Technically well-trained people are needed by emerging or rebuilding industries to solve the economic problems we face.

The science and math courses in most schools have instructional and laboratory materials of the 60's, and they are obsolete! They don't even meet the needs now of those students who would become scientists and engineers.

New Instructional Strategies

The last ten years have provided much new information concerning the way humans learn. The current literature provides exciting new information concerning the adolescent mind, and how it grows and develops. Information from studies in cognitive psychology need to be applied in school science classrooms. new studies on the structure of the sciences themselves suggest different approaches to instruction, and new ways for science teachers to approach their tasks. Use of current research in all areas is needed as teachers are retrained.

Various

Federal, State, and Local Responsibilities

The delivery of pre-college education is clearly a state and local responsibility in the United States. Teacher salaries, as well as normal supplies, materials, and equipment for science and math instruction must remain a local and state responsibility.

The federal responsibility for pre-college science and math education should be mainly at two agencies: The Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.

The Department of Education, through grants to State and Local Education Agencies, and through programs at NIE, can play an important role in addressing the science education crisis. In both the Administration's initiatives for 1984, and in H.R. 1310, funds are provided to address the science and math teacher shortage. A few states also have recently begun programs to increase the supply of such teachers. As a general principle, we would agree that pre-service training of science and mathematics teachers should be mainly a state and local responsibility, although in times of crisis, state and local funds should be augmented by federal support through the Department of Education. We would further agree that routine and continual in-service education programs for science and math teachers should be a local responsibility. but, again, in times of crisis, funding should be augmented by federal support through the Department of Education. The private sector should focus mainly on local and community assistance through provision of matching funds, resources, and personnel. Tax credits (as in the Glenn-McCurdy bill) would help stimulate private sector support.

In educational research, we believe that the NIE should be principally responsible for basic research on learning and on the use of various technologies to facilitate learning. The NSF should be responsible for research on the structure of course content in science and mathematics fields as well as research on the applications of basic research in learning science and mathematics

that would result from NIE-supported basic research.

Curriculum research, which would focus on selections of content and sequence, K-16, should be a responsibility of the NSF. But creating curricula--that is, the selection of content and decisions on sequence, must be a local and state responsibility.

Why Support of Research. Development, & Teacher Training Programs Should be Lodged at NSE

In deciding on NSF's responsibilities, we would agree with Senator Jake Garn's recent statement in a letter to the NSF director:

"The specific functions that we believe are appropriate for NSF are: materials development; public awareness and motivation; teaching and materials demonstrations; evaluation of materials and teacher training; research in learning and cognition; and high technology applications."

The NSF responsibility and authority is described in Public Law 507-81st Congress (64 STAT. 149, S. 147), Section 3.(2):

"The Foundation is authorized and directed (1) to initiate and support. . .science education programs at all levels. . .'

In spite of lack of action on the part of the National Science Board in carrying out this statutory obligation, we in science education contiue to believe firmly that the original reasons for lodging science education programs at NSF are still valid and important.

We must develop science and mathematics education materials and train our teachers in a partnership with those scientists who create the knowledge. That knowledge, and the methods used by scientists to acquire new knowledge, are constantly changing. Science and mathematics teachers need direct, cooperative relationships with scientists and mathematicians, and involvement of research scientists in science education is essential. The NSF is a small independent agency with a reputation for administering programs of very high quality selected on merit.

Even though the National Science Board has been slow to respond to the present crisis, as indicated by the lack of NSF initiatives, scientists at universities and in the private sector, as well as those at the AAAS and the National Academy of Sciences, have shown great interest and concern. Many of these persons are actively working to improve the situation.

The Need for New Course Material

The NSF course development projects of the 60's were excellent for their purpose. They developed courses, materials, and labs to prepare persons who would become research scientists and engineers. Until they became obsolete--which they did about ten years ago--these courses were excellent. But they evolved into

essentially all present-day physics, chemistry, earth science, and biology courses and texts which are obsolete and inappropriate to the needs of the vast majority of students.

Rather than try to develop course content in each of the 16,000 school districts of the U.S., which would be wasteful and inefficient, and for which we could never assemble the needed concentration of expertise, it is important to have national efforts. The local schools can build their curricula by selecting and sequencing from among a variety of high quality and appropriate alternatives. National efforts have the benefit of widespread involvement of thousands of teachers in field trials and evaluation, assuring local school input into alternatives which are produced. Local schools also can adapt nationally produced materials for their special needs.

We need national course development efforts with teams of scientists, science teachers, science educators, and learning specialists, working in cooperation with publishers, equipment manufacturers, and computer and software companies. These course development projects should design courses with applications and labs that use modern microelectronics and computers.

Building Science Education Leadership

In one of our projects at NSTA, the Search for Excellence in Science Education, we have discovered important information about the teachers who have been leaders in creating excellent programs. Their average age is 51, and they have been teaching 17 years. These were the people who began their careers immediately before Sputnik and who participated most heavily in NSF institutes and projects.

If the nation is to build leadership and concentrate on meritorious programs, funding initiatives must increase the size of this leadership pool. Thus, there should be a national program component at NSF aimed at providing support for our best science and math teaching personnel to participate in conferences, workshops, institutes, and advanced degree programs.

The NSF has the staff, the organization, and the experience in research, development, teacher institutes, and undergraduate programs. Even with the severe reductions of staff in science education, many remain who were associated with development, course improvement, teacher education, and public understanding of science. The NSF has offered important programs through TV (3-2-1 CONTACT, NOVA, etc.), science museums, and other media to inform and educate both youth and adults in science education.

Federal Initiatives

In the last session of Congress, there were some 17 bills introduced to address the crisis in science education. In the current session several of these have been reintroduced, and others are being prepared.

National Science Board Neglect

The NSF has the authorization to maintain the health of science and the science education which feeds science. The existence of the present crisis and the variety of Congressional initiatives are clear evidence that the NSF policy-making body, the National Science Board, has been negligent over a long period of time. They set policy and recommend programs and budgets to support those programs. In an effort to protect and promote support for scientific research, the NSB has systematically reduced support for science education over a twenty-year period. We now face the consequences of that long-term neglect.

Jerrold Zacharias, former MIT Research Scientist, has stated the problem with the NSB well:

"...the Education Directorate [at NSF1 is struggling against an almost impossible enemy--an enemy from within. From its inception the Science Board (NSB) that supervises the NSF has treated the Education Directorate as a trivial country cousin. They have said that the government should give the NSF money for scientific research and never mind what happens to the two hundred million people who don't do research. It is those very people whose lives, jobs, leisure, entertainment, food, security, and everything else depend on a sound economy in a democratic society. The federal government can no longer allow itself to neglect the schools, and the NSF has in its charter the responsibility and authority to do something about them." The following graph shows clearly how science education programs were allowed to deteriorate.

!

Reconstituting the National Science Board

Although the statute governing the NSB appointments makes clear that eminent persons from science education should be among Board members, the NSB is heavily dominated by research scientists, university administrators, or persons representing other sectors that directly benefit from scientific research. We have no desire to place on the Board "educationists" or educators who do not know science. Although there are many outstanding and eminent persons in science education, including persons with superb scientific credentials, none are included on the NSB. Science education includes science teachers at all levels, local and state science supervisors, and the science educators who do research on how people learn science and math. It also includes those in schools of education who prepare secondary school teachers. Many of these people have excellent Scientific credentials, as well as experience and knowledge in science education. There is no valid reason for excluding such persons from the policy making body of an agency having as a major mission science education.

The Senate should direct the NSF to honor the enabling legislation which requires an appropriate balance of NSB members, to include persons with science education knowledge and expertise. We should not, as in the past, be forced to rely entirely on the oversight and wisdom of Congress to impose science education. programs on an agency which has that function as a primary mission.

Re-establishing a Science Education Directorate

If The NSF is to accept its responsibilities for science education "at all levels", then the Science Education Directorate, which was eliminated by the Foundation, should be re-established by statute, as was done by the House of Representatives last year.

Congressional Initiatives for 1984

H.R. 1310 - $425 Million

Among the various Bills coming out of the U.S. House of Representatives relative to the science education crisis, one stands out as most likely to offer promise. It is H.R. 1310, and may be summarized as follows:

H.R. 1310 merges two previously introduced bills, Perkins' H.R. 30 which would have given money to State Education Agencies (SEAS) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs), primarily as entitlements, and to institutions of higher education for science and math instruction improvement, and Fuqua's H. R. 7130 which would have given money to institutions of higher education to improve the country's production of scientifically and technically trained personnel.

At 7:20 p.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 1983, the House passed H.R. 1310 by an overwhelming majority of 348 to 54. There was strong bipartisan support for the measure, as indicated by almost a two-toone Republican vote for the Bill.