elementary and secondary education for science and engineering
TRANSCRIPT
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 1/149
Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
December 1988
NTIS order #PB89-139182
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 2/149
Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment , Elementary and Secondary Education for 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 Superintend ent of Docum entsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325
(order form can be found in the back of this technical memoran du m)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 3/149
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 encouragin g
change. This memorandum identifies pressure points in the system and strengthens theanalytical basis for policy.
D i r e c t o r
Il l
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 4/149
Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and EngineeringAdvisory Panel
Neal Lane, ChairmanProvost, Rice University, Houston, TX
Amy BuhrigSpecialist EngineerArtificial IntelligenceBoeing Aerospace Corp.
Seattle, WADavid GoodmanDeputy DirectorNew Jersey Commission on Science
and TechnologyTrenton, NJ
Irma JarchoChairmanScience DepartmentThe New Lincoln SchoolNew York, NY
Hugh Loweth
ConsultantAnnandale, 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 Department
Clark/ Atlanta UniversityAtlanta, GA
F. Karl WillenbrockExecutive DirectorAmerican Society for Engineering EducationWashington, DC
Hilliard WilliamsDirector of Central ResearchMonsanto CompanySt. Louis, MO
Dorothy Zinberg
Center 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 5/149
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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 6/149
Other Contributors
The following individuals participated in workshops and briefings, and as reviewers of materials 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 Capper
Center for Research Into PracticeDennis CarrollU.S. Department of Education
Ruth CosseyEQUALS ProgramUniversity of California, Berkeley
William K. CummingsHarvard University
Linda DeTureNat ional 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 Gibbon
Bank Street College of EducationDorothy 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 HaneyMontgom ery Blair Magnet School
Thomas Hilton
Educational Testing ServiceLisa HudsonThe Rand Corp.
Paul DeHart HurdStanford University
Ann KahnNational Parent Teacher
Association
Daphne KaplanU.S. Department of Education
Susan Coady Kemnitzer
Task 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 Raph aelNational Science Foundation
Shirley MalcomAmerican Association for the
Advancement of Science
Willie Pearson, Jr.Office of Technology Assessment
Mary Bud d RoweUniversity of Florida
James RutherfordAmerican Association for the
Ad vancement of Science
Vernon Savage
Towson State UniversityAnne ScanleyNat ional Academ y of Sciences
Allen Schm iederU.S. Department of Education
Susan SnyderNa tional Science Foun dation
Julian StanleyThe Johns H opkins Un iversity
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 VetterComm ission on Professionals in
Science and Technology
Leonard WaksPennsylvania State University
Iris R. WeissHor izon Research, Inc.
John W. WiersmaHu ston-Tillotson College
Lind a RobertsOffice of Technology Assessment
George TresselNational Science Foundation
vi
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 7/149
Contents Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C h a p t e r l .
Chap te r2 .
Chapte r3 .
Chapte r4 .
Chapte r5 .
Chapte r6 .
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 inJ a p a n , G r e a t B r i t a i n , a n d t h e S o v i e t U n i o n . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 8
Appendix C. OTA Survey of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................144
Appendix D. Contractor Reports ......,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....146
vi i
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 8/149
Preface
This technical memorandum augments OTA’sreport, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade
School to Grad School, ’ focusing on the factorsthat prom pt stud ents 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 d well solely on thosewhose scientific talents are manifested at earlyages. The science and eng ineering pip eline includ esall students during elementary and much of sec-
IU. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating
Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad Schoof, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: June 1988).2P au l E. Gray, “America’s Ignorance of Science and Technology
Poses a Threat to the Democratic Process Itself, ” The Chronicie of
Higher 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 their
degree of impact on careers.Although most students’ career intentions are
ill-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 educational
technology, such as computers, could improve theteaching of mathematics and science.
This responsibility falls primarily on the teach-ing profession, together with school districts andteacher educa t ion ins t i tu t ions . C h a p t e r 3 ,Teachers and Teachin g, 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 9/149
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 of
the enterprise of science and mathematics, andbroaden participation in science and engineeringby women and minorities. Chapter 4, Thinking
Abou t Science Learnin g, asks: How can m ore 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 stu dents an d 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 reinforce
interest, 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 of women, 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 of mathematics 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 of higher 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 forsusta ining the policy c limate and catalyzing
change: If there is a national will, there is a way.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 10/149
Chapter
Shaping the Science andEngineering Talent Pool
,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 11/149
CONTENTS Page
Prep arin g fo r Scien ce and Engineering Careers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6The Pipeline Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6In fluences on the Futu re Com position of th e Talen t p ool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
High School Stu den ts’ In terest in Science and Engin eering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Persistence and Migration in the Pipehne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Academic Preparation of Science and Engineering v. Conscience Students. . . . 12Interest and Quality of Science- and Engineering-Bound Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Interest in Science and Engineering Among Females and Minorities. . . . . . . . . . 16Schools as Talent Smuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20
Box Box Page
l-A. Never Playing the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figures Figure Page
l-1. Popularity of Selected Fields Among 1982 High School Grad uatesIn tend ing to Major u nn atural Science or Engin eering, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . 9
l-2. Persistence In, Entry In to, and Exit From Natu ral Science and Engineeringby 1982 High School Gradu ates Plannin g Natural Science or Engin eeringMajors, 1980-84.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
l-3. Planned Major in H igh School of College Stud ents Majoring in NaturalScien ce an d Engin eer in g, by Field , 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
l-4. Interest of 1982 High School G radu ates in N atural Science andEngineering, by Sex, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17
l-5. Interest in Natu ral Science and Engineering by College-Boun d 1982 HighSchool Grad uates, by Race/Ethn icity , 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Tables
Table Page1-1.
1-2.
1-3.
Academ ic Characteristics of High School Gradu atues Plann ing N atural-
Science and Engineering Majors and Other Majors,
Comparison of Students Who Persisted u nn atural Science and EngineeringWith Those Who Entered Th ese Fields, From High School Sophom ore to
Comparison of Stud ents Who Persisted in Conscience Interest With Th oseWho Entered a Natu ral Science and Engin eering Major, From High SchoolSophomore Through College Senior Years, 1980-84 .. .. . ... +.. . . . . . . . . . . 14
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 12/149
Chapter 1
Shaping the Science and
Engineering Talent Pool
To the Committee (the President’s Science Advisor-y Committee], enhancing
our manpower supply is primarily a matter of quality not quantity, not a
matter of diverting more college students to science and engineering, but of providing for more students who have chosen this career route
the 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. Schools
refined 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 m edia, 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 w idest 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 na turaJ 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 the
schools 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 of the 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 At
Risk (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-mat ics, 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 1985
Nat ional Forum for School Science, Aud rey B. Champagne and Les-lie E. Hor nig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Association forthe A dv ancem ent of Science, 1986).
5
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 13/149
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 of both groups mu st be stimulated. All students need
fundamental 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 approach
careers in science and engineering is commonlyvisualized as a kind of pipeline. Stud ents enter thepipeline as early as third grade, where they be-gin to be channeled through a pr escribed 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, i t is generallythought, enter the pipeline after junior highschool. In fact, students’ intentions remain vola-tile until well past high school, with substantial
numbers 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 edu cational standards and practices alsoinfluence the size of this pool.
The education system thus can be thought of as a kind of semipermeable, or leaky, pipeline,
with many points of entry and exit through whichdifferent students pass with different degrees of ease. Entrance to and persistence in this semi-permeable pipeline vary with job opportunitiesas well as with individual propensities toward
knowledge 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 more
generous 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 on e 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 TrendsAlmost all of those who will be the college
freshmen of 2005 were born by 1987. Knowledgeof current birth patterns allows us to make very
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 14/149
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 of the 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-pan ics will increase their num bers in the popu la-
tion simply because of the very large nu mbers of young Hispanic females. These popu lation d y-nam ics already can be seen in th e pu blic schools.Each of our 24 largest school systems in the U .S.has a “m inority majority, ” wh ile 27 percent of allpu blic school student s in the U.S. are minority.. . . Looking ahead, we can project with confi-den ce that by 2010 or so, the U.S. will be a na -tion in which one of three will be Black, Hisp anic,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 th e co]]ege freshman c]ass is also determined
by the number of older people that enter higher education. At themoment, many people older than the traditional college-going ageare indeed entering high er edu cation. In 1985, over 37 percent of those 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, Th e Condition of Education:
A Statistical Report (Washington, DC: 1987), p. 122.‘U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating
Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988),
pp. 8-9.sHarold L. Hodgk inson ,
Higher Education: Diversity Is Our
Middle Name (Washington, DC: National Institute of IndependentColleges and Universities, 1986), p. 9. Asian-Americans are w ellrepresented in science and engineering; they are categorically ex-
q
q
q
q
q
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 schoolgradu ates. )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 d ur-ing the next 20 years, along with declines of as much as 10 to 20 percent in New England,the Midwest, and the Mountain States.b
Educational Opportunity and
the 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 num bers 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, Demographic
Trends and t he Scientific and Engineering Work Force—A Techni-
cal Memorandum (Washington, DC: U.S. Governmen t 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 th e eth-nic, racial, and sex composition of the science and engineering work force closely approximates that of the general population. But thereis no analytical reason wh y 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)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 15/149
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 cond uct of science and eng ineeringwith th e societal value of broad p articipation.
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 stud ents in science and engineering fields
is a tenuous basis for concluding that a shortageof scientists and engineers is inevitable. Ratherthan accept demographic de terminism, 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, “Demograph ics 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 of those who were high school sophomores in 1980by surveying them at 2-year intervals af ter1980.’ 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 natu ral science and engineering majors.
reported too late to be included in th e 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 16/149
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 of those 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 th e 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 m ore select grou p is considered—not justhigh school graduates, but those who are contemplating attendingor are in college—the p roportion plann ing science and engineeringmajors is 27 percent as high school sophomores, 28 percent as seniors,and 24 percent as college sophomores. Unlike the larger sample of all high school graduates, the more select group of college-boundhigh school graduates d ecreases in size over time, as some stud entswho 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 num ber 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 en rolled 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 questions
in 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 nu rsing. “Technology” m ajors w erenot 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 includedbusin ess, prep rofessional, social sciences, vocational/ technical, andhumanities. Social science majors (including psychology) are con-sidered in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Higher
(continued on next page)
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 studentsa
studentsa
Phys ica l sc iences/ m a th e m a t i cs
Computer science
Engineering
Li fe /heal th sciences
1980 1982 1984
High school High school College
sophomores 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 17/149
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
(continued from previous page)
Education for Science and Engineering, ” background paper, forth-coming. Movement into and out of specific conscience fields felloutside the pu rview of this report. However, the data revealed that,within this categoxy, a single major—business-engaged an increas-ing propor tion of of all students: 10 percent at sophom ore year,13 percent at senior year, and 15 percent in college. No other singlemajor matched the gr owing ap peal of this field.
the number of students who moved into and outof the pipeline. Figure 1-2 documents the flow of students 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 of high 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 NSE
/ 1,016 t on o n -NSE
/ / 1,497 t on o n -NSE
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 1O
O/., stayed with the same field within NSE at stl three time points; the majority of NSE students changed field preferences
within 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 18/149
71
college sophomores who were intending to ma- in 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 majorsnum ber of students p ersisted in th e 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 Students
by Field, 1980=84 —
Senior year only
Sophomore year only
Both years
Neither year
Senior year only
Sophomore year only
Both years
Neither year
Senior year only
Sophomore year onlyBoth years
Neither year
Majoring in Natural Science and Engineering,
Sophomore year Senior year
1980 1982\
/
Col lege major
1984
Majoring in
l i fe /heal th sciences
( n = 5 7 4 )
Majoring inengineering
( 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 19/149
12
their high school senior year (and 34 percent of those 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 cast
in 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~n t t. note that this figure ident ifies only those who
persisted 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 of students planning natural science and engineer-ing majors at the three survey time points. It alsoshows that the proportion of this group that
scored above average on the HS&B achievementtest 13 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 m ore than three-quarters of those planning such majors as collegesophomores did so. This finding suggests thatmany of the new entran ts to the p ipeline 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 curriculum
track 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 collegeCharacteristic sophomores seniors sophomores
Students planning natural science and engineering majors: Percentage of sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 23 15
Percentage scoring above 50°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 65 69 79
Percentage scoring above 75°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 39 44 53Academic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 64 74
General 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 38 KEY: 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 the
High School and Beyond survey.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 20/149
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 the
traditional 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 d id those w ho p ersisted 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 high
school sophomores had not yet followed th rough to college gradu-ation, and so cannot be used to estimate what p roportion 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 their
last 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 = 1,004
Demographic characteristics: Percent Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 15
Percent 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 tests
b. . . . . . . 516 541 500
College 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 scale
KEY GPA = grade point averageHS&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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 21/149
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 11b
Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10
Score on HS&B achievement test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.8 54.0Percent unacademic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 63
Mathematics GPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.5b
Science GPA... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.6 b
Courses taken (percetage with 1 year or more)Mathematics
Algebra l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 70
Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 59
Algebra 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 44bTrigonometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 25 b
Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 13b
Computer programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5b
ScienceBiology 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 56
Advanced biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 21b
Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 39b
Advanced chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 7b
Physics 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 26 b
Advanced physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3b
%nHS&B Achievement Test, mean score = 50, standard deviation = 10.blndicates that the differen~ebet~een thet~ogroupswasstatistica~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 the
High School and Beyond survey.
Science’s Government-University-Industry Re- occup ational direction a stu dent is taking. More-
search Roundtable: over, the influences affecting different groupsvary.15
There are no magic one or two p oints in a stu-dent’s life that are-crucial to career choice. At
ISGovemment.U niversit y-lndUSt~ Research Roundtable, lVurtur-every educational and developmental stage fac- ing Science and Engineering Talent (Washington, DC: National. .tors come into play that shape an d reshap e 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. Justasimpor tant 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 22/149
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 increased
somewhat 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 teachers
who try to transmit knowledge to their juniors,there is little evidence to support it. Although SATscores are an imperfect measure of the quality of students, 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 Am erican College Testing pro gram takers are n ot available.Wn particular, there are indications that highly talented white
males, a traditional source of scientists and engineers, are increas-ingly being attr acted to th ese majors. Mechanisms for increasing
this 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 science
and 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 d ecline of interest in ph ysical 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 of education 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 in
Science: Changes in the Educational Pipeline in the Last Decade, ” Journal of Higher Education, vol. 59, Septem ber/ 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
(continued on next page)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 23/149
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 of 18-year-olds who take college-preparatory science
courses 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 Crosswh ite et a l., 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 Rothm an, “Foreign ers 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, on ly 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 studen ts who took th ese 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 of
science and engineering in nu mbers far below theirshares of the total population, a difference thatemerges well before high school .23
Female interest in science and engineering is
concentrated in the life and health sciences, andless so in more quantitative fields such as engi-neering and the ph ysical sciences and mathem atics(figure 1-4). Black and Hispanic high schoolseniors are about one-half as likely to be inter-ested in careers in the p hysical sciences and m ath-ematics as whites, and Blacks are about one-half as 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 in
Interest 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. ), Education
and 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 Comput er Science: W hat Do W e Know? (Princeton, NJ: Educa-tiona l Testing Service, May 1985).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 24/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 25/149
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
Phys ica l sc iences/
m a th e m a t i cs
Co m p u te r
sciences
Engineering
L i fe /h e a l thsciences
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 p ervasive than can be explained by d ifferen-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: A re W e A4eas-
uring Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National
Assessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988),pp . 98-99.
function of the brain allow males to visualize spa-tia l re la tionships better than females.28 T h i shypothesis was based on analysis of scores on themathematics portion of the SAT (a test designedfor 11th and 12th graders) achieved by samplesof highly ta lented 8-year-old males and fe-males. 29 This hypothesis has been roundly criti-
zs c p Benbow an d J.C. Stanley, “Sex Differences in Math emati-. .cal Ability: Factor Artifact?” Science, vol. 210, 1980, pp. 1262-1264;
C.P. Benbow an d J.C. Stanley, “Sex Differences in MathematicalReasoning Ability: More Facts,” Science, v ol. 222, Dec. 2, 1983,pp. 1029-1031.
29A representative criticism is found in A.M. pallas an d ‘.A.
Alexander, “Sex Differences in Quantitative SAT Performance: New
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 26/149
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 m athem atics 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 unconscious
differential treatments of boys and girls.
30
Schools,
Evidence on the Differential Coursework Hypothesis, ” American
Educational Research Journal, vol. 20, No. 2, 1983, pp. 165-182.For a review of studies and instructive methodological commentary
on 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 ResearchAssociatio n, 1987), pp. 403-409.
‘OMyra Pollack Sadker and David Miller Sadker , Sex Equi ty
Handbook for Schools (New York, NY: Longma n, 1982); Jane ButlerKahle and Marsha Lakes Matyas, “Equitable Science and Mathe-matics Education: A Discrepancy Model, ” W omen: Their Under-
representation and Career Differentials in Science and Engineering,
Linda S. Dix (cd. ) (Washington, DC: N ational Academ y Press,
1987), pp . 5-41.
Photo credit William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools
Females and minorities are an undertapped source of scientists 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 Not
Well 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, reducing
the 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, ” Science
Education, 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 m ost re-cent National Assessment of Educational Progress show that 48 per-cent of Blacks in grad e three said that th ey wou ld like to work ata job using mathematics v. 38 percent of white students. Students
in grades i’ an d I I were asked a d ifferent question, whether theyexpected to work in an area that requires math ematics. 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 27/149
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’s
School Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory,” Harvard
Educational 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 SCOUTSThe goals of excellence and equity both depend
on 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 for
an 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 28/149
21
Box l-A.—Never Playin g th e Game
Learning science —its theories, its parameters, its context-can be likened to learning all the rules of a sport-the facilities needed for playing, the scoring, the timing, the uniforms. To prepare to play, onemu st develop p hysical skills by means of strenuou s exercise and cond itioning.Such skill development canspan great time periods and demand much energy, commitment, and sacrifice. But, most potential players
are willing to devote whatever time and work are needed to succeed, because once they reach th e 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 studen ts 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 h ave 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 an d u sed.
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 m any wou ld learn the ru es if there were no reward s-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 m uch too far removed from th e 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 n eed to play the game frequently, to use the in formation and skills theypossess, and to encounter a real need for more backgroun d and more skills. Such an en tree 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 throughout
their whole schooling. He has written that we would h ave a revolution on our h ands 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 n ot to clamor for it?
To spend 13 years preparing for a game, but never once to play it, is too much for anyone. Teachersand stud ents 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 , ‘Neve r Playing the Game,” The ti”ence Teacher, September 19SS, p. 77.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 29/149
Chapter 2
Formal Mathematics andScience Education
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 30/149
CONTENTS Page
Th e N ation ’s Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Components of Mathematics and Science
Cu rr icu la . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Typical Mathematics and Science
Cu rr icu la . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Prob lem s With Textb ook s . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Use of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Educa t ion . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4Vari ation Am on g Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Standardized Achievemen t 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
Boxes
Box 2-A.
2-B.
2-C.
PageThe Special Role of the Science andEngineering Research Commu nities inMathematics and Science Reforms . . . 29LearningAboutScience and Processesof Advan cing Scientific Know ledge . . 31Nation al Geograph ic Society (NG S)Kids Network: Studentsas Scien tists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FiguresFigure Page
2-1. Fun ding of Elementary and SecondaryEdu cation , by Sou rce, 1980-87 . . . . . . . 25
2-2. Pub lic and Private School Enrollm entsand Reven ues, by Sou rce, 1985-86 . . . . 26
2-3. Typical Course Progression inMath ematics an d 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.
Page
Time Spent Using Computers inMathematics and Science Classes, byGrade, in Minu tes Per Week,1985-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGrad uates Who Took Calculus . . . . . . . 46Percentage of 1982 High School
Gradu ates Who Took Phys ics . . . . . . . .46Track Placement by Race/ Ethnicityand Sex, High School Graduatesof 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
TablesTable Page
2-1. Most Common ly Used M athem atics-
2-24
2-3,
2-4<
2-5.
2-6.
2-7.
2-8.
and Science Textbook s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Courses in Compu ters Taken b yMathematics and Science Teachers . . . 37Trends in Mathematics Course-Taking, 1982-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Percentage of 1982 High SchoolGradu ates Who Went on to Next“Pipeline” Math ematics Course AfterComp leting th e Previous Course . . . . .43
Percentage 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/ Ethn icity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Science-Intending Students AmongHigh School Graduates of 1982,by Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 49
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 31/149
Chapter 2
Formal Mathematics and
Science Education
There has been widespread concern among scientists and educators alike over
the failure of the instructional programs in the primary and secondary schools
to 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 of public 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 Improvem ent, Center for Education Statistics, Digest o f Edu-
cation Statistics 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, May 1987), tables 3, 4, 5, 59. Data on the number of public 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 of organization 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 32/149
26
funding, at 89 percent; and Mississippi has thehighest proportion of Federal funding, at 16.5 per-c e n t .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 andlabora to ry equ ipment . ’ Pr iva te schools a re
funded 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 hav e only on e 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 u nder 1 percent. Also see Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, testimonybefore the H ouse Subcomm ittee 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 edu cation for wh ich parents pay tu ition (in add ition
Figure 2-2.— Public and Private School Enrollmentsand Revenues, by Source, 1985-86
PUBLIC
$146 billion
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 of the 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 of school 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 diversity
and 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 su pp ort pu blic schools). The ma jority of privateschools are of religious foundation.
7See, for example, Barbara Benham Tye, “The Deep Structure of Schoolin g, ” 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 nu mber of p ublic 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 ro l l e d ) (5 .6 m i l l i o n e n ro 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 School
Boards Association, remarks at Workshop on Strengthening an dEnlarging the Pool of Minority High School Gradu ates Preparedfor Science and Engineering Career Options, Congressional Black Caucus Braintrust on Science and Technology, Washington , DC,Sept. 16, 1988.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 33/149
27
million) of the high school population enrolled ina science class in 1986.9 In 1981-82, 78 percent of high 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 abou t th e same nu mberof 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 Public
School 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 ar e made of the entire K-12 curriculum thatt
according 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 Teachers
Speak (Washington, DC: 1988), p. 3. See also Fred M. Newman,“Can Depth Replace Coverage in the High School Curriculum,” Phi
Delta 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 standard ized, d ue to th e 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 advanced
students 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 (if their 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 and
Leslie 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 Science
and M athematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: ResearchTriangle Institute, November 1987), pp. 24-25.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 34/149
28
Figure 2.3.—Typical Course Progressionin Mathematics and Science
Grade
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mathematics —
Science
Ari thmetic General science
o 100 0 100
Percent 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.), D e v e l o p i n g 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 of earlier 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 of many 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 a t 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 National
Assessment (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.
‘“Nation al Coun cil of Teachers of Mathematics, “Curriculumand Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics: Working Draft,”unp ublished m anu script, October 1987; Robert Rothman , “MathGroup Sets New ‘Vision’ for Cu rriculum, ” Education Week, Nov.
11, 1987, p. 5; and Lynn Arthur Steen (cd.), Calculus for a New
Century; A Pump, Not a Filter (Washington, DC: MathematicalAssociation of America, 1988).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 35/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 36/149
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 th at over 90 percent of mathematics and science classes in grades seven to nine used a pub-
lished textbook or program, a proportion w hich 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 th ey 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” u sed textbooks in class. In grade th ree classes, more u seis made of w orkbooks or d itto 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
Year
Grade 9
Is tsemester
2ndsemester
Grade 10
I s tsemester
2ndsemester
Grade 11
1stsemester
2ndsemester
Grade 12
Is tsemester
2ndsemester
Mathematics
Course sequence
Magnet FunctionsA&B
(1 credit)or
Magnet PrecalculusA,B,C
AnalysisA&B
(1 1/2C r e d i ts )
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 an dExperimentationTechniques forProblem Solving 1including:
Probability andStatistics
Research Methods( 1 /
2C 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 37/149
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:
t ion, to explain concepts or to explain biology,and it is rich in absurd ity. The wr iters reduce thetopic of “scientific meth ods” to tw o paragr aph swithin a confusing passage on “The Origin of Life.” . . . The book . . is attractive but scientif-ically m eaningless.
[The book] presents a frenetic display of facts–a smoth ering blanket of facts—and it w ill 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 .23
cliches in a matr ix of rote sentences and plentiful 23National Center for Science Education, Inc., Bookwatch, vol.pictures. It continually fails to integra te informa- 1, No. 1, February 1988,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 38/149
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 of textbook “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 suggestions
for policy reform, see Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, A Conspiracy of
Good 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 that
are 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 of textbook adoption notes:
We have dozens of powerful ministries of edu-cation [States] issuing u nd isciplined lists of par -ticulars that p ublishers mu st includ e in the text-books. Since publishers must sell in as many jurisd ictions as possible in order to tu rn a p rofit,their books must incorporate this melange of test-oriented trivia, pedagogical faddism and incon-sistent social messages. . . . Under current selec-
tion procedu res, those responsible for choosingthe best among av ailable books seem blind to th eincoherence and unreadability of the book be-cause they are merely ascertaining the presenceof the required material, not its dep th 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 textbookpu blishers supp ly much of the market. Yet a num -ber of smaller pu blishers hap pily 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 39/149
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 17
Accent on Science Science
Focus on Life Science Principles of Science Focus on Physical Science
Modern Biology Modern Chemistry Chemistry: A Modern Course
Mathematics in Our World Mathematics Invitation to Mathematics
Algebra: Structure and Method Mathematics Mathematics Around Us
Algebra: Structure and Method Geometry Algebra With Trigonometry
1010
9
8
8
14
9
5
16
15
7
7
4
4
14
8
2
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 all
mathematics 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. Based
on d ata from th e Association of Am erican 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 m arket, andpowerful political and economic forces shape the
dynamics 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 40/149
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 w eave 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 other
than the approved texts.Overall, the deficiencies, if any, in current
mathematics 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 Mathematics
and Science EducationComputers offer new approaches for learning
mathematics 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 Foundat ionhas issued a “publisher initiative” that outlines criteria for needed
student 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 partn erships among publishers, schoolsystems, and scientists/ science educators for the purpose of develop-ing and disseminating a number of competitive, high quality, alter-native science progr ams 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 pa rticular 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 for
Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S.Governmen t Print ing Office, Septemb er 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, and
learning; 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 an d 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 Capp er, “Doing Science Together, ”
Teaching, Learning and Technology: A Digest of Research With
Practical Implications, vol. 1, No. 2, summer 1987, p. 2. A 1985survey foun d th at 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 ad vance. 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 al l schools with a grad e 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 41/149
35
use, and amounts to a small fraction of instruc-t i o n a l t i m e .3 4 A 1 9 8 5 s u r v e y n o t e d t h a t
. . . 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 science
classes. (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 of the barriers to laboratory work, such as the ris-ing cost of supplies, purchasing and maintainingequipment, concerns about safety hazard s 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 o f
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 computers
than secondary students, but still two-thirds of K-6 mathematicscJasses and 85 percent of K-6 science classes report not using com-pu ters at all “last w eek.” Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, pp. 48, 58,59, tables 24, 32, 33. Another recent su rvey ha s found compu teraccess 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 an d Capper, op. cit., footn ote 32, p. 1. However, com-
puters are used much more widely in the science classroom thanin the laboratory.37Alan Lesgold, “Computer Resources for Learning, Peabody
Journal of Education, vol. 62, No. 2,1985, cited in Shafto and Cap-per, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 4. A 1985 survey found that th e nu m-ber of mathematics and science classes that had used “hands-on”
activities in their most recent lesson had declined at al l 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
Mathematics
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 and Mathematics 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‘
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 42/149
36
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 43/149
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 11
Grades 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 21
Grades 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 33Grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 33
SOURCE 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, interactivecomp uter graphics can be pow erful 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 had
limited 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 of computer use on interest in, and preparation for,different college majors.
Computers also make it possible to offer coursesthat might not otherwise be available. Distance
3gIb i d .
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 opportunit y 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 T e c h n o lo g y
training has un ique 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 of learning, 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 grad uates fee] prep ared to teach
with compu ters. See ibid., p. 98.411bid. , and Arthur S. Melmed and Robert A. Burnham, “New
Information Technology Directions for American Education: Im-proving Science and Mathematics Educationr ” report to the Nationa]
Science Foundation, unpublished manuscript, December 1987.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 44/149
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 (among
whom 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 students
toward 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. Subu rban school systems h ave m uch less dif-ficulty and can attract good teachers. There arecontinuing pressures for some suburban and ur-
43James S. Coleman and Thomas Hoffer, Public and Private
High 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 surrou nd ing a school, in-cluding taxpayers and parents, is more important in explaining thesuccess of private schools than are particular actions that th e schooltakes. Some argu e that th e 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 mathem atics 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 th rough a school user fee, Trials would needto be several years long.
ban school systems to merge or to share fund s 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 engineering
majors. 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 in
suburban 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 an d Thoma s B. Corco-ran, Places Where Children Succeed: A Profile of O utst anding
Elementary Schools, Report to U.S. Department of Education, Of-fice of Educational Research and Improvement (Philadelphia, PA:Research for Better Schools, Decemb er 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 w ere not tabulated by the geograph ic location of respondents,
so cannot be u sed in this comp arison. The 1986 assessment in math-ematics shows continued gains by Black and Hispanic students inall thre e age catego ries (9, 13, and 17). See Dossey et al., op. cit.,footnote 18.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 45/149
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 will
grow 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 in
ch. 4 on pr ograms for gifted and talented studen ts)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 tests
are 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 stud ents to p arrot 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 Associat ion’s Mastery in
Learning Project put the issue most dramatically:Perhaps it has been the failure to u nd erstand
intelligence —how it is nurtu red or stunted, howit works, how it should be m easured, even wh ereit resides—that has done the m ost dam age to theeducation of children.
Because the workings and the vulnerability of the intellect have been so d imly und erstood byso many, teaching has often been rigidly fact-dr iven, heavily dem and ing of linguistic, logical,linear thinking skills, and often neglecting tho seaspects of learning th at involve imagery, intu itive-ness, manual and whole body skills, and feelings.
Partly because of this failure of und erstand ing,edu cational testing comp anies have continu ed toprod uce, states to require, and schools to admin-ister, paper and pencil tests that, in pu rportingto measure students’ achievement, have succeededonly in labeling a nd 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 part icular , 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 federal ly sp onsore dproject called ACCESS, in northwest Missouri, is designed to ex-pand rural stu dents’ access to higher ed ucation in all subjects. Leg-islation has been introdu ced to set up similar programs in otherStates. See Robin W ilson, “U.S.-Backed Project in Missou ri 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, “State
Educational Testing Practices, ” background paper, NTIS #PB88-155056, December 1987.
wNeve r t h e ]=s , it is important to note that Asian students tYPi-
cally do better than other groups on the mathematics portion of these 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, ” American
Psychologist, 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 d evised tests of studen ts’ skills in conducting experiments and in interpreting these
(continued on next page)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 46/149
40
Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools
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 affects
those 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-
amin ation. Fran et al., A of Higher-Order
Thinking Skills Assessment Techniques in Science and Mathematics
(Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress, No-
vember 1986). Also see Robert E. “Assess All Five Dom ains
of Science, ” The Science Teacher, October 1987, pp. 33-37; andGeorge E. Hein, “The Right Test for Hands-on Learning, ” Science
and Children, October 1987, pp. 8-12.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating
Scientist s 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, ” Th e
Chronicle 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 these
tests could lead to “misassignment” of studentsamong colleges and majors, or the failure of stu-dents to be ad mitted to college at all. Stand ardized
tests have been important in college admissions
for many decades, because they are economical
to administer and measure students nationallyagainst a common metric. But criticism of, in par-ticular, the SAT by activist groups such as the
Cambridge-based National Center for Fair andOpen Testing (FairTest) and others in education
is leading a small but increasing number of col-
leges and universities to drop their requirement
for 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 number
of mathema tics and science courses taken by thesegroups. But others say that subtle biases in the
tests’ design and administration are a cause of
some 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 high
school 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 advanced
placement a better test, although it is more ex-
pensive tha n r egular college ad missions tests (cost-
ing over $50 per test). The number of such tests
being taken is increasing about 13 percent annu-ally, and about 20 percent of all secondary schools
53David Owen, None of the Above (Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin, 1985); Robert Rothman, “Admission Tests Misused, Says
College Leader,” Education Dec.9, 1987, p. 5. rep ort sthat at least 40 colleges now do n ot require either th e Scholastic Ap-
titude Test or th e American College Testing p rogram for college ad-mission. When colleges do not use these tests, they increase theweight that they p lace on other compon ents 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, which
sides with the “poor preparation” hypothesis.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 47/149
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 are
generally 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 of courses, 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 second ary 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 of 1982 (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 earlier
test 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 o ther fac tors were s ta t i s t ica l ly 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 for
Science, a handbook that advises high schoolteachers about what colleges would like them to
teach, 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 n um ber 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, Th e Effect of A4atbematics Course Enroll-
ment on Ra~”al/’Ethnjc Differences in Secondary School Mathematics
Achievement (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, January1986); and Lyle V. Jones et al., “Mathematics and Science Test Scoresas Related to Courses Taken in H igh 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 contractorrep ort, 1987.
59The College Board concludes that th e amoun t 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 High
School to Col lege (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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 48/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 49/149
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982
1986Algebra II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19821986
Pre-calculus or calculus . . . . . . . . 19821986
241916
1814
173940
5
7
2519161713
153939
68
2419171815
183940
5
5
3431
2018
10
162931
4
3
372521
2412
162428
3
6
3217151715
174142
5
7
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 th e 1985-86 NAEP
Females, Blacks, and Hispanics, according tomathematics 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,ma t he m a t i c s a nd s c i e nc e c ou rs e s . Th i s f ind in g i s pp . 116-117. Scie nce da ta a re due to be publis he d in fa ll 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 31
Females ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 52 34 30
Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by sex: Males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 62 55 47Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 61 45 41
Race/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 26
Regional differences: New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 76 32 50Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 54 40West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 45 48 9West South Central. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 62 32 19
Curricular track: General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 41 27Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 61 45 36Vocational. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 35 19 11
NOTE: 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) donot 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),
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 50/149
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by race/ethnicity: Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Urbanicity of school Urban high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Suburban high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Rural high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Regional differences: New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Curricular track: General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Vocational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3937
5950
21
2842
324357
3341
36
47
492928
21
5915
4731
61
40
332740
4341
51
394037
44
442035
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)do
not 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 stud ents 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, and
ethnicity—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 Depar tment o f Education 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 51/149
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 8
Other advanced mathematics . . . . . . 13 14 13 30 5 7 15Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 5 15 2 2 6
SOURCE U.S Department of Education, Nattonal Center for Education Statistics, “Science and Mathematics Education In American High Schools Results From theHigh 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 White
General science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 24 33 34 29Basic biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 73 76 78 74 69 75Advanced biology ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 9 13 6 5 9
Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25 24 41 19 13 27Advanced chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 3 8 2 2 4
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 13 9 11 12 15
Physica l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 15 8 27 6 5 13
Advanced physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 5 1 1 2
Unified science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 26 17 34 21 27
SOURCE: U S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statlstlcs, “Science and Mathematics Education In American High Schools Results From theH(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 ins c h o o l s w i t h h i g h m i n o r i t y p o p u l a t i o n s .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 an d 2-7. )
These findings are supported by an analysis of data 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-emat ics c lasses compared wi th the i r whi tepeers.”
Black enrollments in h igh school science cour sesvary significantly according to geographic region,parental expectations (especially those of mothers),and high achievement in other subjects such as
English. 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 52/149
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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 53/149
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 educational
researchers to study.Many students’ career options are narrowed by
this 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 h ave 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 theeducat ion communi ty , have compla ined tha ttracking perpetuates racism, The evidence is thatthe practice is a structural imp ediment to stud ents’progress to advanced study in science and engi-neering. Nevertheless, inconsistencies in defini-tions between surveys that include information
on 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 enr olled 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 much
more 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 ar e reported in Davis, OP. cit., footnote 57/ P. 23,
based on the Na tional Assessment of Edu cational Progress (NAEP)
1981-82. More recen t d ata from the 1985-86 NAEP mathematics
assessment 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 v ocational 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
I1
I I
o 20 40 60 80 100
Percent in track
Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 54/149
48
Science-intensive schools often have sophisticated, costly equipment.
forcing feelings of low status an d, w orse, 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 have
suggested that grouping and tracking is a primary
means of maintaining the status quo, preventing
the upward mobility of the poor and minorities
and 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 Am erican High 1942-
1985: Varieties of Historical Interpretation of the Foundations and
Development 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 it
uses simple output measures such as achievementscores. This inconclusiveness might be taken as
evidence 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 most
able students, but does have a considerable retard-
ing effect on the less able students.
n
A 196871 Robert E. “Ability Group ing and Student Achievement
in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis, ” prepared for
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 55/149
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 8
points 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 the
Choice 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 of
Research 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 Am erican Edu cational Struc-ture an d th e Reprodu ction 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 studen ts, track
placement was a stronger predictor than class, race and ethnicity,or gender of th e num ber 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 b y 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. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 6Percent female . . . . . . . . . . 40
High school experiences: Score on HS&B
Achievement Testa. . . . . 55.9
Number of advancedmathematics 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 by
February 1984 . . . . . . . . . . 67Percentage in 2-yearcolleges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
College grade pointaverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
5
541
59.2
3.1
3.0
525
89
24
2.9
KEY: 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 in
the 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 56/149
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 w hen 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 studen ts very early acquire both a basicconceptual science vocabulary and a zest for
learning and problem solving, they are extremelyun likely to take science courses—or to su cceed if they do. . . . [Needed , then, is] a baseline sciencecurriculum that w ill 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 m ay app ear 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 Ad dress” (letter), Chem-
ical & Engineering New s, 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 57/149
Chapters s
3
Teachers and Teaching
#
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 58/149
CONTENTS Page
Th e Teach er Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
The Possib ility of Math ematics and Science Teacher Shortages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Certification an d M isassignmen t of Math ematics and Science Teachers. . . . . . . 58
Th e Profess ion al Statu s of the Teach in g Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Th e Q ua lity of Math em atics an d Scien ce Teache rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Options for Improving the Quality of Mathematics and Science Teachers. . . . 66
Teach in g Practices an d Stu den t I-earn in g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
BoxesBo x Page
3-A. Reasons Why Physics Teacher s Leave High School Teachin g. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3-B. Math em atics an d Scien ce Relicensing Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figures Figure 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 in
Industry, 1975-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583-3. Amount of Inservice Training Received by Science and Mathematics
Teachers 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. M athem atics and Science Teachers, by Race and Eth nicity,1985-86 . . . . . . . 583-2. Math ematics and Science Teacher Certification Requ iremen ts by State,
June 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3-3. Guidlelines for Mathematics and Science Teacher Qualifications Specified
by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643-4. College-Level Coupes Taken by Elementary and Secondary
Mathematics Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653-5. College-Level Courses Taken by Elementary and Secondary Science
Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 59/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 60/149
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 of the entire teaching work force. In many ways,there are few differences between mathematics
and 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
(continued from previous page)
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 th e entire teacher work force
is 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 norm s and goals of conduct, and encouraging teachers tobecome more reflective of their tasks. There are tw o m ain teacherunions, the American Federation of Teachers and th e 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 th e National Science Teachers Association and NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics). The positive and negative im-pacts of teacher un ions 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 severa l d ifferent science fields). Accord ingly,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 and
Science Teacher ShortagesMany 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 th at the p ercentage of Americansthat w ould 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, m edical 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 edu cation 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 edu cation m ajor is un der 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 Commission
Reports: The Coming Crisis in Teaching, RAND/ 4-3177-RC (Wash-ington , DC: Rand Corp., July 1984). Hen ry 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 61/149
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
ceptu al mod el 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 an d Blake Rodman,Y “Is There a Teacher Shortage?
It’s Anyone’s Guess, ” Education W eek, 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 teachin g 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 of Chief 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 who
had 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,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 62/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 63/149
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 hav ing difficulty hir-ing physics teachers, 60 percent were having dif-ficulty with chemistry and computer science
teachers, 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 un tilthese 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 Science
and M athematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: ResearchTriangle Institute, November 1987), tables 72, 73.
I For th e recent upturn in co]lege freshmen interest in education
majors, 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 p lanned teaching careers, up from 4.7 percent in 1982, but wellbelow the 20 percent level in the early 1970s. The num ber 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 Septemb er 1987, p. 76.‘zWeiss, op . cit., footnote 10, p . 64, table 36.‘
3Salaries 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 teaching
are also important influences. See, for example, Russell W. Rum-berger, “The Impact of Salary Differentials on Teacher Shortagesand Turnover: The Case of Math ematics 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 teacher
supply 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 Blacks
and Hispanics entering college and because of the
expanded 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~.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 64/149
58
Figure 3-2.-Starting Salaries for Teachers,Compared to Other Baccalaureates in Industry,
1975.87 (constant 1987 dollars)
$35,000
L
Public school
10,000
1975 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 minori tyenrollments, denying minori ty children role
Table 3-1 .- Mathematics and Science Teachers,by Race and Ethnicity, 1985.86 (in percent)
Subjectand grade Black Hispan ic Wh i te o the ra U n k n o w n
MathmaticsK-3 . . . . . . 10 1 84 0 4
4-6. . . . . . . 12 2 84 0 2
7-9. ., . . . . 6 1 90 1 3
10-12 . . . . . 3 1 94 1 1
ScienceK-3 . . . . . . 9 4 82 1 4
4-6. . . . . . . 8 4 86 1 1
7-9. . . . . . . 5 1 88 1 4
10-12 . . . . . 5 1 92 2 1
a j nc l ude s Na t iv e Amer i c an , Alaskan Native , As i an , an d 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 arrd Mathematics Educafiorr (Research Triangie Park, NC: Research Trian-gle Institute, November 1987), table 35
mod els (among other things that m inority 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 Del ta Kappan, April
1987, p p. 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 n orm. Abou tone-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)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 65/149
59
Table 3-2.—Mathematics and Science Teacher Certification Requirements by State, June 1987
Course credits by certification field
Biology, Teaching Supervise
Science, Chemistry, Earth General methods: teaching
Math 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 12wks
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 45 Noa
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) 6
Georgia (effective 9/88) . . . . . . 60qtr 45qtr 40qtr 40qtr Yes(M) 15qtrGuam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 NO NoneHawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b
Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 45 20 20 No 6
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 24 24 Yes 5
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 9
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 Yes 6Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 36 24 24 36 Yes 6Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 36 36 36 36 Yes 300 hrsMichigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 36 30 30 No 6
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c1 qt r
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 32 32 Yes(S) 6Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 20 20 20 Yes 8
Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30qtr 60qtr 30qtr 30qtr 30qtr Yes IOwksNebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 45 24 24 Yes 320hrsNevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 36 16 16 16 No 8
New 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 6
North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 8
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 6
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 30 12 18 Yes(M) 6South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 12 12 18 No 6
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36qtr 48qtr 24 qtr 24qtr 24qtr Yes 4
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 48 24 24 No 6
Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .c c c c c Yes 12
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 18 18 18 Yes NoneVirginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 24 24 30 No 6Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 NA NA NA NA No Yes
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 51 24 24 No 15West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c c
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 54 34 34 34 Yes 5
Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Pro9ramcMa j o r o r m i n o r — f . J o f ih D a k o t a , U t a h ; 213 t o 40 p e r c e n t of prOgrarn-MinrleSOta an d No r t h 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 66/149
60
Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools
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 because
policy makers have tightened certification stand- they are new to the State and are working to
ards in the hope of raising the quality of teach- achieve accreditation (and are teaching on an
ing. Altering certification requirements may be “emergency” basis) or because they are teaching
an easy control on the system for policy makers subjects other than those which they are certified
to enact, but have little effect on actual classroom to teach .18 An increasing number of science
practices and teaching quality. However, someon the extent to which “uncertified” teachers are in charge
p of mathematics and science classes are fragmented an d 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 kind
ence Teacher Certification Standards: An Agenda for Improvement, ” of certification, sometimes it includes teachers w ho are certified bu t Redesigning Science and Technology Education: 1984 Yearbook are teaching out of their main field of competence or certification
the 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: Nat ional Science Teachers Association, elude teachers who have provisional or emergency certification, but
1984), p p. 157-161. not full certification. (To the extent that there is great flexibility to
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 67/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 68/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 69/149
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 of teaching is removed from teachers and given to
those who make and enforce the “rules. ” 27
One way of redressing the balance is to giveteachers more say in setting th e p rofessional qu al-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, A
Nation Prepared: Teachers for th e 21st Century (New York, NY:Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986); NationalCommission for Excellence in Teacher Education, Call for Change
in Teacher Education (Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges 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 An ything?” The Brookings Review, winter 1983, pp .3-11. See also The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 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, when
the current w ave of reforms began.~7Martin Carnoy and Henry M. Levin, Schoolin g and Work in
th e Democratic State (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1985), pp. 157-158.
mathematics and science teaching profession. In1984, NSTA estimated that about 30 percent of all secondary mathematics and science teacherswere either “completely unqualified or severelyunderqualified” to teach these subjects .28 NSTAlaunched its own certification program for science
teachers 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 of Mathematics (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 an d 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 Na tional 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 W eek, Apr. 8, 1987, pp. 6, 10.
30See, generally, Darling-Ham mond and Hu dson, op. cit., foot-note 24.31Rolf K. Blank and Senta A. Raizen, National Research Coun-
cil, “Background Paper for a Planning Conference on a Stud y of Teacher 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-
(continued on next page)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 70/149
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 geometry
3. mathematics teaching methodsUpper elementary and middle school The 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 school The following seven courses, each with a prerequisite of3 to 4 years of high school mathematics, beginning withalgebra and including trigonometry:
1. calculus2. geometry
3. computer science4. abstract algebra5. mathematics applications6. probability and statistics7. mathematics methods
Senior high school The 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 the
history of mathematics13. at least one additional mathematics elective course
Elementary level 1. 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 level 1. 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 level
General standards for all science specialization areas:1. Minimum 50 semester-hours of coursework in one or
more 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 standards 1. 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 71/149
65
teachers had earned d egrees 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 Th esurvey 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 of elementary science teachers have taken at least onecourse in methods for teaching elementary schoolscience, and about 90 percent have taken at least
one 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 th e higher grades, data are reported in tw o 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
7
27
246
53 80
79 81
84 87
80 87 67 89 39 63 39 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 Triangle
Institute, November 1987), tables 40, 44
specialized in biology and life sciences; few havespecialized in physical sciences. About one-half have 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 72/149
66
Table 3-5.—College-Level Courses Taken byElementary and Secondary Science Teachers
Percentage of teacherswith courseb
Elementary Secondary
Course titlesa K-3 4-6 7-9 10-12
General Methods of Teaching . . 95Methods of Teaching
Elementary School
Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Methods 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
873721
61
51
5
12
40
273
94
30
61
83
85
91
7054
6255486364
763051
21
25
731816
1512
11
4056272639
21
188
658
94
20
8279
87
857358
6364536571
9247
3234
81
2824262318
3649201925
231612
1,050%mits courses in computer programming and instructional uses of computersbEmpty ~ells mean data were not reported in original Iahlation
SOURCE: Iris R Weiss, Reporf of the 1985-86 Ara t fona l 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 percent
have 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 teachers
with appropriate qualifications to teach these sub- jects. Credentials are not enough. Most Stateshave attempted to a lleviate their shortagesthrough higher teacher salaries, and som e 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 low
achievement,
37See National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 27-28.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 73/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 74/149
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 of middle 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, 40
percent of mathematics teachers and 60 percentof science teachers have a degree in those subjects,and another 36 an d 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 of the 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 secondary
teachers’ 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 ask an elementary teacher what she teaches and the response will be“children” or “grade n“; a secondary school teacher w ill respond
with “science” or “math. ” Most parents would probably take com-fort that their child is being taugh t by someone wh o believes theirprimar y allegiance and respon sibility is to children , not subjects(Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Ad vancemen t of Science, personal comm un ication, Aug ust 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 future
teachers 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 su rfeit 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, courses
are 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 75/149
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 sh ould be r espon-sible for inservice education. As employers, school
4sNational Educa t ion 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 opp ortunity affordedsecondar y school teachers, not lesser interest on the p art of elemen-
tary teachers,
Figure 3-3.—Amount of Inservice Training Receivedby Science and Mathematics Teachers During 1985-86
35+ h o u rs
1 6 – 3 5
6 – 1 5
< 6
No n ea
K - 67 - 9
1 0 - 1 2 ‘- 6
7 - 91 0
-1 2
Science Mathematics
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 formal
courses 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 and Mafherrrat/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 than
they 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 h ave had positive effects, and their p er-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 prop osal is for 8 to 10 federally fund ed 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 76/149
tion advisors. School administrators need train-
ing, too; they would work with school districts
in disseminating the results of (at least federallysponsored) educational research, and affecting
classroom practice. This role would be similar to
that of county Agricultural Extension agents. TheNational Diffusion Network, currently restricted
to conveying effective teaching curricula, is an ex-
isting mechanism for disseminating research in-
formation. Finally, the Federal Government might
assist in linking teachers through informal meet-ings and electronic message networks. The Statesupervisors of science are already planning such
a network.
Conclusions on Mathematics and
Science 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 students
in mathematics and science, and teachers are the
front line. At the moment, many only inform and
some probably dull students’ interest in mathe-
matics and science. On paper, the teaching profes-sion is relatively well-qualified, and has h ad a sig-
nificant (and increasing) amount of teaching
experience. The teaching force needs inservice
education, however; this presents an enormous
task. School districts, States, and teachers (whohave already had and paid for a college educa-
tion) are unlikely to undertake this alone. Until
school districts and States make mathematics and
science teacher quality a high priority, student in-
terest in and prep aration for careers in science and
engineering are not likely to flourish.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 77/149
71
TEACHING PRACTICES AND STUDENT LEARNING
There are several teaching techniques that couldbe used m ore widely to boost both stud ents’ 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 w ith improving stud ents’ 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,
‘ 4QNor t hwes t Regiona] Educational Laboratory, Effective SChOOf -
in g Practices: A R esearch Sy nthesis (Portland, OR: April 1984); andJames B. Stedman, Congressional Research Service, “The EffectiveSchools Research: Content and Criticisms, ” 85-1122 EPW, unpub-lished m anu script, December 1985. Becoming aw are 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 r esearchers. The National
Association 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 pu blished 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 scores
and 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 that
the 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 of topics concerning the social uses and implicationsof science and technology (often called science,technology, and society, or STS). In particular,
Szlndeed, exper imen t s ar e a logistical nightmare for manyschools: It takes teacher’s valuable time to set u p an d tear d ownlaboratories, 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 w eekly or less than w eekly. See John A. Dossey et al., The
Mathematics Report Card: Are We Measuring Up? Trends and
Achievement Based on the 1986 Nationa~ Assessment (Princeton,NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988), p. 75.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 78/149
72
the practice of dividing classes into small, mixed-ability groups of five or six students to work on
problems collectively, rather than solve them byindividual competition, is widely practiced inelementary schools in Japan and is reported to be
effective 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 of
this technique, in anticipation of its wider appli-cation.” A recent survey found that over one-
half of all stud ents never d id math ematics in small
T. Johnson and David W. Johnson, “Cooperative Learn-ing and the Achievement and Socialization Crises in Science and
Mathematics Classrooms, ” Students Science Learning: Papers
From 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 percent
of 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 work
mathem atics problems on their own. . , .
Considering the p revalence of research suggest-ing that there may be better w ays for stud ents tolearn mathematics than by listening to theirteachers and then p racticing what th ey have heardin rote fashion, the rarity of innov ative instruc-tional app roaches is a matter for true concern .55
Because so few of these new practices are u sed,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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 79/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 80/149
Chapter 4
Thinking AboutLearning Science
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 81/149
4-1. State-Funded Schools That Specialize in Science, Mathematics,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 82/149
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
Afte r chap te rs on s tuden ts , 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 rn i sco n cep -tions (held both by students an d teachers), to spu rcreativity , to develop “higher order thinkingskills, ” and to place more students on pathwaysto lea rn ing sc ience and mathemat ics? l T h i s
chapter presents a select menu of needs, takingfew orders for satisfying them.2
for teachin g 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 th e Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Graduate School of Education, January 1988); Audrey Champagne
and Leslie Homig, Student s 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 Un iversity 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 chap ter 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 the3For some of this pioneering work, see Joseph D, Novak and D.
classroom. Techniques have been devised to help Bob Gow in, Learning How To Learn (New York, NY: Cambridgechildren bridge their prior conceptions to the re- University Press, 1985).
77
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 83/149
78
linked to their assimilation of knowledge about
particular subjects, it makes little sense to divorcethe two in teaching science. Methods of inquiry
and analysis, acquired via laboratory and hands-on experiences, have to be taught together with
facts about particular problems or fields. All this
takes 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 empha sis 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 of
scientific and mathematical phenomena, and some teaching pack-
ages have been designed for th is pur pose. In designing effective sci-ence and mathematics education programs, experts in particular sci-
entific fields need to pool resources with cognitive scientists andpra cticing teachers. See Barbara “A Math ema tician’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 the
ability to infer and reason in an abstract way,rather than merely memorizing and recalling sin-
gle items of information. These skills have always
been important, but many analysts believe that
they 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 Ord er Cognitive Skills, ”Matt ers . . . To the Science Teacher (Cincinnati,
OH: University of Cincinnati, 1987); Lauren B. Resnick, Education
and Learning (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,1987); Lynn Steen, “The Science of Patterns,” Science, vol. 240, Apr.
29, 1988, pp . 611-616; Richard J. Har vard 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, Apr il 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 84/149
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 related
trends—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 of material) 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 m odels of learning styles have been d e-
vised. Each is designed to help teaching becomemore closely attuned to the ways different stu-dents learn, although so far these mod els have hadlimited effect in classroom practice and none is
‘See, for example, Rita Dunn and Shirley A. Griggs, Learning
Styles: 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 th at wh ites and Blacks, as well asmales and females, often have characteristically different learningstyles. Not surprisingly, the hypothesis that learning styles differby race, ethnicity, and gen der 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-sum ed that teaching app roaches that are successful
with 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 Benne t t Comprehens ive hfu)ticu~tura] Education.’
Theory and P;actice (Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1986), chs. 4-5.A series of eight filmstrips produ ced by Mad ison 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: research
and learning style instrum ents, classification of instructional mate-rials to accommodate student learning styles, brain dominance andlearning styles, an explanation for parents, the gifted student, anappr oach to homework, and students w ith 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. Silverman r “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engi-neering Education, ” Engineering Education, vol. 78, No. 7, Apr i l1988, pp. 674-681.IOFor examp]e, see Mar y Budd Rowe’ “Minimizing Student Loss
in Freshman an d Sophom ore 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, ” NARST
R e s ea r ch M a t t e r s . . T o the Science Teacher (Cincinnati, OH:University of Cincinnati, n.d. ).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 85/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 86/149
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 an d th en gradually taking over more of th e action. Finally, the studen tgoes 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 four
ity, 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 edu cation .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 Dom ains of Science, ” The
Science Teacher, vol. 54, No. 7, October 1987, pp. 33-37.1%ee Howard Gardner, “Beyond the IQ: Education and Human
Development, ” 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 a lso contribute toscience.13
13 Evelyn Fox Keller, a scholar of women in science, hasvigorously champ ioned this point of view. She states that:
The exclusion of values culturally relegated to the female domain h asled to an effective ‘masculinization’ of science—to an unwitting alliancebetween scientific values and the ideals of mascullntty embraced by ourparticular culture. The question th at directly follows from this recogni-
tion is. To what extent has such an alliance subverted our best hopesfor science, our very aspirations to objectivit y and universality?
See Evelyn Fox Keller, “Women Scientists and Feminist Cr itics of Science, ” Daedalus, vol. 116, No. 4, fall 1987, p. 80; and EvelynFox Keller, “Feminism and Science, ” Sex and Scientific Inquiry, San-dra H arding and Jean F. O’Barr (eds. ) (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 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 Programs
and SchoolsA few States have established special regional
or statewide schools for mathematics and science,often in conjunction with private funding from
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 87/149
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 special
schools, 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 p articipation of wom en and
minorities 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
Illinoisq Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, Aurora
Louisianaq Louisiana School for Science, Mathematics, and the
Arts, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches
Michiganq Kalamazoo Area Mathematics and Science AcademyNorth Carolinaq North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics,
Durham
Pennsylvaniaq Pennsylvania Governor’s School for the Sciences, at
Carnegie-Mellon Universityq Pennsylvania Governor’s School for Agriculture,
Pennsylvania State University
Texasq Science Academy of Austin
Virginiaq New Horizon Magnet School for Scienceq Roanoke Governor’s School for Science and
Mathematics, Roanoke. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and
Technology, Alexandriaq Central Virginia Governor’s School for Science and
Technology
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on EducationCommission of the States, Survey of State kritiafives to Improve Science and Mathematics Education (Denver, CO: September 1987);
and data from the National Consortium of Specialized Schools in
Mathematics, 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 popu lar with p arents, 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. )
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 88/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 89/149
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 qu ality of their pr ograms and the dis-tinguished scientists and engineers among theiralumn i. Each is pu blicly supp orted 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 an d represent science-intensive schools. The initial meeting of the con-sort ium included 27 schools, and more have joined since. The consortium is planning meetings
‘sBecause of the novelty of most of these schools, data on theeventual fates of their gradu ates are not yet av ailable. 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 half majoring in science or engineering. One thing is certain: only a tinypercentage of each State’s high school stud ents 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 system
that 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 w ere the same; each h as 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 curren tly headqu artered at the Illinois Math-ematics and Science Academy, Aurora, IL.
l~here ar e n. current data on the number of magnet schools ‘a-
tonally. A 1983 survey p ut t he nu mber at about 1,100, of wh ichabout 25 percent had a mathematics or science theme. The magnetprograms are located in more than 130 of the largest urban schooldistr icts. See Rolf K. Blank et al., Survey of Magnet Schools: Analyz -
ing a Model fo r 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 the
Educational Marketplace, ” vol. 6, No. 39, Jun e 24, 1987, supp lement.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 90/149
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 qu eues. The latter two m ethods are be-coming increasingly popular.
Almost un iversally, studen ts and p arents cite
the choices that they are given in magnet systemsas inspiring them to have higher expectations of public education than they had before. Higher ex-pectations should lead to better performance.There is some evidence, however, that wh ile 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 stud ents to m ag-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. Departmen t 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 face
a 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 to
more 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 Standar dization, ” 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 som e detail. In ad di-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 Hou se 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. Indu stry is also becomin g mo re 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
(continued on next page)
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 91/149
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 talentedn ess, and the equityand social implications of giving these studentsspecial treatment.
While it is to be anticipated that the ranks of the 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 of Exceptional 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 consensu s nationally on th e 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 the
gifted and talented are Black and Hispanic stu-
den ts, 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 of each State’s school-age population labeled asgifted an d talented varies considerably. One studytook 18 commonly used criteria for giftedness andfound that, when applied to fifth-grade suburban
(continued from previous page)
and William G. Williams, “Edu cation of the Gifted an d Talentedin the World Community, ” Phi Delta Kappan, March 1987, pp.531-534.zzDefinitions of “gifted, “ “talented,” and “sp ecial” students tend
to fluctuate with the annual amounts of Federal and State fundingavailable in these categories. This is also why a demographic bulge
in a p articular grade will disqualify stud ents from “GT” (gifted andtalented) classes that they took in the previous grade. The criteriaare arbitrary, but their interpretation (e.g., al l those in the nth per-centile and above) is often r igid.
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 that
may be undeveloped or unexpressed. Critics of gifted 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 wh at 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 Bad
Apples or a Rotten Bushel,” Phi Del ta Kappan, vol. 68, March 1987,pp . 535-538.zqRobert J Sternberg and Janet E. Davidson (eds. ), Conceptions
of Giftecfness (Cambridge, England: Cambridge Un iversity Press,1986); and Howard Gardner, “Developing the Spectrum of HumanIntelligence, ” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 57, No. 2, 1987,
pp. 187-193.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 92/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 93/149
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 or
mathematics? 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 mathem atics, helping th emfulf i l l expectat ions (rather than i l l -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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 94/149
Chapter 5
Learning Outside of School
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 95/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 96/149
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 of school. 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 of change. All are potential filters of the images of science 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, can
awaken or reinforce interest, without raising thespectre of failure for those who lack confidencein their abilities. (As Frank Opp enheimer, found erof 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 a
child’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 of careers. 1
‘This is the motivation for the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science’s LINKAGES Project, and particularly for theappeal for minority p arental involvement in their children’s educa-tion, as illustrated by The College Board, Get Into the Equatjon:
(contlnueci on ne~t page J
91
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 97/149
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 of
America’s oldest high school competitions in thesciences. Between 1942 and 1985, it awarded $2
million 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, one
conducted in 1961 and another in 1985,2suggest
(continued from previous
and Science, Parents and Children (New York, NY: CollegeEntrance Examination Board, September 1987).
A. Edgerton, Science Early Identif ication and
Continuing Development (Washington, DC: Science Service, Inc.,1961 ); and Science Service, Inc., Survey W estinghouse Science
Search W inners (Washington, DC: Westinghouse ElectricCorp., November 1985).
that parents, close relatives, or teachers played
critical roles in their decisions to become scien-
tists. Male family members were especially im-
portant influences (the bulk of the winners were
male). For example, in the 1985 survey, 35 per-cent of winners had fathers who were professional
scientists 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 they
became interested in their current professionalfields in high school.
Parental involvement in education has always
been recognized as important. An innovative
mathematics program called Family Math, based
at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, Cali-
fornia, is designed to encourage parents to work
Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools
Parents are instrumental in shaping their children’s attitudes toward education.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 98/149
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 th e other med ia 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 manipu la ted by inhumane people .4 In anycase, the process of scientific and technologicaladvance is poorly un derstood by the pu blic. Whilethe sometimes dismal image of science is one part
of 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 stud y d issected the content of network p rime-
time dramatic programs between 1973 and1983. ’ The study found that: 1) some aspect of science 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, Septem ber 1987.
‘George Gerbner , “Science on Television: How It Affects Pub-lic Conceptionsr ” Issues in Science and Technology r 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, ” unp ublished m anuscript, 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: Regen ts of the 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 social
contacts 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 d ata from the mathematics and science assessmentsof the 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicatethat 24 percent of Blacks in grad e 11 and 44 percent of Blacks ingrade 7 watch 6 hou rs or more of television daily, comp ared to 9
percent 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 99/149
94
and sexes, depending on the content of program-ming o
10Heavy television viewing redu ces the
time students spend on homework, thus depress-ing th eir academ ic 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 p olicy p erspective, however, even if alink between television portrayals of science and
engineering and career aspirations were estab-lished, the challenge w ould be to d esign 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 num ber of ways in w hich the image of thescientist contains extremes w hich app ear 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 of Educational Progress, ” presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer-
ican Edu cational Research Association, Ap ril 1983; and BarbaraWard et al., The Relationship of Students’ Academic Achievement
to Television W atching, 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 stud ents that occurred in the 1970s. See College Entrance Ex-amination Board, On Further Examination: Report of the Advisory
Panel 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 Recent
Trends (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Au-gu st 1987), pp. 69-71.
121cek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting 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 Education
and Training Technology, B.S. Alloway an d G.M. Mills (eds. ) (New
York, 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 mu ch contact w ith mon ey ortoo little; being bald or bearded; confined to work indoors, or traveling far away; talking all the timein a boring way , or never talking at all—all rep-resent d eviations from the accepted w ay of life,from being a n ormal friendly hu man being, wholives like other p eople and g ets along w ith otherpeople.
A 1977 study, 20 years after the work of Meadand Metraux, found that perceptions had changedlittle. Over 4,OO O 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 man yyounger children watch as well). Its aim is to in-terest these studen ts in science, with p articular em -phasis on female and minority children. Exten-sive research has been done on this series. It is
estimated 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 tru st their judgment. But images of wh ata scientist does rem ain 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 Contem porary America, ” Science and It s Public:
The Changing Relationship, G. Holton an d W.A. Blanpied (eds. )(Boston, MA: D. Reidel, 1977), pp. 229-243.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 100/149
95
zinc, and it is estimated that on e-half of all viewers
have done some science-related activity,*’
The impact of a television message may depend
more on the characteristics of the viewer, such
as his or her age, than on the characteristics of
the message. OTA finds no compelling support
for 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 of
viewers.
“Research Communications, Ltd., “An ExploratoryContact Viewership, ” National Science Foundation contractor
repor t, 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 show
scientific phenomena in action, and dedicatedstaffs determined to spark interest in science. They
have important positive effects on students’ atti-
tudes toward science and knowledge of physical
phenomena.
Science museums were first set up to house and
archive 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 have
changed, new institutions, called science centers,
have sprung up with the primary aim of exciting
and 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 participate
in its exhibits, and to introduce cutaways andworking models to encourage the public to learn
about how things work rather than what theylook like. This model was soon copied for use in
the 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 science
centers 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 orun available .17 Science centers are also making
increasing use of new technolog y such as com-puters, video, and videodiscs, both as exhibits in
their own right, and as a means of illustrating sci-
entific and technological concepts.
Sheila “Science Centers Come of Age, ”
Science & Technology, 4, No . 3, spr ing 1988, 70-7s.Michael Templeton, “The Science Museum: Object Lessons
in Informal Education, ” Annual 1987, Marvin (cd. )
(Washington , DC: Nat ional Science Teachers Association, forth-coming ).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 101/149
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 op ened after 1980. The survey suggeststhat as many children and young people as adultsvisit the centers. Probably abou t 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 rural
areas.The people who work in science centers are
skilled 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 an d data cited below are from Association of Science-
Technology Centers, “Basic Science Center Dat a 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 commu nity, but w e don ’trepresent one faction of the commu nity. We areseen as repr esenting a lot of different interests, andI think that is an enormous source of strength thatevery science center h as 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 R esource Guide (Washing ton, 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).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 102/149
9 7
Box 5-A.—Th e EQUA LS 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 p articipation of female and m inority
students in mathematics and computer courses.EQUALS provides curriculum materials, staff de-
velopment seminars, and family learning oppor-tun ities. It is located at th e Lawrence Hall of Sci-ence (University of Californ ia 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 d ata from extensive interviews andquestionnaires indicate that EQUALS programsincrease studen t enrollment in advanced scienceand mathematics classes, improve attitudes andinterest in related occupations, enhance the
professional growth of teachers, and, perhapsmost importantly, encourage parent in volvementin the schools (the Family Math Program is cur-rently being evaluated with National ScienceFoundation funds). EQUALS publications, in-cludin g We All Count in Family Math an d I’m
Madly 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 emp hasis is on hand s-on, active problem solving. Materials in Span-ish are also available and w idely used.
SOURCE: EQUALS Program, Lawrence Hall of Science, Univwaity of Califor-nia at Se rke ley .
into heterogeneous groups of 5 to 10 studentsdrawn from different schools, neighborhoods,races, and ethnicities), the program makes use of existing 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 to
run, and that most charge between 75 cents and
“Judy Diamond, Natural History Museum, San Diego, personalcommunication, June 1988.
$5 for adm ission.22 About 40 percent of expenses
incurred 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 Mu seum Services, and the Departm entof Education’s Secretary’s Discretionary Fund.Only the Institute of Museum Services will con-tribute toward routine operating expenses (and
it sets a limit on its contribution of $75,000 p e rmuseum 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 u nderstand ing of the scientific concepts u nd er-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 w hat th ey 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 103/149
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 obeying
rules 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 interest ingstudy of the “Explainer” program at the Explorato-rium, in which nonscientifically inclined but en-thusiastic high school students explain particular
exhibits 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 wh ole night learning and p lay-ing in a science center,
Informal Learning
Informal education, then, is not just museumsand science centers. Informal learning also tak es
place through reading, watching television, visit-
ing libraries, and participating in clubs. It is thisadditional informal education, as one NSF staffer
puts 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 Cent ers.2’George W. Tressel, “The Role of Informal Learning in Science
Education, ” presented to the Chicago Academy of Sciences, Nov.14, 1987, p. 11.
INTERVENTION AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS
Some kinds of informal education programs aredesigned to enrich, or even replace, traditionalschooling in mathematics and science. One formis the “intervention program, ” designed to im-prove ed ucational 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 enrichment
progams,
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 of courses 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 demographic
changes already occurring. Negative attitudes
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 104/149
99
Box 5-B.—Learnin g by Teachi ng: 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 are
located around some of the Exploratorium’s exhibits to help visitors by conducting demonstrations, an-swering questions, and sparking discussion about th e 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 pu blic, rather than for their interest in science as such. The program deliberately reaches out to stu-dents ou tside the academic and science mainstream; good grad es or interest in science are not p rerequisites,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 of paid training before and during the job. The program costs the Exploratorium about $250,000 per year(or abou t $4,000 to $5,000 per Explain er). Most Explain ers work only on e session.
An evaluation of nearly 900 alumni of the Explainer program was conducted in 1985-86.1Former 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 b enefits the Explainers cited was w ork-
ing in tensely 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 abou t subjects they had previously thought in accessible. They learned to deal w ith not kn ow-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 som ething did n’t catch my interest in class, but it did w hen I learned ithere. It was h and s on. There w as actual proof. It wasn ’t something read from a textbook.
I learned to tolerate a lot of my own mistakes. . . . You lear n to appreciate that you can learn fromthose that know better. Once at an eye d issection, I got into a conversation w ith an ophthalmology student.I’d be explaining things bu t all of a sud den I was learning new stuff by talking to this guy.
It got rid of a stigma for me and let me go and pu rsue science, which is really what I wanted to doin the first place. I foun d ou t that, yeah, you can enjoy science and you’re not weird if you do, so why
not? 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-oriented
person. When you explain something and you see the spark in people’s eyes, you are en riching th em. 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 w as 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 th eir 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 in terested in science and en gineering strengthened their confidence; other studen ts gained generalself-esteem and were encouraged to go to college.
The Explainer p rogram also helps visitors enjoy them selves 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 Explo r a t o r i um, ‘The Explo r a t o r i um Explainer Program: The Long-Term Impact on Teenagers of Teaching Science tothe Pub lic 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 a lumn i were interviewed at length, and a qu e s t i oma i r e 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 105/149
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 have
only been in existence for about 20 years, m a n ysuccessful 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 an d Reach of Intervention Programs
The Office of Opportunities in Science of AAAS collects data on intervention programs,and is an enthusiastic advocate of them.27 T h eprograms 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 fo r th e Advancement of Science, Office
of Opp ortunities 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 Assessment
of Programs That Facilitate Increased Access and Achievement of Females 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 of other 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 of females 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 strongle a d e r sh ip , h ig h ly c o mmi t t e d a n d t r a in e dteachers, 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 106/149
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 of self-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 plan
to attend college. While many Blacks and His-panics are interested and aware of science andengineering careers—historically a route to socialmobili ty—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 hom e 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 is
limited. 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 percent
of the total minority student population). But25,000 participants in NAPD program s 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 of success.
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: Options
for 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
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 107/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 108/149
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 nonp olitical nation al organizationof American Indian scientists and engineers. The society’s primary p urp ose is to expand Am erican In dianparticipation 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 Canad a. Projects
are 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 throu gh science fairs and camps, sponsor competitions, coordinate stu dent chap ters,and publish newsletters and videotapes. Collegiate programs include mentorships, internships, and work-
shops. The Collegiate Chapter Program includes an ann ual 2-day conference for leadership training and
focuses on providing scholarship information and peer support at 35 institutions. Professional programsare also available for Ind ian scientists and engineers.
Fundin g sources are pu blic and private, including th e National Science Found ation, the Dep artmentof Education Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Hewlett Packard, and Hughes Aircraft. The society also earns some income from the pub-lication of Wind s of Chan ge, a quarterly magazine designed to disseminate information on educationalopportunities and AISES activities, and to promote involvement of Indian and non-Indian participants in
Indian concerns. To benefit from AISES programs, schools and agencies must affiliate with th e society.The society’s annual conference brings together Indian students, the affiliates, and non-lndian professionals
from the public and private sectors.
SOURCE: American Indian Science and Engineering Society, Boulder, CO.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 109/149
104
taining f inan cial aid. Enrol lment
PRIM E serves more than 3,000 st udents each year. Recent statistics show th at 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 of SEE’s current programs directly address “under-represented” groups. Programs for these groups
have 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 specific
minority 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 110/149
10 5
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 p rograms 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 ben efactors scale down their gifts tofit their expectations of success when historically Black institutionsare involved. Found ations 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 N ecessary?” 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 parents
and 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 w ith intervention p rograms h as pr o-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 ProgramsMany pr ograms are d esigned to enrich or speed
the 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 and
engineering 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 111/149
106
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 112/149
Improving ScChapter 6
hool Mathematics
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 113/149
CONTENTS Page
The Systemic Nature of the Problems Facing American Schools. . .............109In crem en tal an d Rad ical Reform s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..110Local and State Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........110
Federal Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................115The Federal Interest in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education. . ..........115Evaluation of Federal Science and Math ematics Edu cation Program s. . . .. ....118
Title 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 ScienceEdu cation: Recomm end ations b y SRI In ternational to N SF’s Science an dEngineerin g Education Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...111
6-B. Problems in Evaluating Science Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1196-C. 4-H: Five Million Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................130
Figure Figure 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 Recommen ded an d 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 G rad uation, b y State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..114
6-4. Summary of Mission Agency K-12 Mathematics and Science EducationPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................128
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 114/149
Chapter 6
Improving School Mathematics
and Science Education
Now when 1 say “education, “ I’m going beyond what is in NSF’S Science and
Engineering Education Directorate and looking at the education capabilities
and 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,graduat ion s tandards, and the educat ion of teachers, 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 dr awn 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 indu strial 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 Com mission 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 of mathematics 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 d oes not depend on anyparticular edu cational pr actice, on h ow th ey 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 ingred ients of an effective schoo l—such things as academically focused objectives,
‘Iris R. Weiss r OTA workshop summary, September 1987; F.James Rutherford, “Activities in Precollege Education, ” Competi-tion for Human Resources in Science and Engineering in th e 1990s,
Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC: Commission on Profes-sionals in Science an d Technology, Oct. 11-12, 1987), pp . 60-65;
Arthur G. Powell et al., The Shopping Mall Hi gh School: W inners
and Losers in the Educational Marketplace (Boston, MA: Hough-ton Mifflin, 1985); and Ernest L. Boyer, High Schoo): A R eport on
Secondary Education in America (New York, NY: Harper & Row,1983).
109
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 115/149
110
pedagogically strong principals, relatively autono-mou s teachers, and collegial staff relations—donot flourish w ithout the w illingness 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 n o 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 population
of 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 of existing 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 of mathematics and science education. The bestshort-term focus, therefore, will be on incrementalimprovements within the existing system.4
In 1985, Congress asked the Nat ional 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 Cu rrent Wave of School Reform WillFail, ” Public Zn teres t , 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 H eritage Foundation, 1987), pp. 69-76.4
For the p erspective of the former Secretary of Edu cation, seeWilliam J. Bennett, American Education:Making It Work (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Departmen t of Edu cation, Apr il 1988), esp. pp.23, 31, 35, 41, 45.
June 1987, makes many concrete suggestions of ways 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 betw een increm entalchange and wholesale renovation, arguing thatwhile incremental improvements may not be theway to effect fundamental change, far-reaching
innovations 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 highly
beneficial. In 1983, the American Association of School 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 Investment
in 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 Edu cation, ” Education W eek, 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 116/149
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
qRedesign and imp rove existing math ematics curricula at all grade levels. The amoun t of repetitive com-putation should be reduced, and the amount of effort devoted to other topics, such as the skills of mathe-matical prob lem solving, probability and statistics, and compu ter sciences, should be expand ed.
qRedesign the way in which elementary school science is taught. Elementary school science, desp ite NSF’sattempts in the 1960s to develop ‘“hands-on” curricula, is still very limited in scale and depth. NSF hasbegun a n initiative in this area.’ Similary, one p riority should b e to redesign and improve middle andhigh school curricula.
q More effort shouId be made to match mathematics and science education with the needs and backgroundsof studen ts, particularly females and minorities. The reach of existing programs and curricula mu st beextended, but experiments are also needed to tailor teaching to the special needs of each type of learner.
Opportunities to Strengthen the Professional Community
q Th e 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 p rograms,recognition programs, and development of stronger alliances between higher education and school dis-tricts wou ld enhance this support function.
qThe 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 teacher
training courses, and the utilization of knowledge about teacher recruitment and training programs.q Strengthen the informal science education community. Educators out of schools—on television and in
museu ms and science centers-are becoming increasingly important. These people need trainin g and p rofes-sional development, and would benefit from larger networks and closer collaboration,
Opportunities to Leverage Key Point s in Educational Infrastructure
q improve and expand publishing capabilities in mathematics and science education. An emphasis onbroadening 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 im prove the textbook pu blishing process, and promotion of alternative pub lishing routeswould help provide a diversity of materials that the current mechanisms of market operation are notable to support.
q 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 implementing
tests that measure a broader range of sk ills, concepts, and attitudes th an current fact-oriented tests. NSF’sskill at research and development gives it special expertise in managing research programs in testing.
qWork with State mathematics and science education reform leaders. Interest among these leaders in im-proving the teaching of these sub jects is strong, but their familiarity with th e educational issues involvedis limited. NSF could assist State-level groups to devise and implement reforms, and to develop n etworks.
q Expand the proven power of in formal education programs and assist their assimilation into schools. Theseprogr ams are effective at reaching and m otivating large and d iverse groups of studen ts. Innovations areneeded, as is better outreach to more communities.
T1 w National Science Foundation’s first solicitation in this area, in fiscal year 19s6, a dd remed elementary mathematics curricula, and resulted in
si x MWXI&, A second solicftatkm, also in fiscal yea r 1986, addressed elementary science curricula and aimed to develop “. . . partnerships amon g pub -
Iiahers, achool ayatema an d scient i s t s / s&rtat educa tcws fo r the pu rpose of providing a num ber of competitive,high quality, alternative science programsfor use in typical Ater@tt -entary schools.” Amo n g t h e se latter awards has been the Technical Education Research Center’s project in linking com-puters an d _ learning. A H&d round of awardswits made in May 1988. See National Science Found ation, Directorate for Science and EngineeringEducation, “Summaryofknts, H 19S4-86: Instructional Materials Development Program,”NSF86-85, unpublished document, March 1987; National
Science Foundation, ProgramSoIication, “Programs for Elementary School Science Instruction II,”NS F 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 National
Science Foundation, Summary Report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), pp. 10-16.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 117/149
112
Education policy begins at the local level.
States are playing an increasing role in K-12education, through finance, curriculum andgraduation requirements, and assessment and
monitoring. 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 of educational 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;
q 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 to
local 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 ~a th and
Science Education (Arlington, VA: American Association of School Ad-ministrators, 1985), pp. 29-30.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 118/149
113
requirements are met;q providing special programs for female, mi-
nority, gifted and talented, handicapped, andlearning disabled students; and
• recruitment of m athematics and science
teachers and improvement of their skills.
Most of these initiatives are too recent to have
been 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 what
students learn by means of curriculum require-ments, tightened graduation requirements, and
encouragements to teachers and students to ad-dress high er order think ing skills. With respect to
graduation requ irements, anecdotal d ata suggest
that college admission requirements may b e 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 ed ucation), up from $26 million in 1984. See Coun cil 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 Work s: TheRight Role for Business, ” Harvard Business R eview, 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 built
around 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. Of these 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 requ ire 2 courses in math e-
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 Espenshad e, op. cit., footnote 8, table I. There is nosound estimate of the average length of the elementar y 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 Education
Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987 (Washingt on, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 1987), table 89.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 119/149
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 1 986 R ecommended
Mathematics:
K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 38 45-60 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 49 50-60
Science: K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 20-30 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 38 35-45
NOTE: There is no estimate of the average length of the elementary school dayavailable. 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, p
12 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 Indicators
Project, November 1987), p 2
However, control of the number of mathe-mat ics 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 of little use if there are too few w ell-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 to
teach 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 Admin istrators, 1985),pp. 7-8. Some argue that the trend toward increased control over
classroom teaching and learning is both a distingu ishing trait of American edu cation and a major weakness. See Arthu r 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 diploma
Math 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 2
2 2
5 combined2 2
Local board3 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
2 2
3 3
2 2
2 2
2
2 2
Local board2 2
3 2
3 3
2 2
3 2
Local boardLocal boardO
a
Oa
2 2
2 2
2 1
Local board22 2
3 2
3 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2
3 32 2
2 2
3 2
2 2
2 2
3 2
2 2
5 combined5 combined2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
Local board
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
2 a
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2 a
2
3
3
aNewYork 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 Related
to Scierrce and Mathematics (Washington, DC: Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, State Education Assessment Center Science andMathematics Indicators Project, November 1%37), table 2.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 120/149
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 demonstrat ion 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 teachersadd ress higher ord er thinking skills in science andmathematics teaching, either through teacher
1‘Penny A. Sebring, “Consequences of Differential Amounts of
High School Cou rsewo rk : 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 of education 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/ ot
Education 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 46States, 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 and
five 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, wh en
the U.S. Office of Education was established, thatrole was augmented by the task of informationgathering, research, and analysis. At the turn of the 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 fun din g of basic research be-gan after World War II, when demand for re-search scientists and engineers was strong. NSF,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 121/149
116
created in 1951, was given a mandate to ensurethe adequacy of science and engineering educa-tion and man pow er at all levels. NSF’s prime ed u-cation goal, however, was the cultivation andeducation of enough scientific talent to fuel thenew research-intensive indu stries 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 to
school 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 program s for high school stud ents 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 Proposed
Initiative 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 sup por t 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 entitlement
basis; 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 of this 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 of education programs reauthorized in 1988; the newname for Title 11 is the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mathematics 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, W hen Federalism W orks (Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institu tion, 1987).*’The power of the science education lobby is described in Morris
H. 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 122/149
717
funding and considerable bipartisan support, evenin the current stringent budgetary climate. Theycome from three sources:
q
q
q
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;an d
mission agencies that have a direct interestin developing a pool of skilled scientific tal-ent; such agencies include the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Agricul-ture (USDA), the National Inst i tutes of Health (NIH), and the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA).
There is an important difference between NSFand the Department of Education in the scale of the 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 $20
billion. 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 of Education would not concentrate only on thebrightest and best students and on funding pro-posals from rich research universities the way NSF
d o e s .21 In addition, some note that NSF is mostcomfortable in dealing with and through univer-sities and, until recently, has made few efforts to
work 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 and
science education programs is rejected by mostof NSF’s existing clients in the scientific and sci-ence educa t ion r e sea rch communi t i e s , 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 have
taken. 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 p ersonal conclusions kJl-
lowing hearings by the Science Policy Task Force, American Sci-
ence an d Science Policy Issues, Chairman’s Report to the Commit-tee on Science and Technolog}~, U.S. House of Representatives rWh
Congress, 2nd Session, December 1986, pp . 80-84 (Committev Print),%ee Atkin, op. cit., footnote 16,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 123/149
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 stud y, SRI International su ggested thatNSF’s approach to K-I2 mathematics and scienceeducation should be based on three principles:
q
q
q
identifying targets of opportun ity 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 of the SEE Directorate that distinguish it from otheractors:
q
q
o
q
q
q
national purview of problems and solutions;quasi-independent status rather than an ex-ecutive branch department;connection to the mathematics, science, and
engineering communities;large amounts of discretionary funding (i.e.,those that are allocated on a project/ prop osalbasis);a central position vis-a-vis various actors in-volved in imp roving math ematics 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 Pure
Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-
1957 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, National
Science Foundation, 1982), ch . 12; and U. S.~ongress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade
School t o Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office, June 1988), pp. 104-107.
matics and science edu cation p rograms, 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 mathematicsedu cation m ust d iffer from su pp ort 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 of previous 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 program s in this area havebeen tried, and appendix C lists some of them.Most have emphasized science rather than math-ematics.
Three principal Federal program s have been de-signed to improve mathematics and science edu-cation:
q NSF-funded teacher training institutes;. NSF-funded curriculum development; andq Title II of the EESA, administered by the De-
partment of Education.
2 4 Kn a p p
et a l . , OP. cit. ‘footnote
25Atkin, op. cit., footnote 16, p.
‘dKnapp et al., op. cit., footnote
5, pp. 9-1o.10.5, p. 5.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 124/149
119
Box 6-B.-Problem s in Evalua ting Scien ce Edu cation Program s
Much of the current literature and data on the effectiveness of p revious 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 app arent by the time of the final obseervation. Ideally, research sh ouldalso 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 defining
and 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 achivement t on multiple-choice tests. Other valid output measures might equallybe related to discipline and b ehavior in school, attitudes and interest in the subject, manual sk ills, 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 u sed as definitive measures of the outp uts 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 fu lly the effects of p ro-grams. Studies of programs that id entify highly atble children and educate them apart from their p eers often
show th at 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 (du e, for example, to maturation) that wou ld h ave 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 of research findings. Sometimes researchers argue that the results can be extrapolated to much larger popula-tions, but that argument can only b e sustained w hen oth er characteristics of the pop ulations, such as socio-economic status, ethnic composition, and urbanicity of the school chosen, are matched.
NSF Teacher Trainin g In stitutes Program most of the institutes focused on improving
Between 1954 and 1974, NSF spent a total of over $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 m athematics and sci-ence teachers better subject knowledge would leadto better teaching—seems rather primitive. Any
replication 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-
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 125/149
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 which
t ime NSF had judged that the institutes hadreached about as many teachers as any voluntaryprogram ever would. A survey taken in 1977found th at many teachers had participated in NSF-funded institutes. The surv ey 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 percent
of 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 ind ividu als wh o 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 upd ate 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 printing
Office, Mar. 6, 1984).
many science educators think that the instituteswere very successful. Various studies, incIudingone by the Congressional Research Service in1975, found that the inst i tutes had posit iveeffects.30
NSF did not attempt a systematic comprehen-sive evaluation of its own during the lifetime of
the institutes. The institutes concentrated on im-proving the m athematical 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 draw n from a history of thisprogram and from the OTA survey of NARSTmembers indicated that the teacher institutes pro-gram had these important effects:
q 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 of competence in, science.
Ž It helped teachers share common solutionsand problems, and gave them a network of peers that they kept in touch with many yearsafter the programs ended.
• It allowed teachers to do experimental workin science, which many of them had never
done before, and thereby encouraged themto replicate this experience for their students.q 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 National
Science 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 Know ledge (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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 126/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 127/149
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) were
using some kind of NSF-funded curriculum ma-terials. A 1977 survey found that about one-half of 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 evaluation
studies 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 prepara toryteacher institutes for the curricula scored morehighly than their peers taking the new curriculawithout this benefit.
37 It is clear that successful
implementation 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 stud ies is reported inJames A. Shymansky et al., “A Reassessment of the Effects of 60’s
Science Curricula on Student Performance: Final Report, ” mimeo,n.d . (a reworking of material originally pu blished in 1983). Alsosee Patricia E. Blosser, “What Research Says: Research Related toInstructional Materials for Science, ” School Science an d Mathe-
matics, vol. 86, No. 6, October 1986, pp. 513-517; and Ted Bred-derman, “Effects of Activity-Based Elementary Science on StudentOutcomes: A Quan titative Analysis, ” Review of Educational R e-
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 pu blishers began to ad optmany 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 being
elementary 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:
q
q
q
q
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 Advan cement of Science, personal com-munication, August 1988).39Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, p. 48.‘“Ibid., vol. 1, p. 92.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 128/149
123
ment of a needed team approach to the de-sign and implementation of the curricula.
q An approach embracing a view of science asa collection of neutral and immutable facts,to the exclusion of other conceptions of science.
Today’s science curricula have slipped back into
stressing 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 trad i-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 langu ages in both p ublic 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. For
comparison, the total expenditure on public andprivate elementary and secondar y 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 exemplar y State and local pro-
~lSee Philip W. Jackson, “The Reform of Science Education: ACautionary Tale, ” DaedaIus, vol. 112, No. 2, spr ing 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).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 129/149
124
grams that have been funded through the TitleII program.”
The legislation specifies in some detail the in-tended fate of the sum s app ropriated, 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 Ed ucation 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 und erstand th e way in w hich m athe-matics and science education programs adminis-tered through the Department of Education oper-ate. (See figure 6-1.)
45
Of the fund s app ropriated u nd er 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 th e allocations that ap plied d uringfiscal years 1985 to 1988. Th ey 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 istra 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 130/149
125
the remaining 1 p ercent is divided equally betweenthe U.S. Territories and Insu lar Areas and th eU.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 divided
among the States (including Puerto Rico and theDistrict of Columbia) on the basis of the size of their school-age popu lations, 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’s
education 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 award s 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 d is-perse appropriated funds very widely withoutconsideration of w hether d ilution reaches a thresh-old where the funds make no discernible impact
on mathematics and science education. Almostal l 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 money
that 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 in
mathematics, 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 th efiscal 1986 NSF authoriza tion (Pu blic 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 th e distribution of funds under the programnotes that one (unnamed) school district, which would receive $25
und er 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 Security
Act: 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, Bud get, and Evaluation, Augu st 1987.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 131/149
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 to
mathematics and science education. The follow-ing programs are active:
q Office of Studies and Program Assessment,NSF, providing data and management infor-mation on the national state of mathematicsand science education;
q Program of Research in Teaching and Learn-ing, NSF, funding educational research on ef-fective teaching and learning in schools anduniversities;
q Center for Education Statistics, Office of Edu-cational Research and Improvement (OERI),
Department of Education, providing nationaldata on education in all subjects; and
q 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 National
Surveys 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 schoolgradu ates from the N ational Assessment of Edu ca-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 h as been practiced for a long time, in-cluding joint National Science Foundation (Science and Engineer-ing Education Directorate) -Department of Education review of educational 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 w ith research in other sub- ject areas) from budget cuts,51 dispu tes amongseveral relevant disciplines (including psychology
and 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 d isseminates and provides some fund-ing for implementation of curricula that are of demonstrated 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 of these 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 of Education-funded longitudinal studies, the National LongitudinalStudy and the High School and Beyond survey, have proved to beinvaluable as well.51U.S. Congress, General A ccoun ting Office, Education Informa-
tion: Changes in Funds and Prion”ties Have ALfected Production and
Quality, GAO/F’Eh4D-88-4 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, November 1987).Szon rewarch needs in science education genera]ly, see Marcia
C. 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 Nationa l Science Found ation, Summary of Active Awards, Studies and Analyses Program (Washington, DC: March1988).~All data are from U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Science Education Pro-
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 132/149
12 7
Education Programs in theMission Research Agencies
Federal R&D mission agencies are active inmathematics and science education. The bulk of activity 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 totra in 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 Educational
Programs 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.Stud ents are selected for ap titude and motivation,and on the recommendation of their sc ienceteacher.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 of just under $1,000 to around $3,000 per student.Most of the cost is in salary for the student; there
usually is significant cost-sharing with the hostlaboratory, and often with industry and other pri-vate sup porters. Shorter summ er 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 staff and 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 encouragin g participants toattend college and pursue a research career; 60 percent of studentssay that the experience influenced their career decisions. One of the
touted strengths of the program is its flexibility and the institution’sleeway in awarding and using the grants (the grants include salar y
for the apprentice, which may also be used for supplies or any rele-vant education activity). National Institutes of Health, personal com-mu nication, May 1988.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 133/149
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 of sophisticated 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 of elementary 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 m ost active and in nova-tive mission agencies in education. Public educa-tion has b een 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 of NASA’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
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
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 Agency
USDA = 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 134/149
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. Inaddition, 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 high
school. 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, and
meetings 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 several
hundred high school students to do mentoredsummer research at defense laboratories.
The National Institute of Standards and Tech-nology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of Standards, 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 science
education. In particular, the well-established 4-H program, which has over 5 million participantsin counties throughout the Nation, reaches an
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 135/149
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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 136/149
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 of a 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 fuel
enrichment 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 137/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 138/149
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 139/149
136
hort matching has not been applied to assessments be-fore 1985, which limits th e ability of NAEP to sup -port conclusions about imp rovemen ts or declines inscience and mathematics achievement over time.
1977 and 1985
National Surveys of Science and Mathematics Edu-
cation, sponsored by the N ational Science Foun dationand condu cted 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 equipm ent, instructionaltechniques used, and teacher training. All data wereself-reported. The 1985 survey covered 425 schools,pu blic and private, including 6,000 teachers, and w asstratified by gr ad es: K-3, 3-6, 7-9, and 10-12. The su r-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 intend ed to list all science teachersof grades 7-12. All private an d pu blic secondary schoolprincipals were asked to nam e all their science teachersand the n um ber of classes of each typ e of science thatthe teachers will teach d uring t he coming school year.A stratified rand om samp le 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 stru ctures(K-12, 7-12, and either 9-12 or 10-12), and by public
or 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 n o p hysics, chemistry, or biology courses,the number of teachers teaching “in-field” and “out-of-field, ” and the teaching load of average ph ysics, bi-ology, and chemistry teachers.
Annually
The American Freshman, condu cted 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 stu dy in collegesand universities. Some longitudinal followup studies
(continued from previous page)
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 attemp ted to track stud ents 2 and 4 years after col-lege entry. All incoming freshmen are surveyed andthe d ata are stratified by typ e 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 arrangemen ts, 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. sur vey covered 500 classrooms in 2 populations:grades eight and those completing secondary school
and taking a large number of mathematics courses (de-fined as 12th graders taking college preparatory math-ematics). Both SIMS and the Second In tern ationa l Sci-ence Study (S1SS) focused on three stages of theedu cational process: the intend ed curriculum (what isin the textbooks), the imp lemented curriculum (whatthe teacher actually does in class and how), and theattained curriculum (what the students learned). Theintend ed curriculum is based on a content analysis of textbooks, 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 w hat hap pens in schools and
what students learn, so the achievement batteries wereadm inistered twice: once at the beginning and on ce atthe end of each school year.
1983 and 1986
Second International Science Study (U.S. Coord i-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 stud ies were conducted under the aegis of the Inter-national Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a non-governmental a ssociation of edu cational researchers. The first international
science study w as in 1970 and the first international math ematics study wasin 1964. Both the second mathem atics and science stud ies 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 140/149
137
both public and private schools, and surveyed a totalof 2,000 U.S. students, broken into four populations:grad e 5; grade 9; grade 12 taking second-year ph ysics,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, ” an da word knowledge test. Background data on the school
and 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 p erformance 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 p ublished. Data fromother coun tries are still being p rocessed in Stockholm,fund ed by the Swedish Ministry of Education and theBank of Swed en. The 1986 survey add ressed processskills and content, as well as teacher activities andother factors in the school environm ent that m ight af-fect achievement. Data w ere collected from stud ents,science teachers, and school administrators. Process
and achievement skills were tested for both grades fiveand nine. Achievement w as be tested in these groups:I0th grade biology, 11th grade chemistry, and 12thgrade students w ith more than 1 year of study in oneor m ore of p hysics, chemistry, or biology. Technicalaspects of this survey, including data collection butnot instrument design, were contracted to the ResearchTriangle Institute.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 141/149
Appendix B
Mathematics and Science Education in
Japan, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union
During recent years, a steady stream of internationalcomparisons of elementary and secondary educationhas p ainted an increasingly bleak picture of the defi-ciencies of Am erican math ematics and science edu ca-tion. Depressing comparisons w ith teaching p racticesin Japan , Taiwan, Hon g Kong, and South Korea havebeen seized on by many of those pressing for theUnited States to add ress its crum bling competitiveness.The source of competitive adv antage is often referredto as “hu man resources” or “hu man capital’’—skilled,talented, and flexible workers. For examp le, a recentcommentary noted that international comparisons of mathematics edu cation “ . . . typically d epict Korean10-year-olds working out the Four-Color-Map Prob-lem in their heads wh ile Americans of the same agestruggle to do double-digit multiplication withoutremoving their socks. ”
1
Problems in Making InternationalComparisons
While international comp arisons do p oint 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:
q developing a su fficiently accurate explanation of the causes of observed differences, which are veryoften rooted in what are, to the outsider, opaqu ecultural an d social d ifferences in the roles of fam-ilies, business, the State, law, and education; andhence
• determining w hat aspects of other systems couldreadily be appropriated and transferred acrosscultures and societies, and w hich wou ld be fool-ish or even counterproductive to consider trans-ferring.
For examp le, the United States could adop t a n a-tional curriculum , but such a move wou ld be resistedstrongly by many policymakers. Such a move wouldthreaten the fragile compacts between national and lo-cal auton omy stipu lated in the Federal as well as Stateconstitutions. Further, a “national curr iculu m” w ouldlikely 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 an d argued ou t line by line in highly partisancongressional debates. Rather than p roviding m odelsto be emu lated, the ultimate value of doing interna-tional comp arisons may be to provide a kind of “mir-ror” in which to examine and better und erstand thereasons for well-entrenched, culturally rooted Amer-ican educational practices and policies.
On an an alytical level, it is difficult to make soun dinternational comp arisons in edu cation un less stud iesare designed to comp are “like with like” and to col-lect enough data to bu ild a picture of overall educa-tional capacity—teachers, stud ents, and schools—ineach coun try. In considering th e high school stud ents’exposure to math ematics and science, for examp le, itis imp ortant to n ote that the Am erican school systemis designed to retain all stud ents to age 18 (and actu-
ally succeeds in en rolling about three-quarters of thisgroup), whereas schools in other countries typicallyenroll a mu ch more select grou p of stud ents in the 14-to 18-year-old ran ge.
These caveats aside, it is genera lly agreed tha t theAmerican edu cation system devotes relatively less timeto mathem atics and science education compared withother coun tries; estimates are that Am erican stu den tsspend 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 theGerm an Dem ocratic Repu blic.’ Significant d ifferencesin the m athematical progress of children in selected cit-ies in the United States, Taiwan, and the People’sRepublic of China have been found from th e elemen-tary grades. Japanese kindergarten children alreadysurpass American children in their understanding of mathematical 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 edu cation is Japan.’ Japanese children stu dy
2F. James Ruth erford 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. Cumm ings, “Japan’s Sci-
ence and Engineering Pipeline: Structure, Policies, and Trends, ” OTA con-
138
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 142/149
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 of higher education can draw from an exceptionally well-qualified crop of students. In addition, many go onto science and engineering m ajors; it is estimated that,in proportion to its population, Japan produces as
many scientists and twice as many engineers as doesthe United States.
Japan ese edu cation resides w ithin the cultural m ilieuof Japan . A well-know n recent stud y explored the im-portan ce of families in math ematics 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 240
days 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 of class tim e 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. Thesethem es are often reinforced by edu cational televisionprogr ams broad cast by the Japan Broadcasting Asso-ciation and coordinated with the curriculum.7 Stu-dents often go on field trips with their school. It iswidel y reported that Japanese mathematics and sciencecurricula deman d more from their students than thosein the U nited States: Japan ese studen ts simply covermore ground. Although Japanese and American ele-mentary school students spend a similar amoun t of time on mathematics and science, from six to eightperiods per week, the time is far more intensively used
in 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 of
Educat]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 German y: A Comparative An alysis, ” 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 crud e, indica-tor of the amount of learning in that sublect, But the amount of learnin g alsodepend s on the efficiency of that learning, which depends in p art on the qua lity
of teachtng methods employed and, In the elementar yyears, the hnks w]thother su bjects Learnin g in mathematics and science by elementary, schoolch]ldren depends in part on th eir read]ng and writing abillties.
‘Tornoyukl Nogami et al , “Science Educat]on in Japan—A ComparisonW]th the U.S ,“ mimeo prepared for the Na tional 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 p art that is because Japa-nese elementary schools are not grouped or trackedby ability, and the use of mixed-abilit y cooperativelearning group s, or han, is very comm on. But it is alsodu e to the assump tion that everyone can and mu st 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 successfull y
at home or work.8
Japanese lower secondar y schools, which covergrad es seven to nine, are similar to American juniorhigh schools, but hav e few or no electives, Studentsare required to wear un iforms and adopt a more seri-ous and d isciplined ap proach to work than the y hadin elementar y schools, There is still no sorting by abil-ity, although the use of cooperative learning groupsis rare. Upon completion of lower secondar y schools,at the end of ninth grade, all students have taken some
elementary geometry, trigonometry, algebra, andprobability and statistics. They have d evoted betw een6 to 8 out of 30 weekly class periods to math ematicsand science. In science, stud ents take a variety of gen-eral science topics, including biology, chemistry,ph ysics, and earth science. Teachers specialize in a sub- ject area and teach only that area. The pressure to getinto a good u pper secondary school leads students inlower secondary schools to be highly comp etitive andneurotic, and the consequent pressure to succeed isoften cited as a cause of teenage suicide. Many stu-den ts attend out-of-school juku, which are coachinglessons that prepare them for examinations for entryto upp er secondar y schools, mostly concentrating on
English and mathematics.The final 3 years of school, up per second ary schooI,are quite d ifferent from the p receding 9. Entry to thislevel is on th e basis of lower secondary school recordsand comm on entrance examinations ad ministered bythe local pr efectur e; schools can be high ly selective,and there is considerable variation in the courses thatstud ents take. Attend ance at up per secondary schoolsis volun tary, and tu ition 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 th em. Some up per secondar y schools special-ize in academic-preparatory programs and other voca-
tional program s; only about 30 percent offer both p ro-gram s. ’ 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,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 143/149
140
the neighborh ood comp rehensive high school princi-ple, par ents often lobbied officials to send their chil-dren to the better neighborhood schools and up per sec-ondary schools now are definitely not equal.
Within Japan ese upp er second ary schools, stud entsselect a given course of classes, and it is very d ifficultto 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 th e first year. Within the aca-demic-general course there is often a branch at the endof the first year of upp er secondary school, at whichpoint th ose planning science and engineering majorsare separated from those planning arts majors. Stu-den ts are often further sorted by ability levels withineach course. About tw o-thirds of the stud ents takeacademic-general courses, one-quarter take vocationalcourses, and the rem ainder enter sp ecialized 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 wh ich 18 are inmath ematics and 16 are in science; these credits includecalculus, ph ysics, chemistry, and biology. In grad e 10,students spend 10 out of 34 hours per w eek 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 p er week of integral anddifferential calculus as w ell as both ph ysics and chemis-try. In total, one-half of those in academ ic high schoolsare in science courses. Nevertheless, the core coursesrequired for both the arts an d th e vocational-special-ized courses are sufficiently deman ding in m athematicsand science that some stud ents who h ave taken thesecourses can still compete for entry to college scienceand engineering prog rams. The uniformity of classes
means that Japanese students h ave no equivalent of the advanced placement examirlations, and must allstart with freshman math ematics science program s atcollege. The up per second ary school curriculum is verydemand ing, and some stud ents fall behind and lose in-terest. The net effect is that, wh ile the prop ortion of 22-year-old s that receive baccalau reates in the Un itedStates and Japan is about th e same (23 to 24 percent),about o ne-quarter of these in Japan are in natu ral sci-ence and engineering as compared to 15 percent in theUnited States.
Japan ese public upp er second ary schools are com-plemented by a num ber of private upp er secondaryschools, in part because only a limited number of pub-
lic schools were built after the w ar and the edu cationin lower grades was emphasized. About one-quarterof upper secondary schools are private. While some
of these schools are highly selective, others enroll thosewh o failed to qualify for the limited n um ber of placesin the public sector. Public schools generally carrymore p restige.
For the college-bound, the u pp er secondary yearsare extremely deman ding as stud ents prepare to takecollege entran ce tests, In the Japanese system , thereis well-defined ranking of higher education institutionsand a stud ent’s decision to enroll in a particular insti-tution will have, through contacts with students andpr ofessors, a great effect on h is or her later career, jobprosp ects, and life. The college education that stud entsreceive 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 prep arestud ents for college entrance in th e up per secondaryschool years. Students often take both the nationallyadministered First Stage Standardized AchievementExamination and examinations set by the p articularuniversity to which they are applying, These exami-nations test only factual recall and includ e no testingof skills with experiments an d the p rocess of constru c-
tion of new scientific knowledge. In prep aring for theexaminations, stud ents often enroll in yobiko whichare similar to the juku at lower secondary level.
In man y w ays, it is ironic that the Japan ese schoolsystem does so well in mathematics and sciencewh ereas the American system h as problems, becauseJapan ’s schools were reorganized along Am erican lines.The ultimate aim w as to democratize and d emilitarizeJapan during the post-war American occupation.Japan ’s schools have also mad e good use of curriculaand instructional material developed in America. Jap-anese schools are run by abou t 50 prefectural-levelschool boards and 500 local school board s wh ich, un -like many of their American counterp arts, are filledby people appointed from above rather than elected.The national Ministry of Education, Science, and Cul-ture (mon bush o) prescribes curricula, app roves text-books, provides gu idance and funding, and regulatesprivate schools. The p refectural board s of edu cationappoint a prefectural superintendent of education,operate those schools which are established by theprefectures (primarily upper secondary schools),license and ap point teachers, and p rovide gu idance andfunding to municipalities. Municipal boards operatemu nicipal schools, choose w hich textbooks to use fromthose approved by m onbusho, and m ake recommen-dations about the appointment and dismissal of teachers to the prefectural board.
The cost of edu cation is shared by th e various tiersof government and, at later stages, by parents directly,The Japan ese government p ays about half of the cost,
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 144/149
141
includ ing some su bsidies to private schools. Specialbudget equalizing regulations direct the central gov-ernment to augment the spending of poorer districtsup to a minimu m level; there still remains a 60 per-cent variation in average per pupil expenditure amongschool districts. There is a un iform national p ay scalefor teachers, with a mod est starting salary and steadyann ual increments th at 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 norm ally at least enough app licantsfor teaching p ositions, even in m athem atics and sci-ences. Teaching rem ains one of the limited n um ber of professional occupa tions that are readily available towomen, but most teach only in elementary schools;only 18 percent of teachers in up per seconda ry schoolsare female. Most teachers ha ve d egrees in single aca-dem ic disciplines other than ed ucation, althou gh sub-stantial nu mbers h ave no d egree at all. Each p refec-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 local
school boards, but th e central Ministry of Edu cationsets standard s in a “N ational Course of Stud y” andapproves textbooks. In practice, it is believed that thereis considerab le uniformity of curricula. Curricula em -ph asize mastery of key subjects, such as math ematicsand science, and make few concessions to individu allearning styles, pred ilections, and idiosyncrasies. It isa belief in Japanese cu lture tha t creativity is only p os-sible once fundamentals are mastered.
Just as Americans admire the uniformity and ex-cellence of the Japanese system , many Japan ese aresearching for ways to make their system less mono-lithic and comp etitive, and m ore respectful of individ-ual creativity, particularly as the country is now stress-ing the d evelopm ent 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 of laboratory work in science.]] Similar programs of educational reform analysis and activity exist in Japanand the United States; the United States program isoften taken as a mod el .12 The Prime Min ister’s Na-tional Council on Edu cation Reform called in Septem -ber 1987 for the school system to put m ore emph asis
‘Whe Japan ese parallel to the U.S. Stud y of Edu cation 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 d iversity and creativity, but the council has beensplit by internal controversy over the shap e of possi-ble reforms. It is believed that these calls may leadsome prefectures to combine lower and u pp er 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 math e-matics and science edu cation have conclud ed th at itis very good for those wh o plan college stud y in sci-ence and engineering, but compa ratively weak for therest.14 Stud ents, by international stand ards, specializeat a very early age, and are offered few op portu nitiesto shift interests. Preparation for examinations, w hichare externally set and assessed, is the d ominan t activ-ity for those college-boun d, 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 d eveloped nation.
Like the United States, comparatively little science
is 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 m ore of the fields of physics, 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 of courses to specialize in for the pu rposes of taking na-tionally administered school-leaving examinations(now kn own as the Genera l Certificate of SecondaryEducation) at th e end of 10th gr ade. Those college-bound in science and engineering might take six toeight subject exams, of which three or fou r are in m ath-ematics and science subjects. Enrollmen t in grad es 11and 12 is voluntary, and is normally restricted to thosepreparing for nationally administered college entranceexaminations (known as Ad vanced-level, or A-level)examinations. At this stage, students normally special-ize in only two or th ree subjects, which tend to be re-lated to each other, although proposals have oftenbeen made to expand this number in the interests of giving college students a “br oader ed ucation. ” In thesegrades, the science- and engineering-bound can takeonly m athema tics and science subjects, if they choose.
Entry to colleges and un iversities in Great Britainis granted on the basis of grades and the num ber of passes 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: Open
Umversity Press, 1986).
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 145/149
142
institutions make offers to stud ents conditional upontheir achievement of certain grades. A minimum of two p asses in two su bjects at A-level is norm ally re-quired, and entitles the studen t to free tuition and ac-cess to a grant p rogram for living expenses wh ile atthe university.
The Soviet Union
In many w ays, the math ematics and science educa-tion system in the Soviet Union is similar to the Am er-ican an d British systems.l5 Each is a very un even SYS -
tem, geared primarily to training those who willbecome professional scientists and engineers. The bulk of the school popu lation learns relatively little and isleft largely alienated from science and engineering. Theextremes in the Soviet Union, however, are qu ite dis-tinct. The layer of top qu ality studen ts, which ranksinternationally with the best, is very thin; there is asteep d rop-off below th at level.
The edu cation system in the Soviet Union, like thatin the Un ited States, Great Britain, and Japan , is un -dergoing reforms. The impetus for these reforms is the
new national desire to improve the efficiency of in-dustry.Soviet elementar y and secondary ed ucation is split
into three phases:q primary or elementary edu cation, grades 1-3q “incomplete” secondary education, grades 4-8;
andq “comp lete” secondary ed ucation, grades 9 and 10.
Most students complete eighth grade, normallyachieved at age 15, and then choose among severaldifferent paths. Some continu e in general educationsecondary schools and are most likely to enter higheredu cation, wh ile others enter the w ork force but con-tinue their secondary education via evening or cor-respond ence courses. Higher edu cation is open to stu-
dents from each of these routes, but most collegestudents come from those who enrolled full time ingeneral edu cation second ary schools. A third p ath af-ter eighth gr ade is to en roll in a technical or vocationalschool. These schools are p rimarily intended to trainfuture skilled workers and technicians. For the mosttalented students, there are a number of specializedschools, often r esidential, some of w hich sp ecialize inmathematics and science,
Entry to higher education in the Soviet Union iscompetitive, with an approximate oversupply of sec-ondary school graduates of between tw o 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, Septem ber 1987.
Ad mission to higher edu cation institutions is prim ar-ily by m eans of exam inations. Political considerationsare often important, and students who participate inextracurricular social service activity, such as a gricul-tural w ork, are often given some p reference in adm is-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 cohort
graduates in sciences and engineering than in theUnited States.
Reforms in pr ogress includ e a requirement for stu-dents to begin full-time edu cation a year earlier, at age6 rather than age 7. The extra year w ill allow time forstud y of add itional subjects such as labor edu cationand computer science. At the m oment, comp uters arevery rarely used in classrooms, but th eir 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-wa re. To imp rove the skills of the work force, all stu-dents in general secondary education learn manual la-bor skills, even those who go on to h igher edu cation.
The current ph ase of curriculum reform is designed tointrodu ce less dem anding, but more comprehensive,curricula in many subjects, including mathematics andscience. This last step is ironic, because the intensityof the traditional mathem atics and science curriculumis often praised by American commentators. Moremon ey is being allocated to ed ucation; teachers’ sala-ries are being increased and merit pay arrangementsare being introduced.
Und er the reforms, closer links are being forged withboth higher ed ucation institutions and local firms andenterprises. All schools are being paired with neigh-borhood factories and bu sinesses: enterpr ises will berequired to provide financial and material assistance
to schools and hope to receive better trained work-ers, Many higher education institutions are signingagreemen ts with secondary schools, un der w hich col-lege faculty w ill assist in secondar y school teaching.Student s w ill be given access to research facilities atcolleges, and the colleges will adm it a specified nu m-ber of students to h igher edu cation. Research labora-tories are also being en couraged to participate in suchagreemen ts. So far, 30 of about 900 higher ed ucationinstitutions h ave signed agr eements of this kind. Whilereforms of this kind should improve the quality of edu-cation of future scientists and engineers, they will forcestud ents to sp ecialize at a youn ger age, often 15 or 16,than h as been the case.
As a further part of the Soviet reform program,more stu den ts will be encouraged to enter technicallyoriented vocational programs in grades 9 and 10 rather
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 146/149
143
than general education secondary programs. Althoughthe training these students receive is supp osed to beequivalent to that in general edu cation secondary p ro-grams, this step will probably reduce the already over-subscribed pool of qualified high school graduatesplanning to enter higher education. College entrystandards h ave also been tightened d uring the last 8years, except in fields su ch as comp uter science, andbiology, which have been targeted for expansion.
Conclusions
While mathematics and science education in othercountries contains m any features to be ad mired, in-clud ing the comm itment to these subjects, the emph asison academ ic learning, and the geograp hical equaliza-
tion of learning opportunities, each system containssome features that disturb m any Am erican edu cators.They include u nsw erving allegiance to the mastery of facts rather than creativity and individual expressionand the extensive use of lectures. Other unappealingfeatures are the limited nu mber of wom en teaching inupper secondary schools, the central control overman y asp ects of teaching, and the teaching of scienceand technology literacy to a select few rath er than th e
full cohort of stud ents. Above all, man y other coun -tries have a greater d egree of centralization in edu ca-tional decisionm aking tha n exists in the U nited States.Schools and school districts need to id entify practicesthat are transferable, but also need to be extremelycautious of the cultural and social assum ptions und er-lying some of these pr actices.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 147/149
Appendix C
OTA Survey of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching
The National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching (NARST) is an organization of u niversity re-searchers in mathematics and science education. In
June 1987, OTA mailed questionnaires to the Amer-ican m embersh ip of NARST, asking for their opinionson a range of current and p ast Federal programs de-signed to improve precollege mathematics and scienceedu cation. Of 500 questionnaires ma iled ou t in this in-formal, one-shot survey, 135 were retur ned for a re-sponse ra te of just over 30 percent.
The survey was d esigned to give OTA a general im-pression of the opinions held by individuals knowl-edgeable about previous Federal efforts in this area.NA RST includes m any active participan ts and eva lu-ators of previous Federal math ematics and science edu-cation programs; their responses provided valuable,often first-hand, accounts of programs such as Na-
tional Science Foun dation (NSF) sum mer institutes an dcurriculum development p rograms. 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 p opu lation of researchersand teacher educators in mathematics and science edu-cation, nor are the responses statistically representa-tive of the entire NARST mem bership.
OTA solicited op inions on the effectiveness of thefollowing programs:
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
grants for equipment and supp lies under the N a-tional Defense Edu cation Act (NDEA) of 1958;
NSF sum mer institutes and other inservice train-
ing for teachers;NSF sum mer institutes for stud ents and other re-search participation programs for students;NSF-fund ed n ew curriculum programs;assistance for m agnet schools for racial desegre-gation p urposes;fund s allocated throu gh Title II of the Educationfor Economic Security Act of 1984; andsup port for informal science edu cation, includ ingedu cational television and science and technologycenters.
Of these p rograms, N SF teacher institutes, researchparticipation for students, and curriculum develop-ment p rogram s received the highest ratings. Many re-spondents thought that significant lessons had beenlearned from the teacher institutes and curr iculum de-
144
velopment p rograms, such as the need to ensure thatparticipating teachers are given followu p training an dthat training covers both subject knowledge and ideas
for teaching m athem atics an d science in real-life situ-ations. Magnet school progra ms w ere the least highlyrated, although less than one-half of the respondentscited these programs at all.
OTA also asked resp ond ents to identify other Fed-eral programs that they thought had had a positiveeffect on mat hema tics and science education. Thesenominations provide a fairly comprehensive overviewof the kinds of Federal programs that have been at-temp ted since passage of the NDEA:
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
NSF-funded Institutes for Science and Mathe-matics Supervisors;fund s for Research on Teaching an d Learning of Science and Mathematics;NSF-fund ed Ch autau qua Institutes for Teachers;the Dep artment of Education’s N ational DiffusionNetw ork for the d issemination of effective cur-ricula materials;Program s for Metric Education;the Depar tment of Education’s Fund for the Im-provement of Post-Secondary Education;1
Presidential Aw ard s for Teaching Excellence inMathematics and Science;the N ational Assessment of Educational Progress,funded by the Department of Education;NSF’s Project SERAPHIM;the National Aeronau tics and Space Ad ministra-tion’s program for send ing astronauts and scien-tists to schools, and a similar program fun ded by
NSF;the Clearinghou se for Research in Science, Math-ematics, and Environm ental Education that is partof the ERIC system;National Sea Grant College Marine EducationActivities;the Department of gram; andNSF’s progr am of and Engineering.
Energy’s Hon ors Science Pro-
Resource Centers for Science
‘Despite its name, this source has funded some precollege programs, such
as 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.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 148/149
145
Several respondents made noteworthy observationsregarding:
q the imp ortance of edu cating guidance counselors, q
principals, and school board members about theproblems of science education, particularly toconvey that science is a collection of facts as wellas a w ay of exploring and examining the w orld,and that the interest of many stu dents in science q
needs to be developed;q the diminutive size of Federal mathematics and
science education p rogram s in relation to the size q
of the problems;q the fact that past programs have not done a good
job at distinguishing betw een progra ms for train-ing future scientists and en gineers and program sfor boosting technological literacy. NSF programs q
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 supp ort for pro-grams, once mounted. In many cases, programshave attempted too much too quickly, and havefailed to follow throu gh, allowing th e 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 elementar y math-ematics and science edu cation, wh ere the battleis won or lost, rather than on secondary educa-tion wh en too man y deficiencies are already ir-revocable; andthe recognition that good teachers are an abso-lute precondition to improvements in other areas,such as curriculum , equipm ent, and t esting. Sci-ence and mathematics teacher education programsat universities need to be updated and fortified.
8/14/2019 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elementary-and-secondary-education-for-science-and-engineering 149/149
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/ A S )
1. “Images o f Science: Factors Affecting the Choice of Science as a Career, ” RobertE. Fullilove, III, University of California at Berkeley
2. “Iden tifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the H igh 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. Cumm ings, Harvard University
2. “Soviet Science and Engineering Education and Work Force Policies: Recent Trends, ”Harley Balzer, Georgetown University