1999 Department of Defense
Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education Leaders Conference
"Headlines and Actions"
Remarks on
Preparing Our Children: Math and Science in the National Interest
(National Science Board, March 1999)
Eamon M. Kelly
Chairman, National Science Board
November 3, 1999
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC
(As Delivered)
Good afternoon. My thanks to Rear Admiral Gaffney for the invitation
and to the Department of Defense for the opportunity to participate in
this Leaders Conference, and especially to discuss the National Science
Board report, Preparing Our Children: Math and Science in the National
Interest, issued last Spring.
If we are here to discuss "just another report" bemoaning the state of
K-12 education, then we are wasting our time. Instead, I'd like to use
the next half hour or so to talk about our future and a few things we
can do about it. Whether we do so is a matter of will, energy, and
principle. And remember what Everett Dirksen said: I'm a man of
principle, and my first principle is flexibility.
Nothing is more characteristic of K-12 education in the United States
than "flexibility." A decentralized system of education in 16,000
school districts is the very definition of flexibility. But there is
another reality: We are all alarmed by the trends, none more striking
than those summarized in the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study, or TIMSS. U.S. student achievement declines dramatically from
4th to 12th grade compared to students in other countries.
Headlines
This is not news. What continues to be news is our seeming inability to
raise the bar of expectations for all students while simultaneously
raising their level of performance. Given the increasing diversity in
the school-aged population, the performance gap between our Nation's
majority and minority children must narrow as achievement grows.
K-12 education should not be a "nagging cold." That is, we are not
content to let it run its course. The issue requires intervention. Of
course, state and local responsibility is central. The Federal role is
catalytic, representing only seven cents of the total education dollar
(from all sources) spent on elementary and secondary education.
Clearly, more than dollars are at stake, and at work, here.
There is a second, less prominent "headline" in the data, too: "K-12
and Higher Education - Two Different Systems." There is a discontinuity
between the world's finest higher education system fed by unevenly
prepared students and a small cadre of students who are talented but
uninformed about science-based careers as they enter U.S. colleges and
universities. So the headline triggers questions: Are we skimming the
cream, welcoming some and discouraging others? Are we drawing on and
nurturing the racial and ethnic diversity of our student population?
Are we using the appropriate yardsticks for gauging talent and promise?
And are our policies in the Nation's best interest - informed by
reliable research and implemented to have the greatest impact?
These are the kinds of questions signaled by the National Science Board
(NSB) report, a copy of which each of you should have by now. In the
report, the Board points to what works in the teaching and learning of
mathematics and science. It analyzes the factors, especially the role
of well-trained teachers and of rigorous and engaging instructional
materials, that contribute to world-class student achievement, and
recommends strategies for national action.
The NSB shares with you, as your presence here today shows, a conviction
that nothing is more vital for higher learning and entry to the
high-tech workforce of the 21st century than mathematics and science
education.
The NSB and Its Mission
Before elaborating on that conviction, let me tell you a bit about the
NSB, the National Science Foundation, and how the Preparing Our Children
report reflects a larger education and human resource agenda. Then I
will review the report recommendations and close with some thoughts on
collective action.
The NSB is a diverse body of 24 presidential appointees. More than a
third of the members are women and another third are racial or ethnic
minorities. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 established the
National Science Board as the governing body of National Science
Foundation (NSF). In addition to the Board's responsibility for the
research and education policies of the Foundation, the Act directs the
Board to advise the President and Congress, "... regarding policy
matters related to science and engineering and education in science and
engineering..."
NSF and the Federal Role
NSF is a small, independent agency with an almost $4 billion annual
budget. Just to be clear, NSF is neither a branch of the U.S.
Department of Education nor affiliated with the National Academy of
Sciences. About a quarter of the NSF budget supports "people" -
education and human resource development, with most of the rest invested
in "ideas" - the research projects competitively awarded - and "tools" -
the observatories, laboratories, and equipment used to do world-class
science across all fields of science, mathematics, and engineering.
There is a division of labor in the Federal Government when it comes to
education. The U.S. Department of Education is responsible for all K-12
teacher and student support, and postsecondary student financial
assistance. NSF is responsible for science education at all levels.
Other agencies, more than a dozen in all, invest in education
activities, materials development, and workshops geared to their
particular missions. DoD, of course, is unique in operating its own
school systems around the world for dependents of American service
personnel. Now, back to the report.
The NSB and Science Education
In November 1998, the Board issued a strategic plan that outlines its
focus for the near term. Prominent among the plan's goals is "Educating
the National Workforce." Emerging from the Board's consideration of
this issue, and human resource development more generally, are the
following:
* Local communities must decide what is best for their children and
schools, but there is a national interest in determining what every
student in a grade should know and be able to do in math and science.
* Engaging all students in math and science inquiry develops not only
skills and knowledge, but also a foundation for future thinking in the
workplace, home, and community; and
* Formal education must be seen as a seamless system, K-16 and beyond.
A sense of shared responsibility for preparing, nurturing, and mentoring
students and teachers must be forged.
The segments of the formal educational process (as it now stands) -
elementary, middle, and high school, undergraduate and graduate study -
reinforce specializations that sometimes appear to be ends in themselves
instead of means to achieving learning objectives.
Specialists in curriculum, teacher training, and testing and assessment
are well-intentioned, but frequently respresent isolated islands of
activity. Improving student performance will require cooperation and
collaboration among the islands. This means rewarding those individual
and institutional efforts that serve a broader conception of teaching
and learning.
To this end, the Board has resolved to encourage - through policy
guidance, partnerships, and outreach - the involvement of scientists and
engineers in the improvement of K-12 education, both individually, and
through their employing institutions and professional associations.
This resolution supports two national needs - the assurance of a
skilled, highly educated, and diverse workforce, and a public that is
not just well disposed toward science but one that is able as well to
use its knowledge of science and mathematics. The Board's concerns
encompass the full range of these needs.
NSB Field Hearings
At the time that Preparing Our Children was being developed during most
of calendar 1998, the Board's Committee on Education and Human Resources
undertook a series of field hearings on three topics in NSF's Education
and Training portfolio - informal science learning, school-based reform,
and connecting K-12 and higher education. The hearings enabled the
Board to hear first-hand from NSF's constituents in the science,
engineering, and education communities around the U.S.
The report summarizing the hearings, available like all NSB documents at
its web site, illustrates much of what is contained in Preparing Our
Children. For example, the hearing hosted by the Chicago Public Schools
(July 1998) focused on the painstaking process of reform of urban
schools. Educating diverse populations with language, poverty, and
deficits in academic preparation challenges teachers, schools, and
political leaders - and is more the norm than the exception. It is
imperative, therefore, to evaluate the changes implemented under any
innovative design, be it so-called school-based management or NSF's
Urban Systemic Program.
Systemic Reform
Let me offer additional context here: Historically, NSF has pursued two
investment strategies. One consists of programs that operate on
particular components of education, e.g., teacher preparation,
instructional materials, and increased participation by members of
underrepresented groups. The other, more experimental strategy is a
nearly decade-long effort to take a systemic approach, addressing
simultaneously all key components of SMET education, as epitomized in
the Statewide and Urban Systemic Initiatives.
In Detroit, El Paso, Memphis, Chicago, and other cities, there are
dramatic signs of improvement in student performance (as measured, for
example, by proficiency levels in state science and mathematics
assessments). I believe we are beginning to see light in the tunnel of
public education and NSF, together with many public and private sector
partners, is helping to make this happen system-wide and for all
children.
The constructive role for higher education in the K-12 reform movement
can perhaps best be seen in Puerto Rico, the site of an SSI program.
Focused at the U. of Puerto Rico campuses, faculty are engaged in what
is conceived as K-16 education reform. Math and science are seen as
preparation for higher education, entry to the high-tech workforce, and
the economic development of the island. All students are viewed as
future human capital - some will pursue careers in S&T, most will join a
science-literate workforce as citizens, and a few will become societal
leaders.
Building the capacity of a seamless system to support this requires a
"scaling up" of reform. It takes leadership, accountability, and
vigilance. It also, I hasten to note, takes time. The political and
public expectations for change are typically unrealistic. Impatience,
as well as a flawed design, can undermine the course of reform.
Areas for Action
Following these hearings, we moved on to the problems we face and the
recommendations contained in Preparing Our Children.
Mobility
One very important taken-for-granted problem is a policy
challenge posed by today's high rate of geographic mobility in
the U.S. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, one in three students changes schools more than once
between grades 1 and 8. Moving between schools, classrooms,
teachers, and curricula represents upheavals in students' lives.
How does one cope, much less learn, under such circumstances?
What is covered in 4th grade in one place does not resemble the
content of 4th grade instruction in other places.
A mobile student population dramatizes the need for some coordination of
content and resources. This is not a Federal "imposition," as we so
often see in our daily newspapers, but rather a recognition that student
mobility constitutes a systemic problem that requires some uniformity of
content.
Standards in Theory and Practice
A core problem is the need for rigorous content standards in mathematics
and science. The National Academy of Sciences has helped this case
immensely. And the states are carrying the standards ball with gusto.
They acknowledge that all students require the knowledge and skills that
flow from teaching and learning based on world-class content standards.
These are the standards in theory. But how are standards translated
from what appears in state curriculum frameworks into classroom lesson
plans, that is, what teachers teach and students learn? This is where
the standards lag - in everyday practice.
The value of TIMSS is that it helped us calibrate what our students were
getting in the classroom relative to their age peers around the world.
What we have learned, from TIMSS and other research and evaluation, is
that U.S. textbooks, teachers, and the structure of the school day do
not promote in-depth learning.
While the "back to basics" debate rages on the virtues of rote v.
hands-on learning, it is clear that both are needed if students are to
command basic knowledge and apply it to new problems and different
settings. But rigor in content is what is essential. Excellent
pedagogy cannot compensate for superficial and simplistic explanations.
That is where accountability comes in. Accountability for teaching and
learning, which takes many forms, is now rippling through districts,
schools, and classrooms. But accountability measures should be a means
not only of rewarding and punishing performance.
They should also help in monitoring progress and, we hope, continuously
improving performance through learning about system strengths and
weaknesses. Only then should appropriate incentives follow.
The power of standards and accountability is that, from district-level
policy changes in course and graduation requirements to well-aligned
classroom teaching and testing, all students can be held to the same
high standard of performance. At the same time, teachers and schools
must be held accountable so that race, ethnicity, gender, physical
disability, and economic disadvantage can diminish as excuses for subpar
student performance.
But well-prepared and -supported teachers alone will not improve student
performance if other things do not change as well. The NSB report
focuses on three areas for consensual national action to improve
mathematics and science teaching and learning: curriculum, teacher
preparation, and college admissions. I'd like to touch briefly on each.
1. Curriculum
According to the TIMSS results, U.S. students are not taught what they
need to learn in math and science. Most U.S. high school students take
no advanced science, with only one-quarter enrolling in physics,
one-half in chemistry. From the TIMSS analysis we also learned that
curricula in U.S. high schools lack coherence, depth, and continuity,
and cover too many topics in a superficial way. Most of our general
science textbooks in the U.S. touch on many topics rather than probe any
one in depth.
Without some degree of consensus on content for each grade level,
textbooks will continue to be all-inclusive and superficial. They will
fail to challenge students to use mathematics and science as ways of
knowing about the world.
The AAAS Project 2061 evaluations of middle school textbooks in
mathematics and science - of which you'll hear more later today -
confirm that many our instructional materials serve neither teachers nor
students well. How are selections made? By whom? Through what kind of
process?
The NSB urges active participation by educators and practicing
mathematicians and scientists, as well as parents and employers from
knowledge-based industries, in the review of instructional materials
considered for local adoption.
Professional associations in the science and engineering communities can
take the lead in stimulating the dialogue over textbooks and other
materials, and in formulating checklists or content inventories that
could be valuable to their members, and all stakeholders, in the
evaluation process.
2. Teacher Preparation
According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future, as many as one in four teachers is teaching "out of
field." Science, and particularly physics, teachers are the
least prepared.
The National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and
Certification reports that only 28 states require prospective teachers
to pass examinations in the subject areas they plan to teach, and only
13 states test them on their teaching skills. Widely shared goals and
standards in teacher preparation, licensure, and professional
development provide mechanisms to overcome these difficulties. This is
especially critical for middle school teachers, if we take the TIMSS 8th
grade findings seriously.
We cannot expect world-class learning of mathematics and science if U.S.
teachers lack the knowledge, confidence, and enthusiasm to deliver
world-class instruction. While updating current teacher knowledge is
essential, improving future teacher preparation is even more crucial.
The NSB urges formation of three-pronged partnerships: institutions
that graduate new teachers working in concert with national and state
certification bodies, and local school districts.
These partnerships should form around the highest possible standards of
subject content knowledge for new teachers, and aim at aligning teacher
education, certification requirements and processes, and hiring
practices. If the best-prepared teachers are not favored in the hiring
process, there is no incentive to acquire new skills, learn new content,
and become nationally certified.
Mechanisms for the support of teachers are needed, such as sustained
mentoring by individual university faculty, and other teacher support
mechanisms, such as pay supplements for board certification. We can
honor our teachers by treating them as professionals, demanding
continuous learning and responsibility for their students' performance.
3. College Admissions
Quality teaching and learning of mathematics and science bestows
advantages on students. Content standards, clusters of courses, and
graduation requirements illuminate the path to college and the
workplace, lay a foundation for later learning, and draw students'
career aspirations within reach. How high schools assess student
progress, however, has consequences for deciding who gains access to
higher education.
Longitudinal data on 1982 high school graduates point to course-taking
or "academic intensity," as opposed to high school grade point average
or SAT/ACT scores, as predictors of completion of baccalaureate degrees.
Nevertheless, short-term and readily quantifiable measures such as
standardized test scores tend to dominate admissions decisions. Such
decisions promote the participation of some students in mathematics and
science, and discourage others.
Further, acting as "all one system" means that the strengths and
deficiencies of elementary or secondary education are not just inherited
by higher education. Instead, they become spurs to better preparation
and opportunity for advanced learning. "Preparation" is not a K-12
problem; it is the responsibility of every educator at every level.
"Partnering" by institutions of higher education demands a change in the
culture of our colleges and universities, a change that is reflected in
adjustments in expectations and a redefinition of the range of
activities that are professionally valued and rewarded. Service to
local schools, teachers, and students must be seen as instrumental to
the mission of the higher education institution. These are its future
clientele.
The NSB urges institutions of higher education to form partnerships with
local districts/schools that create a more seamless K-16 system.
Partnerships can also help to increase the congruence between high
school graduation requirements in math and science, and undergraduate
performance demands. Moreover, they can demonstrate the links between
classroom-based skills and the demands on thinking and learning in the
workplace.
A fourth area underlies the three above: research. Questions such as
which tests should be used for gauging progress in teaching and
learning, and how children learn in both formal and informal settings
require research-based answers.
The National Science Board sees research as a necessary condition for
improved student achievement in mathematics and science. Further,
research on local district, school, and classroom practice is best
supported at a national level and in a global context, such as TIMSS.
Knowing "what works" in diverse settings should inform those seeking a
change in practice and student learning outcomes. Teachers could
especially use such information. Like other professionals, teachers
need support networks that deliver content and help to refine and renew
their knowledge and skills.
The Board urges the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Education to spearhead the Federal contribution
to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education
research and evaluation.
No one Federal, state, or local agency can afford to sponsor and
then implement the results of educational research. Efforts at
the Federal level, such as the Interagency Education Research
Initiative, are rooted in empirical reports by the President's
Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National
Science and Technology Council. Led jointly by NSF and the
Department of Education, this initiative should support research
that yields timely findings and thoughtful plans for
transferring lessons, and influencing those responsible for math
and science teaching and learning, K-16.
Closing Thoughts
My overview of the NSB report has gone beyond recommendations. I have
suggested that federally funded activities should serve as a kind of
compass or "finder's service" - a source of intervention ideas that
represent reasonable alternatives to current practice.
If we believe that the health of science and engineering tomorrow
depends on improved mathematics and science preparation of our students
today, then we dare not delegate the responsibility of teaching and
learning math and science solely to teachers and schools. They cannot
work miracles by themselves.
Reforming and improving K-12 education is a national social
responsibility. We "own" the problem and it's time we subordinate
ideology, belief, parochialism, and our considerable pride to the bigger
need, indeed, our obligation, to educate generations of our children for
a 21st century world of science and technology-laced wonder. Will they
participate fully? If they don't, how will U.S. society - and we in
retirement - fare?
So I leave you with the thought that only concerted action will achieve
greater participation by those who have not traditionally identified
mathematics and science education with their future careers and
citizenship. Making the possibility of a science-informed future a
reality for all students is our collective responsibility. We can act
in our national self-interest to expand the capabilities of the next
generation. In so doing, a balance must be struck between individual
and collective incentives and accountability.
In 1983, the same year that A Nation at Risk was published, the NSB
Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology advised:
Our children are the most important asset of our country; they deserve
at least the heritage that was passed to us . . . a level of
mathematics, science and technology education that is the finest in the
world, without sacrificing the American birthright of personal choice,
equity and opportunity.
Whether we draw on the full potential of our human resources is entirely
up to us. The National Science Board, among others, has affirmed that
scientists and engineers, and especially our colleges and universities,
must act to prepare and support teachers and students for the rigors of
advanced learning and the 21st century workplace.
Equipping the next generation with these tools of work and citizenship
will require a greater consensus among stakeholders than now exists on
the content of K-16 teaching and learning. With disagreements on how to
teach mathematics, on which methods and materials, and what to teach in
areas where science and religion diverge (such as evolution), a greater
consensus seems more elusive than ever.
Nevertheless, as leaders of our respective communities and citizens of
this republic, we must prevail in keeping minds open, ideas flowing, and
options plentiful, especially for those deciding how their careers will
allow them to contribute to the future of the society and the planet.
I began with a caveat about "just another report." When a report fails
to spur action, it becomes at best an historical footnote. As the NSB
report shows, national strategies can only help change the conditions of
schooling if they are implemented. You can help change schooling and
our understanding of it. In 1999, national strategies for excellence in
education must be more than a footnote and more than a headline. Such
action must be nothing less than a national imperative.
Thank you.
1