This document has been archived.
Title : NSF 95-3 - Third National Conference on Diversity in the Scientific &
Technological Workforce
Type : Report
NSF Org: EHR
Date : March 27, 1995
File : nsf953b
FORUM ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: AN OPEN DIALOGUE
PRESIDER
Elmima C. Johnson
Staff Associate
Division of Human Resource Development, EHR, NSF
MODERATOR
Diana S. Natalicio
President
University of Texas at El Paso
RESOURCE PERSONS
Gary D. Keller, Executive Director, Project 1000 of the Hispanic
Research Center, Arizona State University
Carolyn Meyers, Associate Dean for Research and Interdisciplinary
Programs, College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
James M. Rosser, President, California State University at Los
Angeles
Robert F. Watson, Division Director, Undergraduate Education, EHR
OPENING REMARKS
Elmima Johnson
This is the Forum on Undergraduate Education and it will focus on
the major issues surrounding science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education (SMETE) at the baccalaureate level. This forum
is part of an ongoing dialogue at NSF and reflects concern
nationwide regarding the current status of undergraduate education.
It has been more than 10 years since the National Science Board
completed its first comprehensive study of undergraduate education,
and there is a growing realization today that all citizens need to
become literate and competent in science and technology, not just
science majors. The focus on undergraduate education is a logical
extension of our efforts to reform K-12 SMETE, and includes
recognition of changing demographics of those persons attending
college.
We have distributed a background paper, a summary of the issues in
undergraduate education as identified by the NSF Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (EHR). This is not an exhaustive
list; it is meant to stimulate and guide the discussion this
morning.
OPENING STATEMENTS
Diana Natalicio
The purpose of this session is to stimulate discussion and to
encourage you, the participants in this forum, to share with us and
with NSF more broadly your best thinking on directions that NSF can
take in addressing the major issues relating to undergraduate
education.
We are going to present some introductory remarks and then the
program will shift to you. We want this to be an open forum. We
want to know what you think about undergraduate education, about
the issues that we're facing, and about the ways in which we might
best address them.
The focus on undergraduate education is, obviously, no accident.
NSF has been looking at precollegiate programs (as was suggested
earlier in Dr. Williams' remarks and mentioned by Elmima Johnson),
and NSF has also been very active at the graduate level and
obviously in research. But what we have discovered within the
framework of this educational continuum is that a key element is
clearly undergraduate education: No matter how hard we work to
increase the size of the pool within the precollegiate sector, and
no matter what we do to enhance research and graduate
opportunities, if we don't have undergraduate education well in
focus, we are not going to make progress in addressing the critical
underrepresentation of minorities in science and engineering. I
think all of us are familiar with the kinds of challenges that we
face.
The undergraduate experience is critical not only to develop a
scientifically literate population and workforce, it is critical
not only to produce future generations of scientists and engineers,
but it also has the very important function of preparing future
teachers. It is this confluence of responsibilities at the
undergraduate level that all of us must be concerned about and
committed to meeting. It is also very clear, however, that within
the framework of higher education, the undergraduate experience has
not had the kind of attention, at least during the past several
decades, that it has deserved. How do we know that?
We know that not only because of our own involvement in
undergraduate education, but also through the rising criticism and
commentary coming from the media, elected officials, and from
parents who are paying higher and higher levels of tuition and
taxes and who wonder why classes are so large, why students are
being taught by teaching assistants, and the like. Such questions
are raised not only within the higher education community, but by
critics on a variety of external fronts, so accountability is a
significant issue for us.
I think we are all looking for new directions, ways in which we can
improve not only the undergraduate experience in science and
engineering, but the general undergraduate experience at our
institutions. We thought it would be helpful, as a start, for Dr.
Robert Watson, Division Director of Undergraduate Education at NSF,
to give us a brief overview of the activities of that division and
how it has framed the issue.
Robert Watson
Both the national scene and NSF have changed dramatically over the
past several years. Major developments--such as the end of the Cold
War, intensified international competitiveness, the restructuring
of U.S. industry, the advance of technology, and the increased
diversity of American society--have all contributed to a new
centrality and importance for undergraduate education in the U.S.
educational enterprise. It serves as the wellspring not only for
future scientists and engineers, but also for the future technical
industrial workforce, leaders, and citizens who need competence in
science and technology to function effectively, as well as for
future teachers. Indeed, efforts to improve grades K-12 may have
limited success without concomitant changes in higher education.
NSF's program for undergraduate education is an agencywide effort,
with the Division of Undergraduate Education in EHR serving as the
focal point. The overall activity has its origins in the National
Science Board study and report, "Undergraduate Science,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education," often referred to as the
Neal Report.
The current NSF program involves leadership activities and
leveraged program support that encompass several principal themes.
These include the curriculum (broadly defined), laboratories,
faculty development and support, student support, and increasing
participation of underrepresented groups, particularly minorities,
women, and persons with disabilities.
EHR has mounted two new targeted efforts, the Advanced
Technological Education Program (NSF's first focus on the
industrial technical workforce) and the NSF Collaboratives for
Excellence in Teacher Preparation (aimed at the undergraduate
education of future elementary and secondary school teachers).
As a consequence of these changing conditions, trends, and needs,
a number of issues confront undergraduate education that are of
particular concern and interest to NSF. We ask you to consider the
following areas: the preparation and vitality of teachers and
professors; science and technology literacy; the preparation of
students for careers in both the academic and industrial workforce;
and the comprehensive reform of undergraduate education.
Throughout all of these areas and their underlying issues, of
highest priority is the goal of achieving equity and diversity in
all aspects of SMETE. We welcome your comments and wisdom on these
and other issues that you feel are relevant to undergraduate
education.
Gary D. Keller
The most popular metaphor for progress in education, beginning in
kindergarten and going through graduate school, is the pipeline.
The metaphor is a good one because it expresses both the sense of
progress and the impediments or obstacles to progress. Those
obstacles can well be described as the joints or pressure points in
the pipeline.
At the undergraduate level, there are at least three major joints:
between high school and the freshman year of college; between
community college and the four-year college (or between lower and
upper undergraduate status); and at the culmination, between the
baccalaureate and graduate program status for those students who
are interested in and who would potentially benefit from graduate
school.
The Coalition to Increase Minority Degrees (CIMD), which I direct,
has paid very close attention to each of these joints in an effort
to minimize loss at the pressure points and to maximize the flow or
progress of students from one level to the next, more advanced
status.
The CIMD has made strong efforts to bind together the 11th and 12th
grades with the early college careers of students. We do this by
having many of our students take honors or advanced placement
courses in the 11th or 12th grades for college credit, once the
student has been accepted into college. Not only do the students
complete advanced work in high school, but they get a good (and
often very successful) taste of working at the college level, and
the students earn college credit while still in high school. This
fusing together at the joint of high school and college greatly
helps our retention of students. Another program that we have used
is the summer bridge, which caters to students who have been
accepted into college and gives them a strong program of early
academic enrichment the summer before the freshman year,
emphasizing mathematics, science, and English.
At the joint between community college or underclass-upperclass
status the CIMD has established a second summer bridge program,
recruiting students into our participating four-year colleges and
providing students with additional coursework in mathematics,
engineering, science, or English to maximize their potential to
graduate from college.
Finally, Project 1000 advises undergraduate students interested in
graduate school at the sophomore and junior levels, and helps these
students apply to graduate school as seniors. Among the services of
Project 1000 are the following: Students can apply to as many as
seven graduate programs around the nation on one consolidated
application form; application fees are usually waived by the
participating graduate schools; students consult with Project 1000
on how to frame their applications and statements of purpose;
professors writing letters of recommendation need write only one
per student and submit it to Project 1000; and, finally, we work
with the participating graduate schools and outside agencies and
foundations to help students secure financial aid.
James Rosser
I'd like to begin my remarks in hopes of stimulating some further
discussion with some observations. First of all, it seems to me
that reform of undergraduate education, especially with an emphasis
on SMET, requires that we do something fundamental with regard to
what I would call lower division undergraduate education in this
country. It seems that at least as far as college students are
concerned, that is where the emphasis ought to be placed. Clearly,
given a comment that was raised earlier this morning with Dr.
Williams, when we talk about lower division undergraduate
education, if we're focusing on underrepresented students, such
discussions must involve the two-year colleges. So we must be
concerned about lower division undergraduate education. That is
where, at least at the collegiate level, students either get
further turned on to or turned off of (if you will) SMET and
SMET-related fields and disciplines. I'm not sure that enough
attention is given to that concern.
As we think about reforming undergraduate education with an
emphasis on science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, we
ought to ask ourselves what all students--irrespective of whether
they start at our institution or transfer in and irrespective of
what they look like at entry--ought to be able to demonstrate in
terms of functional competencies after two years of a collegiate
education. Before a student enters the junior level of a collegiate
education, shouldn't that student--in terms of oral and written
communication skills, math, and science--be able to demonstrate
some minimum functional level of competency that enables him or her
to choose on a far more appropriate basis where to matriculate for
a degree?
Doesn't that help us solve a far more fundamental problem: how
teacher education varies across the 50 States? In California, you
need a baccalaureate degree and then you enter a credentials
program. A great deal of emphasis is placed on what happens at the
undergraduate baccalaureate level, but there is no focus,
generically speaking, on what a baccalaureate graduate ought to be
able to demonstrate functionally.
To the extent we can solve this problem in those first two years,
whether it is a two-year or a four-year institution, and to the
extent that we can agree that there are some basic minimum
functional competencies, we have essentially raised the level of
the tide for everybody, thereby creating greater opportunity for
everybody.
It is my considered opinion that no one should be allowed to teach
prekindergarten through the 12th grade who does not meet what I
would call minimum functional competencies that someone who
graduates from the 12th grade should be able to demonstrate. A
kindergarten teacher who can't function at a 12th-grade level
probably should not be teaching in a kindergarten. A 1st-grade
teacher who can't function at a 12th-grade level shouldn't either,
and certainly such a 12th-grade teacher shouldn't be able to
continue to teach. It seems to me that this is just a minimum
expectation for every teacher: that at some level they can
demonstrate that they can function at what we would call a
12th-grade level. Otherwise, how can you explain why there's
atrophy across grade levels and why there's an achievement gap that
exists among students, even though most students enter the schools
with a given level of support?
We have a major responsibility in terms of the workforce that
already exists that doesn't meet these competencies, many of whom
have not even been discipline-trained in math or science. That
doesn't mean putting down people who are currently in the
structure. What it means, to my way of thinking, is accepting why
they're where they are and the fact that there are things that we
can do to mitigate the deficiencies they have.
Faculty who teach, especially basic undergraduate courses, must
themselves be competent teachers, not just people with Ph.D.
degrees in mathematics or microbiology or physics. A Ph.D. does not
guarantee that one is able to teach effectively (especially lower
division undergraduate students), since the primary focus of the
Ph.D. is generally on research and not necessarily on teaching.
I think we have a major role to play in that context, and that gets
us back to the issue of our two-year college colleagues, especially
those who teach math, science, and basic competency in
communication skills. Clearly, the role of the comprehensive
universities and the two-year colleges is important as we go
forward.
I would also say that in a lot of our colleges and universities,
because of the concern for writing and because of the concern for
the ability to use standard written English, we talk about writing
across the curriculum. Maybe there ought to be science across the
curriculum as well, and maybe we ought to agree among ourselves
that, given the nature of knowledge and information these days, the
disciplinary boundaries are no longer appropriate and we need to
seek more effective ways of communicating information through the
curriculum so we are able to retain the interest of students across
the curriculum while they're at the institution.
There needs to be, in my view, diversity training in the areas of
cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity and across cultural
communications for SMET faculty, irrespective of where we might be.
That also includes those of us who might feel that because we're of
a particular ethnic group we have some particularly inherent
knowledge as relates to what that might mean for an African
American student. Interestingly enough, the African American
students might do better in colleges and universities if they were
taught English as a second language as well, in terms of enhancing
their capability to communicate in an oral and written context.
There is a need for faculty development and instructional strategy
for incorporating technology; additionally, advisement is an
extraordinarily critical aspect of this whole notion about
retention. There is a need for solid, informed, and consistent
advisement, including mentoring.
The last comment I would make is that it seems that there are some
programs that NSF has been involved with, that Bob has been
involved with over time, that have demonstrated that there are some
"best practices" out there. Maybe there needs to be a greater
commitment on our part, particularly across those first two years,
to ensure that there is some standardization of best practice
applications if, in fact, we want to attain the desired outcome for
the greatest numbers of students in the near future.
Carolyn Meyers
Engineering, science, and technology have reached a significant
milestone in history in that next year marks the 50th anniversary
of the document "Science: The Endless Frontier" by Vannevar Bush.
On rereading this document, one part strikes me as special and
noteworthy: that "It is in keeping with the American tradition, one
which made the U.S. great, that new frontiers shall be made
accessible for development by all American citizens." Fifty years
later, we are certainly still facing endless frontiers in SMETE.
I had the privilege this summer of being a chair for a conference
sponsored by the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education.
Engineering faculty examined the restructuring of engineering
education. With this experience in mind and mindful that I have
spent my career in engineering education, I will confine my remarks
to engineering education.
Primary and central to the conference was the new vision that my
colleagues developed. This vision considers a growing and a
national competition, the global environment in which our students
will participate, an increasingly diverse population, and, of
course, the rapid growth and change in information technology. This
new engineering education will welcome and encourage motivated and
talented students from all segments of the population. It will also
offer flexible curricula that recognize and respond to individual
learning styles and diverse career paths. This is a tall order.
In our discussions at the conference we agreed that the
responsibility for the quality of engineering education rests on
everybody involved in the educational enterprise, as Dr. Rosser
just mentioned. Educators at all levels must buy into and embrace
this responsibility; my colleagues and I believe that certain
levels of science and technological literacy will be necessary for
people to be active and contributing participants in society in the
21st century.
This order is getting even taller! Critical to the realization of
the vision is the development of faculty, not just at the
collegiate level, but at every level in the educational process. It
is the faculty who actually comprise the front line in delivering
any quality educational system. This faculty is envisioned as
diverse, diverse in their cultural and professional experiences.
Diverse faculty bring diverse solutions to problems.
Thus, the challenge to the institutions and to each of us in
academia is to push for incentives that reward and celebrate
diversity, that value the development of this diverse faculty, and
that appreciate and recognize diverse solutions and diverse ideas
of the faculty.
The Dean of Engineering at Georgia Tech, John White, at our recent
retreat, gave us a picture of a global village, which I want to
share with you. This is the global village of today:
If the world were a village of 1,000 people, today there would be
584 Asians, 150 Europeans, 124 Africans, 84 Latin Americans, 52
North Americans, and 6 Australians and New Zealanders. Seven out of
10 people would be Africans or Asians.
What many of us do not realize is how diverse our global population
really is. And from all demographic indicators, the global village
of the 21st century will be even more diverse. From this "village"
will come the SMET leaders of tomorrow. It is therefore clear that
in order to develop a diverse pool of technically talented, active,
and gifted people, the faculty who teach them and who will be
involved in the entire educational process must be engaged. These
diverse faculty not only offer tangible examples of success for
students, but also promote changes in pedagogy and content that all
students will need to be productive in the 21st century.
The July 1994 Joint Report of the Engineering Deans Council and the
Corporate Roundtable expects that the faculties of the 21st century
will reexamine the curricula and the programs, incorporating in
their teaching activities an understanding of environmental and
societal impacts. Team skills among the students will be built, and
collaborative and active learning will be the norms--no more just
lecturing, as we heard mentioned this morning. These faculty will
respond to different teaching and learning styles of our students.
These faculty will promote communication, leadership, and ethics.
These faculty will impart to their students a systems perspective
to problem solving and design, multidisciplinary approaches,
integrated knowledge throughout the curriculum, and an appreciation
of diversity.
What they are really doing, what will really happen as a result of
these new paradigms is that the message will be sent to the
students that the practice of engineering is no longer local or
even national: It is a global endeavor. This diverse faculty and
student body, as I mentioned, will be celebrated for their
differences in leadership and problem solving and perspective, and
ultimately will contribute, I firmly believe, to the health of the
university and also to the wealth, if you will, of our respective
disciplines.
In summary, I am passionate about a lot of things. I am passionate,
obviously, about my children and family and traditional things. I
am also passionate about my profession and my specialty, which is
the mechanical behavior of materials. One of my favorite materials
is a quenched and tempered steel. I am happy talking about metals.
I love them. It is an old material. It is a workhorse material.
This steel is strong, just like the U.S. educational system's track
record in educating scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and
technicians for the world. Our educational system is good--and is
recognized as such. This steel, this quenched and tempered steel,
performs its intended function because, in addition to being
strong, it is tough and it is ductile.
Now the challenge to us in education is to be tough, to absorb the
impact on society of our engineering decisions and designs while
still maintaining our strength. We must use our ductility like the
steel, our ability to stretch or to bend without breaking. Those of
us in education, as well as the systems or units we represent, have
a shared responsibility to be strong, tough, and ductile in our
actions and reactions. Diversity--in all its many forms--like an
alloy addition to metals, can enhance our properties, in this case
the pedagogy, content, and overall educational experiences of our
students--the leaders of the 21st century.
Thank you.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Diana Natalicio
I want to thank all of you who have come to this session. Your
presence here suggests that you are concerned about and committed
to undergraduate education and we are very grateful for your
presence. But your presence is not quite enough. Now we want your
input. We'd like you to tell us what you think.
We ask that you be brief, out of respect for all of the people who
might want to comment, and we assure you that the remarks that you
share with us today will be transmitted through Dr. Robert Watson
and through NSF as input into the further development of programs
at the undergraduate level.
Audience comments and the responses of resource persons are
summarized below.
o We must provide the latest equipment and facilities for high
school preparatory science and mathematics courses to prevent the
need for "catch-up" skill development and content learning freshman
year in college.
o At the college level, the information explosion makes it
impossible to expose students to all of the knowledge available in
a field. Therefore we need to synthesize the growing knowledge base
and teach the fundamentals, but in a different context.
o There are attempts to teach (integrate) engineering principles
across the curriculum, from freshman through senior year, for
example in mathematics, physics, and chemistry classes. The goal is
to provide students with perspective and tools.
o A first step in implementing systemic reform is the "fusing" of
high school and college. Emphasis should be placed on the senior
year of high school and the freshman year of college, because this
is the period during which we lose a large percentage of potential
scientists. Suggestions included offering courses for college
credit beginning in the 11th grade.
o We should deemphasize the current structured timeframe and mode
of delivery of information, and focus on accelerating outcomes and
learner productivity.
o An interdisciplinary emphasis in undergraduate education serves
as the basis of the NSF collaborative program. This program
requires collaboration between colleges of science and education
and thus serves as a catalyst for the desired interaction.
o Science education reform will not be driven by new technologies,
but by the use of the scientific method in instructional delivery.
However, many current K-12 teachers were not trained in this
methodology, but in a "fact-based" approach. College science
faculty will have to assist in retraining these teachers, and their
institutions must support them in these efforts. [Dr. Natalicio
noted that college faculty play a major role in determining their
own reward system; thus, faculty belief in the importance of
collaboration with precollege teachers would facilitate obtaining
the support of university officials.]
o More college faculty must be convinced that there is a crisis in
education and a need for diversity in the workplace.
Universities are changing the education paradigm from an emphasis
on student failure to one on student success (graduation).
o While college-level faculty traditionally have minimum training,
if any, in teaching methods, this is a major responsibility for
many. The question was raised, Shouldn't teaching faculty be as
competent in the art of teaching as they are in their discipline
area? It was noted that a few institutions are now evaluating
teaching skills of job candidates.
o More support should be given to successful minority science
programs. Many are not being institutionalized at their host
universities and the need for NSF support for these programs was
expressed. An opposing view was that this is an institutional, not
an NSF, issue. That is, each institution should be committed to the
success of every student that it admits. In addition, individual
faculty must become more proactive and vigilant regarding the
support of those efforts to assist minority science students.
CLOSING REMARKS
Diana Natalicio
We want input from the community, not only from the higher
education community, but also from the broad community that is
represented at this conference. We want your help in structuring
new ways of thinking about the undergraduate experience. Not in and
of itself, but as it relates to all of the other pieces of this
complex puzzle that we are attempting to put together. We want to
ensure that all young people in our society have a real chance to
succeed and to become the scientists and engineers they seek to be.
So we thank you for your input, for your presence here today, and
do let us hear from you. We are very interested in your input.
Thank you very much.
Additional comments regarding the status of undergraduate education
or suggestions of ways to improve the enterprise should be
addressed to
Dr. Robert Watson
Director
Division of Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
Room 835
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230
BACKGROUND PAPER
Current Issues in Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
and Technology Education
The context for SMETE has changed. NSF recognizes that major
developments such as the end of the Cold War, intensified
international competitiveness, the advance of technology, and the
increased diversity of American society require us to rethink NSF
strategy for undergraduate education.
The year 1995 is the fiftieth anniversary of the appearance of
Vannevar Bush's seminal report, "Science: The Endless Frontier."
This defining document for postwar U.S. science states: "The
frontier of science remains. It is in keeping with the American
tradition--one which has made the United States great--that new
frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American
citizens." Indeed, ensuring that new frontiers of knowledge are
created, developed, and accessed by all summarizes much that NSF
has done and must continue to do.
NSF views undergraduate education as the linchpin connecting
research to teaching, and precollege education to graduate
education. That the principal Federal effort in SMETE is in an
agency devoted equally to research and education reflects the need
to infuse SMETE with knowledge and investigation. Of interest to
NSF are 3,000 varied institutions that instruct 13 million American
undergraduates. The specific targets of NSF action are all
undergraduate students of science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology (SMET) and their instructors, with their diverse
backgrounds and interests. We invite your thoughts on the
reorientation of NSF undergraduate efforts. The following are the
areas in which issues pertinent to this consideration arise.
Questions might concern what is being done versus what needs to be
done, and what should be the scale of activities.
o The preparation and vitality of teachers and professors(rom)
o Learning how to teach must be balanced by personal knowledge
of subjects, the balance depending on level.
o School teachers, especially primary teachers, have unique
needs in SMET.
o Teacher preparation is recognized by few SMET faculty; the
need to prepare professors to teach is recognized by almost no
one.
o The attraction of teachers and professors across race,
gender, disability, and ethnicity is uneven.
o The reward systems in schools, colleges, and disciplines may
be inadequate to promote excellence.
o Science literacy
o SMET should become central in the intellectual heritage and
culture transmitted in higher education.
o Institutions must set goals in terms of student learning and
competency in SMET.
o We do not know whether quality in the lessons aimed at
literacy and those aimed at mastery for majors is the same or
different.
o Barriers to SMET literacy owing to ethnicity or gender need
attention.
o Careers
o Many undergraduates we educate become technicians, yet SMETE
has traditionally ignored their needs.
o The attraction of talented young people to careers as
scientists, engineers, and technicians across the spectrum of
diversity of origins remains vitally important.
o While disciplines remain the homes of quality control of new
knowledge and of basic competency, the problems are
increasingly interdisciplinary.
o The right connections, networks, and collaborations are
needed to facilitate student careers.
o Comprehensive reform of undergraduate education
o The exponential growth of our subjects is matched by the
growth of capabilities of instructional technology, but
development and application of the latter lags the former.
o Our teachers and professors are inadequately informed about
advances in pedagogy, content, technology, information
resources, connections to societal needs, etc.
o The institutional problems of initiating and sustaining
curricular change are intense.
o Change needs to transcend traditional categories,
disciplines, and structures.
STUDENT FORUM: "ASK NSF"
The forum sessions provided student participants with an
opportunity to interact directly with NSF/EHR officials and
grantees who served as a panel of resource persons. These were
informal sessions with no set agendas, and students were encouraged
to comment on a variety of issues related to their educational
experiences and career options. Below are edited and summarized
excerpts from those sessions. We thank the students for their
participation and candor and invite their continued feedback at the
following address:
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation, Room 805
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230
Attention: Dr. Elmima C. Johnson
SESSION A: Precollege Students
MODERATOR
Joseph G. Danek, Director, Office of Systemic Reform, EHR
RESOURCE PERSONS
Wanda E. Ward, Special Assistant, Office of the Assistant Director,
EHR
Costello L. Brown, Program Director, Career Access, Division of
Human Resource Development, EHR
Panel member: Why don't you tell me what your project is about?
Student: My project was finding out how harvest ants locate their
nest. From that we conducted different experiments to find out if
they follow each other, follow chemical substances, follow the sun,
radiation waves, and several different things. I also researched
experiments that were conducted by major scientists and other
people who know more about it than I do. I gathered their
information and compared it with mine, and it was very similar
information.
Panel member: Do you feel you have a better understanding or even
preparation for your regular math and science courses when you go
back to school? You just completed this project in the summer,
right? Now you're involved in your regular math in school. What's
the relationship between your research and your readiness to study
when you go back to the regular classroom? When you combine the
two, does it make you a better student?
Student: Well, yes, because when I first went to summer science
camp, I liked math better than I liked science. We did more science
than math. Now I'm more motivated to do things in science class, to
talk a little bit more, because I know a little bit more than I did
last year.
Panel member: I have a question to ask all of you. Dr. Williams is
here and we give out grants. Suppose I give you a million dollars.
What two or three things would get more of your classmates
interested and excited about science?
Student: I suggest that you put in more programs for the precollege
students. Because the point is to get more kids into college and
get more programs in the inner-city area where they are needed
most. Like Philadelphia. I go to a magnet school and that's
probably one of the reasons I'm in this program. Because if I
wasn't in the magnet school, I definitely wouldn't have done a
science project. It was my teachers who suggested that I do one. So
if you've got more programs like that, you'd get more kids
interested in science and mathematics.
Panel member: Who else wants a million dollars?
Student: Well, I live in a rural area, and in my school I don't
think it's all about money. I think that if people visit our school
and get our school to have science fairs--because we have never had
a science fair in our school--and have more activities pertaining
to science and more programs like you said--I think students will
become more interested. They have to make it fun and not just have
lectures all the time. I think that will motivate students.
Panel member: How many of you have never had a science fair in your
school? Most of you haven't.
Student: I would make school more fun, like looking at the
students' interests instead of just doing what you think they're
going to do. You look at their interests and do more experiments.
Because a lot of kids don't like looking at textbooks. They like
doing experiments, so I would bring more experiments into the
classroom.
Student: I would just like to say I started a program in which
minorities on the college level come to the precollege level as
role models or mentors and show them (the kids) that it's cool to
be in science. You know, you don't have to be a nerd to do science.
And I think students would have more fun in a lab, because you have
an older person to look up to, and you have the lab.
Student: Well, first of all, you need to educate people that have
the programs. A couple of my cousins go to majority white schools
and when they send out the program information, they hand it to the
white kids instead of the Hispanics, the blacks, the
Asians--minority groups. So people don't know about the programs
and they don't get the opportunity to participate.
Student: Part of the reason I'm here at the diversity conference is
because of my high school's link with Morgan University. I think
that if more high schools had a connection with local colleges, if
young high school students were able to walk on the college
campuses, be a part of the college atmosphere, and work with
science professors, I think more students would have some type of
relationship with science in the future.
Panel member: Just to comment on this, we have created what we're
calling the Urban Systemic Initiative. We have large projects in a
number of cities in which you reside, one in Baltimore, in which we
are doing exactly that.
What we're trying to do is link the universities with the school
districts, beginning to form a team that can help change the school
districts by putting in place quality science programs for all
children in the city of Baltimore. So that's an excellent
suggestion, and in fact there is an activity at NSF that's
beginning to do that.
Panel member: Other comments on the question about what you would
do with a million dollars? There's got to be more thinking about
it.
Student: I think we should have a camp that's run by students,
maybe seniors in high school or something like that. I think we
relate better to seniors in high school than to adults. So I would
start a camp that had the seniors in high school in charge, and
then a couple of adults who would just stand by. We would get the
high school students to teach. I think this would be more fun for
the high school students and also more fun for us.
Panel member: With nobody over 20 allowed.
Student: Well, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the
teachers and the people who helped us with our labs and stuff would
be the high school seniors, which would be fine.
Panel member: In fact, some of the projects have that feature. They
still have the instructors--the math and science instructors, some
of whom come from colleges and universities; some come from high
schools. Some of the projects, I know, have both undergraduate
students and upper high school students who serve as instructional
aides. So, in fact, it is a very relevant suggestion that you're
pointing out and it's happening in some places, but not in all
places, as you know.
Student: I think the colleges should give more scholarships.
Everyone's saying, "You should be a scientist. You should be in
science and go to college." But not everybody has the money to go
to college. Many people want to do great things, but you need money
to do all that kind of stuff. So I think you need more scholarships
and more information about them.
Student: I think that the idea of being in collaboration with the
local university is good. And also, a lot of kids look at the
financial benefits of doing programs. Like the students who went up
and got plaques, those are confidence builders--plaques and getting
$500 for doing something well.
I enjoy presenting in front of people and explaining my ideas. Also
I play basketball, so I'm used to a crowd showing up.
Panel member: So there are lots of different ways to show off,
right, which is good, both mentally and physically, right? Great.
Student: I'm a high school senior and I'm starting a program
something like this: I just got a grant from a company called
NETSEF and they help people start their own businesses. Basically
the program is going to have high school seniors and juniors
teaching middle school students. But it's going to be more than
just that. It's going to have science fair projects, mentoring,
homework, test-taking skills, note-taking skills--all kinds of
things. And its going to have a computer workstation and kids from
the neighborhood and from all over Philadelphia can use the
computers to find out about different colleges, different contests,
and other things that are available to them.
They need more programs like this in other places. My mom helped me
come up with the idea.
Panel member: That's great. Other comments? Other questions?
Student: I would make the programs more appealing to students.
Because I know a lot of people who, when they come into a forum
like this, would just sit in the back, because they think it's
going to be real boring. Nobody would ask them questions and they'd
just sit there, listening to words that they don't understand. To
make a project more interesting, you should talk to the people and
not at them or over their heads.
SESSION C: Undergraduate and Graduate Students
MODERATOR
Daryl E. Chubin, Director, Division of Research, Evaluation and
Dissemination, EHR
RESOURCE PERSONS
Thomas W. Cole, Jr., President, Clark Atlanta University
J. Elenora Sabadell, Program Director, Engineering, NSF
[Session in progress. The panel of resource persons gave brief
presentations on the minority-focused programs in the Education and
Human Resources and Engineering directorates.]
Panel member: I would suggest that the current undergraduates go to
the research office or to whatever office you deal with and ask for
the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program solicitation.
Panel member: All of these programs are targeted at various points
in the pipeline. So that as one moves along the continuum that
Daryl has on his slide, and looks at it going all the way through,
we will see 5 years from now, 10 years from now, that the numbers
will increase. The bottom line for you is that everywhere in your
scientific career there is an opportunity with NSF support--at the
undergraduate, master's, and doctoral levels.
And it's very important for you to identify those opportunities,
because there should never be a question in any of your minds about
whether you're going to graduate school and about whether or not
somebody's going to pay for that. Perhaps you don't know where all
of the resources are, but now you have the names of three people at
NSF who can help you sort through the maze of projects and programs
that are available for students when they go to graduate school.
Panel member: Let me add just one item to that. In terms of this
national action plan that was presented at the conference, there
are specific targets in terms of degree production at all levels.
The point is for us as an agency to be able to monitor the progress
that we are making at those various points. So we should be able to
tell you the numbers of students who are being served by each one
of these programs at every juncture in the system.
Your local institutions should be able to give you some of those
data, because they're supposed to be collecting them as well. And
certainly if there is a request for an Minority Research Centers of
Excellence (MRCE) project, they have to generate those data on a
regular basis. I know that, because we require that they give us
the numbers. So we do this collaboratively. Unless we
have a good sense of how well we're doing in drawing and
maintaining students in our programs, we have no way of telling
whether our programs are making a difference. We have to evaluate
all these programs that have been mentioned, some of which support
you in one way or the other.
Panel member: Do you recall the comments made about Lifetime
Achievement Award winner Warren Henry today? There was another man
sitting at the table with him named Lafayette Frederick. He was
recognized last year for having accomplished the same thing in
biology that Warren Henry accomplished in physics. There is another
gentleman at Morehouse College in Atlanta named Henry MacBay who
was honored (by others) for the same thing in chemistry.
The point I'm making is that in almost every case where you look at
a successful core of scientists, there is a teacher, either in high
school or college. And we don't have enough of them. That's one of
the reasons why the pipeline is drying up, because we have not
given enough attention to quality science and math teaching at the
high school and college levels.
And so if you do teach, I applaud and encourage you to continue
that and get others to join you. Because that is as important as
pushing back the frontiers of research on the other side of the
equation. In the past, NSF has given lip service to research and
education, but I think now they mean it. Because they're putting
resources behind the Education Directorate and giving more meaning
to the mission of education as a parallel responsibility to the
research mission of the foundation.
Panel member: We always have been interested in education, so much
so that every grant that is given has to have graduate students
included in the grant. Undergraduates were added around 10 years
ago.
Panel member: Let me expand on a point. The Education and Human
Resources Directorate now is the second-largest directorate in the
National Science Foundation. I would argue in full support of your
comment that NSF really didn't get serious about undergraduates
until 1988, and it is just now getting serious about community
colleges and the contribution that they make in moving students
into four-year institutions and into science, particularly science
degrees.
Engineering colleges and universities have been quite good,
actually, in harvesting students from two-year institutions. The
sciences have lagged behind, for a whole range of reasons, some of
which have been discussed at this conference.
Now there's no turning back. The challenge to us at NSF is to do a
better job of consolidating research and education along that
continuum. We can't pursue these as separate enterprises. The
expectations are too high and the needs are too great. And so we
are in a position of putting our money where our rhetoric has been.
And you, just by your presence here, are one indicator that we're
doing something right. You've got to keep the pressure on at your
local institution, which also means you've got to start mentoring
the people who are coming up behind you, because we all have an
obligation here.
Student: First of all, you asked a question about what programs we
are funded by. Well, I'm funded by AMP. My question is, in high
school there aren't too many minority teachers in math and science.
Has anyone looked into supplementing incomes or opportunities for
minority math and science teachers at the high school level?
Panel member: Well, you have to make a distinction, I think. The
Department of Education budget is about $18 billion a year. The
Directorate for Education and Human Resources' budget is no
comparison with that. So what NSF can do in this whole pipeline is
act more as a catalyst, more as a facilitator, because the
resources are really not there to nationally solve this problem.
Also you have to take into account that the State and locality have
a large responsibility for their school system. We don't have
national standards.
Panel member: I would echo that there is a program called the Urban
Systemic Initiative (USI), which is designed to create systemic
change in the teaching of science and math in public schools. It
does not directly affect the area that you suggested--that is,
salaries of teachers--but it can influence the environment, the
culture of public education, so that more minorities will want to
go into teaching without having to deal with the disincentives that
public education now provides. So I think that USI, coupled with
programs aimed at producing more minority teachers, will begin to
address the problem of the rather small number of minority teachers
in the public school system.
Student: Are you saying it should start from the bottom up, like
local, then regional, then national, rather than national on down?
Panel member: You have to influence your local PTA, council,
whatever. You have to make your voice heard. But you have to put in
the money to prepare this teacher.
Panel member: Dr. Williams has come in and we should use this
opportunity to get him to answer one or two questions. So this is
your chance.
Student: This question springboards off another question. There's
been an emphasis on urban high schools and programs to develop
inner-city youth and young adults. What has NSF done to help the
rural communities?
Dr. Williams: We've launched an initiative that is an analog to the
USI that's focused entirely on rural communities.
To be precise, using the Department of Labor's definition of rural
communities--rural and economically impoverished. It's for the last
forgotten American. It will do precisely what the urban initiative
is doing. As Dr. Jones has indicated, these grants will be
comprehensive. They will have all of the elements. They almost by
design are going to be a mix of education per se (to cater to the
educational system) and science and technology training.
One of the things we want to do is improve the economic ambience in
rural communities. So the idea is to employ our math and science
education agenda to provide the opportunity for young adults in the
community--many of whom are marginally employed or unemployed--to
join the workforce.
So it's a clear reform program that is precisely the analog of the
urban one. It addresses substantial pockets of minorities in rural
communities.
There is one set of issues that have to do with urban school
systems, and an entirely different set of issues that have to do
with rural communities, particularly rural communities in the
Southeast and Southwest--communities that have made the transition
from an agricultural base to a quasi-high-tech base, but do not yet
have the requisite education and training. Basically what you have
in these very, very large communities in rural Louisiana, some
parts of Georgia, and especially in South Carolina are huge pockets
of minorities who basically aren't dealt with by anyone.
Long answer, but that's what we're going to do.
NSF DIRECTORATE PRESENTATIONS OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN
RESOURCE-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES
Session A: Directorate for Engineering
Research program officers from the Directorate for Engineering
(ENG) will discuss the most advanced areas of research currently
being supported by the Directorate. Directorate representatives
will also present programs sponsored by ENG to support students at
the precollege, undergraduate, and graduate levels, and new and
experienced faculty.
Contact Person: Daniel Davis, Program Officer, Research Experiences
for Undergraduates Program, ENG/EEC, (703) 306-1380.
Session B: Mathematical and Physical Sciences
The Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate of NSF
will host a short workshop and roundtable discussion highlighting
education and research opportunities for minority students in
various MPS programs. An overview of MPS activities and programs
that directly impact science and mathematics education and research
for ethnic minority students will be given. This will be followed
by a roundtable discussion in which program directors from the
mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and materials research
divisions will describe specific activities within their own
divisions, and answer questions from conferees.
Contact Person: Richard Hilderbrandt, Program Director, Physical
Chemistry Program, Theoretical and Computational, MPS/CHE, (703)
306-1844.
Session C: Computer and Information Science and Engineering
The Institutional Infrastructure for Minority Institutions program
consists of projects designed to increase the number of minority
computer scientists and engineers. Awards run up to 5 years with
budgets between $750,000 and $1,500,000. Some typical projects that
will be described include the following:
o Laboratory Enhancement at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCU's)
o Mentoring and Recruiting at Hispanic-Serving Institutions
o Bridging Activities at a Native American College
o A new Ph.D. Program for Puerto Rico
Most of the remaining Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE) activities focused upon minority students are in
the Special Projects Program. Among these, the Minority Graduate
Fellowships, Minority Attitude Study, Strategy Workshops, and
Conference Travel projects will be discussed. Information
concerning participation in these and future programs in the CISE
Directorate will be distributed.
Contact Person: Dr. John Cherniavsky, Head, Office of
Cross-Disciplinary Activities, CISE/CDA, (703) 306-1980.
Session D: Biological Sciences
The Biological Sciences (BIO) Directorate will hold a workshop to
describe BIO program activities to support training and research in
biology. Particular attention will be given to those programs
providing special opportunities for minority students and faculty
at all career levels. Program officers will discuss application
procedures for grants such as Research Assistantships for Minority
High School Students, Research Experiences for Undergraduates,
Graduate Student Dissertation Awards, Postdoctoral Research
Fellowships for Underrepresented Ethnic Minorities, Faculty Early
Career Development Awards, Research Planning Grants, and Research
Support Grants in biology. Printed program description materials
will be available, and questions from the audience will be
encouraged.
Contact Person: Thomas Quarles, Deputy Division Director, BIO/BIR,
(703) 306-1470.
Session E: Directorate for Geosciences
The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) supports research in the
atmospheric, geological, and oceanographic sciences--advancing
scientific knowledge of the Earth's environment and the ability to
predict natural phenomena of economic interest such as weather,
climate, and earthquakes. The geoscience disciplines require a
broad base of talent and a variety of facilities and
instruments--including multiuser facilities such as research
aircraft and vessels, global arrays of seismometers, and
supercomputers--to accomplish their research objectives. NSF is the
Nation's principal supporter of academic-basic research in
geosciences, providing about 70 percent of Federal support for
research conducted at U.S. universities.
Minority students have been involved with geosciences programs in
different ways, ranging from work with individual scientists in
their laboratories or in the field to major coordinated programs
involving a number of scientific groups, or as part of the
activities of a national center such as the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Specific examples of these activities
will be given by representatives of the three GEO research
divisions, namely Atmospheric (ATM), Earth (EAR), and Ocean
Sciences (OCE), as well as by students who have participated in the
programs.
Contact Persons: Pam Stephens, ATM, (703) 306-1528; Judy Hannah,
EAR, (703) 306-1557; Joan Mitchell, OCE, (703) 306-1580.
Session F: Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
The Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
consists of three divisions, each with distinct programs and goals.
A speaker from each division will discuss programs, with emphasis
on efforts to encourage or understand minority participation in
science and engineering.
Division of International Programs (INT): The division sponsors
programs designed to strengthen the international experience of
students, postdoctorates, and young faculty in all fields of
science and engineering supported by NSF. These programs include
summer institutes, postdoctoral fellowships, center-to-center
programs, and workshops for junior investigators. The speaker will
use examples from NSF's Japan program to illustrate the types of
opportunities available to young U.S. researchers for work in many
areas of the world.
Contact Person: Patricia J. Tsuchitani, INT, (703) 306-1701.
Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS): Selected findings will
be presented from the new NSF report, "Women, Minorities, and
Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering," which
examines the participation of underrepresented groups in the ranks
of the Nation's technical workforce.
Contact Person: Mary J. Golladay, SRS, (703) 306-1774.
Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research (SBER): There
will be a discussion of NSF programs and opportunities for minority
students and faculty in the social, behavioral, and economic
sciences. The discussion will provide data and statistics on
minority participation in SBER programs and will contain an
overview of research supported by SBER on minority issues.
Contact Person: Patricia White, SBER, (703) 306-1762.
Session G: Department of Education
The Department of Education (Eisenhower State Program) session will
describe the following two projects:
o Minority Mathematics and Science Education Cooperative (MMSEC) is
a partnership inservice program--involving 9 universities, 2
community college campuses, and 28 schools--that is distinctive in
integrating affective with cognitive strands to improve the
performance and classroom achievements of minority children. It
involves teachers and principals in a systematic process of
recognizing and comprehending the special contexts and customary
ways in which children perceive and construct scientific knowledge.
These resources are then applied to facilitate and promote the
learning of mathematics and science.
o Four Institutionalized Reforms in Science Training (Project
FIRST) How do we develop classroom instructional leaders who mirror
the changing California school-age population? This project is
designed to increase the number of teachers from underrepresented
groups who become master teachers of science while also completing
the requirements for enhanced degrees in science. It enables
teachers who, through a previous Eisenhower-funded project,
developed their skills in teaching science to go a step further to
establish their leadership roles.
Contact Person: Christine Jackson, Senior Education Program
CLOSING SESSION
PRESIDER
Luther S. Williams
Assistant Director
Education and Human Resources, NSF
OPENING STATEMENT
We are pleased to have Dr. Anne Petersen, deputy director of the
National Science Foundation, provide closing comments on the
conference from the point of view of the leadership of the
Foundation. She is extremely interested in the efforts that have
been the subject of our several days of meeting. As she will
indicate, Dr. Lane, the director, is unavoidably involved elsewhere
in activities that are extremely important to our agenda. Dr.
Petersen was kind enough to come to offer closing comments on
behalf of NSF, even though she has another commitment that is
almost concurrent with this activity. So at the end of her
comments, if you have questions, she will take a few, then she has
to depart.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Anne C. Petersen
Deputy Director
National Science Foundation
Thank you. It is a great honor to join you this afternoon. I want
first to express greetings on behalf of NSF Director Neal Lane. I
know Neal wanted to be here with you as well, but he has spent most
of this week on the road--traveling in Florida and California.
(Somebody has to do it.) Today, in fact, he participated in the
dedication of the new National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at
Florida State University. I mention this only because, in addition
to being a preeminent national and international research facility,
this new laboratory holds great promise for promoting NSF's goals
in education and human resource development. The facility is
already developing plans for outreach activities involving the
Tallahassee schools.
This is just one example of how virtually every dollar NSF spends
and everything we do as an agency is done with an eye toward
promoting diversity in the scientific and technological workforce.
Both Neal and I strongly support the goals of this conference, and
we want all of you to know that the entire Foundation stands behind
your efforts.
Education is at the core of NSF's mission, and increasing diversity
in science and technology is a central goal of all of the agency's
programs. After I was nominated to become NSF's deputy director and
began doing my homework about the agency's programs, I was struck
by the breadth of programs NSF supports to improve the
participation of women and other underrepresented groups in science
and engineering.
I get the sense that we start reaching kids before they enter
school--through the television shows and various informal science
education activities we support. And our involvement continues at
all levels of education and even beyond graduate school--through
programs like the Minority Postdoctoral Fellowships and Visiting
Professorships for Women. The fact that the Foundation has assumed
such a valuable leadership role in these areas is one of the main
reasons that I am very excited about working here. The Foundation
has taken on this role for many reasons. I know that the changing
demographics of our Nation make it imperative that we promote
increased diversity in science and technology. But as powerful as
these arguments are, I think there are even more powerful arguments
that have nothing to do with demographics.
All of us know that research in science and engineering is a
process that requires imagination, creativity, and a strong sense
of commitment. This process draws upon the talents and ideas of the
individual researchers, teachers, and students who participate in
the research. For this reason, it almost goes without saying that
engineering and science in general will benefit from increased
diversity. I like to tell people that the recipe for good research
involves lots of mixing--mixing ideas, blending perspectives, and
pulling together diverse ideas. The different and diverse
backgrounds that each of us brings to our work are essential to
this mixing process. At NSF we want to make this a part of
everything we do.
My next point is that the themes of this conference are a top
priority not just for NSF, but for the administration as well. Vice
President Gore made this clear at the release in early August of
the administration's major report on science policy, Science in the
National Interest. He called on the science and engineering
community to become actively involved in raising the scientific and
technological literacy of all Americans and attracting more women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities to careers in scientific
and technological fields. The report itself speaks to this very
point. It notes that "America derives great strength from its
diversity, yet the country has not had a coherent policy for
developing all our human resources for science and technology."
The report made two recommendations that will help to shape this
"coherent policy." First, the President's National Science and
Technology Council has committed itself to developing a policy for
sustaining excellence and promoting diversity in the science and
technology workforce. This is important because this policy will
affect all Federal agencies, not just NSF. In addition, this policy
will affect all programs--research as well as education--in keeping
with the important role that research experiences play in education
and training. Second, the administration has established a new
Presidential Awards program to recognize individuals and
institutions that have outstanding records in mentoring students
from underrepresented groups in science, mathematics, and
engineering. I would not be at all surprised if a number of the
first recipients of this award are sitting in this room. The first
awards are expected to be announced late next year.
I want to make one other point before I close. In virtually all
organizations today--universities, businesses, government
agencies--more and more people are focusing on the issue of
accountability. In addition to serving as NSF's deputy director, I
am also the agency's chief operating officer. This position was
created as part of the National Performance Review, the effort
being led by the Vice President to reinvent government. This means
a large part of my job is to see that our programs are held
accountable to their goals. For this reason, it gives me great
satisfaction to see that the results of our efforts to promote
diversity in science and engineering are beginning to take shape.
We now sponsor 20 projects under our Alliances for Minority
Participation (AMP) Program, and 75,000 students are enrolled in
these projects this year. That's up from six projects and about
41,000 students in 1991. In total, NSF's programs for minority
students at the undergraduate level are reaching more than 76,000
students today.
These are very impressive numbers by any accounting. But we also
know they are not nearly enough, and at NSF we know better than to
contemplate resting on our laurels. As you no doubt have been
hearing, NSF has set even more ambitious goals to increase minority
representation in scientific and technological fields by the year
2000. Are they attainable or just wishful thinking? I believe they
are attainable, through conferences such as this and through action
plans such as the one you have worked to develop these past 3 days.
To conclude, therefore, I just want to add that the Foundation will
not rest until all segments of the population have the same
opportunity to learn and the same opportunity to be productive and
prepared citizens. Nothing is more important to the future of
America's scientific and technological workforce. NSF is committed
to serving as a catalytic agent for change in science and
engineering. I hope the day comes when our leadership is no longer
needed. But until that day arrives, the Foundation will stand
firmly behind its commitment to invest in all students--so that
everyone in our society can succeed in science and engineering.
CLOSING REMARKS
Luther Williams
First, I would like to mention that I have just been informed that
conference attendance at the last count exceeded 1,900. That is
remarkable. That is more than 500 more than last year and more than
twice the attendance of the first conference.
What I would like to do now is highlight what I think we have
achieved at this conference vis-�!�-vis the objectives. That's
exceedingly important, because, as you know, the point of this
conference and the two previous ones is to use them as an integral
part of our overall effort to solve problems, not to have
conferences for which there are no explicit outcomes and
expectations.
The first point in this summary focuses on variables in a larger
problem set, that, in my view, we have to effectively address in
order to accomplish our goals. Clearly, we need explicit and
substantial support from the administration, meaning the
President's office. I and others, including Anne Petersen, have
referred to the presidential white paper, Science in the National
Interest. I am unaware of another presidential statement that
rendered explicitly a set of activities coupled--I emphasize,
coupled--with the epicenter of national transactions having to do
with science, technology, and the economy; that elevated
individuals underrepresented and underserved by the enterprise to
the level that one now finds in Science in the National Interest.
So we have, in fact, a policy framework, strategic guidance in a
context to connect our efforts with the national interest.
Second Point: Obviously another sector or player that is important
for the effort is the U.S. Congress. Over the last several years,
programs such as AMP have grown from zero to 20 such projects
around the country. We also have completed a cycle of Comprehensive
Regional Centers for Minorities (CRCM) and employed them to serve
as precursors to the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI), which is not
designed, per se, to focus on minority students, but will certainly
serve them because they are focusing in the 25 cities that have
substantial minority populations. The directorate has mounted
programs such as the Summer Science Camps and others, and has begun
to build a continuum of programs, kindergarten through graduate
education, even into postdoctoral education. Paralleling these
efforts, to the extent to which resources permitted, there has been
a deliberate effort to explain the agenda to selected members of
Congress, to try to persuade members of Congress to elevate our
agenda vis-a-vis a whole set of competing agendas--welfare, health
care, the general state of the economy, jobs, etc.
I think you would agree, based on Congressman Stokes' observations,
that we have been able to bring our agenda appropriately to the
public policy arena, to the budget and fiscal resource acquisition
process, and Congress has supported it. But they also require a
high level of accountability. As Mr. Stokes clearly pointed out,
they will provide the support, but the expectations with respect to
outcomes and achievements are enormous.
Third, we felt when we initiated this effort several years ago that
we needed a document, not very different from the President's
document, that would speak globally to what the country will
attempt to achieve broadly in science and engineering research and
education. We needed a document that would explicate what we were
attempting to accomplish and would provide a context that would
relate our programs to specific goals and objectives. Our objective
clearly is not to simply operate a plethora of programs but to
achieve a larger goal, for example, ensuring a substantial and
appropriate increase in the number of minority professionals who
occupy the niche of mathematics and science K-12 instruction. We
have gone through several iterations of the plan. We discussed it
briefly yesterday. You have had the opportunity to look at the
details in more focused sessions this afternoon. While I did not
attend those sessions, I am sure NSF staff moderators reiterated
that any additional comments should be made in a timely fashion.
We will collect all of the input, write the final version of the
plan, publish it, and broadly disseminate it. Most assuredly, we
will send it to all of the NSF "performers," principal
investigators or project directors, to the administration and the
U.S. Congress, but also to the broad community. The idea is to use
the plan as a mechanism to explain to all sectors of American
society what we are attempting to do.
We are also employing the plan as a device to entice the
participation of others. You saw evidence of that yesterday, for
example, in the statements by Ms. Cornwell Rumsey from the
Department of Energy, which has entered a formal collaboration
agreement with NSF. Dr. Poodry did not emphasize this in his
comments, but we have a similar agreement with the National
Institutes of Health, and with Cliff now in a leadership role, we
will do more. We have in place an effort with the Department of
Education that focuses on its Goals 2000 program and the congruence
between that agenda and ours, and we will pursue others.
The roundtable was initially designed to obtain congressional
perspectives on our efforts. Because there is a cadre of very
talented people at this conference, we were able to do it without
the members of Congress. It was different but important, because
what we attempted to do in the context of our programs and the
action plan was to identify strategies that would translate our
current effort into a national enterprise. That meant that barriers
had to be addressed, and the point of the conference was to
identify them. They were summarized, and they will be integrated
into the action plan. So the roundtable was a very important
process, and it certainly is not going to be the last such
activity.
We took very few questions from the larger audience during the
presentation of the plan; therefore, we are considering a mechanism
by which we could repeat this process on a regional basis. I think
there are some obvious ways to do it. For example, we could repeat
the focused discussion we had here yesterday in areas of the
country where we have companies and programs, either cities with
AMP projects or the 25 largest USI cities. We could do it in
Chicago or in Los Angeles or other places, with the goal of
enticing a larger segment of the American public to understand and
participate in our agenda.
Another achievement of this conference is the increased attendance
from other agencies and from the research directorates at NSF. That
is exceedingly important, and it is consistent with Dr. Petersen's
observation that under Dr. Lane's leadership there is increased
interest in creating synergy between the programs that are
supported in research and those supported in education, thereby
eliminating the artificial distinction between the two. I should
point out to those of you who are from the higher education sector
and operate the various programs represented here that such
increased integration will have a very profound effect on the kind
of proposals that you might submit to NSF in the future.
The awards ceremony is long. Perhaps we can find ways to abbreviate
it in duration, but I hope you would agree that we should not
abbreviate it in terms of goals and objectives. It is exceedingly
important to continue the awards ceremony to acknowledge the
historical context for what we are attempting to accomplish, as
represented by the Lifetime Achievement Award winners, Jewel
Plummer Cobb and Lafayette Frederick last year, Lloyd Cook the
first year, and Warren Henry and Fred Begay this year. It is
particularly important for the young people who participate in the
conference to understand this point. It is also important to
continue the other honors, not only because the students deserve
them, but because it is important to bring Phi Beta Kappa, the
Council of Graduate Schools, and NSTA to our agenda. So we will
find ways to do more in less time, consistent with streamlining the
government, but not decreasing the activity.
I am extremely pleased that we were able to engage an increased
number of participants in the conference through the exhibits, and
that activity can only grow. I was there briefly yesterday, and
there seemed to be more than 1,000 people, especially young people,
who had converted the exhibit hall into an open classroom, and a
very exciting and effective educational process was occurring. It
even continued through this morning.
We also added participants through the Summer Science Camp (SSC)
projects. These were the very young people you encountered who had
not participated previously. We did that with some trepidation,
because it is somewhat challenging to bring 7th, 8th, and 9th
graders to Washington. We had to worry about all kinds of
liability. The Foundation's $3-plus billion budget would be almost
instantaneously consumed in legal fees if we did not do it well. I
have talked with several of these students to get some sense of
their security and how they felt about participating. Did they feel
awed by the scientists and engineers? The answer to that question
was absolutely not.
My sense is that, based on this experience, we should do more in
that regard, that is, involve more SSC project students. The memory
that I will retain forever of these young people is not just of the
projects that they presented, but two additional things: the very
healthy sense of self-esteem they have developed and the healthy
disposition that says, "I have not allowed anyone to impose
restraints on what I can learn." That is absolutely delightful. The
challenge is, what can we do to facilitate that learning?
This then summarizes the conference, and I appreciate all of the
individuals who have assisted us with the conference. This includes
the two members of the National Science Board who are in
attendance, Jaime Oaxaca and Jim Powell, who presided and assisted
us in presenting awards at the luncheon. I thank Anne Petersen for
coming to represent the Director's Office, and I thank members of
the Education and Human Resources National Advisory Committee who
are here and assisted us--Peter Gerber, Tom Cole, and Diana
Natalicio, who is now a nominee to the National Science Board.
I want to express appreciation to the teachers and administrators
from the D.C. Public Schools, the Baltimore Public Schools, and all
of the public schools whose students came yesterday in very large
numbers.
I want to thank Courtesy Associates, the conference contractor
who's been with us for 3 years and continues to improve; they are
doing a splendid job, also. I appreciate the staff of the hotel;
they have been very helpful to us.
There are three people--before I talk about the next steps--whom I
would like to acknowledge publicly.
Roosevelt Calbert's division has responsibility for the human
resource development programs and I ask you to join me in publicly
acknowledging the leadership that he has brought to this process.
When we decided to initiate this conference 3 years ago, I was told
that we had a problem. The problem was that we were asking a large
number of students to make presentations, and we did not have the
staff within the Foundation or a system or process to handle it.
Eugene DeLoatch, Dean of the School of Engineering, Morgan State
University, agreed to do this, and he has done it splendidly for 3
years. One of the reasons you are able to see the students with
their posters and presentations so very well organized is that he
is a schoolmaster in the very best sense of the word. Please join
me in expressing thanks, much belated and inadequate thanks, to
Eugene DeLoatch.
Last, and last for the obvious reason that what I have to say
publicly I can say basically in one sentence: There would be no
conference this year, nor would there have been one the previous 2
years, without one individual: Elmima Johnson.
We have spent some time debating what we should do in the future.
The question for the fourth conference is how to actually build on
what has happened in the previous three. That fits my requirement
for the dynamics of the fourth conference being more than an
extension of the previous ones. We need to do it again because we
have, in large measure, changed the stakes. Eugene DeLoatch has to
find a way to involve even more students. (I am not sure how, but
that is his challenge.) And while the USI has a different mandate,
it seems to me after talking to Ms. Johnson, the general
superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, and others, there is
an advantage in including elements of that program in this
conference. In addition, this is the first time we included the
Summer Science Camp projects and there are, in fact, other programs
with precollege students and several reasons they should be a part
of this activity. Finally, we need to meet on an annual basis to
candidly assess our progress in meeting our goals.
I thank all of you for your participation and want you to know that
I value the terrific work that you are doing on these projects in
your various institutions and schools. I particularly want to thank
the array of people from the NSF Directorate for Education and
Human Resources, whom I have not acknowledged by name.