Title  : EXPERT PANEL CALLS FOR "NEW CULTURE" OF FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN
         SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
Type   : Press Release
NSF Org: OD / LPA
Date   : December 1, 1993
File   : pr9390

Mary E. Hanson     December 1, 1993
(202) 357-9498     NSF PR 93-90


EXPERT PANEL CALLS FOR "NEW CULTURE" OF FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN
SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY Report  Urges Agencies
to Improve Coordination, Evaluation, Accountability

     An expert panel tasked to evaluate the federal investment in
science mathematics, engineering and technology (SMET) education has
called for a basic change in the ways federal agencies view their roles
in that education. After a year of discussion and study, the 15-member
panel of education, science, and industry representatives found that
SMET education programs are burdened by a lack of coordination,
evaluation and accountability.  "It is time for a new culture of
interaction, communication and coordination within and among all the
agencies," says the panel in their report, "The Federal Investment in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education:  Where Now?
What Next?" The creation of the expert panel marks the first time that
federal education initiatives in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology education have been exposed as a whole to the light of
independent scrutiny, according to panel co-chair Karl Pister,
chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz.  He called the
panel task "a constructive mission," aimed at resolving persistent
national education problems.

     "Although some progress has been made over the last decade since
the National Commission on Excellence in Education released its landmark
report -- "A Nation At Risk" -- much of what it called for remains
unfinished," said Pister.  To continue the progress made, the federal
government needs to view its SMET education programs as "a portfolio of
investments," he said.  "Today, the puzzle pieces are scattered; some
pieces are missing, and some are duplicated.  To transform these
programs into a portfolio of investments, we must fit the pieces
together -- one next to another, interlocking them, each one depending
on the next."

     The panel identified more than 300 federal SMET education programs
totaling more than $2.2 billion.  Only one in five of the programs has
been evaluated -- an unacceptable percentage, according to panel
co-chair Mary Budd Rowe, professor of science education at Stanford
University.  "The world has grown fiercely competitive, and the U.S.
simply does not have the luxury of supporting the wrong programs or
failing to support the right ones," said Rowe.

     The report was presented to the Committee on Education and Human
Resources (recently renamed the Committee on Eduation and Training) of
the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology
(FCCSET). Dr. Luther Williams, the assistant director for education and
human resources at the National Science Foundation, is acting chair of
the coordinating council's education committee.  Speaking for the 13
federal agencies which operate core programs in SMET education, Williams
said he takes the findings and recommendations "very seriously."

     "We will take this valuable input to heart, and carefully consider
how best to respond.  We know we need to make some changes, and here is
some sound advice on how to start," said Williams.

-end-

Attachments:   Major Findings and Recommendations of the Expert Panel
                 List of Federal Agencies With Core SMET Education Programs
                 List of Expert Panel Members

The report, "The Federal Investment in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and 
Technology Education: Where Now? What Next?" is available upon request.

***

     The National Science Foundation is an independent agency of the
federal government established in 1950 to promote and advance scientific
progress in the United States.  NSF accomplishes its mission primarily
by competitively awarding grants to educational institutions for
research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.


MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXPERT PANEL


1.  The investment portfolio.  The Federal Commitment of dollars to
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education is
significant.  In 1993, $2.2 billion was expended on nearly 300 programs
constituted solely to support science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education (core programs). Unfortunately, the federal
portfolio of core programs is unbalanced and lacks coherence.  This
situation is the result of varying agency missions, a decentralized
congressional resource allocation process, and a lack of overall
planning and coordination.

    The work of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Education and Human Resources
(now called National Science and Technology Council Committee on
Education and Training) and its Federal Strategic Plan outlined in
Pathways to Excellence constitute a strong beginning --but a stronger
management plan is crucial.  The management plan should designate lead
agencies for Federal initiatives in particular areas and recommend the
merger or phasing out, as well as the development of new programs, as
appropriate.

    This management plan must treat Federal science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education programs like a portfolio of
investments by ensuring that a greater proportion of agency programs (1)
are aligned with overall strategic plan goals, (2) are coordinated
across agencies, (3) use effective strategies for dissemination, (4)
include appropriate evaluations, and (5) promote equity.


2.  Evaluation of the investment.  Only one in five federal science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education programs has been
evaluated. Current evaluation practices are often inadequate for the
purposes of improving programs, making informed decisions about program
retention or expansion, or providing for real accountability.

    National needs assessment should underlie program initiatives in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Programs
should be evaluated rigorously for effectiveness in meeting identified
needs.  Evaluation results should be used as a basis for planning and
revising programs and should be shared with other Federal agencies.  The
sharing of evaluations and evaluation results among agencies prevents
duplication and wasted effort, opens opportunities for collaboration
across agencies, and helps to build more successful programs within
agencies.


3.  Invest in learning what works.  The federal government is in a
unique position to provide leadership in educational research to
determine what works in particular educational settings. Unfortunately,
just $10 million of the $2.2 billion spent is allocated to this
important function.  Research should be directed toward determining what
works best in particular educational settings, for particular diverse
audiences, and in non-traditional settings such as adult education and
life-long learning.


4.  Market the investment.  Less than 1 percent of federal funds for
scientific and technological education are allocated to the
dissemination of valuable educational resources to teachers, students,
and researchers.  We know this to be too little.  Many federal programs
are producing excellent educational materials, too few of which are
reaching students in America's classroom. Aggressive targeted
dissemination of information relevant to particular audiences must
become the paramount feature of the federal government's commitment to
leadership in education.


5.  Invest in the future.  We believe that the federal government should
place greater emphasis on the preparation of instructors to teach at all
educational levels.  Currently, teacher preparation for science and
mathematics instruction at the elementary and secondary level fails to
include the latest findings on how best to promote student learning.
Graduate students, who are tomorrow's faculty at the undergraduate and
graduate levels, rarely receive any formal training in teaching at all.
This lack of emphasis on the preparation of instructors locks our nation
into a costly process of enhancing the skills of instructors who
received inadequate initial preparation.  Funding should be reallocated
to provide more support for teacher preparation programs at all
educational levels.


FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH CORE PROGRAMS IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (SMET) EDUCATION

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution

_____________________________________________________________

All the above agencies participated in the activities of the expert
panel, and have received its report.

MEMBERS OF THE EXPERT PANEL


Karl Stark Pister, Co-Chair
Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz

Mary Budd Rowe, Co-Chair
Professor of Science Education, Stanford University

Stephen C. Blume
Elementary Science Specialist, St. Tammany Parish Public Schools, Slidell, 
Louisiana

Patricia Chavez
Statewide Executive Director, New Mexico Mathematics, Engineering, Science 
Achievement (MESA, Inc.)

Ronald L. Graham
Adjunct Director, Resource Information Science Division, AT&T Bell Laboratories

Joan L. Herman
Associate Director, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and 
Student Testing, UCLA

Ernest Robert House
Director, Laboratory for Policy Studies, University of Colorado

Jacquelyn S. Joyner
Mathematics Instructional Specialist, Richmond (Virginia) Public Schools

Floretta Dukes McKenzie
President; The McKenzie Group

John Mestre
Professor of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Wendell G. Mohling
President, National Science Teachers Association

Michael James Padilla
Chair, Department of Science Education, University of Georgia

Helen R. Quinn
Senior Staff Scientist and Assistant to the Director for Education and Public 
Outreach, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Michael Scriven
Consulting Professor. Stanford University Graduate School of Education; 
Director, The Evaluation and Development Group

James G. Wingate
Vice President for Programs, North Carolina State Department of Community 
Colleges
