal school districts to avoid reforming their ownoperations, including possibly raising local andState taxes?

There are no clear answers, but Federal pro-grams may work best when they identify aspectsof the K-12 education system that have fallenthrough the cracks of the different agencies in-volved in education, and address those aspectsdirectly. For example, the “Great Society” legis-lation of the 1960s improved educational provi-sion to poor and disadvantaged children, and theNational Defense Education Act was successfulin supplying science equipment and teacher train-ing to school districts.

‘lThis is addressed by Don Fuqua in his personal conclusions kJl-lowing hearings by the Science Policy Task Force, American Sci-ence and Science Policy Issues, Chairman’s Report to the Commit-tee on Science and Technolog}~, U.S. House of Representativesr WhCongress, 2nd Session, December 1986, pp. 80-84 (Committev Print),

%ee Atkin, op. cit., footnote 16,

118

NSF’s Role in Science andEngineering Education

NSF has been the lead Federal agency in pre-college science and mathematics education sincethe agency’s inception. NSF in recent years hasbeen ambivalent towards science education.23

With its limited funding of K-12 programs, NSFaims to be a catalyst for interplay between theresearch community and schools and school dis-tricts—to generate new ideas for others to imple-ment; to leverage its funding through States,school districts, and foundations; and to do re-search on mathematics and science education. Inits 1987 study, SRI International suggested thatNSF’s approach to K-I2 mathematics and scienceeducation should be based on three principles:

●

●

●

identifying targets of opportunity that are im-portant problems and amenable to NSF’s in-fluence;supporting core functions of professional ex-change among scientists, engineers, teachers,and education researchers; data collection;and experiments in education; andinvesting as part of a coherent strategy tobroaden the base of science learners.

The SRI report identified six characteristics ofthe SEE Directorate that distinguish it from otheractors:

●

●

o

●

●

●

national purview of problems and solutions;quasi-independent status rather than an ex-ecutive branch department;connection to the mathematics, science, andengineering communities;large amounts of discretionary funding (i.e.,those that are allocated on a project/proposalbasis);a central position vis-a-vis various actors in-volved in improving mathematics and scienceeducation; andan established track record in K-12 mathe-

23See Deborah Shapley and Rustum Roy, Lost at the Frontier:U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift (Philadelphia, PA: 1S1Press, 1985), pp. 109-114; J, Merton England, A Patron for PureScience: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-1957 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, NationalScience Foundation, 1982), ch. 12; and U. S.~ongress, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Educating Scientists and Engineers: GradeSchool to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, June 1988), pp. 104-107.

matics and science education programs, espe-cially at the secondary level .24

NSF also attempts to define a leadership rolein mathematics and science education issues, afunction which, especially in the decentralizedAmerican education system, should not be under-estimated.” The ongoing challenge for NSF inscience and engineering education will be locat-ing particular niches where it can make a usefuland detectable difference, rather than being anagent of change on a broad scale. Investments bythe SEE Directorate in science and mathematicseducation must differ from support for science andengineering research. Developing NSF’s capabil-ity to invest strategically in education programsmay take 5 to 10 years. ’b

Evaluation of Federal Science andMathematics Education Programs

Too little is known about the effectiveness ofprevious and current Federal efforts to improveelementary and secondary mathematics and sci-ence education. Evaluation of these efforts, fora number of reasons, is very difficult. (See box6-B. ) This review has been supported by an in-formal questionnaire survey of members of theNational Association for Research in ScienceTeaching (NARST), an association of universityresearchers in mathematics and science educationthat aims to improve teaching practices throughresearch. Many Federal programs in this area havebeen tried, and appendix C lists some of them.Most have emphasized science rather than math-ematics.

Three principal Federal programs have been de-signed to improve mathematics and science edu-cation:

● NSF-funded teacher training institutes;. NSF-funded curriculum development; and● Title II of the EESA, administered by the De-

partment of Education.

2 4 K n a p p et a l . , OP. cit. ‘ footnote2 5 Atkin, op. cit., footnote 16, p.

‘dKnapp et al., op. cit., footnote

5, pp. 9-1o.10.5, p. 5.

119

Box 6-B.-Problems in Evaluating Science Education Programs

Much of the current literature and data on the effectiveness of previous Federal efforts in science edu-cation is of poor quality and has limited utility for policy purposes. To be useful for policy, research mustmeasure, quantitively or qualitatively, the effects of a particular program upon a prior situation. It must,therefore, measure what was there before, what happened after, and describe mechanisms by which theaddition of a program led to changes apparent by the time of the final obseervation. Ideally, research shouldalso address the relation between the costs of the program (in money, time, and effort) and its results.

Shortcomings of current research have two origins: 1) the fundamental scientific difficulty of definingand conducting good educational evaluation studies, and 2) idiosyncratic problems with samples and inter-pretations of research.

The fundamental difficulty is that there is no consensus on what attributes of students should be con-sidered definitive “output” or “input” measures to an educational intervention. For example, many studiesmeasure the student’s achivementt on multiple-choice tests. Other valid output measures might equallybe related to discipline and behavior in school, attitudes and interest in the subject, manual skills, the abil-ity to achieve higher order thinking and reasoning about problems, and the extent to which students feelthat they have mastered science and feel confident about it. At the moment, there is broad agreement thatstandardized achievement test scores should not be used as definitive measures of the outputs of education,but there is no consensus on what combination of other output measures should be used instead.

Such difficulties aside, practical research in the literature often fails to explain fully the effects of pro-grams. Studies of programs that identify highly atble children and educate them apart from their peers oftenshow that these children’s achievement scores increase more rapidly than those of their age peers. To deter-mine the contribution to achievement scores added by the program, account must be taken of the differen-tial in the rise of scores (due, for example, to maturation) that would have occurred in any case; observa-tions on a control group should be part of the analysis.

In addition, problems in reaching conclusions that are of national relevance arise from the difficultyevaluators have in gaining access to already-beleaguered schools to study programs, and from the expenseof doing national evaluations of the worth of particular programs. Schools are increasingly reluctant toallow researchers access to classrooms, since they feel that they are asked to provide too much informationalready, with too much of it being used against them. These factors sometimes lead researchers to use smallsamples chosen from unrepresentative school environments for their studies, which diminish the force ofresearch findings. Sometimes researchers argue that the results can be extrapolated to much larger popula-tions, but that argument can only be sustained when other characteristics of the populations, such as socio-economic status, ethnic composition, and urbanicity of the school chosen, are matched.

NSF Teacher Training Institutes Program most of the institutes focused on improving

Between 1954 and 1974, NSF spent a total ofover $500 million (or over $2 billion in 1987 dol-lars) on teacher training institutes, most of themfor secondary school teachers.” These institutescame in several forms. Most were full-time sum-mer programs, others part-time after-school pro-grams, and others full-time academic year pro-grams. Some were aimed at high school teachers,others at elementary and middle school teachers,and others at science supervisors. At that time,the consensus was that the teaching force was defi-cient in content knowledge about science, and

271 bid., vol. 1, p. 133. Expression in 1987 dollars is an OTAestimate.

teachers’ knowledge about science, largely bymeans of lectures. Few of them addressed teach-ing practices. Most institutes were based at col-leges and universities, which organized the pro-grams and paid teachers stipends and travelexpenses for attending.

By today’s standards, the model that these in-stitutes adopted—that giving mathematics and sci-ence teachers better subject knowledge would leadto better teaching—seems rather primitive. Anyreplication of these institutes would now focus onachieving a balance between knowledge and ex-perience of how to teach science and mathematicstogether with what to teach. Nevertheless, evi-

1 2 0

dence suggests that the former mathematics andscience teaching force was so poorly endowedwith subject knowledge that emphasis on contentover practice was largely inevitable.

At their peak in the early -1960s, about 1,000institutes were offered annually, each with be-tween 10 to 150 teachers meeting over a 4- to 12-week period; just over 40,000 teachers werereached annually (about 15 percent of the highschool mathematics and science teaching force).The institutes were reorganized in 197’0, by whichtime NSF had judged that the institutes hadreached about as many teachers as any voluntaryprogram ever would. A survey taken in 1977found that many teachers had participated in NSF-funded institutes. The survey indicated that nearly80 percent of mathematics and science supervi-sors had attended an institute, as had 47 percentof science teachers and 37 percent of mathematicsteachers of grades 10 to 12. Only about 5 percentof teachers of kindergarten through third gradehad attended such an institute.

Improvement of the skills of the elementaryteaching force will always be difficult, becausethere are over 1 million individuals who teach atleast some elementary mathematics and science(along with many other subjects), and becauseuniversity-based mathematics and science educa-tors generally find it harder to reach elementaryteachers than they do high school teachers. Forexample, it is estimated that NSF’s current effortsreach, at most, 2 or 3 percent of secondary math-ematics and science teachers .28

Evaluation of the effects of these institutes hasyielded no consensus on their usefulness. Teacherswho participated are enthusiastic about them andremember them as stimulating and professionallyrefreshing. The General Accounting Office re-viewed research on NSF-funded institutes andfound little or no evidence that such institutes hadimproved student achievement scores.29 WhereasNSF remains cautious in claiming effectiveness,

‘blb]cl., vol. 1, pp. 133-134.WSuch a post hoc measure, however, may bear no relation to the

~ priori goal of the institutes, namely, to update teacher’s knowl-edge. See U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, New Direc-tions tor Federal Programs To Aid Mathematics and Science Teach-ing, GAO ~ PEMD-84-5 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government printingOffice, Mar. 6, 1984).

many science educators think that the instituteswere very successful. Various studies, incIudingone by the Congressional Research Service in1975, found that the institutes had positiveeffects. 30

NSF did not attempt a systematic comprehen-sive evaluation of its own during the lifetime ofthe institutes. The institutes concentrated on im-proving the mathematical and scientific knowledgeof teachers, but there is no direct relationship be-tween teachers’ knowledge, their effectiveness asteachers, and educational outcome measures suchas students’ achievement test scores .31 In prac-tice, teachers need both some knowledge of math-ematics and science and some pedagogical skillsto be effective teachers.

Anecdotal evidence drawn from a history of thisprogram and from the OTA survey of NARSTmembers indicated that the teacher institutes pro-gram had these important effects:

● It brought teachers up-to-date with currentdevelopments in science.

Ž It brought teachers closer to the actual pro-cess of doing science and thereby improvedboth their identification with, and sense ofcompetence in, science.

Ž It helped teachers share common solutionsand problems, and gave them a network ofpeers that they kept in touch with many yearsafter the programs ended.

• It allowed teachers to do experimental workin science, which many of them had neverdone before, and thereby encouraged themto replicate this experience for their students.

● It helped define leaders for the science edu-cation community, who now are effectivevoices for this community in professionalmeetings and policy debates.

30U S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, The NationalScience Foundation and Pre-College Science Education: 19.50-1975,Committee Print of the U.S. House of Representatives Committeeon Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research,and Technology, January 1976; Hillier Krieghbaum and HughRawsom, An lnvestrnent in Knowledge (New York, NY: New YorkUniversity Press, 1969); and Victor L. Willson and Antoine M.Garibaldi, “The Association Between Teacher Participation in NSFInstitutes and Student Achievement, ” Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, vol. 13, No. 5, 1976, pp. 431-439.

31 Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 1, p. 130.

121

● It recognized the importance of the work ofmathematics and science teachers.

● It inspired and invigorated teachers to faceanother year of teaching.

Among problems with the institutes, however,were the following:

● Since teacher participation was voluntary,only those teachers who were the most in-terested and motivated in science teachingparticipated. The least interested and leastqualified shunned the program, which con-sequently reached at best only about one-halfof all teachers (though this is not an insig-nificant number).

● Since many of the institutes offered gradu-ate credit, the program helped subsidize stu-dents’ progress toward master’s and doctoraldegrees in education. Possession of thesedegrees may have helped impel good teachersout of active teaching into administration,or into other jobs entirely.

● The institutes succeeded in conveying muchinformation about new developments in sci-ence, but gave teachers few clues as to howto teach this information to their classes.

● The institutes were typically lecture courses.

The costs of the teacher institutes were large,particularly for the academic year institutes, forwhich teachers were pulled from classrooms.Typical costs today for teacher institute programsare reported at about $25 to $40 per hour perteacher. If a minimum of 100 hours is assumedfor length of the institute to make it meaningful,for a total cost per teacher of about $3,000, itwould cost about $600 million to put all second-ary mathematics and science teachers through oneinstitute each.32

A small program of teacher institutes is nowfunded through the Teacher Preparation and En-hancement Program at NSF. In general, these putmore emphasis on teaching techniques in mathe-matics and science than did the earlier institutes.Evaluations of these institutes indicate that theyare having some success .33

jzlbid,, VO]. 1, p. 132.33 Renate C. Lippert et a]”~ “An Evaluation of Classroom Teach-

ing Practices One Year After a Workshop for High School PhysicsTeachers, ” unpublished paper, May 1987; and Margaret L. While

Any future replications could build on success-ful NSF-sponsored models for inservice education,and would need to be based on a stronger part-nership between school districts and universitiesthan existed 20 years ago. Alternatively, NSFcould try to act as a catalyst, persuading Statesand school districts to fund such inservice edu-cation directly.34 Either way, the school must berecognized as the appropriate unit; teachers aloneare neither the problem nor the solution. Or-ganizational change is needed, and that impingeson all aspects of the system, from the classroomand school administration to the local district andState jurisdictions.

NSF-Funded Curriculum Improvements

In the 1960s and 1970s, NSF spent about $200million on over 50 curriculum reform efforts.Their main focus was on the sciences rather thanmathematics, and the new curricula have had asignificant impact on the science education ofmany students.

To protect against Federal domination of cur-riculum, NSF did not review these projects oncecompleted and ensured that the materials wereheld and disseminated by the developer ratherthan by NSF. Nevertheless, a fifth grade socialstudies curriculum, “Man: A Course of Study, ”attracted considerable criticism and congressionalscrutiny in 1975; some critics found it offensiveand unacceptable for children. NSF has since beenextremely cautious in curriculum developmentever since.

The curricula were almost all developed byteams headed by scientists, but often involvedmathematics and science educators, and generaleducators; they were largely designed to conveythe content and structure of the separate scien-

et al., “Biosocial Goals and Human Genetics: An Impact Study ofNSF Workshops,” Science Education, vol. 71, No. 2, 1987, pp.137-144.

340r the National Science Foundation could concentrate on de-veloping a smaller number of lead mathematics and science teacherswho would then enthuse the remaining teacher force. This latterstrategy is advocated in the recent SRI report, primarily becauseof the cost and difficulty of organizing another mass program toreach all mathematics and science teachers. Such a program, how-ever, would focus change one further step away from students’ ac-tual learning about mathematics and science than even the teacherinstitute program would. See Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, p.135.

122

tific disciplines.35 Many believed that the highschool curricula were too demanding, however,and worked well only for those planning collegemajors in science and engineering. Many believedthat the scientists dominated the projects and thatfeedback on the new materials was not sought.

In 1968-69, it was estimated that nearly 4 mil-lion students (about 10 percent of the total) wereusing some kind of NSF-funded curriculum ma-terials. A 1977 survey found that about one-halfof the science classes in grades 6 to 12 were usingsuch materials, although only about 10 percentof mathematics classes in these grades were.36

NSF recently reinstated curriculum development,and is funding a series of three-way collaborativeprojects (involving publishers, universities, andschool districts) to develop elementary science cur-ricula,

Research reflects a consensus that the new cur-ricula worked quite well. A review of evaluationstudies found that, compared to control groups,students taking new curricula scored higher onachievement tests, had more positive attitudestoward science, and exhibited fewer sex differ-ences in these attributes. Students taught byteachers who had been through preparatoryteacher institutes for the curricula scored morehighly than their peers taking the new curriculawithout this benefit.

37 It is clear that successfulimplementation of new curricula is very closelytied to teacher training; curriculum projects areof little use without support for teachers to mas-ter the new curriculum and put it into practice.Earlier elementary science education curricula,such as the Science Curriculum ImprovementStudy (SCIS), Elementary Science Study (ESS),and Science: A Process Approach (SAPA) did not

3’Ibid., vol. 1, p. 92.‘“Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science,

Mathematics, and Social Studies Education (Research Triangle Park,NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, 1978), p. 83.

3TA comprehensive analysis of 81 other studies is reported inJames A. Shymansky et al., “A Reassessment of the Effects of 60’sScience Curricula on Student Performance: Final Report, ” mimeo,n.d. (a reworking of material originally published in 1983). Alsosee Patricia E. Blosser, “What Research Says: Research Related toInstructional Materials for Science, ” School Science and Mathe-matics, vol. 86, No. 6, October 1986, pp. 513-517; and Ted Bred-derman, “Effects of Activity-Based Elementary Science on StudentOutcomes: A Quantitative Analysis, ” Review of Educational Re-search, VOI. 53, No. 4, winter 1983, pp. 499-518.

become well established in schools largely becauseteachers were ill-prepared to teach them.38

Among the positive effects of new curriculawere a spill-over effect to the entire mathematicsand science curriculum, such that traditional text-books from commercial publishers began to adoptmany of the techniques, such as hands-on science.The main NSF-funded mathematics curriculum,the School Mathematics Study Group, explicitlyaimed at affecting publishers’ own curricula .3”

The success of new curricula is partially at-tributed to the considerable research that wentinto them. Many are still in use in some schools;they have influenced teachers and textbooks eversince. Many teachers have extensive experiencewith these curricula, and now know how to avoidsome of the problems that the curricula can cause.

NARST members particularly cited the Biologi-cal Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), the ESS,the SAPA, and the SCIS (the last three beingelementary science curricula), as effective and val-uable curricula. Many of these curricula haveapparently been translated and adopted for usein schools in South Korea and Japan. It has beenestimated that the BSCS has been used in aboutone-half of all biology classes in the United States.One-quarter of those who graduated with a bac-calaureate degree in physics in 1983-84 had takenBSCS physics in high school.’”

Problems cited with these curricula included:

●

●

●

●

A lack of adequate financial and moral sup-port to teachers introducing the new cur-ricula.A focus on “pure” science rather than its real-life applicability.A design with only the future scientist andengineer in mind, which frustrated largenumbers of mainstream students.A domination by research scientists ratherthan science educators, precluding develop-

‘Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 1, p. 68. Ironically, anec-dotal evidence suggests that these programs were especially successfulwith minority and disadvantaged students (Shirley Malcom, Amer-ican Association for the Advancement of Science, personal com-munication, August 1988).

39Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, p. 48.‘“Ibid., vol. 1, p. 92.

123

ment of a needed team approach to the de-sign and implementation of the curricula.

● An approach embracing a view of science asa collection of neutral and immutable facts,to the exclusion of other conceptions ofscience.

Today’s science curricula have slipped back intostressing facts at the expense of reasoning and un-derstanding. One approach to future science cur-ricula might be to disregard traditional discipli-nary boundaries in science, and focus on hybriddisciplines or unifying themes and ways of ob-serving and measuring. Many science-intensiveschools integrate science with mathematicscourses, an innovation that could be followed bymost schools. In any case, the design of new cur-ricula requires the active participation of the rele-vant scientific research communities .41

Mathematics curricula also need to be im-proved. Less emphasis needs to be placed on tradi-tional rote learning. The curricula could concen-trate on new developments in mathematics andits applications, such as mathematical problemsolving, probability and statistics, and computerscience. Deficiencies of mathematics curriculahave been demonstrated by data collected for theinternational comparisons of achievement .42Curricula need to reflect the availability of thehand-held calculator. One example of a reformin progress is the new Mathematics Frameworkfor California Public Schools, which encouragescalculator use from primary grades upward.

Title II of the Education for EconomicSecurity Act of 1984

Title II of the EESA (Public Law 98-377 asamended by Public Law 99-159 and Public Law100-297) was a major congressional initiative toaddress the problems apparent in mathematicsand science education in the early -1980s. It pro-vides funds to both States and school districts toimprove the skills of teachers and the quality of

instruction in mathematics, science, computerlearning, and foreign languages in both public andprivate schools. Title II established teacher train-ing as first priority and directed that the fundsallocated to school districts must be spent on train-ing. Only if school districts demonstrate to Statesthat there is no further need for such training cansuch funds be used for other purposes, such asequipment and materials purchases or training inforeign language or computer instruction. ’3 Thelegislation also contains provisions intended toboost the participation of “underrepresented” and“underserved” groups. The legislation was reau-thorized in 1988 (Public Law 100-297), and re-named the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematicsand Science Education Act.

Title II has been funded unevenly by Congress:$100 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1985,$42 million in fiscal year 1986, $80 million in fis-cal 1987, and $120 million in fiscal year 1988. Forcomparison, the total expenditure on public andprivate elementary and secondary education in1986 was about $140 billion; the total spendingon mathematics and science teacher training wasprobably about $500 million to $1 billion. Totalspending by the Department of Education was$19.5 billion in fiscal year 1987 (so that Title IIwas a small portion of the Department’s total ef-fort). Another way of evaluating spending on Ti-tle II is to recall that, nationally, a $40 millioneducation program equates to a spending of $1per pupil or $20 per teacher.

The Department of Education’s implementationof Title II has been slow. Although funds for fis-cal 1985 were provided by Congress, grant awardswere not announced until July 2, 1985, immedi-ately after the end of the school year (effectively

delaying implementation by 12 months). How-ever, the Department now hosts regular meetingsof State Title II coordinators and publishes someinformation on exemplary State and local pro-

~lSee Philip W. Jackson, “The Reform of Science Education: ACautionary Tale, ” DaedaIus, vol. 112, No. 2, spring 1983, pp.143-166.

42Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachievin g Curriculum(Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987); and Knappet a]., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 2, pp. 35-60.

43Even then, no more than 30 percent of the funds provided toeach school district can be used to purchase computers or software,and no more than IS percent can be used for foreign language in-struction. Note also that some of the funds appropriated under theact are spent on these areas via the Secretary’s Discretionary Fund(see below).

124

grams that have been funded through the TitleII program.”

The legislation specifies in some detail the in-tended fate of the sums appropriated, leaving rela-tively little discretion to the Department of Edu-cation, the States, or school districts. It is worthexamining the provision of the legislation in some

“Carolyn S. Lee (cd.), “Exemplary Program Presentations, TitleII of the Education for Economic Security Act, ” mimeo preparedby the U.S. Department of Education for the December 1987 meet-ing of Title 11 coordinators, Washington, DC; and Carolyn S. Lee(cd.), “Exemplary Projects: Mathematics, Science, Computer Learn-ing, and Foreign Languages: A Collection of Projects FundedThrough Title 11 of the Education for Economic Security Act,” mimeoprepared for December 1987 meeting of Title 11 Coordinators, Wash-ington, DC.

detail to understand the way in which mathe-matics and science education programs adminis-tered through the Department of Education oper-ate. (See figure 6-1.)45

Of the funds appropriated under Title II, 90 per-cent is sent straight to the States as categoricalgrants. Nine percent is retained by the Depart-ment of Education to be spent on “National Pri-ority Programs“ in science, mathematics, com-puter, and foreign language education via theSecretary of Education’s Discretionary Fund, and

‘sThe following is based on the allocations that applied duringfiscal years 1985 to 1988. They have been amended somewhat inthe recent reauthorization of the legislation.

Figure 6-l.— Distribution of Federal Funds Appropriated Under Title II ofthe Education for Economic Security Act of 1984

5%

5%

School districts 44%

Exemplary programsrun by State EducationAgencies 12. 6%

Technical assistanceto school districtsby Sta tes 3 .1%

State admin is t ra t ion 3 .1%

Higher educat ion(State higher education agencies)

75% Grants toCoIIeges/universities

20%

20% Cooperativeprograms 5.4%

5%State administration

1.4%

I

25%

Colleges, universities,States, nonprofits,school districts

7.5%

Colleges/u diversitiesfor foreign languagei ns t ruc t ion

2,5%

NOTE: Numbers in italics are final percentages of the original Department of Education 100Yo allocation; the numbers not Italicized are distribution formulas.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on data from the U.S. Department ot Education.

125

the remaining 1 percent is divided equally betweenthe U.S. Territories and Insular Areas and theU.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Each State mustsubmit a plan for the use of the funds to the Sec-retary of Education before the State’s allocationcan be released.

The States’ 90 percent allocation is dividedamong the States (including Puerto Rico and theDistrict of Columbia) on the basis of the size oftheir school-age populations, with the proviso thateach State must receive at least 0.5 percent of thetotal appropriation. Of the sum that each Statereceives, 30 percent must be given directly to theState’s higher education agency (primarily forelementary and secondary teacher training pro-grams), leaving 70 percent to be allocated by theState education agency for elementary and sec-ondary education (no more than 5 percent of eachof these allocations can be used for State admin-istrative costs). Of the funds given to each State’seducation agency, 70 percent must be dividedamong the school districts, giving equal weightto the size of the total public and private school-age population and the number defined as “dis-advantaged” under the Chapter 1 program of theEducation Consolidation and Improvement Actof 1981. The 30 percent share of funds intendedfor elementary and secondary education that isretained by the State must be spent on exemplaryprograms in teacher training and instructionalequipment, including those designed specificallyto benefit the disadvantaged or the gifted, and ontechnical assistance to school districts.

Of the sum allocated to the Secretary’s Discre-tionary Fund, 25 percent must be awarded tohigher education for use in foreign language in-struction improvement, and 75 percent must bespent on competitive awards for special programs.So far, two competitions for this fund have beenheld, awarding $5 million. In these competitions,special consideration must be given to magnetschool programs for gifted and talented studentsand for historically underserved groups in scienceand engineering.

The net effect of the Title 11 legislation is to dis-perse appropriated funds very widely withoutconsideration of whether dilution reaches a thresh-old where the funds make no discernible impact

on mathematics and science education. Almostall school districts in the Nation have receivedsmall amounts of these funds; the problem is thesize of the allocation. One-half of all the annualgrants made to school districts under Title II werefor less than $1,000 and one-quarter were for un-der $250; some districts have refused to apply forthe funds, citing the desultory amounts of moneythat they would get as a result.46 Most State Ti-tle II coordinators do not collect detailed data onthe uses of these funds, but they believe that mostare used for inservice training and workshops.Very little goes to support alternative certifica-tion and programs for training new teachers orteachers switching into science and/or mathe-matics. 47

The legislation required States to justify theirneeds for this funding by providing needs assess-ments to the Department of Education, describ-ing their plans for upgrading teacher quality inmathematics, science, computer learning, and for-eign languages. Data yielded by these assessmentshave been of variable quality. CCSSO, with fund-ing from NSF, did attempt to encourage Statesto report their data using common formulae andtabulations, and about 33 States (mainly thesmaller States) supported this program. Congressrequired the Department of Education to provideit with a summary of the needs assessments in thefiscal 1986 NSF authorization (Public Law 99-1!59);the Department fulfilled this requirement in Sep-tember 1987, although this document itself notedthat it was of limited usefulness since the”. . . re-suiting needs assessment reports . . . are highlyidiosyncratic and do not readily lend themselvesto national generalizations .”48

lbThe evaluation of the distribution of funds under the programnotes that one (unnamed) school district, which would receive $25under the program, was advised by its State Title iI coordinatorto discuss the district’s inservice training needs for teacners over twoand a half cases of beer.

47Ellen L. Marks, Title II of the Education for Economic SecurityAct: An Analysis of First-Year Operations (Washington, DC: Po]-icy Studies Associates, October 19$6).

48Royce Dickens et al., “State Needs Assessments, Title 11 EESA:A Summary Report, ” prepared for U.S. Department of Education,Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, August 1987.

126

Data and Research Funded by theDepartment of Education and theNational Science Foundation

The Federal Government, through NSF and theDepartment of Education, supports a great dealof data collection and analysis, as well as educa-tional research and evaluation that is relevant tomathematics and science education. The follow-ing programs are active:

● Office of Studies and Program Assessment,NSF, providing data and management infor-mation on the national state of mathematicsand science education;

● Program of Research in Teaching and Learn-ing, NSF, funding educational research on ef-fective teaching and learning in schools anduniversities;

● Center for Education Statistics, Office of Edu-cational Research and Improvement (OERI),Department of Education, providing nationaldata on education in all subjects; and

● research programs in OERI, funding educa-tional research by individual investigatorsand centers, and its dissemination throughresearch and development (R&D) centers anddatabases, such as ERIC.

The overall system of data collection on math-ematics and science education would benefit fromgreater formal coordination between NSF and theDepartment of Education.49 The best work hasbeen done by NSF, particularly its two NationalSurveys of Mathematics and Science Education(in 1977 and 1985-86, respectively). But data onclass enrollments by sex, race, and ethnicity arenot available from the 1985-86 survey, and pre-liminary data on course-taking by high schoolgraduates from the National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress 1987 High School TranscriptStudy appeared late in 1987. A new Departmentof Education study, the National Educational Lon-gitudinal Study, officially began in 1988. It would

4QInformal coordination has been practiced for a long time, in-cluding joint National Science Foundation (Science and Engineer-ing Education Directorate) -Department of Education review ofeducational research proposals (Richard Berry, former National Sci-ence Foundation staff, personal communication, August 1988).

be valuable to have recent data to gauge the ef-fects of educational reforms.5o

Educational research in mathematics and sci-ence is in even more tenuous shape, however,having suffered (along with research in other sub-ject areas) from budget cuts,51 disputes amongseveral relevant disciplines (including psychologyand cognitive science), and a failure to pursuemore active development programs as well asbasic research.52 In particular, education re-search in mathematics and science is still recov-ering from the shutdown of NSF’s SEE Directoratein the early 1980s. 53 The key to better research,ultimately, will be better dissemination and de-velopment work that builds on the base of em-pirical knowledge. Data collection from States andschool districts should be improved by changesenacted by Congress during the recent reauthor-ization of Federal education legislation.

The Department of Education also runs the Na-tional Diffusion Network (NDN), established in1973, which disseminates and provides some fund-ing for implementation of curricula that are ofdemonstrated educational benefit. NDN programscover all levels of education, including higher edu-cation. By December 1987, there were 450 pro-grams in NDN, and they were being used in about20,000 schools with 2 million students. Ten ofthese programs were in science, four of which hadoriginally been developed, in part or whole, withfunds from NSF. Recent programs had been de-veloped with Title II funds. NDN funds dissemi-nation of programs, and the average grant isabout $50,000 over 4 years.54

50The CounC.] of chief state School Officers also coordinates

various data collections by the States. Other Department ofEducation-funded longitudinal studies, the National LongitudinalStudy and the High School and Beyond survey, have proved to beinvaluable as well.

51U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Education Informa-tion: Changes in Funds and Prion”ties Have ALfected Production andQuality, GAO/F’Eh4D-88-4 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, November 1987).

Szon rewarch needs in science education genera]ly, see MarciaC. Linn, “Establishing a Research Base for Science Education: Chal-lenges, Trends, and Recommendations, ” Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, vol. 24, No. 3, 1987, pp. 191-216.

53See Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 2, pp. 1-27 to 1-50.For example, see National Science Foundation, Summary of ActiveAwards, Studies and Analyses Program (Washington, DC: March1988).

~All data are from U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, Science Education Pro-

127

-.

Education Programs in theMission Research Agencies

Federal R&D mission agencies are active inmathematics and science education. The bulk ofactivity is in informal outreach programs, suchas classroom visits, NASA’s Spacemobile, labora-tory open houses, career days, and science fairs.These programs touch tens of thousands of stu-dents—but only to a small degree. Some Federallaboratories “adopt” a high school, and therebydevelop extensive contact with teachers and stu-dents. Adoption programs usually involve littleor no direct cost to the agency, since they relyon employee volunteers to speak at schools, judgefairs, or host a visiting school group. Becausethese kinds of programs are informal in nature,they do not have established budgets or staff atthe agency, and depend on the initiative of re-search staff as well as any education coordina-tors that the agency may have. They tend to waxand wane. Usually only a handful of people atany agency (including its field laboratories) workfull time on education.

A few agencies also have modest programs totrain and support mathematics and scienceteachers, ranging from summer research andrefresher courses to resource centers where theycan work with and copy instructional materials.None of the extensive teacher training workshopsreach more than a few dozen teachers, however.One exception is NASA’s interactive videoconfer-ences on NASA’s activities in space science edu-cation, which have drawn about 20,000 teacherseach time.

The other genre of program is in research par-ticipation or apprenticeships, which reaches onlya very few students but in much greater depth.These programs bring students, usually juniorsor seniors in high school, into agency laboratoriesfor research experience in ongoing mission R&D.

These research apprenticeships are powerfulmechanisms. For example, since 1980, the NIHMinority High School Student Research Appren-ticeship Program has awarded grants to univer-

grams That Work: A Collection of Proven Exemplary EducationalPrograms and Practices in the National Diffusion Network, PIP 88-849 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

sities and medical schools to bring students in forsummer research projects. Students participate inall aspects of research; they collect data, reviewliterature, attend seminars, use computers, andwrite up findings. In 1988, over 400 students willbe supported on NIH grants totaling $1.5 million.At the program’s peak in 1985-86, 1,000 studentsparticipated each summer. Over half the partici-pants are Black; about 20 percent are Hispanic,another 20 percent Asian. Over half are female.Students are selected for aptitude and motivation,and on the recommendation of their scienceteacher. 55

Mission agency summer research programs to-gether support perhaps a few thousand highschool students—certainly under 10,000—but, inany case, more than NSF’s comparable programdoes. Full-fledged programs cost on the order ofjust under $1,000 to around $3,000 per student.Most of the cost is in salary for the student; thereusually is significant cost-sharing with the hostlaboratory, and often with industry and other pri-vate supporters. Shorter summer programs, wherestudents come in for a few weeks, or programsthat mix hands-on research with instruction or ca-reer sessions, are less costly per student (up to afew hundred dollars); they also provide a less in-tensive experience.

Mission agency education activities, mostly lo-cal and informal, complement to a large extentthe formal, research-oriented and nationwide pro-grams of NSF. The mission agencies are particu-larly successful at reaching diverse populations.The programs build on the existing agency staffand facilities; many make special efforts to reachfemales and minorities. Formal minority researchapprenticeships were established in 1979 by theOffice of Science and Technology Policy for themajor R&D agencies.

The mission agencies have unique strengths inreaching out to young science and mathematics

‘sThe National Institutes of Health evaluation testifies to the suc-cess of the research apprenticeships in encouraging participants toattend college and pursue a research career; 60 percent of studentssay that the experience influenced their career decisions. One of thetouted strengths of the program is its flexibility and the institution’sleeway in awarding and using the grants (the grants include salary

for the apprentice, which may also be used for supplies or any rele-vant education activity). National Institutes of Health, personal com-munication, May 1988.

128

students. Federal research laboratories around thecountry are a particularly valuable resource foreducation, with unique facilities and equipment.DOE and NASA have large, visible laboratoriesdoing state-of-the-art research in exciting areassuch as space flight, lasers, the environment, andenergy. Many of these laboratories are in areaswhere there is little or nothing else in the way ofsophisticated research facilities. There is no placeelse students (or teachers) can see, touch, andwork with equipment like rocket engines, whetherit is for an afternoon visit or a summer of research.The thousands of researchers at these laboratoriesare likewise a valuable resource, offering inspi-ration, expertise on careers and nearly any spe-cial area of research, real-life role models foryoungsters, and mentors for students doing re-search.

The ethos behind mission agency education ef-forts is to improve the quality and coverage ofelementary and secondary education in their mis-sion area, and ultimately to help ensure an ade-quate supply of scientists and engineers workingboth for the agency and in areas that support theagency’s mission. (See table 6-4. )

Major Mission Agency Programs

NASA is one of the most active and innova-tive mission agencies in education. Public educa-tion has been an integral part of NASA since itsinception, and is a natural response to the con-tinuing interest of children—and adults—in spacescience and exploration. The excitement ofNASA’s space mission clearly is an interestingway to package basic science and mathematics les-

Table 6-4.—Summary of Mission Agency K-12 Mathematics and Science Education Programs

FY 1988 Number of Females/Agency programs budget students minorities?

Summer research and enrichment:DOE High School Honors Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOE Minority Student Research Apprenticeships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NIH Minority High School Student Research Apprenticeships . . . . . . . . . .DoD Research in Engineering Apprenticeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DoD High School Apprenticeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Office of Naval Research, Army Research Office, Air Force Office ofScientific Research)

USDA Research Apprenticeship (Agricultural Research Service). . . . . . . . .NASA Summer High School Research Apprenticeship Program . . . . . . . . .

General enrichment: a

DOE Prefreshman Engineering Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DoD/Army Computer-Related Science and Engineering Studies

(4 weeks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DoD UNITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NOAA D.C. Career Orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EPA summer internshipsUSDA 4-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Teacher training and support:NASA education workshops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NASA resource centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOE research experience and institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .USGS summer jobs for teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Informal outreach: b

All agencies (especially NASA and DoD); (also NIST, DOE, USDA, NOAA,USGS, EPA, NIH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$550,000$120,000$1.5 M

$250,000

$300,000

$50,000

$30,000

$70-100 M

$1 M+

$250,000unknown

320200410

200125

2,000

60500-2,000

24

5 M

unknownunknown

5020-90

hundreds ofthousands

NYYYY

Y

Y

YY

N

aResearch, instruction, career orientation’ usually short-term residential.bclassroom visits and demon~tration~, science fairs, talent searches, career fairs, laboratory open houses, weekend instruction and hands-on programs, partnerships

(“adopt a school”), materials development and lending.NOTE: Most programs include cost-shartng with host institution, and often with local industry and other sponsors.KEY: DOE = Department of Energy NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NIH = National Institutes of Health EPA = Environmental Protection AgencyUSDA = US. Department of Agriculture USGS = U.S. Geological SurveyNASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration NLST = National Institute of Standards and TechnologyDoD = Department of Defense

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

129

sons. An educational affairs division was formallycreated in 1986. NASA supports elementary andsecondary teachers with workshops and resourcematerials at NASA’s field centers. NASA is alsoreviewing and supplementing existing curricula,and has produced videotapes, satellite broadcasts,videodiscs, electronic tutors, and other innova-tive educational technologies. NASA has a sum-mer high school apprenticeship, which employsabout 125 students, most of them minority. I naddition, about 30 full-time education outreachstaff (mostly former teachers) spend over 160 dayson the road with the Spacemobile (a mobile re-source center for children about the space pro-gram), presenting school assemblies and classrooms. 56

DOE, in cooperation with its national labora-tories, has one of the most extensive programs forstudent summer research among the Federal agen-cies. It has several programs, for example, the highschool honors research program (320 students,$550,000), and minority student research appren-ticeships (200 students, $120,000). DOE brings inteachers, offering them research experience andtraining (in 1988, 50 teachers, $250,000). It is alsobuilding science education centers in its national

“See National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Educa-tional Affairs Plan: A Five-Year Strategy, FY 1988 -1992,” unpub-lished manuscript, October 1987.

Photo credit Children Television Workshop

There are many Federal programs which supportinnovation and research i n science

and mathematics education.

laboratories as part of a university-laboratory co-operative program.

DOE and the Department of Defense (DoD) arethe only agencies with substantial involvement inearly engineering education. The prefreshmanengineering program (PREP) awards money touniversities to sponsor summer programs for fe-males and minorities in junior high and highschool. PREP programs include research experi-ence, instruction, and career and college prepara-tion. It reaches 2,000 students ($300,000), andbenefits from substantial cost sharing and in-kindsupport.

Various offices of DoD support UNITE (Unini-tiated Introduction to Engineering), which rangefrom short stays to many-week research appren-ticeships on engineering campuses. UNITE ses-sions include engineering and other technicalclasses, planning for college, career seminars,visits to military laboratories and facilities, andmeetings with military engineers. Extensive fol-lowup of students shows that the program works.Students report that it helped shape their careergoals; it turned some off, but it turned many moreon to engineering. (UNITE is a military offshootof programs sponsored by the Junior Engineer-ing Technical Society, or JETS, a private orga-nization with extensive corporate support. JETScoordinates Minority Introduction to Engineer-ing programs to introduce students to engineer-ing and college, most often as 1- or 2-week sum-mer programs at universities. ) The Research inEngineering Apprenticeship Program pays severalhundred high school students to do mentoredsummer research at defense laboratories.

The National Institute of Standards and Tech-nology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau ofStandards, is a relatively small agency with fewregional facilities. However, it does extensive in-formal outreach from its major laboratories inMaryland and Colorado. NIST encourages its re-search staff to give talks and demonstrations atschools, and work with science fairs and infor-mal education programs.

USDA is surprisingly active in early scienceeducation. In particular, the well-established 4-H program, which has over 5 million participantsin counties throughout the Nation, reaches an

130

enormous number of children. USDA is launch-ing an initiative to bring more basic science con-tent into 4-H programs, involving such modernareas relevant to agricultural research as biotech-nology and remote sensing. (See box 6-C. ) Theyhave received a small amount of funding fromNSF to develop innovative science programswithin 4-H. USDA also has many informal out-

Within the Department of the Interior, the U.S.Geological Survey has extensive and well-orga-nized elementary and secondary education pro-grams. They also sponsor summer jobs for geol-ogy teachers. Other branches of the Departmentof the Interior have educational programs, mostlyinformal outreach. Much of the work of the In-terior lends itself to summer internships for

reach and career programs. The Agricultural Re- students.search Service is the home for USDA’s summerresearch apprentice program, which supportsabout 200 students each summer.

131

RETHINKING THE FEDERAL ROLE INMATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

In thinking of any policy problem, it is usefulto identify what goals a system is intended tomeet, what alternative actions need to be weighed,and how those actions can be implemented to ful-fill system goals. In the case of elementary andsecondary mathematics and science education, itis the last of these that is the most difficult. Whatneeds to be done is much more obvious than de-termining how it is to be done. The Federal Gov-ernment is historically at least one step removedfrom those who have the most direct influence onteaching and learning-families, teachers, schools,and students. The Federal Government can anddoes provide incentives and support for some ac-tions rather than others; rethinking the mecha-nisms of Federal support affects the larger issueof the division of roles nationally in education.

Mathematics and science education are part ofa much larger set of issues with national dimen-sions; all, however, are built from the ground up:neighborhood schools, locally elected schoolboards, and State governments. The tension be-tween national and local priorities has a long his-tory, but is ultimately an essential part of theAmerican system of participatory democracy.Reconciling national and local visions should be

regarded as the job of educational policymaking,not an obstacle in its way.

Today, a new phase of Federal interest in edu-cation is developing. It is based on the need totrain a better quality work force as well as theneed to ensure equity of educational provision toall young Americans. The heightened importanceof these needs will require change in several areas,including organizational arrangements in schoolsand school districts, the upgrading of the teacherwork force, and, ultimately, new spending. Thereal cost of elementary and secondary educationis already rising. More important, the need to im-prove mathematics and science course offerings,introduce more experimental work in classrooms,extend informal learning opportunities, and fuelenrichment programs both in and out of schoolcannot be met by improvements in the existingsystem alone. In particular, greater use will bemade of both individual and collective learningstyles in class and out.

The special challenge to formal mathematicsand science education is its ability to commandadequate, but not excessive, attention relative tothe vast number of other issues that arise inelementary and secondary education.

Appendixes

Appendix A

Major Nationally Representative Databaseson K-12 Mathematics and Science

Education and Students

Longitudinal

1972-86 (continuing)’

National Longitudinal Study (National Center forEducation Statistics, Department of Education). Thecohort studied is 23,451 high school seniors (1972), en-rolled in a total of 1,318 high schools. Followups wereconducted in 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77, and 1979-80.A fifth followup was conducted on a subsample in1986. In each followup, data were collected on highschool experiences, background, opinions and atti-tudes, and life plans. Participants were subjected toa battery of achievement tests only in the first survey.

1980- Present

High School and Beyond Survey (Center for Statis-tics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,Department of Education). This survey contains twocohorts, starting in 1980. The first is a sample of 30,000high school sophomores, and the second a sample of28,000 high school seniors. These cohorts were en-rolled in 1,015 public and private schools and are sam-pled every 2 years. The purpose of the survey is “. . .to observe the educational and occupational plans andactivities of young people as they pass through the . . .system and take on their adult roles. ” The 1980 and1982 surveys consist of a questionnaire (on attitudes,educational plans, family background, socioeconomicstatus data, and activities outside of school) and cog-nitive tests. The tests were developed by the Educa-tional Testing Service and were intended to measurecognitive growth in three domains: verbal, mathe-

‘Dates refer to time of data collection. Post-1986 databases currently un-der construction and subject solely to primary analysis are excluded. For ti-tles of ongoing database projects supported by the National Science Founda-tion, see Summary of Active Awards, Studies and Analysis Program(Washington, DC: March 1988).

‘General note on the two surveys in this catego~: although they are in-tended to be similar and comparable, they differ. High School and Beyondincludes data from parents and teachers, as well as from high school tran-scripts (allowing relationships between course-takings, achievement, and des-tinations to be estimated). The definition of “Hispanic” has also changed be-tween the two studies, affecting comparisons of minority performance, Thelow response rate to the National Longitudinal Study limits its usefulness.The 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study will reduce such limi-tations,

matics, and science. The most recent followup datawere released in 1988. No achievement tests wereadministered in the 1986 surveys.

Cross-Sectional

Various Years

National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEp) (formerly administered by the EducationCommission of the States and now by EducationalTesting Service, Inc. (ETS)). NAEP is a congression-ally mandated program, funded by the Office of Edu-cational Research and Improvement of the Departmentof Education, that assesses national achievement ineducation, including science and mathematics.3 ETSnow refers to it as “The Nation’s Report Card. ” Themost recent science and mathematics assessments werein 1985-86 (published in June 1988); previous assess-ments were in 1981-82, 1977-78, 1972-73, and, for sci-ence only, 1969-70. Each science test measured bothscience attitudes and achievement. The 1981-82 and1985-86 assessments addressed attitudes to science inmore detail than before and the 1985-86 assessment,for the first time, asked for background informationon science experiences out of school and on what isbeing taught in science classrooms. In 1985-86, teacherswere also asked to provide information on their train-ing and experience, instructional methods, and theirintended curriculum. To conduct the assessment,NAEP identifies a stratified probability sample ofschools and tests students in three age groups: 9, 13,and 17. Anywhere between 60,000 and 90,000 studentstake NAEP tests, although any given test item is takenonly by 2,600 individuals. (ETS terms the technique“Balanced Incomplete Block Spiraling.”) After assum-ing responsibility for NAEP, ETS introduced a degreeof cohort matching into its assessment design.4 Co-

3The National Assessment of Educational Progress was initiated in 1969.Note that the 1981-82 science assessment was not funded by the Departmentof Education or conducted by the Educational Testing Service, but througha special grant from the National Science Foundation to the University ofMinnesota.

‘The purpose of cohort matching is to improve the confidence that can beplaced in conclusions about changes in student achievement through time.The matching will work by applying the same sampling technique to 9-year-


135

136

hort matching has not been applied to assessments be-fore 1985, which limits the ability of NAEP to sup-port conclusions about improvements or declines inscience and mathematics achievement over time.

1977 and 1985

National Surveys of Science and Mathematics Edu-cation, sponsored by the National Science Foundationand conducted by Iris Weiss of Research Triangle In-stitute. The survey requested science and mathematicscourse offerings and enrollment (by race, ethnicity,and sex), science facilities and equipment, instructionaltechniques used, and teacher training. All data wereself-reported. The 1985 survey covered 425 schools,public and private, including 6,000 teachers, and wasstratified by grades: K-3, 3-6, 7-9, and 10-12. The sur-vey was published in November 1987. The data do notaddress achievement.

1985

Survey of High School Teachers and Course Offer-ings, conducted by the National Science TeachersAssociation (NSTA). The survey was based on an“Official U.S. Registry of Teachers” maintained byNSTA, which is intended to list all science teachersof grades 7-12. All private and public secondary schoolprincipals were asked to name all their science teachersand the number of classes of each type of science thatthe teachers will teach during the coming school year.A stratified random sample of 2,211 high schools wasculled from 26,000 responses, derived in turn from atotal pool of 48,427 forms mailed. Stratification wasby seven ranges of school size, three grade structures(K-12, 7-12, and either 9-12 or 10-12), and by publicor private status. Data have been used by NSTA toestimate the number of sections of each type of sci-ence course taught, the number of high schools thatoffer either no physics, chemistry, or biology courses,the number of teachers teaching “in-field” and “out-of-field, ” and the teaching load of average physics, bi-ology, and chemistry teachers.

Annually

The American Freshman, conducted by the Coop-erative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), Univer-sity of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). CIRP andUCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute annuallysurvey incoming freshmen in full-time study in collegesand universities. Some longitudinal followup studies


olds in 1985-86 as will be applied to 13-year-olds in 1989-90 and 17-year-olds in 1993-94. The individuals tested will not be identical, however.

are attempted to track students 2 and 4 years after col-lege entry. All incoming freshmen are surveyed andthe data are stratified by type of college, public or pri-vate control, and the “selectivity level” of the institu-tion. The survey instrument solicits data on highschool background, including Scholastic Aptitude Testor American College Testing program score and gradepoint average, intended major and educational desti-nation, career intentions, financial arrangements, andattitudes.

Cross-Sectional and lnternational5

1980-82

Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS)(U.S. Co-ordinator: College of Education, Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Published as The Un-derachieving Curriculum, January 1987). Data werecollected in 1980-82 and covered 20 countries. TheU.S. survey covered 500 classrooms in 2 populations:grades eight and those completing secondary schooland taking a large number of mathematics courses (de-fined as 12th graders taking college preparatory math-ematics). Both SIMS and the Second International Sci-ence Study (S1SS) focused on three stages of theeducational process: the intended curriculum (what isin the textbooks), the implemented curriculum (whatthe teacher actually does in class and how), and theattained curriculum (what the students learned). Theintended curriculum is based on a content analysis oftextbooks, while the implemented curriculum wasmeasured by asking teachers to complete question-naires. The attained curriculum was tested by multiple-choice achievement tests. SIMS attempted to study therelationship between what happens in schools andwhat students learn, so the achievement batteries wereadministered twice: once at the beginning and once atthe end of each school year.

1983 and 1986

Second International Science Study (U.S. Coordi-nator: Teachers College, Columbia University). SISS,similarly to SIMS, attempted to address what it termedthe “intended, “ “translated,” and “achieved” curriculafor science instruction in 25 countries. SISS studied

‘The fol~wing two studies were conducted under the aegis of the Inter-national Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a non-governmental association of educational researchers. The first internationalscience study was in 1970 and the first international mathematics study wasin 1964. Both the second mathematics and science studies are “deeply” strati-fied probability samples of different types of schools, made under interna-tionally agreed on and applied guidelines. The processing and interpretationof results have been hampered by lack of funding and of a central locationfor performing the necessary work.

137

both public and private schools, and surveyed a totalof 2,000 U.S. students, broken into four populations:grade 5; grade 9; grade 12 taking second-year physics,chemistry, and biology; and grade 12 taking no sci-ence (1983 only’). In the United States, 125 schoolswere surveyed and the tests addressed science achieve-ment, attitudes, “a science learning inventory, ” anda word knowledge test. Background data on the schooland about teachers were also requested. Some itemscommon with the First International Science Studywere included; at grade 5, there were 26 such items,and at grade 9, there were 33. Both grades five andnine showed an improvement over performance in1970. Results from the two grade 12 populations in

‘Data for 1983 are suspect due to only a 30 percent response rate.

the United States have not been published. Data fromother countries are still being processed in Stockholm,funded by the Swedish Ministry of Education and theBank of Sweden. The 1986 survey addressed processskills and content, as well as teacher activities andother factors in the school environment that might af-fect achievement. Data were collected from students,science teachers, and school administrators. Processand achievement skills were tested for both grades fiveand nine. Achievement was be tested in these groups:I0th grade biology, 11th grade chemistry, and 12thgrade students with more than 1 year of study in oneor more of physics, chemistry, or biology. Technicalaspects of this survey, including data collection butnot instrument design, were contracted to the ResearchTriangle Institute.

Appendix B

Mathematics and Science Education inJapan, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union

During recent years, a steady stream of internationalcomparisons of elementary and secondary educationhas painted an increasingly bleak picture of the defi-ciencies of American mathematics and science educa-tion. Depressing comparisons with teaching practicesin Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea havebeen seized on by many of those pressing for theUnited States to address its crumbling competitiveness.The source of competitive advantage is often referredto as “human resources” or “human capital’’—skilled,talented, and flexible workers. For example, a recentcommentary noted that international comparisons ofmathematics education “ . . . typically depict Korean10-year-olds working out the Four-Color-Map Prob-lem in their heads while Americans of the same agestruggle to do double-digit multiplication withoutremoving their socks. ”1

Problems in Making InternationalComparisons

While international comparisons do point to signif-icant differences in mathematics and science courseofferings, curricula, and teaching, it is important tobear in mind two major problems in any sort of policy-oriented comparisons among cultures and countries:

● developing a sufficiently accurate explanation ofthe causes of observed differences, which are veryoften rooted in what are, to the outsider, opaquecultural and social differences in the roles of fam-ilies, business, the State, law, and education; andhence

• determining what aspects of other systems couldreadily be appropriated and transferred acrosscultures and societies, and which would be fool-ish or even counterproductive to consider trans-ferring.

For example, the United States could adopt a na-tional curriculum, but such a move would be resistedstrongly by many policymakers. Such a move wouldthreaten the fragile compacts between national and lo-cal autonomy stipulated in the Federal as well as Stateconstitutions. Further, a “national curriculum” wouldlikely consist of little more than a lowest common

‘Edward B. Fiske, “Behind Americans’ problems With Math, A Questionof Social Attitudes, ” New York Times, June 15, 1988, p. B8.

denominator of topics defined by special interestgroups and argued out line by line in highly partisancongressional debates. Rather than providing modelsto be emulated, the ultimate value of doing interna-tional comparisons may be to provide a kind of “mir-ror” in which to examine and better understand thereasons for well-entrenched, culturally rooted Amer-ican educational practices and policies.

On an analytical level, it is difficult to make soundinternational comparisons in education unless studiesare designed to compare “like with like” and to col-lect enough data to build a picture of overall educa-tional capacity—teachers, students, and schools—ineach country. In considering the high school students’exposure to mathematics and science, for example, itis important to note that the American school systemis designed to retain all students to age 18 (and actu-ally succeeds in enrolling about three-quarters of thisgroup), whereas schools in other countries typicallyenroll a much more select group of students in the 14-to 18-year-old range.

These caveats aside, it is generally agreed that theAmerican education system devotes relatively less timeto mathematics and science education compared withother countries; estimates are that American studentsspend only one-third to one-half as much time onlearning science as their peers in Japan, China, theU. S. S. R., the Federal Republic of Germany, and theGerman Democratic Republic.’ Significant differencesin the mathematical progress of children in selected cit-ies in the United States, Taiwan, and the People’sRepublic of China have been found from the elemen-tary grades. Japanese kindergarten children alreadysurpass American children in their understanding ofmathematical concepts.3 It is evident that differencesare across the entire educational system of each nation.

Japan

The country with which commentators most enjoymaking international comparisons of mathematics andscience education is Japan.’ Japanese children study

2F. James Rutherford et al., Science Education in Global Perspective: Les-sons From Five Countries (Washington, DC: American Association for theAdvancement of Science, 1985).

‘Harold W. Stevenson et al., “Mathematics Achievement of Chinese, Jap-anese, and American Children, ” Science, vol. 231, Feb. 14, 1986, pp. 693-699.

‘The following is based largely on William K. Cummings, “Japan’s Sci-ence and Engineering Pipeline: Structure, Policies, and Trends, ” OTA con-

138

139

far more mathematics and science than American chil-dren, and more of them emerge from schools with agreater degree of scientific and technological literacythan do American children. Japanese institutions ofhigher education can draw from an exceptionally well-qualified crop of students. In addition, many go onto science and engineering majors; it is estimated that,in proportion to its population, Japan produces asmany scientists and twice as many engineers as doesthe United States.

Japanese education resides within the cultural milieuof Japan. A well-known recent study explored the im-portance of families in mathematics education. WhileJapanese families considered poor performance inmathematics to be a consequence of lack of effort,American families more often attributed success to in-nate ability, despite poor teaching.5

Japanese students typically attend school for 240days per year (compared with 190 in the UnitedStates), because they work a half day on Saturdays.It is believed that they spend a greater proportion ofclass time on academic activities. ’

In elementary schools, the science curriculum in-cludes matter and energy, living things and their envi-ronments, and the Earth and the universe. Thesethemes are often reinforced by educational televisionprograms broadcast by the Japan Broadcasting Asso-ciation and coordinated with the curriculum.7 Stu-dents often go on field trips with their school. It iswidely reported that Japanese mathematics and sciencecurricula demand more from their students than thosein the United States: Japanese students simply covermore ground. Although Japanese and American ele-mentary school students spend a similar amount oftime on mathematics and science, from six to eightperiods per week, the time is far more intensively usedin Japanese schools.

tractor report, October 1987 See also U.S. Study of Education in Japan, ]ap-anese Education Today, OR 87-500 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducat]on, January 1987); John Walsh, “LJ. S,-Japan Study Aim Is EducationReform, ” Science, vol. 235, Jan 16, 1987, pp. 274-275; Debra Viadero, “Ja-pan and U.S. Release Assessments of Each Other’s Education Systems, ” Edu-cation Week, Jan. 14, 1987, pp. 9, 19; Willard J. Jacobson et al., Analysesand Comparisons of Science Curricula in Japan and the United States, Sec-ond IEA Science Study (New York, NY, Columbia University Teacher’s Col-lege, 1986); and Wayne Riddle, Congressional Research Service. “Public Sec-ondary Education Systems m England, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, theUnited States, and West Germany: A Comparative Analysis, ” EPW &I-TTO,

Issue Brief, 1984, pp. 16-21,‘Stevenson et al., op. cit., footnote 3, p. 697; U.S. Study of Education in

Japan, op. cit , footnote 4, p 3.“The amount of time spent on a subject is one, somewhat crude, indica-

tor of the amount of learning in that sublect, But the amount of learning alsodepends on the efficiency of that learning, which depends in part on the qualityof teachtng methods employed and, In the elementary years, the hnks w]thother subjects Learning in mathematics and science by elementary, schoolch]ldren depends in part on their read]ng and writing abillties.

‘Tornoyukl Nogami et al , “Science Educat]on in Japan—A ComparisonW]th the U.S ,“ mimeo prepared for the National Science Teachers Associa-tion 35th National Convent Ion, Mar. 27, 1987, pp. 2-3

Research data suggest that there is less variationamong students in mathematics and science learningthan in the United States. In part that is because Japa-nese elementary schools are not grouped or trackedby ability, and the use of mixed-ability cooperativelearning groups, or han, is very common. But it is alsodue to the assumption that everyone can and must becompetent in these subjects. A recent book notes that:

It is simply taken for granted . . . that every child mustattain at the very minimum “functional mathematics, ”that is, the ability to perform mathematical calcula-tions in order to accomplish requirements successfully

at home or work.8

Japanese lower secondary schools, which covergrades seven to nine, are similar to American juniorhigh schools, but have few or no electives, Studentsare required to wear uniforms and adopt a more seri-ous and disciplined approach to work than they hadin elementary schools, There is still no sorting by abil-ity, although the use of cooperative learning groupsis rare. Upon completion of lower secondary schools,at the end of ninth grade, all students have taken someelementary geometry, trigonometry, algebra, andprobability and statistics. They have devoted between6 to 8 out of 30 weekly class periods to mathematicsand science. In science, students take a variety of gen-eral science topics, including biology, chemistry,physics, and earth science. Teachers specialize in a sub-ject area and teach only that area. The pressure to getinto a good upper secondary school leads students inlower secondary schools to be highly competitive andneurotic, and the consequent pressure to succeed isoften cited as a cause of teenage suicide. Many stu-dents attend out-of-school juku, which are coachinglessons that prepare them for examinations for entryto upper secondary schools, mostly concentrating onEnglish and mathematics.

The final 3 years of school, upper secondary schooI,are quite different from the preceding 9. Entry to thislevel is on the basis of lower secondary school recordsand common entrance examinations administered bythe local prefecture; schools can be highly selective,and there is considerable variation in the courses thatstudents take. Attendance at upper secondary schoolsis voluntary, and tuition is charged. About 90 percentof young people attend them. Typically, several up-per secondary schools serve students within a givenneighborhood and there is a clear ranking of prestigeamong them. Some upper secondary schools special-ize in academic-preparatory programs and other voca-tional programs; only about 30 percent offer both pro-grams. ’ While the post-war reforms at first embraced

‘Ben]amin Duke, The Japanese School: Lessons for Industrial America(Westport, CT: Praeger Special Stud] es, 1986), p. 82.

W S. Study of Education ]n Japan, op cit., footnote 4, p, 41,

140

the neighborhood comprehensive high school princi-ple, parents often lobbied officials to send their chil-dren to the better neighborhood schools and upper sec-ondary schools now are definitely not equal.

Within Japanese upper secondary schools, studentsselect a given course of classes, and it is very difficultto change course or take classes outside those speci-fied for that course. There are few or no electives.Typically, academic-general and vocational-special-ized courses are offered, although both often havecommon coursework in the first year. Within the aca-demic-general course there is often a branch at the endof the first year of upper secondary school, at whichpoint those planning science and engineering majorsare separated from those planning arts majors. Stu-dents are often further sorted by ability levels withineach course. About two-thirds of the students takeacademic-general courses, one-quarter take vocationalcourses, and the remainder enter specialized collegesof technology or training schools, or enter the workforce directly.

Those planning science and engineering majors takea total of 102 credits over 3 years, of which 18 are inmathematics and 16 are in science; these credits includecalculus, physics, chemistry, and biology. In grade 10,students spend 10 out of 34 hours per week in mathe-matics and science courses, rising to 14 and 18 hoursin grades 11 and 12, respectively. In grade 12, thescience-bound take 5 hours per week of integral anddifferential calculus as well as both physics and chemis-try. In total, one-half of those in academic high schoolsare in science courses. Nevertheless, the core coursesrequired for both the arts and the vocational-special-ized courses are sufficiently demanding in mathematicsand science that some students who have taken thesecourses can still compete for entry to college scienceand engineering programs. The uniformity of classesmeans that Japanese students have no equivalent ofthe advanced placement examirlations, and must allstart with freshman mathematics science programs atcollege. The upper secondary school curriculum is verydemanding, and some students fall behind and lose in-terest. The net effect is that, while the proportion of22-year-olds that receive baccalaureates in the UnitedStates and Japan is about the same (23 to 24 percent),about one-quarter of these in Japan are in natural sci-ence and engineering as compared to 15 percent in theUnited States.

Japanese public upper secondary schools are com-plemented by a number of private upper secondaryschools, in part because only a limited number of pub-lic schools were built after the war and the educationin lower grades was emphasized. About one-quarterof upper secondary schools are private. While some

of these schools are highly selective, others enroll thosewho failed to qualify for the limited number of placesin the public sector. Public schools generally carrymore prestige.

For the college-bound, the upper secondary yearsare extremely demanding as students prepare to takecollege entrance tests, In the Japanese system, thereis well-defined ranking of higher education institutionsand a student’s decision to enroll in a particular insti-tution will have, through contacts with students andprofessors, a great effect on his or her later career, jobprospects, and life. The college education that studentsreceive is relatively unchallenging. The great compe-tition to enroll in the “right” university has createdpressure for a very intensive academic curriculum andthe extensive use of examinations to sort and preparestudents for college entrance in the upper secondaryschool years. Students often take both the nationallyadministered First Stage Standardized AchievementExamination and examinations set by the particularuniversity to which they are applying, These exami-nations test only factual recall and include no testingof skills with experiments and the process of construc-tion of new scientific knowledge. In preparing for theexaminations, students often enroll in yobiko whichare similar to the juku at lower secondary level.

In many ways, it is ironic that the Japanese schoolsystem does so well in mathematics and sciencewhereas the American system has problems, becauseJapan’s schools were reorganized along American lines.The ultimate aim was to democratize and demilitarizeJapan during the post-war American occupation.Japan’s schools have also made good use of curriculaand instructional material developed in America. Jap-anese schools are run by about 50 prefectural-levelschool boards and 500 local school boards which, un-like many of their American counterparts, are filledby people appointed from above rather than elected.The national Ministry of Education, Science, and Cul-ture (monbusho) prescribes curricula, approves text-books, provides guidance and funding, and regulatesprivate schools. The prefectural boards of educationappoint a prefectural superintendent of education,operate those schools which are established by theprefectures (primarily upper secondary schools),license and appoint teachers, and provide guidance andfunding to municipalities. Municipal boards operatemunicipal schools, choose which textbooks to use fromthose approved by monbusho, and make recommen-dations about the appointment and dismissal ofteachers to the prefectural board.

The cost of education is shared by the various tiersof government and, at later stages, by parents directly,The Japanese government pays about half of the cost,

141

including some subsidies to private schools. Specialbudget equalizing regulations direct the central gov-ernment to augment the spending of poorer districtsup to a minimum level; there still remains a 60 per-cent variation in average per pupil expenditure amongschool districts. There is a uniform national pay scalefor teachers, with a modest starting salary and steadyannual increments that can triple a teacher’s incomeafter 20 years of service. Overall salaries are competi-tive with other occupations, and teaching is an attrac-tive job; there are normally at least enough applicantsfor teaching positions, even in mathematics and sci-ences. Teaching remains one of the limited number ofprofessional occupations that are readily available towomen, but most teach only in elementary schools;only 18 percent of teachers in upper secondary schoolsare female. Most teachers have degrees in single aca-demic disciplines other than education, although sub-stantial numbers have no degree at all. Each prefec-ture and large city has an education center for itsteachers, which provides inservice training and con-ducts educational research.

Curricula, in principle, are controlled by localschool boards, but the central Ministry of Educationsets standards in a “National Course of Study” andapproves textbooks. In practice, it is believed that thereis considerable uniformity of curricula. Curricula em-phasize mastery of key subjects, such as mathematicsand science, and make few concessions to individuallearning styles, predilections, and idiosyncrasies. It isa belief in Japanese culture that creativity is only pos-sible once fundamentals are mastered.

Just as Americans admire the uniformity and ex-cellence of the Japanese system, many Japanese aresearching for ways to make their system less mono-lithic and competitive, and more respectful of individ-ual creativity, particularly as the country is now stress-ing the development of a basic research capability.10

Japanese students are schooled to master factual ma-terial rather than analysis, investigation, or criticalthinking. Teacher lectures from textbooks are verycommon, although considerable use is also made oflaboratory work in science.]] Similar programs ofeducational reform analysis and activity exist in Japanand the United States; the United States program isoften taken as a model .12 The Prime Minister’s Na-tional Council on Education Reform called in Septem-ber 1987 for the school system to put more emphasis

‘Whe Japanese parallel to the U.S. Study of Education report is JapaneseStudy Group, Japan-United States Cooperative Study on Education, “Educa-tional Reforms in Japan, ” mimeo, January 1987, which studied aspects of U.S.educational reform that might translate to Japan, especially the transitionbetween secondary and higher education.

“U.S. Study of Education in Japan, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 34.“Ibid., pp. 63-67; and Walsh, op. c]t , footnote 4.

on diversity and creativity, but the council has beensplit by internal controversy over the shape of possi-ble reforms. It is believed that these calls may leadsome prefectures to combine lower and upper second-ary schools and to put a reduced emphasis on examina-tion-based sorting. ’3

Great Britain

Most observers of Great Britain’s system of mathe-matics and science education have concluded that itis very good for those who plan college study in sci-ence and engineering, but comparatively weak for therest.14 Students, by international standards, specializeat a very early age, and are offered few opportunitiesto shift interests. Preparation for examinations, whichare externally set and assessed, is the dominant activ-ity for those college-bound, Enrollment in higher edu-cation institutions is restricted both by financial mech-anisms and fairly strict entry requirements, and theproportion of British 18- to 22-year-olds that enrollin college may be the smallest in any developed nation.

Like the United States, comparatively little scienceis taught in British elementary schools and there arefew teachers qualified or motivated in the subjects. Theemphasis instead is on mathematics. Most studentsbegin science classes in one or more of the fields ofphysics, chemistry, and biology in the sixth grade,and continue them to the end of eighth grade. Ingrades 9 and 10, students choose a limited menu ofcourses to specialize in for the purposes of taking na-tionally administered school-leaving examinations(now known as the General Certificate of SecondaryEducation) at the end of 10th grade. Those college-bound in science and engineering might take six toeight subject exams, of which three or four are in math-ematics and science subjects. Enrollment in grades 11and 12 is voluntary, and is normally restricted to thosepreparing for nationally administered college entranceexaminations (known as Advanced-level, or A-level)examinations. At this stage, students normally special-ize in only two or three subjects, which tend to be re-lated to each other, although proposals have oftenbeen made to expand this number in the interests ofgiving college students a “broader education. ” In thesegrades, the science- and engineering-bound can takeonly mathematics and science subjects, if they choose.

Entry to colleges and universities in Great Britainis granted on the basis of grades and the number ofpasses awarded in the A-level examinations, and most

“David Swinbanks, “Reform Urged for ‘Helllsh’ Japanese Education Sys-tern, ” Nature, vol. 326, Apr. 16, 1987, p. 634.

“See Joan Brown et al., Science in Schools (Philadelphia, PA: OpenUmversity Press, 1986).

142

institutions make offers to students conditional upontheir achievement of certain grades. A minimum oftwo passes in two subjects at A-level is normally re-quired, and entitles the student to free tuition and ac-cess to a grant program for living expenses while atthe university.

The Soviet Union

In many ways, the mathematics and science educa-tion system in the Soviet Union is similar to the Amer-ican and British systems.l5 Each is a very uneven SYS-tem, geared primarily to training those who willbecome professional scientists and engineers. The bulkof the school population learns relatively little and isleft largely alienated from science and engineering. Theextremes in the Soviet Union, however, are quite dis-tinct. The layer of top quality students, which ranksinternationally with the best, is very thin; there is asteep drop-off below that level.

The education system in the Soviet Union, like thatin the United States, Great Britain, and Japan, is un-dergoing reforms. The impetus for these reforms is thenew national desire to improve the efficiency of in-dustry.

Soviet elementary and secondary education is splitinto three phases:

● primary or elementary education, grades 1-3● “incomplete” secondary education, grades 4-8;

and● “complete” secondary education, grades 9 and 10.

Most students complete eighth grade, normallyachieved at age 15, and then choose among severaldifferent paths. Some continue in general educationsecondary schools and are most likely to enter highereducation, while others enter the work force but con-tinue their secondary education via evening or cor-respondence courses. Higher education is open to stu-dents from each of these routes, but most collegestudents come from those who enrolled full time ingeneral education secondary schools. A third path af-ter eighth grade is to enroll in a technical or vocationalschool. These schools are primarily intended to trainfuture skilled workers and technicians. For the mosttalented students, there are a number of specializedschools, often residential, some of which specialize inmathematics and science,

Entry to higher education in the Soviet Union iscompetitive, with an approximate oversupply of sec-ondary school graduates of between two and threetimes the number of higher education places available.

“The following is based on Har[ey Balzer, “Soviet Science and Engineer-ing Education and Work Force Policies: Recent Trends, ” OTA contractor re-port, September 1987.

Admission to higher education institutions is primar-ily by means of examinations. Political considerationsare often important, and students who participate inextracurricular social service activity, such as agricul-tural work, are often given some preference in admis-sions and award of stipends. Although only about 20percent of students go on to higher education, abouthalf of these are in science and engineering, with theeffect that a larger proportion of each birth cohortgraduates in sciences and engineering than in theUnited States.

Reforms in progress include a requirement for stu-dents to begin full-time education a year earlier, at age6 rather than age 7. The extra year will allow time forstudy of additional subjects such as labor educationand computer science. At the moment, computers arevery rarely used in classrooms, but their use has be-come a national priority. All students will have re-quired courses in information science, but it is likelythat many of these classes will be taught without hard-ware. To improve the skills of the work force, all stu-dents in general secondary education learn manual la-bor skills, even those who go on to higher education.The current phase of curriculum reform is designed tointroduce less demanding, but more comprehensive,curricula in many subjects, including mathematics andscience. This last step is ironic, because the intensityof the traditional mathematics and science curriculumis often praised by American commentators. Moremoney is being allocated to education; teachers’ sala-ries are being increased and merit pay arrangementsare being introduced.

Under the reforms, closer links are being forged withboth higher education institutions and local firms andenterprises. All schools are being paired with neigh-borhood factories and businesses: enterprises will berequired to provide financial and material assistanceto schools and hope to receive better trained work-ers, Many higher education institutions are signingagreements with secondary schools, under which col-lege faculty will assist in secondary school teaching.Students will be given access to research facilities atcolleges, and the colleges will admit a specified num-ber of students to higher education. Research labora-tories are also being encouraged to participate in suchagreements. So far, 30 of about 900 higher educationinstitutions have signed agreements of this kind. Whilereforms of this kind should improve the quality of edu-cation of future scientists and engineers, they will forcestudents to specialize at a younger age, often 15 or 16,than has been the case.

As a further part of the Soviet reform program,more students will be encouraged to enter technicallyoriented vocational programs in grades 9 and 10 rather

143

than general education secondary programs. Althoughthe training these students receive is supposed to beequivalent to that in general education secondary pro-grams, this step will probably reduce the already over-subscribed pool of qualified high school graduatesplanning to enter higher education. College entrystandards have also been tightened during the last 8years, except in fields such as computer science, andbiology, which have been targeted for expansion.

Conclusions

While mathematics and science education in othercountries contains many features to be admired, in-cluding the commitment to these subjects, the emphasison academic learning, and the geographical equaliza-

tion of learning opportunities, each system containssome features that disturb many American educators.They include unswerving allegiance to the mastery offacts rather than creativity and individual expressionand the extensive use of lectures. Other unappealingfeatures are the limited number of women teaching inupper secondary schools, the central control overmany aspects of teaching, and the teaching of scienceand technology literacy to a select few rather than thefull cohort of students. Above all, many other coun-tries have a greater degree of centralization in educa-tional decisionmaking than exists in the United States.Schools and school districts need to identify practicesthat are transferable, but also need to be extremelycautious of the cultural and social assumptions under-lying some of these practices.

Appendix C

OTA Survey of the National Associationfor Research in Science Teaching

The National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching (NARST) is an organization of university re-searchers in mathematics and science education. InJune 1987, OTA mailed questionnaires to the Amer-ican membership of NARST, asking for their opinionson a range of current and past Federal programs de-signed to improve precollege mathematics and scienceeducation. Of 500 questionnaires mailed out in this in-formal, one-shot survey, 135 were returned for a re-sponse rate of just over 30 percent.

The survey was designed to give OTA a general im-pression of the opinions held by individuals knowl-edgeable about previous Federal efforts in this area.NARST includes many active participants and evalu-ators of previous Federal mathematics and science edu-cation programs; their responses provided valuable,often first-hand, accounts of programs such as Na-tional Science Foundation (NSF) summer institutes andcurriculum development programs. Respondents alsohad extensive familiarity with other local, State, andNSF-sponsored programs that are listed below. OTArecognizes that the members of NARST are neitherrepresentative of the broad population of researchersand teacher educators in mathematics and science edu-cation, nor are the responses statistically representa-tive of the entire NARST membership.

OTA solicited opinions on the effectiveness of thefollowing programs:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

grants for equipment and supplies under the Na-tional Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958;NSF summer institutes and other inservice train-ing for teachers;NSF summer institutes for students and other re-search participation programs for students;NSF-funded new curriculum programs;assistance for magnet schools for racial desegre-gation purposes;funds allocated through Title II of the Educationfor Economic Security Act of 1984; andsupport for informal science education, includingeducational television and science and technologycenters.

Of these programs, NSF teacher institutes, researchparticipation for students, and curriculum develop-ment programs received the highest ratings. Many re-spondents thought that significant lessons had beenlearned from the teacher institutes and curriculum de-

144

velopment programs, such as the need to ensure thatparticipating teachers are given followup training andthat training covers both subject knowledge and ideasfor teaching mathematics and science in real-life situ-ations. Magnet school programs were the least highlyrated, although less than one-half of the respondentscited these programs at all.

OTA also asked respondents to identify other Fed-eral programs that they thought had had a positiveeffect on mathematics and science education. Thesenominations provide a fairly comprehensive overviewof the kinds of Federal programs that have been at-tempted since passage of the NDEA:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

NSF-funded Institutes for Science and Mathe-matics Supervisors;funds for Research on Teaching and Learning ofScience and Mathematics;NSF-funded Chautauqua Institutes for Teachers;the Department of Education’s National DiffusionNetwork for the dissemination of effective cur-ricula materials;Programs for Metric Education;the Department of Education’s Fund for the Im-provement of Post-Secondary Education;1

Presidential Awards for Teaching Excellence inMathematics and Science;the National Assessment of Educational Progress,funded by the Department of Education;NSF’s Project SERAPHIM;the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion’s program for sending astronauts and scien-tists to schools, and a similar program funded byNSF;the Clearinghouse for Research in Science, Math-ematics, and Environmental Education that is partof the ERIC system;National Sea Grant College Marine EducationActivities;the Department ofgram; andNSF’s program ofand Engineering.

Energy’s Honors Science Pro-

Resource Centers for Science

‘Despite its name, this source has funded some precollege programs, suchas the }ami/y A4ath series of books and material; from t-he- EQ-UALS pro-gram at the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley.

145

Several respondents made noteworthy observationsregarding:

● the importance of educating guidance counselors, ●

principals, and school board members about theproblems of science education, particularly toconvey that science is a collection of facts as wellas a way of exploring and examining the world,and that the interest of many students in science ●

needs to be developed;● the diminutive size of Federal mathematics and

science education programs in relation to the size ●

of the problems;● the fact that past programs have not done a good

job at distinguishing between programs for train-ing future scientists and engineers and programsfor boosting technological literacy. NSF programs ●

have often been aimed at the former, and havemade too great a use of working scientists whohave limited appreciation of the culture of schoolsand the need to involve parents, school boards,

and administrators if improvement is to be last-ing and meaningful;the need for ongoing training and support for pro-grams, once mounted. In many cases, programshave attempted too much too quickly, and havefailed to follow through, allowing the status quoto be reasserted;the increased use of science specialists and con-sultants to be shared among schools or evenschool districts;the need for more emphasis on elementary math-ematics and science education, where the battleis won or lost, rather than on secondary educa-tion when too many deficiencies are already ir-revocable; andthe recognition that good teachers are an abso-lute precondition to improvements in other areas,such as curriculum, equipment, and testing. Sci-ence and mathematics teacher education programsat universities need to be updated and fortified.

Appendix D

Contractor Reports

Full copies of contractor reports prepared for this project are available through theNational Technical Information Service (NTIS), either by mail (U.S. Department of Com-merce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161) or by calling themdirectly at (703) 487-4650.

Elementary and Secondary Education (NTIS order number PB 88-177 WI/AS)1. “Images of Science: Factors Affecting the Choice of Science as a Career, ” Robert

E. Fullilove, III, University of California at Berkeley2. “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-

College Transition, ” Valerie E. Lee, University of Michigan

International Comparisons (NTIS order number PB 88-277 969/AS)

1. “Japan’s Science and Engineering Pipeline: Structure, Policies, and Trends, ” Wil-liam K. Cummings, Harvard University

2. “Soviet Science and Engineering Education and Work Force Policies: Recent Trends, ”Harley Balzer, Georgetown University

146U . S . G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G OF1-’ICE : 1988 0 - 89-136 : QL 3