Title  : NSF 93-70 - Beyond National Standards and Goals: Excellence in Math. &
         Science Ed., K-16
Type   : Report
NSF Org: EHR
Date   : May 7, 1993
File   : nsf9370


Chap Number51




Issue102

Table of Contents


Agenda    i

Opening Plenary Session
     Opening Plenary Session Introduction (Luther S. Williams)   1
     Opening Plenary Session Address (Walter E. Massey)     3

Second Plenary Session
     Second Plenary Session Introduction (Luther S. Williams)    11
     Second Plenary Session Keynote Address (Roy Romer)     12
     Second Plenary Session Keynote Address (Ray Marshall)  18
     Question and Answer Session   25

Group Sessions 33

Luncheon Address (Luther S. Williams)   45

Workshops 55

Exhibits and Demonstrations   61

Thursday Morning Plenary Session   67

Thursday Discussion Groups    81

Advice to NSF  91

Briefing Papers
National Standards for Mathematics and Science Education:  Opening the
          Door to the Future  97
Choosing The Path:  Needed Steps on the Road to Reform in Mathematics
          Education 105
     Science Frameworks and the National Standards Building on the PastA
          View to the Future  109
     The Role of Faculty from the Scientific Disciplines in the Preparation of
          Mathematics and Science Teachers   118
     Overcoming Barriers to Systemic Change:  Developing a Comprehensive
          Reform Plan    123

1993 Invitational Conference Participant List     131

1993 Invitational Conference NSF Staff List  149

BEYOND NATIONAL
STANDARDS AND GOALS:

Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Education K16

National Science Foundation
Invitational Conference

February 911, 1993
Washington, D.C.


TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9

4:00 p.m.  7:00 p.m.    REGISTRATION AND CHECK-IN     Ballroom Lobby

7:00 p.m.  8:00 p.m.    OPENING PLENARY SESSION  Grand Ballroom

Opening Address

Walter E. Massey, Director
National Science Foundation

Opening Activity

Philip Daro, Executive Director
California Mathematics Project
University of California, Office of the President

Beth Black, Edmonds Elementary School,
Edmonds, Washington

8:00 p.m.  10:00 p.m.   RECEPTION Grand Ballroom


WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10

8:00 a.m.  8:45 a.m.    CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST    Grand Ballroom

8:45 a.m.  10:30 a.m.        SECOND PLENARY SESSION   Grand Ballroom

Welcome

Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director
National Science Foundation
Education & Human Resources Directorate


Keynote Address

Honorable Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado
Chairman, National Governors' Association


Keynote Address

Ray Marshall, Professor
Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin

10:30 a.m.  11:00 a.m.  BREAK

11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m.  GROUP SESSIONS:
ISSUES OF SYSTEMIC REFORM OF EDUCATION
KUNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

12:30 p.m.  2:00 p.m.   LUNCHEON  Grand Ballroom

Luncheon Address

Beyond Goals and Standards:
NSF's Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Agenda and 
the Economy

Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director
National Science Foundation
Education & Human Resources Directorate

2:00 p.m.  2:15 p.m.    BREAK

2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.    REPEAT OF GROUP SESSIONS:
ISSUES OF SYSTEMIC REFORM OF EDUCATION
KUNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

The same sessions held during the 11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. time period will be 
repeated with the same presiders and participants in the same rooms.

3:45 p.m.  4:00 p.m.    BREAK


4:00 p.m.  7:00 p.m.    WORKSHOPS, EXHIBITS, and DEMONSTRATIONS

Exhibits & Demonstrations     Exhibit Hall
The Exhibit Hall will be open from 4:00 p.m.  7:00 p.m.

7:00 p.m.  9:00 p.m.    BUFFET RECEPTION    Exhibit Hall


THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11

8:00 a.m.  8:30 a.m.    Continental Breakfast    Grand Ballroom

8:30 a.m.  10:00 a.m.   Third Plenary Session    Grand Ballroom


Panel Discussion:  Breaking Barriers to Systemic Reform
Moderator
Lida K. Barrett, Senior Associate,
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate

Panelists

Eve Bither, Director, Programs for the Improvement of Practice, Office of 
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education

Kenneth Hoffman, Associate Executive Officer for Education, National Research 
Council

Theodore Sizer, Chairman, Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University



Dorothy Strong, Director of Mathematics, Chicago City Schools


10:00 a.m.  10:30 a.m.  BREAK

10:30 a.m.  12:00 p.m.  DISCUSSION GROUP SESSIONS:
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SYSTEMIC REFORM

In these groups, participants will devise strategies for overcoming barriers to 
systemic reform and advise NSF on ways it can lead and support the reform 
effort.  Leaders for these discussion groups are NSF division directors and 
program officers.

Last Names Beginning     Group Leaders  Location
With Letters
A  Ba    Hyman Field / Barbara Butler  Room 2

Be  By   Pierce Hammond / Julia Wan    Room 3

C    William McHenry / Peter Braunfeld  Room 4

D  E     Joe Danek / Roosevelt Calbert Room 5

F    Mike Haney / Ivo Lindauer     Room 6

G  Ha    Alice J. Moses / Wayne Ransom Room 7

He  Ja   Jim Lightbourne / Carolyn Girardeau     Room 8

Je  La   Elizabeth Teles / Eric Robinson    Room 9

Le  Me   Janice Earle / Joyce Evans    Room 10

Mc  O    Larry Enochs / Deh-I Hsiung   Room 11

P  Rol   Peter E. Yankwich / Lura Jo Chase  Room 12

Rom  Sp  Don Ely / Arturo Bronson Room 15

St  V    Rose Marie Smith / Mary Bahns Room 17

W   Z    Marjorie Enneking / Ray Collings   Room 19


12:00 p.m.  12:15 p.m.  BREAK

12:15 p.m.  2:15 p.m.   LUNCHEON  Grand Ballroom

Summary of Participants' Group Work

Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director,
National Science Foundation,
Education & Human Resources Directorate

Panel of Respondents

Moderator
Frank Newman, President
Education Commission of the States

Panelists
Eleanor Baum, Dean of Engineering, The Cooper Union

Paul Hill, Senior Social Scientist, The RAND Corporation

James Oglesby, Assistant to the Chancellor,
University of Missouri,
Past President of the National School Boards Association

{SYMBOL 168 \f "Symbol"}   {SYMBOL 168 \f "Symbol"}   {SYMBOL 168 \f "Symbol"}  
 {SYMBOL 168 \f "Symbol"}


Members of the National Advisory Committee


The Honorable Roy Romer,
Governor of Colorado

Gordon Ambach,
Executive Director
Council of Chief State School Officers


James L. Powell, Chief Executive Officer,
The Franklin Institute

Diana S. Natalicio, President,
The University of Texas at
El Paso

Frank Newman, President
Education Commission of the States


Ray Marshall, Professor,
LBJ School of Public Affairs,
The University of Texas

Peter Gerber, Director,
Education Program, MacArthur Foundation

Select scenes from the opening videos courtesy:

{SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol"}Linda Goldberg, Principal; Rebecca Williams, Teacher; 
and all students in Ms. Williams' fourth grade class at Hunters Woods 
Elementary School  a Fairfax County (VA) Public School in Reston, Virginia

{SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol"}The Association of Supervision and Curriculum 
Development

{SYMBOL 183 \f "Symbol"}Encyclopedia Britannica Educational Corporation






Opening Plenary Session Introduction

 Luther S. Williams
Assistant Director, Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation


DR. WILLIAMS:  Good evening.  It's my pleasure to welcome you to the opening 
plenary session of the National Science Foundation's first invitational 
conference devoted to systemic reform in mathematics and science education.

We have important work to accomplish together, as was indicated to you in the 
communications prior to the conference.  In particular, we want to focus on 
charting the future for systemic reform of math and science education.

I ask you, the practitioners, policy makers, university professors and 
researchers, and business and industry leaders, to collaborate over the next 
several days with the Foundation as we seek to move beyond goals and standards 
the Nation has set for itself to the very challenging task of ensuring a 
standards base in math and science for all students, kindergarten through the 
undergraduate level.

It is our view that together we can address the barriers that remain as related 
to systemic reform, and we can develop the strategies for an effective systemic 
reform effort.

This, of course, is our primary mission.  However, this gathering provides us 
with additional unique opportunities.

One is the opportunity for the National Science Foundation to hear your 
recommendations on how the Foundation can better force systemic reform and make 
progress, substantive progress, toward the goal we all desire for the Nation.

And the second is the opportunity for you to view and review the NSF-funded 
products in the instance of curriculum, instruction, materials, and technology 
that have proven successful in systemic reform of math and science education.

The past four years have been watershed years for education reform with, in 
particular, bipartisan adoption of national, not federal, goals and standards.  
Building on that foundation, we have the opportunity in the next four years to 
make the requisite progress in the pursuit of excellence in math and science 
education for all students and thereby in a fashion that truly breaks rank with 
the status quo.

It is possible for all youth to learn mathematics and science, which they will 
need to ensure the economic security of the country and the social well being 
of all citizens into the 21st Century. It is this responsibility that we invite 
your participation.

It is now my pleasure to introduce the speaker for the opening plenary session. 
 Dr. Walter Massey was appointed the Director of the National Science 
Foundation by the President in March 4, 1991.  As you know, the National 
Science Foundation is the lead federal agency for the support of both research 
and education in mathematics, science, and engineering.

Prior to coming to the Foundation, Dr. Massey served for several years as the 
Vice President for Research of the University of Chicago and the Argonne 
National Laboratories.  In the instance of the latter organization, he served 
as the Director of the same for several years.

Prior to his tenure as Director of the Argonne National Laboratories, Walter 
held several teaching and administrative positions at Brown University, moving 
through the professorial ranks, and serving as the Dean of the College at the 
institution for several years.  Prior to his tenure at Brown, he was an 
Assistant Professor of physics at the University Illinois and was a 
post-doctoral fellow and a staff physicist at Argonne National Laboratories.

He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics and Mathematics from Morehouse 
College and a Doctoral Degree in Physics from Washington University in St. 
Louis.

Prior to coming to the Foundation, he served with distinction as a member of 
the National Science Board, the governing unit of the Foundation, and has 
served as a member of a score of boards and directorships including the First 
National Bank of Chicago, AMOCO, Motorola, etc.

He served, again before his tenure at the Foundation, as a member of the 
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.  He is the 
past-President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a 
Vice President of the American Physics Society.  He holds an array of much 
deserved awards and a score of honorary degrees.

He is acquainted with the agenda that will occupy our attention for the next 
day and a half, for during his tenure at Brown University as a physics 
professor and an administrator, he was, in fact, a grantee of the National 
Science Foundation, looking at teacher preparation in the physical sciences, 
and he has been very involved during his tenure in Chicago with education from 
a variety of perspectives.

It is my distinct pleasure to present to you the Director of the Foundation, 
Dr. Massey.



Opening Plenary Session Address

Walter E. Massey
Director, National Science Foundation


DR. MASSEY:  Thank you very much, Luther.

Well, it is indeed an honor to open this session this evening.  It's a great 
pleasure to welcome you all to Washington.  This is a propitious time to be in 
Washingtona time to observe change, and, we hope, influence change.

Often when people gather in Washington, they are discussing problems.  So for 
me it is a special treat to be here tonight to open the discussion not of 
problems, although they abound, but of solutions.

That's what this conference is all about.  It's an opportunity for people 
deeply engaged in the process of improving mathematics and science education to 
share what they have learned. That's what we have invited you here forand 
that's what will happen at this conferenceto share what you've learned with 
others, to show what works, to understand, even more importantly, why things 
work, so that they can be replicated and built upon, and hopefully to pass on 
useful tools for reforming our educational system into one that truly serves 
the needs of our children.

We don't start from scratch.  We are lucky that educational reform has ranked 
high on the public agenda for the last several years, almost a decade now, and 
that there has been some real progress made, at least in identifying the 
problems that need to be solved, and in many cases actually solving key 
problems in science and math education, especially at the primary and secondary 
levels.

We saw a number of advances during the 1980's, a number of publications, 
conferences, and the like that set the tone for this agenda that we are 
addressing now.  These included: the President's and the National Governors' 
Association's report on national education goals; the National Council of 
Teachers of Mathematics'(NCTM) curriculum and evaluation standards; the Project 
2061 report, "Science for All Americans," which describes reasonable and 
achievable school learning outcomes in science; and the National Science 
Teachers Association's "Content Core:  A Curriculum Guide for Secondary 
Science."  There are many more, and I don't single those out for any particular 
reason, except to remind ourselves of the variety and scope of activities that 
have taken place.

The Nation is now preparedand I think we areto move beyond standards and 
goal-setting into implementation.  You in this room will be agents of that 
change, and we at the National Science Foundation hope to be your eager 
partners in carrying out and effecting that change.

The time is right for change, not only in mathematics and science education, 
but in the full spectrum of activities influenced by science and technology 
policy.  The ending of the Cold War has prompted a full rethinking of these 
policies both inside and outside of the Government. And now with the changing 
of the guard in Washington, the federal bureaucracy is poised to embark upon a 
fresh beginning.  But in order to do that, it needs the support and involvement 
of all of you who are actually carrying out and implementing programs.

The Foundation is also poised to accept its role in this new environment, and 
we have been preparing for our role in a changing environment.  As many of you 
know, we recently received a report from a Commission on the Future of the 
National Science Foundation, and that commission stated in its report that 
"change is part of the national agenda."

Tonight, I would like to say a few words about the commission's report and 
about NSF's role in this area, what we hope to do in the future, and focusing 
on our role in education and human resources development.

Let me say a few words about this commission, because it's important for the 
Foundation's long-term strategies.

The commission's reportand if you have not seen it, it is available, and we 
can get you copiesis entitled "A Foundation for the 21st Century."  The report 
was part of a strategic planning process for the National Science Foundation 
that I began over a year ago in conjunction with our Board, the National 
Science Board.

The planning process started as an internal procedure, but subsequently upon my 
recommendation it became broader when the Science Board created this Commission 
on the Future of the National Science Foundation.  The Board, in creating and 
charging the commission, asked for a no-holds-barred assessment of the 
Foundation's current directions and future possibilities.  The commission, 
co-chaired by an academician and an industrialist, Robert Galvin, the former 
CEO of Motorola, and William Danforth, Chancellor of Washington University, 
presented its report to the Board in November, and the Board is now in the 
process of digesting that report.

But we've already learned some lessons from its conclusions.  While focusing 
primarily on our research-related activities, the commission report strongly 
reaffirms the importance of the Foundation's involvement in all aspects of 
education and human resource development.  In particular, it recommends that we 
continue to sponsor efforts over the whole spectrum of education, K through 
16.

The commission has acknowledged that the new demands for more competitive 
civilian research, now that the Cold War has ended, and better mathematics, 
science, and engineer education will be fueled by a changed civilian, 
commercial, and competitive environment, one in which the relative strength of 
the United States in terms of our product development and in terms of our 
workforce can no longer be taken for granted in an increasingly competitive 
international environment.


The report concluded that the National Science Foundation can contribute to the 
Nation's economic success, but that that success requires, and I quote:  "That 
success requires an enlightened federal science and technology policy that 
touches all relevant agencies, a determination by industry to reach out for 
talent and knowledge, and the development of appropriate links."

A key aspect of the commission's vision for the Foundation's future is our 
responsibility for promoting closer working relationships between participants 
across all sectors of the research and education enterprise.

This role is, I think, a logical consequence of the National Science 
Foundation's position.  We are a unique agency in terms of our relationship not 
only to the federal establishment, but also to the academic, research, and 
education community.

The new Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, Bob Reich, has said in one of his 
writings, and I quote:  "In the emerging economy of the 21st Century, only one 
asset is growing more valuable as it is used, the problem-solving, 
problem-identifying, and strategic brokering skills of a nation's citizens."

He has pointed out on my occasions that the competitive advantage that any 
nation will enjoy in this modern world will reside in its citizens.

Well, these are the very same talents and aptitudes that the National Science 
Foundation now taps and develops through its support of academic research and 
mathematics and science and engineering education.  Problem solving, problem 
identifying, are, in fact, the essence of research.  For over 40 years, the 
Foundation has encouraged and enabled generations of academic scientists and 
engineers to identify and solve key problems in a vast array of areas ranging 
from the development of lasers and fiber optics, polymers, DNA, viruses, the 
discovery of the ozone hole, and on and on and on.

Drawing on that experience, we have learned that the individuals closest to the 
problems are those best able to identify the problems first and also those best 
able to solve the problems. And that has been the essence of our mode of 
funding research in education activities.  It has been investigator-initiated 
and driven throughout the history of the Foundation.

Through the investigator-initiated and driven part of our system, coupled with 
a merit review process, the Foundation has strengthened its ties to academic 
researchers and has called upon them throughout its history to assess for us, 
for the Foundation and the Nation, the importance of the problems, first of 
all, and the proposed solutions to those problems that need to be solved.

Over the past two decades, this approach has gone further.  It has enabled 
scientists and engineers who are in research establishments and universities to 
provide their valuable intellectual and professional backgrounds and their 
skills and talents to areas that go beyond their particular areas of research.  
They have become more and more involved in NSF-sponsored projects that have 
created opportunities for students to learn these unique problem-solving, 
problem-identifying skills that are so necessary and required for training 
future generations of researchers.

With the support of the Foundation, the university scientists have become more 
and more involved in education activities outside of their research agenda with 
goals not only of preparing future generations of professionals in our 
disciplines and activities, but, in fact, preparing a future workforce of an 
educated American citizenry.

As Bob Reich describes it in his other writings, he uses the term "strategic 
broker."  The Foundation is learning and trying to play the role of strategic 
broker in many of these areas.  A strategic broker, according to Reich, is one 
who brings together those who have identified problems with those who have the 
resources and the skills to help solve those problems.  A strategic broker 
provides not only money in terms of resources, but serves as a catalyst for new 
ideas and processes.

The Foundation wants to play that role.  Let me explain how we are trying to 
play that role in some of our programs.

Perhaps the most ambitious effort in this area of being a strategic broker, a 
catalyst, and bringing individuals and institutions together is through our 
relatively new program called the Statewide Systemic Initiative, the SSI, which 
was begun in 1991, as many of you know, because many of you here are part of 
those efforts.

Through the SSI program, the Foundation now assists 20 states and the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and their Governors, in achieving comprehensive 
educational reform in their state's science and mathematics education programs 
from K through 12.  And it does this by requiring the states to involve all the 
interested and important agentsschool districts, parents, teachers, unions, 
industry, and universities.

The strategy, though relatively new, is very straightforward in principle and 
in theory.  The Foundation asks the Governor, as the leader of the state, to 
first articulate a vision of what an effective science and mathematics 
education system would be in their particular state.  That's first, to have a 
vision.

Second, we require them to identify the specific elements, the important 
elements in their system, which when taken together can make that unique vision 
for their state a reality.

The Foundation doesn't provide the vision; we do not provide most of the 
resources.  Our role in this context is to prompt, urge, cajole, and persuade 
the policy makers to consider new approaches over a wide variety of areas that 
will be needed to achieve systemic reform:  setting curriculum goals and 
content, developing instructional strategies, putting into placeand this is 
very important, and we are making this a key for all of our activitiesputting 
into place assessment activities to assess whether or not the strategies are, 
in fact, working in assessing student learning.

We are also asking them to develop new structures from decision-making, to have 
a vision involving the important elements, and to have an assessment activity 
in placeall are important, but unless the structure for implementing that is 
actually put into place, none of it will happen.


We ask them to address a broad range of areas, ranging from equity issues 
throughout the system and plans to involve those students who may have been 
overlooked in the system in the past.

We encourage them to look at their state's commitment to improvement in terms 
of resources and focus, and then we ask for a plan to implement and evaluate 
the result of these reforms.

Now that's a lot to ask, and we only contribute a modest amount to the total 
resources that are available.  But we are finding just in the two years that 
the program has been underway that states are responding very favorably to this 
enterprise.  Policy makers, educators, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, 
parents, communities, business, and industry have come together in the states 
where the SSI's are now in place.

The Foundation has a long-term commitment.  We commit up to $10 million over a 
five-year period and will go beyond that if we are successful.

Now we've recognized that even if all of these SSI's are successful, that in 
many states they will not address other important issues, because in many 
states the problems connected with urban areas are very different from those 
with the rest of the state.

So bearing that in mind and being encouraged by the response to the SSI, this 
year we will begin a similar program focused on urban areas, large cities, 
which will be called an Urban Systemic Initiative.  That's one program where we 
believe our role as a strategic broker can be very effective and very 
important.

We act similarly as a strategic broker for K through 12 education reforms in 
other areas.  One is our Comprehensive Regional Center for Minorities.  In that 
program, we have linked universities, four- and two-year colleges, school 
districts, and community and business leaders in a unified effort to try to 
improve primary and secondary math and science education in those areas that 
have significant minority populations.

Another effort focused on minority groups is our Alliance for Minority 
Participation, where we also bring together all the important actors in an area 
and build in numerical goals with quantifiable assessment activities to test 
whether those goals are achieved.

The Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation is yet another example 
of a coalition-building that the Foundation can assist in by acting as a 
strategic broker.

Our success in these endeavors is primarily based on our special ties to the 
community represented here this evening, those of you who are educators, 
scientists, and engineers, who with the support of the Foundation, and not the 
Foundation alone of course, are able to actually carry out these programs.  We 
like to think that we bring to this effort a repository of special talent, a 
repository of resources, and a wealth of experience.  And in that regard, we 
think we can play a key role as a strategic broker in helping to craft 
solutions to the Nation's education and human resource needs.

We do not want to design, devise, carry out, and implement programs from 
Washington, D.C. What we want to do is to provide an opportunity to assist, 
catalyze relationships, form partnerships with those of you who actually carry 
out programs, and generate the resources necessary on behalf of the Federal 
Government that will be needed to implement those programs.

In closing, I would like to say welcome again, and I wish you every success in 
what I can tell is going to be a very enjoyable, stimulating, and very 
productive conference.








Second Plenary Session Introduction

Luther S. Williams
Assistant Director, Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation


DR. WILLIAMS:  For the second plenary session and to launch our important work 
today, we are fortunate to have two outstanding speakers.  One will address the 
political challenges of systemic reform, and the other will link labor and the 
workforce policy issues to mathematics and science education.

Governor Roy Romer of Colorado is truly an outstanding education governor.  
Fortunately for the country, Governor Romer is also a national leader in 
systemic reform of education in general, and math and science education in 
particular.  As the first Chairman of the National Education Goals Panel, he 
led a group of governors, and members of Congress and the administration, in a 
search for (1) proper assessment by which to monitor progress in the pursuit of 
the national education goals and for (2) ways to spur the national effort 
toward achieving the requisite excellence obligated by those goals.

Currently, being the Governor of the State of Colorado, Governor Romer serves 
as the Chairman of the National Governors' Association.  I know from published 
information, as well as private conversations, that education is among his four 
major agenda items and is a state and national priority for his tenure as the 
leader of the Governors' Association.  Governor Romer is well informed on math 
and science education issues, as you will shortly realize for yourself.

The second speaker, Dr. Ray Marshall, holds the Audre and Bernard Rapoport 
Centennial Chair in economics and public affairs at the Lyndon Baines Johnson 
School of Public Affairs for the University of Texas at Austin.

Some of you will know him best as the Secretary of Labor during the Carter 
administration.  I have admired his work from a distance for years, but I know 
Ray Marshall best as a member of the National Advisory Committee to the 
Directorate of Education and Human Resources at NSF, where his service and 
contributions have been invaluable.

He is no newcomer to education, workforce issues, or math and science 
education, in particular. Beyond his efforts with the National Science 
Foundation Advisory Committee, he is a member of the National Council for 
Project 2061, and he has been one of the major players in the Carnegie 
Corporation of New York's effort dealing with broad issues of workforce, 
education, and equity.

Will you please welcome both Governor Romer and Dr. Marshall.  The order of the 
presentations is Governor Romer and then Dr. Marshall, with a pause in 
between.



Second Plenary Session Keynote Address

The Honorable Roy Romer
Governor of Colorado
  Chairman, National Governors' Association


GOVERNOR ROMER:  When I walked in the room, I asked some of my friends who all 
of these folks are, and I asked them if I would get too simplistic in my 
communications, and they said, "well, there are a lot of college presidents and 
others and, you know, start anywhere you want."

The reason I posed that question is that I need to communicate about standards 
to a wide audience.  I am trying to communicate to people in Colorado about 
what standards- based education is.  I have found some useful ways of doing 
that and they may be simplistic, but I would like to share a couple with you.

First, I am really pleased to be invited here.  I believe education is the most 
important business of this Nation.  Let me put that in perspective:  As 
Chairman of the National Governors' Association, I have been working with the 
administration on trying to reduce the deficit, trying to get health care costs 
under control, and trying to get us reinvesting in the right things in 
America.

Because, you see, we really cannot prepare for the future in terms of raising 
our skill levels and broadening our knowledge base, unless we get control of 
other costs in our society.  So there is a very, very strong link between 
education, reinvestment, and controlling the national deficit and health care 
costs, and I just want to make that link before we start.

Let me put it in terms of Colorado's budget.  We have a $180 million in new 
dollars to work with out of growth in this fiscal year and $108 million of 
those go to Medicaid.  That is a disproportionate sharing of one's wealth in 
terms of how we allocate resources.

Now, let's jump into education.  I absolutely believe that standards are the 
foundation of systemic reform in education, and I have felt that for some time. 
 I am not an educator.  It is just simple common sense.  You need to know where 
you want to go before you can organize how you are going to get there, and we 
just haven't thought through clearly enough what it is that we want a youngster 
to know and be able to do, and what kind of knowledge and what kind of skills 
youngsters should have.  And if we don't clarify that, we are simply not going 
to be effective in organizing this educational enterprise.

Last night, I was reading Measuring Up.  It is the first time I really had a 
chance to go through this book, but it is a wonderful illustration of the kind 
of knowledge and skills that we really are trying to create with new standards 
in math.  If we do not understand that clearly, if we do not have the whole 
system which we are dealing with focused upon the right results, it is just 
common sense that you're not going to get your job done.

So I am very focused upon content standards, teaching standards, and 
assessments, and I want to compliment the National Science Foundation and all 
of those who are affiliated with it.  When you undertook the assignment of 
developing standards for science from the Department of Education, you insisted 
upon it being a package of content and teaching and assessment, because you 
can't separate them.

Now, I used to run a flight school, and the simple way that I communicate to 
somebody on the street in Colorado about what a standard is, is to talk to them 
about flying an airplane.  In order to fly an airplane, there are certain 
things you need to know and be able to do.  They are there. It may take you 36 
hours of flight instruction to learn it, or it may take you 46 hours of flight 
instruction.  But what is fixed is what you need to know and be able to do.  
What is variable is how long it will take you to learn it.

I believe all students can learn, but in education we quite often reverse this. 
 What is fixed is how long we sit in the seat, and what is variable is what we 
know when we get out.  Now, people on the street understand that.  They know 
that, and if they don't get it, you draw a bell curve and you say, look, how 
many of you want to fly with an above-average pilot?

Above-average means you're a little better than this half of the curve.  They 
want to fly with somebody who knows how to fly the plane.  And by the time I 
have finished that paragraph, they know what a standard is.  The standard is 
something you need to know and be able to do.

Well, the next thing is you have got to know when you are there.  A standard is 
like the destination.  The assessments are a compass that tells us how well we 
are focused in the direction of that destination.  So the next question, when I 
try to communicate to somebody in Colorado about the importance of 
standards-based education, is to take a standard like that in abstract and try 
to apply it to math, to English, and to geography, and then the going gets a 
little more difficult.

What we need is to have a great deal more good communication, such as Measuring 
Up, such as the other things that we need to develop based upon the NCTM 
content standard manualso that not only the educators, the teachers, and the 
students, but also the parents and the business people in the communities will 
know why it is important to know that, and what it means to know that.

So I want to say right out front, standards-based education in my judgment is 
the foundation upon which we must build systemic reform.  Next, it quickly 
follows that we need to develop a new system of assessments that can accurately 
measure what it is that we want youngsters to know.  They are packaged 
together.  If your assessments are not aligned to the standards, it just 
doesn't work, and a good assessment will help you redefine what the content 
standard is.

Here I would like to share another simple metaphor that has helped me 
communicate, and that is I use standards and assessments somewhat like a 
sandwich.  The top layer of the sandwich comprises the standards and the bottom 
comprises the assessments.  But what is really critical is what is in that 
sandwichwhat has to happen in that classroom and in that youngster's 
experience in order to acquire learning, to take you from where you are to 
where you want to go.

Now, let me spend a moment on the assessment issue.  It is very challenging for 
us to find a way to get this done.  When the panel that I chaired on standards 
and assessments got into Congress, we got into the equity issue, and there was 
great debate saying, "Governor, it's not fair to set these high world class 
standards and then begin to apply assessments, when youngsters have not had the 
opportunity to encounter an educational experience that would lead them there." 
I understand that.  In the name of equity, I understand that argument.  But 
what Congress had a tendency to do was to say we're going to authorize you to 
continue to do your work on standards, but we're not going to let you do 
anything on assessments until you "get a delivery system that is fair and 
equitable."  That is fallacious thinking.  It is just bad thinking.

What we need to do is we need to develop standards and assessments 
simultaneously.  They are interrelated.  We need to be very careful about how 
high stakes we make them, but you simply need to have them go along in a 
parallel fashion, because they are interactive.

I think one of the most inequitable things we could do to any group of 
youngsters in the United States is not to tell them what it is you really need 
to know and be able to do in order to be a useful citizen.  I think the 
greatest inequity of all is not to confront a generation of youngsters with 
what a true assessment of their condition is.

Quite often, I would use the analogy of a CAT scan.  You know, when you go to a 
hospital and you take a CAT scan, what you want to know is what is health.  You 
want to know where you are what you need to do to close the gap. I think a good 
assessment is of a similar nature.  A standard tells you this is what 
educational health is, and then the assessment tells you here is where you are 
and then it helps you close that gap.

Let's move on then to the middle of the sandwich.  What is the middle of this 
sandwich and how can we get systemic reform in our individual states?  Let me 
back up, before we get to that: How do we communicate these standards which you 
and others are working onmath and science, geography, history, and English?  
How do we communicate that and implement them in these United States with the 
dispersed system of education we have?  That is a real challenge.

I think that there are a number of things that we can do.  Let me start from a 
state level.  In Colorado, we have a legislative act that is currently under 
debate in the legislature in which we are trying to move our state rather 
rapidly into standards-based education.  This act will set out certain time 
lines and say the State of Colorado will officially adopt standards in five 
areas by a certain date.  It is about two years out.  We are waiting for the 
science standards to be available.  We are not going to take them without 
revision.  We will take them and we will adapt them to ourselves, but they will 
be the core.

Then each district, we have 176 districts, probably one of the most locally 
based educational systems in the United States.  This law will say all you 
districts, you're on your own, you've got to go develop your own standards, do 
it within a certain time line, and we give them about a year after the state 
time line.  But we say, "Your standards need to meet or exceed those that we 
have adopted at the state level."

Now, it gives freedom, but it gives kind of a managed freedom, and we will tell 
you after a while how well this works.  We are then going to adopt standards, 
have districts adopt them a little later, but we are not going to stop there.  
We are going to create a resource bank of tasks somewhat based upon the new 
standards methodology.  We are going to put into this bankand this is purely 
voluntary to districtswe are going to put into this resource bank all of the 
useful information we can to help a district develop appropriate assessment 
methods and materials such as you have in Measuring Up and others.

Then the only enforcement that we have, since we are very dispersed in our 
educational accountability and authority, will be that each district would 
adopt standards at least equivalent to that which the state has.  Then we would 
have a statewide assessment that we need to develop on a matrix sampling basis, 
not with any enforcement on how much money you get, but simply as a way of 
letting everybody know how well you're doing for informational purposes.

Now that is our beginning in Colorado.  There are a lot more bells and whistles 
to this, but even that is just a small step.  What we really need to do, if we 
are to get standards-based education to be effective, is to bring the people 
along, to have the citizens in the community understand this is what math power 
really is, and this is why it is important to have it, and here is what ought 
to happen in the school building down the street for those kids to acquire it.

Now, for that really to happen, who has to come along?  Obviously, the teacher 
in the classroom is the most critical person.  The administration of the school 
also needs to understand that.  But the parents and the community, in my 
judgment, eventually have got to be with us or we are not going to succeed.  So 
one of the real challenges is how can we get these kinds of understandings more 
broadly understood, accepted, and supported in these United States.

Now let me turn back to the 50 governors and the President.  In many states, 
governors are not the key person possibly in education.  You may have a chief 
school officer, depending on how you are organized.  But no matter how you are 
organized, the governor is the one that has the power of the bully pulpit.  All 
you need to do is go measure the inches of newspaper space a governor gets on a 
normal day and the U.S. Senator.  It is ten times in favor of the governor. In 
terms of the chief school officer, it is probably a hundred times.

So no matter where you are in your state in terms of where the governor is on 
the official constitutional assignment of responsibility, he or she is a very 
key person to mobilize that state and focus that state on what really is 
important not only in all policy matters, but particularly in education.

Therefore, our challenge I think is to work together to get states, governors, 
and other elected officials to understand how critical this item is to systemic 
change.  It is the foundation of change, and because there is an awful lot of 
other educational experimentation we need to do and a lot of change that we 
need to accomplish, if it's not based upon great and good reform in the area of 
standards and assessments, I don't think it is going to get us to where we want 
to go.

Lastly, let me talk about the new President.  Bill Clinton was very involved in 
the initiation of the national goals.  He was very involved in the National 
Governors' Association and in his own state in educational reform, and he 
thoroughly understands this issue and believes in it deeply.

Right now, he has obviously got his plate full with a number of other issues.  
You will see in the first 100 days of this administration a very strong 
concentration on the economy, a short-term stimulus package and a longer-term 
package to help us reduce the national deficit, but with an overwhelming focus 
upon health care costs, because they are critical.

But as we get through that initial surge of focus on those areas, it would be a 
wonderful opportunity for this President to come back and, in the area of 
education, take a point position in helping us take standards to the people of 
this country.  Let's dream a moment how that could be done.  I haven't talked 
with him about this.  You and I are going to set an agenda for him.  Okay?

Remember Franklin Roosevelt's fireside chats?  You understand how well and how 
good a communicator Bill Clinton is in terms of the economic summit at Little 
Rock.  How could we get a conversation going between the President of this 
country and the citizens of this country on math?  Think about it.

I don't think you're going to get this job done, unless you have parents 
understand why in Measuring Up you put those kids through this first exercise 
on graphs and charts.  Now, let's dream a moment:  How would we do this?  Take 
a Monday evening, and you've got this great marvel of electronics.  How can you 
engage a parent who doesn't know very much about math? How can you engage that 
parent into this subject matter?

First you've got to start with how critical it is, because the American people 
are smart.  They know where their bread is buttered and they really will focus 
upon something, if you get to them and say this is critical to the quality of 
life you're going to lead.  So we need to figure out how you get inside that.

Then the next thing is, okay, so it's important, how can you keep my interests? 
 There has got to be a way in which we can present the subject matter which is 
intriguing and fun.

Third, there needs to be a way in which you can do it with the parent and the 
children and the family.  You know, maybe when the President speaks at this 
fireside chat, over this great marvel of electronics, we have a simple document 
in our hands in which we follow along.

Let me stop there with the analogy, but I am just fascinated with how we take 
this the next step. If this is the foundation for systemic reform, namely, good 
standards and assessments, then we need to get it really up-front in the minds 
of Americans.  We need to have Americans then walk down to that institution and 
that organization called the local school and demand, demand that it begin to 
reform itself to produce this product.

I have spent a lot of times in schools this last week, and I should have 
brought this.  I was in a school in Cherry Creek District in Denver, and they 
were going through Interactive Matha program that originated out of 
California.  I walked in and spent a couple of hours with a classroom that was 
very much like the one that you saw here, except it was in a high school, and I 
was just fascinated by what had changed in that classroom.

The instructional materials were creative.  The instructor was not standing up 
like I am lecturing to somebody.  The instructor was sitting in the back of the 
room letting the youngsters work at tables of four.  The students were going to 
the center of the room, making a presentation, and giving their reasoning, and 
there was more than one way to solve the problem.  And it was a class in which 
high-order thinking skills were being acquired.  It was an exciting class.  The 
bell rang and the kids wouldn't leave and they had to shoo them out so we could 
get another group into the classroom.  It was a wonderful experience to see.

Well, how can we, working together, communicate to this Nation that there is a 
way to do this? I believe that standards and assessment are critical for the 
foundation or kind of the spinal cord of the skeleton upon which we need to 
build a lot of other systemic reform.  And I think that if we do our job right, 
this can become a movement, a revolutionary movement that can radically change 
education in this country.

Finally, I think that math and science needs to lead the rest.  I think, as a 
citizen of this country, I am equally interested in other academic areas, but I 
somehow feel that the kind of cutting edge change that is possible in math and 
science can get a constituent base better than any other subject matter area 
and, therefore, I am pushing it hard.

Let me close with a quote from Stephen Hawking that emphasizes why this 
knowledge of math and science is critical for all of us, all of us in the 
society and not just a few, and I do believe it's critical for all of us.  
Hawking said in the book A Brief History of Time the following:

"Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new 
theories that describe what the universe is, to ask the question why.  On the 
other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have 
not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories.  If we do 
discover a complete theory, it should be in time understandable in the broad 
principle by everybody, not just by a few scientists, then we shall all be able 
to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the 
universe exist.  If we find the answer to that, it will be the ultimate triumph 
of human reason, for then we will know the mind of God."

I just close with that quote, because I think of the thirst for understanding, 
the thirst for meaning that all of us have, the thirst to live the good life.  
In my judgment, education is the key to that, it's the tool.  It's the tool to 
the good life.

Everything that I have been able to do in my own life was dependent upon 
somebody giving me those skills, that understanding, helping me know the 
history that preceded me, helping me to know who it is that occupies this world 
with me, their language, their culture, their traditions. Helping me to 
understand how to reason, how to organize my mind, how to adventure, but most 
of all, helping me to acquire a set of values, a set of values that enables me 
to live in community with others and to sort out what is more important and 
what is less important. Because without that skill, then all the tools of math 
and science do not lead to an end that satisfies me.

Thank you very much.



Second Plenary Session Keynote Address

Ray Marshall
Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin


MR. MARSHALL:  Well, I am glad to have the opportunity to share this platform 
with Governor Romer and to be with all of you.

Let me state some propositions I would like to develop in greater detail.  One 
of the most important of these is that, before we can compete successfully in a 
global economy, our people must learn to think for a living.

Unfortunately, an outdated assumption that rudimentary skills are sufficient 
for a lifetime of work still haunts the Nation's education, industry, and labor 
systems.  At an earlier time in our lives, basic skills were sufficient because 
the United States had no serious international competition and production had a 
larger natural resource content.

But today, when the latest technology is readily available to every country in 
the world, and where almost everything of value has a large knowledge content, 
high incomes depend heavily on higher-order thinking skills.  In other words, 
all of our people now need to have the skills that previously were reserved 
only for the few managerial, professional, and technical workers in our 
society.

It has also become very clearand I think this is an extremely important point 
on equitythat we will not have a world-class economy and a higher quality of 
life for most of our people, or perhaps even for any of our people, unless more 
people have higher-order thinking skills and all have access to these skills.  
A way to say that is: How well off we are going to be depends heavily on what 
kind of team we've got in this country and how we collectively are able to 
perform in the kind of world that we are in.

Math and science are central to these higher-order thinking skills, partly 
because of knowledge and content, that is, because of the subject matter 
itself, but also because of the habits of mind that math and science convey and 
inculcate in people.  The intellectual competence about learning that comes 
from the mastery of math and science is extremely important to the learning of 
everything.  The obverse of that is: If people believe they cannot master math 
and science, they also doubt their intellectual competence and, therefore, do 
not believe they can learn.  Once they believe that, many people make it a 
self-fulfilling prophecy and are unable to enjoy the benefits of a higher 
standard of living.

It is also important to emphasize, however, that we should not view math and 
science as discrete subjects apart from life.  The world does not divide itself 
up like we do university departments. We have to use math and science in all of 
our activities and should not conceive of it as a black box or a discrete 
subject that has little relevance to the rest of what we do.

Now, let me take those propositions apart.  I think it is instructive to look 
at our history in order to see how we got to be the world's leading economy 
during the early part of this century, what habits of thought we developed that 
cause us some trouble now (and what we should do about them), and, most 
importantly, what role a standards-driven education system will have in 
improving our learning systems.

There were three things that made the United States the world's leading economy 
by 1926, and the first was having an abundance of natural resources when 
natural resources were much more important than they are now.

Second, the U.S. had a large and growing internal market, which made it 
possible to have mass production and economies of scale.  That was the system 
that allowed us to easily improve productivity and living standards, as 
illustrated by the Ford Motor Company.  Henry Ford reduced the cost of a 
touring car from $850 to $360 in 6 years, just before the first World War, with 
his mass production system.

Now, that mass production system organized work so that only a few people 
needed to manage and think, while most people did routine work that was 
fragmented so that you could get very good at, for example, putting Bolt No. 35 
on a rear left wheel.  This work was fairly automatic. The system minimized the 
importance of thinking for front-line workers and emphasized the importance of 
being able to do routine work.  People had to be literate to work in Ford's 
factory, because they had detailed instructions, but if you had basic skills 
and were willing to work hard, you could earn a very good living working for 
Ford Motor Company or for most other mass production industries.  That mass 
production system was very important.

The third factor was supportive institutions and policies, since we had a 
system that permitted the growth of a large internal market.  One of the 
supportive processes that contributed to the success of the American system was 
mass education.  Henry Ford's system was applied more rigorously to the schools 
than to any industry I know of, and the basic idea was to mass produce 
literates, take people right off the farm or the boat and transform them into 
literate people who could work on our farms and in our factories.

As a result of that system, we developed a reputation for having the world's 
best-educated workforce.  In fact, if you had conducted a poll in 1960 in the 
world and asked people who has the best educated workforce in the world, they 
probably would have said the United States of America.

I need not tell you that would not be the case today.  There are very few 
people who would say the United States has the best educated workforce in the 
world.  In fact, almost no knowledgeable observer would argue that point.  Most 
experts would say we have the worst educated workforce among the major 
industrialized countries, especially for our front-line workers.  The only 
people in our system who are world class are college educated and scientific 
people, not most front-line workers.  But the mass production of education and 
products earlier contributed to the longest period of sustained prosperity 
equitably shared in human history, from the 1930's and into the 1970's.

Now the questions are:  What happened to cause that system to come unglued, and 
why are we no longer necessarily regarded as the world's most effective 
economy?  We are still the world's richest economy, but we are not necessarily 
regarded as the system that other countries want to emulate in terms of our 
management system and the way we operate the economy.

Well, the main thing that happened was technology greatly undermined the causes 
of our traditional strength.  How did it do that?  The first thing it did was 
to greatly reduce the significance of natural resources, because the essential 
economic point about science and technology is that technological improvement 
is really all about substituting ideas, skills, and knowledge for physical 
resources.

That is illustrated by the work of Theodore Schultz at the University of 
Chicago, who got the Nobel Prize in economics for demonstrating that the return 
to human capital was higher than the return to physical capital.  Schultz and 
his students pointed out that we have fewer physical resources in American 
agriculture now than we did in the 1920's, as we acquired less labor, land, and 
capital; yet we have tripled and quadrupled output, depending on the crop.  
Why?  We substituted ideas, skills, and knowledge for physical resources.

Another illustration is that people working in the human capital tradition of 
Theodore Schultz have tried to ask the following question and answer it with 
the best tools available to us, and that is:  What accounts for improvements in 
productivity?  That is the key, of course, to improvements in wealth and 
improvements in our standard of living.

What they found, fairly uniformly, is that 80 percent or more is due to ideas, 
skills, and knowledge or to technology and human capital; 20 percent or less to 
physical capital, i.e., machine capital; and zero to natural resources.  So 
what previously was an important advantage has in many ways become a serious 
disadvantage.

It is not a coincidence that many countries with very limited natural resources 
are doing very well.  They were forced by geography and history to develop 
their people, which is the key to success in the world that we are in today.  
Science and technology also globalized our economy and, therefore, took away 
the advantages of mass production.  Mass production was available to American 
companies because they had the American market to themselves.  Now they don't. 
Everybody has the American market and, therefore, what was previously an 
advantage has suddenly become a disadvantage if companies are unable to adjust 
to the economic realities of this world.

And what are those realities?  The main reality is that you have got to be 
competitive now. What does that mean?  Well, economists don't agree on a lot, 
but we agree that when it comes to being competitive, you as an individual, a 
state, a nation, or a company have two choices. You can either compete by 
reducing your income, mainly by cutting wages, or you can compete by being more 
productive, and that is it.  There are no other options.

In the United States, because we have not had a strategy, we have backed into 
low-wage policies as a way to compete.  The low-wage strategy is a loser in the 
minds of most people, because, first, there are always countries with lower 
wages, but this option also implies lower and more unequal incomes and wages.  
We already have the most unequal distribution of income of any industrialized 
country, and it is becoming more unequal.  Why?  Well, mainly because the 
people who have the higher-order thinking skills are doing very well.  Most of 
our people are

not.  Only 25 percent of our people are college educated, and they will do 
relatively well, but most people who are unable to compete in this world will 
not be able to do very well.

A very important limitation of a wage strategy is that it limits the extent to 
which you can improve your income, because the only way you can do it is to 
work harder, and there is a limit to how hard people can work.  With declining 
real wages, the only way we have sustained family incomes in the United States 
is with more women working.  Now, that is obviously self-limiting.  There are 
not many families with another wife to put into the workforce, and the slowdown 
in the growth of our workforce means that the whole country will be in trouble, 
unless we change.

The other option is improving productivity, which gets us closer to our story, 
because what that really means is to substitute ideas, skills, and knowledge 
for physical resources, which puts you on a very steep earning and learning 
curve.  We don't even know what the limit to that is, because we really never 
have tried it, but we know that it's very steep and much less limiting than 
trying to pursue the low-wage strategy.

If you are going to be more productive, though, you have to do some things.  
First, you have to have a strategy.  The reason we have a low-wage strategy in 
this country is not because we had a big debate and said let's go for low 
wages.  It is because we didn't believe in a strategy. A productivity strategy 
requires high performance work organizations that emphasize quality, best 
defined as meeting your customers', students', or clients' needs.  Henry Ford's 
factory was producer driven.  Henry Ford is reported to have said that you 
could have any color car that you wanted, so long as it is black.  Obviously, 
nobody would say that today, because we are in a consumer-driven world, and 
once you concentrate on your students and your customers, you change the 
operation of the whole system.  Quality therefore becomes extremely important.

Second, we have to think about efficiency in the use of all of our resources.  
Economies of scale caused us to be lazy and to build in a lot of slack that we 
can no longer afford.  We had too many people, a large bureaucracy, to run the 
system, and that has become inefficient.  We had inventory, because we made the 
assumption we are going to make a lot of mistakes.  That builds in 
inefficiency.  Now we have to have productivity in the use of all of our 
resources.

Third, we also must have flexibility.  Our traditional system tried to get 
security through contracts and rules and regulations.  In the world that we are 
in today, we get security through flexibility and adaptability, not through 
contracts and rules and regulations, and that is a very difficult thing for a 
lot of people to understand.

Fourth and finally, you need to have what we have come to call high-performance 
organization. What does that mean?  First, it means you have a lean, 
participative management system, because information technology is inherently 
decentralizing.  It is best used at the point of production, as the Soviet 
Union learned, as General Motors is learning, as most of our institutions are 
learning and, therefore, it is very inefficient to use it from a central 
point.

Second, you have to develop and use leading edge technology and have highly 
skilled workers. Why?  For a very simple proposition:  The old model used 
standardized technology and unskilled labor.  Obviously, that work will not be 
done in high-wage places.  We are not going

to pay American workers $10 or $15 an hour to do the same work on the same 
machines that you can get done in Mexico for $1 or $2 an hour.  That technology 
will seek out those low-wage places.

The question for all of us is:  What do you do about that?  The initial 
reaction for a lot of Americans is, well, we will automate, we will make these 
machines idiot-proof, and we will have Star Wars and illiterates.  Wherever 
that was tried, it was a disaster.  Why?  People have to give wisdom to the 
machines.  People have to improve the performance of the machines and, 
therefore, the basic model is smart machines/smart people, not smart 
machines/untrained people.

What kinds of skills have we found from our work all over the world that we 
need?  Well, the list is now uniformly accepted almost everywhere.  The first 
thing you need to be able to do is to impose order on information, because the 
machines give us a lot of information.  If you don't know what to do with the 
information, it is worse than not having it.  If you know what to do with it, 
you can improve whatever you do.  You can run a better household, be a better 
teacher, improve the quality of products, and solve problems; therefore, those 
math and science skills of imposing order on information become very 
important.

Increasingly, information work is group work.  We have turned putting Bolt No. 
35 on over to a robot, and now people are involved in group work, and that 
means interpersonal and communication skills become extremely important.

Third, and often neglected, one of the most important skills anybody can have 
in the world we are in today is learning skills.  It is amazing how little 
attention traditional mass production schools give to learning.  Very few 
people have ever had any systematic instruction in learning. Very few of our 
schooling processes give much evidence that they understand how people learn. 
Yet, we have learned more about learning in the last 10 or 15 years than in all 
of our previous history.  And if people are able to learn, they are able to 
deal with change or to assimilate technology.  If they are efficient learners, 
they can improve whatever kind of work they are doing.   Learning therefore 
becomes a very important skill.

Another higher-order skill is the ability to deal with ambiguity.  One of the 
problems with our learning systems is we often teach people that there are 
answers in the back of the book.  Well, in life there are no answers in the 
back of the book, so you must be able to deal with the ambiguity.  You have got 
to be a self-manager.  You have got to have an experimental frame of mind to 
solve problems and learn and develop new information.  All of this, of course, 
means that you must give heavy attention to the kinds of habits of mind that we 
get from math and science.

Now, another characteristic of a high-performance system often overlooked in 
many activities, including in our learning systems, is a positive incentive 
structure.  There are two kinds of incentives, basically.  One is negative, 
which means you do what I want you to or I will punish you, and we use that a 
lot in our systems.  You will never get excellence with that incentive. A 
second is perverse, and we have a lot of that.  Perverse means you do what I 
want you to and I will punish you.  You see, most American workers believeand 
we have polling data to show thisthat if they improve productivity, they will 
lose their jobs.  Well, that is a perverse

incentive.  Many of our schools allocate money on the basis of average daily 
attendance for a couple of weeks in October.

We used to do that in Texas.  We would put on contests during those weeks to 
get people to show up, and if you did, you could win a door prize.   After 
that, we didn't care if you showed up or not.  And guess which students we 
hoped didn't come back?  The ones who needed it most.  Now, that is a perverse 
incentive, if you are worried about dropouts.  Incentives are very important in 
our learning systems and we need to pay a lot of attention to that.

Now, our learning systems have a lot of problems, and let me just mention 
those, and then list the things.  Governor Romer has done a good job of talking 
about the importance of standards, so I won't spend a lot of time on that.  But 
let me tick off what seem to me to be the major problems that we face and what 
role a standards-driven system could play in that.

First, as he emphasized, our most important learning system is the family, and 
we have a larger proportion of children in poverty than any other 
industrialized country.  And with some amazing exceptions, poor families 
ordinarily are not good learning systems.  The good news is that we can cause 
them to be better learning systems by involving parents in the learning 
process.

Second, our schools are still geared to mass producing literates, and we do a 
fair job of that. They are not geared to turning out people with higher-order 
thinking skills.

We have more tracking in our system than any major industrial country I know 
of, and yet we tend to be against tracking.  Now, why do we have tracking?  We 
don't wait until they are teenagers in the United States to track them.  We 
start doing it at birth.  Then when people get in school, we decide some are 
going to college and others aren't, and we see that those that are going to 
college get courses that prepare them for college, and those that we don't 
think are going to college are put in the general track or the vocational track 
and don't receive higher-order thinking skills.

We also do almost nothing for people who are not going to college.  We have the 
worst career preparation system for non-college students of any major 
industrial country.  We do more for people who are going to college, but less 
for people who are not.  The success of the American economy will depend mainly 
on what we do for people who aren't going to college, and no more than 30 
percent of our workforce will be college educated by the year 2000.

Now, what do we need to do?  The answer is that we need to have high standards 
for people who graduate from high school, and we need to create standards for 
occupation for people who are not going to go to college.   We also need to 
remove the financial barriers to people getting an education, because, oddly 
enough, we have more barriers than most of our major competitors. In Germany, 
education is a free good, because they believe what we learned from our GI Bill 
and what Ted Schultz and his students discovered through scientific research; 
that is, the return to human capital is higher than the return to physical 
capital.

What role would standards play?  First, of course, it would eliminate tracking. 
 If we had high standards everybody had to meet, then we couldn't track, and 
schools would be responsible for ensuring that people met those standards. 
Second, you would have some way to measure the restructuring of a school for 
higher performance, because the high performance system applies to schools just 
as much as it does to companies and for the same reasons.  We need to 
decentralize the work of teachers and create incentives for people to make 
student achievement the main objective of schools.

Third, we need to provide motivation for students to learn.  You see, in our 
system, if you are not going to college, there is no motivation to take science 
and math or to make good grades. If we had high standards, there would be 
motivation.

Fourth, we should provide information to people about what the system is doing 
and improve the efficiency of the whole system by linking learning systems.

Standards are important elements in systemic efficiency.  Why?  Well, we spend 
the first two years of college in this country doing what most countries 
consider to be high school work. Why?  Because there are no standards for 
graduation from high school.  If we had high standards, we would have more 
efficiency.  Many companies spend a lot of money teaching subjects that should 
have been taught in high school.  Why?  Because there are no standards. Company 
training programs could be a lot better, if we had standards and if the 
employers knew what was required of students before they leave high school.

We therefore need a standards-driven education system if we want to be a 
world-class country with high incomes, and it would be hard to think of a 
subject that is more important for our national standing in the world, as well 
as the personal quality of life for our people.

Thank you.



Question and Answer Session


DR. WILLIAMS:  I thank both of the speakers for their excellent presentations 
which really complemented each other quite well.

We have time and they have consented to take a few questions before our break.  
Are there questions, anyone?  None?  Yes?  I will try and repeat them.

QUESTION:  [inaudible]

GOVERNOR ROMER:  I think the best way to work with legislators is to get them 
hands-on onto the subject matter.  We have in Colorado what we have called an 
Education Achievement Council, and it includes six members of the legislative 
leadership.  What we do with this council is provide a way in which the 
executive, the legislators, and the educators can come to the table on 
educational policy.  We took the standards education bill through that council 
over a period of months, and the level of discussion has really risen.

We went through, for exampleand let me just illustrate thisoutcome-based 
education.  As you know, that is a very interesting term we use educationally, 
OBE.  I am extremely suspicious about using that term as we relate to 
standards, because I like to keep close to content.  I know it needs to be 
interdisciplinary.

But we went through several sessions of discussion on this, and the legislators 
became quite familiar with the language and the concepts; I think, therefore, 
they have become focused upon standards-based education.

Let me say this another way:  Educators tend to get their own lingo; all 
professionals dodeconceptualization, decontextualization, and all of that 
stuff.  We really need to find language that communicates with people in the 
ordinary world.  I get angry when people come into my office and begin to use 
words that are deliberately devised to keep me from understanding, and I think 
legislators have the same turnoff. So if all of you could help us to 
communicate in language that we all understand, I think it will also help 
bridge the barrier with legislators.

MR. MARSHALL:  I think that is a terribly important question, because that is 
obviously the next stage in our process.  We have a lot of exemplary programs 
and a lot of exemplary schools, but, to my knowledge, not one exemplary school 
system in the United States.  The question then is how do we move from these 
exemplary schools and programs.  We know how to teach math and science, don't 
we?   And we know how to teach it to poor kids, don't we?  We know that any 
poor kid can learn math and science, and we have  experiments all over the 
country where that has in fact been the case, and yet we don't do it, either in 
the Nation or in systems.

How do you do it?  I don't know.  A good hypothesis about it would be as 
follows, and we have recommended this to President Clinton as a way we get 
started in the whole country: First, it is terribly important to have these 
successful examplesI try never to recommend anything I can't give somebody an 
example ofand to have the experiments, because what the examples help you with 
is overcoming the skeptics.  You see, there are a lot of people who will say, 
"Well, you are right.  We need to do something, but there is nothing we can 
do."  But if you show them there are things that can be done, then you are 
likely to be able to move it forward.

Then you need to recognize that we have a political and media problem.  I am 
sure it is not that way in Colorado, but in Texas we define a politician as 
somebody who is busily trying to get to the left of the Republicans, to the 
right of the Democrats, and in front of the cameras.

If you can focus the media on the problem, which is one of the ways a lot of 
people learn, then you might get politicians to do things.  The most 
intransigent groups you have to deal with in any system are the vested 
interests.  These are people who believe that the status quo is one of their 
options, and if it is, they will never move.  Well, how do you move them?  The 
only way to do it is to convince them that the status quo is not one of their 
options, that things will get worse for them, and I think they will.

Now, our recommendation for President Clinton is that we take these things that 
we know work, develop some standards, and then say to state and local school 
districts that want to restructure along these lines, we will give you some 
money and we will waive all regulations except the essentials.  It wouldn't be 
hard to specify what the standards should be.  We are much more likely to be 
successful in a state or the national process than trying to mandate change; 
that probably won't work because there is no one best way to do things 
everywhere.

Anyway, it seems to me that is a process that might work.

QUESTION:  It seems to me that much of what has been said is appropriate and 
useful.  It does seem that a great deal of effort is on motivation, and 
motivation is clearly needed among all of these constituencies.  But there is a 
lack in discussion of theory about how it will be done.  You briefly mentioned 
the use of learning and learning strategies for schools, we are getting part of 
that, but it seems to me that we also have to emphasize theoretical issues just 
as much as motivational issues.

MR. MARSHALL:  Theories are statements of causal relationships and therefore 
are very important for policy. If you do the right thing on the basis of the 
wrong theory, it is just because of luck.  And I'd much rather rely on the 
scientific method than luck.  In fact, I have got a book about this that I 
commend to your attention and my profit.

It is called Thinking For A Living, published by Basic Books last September, 
co-authored with Marc Tucker, and I think that is absolutely the case; you have 
got to have a theoretical understanding of how people learn.  If learning 
systems are not based on our understanding of how people learn, then they are 
not likely to be very successful.  And a lot of what purport to be educational 
reform movements are not based on any understanding of how people learn.  A lot 
of the work being done in the choice movement, for example, is a theory of 
organization, but not a theory of learning and, therefore, I think choice alone 
is unlikely to be able to deal with the problem.


Now, I think you also need to have a theory of how organized group activity 
takes place, and that is my theory of a high-performance organization, which 
applies as much to a school as to business or government.  We have experiments 
to show this.  That is, if you have a school that stresses student achievement 
and that drives the school, it will be a very different school from one that 
stresses average daily attendance or process, which is mainly what we do to 
satisfy the bureaucracy and for administrative convenience, rather than to 
improve student learning.

We also know that if you develop and use leading edge technology in the school, 
you can improve learning.  We have experiments to demonstrate this conclusion.  
We did this in the Job Corps, for example.  When I was responsible for the Job 
Corps, we found that about 20 percent of the high school graduates coming into 
the Corps were illiterate.

Now, what do you do for them?  Well, using the learning technology, we were 
able to make it possible for people to learn, and we have been doing it over a 
long period of time.  When I left the government in 1981, with 90 hours of 
instruction, we could move students on that technology two years in reading and 
two in math.  Now, with 28 hours of instruction, using that technology, which 
has continued to be perfected, they can move students 1.4 grade levels in math 
and one in reading.  We have made more progress with math than with reading 
with that technology, and you would expect that.

Now, these experiments show that you can improve learning by decentralizing 
work to the classroom, or the point of production.   Another part of the theory 
of high performance organization is that you have a lean, participative 
management system.  We have evidence to show that most of the education dollars 
in this country go to administration, and some of that is useful.  But what I 
would do in the administration is the same thing I recommend automobile plants 
do:  get rid of a lot of managers, decentralize the decision-making to the 
school house, turn the work over to school professionals, change the name of 
management, and call them support workers to help the teachers in the 
classroom.  Another part of our theory is that you will do what you have always 
done, unless you learn to do it a different way.

That is the reason you can tie an elephant down with a rope.  When an elephant 
is little, they tie it down with chains.  They keep trying to get away and 
can't ever do it.  Then when they are grown, you don't have to use a chain, 
because they don't think they can get away.  That is also the reason they put a 
place for the buggy whip on the first automobile, because that's just the way 
you do it.

Now, our experiments show that if you just tell teachers to become a 
high-performance systemas happened in Dade County, Floridathey don't know 
what that means.

Well, you need to have some way to help them with that.  And we also know that 
a very important part of any organized activity is the kind of incentives you 
build into the system.  As noted earlier, the essence of a high-performance 
system, whether it is a school or any other organization, is to improve 
productivity and learning.  What you really do to improve productivity and 
quality is to substitute positive incentives and standards for rules, 
regulations, and bureaucracies.

That is the theory of the organized activity, but it has to be informed by the 
people who are in the classroom, and the whole system has to understand more 
about how people learn.  It is useful to have a child development specialist as 
part of the team doing the work, as Jim Comer does in his schools, beginning 
first in New Haven, Connecticutand I commend Jim Comer's work to you.

Your point is the same one that Jim makes, namely, unless you have a theory of 
learning, the system won't work.  And what he found out is that very few 
teachers knew much about child behavior, because they didn't know the theory of 
it.

Teachers told him the worst thing you could tell a psychiatristhe is a 
psychiatristwhen he asked why these kids were misbehaving.  The teachers said 
some kids are just bad.  Well, psychiatrists don't believe that.  They believe 
kids do things for a reason.  Why aren't they learning?  And the teachers told 
him some kids can't learn.  Now, that is comfortable, if you are in a 
bureaucratic school system, isn't it?  Whose fault is it, if they don't learn?  
The kids.

Now, if you are a professional, whose fault is it if they don't learn?  Yours.  
It is your job to see that they learn.  You cannot see that they learn unless 
you know how they think, unless you understand their culture and how they see 
the world, which is an important part of learning, unless you can get on the 
same frequency with them.  All of that and more is a part of our theory of 
putting a school and the learning system together.

Yes, sir, in the back?

QUESTION:  [inaudible]

MR. MARSHALL:  I wish I could give you a lot of them, but I can't, and not that 
I haven't tried to find them.  The question was,  could I give examples of a 
lot of business and industry mobilizing themselves to receive students with 
higher-order thinking skills?  Many industry leaders are involved in the 
restructuring movement, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

I co-chaired the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, and we did 
detailed work in the United States and six other countriestwo in Asia and the 
rest in Europe.  The United States was unique.  We asked people the following 
question:  What is your strategy for competing in this global economy that we 
are in?

We knew that they only had two options, improved productivity or low wages.  
Five percent of the American companies said they were going for high 
productivity.  A great majority of the employers in every other country said 
they were going for high productivity.

Why?  If you are in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Singapore, or Japan, you 
can't use the low-wage strategy, because they don't want you if you can't pay a 
living wage.  Their theory is, why should we subsidize companies that cannot 
pay people enough to keep them alive, because if we do, then we subsidize 
inefficiency.  So they have high minimum wages, empower workers, and have 
well-trained, well-educated workforces.

The second question that we asked is:  What are the educational implications of 
your strategy? Do you perceive a skill shortage or do the schools turn out the 
kind of people you want?  Only 15 percent of the American respondents said no.  
A great majority of the respondents in every other country said no. And of that 
15 percent, when we probed, two-thirds of them said what we mean by schools not 
turning out the kind of people we want is people who will be disciplined, who 
will show up on time, not people who could impose order on chaotic information 
or people who could learn. They didn't even think about that.  And only 5 
percent said that they had a shortage of people with higher-order thinking 
skills.

Now, I think we have been deluded in this country into believing that business 
is out there demanding people with a lot of high skills.  But if you are 
following a low-wage strategy, you don't demand people with high skills.  And I 
think what we have to do is turn that around.

Of course, another thing that these employers said to us, which I think is part 
of the chicken and egg-type problem, is that they understand what you mean by 
high-order thinking skills and a high-performance system, but they can't find 
students coming out of our schools who can do that.

A German employer told us that he quit selling his most sophisticated machine 
tool technology in the United States because American workers could not even 
learn to use it in a reasonable time.

Motorola has moved one of its important chip-making operations to Japan.  They 
are not doing it in Austin, Texas, where I live and where they are operating, 
because they couldn't find people who could do the work.

When I first got back from the government, I found that Texas Instruments had 
hundreds of teachers on their payroll to teach elementary arithmetic to Texas 
high school graduates.  Now, you don't do high-performance work with people who 
have limited math and science achievement.  Most workers in Korea or Japan have 
math through calculus, have 6 years of math and science, and are at least 
equivalent to community college graduates in the United States. In Japan, 
Toyota takes high school graduates with those skills and gives them two 
additional years of schooling before they work full-time on the assembly line.

Well, that is the competition and that is the problem that we face.  So I think 
that we see the same group of business people who are out front on this issue, 
but they are the exceptions.  It is like the police official in the movie 
Casablanca who said, "Round up the usual suspects."  We hear a lot of talk by 
the same group of business people all the time, and I applaud them, but I 
notice it is the same group, and that if you really get serious in most places, 
there are not many of them, and I think that is part of our problem.

Yes, sir?

DR. WILLIAMS:  I am sorry, you are going to have to stop.  I regret that, but 
we have to have a break before the start of the sessions.  The Governor had to 
leave.  He sandwiched participation here between the trip in Washington and a 
very important effort in Colorado.  Ray will be here for a short while, and 
perhaps some of you can talk with him privately.

Thank you very much.







Wednesday Group Sessions

(Session Leaders and Descriptions)



GROUP 1:  The Role of National Standards in Systemic Reform


GROUP 2:  Innovative Instructional Materials for Systemic Reform


GROUP 3:  Challenging Conventional Wisdom:  What Research in Teaching and 
Learning Tells Us


GROUP 4:  Assessing Student Learning:  Leading and Ensuring Reform


GROUP 5:  Teachers:  Agents of Systemic Reform


GROUP 6:  Revitalizing Undergraduate Education Through Cultural Change


GROUP 7:  Innovative Learning and Teaching Communities:  Created and Sustained 
with Technology


GROUP 8:  Systemic Approaches for Increased Participation of Underrepresented 
Groups in the Nation's S&T Enterprise

GROUP 1:  THE ROLE OF NATIONAL STANDARDS IN SYSTEMIC REFORM
Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presider: Gerhard Salinger; Program Director
Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Science
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:
Shirley Hill
Professor of Mathematics
University of Missouri, Kansas City

James Leitzel
Department of Mathematics & Statistics
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Audrey Champagne
National Research Council
Washington, D.C.

Henry Heikinnen
National Research Council
Washington, D.C.



Description:   The mathematics community has been very successful in developing 
and gaining acceptance for the Standards for Curriculum Development and 
Evaluation for School Mathematics.  This was followed by the Professional 
Standards for Teaching Mathematics.  The science community is now engaged in a 
similar exercise.  The technology education community is considering developing 
standards as are other non-technical disciplines.  This session will try to 
answer the questions of "What are Standards?  Why have them?  What are 
standards for curriculum development?  What are standards for assessment and 
evaluation?  What are professional teaching standards?".  The assumption will 
be that while members of the audience have heard of the Standards, they are not 
really familiar with them.  The majority of the discussion will be on how 
Standards provide a basis for system reform, using, for example, the 
Mathematics Standards.  Progress on science standards will also be reported.


Themes:   _    The need for Standards in content, teaching, and assessment
_    The process of establishing Standards
_    The role of Standards in guiding system reform

Major
Questions:     _    What are Standards?
          _    Why have Standards?
_    How are Standards established and modified?
_    What is the role of Standards in system reform?

GROUP 2:  INNOVATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR SYSTEMIC REFORM
Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presiders:     Margaret Cozzens; Director
          Tony Kring; Visiting Program Director
Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Science
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:
Cornelia Tierney
Technical Education Research Center
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Diane Resek
Department of Mathematics
San Francisco State University

Karen Worth
Educational Development Center
Newton, Massachusetts
Phil Sadler
Harvard-Smithsonian Center
  for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Susan Goldman
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee

Sylvia A. Ware
American Chemical Society
Washington, D.C.



Description:   Participants will view a variety of instructional materials 
(print and multimedia), examine their content and integrated themes, and 
discuss how they can be implemented in schools.  Participants will also learn 
how to find quality materials and how their use will change the 
learning/teaching process.


Themes:   _    Nature of instructional materials requires alternative 
instructional strategies and vice versa. _    Preparing and supporting teachers 
in the use of innovative instructional materials. _    Expanding the definition 
of appropriate instructional materials.

Major
Questions:     _    What are the characteristics of contemporary science, 
mathematics, and technology instructional materials?
     _    What changes are needed in the educational system in order to use 
these innovative materials effectively to improve learning and teaching?

GROUP 3:  CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL WISDOM:  WHAT RESEARCH IN TEACHING AND 
LEARNING TELLS US Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presiders:     Ray Hannapel; Former Program Director
Barbara Lovitts; Program Director
Division of Research, Evaluation & Dissemination
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:
Patricia Campbell
Department of Curriculum
  and Instruction
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland

Elizabeth Fennema
Department of Curriculum
  and Instruction
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

Joseph Villani
Associate Superintendent
Montgomery Co. (MD) Public Schools
Beth Warren
Technical Education
  Research Center
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Robyn Mathias
Rolling Terr. Elementary School
Takoma Park, Maryland

Honi Bamberger
Columbia, Maryland

Mazie Jenkins
Madison, Wisconsin
  Public Schools



Description:   Research advances over the past ten years have yielded important 
new insights into children's mathematical and scientific thinking and into 
teaching processes that make children's thought the central focus of 
instruction.  Researchers and practitioners at the forefront of these efforts 
will provide examples of science and mathematics instruction at its best and 
its implications for systemic change. A panel of researchers and practitioners 
that represents all levels of the system will discuss one school system's 
efforts to bring about fundamental reform in mathematics education for 
low-income, minority children.


Themes:   _    The development of children's scientific and mathematical 
thinking. _    The development of teachers' understanding of children's 
scientific and mathematical thought processes. _    Instructional strategies 
and contextual factors that promote scientific and mathematical thinking. _    
How research findings from teaching and learning are informing systemic 
change.

Major
Questions:     _    What is research telling us about how children think about 
scientific and mathematical concepts?
          _    How does knowledge of children's thinking impact teachers' 
          pedagogy? _    What do we know about changing the classroom and 
          school environment in order to promote the growth of children's 
          scientific and mathematical thinking?

GROUP 4:  ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING:  LEADING AND ENSURING REFORM
Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presider: James Lightbourne; Program Director,
Division of Undergraduate Education
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:  Stephen P. Klein
          The RAND Corporation
Santa Monica, California

          Donald Koretz
          The RAND Corporation
Washington, D.C.

          Kathy Comfort
          California Department of Education
Sacramento, California


Description:   Participants will engage in assessment activities that 
illustrate the impact of alternative assessment procedures on instruction.  
They will learn about effective strategies for assisting teaching professionals 
in utilizing alternative assessments and will discuss the policy issues that 
arise with the implementation of assessments.


Themes:   _    Reforming instruction through use of assessment of student 
learning
          _    Ensuring quality, valid assessment of student learning with a 
          variety of approaches to assessment

Major
Questions:     _    What strategies related to assessment of learning promote 
systemic reform?  Can these strategies reduce the effect testing has had as a 
barrier to reform? _    What are the criteria for assessment that (a) provide 
teachers with information with which to improve curriculum and instruction, and 
(b) provide students with information with which to improve their own 
learning?
     _    What principles should guide appropriate allocation of time and money 
for low and high stakes assessments?


GROUP 5:  TEACHERS:  AGENTS OF SYSTEMIC REFORM
Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presider: Costello L. Brown; Program Director
Career Access Opportunities Program,
          Division of Human Resource Development
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:  Gail Burrill
Whitnall High School
Greenfield, Wisconsin

Doug Lapp
The Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C.

Ann Grady
Boston Public Schools
Boston, Massachusetts


Description:   Participants will learn how teachers are creating programs, 
networks, and forums for their own professional development from teachers who 
are Presidential Awardees in Mathematics and Science.  Participants will also 
study one successful model of professional development that combines content 
and pedagogy study with building of teams of teachers and administrators in 
pursuit of improved science instruction school-wide and district-wide.


Themes:   _    Changing the school culture to increase teacher professionalism.
_    Teachers as active participants in systemic change.
_    Characteristics of high quality professional development programs in 
mathematics and science.

Major
Questions:     _    How can teachers become agents of systemic change in their 
local schools as well as in regional, state and national levels? _    What 
responsibilities do each of the following have in assisting teachers to adapt 
to the changing role of teacher in the classroom:  teachers themselves; school 
administrators; policy makers; professional societies; government agencies; and 
higher education faculty? _    How can all of the nation's teachers access high 
quality professional development programs?


GROUP 6:  REVITALIZING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION THROUGH CULTURAL CHANGE
Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presider: Robert F. Watson; Director
Division of Undergraduate Education
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:
David Lomen
Department of Mathematics
University of Arizona, Tucson

Celestino Fernandez
Vice President, Undergraduate
  Academic Affairs
University of Arizona, Tucson

Angelica Stacy
Department of Chemistry
University of California, Berkeley

Jack Lohmann
Associate Dean of Engineering
Georgia Tech University

Debbie Yoklic
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Pima Community College
Tucson, Arizona

Laura Hoopes
Associate Dean of Faculty
Occidental College


Description:   This session will focus on how NSF has acted as a catalyst for 
systemic change in different but complementary ways.  Through a variety of 
grants to single institutions or through grants to multiple institutions 
through a single program, NSF projects are changing the culture within 
departments so that more institutional resources are flowing into educational 
activities and the reward structure is changing to reflect attention to 
education.  In addition, leading mathematicians and scientists and their 
professional and scientific organizations, engaged in focused NSF conferences 
and workshops, have begun to encourage a greater emphasis on integration of 
teaching and scholarship. The session, led by faculty and administrators who 
are involved in such efforts, will provide opportunities for participants to 
discuss these and other strategies for change.


Themes:   _    Integrating teaching and scholarship; creating institutional 
climates in which scholarly activities, including teaching and curriculum 
development, as well as research, are valued and rewarded.
          _    Preparing a scientifically literate society; mathematics and 
          science for all students. _    Increasing diversity in the work place 
          by encouraging the participation of qualified women, minorities, and 
          people with disabilities in science, engineering and mathematics.
          _    Preparing teachers of tomorrow:  mathematics, science, and 
          engineering.

Major
Questions:     _    What are the cultural changes needed to focus faculty and 
institutional attention, talent, and resources on improving teaching and 
curricula for all students at the collegiate level? _    What are strategies 
for achieving these needed cultural changes?

GROUP 7:  INNOVATIVE LEARNING AND TEACHING COMMUNITIES:  CREATED AND SUSTAINED 
WITH TECHNOLOGY Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presider: Beverly Hunter; Program Director
Division of Research, Evaluation & Dissemination
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:  Bob Tinker     Doris Cyrus
Chief Science Officer    Marshall Middle School
Technical Education Research Center     Beaumont, Texas
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Linda Maston
John Richards  E.M. Pease Middle School
Director, Co-NECT Design Team San Antonio, Texas
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts Connie Stout
Texas Education Agency
Austin, Texas


Description:   The forum will illustrate several approaches to research, 
development, proof-of-concept, and infrastructure-building with 
computer-and-communications technology.  Individuals representing three 
"networking testbeds" will address these issues and, with participants, seek 
answers to the challenging questions. The networking testbeds are consortia 
enabling students, teachers, scientists, educational researchers, and school 
administrators to collaborate on systemic reform using the National Research 
and Education Network (NREN) and related telecommunications technologies.


Themes:   _    Linkages and synergy among learners, teachers, experts, 
communities, and resources. _    Teacher participation in the processes of 
change and innovation. _    Interdependence of technology and the processes of 
scientific inquiry.

Major
Questions:     _    How can we employ computer-and-communications technologies 
to help ensure that diverse efforts at innovation and reform will advance the 
quality, relevance, and effectiveness of learning and teaching for all 
citizens? _    How can individuals and groups identify, link with, contribute 
to, and build on each others' work? _    Can a new national system of 
networking and information exchange emerge from ongoing diverse efforts?

GROUP 8:  SYSTEMIC APPROACHES FOR INCREASED PARTICIPATION OF UNDERREPRESENTED 
GROUPS IN THE NATION'S S&T ENTERPRISE Time:  11:00 a.m.  12:30 p.m. and 2:15 
p.m.  3:45 p.m.


Presiders:     Joseph G. Danek; Division Director
Roosevelt Calbert; Deputy Division Director
Division of Human Resource Development
NSF Education & Human Resources Directorate


Participants:
Steven Ritter
Dean of Engineering
University of Texas at El Paso

Lloyd Cooke
Consultant
White Plains, New York

Alfredo de los Santos
Maricopa County Community College
Tempe, Arizona
Jane Kahle
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio

J. Ray Bowen
Dean of Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington

Dorothy Strong
Director of Mathematics
Chicago City Schools
Chicago, Illinois



Description:   Recognized leaders in designing and implementing comprehensive 
initiatives for increasing access to, and attraction and entry of, women, 
minorities, and persons with disabilities in SEM careers will discuss their 
views on how to bring about coherent change within academic institutions and 
school districts/schools, including regions of the Nation with large minority 
populations.  Attendees will be actively engaged in the discussion.


Themes:   _    The Nation's K16 educational system in SEM has proven 
particularly inadequate for women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. _ 
   Small, disconnected equity-oriented approaches have not made a significant 
difference. _    Systemic approaches that alter institutional policies and 
practices and build effective linkages across educational levels are needed.

Major
Questions:     _    How do institutions and organizations start the process of 
assessing and refocusing their efforts to enhance underrepresented groups and 
establish and monitor quantitative outcome measures? _    What are the factors, 
characteristics, and programmatic elements that contribute to effective change? 
_    How does one extend beyond a given institution/organization to involve all 
key players in a region in the development and support of a comprehensive 
plan?









Beyond Goals and Standards:  NSF's Science,
Engineering, Mathematics and Technology
Education Agenda and The Economy

Luther S. Williams
Assistant Director, Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation


Introduction

I welcome this opportunity to meet with so many distinguished leaders of U.S. 
science, engineering, mathematics, and technology educationkindergarten 
through undergraduateand discuss elements of the National Science Foundation's 
agenda.

In the context of the new Administration, there is no better time for such a 
discussionlocal, state, and national funding and other constraints 
notwithstanding.  Why?  In an idea or knowledge driven era, education for all 
students is mandatory; the extant National Education Goals serve to ensure a 
public policy and resource allocation framework.  Math and science education is 
now inseparably coupled to the scientific and technical workforce, critical 
technologies, and the state of the national economy in a competitive global 
arena.  A vast world market opens a wealth of opportunities; it demands of us 
all, however, greater competence.

Consider the kinds of work which we have previously thought of as outside the 
realm of science, which now increasingly rely upon it.  Consider how:

computers have changed the nature of accounting;
statistics, environmental science, and risk analysis are transforming the 
legal profession; robotics have transformed the shop floor of our automobile 
industry; and laser technology has changed the job of a supermarket manager.

We are going to need people who understand science, are facile with 
mathematics, and are conversant with technology.

Moreover, and without debate, as our future workforce expands, its composition 
will be increasingly female and minority.  Clearly, in order to increase our 
technical workforce, we must draw new entrants from these underrepresented 
groups into science and engineering fields.

In a recent book, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich described the new composition 
of the workforce in America.  He distinguished between three kinds of workers: 
those who fabricate products; those who provide personal services; and those 
who define problems, solve problems, and broker the solutions.

America's competitive advantage lies in the third category.  The ability to 
develop this type of worker is the strength of our university system.  
Scientists and engineers are a vital part of that cadre.

Most importantly, the transformations needed to meet the challenges of 
leadership, economic progress, and social equity will be forged by the problem 
solvers.  Taking our rightful place among that cadre of problem solvers is 
vital if we are to assume a substantive role in making the key decisions that 
will shape this Nation.  The extent to which any group succeeds in 
participating in that process will determine its influence on American society 
and the world.

Goals and Objectives

Because of the demands of the new workplace, NSF has decided that resource 
acquisition or programming must affect the transition from programs, per se, to 
results.  We must accommodate this literal and profound change in the basic 
paradigm.  This accommodation acknowledges the shift from inadequate, 
insufficient, and perhaps even ill-defined objectives to an emphasis on 
documentable measures of progress toward the achievement of specific goals for 
programs of appropriate scope and scale.  In these efforts, we are responding 
to the challenges of the present and the future in a manner that entails a 
quite fundamentally different type of resourcefulness and productivity 
expectations.

Through our programming, we seek to disallow less purposeful, less connected, 
and "entrepreneurial at the margin" activities that serve to reinvent the 
status quo.  Rather, we seek to contribute to the development of contemporary, 
agile, and competitive workers (problem solvers) throughout the Kundergraduate 
continuumconsistent with demands for greater yields, turnaround times, 
development cycles, and appropriate costs in the marketplace.

NSF's strategy in achieving these objectives is to attack critical points in 
the education pipeline.

Base Programs

At the graduate level, we have doubled our graduate fellowship program from 500 
to 1,000 new students per year, with special consideration for women and 
minority students.  We have recently initiated a graduate research traineeship 
program with funds to support more than 200 students in the first year of the 
program.

At the undergraduate level, NSF is expanding funding of programs to develop new 
undergraduate curricula.  Specifically, we are developing new courses and 
curricula in engineering, mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, and 
computer science, and we are expanding research experiences for undergraduate 
programs.  We have doubled expenditures for instrumentation and laboratory 
improvement while expanding access for more two-and-four year schools.  We have 
made nearly 4,000 grants under our laboratory improvement program, and we are 
initiating new programs to enhance undergraduate teaching.

Although we continue to make efforts at the undergraduate and graduate levels, 
NSF is placing a major emphasis on precollege math and science education.  The 
NSF FY 1993 budget provided a 10% increase for education and human resources.  
Since 1990, the EHR budget has more than doubled (an increase from $220 million 
to $487 million).  The precollege sector programs' budget for FY 1993 is more 
than $300 million.  NSF funds precollege programs in support of national reform 
efforts in math and science curricula, assessment techniques, and science 
standards; and in support of materials development.

Precollege Education Development

In precollege math and science programs, NSF is involved in developing a 
national consensus on what students should know at each of the elementary, 
middle, and high school levels. Through our materials development program, NSF 
is actively engaged in the support of innovative, engaging curriculum materials 
development and dissemination efforts.  (We realize the importance of 
disseminating the results of successful projects so that adaptation of 
materials and use of human resources developed by NSF projects are possible.  
Therefore, each funded project in NSF's education program area is required to 
include a dissemination plan as well as explicit evaluation components.)

Recent emphasis has been given to elementary science and middle school science 
and mathematics, as well as high school science and math curricula.  K12 
curricular development follows a continuum of elementary science education, 
middle school science and mathematics, and, lastly, high school science and 
mathematics.

NSF also supports precollege programs for teacher preparation and enhancement 
of teacher training.  In-service teacher enhancement programs now serve about 
24,000 teachers annually, and teacher preparation focuses on institutional 
collaboratives.

NSF is expanding support for assessments of student performance linked to 
curricular revisions and teacher enhancements.  We want to do away with simple 
multiple choice tests and develop more effective assessments of student 
performance while engaged in scientific and mathematical activities.

Another key element of NSF's precollege agenda is to encourage and support 
local, state, and federal roles in precollege math and science education for 
underrepresented minorities.  For example, NSF has established 12 Comprehensive 
Regional Career Access Centers in metropolitan areas to promote increased 
integration of minorities into precollege level math and science education 
programs.  Currently, more than 30,000 minority, precollege students are served 
by these programs.  These Centers work through university, school system, and 
private sector cooperation to reach and teach minority students at the 
elementary and secondary levels and nurture their learning success.

NSF's future agenda for precollege math and science education includes support 
for:

increasing the use of computers and other advanced educational technologies; 
and

programs in research addressing teaching and learning:  how students learn 
complex concepts in science and mathematics, how they apply these concepts 
effectively in real problem-solving situations, and how teacher cognitionthat 
is, a teacher's knowledge and beliefs about the nature of the subject and the 
learnerrelates to effective classroom instruction.

Alliance For Minority Participation (AMP)

The Foundation's recognition of the need for fundamental change in education 
and human resources and the attendant workforce requirements is evidenced by 
the undergraduate programs that address the underrepresentation of minorities 
in science and engineering.

NSF support for each regional alliance is up to $1 million per year for at 
least five years and supports the design and implementation of innovative 
strategies at the precollege and undergraduate levels.  Funded programs are 
expected to meet the following goals:

effectively attract and retain minority students in science and engineering 
undergraduate majors; and

ultimately, increase the number of minority science and engineering bachelor 
degree recipients to a level several-fold greater than the currently accepted 
low rate.

Currently, there are 11 such AMP programs, and more than 10,000 students 
participate in these efforts.

The Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program (SSI)

This program is designed to immediately broaden the impact, accelerate the 
pace, and increase the effectiveness of improvements in science, mathematics, 
engineering, and technology education at precollege and undergraduate levels 
through comprehensive systemic changes in the education systems of the states.

The NSF support for a project is for five years, and each funded project 
involves a partnership of executive, legislative, educational, business, and 
public leadership and must address objectives that include:

adoption of more effective science and mathematics curricula;
use of better instructional material and development of new educational 
technologies;
appropriate assessment procedures;
higher student achievement in science and mathematics and increased interest 
in related careers; improvement of science literacy and citizen understanding 
of science-related issues; and adoption of new methods and standards for the 
preparation and continued development of teachers.

Ten states received awards in FY 1991:  Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, 
Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Montana, South Dakota, and Louisiana.  
Statewide systemic initiative awardees for FY 1992 included California, 
Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, 
Texas, Vermont, and Virginia.  Five additional awards will be made this fiscal 
year (FY 1993).

Urban Systemic Initiative (USI)

USI will begin with a solicitation for proposals from a limited number of 
cities for catalytic support of integrated, systemic changes in their education 
systems that will broaden the impact, accelerate the pace, and increase the 
effectiveness of improvements already underway in science, mathematics, and 
technology education, and initiate additional changes necessary for lasting 
comprehensive reform.

Partnerships

In addition to sponsoring its own programs, NSF works with other federal 
agencies in an effort to accomplish its objectives and overcome the 
intellectual, organizational, and financial economies most agencies face.  For 
example, the recently executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
U.S. Department of Education and NSF is representative of such a partnership in 
math and science education:  it exists in full acknowledgement of shared 
vision, goals, investments, roles, and benefits.  Accountability, intellectual 
programmatic integration, and excellence are obvious expectations of 
collaborative actions taken under the MOU.  A comparable set of expectations 
attends the partnership between NSF and the National Institutes of Health in 
the joint support of precollege and undergraduate programs for minorities.

NSF also participates as one of 16 federal agencies in the Federal Coordinating 
Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), Committee on 
Education and Human Resources (CEHR).  The FCCSET/CEHR is a substantial effort 
involving interagency collaborative ventures on program priorities, attendant 
budget integration processes, and the formulation of a five-year strategic plan 
with specific milestones against which to measure the progress of the federal 
sector investment in Kundergraduate science, engineering, mathematics, and 
technology education.

Plan for the Future

In light of our current efforts, NSF has developed the following framework as a 
plan for the future.  The fundamental indices on which this plan is based are:

Future programs will be designed to accommodate fully the extant demands of 
the science and technology workforce (at all levels of employment) and thereby 
ensure optimal connectivity between the educational and economic systems.

Without exception, all K12 (precollege) mathematics and science education 
programs will be grounded in the fundamental notion that all minority students 
be afforded resource-adequate, intellectually challenging, and comprehensive 
mathematics and science curricula taught by a highly competent cadre of 
elementary and secondary teachers.

National standards for program outcomes should serve to promote rapid and 
orderly dissemination of program models, thereby accelerating replication 
without the financial inefficiencies caused by redundant program design and 
development activities.

All programs will, by design and operation, acknowledge the urgency and the 
innovative action(s) required to accelerate progress toward the achievement of 
specific goals.

An idea for an NSF Institute for Science Education is being considered to 
provide a "think tank" environment for addressing issues in SME, examining 
education priorities that are of importance to the EHR, and identifying needed 
areas of basic and applied research in SME education.

In the context of milestones, we will focus on the U.S. scientific workforce, 
priorities being advanced technicians and K12 teachers.

Scientific and Advanced Technology Workforce

By giving workers the skills to function in high technology jobs, we ensure not 
only their personal competitiveness in the workplace but that of the Nation as 
well.  The needs of this workforce include both the training of future workers 
and the continuing education and retraining of the existing workforce.

The area of the educational pipeline central to training of the technical 
workforce encompasses approximately grades 10 through 14.  The development of 
high-quality educational experiences, cutting across the last two years of high 
school and the lower division college level, is necessary both to produce a 
cadre of skilled technicians for industry and to prepare those students seeking 
more advanced technical training.  The principal sites for this activity are 
the Nation's two-year colleges, with special attention paid to promoting 
communication between these institutions and the workplace, secondary schools, 
and four-year colleges and universities.

The Foundation proposes a major effort in this area that has two principal 
thrusts: (1) expansion of existing program activities, e.g., course, 
curriculum, and materials development (including laboratory experience) and 
faculty and teacher enhancement; and (2) the creation of new initiatives.

These new comprehensive projects will allow a broad strengthening of two-year 
colleges in cooperation with four-year colleges and universities.  National and 
regional centers for lower-division and technical education will be 
established.  Such Centers will produce and disseminate instructional products 
and strategies.  Centers may have foci such as advanced technology, lower 
division science education, opportunities for women (including re-entry), 
minorities, and the physically disabled, and articulation with schools, other 
segments of higher education, or both.

The milestones under consideration for the scientific and advanced technology 
workforce are:

by the end of 1995, 10 National Centers for advanced technician training.

by the end of 1995, comprehensive projects to strengthen two-year college 
capability in science, mathematics, and technology operating in the majority of 
states.

by the year 2000, a significant increase in the active projects in the 
Nation's two-year colleges at a level comparable to that of other types of 
institutions.  These projects will affect both the quality and quantity of the 
skilled workforce.

K12 Teacher Workforce

The Foundation increases the content and pedagogical skills of in-service 
teachers through intensive summer educational experiences with academic year 
follow-up and development of leader teachers who become agents of reform in a 
variety of settings that range from schools to districts and broader regions.  
These teachers are critical to the implementation of the new curricula produced 
in response to the newly developing national standards.  These enhancement 
activities are critical to meet the needs of those students who will enter the 
skilled workforce.

NSF proposes to explore the concept of Teacher Enhancement Centers, staffed 
with experts, that will provide technical assistance to client school systems.  
Such Centers, operated under cooperative agreements, will be designed to 
develop teacher training strategies specifically suited to the school systems' 
needs.  Through these Centers, NSF would also immeasurably improve its ability 
to service areas (e.g., rural and urban) that do not directly benefit from 
other Foundation systemic reform programs.

Investment in the future teacher corps is essential to break out of our current 
situation of compensating for teachers who are poorly prepared and to ensure a 
high-quality teacher corps in the long term.  The Foundation proposes to 
establish major regional collaboratives for systemic reform in teacher 
preparation that link schools of education, academic departments, and school 
systems.

The milestones under consideration for the K12 teacher workforce are:

Under the FCCSET/CEHR strategy, NSF will strive to provide support and 
leadership to ensure that, by the year 2000, 75 percent of all K12 teachers 
will have had appropriate disciplinary and pedagogical experiences.

By the year 2000, NSF seeks to expand the best teacher enhancement projects so 
that one-half of the existing workforce will have benefitted from teacher

enhancement activities and will have become agents for systemic change and 
curriculum implementation.

NSF intends to establish one or more Teacher Enhancement Centers that will 
provide intellectual and practical guidance for those who want to initiate 
major teacher enhancement projects.

By 1997, NSF hopes to have 25 major regional Teacher Preparation Consortia in 
place.

By the year 2000, NSF intends that one-half of all new K12 teachers of 
science and mathematics will have benefitted from NSF teacher preparation 
activities.

Diversity in the Workforce

Math and science education for minorities is increasingly important to give 
them the skill necessary to become part of the technical workforce.  It is 
therefore important to establish educational milestones for these groups.  
Specific milestones include:

By the year 2000, racial and ethnic differentials in student achievement in 
elementary science and middle and high school science and mathematics will be 
reduced by one-half.

By the year 2000, the elementary and secondary level instructional workforce 
will show a three-fold increase in the number of minority science and 
mathematics teachers.

By the year 2000, the number of minority students enrolled/interested in 
science and engineering in two-year institutions that successfully transfer to 
four (4) year institutions will increase four-fold; the number of undergraduate 
degrees awarded annually to minorities in science and engineering will increase 
to 50,000.

Conclusion

Achievement of the aforementioned goals will require a substantial increase in 
the financial and human resources devoted to the enterprise.  It will also 
require appropriate and effective partnerships for engaging the education 
establishment and various other sectors (e.g., communities, schools, industry, 
government, foundations, parents, and professional organizations).

It is vital to recall that major gains being made in local communities or 
individual projects are important; however, they do not equal a national 
enterprise.  What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the enterprise 
becomes nationwide.  If we can effectively conjoin individual experiences, 
knowledge bases, programs, and resources, the Nation will be afforded a 
reasonable opportunity to address a complex problem.  A lack of resolution to 
this problem will serve to further decrease the Nation's wealth and thereby 
constrain the quality of national life for all citizens.

We invite you to participate in this multifaceted venture as agents of systemic 
reform, thereby contributing to the national wealth and quality of life.







Workshop Descriptions


Workshop 1:    Regional Collaborative Ventures
4:00  5:00 p.m.

Louis Dale, University of Alabama, Birmingham
Gary Keller, Arizona State University
Steven Ritter, University of Texas at El Paso
Ernesto Ramirez, Maricopa County Community College District

Learn about partnerships and collaborative ventures among regionally affiliated 
organizations that can have exponential effects on the education and success of 
minority students and how barriers to success can be alleviated or removed.

Workshop 2:    New Approaches, New Frontiers:  Women in Science and Technology
5:00  6:00 p.m.

Patricia Campbell, Campbell-Kibler Associates
Jane Daniels, Purdue University
Ellen Wahl, Girls Inc.
Karen Wetterhahn, Dartmouth College

Learn about current and new strategies for recruitment and retention of women 
in science and technology, focusing on the future of "intervention" projects 
and their structure and incorporation into an institution's infrastructure.

Workshop 3:    Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Science and 
Technology Education and Career Development 6:00  7:00 p.m.

Ray Bowen, University of Washington
George Kerscher, Recording for the Blind, Inc.
Lawrence Scadden, National Science Foundation
Judith Tamburlin, SUNY  Buffalo

Learn how to remove physical and attitudinal barriers to science and 
mathematics education so that the talents of persons with disabilities are no 
longer lost to the scientific community.

Workshop 4:    Alternative Performance Assessment Systems
4:00  5:30 p.m.

Stephen Klein & Donald Koretz, The RAND Corporation
Kathy Comfort, California Assessment Program

Learn principles for developing hands-on science assessment tasks and 
techniques for administering and scoring them for precollege students.


Workshop 5:    Assessment in Service of Students
5:30  7:00 p.m.

Susan Agruso, New York State Department of Education

Experience alternative assessments in science and learn first hand of the 
policy issues related to their design and administration at state and local 
levels. Precollege level.

Workshop 6:    Interactive Mathematics Project
4:00  5:30 p.m.

Diane Resek & Teresa Hernandez-Heinz, San Francisco State University

In a cooperative learning environment, delve into an activity illustrative of 
the problem-based secondary mathematics curriculum based on families of 
problems developed at the IMP project based at San Francisco State University.

Workshop 7:    Project STAR
5:30  7:00 p.m.

Phil Sadler, Harvard  Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Using mathematics and science, participants will solve problems in astronomy 
that illustrate that science and mathematics are ways of making sense of the 
world.  Problems and materials are designed for secondary students.

Workshop 8:    Insights
5:30  7:00 p.m.

Karen Worth, Educational Development Center

Touch for yourself the hands-on elementary science materials designed to 
improve urban students' abilities to think critically, use language, and solve 
problems using the natural world as an experimental base.

Workshop 9:    MathFinder
4:00  5:00 p.m.

Mark Driscoll, Educational Development Center

Learn how to access a vast array of existing mathematics materials referenced 
to the NCTM mathematics curriculum standards (K12) via a CD-ROM.

Workshop 10:   National Science Education Standards
5:00  6:00 p.m. and repeated from 6:00  7:00 p.m.

Kenneth Hoffman & Elizabeth Stage, National Research Council

Let your voice be heard! Critique the science standards emerging from the 
working groups of the National Committee on Science Education Standards

and Assessment.  Responses will be forwarded to the working groups for their 
consideration in the next stage of development.

Workshop 11:   Interactive Mathematics
4:00  5:00 p.m.

David Lomen, University of Arizona
Deborah Yoklic, Pima Community College

Experience the "Battle of Trafalgar" and Pico Fermi Bagels and be shocked by 
"Startling Statements" as you learn that mathematics at the middle school, 
secondary school, and first-year college is not just a pencil and paper 
activity.

Workshop 12:   AIDS, Interest Rates and Pollution
5:00  6:00 p.m.

Deborah Hughes Hallett, Harvard University
David Smith, Duke University

Calculus as you never dreamed  interesting, relevant, realistic, engaging, and 
challenging questions/problems lead students into developing their knowledge of 
calculus.  Calculators and computers permitted.

Workshop 13:   Administrators Lead Cultural Change
4:00  5:00 p.m.

Eleanor Baum, The Cooper Union
Sadie Bragg, Borough of Manhattan Community College
Celestino Fernandez, University of Arizona
Laura Hoopes, Occidental College
Jack Lohmann, Georgia Tech University
George Peterson, National Science Foundation

Revitalization of undergraduate education requires a campus culture that values 
teaching and curriculum development as well as research.  Come learn how 
administrators can create environments in which faculty can focus on improving 
teaching and learning at the undergraduate level.

Workshop 14:   No More Lectures!
6:00  7:00 p.m.

Priscilla Laws, Dickinson College
David Sokoloff, University of Oregon
Ron Thornton, Tufts University

Physics with use of a specially designed computer-based laboratory system 
allows students to learn physics with real and easily displayed data.

Workshop 15:   Changing School Perspectives
4:00  5:00 p.m.

James Ellis, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study

Discover how teacher development centers and a collaborative of science 
educators can break barriers to secondary school science reform.

Workshop 16:   Putting More Atmosphere in Your Classroom
5:00  6:00 p.m.

Robert Weinbeck, Joann Mulvany, Fay McCollum & Steve Carlson
American Meteorological Society

Find out how a national network of master teachers and atmospheric education 
resource agents has captured student interest in science with atmospheric 
studies.

Workshop 17:   Creating Math-rich Worlds in Schools
6:00  7:00 p.m.

Ann Grady, Boston Public Schools

Discover how one school district is empowering its K8 teachers to create 
math-rich worlds for their students with a lead teacher program based on the 
NCTM standards.

Workshop 18:   Tracing the Development of Children's Thinking About Proof
4:00  5:30 p.m.

Robert Davis & Carolyn Maher, Rutgers University

A Rutgers University project has documented and analyzed the different methods 
of proof (proof by cases, indirect proof, and mathematical induction) used by 
children.

Workshop 19:   Modeling Instruction in High School Physics
5:00  6:00 p.m.

David Hestenes, Arizona State University

An Arizona State University study shows that student-centered instructional 
activities that are laboratory based, computer assisted, and coupled with an 
emphasis on models and modeling give high school physics a coherence that is 
lacking in other approaches.

Workshop 20:   Science and Technology for Children
5:30  7:00 p.m.

Doug Lapp, Sally Shuler, and Joyce Weiskopf
National Science Resources Center

Experience hands-on science instructional materials developed by the National 
Science Resources Center and learn about the NSRC's Elementary Science 
Leadership Institutes for leadership teams from school districts across the 
Nation.






Exhibits and Demonstrations


4:00 p.m.  7:00 p.m.    EXHIBIT HALL


Exhibit 1: The State Systemic Initiatives (SSI) Program of NSF

Thomas Ubois

Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) is the major effort by the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) to encourage improvements in science, mathematics, 
engineering, and technology education through comprehensive systemic changes in 
the education systems of the states.  Profiles of the twenty-one initiatives 
will be available.

Exhibit 2:  Comprehensive Regional Centers for Minorities (CRCM)

Ernesto Ramirez     Steven Ritter
Eric Hamilton  Patrick Weasel Head

Materials and information on designing and developing systemic approaches to 
increase access and performance of minority students in science, engineering, 
and mathematics at the precollege level will be provided by four CRCM projects 
 Maricopa County Community College District, University of Texas at El Paso, 
Loyola University of Chicago, and Montana State University.

Exhibit 3:  Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP)

Louis Dale     Gary Keller

Materials and information on designing and developing systemic approaches to 
increase the access and performance of minority students in science, 
engineering, and mathematics at the undergraduate level will be provided by two 
AMP projects  University of Alabama, Birmingham and Arizona State University.

Exhibit 4:  TERC Projects in Mathematics and Science

Ricardo Nemirovsky  Beth Warren

Featured at this exhibit by the Technical Education Research Center (TERC) are 
results of studies of "sense-making" in biology for language minority 
classrooms and studies of how elementary, high school, and college students 
develop intuitive concepts about calculus.

Exhibit 5: Cognitively Guided Instruction and the Primary School

Elizabeth Fennema   Mazie Jenkins

A University of Wisconsin, Madison project focused on how inservice and 
preservice teachers use knowledge about children's mathematical thinking in 
making instructional decisions, and how teachers' cognitions influence their 
instruction and children's learning.

Exhibit 6: PROJECT IMPACT:  Increasing the Mathematical Power of All Children 
and Teachers

Patricia Campbell

In this University of Maryland project, a model for primary mathematics 
instruction (K3) to enhance student understanding and support teacher change 
in predominantly minority public schools has been developed and evaluated.

Exhibit 7 and Demonstration:  TENET:  A Communications Infrastructure for 
Reform

Connie Stout

The Texas Education Network (TENET) has linked practitioners within school 
campuses, school districts, and across institutional boundaries in support of 
systemic reform of mathematics and science education.

Exhibit 8 and Demonstration:  Catalysts for Project Centered Learning

Robert Tinker

At TERC, a new paradigm for learning and teaching is emerging through projects 
such as NGS Kids Network supported by a developing telecomputing 
infrastructure.

Exhibit 9 and Demonstration:  Creating Teacher Communities

John Richards

With "Explorer Science Series," a powerful simulation system enabling teachers 
and students to author their own experiments, and "Explorer," "mail-enabled" 
software permitting easy classroom-to-classroom sharing, participants will 
connect via Internet and confer with teachers in San Diego and Boston.

Exhibit 10:  Brain Teasers

Beth Porter

A collection of problems and challenges developed by the Oregon Museum of 
Science and Industry can be used in informal science exhibits as well as in 
classrooms to stimulate interest and develop problem solving skills in 
mathematics and science.

Exhibit 11:  MathStart

Phyllis Katz

On exhibit will be kits of inexpensive manipulative materials designed to 
engage very young children in activities based upon mathematics.  These kits 
are used in preschool programs, including Head Start.

Exhibit 12:  ChemCom

Rebecca Simmons

Materials centered on chemistry-related technological issues confronting 
society capture student interest in the study of chemistry.  Materials are part 
of ChemCom, the one-year secondary introductory chemistry course.

Exhibit 13:  Integrated Activities for Technology, Mathematics, and Science

Jim LaPorte

Based on "design under constraint" principles and developed at Virginia Tech, 
these materials permit middle school students to create their own solutions to 
problems involving science, mathematics, and technology.

Exhibit 14 and Demonstration:  Jasper Series

Susan Goldman

Video-based materials developed at Vanderbilt University feature Jasper 
Woodbury whose life-like problem situations give students opportunities to 
develop problem formulation as well as problem-solving skills in mathematics.

Exhibit 15 and Demonstration:  Used Numbers

Cornelia Tierney

Used Numbers, activities developed by TERC, engage elementary school students 
in data analysis that include counting, comparing, classifying, looking for 
patterns, finding central tendencies and variation, and predicting trends.

Exhibit 16 and Demonstration:  Active Learning in Mathematics:  Calculus Reform

Deborah Hughes Hallett   David Smith

This will be a complete display of texts, lab manuals, instructor's manual, and 
student reports from the Harvard University and Duke University calculus reform 
projects.  In addition, there will be a computer presentation of the project's 
Toolbook.

Exhibit 17 and Demonstration:  Active Learning In Introductory Physics

Priscilla Laws David Sokoloff Ronald Thornton

View four 20-minute demonstrations of active learning in physics:  (1) 
analyzing sport and dance movement, 4:00 p.m.; (2) using physics to understand 
karate feats, 4:30 p.m.; (3) using a motion detector to plot graphs with a 
computer as you move, 5:00 p.m.; and (4) exploring the sounds around you, 5:30 
p.m.

Exhibit 18 and Demonstration:  Making the Invisible Visible

Fred Goldberg       Kathleen Fisher

In physics and biology courses for prospective elementary teachers at San Diego 
State University, students construct explicit connections between everyday and 
laboratory experiences and scientific terminology and symbolic representations. 
 Computer and computer-videodisc programs, including SemNet, used in these 
courses will be demonstrated.  Physics demonstrations are at 4:15 p.m. and 5:15 
p.m.  Biology demonstrations are at 4:45 p.m., 5:45 p.m., and 6:45 p.m.

Exhibit 19:  Innovative Freshman Chemistry

Angelica Stacy

In a course that is centered on environmental issues and based on a discovery 
approach, students at Berkeley do site-based sampling, analyze samples with 
modern instrumentation, and analyze data with computer-assisted programs to 
solve problems and answer questions.

Exhibit 20:  National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

James Clayton                           Eileen Erickson

Peruse the NCTM standards, new standards-based instructional materials for 
students and teachers, and publications designed for those involved in the 
preservice and inservice education of teachers of mathematics.

Exhibit 21:  International Technology Education Association

Kendall Starkweather                         Thomas Hughes

This display will feature the ideas of technology education and their links to 
contemporary mathematics and science education.








Thursday Morning Plenary Session
"Barriers and Ways Past Them"

[What follows is an edited selection taken from the transcript
of the panel presentation on Thursday morning.]


MS. BARRETT:  Good morning.  I want to thank you very much for the time and the 
investment and the effort that you have put into our conference.  We realize 
that we have worked hard and that you, too, have worked hard.  You've invested 
your own resources, your institution's resources, and your valuable time.  This 
morning we want to give you an opportunity to tell us what the appropriate next 
steps in education reform should be.

The title of our conference, Beyond Standards and Goals:  Excellence in Science 
Education K16, describes our subject.  A simpler statement might be:  "Where 
do we go from here?"  The statement I like best, and which I think states the 
problem in its fullest context, is:  "How do we find a dynamic model for 
education in a rapidly changing world?"

Let us consider the educational system as a large airplane, and all the players 
in the educational system are on board.  On the airplane is a group of 
children.  They are the children already in the schools.  On the airplane are 
the teachers.  They are the teachers already in the schools.  On the airplane 
are the educational leadersthose of you sitting in this room.  (We're not 
talking about how to get someone else to solve problems.)  There are also 
individuals from business, industry, nonprofit organizations, and profit 
organizations.  We are all on the plane together, and we're on the move from 
1993 to the year 2000.

Two points are important.  One is the cast of characters has been defined.  The 
other is that the airplane is in flight.  We will have to create a new 
structure that is more powerful, more effective, and leads to educational 
excellence while we're in the air and moving ahead.

With our panel discussion this morning we will launch the morning session, and 
in the small groups that follow you will have the opportunity to address the 
question of what comes next. On our opening panel are four leaders who will 
reflect on their experiences.  First, each will talk about the barriers that 
they have seen in bringing about real systemic change.  Then each will tell us 
how they have begun to make the changes needed to remove these barriers.

While you are listening to the panel, think not so much about the specifics of 
the panelbut don't ignore thembut think about the issues, the kinds of 
barriers and the kind of strategy. In particular, consider whether there is an 
approach or a technique for solution of the particular problem that is a 
strategy that could be utilized in your case.

Let me briefly introduce the panel.  Eve Bither is head of the Programs for the 
Improvement of Practice at the Office of Educational Research and Improvement 
(OERI) at the Department of Education.  She formerly served as Commissioner of 
Education for the State of Maine.  She began her career as a high school 
physics teacher.

Ted Sizer is the Chair of the Coalition of Essential Schools.  He is the author 
of two books on Horace's school.  He is a professor at Brown University, and he 
was headmaster at Phillips Andover.


Dorothy Strong is the manager of Mathematics Support for the Chicago Public 
Schools.  She is the co-principal investigator of one of the NSF/CRCM centers 
in Chicago.  She has been on the board of NCTM and President of NCSM and has 
been a member of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board.

Ken Hoffman is the Associate Executive Officer for Education of the National 
Research Council. He is a mathematician and has been a college professor and 
head of the Mathematics Department at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

First, Eve Bither.

MS. BITHER:  All of us here ought to feel really proud of the fact that 
mathematics and science is leading the way toward systemic reform.  Think about 
systemic reform, including such things as national goals, standards, curriculum 
frameworks that support the standards, teacher preparation programs that are 
being planned to support the curriculum frameworks, and then student 
assessments.

There is reason to be positive about everything that is happening.  I want to 
share with you a publication that came out a little more than a year ago which 
many of us have been thinking about and talking about ever since.  It's called 
Crosstalk:  The Public, the Experts, and Competitiveness.  It was published by 
the Public Agenda Foundation and by the Business and Higher Education Forum.

It talks about the insights that this group gained through two years of public 
opinion research and a great number of intensive focus groups in talking to the 
public about competitiveness, education, and training connections.

This group found that there are major gaps in what the public understands about 
the inter-relatedness of competitiveness and education and training; that the 
public's mind and its assessment of these issues is startlingly different from 
that of who they call leaders and experts, people like us in this room.

Let me give you a few examples of what they found.

They found, for instance, that the public does not consider the trade gap as 
especially alarming. And if no international crisis is at hand, Americans do 
not really believe that the trade deficit is a particular threat to them.  They 
immediately blame Japan.  They blame foreign investment in the United States.  
Some blame the fact that we give foreign aid.  All condemn cheap foreign labor. 
 And they confirm the need for all of us to buy American.

If the public thinks about problems in the workforce, they focus on what the 
study calls the moral issues and the moral aspects of the issue.  They believe, 
for instance, that attitudes and motivation rather than skills and higher 
knowledge are what is really important and at the core of the whole problem.  
They talk about the wrongness of the permissiveness and the lack of standards 
in our schools, the lack of values, as the most important elements needed to 
regain our competitiveness.

If leaders like us focus on programs and talk about new services needed for 
better skills, the message often misses the mark.  When leaders like us say 
that more and better programs and services are needed (as we have said here and 
as I am sure all of us believe), along with better teacher preparation 
programs, more pay for teachers, professionalism for teachers, the need for 
more scientists and engineers, and better curricula in our schools, the public, 
according to the study, turns us out. Instead, one of the focus group 
participants said:  If you have the will, you can get the skills. The will 
comes before the skills.

They also believe that if the will is present, our situation can be turned 
around very quickly, and that's also very different from what all of us know to 
be the truth about the need for change to expand over time.

There also exists a great gap between the public's belief that what is really 
needed are basic skills and that most of the attention needs to be placed on 
K12 education and our recognition that the skills needed for the 21st century 
are drastically different from the basic skills of the last 10 or 15 yearsall 
the things that Ray Marshall talked about yesterday.

In fact, one of the respondent groups objected very strongly to the use of 
calculators in mathematics classrooms.  And as all of us know, this is one of 
the hottest and most controversial recommendations of the NCTM standards.

They also found that the respondents saw very little connection between 
advanced skill training for the workforce that is now at work, and saw very 
little need for advanced training and increased support for undergraduate and 
graduate education.  And I think I'll stop here.

MS. BARRETT:  Let's move to Dorothy Strong.

MS. STRONG:  Thank you.

I'm going to start off by saying, Eve, that was very nice of you to start with 
the positive, and I've survived the Chicago holocaust dealing with the 
positive.  But I do still know that the negatives are there, and I think that 
we have to really look at them with a real eye.

For example, you mentioned the standards, but those standards are in our hands 
and in the hands of the people here.  But the people who really need those 
standards, do they have them? And I think that is a question that we've got to 
address; that it's nice to have things written. Everybody in this room owns a 
Bible, but you have to ask the question:  How many read it? And until we get 
the standards at the point where they are really something that people really 
are able to deal with, we have a problem.   Those standards are wonderful, but 
the question is: How do we get them out?

Then the other thing, coming from a public school position, the question that 
we have to ask of ourselves is:  Do we have a master plan?  If someone came to 
us and said you can have all the money you want to do what you want to do, do 
we know what we would want to do, or would we have to go and get a cup of 
coffee?  And I'm afraid that that's one of the things that we most certainly 
need to address.

Then another thing that I think needs to be addressed is that the instruction 
that is provided and the students that we try to teach are disjoint sets, 
because the instruction too often does not take into consideration the student 
that is to be taught.  We need to address that.  That needs to be a part of our 
master plan.

Then one of the other interesting thingsyou talked about the cooperation 
between the public and us.  I think a bigger cooperation problem is the 
cooperation between us, and that we too often see each other as the enemy.  And 
we are afraid with knowing that collectively we have far more to offer than we 
have individually.  So I most certainly think that that's a problem.


And one of the biggest ones that I see is expectations.  We say all children 
can learn, but do we really mean it?  Because if we mean it, then we're going 
to use all of the skills in this room to develop programs that make that 
happen.  But if we're satisfied to teach the students in the 50th to 90th 
percentile, since we put the others in the 10th to the 50th percentile, then we 
have decided that those students cannot learn.  And until we address that, then 
we're going to have a problem.

And beyond all things, I'll look at the problem that I address:  the politics.  
That is extremely important in urban school districts.  As we sit here, in the 
last two weeks two of the three largest school districts in this country just 
dismissed superintendents, which means that those school districts are left 
without leaders.  And we know that the next one that they bring in will last, 
at the most, three years.  We cannot wait to get the political act together, 
because I guess they figure if I cannot last but four years, you might as well 
not last but three.

But we've got to really help them to decide that our agenda has to be their 
agenda, or it's not going to work.  These are the kinds of things that I think 
that we need to address, and these are issues that I think stand between what 
we are doing and what we want to do.

I'll have more to say.

MR. SIZER:  Let me mention two barriers.  We have not learned well enough from 
our experience in the 1960's.  Some of you in this roomI certainly was 
involved in my situation at ESI and EDC with Gerald Zacharias and Gerry Bruner 
and that group at Harvard with Project Physics, with Gerry Holton, Jim 
Rutherford, Fletcher Watson, with Edma Weiss and SMSG.  And there isn't an 
awful lot left.  We should attend to the reasons for that, as scholars such as 
Seymour Sarasin at Yale has done.

Sarasin's work, as you know, points out that education is a synergistic system; 
schools are synergistic systems.  Everything important affects everything else. 
 And if you say we're just going to worry about the curriculum and the rest 
will kind of follow from that, we will make an awful mistake.  And the extent 
to which the current reform movement ignores the lessons of the 1960's and 
ignores the synergy involved is the extent to which there is a profound 
barrier.

Today's curriculum reform is called assessment, and we're talking a lot about 
assessment.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Some of the work in 
assessment is first-class, just as PSSA physics, the Project Physics physics, 
SMSG and so forth, was enormously interesting.

But the extent to which we do not understand the interactions, as Dorothy was 
talking about, is the extent to which once again we will fail.  So one barrier 
is we don't read history and attend to it.

The second barrier is we are still, alas, inattentive to the realities of how 
we keep school.  And in my experience, all at the high school level, we are 
inattentive to the realities of the high school.  How many high school kids can 
you teach at once and still know each child well enough to know how that 
child's mind works?  If you don't know how his or her mind works, you cannot 
teach effectively.

The answer is not 120 or 150 or 175, which are routine in American schools.  
Batch processing is the system of education in the schools.  And you can have 
the most wonderful standards and the most wonderful assessments and the most 
wonderful textbooks and the most wonderfully articulated this and that, and you 
hand it to a teacher who has to see 130 kids, 40 percent of whom are truant on 
any given day, and it's a different 40 percent each day.

And you won't have anything to show for it, and the assessments will prove once 
again that poor kids do poorly and rich kids do better.

School for most Americans, for the overwhelming majority of secondary school 
kids, is divided up into things called periods:  English, to physics, to 
French, to home ec, to study hall.  Each of these 47 minutes or 52 minutes are 
effectively about 35 minutes.  How many of us do serious intellectual and 
imaginative work in 35-minute snippets, with the subject changed every hour on 
the hour?  And that is not many of us.

That is the way school is, invariably, day after day after day, year after 
year.  It is profoundly inefficient.  No serious educating institution copies 
the way the high school works.  No serious educating institution copies the 
1890's model in which our forefathers, bless them, used the best understanding 
of human learning that was available in the 1890's.

Now, further compounding it is the fact that these snippets, that physics 
class, to that math class, to that English class, to that French class, are 
planned in glorious isolation one from the other; that, God save us, physics 
teachers do not even talk to math teachers, much less to English teachers.  And 
the standards and the substance and the expectations are completely 
fractionated. So if you shadow a kidand I commend shadowing kids regularly in 
schooland become a kid again for a day, it'll hit you hard, the fragmented, 
fractionated quality, intellectual quality of the typical school.  It's 
intellectual chaos.

Does it make any sense?  No, it doesn't make any sense.  It doesn't make any 
sense at all.

Furthermore, you will be reminded how much school is asked.  Every problem that 
comes along, you add it.  Pull out programs, special programs, something on 
AIDS, something on health, something on the 1980's, a special course on 
Vietnam.  Add, add, add, addwith the result that the system becomes more and 
more trivial.  And the current device of evolving standards in the traditional 
inside-the-beltway subject matter areas, which accepts the politics of the late 
19th and early 20th century, which led to the configurations of organizations 
like the American Historical Association.  I'm a historian.  Bless it.

But it's too much, and it's too confusing, and it does not talk to one another. 
 And as a result, kids get this confused rule of education.

We have to address that.  It is not being addressed.  Systemic reform is fine, 
but unless it gets into the innards of schools and fights those fundamental 
battles of there being too much and it being presented in a fractionated way 
and it not attending to what we know about how kids learn and about how 
knowledge can be most powerfully construed, the extent to which the whole thing 
will lead us is exactly where the 1960's reform led us, which is nowhere.

MR. HOFFMAN:  I decided to talk about a barrier, what I call the Great Barrier 
Reef.  That means I've switched metaphors from airplanes to ships.

Now, the title Great Barrier Reef has seven little numbers after it.  Those are 
the footnotes.  It says all that I say is to be interpreted as follows; 
anything I recommend doing is to be done wisely; and it will take into account 
all the things that the previous people here said.  So I do not think what I'm 
saying now is all inclusive.

The Great Barrier Reef is the following:  The ship is sailing along, the ship 
of reform; what are the characteristics of the Great Barrier Reef?  It's 
invisible.  Right?  Or at least not easily seen. It lies below the surface, a 
thing that can easily sink your whole ship, even though it seems to be 
beautifully built and cruising along wonderfully. The important word for the 
Great Barrier Reef of education is also a sea word; that is, this reef is made 
of several C's, not one C, Coral, but it's made of things like communication, 
cooperation, coordination, synthesisthat's one of my C words.  And my favorite 
word which begins with two C's is called scale.

The barrier consists of the fact that we do not have any sense of how to bring 
about change on a nationwide basis or to begin to address in any large-scale 
way the kinds of things Ted, for example, was talking about.  I can describe 
what he's saying, which is don't try to fix schools in their present form; find 
out what works, and call that school.

The point is you still have got to figure out how you're going to make change 
come about on a nationwide basis.  I'm not going to say how to do it.  I'm 
going to tell you what the barrier is, again.

The barrier is us, the mental models that are inside our heads, the ways we 
think, the value structures we have.  These things are major obstacles to 
figuring out what to do.  We think hierarchically.  We do not think 
cooperatively.  We do not know about coordination as distinguished from 
direction.  We don't know how to run our own organizations, much less how to 
tackle the more difficult problem of how to make webs of organizations working 
together.

I conjecture that in the next decade one of the most important nouns is going 
to become "web"not network, webbecause, as Peter Drucker points out in his 
latest book, which was far and away his best, we are becoming rapidly a society 
of organizations.  And the problems he described of the transition to this 
society are squared in education and in health care and so on because we not 
only have to figure out how to run organizations, we have to figure out how to 
get organizations to run together, to cooperate together in web-like ways.

Now, if that sounds like mysticism to you, it's because of the models that are 
inside your head. You see?  We all think in terms of hierarchical ways to run 
everything.  And meaning no criticism, you see we think of master plans, 
instead of scripts for the drama, wherein various people identify what their 
own role is.  There comes to be a common agreement on the script for reform.  
We have to talk in new metaphors.

We have bad models of change.  What do we value that gets in our way?  We do 
not value the skills that are required to do the things that need to be done.  
Most of the people in education reform are educators in one way or another.  
What do they value?  Well, you know what they value.  They do not value the 
marketing political communication skills that are absolutely essential to 
making reform happen on a nationwide basis.  How many school children are there 
in the United States?  Look around this room.  Can you imagine 100,000 rooms 
like this?  That's how many school children there are in the United States.

Those are the people you have to reach.  That's where scaling comes in.  We 
have to think big, think how to weave together the organizations across the 
country that are going to cooperate. Why?  Because we need to build the support 
structures in the Nation that are going to sustain and cause to happen and 
sustain change at the local level, which is where everything important 
happens.

I suggest to you that we can get the most wonderful ideas about standards, 
about what needs to happen at the local level and so on, and our ship can still 
crack up on this reef, that we haven't even begun to tackle the problems in 
this water beneath the surface, you see, where we have to learn to deal with 
large-scale organizational matters that we know not how to do.


MS. BARRETT:  All right.  We've depressed you with thoughts of the big 
challenges that are ahead.  We have talked about the barriers to educational 
reform, and it's depressing to see how many obstacles there are out there.  We 
have a very strong panel, and they really understand the issues.  So we are not 
going to leave you here because they know how to begin the next steps.  Our 
panel will now tell us what kind of things they have seen happen, that they 
know are happening, that they are causing to happen that will help us get 
beyond the barriers they have described.

MS. BITHER:  In response to the need for the public to be with usand I really 
think it is an outstanding need, because no matter how much we can think 
through some of the issues that everyone here has outlined, how much we think 
we realize what needs to happen, unless the public supports us, as Governor 
Romer pointed out yesterday, we really will not be able to make the necessary 
changes or raise the necessary funds that will be needed to help us to do 
that.

So what we really need is an extended public conversation, the kind of 
conversation that Ted and Dorothy and Ken talk about, in order to move the 
reform effort that now is on a small scale to the large scale that's really 
necessary.

The Education Commission of the States two years ago did a survey to find out 
how many schools in the country considered themselves to be restructuring, and 
found that it was between 5 and 10 percent of all the schools in the country at 
that time.  And that was by self-assessment, which might have been a little bit 
too positive, almost.  Some states are as high as 25 percent, and those are the 
states that are really on the leading edge of thinking about systemic reform.

So even while we want to congratulate them, how do you get from 25 percent to 
100 percent? And I would want to propose to you that the only way we do that is 
by making our case to the public on a school-by-school, community-by-community 
basis, to have people alerted and on the bandwagon and supporting those 
changes.

I think that goes for rural communities as much as it goes for urban areas, and 
we need to provide opportunities, for instance, for people to see and tap into 
and imitate and learn from the Sizer networks, all the Sizer schools, the Comer 
schools, the accelerated schools that Hank Levin has, the models of group 
learning that Slavin talks about.

I think all of those efforts need to have more public exposure, more public 
input, and it depends on all of us to bring that about.

MS. BARRETT:  Dorothy?

MS. STRONG:  I'm going to address the things that I identified as barriers.  To 
begin with, I identified a master plan, and I do really seriously feel that 
that master plan needs to come from or at least be initiated at the level of 
the school district, with that school district then going out looking for the 
support that they need to make that happen.

Now, will that be the final plan?  Absolutely not.  But you've got to have 
something for people to tear up.  You can't come in and say to people, "dream," 
and they don't know what they're dreaming about.

So we must begin, which says to them we've given it our best shot, now help us 
to make it better.  So I think that there needs to be that plan.

In that area, we've come up withwe have and use the standards to at least 
revise our systemwide objectives and standards.  Now, we still are loaded with 
that long list that is still too long, but we have matched those standards so 
that at least when we talk to people, they know what the standards are saying 
children ought to know and be able to do; and they know what we're saying, and 
they know what the state is saying, because we use that.  And we always 
identified the source that they came from.  I'm a name-dropper, and I'm glad to 
tell people where things came from, because you have to take the blame or the 
credit when it comes about.

In relationship to that, we've also developed a matrix that talks about what is 
it we want to happen and how do we expect it to happen.  And we then evaluate 
help in light of how much you can help us to complete what we want to do with 
this matrix.

We also have talked a lot about instruction being culturally relevant.  When I 
say culturally relevant, I'm talking about mathematics right now because we are 
now moving toward the integration.  But in mathematics, we talk about the 
subject matter for the mathematics coming out of the world of the children, 
which moves it beyond just being culturally relevant for the African American 
to being culturally relevant for all students.

We've got to also begin to tell the truth.  We've got to make things 
historically, culturally accurate.  And we've got to realize that lots of 
mathematics came from lots of people that we're not admitting, and that we can 
help people to buy into the equation by letting them know that they had a part 
in the development of it.

The other thing that we talked about was expectations.  Until everyone is able 
to wake up and say that all children can learn mathematics, all children will 
learn math and science, all teachers can teach it, and all teachers will, then 
we're not ready to do it.  I still say the only teachers that we can't help are 
those that hate children.  Beyond that, we can deal with them, because what 
they're doing is our fault.  And it is our responsibility to change them.

I talked about the need for cooperation.  We have two models of cooperation 
that I'm going to share with you, one being the Bob Moses Algebra Project that 
began with a person who was impatient with us and decided to go out and begin 
to do it himself.  Out of that came the Bob Moses Algebra Project.  That 
project is moving very fast in Chicago because there is a cooperative group 
that is run by community people.

I am on the board, and I work with them.  But equally as important in helping 
them is Paul Salley and other people, and we've now formed a national network, 
and by forming networks, Paul is now agreeing to become a part of forming 
collaborations between schools like the University of Chicago and the 
historically black institutions so that these schools can all support the 
development of the Algebra Project and the retraining of teachers that needs to 
happen.  And it isn't that the University of Chicago is going to do it over 
here and the universities in the Delta are going to do it over there.  They're 
going to all work together, and we all are going to benefit by what is going to 
happen.

When we got ready to come to NSF to talk about a proposal, there was not a Bob 
Moses and two or three people.  It was an entourage of about 50 people that 
included superintendents of schools, people from the Delta, everybody 
imaginable.  Because we wanted to say with our bodies that we really do mean 
collaboration.

The same thing that we have in Chicago is our CRCM model that we called Access 
2000.  We were just recognized by the Business Higher Education Forum and given 
the Anderson Medal because of collaboration.  We are the only one in the 
country that has a co-principal investigator who is also with the school 
system.  Eric Hamilton is the principal investigator and I am the co-principal 
investigator. What is the advantage?  When we need data, we're not giving data 
to somebody else.  We're giving data to ourselves.  And this is the kind of 
thing that happens when you bring people into the equation.

As we talk about awareness, I love the standards.  Got a few problems, but 
that's all right.  I love the standards because they gave me something to begin 
to say to people that we could raise the standards for all students.  Underline 
all.

But as long as they're just on my desk and your desk, they're not standards.  
They are an academic document.  And we've got to move them to standards.  So my 
challenge to NCTM and to NSF is get together and make those available to 
everybody.

MR. SIZER:  Let me give some examples of how my friends in a variety of schools 
around the country are addressing some of the specific barriers which I 
mentioned; for example, the problem of the snippets of time.

There are now schools that have deliberately reduced the daily schedule to two 
or three blocks of time with teams of teachersin one school, they call them a 
science faculty or a humanities facultyresponsible for how that time is 
deployed in the best interest of the kids, with the breaks taken when everybody 
gets a little tired.  And if you need two hours to work on something, you work 
on it for two hours.  If you need 20 minutes, you work on it for 20 minutes, 
which is the form follows the function.

There is a sharp diminution of the separate subject matters and a deliberate 
attempt to cast subject matters in terms that make sense, not only 
epistemologically but, even more importantly, makes sense to children's worlds. 
 And it's here where the mathematics and science community is way ahead of 
everybody else.  The 2061 project is a major step forward for a lot of folks in 
the schools, because the arguments for the seamless cloth of science, 
mathematics, and technology are carefully worked out there.  And it's that kind 
of work that allows teachers to move beyond that and to see how one can cast 
these important ideas and important skills in ways that have the coherence that 
young minds need.

The contrast, for example, between the world of the arts, English, visual art, 
music, and where science and math are going is dramatic.  Great chunks of the 
curriculum are totally untouched with the kind of imaginative thinking which 
has been seen and brought to bear in science and math.

Second, the schools in our coalition take a solemn oath:  no teacher will ever 
have more than 80 kids.  That's the absolute outside.  Most of my friends in 
schools working with low-income kids say I'm crazy, it's 50, no more than 50.  
All the schools take the further oath they're going to do that without changing 
the budget.  Not that it wouldn't be nice to triple the faculty, but it's not 
going to happen.

And so what they're doing is rethinking their schools, with step number one 
making it possible for teachers to know their children, and the compromises 
follow after that, rather than figuring out something else and then dumping 175 
kids on the back of each teacher.

Well, I know full well just because you have a smaller number of kids doesn't 
mean that you teach anything.  But it's a necessary, if not sufficient, first 
step, and again, we're seeing around the country, most dramatically in inner 
city and rural areas, the almost instant positive effect of kids being known by 
two, three, four adults in a way they've never been known before during their 
secondary education.

And on the question of too many things, that's where the most difficult 
politics of subtraction is taking place, because some things are more essential 
than other things.  And these gutsy faculties are saying of the 25 things that 
this school does, there are 14 that count more than the others.  And that means 
that teachers have to shift what they're teaching.  There has to be focus. 
There cannot be serious rigor without the time for serious practice.

The current overloaded curriculum makes no time for serious practice.  So 
they're tough decisions, really tough decisions, because they're decisions that 
mean jobs and the way one teaches and the expectations for kids who like sort 
of going through the school day listening rather than doing some serious work.

And this happened.  It's possible to do.  Not easy, but it's possible to do.  
It's being done.

To go to my first point, this piecemeal business, there still is very little 
attention to the very difficult work I'm describing in the inside of the 
school.  There has, in the last two or three years, been a lot of interest in 
system reform.  The first trigger was choice.  Chris Whittle added a little bit 
of sugar to it.  But now we're talking about redesigning the whole system, but 
in most of the discussion, there is an assumption that the school buildingthat 
is, where kid, idea, and teacher confrontthat's no part of it.  There is in 
very few state plans investment of political protection, money, and time in 
what it takes to turn a school around, and a lot of attention about how you and 
I work, not about how folks who aren't here, the line teachers and the kids, 
are supposed to work.

We somehow have to get this together, so that the very serious work that goes 
on on the third floor of a high school and the very serious work that goes on 
in the governor's office, state department of education, and the teacher 
preparation institutions and the arts and sciences faculties, that these things 
are in synergistic connectionwhich brings me to my final point.

I'm delighted that Ken made the distinction between hierarchical thinking and 
these webs and networks.  With all due respect, I read this morning the 
statement from NSF and the U.S. Department of Education about its system 
reform, and it is hierarchical:  a small group of wonderfully devoted people 
who set the standards, and then another set do the assessments, and then there 
would be a syllabus, and then this would come down, and finally, teachers would 
be given this, and teacher education institutions would react.

I think that way.  But I know that Ken is right.  I know he's right.  I am 
scared by the notion that higher standards will be necessarily national 
standards.  I'm scared from my experience as historian.  We didn't get it right 
in the 1960's, and we had the smartest people brought to bear in science and 
math, for example.  We didn't get it right.

Who's to say we're going to get it right this time?  And if we get this 
hierarchy locked in and articulated the way we're talking, we'll get it wrong 
up here.  Well-intentioned, nice folks like me and you, we'll get it wrong.  
And the whole thing will drive the system.

What we need is something that's more organicanother one of Ken's excellent 
wordswhere, in fact, there's this constant tension and movement, which is, of 
course, not only sensible as a matter of police, it's also the absolutely flesh 
and blood of a democracy.

MR. HOFFMAN:  Another good word for change is viral.  I say that to biologists, 
and they get very nervous.  Viral is very good in the change process.

I wanted to tell you just about two or three things that are going on in the 
realm of this, what I called the Great Barrier Reef, which isn't that at all.  
First, a slight story.  I learned some years ago, as I moved sort of out of the 
world of mathematics, that most of the world wasn't like mathematics.

One of the features of mathematics as a scientific field is that, unlike most 
sciences, the people who discover really truly important things in the field do 
not stay up all night writing up the results, because they know with absolute 
confidence that no one else in the world is doing that at that precise moment.  
The field is just infinitely more intellectually diverse than most areas. I 
hope scientists don't get mad at me for saying that, but it's true.

But you don't have to worry about that.  You see, when I moved out of 
mathematics, I learned that the rest of the world is quite the opposite.  If 
you come up any idea that you regard as important about this society or change 
or anything going on, you can be absolutely confident that thousands of other 
people are having the same idea at the same time.  I remember from Pachelbel's 
Canon.  Pachelbel's Canon has been around for a long time.  Nobody ever paid 
any attention to it.  It came upon the cultural side of society like a wave not 
too many years ago. Did you ever think about that?  Actually, Disney had 
something to do with it, but never mind that.

I was always startled by the way that hit.  Anyway, ideas surface.  So if I 
bring up the Great Barrier Reef, it's only because I think we're beginning to 
start to figure out how to get past it or how to avoid cracking up on the Great 
Barrier Reef.

I noted, Ted, that while we're working on the science standards, the thinking 
is creeping in much more strongly about how does it interact with the standards 
for other disciplines; how does it fit into schools overall and to integrate 
with language arts and the math standards and so on; and how do you implement 
it.  These things are coming in much more strongly than was true in the late 
1980's, when NCTM was finishing their standards and having to invent the idea. 
So that's a very encouraging thing.

A second thing is that through the vision of Luther Williams, about a year ago 
the National Science Foundation asked the National Academy of Sciences to 
explore the quest for the feasibility of setting up a group that would try to 
start to bring the thinking about a nationwide, systemic, cooperative, 
collaborative, flat approach to the infrastructure of educational change. And 
on income tax day, we're going to submit to the Foundation the first report on 
whether we believe it's feasible for a group to do this.  To do what?  To 
devise what the nationwide system needs to look like in the United States in 
order to support and sustain local change, even if everybody had all the 
standards.

But I think that this fact that Luther asked the Academy to put together a 
group of distinguished people to look at that is a very interesting sign.

The idea is to catalyze the coming together that we've all talked about.  In 
order to do it the right way, though, you have to use very different language 
than people are accustomed to.  You have to say silly things like I was saying 
about webs of organizations and other ideas.  Because if you start looking at 
it hierarchically, the whole idea collapses very early on.  It's filled with 
all the death traps.

But I'm very encouraged, and I cite that to you as one piece of evidence that 
minds of people are beginning to come to grip with these things.

I've also been astonished in the last yearand I'll end on this notewith the 
strength of the leadership that now continues to emerge out of various fields 
concerned about education.  If I may brag, I might point out the fact that it 
was just announced a week ago that Hyman Bass, the great mathematician from 
Columbia, will be the next chairman of the Mathematical Sciences Education 
Board, something that would have been inconceivable five years ago.  
Inconceivable. If we had about a thousand more Hyman Basses, I can tell you, 
who has the capacity for synthesis and understanding all these things we're 
talking about, we would be a lot farther down the road.

MS. BARRETT:  I've sat here with a list of questions I had to try to get the 
panel to talk about important topics, and I haven't looked at one of them.

I do want to interject one of them, though, because I think it is an issue that 
we must address; the turf issue.

What I'd like the panel to give us is some practical answers, not about 
particular divisions or individuals claiming their material, but some practical 
strategies for dealing with turf issues.

MS. STRONG:  I wish I knew the personwe need to clone the person who created 
the Governor Romer who would come in this room and talk about mathematics and 
science as he did.  Because somewhere along the line, someonethere was work 
done.  We can't just assume that he was just created and God said, "Thou 
shalt"you know, and it happened.

Somewhere along the line, some people have done a lot of talking to him.  We 
need to learn how to do it.  As educators, as we talk about forming our 
collaborations, we need to find out ways to include on our team those people.  
And we've just got to have lots of them at the very top and willing to sit down 
and talk with and to come up with solutions and challenge us to do the things 
that we have to do.

MR. HOFFMAN:  I wanted to mention one of the things I've found very helpful, 
the stuff I was talking about was how-to stuff.  Rather than what to do, it's 
really how to get things done.  And one of the things I find helpful is to 
remember one of the little-known quotes of Yogi Berra, which is: "Life is a 
formative process."

MS. BARRETT:  Life is what?  Say it again?

MR. HOFFMAN:  Life is a formative process.








Report on Thursday Discussion Groups


Introduction

The National Science Foundation, at its invitational conference Beyond National 
Standards and Goals:  Excellence in Mathematics and Science Education K16, 
asked the participants to reflect on their role in educational reform and to 
offer advice on where future educational reform should go from here.  In 
particular, individuals were asked to reflect on their own role, how it fits 
into a broader vision, how to develop a vision at the state level, and how to 
involve others in systemic change.

Those in attendance supported the Standards as the foundation for reform 
activity, acknowledged the necessity of systemic change, and showed a common 
goal of buildingin a systemic wayon the Standards.  The difficulty of the 
task ahead was acknowledged, and the discussions focused on how to make 
standards-based change.

Working in discussion groups with NSF division directors and program officers, 
the participants reflected on a series of questions.  Across the 14 groups, 
there were a set of themes essentially present throughout all the discussions.  
What follows are the six themes:

1)   The importance of the individual role;
2)   The essentialness of linking and webbing;
3)   The key role of teachers;
4)   The need to evaluate;
5)   The need to identify successes and to disseminate these successes; and
6)   The need for public understanding and involvement in educational reform.

The six themes were addressed in a variety of contexts and from a variety of 
viewpoints.  The sum total of the discussion clearly identified these six areas 
as crucial to the continuation of educational reform.  What follows is a 
summation of the remarks of the 14 discussion groups (in their language).

The Individual Role

Participants were aware they had been invited as leaders, both in their own 
professional activities and in their communities.  The advice they offered 
themselves and others reflects the status they hold.   Advice included:

Get personally involved;
Don't be bashful about your own work as a reformer;
Recognize and respect other individuals in the reform effort;
Take time in your own work to link to others;
Provide thoughtful, constructive, candid, informed, and purposeful feedback;
Be willing to make suggestions for change, give reasons that will convince 
people, and enter into dialogue; Prepare to change yourself and to learn from 
others; Realize that excitement and enthusiasm are contagious; Utilize your 
own role to influence the organizations of which you are a member; Take part 
in civic activitiesrun for your local school board; and Decide when to speak 
out forcefully and when to be quiet. There was a recognition among the 
educational leaders in attendance that they have a responsibility for 
continuing to provide leadership and for making things happen.  The importance 
of other conferences and linking structures was acknowledged by all, and the 
fact that these kind of links create an energy that propels individual activity 
is acknowledged.

Linking:  Networks, Coalitions, and Webs

Beyond the individual role, a recurrent theme in all the presentations of the 
conference, as well as in the break-out session discussions, was the essential 
nature of the systemic reform that is needed.  There was a clear 
acknowledgement that standards in mathematics and emerging standards in science 
are providing a foundation for activity.  The necessity for change to take 
place in all aspects of the educational system, and for the activity throughout 
the system to be coordinated, linked, and webbed, was everywhere acknowledged.  
Advice was given to:

Link teachers with each other;
Be sure there are links within a school and within a system;
Link arts, science, engineering, and technology faculty with education 
faculty; Link the science disciplines (include informal science); and Create 
coalitions of teachers, parents, administrators, higher education, state 
departments of education, business and industry, and informal education.

The networks, coalitions, linkages, and webs that are envisioned are seen as a 
new structurenot bureaucracies.  The connections are seen taking place in 
meetings, in day-to-day activities, and by e-mail and other forms of 
telecommunicationsas ongoing activities, not one-shot deals.  Coalitions must 
be credible, they must be broad and sustainable, and they must involve networks 
not only of individuals, but also of organizations.  State level organizations 
must communicate with the local level; professional organizations must be 
tied-in.

The type of organization is seen to be one that is flatnot top-down or 
bottom-up, but an evolving organization that continues to create linkages among 
disparate parts.  In the Thursday morning panel, Ken Hoffman had used the term 
"web."  This descriptor was picked up in the further discussions and is seen as 
appropriate to describe the type of structure that must be formed.  The 
importance of establishing effective mechanisms for regular communication 
within that structure was noted, as well as the importance of getting 
participants together again and again.  In order for networks to be successful, 
the key players must be identified, leadership must be built among key players, 
and there must be those who see themselves as enthusiastic change agents.

Critical collaborations must be identified, encouraged, and facilitated within 
a large web. Meetings of these critical collaborations must take place 
independent from the larger structure. Critical collaborations noted were:

Students, teachers, and parents;
Elementary, middle school, and secondary teachers;
Schools with business and industrial leaders;
School and university faculty with working scientists; and
Informal community with the schools.

In developing the webs, or the networks, use must be made of existing 
structures.  It was noted there were mathematics and science collaboratives in 
most states, and NSF-funded Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) in 21 states, 
with funding for four or five more to be added.  Some recurring themes were:

Identify all players;
Find out what is already present;
Establish regular means for communications;
Identify leaders and key components;
Work with existing organizations, create contacts, and involve all the key 
players; Promote an environment that encourages interaction; and Talk to your 
colleagues in those states where change is occurring to understand why their 
activities work.

In some states the SSI's have helped to eliminate turf problems by bringing 
people together.  In the absence of an SSI, determine how to provide that 
catalyst:

To help in avoiding turf problems or to resolve turf problems;
To help achieve the willingness of individuals to change their own particular 
activity so that it will fit into the overall picture; and To help individuals 
understand that good activities can be made better, and that good activities 
that are isolated do not contribute effectively to the overall picture and can, 
in some cases, harm it.

It is important to find a catalyst to bring the individual pieces together and 
establish a link with those having political clout.

But above all, throughout all the linking activities, maximize the involvement 
of the classroom teachers, for without their understanding of the children in 
the classroom and of the teaching/learning process, reform cannot take place.

It is important to find a mechanism to remove turf problems and to 
institutionalize changes that are taking place:

Avoid one-shot activities that solve a small, particular problem and do not 
lead to sustainable change; Establish realistic expectationschange happens a 
little bit at a time; Find creative ways to get around restrictions, 
regulations, and policies that are hampering activities; and Once new 
activities are in place, take the time and trouble to create new, more 
appropriate policies.

It is critical that the structure that forms the linkagesthe collaboratives, 
the webis a structure that can be maintained, that makes it easier to 
establish collaborations in the future, and that emphasizes broad concepts and 
keeps the overall vision in view.

These themes appeared again and again in the reports.

There was considerable discussion of what was happening in individual states.  
It was noted that in some states the activity had been top-down with a plan 
created by leadership at the state level, but made effective, for instance, in 
the case of the Louisiana SSI, by constant communication with all concerned.  
In other cases, the reform was seen as working at both the state and local 
level, with leadership at both levels and the leadership linked.  Looking at 
the many examples, it is clear that the particular form of linkage is dependent 
on what is already present, what the source of funding is, and what the 
structure of the state educational system is.  There is no general recipe.


The Role of Teachers

Reform will not happen unless it comes from the teacher.  Education takes place 
in the classroom, and the teacher is the key agent.  It is absolutely essential 
that classroom teachers buy into the changes that are taking place.  For that 
reason, the classroom teachers and individual schools need to "adopt the 
standards" at the school level.  Without the adoption, and in more than a 
formal way, the standards-based education does not become a reality.  
Recommendations included:

Set up school-level groups to adopt a structure, an environment, and an 
attitude that makes change, where needed, happen; Involve the principals, 
administrators, and central office;
Treat teachers as professionals;
Reorganize the professional life of the teacher to include comprehensive 
development, sufficient materials, and opportunities for planning and 
reflective thought during the day; Consider the student load of the teacher 
and provide a load that is in line with the support available to the teacher 
and the other duties of the teacher; Allow teachers to use their know-how and 
share their knowledge; Include comprehensive, on-going faculty/teacher 
development; Realize that change will continue and provide for opportunities 
on a regular basis for teachers to continue to learn, to link with scientists 
and mathematicians, and to see themselves as part of a mathematical or 
scientific professional group; and Provide copies of the mathematics and 
science standards, and the needed and related material, to the teacher without 
cost to them.

Particular attention was paid broadly to the role of the elementary teachers.  
It is important that the elementary teacher's role and language is understood.  
It was noted that the terminology used in elementary classrooms by elementary 
teachers differs from the language used in discussing middle and secondary 
activities.  Recommendations included:

Link the elementary teachers with other teachers, but be careful that 
opportunity is given for real understanding; Arrange classes and curricula to 
let the students do science and mathematics; Link students into science and 
mathematics beyond the classroom, not only through informal science and 
museums, but in their day-to-day lives; Hold classes for parents so they can 
understand the science being done and so they understand and reinforce what the 
teacher is doing; and Create the link between the parent and teacher.

Evaluation

A theme that occurred in a significant way in several groups, and in a 
peripheral way in others, is a theme which is of growing importance in the 
Foundation itself and throughout the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, 
Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) agencies and in the broader community; 
namely, the importance of evaluating not only activity that is already present, 
but also new projects and activities as they take place.  Advice given on 
evaluation included:

Look hard at what is already present to see what can be built on and what can 
be discarded;
Build a broad base for future activities;

Evaluate to show that the status quo is not an option and to establish the 
importance of change; Evaluate what is taking place, or critique it, in order 
to identify the common elements of a shared vision; Identify what is changing 
and what the individual strengths of projects are;
Make an effort to understand all components;
Evaluate to achieve an understanding of why a particular activity is 
important; Realize that one size does not fit all, and that one individual or 
organization cannot do everything; and Perform a candid appraisal of 
activities and an identification of opportunities to assess what is taking 
place, and through the utilization of evaluation of continuing change, the 
reform effort can be continued with freshness.

Programs, Implementation, and Dissemination

In the evaluation of the conference, one attender noted that the most important 
part of the conference for her was that it carried the message "Help is 
coming."  At the conference, 40 exemplary projects were exhibited.  In most 
cases, the Principal Investigator and a teacher were present who had been 
involved in the project.  Help was seen as needed in:

Learning how to utilize exemplary projects in other locations;
Finding successful programs so that one does not have to reinvent the wheel. 
Reinvention should not take place if it is not necessary; Going beyond 
demonstrating specific examples of success;
Adapting and utilizing key ideas;
Acknowledging that change is not uniform, situations are not the same, and 
successful techniques cannot simply be adopted; Providing a mechanism to 
evaluate what makes success, in order to provide the basic information to 
others; and Achieving the time to be able to adopt, or adapt, as needed;

A suggestion was made that model classrooms need to be either developed, or 
identified, and publicized broadly.

Throughout the small group discussions, there was a plea for electronic 
innovation in dissemination:  bulletin boards on INTERNET, information in data 
banks that could be down-loaded, information on regional resources, and more 
information on what the Department of Education has available.  There was a 
call for a base of information so that teachers know immediately where to go 
and how to find what they need.

As part of the break-out groups, and even more clearly in the evaluation of the 
conference, there was a call for morea repeat of the national conference with 
its exhibits, workshops, demonstrations, and opportunities to talk with 
teachers and Principal Investigators.  There was also a call for these 
conferences on a regional basis where it would be possible for more classroom 
teachers, and hopefully more superintendents, principals, and school-based 
people, to attend.

New methods, new materials, new ways of doing things, and the presence of new 
standards in mathematics and scienceall these factors make demands on the 
individual teacher.  An opportunity to learn the new things and to experiment 
with them must be provided.  There must be an acknowledgement of the heavy 
demands on teachers and the need for professional treatment of teachers so that 
change becomes life-long learning and a life-long expectation.  The teacher 
must be provided with a setting where change is possible, in a measured way, in 
the classroom.  The thoughtful planning and carrying out of opportunities and 
support for teachers was seen as a vital part of the dissemination process.

Public Understanding

The fact that what is happening today in classrooms where educational reform is 
taking place differs from what happens today in more traditional classrooms 
makes it increasingly important that there be public understanding of the 
changes that are taking place.  Parents need to understand that noisy 
classrooms, group activity, calculators in the classroom, hands-on science, and 
the absence of long lists of scientific terms to memorize does not mean that 
teaching and learning is ineffective.  Parents need to understand that future 
economic health for the Nation and for the individual is tied to a strong 
background in mathematics, science, and technology.

The content of Ray Marshall's keynote speech (the speech is found elsewhere in 
the proceedings of the conference) related to the change in education called 
for by the changes in our economy and sharpened the understanding of the need 
for a change in our educational system. Individuals without children in school, 
business leaders, and others need to understand the importance of educational 
reform and that the skills required for today's workforce are different than 
those of the past.  Public information about education reform should:

Use good marketing techniques;
Make materials widely available in a form that can be understood by those 
outside the educational establishment;
Make information available as early as possible;
Bring information to community interest groups for a part of a day, or for a 
part of a conference, and bring them to activities that involve education; 
Utilize professional associations of non-mathematicians and scientists, 
individuals in other fields, and community-based groups such as Kiwanis and 
Rotary in dissemination of information so that leaders in the business 
community will be informed and share this information; Utilize shopping malls 
and other community centers and gathering places for displays, information, and 
demonstrations; Use technology as a way to communicate with electronic 
conferencing, where appropriate; Involve the media in activities in ways that 
reflect their limitations and interests, and those of their clients;
Include cable television stations;
Do everything possible to get model classrooms, new teaching techniques, and 
new approaches to education into television series and other mass media 
activity: Include investment of time and effort of the educational 
establishment to make the state's vision, educational reform efforts, and 
successful projects known in a variety of settings; Provide professional 
support to public relations and public information personnel; Make certain 
that key leaders, individuals involved with the state budget process, and 
school board members are included in public relations activities; Have key 
leaders involved both as recipients of information and as conveyors of 
information; and Communicate that change is taking place, needs to take place, 
and will need to continue to take place.


Conclusion

The six themes that were present throughout the discussions in the small groups 
re-emphasize themes that appeared elsewhere in the conference.  The thesis of 
the conference, that we are moving beyond educational goals and standards and 
are ready to move ahead with the necessary steps to implement effective 
educational reform, was affirmed by the outcome of the small discussion groups. 
 The fact that the six themes (the importance of the individual role, linking 
and webbing, teachers as key, evaluation, dissemination and implementation of 
successful projects, and the need for public understanding) were matters that 
were brought up, emphasized, explicated, expanded, and addressed in a variety 
of waysand in almost all of the 14 discussion groupsshowed that there is a 
common understanding of next steps, a common agenda.  Reinforcing activity is 
taking place so that key ingredients are understood and next steps are 
supported.  Most attendees at the conference expressed their willingness to 
return to their home states and continue their work with increased enthusiasm.

The reform activity will be ongoing.  A new educational system will not come 
into place overnight, and once it is defined it will not be static, but an 
everchanging system.  It is important to acknowledge up front that educational 
reform will be costly and it will not necessarily bring about long-term 
savings.  It will, however, bring about long-term gains in the quality of 
education and in the economic and personal status of the student.  It is 
important to find ways to translate the vision into adequate and available 
resources; to find help for resources in building coalitions; and to make small 
changes as they become possible and not wait for large infusions of money.

The next steps will no doubt involve many of the common-sense, thoughtful, 
reality-based comments made at the conference that clearly reflected the nature 
of the attendees:  leaders who are hard at work on educational reform and 
realize the tough problem that is being addressed. However, there is real hope, 
real progress, and tremendous willingness to continue the activity and to 
further the movement toward spreading educational reform that will provide 
educational excellence for all students.









Advice to NSF


In the invitation to the conference, Luther Williams asked that individuals 
come prepared to advise the Foundation on its role in educational reform.  An 
opportunity was given for all attendees to offer advice to the Foundation on 
Thursday in the discussion groups, as well as in other sessions throughout the 
conference.  This information has been gathered in an effort to learn what the 
leaders in the field see as appropriate roles for NSF and what they recommend 
as appropriate next steps to be taken.

Recommendations Concerning the Conference:

Participants see the conference as a success in providing an opportunity to 
continue to build partnerships among local/state/national groups for effective 
systemic reform and in presentation of successful NSF-supported projects in 
mathematics and science that are proving useful in systemic reform.

The opportunity provided at the conference to develop together effective 
strategies for accomplishing systemic reform for mathematics and science was 
seen by many as a good beginning but not sufficient to address this issue.  
What is now incumbent on NSF is to build on that beginning.

At the events of the conferenceand especially in the Thursday morning group 
sessionsspecific advice was offered.  A widely expressed recommendation is to 
have more meetings like the conference.  There was strong support for regional 
meetings.  The meeting is seen as having provided an opportunity for leaders to 
get together, share ideas, reinforce each others' ventures, build new networks 
and linkages, and listen to each other.  Hope was expressed that NSF would 
provide more time to listen to the participants at the next conference. A 
strong hope was expressed that more teachersin particular, elementary 
teacherscould be included so that the participants could learn from them and 
they could have the opportunities to learn from the conference.

Additional NSF Support for Networking

Networking is seen as an important aspect of the conference.  Support of 
networking activities by NSF was called for, along with the enhancement of 
current NSF activities and the creation of new activities.  Attention to 
networks inside schools, and between elementary and other teachers, was 
mentioned.  The effectiveness of the Statewide Systemic Initiatives as an 
outside catalyst that brought groups beyond turf problems was mentioned, 
applauded, and asked to have continued.

Further guidance in the translation of a vision into a reality through the 
funding of creative organizational structures was called for.  It was noted 
that the reorganization within NSF, the large teacher coalitions, and the 
Statewide Systemic Initiatives were the kinds of broad networking building seen 
as an appropriate, even essential, next step.


Materials and Dissemination

Considerable attention was paid to the question of good materials and 
dissemination of standards-based instructional materials.  Recommendations 
related to materials included: assistance in the development of local materials 
by adaption or adoption of materials developed elsewhere; a chance to visit 
successful NSF projects; funding for the dissemination of exemplary projects 
(perhaps some not originally funded by NSF); more on-line information in 
hyper-text format; and a way to evaluate projects early-on and to leverage 
their utilization as examples. In terms of material dissemination and even more 
broadly in terms of all its activities, NSF was encouraged to coordinate its 
activities with other agencies (especially the Department of Education) and to 
reinforce the FCCSET process.

Public Understanding, Public Relations

NSF was called on to build parent and community support into its individual 
projects; to require projects to inform and involve the public, the school 
board, and the community; to work hard at utilizing language that could be 
easily understood outside the educational community; and to avoid jargon and 
"education-ese."  As elsewhere in the conference, a persistent theme was to be 
sure to involve teachersto pay attention to them and provide a motivational 
structure for them.  A further recommendation was that all university-based 
grants that deal with school education have direct involvement of teachers, as 
change does not come in three to five years but is a slow process, and once it 
is begun it must be allowed to continue.

Operational Comments

There were some comments about the operation of NSF.  These showed there was 
minimal understanding of the salary and expenses crunch.  The fact that program 
monies have increased from $220.6 million in FY 1990 to $487.5 in FY 1993 
without a significant increase in staff shows that we need to make better 
understood the "bind" on the Foundation, and we need to move quickly to 
operating in a more effective fashionanswering telephones, returning messages, 
and processing grants.  The frustration even among knowledgeable leaders with 
these activities was clear.

It was noted that rotators yield new ideas and help to bring the understanding 
of change into the Foundation, but they yield unevenness, change of emphasis, 
and some confusion to the field. What appears to be necessary is an 
articulation of an overall understanding that identifies new directions for EHR 
which provide a context for change in programs.  This was implicit in some of 
the discussions and provided a hopeful note for the future.

There was essentially no quarrel with the statement made in the title of the 
conference; namely, that we are moving beyond standards and goals to 
implementation.  There was general agreement that systemic change is difficult 
to understand; that the understanding of systemic change, how to bring it 
about, and how to move ahead, is difficulteven for the leaders.  The necessity 
for systemic change is not well understood by the public or by many 
professionals. There remain some who wish that good, small projects were funded 
rather than large projects that have broad impact.  But the majority of the 
leadership attending the conference seemed to find major systemic projects, and 
the efforts on the part of the Foundation to leverage wide-scale reform, as 
appropriate activities.

There was strong support for the Statement of Principles for School Reform by 
the U.S. Department of Education and NSF.  Since the conference, there have 
been requests for multiple copies to be used at regional meetings.  One section 
of the Principles that has been most clearly cited, and seen as important to 
help to bring about changes within the states, is the section on Teacher 
Education and Certification.  There were concerns expressed as to the style of 
the statement more than the content.  It was seen as wordy, somewhat "jargony," 
and by some as preachy.  There was no disagreement in the basic content, and 
there was much applause for the fact that the two agencies were working 
together in a common agenda. The specific advice to NSF concerning its agenda 
reinforced and restated the themes of the conference.  The positive aspect of 
the discussion and advice is the sense that widespread, systemic, and 
sustainable change is asked for.  A concern is the widespread understanding of 
the difficulty of the task.









National Standards for Mathematics and Science Education:
Opening the Door to the Future

Kenneth M. Hoffman
Associate Executive Officer for Education
National Research Council


One of my long time friends and colleagues is the great Swedish mathematician, 
Lennart Carleson, who twenty-five years ago provided me with a metaphor that I 
have found valuable in my lives both inside and outside mathematics.  It was 
shortly after he had rocketed to fame in his profession by proving a famous, 
century-old conjecture in mathematics.  A brilliant young graduate student at 
the University of Chicago had found an apparently serious gap in Lennart's 
complex argument.  When asked what he planned to do about this potentially 
embarrassing situation, Lennart shrugged his shoulders and said casually, "Oh, 
let him fix it.  Once the proof is right, you can't make it wrong."

Outside the mathematician's realm of theorems and proofs, I like to paraphrase 
Carleson by saying, "Once an idea is right, you can't make it wrong." What I 
mean, of course, is just what Carleson was trying to convey, that occasionally 
in the process of thinking about a deep and difficult problem there comes a 
point at which you know with certainty that you have had the important insight, 
the key idea on which the rest of the solution can be based, even if "the rest" 
requires further ingenuity and an enormous amount of work.

In the last few years, I believe that those of us concerned with nationwide 
reform of education in the United States have come to understand that the idea 
of national standards is "right."  Or, as Senator Mark Hatfield said recently, 
"At least in math and science, standards will provide the foundation for 
reform."  This important insight has taken hold in the minds of education, 
policy, and business leaders in a series of steps, compressed into a remarkably 
short time span.

National Standards: Their Recent Origins

The National Science Foundation's February 1993 conference, Beyond National 
Goals and Standards: Excellence in Mathematics and Science Education K16, is 
being held exactly four years after the national education standards idea in 
its present form came upon the scene.  The critical event was the March 1989 
publication by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) of its 
pioneering document, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School 
Mathematics.  In a timed release exactly 60 days earlier, the stage had been 
set by the National Research Council's (NRC's) Everybody Counts: A Report to 
the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education.  This document, developed 
primarily by the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB), assessed the 
state of mathematics education in the United States, charted a course for the 
future, and described a now broadly supported national strategy for education 
reform, based on (1) national education goals; (2) national standards in major 
disciplinary areas; (3) organized and coordinated involvement of all key 
constituencies; and (4) development of a nationwide support structure to 
sustain on-going revitalization guided by the standards.

NSF's February conference also comes just three years after the announcement by 
the President and the National Governors' Association of their unprecedented 
agreement on national education goals; a little more than two years after the 
acceptance of the national standards concept by these leaders and the National 
Education Goals Panel, giving rise to its offspring, the National Council on 
Education Standards and Testing; and about one year after a full battery of 
curriculum standards efforts in various disciplines was launched with the 
support of the U.S. Department of Education.

National Standards: What Are They?

Given the fact that we talk so freely about such ideas today, it seems hard to 
believe, but as the finishing touches were being put on the NCTM Standards and 
Everybody Counts in late 1988, there was great apprehension about whether open 
talk of national goals and standards might set off a sort of 
educationalpolitical fire storm, raising the specter of national interference 
with the authority and prerogatives of the states and localities.  To 
appreciate why this didn't happen, and to see why the idea of national 
standards is now held to be "right," it is important to understand what is 
meant and what is not meant by "standards" in this context.

The mathematics leadership, both nationally and in places like California, 
which had pioneered with its state mathematics framework, realized several 
important things:

         National standards for curricula should be goals for young people in 
different age brackets to strive fordemanding but attainable learning goals 
providing a vision of what we want all of our young people to know and be able 
to do.

         They must not be reducible to a set of minimum competency thresholds.

         The standards should help guide states, localities, teachers, and 
others who select or develop curricula or frameworks, allowing for local 
variation and adaptation, but providing sufficient consistency from school to 
school, town to town, and state to state that a change of school or household 
move does not create educational chaos for the student.

         They must not be federal standards; their use by teachers, schools, 
districts, or states should be voluntary.

         The standards should be openly accessible and presented in narrative 
form with illustrative examples, so as to be readable by those whom they affect 
and those who will effect their use: students, teachers, administrators, 
parents, school board members, legislators, etc.

         They must not be pronouncements from on high, but should emanate from 
the teaching profession in the disciplinary area, with strong involvement of 
disciplinary experts and key constituencies, ultimately seeking nationwide 
consensus support.

The mathematics leadership also knew that it should not stop with just 
curriculum standards and went on to develop Professional Standards for Teaching 
Mathematics (NCTM, 1991) and assessment standards, now being worked on jointly 
by NCTM and the MSEB, which had been established by the National Research 
Council (NRC) in 1985 to serve as a national steering committee for mathematics 
education reform.  Their goal is to have a coherent set of three interrelated 
standards documents, covering curriculum, teaching, and assessment.

The Need for Science Standards

Science was also on the move in the last decade.  In the early 1980's, the 
National Academies of Sciences and Engineering (1982), the National Science 
Board (1983), and other groups called to the country's attention the urgency of 
strengthening the science and mathematics educations of the Nation's young 
people, emphasizing that science was something needed by the many, not the few. 
 By the middle of the decade, the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science (AAAS) also had underway its ambitious multiyear undertaking called 
Project 2061, which in 1989 published Science for All Americans, describing 
school learning outcomes in science appropriate for all students.  In 1985, the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Smithsonian Institution established 
the National Science Resources Center (NSRC) to develop and promulgate 
materials and resources for hands-on science in the elementary schools, 
including its own modules called, Science and Technology for Children.  In the 
late 1980's, the National Science Teachers Association started its Scope, 
Sequence & Coordination Project in secondary school science, which has recently 
published its Content Core to guide curriculum developers.  By the end of the 
last decade, numbers of other projects of significance were underway around the 
country, including state efforts to develop science frameworks, some of them 
highly successful.

As the 1990's began, many science education leaders were asking how to bring 
all of this together.  The pressure to find a way was increased by events 
referred to earlier: the strong entry of the governors and the President into 
education and the launching of the National Education Goals Panel and National 
Council on Education Standards and Testing.

National Standards: A Corporate Insight

Political leaders were not the only ones to join the education community in 
communicating that national standards were needed.  In late 1988, I was lucky 
enough to be present at a luncheon meeting that involved Mr. Richard Heckert, 
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DuPont.  Dr. Robert White, 
President of the National Academy of Engineering, opened the discussion by 
asking Heckert what he thought he had learned from all his years of supporting 
school education activities at DuPont.  I was so startled by the brilliance of 
his extemporaneous response that I wrote down what he said:

"If we expect to mount a successful effort to reform mathematics and science 
education in this country, we must have consensus agreement on three things:

         what kids ought to know about math and science;
         how it should be presented to them; and
         how we're going to measure the results."

In the language used in the education world today, Heckert was saying that we 
must have national standards for curriculum, teaching, and assessment, all 
backed by nationwide consensus support.

National Science Standards: A Concerted Effort Begins

In the spring of 1991, the President of the National Science Teachers 
Association (NSTA), acting on the basis of a unanimous vote of the NSTA Board, 
wrote to Dr. Frank Press, Chairman of the National Research Council (NRC), 
asking the NRC to convene and coordinate a process that would lead to national 
science education standards, K12.  This request was seconded by the presidents 
of several leading science and science education associations, as well as the 
U.S. Secretary of Education, the Assistant Director for Education and Human 
Resources at NSF, and the Co-Chairs of the National Education Goals Panel.

The NRC leadership was anxious to help, but still exercised caution, because 
they would be entering the rightful domain of the teaching profession, and they 
were well aware of the complexity of the undertaking needed.  This complexity 
derives from the fact that science in U.S. schools is a considerably more 
heterogeneous field than is mathematics, in part because several strong 
subdisciplines are involved and in part because an organized K12 curriculum is 
wanting. Traditionally, science has had a weak presence in elementary school, a 
stronger presence in higher grades, but with rather sharp separations by the 
subdisciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics, typically taught in one-year 
courses taken by 100%, 50%, and 20% of high school students, respectively.  In 
recent decades, the earth and atmospheric sciences have grown to be a stronger 
part of this mix.  Bringing the subdisciplinary faculties together and linking 
them to the elementary teachers, who are the gatekeepers of what all young 
people must study, has always seemed a daunting task.  Yet in 1991 there was a 
recognized urgency to doing this, in order to move the science reform effort 
ahead in parallel with the mathematics effort and to help science gain the full 
curricular presence that is called for today, if our young people are to be 
prepared for life and work in an increasingly knowledge-based, 
technology-intensive society.

After extensive discussions with leaders in science education and science 
teaching organizations, the NRC took up the challenge.

The Science Standards Effort: Getting Organized

On September 16, 1991, just ten weeks after the NSTA letter had reached Dr. 
Frank Press, Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander announced the award to the 
NRC of a grant to support start-up activities.  Over the fall, the NRC 
developed a general design and time plan for the project, and Dr. James Ebert, 
Vice President of the National Academy of Sciences, was designated as Chair of 
a National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (NCSESA), to 
oversee both development of science education standards and a nationwide 
critique and consensus process.  Its goal was to see publication of curriculum, 
teaching, and assessment standards before the end of 1994.

As 1992 began, a Chair's Advisory Committee was formed, consisting of 
representatives of the National Science Teachers Association, the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of Physics 
Teachers, American Chemical Society, Council of State Science Supervisors, 
Earth Science Education Coalition, and the National Association of Biology 
Teachers, to assist in planning the project and to help steer it throughout its 
lifetime.  This group participated directly in a process lasting through the 
spring to identify and recruit Co-Directors of the staff and 89 volunteers to 
serve on the 36-member oversight committee (NCSESA) and its three working 
groups, dealing with curriculum standards, teaching standards, and assessment 
standards.

Starting to Work

In truth, work on the intellectual substance of the standards had begun early 
because of the determination to build on the work of major reform initiatives, 
such as NSTA Scope Sequence and Coordination, AAAS Project 2061, and NSRC 
Science and Technology for Children.  Staff of NRC's Coordinating Council for 
Education (CCE) were assigned to produce Science Framework Summaries, based on 
the work of these projects, as well as state science frameworks, and science 
standards from other countries.  The resulting compendium was made available to 
the working groups and the national committee when they started.

The National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (NCSESA) 
first met in May 1992, andfollowing organizational meetings that same 
monththe three working groups each had intense working sessions in the summer 
of 1992. Out of the spring and summer efforts came the plan and structure for 
the National Science Education Standards Project.  One of the early decisions 
was to go for an integrated volume containing curriculum, teaching, and 
assessment standards displayed in mutually reinforcing ways.  The decision was 
also made to take the critique & consensus process very seriously, not only 
putting out regular updates on the project but also frequently issuing drafts 
suitable for intense critique by subject matter experts, teachers, and others.  
Using feedback from drafts released in October and December 1992 and February 
1993, plus further intense work on the curriculum standards, it is planned to 
have available by June of 1993 a fairly complete draft of the curriculum 
standards, to be critiqued by tens of thousands of scientists, science 
educators, engineers, and others over the summer of 1993.

The next page describes the task that the working groups, the national 
committee, and the critique & consensus team have set for themselves to 
complete before the end of 1994.

National Science Education Standards: A Project of the National Research 
Council

National Science Education Standards, developed through a nationwide 
development, critique, and consensus-building initiative involving teachers, 
scientists, and other educatorstogether with parents, policy makers, and a 
broad base of interested citizenswill provide the qualitative criteria and 
framework for judging science curricula, teaching, and assessment.  They will:

define the understanding of science that all students, without regard to 
background, future aspirations, or prior interest in science, should develop;

present criteria for judging science education programs and content including 
learning goals, design features, assessment characteristics, and support for 
teachers, including resources needed to meet the learning goals;

include all natural sciences and their relationships to technology, society, 
and other school subjects, acknowledging the interdependence of the science 
disciplines and the natural science connections with mathematics, technology, 
social science, and history;

include standards for K4, 58, and 912 spans of learning as well as the 
preparation and continuing professional development of teachers;

propose a long-term vision for science educationsome elements of which can be 
incorporated immediately in places, others of which will require substantial 
changes in the structure, roles, organization, and context of school learning;

provide criteria for judging models, benchmarks, curricula, and learning 
experiences developed under SS&C or 2061 guidelines, or under state frameworks, 
or local district, school, or teacher designed initiative; and

provide criteria for judging teaching, the provision of opportunities to learn 
valued science (including such resources as instructional materials and 
assessment methods) and science education programs at all levels.

Financial Support

Start-up activities and development of science curriculum standards are being 
supported by the U.S. Department of Education.  Funds for development of 
science teaching and assessment standards are being provided by the National 
Science Foundation.  The critique & consensus process is being supported by a 
coalition of federal agencies, led by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Institutes of 
Health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of 
Defense.
Beyond National Standards

We are at a watershed in U.S. mathematics and science education.  The 1980's 
were characterized by (1) greatly increased grassroots activity and a growing 
desire on the part of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, business leaders, 
and others to become involved; and (2) the simultaneous beginnings of large 
scale policy and planning efforts aimed at bringing some order to all of the 
involvement, most especially the strong entry of the Nation's governors into 
education, and the unprecedented development of national goals, standards, and 
strategies.  The work on standard-setting is far from complete, but national 
education standards in mathematics are moving to their third and last stage, 
and the very real prospect exists of having such standards in science before 
the end of 1994.  It is therefore a good time to try to look ahead and ask what 
the 1990's may bring, or, as the title of this NSF conference suggests, to 
anticipate what may lie beyond national standards.

Navigation

The first thing to be clear about is that national standards are not the end of 
reform, they are the beginning of a new phenomenon in U.S. education: 
coordinated, nationwide reform.  They provide the shared vision of where we are 
going educationally; that is, the consensus agreement on what we want to see 
our students, teachers, and schools achieve.  They provide criteria for the 
development of curricula and assessments and for development and selection of 
the varieties of associated materials.  They point up purposeful directions for 
education research.  They help countless organizations set priorities in 
choosing education activities to undertake.  They are the constant reminders of 
what we as a nation are aspiring toaccessible to and readable by all who are 
willing to invest a little time, energy, and effort.  In short, they are the 
navigational or guidance system of reform.

Motivation

All six national education goals set by the President and the Nation's 
governors bear on the future of mathematics and science education, most 
especially Goal Number 4, which calls for making the mathematics and science 
achievement of U.S. students the best in the world by the year 2000.  In using 
the goal to help drive reform, it is important not to take too literally the 
somewhat ambitious target year 2000 or quantitative results from international 
comparisons that use assessment instruments hammered out through a series of 
compromises among culturally and educationally diverse countries.  I like to 
think that what the President and governors expected us to latch onto is the 
spirit of this goal: to make U.S. mathematics and science education the best in 
the world, and do it as rapidly as possible.

I also believe that we must not focus too much on the competitive aspect of the 
goal.  It was useful in 1989 as a "grabber," because people's minds could 
relate it so easily to economic competitiveness.  But, now that we are moving 
into the real business of education reform, I believe we would be better guided 
by something more inner-directed that I call national education Goal Number 4A: 
By the year 2005, have mathematics and science education programs aligned with 
national standards in every school in the nation, and put in place a nationwide 
infrastructure to sustain on-going revitalization.

I offer this amended Goal Number 4 in the spirit of TQMtotal quality 
managementwhich teaches us that effective businesses or organizations are ones 
that focus less directly on competitors and more directly on setting their own 
internal goals and mobilizing their organizations fully in pursuit of these 
goals.  It seems to me that this principle applies equally well to effective 
reform movements.  In mathematics and science education the clearly defined 
internal goals are the emerging national standards.  In the 1990's, we need to 
concentrate less on comparing ourselves with others and more on comparing 
ourselves with our own standards. In this way, the standards will become the 
first component of an operational national strategy for reforming mathematics 
and science education.

Monitoring

A second high priority for the 1990's is also suggested by TQM: development of 
effective means of monitoring nationwide progress toward the goals, i.e., 
toward alignment with the standards. This will be a complex and sizable 
undertaking, leading to a system quite different in character than the means we 
use today to monitor educational progress.  A large number of indicators will 
need to be tracked, in addition to student achievement scores that we rely on 
so heavily on today.  Efforts to design such a system are just getting under 
way.

Unification

The National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science, and other organizations are working to draw mathematics and science 
closer to one another and eventually to other disciplinesutilizing common 
networks and structures to support reform and hoping eventually to see partial 
interweaving of curricula in the schools.  Another kind of unification that is 
needed, and needed soon, is the bringing together of the discipline-based 
reform efforts I have been discussing here with what is generally referred to 
as the restructuring movement.  Led by national organizations such as the 
National Governors' Association, the Education Commission of the States, the 
Business Roundtable, and the National Alliance of Business, and by national 
projects such as the Coalition for Essential Schools, Re Learning, and the 
Alliance for Restructuring Schools, this movement is concerned with the general 
systemic reform of schools and schooling.  The mathematics and science 
education reform effort needs the restructuring movement, as the means to 
effect change in such areas as governance, the structure of the school day, 
accountability, etc.  Conversely, the restructuring groups need the mathematics 
and science standards in order to put the focus for general reform on the one 
area that all of the major parties would agree is key: student outcomes.  
Actions need to be accelerated to strongly bond the two reform efforts, to form 
some of us call the standards-based systemic reform movement.

Mobilization

That leaves the crucial question for the 1990's: How is the needed mobilization 
to occur?  Some people would say that it is already happening, looking at all 
the grassroots activity started in the last decade and continuing in the 
1990's.  They might also point to effective impressive work done at the state 
level.  At the national level, through the efforts of the Mathematical Sciences 
Education Board (MSEB) working with the National Council of Teachers of 
Mathematics (NCTM) and other organizations, the mathematics reform movement has 
had the character of a mobilization, linking the actions of major 
constituencies to standards-based reform.  The current science standards effort 
is being conducted in such a way as to link major constituencies to standards 
critique and consensus, and then to use the structures and patterns of 
cooperation established for subsequent implementation efforts.  The Committee 
on Education and Human Resources (CEHR) of the Federal Coordinating Council for 
Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) has made remarkable progress at 
drawing federal agencies together around a common strategya strategy based 
primarily on national standards, by the way.  It has also given rise to a 
memorandum of understanding between the National Science Foundation and the 
Department of Education that is unprecedented and bodes well for future 
effective action in mathematics and science education.


But these are only the beginnings of the mobilization that will be needed.  The 
scales of involvement and impact of current reform activities can be measured 
in hundreds of thousands of people.  But there are millions of teachers and 
tens of millions of students.  Thus the whole reform effort must be scaled up 
by one to two orders of magnitudea factor of 10 to 100.  The critical question 
is:  How is this to happen?

A powerful device for mobilizing the varied players in pursuit of the vision 
represented by the standards is just coming on the scene.  It grows out of the 
following question, which is enough to buckle the knees of the boldest and most 
energetic of education reformers:  Suppose that the mathematics and science 
standards are completed and gotten into the hands of all of the Nation's 
teachers, and suppose that they are read and understood.  How on earth are the 
teachers supposed to make all of the changes the standards call fordramatic 
changes in curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment?  The question is 
premised on the opinion of experienced hands in the education business, that 
the current infrastructure for supporting local change cannot come close to 
providing the amount of help and support that teachers are going to need to 
fully align programs with the standards.

About a year ago, Dr. Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director for Education and 
Human Resources at the National Science Foundation, asked the National Research 
Council (NRC) to take the first step in attempting to answer the fundamental 
question just posed.  The task: to determine the merit and feasibility of a 
multi-year effort to do two things:

         Identify the critical forms of help that teachers, schools, students, 
and others will need if they are to modify mathematics and science programs so 
as to align them with national standards; and

         Design the nationwide system of support structures needed to provide 
these varied forms of help and sustain on-going revitalization.

Through a committee known as NESSTSNational Education Support System for 
Teachers and Schoolsthe NRC is working on the merit and feasibility questions 
and will report to NSF in April 1993.  Dr. Williams has stated that, after 
reviewing the report, the Foundation will decide whether the "design" task 
should be undertaken and, if so, by whom.

Prognostication

Speaking purely as an individual, I would like to end with a summary prediction 
regarding what lies ahead.  It is an upbeat forecast, intended to stimulate 
discussion:

The 1990's will be characterized by (1) widespread acceptance of the idea that 
in mathematics and science education national standards are the guidance system 
of education reform and can form the foundation for a national strategy 
(199093); (2) coalescence around this strategy by the major national and state 
players, who are already moving in that direction and showing a remarkable 
willingness to let down the turf barriers and cooperate with one another 
(199294); (3) agreement among these major players on a design and funding 
mechanism for development of a nationwide infrastructure to support the 
strategy (199395); and finally (4) launching the fully mobilized reform effort 
that will involve the really important players, those at the local level, and 
successfully impact schools and school districts all over the country 
(199596).

Our goal should be to make these things happen, and on the timetable indicated. 
 If we do, the final five years of the century will be the most exciting in the 
history of U.S. education.



Choosing The Path: Needed Steps on the Road to
Reform in Mathematics Education

Mary Montgomery Lindquist, President
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

[This paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.]


The Road to Reform in Mathematics Education:  How Far Have We Traveled? (NCTM 
1992) indicates that teachers are aware of the existence of the Curriculum and 
Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989).   The Professional 
Standards for Teaching Mathematics (NCTM 1991) do not enjoy the level of 
awareness that its companion document does.  This may be due to the time that 
each has been available, the greater effort to make people aware of the first 
document, or the difference in the nature of the two documents.

It is also evident that policy makers are generally aware of the Curriculum and 
Evaluation Standards.  One only has to read any recent research on students' 
learning of mathematics, educationally related policies, or funding agencies 
calls for proposals.   It is less clear the status of awareness of the 
Professional Standards.  Although the NCTM Standards (both documents) have lead 
the movement to develop national standards in other fields,  the implementation 
of these standards requires a deep understanding of the implications of 
fulfilling the vision.  In this regard, we are just beginning.

There was no intention in this paper of specifying a comprehensive plan for 
moving beyond the creation of goals and standards.  For example, there is no 
mention of research other than that done in the monitoring projects that must 
continue.  Likewise, there is little emphasis on curriculum development.  Both 
of these areas are of utmost importance and must be continued and enhanced.  
Instead, this paper focuses on only five areas (MAPPS): Monitoring, Assessment, 
Professional development, Public awareness, and School reform.   Immediate and 
new actions are needed in each of these areas to take the NCTM Standards from 
the slogan stage to the position of providing the recommended mathematical 
experiences for every student in the United States.  Some of the current 
efforts of NCTM are briefly summarized while others are listed on the attached 
handout, and suggestions of some needed steps are mentioned.

Monitoring

The greatest detriment to present and future reform efforts could be failing to 
monitor the present reform in mathematics education.  If we do not know what is 
working and, more importantly, the conditions under which change is being made 
successfully, then we have no models to share with those that are making change 
nor any history to guide future ventures.

From the conception of the Standards, the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) of 
NCTM has recommended the need for monitoring.  "Recognizing and Recording 
Reform in Mathematics" (R3M), a project funded by the Exxon Educational 
Foundation and headed by Joan Ferrini-Mundy, is the first of NCTM's  efforts.  
An initial planning grant from Exxon allowed for the collection of data that is 
reported in the Road to Reform document.  Similar information is to be gathered 
this year as part of a study conducted by the Horizon Research, Inc.  The main 
part of the R3M project, however, is to develop useful and deep descriptions of 
schools where significant change in mathematics teaching and learning is 
occurring.  Schools have been selected for initial visits and the process of 
gathering data has begun.  The study designed to continue for five years has 
presently only received funding for the first two years.

Another proposal initiated by the RAC, "Monitoring the Effects of the 
Standards:  Research on Reform in School Mathematics," has now been submitted 
for funding.  The project, directed by Douglas McLeod and Judith Sowder, is 
designed to coordinate, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate research.  The 
Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education (CRMSE) at San Diego 
State University will work with other monitoring projects such as R3M and 
Secada and Byrd's project on reform of mathematics teaching at the school 
level, supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement and the 
National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education.  Although this 
proposal was originated by NCTM, it is acknowledged that an independent but 
cooperative group as CRMSE would provide the neutral role needed for 
monitoring.  The following are some of the next steps that need to be taken:

Secure funding for each of the monitoring projects described above.
Design a system that would assist in the automatic flow of any future 
monitoring efforts (NAEP results, studies such as the NSF project that studied 
the effects of testing, etc.) to a central source.  The McLeod and Sowder 
proposal, if funded, is designed to synthesize and disseminate all efforts. 
Reconceptualize present dissemination efforts on the status of education.  For 
example, the results of the monitoring efforts could inform such documents as 
the annual report card. Build on the knowledge gained from monitoring such as 
from the R3M project to institute model schools and classrooms. Use 
information from the monitoring projects to revise the NCTM Standards.

Assessment

The Board of NCTM has approved the revision and extension of the evaluation 
portion of the Standards to create Assessment Standards.  This effort will be 
one of the major projects of the Council during the next two years 
incorporating what has been learned since the writing of these standards almost 
five years ago.  For example, the Mathematical Sciences Education Board has had 
a study committee working for two years on defining issues related to 
assessment.  NCTM will work with MSEB using their past efforts on the 
assessment front and their expertise in building consensus as they did for the 
previous standards documents.

This is the main effort that NCTM will take in the assessment area.  There is 
much other work needed in this area, but some small steps will smooth the path 
to change:

Assist textbook publishers with in-class assessment; they have requested a 
working seminar on alternative forms of assessment. Encourage standardized 
test publishers in their efforts to align their tests with the Standards in a 
more timely manner. Educate the public on alternate ways of assessing and the 
reporting of results. The recent publication, Measuring Up (NCR), is a sample 
of possibilities, but there needs to be a major awareness of the positive 
changes that appropriate assessments can encourage.

Professional Development

Changing curriculum is an easier task than changing teacher practice.  There 
have been reforms based on the premise that changing curriculum would change 
teacher practice;  this is not the case in this reform movement.  We have come 
to realize that all facets deserve attention and we must move on all fronts.  
Teachers are the key to change and thus our main attention must be on 
professional development.

NCTM has several task forces, as well as standing committees, addressing this 
area.  In particular, the Advisory Committee for Professional Development and 
Status is revising the guidelines for folio review for NCATE to reflect the 
NCTM Standards.  A task force is planning a major project to increase the 
awareness of the Teaching Standards in a comparable way to what Leading 
Mathematics into the Twenty-First Century  did for the Curriculum and 
Evaluation Standards. The project will move beyond awareness to include ways of 
helping teachers implement the Teaching Standards.  Another task force is 
designing a plan to make the evaluation of teaching standards usable for a 
variety of audiencessupervisors of student teachers, principals, and teachers 
themselves.

This is an area in which we must all join forces and change initial teacher 
preparation and continued professional development.  The Standards call for 
cooperative efforts among schools of education, mathematics departments, and 
schools.  Another task force is examining ways to bring together classroom 
teachers and mathematicians to examine teaching and learning research.

Although there is much to be done in this area, I would like to suggest one 
step that must be taken.  The mathematics teacher educators must have the 
opportunity to renew their knowledge and commitment.  We have many educators 
teaching the mathematics methods' courses who have had no opportunity for 
professional development.  We have neglected this group for too long.  Many of 
them are leaders  in research, curriculum development, and professional 
organizations, but too few have a forum to discuss their own role at the 
collegiate level.  We have not provided resources or leadership in coalescing 
this group into the powerful force it could be.

Public Awareness

Until assuming the presidency of NCTM and talking with many reporters, I did 
not realize the seriousness of negative perception about mathematics and 
mathematics teachers.  We will not make any changes until we change the belief 
structures of the public about mathematics.

This will take a two-front assaultone from the outside and one from the 
inside.  As part of the outside assault, NCTM will mount a massive public 
awareness program as part of the celebration of our 75th year in 199495.  One 
of MSEB's greatest strengths has been in the public arena, and we would 
continue to work with them on their many efforts.  We are presently working 
with the Public Broadcast Service on several projects that could assist in this 
effort as it will in the professional development area.  Other mathematics 
professional organizations also have public awareness on their agenda, but it 
is an area that would be helpful to have more dialogue and a common assault.

We must also approach the problem from within.  We cannot make believers of the 
changing role of mathematics and the need for every one to be mathematically 
literate unless we change the experiences that students have from pre-school 
through graduate school.  This, of course, ties to the steps needed in 
professional development.

Some initial steps that we could take on the outside front:

Sponsor a conference for reporters on the "joys and importance" of mathematics 
today.  Have accessible experiences of what it means to know mathematics, 
examples of how technology has changed mathematics, and students' thinking.
         Showcase our teachers who do believe and make a diverse population of 
students believe that every student can and must learn mathematics.  In many 
ways the Presidential Awards program has begun to do this, but mainly the 
showcasing has been done within the professions and not to the public in 
general.

School Reform

The Teaching Standards call for a professional teacher who is supported to make 
the necessary changes and provided an environment that is conducive to these 
changes.  There are many that say we should begin with the larger picture of 
school reform;  my sense is that we cannot wait and that there are steps to be 
taken now that can help move the overall school reform.  There is ample 
research to make a strong case for the need to provide time for teachers.  This 
includes time to plan; to reflect; to

interact with other professionals; to work with students in new and different 
ways; to learn new mathematics, methods, and  materials; to take part in 
professional activities; and to be a person! If we could find a way to lever 
more time for teachers coupled with the supportfinancial, educational, and 
psychologicalthat they need, then the rest of the recommendations in this 
paper, I feel, would fall into place.

In summary, this paper has provided a quick glimpse into some of the next steps 
that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is taking and some that 
should be taken.  It did not cover all steps or describe in detail those steps 
mentioned.  Hopefully, this conference will shape, refocus, and assist in 
making the needed steps clear and possible.



Science Frameworks and the National Standards
  Building on the PastA View to the Future

Maureen Shiflett
Director, Education West
National Research Council


As the development of National Standards for Science Education and Assessment 
proceeds, questions about their impact on the states have arisen.  About 40 
states have existing documents that are variously curriculum frameworks, 
desired student outcomes in science, or required or recommended science 
curricula.  Obviously, the science educators in the states that have existing 
documents are concerned that the National Standards for science will render 
their documents obsolete. Moreover, about 25 states are in various stages of 
development and writing science frameworks or desired outcomes for students.  
Several of the states that have received National Science Foundation State 
Systemic Initiative grants are, as part of their project, developing or 
revising state science frameworks. These states, too, are concerned that their 
process be in line with the National Standards effort. This paper will explore 
some of those concerns by discussing the purposes of a science framework and by 
reviewing how the existing state science frameworks have been used in the 
development of the National Standards.

What is a science framework?

A science framework outlines the essential elements of science education.  It 
provides the philosophical backdrop as well as the vital information necessary 
for designing curricula, choosing instructional materials, and constructing 
assessment vehicles. The framework gives the architectural plan to a 
curriculum, while the local curriculum developers add the mortar and bricks 
detail.  The framework should be broad enough to allow for many curricular 
models, but at the same time, specific enough to encourage a consistency of 
science education.

A science framework empowers educators.  It makes a statement that science is 
an important, valued, and essential element of the curriculum of K12 
education.  Teachers can use a framework as a guide to their own training as 
well as to their classroom practices. Administrators can use it as a lever for 
financial and other support.  Instructional materials developers can use it as 
a guide to the expectations of a state or nation.  College and university 
faculty can design teacher preparation and in-service programs that will meet 
the criteria of the framework.  It is a rallying point that will allow for some 
consistency of science education, but still give local flexibility in how the 
guidelines will be utilized.

The Science Framework Landscape

The National Standards for Science Education and Assessment are not being 
written in a vacuum.  The extant state science frameworks, national projects, 
and international curricula have been serving and will continue to serve as 
resource material.  Some of the salient points contained in these documents are 
discussed below.  This is not to say that all of these items will be 
incorporated into the National Standards for Science Education and Assessment, 
but rather, these are examples of the commonalities that will influence the 
development of the National Standards. Five examples have been chosen: Science 
for all, "Less is More," "Themes," Attitudes, and Process Skills. These and 
other topics from the available frameworks have already been the stimulus for 
discussions within the Working Groups of the National Standards for Science

Education and Assessment project and will undoubtedly continue to be part of 
the basis upon which the writing will proceed.

One national effort, Project 2061 of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (AAAS), has been influential in the development of other 
national documents such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
(NAEP) Science Framework for 1994 Assessment and the National Science Teachers 
Association's Scope, Sequence and Coordination (SS&C) Content Core (1). 
Moreover, most state science frameworks written since 1989 have also relied on 
the tenets of the Project 2061 document Science for All Americans (2).  Slogans 
such as "science for all" and "less is more" have become rallying points that 
grew out of Science for All Americans.

"Science for all" encompasses many ideals.  Scientific literacy has become a 
major goal expressed in most recently-written science frameworks.  According to 
Science for All Americans, "What the future holds in store for individual human 
beings, the nation, and the world depends largely on the wisdom with which 
humans use science and technology.  But that, in turn, depends on the 
character, distribution, and effectiveness of the education that people 
receive." (2, p. 12)  The need for a scientifically literate populace is seen 
as the impetus for reform of science education. Part and parcel of this aspect 
is equal access for all students to excellent science education.  The state 
science frameworks have begun to specifically address the equity issue. Some, 
e.g., California (3), actually give detailed guidelines on how to provide for 
the historically underrepresented and the limited-English-proficient students.

"Less is more" (or "depth vs. breadth" or "fewer things taught better") is 
based on less emphasis on isolated facts and vocabulary with a concomitant 
increased emphasis on learning science by doing science and increased emphasis 
on the fundamental principles of science. Development of higher order thinking 
skills and the use of concepts provides students, and the adults into which 
they develop, with the skills and the framework needed for lifelong learning. 
In other words, teaching and learning science in the same way that science is 
practiced leads to a greater understanding of the connections that make the 
facts and theories of science manageable and useful.

One way of making those connections is by the pedagogical tool of "themes," 
which are recurring ideas that provide a conceptual context for facts and 
phenomena.  According to the California Science Framework, "Themes are 
necessary in the teaching of science because they are necessary in the doing of 
science.  A scholar does not merely collect facts and categorize them.  Facts 
are useful only when tied to the larger theoretical questions of the natural 
worldhow it works and how its parts fit together." (3, p 27). Many variations 
occur within the available documents on how to use themes or organizing 
concepts and which themes or organizing concepts to use. Table 1 gives examples 
gleaned from the various sources.

The message which pervades is that making connections within disciplines and 
between disciplines will be the key for enabling all students to learn 
science.

Most of the state science frameworks and national projects concur that there 
are certain attitudes or "habits of mind" that should be fostered by science 
education. While the wording varies, there is a general consensus about the 
important attitudes that are fostered by a creative science education program. 
A scientifically literate citizen should exhibit curiosity and be inquisitive 
about nature; should long to know and understand the natural world. 
Open-mindedness and a willingness to accept ambiguity are other attributes of 
scientific literacy; there is an understanding that there is no one "scientific 
method," but a recognition of the importance of verifiable data, testable 
hypotheses, and the predictability of science. A scientifically literate 
citizen is an informed skeptic and understands that science is an important way 
of thinking about experience, but not the only way.  There is a recognition of 
the interaction of science, technology, and society. Ideally the informed 
citizen has a positive attitude about science and science's relevance to the 
individual, society, and the environment.  He or she feels at home with the 
ideas of science and technology and values science in daily life.  There is a 
respect for the ethics of science and recognition of the ethical implications 
of applying scientific knowledge.


Table 1
THEMES/ORGANIZING CONCEPTS

Project 2061
Other Documents

Systems

Models
Constancy

Patterns of Change
Evolution




Scale
Systems and Interaction
Fundamental Units
Models and Theories
Stability
Equilibrium and Homeostasis
Variations
Cause and Effect
Diversity
Change and Conservation
Evolution and Equilibrium
Cycles
Time and Scale
Organization (Orderliness)
Structure and Function
Energy and Matter
Probability and Prediction
Patterns and Symmetry



The last example of common elements in the science frameworks is stress on the 
importance of the development of the process skills of science in science 
education.  There is some variation in the types, numbers, and description of 
those skills, but they generally fall into the following categories:

Observing:  taking readings, gathering information

Exploring, investigating, and experimenting: planning and carrying out 
experiments, using materials and instruments, setting up controls

Hypothesizing, predicting, inferring:  reasoning, rationally and creatively 
thinking, forming questions

Measuring:  using the tools of science, using metric units, converting units, 
using numbers to describe measurement, properties and relationships

Classifying and sorting

Recording: keeping a notebook, storing and retrieving computer information

Reporting:  Communicating, constructing and using tables, graphs, and charts, 
interpreting results
         Decision making and valuing:  using experiences with science and 
technology in personal decision making.

The tables in Attachment 1 give the reader an example of the comparisons of the 
various frameworks that have been made available to the groups responsible for 
developing the National Standards. The comparison tables include, not only the 
topics mentioned above, but treatment of the science subject matter, technology 
and related disciplines.  Summaries of an international curriculum [Great 
Britain (4)], a national project [Science for All Americans (2)], and two state 
science frameworks [Arizona (5) and California (3)] are given.

Just as the National Standards are building on the past, states will be able to 
use the National Standards to guide the development and revision of their own 
state science frameworks.  The standards have the potential to empower the 
science education community to achieve the goal of science for every citizen. 
Useful, high-reaching science frameworks exist in several states; development 
of National Standards for Science Education and Assessment may encourage more 
states to follow suit.



REFERENCES

1. Scope, Sequence and Coordination of Secondary School Science.  Volume I.  
The Content Core. National Science Teachers Association. Washington, D.C., 
1992.

2. Science for All Americans.  American Association for the Advancement of 
Science. Washington, D.C., 1989.

3. Science Framework for California Public Schools. California Department of 
Education.  Sacramento, CA, 1990.

4. Science in the National Curriculum.  Department of Education and Science and 
the Welsh Office, Great Britain, 1989.

5. Arizona Science Essential Skills.  Arizona Department of Education.  
Phoenix, AZ, 1990.




















ATTACHMENT 1







The Role of Faculty from the Scientific Disciplines
in the Preparation of Mathematics and Science Teachers

William Haver and Herbert Levitan


Introduction

Faculty from the scientific disciplines can play an extremely important role in 
the current efforts to improve K12 mathematics and science education.  
Arguably, college faculty can make the most meaningful contribution through the 
opportunities we provide in our own undergraduate courses.  This paper 
summarizes some of the most common activities college faculty are involved in 
that impact K12 education; calls attention to the major additional needs and 
challenges that face college faculty in this respect; summarizes some of the 
activities that NSF supports that are directed toward improving the future 
corps of teachers; and describes the intent and scope of a recent NSF-supported 
workshop, which explored the role of faculty from the scientific disciplines in 
the preparation of mathematics and science teachers and ways to enhance the 
education of prospective teachers, while also serving to improve learning by 
all students.

Current Faculty Activities

In recent years mathematicians, scientists, and engineers from college and 
university academic departments have been paying increasing attention to K12 
education. This development parallels the general public concern regarding the 
need for improved student performance in mathematics and science. Signs of this 
interest are widespread and encouraging.

Large numbers of scientists are working directly with talented secondary school 
students through the NSF-supported Young Scholars program.  Many are spending 
time in regular classrooms bringing their talent and enthusiasm directly to 
students. Others are engaged in providing retraining and enhancement for 
elementary and secondary school teachers with support from various NSF programs 
and the Eisenhower programs from the Department of Education.  University and 
college-based mathematicians from every state in the Nation are working hard to 
make the political changes necessary for improved mathematics education by 
providing leadership for the various statewide Mathematics Coalitions.  Under 
the auspices of the National Research Council, and with NSF support, faculty 
are participating in developing new Standards for K12 Science.  These efforts 
are extremely important and for multiple reasons the number of mathematicians, 
scientists, and engineers engaged in these activities must be greatly 
increased.

The Needs and Challenge

However, an important area where we in the disciplinary departments in colleges 
and universities can make a very significant impact in K12 education is 
through opportunities we provide in our own classrooms.  The authors of this 
paper have been involved in activities to improve K12 education and definitely 
do not underestimate their importance and necessity. However, in many ways 
those activities are both easier to accomplish and less central to our primary 
responsibilities.  It is easier to tell people at a different institution and 
in a different segment of education what they should do.  Changing the courses 
we teach, encouraging our colleagues to reconsider their teaching, and 
challenging the reward structures of our own institutions is much more 
difficult.

Improving the quality and changing the nature of college-level instruction is a 
key ingredient to changing the nature and quality of instruction in K12.  Many 
of our Nation's leaders will have their final formal exposure to mathematics 
and science in colleges and universities. Many of the parents of future 
students will finalize their attitudes about science and mathematics during 
their time as undergraduates, and their views and feelings about mathematics 
and science will be passed on to their children.

Most significantly, the knowledge and world view of science and mathematics of 
future teachers is formed at the college level.  Future elementary school 
teachers need positive experiences with mathematics through which they 
themselves experience the relevance and power of mathematics. They need to gain 
an understanding of science by actively being engaged in the scientific 
enterprise instead of passively hearing about science as members of lecture 
classes.  Individuals who are preparing to teach science, mathematics, or 
technology at the secondary level also need greatly improved undergraduate 
programs.  The commonly stated adage remains true: How teachers will teach is 
greatly influenced by the way that they are taught.

Therefore the greatest contributions that we as college and university faculty 
members can make to improve K12 education is to improve the mathematics and 
science experiences of our undergraduates. Faculty in the Education schools 
have extremely important contributions to make in providing many portions of 
the appropriate preparation of future teachers.  However, in the efforts which 
enable prospective teachers to gain an understanding of and an attitude toward 
the disciplines, the major responsibility rests with faculty from the 
sciences.

NSF-Supported Activities

Improving the future teacher corps of the Nation's schools is the principal 
thrust of the teacher preparation initiative in the Division of Undergraduate 
Education.  The strategy for achieving broad impact is to optimize the use of 
both small and large scale projects that explicitly engage the Nation's college 
and university science and mathematics faculties in the production of the next 
generation of K12 science and mathematics teachers.

On a large scale, the "Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation" 
program supports coalitions of institutions in cooperative, long-term efforts 
to increase substantially the quality and number of science and mathematics 
teachers and supervisors, especially members of underrepresented groups.  As 
described in the Division of Undergraduate Education's Program Announcement 
(NSF 92-135), collaboratives typically involve a consortium of participants 
from both within and outside the primary institution.  Leadership of faculty 
members in science, mathematics, and engineering, working with education 
faculty, is essential.  Participating institutions may include comprehensive 
and research universities, two- and four-year colleges, community 
organizations, and the private sector.  It is expected that in the next few 
years several Collaboratives will be initiated with NSF support of $500,00 to 
$1,000,000 per year for up to five years.

Most projects, however, are relatively small scale and are designed to support 
the development of innovative, cost-effective, high-quality efforts that 
incorporate key elements of the pre-service science and mathematics education 
of future teachers.  These projects are incorporated into the Division of 
Undergraduate Education's programs for Instrumentation and Laboratory 
Improvement, Undergraduate Course and Curriculum Development, and Undergraduate 
Faculty Enhancement.

These programs have a major impact on science education at the undergraduate 
level. During the past six years more than 4,000 teams of faculty have 
undertaken curriculum development activities with the support of 
Instrumentation and Course and Curriculum Development awards. This past summer, 
more than 3,500 faculty participated in short courses and workshops to help 
them improve and update their undergraduate courses.  This fall, it is 
estimated that more than 4,000 undergraduate students are enrolled in calculus 
courses that, with support from the Curriculum program, have been significantly 
revised to involve more group learning, more open-ended and extended problems, 
more applications from other disciplines, and the appropriate use of 
technology.  Interesting and promising approaches have also been developed in 
the sciences.  For example, an introductory physics course has been developed 
that replaces traditional lectures and laboratory exercises with physical 
phenomena enhanced by the use of microcomputers for data collection and problem 
solving.  The work of these and other projects will be shared and discussed at 
the February NSF Conference.

The Recent Workshop

Another thrust of the Foundation's activities to engage faculty from the 
disciplines in the preparation of teachers was a Workshop held in November of 
1992 to discuss the nature of the role of the disciplinary faculty in this 
enterprise.  A full Proceedings of the Workshop will be available in the Spring 
of 1993.  While the Workshop participants did not attempt to proscribe the 
exact experience that prospective teachers should have, they did agree on the 
general tenor of the desired experiences.  The major point of agreement was 
that undergraduate courses taken by all students, and future teachers in 
particular, must be much more student oriented.

The specific goals of the Workshop were to provide a forum for science, 
engineering, and mathematics faculty to share ideas and experiences concerning 
effective ways of improving the undergraduate education of science and 
mathematics teachers; to encourage faculty in science disciplines to share 
responsibility with Education School faculty in addressing the needs of 
students considering careers in teaching; and to promote wider discussion of 
the issues of why and how faculty from the science disciplines should be 
involved in the undergraduate education of future teachers.

A major objective of the Workshop was to provide opportunities for faculty to 
share examples of the kinds of experiences that can be employed in disciplinary 
courses that would enhance student understanding and learning of the subject, 
but also would encourage undergraduates to consider careers in teaching and 
better prepare them for such responsibilities.

While a growing number of college and university faculty are becoming 
interested and involved in K12 education in various ways, a great many 
science, mathematics, and engineering faculty remain primarily interested in 
their discipline subject matter and committed to preparing undergraduates for 
research and professional careers in industry or academia, i.e., to enable 
their students to become just like them.

An important perspective of the workshop was that by attending to the needs and 
requirements of the future teachers among their undergraduates students the 
faculty will enable all students to gain a broader and deeper appreciation and 
mastery of the subject matterwhatever the students' career aspirations.  This 
perspective is justified by experiences that almost all faculty shared when 
they began their own academic careers.  Most of us will acknowledge that we 
really began to master the subject matter of our discipline when we began to 
teach.  Yet, in spite of the willingness to acknowledge the validity of this 
experience concerning the utility and empowerment of teaching, many faculty in 
the disciplines do not provide comparable experiences and opportunities for 
their undergraduate students.

In considering topics that could be viewed as being of particular use to 
prospective teachers but would also serve to improve learning by all students, 
workshop participants focused on the following: assessment and evaluation, 
research on teaching and learning, the diversity among the students, and 
innovative instruction.

Elaboration of Major Themes of Workshop

Assessment: Assessment of student learning, which is often viewed as the sole 
prerogative and responsibility of the faculty, is also an important skill for 
future teachers to master.  Yet, because the process of deciding what to assess 
and how to assess requires a broad and deep understanding of the subject 
matter, engaging all students in the process could serve everyone's objectives. 
 Workshop participants were charged to consider: What different types of 
assessment devices and mechanisms are available?  How can assessment be 
structured so that the assessment experience becomes a learning experience as 
well?  How can assessments be structured to enhance learning, more accurately 
reflect a student's understanding, and lower students' anxiety?  How can 
preparation of assessment devices by students be used to enhance the learning 
experience?

Diversity: Students in any course have diverse backgrounds and experiences that 
profoundly influence the way they learn.  By acknowledging this diversity and 
learning how to utilize it, faculty can empower students to pursue their career 
goals in ways that call upon the students' strengths.  Workshop participants 
shared their perspectives on how faculty in the disciplines can enhance student 
learning by appreciating diversity as a resource rather than a diversion.  Such 
a perspective can serve future teachers as models for use in classroom teaching 
at any level. Workshop participants were charged to consider: How can the 
different aspirations of students in a class, such as those intending to major 
in the discipline, those majoring in other science and mathematics disciplines, 
non-scientists, as well as those aspiring to careers in teaching, be turned 
into an opportunity for a positive learning experience? What is the impact of: 
different learning, studying, and communication styles; different types of 
personality in the process of identifying problems and suggesting creative 
solutions; varying racial, ethnic, cultural, and class backgrounds; and 
differences in experience, age, gender, and physical abilities?  Can these 
differences be acknowledged and utilized in classes with very large numbers of 
students?

Research on Learning: Although research exists on how students learn science 
and mathematics, faculty in the disciplines are for the most part unaware of 
this research and its relevance and potential to inform their own teaching of 
undergraduates.  Moreover, faculty in the disciplines, in general, do not 
participate in such research, or engage their students in thinking about how 
people learn. The objectives of this panel were to share some key results of 
research on how students learn science and mathematics, consider its 
implications for teaching undergraduates, provide a basis for faculty in the 
disciplines to acknowledge such research as a legitimate scholarly activity, 
and consider ways that faculty can participate in such research.  Faculty often 
describe current basic research hoping to interest students to consider careers 
in their discipline. Similarly, faculty who share with students an interest in 
exploring how students could learn better might give students an appreciation 
of the dynamic nature of teaching, encourage students to pursue teaching as a 
profession, and contribute to the development of new ways of facilitating 
learning by others.  Workshop participants were charged to consider: How can 
undergraduate faculty in the disciplines be made aware of research on learning? 
 How can faculty in the disciplines incorporate such research into their 
courses both to improve learning by all students with diverse career 
objectives, as well as to accommodate the interests of future teachers?  How 
might prospective teachers be engaged in research on teaching and learning, in 
a way and for the same reasons, that research experiences for undergraduates in 
the disciplines is considered valuable and desirable experience both for 
enhancing learning of the subject and to inform career decisions?

Instructional Innovation: The most common mode of undergraduate instruction is 
the lecture. Most disciplinary faculty are not involved in developing and 
experimenting with modes of instruction that acknowledge that students may 
learn in a variety of ways or that take advantage of newly developed 
technologies.  Workshop participants experienced a variety of innovative 
approaches that are alternatives to teaching through lecture.  They were 
charged with considering questions such as:  How can faculty be encouraged to 
exhibit comfortably, and in the classroom as role models, their own dual 
mixture of scientific training, instinct, and ignorance?  How can instructional 
curricula that purport to "tell it like it is" also encourage a sense of 
discovery, uncertainty, paradox, and mystery?  That is, can disciplinary 
faculty be encouraged to take risks and explore innovative pedagogy that could 
enhance learning of subject matter, while demonstrating to prospective teachers 
the potential dynamic nature of teaching and pedagogy?   How can we encourage 
instructors to discuss, with their students, their strategies for teaching 
various concepts or techniques?  Examples include collaborative and cooperative 
learning, methods of engaging students in large classes, the uses of writing by 
students, peer teaching, the appropriate use of instructional technology, and 
other means of promoting active, experiential learning.

Creating such learning experiences for the majority of our Nation's prospective 
teachers will be no easy task.  Even more daunting is the task of providing the 
majority of undergraduate students with such experiences.  However, we believe 
that the currently growing interest of college and university mathematicians 
and scientists in K12 education can be exploited to help bring about these 
changes.  As more and more faculty become interested in K12 education and 
publicly state the importance of this activity, we believe that they are 
putting themselves in a position where they must support reformation of 
education in their own schools.

In addition, the task at any individual school is not impossible.  Teaching 
undergraduates is, after all, an extremely enjoyable experience; with the 
agreement in the scientific community concerning the importance of K12 
education, those who commit to doing the necessary work at the undergraduate 
level will have at least the tacit support of their peers. In addition, once 
the determination has been made to take seriously the future teachers in our 
midst, a wonderful apprenticeship opportunity becomes available.  Upper-level 
students who are majoring in the disciplines and who are also prospective 
teachers make strong and committed colleagues for improving undergraduate 
education.  As we prepare individuals to become our colleagues as mathematics 
and science teachers we also have eager partners in helping our lower-level 
courses be more student oriented.

Reward Structure

No discussion of the involvement of faculty from the disciplines in the 
preparation of teachers is complete without a discussion of the faculty award 
system. Indeed, major recommendations of each of the disciplinary groups at the 
NSF workshop focused on this issue.  State higher education organizations, 
boards of visitors of universities, the national press, as well as large 
numbers of university Presidents are calling for such changes. We agree that 
formal award structures should be modified.  However, there is no need to wait. 
Given the deep concern of so many scientists with K12 education, faculty from 
the disciplines interested in changing the mathematical and scientific 
experiences of future teachers can begin immediately to invest time in this 
work.

[Bill Haver is a Professor of Mathematics at Virginia Commonwealth of Virginia 
who is currently a part-time program officer in the Division of Undergraduate 
Education (DUE).  Herb Levitan, a neuroscientist, is section head for 
Undergraduate Course and Curriculum Development in DUE and is on leave from his 
position as Professor of Zoology at the University of Maryland, College Park.  
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors.]



Overcoming Barriers to Systemic Change:
Developing a Comprehensive Reform Plan

Frank Newman, President
Education Commission of the States


There is widespread agreement among policy makers, researchers, and educators 
that our entire education system must be redesigned so that all students 
acquire a much higher level of literacy. Throughout the 1980's and into the 
1990's, we have seen an unprecedented amount of reform legislation, strong 
reform leadership from numerous governors, an explosion of businesseducation 
partnerships, a booming business in new curriculum, assessment and 
instructional materials, and the appearance of dozens of school reform and 
restructuring networks.  Talk about reform, restructuring, and fundamental 
change is at an all-time high.

Yet, much of this reform activity has been piecemeal, frequently short term and 
without widespread impact on student learning and the system that supports 
learning.  But, we know what is needed.

In recent years, researchers have provided us with new ideas about effective 
teaching and learning.  Our own experience with the Re:Learning effort1 and 
other initiatives at the Education Commission of the States has convinced us 
that state education systems must be redesigned from the statehouse down to the 
school to produce students who meet performance outcomes, such as those 
described in the NCTM Curriculum and Evaluation Standards and the upcoming 
NRC's Science Education Standards.  We know much more about how students learn. 
 Passive lectures must be replaced by active learning where students construct 
meaning.  To drive the desired outcomes, assessments must require students to 
integrate knowledge and demonstrate mastery.  Teachers must take on new roles 
such as mentoring and use new strategies to help students reach desired 
outcomes.  Decisions must be moved closer to the classroom.  And so on. We know 
what to do.

If we know so much about effective teaching and learning, why haven't we 
designed state education systems to support it?

We asked this question of state-level policy makers, ECS Commissioners, 
"restructurers," and educators in several states.  What we heard was a 
surprisingly uniform set of barriers to changing the system.  The identified 
barriers were:

1)   There isn't a critical mass of people in states who understand what 
systemic change is and what it means for redesigning the education system.

2)   There is no unified, turfless, or widely shared vision for education in a 
state.  This can be seen in states as multiple visions (e.g., the legislature, 
state board, and governor's office may have separate visions), no clear 
understanding or concrete examples of what an effective system would look like, 
and lack of support for a performance- or outcomes-based system built on the 
best research on how students learn.
     3)   The policy-making process is fragmented and piecemeal and leads to 
incoherence rather than whole system change.  Policy making, slowed by 
single-issue bargaining and partisan bickering, all too often has been 
incremental and reactivemore likely to support the status quo than to make 
fundamental change.  Because there isn't a unifying vision, policies are not 
aligned.  Rarely is there a mechanism to link policy-making bodies at the state 
level, and more rarely, the state and local level.

4)   Systemic change is complex, enormous, and politically difficult to manage. 
 The immensity of changing a system is daunting.  People become intimidated, 
lose hope for creating change, and give up.  Managing the complexity requires 
skills of facilitation, negotiation, cooperation, and collaborationskills 
frequently not taught in schools.  Politically, it requires leadership and 
non-partisanship.  Adults don't always act in the best interests of children 
when issues such as turf, personal loss, protection of the status quo, and 
self-preservation are involved. Finally, the revolving-door phenomena 
associated with our political system supports quick fixes rather than long-term 
solutions.

5)   The public doesn't support systemic change because they don't see the need 
for change.  First, people think their local schools are doing a good job2.  
Second, they don't see the need for (or support) a curriculum different than 
the one they experienced in school.  Policy makers need a communications 
strategy to convince the public that change is needed and that students need a 
much higher level of mathematical and scientific literacy in an increasingly 
technological world. Parents and community members, as voters and school board 
members, must support educational change for it to happen.

Although these barriers to systemic change are real and exist in many states, 
they are not insurmountable.  Working closely with the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, Business Roundtable, National Governors' Association, the U.S. 
Department of Education, and Governor John McKernan, Jr., 199192 ECS Chairman, 
we have identified what reforms are needed, what types of policies will support 
them, and what strategies will bring them about.

We believe every state should develop a comprehensive plan for systemic change. 
 The development of the plan should involve key stakeholderspolicy makers, 
educators, business leaders, community members, students, and 
parentsrepresentatives of the whole system.

There are three critical components of a comprehensive plan: (1) create a 
vision, (2) develop and link policies, and (3) lay out strategies for 
implementation.3

1) Create a Vision

Systemic change begins with a clear sense of what students should know and be 
able to do when they leave school.  It springs from compelling images of what 
better schools and education systems are like (e.g., different teaching styles, 
a variety of assessments, support for innovation) and from intense community 
discussions about how to get there and what the costs will be if we don't.  It 
must encompass new, higher standards for everyone in the system.  What should 
teachers do to help students succeed?  What is the role of administrators and 
school boards?

2) Develop and Link Policies

Systemic change requires integrating policies that support creative learning 
environments.  Such policies should:

Create new standards for what students should know and be able to do.  These 
standards should emphasize higher-order learning and be shared by everyone 
involved, from community members to state policy leaders.

Develop frameworks and guidelines to link curriculum to new standards. 
Expectations for what students should know and be able to do should cross 
subject areas and support active learning, not passive memorization, and 
critical thinking.

Develop assessments that are tied to the new standards and reinforce the 
curriculum.  Assessment efforts should measure the knowledge and skills called 
for and include a variety of approaches, including exhibitions, portfolios, and 
other forms of performance assessment.

Create environments that allow and support reform.  Regulations that inhibit 
or prevent reform should be waived until policies are reshaped.  Incentives 
should encourage schools and districts to restructure and be innovative.  
Schools should have the latitude to make critical decisions about hiring, 
allocation of resources, modes of instruction, scheduling, and other such 
issues.

Hold schools and districts accountable for results.  Success should be 
measured by student performance/outcomes rather than number of days spent in 
class or compliance with regulations.  Assessment results should be public, and 
schools that consistently fail to improve student achievement should receive 
both sanctions and extensive assistance.

Transform professional development.  Professional development efforts should 
include helping teachers and principals understand the demands of restructuring 
and improve their ability to teach in new ways to new standards.  Teacher 
education should ensure that newly graduated teachers can be part of the change 
process.  The teacher certification process, too, should reflect new, higher 
expectations and standards with alternative routes to certification 
considered.

Involve the public.  Parents and business/public coalitions should be involved 
in every aspect of education system reform.  Parents should be welcomed into 
schools as part of decision-making teams.

Engage higher education's participation.  Undergraduate education, including 
admissions standards, should reflect higher expectations for students in grades 
K12 and for prospective teachers.  Colleges and universities should work as 
partners with schools to support restructuring.

Reshape education finance.  Finance decisions should focus on the needs of 
students, not the maintenance of organizations, and should be made in light of

the dual goals of equity and improved performance.  Financial incentives should 
support innovation and collaboration among schools and colleges.

Provide incentives for health, social, and youth service agencies to work with 
schools and with one another.  Social agencies can help parents with prenatal 
care and parenting skills to ensure that children arrive at school healthy and 
ready to learn.  Quality preschool opportunities also benefit young children.

Restructure the state education agency.  People working in the state 
department of education should be engaged in the work of redesigning their 
roles and responsibilities in a restructured system.

3) Lay out strategies for implementation and enlist groups to carry them out.

Build business/community coalitions to provide continuity through changes of 
leadership, maintain fidelity to the vision, and serve as a sounding board for 
integrating new ideas.

Create a communications strategy to explain the need for reform, stimulate 
broad public debate of the options, and keep the public part of the reform 
process.

Review existing policies to see which hurt and which help reform efforts and 
make appropriate policy adjustments.

Establish benchmarks for the progress of reform and then track your progress.

Elements of a systemic approach to school change are emerging.  The President, 
50 governors, and numerous leaders in education have set national goals and 
called for higher standards. States such as California, Connecticut, Maine, and 
Vermont have begun the process of developing new visions of a better education 
system. States such as Kentucky, Oregon, and South Carolina have begun bold 
policy efforts to bring about comprehensive change in how they educate their 
students.

Colorado, Maine, and Michigan are among states that have established broad 
public/private coalitions to coordinate reform efforts, showcase innovation, 
and lead the public debate about new, higher standards.

But no state has yet put all the elements together.  We have the tools and 
information we need to create a new, dynamic education system.  Now it is time 
to take the best ideas and reforms educators have to offer and put them 
together in an education system that can deliver on the promise of reform.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Education Commission of the States.  Restructuring the Education System, which 
includes Introduction To Systemic Education Reform, Bringing Coherence to State 
Policy, Building Private Sector and Community Support, and Creating Visions and 
Standards to Support Them. Denver, Colorado, 1992.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.  Curriculum and Evaluation 
Standards for School Mathematics.  NCTM, Reston, VA, 1989.

National Research Council.  National Science Education Standards:  A Sampler.  
NRC, Washington, D.C., November, 1992.







1993 Invitational Conference Participant List




Ahmed T. Abdelal
Georgia State University

Jacob M. Abel
University of Pennsylvania

Ann M. Ackermann-Brown
Ohio State University

Clara I. Adams
Morgan State University

Susan Agruso
New York State Department
of Education

Dale Alexander
New Mexico State University

Gary G. Allen
Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education

Marva G. Allen
The Dept. of Education, Bermuda

Reuben E. Alley
American Association of
Physics Teachers

Mary Beth Altenburg
Society for Neuroscience

Gordon Ambach
Council of Chief State
School Officers

J. Henry Ambrose
C&P - Telephone Company

Eddie Anderson
NASA Headquarters

Erma Anderson
NSTA/SS&C

G. William Anderson
Eagle-Union Comm. School Corp.

Richard D. Anderson
LaSIP

Tiffany N. Anderson
Higher Education in National Affairs

Geri Anderson-Nielsen
Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee

Kasse A. Andrews-Weller
U.S. Department of Energy

David E. Ankenman
Nebraska Mathematics & Science Coalition

Martin A. Apple
Leaders

Brenda S. Argo
Louisiana State Department
of Education

Jack M. Armistead
James Madison University

Jane Armstrong
Education Commission of the States

Spence M. Armstrong
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Terry R. Armstrong
University of Idaho

Gail C. Arnall
Phoebus Communications, Inc.

Michael E. Arons
City College of New York

Leslie Atkinson
Office of U.S. Rep. Louis Stokes

Gilbert W. Atnip
Indiana University Southeast

Todd Atwater
Office of Senator Strom Thurmond

George Ayers
The Council for Exceptional
Children

Robert Baar
Louisville Male High School
J.C.P.S.

Alphonse H. Baartmans
Michigan Technological
University

James Babb
North Dakota Department of
Public Instruction

Pamela Mountjoy Bacon
NASA Education Division

Lawrence J. Badar
Case Western Reserve University

Assem M. Badawy
Salem State College

William D. Badders
Cleveland Public Schools

Michael A. Baer
Northeastern University

Horace H. Bailey
West Texas State University

Honi Bamberger
New Hampshire Estates
Elementary School

Mariah M. Banks
Calvin Coolidge SHS

Beatrice P. Banu
The New School for Social
Research

Steven A. Barbato
Delaware Department of Public Instruction

Joan D. Barber
North Carolina School
of Science and Mathematics

Charles R. Barman
Indiana University
School of Education

Eloise T. Barron
Georgia Department of Education

Marcelline Barron
Illinois Mathematics and
Science Academy

Lloyd H. Barrow
University of Missouri

Pearl W. Bartelt
Rowan College of New Jersey

Hyman Bass
Columbia University

Gayle B. Batten
Thomasville Primary School

Carla Battle
Courtesy Associates

Eleanor Baum
The Cooper Union

Ann P. Bay
Smithsonian Institution

Willie Mae Beamon
Norfolk State University

Nancy Beang
Society for Neuroscience

Dorothy Beardmore
Michigan State Board of
Eduation

Leonard C. Beckum
Duke University

Howard Bell
Shippensburg University

Eileen G. Bengtson
CESI

Boris S. Berenfeld
TERC

Dennis D. Berkey
Boston University

Jerry D. Berlin
Southwest Missouri State
University

Hal S. Bertilson
University of Nebraska
at Kearney

Ruby O. Best
D.C. Public Schools

Eugene W. Bierly
American Geophysical Union

Susan J. Binkowski
Connecticut State Department
of Education

Kay A. Birukoff
Maryland State Department
of Education

Eve Bither
U.S. Department of Education

Beth Black
New Standards Project

Florence P. Blackwood
Liberty Elementary School
Franklin Special School District

Richelle M. Blair
Ohio Board of Regents

William D. Blair
Northern Illinois University

Chares L. Blaschke
Education Turnkey Institute

Berenice Blum-Bart
East Windsor Regional School District

Duane D. Blumberg
University of Southwestern
Louisiana

Craig G. Blurton
NASA Classroom of the Future

Walter Bogan

Gary W. Boggess
Murray State University

Robert D. Bonner
Hampton University

Helen M. Boothe
Botetourt County Schools

Laurence J. Boucher
Towson State University

Andrea R. Bowden
Baltimore City Public Schools

J. Ray Bowen
University of Washington

Richard L. Bowen
Idaho State University

Ray D. Bowman
University of North Florida

Patricia Boyd
Nevada Department of Education

Violet A. Boyer
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities

Sadie Bragg
City University of New York

Mary Ann Brearton
Maryland State Department
of Education

Kenneth Brecher
Boston University

Hans Brisch
Oklahoma State Regents for
Higher Education

Ernest H. Broadwater
Lyndon State College

Marcene D. Broadwater
Amoco Foundation

Nancy Brooks
U.S. Department of Education

Nan A. Broussard
Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board

Alice Brown
University of Kentucky

Charles Q. Brown
National Association of
Geology Teachers

Dennis G. Brown
Drexel University

Jeannette E. Brown
Merck & Company, Inc.

Bonnie L. Brownstein
Institute for Schools
of the Future

Joyce F. Bruchey
Green Valley Elementary

Doug K. Brumbaugh
University of Central Florida

Bonnie J. Brunkhorst
California State Univ. - San
Bernardino

Thelma J. Bryan
Coppin State College

Virginia R. Bryan
Southern Illinois University
at Edwardsville

Alphonse Buccino
Office of Science & Technology Policy

James E. Bundschuh
Saint Louis University
Arts & Sciences

M. David Burghardt
Hofstra University

Gail Burrill
Whitnall High School

Douglas Burris
University of Community College System of Nevada

William S. Bush
University of Kentucky

Rodger W. Bybee
Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study (BSCS)

Beverly Byers-Pevitts
University of Northern Iowa

Barbara J. Byrne
Stockton State College

Sally Cain

William H. Caldwell
University of North Florida

J. Callan
American Psychological
Association

Bel Campbell
University of New Mexico

D'Ann M. Campbell
Austin Peay State University

Meg Campbell
Outward Bound-Expeditionary Learning

Nancy H. Campbell
Lovett Elementary

Patricia Campbell
Campbell-Kibler Associates

Patricia F. Campbell
University of Maryland

George Campbell, Jr.
NACME, Inc.

Patrick H. Canan
Office of Senator Mark O. Hatfield

Patrick Canan
Office of Senator Mark Hatfield

Gary Keller Cardenas
Arizona State University

Wayne W. Carley
Lamar University

Earl L. Carlyon
CSDE - Bureau of Research & Teacher Assessment

Peggy S. Carnahan
Texas Project 2061-Northside ISD

Maureen C. Cassidy
Alabama Facilitator Project

Randall Caton
Christopher Newport University

Marjorie M. Cave
Educational Service
Center #4

Donald L. Chambers
National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences Education

Audrey Champagne

Arnold M. Chandler
Wisconsin Mathematics Education Coalition

Amy L. Chang
American Society for Microbiology

Harold M. Chapnick
New York Hall of Science

Bernard L. Charles
The McKenzie Group

Lily E. Christ
John Jay College - CUNY

Robert A. Christman
National Association of
Geology Teachers

Robert S. Cichowski
California Polytechnic
State University

Smith Claibourne
DuPont Company

Carl O. Clark
South Carolina State University

Amy Cohen
Rutgers University

Terri Colananni
Ouachita Technical College

Jim Colby
National Science Foundation

Nancy S. Cole
Educational Testing Service

Richard C. Cole
Connecticut Academy for
Education in Mathematics

Thomas W. Cole
Clark Atlanta University

John W. Collette
DuPont Experimental Station

Kathy Comfort
California Department of
Education

Lorraine Conrad
Richland School District Two

W. Lyle Cook
Louisiana State Univ. -Shreveport

Lloyd Cooke
LMVC Associates

Alicia Coro
U.S. Department of Education

Sammie W. Cosper
Louisiana Board of Regents

John Coulson
Eisenhower National Program

Raymond M. Coveney, Jr.
University of Missouri-Kansas City

David P. Crandall
Northeast Regional Laboratory

Phillip D. Creighton
Salisbury State University

Linda Creque
Government of the Virgin Islands

Hilda Crespo
ASPIRA Assoc.

David L. Crippens
KCET TV

Dagmar R. Cronn
University of Maine

Doris M. Crudup
U.S. Department of Education
Eisenhower State Program

Robert P. Cullen
North Carolina Science &
Mathematics Alliance

Chris Cullis
Case Western Reserve
University

Francena Cummings
EL DOE, SERVE

Trudy B. Cunningham
Bucknell University

Brian Curry
ASCD

Glen W. Cutlip
National Education Association

Louis Dale
University of Alabama at Birmingham

June M. Danaher
Maryland State Department
of Education

Rosalie A. Dance
D.C. Public Schools

Jane Daniels
Purdue University

Phil Daro
University of California

Phillip Daro
University of California

Kerry Davidson
Louisiana Systemic Initiatives Program (LaSIP)

Leodis Davis
Academic Affairs

Lois A. Davis
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Phillip H. Davis
University of Tennessee at Martin

Rick Davis
U.S. Department of Education

Robert Davis
Rutgers University

Spencer Davis
School District of Philadelphia

Santos de los
Maricopa County Community College

Melanie C. Dean
Univ. of California, San Diego

Doris B. DeBoe

Elizabeth H. DeBra
Office of Educational Research and Improvement

JoAnn E. DeMaria
Fairfax County Public Schools

Costel Denson
University of Delaware

Edward D. Dill
Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Gloria A. Dobbins
District of Columbia Public Schools

Stephen A. Doblin
University of Southern
Mississippi

Clarence J. Dockweiler
Texas A&M University

Alice W. Dollar
Knox County Schools

Joan Donahue
Mathematical Sciences
Education Board

James A. Donaldson
Howard University

Herman K. Doswald
Virginia Tech

Claudia B. Douglass
Central Michigan University

Floyd L. Downs
Arizona Mathematics Coalition

Mark Driscoll
Educational Development Center

Linda Dritsas
Fresno Unified School District

Marvin Druger
Syracuse University

Dorothy W. Drummond
Indiana State University

Paula Duckett
D.C. Public Schools

Joan E. Duea
University of No. Iowa

Mary S. Duru
D.C. Public Schools

Russell R. Dutcher
Southern Illinois University
at Carbondale

J. Graeme M. Duthie
University of Alabama
in Huntsville

Pat Dyer
Eisenhower Curriculum
Framework Project

William Earl
Utah State Office of Education

Larry L. Earvin
Clark Atlanta University

F. Donald Eckelmann
Ohio University

Irene A. Eckstrand
National Institutes of Health

Sally C. Edgerton-Bell
Baltimore City Schools

John Egermeier
Eisenhower National Program

Steve G. Ehrmann
Annenberg/CPB Projects

Terry L. Eidell
Appalachia Education
Laboratory, Inc.

Rey Elizondo
The University of Texas at El Paso

James D. Ellis
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study

Monica A. Ellis
Indian Creek Elementary

Roslyn R. Elms
University of Northern Colorado

Eileen Ericksen
National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics

Allan C. Eustis
WRC-TV

Richard E. Ewing
Texas A&M University

Joseph Exline
Virginia Department of Education

Patsy J. Fagan
Drake University

Ava L. Fajen
Coordinating Board for Higher Education

Daniel Fallon
Texas A&M University

Florence D. Fasanelli
Mathematical Association of
America

Edward M. Felegy
Prince George's County
Public Schools

Elizabeth Fennema
University of Wisconsin

Sharyn E. Fenwick

Evan R. Ferguson
Sigma Xi
The Scientific Research Society

Celestino Fernandez
University of Arizona

Mary B. Finch
New Mexico Systemic Initiative Math/Science Education

James H. Finkelstein
George Mason University

Allan G. Fischer
North Dakota State University

Kathleen Fisher
San Diego State University

Robert M. Fitch
SC Johnson Wax

Patrick W. Flanagan
University of Louisville

David H. Florio
National Academy of Sciences

Bert M. Flugman
Center for Advanced Study
in Education

Henry Foehl
Philadelphia College of
Pharmacy & Science

Michael Forman
Purdue University

Susan L. Forman
Mathematical Sciences
Education Board

Helen K. Foss
Delaware SSI/Project 21

Robert M. Fossum
American Mathematical Society

Duane K. Fowler
Northern Michigan University

John M. Fowler
Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education

David V. Frank
Ferris State University

Martin Frank
American Physiological Society

William J. Frascella
Indiana University - South Bend

Susan D. Fredrickson
Wellsville Elementary School

Helen M. Free
American Chemical Society

Janet Frekko
Hands on Science Outreach

Margaret French
Oklahoma State Legislature

Edward A. Friedman
Center for Improved Engineering &
Science Education

Edward J. Fuentes
National Education Goals Panel

Carol H. Fuller
National Institute of Independent
Colleges and Universities

Carolyn Fuller
Office of Senator
J. Robert Kerry

John D. Fulton
University of Missouri-Rolla

Peggy Funkhouser
Los Angeles Educational
Partnership

Anthony A. Galitsis
New York City
Board of Education

Luz V. Gasbar
University of Puerto Rico

Caroline Gaston
Office of the Governor

James D. Gates
National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics

Kim A. Gattis
Kansas State Board of Education

Ray A. Geigle
California State Univ.-Bakersfield

Donna M. Gerardi
National Research Council

Peter Gerber
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation

George Gerhold
Western Washington University

Larry A. Giesmann
Northern Kentucky University

Clare R. Gifford
U.S. Department of Education

John Gilbert
Mississippi Math & Science
Coalition

Shirl E. Gilbert, II
Indianapolis Public Schools

Alice J. Gill
American Federation of
Teachers (AFT)

Diane S. Gilleland
Arkansas Department of
Higher Education

Walter L. Gillespie
American Association for
Advancement of Science

Dan Giosta
Office of U.S. Rep. Austin Murphy

Fred Goldberg
San Diego State University

Hilary Goldman
American Association of State Colleges & Universities

Susan Goldman
Vanderbilt University

Jinny Goldstein
PBS

Adele M. Gomez
St. John's School

Manuel Gomez
Puerto Rico Resource Center
for Science and Engineering

Ronald F. Gonzales
Utah State Office of Education

Jacqueline E. Goodloe
D.C. Public Schools

B. Joan Goodman
Los Lumas Public Schools

Cecilie Goodrich
Cleveland State University

Leonard Gordon
Arizona State University

Daniel L. Goroff
Harvard University

Dwight A. Gourneau
American Indian Science &
Engineering Society

Ann Grady
Boston Public Schools

Carolyn S. Graham
New York State
Education Department

Karen W. Grass
York County Schools-Coventry E.S.

Mary W. Gray
American University

Jean T. Green
Office of Postsecondary
Education, Research & Assistance

Mary S. Gromko
Colorado Department of Education

Donald Gross
The George Washington University

James D. Gunton
Lehigh University

Deborah Tepper Haimo
Mathematical Association of
America

Kermit L. Hall
The University of Tulsa

Deborah Hughes Hallet
Harvard University

Eric Hamilton
Loyola University of Chicago

Janetta M. Hammock
Higher Education and National Affairs

Steven E. Hardin
Spalding University

John Hardy
University of Houston

Mark Harkins
Office of U.S. Rep. Tim Valentine

Cynthia Harper
Jacksonville State University

Loisteen E. Harrell
Fairfax County Public Schools
Lake Braddock Secondary School

Marieta W. Harris
Memphis City Schools

Willard W. Harrison
University of Florida

John G. Harvey
University of Wisconsin-Madison

William A. Hawkins, Jr.
Mathematical Association of
America

Kati Haycock
American Association for
Higher Education

Patricia C. Hayward
Florida State University

Patrick Weasel Head
Montana State University

Nancy Hechinger
Edison Project

Henry J. Hector
Alabama Commission on
Higher Education

Jack G. Hehn
American Association of
Physics Teachers

Henry Heikkinen
NRC/Coordinating Council for Education

Tony Heiting
Iowa Department of Education

Karen A. Hembree
Knox County Schools

Ethel C. Henderson
D.C. Public Schools

Thomas L. Henderson
Southern University

W. Clark Hendley
Bridgewater State College

Pat Henry
The Natioanl PTA

Susan A. Henry
Carnegie Mellon University

David B. Henson
Alabama A&M University

Richard H. Herman
University of Maryland

Olga N. Hernandez
University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez

Teresa Hernandez-Heinz
Park Side Center

Gregory F. Herzog
Rutgers University

David Hestenes
Arizona State University

A. James Hicks
North Carolina A&T State
University

Paul Hill
The RAND Corporation

Shirley Hill
University of Missouri, Kansas City

Bill Hilton, Jr.
National Youth Science
Foundation

Kenneth Hoffman
National Research Council

Nancy R. Hoit
Hull Environmental High School

Marjorie M. Holland
Ecological Society of America

Kathleen Holmay
National Research Council

Jimmi L. Holmquist
U.S. Department of Education

Smith L. Holt
Oklahoma State University

Daniel W. Hone
Univ. of California-Santa Barbara

Laura Hoopes
Occidental College

Becky Horine
Kentucky Council on Higher
Education

Sharon Horn
Eisenhower National Program

Chris Horsfield
Jacksonville State University

Al Hovey
Department of Public Instruction

Michael N. Howard
Kentucky Science & Technolgy
Council, Inc.

Frank L. Huband
ASEE

Rowena S. Hubler
Ohio Department of Education

M. Frank Watt Ireton
American Geophysical Union

Beryl W. Jackson
District of Columbia
Public Schools

Rose V. Jackson
Hispanic Association of
Colleges & Universities

William H. Jaco
American Mathematical Society

Kolf Jayaweera
California State Univ. -Fullerton

Mazie Jenkins
Madison Public Schools

Anthony M. Johnson
AT&T Bell Laboratories

Donald R. Johnson
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Howard C. Johnson
Syracuse University

James B. Johnson
Mesa State College

Larry S. Johnson
Metropolitan State College
of Denver

Brenda B. Jones
John Tyler Elementary School

Chancey O. Jones
Educational Testing Service

Debra L. Jones
Fairfax County Public Schools

Diane Jones
Office of Senator John Kerry

J. Arthur Jones
Mathematical Sciences
Education Board

Stanley T. Jones
University of Alabama

Vinetta Jones
The College Board/Equity 2000

Carolyn C. Joyner
USED IKE State Program

Joyce B. Justus
University of California

Lawrence R. Kaber
Montana Mathematics Coalition

Jane Kahle
Miami University

Gretchen Kalonji
University of Washington

Robert Kansky
Mathematical Sciences
Education Board

Phillis Katz
Hands-on Science Outreach, Inc.

W. Hubert Keen
State University of New York College of Cortland

Earl E. Keese
Middle Tennessee State
University

Edward C. Keller, Jr.
West Virginia University

John T. Kemper
University of St. Thomas

John R. Kender
Columbia University

John Kenelly
Clemson University

Manert Kennedy
Colorado Alliance for Science

Robert W. Kenney
Vermont Department of Education

Minnie M. Kenny
DOD/NSA

Henry S. Kepner
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

George Kerscher
Recording for the Blind

Bernard V. Khoury
American Association of
Physics Teachers

Timothy J. Killeen
The University of Connecticut

Robert L. Kimball
AMATYC

Ernest Kimmel
Educational Testing Service

Howard S. Kimmel
New Jersey Institute of Technology

Joe M. King
University of New Orleans

Nina A. Klein
Montana Tech

Stephen P. Klein
The RAND Corporation

David Kline
SUNY - New Paltz

Patricia R. Komuniecki
The University of Toledo

Daniel Koretz
The RAND Corporation

Alan O. Kousen
Vermont Department of Education

Roger A. Kovar
University of Northern
Colorado

Kenneth S. Krane
Oregon State University

Donald L. Kreider
Dartmouth College

Mary Harley Kruter
National Science Foundation

Lawrence D. Kugler
University of Michigan-Flint

Charlotte V. Kuh
Educational Testing Service

Charles E. Kupchella
Western Kentucky University

Carole Lacampagne
Eisenhower National Program

Diana Lam
Dubuque Community Schools

Edward M. Landesman
Univ. of California, Santa Cruz

Mozell R. Lang
Michigan Department of Education

Perry E. Lanier
Michigan State University

Jim LaPorte
Virginia Tech

Doug Lapp
Smithsonian Institution

Rob Larson
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Ronald M. Latanision
MIT

Priscilla Laws
Dickinson College

Clarence M. Lee
Howard University

Yvonne Lee
Baltimore City Public Schools

Thelma Leenhouts
Eisenhower National Program

Sondra A. Legall
D.C. Public Schools

Steven J. Leinwand
Connecticut Department
of Education

James Leitzel
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Joan R. Leitzel
University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Frank K. Lester
Indiana University

Luna Levinson
U.S. Department of Education, NDN

Gordon M. Lewis
District of Columbia
Public Schools

Gwendolyn L. Lewis
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Robert E. Lewis
NSTA/APAST

Dale W. Lick
Florida State University

Karen K. Lind
University of Louisville

Mary M. Lindquist
National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics

Doris Litman
Pittsburgh Public Schools

Thomas S. Litwin
Smith College

Marvin D. Loflin
University of Colorado at Denver

Jack Lohmann
Georgia Tech University

David Lomen
University of Arizona

Donna Long
Indiana Department of Education

Vena M. Long
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Gilbert J. Lopez
National Association of
Precollege Directors

Jose R. Lopez
University of Puerto Rico
at Mayaguez

Clifford R. Lovin
Western Carolina University

Robert P. Lowndes
Northeastern University

John K. Luedeman
S.C. Mathematics Coalition

James A. MacMahon
Utah State University

Bernard L. Madison
University of Arkansas

Lee (Linda) J. Magid
University of Kentucky

Carolyn Maher
Rutgers University

Kathleen Mailer
Seattle University

Ellen Mappen
Douglass Project for Rutgers Women in Math, Science and Engineering

Ray Marshall
The University of Texas

Amy Martino
Rutgers University

William J. Masalski
State Math Coalition
Massachusetts Math. Initiative

Linda Maston
E.M. Pease Middle School

Robyn Mathias
Rolling Terrace Elementary
School

John R. Matis
U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Karl R. Mattox
Miami University

Dee Mattox-Hal
Galena Park ISD

Bruce Mattson
Creighton University

Carol O. Mayhew
Delaware Department of
Public Instruction

Mara Mayor
Annenberg/CPB Projects

Marilyn E. Mays
AMATYC

Paul H. Mazzocchi
University of Maryland

Shirley M. McBay
Quality Education For
Minorities Network

Jean G. McDonald
National Governors' Association

A. Sherri McGee
NASA Headquarters

Patricia J. McWethy
National Association of
Biology Teachers

Robert W. Mead
University of Nevada, Reno

Shirley M. Menendez
National Diffusion Network

Sheryl Mercier
Fresno Unified School District

Frank D. Meyers
University of Nevada

Joan J. Michael
North Carolina State University

Charles D. Miller
Classroom of the Future

Kenneth C. Millett
California Coalition for
Mathematics

Carol T. Mitchell
Omaha Public Schools

Patricia Mitchell
National Alliance of Business

Roger D. Mitchell
Museum of Science & Technology

Suzanne Mitchell
Arkansas Department of Higher Education

Henrietta Moody
Eisenhower National Program

Michael R. Moore
Purdue University Calumet

Randy Moore
Wright State University

Bonnie Morgan
Utah State Office of Education

Patricia L. Morris
Morgan State University

S. Brent Morris
National Security Agency

William J. Moulds
Maryland Mathematics Coalition

Cindy Musick
U.S. Department of Energy

Melvin Z. Myricks
Kodak 21st Century Learning Challenge

Dean H. Nafziger
Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development

Jeanne L. Narum
Independent Colleges
Office-Project Kalaidoscope

Diana Natalicio
University of Texas, El Paso

Bill Neal
Dallas Independent School District

Michael E. Nelson
Northeast Missouri State
University

Ricardo Nemirovsky
Technical Education Research Center

Frank Newman
Education Commission of
the States

Peter Nicholls
Kansas State University

Lois A. Nicholson
National Research Council

Dennis N. Nielsen
Winona State University

Geri Anderson Nielsen
U.S. Senate

Todd R. Nielsen
ACT

Candance A. Noble
ACT

Maureen Nusum
Bermuda Government Department of Education

Peter V. O'Neil
University of Alabama
at Birmingham

Jaime Oaxaca
Coronado Communications
Corporation

Jaime Oaxaca
Coronado Communications
Corporation

Terry L. Oggel
Virginia Commonwealth University

James Oglesby
University of Missouri in Columbia

V. Susie Oliphant
D.C. Public Schools

John P. Oliver
Wayne State University

Kurt Olsson
University of Idaho

Dennis J. Opheim
American Society for Microbiology

John A. Oppelt
Bellarmine College

Shyrl A. Orrego
Kodak 21st Century Learning Challenge

Bob Orrill
The College Board

Alba A. Ortiz
University of Texas at Austin

Grace Ostenso
Committee on Science, Space
and Technology

Paul B. Otto
University of South Dakota

Frank C. Owens
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Hatice O. Ozturk
North Carolina State University

Arturo Pacheco
University of Texas at El Paso

John Padalino
Pocono Environmental
Education Center

Lawrence W. Panek
Widener University

Robert E. Parilla
Montgomery College

Carlo Parravano
Merck Institute for Science
Education

Carol A. Parssinen
Philadelphia Science Partnership
c/o Franklin Institute

Bruce Partridge
Haverford College

Daniel Pearson
Committee on Science, Space & Technology

Luis Perez
Puerto Rico Council on
Higher Education

Sidney Perkowitz
Emory University

Robert Pfeffer
New Jersey Institute of Technology

Angela Phillips
National Aeronautics & Space Administration

Anne L. Pierce
University of Hartford

Robert A. Pierotti
Georgia Institute of Technology

William A. Pirkle
Univ. of South Carolina -Aiken

Loren D. Pitt
University of Virginia

Rita Platti

Gordon Plishker
Sam Houston State University

Bob Polkinghorn
University of California

Mattye Pollard-Cole
Colorado Department of Education

Steven K. Pontius
Radford University

James L. Powell
The Franklin Institute

Harold A. Pratt
National Research Council

Blanche L. Premo-Hopkins
University of South Carolina-Aiken

Fernand J. Prevost
New Hampshire State
Department of Education

Leslie Prewitt
Courtesy Associates

Patricia P. Price
New York State Education
Department

Dean B. Priest
Harding University

Jeffrey M. Priest
Ruth Patrick Science Education Center

David J. Prior
Northern Arizona University

Barbara Pryor
Office of Senator
John D. Rockefeller IV

Thomas L. Purdy
Rutgers University

James L. Pyle
Ball State University

John C. Raich
Colorado State University

Ernesto Ramirez
Maricopa County Community College District

Robert R. Rath
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Pradosh K. Ray
Tuskegee University

Kenneth R. Rebman
CSU Hayward

Susanne M. Reeder
Buffalo Public Schools

Thomas M. Regan
University of Maryland

Diane Resek
San Francisco State University

James R. Retherford
Louisiana State University

John Richards
Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.

Earl S. Richardson
Morgan State University

Chester R. Richmond
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Mary Kay Rickles
Britannica Marketing Companies

Stephen Riter
University of Texas at El Paso

Scott P. Roberts
The Annenberg/CPB Math & Science Project

Steffen H. Rogers
University of Rhode Island

Roy Romer
Governor of Colorado

David P. Roselle
University of Delaware

Linda P. Rosen
Mathematical Sciences
Education Board

Carla B. Rosenberg
Oklahoma State University

Joseph G. Rosenstein
New Jersey Mathematics Coalition

Judith W. Rosenthal
Kean College of New Jersey

Ronald C. Rosier
CBMS

Michael Ross
OGRI/NCGS

William G. Roughead
Georgia Department of Education

Wimberly C. Royster
Kentucky Science and Technology Council

Margaret A. Roytek
General Motors Corporation

Peter A. Rubba, Jr.
Penn State

Marlene Rushay
Ohio Board of Regents

George A. Russell
University of Missouri

Tom Ryerson
Minnesota Department of
Education

Judith S. Sachwald
Maryland Science Center

Phil Sadler
Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics

Roy H. Saigo
Southeastern Louisiana
University

Tomas E. Salazar
New Mexico Highlands University

J. Robert Sampson
Illinois State Board of Education

David A. Sanchez
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Linda R. Sanders
Christopher Newport University

Lawrence Scadden
National Science Foundation

Alden Schacher
Office of U.S. Rep. Dave McCurdy

Sally Schuler
National Science Resource Center

Brian B. Schwartz
The American Physical Society

M. Mark Schwartz
U.S. Department of Education

Juanita S. Scott
Benedict College

Susan J. Seaman
Bonner County School District

Jack A. Seilheimer
University of Southern Colorado

Robin L. Sellen
Mesa Elementary School

Robert J. Semper
The Exploratorium

Ann Serratore
Connecticut State Department of Education

Candadai Seshachari
Weber State University

Charles M. Severin
State University of New York at Buffalo

Elaine Seymour
University of Colorado

Roy L. Shafer
COSI, Ohio's Center of Science of Industry

Robert H. Shapiro
U.S. Naval Academy

Karen Sharp
American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges

Terry J. Shaw
Irving Middle School

Maureen Shiflett
National Academy of Sciences & Engineering

Ray C. Shiflett
Associated Western Universities
Cal Poly Pomona

Rick Short
American Psychological
Association

Martha J. Siegel
Maryland Mathematics Coalition

Ronald J. Simanovich
Pennsylvania Department
of Education

Rebecca Simmons
American Chemical Society

Charles W. Simms
St. Louis Public School District

Mary L. Sivertsen
U.S. Department of Education

Theodore Sizer
Brown University

Theodore Sizer
Brown University

Claibourne Smith
Du Pont Company

David Smith
Duke University

Ronald E. Smith
Northeast Louisiana University

Jesse O. Snowden
Southeast Missouri State University

David Sokoloff
University of Oregon

Jimmy L. Solomon
Mississippi State University

Andrew A. Sorensen
University of Florida

Jeanne S. Spawn
Park Elementary School

Mark Spencer
Utah System of Higher Education

Charles D. Spielberger
University of South Florida

Angelica Stacy
University of California
at Berkeley

Julie C. Stafford
Cray Academy

Elizabeth Stage
NRC/Coordinating Council
for Education

Charles B. Stalford
Eisenhower National Program

Virginia Lyn Stallings-Roberts
The American University

Kendall Starkweather
International Technology
Education Association

John R. Staver
Kansas State University

James B. Stedman
Congressional Research Service

Lynn A. Steen
Mathematical Sciences Education Board

Sharon M. Stenglein
Minnesota Department
of Education

Nicholas J. Sterling
Binghamton University

Joyce Stern
Eisenhower National Program

Andrew Sterrett
Mathematical Association of
America

Donald M. Stewart
College Board

James H. Stith
American Association of
Physics Teachers

Trish Stoddart
University of Utah

Connie Stout
Texas Education Agency

Harrison W. Straley
Woodberry Forest School

Arnold A. Strassenburg
SUNY - Stony Brook

Dorothy Strong
Chicago Public Schools

Dorothy Strong
Chicago Public Schools

Judith A. Strong
Moorhead State University

Malcolm Sturchio
Fairleigh Dickinson University

Marilyn J. Suiter
American Geological Institute

Keith A. Sverdrup
American Geophysical Union

Marcia P. Sward
Mathematical Association of
America

Joyce Swartney
Buffalo State College

Kathleen Sweeney-Hammond
Maret School

Maurice R. Sykes
D.C. Public Schools

Ronda Talley
American Psychological Association

Judith Tamburlin
State University of New York at Buffalo

Anthony A. Teate
Morgan State University

Mary L. Tenopyr
AT&T

Barbara J. Tewksbury
Hamilton College

Paul Eric Thiess
Joint Board of Science, Math & Engineering Education

Juanita Thomas
North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory

Melvin W. Thompson
Howard University

Ron Thornton
Tufts University

John A. Thorpe
State University of New York at Buffalo

Cornelia Tierney
Technical Education Research Center

Bob Tinker
Technical Education Research Centers

Robert O. Tinnin
Portland State University

George Z. Tokieda
The Brearley School

John S. Toll
Universities Research
Association, Inc.

Warren C. Tomkiewicz
Plymouth State College

David L. Toppen
Montana University System

Linda Torp
Inninois Mathematics and Science Academy

Blanche M. Touhill
University of Missouri-St. Louis

James H. Townes
Elizabeth City State University

Carol B. Tremper
Hampton Township School District

John Tweed
Old Dominion University

Robert G. Underhill
Virginia Tech

Vaughn Vandegrift
Montclair State College

Eleanor M. Vander Haegen
Keene State College

Peggy G. Vatter
Superintendent of Public
Instruction

Argelia Velez-Rodriguez
U.S. Department of Education

Joyce M. Verrett
Grambling State University

Kent Viehoever
USED

Terry Anne Vigil
Bridgewater State College

Richard N. Vineyard
Weber State University

Cathleen A. Wagner
Columbiana Ex. Vill. Schools

Kay F. Wagner
SAIC

Ellen Wahl
Girls' Club of America

Henry H. Walbesser
Baylor University

David L. Walker
Tennessee Board of Regents

M. Lucius Walker, Jr.
Howard University

Thomas P. Wallace
Illinois State University

Virginia M. Wallace
Fairfax County Public Schools

Sylvia A. Ware
American Chemical Society

Beth Warren
Technical Education Research Center

Reg Weaver
N.E.A.

Stacey S. Weinand
Oklahoma State Department
of Education

Robert Weinbeck
American Meteorological Society

Druid R. Weir
Washington Technology
Education Association

Joyce Lowry Weiskopf
National Science Resources Center

Ronald H. Wenger
University of Delaware

N. Richard Werthamer
The American Physical Society

Karen Wetterhahn

Linda Barton White
California Postsecondary
Education Commission

Rosanne T. White
Technology Student Association

Jerry L. Whitten
North Carolina State University

Beverly R. Whittington
Educational Testing Service

Gene Wilhoit
National Association of State
Boards of Education

Jack D. Wilkinson
University of Northern Iowa

James A. Williams
Dayton Public Schools

Lauren A. Williams
Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education

Luther Williams
National Science Foundation

Wiley Williams
University of Louisville

James Wilson
Committee on Science, Space
and Technology


Rebecca J. Wilt
U.S. Department of Education/OERI
Eisenhower National Program

James L. Wolfe
Emporia State University

David S. Wood
Sidwell Friends School

Martha M. Wood
Clayton State College

James A. Woodland
Nebraska Department of Education

Karen Worth
Education Development Center

Emmett L. Wright
National Association for Research in Science Teaching

Janet L. Wright
W.I.S.E. Project University
Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)

Daniel L. Wulff
State University of New York at Albany

James J. Wynne
IBM


June J. Yamashita
Hawaii Department of Education

Catherine G. Yeotis
AETS and Wichita State University

Debbie Yoklic
Pima Community College

Gerald E. Young
Eastern Oregon State College

Marvin Zeman
Southern Illinois University
at Carbondale

Walter Zimmermann
University of the Pacific

Sandy Zimmet
Office of Rep. Constance Morella

Paul W. Zitzewitz
University of Michigan -Dearborn

David A. Zwart
Hope College

Thomas T. Zwick
Eastern Montana College






1993 Invitational Conference NSF Staff List



Mary A. Bahns
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

William S. Bainbridge
Program Director, Div. Social & Economic Science
Directorate for Social/Behavioral/Economic

Lida K. Barrett
Senior Associate
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Susan Bartlett
Audio/Visual Production Specialist
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Amy Berger
Office of Legislative/Public Affairs

Peter G. Braunfeld
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Arturo Bronson
Program Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Costello Brown
Program Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Mary Bullock
Head, Special Projects
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Stacy L. Bullock
Public Affairs Specialist
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Barbara H. Butler
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Roosevelt Calbert
Deputy Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Lura Jo Chase
AACC Fellow, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Julia V. Clark
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

James Colby
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Ray Collings
Assoc. Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Eugene Cota-Robles
Special Assistant to the Director
Office of the Director

Margaret M. Cozzens
Director, Div. Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Educ.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources
Joseph G. Danek
Director, Division of Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Janice M. Earle
Program Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Karolyn K. Eisenstein
Senior Staff Assoc., Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Donald P. Ely
Program Director, Research/Evaluation/Disse mination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Marjorie A. Enneking
Program Director, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Larry G. Enochs
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Joyce B. Evans
Assoc. Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Hyman Field
Unit Head, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Carolyn Girardeau
AACC Fellow, Research/Evaluation/
Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Mary J. Golladay
Program Director, Div. Science Resources Studies
Directorate for Social/Behavioral/Economic

Michelle M. Hainbach
External Affairs Liaison Specialist
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Joyce M. Hamaty
Head, External Affairs
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Peirce A. Hammond
Program Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Michael R. Haney
Assoc. Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Raymond Hannapel
Visiting Program Director, Research/Evaluation/
Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Mary E. Hanson
Public Affairs Specialist
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

W. Franklin Harris
Deputy Assistant Director
Directorate for Biological Sciences

Joanne G. Hazlett
Program Manager, Cross-Directorate Activities
Directorate for Biological Sciences

Susan T. Hill
Science Resources Analyst
Directorate for Social/Behavioral/Economic

Catherine Hines
Staff Associate
Directorate for Social/Behavioral/Economic

Deh-I Hsiung
Head, Budget and Operations
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Beverly C. Hunter
Program Director, Research/Evaluation/
Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Theodosia L. Jacobs
Division of Science Resource Studies
Directorate for Social/Behavioral/Economic

Elmima Johnson
Staff Associate
Directorate for Education/Human Resources

Donald E. Jones
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Conrad Katzenmeyer
Program Director, Research/Evaluation/
Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Marvin E. Kauffman
Program Director, Div. of Earth Sciences
Directorate for Geosciences

Mary Kohlerman
Program Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Toni Kring
Visiting Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Mary Harley Kruter
Conference Consultant

Ann T. Lanier
Science Resources Analyst
Directorate for Social/Behavioral/Economic

Richard Lesh
Program Director
Directorate for Education/Human Resources

Herbert Levitan
Section Head, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

James H. Lightbourne
Program Director, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Ivo E. Lindauer
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Deborah F. Lockhart
Program Director, Div. of Mathematical Sciences
Directorate for Mathematical/Physical Science

Madeleine J. Long
Special Assistant, Comprehensive Design & Planning
Directorate for Education and Human Resources

Barbara E. Lovitts
Program Director, Research/Evaluation/
Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Marsha Matyas
Program Director
Office of Legislative/Public Affairs

William E. McHenry
Program Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Alice J. Moses
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Michael W. Oliver
Asst Program Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Patrick M. Olmert
External Affairs, Outreach Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Irene C. Peden
Director, Division of Electrical/Comm. Systems
Directorate for Engineering

George D. Peterson
Section Head, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Stanley Pine
Program Director, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Terence L. Porter
Director, Div. Graduate Education & Research Dev.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Charles R. Puglia
Former Division Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Wayne Ransom
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Eric Robinson
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Lola E. Rogers
Program Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

George M. Rubottom
Program Director, Div. of Chemistry
Directorate for Mathematical/Physical Science

Robert L. Russell
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Nora Sabelli
Program Director
Directorate for Education/Human Resources

Gerhard Salinger
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

James Sandefur
Professor of Mathematics
Georgetown University

Lawrence A. Scadden
Sr. Program Director, Div. Human Resource Dev.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Chalmers F. Sechrist
Program Director, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Rose Marie Smith
Program Director, Presidential Awards Program
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Susan P. Snyder
Sr. Program Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Joseph Stewart
Unit Head, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Jane Stutsman
Deputy Assistant Director
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Wayne W. Sukow
Program Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Judith S. Sunley
Executive Officer
Directorate for Mathematical/Physical Science

Elizabeth J. Teles
Program Director, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Lourdes Tinajero
AACC Fellow, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Kenneth J. Travers
Director, Div. Research, Evaluation & Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Thomas Ubois
Deputy Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources


Jean E. Vanski
Deputy Director, Elementary/Secondary/
Informal Ed.
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

William Y. Velez
Program Director, Div. of Mathematical Sciences
Directorate for Mathematical/Physical Science

Patricia A. Vinson
Administrative Officer, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Julia Wan
Program Director, Office of Systemic Reform
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Wanda E. Ward
Program Director, Div. Human Resource Development
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Robert F. Watson
Director, Division of Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources


Diane B. Weisz
Program Analysis, Budget Division
Office of Budget/Finance/Award Management

Joel M. Widder
Director of Legislative Affairs
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Luther S. Williams
Assistant Director
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Christina Wise-Mohr
Policy Analyst
Office of Legislative & Public Affairs

Terry S. Woodin
Program Director, Div. Undergraduate Education
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Herbert E. Wylen
Program Director, Research/Evaluation/
Dissemination
Directorate for Education & Human Resources

Peter E. Yankwich
Senior Staff Associate
Directorate for Education & Human Resources







































     The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most 
fields of science and engineering.  The awardee is wholly responsible for the 
conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication.  The 
Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for such findings or 
their interpretation.
     The Foundation welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists, 
engineers, and science educators and strongly encourages women, minorities, and 
persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and 
research-related programs described in this document.
     Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide 
funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities 
(investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work 
on an NSF project.  See the program announcement or contact the program 
coordinator in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources.
     In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF policies, no 
person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability 
shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject 
to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving financial assistance 
from NSF.
     NSF has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables 
individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Division of Human 
Resource Management about NSF programs, employment, or general information. The 
number is 202-357-7492.



Electronic Dissemination
     You can get information fast through STIS (Science and Technology 
Information Systems), NSF's online publishing system, described in NSF 91-10 
(Revised 10/4/91), the "STIS flyer."
     To get a hard copy of the flyer, call the NSF Publication Section at 
202-357-7891.  For an electronic copy, send an e-mail message to 
stisfly@nsf.gov (Internet) or stisfly@nsf (BITNET).

Ordering by Electronic Mail or by Fax
     If you are a user of electronic mail and have access to either BITNET or 
Internet, you may order publications electronically.  BITNET users should 
address requests to pubs@nsf.  Internet users should send requests to 
pubs@nsf.gov.  In your request, include the NSF publication number and title, 
number of copies, your name, and a complete mailing address. Printed 
publications may be ordered by fax (703-644-4278).  Publications should be 
received within 3 weeks after receipt of request. 1  Re:Learning is a joint 
effort between the Coalition of Essential Schools and the Education Commission 
of the States operating in 13 states to promote systemic change "from 
schoolhouse to statehouse." 2 Twenty-fourth Annual GALLUP/Phi Delta Kappa Poll 
of the Public's Attitude toward the Public Schools. 3  This information appears 
in more detail in the ECS series on Restructuring the Education System 
(Introduction to Systemic Education Reform, Creating Visions and Standards to 
Support Them, Building Private Sector and Community Support, and Bringing 
Coherence to State Policy).

Page {page \* roman|1}, Beyond National Standards and Goals

Agenda, Page {page \* roman|1}



Opening Plenary Session, Page {page |1}