** PRE-RELEASE COPY **

NSB 99-31

Approved February 17, 1999

PREPARING OUR CHILDREN:
MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

An NSB Report on Mathematics and Science Achievement

I. Introduction:  Student Achievement as a Shared Responsibility

  Almost 10 years ago, President Bush and the state governors "set goals
  aimed at preparing all the Nation's children to improve their achievement
  in core subjects and outpace the world in at least math and science by
  2000."1  The urgency of the ensuing national debate on how to improve
  academic achievement by U.S. elementary, middle, and high school students -
  and the consequences of failing to do so - remains undiminished today.  At
  issue is who ostensibly defines the content to be learned, and who ensures
  the opportunity to teach and learn it well.  While resolutions will be
  local, the dialogue that precedes them should reflect experiences from
  across the Nation, as well as research and evaluation of processes and
  outcomes, including international comparisons.

  The National Science Board (NSB), the governing body for the National
  Science Foundation, is charged with advising the President and the Congress
  on matters of national science policy.*  Last July, the NSB issued Failing
  Our Children, a statement urging "all stakeholders in our vast grass-roots
  system of K-12 education to develop a nation-wide consensus for a common
  core of knowledge and competency in mathematics and science."  "In the new
  global context," the statement continues, "a scientifically literate
  population is vital to the democratic process, a healthy economy, and our
  quality of life."

  Just as the inability to read puts a child at risk of truancy and becoming
  a school dropout, deficiencies in mathematics and science have become a
  barrier to higher education and the 21st century workplace.  Preparation of
  new generations for entry to both of these worlds is a community
  responsibility; it cannot be delegated solely to teachers and schools.
  Thus, the articulation of K-12 content standards with college admissions
  criteria is vital for conveying the national expectation that educational
  excellence improves not just the health of science, but everyone's life
  chances through productive employment, active citizenship, and continuous
  learning.

  Moreover, the future of the science enterprise is renewed through a
  continuous flow of talent into the Nation's science and engineering
  workforce - talent that embodies certain core skills and competencies
  derived from education and training shaped by the highest standards of
  quality.*  The NSB believes that nothing is more essential to the health of
  the science enterprise than human resources - the people who are prepared
  for careers that produce the next generation of knowledge, products, and
  processes in all sectors of the economy.

  It is imperative to raise the voice of the science and engineering
  communities, as the chief practitioners of research and education, in the
  national dialogue on improving the teaching and learning of mathematics and
  science.  Together with elected officials, school administrators, classroom
  teachers, parents, and employers (especially those from knowledge-based
  industries), scientists and engineers bring a valuable perspective on
  mathematics and science as a way of knowing, a transferable skill, and a
  citizenship tool as we enter a new millennium.

  In a culture dedicated to opportunity for all, nothing is more important
  than preparing our children for the future workplace.  In the science,
  mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education of all students,
  K-12 through post-graduate, the NSB believes that rigor and depth of
  content are keys to preparation.*  Education reform is a long-term
  proposition.  In this report, the Board sets forth what it considers the
  necessary conditions for academic achievement, including concurrence on
  what constitutes "basic skills" for the 21st century.

Science education in the U.S. has received several national wake-up calls
since the launching of Sputnik in 1957, including the publication of A Nation
at Risk in 1983.  More recently, the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS)2 warned that America's children ages 13-17 are, on
average, not leading, but lagging the world in mathematics and science
achievement.  Every parent - not just scientists, educators, and employers -
should be alarmed by these results.

  The school systems of high-performing countries share characteristics that
  can be gleaned from the TIMSS data.  These data range from content analysis
  of textbooks, curricula, and classroom videotapes, to ethnographic case
  studies and surveys of teachers' attitudes and students' coursetaking.3
  The characteristics that emerge include:

* a coherent vision of what all students in each successive grade should
learn, with a focus on a few topics in depth both in their textbooks and
classroom instruction;

* instruction delivered by teachers well-prepared in the subject, who benefit
from out-of-class opportunities to develop lessons, and consult regularly
with teachers and other resource persons; and

* alignment between what is expected, taught, tested, and rewarded for
students, teachers, and schools.

All high-performing countries show student gains between grades 3 and 4, and
again between grades 7 and 8.  The U.S. does not.   Even in 4th grade, where
U.S. students do well relative to those in other countries, their performance
in physical science areas is weak, foreshadowing their average performance at
8th grade and their unacceptably poor showing at 12th grade.   When we
compare our K-12 schools and curricula in light of the TIMSS results, we find
many teachers lacking good content preparation and, in the aggregate, a
muddled and superficial curriculum.  Even excellent pedagogy cannot inspire
learning what the world's best-performing children are expected to know in
these circumstances.  Amidst the diversity of students and systems - large
and small, wealthy and disadvantaged, urban and suburban and rural - there is
an overarching reality:  in too many American schools there is too little
quality science and mathematics being taught and learned.

In addition, while U.S. graduate education remains the envy of the world, the
declining interest and participation of domestic students in science and
engineering must be taken as a disturbing sign that K-12 mathematics and
science education is failing to renew, expand, and prepare our talent pool.4
This decline clearly suggests that the performance of U.S. students signals
uneven preparation for college-level study, a lack of readiness for the world
of work, an accumulating disadvantage in the global economic competition to
come.  A further implication, more subtle and harder to demonstrate, is that
as American schools fail more youngsters, this nation's capability to
innovate, solve problems, and produce - to sustain world leadership - is in
jeopardy.

  With such a prospect in mind, the National Science Board asks how to
  address the national interest through local strategies that promote
  academic achievement in mathematics and science.  Drawing on research and
  analysis, this report asserts that stakeholders working in their home
  communities can converge on what matters most for mathematics and science
  achievement - rigorous content standards, high expectations for teaching
  and learning, teachers well-prepared in the subjects they are teaching, and
  meaningful measures of accountability.  Such convergence can help clarify
  shared responsibility, identify where contention resides, and suggest how
  research can illuminate both what is known and what needs to be known.
  The Federal role in elevating education practice and student performance is
  catalytic and analytical - one resource among many helping to foster the
  conditions under which all students, schools, parents, and communities can
  together boost academic achievement.

II. Content Standards for All Schools

  No topic in education has stirred more emotion than "standards."  As
  communities debate the essence and intended influence of standards on what
  teachers teach and their children learn, the national interest often
  recedes from view.  The national interest is grounded in the importance of
  a strong, competitive workforce for the future of the Nation and a
  citizenry equipped to function in a complex world.  That interest
  encompasses what every student in a grade should know and be able to do in
  mathematics and science (among other core subjects).  Today's mobile
  society means that local schools have become a de facto national resource
  for learning.

  The NSB believes that  stakeholders must develop a much-needed consensus on
  a common core of mathematics and science knowledge and skills to be
  embedded consistently in classroom teaching and learning.

  In the remainder of this section, we address two issues that underpin this
  core recommendation:  the need for standards in a mobile population, and
  the role of nation-wide standards in the context of local school
  governance.

  A.  Student Mobility
In the July statement, the NSB notes that "Students often move several times
during their K-12 education, encountering varying curricula and instructional
materials that cover an increasing number of topics while sacrificing depth
and rigor."  National data show that 31 percent of the 8th grade class of
1988 changed schools two or more times between grades 1 and 8.*  Ten percent
changed schools two or more times during high school, i.e., between 1988 and
1992.  White students were less likely to move than ethnic minorities;
students who lived with their mother and father during the 8th grade were
less likely to have changed schools than students in single-parent or other
family situations.  And students in low-income families were more likely to
change schools than students with family incomes exceeding $20,000.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, "students change schools for
academic, personal, and family-related reasons.  Those who make frequent
school changes can experience inappropriate placement in a new school, lack
of continuity of lesson content, disruptions in social ties, and feelings of
alienation.  Teachers may also find it difficult to identify and meet the
academic needs of the highly mobile student."5  This "mobile student" segment
of the school population also has implications for other phenomena that
affect the Nation's workforce - high school dropouts and completions.*

Special local programs alone will not compensate for the learning
deficiencies created by the movement of children between school districts.  A
sounder approach is student access to exemplary teachers and support that
begins with agreement on the "minimum requirements" of what, say, all 5th
graders should know and be able to do in mathematics and science.  Without
defining these requirements, mobility becomes another disadvantage that
accumulates, leaving some children further behind or labeling them
inappropriately.

  If the content of instruction encountered by students in 5th grade math
  classes in Missoula is unlike its counterpart in Cincinnati, then every
  transfer student - regardless of what she has been taught and is prepared
  to learn - will have little opportunity (exacerbated by the lack of
  continuity) for making academic progress.  This situation is all too common
  across the U.S. A remedy is content - instructional materials, teaching,
  and testing aligned to something beyond, or in addition to, a local
  standard that gauges learning by every old and new kid on the block.  The
  needs of the mobile student population beg for some coordination of content
  and resources.  Structures and practices must help to prevent mobile
  students - who tend to be ethnic minorities, poor, or come from one-parent
  families - from slipping through the cracks of a school or district.
  Better record-keeping is only a start.  To help recognize learning needs,
  classroom teachers must be better informed about the content preparation of
  newly-arrived students.*

Student mobility illustrates a systemic problem that demands systemic
solutions.

Unless the needs of the mobile student population are addressed, other bigger
problems loom.  If school imparts too few skills, the teenager is at greater
risk of dropping out and  becoming dependent on another set of social
services.  If transience and mobility between schools reduces students'
access to quality teachers, instruction, and materials because of content
that lacks consistency across districts and grades, then guidelines that
transcend statewide practices and help to minimize the disruptions of change
should be welcome.

	B.	Standards and Accountability

  A decade ago, national standards in mathematics and science began to be
  designed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
  the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and the National
  Academy of Sciences (NAS), in close consultation with all stakeholders in
  education - preschool to graduate school.  These standards, while evolving,
  have been endorsed - generically if not specifically - by organizations as
  diverse as the American Federation of Teachers, The Business Roundtable,
  the Education Commission of the States, and the CEOs of over 200 Silicon
  Valley high-tech companies.6

  The reality today is that virtually all states have curriculum frameworks
  that use the NCTM, AAAS, and the NAS documents as points of reference for
  teaching challenging mathematics and science.7  These
  independently-generated frameworks signify an emerging consensus that
  offers a national resource on which local districts across the U.S. can
  draw as they define "basic skills" and formulate guides to classroom
  practice.

  The existence of frameworks has not translated content standards into
  widespread classroom practice.8  "Translation," of course, requires change
  - teacher by teacher, textbook by textbook, classroom by classroom.  There
  is no "one size fits all" implementation plan.   In this sense, the Federal
  role in the national movement toward standards is at best supportive.
  "National" standards do not mean "federal," "federally mandated,"
  "standardized," or "homogeneous."   Indeed, the relation of  "nation-wide"
  standards to state frameworks and to what is actually taught in classrooms
  remains murky at best.*  Imparting core competencies neither defines an
  entire curriculum nor precludes locally-held beliefs and prerogatives about
  the content of that curriculum.

  Rather, math and science competencies must try to anticipate future
  national needs as convergence on the definition, content, and use of
  standards continues to grow.9   For example, NSF, NASA, and other agencies
  have funded instructional materials development, yielding models that
  reflect professional consensus on what constitutes teachable content
  standards in mathematics and science.  The evaluation and distribution of
  such materials help districts, teachers, and administrators make informed
  choices among innovative resources.

  In a recent review of the status of standards, the President of the
  National Center on Education and the Economy identified what will reinforce
  high academic performance.10  Attaining such performance, by pursuing the
  following, is consistent with the states' role as chief accountability
  agent:

* assessments set to the standards (if you cannot accurately measure progress
toward the standards, they are unlikely to influence behavior);

* curriculum set to the standards (what is taught is what is learned);

* incentives for the students to meet the standards (students presently have
incentives to stay in high school to get the diploma, but little incentive to
take tough courses or work hard);

* a relentless focus on results (develop a strong rewards-and-consequences
system tied to the standards and directed to the staff of schools; making
progress would be rewarded, repeatedly dismal performance would put jobs at
risk);

* a modern accountability system (put performance standards in place,
institute appropriate measures of progress, and decide how to raise the
students to the standards); and accurate, detailed, up-to-date data on
student performance (readily and policymakers).

The reality of educational accountability lags these attainable prerequisites
for student achievement.  As Quality Counts '99, a survey of state policies
on accountability, concludes, "most have a long way to go in making their
accountability systems clear, fair, and complete."  The survey finds, for
example, that 49 states (all but Iowa) have or are drafting standards in core
subjects, 48 now test their students, and 36 publish annual report cards on
individual schools.  Fewer than half publicly rate the performance of all
schools or identify low-performing ones.  Only 16 states have the power to
close, take over, or overhaul chronically failing schools.  While 19 require
students to pass tests to graduate from high school, only two have attempted
to tie teacher evaluations to student performance.  Finally, while most
states rely on test scores to help determine "rewards and sanctions," the
focus is primarily on schools rather than individual educators, penalties are
threatened but not imposed, and there is no agreed-upon strategy for fixing
failing schools.11

Accountability may begin with standards.   But because content standards are
mere abstractions until melded with instructional and student performance
standards, teaching and assessment are intimately (and perhaps inevitably)
bound up in discussions of standards.12  Bound up as well are expectations -
not just of students but also of teachers, parents, and the Nation.  Test
performance, too, must be interpreted relative to something, be it
expectations or course offerings, and coursetaking (i.e., curriculum and the
opportunity to learn it).  Without a standard, tests become mere comparisons
among students - norm-referenced tests - uncalibrated by content.  They also
risk missing or mismeasuring complex cognitive and performance proficiencies.
In the very worst case, they measure what children bring to school, not what
they learn in school.   Student achievement, in short, should reflect the
value added by schooling, not the distribution of class or home
(dis)advantages that characterize the U.S. student population.   Standards
should help us think about the relation of science literacy to basic skills.
What those skills are fuels the ability to apply knowledge to new contexts
and problems.  Controversy over how students acquire them seems to distract
communities from achieving what most avow is in the national interest.

    Teachers' cognitive expectations, or what they believe the child can
    learn, set the stage for performance.  Additionally, the child must be
    convinced of his/her own capability.  Asserting that "all children can
    learn" reflects the power of standards and accountability.  Increasing
    mathematics and science graduation requirements (to at least three and
    preferably four years of each), eliminating remedial courses (and the
    tracking and ability grouping they denote), and holding principals,
    guidance counselors, and teachers - along with students themselves -
    accountable for academic improvement by holding all children to the same
    high standard of performance.   Through such district-level policy
    changes, race, ethnicity, gender, physical disability, and economic
    disadvantage diminish as excuses for subpar performance.**

  Likewise, parents' expectations influence achievement.  The research
  literature indicates that parents decide to become involved in the
  education of their children due to three principal factors:  what they
  believe is important, necessary, and permissible for them to do with and on
  behalf of their children; the extent to which they believe they can exert
  positive influence on their children's education; and their perceptions
  that the child and the school want them to be involved.  Various factors,
  but particularly change of residence, inhibit parental involvement.13

  Of course, adoption of curricula with challenging content and parental
  involvement will not willy-nilly boost American students' academic
  achievement.  Curriculum innovations have historically failed to influence
  teaching and learning practices due, in part, to teachers' scarce
  opportunities to learn new content and improve their practice.  Although
  teachers are instrumental in student learning, no one component can
  transform the quality of schooling, improve student achievement, and
  communicate to all stakeholders (especially parents) why changes should be
  tried, indeed supported, before positive results will be observed (much
  less measured).  That is why a systemic vision - the U.S. as a "common
  market" for knowledge workers with transferable skills - is needed to
  integrate all components of teaching and learning.

  For U.S. student achievement to rise, a consensus on standards, from
  classroom to statehouse, must be forged.  The recommendations discussed
  below all contribute to effective implementation of the Board's core
  recommendation.  Implementation is addressed to areas of action for which
  stakeholders share responsibility.  Of special emphasis are NSB proposals
  for how the science community can collaborate to advance the consensus on
  core competencies, and how national and international experience should
  inform decisions about mathematics and science teaching and learning.

III. Building a Seamless Education System, K-16

Content standards that nurture a science-literate population serve the
national interest.  Implementing standards creates opportunities to change
both the conditions for learning and the performance of U.S. students.  This
is a call to transcend a dangerously balkanized system and assist local
communities to support teachers and learners of mathematics and science,
K-16.   To reiterate the NSB July statement, "No nation can afford to
tolerate what prevails in American schooling:  generally low expectations and
low performance, with only pockets of excellence at a world-class level of
achievement."

The NSB proposes three areas for consensual national action to improve
mathematics and science teaching and learning:  instructional materials,
teacher preparation, and college admission.  We address each in turn.

A. Instructional Materials

  U.S. students, TIMSS showed us, are not taught what they need to know.
  Most U.S. high school students don't take advanced science; they opt out,
  with only one-quarter enrolling in physics, one-half in chemistry.
  Instructional materials are not the only culprit, but surely contribute to
  this science-aversion.  As the president of the American Physical Society
  puts it, "Both common sense and modern educational theory tell us that
  students, when asked to memorize disconnected facts without truly
  understanding them, quickly lose interest in the subject."

  From the TIMSS analysis we also learned that mathematics and science
  curricula in U.S. high schools lack coherence, depth, and continuity; they
  cover too many topics in a superficial way.  In short, TIMSS demonstrated
  that content matters - and students must have the opportunity to learn it.
  While most countries introduce algebra and geometry in the middle grades,
  only one in four U.S. students take algebra before high school.  Topics on
  the general knowledge 12th grade  mathematics assessment were covered by
  the 9th grade in the U.S., but by 7th in most other countries.  In the
  general science assessment, topics in the U.S. were covered by 11th grade,
  but by 9th grade in other countries.

  Students' exposure to challenging mathematics and science content is
  limited, it seems, by what is offered them and the  coursetaking choices
  they make.   According to TIMSS, 90 percent of U.S. high school students
  stop taking math before getting to calculus.   Among college-bound
  students, half had not taken physics or trigonometry; three in four had not
  taken calculus, while one in three had taken less than four years of
  mathematics.

  The TIMSS analysis also disclosed that most general science textbooks in
  the U.S. touch on many topics rather than probe any one in depth.  The five
  most emphasized topics in 4th grade science texts accounted for 25 percent
  of total pages compared with an international average in the 70-75 percent
  range.  General mathematics textbooks in the U.S. contain an average of 36
  different topics; texts in Japan cover 8 topics, in Germany, 4-5.  In
  middle school (grades 5-8), while the world proceeds to teach algebra and
  geometry, the U.S. continues to teach arithmetic.  All high-performing
  countries show student gains between grades 3 and 4, and again between
  grades 7 and 8.  The U.S. does not.  Like others, the NSB believes this
  reflects a muddled, unfocused, repetitious, and superficial curriculum.

  Without some degree of consensus on content for each grade level, textbooks
  will continue to be all-inclusive and superficial.  If used as the
  foundation for instruction, these textbooks will fail to challenge and
  motivate students to exercise their curiosity and experience mathematics
  and science as ways of knowing.

At their best, curriculum materials energize learning.  But we learn in
different ways.  Curriculum developers therefore offer alternative formats
for their textbooks.  Some emphasize rote learning, others coherent
knowledge of science content and process, sometimes with the concurrent use
of mathematics.14  Few introduce real-world interdisciplinary problems and
serve as the foundation for Advanced Placement courses, school-to-work
transition courses, or the challenges of a liberal arts college education.
Most innovative science curricula, for instance, seek coherence, integration,
and movement from concrete ideas to abstract concepts.  Furthermore, they
stress inquiry, a connectivity among disciplines, a concern for societal
implications, and a scientific "way of knowing."  Taken together, they would
foster in the high school graduate what we would term "science literacy."

Teaching and learning to high standards cannot be the province only of some
schools, teachers, and students.  To be systemic, 15,000 school districts
should not engage in the same curriculum-based experiments and repeat
all-too-familiar mistakes.  They should reap the benefit of what other
districts have tried.  Since most decisions on textbooks and related
instructional materials are made at state or local district levels, they
frequently incorporate some mechanism for citizen review and advice.

  Recommendation 1:   To implement its core recommendation (above) through
		           instructional materials:

i. The NSB urges (a) broad adoption of the principle of citizen review; (b)
active participation on citizen advisory boards by educators and practicing
mathematicians and scientists, as well as parents and employers from
knowledge-based industries; and (c) use of public forums to foster dialogue
between textbook publishers and advisory boards in the review process.

	ii.	Accompanying this process should be an ongoing national
dialogue on appropriate measures for evaluation of textbooks and
instructional materials for use in the classroom.   The NSB urges
professional associations in the science community to take a lead in
stimulating this dialogue and in formulating checklists or content
inventories that could be valuable to their members, and all stakeholders, in
the evaluation process.

B.	Teacher Preparation

  Public opinion overwhelming favors "ensuring a well-qualified teacher in
  every classroom" as the top education priority.  Indeed, teachers - once
  viewed as central to the problem of student underachievement - are now
  being recognized as the solution.***  In teacher preparation there is a
  "multiplier effect" that can span generations.  While a sound undergraduate
  science education is essential for producing the next generation of
  scientists, it is equally critical for future teachers of science.  The
  refrain, "you can't teach what you don't know,"15 surely applies.

  There are many signs that teachers in the classroom cannot rely on their
  undergraduate education when teaching mathematics or science.  According to
  the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, as many as one in
  four teachers is teaching "out of field."  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.16  Many students who turned away from mathematics and science in
  college become elementary school teachers.

  The NSB thus believes that improving future teacher preparation is crucial
  for improving their performance in the classroom and the achievement of
  their students.  One commentator has noted that all the experimentation in
  full bloom across the U.S. - "class size, physical resources, local
  administration - can help.  But good teaching is the vein of gold.  To mine
  it, we'll have to pay more to attract and keep the best.  And we'll need to
  be sure we get our money's worth by requiring strong preparation, and
  performance up to measurable standards."17   There is a threshold of
  preparation and competence that all future teachers of mathematics and
  science must initially reach, and then augment, as their careers unfold.

  The distributed character of our education system and the diversity of
  higher education institutions illuminate the problem.  Over 1250 colleges
  and universities prepare future teachers, and 700 are regularly audited by
  the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),
  which has contractual relations with 36 States.  But NCATE accredits
  programs, while the 50 States credential teachers,18 and the teachers are
  employed by 15,000 independent school districts.  This recipe for
  distributed responsibility has resulted in much variance in course
  requirements for budding teachers and uneven quality in teacher education.
  Maintaining, enhancing, and "scaling up" or spreading quality in a
  distributed system are difficult at best.  Codified, widely shared goals
  and standards in teacher preparation, licensure, and professional
  development provide mechanisms to overcome these difficulties.

What we have learned about mathematics and science teachers already in the
classroom is dismaying.  While most teachers embrace a vision of high
standards for all students, cooperative learning (in small groups), and the
use of technology (computers and calculators), their instructional strategies
fall short of the vision.  Many teachers lack support to plan and deliver
quality instruction:  1 in 2 teachers feel inadequately prepared to integrate
computers into instruction, and 2 in 5 feel inadequately prepared to use math
or science textbooks as a resource rather than as the primary instructional
tool, or to use performance-based assessments.   Fewer than 1 in 3 teachers
feel prepared to teach life science, and only 1 in 10 feel prepared for the
physical science course they are teaching. In addition, more than a third of
elementary teachers, and more than half of high school mathematics and
science teachers in 1993, felt unprepared to involve parents in the education
of their children!

  Thus, in addition to teacher preparation, we have the continuing challenge
  of professional development, where school districts update the knowledge,
  skills, and strategies that teachers bring into the classroom.  No
  professional is equipped to practice for all time, i.e., be an
  inexhaustible "vein of gold."  We cannot expect world-class student
  learning of mathematics and science if U.S. teachers lack the confidence,
  enthusiasm, and knowledge to deliver world-class instruction.

  As a body of scientists and engineers, the NSB believes that content
  background matters for classroom performance.  For example, the proportion
  of Presidential awardee teachers in mathematics and science with degrees in
  the fields they teach is much higher than in the total teacher
  population. Likewise, professional development - intensive and rigorous,
  with follow-up - can overcome flaws in content and pedagogical training.
  Recently, a decade-long study clearly established the links among
  professional development, changes in teaching practice, and improved
  student achievement in California.19  But school districts should not be
  left to shoulder the burden of training that undergraduate education failed
  to deliver.  This becomes an expensive form of compensatory teacher
  education - and a diversion of scarce resources that could be put toward
  much-needed merit-based salary increases for teachers, the purchase of new
  materials and classroom equipment, and ongoing professional development.
  

  As another commentator notes, it is important to connect professional
  development to the evaluation of teachers and to student performance:

The disconnect between professional development and growth-oriented
performance appraisal is hard-wired into prevailing practice, if not into
collective bargaining agreements.  Few principals align their evaluations of
teachers with expected competencies addressed through professional
development. . . .  What's good for students should be good for our teachers.
In schools, professional development must be viewed as part of a
comprehensive system . . . that supports teachers and administrators in
continually improving their proficiency with respect to specific competencies
linked to student-learning outcomes.20

  Without instructional quality control, motivating students to learn to
  world-class standards is futile.  But teacher-strapped districts are apt to
  sacrifice quality for quantity - more experience for less salary - in
  hiring.  State agencies routinely issue temporary, emergency, and
  provisional licenses.****   The challenge of recruiting and retaining
  well-prepared teachers bumps up against other considerations, including
  reduced class size, which requires more teachers, straining the already
  limited supply of those with significant content background in mathematics
  and science.  A simultaneous increase in student enrollment levels and
  teacher retirements will increase the pressure to hire unqualified
  teachers.21

  Only the resolve of all partners who contribute to the training,
  certification, hiring, evaluating, and professional development of math and
  science teachers will reduce "out of field" teaching.  Then those with
  solid grounding in these subjects will have to confront the quandary of
  career choice - alternative sources of attractive employment opportunities.
  For districts to compete with these opportunities, as the NSB stated in
  July, communities must build "a system of rewards and incentives, including
  appropriate salaries, for well-trained teachers who are knowledgeable about
  content and pedagogically skillful."  Ideas worth pursuing include:
  forgivable student loans and state income tax credits for new teachers with
  content certification, creation of a national job bank to assist school
  districts in locating teachers with the desired mathematics or science and
  grade level credentials, and awarding merit raises for the acquisition by
  teachers of specific skills and content concentrations.

	These factors create contradictory pressures for states and local districts.
Convergence on what a science or mathematics teacher at the elementary,
middle, and secondary level must know and be able to do in the classroom will
be a key factor in resolving some of these contradictions.*****

  Recommendation 2:   To implement the core recommendation through teacher
				preparation and professional development:

i. 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 patterns.

ii. Mechanisms for the support of teachers, such as sustained mentoring by
individual university mathematics, science, and education faculty, as well as
other teacher support mechanisms such as pay supplements for board
certification, should be implemented through the three-pronged partnerships.

           Ensuring the best possible teachers for our schools poses a
           formidable policy dilemma:  how to juggle competing pressures on
           besieged districts, schools, and classroom teachers?22  The
           community partners of schools - higher education, business, and
           industry - share the obligation to heighten student achievement.
           A combination of support for strong content and pedagogical
           preparation of teachers, continuing professional development
           linked to classroom performance and improved student achievement,
           and incentives that keep good teachers in the classroom provides
           an avenue for acting - in the name of accountability - upon that
           obligation.

  Another avenue, using categorical Federal education programs such as Title
  I for poor children, would increase incentives for educators or students to
  do well.23  One option, for example, would make improved performance part
  of the standard for payment under Title I, a provision that could be built
  into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is subject to
  reauthorization in 1999.

C.	College Admissions

  Quality teaching and learning of mathematics and science bestows advantages
  on students.  Content standards, clusters of appropriate courses, and
  graduation requirements illuminate the path to future advantages.  They
  smooth the transition to college and the workplace by forming a foundation
  for later learning and drawing students' career aspirations within reach.
  But how high schools assess student progress has consequences for deciding
  who gains access to higher education and, moreover, who is prepared to
  succeed at the baccalaureate level and beyond.   Congruence between what is
  needed to exit secondary education and enter higher education would be
  ideal.  Because the metrics for each leave much to chance, how to define
  and predict student "success" remains a matter of contention.

  Longitudinal data on 1982 high school graduates point to the role of
  course-taking or "academic intensity," as opposed to high school grade
  point average or SAT/ACT scores, in predicting completion of baccalaureate
  degrees.  (Academic intensity refers to trigonometry, precalculus, and
  calculus, as well as laboratory science, especially chemistry and physics).
  By 1993, only 42 percent of black students who had gone directly into
  four-year colleges and universities had received the baccalaureate as
  compared to 72 percent of white students in the cohort.

	An education researcher recently observed,
Grades are a crapshoot, varying wildly from teacher to teacher and from
school to school; a single standardized-test score is merely a snapshot of a
student's performance on a Saturday morning.  But a student invests years in
a course of study, which provides momentum into higher education and beyond.
The effects of grades and tests diminish in time, but the substance of
learning does not go away. . . .  [So] which of these indicators - grades,
scores, or courses - would you rather rely on in admissions decisions?   In
which area does achievement seem to be most meaningful for students' success?
And which can educators change most easily?  The student's course of study
wins, hands down.24

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.

  Data suggest that the cumulative disadvantages of family income will be
  compounded by admissions criteria that apply the wrong filters and restrict
  opportunities.  For example, nearly 60 percent of low-income
  nonattending students cite an inability to afford college as the
  reason.******  If preparation is the key to college access and enrollment,
  then we must find ways of reducing the achievement gap in high school
  performance between majority and minority students.  There is new evidence
  that, even in suburban schools where family income and per pupil spending
  is high, peer pressure may suppress minority student performance.25  This
  would suggest that out-of-class influences, which are less amenable to
  policy intervention, have pernicious effects on achievement.

Students simply face different classroom experiences due to factors unrelated
to interest or ability.  Recent studies suggest that "successful theories
will probably have to look more carefully at the way black and white children
respond to the same classroom experiences, such as being in a smaller
classroom, having a more competent teacher, having a teacher of their own
race, or [one] . . . with high expectations for those who perform below the
norm for their age group."26  The President of the National Education
Associate writes:  "Until large numbers of students in the same school and
the same neighborhood value academic achievement, success will continue to be
the exception . . .  If universities and urban public schools could become
'sister cities,' our most troubled schools might be saved from within."27

For university faculty to embrace collaboration with schools and K-12
educators, there must be some incentive for spending professional time in
support of a community partner.28  A Southern Education Foundation report
lauds some state efforts to create a "seamless" education system:  K-12
schools and colleges work together to set standards and curricula, and to
hold colleges accountable - much as schools already are - by tying state
resources to performance on a set of indicators, including the status of
minority students.29  In this spirit, it has been hypothesized that: States
and school districts are reluctant to pursue reforms more aggressively until
they are sure higher education admissions and placement processes will
accommodate their students.  The result is stasis:  Both sides are waiting
for the other to pull the "trigger."  We must adjust, and even overhaul, the
current melange of K-16 education policies that sends confusing signals to
students and schools about what knowledge is worth knowing.  Universities
must collaborate with K-12 leaders and policymakers to improve policies that
will enhance academic preparation, elevate education standards, and let
prospective college students know what lies ahead.30

Recommendation 3:    To implement the core recommendation through the
college admissions process, the NSB urges:

i. institutions of higher education to form partnerships with local
districts/schools that create a more seamless K-16 system, increasing the
congruence between high school graduation requirements in math and science
and undergraduate performance demands; and;

ii. faculty and student incentives that motivate interactions to reveal
linkages between classroom-based skills and experiences and the demands on
thinking and learning in the workplace.

In the July statement, the NSB exhorted stakeholders to establish "college
admissions criteria that reinforce high standards in K-12 education and
bolster participation of all students in mathematics and science."  Acting as
"all one system" means that the strengths and deficiencies of one educational
level are not just inherited by the next.  Instead, they become spurs to
better preparation and the opportunity for higher learning.

By committing university resources to offering programs for middle and high
school students, supplying mentors for teachers, etc., higher education
provides glimpses at what preparation for college and advanced learning
means.  Partnering demands adjusting the institutional reward system to
recognize such service as instrumental to the mission of the university.

IV. How Research Can Better Inform Practice

  The role of research and evaluation in informing - and changing - education
  practice has itself become a policy issue.  Making research reliable,
  timely, and relevant to classroom teaching and learning has long been a
  concern of policymakers, educators, and researchers alike.  Public
  awareness of this need has grown as "high standards" are translated from a
  concept into high-visibility efforts to challenge students, teachers,
  parents, and communities - and hold all accountable for academic
  achievement.

  The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics
  (NCES) has sought to develop a moving picture of how well American schools
  and their students are faring.31  The National Assessment of Educational
  Progress (NAEP) compares the performance of today's students with
  performance by their age peers in the past.  Policymakers, business
  leaders, and parents increasingly ask if American students are achieving
  academically as much as they can.   International comparisons such as TIMSS
  provide a "world" benchmark for gauging achievements.32  The NSB's own
  Science and Engineering Indicators 1998 report summarizes, in addition to
  TIMSS and NAEP, robust time series since the 1970s on the performance of
  9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds in mathematics, science, and other subjects.33

  The need for research on practice relates, too, to differing expectations
  of stakeholders.   What do they seek to learn and how best can data be used
  to refine system-, school-, and classroom-level practice?   Some caution
  that education interventions alone will not suffice.34  Others seek
  education investments different in magnitude and kind.  A topic for
  continuing debate within professional communities, among parents, and by
  policymakers, for example, remains which tests should be used for gauging
  progress in teaching and learning - and for other purposes of teacher and
  school accountability.  A broader topic is ways and styles of learning in
  both formal and informal settings - how do children learn with
  understanding and refine the quality of their thinking?35  No research area
  than cognitive development is more multidisciplinary or longitudinal in
  approach.*******  Finally, studies of systemic change are needed:   ". . .
  as efforts to reform the elementary and secondary system expand, new
  indicators of governance, partnerships, and alignment among various parts
  need to be developed, and research on the measurement of learning of
  science and mathematics must be extended into undergraduate education."36

Clearly, an agenda such as the one examined in this report is a cogent
justification for research:  what do we need to know and how best can we
engender reliable and usable knowledge?   What organizational
arrangement would attract the participation of the requisite research
communities?  How can an interagency portfolio of basic and applied research
that goes beyond extant programs be devised? 37

  The National Science Board sees research as a necessary condition for
  improved student achievement in mathematics and science.  Further, research
  is best supported at a national level and in a global context.  While
  student achievement is the "bottom line" for parents, teachers, schools,
  communities, and policymakers, analysis based on national and international
  data sources can help to explain the conditions that affect performance.

Recommendation 4:     To implement the core recommendation through research:

i. The National Science Foundation and the Department of Education must
spearhead the Federal contribution to SMET education research and evaluation.

In 1999, NCES and NSF will revisit the 4th grade population that performed so
well on TIMSS in international competition.  TIMSS-R will sample 8th graders
who were in the 4th grade in 1995.  Through an analysis of teacher and school
questionnaires and the administration of a new achievement test linked to
TIMSS, TIMSS-R will test the robustness of the TIMSS 4th grade results and
allow examination of schooling in the middle grades.  Comparative research is
a prerequisite for suggesting appropriate responses by systems at any or all
- State, district, school, subject, and classroom - levels.

ii. Overall, the investment should increase - by the Federal government,
private foundations, and other sponsors - in research on schooling,
educational systems more generally, and teaching and learning of mathematics
and science in particular.

In 1997, both NSTC and PCAST recommended not only a larger investment, but
also a larger-scale program of rigorous, systematic research on education to
demonstrate the efficacy of transferring exemplary practices among our
nation's schools.  The National Science Board endorses research that
can generalize to a diversity of classrooms, student populations, and school
districts.********

iii. To focus and deepen the knowledge base, an interagency Education
Research Initiative, led by NSF and the Department of Education, should be
implemented.  It should be distinguishable as a joint venture within the
agencies' respective research missions, and cooperatively  funded.

An experimental program of research is particularly needed on how information
and computer technologies influence the processes of teaching and learning of
science and mathematics by children of various ages and in different
classroom settings.  Harnessing the creativity and power of
innovative tools and pedagogy should be a priority.

            Research on "what works" should thus inform those seeking a
            change in practice and learning outcomes.  The dissemination and
            adaptation of research results, however, pose other problems.
            The knowledge base is thin; gaps abound and what is known from
            empirical study is not - even in this age of electronic
            communication and information retrieval - conveniently
            catalogued, updated, advertised, and/or accessible to the
            so-called end-users in schools.  Research simply remains outside
            the purview of most classroom teachers.

Like other professionals, teachers need support networks in various forms -
Internet bulletin boards, websites, in-person professional development
experiences, university faculty mentors, etc. - to refine their knowledge and
skills.  Technical assistance by those who understand classroom settings and
have the confidence of teachers is essential.  In short, "getting the word
out" only begins a process of using knowledge to inform ongoing teacher
preparation and education practice.

  Above all, we should remain mindful that "schools reflect society far more
  than they shape it, and that test scores tell us much more about what
  schools are facing than how they're failing.  Surely, we must challenge
  teachers and administrators to do their utmost, but not to work miracles.
  And not by themselves."38

V. Conclusions

The Nation's concern for excellence in K-12 and undergraduate teaching and
learning environments is magnified by time:  it takes time for any system and
the organizations within it to adapt to emerging needs and mounting
pressures.  We cannot expect instant results.

While the national education goals set by the governors in 1989 will not be
realized on the envisioned timetable, the momentum for lifting student
performance is unquestioned.   Today we take as axiomatic that improved
student performance will be short-lived if the conditions for schooling do
not change.  "To have any real effect, standards must be incorporated into
the life of the school:  They must be embraced by the students who must learn
them, and embraced by the business community and colleges who must make
informed decisions about whom to invite into their ranks."39  The key to
energizing education systems throughout the Nation is consensus on content
standards for the teaching and learning of mathematics and science.  This
leaves much room for choice and diversity of process and pedagogy, while
reinforcing a common market of demand for the skills that will dominate the
21st century workplace.

Through recommendations for implementing content-based materials, teaching,
college admissions, and other practices informed by research, the National
Science Board affirms that there is no greater national need than equipping
the next generation with the tools of the workplace and citizenship.  This
will require a greater consensus among stakeholders on the content of K-16
teaching and learning.  High expectations will not suffice in raising
achievement in mathematics and science; neither will a single-minded emphasis
on teachers, curriculum, assessment, or technology.

A generation ago, 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."40  The health of science and engineering
tomorrow depends on improved mathematics and science preparation of our
students today.  The national interest is now a national imperative.  We must
see educational excellence as a shared responsibility and, above all, a
tractable challenge to us all.

--------

FOOTNOTES

--------
* As stipulated in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended,
42.U.S.C. Sec. 1861.et seq.

 National Science Board, Failing Our Children:  Implications of the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study, July 31, 1998, NSB-98-154
(hereafter referred to as the "July statement").

* In its 1980 reauthorization in the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885) and subsequently in Title I of the
Education for Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C 3911 to 3922), NSF was given
additional authority to increase participation by groups historically
underrepresented in science.

 The words "science" and "scientists" sometimes appear in this report as a
shorthand for the principal participants in the community of scientists,
mathematicians, engineers, technologists, as well as math and science
educators at grades K-16.  They are all central to what is sometimes called
"SMET education."

* One of NSF's three overarching goals is to "Achieve excellence in U.S.
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at all levels."
This "requires attention to needs at every level of schooling and access to .
. . educational opportunities for every member of society" NSF in a Changing
World:  Executive Summary of The National Science Foundation's Strategic Plan
(1995, NSF 95-142):  3.

* U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Base Year (1988) and Second
Follow-up (1992) Surveys.  Data that extend this time series will not be
available until 2000.  Also, mobility rates in urban districts are probably
higher than this national average.  The Houston Independent School District,
for instance, reports a 38 percent mobility rate in 1998 (C. Lanius, personal
communication, Sept. 18, 1998).

* Most strikingly, Hispanics - the fastest growing segment of the school-age
population - drop out of high school at higher rates and attain lower levels
of education than other groups.  U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education - 1998, Indicator
24  nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98/c9824a01.html.

 Content standards need not encroach on teachers' creativity in presenting
material.  As Finn et al., op.cit., 1998: 39, put it:  "Standards, if done
right, should not standardize what happens within schools.  Rather, they
should free the schools from top-down dictates while obliging them to focus
on results.  This will enable various school models to emerge, from
'progressive' to 'traditional,' and everything in between - a range of
choices that can better serve the needs and learning styles of children and
the passions and talents of teachers."

* For example, the IEP (Individualized Education Program) is a locally
administered but nationally standard tool used to guide and monitor services
specifically designed to meet the needs of special education students.
Depending on the disability, a statement of goals, setting, and supports
necessary for the student to perform academically must be completed, with
parents' consent, before services can be provided, as stipulated in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  One idea is to
encapsulate a version of the IEP in a "digital portfolio," e.g. a CD-ROM,
containing each student's academic history - what courses s/he has taken and
learned at what level of proficiency.  This would travel with the student, so
that "receiving" districts would not have to rely on the records and
responsiveness of "sending" districts.   A version of this innovation was a
prize-winner in the 1998 Bayer/NSF Award for Community Innovation competition
that challenged student teams to use science and technology in developing
solutions to real-life community problems.  A team from Atlanta proposed
T.A.S.K.-Tracking and Saving Kids Force, creating a clearinghouse to assist
parents in locating, retrieving, and storing the school and immunization
information of homeless and transient students. See www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/
events/bayernsf/winrelea.htm.

* In the words of a recent commentary, "Standards should not prescribe
teaching methods, devise classroom strategies, or substitute for lesson
plans.  Standards are about ends, not means.  Yet many states either do not
understand this distinction or do not agree with it.  Too often, pedagogy and
ideology have seeped into their standards."  See C.E. Finn, Jr., et al.,
"Four Reasons Why Most [State Standards] 'Don't Cut the Mustard,'" Education
Week, Nov. 25, 1998:  56, 39.

 NSF programs, for instance, support a range of projects.  In its NSF
oversight role, the NSB would apply the national policy analysis of this
report to NSF programs designed to address the myriad needs of school
systems.  In its 1999 Government Performance and Results Act performance
report, NSF will evaluate the outcomes of its investments in Education and
Training.  With this NSF report is in hand, the NSB could better address NSF
portfolio questions.

 For example, see AAAS' Project 2061 at http://project2061.aaas.org.  This
"Guidebook to Examine School Curricula" features a "curriculum analysis
procedure" for evaluating existing classroom materials. It is part of the
TIMSS Resource Kit found at //timss.enc.org/TIMSS/timss/curicula.

 "What standards should do, among other things, is tell teachers what the
experts think [based on research] is most worth teaching. . .   Looked at
that way, the changes that have taken place since the start of the standards
movement are impressive, but not nearly enough.  That is hardly cause for
despair.  It is cause for redoubled effort."  M.S. Tucker, "The State of
Standards:  Powerful Tool or Symbolic Gesture?" Expecting More (Newsletter on
Standards-Based Reform), 1 (Spring 1998): 2.   Also see D. French, "The
State's Role in Shaping a Progressive Vision of Public Education," Phi Delta
Kappan, November 1998: 185-194.

** Such changes are examples of "policy drivers" that are central to the
program design of NSF's Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI).  While each USI may
follow a different reform trajectory for achieving the goal of system-wide,
challenging mathematics instruction for all students, progress toward this
goal - as reflected in student achievement data - is the chief outcome for
which the districts are held accountable.  "Such improvements are called
'systemic' because they fundamentally alter the school systems in which they
occur."  See L.S. Williams, The Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) Program of
the National Science Foundation:  Summary Update,  July 1998, quote from 3;
and The National Science Foundation's Urban Systemic Inititiatives (USI)
Program:  Models of Reform of K-12 Science and Mathematics Education
(Westat*McKenzie Consortium, October 1998).

 Content is closely monitored due to its potential impact on the kinds of
instructional materials that textbook publishers produce for students'
nation-wide.  For example, see J. Basinger, "Coalition Lashes Out at
California's Proposed Science-Education Standards for Schools," The Chronicle
of Higher Education, Sept. 3, 1998
//chronicle.com/daily/98/09/98090301n.htm.

 Middle school math textbooks, for example, offer few excellent choices.
Separate reviews by AAAS' Project 2061 and a parent group called
"Mathematically Correct" found little agreement on which texts to recommend.
They differ over learning strategies, with the Project 2061 review team of 24
teachers and mathematicians giving Connected Mathematics consistently high
marks on the content criteria or "benchmarks" used to rate a dozen textbooks.
See D.J. Hoff, "Reviews of Math Text Parallel Pedagogy Rifts, Education Week,
Jan. 27, 1999 www.edweek.org/ew/current/20math.h18.  Also see M.T.
Battista, "The Mathematical Miseducation of America's Youth," Phi Delta
Kappan, February 1999: 425-433.

 M.G. Bardeen and L.M. Lederman, "Coherence in Science Education," Science,
vol. 281, July 10, 1998, pp. 178-179.  By reconceptualizing the traditional
sequence of biology, chemistry, and physics, for instance, science curricula
face serious barriers to implementation.  Materials and tests would have to
change.  Teachers would require professional development to compensate for
their lack of command of content.  Teamwork among teachers with the requisite
expertise would be essential.  Nothing short of a restructured school day and
calendar would need to be instituted - in all, systemic change.

*** Teaching was recently hailed as "the essential profession."  See J.
Archer, "Public Prefers Competent Teachers to Other Reforms, Survey Finds,"
Education Week, Nov. 25, 1998: 6.  The survey results for The Essential
Profession can be seen at www.rnt.org/tep.html.

 The most recent national study, based on a probability sample of 1250
schools and 6000 teachers in grades 1-12, is the 1993 National Survey of
Science and Mathematics Education. See I. Weiss, "The Status of Science and
Mathematics Teaching in the United States: Comparing Teacher Views and
Classroom Practice to National Standards," NISE Brief (University of
Wisconsin-Madison), 1 (June 1997): 1-8.  A new U.S. Department of Education
report, "Teacher Quality:  A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of
Public School Teachers," based on a national survey of 4000 veteran and new
teachers of all subjects (not just math and science) confirms these results.
See J. Basinger, "Most New Schoolteachers Feel Unprepared for Recent Demands
of the Classroom, Survey Finds," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 29,
1999, and www.nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999080.

 In 1996, a sample of 930 recipients of Presidential Awards for Excellence
in Mathematics and Science Teaching, bestowed annually since 1982 on a
mathematics teacher and a science teacher at the secondary level from every
State and U.S. territory, was surveyed for the first time.  The findings
showed that over 70 percent of the high school Awardees had majored in a
science discipline, compared to 54 percent nationally.  Awardees in
mathematics similarly majored in math in a proportion well beyond the
national average (55 v. 39 percent).  This survey was sent to 1390 Awardees
with at least 15 years of teaching experience, yielding an 82 percent
response rate.  See I. Weiss and J. Raphael, Characteristics of Presidential
Awardees: How Do They Compare with Science and Mathematics Teachers
Nationally? (Chapel Hill, NC:  Horizon Research, Inc., 1996).

 For example, testimony at the NSB field hearing May 29, 1998, in Los
Angeles on informal science  learning indicated that museums and science
centers are deeply involved in professional development of science teachers
employed by districts in their proximity.  This connection of the formal and
informal systems is neither well-recognized nor systematically exploited.
See especially the keynote address of the Executive Director and CEO of the
L.A. Natural History Museum, James L. Powell, www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings.

**** Some governors favor incentives to attract and retain qualified
teachers.  See, for example, "Taft Targets Math, Science Testing," Columbus
Dispatch, Sept. 3, 1998.  Voluntary certification through the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards is expected to grow as the districts
coalesce on the implementation of content standards for students in core
subjects (see //www.nbpts.org).  It is germane here as well that references
to the command of modern technology as a teaching necessity are barely
visible in the education literature, with computer-aided instruction hardly
seen as a mainstream tool in teacher preparation (see below).

 There has been much "political caterwauling about class size" (see L.
Monteagudo, "MORE Teachers?  What About the Ones We Have Now?" Education
Week, Jan. 13, 1999: 72).   Indeed, most new funding - over $1 billion - for
education in the FY 1999 budget was designated for hiring new teachers to
reduce class size.  But any gain in individual student attention derived from
reducing class enrollment from 22 to 17 will be nullified by that teacher's
lack of content knowledge.  As Monteagudo notes, "Especially in rural and
inner-city areas, it is already hard enough to attract strong applicants.  By
earmarking Federal funds for hiring additional teachers as opposed to
investing in the ones we have in place now, we are placing an even greater
burden on those districts."

 L. Pearlstein, "Schools Cautioned on Hasty Hiring," Washington Post,
Sept. 16, 1998, p. A12. Education Secretary Riley is quoted as saying, "Too
many school districts, I am afraid, are sacrificing quality for quantity in
order to meet the immediate demand of putting a warm body in front of a
classroom."   More recently, the Secretary has been more blunt in challenging
higher education institutions to make teacher preparation a priority, stating
"Our colleges of education can no longer be the sleepy backwaters that many
of them have been.  There must be greater collaboration from all parts of the
university community, including the arts and sciences." Quoted in J.
Basinger, "College Presidents Must Lead Effort to Improve Teacher Training,
Education Chief Says, " The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 17, 1999.
Related to this are the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education draft standards that would hold education programs responsible for
the quality of their graduates' teaching.  See "Draft Standards Issued for
Teacher Education, " The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 5, 1999: A38.

 Monetary incentives are endorsed not only by the president of the
National Education Association, but also by the Committee on Science of the
U.S. House of Representatives.  See B. Chase, "Why Not the Best Teacher?"
Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1998, p. C5; Unlocking Our Future:  Toward A New
National Science Policy.  A Report to Congress by the House Committee on
Science, Sept. 24, 1998 www.house. gov/science/science_policy_report.htm.;
and summarizing the work of Linda Darling-Hammond, director of the National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future, A.C. Lewis, "'Just Say No' to
Unqualified Teachers," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1998:  179-180.  The
President of the Council for Basic Education reminds us that the reauthorized
Higher Education Act offers loan forgiveness to teachers willing to work in
inner-city schools for five years.  He proposes, as part of strengthening
Social Security, waiving the cap on "retirement earnings for anyone involved
in teaching or school administration."  An incentive could be provided for
states to do so as well.  See C.T. Cross, "Retirees in the Classroom,"
Washington Post, Dec. 31, 1998: A27.

***** For example, the U.S. Department of Education's Lighthouse Models of
Excellence and NSF's Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation
program unite mathematics and science departments with colleges of education
and local school districts in preparing content-based teachers.  These
programs, the Department's Eisenhower Professional Development Program, NSF's
Local Systemic Change Initiatives, and other tools for teacher training are
described in U.S. Department of Education and National Science Foundation, An
Action Strategy for Improving Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Report
of an Interagency Working Group, February 1998 (Arlington, VA:  NSF 98-79),
appendix 4.

 "Controlling for socioeconomic status, high school curriculum is 48
percent more accurate than test scores and 72 percent more accurate than
class rank or grade-point average in predicting whether a student will get a
bachelor's degree." C. Adelman, "Forget What Color You Are, It's Where You
Went to School," Washington Post, Nov. 2, 1998: A19.

 The NSB Committee on Education and Human Resources has defined for
further examination in 1999 the issue of standardized tests, especially the
SAT and the GRE, in the college and graduate school admissions processes. The
NSB study will build on W.G. Bowen and D. Bok, The Shape of the River:
Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University
Admissions (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton U. Press, 1998); commentary such as
"Elite Colleges' Race-Sensitive Policies Opened Doors to Black Success, Says
Broad New Study, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 9, 1998
//chronicle.com/daily/ 98/09/98090901n.htm; E. Bonner, "Study Strongly
Supports Affirmative Action in Admissions to Elite Colleges," New York Times,
Sept. 9, 1998:  B10; W.G. Bowen and D. Bok, "Get In, Get Ahead:  Here's Why,"
Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1998:  C1; and S.M. Malcom et al., Losing Ground:
Science and Engineering Graduate Education of Black and Hispanic Americans
(Washington, DC:  American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998).

 The National Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988 shows that among
those who scored in the top third of a standardized test, low-income students
were five times more likely to skip college as were high-income students.
Students who took advanced mathematics and science courses were more likely
to attend college than those who didn't, but low-income students lagged their
high-income peers.  "Money, More Than Brains, Governs Whether Students Will
Attend College, Study Finds," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 10,
1998 //chronicle.com/daily/98/08/98081003n.shtml.

****** A quarter of these students' parents claim an inability to get
financial aid information when their child was in 8th grade and they were
deciding whether college would be affordable.  A quarter also reports that
they did not apply for financial aid because they did not know how to do so.
Information on the financial aid process must reach families early; the end
of high school may be too late.  Institutions of higher education are also
revising their financial aid policies to attract more students from low- and
middle-income families.  See "Change in Aid Policy Nets Princeton More
Students From Low- and Middle-Income Families," The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Aug. 14, 1998 //chronicle.com/daily/98/08/ 98081402n.htm.

 Recently, the NSB Committee on Education and Human Resources held a
field hearing to explore models for creating such a seamless system.  See All
One System:  Developing Human Capital and Infrastructure for Science and
Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Oct. 7, 1998
www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/1998/ fieldoct/fieldoct.htm.  For appraisals of
the "statewide systemic" approach, see J. Mervis, "Mixed Grades for NSF's
Bold Reform of Statewide Education," Science, 282, Dec. 4. 1998: 1800-1805.

 For example, see N. Lane, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, "Educational Technologies:  How Will We Know They're Working?"
1998 Educational Technology Leadership Conference, Council of Chief State
School Officers, Washington, DC, Nov. 12, 1998 (typescript).

 Two reports are noteworthy:  National Science and Technology Council,
Committees on Fundamental Science and on Health, Safety, and Food, Investing
in Our Future:  A National Research Initiative for America's Children for the
21st Century (Washington, DC:  OSTP, April 1997), which recommends research
focused on, among other topics, learning, influence of families and
communities on development, longitudinal studies, and policy; and Report to
the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the
United States, March 1997 www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/
PCAST/k-12ed.html, which calls for at least 5 percent of all public K-12
education spending in the U.S. (or approximately $13 billion annually in
constant 1996 dollars) to be designated for research - a significant increase
over the current level of 1.3 percent.  (Note:  The FY 1999 Federal
investment in K-12 education exceeds $15 billion.)

******* A massive Federal initiative to track children's learning and
development from birth, and again from the start of school, was launched in
Fall, 1998.  One NCES study will test 21,000 kindergartners in 1000 public
and private schools and interview their parents and teachers.  Another
interagency effort called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study will begin
in 2000 by following 12,000 newborns through their 6th birthdays.  Both
studies will help to distinguish empirically the large learning gaps among
children when they enter school and how and why those gaps often persist
through high school.  See D. Viadero, "NCES Launches Broad Study on Early
Childhood," Education Week, Dec. 16, 1998 //www.edweek.org/ew/
current/16nces.h18.

 In 1991, the independent National Academy of Education outlined a
national research agenda for sparking positive changes in schools.  The
agenda encompassed the main challenges that persist today:  active learning
over the lifespan; assessment; bolstering achievement of historically
underserved, minority, and impoverished groups; school organization; and
connection to teachers and teaching.  National Academy of Education, Research
and the Renewal of Education. Project on Funding Priorities for Educational
Research (Stanford, CA:  Stanford University, 1991), pp. 5-6.

 Study designs such as TIMSS-R hold great potential for specifying
teaching and learning linkages among curriculum materials, school
organization, classroom practices, and student achievement among a sample of
8th grade U.S. students. Such research includes efforts like the First in the
World Consortium in northwest suburban Illinois that paid to participate in
TIMSS to gauge its students' progress against that of other "countries" of
the world.  See OERI, U.S. Department of Education, "Seminar on The First in
the World Consortium," Aug. 20, 1998, unpublished notes, and
www.ncrel.org/fitw.

 Through workshops with researchers from various communities held in
September 1998, advice on a research agenda for teaching and early learning
of mathematics, science, and reading (the latter with the participation of
the NIH's National Institute of Mental Health) was solicited on developing a
Request for Proposals in FY 1999.  OSTP and OMB are spearheading this
collaboration for a 5-year initiative that will produce measurable outcomes
of progress through various research and evaluation designs.

******** More generally, results of competitively funded research can only
inform future investments by districts and local schools, and guide
policymakers' decisions about "what works," if they are evaluated to
determine the cost and learning effectiveness of scaling up to serve more
students.  "Randomized field trials," a staple of medical research but seldom
employed to test education reforms, allows investigation of a "treatment"
randomly assigned to two groups.  If the groups are sufficiently similar,
then differences in average outcomes of the treatment can be attributed to
exposure of the factor under investigation.  See P.E. Peterson, "Rigorous
Trials and Tests Should Precede Adoption of School Reforms," The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Jan. 22, 1999: B4.

 Limited national data are equivocal, suggesting that with some
students new technology is being used for the same old drill-and-practice in
mathematics; yet in the hands of technology-trained middle school teachers,
computers can enhance academic performance.  See J. Mathews, "Study Faults
Computers' Use in Math Education," Washington Post, Sept. 30, 1998: A3; E.
Bonner, "Computers Help Math Learning, Study Finds," New York Times, Sept.
30, 1998, www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/09/biztech/ articles/30math.html;
and A.. Fisher, "High Tech, High Grades?" Popular Science, January 1999:
64-69.

 Polls show, not surprisingly, that local schools in turn fail to
provide parents with enough information to make them advocates for what their
children are expected to know.  These are the same people who simultaneously
support rigorous content standards but are intimidated by them.  See A.D.
Coles, "Parents Ill-Informed About Standards, Poll Finds," Education Week,
Oct. 28, 1998:  6.

--------

ENDNOTES

--------

1 D.J. Hoff, "With 2000 Looming, Chances of Meeting National Goals Iffy,"
Education Week, Jan. 13, 1999: 28-30, quote at 28.

2 For details on TIMSS methodology and findings, see W.H. Schmidt et al.,
Characterizing Pedagogical Flow:  An Investigation of Mathematics and Science
Teaching in Six Countries.  Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1996; National Center for Education Statistics, Pursuing
Excellence:  A Study of U.S. Fourth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement
in International Context.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education,
June 1997 (NCES 97-255); and I.V.S. Mullis et al., Mathematics and Science
Achievement in the Final Year of Secondary School:  IEA's Third International
Mathematics and Science Study.  Chestnut Hill, MA:  TIMSS International Study
Center, February 1998. The Commissioner of Education Statistics has also
responded to criticisms of the TIMSS methodology and interpretation of
findings.  See Center for Education Reform and Empower America, Achievement
in the United States:  Progress Since A Nation at Risk?  Washington, DC,
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, April
3, 1998: 11 http://nces.ed.gov.

3 The following is distilled from W.H. Schmidt, Executive Director, U.S.
National Center for TIMSS, presentation to the National Science Board, May 7,
1998.  Also see G.A. Valverde and W.H. Schmidt, "Refocusing U.S. Math and
Science Education," Issues in Science and Technology (Winter 1997-98): 60-66;
and W.H. Schmidt and C.C. McKnight, "What Can We Really Learn from TIMSS?"
Science, 282, Dec. 4, 1998:  1830-1831.  These characteristics appear to be
necessary, but not sufficient conditions for high student performance.

4 National Science Board, The Federal Role in Science and Engineering
Graduate and Postdoctoral Education (Arlington, VA:  Feb. 26, 1998, NSB
97-235); and K. Olson, "Despite Increases, Women and Minorities Still
Underrepresented in Undergraduate and Graduate S&E Education," SRS Data
Brief, Jan. 15, 1999, NSF 99-320.

5 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The
Condition of Education-1995, Indicator 46:  Student Mobility
<//nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9546a01.html>.

6 American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science for All
Americans:  A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics,
and Technology (Washington, DC:  AAAS, 1990); National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
(Reston, VA:  NCTM, 1989); National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (Reston, VA:  NCTM, 1991);
and National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, National Science
Education Standards (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 1996).  At a
White House "Education Announcement/Roundtable" on April 2, 1997, the
President remarked that "240 companies have endorsed this national standards
movement" <http://library. whitehouse.gov/cgi-bin/>.  NCTM is currently
revising and updating the mathematics standards.  A draft is available for
public comment at <www.nctm.org/standards2000/>.

7 See Education Week, Quality Counts (January 22, 1997).

8 C.T. Cross, "The Standards War:  Some Lessons Learned," Education Week,
Oct. 21, 1998 //www.edweek.org/ew/current/08cross.h19.

9 K.K. Manzo, "Report for Goals Panel Calls for Consensus on Standards,"
Education Week, Sept. 9, 1998 www.edweek.org/ew/current/01stand.h18.  Also
see K.K. Manzo, "Think Tank Inks Blueprint to Lift Achievement," Education
Week, Nov. 18, 1998: 6, reporting on the Consortium on Renewing Education's
20/20 Vision:  A Strategy for Doubling America's Academic Achievement by the
Year 2020.

10 M.S. Tucker, "The State of Standards:  Powerful Tool or Symbolic Gesture?"
Expecting More (Newsletter on Standards-Based Reform), 1 (Spring 1998): 2. 11
Education Week, Quality Counts '99 (January 11, 1999)
www.edweek.org/sreports/qc99/exsum.htm.

12 P. Black and D. Wiliam, "Inside the Black Box:  Raising Standards through
Classroom Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1998: 139-148.

13 American Educational Research Association Letter, April 18, 1997.

14 J. Mervis, "U.S. Tries Variations on High School Curriculum," Science,
vol. 281, July 10, 1998, pp. 161-162.

15 D. Rich, "You Can't Teach What You Don't Know," Education Week, Sept. 16,
1998 www.edweek. org/ew/current/02rich.h18.

16 "In State of the Union Speech, President Urges Testing of Prospective
Teachers," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 20, 1999
//chronicle.com/daily/99/01/99012001n.html.

17 G. Overholser, "To Work on the Schools," Washington Post, Sept 16, 1998,
p. A17.

18 S. Tobias, "Some Recent Developments in Teacher Education in Mathematics
and Science," NISE Occasional Paper, No. 4, April 1997: 2.

19 D.K. Cohen and H.C. Hill, "State Policy and Classroom Performance:
Mathematics Reform in California," CPRE Policy Brief, RB-23-January 1998:
10-11.

20 C. Mojkowski, "Teachers and Standards:  Sauce for the Goose . . .,"
Education Week, Jan. 13, 1999: 39.

21 R.W. Riley, "An End to 'Quiet Backwaters':  Universities Must Make Teacher
Education a Much Higher Day-to-Day Priority," The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Oct. 2, 1998:  B10.  Also see C. Pipho, "A 'Real' Teacher
Shortage," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1998: 181-182.  Also see N. Lane, "The
Integral Role of Two-Year Colleges in Science and Mathematics Preparation of
Prospective Teachers," SACNAS Journal, Summer 1998
www.sacnas.org/journal/su98/page5.htm.

22 See R.L. Linn, "Standards-Based Accountability:  Ten Suggestions," CRESST
Policy Brief, adaptation of Technical Report 490, Assessments and
Accountability, 1998, available at www.cse.ucla.edu.

23 For example, see "Good Teaching Matters:  How Well-Qualified Teachers Can
Close the Gap," Thinking K-16 (A Publication of The Education Trust), Summer
1998:  1-15; and H.J. Walberg, "Incentivized School Standards Work,"
Education Week, Nov. 4, 1998: 48, 51.

24 C. Adelman, "To Help Minority Students, Raise Their Graduate Rates," The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 4, 1998, p. B8.

25 See M.A. Fletcher, "A Good-School, Bad-Grade Mystery," Washington Post,
Oct. 23, 1998: A1.

26 Quote from C. Jencks and M. Phillips, "The Black-White Test Score Gap,"
Education Week, Sept. 30, 1998: 44, 32.

27 B. Chase, "A Hope in the Unseen," Washington Post, Oct. 18, 1998: C5.

28 For example, see S. Hebel, "Report Urges State Universities to Become
Engaged with Their Communities," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 4,
1999 and www.intervisage.com/Kellogg/ STATEMENTS/index.html.

29 D. Lederman, "Report Sees Lack of Progress by Southern States in Educating
Black Students," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 4, 1998: A57.

30 M.W. Kirst, "Bridging the Remediation Gap," Education Week, Sept. 9, 1998
www.edweek.org/ew/ current/01kirst.h18.

31 For example, see The National Center for Education Statistics, The 1994
High School Transcript Study Tabulations:  Comparative Data on Credits Earned
and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates.
Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Education, 1997 (NCES 97-260).

32 See and National Research Council, Center for Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Education, Mathematics and Science Education Around the World -
What Can We Learn?  Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 1996; and J.M.
Atkin and P. Black, "Policy Perils of International Comparisons:  The TIMSS
Case," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1997: 22-28.

33 National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 1998
(Arlington, VA:  National Science Foundation, 1998, NSB-98-1), esp. ch. 1.

34 L. Cuban, "The Myth of Failed School Reform," Education Week, Nov. 6,
1995:  41, 51; and J.J. Gallagher, "Education, Alone, Is a Weak Treatment,"
Education Week, July 8, 1998. www.edweek.org/ ew/current/42callag.h17.

35 For example, National Academy of Sciences, How People Learn:  Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, March 1999
(forthcoming).  Also see Council of Economic Advisors, "The First Three
Years:  Investments That Pay," White Paper, Apr. 17, 1997.

36 Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for
Education and Human Resources, Indicators of Science and Mathematics
Education 1995. L.E. Suter, ed.  Arlington, VA:  National Science Foundation,
1996 (NSF 96-52), p. 109.  Also see R.L. Linn and E.L. Baker, "Back to Basics
- Indicators as a System," The CRESST Line (UCLA Newsletter of the National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing), Winter
1998: 1-3.

37 For example, see M.A.Vinovskis, Changing Federal Strategies for Supporting
Educational Research, Development, and Statistics (Washington, DC:  U.S.
Department of Education, National Educational Research Policy and Priorities
Board, September 1998), esp. Appendix C.

38 R. Evans, "The Great Accountability Fallacy," Education Week, Feb. 3, 1999
www.edweek.org/ew/ current/21revans.h18.

39 S. Pimentel and L.A. Arsht, "Don't Be Confused by the Rankings; Focus on
Results," Education Week, Nov. 25, 1998: 56, 40.

40 National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, Educating Americans for the 21st Century:  A Plan of
Action for Improving Mathematics, Science and Technology Education for all
American Elementary and Secondary Students so that Their Achievement is the
Best in the World by 1995 (Washington, DC:  National Science Foundation,
1983, CPCE-NSF-03):  v.

** PRE-RELEASE COPY **

1