Elementary and Secondary Education for

Science and Engineering

December 1988

NTIS order #PB89-139182
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Elementary and Secondary Education

for Science and Engineering-A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-SET-41 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600594

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this technical memorandum)
Foreword

Choice, chance, opportunity, and environment are all factors that determine whether

or not a child will grow up to be a scientist or engineer. Though comprising only 4

percent of our work force, scientists and engineers are critical to our Nation’s continued

strength and vitality. As a Nation, we are concerned about maintaining an adequate

supply of people with the ability to enter these fields, and the desire to do so.

In response to a request from the House Committee on Science and Technology,

this technical memorandum analyzes recruitment into and retention in the science and

engineering pipeline. Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering supplements and extends OTA’s June 1988 report, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School.

Students make many choices over a long period, and choose a career through a

complicated process. This process includes formal instruction in mathematics and science, and the opportunity for informal education in museums, science centers, and recreational programs. The influence of family, teachers, peers, and the electronic media can

make an enormous difference. This memorandum analyzes these influences. Because

education is “all one system, ” policymakers interested in nurturing scientists and engineers must address the educational environment as a totality; changing only one part

of the system will not yield the desired result.

The Federal Government plays a key role in sustaining educational excellence in

elementary and secondary education, providing effective research, and encouraging

change. This memorandum identifies pressure points in the system and strengthens the

analytical basis for policy.

 Directo r

Ill
Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering

Advisory Panel

Neal Lane, Chairman

Provost, Rice University, Houston, TX

Amy Buhrig

Specialist Engineer

Artificial Intelligence

Boeing Aerospace Corp.

Seattle, WA

David Goodman

Deputy Director

New Jersey Commission on Science

and Technology

Trenton, NJ

Irma Jarcho

Chairman

Science Department

The New Lincoln School

New York, NY

Hugh Loweth

Consultant

Annandale, VA

James Powelll

President

Franklin and Marshall College

Lancaster, PA

Rustum Roy

Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State

Materials Research Laboratory

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA

Bernard Sagik

Vice President for Academic Affairs’

Drexel University

Philadelphia, PA

I Currently President, Reed College.

‘Currently Professor of Bioscience and Biotechnology.

William Snyder

Dean, College of Engineering

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN

Peter Syverson

Director of Information Services

Council of Graduate Schools in the

United States

Washington, DC

Elizabeth Tidball

Professor of Physiology

School of Medicine

The George Washington University

Washington, DC

Melvin Webb

Biology Department

Clark/Atlanta University

Atlanta, GA

F. Karl Willenbrock

Executive Director

American Society for Engineering Education

Washington, DC

Hilliard Williams

Director of Central Research

Monsanto Company

St. Louis, MO

Dorothy Zinberg

Center for Science and International Affairs

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel

members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this technical memorandum.

OTA assumes full responsibility for the technical report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering

OTA Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson

Science, Education, and Transportation Program

Daryl E. Chubin, Project Director

Richard Davies, Analyst

Lisa Heinz, Analyst

Marsha Fenn, Technical Editor

Madeline Gross, Secretary

Robert Garfinkle, Research Analyst

Manager
Other Contributors

The following individuals participated in workshops and briefings, and as reviewers of

materials produced for this technical memorandum. OTA thanks them for their contributions.

Patricia Alexander

U.S. Department of Education

Rolf Blank

Council of Chief State School

Officers

Joanne Capper

Center for Research Into Practice

Dennis Carroll

U.S. Department of Education

Ruth Cossey

EQUALS Program

University of California, Berkeley

William K. Cummings

Harvard University

Linda DeTure

National Association of Research

in Science Teaching

Marion Epstein

Educational Testing Service

Alan Fechter

National Research Council

Michael Feuer

Office of Technology Assessment

Kathleen Fulton

Office of Technology Assessment

James Gallagher

Michigan State University

Samuel Gibbon

Bank Street College of Education

Dorothy Gilford

National Research Council

Reviewers

Richard Berry

Consultant

Audrey Champagne

American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Edward Glassman

U.S. Department of Education

Kenneth C. Green

University of California,

Los Angeles

Michael Haney

Montgomery Blair Magnet School

Thomas Hilton

Educational Testing Service

Lisa Hudson

The Rand Corp.

Paul DeHart Hurd

Stanford University

Ann Kahn

National Parent Teacher

Association

Daphne Kaplan

U.S. Department of Education

Susan Coady Kemnitzer

Task Force on Women, Minorities,

and the Handicapped in Science

and Technology

Dan Kunz

Junior Engineering Technical

Society

Cheryl Mason

San Diego State University

Barbara Scott Nelson

The Ford Foundation

Gail Nuckols

Arlington County School Board

Louise Raphael

National Science Foundation

Shirley Malcom

American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Willie Pearson, Jr.

Office of Technology Assessment

Mary Budd Rowe

University of Florida

James Rutherford

American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Vernon Savage

Towson State University

Anne Scanley

National Academy of Sciences

Allen Schmieder

U.S. Department of Education

Susan Snyder

National Science Foundation

Julian Stanley

The Johns Hopkins University

Harriet Tyson-Bernstei n

Consultant

Bonnie VanDorn

Association of Science-Technology

Centers

Betty Vetter

Commission on Professionals in

Science and Technology

Leonard Waks

Pennsylvania State University

Iris R. Weiss

Horizon Research, Inc.

John W. Wiersma

Huston-Tillotson College

Linda Roberts

Office of Technology Assessment

George Tressel

National Science Foundation

vi
Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapterl.

Chapter2.

Chapter3.

Chapter4.

Chapter5.

Chapter6.

Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Formal Mathematics and Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Teachers and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Thinking About Learning Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Learning Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Improving School Mathematics and Science Education. .,... . ......109

Appendix A. Major Nationally Representative Databases

on K-12 Mathematics and Science Education and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

Appendix B. Mathematics and Science Education in

Japan, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union.,. . ...........................138

Appendix C. OTA Survey of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................144

Appendix D. Contractor Reports ......,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....146

vii
Preface

This technical memorandum augments OTA’s

report, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade

School to Grad School, ’ focusing on the factors

that prompt students to plan science and engineering careers during elementary and secondary education, and the early stages of higher education.

While examining the problems and opportunities

for students, OTA offers no comprehensive assessment of the system of American public education. Rather, it takes this system as the context

for understanding, and proposes changes in preprofessional education.

Most educators and parents regard science and

mathematics as basic skills for every high school

graduate. By upgrading mathematics and science

literacy—making more graduates proficient in

these subjects—most believe that the pool of potential scientists and engineers would be larger and

more diverse. At the same time, broader application of basic skills in mathematics and science

would benefit the entire U.S. work force. Perhaps

then concern for the future supply of scientists and

engineers, as one professional category of workers among many, would recede as an urgent national issue.

As this is not the case, the problem of educating scientists and engineers is unabating; the scrutiny of schools, teaching standards, and student

outcomes is intensifying; and calls for improved

Federal action grow louder, As Paul Gray, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said: “Americans must come to understand

that engineering and science are not esoteric quests

by an elite few, but are, instead, humanistic adventures inspired by native human curiosity about

the world and desire to make it better. ”2

OTA takes a long view of the science and engineering pipeline and does not dwell solely on those

whose scientific talents are manifested at early

ages. The science and engineering pipeline includes

all students during elementary and much of secIU. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating

Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad Schoof, OTA-SET377 (Washington, DC: June 1988).

2Paul E. Gray, “America’s Ignorance of Science and Technology

Poses a Threat to the Democratic Process Itself, ” The Chronicie of

Higher Education, May 18, 1988, p. B-2.

ondary schooling. But as students move toward

undergraduate and graduate school, smaller proportions form the talent pool. Students make

choices over long periods and are influenced by

many factors; this complicates analysis and makes

it difficult to ascertain specific influences or their

degree of impact on careers.

Although most students’ career intentions are

ill-formed, some decide to pursue science and

engineering early in life and stick with that decision. This “hard-core group” is joined by many

companions later on. Chapter 1, Shaping the Science and Engineering Talent Pool, concerns both

the hard core and those whose plans are more

malleable. As this latter group is uncertain about

what major to choose, it may be more susceptible to parents’ wishes, financial incentives, and

the attractiveness of science and engineering

careers. Whether students respond to a professional “calling” or hear the call of the marketplace,

they are lured to some careers and away from

others—and schools are agents of this allure.

For many children, the content of mathematics

and science classes and the way these subjects are

taught critically affect their interest and later participation in science and engineering. Chapter 2,

Formal Mathematics and Science Education, reviews concern over the pace and sequence of the

American mathematics and science curriculum,

the alleged dullness of many science textbooks,

and the extent to which greater use of educational

technology, such as computers, could improve the

teaching of mathematics and science.

This responsibility falls primarily on the teaching profession, together with school districts and

teacher education institutions. Chapter 3 ,

Teachers and Teaching, discusses predicted shortages of mathematics and science teachers, and

concern about the poor quality of teacher training and inservice programs in all subjects, The

quality of teaching, in the long run, depends on

the effectiveness of teachers, the adequacy of their

numbers, and the extent to which they are supported by principals, curriculum specialists, technology and materials, and the wider community.

Teachers of mathematics and science need to be

educated to high professional standards and, like

1
2

members of other professions, they also need to

update their skills periodically.

At the same time, research on teaching of mathematics and science suggests that some techniques,

not widely used in American schools, can improve

achievement, transmit more realistic pictures of

the enterprise of science and mathematics, and

broaden participation in science and engineering

by women and minorities. Chapter 4, Thinking

About Science Learning, asks: How can more students be successful in science and mathematics?

Does science and mathematics education search

for and select a particular type of student, one

with a certain learning style? This chapter describes other efforts to correct misconceptions

(held both by students and teachers), spur creativity, develop “higher order thinking skills, ” and

to place more students on pathways to learning

science and mathematics.

The out-of-school environment offers opportunities to raise students’ interest in and awareness of science and mathematics. Chapter 5,

Learning Outside of School, highlights “informal

education” activities that draw strength from the

local community—churches, businesses, voluntary organizations, and their leaders. All are potential agents of change. All are potential filters

of the images of science and scientists—often negative, almost always intimidating-transmitted by

television and other media. Science centers and

museums, for example, can awaken or reinforce

interest, without raising the spectre of failure for

those who lack confidence in their abilities. Intervention programs, aimed especially at enriching the mathematics and science preparation of

women, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities,

can rebuild confidence and interest, tapping pools

of talent that are now underdeveloped.

The problems that face mathematics and science education in the schools are complicated and

interrelated. Chapter 6, Improving School Mathematics and Science Education, proposes a systemic approach to these problems, requiring a

constellation of solutions. Reforms, however, tend

to be incremental. Change in any one aspect of

mathematics and science teaching, such as coursetaking, tracking, testing, and the use of laboratories and technology, is constrained by other

aspects of the system, such as teacher training and

remuneration, curriculum decisions, community

concerns and opinions, and the influences of

higher education.

Finally, this report illuminates the gulf between

knowing and doing, between recognizing “what

works” and replicating it. On many educational

issues, experts are groping to specify the boundaries of their ignorance; on others, there are massive data on causes and effects, but little wisdom

on how to implement change. It is this latter need

that invites Federal initiative, whether “seeding”

a program or showing how various partners might

collaborate to approach a nagging problem in a

novel way. The Federal Government is pivotal for

sustaining the policy climate and catalyzing

change: If there is a national will, there is a way.
Chapter

Shaping the Science and

Engineering Talent Pool

,
CONTENTS

Page

Preparing for Science and Engineering Careers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Pipeline Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Influences on the Future Composition of the Talent pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

High School Students’ Interest in Science and Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Persistence and Migration in the Pipehne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Academic Preparation of Science and Engineering v. Conscience Students. . . . 12

Interest and Quality of Science- and Engineering-Bound Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Interest in Science and Engineering Among Females and Minorities. . . . . . . . . . 16

Schools as Talent Smuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20

Box

Box Page

l-A. Never Playing the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figures

Figure Page

l-1. Popularity of Selected Fields Among 1982 High School Graduates

Intending to Major unnatural Science or Engineering, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . 9

l-2. Persistence In, Entry Into, and Exit From Natural Science and Engineering

by 1982 High School Graduates Planning Natural Science or Engineering

Majors, 1980-84.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

l-3. Planned Major in High School of College Students Majoring in Natural

Science and Engineering, by Field, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

l-4. Interest of 1982 High School Graduates in Natural Science and

Engineering, by Sex, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 17

l-5. Interest in Natural Science and Engineering by College-Bound 1982 High

School Graduates, by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Tables

Table Page

1-1.

1-2.

1-3.

Academic Characteristics of High School Graduatues Planning Natural -

Science and Engineering Majors and Other Majors,

Comparison of Students Who Persisted unnatural Science and Engineering

With Those Who Entered These Fields, From High School Sophomore to

Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Conscience Interest With Those

Who Entered a Natural Science and Engineering Major, From High School

Sophomore Through College Senior Years, 1980-84 .. .. . ... +.. . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chapter 1

Shaping the Science and

Engineering Talent Pool

To the Committee (the President’s Science Advisor-y Committee], enhancing

our manpower supply is primarily a matter of quality not quantity, not a

matter of diverting more college students to science and engineering, but of

providing for more students who have chosen this career route

the opportunity to continue their studies.

Jerome Wiesner, 1963

All scientists and engineers were once children:

Families, communities, and the ideas and images

presented by books, magazines, and television

helped form their attitudes, encouraged their interest, and guided them to their careers. Schools

refined their talents and interests, prepared them

academically, and gave them confidence by recognizing their aptitude and achievement.

The importance of families and other out-ofschool influences on this process can hardly be

overemphasized. Students form opinions and

learn about science and scientists from families

and friends, from the media, and from places such

as science centers and museums, summer camps,

and summer research experience. Equally, families, friends, and the media can dull interest in

science. Nevertheless, it is largely schools, through

preparatory courses in mathematics and science,

testing methods, and teaching practices, that determine how many young people will prepare

sufficiently well for science and engineering

careers (and for other careers). It is in the Nation’s

interest to see that schools provide the widest possible opportunities, and the best possible educational foundations for the’ study of science and

engineering.* Some schools meet these goals, but

IUnless otherwise noted, this technical memorandum is concerned exclusively with students’ interest in naturaJ science and engineering subjects. The adequacy of the preparation of future social

scientists is not considered.

many do not. A small minority of determined students no doubt can triumph over poor teaching,

inadequate course offerings, and overrigid or biased ability grouping or tracking. For most—even

some of the most talented—these failings of the

schools can kill interest and waste talent.

Of particular concern are women and some racial and ethnic minorities, who together represent

a large reservoir of untapped talent. Minorities

in particular will make up larger proportions of

the population in the future. Identifying and

motivating talented minority youngsters is an increasingly important necessity for schools.

Concern about the quality of science and mathematics education is also part of a broader concern about the Nation’s schools. The objectives,

funding, quality, and content of American education are all currently being debated, and a variety of remedies have been proposed.2

2Nationa] Commission on Excellence in Education, A ~ati~n At

Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

The sequel, Secretary of Education William Bennett’s American Education: Making It Work, does not quell the concern. Also see National Science Board, Educating Americans for the 21st Century

(Washington, DC: Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 1983); Paul E. Peterson, “Economic and Policy Trends Affecting Teacher Effectiveness in Mathematics and Science,” Science Teaching: The Report of the 1985

National Forum for School Science, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hornig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Association for

the Advancement of Science, 1986).

5
6

PREPARING FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CAREERS

In theory, the preparation of those intending

to become scientists or engineers is assumed to

be more intensive than that required of the entire school population. In practice, the interest of

both groups must be stimulated. All students need

fundamental preparations in mathematics and science in the early years of school. The broad goal

of improving the understanding of science and

technology by all high school graduates (often

called scientific or technological literacy) is very

closely tied to that of educating future scientists

and engineers. Only at the high school level,

where the courses chosen by each stream diverge

significantly, does this tie begin to loosen.

The Pipeline Model

The path by which young people approach

careers in science and engineering is commonly

visualized as a kind of pipeline. Students enter the

pipeline as early as third grade, where they begin to be channeled through a prescribed level and

then sequence of preparatory mathematics and

science courses. This channeling pervades the undergraduate and graduate studies that train and

credential them as professionals. Many students

drop out along the way, losing interest or falling

behind in preparation. Few, it is generally

thought, enter the pipeline after junior high

school. In fact, students’ intentions remain volatile until well past high school, with substantial

numbers entering the pipeline (by choosing science and engineering majors) by their sophomore

year of college. Many late entrants are relatively

ill-prepared, however, and may suffer attrition

on their path to a baccalaureate.

The pipeline model projects the supply of future scientists and engineers on the basis of the

demographic characteristics of successive birth cohorts. But this process is complicated. Career

choices, perceptions of opportunities, knowledge

of employment markets, and other influences

draw students into and out of the talent pool.

Changing educational standards and practices also

influence the size of this pool.

The education system thus can be thought of

as a kind of semipermeable, or leaky, pipeline,

with many points of entry and exit through which

different students pass with different degrees of

ease. Entrance to and persistence in this semipermeable pipeline vary with job opportunities

as well as with individual propensities toward

knowledge and personal fulfillment. In fact, fields

of science and engineering offer widely different

incentives that reflect economic and social trends.

Thus, the semipermeable pipeline should be

thought of as branched, with openings into diverse job markets and careers.

Influences on the Future Composition

of the Talent Pool

These observations suggest that the talent pool

can be enlarged, and changing demographics suggest that it must be enlarged. If schools were more

generous in identifying talent, and urged collegepreparatory mathematics and science courses on

more students (not just those who believe they

“need” them for career purposes), both the size

and quality of the talent pool would be improved.

Our scientists and engineers would be more numerous, better trained, and drawn from a population more representative of American society.

Yet the Federal Government is limited in its impact on elementary and secondary education:

schools are State and local responsibilities. Research, curriculum development, demonstration

projects, equity, and leadership (“jawboning”) are

traditional Federal roles, but applying the results

to classrooms is up to the State education authorities and the 16,000 local public school boards.

Change, in this environment, is slow to come.

Another reason for a limited Federal role is that

science and mathematics education is but one part

of a constellation of educational activities. Teaching, testing, and tracking practices are deeply

embedded within the schools. Improvements in

science and mathematics education are closely related to reforms in education overall.

Demographic Trends

Almost all of those who will be the college

freshmen of 2005 were born by 1987. Knowledge

of current birth patterns allows us to make very
7

reliable forecasts of the size and the racial and ethnic composition of the college-age population for

the next 18 years, and very good estimates even

farther into the future.3

There are two prominent trends already apparent. The first is that the number of 18-year-olds

is declining, and will bottom out by the mid1990s. The second is that racial and ethnic minorities today form an increasing proportion of

the school age population.4 However, the absolute number of Black 18-year-olds is currently falling, just like the number of white 18-year-olds (but

the Black birthrate remains higher).

In general, America’s schoolchildren will look

increasingly different from past generations. As

Harold Hodgkinson writes:

. . . there will be a Black and Hispanic (MexicanAmerican) Baby Boom for many more years. Hispanics will increase their numbers in the population simply because of the very large numbers of

young Hispanic females. These population dynamics already can be seen in the public schools.

Each of our 24 largest school systems in the U.S.

has a “minority majority, ” while 27 percent of all

public school students in the U.S. are minority.

. . . Looking ahead, we can project with confidence that by 2010 or so, the U.S. will be a nation in which one of three will be Black, Hispanic,

or Asian-American.5

What is unclear is how this demographic transition will transIate into college attendance and

pursuit of science and engineering degrees. Variations by region and social class, as well as ethnicity, complicate predictions. These are some

current trends:

JThe ~ctual size of the co]]ege freshman c]ass is also determined

by the number of older people that enter higher education. At the

moment, many people older than the traditional college-going age

are indeed entering higher education. In 1985, over 37 percent of

those enrolled in college were 25 years of age and older. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education:

A Statistical Report (Washington, DC: 1987), p. 122.

‘U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating

Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School, OTA-SET377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988),

pp. 8-9.

sHarold L. Hodgkinson, Higher Education: Diversity Is Our

Middle Name (Washington, DC: National Institute of Independent

Colleges and Universities, 1986), p. 9. Asian-Americans are well

represented in science and engineering; they are categorically ex-

●

●

●

●

●

A continued drop in the number of minority high school graduates who enter college,

due to the increased attractiveness of the

Armed Forces and disillusionment with the

value of a college degree in today’s job market. (Overall, college attendance is currently

holding level, owing to the increased numbers of older students enrolling and a current

small increase in the number of high school

graduates. )

A continuing increase in the size of the Black

middle class, whose children enroll in higher

education at about the same rate as do the

children of white middle-class families.

Continuing high dropout rates for Hispanics,

only about 40 percent of whom complete

high school.

Rising concentrations of Hispanics in the

Southwest and California (enrollment in

California’s public schools is already “minority majority”).

Significant increases in the number of high

school graduates in the West and Florida during the next 20 years, along with declines of

as much as 10 to 20 percent in New England,

the Midwest, and the Mountain States.b

Educational Opportunity and

the Demographic Transition

The participation of females, Blacks, and

Hispanics in science and engineering has increased

substantially during the last 30 years, but is still

small relative to their numbers in the general population. 7 Success in preparation for science and

eluded from OTA’s discussion of educationally disadvantaged minorities.

‘Jean Evangelauf, “Sharp Drop, Rise Seen in Graduates of High

Schools, ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 4, 1988, pp.

A28-A43.

W.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Demographic

Trends and the Scientific and Engineering Work Force—A Technical Memorandum (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985), ch. 5. Discussion of women and minorities

in science and engineering often concerns their low level of participation relative to men and whites. Accurate description of this situation depends on definitions and meanings of the terms “underrepresentation” and “overrepresentation. ” The benchmark most often

cited for an “equitable” level of participation is one where the ethnic, racial, and sex composition of the science and engineering work

force closely approximates that of the general population. But there

is no analytical reason why such a balance should exist. Still, this

social goal encompasses the widely embraced motives of promoting equal opportunity, maximizing utilization of available talent,

(continued on next page)
8

engineering careers takes commitment, work, and

inspiration, all of which the education system is

supposed to promote. If achievement testing,

tracking, sexism, and racism in the classroom, or

some combination of these and other factors, prevent success, it is because the system ignores individual differences in intellectual development

and discourages capable students from becoming

scientists and engineers. Such an outcome would

be tragic for the Nation.

The science and engineering talent pool is not

fixed either in elementary or in secondary school.

A determined core group is joined by a “swing

group” of potential converts to science and by

late-bloomers, so that the future supply of students who will take degrees in science and engineering is not determined solely by the size and

demographic composition of each birth cohort.

The past interest and performance of female and

(continued from previous page)

and aligning the objectives and conduct of science and engineering

with the societal value of broad participation.

Comparisons on minority work force participation should generally be made with regard to age, because racial and ethnic composition varies by birth cohort. Other considerations may include

regional demographic variations, enrollment and educational status, and economic status of the reference population. Another difficulty is that “Black,” “Hispanic,” and “white” are imprecise terms.

They are largely an arbitrary, albeit simple, way of classifying a

population. There are often bigger differences within each group

than there are among the groups. The professional and educational

status of various groups deserves a more accurate description than

“underrepresentation” and “overrepresentation” convey.

Photo credit: Lawrence Hall of Science

Schools need to adjust to an increasing proportion

of minority children.

minority students in science and engineering fields

is a tenuous basis for concluding that a shortage

of scientists and engineers is inevitable. Rather

than accept demographic determinism, 8 O TA

has chosen to investigate the formation of the science and engineering pool in high school and assess how the structure of schooling identifies, reinforces, and perhaps stifles aspirations to careers

in science and engineering.

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ INTEREST

IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

8A. K. Finkbeiner, “Demographics or Market Forces?” Mosaic,

vol. 18, No. 1, spring 1987, pp. 10-17.

To find out how high school students come to

see natural science and engineering as potential

careers, OTA analyzed the Department of Education’s High School and Beyond (HS&B) database, which describes the progress of a sample of

those who were high school sophomores in 1980

by surveying them at 2-year intervals after

1980.’ Students in the sample were asked each

‘Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers:

An Analysis of the High School-College Transition,” OTA contractor

report, 1987. The High School and Beyond database also includes

data from a sample of high school seniors in 1980. A followup on

both of these cohorts was conducted in 1986, but the results were

year their planned majors, if they were to attend

college.

OTA found that, as high school sophomores

in 1980, nearly one-quarter of students were interested in natural science and engineering majors.

reported too late to be included in the OTA analysis discussed here.

This database also includes information on those planning social

science majors, but these have not been considered here. For analysis of the 1972 cohort, see Educational Testing Service, Pathways

to Graduate School: An Empirical Study Based on National Longitudinal Data, ETS Research Report 87-41 (Princeton, NJ: December 1987). For an inventory of national databases on K-12 mathematics and science education, see app. A.
9

As seniors, almost as many were still interested

in these majors, although their field preferences

had shifted somewhat. Two years later, 15 percent

of the original group of students were in college

and planning science or engineering majors.l0

However, as the following discussion will show,

this 15 percent was not simply the remnant of

those who had expressed interest earlier. In fact,

only about 20 percent of this 15 percent indicated

science and engineering majors at all three time

points in this survey. In other words, many were

l~o~t of the dec]ine in interest in natural science and engineering majors is due to the overall decline in the proportion of the sample

going to college. When a more select group is considered—not just

high school graduates, but those who are contemplating attending

or are in college—the proportion planning science and engineering

majors is 27 percent as high school sophomores, 28 percent as seniors,

and 24 percent as college sophomores. Unlike the larger sample of

all high school graduates, the more select group of college-bound

high school graduates decreases in size over time, as some students

who contemplate going to college do not attend, or drop out, and

are consequently defined out of the sample at those times (in this

case, 1980 or 1982). No data are available on the number of students that subsequently graduated in science and engineering. The

sample reported here for 2 years after high school graduation will

be referred to as “college sophomores, ” even though some were freshmen or not enrolled continuously in college.

either new entrants to the pipeline altogether or

students whose interests in both science and conscience majors were volatile. Another striking

finding was the substantial number of “nontraditional” students in that 15 percent; about onequarter of them had not been in the academic curriculum track of high school, for example.

To explore variations in students’ interests in

different science and engineering fields, OTA defined four broad field categories—health and life

sciences, engineering, computer and information

sciences, and physical sciences and mathematics.” (See figure l-l.) The most popular field

1] Classification of students among fields was based on questions

in the High School and Beyond survey and on a reduction to five

field categories: life and health sciences, engineering, computer and

information sciences, physical sciences and mathematics, and conscience majors. Life and health sciences included those intending

medical professions, including nursing. “Technology” majors were

not included in the engineering category because students indicating this interest tend to pursue vocational training. Social sciences

were excluded from the science field categories and included in conscience majors. Thus, for this analysis, conscience majors included

business, preprofessional, social sciences, vocational/technical, and

humanities. Social science majors (including psychology) are considered in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Higher

(continued on next page)

Figure l.l.— Popularity of Selected Fields Among 1982 High School Graduates

Intending to Major in Natural Science or Engineering, 1980-84°

24% of students a

23% of students a

studentsa

Physical sciences/

mathematic s

Computer science

Engineering

Life/health sciences

1980 1982 1984

High school High school College

sophomores seniors sophomores

ape~Cen~ of a “~tiOn~llY ~ePre~entative ~a~Ple of 1982 high ~~h~~l graduates (n = 10,739) who plan to major in natural science or engineering (NSE). If the sample iS

restricted to an increasingly select group of only those high school graduates who plan to go or have not ruled out going to college, the percent interested in NSE

increases: 270/0 of high school sophomores (n =9,538), 280/. of high school seniors (n =8,817), and 24°/0 of college sophomores (n =8,583). (The number of collegebound students decreases with time because some students planning college do not attend or drop out.)

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the High

School Class of 1982, ” OTA contractor report, July 20, 1987, pp. 21-22, Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.
10

category at all three time points was health and

life sciences. The next most popular field was engineering. In the college sophomore year, engineering was overtaken by computer and information

science, which was generally the third most popular field. Physical sciences and mathematics were

the least popular potential college majors.

Persistence and Migration

in the Pipeline

Although these data confirm the net loss of students from intended science and engineering

majors, they need to be supplemented by data on

(continued from previous page)

Education for Science and Engineering, ” background paper, forthcoming. Movement into and out of specific conscience fields fell

outside the purview of this report. However, the data revealed that,

within this categoxy, a single major—business-engaged an increasing proportion of of all students: 10 percent at sophomore year,

13 percent at senior year, and 15 percent in college. No other single

major matched the growing appeal of this field.

the number of students who moved into and out

of the pipeline. Figure 1-2 documents the flow of

students out of and into science and engineering

fields, and into the four field categories, over the

intervals formed by the three survey points

(sophomore year of high school, senior year of

high school, and sophomore year of college).

Between sophomore and senior years of high

school, the figure shows that, in every field category, more students came into each of the four

fields than persisted in them. Movement in from

the conscience category was more common than

movement between science field categories. Patterns of persistence were less clear during the transition from senior year of high school to sophomore year of college. In all field categories except

engineering, more students moved in than persisted.

Overall patterns of persistence are presented in

figure 1-3, which shows the proportion of those

461 \ \

2,599 continue

in N S E

/ 1,016 t o

non-NSE

/ /

1,497 t o

non-NSE

NOTE: This pipelhre traces those students who, at some point, planned to major in natural science or engineering (NSE), out of a nationally representative sample

of high school graduates (n = 10,739). “Re+ntrents” chose NSE es high school sophomore, “left” NSE es high school seniors, but chose en NSE major in college.

Only 300 students, or less than 1OO

/., stayed with the same field within NSE at stl three time points; the majority of NSE students changed field preferences

within NSE at least once.

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the High

School Class of 1982,” OTA contractor report, July 20, 19S7, pp. 29-35. Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.
71

college sophomores who were intending to ma- in the case of physical sciences and mathematics,

jor in natural science and engineering, and had and computer and information sciences, and

already expressed interest in these field categories about 25 percent for each of the other two field

at the two earlier time points. A surprisingly small categories. Students planning engineering majors

number of students persisted in the same field cat- appear to have been the most persistent, since 60

egory at all three time points—about 10 percent percent of those declaring this intention during

Figure 1-3.—Planned Major in High School of College Students

by Field, 1980=84 —

Senior year only

Sophomore year only

Both years

Neither year

Senior year only

Sophomore year only

Both years

Neither year

Senior year only

Sophomore year only

Both years

Neither year

Majoring in Natural Science and Engineering,

Sophomore year Senior year

1980 1982

\

/

College major

1984

Majoring in

life/health sciences

(n=574 )

Majoring in

engineering

(n=406 )

Senior year only ‘ ----------------------------

Sophomore year only .

Both years

)

Majoring in

physical sciences/

Neither year ma them a tics

(n=l47 )

NOTE: This figure presents the high school history of college students majoring in natural science and engineering (NSE), showing when they expressed plans to major

in their chosen college field. A large proportion of college NSE majors did not plan to major in their chosen field in high school; however, most planned to

major in some NSE field, Based on a cohort of students who were high school sophomores in 1980.

SOURCE: Valerie E, Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the High

School Class of 1982,” OTA contractor report, July 20, 1987, p. 35. Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.
12

their high school senior year (and 34 percent of

those in the sophomore year of high school)

stayed with their plans. *2

OTA’s analysis of the HS&B survey shows that

natural science and engineering attract some new

adherents both in the later years of high school

and the early years of college. The die is not cast

in the early stages of the educational process; some

students (approximately equal in number to those

already in the high school science and engineering pool) enter that pool long after many analysts

assume that definitive career choices have already

been made. The interest is there; the challenge facing educational institutions is to capitalize upon it.

Academic Preparation of Science and

Engineering v. Conscience Students

The challenge of preparing future scientists and

engineers is much more than simply sparking interest in students; it calls equally for preparation

through coursework and a willingness to bring

new entrants to the pipeline “up to speed. ” Data

on new entrants reveal a mixed picture: many are

121t is i~PO~t~nt t. note that this figure identifies only those who

persisted in the same field category (and not those who persisted

in science), although the data indicate few field differences in the

numbers of students who entered each field category from conscience

majors.

very well prepared, but others take nontraditional

routes and thus require extra help in mathematics

and science courses.

Table 1-1 shows some of the characteristics of

students planning natural science and engineering majors at the three survey time points. It also

shows that the proportion of this group that

scored above average on the HS&B achievement

test13 increased at each time point. About twothirds of those students interested in science and

engineering majors in 10th and 12th grades scored

above average on these tests, but more than threequarters of those planning such majors as college

sophomores did so. This finding suggests that

many of the new entrants to the pipeline are likely

to be of high ability.

In addition, the proportion of students planning natural science and engineering majors who

had been enrolled in the academic curriculum

track increased at each time point until it reached

75 percent in the college sophomore year. Nevertheless, the corollary of this finding—that 25 percent of those seriously planning science and engi13This test score is a composite of scores in reading, vocabulary,

and mathematics from tests designed especially for the High School

and Beyond survey and administered to the students when they were

high school sophomores (in 1980). It has been highly correlated with

other achievement tests.

Table 1-1 .—Academic Characteristics of High School Graduates Planning Natural Science

and Engineering Majors and Other Majors, at Three Time Points

1980 1982 1984

high school high school college

Characteristic sophomores seniors sophomores

Students planning natural science and engineering majors:

Percentage of sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 23 15

Percentage scoring above 50°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 65 69 79

Percentage scoring above 75°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 39 44 53

Academic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 64 74

General and vocational tracks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 36 26

Students planning other majors:

Percentage of sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 38 44

Percentage scoring above 50°/0 on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 63 66 67

Percentage scoring above 75% on HS&B achievement test . . . . . . . 36 37 37

Academic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 56 60

General and vocational tracks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 44 40

Undecided major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21 3

No college plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 18 38

KEY: HS&B=High School and Beyond survey.

SOURCE: Valerie Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition,” OTA contractor report, 1987, based on the

High School and Beyond survey.
13

neering majors enrolled in the vocational and

general tracks in high school (with presumably

less access to college-preparatory courses inmathematics and science)—indicates that the science

and engineering pipeline contains some latecomers. Significant numbers of students are active participants in the college segment of the science and engineering pipeline without two of the

traditional credentials of a future scientist and

engineer: high ability manifested early on and academic track preparation.]’

In a separate analysis (see table 1-2) of students

who entered the pipeline from conscience fields,

either in their high school senior or college sophomore years, OTA found that these students, on

average, had lower scores on achievement tests

than did those who persisted in science at all three

time points. The “in-migrants” to science and engineering majors had taken fewer mathematics and

science courses and were more likely to be Black,

Hispanic, or female than their “determined” sci-

“Nevertheless, the High School and Beyond data for 1980 high

school sophomores had not yet followed through to college graduation, and so cannot be used to estimate what proportion of this

“nontraditional” group succeeded in earning science and engineering baccalaureates.

ence peers. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the immigrants had been in the academic curriculum

track and had high school and college grade point

averages (GPAs) comparable to those who persisted in science and engineering throughout.

In a further comparison of those who switched

from a conscience to a science field during their

last 2 years of high school with those who persisted in a conscience field (see table 1-3), statistically significant differences were found in the

course-taking patterns of the two groups. Immigrants to the science and engineering pipeline

were more likely to have taken algebra II, calculus, chemistry, physics, or biology than their conscience peers, and subsequently recorded higher

GPAs in mathematics and science courses. Still,

they were on average less well prepared than those

who stayed with science plans from their high

school sophomore to their college sophomore

years.

The analysis of the high school class of 1982

illuminates several findings that demand rethinking of how the science and engineering pool forms.

Taken together, these findings lend support to the

recent observation of the National Academy of

Table 1-2.—Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Natural Science and Engineering With Those

Who Entered These Fields, From High School Sophomore to College Sophomore Years, 1980-84

Persisted in Persisted in NSE, Entered NSE from

same field but switched fields a conscience field

Characteristic N = 298 N = 277 N = 1,004

Demographic characteristics:

Percent Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 15

Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 10

Percent female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 30 48

High school experiences:

Number of math courses taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.0 2.7

Number of science courses taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 3.3 3.0

GPA in math courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.8 2.7

Score on HS&B Achievement Testa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.5 58.3 55.0

Score on mathematics portion of SAT/ACT testsb . . . . . . . 516 541 500

College experiences:

College GPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 2.8 2.8

Percent attained college sophomore status by 1984 ... , . 90 76 75

%n HS&B Achievement Test, mean score = 50, standard deviation = 10

bscore ,s presented on same scale as the mathematics portion of the SAT, where students had taken the ACT mathematics test, their SCOW waS converted to all equivalent

score on the SAT scale

KEY GPA = grade point average

HS&B = High School and Beyond survey

SATIACT = Scholastic Aptitude Test) American College Testing program

NSE = natural science and engineering

SOURCE Valerie Lee, “ldentlfy!ng Potential Sclentlsts and Engineers An Analysls of the H Igh School .College Transltlon, ” OTA contractor report, 1987, based on the

High School and Beyond survey
14

Table l-3.—Comparison of Students Who Persisted in Conscience interest With Those Who Entered a

Naturai Science and Engineering Major, From High School Sophomore Through Coiiege Senior Years, 1980-84

Persisted with a Entered a natural science

conscience field and engineering major

Characteristic N = 2,337 N = 799

Percent female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 53b

Percent Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11b

Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10

Score on HS&B achievement test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.8 54.0

Percent unacademic track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 63

Mathematics GPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.5b

Science GPA... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 2.6b

Courses taken (percetage with 1 year or more)

Mathematics

Algebra l 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 70

Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 59

Algebra 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 44b

Trigonometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 25b

Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 13b

Computer programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

b

Science

Biology 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 56

Advanced biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 21b

Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 39b

Advanced chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7b

Physics 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 26b

Advanced physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3b

%nHS&B Achievement Test, mean score = 50, standard deviation = 10.

blndicates that the differen~ebet~een thet~ogroupswasstatistica~y significant atp < 0,05.

NOTE: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

KEY:GPA = grade point average.

HS&B = High School and Beyond survey.

SOURCE: Valerie Lee, ”ldentifying potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High Scho0PCo~e9e Transition:’ OTA contractor report, 1987, based on the

High School and Beyond survey.

Science’s Government-University-Industry Re- occupational direction a student is taking. Moresearch Roundtable: over, the influences affecting different groups

vary.15

There are no magic one or two points in a student’s life that are-crucial to career choice. At ISGovemment.Un

iversity-lndUSt~ Research Roundtable, lVurturevery educational and developmental stage fac- ing Science and Engineering Talent (Washington, DC: National . . tors come into play that shape and reshape the Academy Press, 1987), p.34.

INTEREST AND QUALITY OF SCIENCE= AND

ENGINEERING-BOUND STUDENTS

Interest in science and engineering, clearly, is and engineering majors

not enough. The ultimate health of the science and above average GPAs,

engineering work force also depends on another scores, achievement test

key factor—the quality of students. l6 Science kers of quality.

have traditionally had

college admission test

scores, and other mar16There is ]ittleaKreement on how the “c!uality” of high school

. .

students should remeasured.Achievement test scoresare only one and learning how to learn more effectively. Because there are no

indicator. Justasimportant arestudents’ understancling oftheprocess consistent data on these latter attributes, achievement test scores

of science, attitudes toward science and engineering, language skills, are here used as proxy for quality.
15

In recent years, somewhat fewer college freshmen with “A” or “A-” high school GPAs have

chosen science and engineering majors, while increasing numbers name preprofessional and business majors. Yet the proportion of science- and

engineering-bound students who score above 650

(of a maximum of 800) on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) mathematics test17 has increased

somewhat between 1975 and 1984. About 44 percent of those who score above the 90th percentile on the SAT mathematics test say they plan

science and engineering majors. The average score

of all those scoring above the 90th percentile on

the SAT mathematics test increased from 623 to

642 in the last 5 years.18

It is widely believed by college educators that

the quality of high school students who are planning science and engineering majors may be

declining compared to their predecessors. While

this belief has probably been held by all teachers

who try to transmit knowledge to their juniors,

there is little evidence to support it. Although SAT

scores are an imperfect measure of the quality of

students, the average SAT score of all students

planning science and engineering majors declined

between 1975 and 1983 (parallel to the decline in

scores of the entire population of test-takers during the period from 1963 to 1981). The SAT scores

of this group, however, have risen somewhat since

1983. The sources of increases and decreases in

SAT scores provoke complicated and controversial debates in educational assessment, but there

is some consensus that about one-half of the longterm decline during the 1960s and 1970s in the

SAT scores was due to changes in the composition of the population of students taking the test.

The remaining decline has been attributed to decreased emphasis on academic subjects by schools,

‘7However, many science- and engineering-bound students take

the American College Testing program test instead of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Data on the science- and engineering-bound among

the American College Testing program takers are not available.

Wn particular, there are indications that highly talented white

males, a traditional source of scientists and engineers, are increasingly being attracted to these majors. Mechanisms for increasing

this group’s participation need to be devised as well as those to increase the participation of women and minorities. See Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 11. Also see National Science

Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 1987 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987), pp. 24-25, app. table 1-7.

and social factors. The recent increases are even

less well understood.”

Overall interest in science and engineering appears to have increased since the time of the major longitudinal study centering on the high school

class of 1972.20 Since that time, there have been

considerable shifts among fields within the science

and engineering majors, often in response to employment markets. For example, the late-1970s

and early -1980s saw a rapid increase in interest

in engineering and computer science majors (freshman interest and college enrollment in engineering approximately doubled during that time), but

some decline of interest in physical science majors.

International Comparisons

There is also current concern that America’s

best students are of inferior quality compared with

their peers in other countries. Two recent international comparisons of achievement scores

largely support this concern, but do not definitively explain the causes of these differences (although they suggest the curriculum as a culprit).

In particular, interpretation of these data is complicated by major differences in the structure of

education in different countries. (More detail on

the mathematics and science educational systems

of other countries is found in app. B.)

International comparison data are available

from the Second International Math Study (SIMS)

from 1981 to 1982, and the Second International

Science Study (S1SS) from 1983 to 1986.2

’ These

19National Science Board, Science Indicators: The 1985 Report

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985), p. 128.

National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 18, p. 22. See also U.S.

Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Educational Achievement;

Explanations and Implications of Recent Trends (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1987).

2“T.L. Hilton and V.E. Lee, “Student Interest and Persistence in

Science: Changes in the Educational Pipeline in the Last Decade, ”

Journal of Higher Education, vol. 59, September/October 1988, pp.

510-526.

zlThese studies were conducted under the auspices of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement,

a nongovernmental voluntary association of educational researchers. See International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement, Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Preliminary Report (Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1988); Willard

J. Jacobson et al., The Second IEA Science Study–U.S., revised

edition (New York, NY: Columbia University Teachers College, September 1987); Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School Mathematics From an International

(continued on next page)
16

data indicate that the performance in most science and mathematics subjects of U.S. scienceand engineering-bound students is inferior to that

of their counterparts in many other countries, including Japan, Hong Kong, England and Wales,

and Sweden. One finding from the science studies

is that the proportion of each nation’s cohort of

18-year-olds who take college-preparatory science

courses is apparently smaller in the United States

than in other countries.22

Data from the first international mathematics

and science studies (done in 1964 and 1970, respectively) indicate that the United States lagged

behind other nations even then. For example, in

the first international science study, students in

Australia, Belgium, England and Wales, Finland,

France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the

Netherlands, Scotland, and Sweden scored above

their peers in the United States (Japan did not participate). And, in the similar mathematics study,

students in the United States scored lower than

all of the above countries as well as Japan. Because there were few common test items between

the first and second tests, and because data on

the demographic and other characteristics of the

groups tested were not collected at both time

points, it is difficult to determine reliably from

these studies whether achievement in the United

States (or in any other country) has improved or

declined. These studies suggest that, compared

with other countries, the United States has fared,

and continues to fare, poorly in the mathemati-

(continued from previous page)

~erspective (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987),

pp. 22-30; F. Joe Crosswhite et al., Second International Mathematics

Study: Summary Report for the United States (Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics, May 1985), pp. 4, 51, 61-

68, 70-74; Robert Rothman, “Foreigners Outpace American Students

in Science, ” Education Week, Apr. 29, 1987, p. 7; Wayne Riddle,

Congressional Research Service, “Comparison of the Achievement

of American Elementary and Secondary Students With Those

Abroad—The Examinations Sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), ” 86-

683 EPW, June 30, 1986.

22For example, in these data, only 1 percent of American high

school students are reportedly enrolled in chemistry and physics,

but this refers only to seniors in high school who had taken second

year chemistry and physics, not all students who took these courses

(Richard M. Berry, personal communication, August 1988). In canada, the numbers are 25 and 19 percent for chemistry and physics,

respectively, and, in Japan, 16 and 11 percent, respectively. Note,

however, that these enrollment data for the United States paint a

considerably more pessimistic picture than earlier data on coursetaking patterns has revealed (see ch. 2), and, due to small sample

sizes, are subject to considerable uncertainty.

cal and scientific preparation of its future work

force.

Interest in Science and Engineering

Among Females and Minorities

Females and the members of some racial and

ethnic minorities are represented in most fields of

science and engineering in numbers far below their

shares of the total population, a difference that

emerges well before high school .23

Female interest in science and engineering is

concentrated in the life and health sciences, and

less so in more quantitative fields such as engineering and the physical sciences and mathematics

(figure 1-4). Black and Hispanic high school

seniors are about one-half as likely to be interested in careers in the physical sciences and mathematics as whites, and Blacks are about one-half

as likely to be interested in engineering (figure 1-

5).24 Some of this difference may be due to the

fact that Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to

go on to college than whites.

Why are females and minorities less likely than

males and whites, respectively, to major in science or engineering? What can be done about it?

Discussion of these issues arouses vigorous debate,

which stems in part from deeply embedded social attitudes and expectations about the roles and

contributions of females and racial and ethnic minorities to American society, the professions, and

specifically to the science and engineering work

force .25

Differences Between the Sexes in

Interest in Science and Engineering

There are considerable differences by sex in the

number of students interested in science and engineering fields. Of those interested in life and health

~For an overview, see office of Technology Assessment, oP.

cit., footnote 4, chs. 2 and 3.

24Lee, op. cit., footnote 9.

‘

s

See, for example, Sandra Harding and Jean F. Barr (eds. ), Sex

and Scientific Znquiry (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,

1987); Willie Pearson, Jr. and H. Kenneth Bechtel (eds. ), Education

and the Coloring of American Science (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, forthcoming); Madaine E. Lockheed et al.,

Sex and Ethnic Differences in Middle School Mathematics, Science,

and Computer Science: What Do We Know? (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, May 1985).
Figure l-4.–lnterest of 1982 High School Graduates in Natural Science and Engineering, by Sex, 1980-84

30%

—

—

—

—

—

16%

Physical sciences/

mathematic s

Computer science

Engineering

Life sciences

sciences, about one-half are males and one-half

females. Many fewer females, however, are interested in fields with a significant mathematical

component, such as physics, chemistry, and engineering. Interestingly, at the baccalaureate level,

females are well represented in mathematics itself.

Males and females appear to differ strongly in

their interest in highly quantitative sciences.

Somewhat more males than females enroll in high

school courses leading to these fields, but not so

many more as to explain the size of the difference

in interest between the sexes. Females also tend

to score lower on mathematics achievement tests,

even when allowances are made for the fewer

courses they take compared to males. The exact

causes of these differences in interest, coursetaking, and achievement test scores have not been

determined and remain a controversial subject for

research .26

ZbFo~ a recent overview, see Valerie E. Lee, “When and Why

Girls ‘Leak’ Out of High School Mathematics: A Closer Look, ” preMany researchers believe that the differences

are primarily or totally caused by the differential treatment that boys and girls receive from

birth. Parents, friends, teachers, and counselors,

it is argued, encourage males to be interested in

mathematics and science and discourage females.

Over time, females come to feel less confident

than males about mathematics, come to believe

that they do not have mathematical “talent,”

study mathematics less intensively, and hence

score lower on achievement tests. Interest in this

“environmental” hypothesis has led researchers

to try to ascertain whether sex differences in interest or test scores can be related to these

factors .2’

sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA, April 1986 (unpublished paper

available from ERIC). Research that proclaims the biological inferiority of females in mathematical (especially spatial) domains has

been seriously questioned (discussed below).

ZTFor example, Sm patncia B. Campbell, “What’s a Nice Girl Like

You Doing in a Math Class?” Phi Deha Kappan, vol. 67, No. 7,

Marc! 1986, pp. 516-520. According to a recent national survey,

(continued on next page)
18

Figure 1-5.–Interest in Natural Science and Engineering by College= Bound 1982

High School Graduates, by Race.Ethnicity, 1980-84 -

30%

26%

25%

22%

16%

Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic White

Physical sciences/

mathematic s

Compute r

sciences

Engineering

Life/healt h

sciences

NOTE: The samde is limited to those high school graduates who, as high school so~homores in 1980, Nanned to go to or had not ruled out attending college (white

n =7,541; Black n = 1,321; Hispani~ n =760). ~f the sample Is restricted even fu”rther to those students who stay in the college pipeline after high school sophomore year, the percent interested in natural science and engineering increases; among college sophomores, to 260/. of Blacks (n = 718), 24°/0 of Hispanics (n =434),

and 230/. of whites (n =5,208).

SOURCE: Valerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High School-College Transition. Report 1: Descriptive Analysis of the High

Schooi Ciass of 1982,” OTA contractor report, Juiy 20, 1987, pp. 24-26. Based on data from U.S. Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.

Others maintain that the differences are much

more pervasive than can be explained by differential patterns of treatment and, therefore, that

physiological differences between the sexes are at

work. At the beginning of the decade, one study

suggested that differences in the structure and

(continued from previous page)

few students agree that mathematics is a subject more for boys than

girls. In 1986, 6 percent of 13-year-olds and 3 percent of 17-yearolds agreed with this statement, although each of these percentages

had increased from 2.5 and 2.2 percent, respectively, in 1978. See

John A. Dossey et al., The Mathematics Report Card: Are We A4easuring Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National

Assessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988),

pp. 98-99.

function of the brain allow males to visualize spatial relationships better than females. 28 Thi s

hypothesis was based on analysis of scores on the

mathematics portion of the SAT (a test designed

for 11th and 12th graders) achieved by samples

of highly talented 8-year-old males and females. 29 This hypothesis has been roundly critizsc p Benbow and J.C. Stanley, “Sex Differences in Mathemati- . .

cal Ability: Factor Artifact?” Science, vol. 210, 1980, pp. 1262-1264;

C.P. Benbow and J.C. Stanley, “Sex Differences in Mathematical

Reasoning Ability: More Facts,” Science, vol. 222, Dec. 2, 1983,

pp. 1029-1031.

29A representativecriticism is found in A.M. pallas and ‘.A.

Alexander, “Sex Differences in Quantitative SAT Performance: New
cized by many researchers on several counts and

is not widely accepted.

It is unlikely that the controversy over the origin of gender-related differences in demonstrated

mathematical ability will be resolved any time

soon, as so many different factors must be controlled in studies making male-female comparisons. OTA concludes that effective steps can be

taken to encourage females to enter science and

engineering without detailed knowledge of the

reasons for sex differences in mathematics achievement and for interest in science and engineering.

There is no evidence that the rate of learning

of mathematics by males and females is different.

If there are differences in the preparation for, orientation to, or talents of males and females in science, they can be remedied. Among such remedies

are programs to sensitize parents, teachers, and

counselors to their conscious and unconscious

differential treatments of boys and girls.30 Schools,

Evidence on the Differential Coursework Hypothesis, ” American

Educational Research Journal, vol. 20, No. 2, 1983, pp. 165-182.

For a review of studies and instructive methodological commentary

on the debate, see Susan F. Chipman and Veronica G. Thomas, “The

Participation of Women and Minorities in Mathematical, Scientific,

and Technical Fields, ” Review of Research in Education, Ernst Z.

Rothkopf (cd. ) (Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association, 1987), pp. 403-409.

‘OMyra Pollack Sadker and David Miller Sadker, Sex Equity

Handbook for Schools (New York, NY: Longman, 1982); Jane Butler

Kahle and Marsha Lakes Matyas, “Equitable Science and Mathematics Education: A Discrepancy Model, ” Women: Their Underrepresentation and Career Differentials in Science and Engineering,

Linda S. Dix (cd. ) (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1987), pp. 5-41.

Photo credit William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Females and minorities are an undertapped source of

scientists and engineers.

19

and especially guidance counselors, can help significantly by encouraging females who do well

in mathematics to take advanced mathematics

courses. Schools should also encourage females

to participate fully in hands-on scientific experiments. The encouragement of females to pursue

science and engineering careers must counter continuing and pervasive, albeit decreasing, discrimination against females in the science and engineering work force, as indicated by lower salaries for

new graduates and fewer females in tenured

faculty positions.

Reasons Why Minorities Are Not

Well Represented in Science

Blacks show interest in science and engineering and, in particular, in careers in engineering,

mathematics, and computer science .31 The challenge is to convert this interest into well-prepared

future scientists and engineers.

Development of interest and talent in science

and engineering by Blacks is stultified by their

relatively lower average socioeconomic status and

more limited access to courses that prepare them

for science and engineering careers. Minorities

also sense hostility from the largely white science

and engineering work force and develop low expectations for themselves in science and mathematics courses. For some, sadly, success in academic study is scorned by their minority peers as

“acting white. ” Larger proportions of minorities

drop out of high school than do whites, reducing

the potential talent pool for science and engineering. And far fewer Black males than Black females

prepare for college study, a pattern which is increasingly common as Black males favor military

“Jane Butler Kahle, “Can Positive Minority Attitudes Lead to

Achievement Gains in Science? Analysis of the 1977 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Attitudes Toward Science, ” Science

Education, vol. 66, No. 4, 1982, pp. 539-546; Mary Budd Rowe,

“Why Don’t Blacks Pick Science?” The Science Teacher, vol. 44,

1977, pp. 34-35. Lee, op. cit., footnote 9. Data from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress show that 48 percent of Blacks in grade three said that they would like to work at

a job using mathematics v. 38 percent of white students. Students

in grades i’ and I I were asked a different question, whether they

expected to work in an area that requires mathematics. In grade

7, 46 percent of whites and 39 percent of Blacks said yes and in grade

II, 4.5 percent of whites and S1 percent of Blacks said yes. See Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 27, pp. 95-100.
20

service or become convinced that even a college

degree is no guarantee of a good job.”

Schools, school districts, and States need to do

much more to help minorities gain access to science and engineering careers. Teachers need to be

sensitized to minority concerns and to involve all

students in mathematics and science experiences,

such as laboratory experiments. Schools need to

develop better guidance counseling, and inculcate

higher expectations for minorities among counselors, teachers, and students. Schools and school

districts also need to improve their course offerings and ensure that all students have access to

32Signithia Fordham, “Recklessness as a Factor in Black Student’s

School Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory,” Harvard

Educational Review, vol. 58, No. 1, February 1988, pp. 54-84;

ERIC/SMEAC Information Bulletin, “A Review of the Literature

on Blacks and Mathematics,” No. 1, 1985.

SCHOOLS AS TALENT SCOUTS

The goals of excellence and equity both depend

on taking full advantage of the Nation’s talent.

Doing so depends on having schools act in large

measure as talent scouts. Instead, the schools have

often acted as curricular traffic cops, encouraging the obviously talented, and culling out those

who do not display the conventional signs of ability and drive at an early age. Too many students

“never play the game” of science. (See box l-A. )

The result is a waste of talent.

Similar wastes of nonscientific talent undoubtedly take place. The importance of high school

the preparatory courses leading to a science and

engineering degree. And States and school districts

need to ensure that schools with high minority

populations receive a fair share of financial, teaching, and equipment resources, given that such

schools are often in poor areas.33

Undertaking such reforms will be difficult for

an education system that changes very slowly. In

any event, such actions still will not overcome

wider societal pressures that minorities believe deter them from science and engineering careers.

Specific intervention programs (discussed in ch.

5) are needed to overcome these deterrents.

‘3A Veritab]e flood of successfu] interventions with IIIiI’IOritY students, in schools and out, is detailed in Lisbeth B. Schorr, Within

Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage (New York, NY:

Anchor Press Doubleday, 1988), especially chs. 8-12.

preparation in science and mathematics to future

success in these careers, though, makes waste particularly serious in these fields. In the future,

schools will need to cast their nets wider in identifying potential scientists and engineers, going beyond the standard model of talent. The growing

ethnic and cultural diversity of young Americans

makes this task both more challenging and more

important. The remainder of this report will detail the steps schools and communities might take

to meet this national need.
21

Box l-A.—Never Playing the Game

Learning science —its theories, its parameters, its context-can be likened to learning all the rules of

a sport-the facilities needed for playing, the scoring, the timing, the uniforms. To prepare to play, one

must develop physical skills by means of strenuous exercise and conditioning. Such skill development can

span great time periods and demand much energy, commitment, and sacrifice. But, most potential players

are willing to devote whatever time and work are needed to succeed, because once they reach the playing

field, their effort will be rewarded.

In typical science teaching, we ignore the lessons we might learn from sports. We pronounce science

a fantastic game—that all should learn to play it. We spend years teaching background material, laws,

rules, classification schemes, and verifications (disciplines) of the basic game. We plan activities for our

students designed to develop in them specific skills that the best scientists seem to possess and use. We

believe that proficiency with these skills is an important part of an education in science. It is as if we were

developing conditioning exercises to train our students for the science they may actually do at a future time.

Unfortunately, however, our students rarely get to play—rarely get to do real science, to investigate

a problem that they have identified, to formulate possible explanations, to devise tests for individual explanations. Instead, school science means 13 years of learning the rules of the game, practicing verificationtype labs, learning the accepted explanations developed by others, and the special vocabulary and the procedures others have devised and used.

If potential athletes had to wait 13 years before playing a single scrimmage, a single set, a single quarter, how many would be clamoring to be involved? How many would do the pull-ups and the sit-ups?

How many would learn the rues if there were no rewards-until college—for those who had practiced

enough to play?

We expect much in science education! Could one of our problems be too much promise of what science is really like at a date much too far removed from the rigor and practice science demands? Thirteen

years of preparation is a long time to wait before finding out whether a sport (or career) is as satisfying

as one’s parents and teachers suggest it will be.

To prepare for the game of science for 13 years without even an opportunity to play is a problem{

Like athletes, science students may need to play the game frequently, to use the information and skills they

possess, and to encounter a real need for more background and more skills. Such an entree to real science

in school could result in more students wanting to know and wanting to practice the necessary skills. Now,

we lose too many students with only the promise that the background information and skills we require

them to practice will be useful.

Paul Brandwein asserts that most students never have a single experience with real science throughout

their whole schooling. He has written that we would have a revolution on our hands if every student had

but one experience with real science each year he or she is in school. Are we ready for such a revolution?

Can we afford not to clamor for it?

To spend 13 years preparing for a game, but never once to play it, is too much for anyone. Teachers

and students alike are more motivated when they experience real questions, follow up on real curiosity,

and experience the thrill of creating explanations and the fun of testing their own ideas. Real science must

become a central focus in the courses we call science-across the entire K-12 curriculum.

SOURCE: Quoted from Robert E. Yager, ‘Never Playing the Game,” The ti”ence Teacher, September 19SS, p. 77.
Chapter 2

Formal Mathematics and

Science Education
CONTENTS

Page

The Nation’s Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Components of Mathematics and Science

Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Typical Mathematics and Science

Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Problems With Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Use of Computers in Mathematics and

Science Education . ......... . 3 4

Variation Among Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Standardized Achievement Testing . . . . . 39

Patterns of High School Course

Offerings and Enrollments . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Tracing addability Grouping . . . . . . . . . . . 45

The Double-Edged Sword . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Effects of Grouping Practices . . . . . . . . . . 48

Science Education and Track-Busting . . . 50

Boxes

Box

2-A.

2-B.

2-C.

Page

The Special Role of the Science and

Engineering Research Communities in

Mathematics and Science Reforms . . . 29

LearningAboutScience and Processes

of Advancing Scientific Knowledge . . 31

National Geographic Society (NGS)

Kids Network: Students

as Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figures

Figure Page

2-1. Funding of Elementary and Secondary

Education, by Source, 1980-87 . . . . . . . 25

2-2. Public and Private School Enrollments

and Revenues, by Source, 1985-86 . . . . 26

2-3. Typical Course Progression in

Mathematics and Science. . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2-4. Curriculum of a Mathematics/Science/

Computer Science Magnet Program

for the Class of 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2-5,

2-6.

2-7.

2-8.

Page

Time Spent Using Computers in

Mathematics and Science Classes, by

Grade, in Minutes Per Week,

1985-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Percentage of 1982 High School

Graduates Who Took Calculus. . . . . . . 46

Percentage of 1982 High School

Graduates Who Took Physics . . . . . . . . 46

Track Placement by Race/Ethnicity

and Sex, High School Graduates

of 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Tables

Table Page

2-1. Most Commonly Used Mathematics -

2-24

2-3,

2-4<

2-5.

2-6.

2-7.

2-8.

and Science Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Courses in Computers Taken by

Mathematics and Science Teachers . . . 37

Trends in Mathematics CourseTaking, 1982-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Percentage of 1982 High School

Graduates Who Went on to Next

“Pipeline” Mathematics Course After

Completing the Previous Course . . . . . 43

Percentage of 1982 High School

Graduates Who Went on to Next

“Pipeline” Science Course After

Completing the Previous Course . . . . . 44

Percentage of 1982 High School

Graduates Who Have Taken College

Preparatory Mathematics Courses by

Sex, and Race/Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Percentage of 1982 High School

Graduates Who Have Taken College

Preparatory Science Courses by Sex,

and Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Science-Intending Students Among

High School Graduates of 1982,

by Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 49
Chapter 2

Formal Mathematics and

Science Education

There has been widespread concern among scientists and educators alike over

the failure of the instructional programs in the primary and secondary schools

to arouse greater interest and understanding of the scientific disciplines. . . .

There is general agreement that much of the science taught in schools today

does not reflect the current state of knowledge nor does it represent the best

possible choice of material for instructional purposes.

Hearings before the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 1958

For most people, science education begins and

ends in school mathematics and science classes.

Science and mathematics education, however,

cannot be analyzed in isolation from the overall

THE NATION’S SCHOOLS

About 75 percent of each birth cohort now

graduates from high school. Elementary and secondary education takes place in over 100,000

schools, employing 2.5 million teachers and enrolling about 45 million students. ] It costs $170

billion per year, about $4,000 per student—or 4

percent of the annual gross national product.’

Public education, including higher education, is

the single largest component of State spending.

Nationally, the States’ contribution to the cost of

public school education is about 49 percent of the

total; 45 percent comes from local sources and the

remaining 6 percent from the Federal Government. The Federal Government’s contribution

peaked at about 10 percent of the total from 1978

to 1980.3 (See figure 2-l. ) The balance among local, State, and Federal funding varies significantly

from State to State, however. New Hampshire has

IU. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1987), tables 3, 4, 5, 59. Data on the number of

public schools is from 1983-84, that on private schools from 1980-

81. The number of school districts is from 1983-84. Student enrollment data is an estimate for fall 1986, number of teachers are estimated full-time equivalent excluding support staff for fall 1986.

‘bid., table 21. Data are estimates for 1986-87.

‘Ibid., table 93 (preliminary data for 1984-85).

national system of K-12 education, The national

pattern of schooling mixes diversity of control and

decisionmaking with a surprising uniformity of

organization and goals.

the highest proportion of local funding, at 90 percent; Hawaii has the highest proportion of State

Figure 2-1 .—Funding of Elementary and Secondary

Education, by Source, 1980-87 (constant 1987 dollars)

150 “

/

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Yect r

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987(Washington, DC 198~, p. 107;

and unpublished data

25
26

funding, at 89 percent; and Mississippi has the

highest proportion of Federal funding, at 16.5 percent.

4 The bulk of the cost of education is in

providing buildings and paying salaries for

teachers and other staff. A tiny proportion is spent

on instructional materials, such as textbooks and

laboratory equipment.’ Private schools are

funded from tuition charged to students, although

they also receive tax benefits and participate in

some Federal aid programs. They enroll about 10

percent of students.’ (See figure 2-2. )

4Hawaii is the only State to have only one school district. That

is, the public schools are, in effect, State run rather than school board

run.

‘For example, over one-half of public expenditures on elementary and secondary schools in 1979-80 went to “instruction, ” primarily teacher salaries. U.S. Department of Education, op. cit., footnote 1, table 96. According to data from the American Association

of Publishers, the average school district spent $34 on instructional

materials per pupil in 1986, of a total spending of $4,000 per pupil,

just under 1 percent. Also see Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, testimony

before the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar.

22, 1988.

bThe system of public schools is paralleled by an extensive system of private education for which parents pay tuition (in addition

Figure 2-2.— Public and Private School Enrollments

and Revenues, by Source, 1985-86

PUBLIC

$146 billion

PRIVATE

Local

Although control over public education is in

the hands of the States and the school districts,

schooling across the Nation displays remarkable

uniformity. 7 Compulsory education generally

begins at age 6, in grade 1; for those who persist,

free public schooling ends in grade 12 at age 18.

There are three commonly used school classifications: elementary (kindergarten to grade 5, 6,

or 7); middle or junior high (grade 6, 7, or 8 to

grade 8 or 9); and high (grades 9 or 10 to 12).

Schools award grades on a scale that normally

stretches from 1 to 4, curricula and course titles

are fairly uniform, and a student’s grade point

average is nationally recognized as a measure of

the student’s progress.

The Nation’s 84,300 public schools are controlled and run by autonomous school districts,

subject to State laws and systems of organization.

These school districts are of very unequal size:

the largest 1 percent educate 26 percent of students, while the smallest 43 percent educate only

4 percent of students. The trend is toward consolidation of smaller districts, and the number of

school districts has fallen in so years from 120,000

to slightly less than 16,000 today.8 Most school

districts, although geographically coextensive with

local governmental units such as counties and cities, raise their own funds through local taxes and

bond issues, and are run by locally elected school

boards. In other districts, funding and control are

the responsibilities of counties and cities.

Just as education nationally displays diversity

and uniformity, so it is with mathematics and science education. The National Science Teachers

Association estimates that at least 50 percent (8.3

to the taxes that support public schools). The majority of private

schools are of religious foundation.

7See, for example, Barbara Benham Tye, “The Deep Structure of

Schooling, ” I%i Delta Kappan, December 1987, pp. 281-284.

W.S. Department of Education, op. cit., footnote 1, tables 5, 59,

60, 62. Data on the distribution of students among school districts

are from fall 1983. Data on the number of public schools are for

1983-84. An often overlooked element of local control in education

is the composition of school boards. Ninety-five percent of the 97,000

. - - . . school board members in the United States are elected. They make

(39.7 million enrolled) (5.6 million enrolled )

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statlstlcs

policy on everything from school lunch menus to textbook adoption affecting 40 million students. Jeremiah Floyd, National School

Boards Association, remarks at Workshop on Strengthening and

Enlarging the Pool of Minority High School Graduates Prepared

for Science and Engineering Career Options, Congressional Black

Caucus Braintrust on Science and Technology, Washington, DC,

Sept. 16, 1988.
27

million) of the high school population enrolled in

a science class in 1986.9 In 1981-82, 78 percent of

high school students (9.9 million) were enrolled

in mathematics courses. *O To provide these

courses in 1985-86 required a work force of about

100,000 science teachers and 173,000 mathematics

teachers, who together made up about 30 percent

of the secondary school teaching force .11

‘%lational Science Teachers Association, Survey Analysis of U.S.

Public and Private High Schools: 1985-86 (Washington, DC: March

1987), p. 5. A 1981-82 analysis indicated about the same number

of enrollments in high school science courses, Evaluation Technologies, Inc., A Trend Study of High School Offerings and Enrollments: 1972-73 and 1981-82, NCES 84-224 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, December 1984), p. 17.

1°Evaluation Technologies, Inc., op. cit., footnote 9, p. 16.

‘lNational Science Teachers Association, op. cit., footnote 9, p.

2; National Education Association, Status of the American Public

School Teacher, 1985-86 (West Haven, CT: 1987), p. 11, table 17.

(The National Education Association estimates that 11 percent and

4.5 percent of elementary school teachers that specialize in a subject area teach mathematics and science, respectively. )

COMPONENTS OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CURRICULA

For many children, the content of mathematics

and science classes and the way these subjects are

taught critically affect their interest and later

participation in science and engineering. The effectiveness of different teaching techniques is

addressed in the next chapter, but this section reviews the controversies over the typical American

mathematics and science curriculum, the alleged

dullness of many science textbooks, and the extent to which greater use of educational technology, such as computers, could improve the teaching of mathematics and science .12

Many mathematics and science educators are

critical of the quality of the mathematics and science curricula in use in most schools. They see

the curricula as slow-moving, as failing to draw

links between scientific and mathematical knowledge and real-world problems, and as relatively

impervious to reform .13

lz5imi1ar criticisms are made of the entire K-12 curriculum thatt

according to many observers, fails to draw links between separate

courses or between its content and the workings of the outside world.

A recent Carnegie Foundation report called for “. . . a kind of peacetime Manhattan Project on the school curriculum. . . .“ which would

,,

. . . design, for optional State use, courses in language, history,

science and the like and . . . propose ways to link school content

to the realities of life. ” The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Report Card on SchooJ Reform: The Teachers

Speak (Washington, DC: 1988), p. 3. See also Fred M. Newman,

“Can Depth Replace Coverage in the High School Curriculum,” Phi

Delta Kappan, January 1988, p. 345.

*3Attempts were made to improve mathematics and science curricula in the 1960s via several projects funded by the National Science Foundation. These projects did have some success, and have

affected overall curricula in these subjects in particular by stressing

the use of practical experiments. Details on these federally funded

programs appear in ch. 6.

Typical Mathematics and

Science Curricula

The mathematics and science curricula in use

in schools are fairly standardized, due to the widespread use of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and

American College Testing program for college admissions, college admission requirements, the

workings of the school textbook market (which

ensures considerable uniformity of content), and

the need to accommodate students who transfer

from one school to another. Nevertheless, there

are important differences in the problems of curricula between mathematics and science .14

In mathematics, grades one to seven are devoted to learning and practicing routine arithmetical exercises. In grade seven, the more advanced

students may move on to take courses that prepare them for algebra, but the most commonly

offered class is “general mathematics. ” The most

able and motivated take algebra in grade eight (if

their school offers it), and there is some evidence

that the number of algebra classes in grades seven

to nine is rising.l5 In higher grades, students go

on to courses in advanced algebra (also known

as algebra II), geometry, trigonometry, and either

precalculus or calculus (where these are offered).

(See figure 2-3.) About 10 percent of each cohort

14See, on science curricula generally, Audrey B. Champagne and

Leslie E. Hornig (eds. ), The Science Curriculum: The Report of the

1986 National Forum for School Science (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987).

151ris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science

and Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute, November 1987), pp. 24-25.
28

Figure 2.3.—Typical Course Progression

in Mathematics and Science

Grade

1

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 

Mathematics —

Science

Arithmetic General science

o 100 0 100

Percent of students taking course

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

of high school graduates persist in mathematics

long enough to take a calculus course.

The abstract and undemanding pace of the

mathematics curriculum at all levels has been

widely criticized recently. Many mathematics educators believe that there is too much emphasis on

arithmetical drill and practice, as opposed to an

emphasis on understanding mathematical concepts and applications. Many highly able students

in mathematics, likely future science and engineering majors, report that the average curriculum

proceeds at too slow a pace.l6 The fact that handheld calculators—in widespread use in everyday

life nationwide for over a decade—are still rarely

found or used in mathematics (and science) class16&njamin s. B]oom (cd.), Developing Talent in young people

(New York, NY: Ballantine, 1985), pp. 303-311; Lynn Arthur Steen,

“Mathematics Education: A Predictor of Scientific Competitiveness, ”

Science, vol. 237, July 17, 1987, pp. 251, 252, 302.

rooms is particularly criticized. A 1985 survey

found that about one-half of mathematics and science classes in grades 10-12 used calculators at

some point, but the proportion was much lower

in earlier grades (14 percent in the case of grade

K-6 mathematics classes). ” Another survey

found that almost all students reported that either they or their family owned a calculator, but

less than one-quarter said that their schools had

calculators for use in mathematics classes .18

Many mathematics educators also note that the

mathematics curriculum was largely left out of

earlier reform efforts, which concentrated mainly

on science. The experiments in “new math” left

a bad taste in many mouths, and there still remains deep suspicion among teachers, parents,

and school boards of attempts to develop a “new”

mathematics curriculum. Nevertheless, mathematics educators are using international comparisons of curricula, teaching practices, and achievement test scores to demonstrate the inferiority of

many American mathematics curricula .19 The

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is

undertaking a consultation program to develop

curriculum and assessment standards for school

mathematics, and the Mathematical Sciences Education Board, part of the National Research Council, is launching a broad-based reform program

designed, in part, to alert parents, school boards,

and teachers of the need to improve school mathematics. (See box 2-A. ) Particular efforts are also

being made to improve the teaching of calculus—

increasingly taught in high school and, by many

accounts, appallingly taught at the college

level.’”

I’Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, tables 24 and 31, pp. 48, 56.

‘8John A. Dossey et al., The Mathematics Report Card: Are We

Measun”ng Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National

Assessment (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988),

p. 79.

“Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachieving Curriculum:

Assessing U.S. School Mathematics From an International Perspective (Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987); and

Robert Rothman, “In ‘Bold Stroke, ’ Chicago to Issue Calculators

to All 4th-8th Graders, ” Education Week, Oct. 14, 1987.

‘“National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, “Curriculum

and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics: Working Draft,”

unpublished manuscript, October 1987; Robert Rothman, “Math

Group Sets New ‘Vision’ for Curriculum, ” Education Week, Nov.

11, 1987, p. 5; and Lynn Arthur Steen (cd.), Calculus for a New

Century; A Pump, Not a Filter (Washington, DC: Mathematical

Association of America, 1988).
29

BOX 2-A.-The Special Role af the fkkmce ~‘E@ne=k&,pmw’~ Co-titi- blWb@kW, “, “ dm ~& , “: -

Science is an active endeavor. In facilities all ower the world, scientists, engineers, and technicians form research -Commwtitks providlt tlw ccdkagues, verification,

peer review, and legitimacy of the researd @r@*. M@mb@!s of these communities also prepare future

generations of researchers. Many nwrn~,af-curnmuai~ have ar!tx interest in science education, even at the p=ollege level, f~~~~ with co&iiiR’bR%ating the joy and beauty

of ~ience and with nurturing fut~ w+- oft&k %%t,’eth~, obv@s potential linkages between

mathematics and science educa- and the practice of sciewR and engineering, there is still a continuing

need to forge those linkages. t ,-

Teachers and educators often lament that research ~~”~vek ~P@ them and remain indifferent to the early preparation of future taknt. %Q u qctent, there will always be friction between th- groups; many scientists disdain educatom, WkI!R IW sw = ~relY mas-produced and disseminating yesterday’s knowledge, Deeper mutual- * needed.

Two major initiatives are under way to b-A_ education: the American

Association for the Advancementt of Science’s Projwt 3061 and%dw Ma@mwtic al Sciences Education Board,

based at the National Research Council. Proje@ 2061 @g#kragpipuf prominent scientists

to reform science and mathematics education for the next%!. comet ~1 n=t return

to Earth. The Project has three phases: content~. -tio~l’tidation, and educational

transformation. In the first phase, the gro~p is ‘@<d&i& the science, technology, and mathematics that all high school graduates ~atdd hwff aa@Ed phase, these “goals for learning” will

transmute into educational guidelines for curriciila, schd cqanization, tmcher training and support, and

testing methods. Finally, in the third ph-:

. . ,

. . . the strategies and mechanisms neded to reform Am- in* &&t of the intellectual framework of Phase I and the educational @delines of P&M II will b estabW $md monitored. This phase will

have to be a highly cooperative, nation- effort WMdIWd-reSOWCWS# rno~to~ props,and, ~ general, provide direction and continuity of effort.1

The Mathematical Sciences Education Board was estak4ished in Uctobgr 1985 with the aim of launching a major reform effort for elementary, secordary, *’@d~i%&l@e teadhbg of mathematics, focusing

in particular on curricula. ’l”he primary purposed t&,&wr&$”. . . tOprc@d@ a continuing national overview and assessment capability for mathematics edwaticm.” The Board works under the auspices of the

National Research Council, and on it sit mathenwticiqns, risM@matiQ educators, and people familiar with

schools and school systems. The Board is wmkin$ ~ public understanding of school mathematics issues, raising national expectations for madwma-’_~d lem~ ~d rea~~g a cOnsensus on goals and education fw future~n mat It kpkxwv to help States and school

districts improve their perfo~ ●.

IP. Jalm$ RukdOFd et al., TrOjtGt 206$: %& $rkx Cunidffm: 77te Report of the 1986 NationaI Fomm

for SchooJWence. Au&g B. ~arid Mle E. adgW%) &mdatha for the Mvancement of Science, 19S7),

pp. 61-65.

Zynn Arthur Staezl (d.), Calculw fore New C@tarp A Pump, N@’”a F##er., DC: Mathematical Aaaociation of America, 19SS).

In science, until grade eight, most students take taught separately, and teachers fail to draw the

general science cou~ses. In grade nine, upon transfer to high school, they typically take general science, biology, then chemistry, earth science, and

finally physics. About 20 percent of high school

graduates persist in science long enough to take

physics .2] In many schools, these courses are

link; and contrasts among the different science disciplines. The typical order of their presentation—

biology, chemistry, physics—is deeply ingrained

in the culture of American school science, but

some teachers feel that other arrangements would

be better, and would draw more effective links

‘*In 1987, 20.1 percent of high school graduates earned minimal

credits in physics, up from 13.9 percent in 1982. Westat, “1987 High

School Transcript Study, ” unpublished tabulations for the “Nation

at Risk Update Study, ” May 1988, p. 110.
30

with mathematics courses. (For comparison, see science educators are deeply critical of typical scifigure 2-4, which outlines the order of courses fol- ence textbooks, which they say concentrate

lowed by a science magnet school in which this largely on defining terms without explaining their

traditional order is reversed. origin and the scientific concepts that they describe. Science, they say, ends up being presented

Problems With Textbooks

Most mathematics and science in schools is

taught with the aid of textbooks, which are an

area of considerable controversy (more so in science than in mathematics).22 Many scientists and

~A 1985.86 su~ey of teachers indicated that over 90 percent of

mathematics and science classes in grades seven to nine used a published textbook or program, a proportion which has remained level

since 1977. About two-thirds of elementary science classes use them,

as do over 90 percent of elementary mathematics classes. The survey also found that most teachers claimed to cover at least 7S percent of the book that they used. See Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15,

tables 14 and 19. A similar survey of students found that threequarters of students in grade 7 and 11 reported using mathematics

textbooks in classes daily, and only 4 or s percent, respectively,

“never” used textbooks in class. In grade three classes, more use

is made of workbooks or ditto sheets than textbooks. See Dossey

et a]., op. cit., footnote 18, p. 78.

Figure 2-4.–Curriculum of a Mathematics/Science/Computer Science Magnet Program for the Class of 1991

Year

Grade 9

Is t

semester

2nd

semester

Grade 10

Is t

semester

2nd

semester

Grade 11

1st

semester

2nd

semester

Grade 12

Is t

semester

2nd

semester

Mathematics

Course sequence

Magnet Functions

A&B

(1 credit)

or

Magnet Precalculus

A,B,C

Analysis

A&B

(1 1/ 2 Credits)

Analysis II

(1/2 credit)

or

Linear Algebra

or

Discrete Mathematics

or

Excursion Topics in

Math

Guided Research,

Internship

Cooperatives,

University courses,

etc.

Science

Advanced Science 1

Physics

(1 credit)

Advanced Science 2

Chemistry

(1 credit)

Advanced Science 3

Earth Science

(1/2 credit)

Advanced Science 4

Biology

(1 credit)

Advanced mini-courses,

research, internships,

university courses,

special topics,

cooperatives, etc.

(variable credit)

Examples:

Climatology,

Tectonics,

Metallurgy,

Cellular physiology,

Biomedical seminar,

Thermodynamics,

Optics,

Cooperatives

Seminar

Research and

Experimentation

Techniques for

Problem Solving 1

including:

Probability and

Statistics

Research Methods

( 1 / 2 Credit )

Research and

Experimentation

Techniques for

Problem Solving 2

(1/2 credit)

(1/2 Credit)

Research and

Experimentation

Techniques for

Problem Solving 3

(1 credit)

Guided senior project

involving research

and/or development

across discipline lines

(1 credit)

Computer Science

Fundamentals of

Computer Science A

(1/2 Credit)

Fundamentals of

Computer Science B

(1/2 Credit)

Algorithms and

Data Structures A

(1/2 credit)

Algorithms and

Data Structures B

(12 Credit)

Advanced topics in

semester and minicourses, university

study, special topic

sessions, projects

(variable credit)

Examples:

Analysis of

Algorithms,

Graphics,

Survey of Languages,

Computer

Architecture &

Organization,

Game Theory

NOTE: Elective courses for grades 11, 12 include options like: Advanced Placement courses. Game Theow, ToDoloaY, Mathematical Proarammina, Abstract Alaebra.

Cooperative Languages, Robotics, Computer Architecture, Systems Design, Organic Chemistry, Quantitative ;nalysis, Astrophysic~, Plant P%ysioiogy, Befiavior

and Brain Chemistry, Calculus in BiologylEcology.

SOURCE: Montgomery Blair High School, Silver Spring, MD, September 1987.
as a monolith of unconnected and unchallengeable “facts,” which are learned only by those students with extraordinary memories and with an

overriding determination to pass the standardized

tests of their ability to recall such definitions. (The

need to address “facts,” as well as their interpretation and construction, is discussed in box 2-B. )

As a result, students find the textbooks boring.

For example, one recent review by a science edu-

. . .*. , . . cater ot a newly revised biology textbook notes:

tion, to explain concepts or to explain biology,

and it is rich in absurdity. The writers reduce the

topic of “scientific methods” to two paragraphs

within a confusing passage on “The Origin of

Life.” . . . The book . . is attractive but scientifically meaningless.

[The book] presents a frenetic display of facts–

a smothering blanket of facts—and it will not inspire scientific thinking in any student or teacher.

At most, it will impart an artificial and shallow

sense of learning while it damages imagination

[This] product offers facts, pseudofacts and and creativity .23

cliches in a matrix of rote sentences and plentiful 23National Center for Science Education, Inc., Bookwatch, vol.

pictures. It continually fails to integrate informa- 1, No. 1, February 1988,
32

The evidence is that both the economics of textbook publication and the politics of textbook

selection result in “watered-down,” poorly written, but attractive and fact-filled textbooks.24

Some educators bitterly criticize the process of

textbook “adoption” (approved for use statewide)

used in 22 States. These States have a great deal

of control over the content of the books. As a result, textbooks are designed to meet adoption criteria in the few key States such as Texas and California (in kindergarten to grade eight only) that

guarantee the largest market if the book is approved. States that do not have textbook adoption mechanisms consequently have a more limited choice of textbooks, because publishers are

reluctant to incur the cost of producing new volumes for these smaller markets.

Because of the pressure to include material that

will satisfy textbook adoption committees and in

order to outdo rival publishers, textbooks typically are large and heavy, profusely illustrated,

are often printed in full color, but are surprisingly

uniform in content. The books typically increase

in size and weight with each edition, becoming

more expensive, harder to carry, and more difficult for students to take home and study. The text24For criticism of the general textbook situation and suggestions

for policy reform, see Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, A Conspiracy of

Good Intentions: America’s Textbook Fiasco (Washington, DC: The

Council for Basic Education, 1988). Also see Tyson-Bernstein, op.

cit., footnote 5; and Richard P. Feynman, Surely You’re Joking, Mr.

Feynman: Adventures of a Curious Character (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1986), pp. 262-276.

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Formal education relies heavily on textbooks marketed

by major publishing companies. Most educators find

that these textbooks vary greatly in quality.

books often include a huge quantity of material,

in order to ensure that each State’s recommended

science curriculum is covered and that all interest groups are mollified. However, many important but controversial aspects of science, most

notoriously the theory of evolution, may be omitted or given inadequate treatment.

Interest groups lobby State textbook adoption

committees to ensure that their own viewpoint is

included, but the effect is that new text and pictures are added—material is rarely deleted. Ultimately, depth is sacrificed for breadth. And, because the adoption process typically involves an

expert panel that quickly skims each volume, the

textbooks often are designed to have key words

in prominent places and be attractively packaged.

The result is often textbooks that are a “lowest

common denominator” of inoffensive facts, limited in conveying to students the process of constructing new scientific knowledge or the uses that

are made of it. Some have described science textbooks as “glossaries masquerading as textbooks.”

Often, the “facts” themselves are old or entirely

discredited. As a recent analysis of the process of

textbook adoption notes:

We have dozens of powerful ministries of education [States] issuing undisciplined lists of particulars that publishers must include in the textbooks. Since publishers must sell in as many

jurisdictions as possible in order to turn a profit,

their books must incorporate this melange of testoriented trivia, pedagogical faddism and inconsistent social messages. . . . Under current selection procedures, those responsible for choosing

the best among available books seem blind to the

incoherence and unreadability of the book because they are merely ascertaining the presence

of the required material, not its depth or clarity .25

In economic terms, the textbook market is quite

concentrated, as indicated in table 2-1. For example, almost half of all elementary mathematics

classes and 37 percent of all elementary science

classes use one of the three most commonly used

textbooks in these grades. Only a few textbook

publishers supply much of the market. Yet a number of smaller publishers happily coexist along side

25Tyson-Bernstein, A Conspiracy of Good Intentions, op. cit.,

footnote 24, pp. 7, 109-110; also see National Science Board, Science

& Engineering Indicators, 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1987), pp. 35-36.
33

Table 2-1 .—Most Commonly Used Mathematics and Science Textbooks

Percentage of

classes that

Publisher Title use book

Science, grades K-6:

Silver Burdett . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D.C. Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, grades 7-9:

Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science, grades 10-12:

HoIt, Rinehart, Winston. . . . . .

HoIt, Rinehart, Winston. . . . . .

Merrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, grades K.6:

Addison-Wesley . . . . . . . . . . . .

D.C. Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scott, Foresman . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, grades 7-9:

Houghton Mifflin . . . . . . . . . . .

D.C. Heath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scott, Foresman . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, grades 10-12:

Houghton Mifflin . . . . . . . . . . .

Houghton Mifflin . . . . . . . . . . .

HoIt, Rinehart, Winston. . . . . .

Science: Understanding Your Environment 17

Accent on Science

Science

Focus on Life Science

Principles of Science

Focus on Physical Science

Modern Biology

Modern Chemistry

Chemistry: A Modern Course

Mathematics in Our World

Mathematics

Invitation to Mathematics

Algebra: Structure and Method

Mathematics

Mathematics Around Us

Algebra: Structure and Method

Geometry

Algebra With Trigonometry

10

10

9

8

8

14

9

5

16

15

7

7

4

4

14

8

2

SOURCE: Iris R Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 National Survey of Scierrce and Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park,

NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), tables C.1 and C.2.

the major publishers, supplying either materials

for parts of courses or entire texts.” Nevertheless, it is not a huge market since it is estimated

that, in 1986, the total sales of instructional materials was equivalent to about $34 per student

(only about 1 percent of the annual cost of education per student) .27

Despite these gloomy assessments, a recent survey of mathematics and science teachers found

that only a minority of them were concerned

about textbook quality. When asked whether the

poor quality of textbooks was a serious problem

in their school, 11 percent of K-6 science teachers

and 5 percent of grade 10-12 science teachers said

yes. Fewer than 8 percent of mathematics teachers

26A 1985-86 survey found that 10 publishers (Addison-Wesley;

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; D.C. Heath; HoIt, Rinehart, Winston;

Houghton Mifflin; Laidlaw; MacMillan; Merrill; Scott, Foresman;

and Silver Burdett) accounted for at least three-quarters of all

mathematics and science textbooks at all levels, and that two publishers accounted for almost one-half of each of elementary

mathematics and science textbooks. See Weiss, op. cit., footnote

15, pp. 32-37.

2Tyson-Bernstein, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 13 and table II. Based

on data from the Association of American Publishers, 1986.

thought it was a problem. Between 15 and 25 percent of teachers thought that the quality of textbooks was somewhat of a problem. Factors such

as large class sizes, inadequate access to computers, lack of funds for equipment and supplies,

inadequate facilities, poor student reading abilities, and students’ lack of interest were cited to

be more serious problems. Indeed, teachers rated

the organization, clarity, and reading level of textbooks favorably. Elementary teachers had more

favorable ratings of textbooks than did secondary teachers.28

Textbooks pose several contradictions: most

teachers seem (rightly or wrongly) to like the textbooks they use, many outside reviewers are skeptical of the scientific worth of many mathematics

and science textbooks, there are apparently no

overwhelming barriers to entry to the market, and

powerful political and economic forces shape the

dynamics of the textbook market. Devising “better” textbooks is not enough, for they must be

adopted to be used and they are likely, on present

‘

sWeiss, op. cit., footnote 15, pp. 40-42 and tables 20, 21, and 71.
34

evidence, to be severely corrupted in the process.

The best teachers have the ability to go beyond

the material in textbooks, to provide supplementary material and examples, and to weave the concepts that the books try to explain into some coherent whole. But many teachers do not have the

time, energy, or authority to use materials other

than the approved texts.

Overall, the deficiencies, if any, in current

mathematics and science textbooks stem from the

divorce between the buyers and users of textbooks. Greater teacher involvement in textbook

selection, a more courageous selection of members of textbook selection committees by States,

and a greater participation by qualified scientists

and engineers in the textbook adoption process

will help, but not rectify, the problem .29

Use of Computers in Mathematics

and Science Education

Computers offer new approaches for learning

mathematics and science for all children, and help

prepare students for college courses and technical careers that will demand familiarity with the

technology .30 If used well and imaginatively,

computers can increase students’ interest and improve learning, particularly for both the most and

‘qThere is a Federal role, too. The National Science Foundation

has issued a “publisher initiative” that outlines criteria for needed

student assessment materials in baseline science development projects

for the elementary grades and middle school. Since 1987, the National Science Foundation has funded seven “Troika” programs

,,

. . . intended to encourage partnerships among publishers, school

systems, and scientists/science educators for the purpose of developing and disseminating a number of competitive, high quality, alternative science programs for use in typical American elementary

schools. ” See the National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Education Directorate, Instructional Materials Development Program, “Publisher Initiative” and “The ‘Troika’ Program, ” unpublished documents, July 1988.

~his discussion centers on the now-familiar desktop personal

computer or computer with keyboard and/or mouse input. Some

schools have networked computers, or links with computers at other

sites. Some schools, in particular science-intensive schools, have

more powerful computers, computerized laboratory instrumentation, and computer-aided data processing equipment. Other information technologies, such as interactive videodiscs, are also powerful

learning tools but they are less widespread than computers. Calculators, present in increasing numbers of classrooms, are having a

greater effect than computers, because they reach many more students and are more readily linked in teachers’ minds with existing

curricula items, such as arithmetic. For more detail, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for

Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1988).

least advanced students. But the educational impact of computers is limited when the rest of the

classroom environment stays the same. Conclusive research on effectiveness is meager .31

Computer technology and software are evolving. Educators are still discovering both positive

and negative impacts on students, classrooms, and

learning; how best to use the technologies to improve learning; and what support is needed in

teacher training, curriculum modification, and research. Use of computers by teachers and students

is still quite limited, although their availability and

the equality of access enjoyed by different schools

and students is improving. The use and future impact of computers depends on familiar features

of the rest of the school system: curricula, time,

quality of overall science and mathematics instruction, and, most of all, the comfort and competence of teachers with computers.

Nature and Extent of Use

The potential of computers is slowly being realized. Regular computer use is not extensive, although almost all schools now have at least some

computers available. Primarily because of the

small number of computers relative to students

(the computer-to-student ratio in science classes

is estimated to be 1:15 in middle school and ranging from 1:10 to 1:17 in high school, which is

higher than the average in all subject areas), computers are most commonly used as infrequent enrichments rather than as an integral part of science teaching.32 About one-third of high school

mathematics teachers use computers in the classroom. 33 Nevertheless, much of this is occasional

JIHenV J. Becker, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, “The Impact of Computer Use on Children’s Learning:

What Research Has Shown and What It Has Not,” unpublished

manuscript, 1988.

32Sylvia Shafto and Joanne Capper, “Doing Science Together, ”

Teaching, Learning and Technology: A Digest of Research With

Practical Implications, vol. 1, No. 2, summer 1987, p. 2. A 1985

survey found that over 90 percent of schools had access to computers, but that only in about one-quarter of mathematics and science

classes was this equipment readily available. Often, it is shared with

other classes, or kept in special-purpose rooms that must be scheduled in advance. Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, table 68.

JJBecker found 17 percent for middle and secondary schools,

while the National Science Teachers Association found 26 percent

for all schools with a grade 12 (all secondary schools and a few middle schools). See Henry Becker, “1985 National Survey, ” Instructional Uses of School Computers, No. 4, June 1987; and National
35

use, and amounts to a small fraction of instructional time.

3 4 A 1985 survey noted that

. . . there is only the hint that secondary school

science instruction might be profoundly affected

by computers. The impact is largely still in the

future.” 35

Computers are not used intensively in science

classes. (See figure 2-5. ) In secondary school, only

5 to 10 percent of computer use is for science; in

elementary school, it is about 1 percent. There

has been a slight decrease in the number of science programs available over the past 5 years,

especially in chemistry and physics.

A unique application of computers in science

is in the microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL),

where computers can simulate experiments or

process and display data obtained from simulated

experiments. 36 (See box 2-C. ) The use of science

laboratories in science teaching has declined for

many reasons, but computers can reduce some of

the barriers to laboratory work, such as the rising cost of supplies, purchasing and maintaining

equipment, concerns about safety hazards and liability, limited teacher competence in experimental

work, the complexity of some experimental procedures, and the “one time—look quick” nature

of many laboratories.37 MBLs can also help chilScience Teachers Association, “Survey Analysis of U.S. Public and

Private High Schools: 1985-86,” unpublished document, March 1987.

34A 1985+6 survey found that, in grades 10-12, 10 Percent of

mathematics classes and 5 percent of science classes used computers

in their last lesson, but one-third of courses of each type used them

at some point. Elementary students spend more time with computers

than secondary students, but still two-thirds of K-6 mathematics

cJasses and 85 percent of K-6 science classes report not using computers at all “last week.” Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15, pp. 48, 58,

59, tables 24, 32, 33. Another recent survey has found computer

access for learning mathematics to be relatively equitable across the

sexes, races, and ethnicities, although high-ability students are more

likely to report that they have access than are low-ability students.

About one-third of high school juniors have taken a computer programming course. Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 18, pp. 82-86.

35 Becker, op. cit., footnote 33, p. 11.

~Shafto and Capper, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 1. However, computers are used much more widely in the science classroom than

in the laboratory.

37Alan Lesgold, “Computer Resources for Learning, Peabody

Journal of Education, vol. 62, No. 2,1985, cited in Shafto and Capper, op. cit., footnote 32, p. 4. A 1985 survey found that the number of mathematics and science classes that had used “hands-on”

activities in their most recent lesson had declined at all grade levels

(with the sole exception in K-3 mathematics) since 1977. For example, while 53 percent of grade 10-12 science classes in 1977 reported

using hands-on activities, in 1985 only 39 percent did. Weiss, op.

cit., footnote 15, table 25, p. 49.

Figure 2.5.—Time Spent Using Computers in

Mathematics and Science Classes, by Grade,

in Minutes Per Week, 1985-86

Mathematics

I K - 6 7 - 9 10-1 2

Science

I K - 6 7 – 9 10-1 2 I

SOURCE: Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 hlational Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), p. 59

dren learn the process of science and research—

hypothesis formation, testing, asking “what if”

questions, gathering and analyzing data—at their

own pace. Students using MBLs have shown

greater understanding of basic principles and skills

such as graphing data than students in regular laboratories. w

Besides limited access to machines, other important barriers to more extensive use of computers are teachers’ lack of familiarity with the

technology and the lack of educational software

(computer programs). Surveys indicate that comparatively few mathematics and science teachers

have taken courses either in the instructional uses

of computers or in computer programming. Only

a bare majority of secondary mathematics teachers have taken either of these courses (table 2-2).

About one-half of educational software is devoted to topics in mathematics, science, and computer literacy. Mathematics was one of the first

applications of educational computing, and con340 ffice of Technology Assessment, Op. Cit., footnote 30~ Ch” 5

‘
36
37

Table 2-2.—Courses in Computers Taken

by Mathematics and Science Teachers

Percentage of teachers

that have taken

Instructional

uses of Computer

computers programmina

Mathematics teachers:

Grades K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 17

Grades 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 24

Grades 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 46

Grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 64

Science teachers:

Grades K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11

Grades 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 21

Grades 7-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 33

Grades 10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 33

SOURCE Ins R Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and

Mathematws Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle

Institute, November 1987), tables 39, 40, 41, and 44,

tinues to be the subject where students are most

likely to encounter computers. More software is

available for mathematics than for any other subject area, although most of it is for learning and

practicing basic skills.” For example, interactive

computer graphics can be powerful in helping children construct graphs and visualize algebraic and

geometric functions.

Computer Impacts, Opportunities, and Needs

Computers offer the potential for individualized instruction. If carefully developed and used,

computers and software can open doors to mathematics and science for students, particularly females and minorities, who traditionally have had

limited interest or success in these courses. In

many settings, however, computers can also reinforce existing patterns and stereotypes: boys tend

to crowd girls away from computers, affluent children benefit from computers at home and more

extensive access at school. Little is known as yet

of the impact of different kinds and intensity of

computer use on interest in, and preparation for,

different college majors.

Computers also make it possible to offer courses

that might not otherwise be available. Distance

3gIbid.

learning or packaged computer courses can enrich the schooling of advanced high school students or rural students in schools with limited

course offerings. Likewise, familiarity with computers is becoming expected of incoming college

students, particularly in science and engineering.

If students do not have the opportunity to work

with computers, computers may become yet

another barrier to attainment of educational goals.

A pressing need is to help current science and

mathematics teachers become comfortable using

computers in the classroom and laboratory. Although most new teachers being trained are exposed to computers, many of them still report not

being comfortable using them. 40 Technolog y

training has unique aspects that distinguish it from

other inservice training, in particular a need for

special facilities and equipment. Teachers must

have generous access to computers to use them

effectively.

Continuing research on learning and evaluations of the effectiveness of computer-aided education are needed. Trials of different schools and

learning structures would help in evaluating the

strengths and weaknesses of computer technologies. The challenge is to measure the process of

learning, and not just the content and outcomes

of acquired knowledge. Another need is development of computer-integrated curricula, which

builds the strengths of computers into curricula

from the start rather than appending them to existing curricular frameworks.

The Federal Government has helped schools

acquire computers, supported research on their

uses and their integration with curricula, and to

some extent augmented private sector development of hardware, software, and services .4]

Some Department of Education funds, although

not specifically targeted to computers, have

4OLe$~ than ~ne.third of recent graduates fee] prepared to teach

with computers. See ibid., p. 98.

411bid., and Arthur S. Melmed and Robert A. Burnham, “New

Information Technology Directions for American Education: Improving Science and Mathematics Educationr ” report to the Nationa]

Science Foundation, unpublished manuscript, December 1987.
38

helped schools acquire hardware and software.

Title II of the Education for Economic Security

Act of 1984 (see ch. 6) has supported teacher training. The National Science Foundation has been

instrumental in software development, networking among schools, and teacher training. Federal

influence has been small compared to that from

equipment manufacturers or vendors (among

whom Apple has been prominent) and private

foundations. 42 States are active in the movement

‘The Federal Government could promote software development.

Melmed and Burnham, op. cit., footnote 41, pp. 12-13, suggest that

VARIATION AMONG SCHOOLS

As any parent knows, schools vary in a myriad

of ways; their location, control, and funding may

affect their children’s progress. For example, there

is some evidence that private Catholic schools are

especially effective at channeling their students

toward academic college education, owing to the

personal attention and high expectations they give

their students.43

OTA did not analyze data on the special features of mathematics and science instruction in

private schools compared with public schools.

Rather, it considered the contrasts among urban,

suburban, and rural public schools, as related to

their respective socioeconomic settings and expectations of parents and other taxpayers. For example, urban school districts often have poor tax

bases and cannot readily raise funds for education. Suburban school systems have much less difficulty and can attract good teachers. There are

continuing pressures for some suburban and ur43James S. Coleman and Thomas Hoffer, Public and Private

High Schools (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1987) is a recent analysis of this proposition. Although this analysis does not specifically

separate out mathematics and science education, the authors conclude that the ethos of the community surrounding a school, including taxpayers and parents, is more important in explaining the

success of private schools than are particular actions that the school

takes. Some argue that the political and bureaucratic milieux within

which public schools operate harms them. See John E. Chubb and

Terry M. Moe, “No School Is an Island: Politics, Markets, and Education, ” The Brookings Review, fall 1986, pp. 21-28. Other analysts

have found that any advantage in the outputs of private school science experiences are balanced by the strong self-selectivity of private school students. See John R. Staver and Herbert J. Walberg,

“An Analysis of Factors That Affect Public and Private School Science Achievement, ” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol.

23, No. 2, 1986, pp. 97-112.

to improve basic skills (including mathematics and

science literacy), in which computers are playing

an increasing role.

the Federal Government fund four mathematics and four science

curricula to meet the goal of a science and mathematics course each

year of high school. A rough estimate is that such development

would cost about $2 million ($1 to $4 million) per course. Development should include review of old and existing curricula. Distribution and maintenance might total 25 percent of development costs,

but could be recovered through a school user fee, Trials would need

to be several years long.

ban school systems to merge or to share funds and

resources, in the interests of both racial and financial equity. The health of inner city schools

will be particularly important in encouraging minority youth to pursue science and engineering

majors. The 44 largest urban school systems, represented by the Council of Great City Schools,

enroll about 10 percent of the entire school population, but 33 percent of the Blacks and 27 percent of the Hispanics in public schools. These

schools also enroll a disproportionately large

number of students whose family incomes are below the poverty line.44 Data from the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

assessments of science and mathematics achievement indicate that students in disadvantaged urban areas score an average of about 20 percent

lower than the national average, while those in

suburban areas score about 5 percent higher than

the national average.45

“WiIIiam Snider, “Urban Schools Have Turned Corner But Still

Need Help, Report Says, “ Education Week, vol. 7, No. 2, Sept. 16,

1987, pp. 1, 20. Also see Bruce L. Wilson and Thomas B. Corcoran, Places Where Children Succeed: A Profile of Outstanding

Elementary Schools, Report to U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Philadelphia, PA:

Research for Better Schools, December 1987).

45U.S. Department of Education, op. cit., footnote 1, table 79.

This statement is based on mathematics data for 1981-82 and science data for 1976-77. Due to cutbacks in the Department of Education’s funding for the National Assessment of Educational Progress,

a limited science assessment was conducted in 1981-82 with funding from the National Science Foundation. Data from that assessment were not tabulated by the geographic location of respondents,

so cannot be used in this comparison. The 1986 assessment in mathematics shows continued gains by Black and Hispanic students in

all three age categories (9, 13, and 17). See Dossey et al., op. cit.,

footnote 18.
3 9

Rural school systems face different problems

in providing high-quality education, particularly

in advanced mathematics and science, to geographically dispersed populations. While the days

of the one-school school district are passing, rural districts still find it difficult to provide optional

advanced mathematics and science courses and

to attract the best teachers. These problems will

grow worse in areas of rural America that continue to experience economic declines. Experiments are under way in some areas with distance

learning technologies and regional science high

schools. ”

Standardized Achievement Testing

Students take many kinds of tests throughout

their schooling to measure their learning and mastery of skills. Such tests are used to sort students

among classes and tracks, to evaluate performance, to check for special abilities (see section in

ch. 4 on programs for gifted and talented students)

or learning disabilities, and to inform the college

admissions process. Tests of basic competencies

of high school graduates are growing in favor as

part of the movement toward increased educational accountability. A 1985 survey found that

11 States required such tests of high school graduates, and 4 had plans to institute such tests.47

Many of these tests are of the familiar standardized multiple-choice type. Scores report students’ progress both in absolute terms and relative to the performance of their peers. Such tests

are inexpensive to administer; scoring is often

done by computer.

But testing is controversial on several counts.

It is said to deter many students from preparing

for science and engineering careers. The tests are

also said to convey racial, cultural, and gender

biases against women and ethnic minorities that

ostensibly lead to lower scores .48 Some claim

that testing has a pervasive harmful effect on the

curriculum: teachers invite students to parrot back

facts they have memorized, with the result that

students’ higher order thinking skills are not exercised. 49 A recent issue of the Newsletter of the

National Education Association’s Mastery in

Learning Project put the issue most dramatically:

Perhaps it has been the failure to understand

intelligence —how it is nurtured or stunted, how

it works, how it should be measured, even where

it resides—that has done the most damage to the

education of children.

Because the workings and the vulnerability of

the intellect have been so dimly understood by

so many, teaching has often been rigidly factdriven, heavily demanding of linguistic, logical,

linear thinking skills, and often neglecting those

aspects of learning that involve imagery, intuitiveness, manual and whole body skills, and feelings.

Partly because of this failure of understanding,

educational testing companies have continued to

produce, states to require, and schools to administer, paper and pencil tests that, in purporting

to measure students’ achievement, have succeeded

only in labeling and limiting it. w

The current practice of educational testing appears to constrict the pipeline for future scientists

and engineers. It measures only a limited range

of abilities and is often misused to deny students

access to courses and encouragement that might

tip the balance toward their becoming scientists

and engineers. Alternative tests are being devised

to address, in particular, knowledge of the

processes of science, familiarity with experimental

techniques, and higher order thinking skills, but

the nagging problem will be resistance to their

replication and large-scale adoption both for classroom use and in the college admissions process.5]

*E. Robert Stephens, “Rural Problems Jeopardize Reform,” Education Week, Oct. 7, 1987, pp. 25-26. A new federally sponsored

project called ACCESS, in northwest Missouri, is designed to expand rural students’ access to higher education in all subjects. Legislation has been introduced to set up similar programs in other

States. See Robin Wilson, “U.S.-Backed Project in Missouri Aims

to Help Rural Youths Overcome Farm Troubles and Continue Their

Education, ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 27, 1988, pp.

A37-A38.

47U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “State

Educational Testing Practices, ” background paper, NTIS #PB88-

155056, December 1987.

wNeverthe]=s, it is important to note that Asian students tYPically do better than other groups on the mathematics portion of

these tests, indicating the difficulty of pinning down exactly what

form any racial and cultural biases take.

49A comprehensive review is found in Norman Frederiksen, “The

Real Test Bias: Influences on Teaching and Learning, ” American

Psychologist, vol. 39, No. 3, March 1984, pp. 193-202.

‘National Education Association Mastery in Learning Project,

Doubts and Certainties, vol. II, No. 6, April 1988, p. 1.

SIThe Aswssment of performance Unit of Great Britain’s Department of Education and Science, for example, has devised tests of

students’ skills in conducting experiments and in interpreting these

(continued on next page)
40

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Students are tested early and often in schools; this can

help in evaluating their learning progress, but it also

profoundly affects the curriculum.

The biggest controversies in testing, as it affects

those who will major in science and engineering,

have concerned the Scholastic Aptitude Test

(SAT) and the American College Testing program, one of which almost all intending college

students take prior to admission .52 Because these

(continued from previous page)

results. These tests have been replicated by the National Assessment

of Educational Progress and in the advanced placement biology examination. Fran et al., A of Higher-Order

Thinking Skills Assessment Techniques in Science and Mathematics

(Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress, November 1986). Also see Robert E. “Assess All Five Domains

of Science, ” The Science Teacher, October 1987, pp. 33-37; and

George E. Hein, “The Right Test for Hands-on Learning, ” Science

and Children, October 1987, pp. 8-12.

 Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educating

Scientists and Engineers: Grade to Grad School, OTA-SET377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988),

pp. 35-36. Also see Elizabeth Greene, “SAT Scores Fail to Help Admission Officers Make Better Decisions, Analysts Contend, ” The

Chronicle of Higher Education, July 27, 1988, p. A20.

tests are given great weight in admissions decisions by colleges and universities, any deficiencies in the preparation or administration of these

tests could lead to “misassignment” of students

among colleges and majors, or the failure of students to be admitted to college at all. Standardized

tests have been important in college admissions

for many decades, because they are economical

to administer and measure students nationally

against a common metric. But criticism of, in particular, the SAT by activist groups such as the

Cambridge-based National Center for Fair and

Open Testing (FairTest) and others in education

is leading a small but increasing number of colleges and universities to drop their requirement

for applicants to take the SAT.53

Females, Blacks, and Hispanics, on average,

score lower than males and whites on the mathematics and verbal portions of these tests. In relation to disparities on the mathematics portion,

some argue that this difference arises from the

relatively poor preparation and limited number

of mathematics and science courses taken by these

groups. But others say that subtle biases in the

tests’ design and administration are a cause of

some of the disparity .54

One important trend in testing is the increasing number of advanced placement programs being offered by schools. These programs give high

school students college credit in a particular subject, based on the results of an examination which

involves both multiple-choice and written responses. Many argue that this makes the advanced

placement a better test, although it is more expensive than regular college admissions tests (costing over $50 per test). The number of such tests

being taken is increasing about 13 percent annually, and about 20 percent of all secondary schools

53David Owen, None of the Above (Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin, 1985); Robert Rothman, “Admission Tests Misused, Says

College Leader,” Education Dec. 9, 1987, p. 5. reports

that at least 40 colleges now do not require either the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the American College Testing program for college admission. When colleges do not use these tests, they increase the

weight that they place on other components of the admissions process, such as student transcripts, student essays, teachers’ and counselors’ recommendations, and in-person interviews. These components arguably allow candidates to present a much fuller impression

of themselves as potential college students than do simple scores

on standardized tests.

 Science Board, op. cit., foonote 2S, p. 23, which

sides with the “poor preparation” hypothesis.
41

and 10 percent of high school graduates now participate. About one-third of the examinations

taken are in mathematics and science. 55

Patterns of High School Course

Offerings and Enrollments

Along with family encouragement and expectations, preparation in high school mathematics

and science courses is vital to success in collegelevel science and engineering studies. Students’

exposure to the traditional college-preparatory

sequence of mathematics and science courses is

restricted by both the course offerings of their

schools and their willingness to take those courses.

Minorities in particular often have less access to

advanced mathematics and science courses, because school districts with high minority enrollments often cannot afford to offer many such

courses. Offerings in rural and urban schools are

generally more limited than those in suburban

schools.

Even when advanced courses are offered, students who could benefit from them often fail to

take them. The point at which students are first

allowed to decide which mathematics or science

courses they are to take is widely believed to be

an important fork in the educational pipeline for

future scientists and engineers. Once students fail

to pursue the normal preparatory sequence of

courses, it becomes hard for them to catch up.

Research indicates that there is a positive correlation between the number of advanced high

school mathematics and science courses taken and

two educational outcomes: achievement test

scores and students’ intentions to major in science

and engineering.5b Correlations between mathematics or science course-taking and achievement

test scores have been found in analyses of data

“Jay Mathews, “Tests Help ‘Ordinary’ Schools Leap Ahead, ”

Washington Post, May 14, 1987. In 1985-86, 7,201 schools participated out of 30,000 secondary schools nationally. Garfield High

School in Los Angeles, featured in the recent movie “Stand and Deliver, ” has become one of the top 10 schools in the Nation for the

number of students who take and pass the advanced placement calculus test. Garfield is located in a poor and predominantly Latino

neighborhood.

S“The correlation between outcomes such as these and the number of mathematics courses tends to be stronger than that with the

number of science courses.

from both the NAEP mathematics assessment of

1982 (for mathematics courses) and the 1980 High

School and Beyond (HS&B) survey of the sophomore cohort (for both mathematics and science

courses) .57 These findings were sustained even

after statistical allowance was made for student’s

race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and earlier

test scores. A strong correlation between high

school mathematics course-taking and the major

choices of college students was found in an OTA

analysis of the 1980 HS&B cohort, even when

many other factors were statistically controlled .58

Mathematics course-taking, presumably due to

its sequential nature, appears to be more important for success in later science and engineering

study than science course-taking. The College

Board recently noted in Academic Preparation for

Science, a handbook that advises high school

teachers about what colleges would like them to

teach, that knowledge of scientific skills and fundamental concepts will be more important to students than the number of high school science

courses they have completed.59

It is difficult to be sure that the number of mathematics and science courses taken is a principal

influence in the decision to major in science or

engineering. 60 However, such courses do keep

students in the pipeline,

Course Offerings and Enrollments

Students cannot take courses their schools do

not offer. Only a few schools offer the complete

“Josephine D. Davis, The Effect of A4atbematics Course Enrollment on Ra~”al/’Ethnjc Differences in Secondary School Mathematics

Achievement (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, January

1986); and Lyle V. Jones et al., “Mathematics and Science Test Scores

as Related to Courses Taken in High School and Other Factors, ”

Journal of Educational Measurement, vol. 23, No. 3, fall 1986, pp.

197-208.

‘

aValerie E. Lee, “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers:

An Analysis of the High School-College Transition, ” OTA contractor

report, 1987.

59The College Board concludes that the amount of high school

science course-taking makes relatively little difference to students’

subsequent college performance in science. OTA is skeptical of this

conclusion. See below and College Entrance Examination Board,

Academic Preparation in Science: Teachhgfor Transition From High

School to College (New York, NY: 1986), pp. 14-16. See also Robert

E, Yager, “What Kind of School Science Leads to College Success?”

The Science Teacher, December 1986, pp. 21-25.

‘College Entrance Examination Board, op. cit., footnote 59, pp.

14-16.

89-1 j6 o - 88 . 2
42

range of college-preparatory mathematics and science courses, a deficiency that has persisted for

many years.6l Data on course offerings and enrollments are plagued with inconsistencies. For example, courses with the same titles may have

different content while those with near-identical

content may have different titles. Inconsistencies

in data make the task of comparing schools,

States, and years very difficult.

The most recent data on course offerings comes

from the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education, sponsored by the National Science Foundation.62 This survey used

the same course classification system as a 1977

survey, permitting comparisons over time. Over

90 percent of high schools offer at least algebra

I, algebra II, and geometry, but advanced course

offerings are more limited. Only about 31 percent

of schools offer a full calculus course (although

some senior-year mathematics courses may include an introduction to calculus), and 18 percent

offer a course leading to the advanced placement

examination in calculus. In science, over 90 percent of high schools offer at least 1 year of biology and chemistry, and 80 percent offer 1 year

of physics.

Since 1977, mathematics course offerings have

increased somewhat, though the proportion of

schools offering calculus has remained constant.

Science course offerings have increased slightly.

In general, schools offer only one section of these

college-preparatory courses. It is not clear whether

this outcome restricts or reflects demand for such

courses. For example, 23 percent of U.S. high

schools offer only one section of biology and 52

percent offer only one section of physics.63

‘*Some advanced courses are offered to high school students by

community colleges, but there are no national data on this

phenomenon.

b2Weiss, op. cit., footnote 15. No separate data are available on

offerings and enrollments in laboratory courses; data on the amount

of time different mathematics and science classes spend on laboratory work is included in ch. 3.

b3These data are confirmed by a National Science Teachers Association survey. See Bill G. Aldridge, “What’s Being Taught and

Who’s Teaching It,” This Year in School Science 1986: The Science

Curriculum, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hornig (eds. )

(Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1987), ch. 12.

Data on course enrollments in mathematics and

science indicate that the proportion of high school

graduates that have taken college-preparatory

mathematics and science courses is very small

(again see figure 2-3). While 77 and 61 percent

of students took algebra I and geometry, respectively, only 20 percent took trigonometry and

only 6 percent took calculus. In science, 90 percent took biology, but only 45 percent took

chemistry I and 20 percent took physics. All of

these proportions (except for calculus) represent

increases from 1984.64

Another analysis of the same database, which

used a somewhat different course classification,

suggests that, even where courses are offered, enrollments are low. About 80 percent of the students to whom the course is available enroll in

algebra I, 48 percent in geometry, and about 20

percent in trigonometry. Similarly, in science,

while almost all students to whom it was offered

took biology, about one-third of the students with

the chance to take chemistry did so as did only

10 percent of the students offered physics.65

More recent data from the 1985-86 NAEP in

mathematics provide a “snapshot” view of enrollments in mathematics classes (see table 2-3, but

note that the classification of courses used here

differs from that used in other tables). These data

suggest that advanced course-taking in mathematics remains at a small proportion of 17-yearolds, although there were some very small increases between 1982 and 1986. Because these data

were taken from 17-year-olds, who have the senior year of high school to go before graduation,

they do not provide a complete picture of high

school course-taking.

These findings send a clear message: offerings

of pipeline mathematics and science courses are

constrained. More importantly, even when they

are offered, only tiny numbers of students take

them.

‘iWestat, op. cit., footnote 21. Data from 1982 are presented in

the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics, “Science and Mathematics Education in American High

Schools: Results From the High School and Beyond Survey, ” NCES

84-211b, Bulletin, May 1984, tables A-3, A-4, A-5. In general, Asian

students are two to four times as likely to take advanced biology,

chemistry, and physics courses than other minority students.

bSEva]uation Technologies, Inc., op. cit., footnote 9.
43

Table 2-3.–Trends in Mathematics Course-Taking, 1982-86

Percentage of 17-year-olds by the highest level of mathematics course they have taken

Course Year Total Males Females Black Hispanic White

Pre-algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982

1986

Algebra I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982

1986

Geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982

1986

Algebra II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982

1986

Pre-calculus or calculus . . . . . . . . 1982

1986

24

19

16

18

14

17

39

40

5

7

25

19

16

17

13

15

39

39

6

8

24

19

17

18

15

18

39

40

5

5

34

31

20

18

10

16

29

31

4

3

37

25

21

24

12

16

24

28

3

6

32

17

15

17

15

17

41

42

5

7

SOURCE: John A. Dossey et al,, The Mathematics Report Card: Are We Measuring Up? Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National Assessment (Lawrence

TownshlplPrinceton, NJ Educational Testing Service, Inc., June 1988), table 8.2,

Females and Minorities Lag in Course-Taking confirmed in data collected for the 1985-86 NAEP

Females, Blacks, and Hispanics, according to mathematics and science assessments.66 Tables 2-

4 and 2-5 show that, as one follows the normal the HS&B survey, fall behind their white male

peers in enrollments in high school advanced ‘iFor mathematics data, see Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 18,

mathematics and science courses. This finding is pp. 116-117. Science data are due to be published in fall 1988.

Table 2.4.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Went on to Next

“Pipeline” Mathematics Course After Completing the Previous Course

Percentage that took Percentage that took Percentage that took Percentage that took

geometry after algebra II after trigonometry after calculus after

passing algebra passing geometry passing algebra II passing trigonometry

sex:

Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 55 43 31

Females ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 52 34 30

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by sex:

Males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 62 55 47

Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 61 45 41

Race/ethnicity:

Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 28 28

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 55 29 29

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 54 40 30

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by race/ethnicity:

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 56 45 48

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 62 48 31

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 62 50 43

(Urbanicity of school:

Urban high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 55 36 25

Suburban high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 52 40 33

Rural high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 55 39 26

Regional differences:

New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 76 32 50

Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 54 40

West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 45 48 9

West South Central. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 62 32 19

Curricular track:

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 41 27

Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 61 45 36

Vocational. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 35 19 11

NOTE: The source from which this tabulation is derived does not include the total numbers of students in these samples. Also the data (as originally reported) do

not indicate the actual order in which the courses were taken, only that the students had taken these courses before graduating from high school. To this extent,

the tabulation forces an artificial formalism on the order of course-taking.

SOURCE: C. Dennis Carroll, Mathematics Course Taking by 1980 High Schoo/ Sophomores Who Graduated in 1982 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, April 1984),
44

Table 2.5.-Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Went on to Next

“Pipeline” Science Course After Completing the Previous Course

Percentage that took Percentage that took Percentage that took

biology after passing chemistry after physics after

general science passing biology passing chemistry

Sex:

Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by sex:

Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Race/ethnic/ty:

Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Of those earning As or Bs on previous course, by race/ethnicity:

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Urbanicity of school

Urban high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Suburban high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Rural high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Regional differences:

New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Curricular track:

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Academic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Vocational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

39

37

59

50

21

28

42

32

43

57

33

41

36

47

49

29

28

21

59

15

47

31

61

40

33

27

40

43

41

51

39

40

37

44

44

20

35

23

44

22

NOTE: The source from which this tabulation is derived doesnot include the total numbers of students in these samples. Also thedata (as originally reported)do

not indicatetheactual order inwhichthecourses were taken,only that thestudertts had taken these courses before graduating from high school. Tothisextent,

the tabulation forces an artificial formalism on the orderof course-taking.

SOURCE: JeffreyA.Owinms, Scierrce CourseTakingby 1980Hi@r Schoo/So@romores WhoGraduafedin W82(Washin@on, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education, National

Cente~for Edu~ation Statistics, April l@34j -

sequence of mathematics and science courses designed as preparation forcollege-level study inscience and engineering, there is constant attrition

in all categories of students. The attrition of females, Blacks, and Hispanics is much greater than

that of white males. Black and Hispanic 17-yearolds instead are more likely to report that their

highest mathematics course was pre-algebra than

white students.

For example, while 5.6 percent of all high school

graduates in 1982 took calculus, only 2 percent

of Blacks and 2.4 percent of Hispanics did. The

situation showed little change by 1986, according to NAEP data, although Hispanic students had

doubled their participation in pre-calculus or calculus classes in that time. The gender difference,

however, is not so pronounced: 5 percent of females and 6.1 percent of males take calculus.

Another way of examining these data is in terms

of the proportion of students—by sex, race, and

ethnicity—that go on to take a higher mathematics or science course after successfully completing the last one. Tabulations of these transition percentages, based on a Department of

Education analysis of the HS&B survey, appear

in tables 2-6 and 2-7.

The data clearly show that females and minorities drop out of the normal sequence of courses.

In mathematics, females drop out after taking algebra 11 and fail to take trigonometry; they also

forgo physics after taking chemistry. Blacks and

Hispanics similarly fall out after trigonometry, although fewer of them move from algebra to geometry than do whites. These disparities are

stronger among the “high-talent” groups of those

who earned As and Bs on the previous courses.
45

Table 2-6.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Have Taken

College Preparatory Mathematics Courses by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity

Subject All Males Females Asian Black Hispanic White

Algebra I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 61 65 65 53 54 66

Algebrall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 31 31 44 22 19 34

Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 49 68 33 28 53

Trigonometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 6 16 4 5 8

Other advanced mathematics . . . . . . 13 14 13 30 5 7 15

Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 5 15 2 2 6

SOURCE U.S Department of Education, Nattonal Center for Education Statistics, “Science and Mathematics Education In American High Schools Results From the

High School and Beyond Survey, ” NCES 84-211 b, BulletIn, May 1984, table A-5

Table 2-7.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Have Taken

College Preparatory Science Courses by Sex, and Race/Ethnicity

Subject All Males Females Asian Black Hispanic White

General science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 24 33 34 29

Basic biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 73 76 78 74 69 75

Advanced biology ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 9 13 6 5 9

Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25 24 41 19 13 27

Advanced chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 3 8 2 2 4

Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 13 9 11 12 15

Physica l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 15 8 27 6 5 13

Advanced physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 5 1 1 2

Unified science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 26 17 34 21 27

SOURCE: U S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statlstlcs, “Science and Mathematics Education In American High Schools Results From the

H(gh School and Beyond Survey,” NCES 84.21 lb, BulletIn, May 1984, tables A-4 and A.5

High-talent females drop out after algebra I, algebra II, and trigonometry. Very few high-talent

Blacks take calculus, compared to whites, possibly indicating the paucity of calculus offerings in

schools with high minority populations.

Hispanics’ persistence in science and mathematics

course-taking is low throughout.

The data underscore the advantage students

gain from attending suburban high schools rather

than urban or rural ones. They also show a significant geographic disparity in persistence in

mathematics and science course-taking. Persistence rates in the New England and Mid-Atlantic

regions are some 50 or more percent higher than

in West North Central, West South Central, and

Mountain regions. (See figures 2-6 and 2-7. )

These findings are supported by an analysis of

data from the 1982 NAEP mathematics assessment, which found that, regardless of curricular

track, racial composition of the school attended,

grade or achievement level, Black and Hispanic

students lagged in enrollments in advanced mathematics classes compared with their white

peers.”

Black enrollments in high school science courses

vary significantly according to geographic region,

parental expectations (especially those of mothers),

and high achievement in other subjects such as

English. 68 Black students in the Mid-Atlantic regions were more likely to take science courses,

while those in the Pacific and the East South Central regions were least likely to take science

courses.

TRACKING AND ABILITY GROUPING

67Davis, op. cit., footnote, 57, p. 74.

“8Ellen O. Goggins and Joy S. Lindbeck, “High School Science

Enrollment of Black Students, ” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 23, No. 3, 1986, pp. 251-261.

AbiIity grouping is practiced nearly universally ual judgment. Students who display the convenin American schools. Guidance counselors and tional attributes of the potential scientist or engiteachers sort students by ability as early as the neer are encouraged to pursue the mathematics

third grade, using standardized tests and individ- and science courses that will prepare them for
46

Figure 2-6.—Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Took Calculus

nd

Figure 2-7.— Percentage of 1982 High School Graduates Who Took Physics

SOURCE: US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,

“Science and Mathematics Education in American High Schools: Results From the

High School and Beyond Study,” NCES 84-21 lb, Bulletin, May 1984, table A-3
these careers. Proponents claim that students interests are reinforced by exposure to those of their

similarly enthusiastic peers. Others are directed

toward other courses and careers. What we have

here is a double-edged sword.

The Double= Edged Sword

Tracking or grouping is intended to help prevent the quick learner from trampling over the

slow learner and the slow from delaying the

progress of the quick. In short, tracking is supposed to give all students a fair chance (and help

teachers maintain control). Comparisons and

labels, however, are inevitable. Tracking is widely

believed to both harm and help students’ self-

-esteem, progress, achievement, socialization, and

educational and vocational destinations. Because

its effects are varied and not readily measurable,

it has been a very difficult issue for educational

researchers to study.

Many students’ career options are narrowed by

this sorting. Those who fail to display the signs

of early promise, and those whose home life or

idiosyncrasies place academic or social obstacles

in their paths, may find themselves shunted aside

from the mathematics and science preparation

that makes possible further study of science or

engineering. Many of these students have the ability and the desire to pursue these careers. About

one-quarter of those who go on to major in science or engineering were in a nonacademic track

in high school. Generally, their relatively poor

mathematics and science preparation makes it difficult for them to keep up in college, and they are

at risk of attrition. Thus, ability grouping, if applied too clumsily or rigidly, may lead to the

waste of talent.

Minority leaders, both within and outside the

education community, have complained that

tracking perpetuates racism, The evidence is that

the practice is a structural impediment to students’

progress to advanced study in science and engineering. Nevertheless, inconsistencies in definitions between surveys that include information

on tracking often yield misleading comparisons.

In particular, it is not possible to state with any

certainty whether enrollments in the academic or

general tracks, either in total or by race or gen47

der, are declining through time. Figure 2-8, taken

from High School and Beyond data, shows the

proportion of students, by race and gender, that

were enrolled in each high school curriculum track

in 1982, but these data are not necessarily consistent with other surveys. @ It is clear, however,

that students are enrolling in courses in much

more varied patterns than they used to: they frequently mix courses designed for the general,

vocational, or academic track. To this extent, the

stranglehold of tracking is loosening.

The principal objection to tracking or ability

grouping is that it can become a self-fulfilling

prophecy, changing the behavior of students,

students’ peers, teachers, and parents toward

members of a particular group. For slow-tracked

students the technique stifles aspiration by reinWsimi]ar data are reported in Davis, OP. cit., footnote 57/ P. 23,

based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

1981-82. More recent data from the 1985-86 NAEP mathematics

assessment put the proportion of 17-year-olds enrolled in the academic track at 52 percent, in the general track at 38 percent, and

in the vocational track at only 10 percent. Dossey et al., op. cit.,

footnote 18, p. 119.

Figure 2.8.—Track Placement by Race/Ethnicity

and Sex, High School Graduates of 1982

TOTAL

Men

Women

White

Black

Hispanic

SOURCE U S

Academic General VocationaI

I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I

o 20 40 60 80 100

Percent in track

Department of Education, High School and Beyond survey.
48

Science-intensive schools often have sophisticated, costly equipment.

forcing feelings of low status and, worse, by feedingstudents’ beliefs that they have been left behind and can never catchup. It deprives this group

of the stimulation provided by high achievers,

which can help promote development of the behavior and skills of learning. Some writers have

suggested that grouping and tracking is a primary

means of maintaining the status quo, preventing

the upward mobility of the poor and minorities

and excluding them from preparation for professional occupations such as science and engineering. 70

 R. Hare, “Structural Inequality and the Endangered Status of Black Youth, ” Journal Negro Education, vol. 56, No. 1,

1987, pp. 100-110; Joel Spring, The American High 1942-

1985: Varieties of Historical Interpretation of the Foundations and

Development of American Education (New York, NY: Longman,

1986); and William Snider, “Study Examines Forces Affecting Racial Tracking, ” Education Week, Nov. 11, 1987, pp. 1, 20.

Effects of Grouping Practices

For all the controversy, research on the effects

of grouping is far from conclusive, even when it

uses simple output measures such as achievement

scores. This inconclusiveness might be taken as

evidence that other important factors, such as students’ socioeconomic status and teaching quality,

are more important in predicting educational outcomes than the existence of tracking.

Research on the effect of ability-based grouping practices in elementary schools has found that

grouping makes little or no difference to the most

able students, but does have a considerable retarding effect on the less able students. n A 1968

7

1 Robert E. “Ability Grouping and Student Achievement

in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis, ” prepared for
49

study of tracking in secondary schools by the National Education Association found that for each

study that showed a gain in achievement scores

across the ability spectrum another study showed

a net loss. The exception was the lowest ability

level, which had uniformly slightly more losses

than gains .72

To examine the effects of tracking on students

intending majors in science and engineering, OTA

used the High School and Beyond database.73 In

the survey’s random sample of about 12,000 high

school sophomores in 1980, 25 percent of those

students planning science and engineering majors

by their senior year and scoring above average

on the HS&B achievement test had been enrolled

in the general and vocational tracks. Compared

with their academically tracked peers, this group

was of lower socioeconomic status and had a

slightly lower average achievement test score. By

the end of high school, they had taken about one

less mathematics course and their overall grade

point average was about one-quarter of a point

lower. Their average SAT score was about 6 8

points lower. They were less likely to go to college and more likely to enroll in a junior college

than members of the academically tracked group.

Table 2-8 displays some characteristics of the two

groups .74

the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, Grant No. OERI-G-86-OO06, June 1986.

72Robert E. Fullilove, “Images of Science: Factors Affecting the

Choice of Science as a Career,” OTA contractor report, 1987. The

National Education Association study is quoted in James E. Rosenbaum, “Social Implications of Educational Grouping, ” Review of

Research in Education, David Berliner (cd.), vol. 8 (Itasca, IL: F.E.

Peacock Publishers, 1980), pp. 361-401. For other research, see

Glenna Colclough and E.M. Beck, ‘The American Educational Structure and the Reproduction of Social Class, ” Sociological Inquiry,

vol. 56, No. 4, fall 1986, pp. 456-476; Beth E. Vanfossen et al., “Curriculum Tracking and Status Maintenance, ” Sociology of Edumtion, vol. 60, April 1987, pp. 104-122; and Gerald W. Bracey, “The

Social Impact of Ability Grouping, ” Phi Delta Kappan, May 1987,

pp. 701-702.

73Lee, op. cit., footnote 58.

74A regression analysis indicated that, for these students, track

placement was a stronger predictor than class, race and ethnicity,

or gender of the number of academic mathematics courses that students took in high school. From a national pwspective on the production of scientists and engineers, this finding attests to the centrality of students’ preparation in high school mathematics. An

important new national longitudinal survey being conducted by Jon

Miller at Northern Illinois University, funded by the National Science Foundation, should disentangle many of the influences of early

mathematics and science learning. The study is following a cohort

Table 2“8.—Science-lntending Students Among

High School Graduates of 1982, by Track

Group from

nonacademic

tracks

Characteristics N = 428

Group from

academic

track

N = 1,147

Demographic characteristics:

Percent Black. . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Percent Hispanic . . . . . . . . . 6

Percent female . . . . . . . . . . 40

High school experiences:

Score on HS&B

Achievement Testa 

. . . . . 55.9

Number of advanced

mathematics courses

taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0

Average high school grade

point average . . . . . . . . . . 2.8

Score on mathematics

portion of the SAT or

ACTb 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457

College experiences:

Percentage who had

enrolled in college by

February 1984 . . . . . . . . . . 67

Percentage in 2-year

colleges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

College grade point

average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8

5

5

41

59.2

3.1

3.0

525

89

24

2.9

KEY: HS&B = High School and Beyond survey

SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test

ACT = American College Testing program

%n HS&B Achievement Test, mean score= 50. standard deviation= 10

bscores are normalized to those for the SAT, with a range of O to 800

SOURCE: Valerie Lee, “ldentlfying Potentlai Sclentlsts and Engineers An

Analysis of the High School-College TransitIon,” OTA contractor report,

September 1987; based on the High School and Beyond survey

Other data indicate that academically tracked

17-year-olds are more than twice as likely than

those in other tracks to survive to algebra II in

the normal sequence of high school mathematics

courses, and about five times as likely to survive

to pre-calculus or calculus .75 Tracking does have

some positive effects on the academically tracked

science-intending stream, however, for it generally ensures their continuing participation and

preparation in the science and engineering pipeline, by increasing the probability that they will

take pipeline mathematics and science courses.

For those who run afoul of the system—by reason of race, class, attitude, or bias—access to

high-quality, academic mathematics and science

from grade eight onwards, and is surveying family, social, and school

variables that might affect science and mathematics learning, attitudes, and behaviors.

‘

5 Dossey et al., op. cit., footnote 18, table 8.3.
50

courses is lost and their expectations are dulled.

Nevertheless, the academic track is not the right

place for all students. A corollary problem is the

early age at which tracking occurs, putting many

students at a considerable disadvantage when they

enter middle and high school. The need is for systems to practice tracking efficiently but flexibly.

Science Education and Track= Busting

In the context of science and mathematics education, the “efficiency” and “flexibility” of tracking may be incompatible with the notion—and

today the more commonly heard prescription—

of “science for all. ”

Unless students very early acquire both a basic

conceptual science vocabulary and a zest for

learning and problem solving, they are extremely

unlikely to take science courses—or to succeed if

they do. . . . [Needed, then, is] a baseline science

curriculum that will provide all students with a

consistent and coherent overview and an integrated body of knowledge during the elementary and high school years.76

What may appear to be “special pleading” for science and mathematics might then also be seen as

one rationale for “track-busting. ” Put another

way, a change in expectations of students’ capability will have to precede changes in both teaching and learning.

“George W. Tressel, “Priestley Medal Address” (letter), Chemical & Engineering News, Sept. 19, 1988, pp. 3, 39. Also see George W. Tressel, “A Strategy for Improving Science Education, ” presented to the American Educational Research Association, Apr. 8,

1988.
Chapter ■ ■

3

Teachers and Teaching

#
CONTENTS

Page

The Teacher Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

The Possibility of Mathematics and Science Teacher Shortages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Certification and Misassignment of Mathematics and Science Teachers. . . . . . . 58

The Professional Status of the Teaching Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

The Quality of Mathematics and Science Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Options for Improving the Quality of Mathematics and Science Teachers. . . . 66

Teaching Practices and Student I-earning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Boxes

Box Page

3-A. Reasons Why Physics Teachers Leave High School Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3-B. Mathematics and Science Relicensing Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figures

Figure Page

3-1. Career Paths of 100 Newly Qualified Teachers, About l Year After

Graduation, 1976-84. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3-2. Starting Salaries for Teachers, Compared to Other Baccalaureates in

Industry, 1975-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3-3. Amount of Inservice Training Received by Science and Mathematics

Teachers During 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3-4. Percentage of Mathematics and Science Classes Using Hands-on Teaching

and Lecture, 1977 and 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Tables

Table Page

3-1. Mathematics and Science Teachers, by Race and Ethnicity, 1985-86 . . . . . . . 58

3-2. Mathematics and Science Teacher Certification Requirements by State,

June 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3-3. Guidlelines for Mathematics and Science Teacher Qualifications Specified

by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3-4. College-Level Coupes Taken by Elementary and Secondary

Mathematics Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3-5. College-Level Courses Taken by Elementary and Secondary Science

Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Chapter 3

Teachers and Teaching

I'll make a deal with you. I’ll teach you math, and that’s your language. With

that you‘re going to make it. You’re going to go to college and sit in the first

row, not in the back, because you’re going to know more than anybody.

Jaime Escalante, 1988

America’s schools will shoulder important new

responsibilities in the years to come, Welleducated workers of all kinds are looked on increasingly as economic resources.l Schools, parents, communities, and government at all levels

are expected to educate a population that will

grow more ethnically diverse in an economy that

is increasingly reliant on science and technology.

International competition will be invoked as a

spur to excellence. The need for full participation

by minorities and females will become a chronic

national concern. Nowhere will these pressures

be felt more strongly than in the education of scientists and engineers. The pressures, in short, will

fall squarely on mathematics and science teachers.

It is a burden the teaching profession, together

with school districts and teacher education institutions, is ill-equipped to meet. Fears of shortages

of mathematics and science teachers now and in

the future abound, and there is great concern

about the poor quality of teacher training and inservice programs. The quality of teaching, in the

long run, depends on the effectiveness of teachers,

the adequacy of their numbers, and the extent to

‘See, for example, National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1983).

THE TEACHER WORK FORCE

Without a teacher to explain, respond, and excite students’ interest, formal education is dull and

limited. Scientists and engineers tell many stories

about their inspiring teachers. 2 Yet the effect

2A decade-old series of autobiographies sponsored by the Alfred

P. Sloan Foundation, including books by Freeman Dyson, Peter

which they are supported by principals, curriculum specialists, technology and materials, and the

wider community. Teachers of mathematics and

science need to be educated to high professional

standards and, like members of other professions,

they need to update their skills periodically.

At the same time, research on the teaching of

mathematics and science suggests that some techniques not widely used in American schools can

improve achievement, transmit a more realistic

picture of the enterprise of science and mathematics, and broaden participation in science and

engineering by females and minorities. These techniques have been adopted slowly. Practical experiments and class discussion, for example, are

slighted by many teachers in favor of lectures,

book work, and “teaching to the test. ” Small

group learning, in which students cooperate to accomplish tasks, is also rare, although a few States

are making room for it in their educational prescriptions. Teachers themselves seldom have opportunities to exchange information with their

colleagues in other schools. Increasing such opportunities—for teachers and students alike—could

have significant effects on, among other things,

the size and quality of the national science and

engineering talent pool.

Medawar, Lewis Thomas, S.E. Luria, and Luis W. Alvarez, have

been resoundingly successful at capturing the “. . perceptions of

the individual who did the science—of how it was done, ” and are

designed to be “. . . important for the next generation of scientists

in high school and college. ” See John Walsh, “Giving the Muse a

Helping Hand,” Science, vol. 240, May 20, 1988, pp. 978-979. The

latest in the Sloan series is by 1986 Nobel laureate Rita LeviMontalcini, h Praise of Imperfection; Jkly Life and VVork (New York,

(continued on next page)

53
54

that a good mathematics and science teacher has

on a student’s propensity to major in science and

engineering cannot easily be evaluated quantitatively.

There are two major, and related, challenges

that affect mathematics and science education: the

first is the potential for a shortage of mathematics

and science teachers, and the second is the need

to improve the quality of teaching. Some fear that

States and school districts will simply lower certification and hiring criteria standards in the face

of possible shortages. Shortages are likely to cause

problems in certain States and school districts,

especially in the supply of minority mathematics

and science teachers. But improving the quality

of mathematics and science teaching is as important as addressing shortages.

Science and mathematics teachers are part of

the entire teaching work force. In many ways,

there are few differences between mathematics

and science teachers and teachers of other subjects. Each are covered by the same labor contracts, belong to the same teacher unions, share

the same working conditions, and are normally

paid the same salaries.3 Similarly, mathematics

and science teachers share in the low esteem with

(continued from previous page)

NY: Basic Books, 1988). Also see Daryl E. Chubin et al., “Science

and Society,” Issues in Science& Technology, vol. 4, summer 1988,

pp. 104-105.

3An ongoing controversy related to the entire teacher work force

is the role of unions. Some people think that teacher unions, through

their sometimes stubborn resistance to change, are the cause of many

problems in education. These problems include the difficulty in firing poor teachers and in staffing “difficult” schools, the devotion

to the “seniority” principle (rather than teacher’s merits) shown in

allocating salary increases, and the potential barrier to meaningful

reforms erected by the granting of “tenure” to teachers. Others think

that teacher unions can be of great help in providing a single point

of negotiation for many aspects of teachers’ working lives and conditions, forging teachers into a profession based on common, selfspecified norms and goals of conduct, and encouraging teachers to

become more reflective of their tasks. There are two main teacher

unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. Their leaders are visible in the national debate

on reforming American education, often calling for greater public

spending on education, and their positions have frequently been at

odds with those of the U.S. Secretary of Education. There is no indication that the form and extent of union activity in mathematics

and science teaching is any different from that for teaching as a whole

(although there are special professional associations of such teachers,

such as the National Science Teachers Association and National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics). The positive and negative impacts of teacher unions are not considered further in this report.

which many Americans hold teaching and public education in general.’

In mathematics and science teaching, there are

important differences between teacher preparation and assignments in elementary schools and

secondary schools. Elementary teachers teach

many unrelated subjects, while secondary teachers

concentrate on particular subjects, such as mathematics or science (although many do both, or

teach several different science fields). Accordingly,

most elementary teachers are not specialists in any

subject. They normally hold baccalaureate degrees

in education and have had relatively little science

and mathematics coursework (if any) at college.

Most secondary teachers, however, have taken

many mathematics and science courses in college;

some have an undergraduate degree in these disciplines. 5

The Possibility of Mathematics and

Science Teacher Shortages

Many observers are worried about possible future shortages of teachers, and, reportedly, in

some geographic areas it is already difficult to hire

adequate numbers of mathematics and science

teachers.6 It is widely believed that shortages of

4

For example, surveys show that the percentage of Americans

that would like their children to become public school teachers has

fallen from 75 percent in 1969 to 45 percent in 1983. In a similar

survey in 1981, Americans ranked clergymen, medical doctors,

judges, bankers, lawyers, and business executives as being in professions with higher prestige and status than public school teaching.

Only local political officeholders, realtors, funeral directors, and

advertising practitioners were ranked lower. Stanley M. Elam (cd.),

The Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Polls of Attitudes Toward Education

1969-1984: A Topical Summary (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa,

1984).

‘Most new teachers were education majors in college. Many,

however, were single subject (such as physics) majors directly inducted into the teaching force or are taking supplementary education courses. The utility of the education major is under serious

reconsideration at the moment and several groups have proposed

a wide-ranging overhaul of teacher education. This is discussed later

under “Preservice Education. ”

%5ee National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators

–1987 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987),

pp. 27-32; and Linda Darling-Hammond, Beyond the Commission

Reports: The Coming Crisis in Teaching, RAND/4-3177-RC (Washington, DC: Rand Corp., July 1984). Henry M. Levin, Institute for

Research on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Education, Stanford University, “Solving the Shortage of Mathematics

and Science Teachers, ” January 1985, finds that shortages, in some

form, have existed for 40 years, primarily because of the low salaries offered to mathematics and science teachers.
55

teachers of all kinds are imminent due to an increase in the number of teachers approaching

retirement and a decrease in the number of college freshmen planning to become teachers during the last decade. In the aggregate, these trends

affect the size of the teacher work force. But it

is events in the middle stages of teachers’ careers

as well that predict future supply and demand.

For example, many fully qualified teachers leave

the profession (perhaps to start families), and may

be lured to return to schools in due course.

To estimate whether there will be a shortage,

and what its effects might be, it is necessary to

have data on the future work plans of the existing teaching work force, the rates of entry to and

exit from it, the extent to which these rates change

in response to market signals, and what measures

might reduce the effect of any shortage. A conFigure 3-l.—Career Paths of 100 Newly Qualified

ceptual model of entry to and exit from the teacher

work force is depicted in figure 3-1.

Current estimates of the rates of entry to and

exit from the teaching work force are very poor

and often inconsistent.7 It is not possible, therefore, to determine with any certainty whether

7L nn 0150n and Blake Rodman, Y “Is There a Teacher Shortage?

It’s Anyone’s Guess, ” Education Week, June 24, 1987, pp. 1, 14-16;

and Blake Rodman, “Teacher Shortage Is Unlikely, Labor Bureau

Report Claims,” Education Week, Jan. 14, 1987, p. 7. Data, much

of it conflicting, is collected and reported by the National Education Association, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Department of Education, The inadequacy of databases on teachers

is also revealed through the absence of reliable estimates of the number of uncertified teachers teaching or the number teaching outside

their field of certification. The Center for Education Statistics is conducting a new survey, the results of which should be available in

early 1989. Simultaneously, the National Academy of Sciences is

examining future research needs on this issue, while the Council of

Chief State School Officers is also trying to assemble disparate State

data.

Teachers, About 1 Year After Graduation, 1976.84

Not teaching

18

Did not apply

20

NOTE: “Newly qualified teachers” are defined as those graduates who were eligible for a teaching certificate or who were teaching at the time of the survey (and who

had never taught full time before receiving this bachelor’s degree). Bachelor’s graduates are surveyed about 1 year after graduation.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on combined data from U.S. Department of Education, ‘(Recent College Graduate Surveys of 1976-77, 1979-80,

and 1983 -84,” unpublished data. Career pattern is similar in all years,
there will be a shortage, what its effects might be,

or what the special aspects of the problem will

be for mathematics and science teaching. Some

aspects include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

How intensified competition for new science

and engineering baccalaureates will reduce

the already small incentives for new graduates to consider mathematics and science

teaching careers.

The extent to which mathematics and science

teachers who are already qualified but working in other occupations could be lured back

to classroom teaching in response to higher

salaries or changes in working conditions.

The extent to which working and retired scientists and engineers could be retrained to enter the teaching work force. Several programs

are attempting to retrain such people.

How attrition of existing teachers (currently

between 5 and 10 percent annually) can be

reduced. 8 (See box 3-A. )

The extent to which changes, such as the introduction of less restrictive certification requirements, the use of uncertified teachers,

and the assignment of existing teachers out

of their main teaching fields to teach mathematics and science classes, could cover

shortages.

How the use of part-time teachers, master

teachers, or teaching assistantships could

compensate for any shortages.

The extent to which greater use of technologies, including computers, video recorders,

and distance learning techniques, could reduce the need for mathematics and science

teachers. 9

8A survey of teacher attrition, based on followups of the National Longitudinal Survey of 1972, is in Barbara Heyns, “Educational Defectors: A First Look at Teacher Attrition in the NLS-72, ”

Educational Researcher, April 1988, pp. 24-32. One surprising finding of this and other studies (such as the U.S. Department of Education’s Survey of Recent College Graduates) is that a large number of those who complete teacher training programs never, in fact,

teach. In the 9 years between 1977 and 1986, one-quarter of those

qualified never taught, and 40 percent of those who became newly

qualified teachers in 1983-84 had not become teachers by 1985. See

also Richard J. Murnane, “Understanding Teacher Attrition, ” Flarvard Educational Review, vol. 57, No. 2, May 1987, pp. 177-182,

which finds that chemistry and physics teachers in Michigan in the

1970s were likely to leave teaching faster than were biology and

history teachers.

There is no evidence that technology replaces teachers. The use

of satellite, cable, and other telecommunications technologies enBox 3-Am-ReasQns Why ?%y$ics Teachers

Leave High 5chool Teaching

A 1983 survey repm=ted some of the reasons

why physics tmchers leave tfmcl@.* Those

with a $mduate degree in physics can r@!ddy find

well-paying jobs in industry; eitb they never

enter tlw teaching profession or thy hastily depart. In gener& the survey found, physics

teachers l~a~e %* the foh+ving reasons:

● Xnstmcfional Mxm@xies are poorly

equippwl ~d budgets are inadequate for

making knprovemertt%

● It is diffid tO remain profemiondy active.

Them are seldom funds for teachers to attend pdeskmd In@ings to keep tlp-tUd~te with scientific li*aratu&~ *-,

0$ tQ WU3?t d ShU@ -OH With tW3Ch”

em in other s@wols. This feeds a sense of

isolation.

● Accountability to local, S@#e, and I%derd

bodies has multiplied both teacher paperwork and administrative duties.

. There is ~ lack of identification by most

school dninistrators with the problems

that intarferewith quality science teaching.

School administrators, the smey reports,

are often not interested in improving*

teaching.

● There is a lack of respect within the local

cmnrmmity. Like teachers of all subjects,

physics teachers areoftencriticized in school

board meetings as be~ ~eedy and ineffident, particukady when funding decisions

are made.

● Voters do not support the tdwols, as evidenced by the wi!hgness to vote down

school bond i$sues in the ea.rly-1980s, even

at the expense of reductions in the size and

quality of the teaching work force. This

stro~ pressure to cut taxes is especidy evident in smaller communities whose demographics favor needs other than those of the

student population.

reasozw Wily phy$cs teachm kave ttacMn& see Beverly &hFiWtm and Wibm H. K&Y, 8’VWW I%-Ltavu T*-

irqL’’Z?&da T-y, !kpmN$w 1*. pp.-32”37. Al@ sseAnWican

4!#ociatkm oW&y&%T=clwr% mR@h$ -m, =d -

catjwrs af the H* Skhuol F%ydcs T-(Co&# park. w:

A thi# &sh+l mea$mmdum

Fkom *MW-S7Mtkmwi&$tmWyd WlO&KkWllmWafPhMicsw York,

NY: AmWkaIl Institut@ of Physics, 19ss).
57

— .

Some secondary school principals are having

difficulty hiring science teachers and (to a lesser

extent) mathematics teachers. The 1985-86 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education found that 70 percent of secondary school

principals said that they were having difficulty hiring physics teachers, 60 percent were having difficulty with chemistry and computer science

teachers, and over 30 percent were having difficulty locating biology and life sciences teachers.

The survey found that few schools had incentive

programs to attract teachers to shortage fields;

retraining programs are the more common

method of supplying shortage fields.10

After years of declining interest among college

freshmen in becoming teachers, there has been an

upturn since 1986.1

’ A 1985-86 survey estimated

that about 20 percent of science and mathematics

teachers are expected to retire in the next decade. 12 The result of these opposite trends is anybody’s guess, so speculations abound.

Salaries

Many policy makers and educators point to the

generally low level of teachers’ salaries and claim

that neither the number nor the quality of mathematics and science teachers can be improved until

these salaries are increased substantially .13 In

ables school districts to provide instruction from one site to many

sites—but teachers are not replaced. Instead, these distance learning projects aggregate sparsely populated classrooms of two or three

students to more “regular” sized classrooms (Linda Roberts, Office

of Technology Assessment, personal communication, September

1988)

‘“Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science

and Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute, November 1987), tables 72, 73.

I I For the recent upturn in co]lege freshmen interest in education

majors, see Robert Rothman, “Proportion of College Freshmen Interested in a Career in Teaching Up, Survey Finds, ” Education VVeek,

vol. 7, Jan. 20, 1988, pp. 1, 5. Eight percent of 1987 college freshmen planned teaching careers, up from 4.7 percent in 1982, but well

below the 20 percent level in the early 1970s. The number of physics

baccalaureates entering teaching also increased from only 23 in 1981

to about 100 in 1986 (of a total of 5,214 physics degree recipients

in 1986). Physics Today, “Survey of Physics Bachelors Finds That

More Plan to Teach, ’r September 1987, p. 76.

‘zWeiss, op. cit., footnote 10, p. 64, table 36.

‘

3 Salaries are important, but are not the only factor that affects

whether teachers enter or remain in teaching. Working conditions

and the wider societal perception of the value of school teaching

are also important influences. See, for example, Russell W. Rumberger, “The Impact of Salary Differentials on Teacher Shortages

and Turnover: The Case of Mathematics and Science Teachers, ”

Economics of Education Review, vol. 6, No. 4, 1987, pp. 389-399.

fact, teachers’ salaries are rising. In real terms,

average annual public school teacher salaries fell

during the 1970s by about 10 percent from their

all-time high in the early 1970s. By 1984-85, they

had risen to just under what they were in 1969-

70. The mean teacher salary in 1986 was about

$25,000, but with large variations among the

States. 14 The effects of these increases on teacher

supply and quality, which take time to show up,

may yet be very positive. Already, there is some

increased interest among college freshmen in

teaching careers.

The attractiveness of different occupations to

new college graduates is shaped by the immediate starting salaries as well as prospective longterm earnings. Students with considerable debts

from their baccalaureate education, it is argued,

need a substantial source of income to start paying off these debts. Starting teaching salaries have

consistently been lower than those in other professions, and have not increased as rapidly during

the last decade. (See figure 3-2. )

A particular controversy for mathematics and

science teachers is whether they should be paid

more than other teachers in order to attract people to fill shortages. A recent survey indicated that

a majority of secondary mathematics and science

teachers would support differential pay of this

kind, and many principals are also in favor of this.

Support among those who teach mathematics and

science at the elementary level is weaker. Traditionally, teacher unions have argued that teachers

should be paid the same, regardless of their subject specialization .15

Minority Teachers

Because of the declining proportion of Blacks

and Hispanics entering college and because of the

expanded career options now open to them, the

Rumberger finds that the disparity between engineering and mathematics ‘science teaching salaries has some effect on teacher shortages and turnover; the disparity, however, offers far less than a complete explanation.

‘qFor example, between 1969-70 and 1984-85, Alaska teacher salaries dropped by 34 percent in real terms, whereas those in Wyoming and Texas rose by 14 percent. U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, klay 1987), tables 51-53.

IsWeiss, Op, cit., tootnote 10, table 7~.
58

Figure 3-2.-Starting Salaries for Teachers,

Compared to Other Baccalaureates in Industry,

1975.87 (constant 1987 dollars)

$35,000

L

Public school

10,000

1975 1980 1985

Year

NOTE: Uses gross national product deflator. Industry estimates of salary offers

are baaed on a survey of selected companies; this may tend to inflate salaries slightly. The teacher data are “minimum mean” salary, from the National Education Association, and probably are underestimates. Various

other salary surveys report slightly different data. However, the basic message remains the same: teachers are paid much less than most other baccalaureates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstrecf of the Urrited Sfates

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1888), p. 130; based

on data from The Northwestern Endicott-Lindquist Report, Northwestern University.

number of minorities electing teaching careers is

declining. There are, in the first instance, comparatively few Black or Hispanic mathematics and

science teachers. Data from a recent survey (see

table 3-1) indicate that the majority of Black

teachers are in the elementary grades; only 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of mathematics

and science teachers in grades 10 to 12 are Black.

Only 1 percent of teachers of both these subjects

are Hispanic. For now, the proportion of minorities in the teaching force is increasing slightly,

but several commentators warn of future shortages of minority teachers, particularly in mathematics and science. Such a shortage poses particular problems to schools with high minority

enrollments, denying minority children role

Table 3-1 .- Mathematics and Science Teachers,

by Race and Ethnicity, 1985.86 (in percent)

Subject

and grade Black Hispanic White other a Unknow n

Mathmatics

K-3 . . . . . . 10 1 84 0 4

4-6. . . . . . . 12 2 84 0 2

7-9. ., . . . . 6 1 90 1 3

10-12 . . . . . 3 1 94 1 1

Science

K-3 . . . . . . 9 4 82 1 4

4-6. . . . . . . 8 4 86 1 1

7-9. . . . . . . 5 1 88 1 4

10-12 . . . . . 5 1 92 2 1

ajncludes Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian, and pacifiC Islander.

NOTE: Some rows do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 ~atior?al Survey of Science arrd

Mathematics Educafiorr (Research Triangie Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), table 35

models (among other things that minority teachers

provide). Making higher education more attractive and attainable for future Black and Hispanic

teachers will help increase the supply of the minority teaching force.l6

Certification and Misassignment of

Mathematics and Science Teachers

Each State sets specifications, designed to ensure a minimum level of professional competence,

for the academic preparation of teachers. These

specifications, which take the form of requirements for a minimum number and combination

of college-level courses in mathematics, science,

and education, are enforced through certification

and periodic recertification of teachers. Certification requirements vary considerably from State

to State (see table 3-2), and there are differences

in the extent to which they are enforced. The

States may also require examinations, such as the

National Teachers’ Examination, for either initial

certification or later recertification .17

1%hirley M. McBay, Increasing the Number and Quality of Minority Science and Mathematics Teachers (New York, NY: Carnegie

Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as

a Profession, January 1986); Patricia Albjerg Graham, “Black

Teachers: A Drastically Scarce Resource, ” Phi Delta Kappan, April

1987, pp. 598-605; and Blake Rodman, “AACTE outlines plan to

Recruit Minorities Into Teaching, ” Education Week, Jan. 13, 1988,

p. 6.

17At the elementary level, most teachers are certified as elementary teachers without particular specialization, but, at the secondary level, some specialization in certification is the norm. About

one-half of the States license secondary teachers to teach in any science subject, while others restrict certification to a particular field,

(continued on p. 60)
59

Table 3-2.—Mathematics and Science Teacher Certification Requirements by State, June 1987

Course credits by certification field

Biology, Teaching Supervise

Science, Chemistry, Earth General methods: teaching

Math Broad-field Physics Science science science/math experience

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 52 27 27 27 Yes 9

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . None None None None None No None

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 30 Yes 8

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 24 24 24 No 12wks

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 45 No a

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b b b Yes 400hrs

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 18 21 No 6

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 39-45 39 36 Yes 6

District of Columbia.. . . . . . . . 27 30 30 30 30 Yes 1 sem

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20 20 20 Yes(S) 6

Georgia (effective 9/88) . . . . . . 60qtr 45qtr 40qtr 40qtr Yes(M) 15qtr

Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 NO None

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 45 20 20 No 6

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 24 24 Yes 5

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 36 36 36 Yes 9wk s

lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 24 24 24 Yes Yes

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 48 30 30 No 9-12

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 20 32 No 9

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 Yes 6

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 36 24 24 36 Yes 6

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 36 36 36 36 Yes 300 hrs

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 36 30 30 No 6

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c

1 qtr

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 32 32 32 Yes(S) 6

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 20 20 20 Yes 8

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30qtr 60qtr 30qtr 30qtr 30qtr Yes IOwks

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 45 24 24 Yes 320hrs

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 36 16 16 16 No 8

New Hampsshire . . . . . . . . . . . . b b b b b b b

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 30 No c

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 24 24 24 Yes 6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 36 36 36 No Yes

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 6

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 8

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 60 30 30 30 Yes a

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 40 40 40 No 12wks

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 45 45 45 45 Yes(M) 15qtr

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b b

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 Yes 3(S)5(M)

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 30 30 Yes 6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 30 12 18 Yes(M) 6

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 12 12 18 No 6

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36qtr 48qtr 24 qtr 24qtr 24qtr Yes 4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 48 24 24 No 6

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c Yes 12

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 18 18 18 Yes None

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 24 24 30 No 6

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 NA NA NA NA No Yes

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 51 24 24 No 15

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c c c c c c c

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 54 34 34 34 Yes 5

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 30 12 12 12 No 1 course

KEY: Course credits = semester credit hours, unless otherwise specified; qtr = quarter credit hours, M = mathematics only, S = science only;NA = not available,

blank space = no certification offered.

al semester full time or 2 semesters half time—California; supervised teaching experience and 300 hours clinicallfield-based experience—Ohio.

bceflification requirements determined by degree-granting institution or approved competency-based Pro9ram

cMajoror minor—f.Jofih Dakota, Utah; 213 to 40 percent of prOgrarn-MinrleSOta and North carolina; courses rnatctled With job requirements—West Virginia

SOURCE Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade, Sfate Educatiorr Po/ic/es ffe/afedto Science arrdkfafhernaf)cs (Washington, DC Council of Chief State School Officers,

State Education Assessment Center Science and Mathematics Indicators Prolect, November 1987), table4
60

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

There are few minority teachers in mathematics and science to serve as role models for

Black, Hispanic, and Native American children.

As part of the education reform movement, teachers teach without certification, either because

policy makers have tightened certification stand- they are new to the State and are working to

ards in the hope of raising the quality of teach- achieve accreditation (and are teaching on an

ing. Altering certification requirements may be “emergency” basis) or because they are teaching

an easy control on the system for policy makers subjects other than those which they are certified

to enact, but have little effect on actual classroom to teach .18 An increasing number of science

practices and teaching quality. However, some on the extent to which “uncertified” teachers are in charge

 p of mathematics and science classes are fragmented and often 

such as physics. In each case, typical requirements are 24 to 36 sistent. Analysts differ on the interpretation of uncertified: 

sernester-hours of college-level science courses. Ken times the term is interpreted as including those without any kind

ence Teacher Certification Standards: An Agenda for Improvement, ” of certification, sometimes it includes teachers who are certified but

Redesigning Science and Technology Education: 1984 Yearbook are teaching out of their main field of competence or certification

the National Science Teachers Association, Rodger W. By bee et al. (the two are not always the same), and other times it is used to 

 ) (Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, elude teachers who have provisional or emergency certification, but

1984), pp. 157-161. not full certification. (To the extent that there is great flexibility to
61

teachers, in particular, appear to be teaching subjects that they are either not licensed or not qualified to teach. A 1986 survey of 39 States (enrolling 28 percent of the student population) estimated

that between 6 and 15 percent of all science teachers were uncertified in the field they were hired

to teach. Biology had the lowest proportion of

uncertified teachers, while earth and general science had the highest. About 8 percent of mathematics teachers were uncertified in that field.l9

The proportion of uncertified mathematics and

science teachers was greatest in the Southeast region of the country. A 1985-86 survey indicates

that as many as 20 percent of science teachers in

grades 10 to 12 are not certified to teach the

courses they are teaching: 4 percent are not certified at all, 6 percent have provisional certification, and 5 percent are certified in other fields (the

remainder are presumably those certified in one

science subject but teaching another). This same

survey found that, of teachers of mathematics in

grades 10 to 12, 4 percent were not certified at

all and 4 percent had only provisional certification, while 10 percent were certified in fields other

than mathematics. In total, 14 percent of these

teachers were teaching courses that they were uncertified to teach .20

National data from the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) indicate that the notion

that a high school science teacher teaches only one

science is increasingly a myth. And many science

teachers teach mathematics or conscience subjects

as well. On average, about 8 percent of the course

assignment of secondary science teachers is in

mathematics, and 5 percent is in conscience subjects. For example, about half of the teaching load

of chemistry teachers is in chemistry, 12 percent

issue such certification, States and school districts have an easy way

to rectify any concerns about the number of uncertified teachers

in the classroom. ) Principals reportedly prefer often to retain existing uncertified teachers in classes where they have developed rapport with the class than introduce new, inexperienced, but fully certified teachers who would have much more difficulty teaching the

class.

“Joanne Capper, A Study of Certified Teacher Avadability in

the States (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers,

February 1987). These data are drawn from State needs assessments,

mandated under Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act

of 1984; the data analysis was funded by the National Science Foundation.

‘“Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, table 46.

in biology, and 15 percent in physics and general

physical science.21

This pattern is reflected in the teaching of all

subjects at the secondary level. The National Education Association estimates that 83 percent of all

subject specialist secondary teachers devote all

their teaching time to teaching the field that was

their college major; 7 percent spend between 50

and 100 percent of their time in that field; and

only 10 percent spend less than 50 percent of their

time teaching in that field.22

While States condemn teaching without adequate certification, critics of the system of certification note that States tacitly condone it by permitting waivers of requirements and by failing to

enforce certification requirements.23 To the extent that shortages exist, States, school districts,

or principals must choose whether it would be better to have a poorly qualified teacher teaching a

science class than to have no teacher and no class

at all.

A number of States have developed alternative

certification routes for mature entrants to the

teaching profession, particularly those who are

already qualified scientists, engineers, or technicians. These programs focus particularly on recruiting mathematics and science teachers. A recent study estimates that there are 26 such

programs nationally, and some have attracted

Federal funding.24

‘lBill G. Aldridge, “What’s Being Taught and Who’s Teaching

It, ” The Science Curriculum: The Report of the 1986 National Forum for School Science, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Hornig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987), pp. 207-223.

22National Education Association, Status of the American Public School Teacher 1985/86 (West Haven, CT: National Education

Association, 1987), table 18. These data are based on a definition

of misassignment as teachers assigned outside their main college

preparatory field. This is an imperfect measure, because some

teachers are qualified to teach in subjects that were not their college major.

~American Federation of Teachers /Counci] for Basic Education,

Making Do in the Classroom: A Report on the Misassignment of

Teachers (Washington, DC: 1985); Aldridge, op. cit., footnote 21,

1985, p. 84.

ZiThese programs enjoy some success, but data on their impact

are very limited. Anecdotal evidence suggests that those who make

such transitions are not likely to be the best and the brightest in

their fields of origin, but there is no way (yet) of judging their quality relative to teachers in the field they have joined. See Linda

Darling-Hammond and Lisa Hudson, Rand Corp., “Precollege Science and Mathematics Teachers: Supply, Demand, and Quality, ”

(continued on next page)
62

These programs look promising, and could be

expanded in the interests both of the quantity and

quality of the entry-level science and mathematics

work force. New York City has a program to

relicense teachers of subjects other than mathematics and science in these fields. (See box 3-B. )

(continued from previous page)

mimeo, 1987, p. 51; Shirley R. Fox, Scientists in the Classroom:

Two Strategies (Washington, DC: National Institute for Work and

Learning, 1986); and Nancy E. Adelman et al., An Exploratory Study

In an interesting initiative in Hammond, Indiana,

a chemistry teacher works part time in a local steel

company and part time in the local high school.

His salary is shared by the school district and the

company, and some of his classes are taught in

the industrial research laboratory. This arrangement originated in the enthusiasm of the teacher

and the local community, and could be replicated

elsewhere .25

25 Brent Williamson, of Tea&-er AJtemative Ce~ification and Retraining P>ograms-(Wash- high school teacher, personal communicaington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc., October 1986). tion, February 1988.
63

THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS OF THE TEACHING WORK FORCE

Concern about teacher shortages and quality

comes at a time when the teaching profession as

a whole feels embattled and undervalued, but also

recognizes its key role in education and in education reform. Seemingly endless commission

reports have cited the need to give greater status,

more recognition, and higher salaries to teachers. 26 Although teachers aspire to belong to a

profession, few feel that they truly do. Many

argue that administrators and school boards, not

teachers, define standards of conduct in schools,

teaching methods, and curricula. Teachers are

constrained by many rules and regulations, many

of which conflict with each other and which,

taken together, sap the enthusiasm of many teachers. In some ways, the process of increasing requirements and paperwork is a kind of “de-skilling” of the teaching work force: the skill of

teaching is removed from teachers and given to

those who make and enforce the “rules. ”27

One way of redressing the balance is to give

teachers more say in setting the professional qualifications and standards for membership in the

teaching force. The recommendation of the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession for

a national certification board is being implemented; its first members were nominated in May

1987. Eventually, such certification might replace

State certification. Parallel moves are afoot in the

‘bSee, for example, Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, A

Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (New York, NY:

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986); National

Commission for Excellence in Teacher Education, Call for Change

in Teacher Education (Washington, DC: American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education, 1985); National Science Board,

Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and

Technology, Educating Americans for the 21st Century (Washington, DC: 1983); and Paul E. Peterson, “Did the Education Commissions Say Anything?” The Brookings Review, winter 1983, pp.

3-11. See also The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching, Report Card on School Reform: The Teachers Speak

(Washington, DC: 1988), which characterizes recent reforms as involving greater regulation of easily manipulated elements of education (such as graduation requirements, testing for minimum competency, requirements on teacher preparation, and tester testing)

rather than renewal. Teachers have largely not been involved in these

reforms, only ordered to undertake them. Nearly one-half of teachers

report that morale in teaching has actually fallen since 1983, when

the current wave of reforms began.

~7Martin Carnoy and Henry M. Levin, Schooling and Work in

the Democratic State (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,

1985), pp. 157-158.

mathematics and science teaching profession. In

1984, NSTA estimated that about 30 percent of

all secondary mathematics and science teachers

were either “completely unqualified or severely

underqualified” to teach these subjects .28 NSTA

launched its own certification program for science

teachers in October 1986. The fact that many

“single-subject” teachers teach a good deal of other

sciences and mathematics has led NSTA to devise a two-track secondary certification program:

one for general science teaching, the other for

single-subject science teaching. Currently, fewer

than one-third of the science teaching force would

meet NSTA’S standards.29 The guidelines of both

NSTA and the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM, set in 1981) are listed in table 3-3.

The Quality of Mathematics

and Science Teachers

Mathematics and science teacher quality is not

easily measured.30 There are three related and

commonly used indicators of teacher quality: possession of State certification, conformity to guidelines established by such bodies as NSTA and

NCTMJ and the amount of college-level coursework that teachers have had (on which the other

two indicators are based). Many commentators

caution against equating course preparation with

teacher quality. Nevertheless, reliable data exist

only for this measure and it is the one used here,

along with teachers’ own perceptions of their confidence and abilities.31

28K.L. Johnston and B.G. Aldridge, “The Crisis in Science Education: What Is It? How Can We Respond?” Journal of College Science Teaching (September/October 1984 ), quoted in National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 37.

wJohn Walsh, “T’eacher C.erti[ication program under waY, ” science, vol. 235, Feb. 20, 1987, pp. 838-839; and Robert Rothman,

“Science Teachers Laud Certification Program, But Few Seen Qualified, ” Education Week, Apr. 8, 1987, pp. 6, 10.

30See, generally, Darling-Hammond and Hudson, op. cit., footnote 24.

31Rolf K. Blank and Senta A. Raizen, National Research Council, “Background Paper for a Planning Conference on a Study of

Teacher Quality in Science and Mathematics Education, ” unpublished working paper, April 1985. Unfortunately, few people seem

to have asked the consumers of this teaching, the students, what

they think of their teachers’ abilities. Better ways of measuring quality might be either to observe teachers’ performance in the class-

(continued on next page)
64

Table 3=3.—Guidelines for Mathematics and Science Teacher Qualifications Specified by the National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)

NCTM guidelines NSTA standards

Early elementary school -

The following three courses, each of which presumes a

prerequisite of 2 years of high school algebra and 1 year

of geometry:

1. number systems

2. informal geometry

3. mathematics teaching methods

Upper elementary and middle school

The following four courses, each of which presumes a

prerequisite of 2 years of high school algebra and 1 year

of geometry:

1. number systems

2. informal geometry

3. topics in mathematics (including real number systems, probability and statistics, coordinate geometry,

and number theory)

4. mathematics methods

Junior high school

The following seven courses, each with a prerequisite of

3 to 4 years of high school mathematics, beginning with

algebra and including trigonometry:

1. calculus

2. geometry

3. computer science

4. abstract algebra

5. mathematics applications

6. probability and statistics

7. mathematics methods

Senior high school

The following 13 courses, which constitute an undergraduate major in mathematics, and which each presume

a prerequisite of 3 to 4 years of high school mathematics, beginning with algebra and including trigonometry:

1-3. three semesters of calculus

4. computer science

5-6. linear and abstract algebra

7. geometry

8. probability and statistics

9-12. one course each in: mathematics methods,

mathematics applications, selected topics, and the

history of mathematics

13. at least one additional mathematics elective course

Elementary level

1. Minimum 12 semester-hours in laboratory- or fieldoriented science including courses in biological,

physical, and earth sciences. These courses should

provide science content that is applicable to elementary classrooms.

2. Minimum of one course in elementary science

methods (approximately 3 semester-hours) to be

taken after completion of content courses.

3. Field experience in teaching science to elementary

students.

Middle/junior high school level

1. Minimum 36 semester-hours of science instruction

with at least 9 hours in each of biological or earth

science, physical science, and earth/space science.

Remaining 9 hours should be science electives.

2. Minimum of 9 semester-hours in support areas of

mathematics and computer science.

3. A science methods course designed for the middle

school level.

4. Observation and field experience with early adolescent science classes.

Secondary level

General standards for all science specialization areas:

1. Minimum 50 semester-hours of coursework in one or

more sciences, plus study in related fields of

mathematics, statistics, and computer applications.

2. Three to five semester-hour course in science

methods and curriculum.

3. Field experiences in secondary science classrooms

at more than one grade level or more than one

science area.

Specialized standards

1. Biology: minimum 32 semester-hours of biology plus

16 semester-hours in other sciences.

2. Chemistry: minimum 32 semester-hours of chemistry

plus 16 semester-hours in other sciences.

3. Earth/space science: minimum 32 semester-hours of

earth/space science, specializing in one area (astronomy, geology, meteorology, or oceanography),

plus 16 semester-hours in other sciences.

4. General science: 8 semester-hours each in biology,

chemistry, physics, earth/space science, and applications of science in society. Twelve hours in any one

area, plus mathematics to at least the precalculus

level.

5. Physical science: 24 semester-hours in chemistry,

physics, and applications to society, plus 24

semester-hours in earth/space science; also an

introductory biology course.

6. Physics: 32 semester-hours in physics, plus 16 in

other sciences.

SOURCE: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Science Teachers Association

The national teaching force has good creden- least a master’s degree.32 A 1985-86 survey

tials; over so percent of all teachers now have at found, in grades 10 to 12, that 63 percent of sci-

(continued from previous page) ence teachers and 55 percent of mathematics

room or to evaluate the outcomes of teaching through the progress

made by students (which is becoming more common as States up- 32National Education Association, Status of the American Pubgrade course requirements for high school graduation). lic School Teacher 1985-86 (West Haven, CT: 1987), tables 1-2.
65

teachers had earned degrees beyond the baccalaureate. The same survey also found that 40 percent

of mathematics teachers had degrees in mathematics, and 60 percent of science teachers had

degrees in a science field.” By contrast, only 1

to 2 percent of mathematics and science teachers

at the elementary school level had degrees in these

fields.

The National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education gathered its data from about

4,500 teachers from all grades in 1985-86.34 The

survey showed that many elementary mathematics and science teachers have taken very few

college-level courses in these subjects, while secondary teachers of these subjects have much more

extensive preparation. (See tables 3-4 and 3-5. )

The survey indicated that over 85 percent of

elementary science teachers have taken at least one

course in methods for teaching elementary school

science, and about 90 percent have taken at least

one college-level science course (typically biology,

psychology, or physical science).35 However, although 90 percent of elementary mathematics

teachers have taken at least one course in methods

for teaching mathematics, only about 40 percent

have taken at least one college-level mathematics

class. Most have taken instead mathematics

courses especially designed for elementary mathematics teachers. Elementary school teachers feel

good about mathematics; 99 percent feel wellqualified to teach it, compared to 64 percent who

feel well-qualified to teach science, particularly

physical science. About 80 percent of elementary

mathematics and science teachers enjoy teaching

these subjects. Inservice training is also not reaching many elementary teachers; more than 40 percent report that they have had no inservice training in the last year, and another 25 percent have

had less than 6 hours in total during the year.

About 90 percent of junior high and high school

mathematics and science teachers have taken at

least introductory biology in college, over 70 percent have taken general physics, 50 percent geology, and 80 percent general chemistry. Many have

33 Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, tables 38, 46.

~Ibid. For the higher grades, data are reported in two categories:

teachers in grades 7 to 9 and grades 10 to 12; here they are summarized as averages for grades 7 to 12 combined.

‘

s

Ibid., tables 39-40.

Table 3-4.—College-Level Courses Taken by

Elementary and Secondary Mathematics Teachers

Percentage of teachers

with courseb

Elementary Secondary

Course titlesa K-3 4-6 7-9 10-12

General Methods of

Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Methods of Teaching

Elementary School

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Methods of Teaching Middle

School Mathematics. . . . . . . 14

Methods of Teaching

Secondary School

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Supervised Student

Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Psychology, Human

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Mathematics for Elementary

School Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 89

Mathematics for Secondary

School Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 11

Geometry for Elementary or

Middle School Teachers . . . 17

College Algebra,

Trigonometry, Elementary

Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Advanced Calculus. . . . . . . . . .

Differential Equations . . . . . . .

Geometry c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Probability and Statistics . . . . 21

Abstract Algebra/Number

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Linear Algebra. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Applications of Mathematics/

Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . .

History of Mathematics . . . . . .

Other upper division

mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample N = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

93 90 93

90

27 37 25

83

87

90

21

21

37

12

7

27

246

53 80

79 81

84 87

80 87

67 89

39 63

39 61

67 80

59 76

48 69

48 69

34 39

26 37

37 63

671 565

%mits courses in computer programming and instructional uses of computers

bEmpty ~ells mean data were not reported in original tabulation.

Cupper division geornet~ in case of elementary teachers

SOURCE: Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 National Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle

Institute, November 1987), tables 40, 44

specialized in biology and life sciences; few have

specialized in physical sciences. About one-half

have taken at least eight courses in life science,

but only 14 percent of them have had eight courses

in chemistry, and 10 percent eight courses in

physics and earth sciences. As a group, over 90

percent of secondary science teachers enjoy teaching science, although 35 percent think that science

is a difficult subject to learn. %

“Ibid., tables 41, 44.
66

Table 3-5.—College-Level Courses Taken by

Elementary and Secondary Science Teachers

Percentage of teachers

with courseb

Elementary Secondary

Course titlesa K-3 4-6 7-9 10-12

General Methods of Teaching . . 95

Methods of Teaching

Elementary School

Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Methods of Teaching Middle

School Science . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods of Teaching

Secondary School Science . .

Supervised Student Teaching . . 77

Psychology, Human

Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Biology, Environmental, Life

Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Physical Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Earth/Space Science . . . . . . . . . . 39

No science courses . . . . . . . . . . 5

Only one science course . . . . . . 18

Two science courses . . . . . . . . . 40

Life Sciences:

Introductory Biology . . . . . . . . . .

Botany, Plant Physiology . . . . . .

Cell Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ecology, Environmental

Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Genetics, Evolution. . . . . . . . . . .

Microbiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Zoology, Animal Behavior . . . . .

Chemistry:

General Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . .

Analytical Chemistry. . . . . . . . . .

Organic Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . .

Biochemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physics:

General Physics. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electricity and Magnetism . . . . .

Heat and Thermodynamics . . . .

Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern or Nuclear Physics . . . .

Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Earth/Space Sciences:

Astronomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical Geography . . . . . . . . . .

Other:

History of Science . . . . . . . . . . .

Science and Society . . . . . . . . . .

Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample N = . . . . . . . . . ........431

95

88

20

87

88

87

37

21

61

51

5

12

40

273

94

30

61

83

85

91

70

54

62

55

48

63

64

76

30

51

21

25

73

18

16

15

12

11

40

56

27

26

39

21

18

8

658

94

20

82

79

87

85

73

58

63

64

53

65

71

92

47

32

34

81

28

24

26

23

18

36

49

20

19

25

23

16

12

1,050

%mits courses in computer programming and instructional uses of computers

bEmpty ~ells mean data were not reported in original Iahlation

SOURCE: Iris R Weiss, Reporf of the 1985-86 Aratfonal Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC’ Research Triangle

Institute, November 1987), tables 39 and 41

Of mathematics teachers in grades 7 to 12, over

80 percent have had at least college algebra,

trigonometry, or elementary functions, and about

70 percent of them have had calculus. Still, about

7 percent feel inadequately qualified to teach

mathematics, and over 25 percent had not taken

a college course for credit in the last 12 years (55

percent during the last 5 years). Over 50 percent

have not had more than 6 hours of inservice education during the last year. This translates into

a lack of confidence in teaching skills. About 20

percent of elementary teachers felt very well-qualified to teach mathematics and science respectively; another 20 percent felt they were not wellqualified to teach science.37

Options for Improving the Quality of

Mathematics and Science Teachers

More States indicate shortages of quality science and mathematics teachers than of teachers

with appropriate qualifications to teach these subjects. Credentials are not enough. Most States

have attempted to alleviate their shortages

through higher teacher salaries, and some also use

special loan and staff development programs for

mathematics and science teachers in order to retain good teachers and retrain teachers from other

fields. Iowa, for example, grants loans to current

teachers to upgrade their skills in mathematics and

science teaching, and sponsors summer training

institutes. Idaho uses Title II funds to provide

scholarships to potential science or mathematics

teachers who want to be recertified in these subject areas.

At least 26 States have inservice teacher training programs for science and mathematics instructors, most involving loans or scholarships to

promote additional coursework. The Teacher

Summer Business Training and Employment Program in New York partly reimburses industry for

science, mathematics, computer, or occupational

education teachers employed by business and industry during the summer. In Kentucky, Title II

funds support the Science Improvement Project

in low-income districts with histories of low

achievement,

37See National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 27-28.
67

About 10 States now offer alternative certification programs for prospective mathematics and

science teachers. For example, Utah awards “Eminence Certificates” to qualified professionals such

as engineers and doctors, which allows them to

teach up to two classes per day. Other, more innovative means of recruiting new mathematics and

science teachers include hiring teachers from overseas. (California and Georgia recruit science and

mathematics teachers from the Federal Republic

of Germany, and Kansas City, Missouri, has imported teachers from Belgium. ) Florida holds an

intensive teacher job fair each June, called “The

Great Florida Teach-In, ” designed to attract and

place new teachers.

The quality of the mathematics and science

teacher work forces can be improved before people enter the classroom as teachers (generally referred to as preservice) or when they are actively

teaching (inservice). Given the low labor turnover

of the teaching force, between 5 and 10 percent

each year in all subjects,38 the way to upgrade

teaching quality is via inservice programs. Yet

there is considerable national anxiety about the

perceived deficiencies of preservice teacher preparation in all disciplines .39

Preservice Education

While many talented people do become teachers, it is sometimes suggested that teacher education is not challenging.40 Critics further charge

that teacher preparation programs fail to make

effective links between courses on mathematics

and science and those on education, and therefore, teachers are unable to convert courses on

classroom teaching techniques and theories of

learning. In addition, such courses convey a simplistic view of science as a monolithic collection

of facts, embodied in enormous textbooks, giving students a false impression of the nature of

scientific inquiry.

Teachers agree that experiments and hands-on

activities are more effective than book work, but

feel the overriding need to cover material in encyclopedic fashion. The extensive use of factual

recall tests creates incentives to cover the content,

rather than process, of the subject matter. Thus,

teacher preparation may be more telling than their

classroom practice. In college, prospective teachers model their attitudes and teaching practices

on those of their college professors and, indeed,

on their own school teachers. They employ the

teaching techniques, such as lectures and rote

memorization, that they were either forced to suffer or benefited from when they were students.

School district curriculum guides and testing fuel

teachers’ reliance on tools for covering concepts

and facts, one by one, without drawing links and

brightening the big picture of science. Preference

may signal a lack of alternatives; teachers may

have neither the tools nor the opportunity to become comfortable with them to change their approach.

%ational Education Association, op. cit., footnote 32, table 13;

Blake Rodman, “Attrition Rate for Teachers Hits 25-Year Low, Study

Finds, ” Education Week, Oct. 14, 1987, p. 8.

Wor an overview, see Frank Ambrosie and Paul W. Haley, “The

Changing School Climate and Teacher Professionalization,” NASSP

[National Association of Secondary School Principals] Bulletin, vol.

72, January 1988, pp. 82-89. The following two sections are based

in part on Iris R. Weiss, OTA Workshop on Mathematics and Science Education K-12: Teachers and the Future, Summary Report,

September 1987.

%Jational Science Board, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 25. As Bernard

R. Gifford, Dean of the School of Education, University of

California-Berkeley, puts it: “What’s wrong with schools and departments of education today is very simple. Education suffers from

congenital prestige deprivation. ” See Anne C. Roark, “The Ghetto

of Academe: Few Takers (Teacher Colleges ),” LOS Angeles Times,

Mar. 13, 1988, p. 6. A new book dissects the origins and repercussions of this prestige deprivation on university campuses. See Geraldine Joncich Clifford and James W. Guthrie, Ed School. A Brief

for Prok.siona] Education (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,

1988).

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Most reports on reforming education single out the

importance of improving the status, appeal, and quality of

the teaching profession.
68

There is still no complete model of what the

mathematics and science teacher curriculum

should be. Simply requiring more mathematics

and science courses for certification will not automatically improve teacher quality, given the content of these courses and the way they are often

taught. The National Science Foundation (NSF),

for example, has recently begun a program to develop new models for preservice preparation of

middle school teachers.

One particular controversy in mathematics and

science teacher education is whether future

teachers should be expected to have a baccalaureate degree in a discipline plus some professional

training. At present, many teachers at the elementary level earn baccalaureate degrees in education,

but 97 percent of elementary mathematics teachers

and 95 percent of elementary science teachers have

a degree in subjects other than science or science

education. At the high school level, however, 40

percent of mathematics teachers and 60 percent

of science teachers have a degree in those subjects,

and another 36 and 24 percent, respectively, have

a degree in mathematics and science education or

a joint degree in a mathematics and science subject and science and mathematics education .41

Several groups that have studied the future of

the teaching profession in the current reform

movement have looked at this issue. The Holmes

Group (an informal consortium of education

deans in research universities) has attached priority to upgrading elementary and secondary

teachers’ specific knowledge by insisting that they

have a baccalaureate degree in a subject area. The

Holmes Group has also called for much greater

use of specialized teaching, and for more subjectintensive preparation of those teachers.42 SO far,

only Texas has changed its certification requirements in this way; after 1991, new entrants to the

“Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, table 45.

‘*The Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Teachers (East Lansing, MI:

1986). See also Lynn Olson, “An Overview of the Holmes Group, ”

Phi Delta Kappan, April 1987, pp. 619-621. Subject-intensive preparation may be unrealistic for elementary school teachers. Just ask

an elementary teacher what she teaches and the response will be

“children” or “grade n“; a secondary school teacher will respond

with “science” or “math. ” Most parents would probably take comfort that their child is being taught by someone who believes their

primary allegiance and responsibility is to children, not subjects

(Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of

Science, personal communication, August 1988).

profession in Texas will have to have both a disciplinary degree and no more than 18 coursehours of education courses.43

Currently, NSTA and NCTM both require considerable amounts of subject-specific coursework

of applicants for their own certification programs.

Content, rather than titles, of the courses future

teachers take is essential; there is a large grey area

that colleges and universities can exploit in specific subject areas (such as mathematics education). But the long-term trend is to emphasize specific skills for specific subjects rather than generic

“education” courses.

Preservice education of science and mathematics teachers presents a surfeit of issues and little

consensus over how to address them. College departments of science and mathematics prepare

their students to become scientists or engineers,

not teachers of these subjects. Few, if any, courses

are offered that give prospective teachers a sense

of what scientists do or how science and mathematics impact on workday activities and societal

problems. Can teachers be blamed for not taking what is not offered, or for not executing in

their classrooms what they were unable to experience as students (i.e., the apprenticeship role)?

This “no-fault” explanation distributes the responsibility for the perceived shortcomings of the neophyte teacher.44 It also transfers part of the burden to inservice training.

The Importance of Inservice Training

Once teachers are in place, as in any professional work force, they need periodic updating

and time to consider how they could do their jobs

better. At present, inservice training is also needed

to remedy the inadequacies of many teachers’ preservice preparation. A recent survey indicates that

there has been an increase in the amount of inservice training taken during the school year,

which has come at the expense of college-level

43Lynn Olson, “Texas Teacher Educators in Turmoil Over Reform Law’s ‘Encroachment’,” Education Week, vol. 7, No. 14, Dec.

9, 1987, p. 1.

441f scientists want to prescribe what science is worth knowing,

they must be willing to collaborate with teachers in deciding what

science is worth teaching. When should phenomena just be experienced and the underlying scientific principles withheld? Such a question beckons to an interdisciplinary team of scientists, teachers, child

development specialists, and psychologists for answers.
69

course-taking on weekends and during vacations.

Three-quarters of teachers now report taking inservice courses during the school year, compared

with 59 percent 15 years ago,45

Another recent survey found that most mathematics and science teachers, at all grade levels,

had spent less than 6 hours on inservice education in 1984. (See figure 3-3. ) Secondary teachers

had spent more time on inservice education than

elementary teachers; over 10 percent of mathematics and science teachers in grades 10 to 12 had

taken more than 35 hours of inservice education

during the last year.”

A leading policy issue is who should be responsible for inservice education. As employers, school

4sNational Education Association, op. cit., footnote 32, tables

44-4.5.

4’Weiss, op. cit., foonote 10, table 56. This difference in inservice education time may simply reflect greater opportunity afforded

secondary school teachers, not lesser interest on the part of elementary teachers,

Figure 3-3.—Amount of Inservice Training Received

by Science and Mathematics Teachers During 1985-86

35+ hour s

16–3 5

6–1 5

< 6

Non e

a

K - 6

7 - 9

10-12 ‘

-6 7 - 91 0

-

1 2

Science Mathematics

alncludes about 10 percent with unknown time.

NOTE’ Science and mathematics teachers were asked how much inserwce train.

ing in science they received m the past 12 months. Inservice training includes attendance at professional meetings and workshops, but not formal

courses for college credit Sample sizes range from about 560 to 1,050,

varying with grade level and field

SOURCE Iris R Weiss, Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and

Mafherrrat/cs Education (Research Triangle Park, NC Research Triangle Institute November 1987), p 92

districts should be primary supporters of such

education, but it is among the first budget items

to be cut in periods of austerity. In practice,

teachers are often expected to arrange and pay

for such education themselves. While many teachers do participate, commentators suggest that

there is a large pool of mathematics and science

teachers who are never reached.47

Perhaps most lacking is a national commitment

to the continuing education of science and mathematics teachers. Such education comes in many

forms, including multiweek full-time summer institutes, occasional days to attend professional

meetings, and provision of relevant research materials and work sessions on how to translate these

into practice. In some areas, contacts between

schools, school districts, scientific societies, State

education agencies, and universities exist and are

fruitful, but other areas are devoid of this support. Teachers need much better information than

they are getting, particularly because of rapid

changes in science and educational technology. ’s

The Federal Government supports inservice

teacher education through both Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act program of the

Department of Education and the NSF Teacher

Enhancement Program. In the 1960s, NSF funded

a large program of summer and other institutes,

based at universities, for mathematics and science

teachers. (See ch. 6.) Generally, these institutes

seemed to have had positive effects, and their perceived excesses (for example, an emphasis on

knowledge of science content) could be reduced

were the concept to be revived. The bulk of the

funds in the previous program went to colleges

and universities; local school districts could now

be partners in such education.

Another important Federal role could be a regional system of mathematics and science educa47This explanation raises the issue of incentives. For what does

an elementary school teacher get “credit”? How do teachers perceive the relative priorities of different subject areas, e.g., language

arts v. mathematics?

46A recent proposal is for 8 to 10 federally funded science education centers, spread around the country, which would develop

curricula, train teachers, set up networks, and conduct research.

See Myron J. Atkin, “Education at the National Science

Foundation—Historical Perspectives, An Assessment, and A Proposed Initiative for 1989 and Beyond, ” testimony before the House

Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar. 22, 1988, pp. 14-17.
tion advisors. School administrators need training, too; they would work with school districts

in disseminating the results of (at least federally

sponsored) educational research, and affecting

classroom practice. This role would be similar to

that of county Agricultural Extension agents. The

National Diffusion Network, currently restricted

to conveying effective teaching curricula, is an existing mechanism for disseminating research information. Finally, the Federal Government might

assist in linking teachers through informal meetings and electronic message networks. The State

supervisors of science are already planning such

a network.

Conclusions on Mathematics and

Science Teacher Quality

The effect that good mathematics and science

teaching has on students’ propensity to major in

science and engineering is not readily measured.

Schools must lead, inform, and interest students

in mathematics and science, and teachers are the

front line. At the moment, many only inform and

some probably dull students’ interest in mathematics and science. On paper, the teaching profession is relatively well-qualified, and has had a significant (and increasing) amount of teaching

experience. The teaching force needs inservice

education, however; this presents an enormous

task. School districts, States, and teachers (who

have already had and paid for a college education) are unlikely to undertake this alone. Until

school districts and States make mathematics and

science teacher quality a high priority, student interest in and preparation for careers in science and

engineering are not likely to flourish.
71

TEACHING PRACTICES AND STUDENT LEARNING

There are several teaching techniques that could

be used more widely to boost both students’ learning and interest in mathematics and science. In

recent years, a considerable body of literature on

“effective schools” has been assembled. This research has been synthesized for teachers, principals, and administrators to read.49 There is an

urgent need to write and disseminate more syntheses of this kind in other educational research

areas. so

One technique in both mathematics and science

education is experimentation. Experiments, especially when they are related to physical phenomena that students encounter in everyday life, are

widely credited with improving students’ attitudes

toward and achievement in science. According to

a recent survey, teachers think that hands-on science is an effective teaching method, yet few use

it .51 If experiments are properly planned, students learn that science advances by curiosity,

‘4QNorthwest Regiona] Educational Laboratory, Effective SChOOfing Practices: A Research Synthesis (Portland, OR: April 1984); and

James B. Stedman, Congressional Research Service, “The Effective

Schools Research: Content and Criticisms, ” 85-1122 EPW, unpublished manuscript, December 1985. Becoming aware of, reading

about, and knowing how to apply the lessons learned, of course,

are very different (Audrey Champagne, American Association for

the Advancement of Science, personal communication, August

1988),

501n the case of mathematics and science education, the federally

funded ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education issues quarterly and annual reviews of research

designed for practitioners rather than researchers. The National

Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) also compiles summaries of current research applications in science education. The NARST series is titled Research Matters . . . To the Science Teacher, and is published on an occasional basis through Dr.

Glenn Markle, 401 Teacher College, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. The ERIC series is a set of regular research digests

in mathematics, science, and environmental education, published

by the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 1200 Chambers Rd., Columbus, OH 43212. See,

for example, Patricia E. Blosser, “Meta-Analysis Research on Science Education, ” ERIC/SMEAC Science Education Digest, No. 1,

1985. Finally, an ongoing project conducted by the Cosmos Corp.,

in collaboration with several educational associations and funded

by the National Science Foundation, is collecting data on exemplary

mathematics and science curriculum and teaching practices for dissemination nationally. See J. Lynne White (cd.), Cata)ogue of Practices in Science and Mathematics Education (Washington, DC:

Cosmos Corp., June 1986).

5’Eighty percent of high school science teachers agree that

laboratory-based science classes are more effective than lecture-based

classes, while only about 40 percent reported that they had used

the technique in their most recent lesson. Weiss, op. cit., footnote

10, tables 25, 28.

manipulation, and failure. Mistakes are a normal

part of science. The use of textbooks that emphasize the “facts” discovered by science, on the other

hand, reinforces the popular (but mythical) view

that science is a logical, linear process of accumulating knowledge.

Science experiments raise achievement scores

and can often trigger positive attitudes toward science among students. Nevertheless, concerns

about the cost and safety of experiments inhibit

the amount of laboratory work offered, as do the

limited facilities many schools have for this kind

of teaching. Experiments require equipment and

are more costly than lectures .52

Indications are that the amount of hands-on

mathematics and experimental science is diminishing. (See figure 3-4. ) A recent survey found that

the percentage of science classes in 1985-86 using

hands-on activities has fallen somewhat since 1977

at all grade levels. Hands-on activities were most

common in elementary classes; only 39 percent

of science classes in grades 10 to 12 used the technique (down from 53 percent in 1977). In mathematics, there have been similar declines, with the

sole exception of an increase in the use of handson techniques in grades K-3.53

Other proposed teaching practices that might

improve mathematics and science instruction include the use of open-ended class discussions,

small group learning, and the introduction of

topics concerning the social uses and implications

of science and technology (often called science,

technology, and society, or STS). In particular,

Szlndeed, experiments are a logistical nightmare for many

schools: It takes teacher’s valuable time to set up and tear down

laboratories, assemble materials and equipment, take safety precautions, cue teacher’s aides, etc. The costs—financial and otherwiw-to

run an experiment are often seen as prohibitive.

53Weiss, op. cit., footnote 10, table 25; Robert Rothman,

“Hands-On Science Instruction Declining, ” Education Week, Mar.

9, 1988, p. 4. Data from the 1985-86 National Assessment of Educational Progress show that 78 percent of grade 7 students and 82 percent of grade 11 students report “never” having laboratory activities in mathematics classes. Nineteen and 15 percent of students in

these grades, respectively, reported having laboratory activities either weekly or less than weekly. See John A. Dossey et al., The

Mathematics Report Card: Are We Measuring Up? Trends and

Achievement Based on the 1986 Nationa~ Assessment (Princeton,

NJ: Educational Testing Service, June 1988), p. 75.
72

the practice of dividing classes into small, mixedability groups of five or six students to work on

problems collectively, rather than solve them by

individual competition, is widely practiced in

elementary schools in Japan and is reported to be

effective for students of all abilities. Its use is increasingly being advocated for the United States.

The newly approved elementary mathematics curriculum in California is designed for the use of

this technique, in anticipation of its wider application.” A recent survey found that over onehalf of all students never did mathematics in small

 T. Johnson and David W. Johnson, “Cooperative Learning and the Achievement and Socialization Crises in Science and

Mathematics Classrooms, ” Students Science Learning: Papers

From the 1987 National Forum for School Science, Audrey B. Champagne and Leslie E. Homig (eds. ) (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987), pp. 67-94; and Robert

E. Slavin, Cooperative Learning: Student Teams (Washington, DC:

National Education Association, March 1987).

groups; only 12 percent of 3rd graders, 6 percent

of 7th graders, and 7 percent of 11th graders reported using this technique daily. The survey concluded:

Instruction in mathematics classes is characterized by teachers explaining material, working

problems on the board, and having students work

mathematics problems on their own. . , .

Considering the prevalence of research suggesting that there may be better ways for students to

learn mathematics than by listening to their

teachers and then practicing what they have heard

in rote fashion, the rarity of innovative instructional approaches is a matter for true concern .55

Because so few of these new practices are used,

too many of the Nation’s mathematics and science high school classes consist of teachers lec-

 et al., op. cit., foonote 53, pp. 74-76.
73

Figure 3-4.— Percentage of Mathematics and Science

Classes Using Hands-on Teaching and Lecture,

100

8 0

0

1977 and 1985.86

SOURCE Iris R Weiss, Reporf of the 1985%8 ~ationa/ Survey of Sc/ence arrd

Mathematics Education (Research Trianale Park, NC Research Trianturing about abstract material directly from textbooks, Research on teaching practices and student

learning indicates that if teaching were better oriented to the way students learn, and took account

of how they fit classroom knowledge into their

often inaccurate world views (culled from a variety of sources), students would likely learn more

and “better. ”56

Pleas for attentiveness to individual needs and

learning styles possessed by different students

should not be mistaken for a solution to the problems set forth in this chapter. Mathematics and

science teachers are one pivotal working part in

the social system known as “school. ”

‘bSometimes a simple change of procedure can make a world of

difference. Anne Arundel County, MD, is hoping for just such

marked results, announcing its intentions of assigning the “best”

teachers to students most in educational need. Will teacher assignment alone change the educational experience? Similarly, will the

promotion of “master teachers” upgrade the classroom performance

of teachers and students? These are school experiments intended to

change the fit of the pieces in the learning puzzle.

gle Institute, November 1987), p 49. -
Chapter 4

Thinking About

Learning Science
4-1. State-Funded Schools That Specialize in Science, Mathematics,
Chapter 4

Thinking About Learning Science

We should spend less time ranking children and more time helping them

identify their natural competencies and gifts and cultivate them. There are

hundreds of ways to succeed, and many, many different abilities

that will help you get there.

Howard Gardner, 1983

After chapters on students, schools, and

teachers, it might seem odd to ask in a separate

chapter: How do students learn science and mathematics? No answer will be found in the following pages. Indeed, this question now occupies

several cadres of scholars and educators—neuroscientists, learning theorists, school psychologists,

and an abundance of classroom teachers. Educational policy analysts have the luxury of politely

raising the question, acknowledging its complexity, and substituting a slightly more tractable set

of questions: How can more students be successful in science and mathematics? Does science and

mathematics education search for and select a particular type of student? Is a certain learning style

favored in the teaching and learning of these subjects? If so, is a self-fulfilling prophecy at work?

If a certain kind of learning style is appropriate

to science or mathematics, can it be promoted

through programs for “gifted” or “talented” students? What can be done to correct rnisconceptions (held both by students and teachers), to spur

creativity, to develop “higher order thinking

skills, ” and to place more students on pathways

to learning science and mathematics?l Thi s

chapter presents a select menu of needs, taking

few orders for satisfying them.2

for teaching mathematics and science students, and educational research on teaching and learning. Both are built on the premise that

students’ own experiences and intuitive explanations of scientific

phenomena fuel learning. For example, see Educational Technology Center, Making Sense of the Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Graduate School of Education, January 1988); Audrey Champagne

and Leslie Homig, Students and Science Learning (Washington, DC:

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1987), chs.

1-2; Jan Hawkins and Roy D. Pea, “Tools for Bridging the Cultures

of Everyday and Scientific Thinking, ” ]ournal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, No. 4, 1987, pp. 291-307; Rosalind Driver,

The Pupil as Scientist7 (Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press,

1983); ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Science Misconceptions Research and Some Implications for the Teaching of Science to Elementary School Students, Science Education Digest No. 1 (Columbus, OH: 1987); ERIC

Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Secondary School Students’ Comprehension of Science Concepts: Some Findings From Misconceptions Research, Science Education Digest No. 2 (Columbus, OH: 1987); and Cornell University,

Department of Education, “Proceedings of the Second International

Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science

and Mathematics, ” 1987.

‘The revision of this chapter has benefited especially from the

commentary of Audrey Champagne, American Association for the

Advancement of Science, personal communication, August 1988.

‘Two foci of Federal support (by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education) have been new environments

STUDENTS AND SCIENCE LEARNING

Students need to discover and recognize how suits of scientific inquiry.3 If students’ developthey best learn; this aids in relating their intui- ment of reasoning and analytic skills is closely

tive knowledge to the knowledge conveyed in the 3

For some of this pioneering work, see Joseph D, Novak and D. classroom. Techniques have been devised to help Bob Gowin, Learning How To Learn (New York, NY: Cambridge

children bridge their prior conceptions to the re- University Press, 1985).

77
78

linked to their assimilation of knowledge about

particular subjects, it makes little sense to divorce

the two in teaching science. Methods of inquiry

and analysis, acquired via laboratory and handson experiences, have to be taught together with

facts about particular problems or fields. All this

takes time, and it maybe that the amount of material covered in the typical science curriculum

should be reduced, reserving instruction time for

the use of hands-on techniques.4

The need to increase emphasis on problem solving and thinking skills is often referred to as im-

 other interactive technologies 

pear to be very promising in facilitating students’ construction of

scientific and mathematical phenomena, and some teaching packages have been designed for this purpose. In designing effective science and mathematics education programs, experts in particular scientific fields need to pool resources with cognitive scientists and

practicing teachers. See Barbara “A Mathematician’s Research on Math Instruction, ” Educational Researcher, vol. 16, No.

9, December 1987, pp. 9-12.

proving students’ higher order thinking skills or

“creative thinking. ” Higher order thinking is the

ability to infer and reason in an abstract way,

rather than merely memorizing and recalling single items of information. These skills have always

been important, but many analysts believe that

they will be part of the “new basics” for tomorrow’s high-technology work forces

‘There is, however, no generally agreed on framework that defines the distinction between a higher order skill, a lower order skill,

or any other kind of thinking skill. See Audrey B. Champagne, “Definition and Assessment of the Higher Order Cognitive Skills, ”

 Matters . . . To the Science Teacher (Cincinnati,

OH: University of Cincinnati, 1987); Lauren B. Resnick, Education

and Learning (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,

1987); Lynn Steen, “The Science of Patterns,” Science, vol. 240, Apr.

29, 1988, pp. 611-616; Richard J. Harvard University,

Graduate School of Education, “U.S. Education and the Productivity of the Work Force: Looking Ahead, ” unpublished paper, June

1988; and Educational Leadership, “Teaching Thinking Throughout the Curriculum, ” vol. 45, April 1988, pp. 3-31.

Pboto credit William Mills. Montgomery County Public Schools

Science awards, contests, and fairs bestow public recognition on science achievers and provide

hands-on experiences for many students.
79

The concept of higher order thinking may be

a metaphor for drastic reform of schools; valid

or not, many States are investing money in it.6

A particular focus of this trend is testing, which

is widely believed to be one of the main forces

that perpetuates lower order thinking skills in the

present day curriculum. In a sense, two related

trends—a transition in the generally accepted theory of student learning and the pressure for a

higher level curriculum—could lead to positive

improvements in student learning of mathematics

and science. But change will be slow in coming.7

Learning Styles

There are more similarities in how people learn

than there are differences. However, there is

mounting evidence that different modes (such as

oral, written, and diagrammatic presentation of

material) are effective with different students.

These differences are believed to exist both among

individuals and groups.8

Individual differences have been clear to

teachers for years. Some students concentrate on

rote memorization of facts, some explore with

their hands, others are much more visual and respond best to graphical and pictorial presentation

of material, while others learn via more abstract

imagery. Research is beginning to clarify these

differences and to explore their implications for

teaching and learning.

Various models of learning styles have been devised. Each is designed to help teaching become

more closely attuned to the ways different students learn, although so far these models have had

limited effect in classroom practice and none is

‘See, for example, Rita Dunn and Shirley A. Griggs, Learning

Styles: Quiet Revolution in American Secondary Schools (Reston,

VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1988).

7A recent initiative, called Project XL, by the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office, together with the Departments of Commerce,

Energy, and Education, aims to develop inventive thinking and problem-solving skills in students. See Virginia Sowers, “Patent Office

Spearheads Creative-Thinking Project,” E~”neering Times, vol. 10,

No. 4, April 1988, p. 9.

8For example, some suggest that whites and Blacks, as well as

males and females, often have characteristically different learning

styles. Not surprisingly, the hypothesis that learning styles differ

by race, ethnicity, and gender is highly controversial (discussed

below).

generally accepted.’ This research builds on a

long tradition of studies by philosophers, psychologists, and cognitive scientists that traces

differences in learning to cultural and family backgrounds. Some differences, however, are physiological in nature, such as whether students work

best at night or in the morning, and their susceptibility to extremes of light, sound, and heat. How

these differences apply to the learning of science

and mathematics is just beginning to be clarified.

But the heavy focus of elementary and secondary mathematics and science courses on the learning and regurgitation of discrete, abstract facts has

already alerted the science education community

to the need for more hands-on programs, in order to break down this misleading image of what

science is like.l0

Since science and engineering have been historically populated by white males, it has been assumed that teaching approaches that are successful

with this population are appropriate for all students. It is further alleged that departures from

these approaches are not rewarded, and thus perpetuate the factors that deter women and most

racial and ethnic minorities from considering science and engineering careers. Such deterrents are

reflected in the prejudice and discrimination operating in these fields. (See box 4-A. )

As a result of this concept of how science should

be taught and learned, science education in the

United States, some assert, is obsessed with the

testing knowledge of facts to the exclusion of four,

gchristine 1 Bennett Comprehensive hfu)ticu~tura] Education.’

Theory and P;actice (Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1986), chs. 4-5.

A series of eight filmstrips produced by Madison Workshops (Dept.

E-W/1379 Grace Street, Madison Schools, Mansfield, OH, 449o5)

are now available under the title “Learning Styles—An Alternative

for Achievement. ” The films cover the following themes: research

and learning style instruments, classification of instructional materials to accommodate student learning styles, brain dominance and

learning styles, an explanation for parents, the gifted student, an

approach to homework, and students with specific needs. Engineering educators are also beginning to address the importance of matching teaching and learning styles in their students. Richard M. Felder

and Linda K. Silvermanr “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, ” Engineering Education, vol. 78, No. 7, April

1988, pp. 674-681.

IOFor examp]e, see Mary Budd Rowe’ “Minimizing Student Loss

in Freshman and Sophomore Science Courses, ” Research in College Science Teaching, vol. 5, No. 5, May 1976, pp. 333-334; and

Paul J. Kuerbis, “Learning Styles and Science Teaching, ” NARST

Research Matters . . To the Science Teacher (Cincinnati, OH:

University of Cincinnati, n.d. ).
80

Box 4-A.-A Black Learning Style?

The relation between scientific values and learning styles is reflected in the concern to improve high

school completion rates among “at-risk” students. A recent booklet, written by the New York State Education Department to help teachers of at-risk students improve completion rates, included discussion of minority learning styles. A storm of protest among both minority and majority politicians and educators ensued.1 The booklet $tates:

.urderstanding various learning styies is . . . important, Several reseadwrs have noted that the traditional

&&room iS built, for the most part, around the Anglo-American cultural learning styks which emphasizes the

martipuiatiorts of objects such as books, iisterting stations, learning centers, programmed instruction and so forth.

Children’s racial, ethnic and emotional backgrounds and cukures irtfiuence the manner in which they learn concepts and process information. For example, qualities noted in African-Americans include:

● the tendency to view things in their entirety and not in isolated parts;

● a preference for inferential nwmning rather than deductive or inductive reasoning;

● the tendency to approximate space, number and time instead of aiming for complete accuracy;

● an emphasis on noveky, personaI freedom, and distinctiveness; and

● a ~istmm to becoming “word” dependent, but developing a proficiency in nonverbai as well as verbai

comrrtunication.z

The existence of a Black learning style partly reflects the acceptance of Black culture in American society. At issue is whether differences arise primarily for socioeconomic or for cukural reasons, and which

source is dominant. Some argue that the cukural attributes derived from membership of a particular social

class are more important than cultural differences based on race. Others suggest that Blacks have created

a unique Blacb%merican culture, rooted in African traditions but adapted by the American experience,

that outweighs socioeconomic factors.3

Several educators have argued that the cultural style and world view of Blacks had been “bastardized”

by the dominant culture (the “AngioMhropean cosmology”) ~d by its educational system. White chikiren

are never asked to span and understand bath Black and white cultures, let alone the subcukures within

each of them, in the way that Black chikken are. Specifically, some claim that Black English should be

accepted as a distinctive variant of standard English. The difference arises from the strong orai, rather than

written, tradition of Black culture. Blacks use a more descriptive, metaphorical, context-dependent language, with few synonyms, compared with standard English. They favor the second-person (“you”) rather

than the third-person (“he/she”). The result is a language that is more conversational, poetic, and symbolic

than that used by whites; the style in which things are said, for example in-public speeches, can be as important as its content. Some argue that the idioms and concepts of Black English actually inhibit traditional

mathematics and science learning. However, these same observers believe teaching can be modified and

that, ultimately, Black English is as capable of expressing mathematical concepts as is standard English,

although it may use different forms.’

A related difference occurs between the intellectual heritages and styles of inquiry of Blacks and whiteEuropeans. Some Blacks argue that African-American culture is more affective and “cognitively-united”

in a faith-reason-emotion interdependence than is the prevailing white-European culture. Researchers on

Black cognitive style speak of a “feeling intelligence” and the “aesthetic mind.” They are suggesting that

this style is built on what people feel and experience, and analyzes the world against that background,

rather than through the European traditions of a world of universal facts and knowledge and a divorce

between analysis within the mind and the feelings of the body.s

Norton & Co., WS7).

%ecau!w comnonly Ueed teacMniJ rddquea are rootad ill the Sumpaan tradition, they can be ruthkaa with Biacka’dfferent cultund ad intellectual heritage. The educational ayetem beats the “affective” out of students; M higheet due ia the neutral ktumaty le teachirig format, in whkh the

lecturer shuns emotional involvement, eye contact, or voice modukion, and the studanta are paeaive aborbem of facta. See Ja-A. A&mm Weatern Educational %@ems in Conflict With Learnina StYIea of lbfhtoriw Studenta,” Prmented at the Second National Confmnce on BIack Student lUtention in Higher E&cation, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 4,-1%%
81

Not all Black educators agree on the importance, or even the existence, of a Black learning style in

science and mathematics. They point out that there is a single accepted language of scientific and mathematical concepts that students who wish to progress in these fields must understand. Thus, although there

might be different teaching approaches, they must all converge on the universally accepted language and

content of mathematics and science.

Learning style differences may also apply to Native Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.

One study of the Navajo culture suggests that, in that culture, students learn skills by watching a competent adult performing the action and then gradually taking over more of the action. Finally, the student

goes off to perform the skill in private, to verify that he or she has mastered the skill. All this is accomplished with a minimum of oral communication. In schools, however, students are expected to acquire

and demonstrate skills almost simultaneously, to test them in public (in front of the teacher and other students), and to learn and test skills orally. It is argued that this clash of styles of learning can seriously inhibit learning by Navajo students.6

Science and mathematics education that recognizes diversity will contribute more to the health of science and engineering than one of narrow gauge that alienates bright, creative, risk-taking students. Science

would both benefit and change from this recognition, as the skills that the existing system culls out would

refine definitions of scientific “productivity” and “creativity.”

‘Christine I. Bennett, Comprehensive Multicultural Education: Theory and Practice (Newton, MA: A1lyn & Bacon, 1986), pp. 96-97.

and possibly other, domains: processes, creativ- courages those whose talents lie in the other four

ity, attitudes, and applications. 11 In their most

colorful summaries, some observers have argued

that the United States, by accident rather than by

design, practices “Westist, sexist, and testist” science education .12 This approach, if accurate, is

more harmful than simply deterring women and

minorities from entering science, for it also dis-

‘

] Robert E. Yager, “Assess All Five Domains of Science, ” The

Science Teacher, vol. 54, No. 7, October 1987, pp. 33-37.

1%ee Howard Gardner, “Beyond the IQ: Education and Human

Development, ” Nationa/ Forum, vol. 68, No. 2, spring 1988, pp.

4-7, and accompanying articles in this special issue, under the title

“Beyond Intelligence Testing. ”

domains and who might also contribute to

science. 13

13 Evelyn Fox Keller, a scholar of women in science, has

vigorously championed this point of view. She states that:

The exclusion of values culturally relegated to the female domain has

led to an effective ‘masculinization’ of science—to an unwitting alliance

between scientific values and the ideals of mascullntty embraced by our

particular culture. The question that directly follows from this recognition is. To what extent has such an alliance subverted our best hopes

for science, our very aspirations to objectivity and universality?

See Evelyn Fox Keller, “Women Scientists and Feminist Critics of

Science, ” Daedalus, vol. 116, No. 4, fall 1987, p. 80; and Evelyn

Fox Keller, “Feminism and Science, ” Sex and Scientific Inquiry, Sandra Harding and Jean F. O’Barr (eds. ) (Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 233-246.

SCIENCE-INTENSIVE ENVIRONMENTS

One institutional response to individual and

group differences in learning has been the creation of educational environments that give students greater exposure to mathematics and science

than they get in regular schools and classes. Some

schools specialize in these subjects. Many schools

also provide special classes, including those in

mathematics and science, for the so-called gifted

and talented, Many students also participate in

science outside the classroom, for example, in research participation programs in science laboratories. (See ch. 5.) Special schools and classes are

clearly designed to have special effects on children, such as nurturing or maintaining their interest, or expediting and enriching their progress

through the regular mathematics and science curriculum. This section reviews data on the extent

of these special environments and the effects they

have.

An Overview of State Programs

and Schools

A few States have established special regional

or statewide schools for mathematics and science,

often in conjunction with private funding from
82

industry. Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, North

Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia

directly fund statewide schools that provide specialized subject area study. (See table 4-l. ) A total of 15 States sponsor, in whole or in part,

schools that focus on science and mathematics;

and two more are reportedly making plans to follow suit.

In addition or as an alternative to special

schools, a number of States sponsor summer enrichment programs in mathematics and science.

These activities are less costly than special schools

and consequently more popular with the States.

Twenty States offer summer programs in science

and mathematics, although some of them have

only very small enrollments. Florida appropriated

over $1.2 million last year for such programs.

More than 30 States also have programs designed to improve the participation of women and

minorities in science and mathematics. Several

Northwestern States have programs designed for

Native Americans..14 Various States have begun

sponsoring special recognition programs for students in mathematics and science, such as State

fairs and knowledge bowls. California’s Golden

State Examination, established under the HughesHart Educational Reform movement in 1983, is

designed to identify and recognize honors-level

achievement by students in specific subject areas,

which include mathematics and science, and is the

most comprehensive State-sponsored program nationally.

Many recognition and award programs are privately supported by professional organizations or

business and industry, or jointly supported by

several sources (including State and Federal Government). These types of programs often begin

at the local or regional level and end at the national level; Invention Convention and MathCounts are examples. The Westinghouse Science

Talent Search and the West Virginia National

Youth Science Camp are privately funded national

recognition programs.

14 Council of Chief State School Officers, Equity and Excellence:

A Dual Thrust in Mathematics and Science Education (Washington, DC: November 1987).

Table 4-1 —State-Funded Schools That Specialize

in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering

Illinois

● Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, Aurora

Louisiana

● Louisiana School for Science, Mathematics, and the

Arts, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches

Michigan

● Kalamazoo Area Mathematics and Science Academy

North Carolina

● North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics,

Durham

Pennsylvania

● Pennsylvania Governor’s School for the Sciences, at

Carnegie-Mellon University

● Pennsylvania Governor’s School for Agriculture,

Pennsylvania State University

Texas

● Science Academy of Austin

Virginia

● New Horizon Magnet School for Science

● Roanoke Governor’s School for Science and

Mathematics, Roanoke

. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and

Technology, Alexandria

● Central Virginia Governor’s School for Science and

Technology

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on Education

Commission of the States, Survey of State kritiafives to Improve

Science and Mathematics Education (Denver, CO: September 1987);

and data from the National Consortium of Specialized Schools in

Mathematics, Science, and Technology.

Science= intensive Schools

Science-intensive schools provide special environments for the study and practice of science and

mathematics. Such schools are thought to attract

students interested in science and engineering (instead of converting students to such careers), but

national data are lacking to support or refute this

contention. Such schools tend to attract teachers

as well, and are reputed to provide high-quality

instruction in mathematics and science. They are

generally popular with parents, if for no other reason than they expand the choices beyond the

neighborhood public school.

There are three types of science-intensive

schools: well-established city-sponsored mathematics and science schools; State-sponsored

schools; and magnet schools in urban areas, created to promote racial desegregation, which have

mathematics or science as their theme. (See box

4-B. )
83

Box 4-B.—Science-Intensive Environments: Two Examples

I. The Governor’s School of Science and Mathematics, Durham, North Carolina

This school became the first publicly financed residential high school in the United States devoted to

science and mathematics when it opened in 1980. Funded directly by the State legislature, together with

private donations, it has become a unique and exciting model for precollege science and engineering education.

A recent survey found that about 80 percent of its graduates went on to science and engineering majors

in college and two-thirds went to college within the State.*

The school is located in a former hospital in Durham, North Carolina, and is part of the educational

and scientific infrastructure that fuels the continuing economic development of the Research Triangle region.

The Governors’ School, however, differs considerably from a regular school, It is not run by a school board,

but is under the governance of the University of North Carolina system, and its teachers are exempted from

certification requirements, an innovation that has attracted many who would otherwise teach only at the

college level (half of the teachers have doctorates). The school enrolls 475 juniors and seniors drawn from

all over the State, though enrollment is scheduled to rise to 600 by 1991, and many of the students are

residential. In the first 4 years of its operation, the school received $19 million from the State and $7 million from private sources, mainly companies. Education at the school is about four times more expensive

than the average for the State, costing about $10,000 per student annually. Admission to the school is on

the basis of test scores, high school grades, student essays, interviews, and home school recommendations,

The school’s admissions committee pays particular attention to ensuring a gender, racial, ethnic, and geographic balance of its enrollment. In 1984, 47 percent of those enrolled were female and 16 percent were

Black, Hispanic, or Native American.

The school stresses individual inquiry and group cooperation, Its goal is to enrich the traditional high

school curriculum rather than accelerate it. The school particularly encourages students to become involved

in research at nearby Duke University in Durham, the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North

Carolina State University in Raleigh, and with firms at Research Triangle Park.2 More than 4,000 teachers

from other schools in the State have participated in teacher training workshops held at the school. Such

cooperation is valuable because the other schools in North Carolina are not nearly so lavish as the Governor’s .

School and have not had much attention devoted to them.

2. Kansas City, Missouri, Magnet Schools

The public schools in Kansas City, Missouri, have recently announced plans to implement, by 1992,

what some have described as “the most comprehensive magnet school court order in history, ” under which

all secondary and half of all elementary schools would be designated magnet schools. 3 The Kansas City

school system currently enrolls 36,000 students, of which 62 percent are BIack and 6 percent are other minorities. This program of extensive magnet schools has followed long and messy court litigations that have

reached the Supreme Court twice, involving the surrounding suburban school systems, the State of Missouri, and a multitude of parents along the way. The program’s costs are estimated at $196 million over

6 years, part of which will be borne by Federal funds, and part by increased State and local taxation.4

The basis of the magnet program now being implemented is that students can follow the same theme

from grade 1 to grade 12, with more choice of themes being offered at the higher grades. The themes range

from the conventional ones of science and mathematics, computers, and visual and performing arts, to

environmental science, engineering technology, health professions, law and public service, the military,

Latin grammar, and classical Greek.

The Kansas City magnet school program is the most ambitious, and potentially most exciting, in the

country. Those who will implement it face many problems, including those of funding, renovating buildings, overcoming considerable local and political suspicion, and finding enough teachers. For example, attempts have already been made to bring in teachers with the requisite skills from Belgium.

*Quoted in Education Week, June 24, 19S7, p. c24. Also see Charles R. Eilber, “The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics,” Phi

Delta Kappan, June 1987, pp. 773-777.

@ is not ~le= ~~t ~latio~ip, if ~y, North Carolina Central universi~, a historically Black institution located in Durham. has with the ~hool

of Mathematics and Science.

%e following is based on Phale D. Hale and Daniel Levine, “The Most Comprehensive Magnet School Court Order in History: It’s Happening

in Kansas City, ” presented at the Fifth International Conference on Magnet Schools, Rochester, NY, May 4, 1987. fTom Mirga ~d William Snider, “Mi~ufi Judge ~ts steep T’= I-Iikes for Desegregation plan,” EdUCatjOn Week, SePt. ~, 1987.
84

Some large city school systems have had intensive science and mathematics schools for many

years; examples are New York City, Chicago, and

Milwaukee. One of the best known is the Bronx

High School of Science in New York City. These

schools were founded in the early years of this

century, when publicly funded high schools were

a novelty, and were strongly prevocational in nature. These schools have strong national reputations for the quality of their programs and the distinguished scientists and engineers among their

alumni. Each is publicly supported alongside regular schools in the same district.”

These schools offer a broader range of courses

in mathematics and science than regular schools

and normally are far better equipped. Laboratory

work is a regular feature of courses, and, often,

the schools have good linkages to local firms and

research laboratories. These linkages help provide

equipment, mentors, and, for some students, opportunities for participation in research. Teachers

at these schools are often freed by school boards

from many of the regular constraints on curriculum, and can work together with their colleagues

to devise more coherent sequences of material

than are customarily used. And, because students

are generally enthusiastic and talented, teachers

are keen to teach in these schools. In addition to

science and mathematics, students take the other

subjects they would take in a regular school.

A new organization, the National Consortium

of Specialized Schools in Mathematics, Science,

and Technology, was established in April 1988

to share experiences among and represent scienceintensive schools. The initial meeting of the consortium included 27 schools, and more have

joined since. The consortium is planning meetings

‘

s

Because of the novelty of most of these schools, data on the

eventual fates of their graduates are not yet available. The city

science-intensive schools also have surprisingly little systematic information on their graduates. One study, conducted 20 years ago

by the Bronx High School of Science, is rumored to have shown

that 98 percent of its students go on to college, with less than half

majoring in science or engineering. One thing is certain: only a tiny

percentage of each State’s high school students attend such schools.

This, of course, raises questions of costs and benefits to all—students,

teachers, and “regular” schools—who are part of a school system

that includes a special school.

for both students and faculty in science-intensive

schools. l6

Magnet schools differ from the other two types

of science-intensive schools in that their primary

goal is to promote racial desegregation rather than

science education. Such schools, which normally

have a predominantly minority enrollment, offer enhanced programs of instruction in particular areas or “themes” designed to draw students

from a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Popular themes include emphases on particular

subject areas, such as science and mathematics;

on teaching methods, such as Montessori programs; or on educational outcomes, such as concentration on “the basics” or preparation for college attendance. Magnet school programs have

become a popular alternative to forced busing,

and have grown in number from none 20 years

ago to over 1,000 today .*7

Magnet School Issues

Since the original objective of promoting racial

desegregation has largely been achieved, magnet

schools are now rapidly evolving with the trend

toward increased choice in public education. The

concept of “schools of choice” is now an important force in education. School districts that employ magnets are realizing that all their schools

never were the same; each has its own culture and

interests. Rather than maintaining uniformity, the

concern is to develop schools of different specialties and emphases and to capitalize on the special advantages of each school and community .18

*’The consortium is currently headquartered at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, Aurora, IL.

l~here are n. current data on the number of magnet schools ‘atonally. A 1983 survey put the number at about 1,100, of which

about 25 percent had a mathematics or science theme. The magnet

programs are located in more than 130 of the largest urban school

districts. See Rolf K. Blank et al., Survey of Magnet Schools: Analyzing a Model for Quality Integrated Education, contractor report to

the U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: James H.

Lowry & Associates, September 1983). For a survey of magnet

schools see Editorial Research Reports, Magnet Schools, vol. 1, No.

18., May 15, 1987.

‘education Week, “The Call for Choice: Competition in the

Educational Marketplace, ” vol. 6, No. 39, June 24, 1987, supplement.
85

Magnet schools raise many issues. Among them

are whether the introduction of such schools creates a two-class school system—magnet and nonmagnet. Magnet schools are also, on average,

more expensive to run than nonmagnet schools.

Another issue is the potential drain of talented students and teachers from the rest of the school system. Since local politics and school organizations

vary so considerably nationwide, there are no

simple rules for resolving these issues.

The school district’s choice of admissions system to magnet programs is especially important.

In Philadelphia, for example, the reliance placed

on admissions tests by the magnet schools has

been controversial because of its adverse effects

on Black and Hispanic students. Alternatives to

achievement test scores as the method of admission include home school recommendations, lotteries, and queues. The latter two methods are becoming increasingly popular.

Almost universally, students and parents cite

the choices that they are given in magnet systems

as inspiring them to have higher expectations of

public education than they had before. Higher expectations should lead to better performance.

There is some evidence, however, that while magnet programs improve the quality of education

in schools or school districts with a high minority enrollment, minority students are sometimes

less likely than white students to be admitted to

magnet programs. This is because magnet programs are generally designed to draw white students into predominantly minority schools, the

goal being an enrollment that better reflects the

racial and ethnic composition of the school district. In some cases, limits have been put on minority enrollment so that the composition targets

for the school can be met. Such limits can reduce,

in the end, the access of minority students to magnet programs .19

From a public policy perspective, magnet

schools are promising but unproven. They are de-

‘gEugene C. Royster et al., Magnet Schools and Desegregation:

Study of the Emergency School Aid Act Magnet School Program,

contractor report to the U.S. Department of Education (Cambridge,

MA: Abt Associates, Inc., July 1979).

signed to promote the goals of equity and excellence simultaneously, at somewhat increased cost.

Anxieties about the cultivation of elites seem

largely to have been diffused in most working

magnet systems. Superintendents, administrators,

principals, and teachers report enjoying working

in magnet schools, and the magnet schools are effective mechanisms for minority advancement.

The key is that magnet schools move the burden

of rules, monitoring, certification, and control

from administrators, school boards, and States

to teachers and principals.20 This enthusiasm,

however, must be tempered by another realization: in many school districts, students do not

even have the opportunity to learn science in

elementary school. In addition, most schools face

a serious shortage of equipment for teaching science, as well as cutbacks in resources available

for offering “wet” laboratories in high schools. In

short, the existence of magnet schools is no panacea to the problem of making a sequence of science and mathematics instruction accessible to

more students.

Programs for Gifted and

Talented Students

An increasing number of States and school districts are making special provisions for students

they consider to be especially “gifted and talented. ” Twenty-three States now mandate such

provisions, and more are considering such a policy. State spending on such provisions is rising .2]

‘“Linda M. McNeil, “Exit, Voice and Community: Magnet

Teachers’ Responses to Standardization, ” Educational Policy, vol.

1, No. 1, 1987, Pp. 93-113.

“The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted,

“The 1987 State of the States’ Gifted and Talented Education Report, ” mimeo, 1987, lists State programs in some detail. In addition, the Council for Exceptional Children estimates that 1S States

have special certification requirements for teachers of the gifted and

talented. State and local expenditures have increased and are now

about $384 million (about $150 per gifted and talented child). See

Council for Exceptional Children and the Association for the Gifted,

testimony before the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and

Labor, on H.R. 3263, The Gifted and Talented Children and Youth

Act of 1985, May 6, 1986. Industry is also becoming more active,

for example, through mentor programs. Gifted and talented programs are quite common in other countries where nurturing the best

minds and talents is defined as a necessity. See Bruce M. Mitchell

(continued on next page)
86

These programs cover all subjects, including performing arts, languages, mathematics, and science. Nevertheless, the provision of programs for

these students remains controversial for two reasons: the difficulty of defining criteria for identifying giftedness and talentedness, and the equity

and social implications of giving these students

special treatment.

While it is to be anticipated that the ranks of

the gifted and talented are especially productive

of future scientists and engineers, there are no data

on the number of such students that eventually

major in science and engineering. The Council of

Exceptional Children, an advocate for gifted and

talented education (as well as special education

of the learning disabled and handicapped), estimates that there are about 2.5 million gifted and

talented students nationally, or about 5 percent

of all students. Other estimates put the number

at 5 million .22

There is little consensus nationally on the characteristics of the gifted and talented. Standardized multiple-choice intelligence and achievement

tests are widely used to sort students; those who

score above threshold values on these tests are admitted to gifted and talented programs. Because

of heavy reliance on such tests, there is some suggestion that labeling is prone to cultural, class,

and racial bias. The process of labeling as gifted

and talented does not appear to be color-blind;

it has been estimated that only 13 percent of the

gifted and talented are Black and Hispanic students, whereas about 25 percent of all school students are Black and Hispanic. As a result of these

possible biases and of differing cutoffs and definitions of gifted and talented, the proportion of

each State’s school-age population labeled as

gifted and talented varies considerably. One study

took 18 commonly used criteria for giftedness and

found that, when applied to fifth-grade suburban

(continued from previous page)

and William G. Williams, “Education of the Gifted and Talented

in the World Community, ” Phi Delta Kappan, March 1987, pp.

531-534.

zzDefinitions of “gifted, “ “talented,” and “special” students tend

to fluctuate with the annual amounts of Federal and State funding

available in these categories. This is also why a demographic bulge

in a particular grade will disqualify students from “GT” (gifted and

talented) classes that they took in the previous grade. The criteria

are arbitrary, but their interpretation (e.g., all those in the nth percentile and above) is often rigid.

Minneapolis classes, 92 percent of the students

could be labeled gifted in some way.23

The basic issue in identifying the gifted and

talented is whether individuals so labeled should

merely have demonstrated good progress and high

achievement in schoolwork or whether they

should have some truly extraordinary skills that

may be undeveloped or unexpressed. Critics of

gifted and talented programs suggest that most

programs merely identify those who have done

well in the existing system of education. In other

words, the existing intelligence and achievement

tests measure only a limited range of the “gifts”

and “talents. ”

Both proponents and opponents of special provisions for the gifted and talented agree that other

dimensions besides “intelligence” and “achievement” should be explored and used. Such dimensions might also include intellectual, creative,

artistic, leadership, and physical and athletic abilities. Techniques for labeling need to address each

of these domains separately .24 Some States, such

as Illinois and Mississippi, are making special attempts to bring students with different strengths

into gifted and talented programs.

Even if there were agreement on what gifted and

talented means, the provision of special programs

is politically and socially contentious. Proponents

of special provisions for the gifted and talented

rely on a conviction that such students possess

extraordinary talents not possessed by the entire

population, and that these talents should be developed to the fullest possible extent. Opponents

consider the creation of such programs to be elitist

in nature, in practice serving the middle and upper class students almost exclusively.

Federal support for gifted and talented education programs is provided under Chapter 2 of the

Education Consolidation and Improvement Act.

One estimate suggests, however, that only about

20 percent of school districts use any of their

~~uren A. Sosniak, “Gifted Education Boondoggles: A Few Bad

Apples or a Rotten Bushel,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 68, March 1987,

pp. 535-538. zqRobert J Sternberg and Janet E. Davidson (eds. ), Conceptions

of Giftecfness (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,

1986); and Howard Gardner, “Developing the Spectrum of Human

Intelligence, ” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 57, No. 2, 1987,

pp. 187-193.
87

Chapter 2 funds for gifted and talented education.25 Several bills introduced in the I00th Congress were designed to fund model programs for

educating the gifted and talented, training the

teachers of such students, and expanding research

on gifted education.

The Department of Education’s Office of the

Gifted and Talented was disbanded in 1981. There

are calls for its reinstatement to “. . . carefully coordinate the use of limited federal resources and

to provide a much needed focal point of national

leadership.’’” The recent reauthorization of Federal education programs includes a provision requiring the Department of Education to set up a

National Center for Research and Development

in the Education of Gifted and Talented Children

and Youth.” Center proponents argue that Federal support has a catalytic role vis-a-vis States

and school districts, and that the current reform

movement has neglected the gifted and talented

in favor of the mainstream and learning disabled.

The Council for Exceptional Children estimates

that only one-half of gifted and talented students

receive any kind of special assistance, and that

such assistance itself is limited so that most gifted

and talented students still spend substantial portions of time mainstreamed in ordinary classes.

The Council estimates that about $400 million nationally is spent each year on such special assistance, but only about $10 million of Chapter 2

funds are spent on such programs. Some support

‘

sEllen Flax, “Economic Concerns Aiding Programs for Gifted, ”

Ecfucation FVeek, vol. 6, No. 33, May 13, 1987, pp. 1, 17.

‘“Ibid. Also see The Council for Exceptional Children and the

Association for the Gifted, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities of the Committee on

Labor and Human Resources, on Reauthorization of Chapter 2 of

the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, July 16, 1987,

p. 7.

‘TPublic Law 100-297, “Conference Report to Accompany H.R.

5,” Report 100-567, April 1988, p. 115.

also comes from Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act. Some of this funding has been

spent on science-intensive schools, such as the

North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, which is sometimes included under the

rubric of “gifted” education. Proponents argue

that this funding, even though it is increasing, is

still too little. There is, however, increasing interest within the private sector in such programs.

In addition, several university-based programs,

such as those at Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, and

Duke, identify talented individuals, including

those in mathematics and science, and provide enrichment programs for them during the summer.

Given that gifted and talented children have

been identified and that special provision will be

made for them, the basic educational issue is this:

whether gifted and talented programs should focus on enriching students’ exposure to the existing curriculum or encouraging them to accelerate their progress through that program so that

they complete the traditional sequences of high

school courses a year or two early. A related debate concerns whether students should receive enrichment or accelerated classes in all subject areas

or only in single subjects, such as mathematics.

A final issue is whether such focused instruction

should be provided in dedicated “special” schools,

or as an adjunct to the regular school curriculum.

For able students stifled in the conventional,

slow-moving educational system, gifted and talented classes can provide relief and progress suited

to their intellectual and emotional needs. Such

classes can also help keep such students in school;

many of those who drop out of school are bored,

but gifted, children. The basic argument for special treatment of the gifted and talented is that

without it these students would be ignored or unchallenged by the existing school system.

CLOSING THOUGHTS: A LARGER MENU?

The debate over gifted and talented students

begs very different questions about educational

methods than the debate over alternative learning styles. The problem addressed by educators

concerning different learning modes is the negative reinforcement and frustration many otherwise talented people experience in the traditional

classroom. In mathematics and science learning,

this has tended especially to be the case with

women, and racial and ethnic minorities. The

teacher of gifted and talented students faces a

different problem. These students have already
88

demonstrated some proficiency or success in the

present system; the educator’s task is to sustain

student interest and progress.

Both issues have similar implications for science

and mathematics education: How can more students be successful in science and mathematics?

What does it mean to be talented in science or

mathematics? How should such talent first be

identified, and then nurtured? Are special schools

or programs needed? Will innovative curricula

that reflect new insights into how students learn

—and how different their learning styles may

be—spark the interest and fulfill the potential that

teachers and parents often recognize in their children? Will new thinking about learning penetrate

the schools? Will it be effective in “calling” more

students to science and mathematics, helping them

fulfill expectations (rather than ill-founded

prophecies), while propelling them to the next

educational stage and, ultimately, a career in science and engineering?

These questions reflect high expectations for science and mathematics education. Indeed, this

chapter has glimpsed a larger menu of issues,

needs, and signs of progress.
Chapter 5

Learning Outside of School
CONTENTS

The Importance of Families . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Public Image of Science. . . . . . . . . . . .

Television Images of Science . . . . . . . . .

Students’ Images of Science . . . . . . . . . .

The Potential of Educational Television

The Informal Environments Offered by

and Science Museums . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intervention and Enrichment Programs . .

Intervention Programs

Enrichment Programs.

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box

5-A.

5-B.

5-c .

5-D.

5-E.

5-F.

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Science Centers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5

Page

The EQUALS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Learning by Teaching: The Explainer Program at San Francisco’s

Exploratorium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . .

National Council of La Raze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

American Indian Science and Engineering Society . .

Philadelphia Regional Introduction for Minorities to

Duke University Talent Identification Program.. . . .

Table

Table

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Engineering . ........104

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Page

S-I. Estimated Proportions of Target Populations That Participate in Informal

Science and Engineering Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Chapter 5

Learning Outside of School

The children who see colored shadows on the wall in the Exploratorium have

not “learned” something you can test. But years later, when a teacher tries

to explain light patterns and perception,

deep background that will

National concern about the excellence of American schools has sometimes detracted from the recognition that children learn a great deal out of

school. The influences of family, friends, the media, and other features of the environment outside of school are profound.

The out-of-school environment offers opportunities to raise students’ interest in and awareness of science and mathematics. Table 5-1

presents estimates of the proportion of the schoolage population that participate in science-related

informal education activities. Such informal activities draw strength from the local community—

churches, businesses, voluntary organizations,

and their leaders. All are potential agents of

change. All are potential filters of the images of

science and scientists transmitted by television and

other media. These images are often negative—

nearly always intimidating—and shape young

people’s views of science as a career.

Science centers and museums, for example, can

awaken or reinforce interest, without raising the

spectre of failure for those who lack confidence

in their abilities. (As Frank Oppenheimer, founder

of San Francisco’s famed Exploratorium, noted,

“Nobody flunks a museum.”) Intervention proTHE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILIES

Family circumstances are pivotal influences on

career choice. Parents’ occupations, attitudes, incomes, residences, and socioeconomic class are

all reflected in their children’s lives. Much of a

child’s initial learning about the world, and about

reading, speaking, and writing, takes place in the

family. Families can give children a head start in

this experience will be a part of the

make learning easier.

George W. Tressel, 1988

Table 5-1 .—Estimated Proportions of Target

Populations That Participate in Informal Science

and Engineering Education Programs

Occasional viewers of 3-2-1 Contact

—50 percent of 4- to 12-year-oids

Regular viewers of 3-2-1 Contact

—30-35 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Did a science-related activity after viewing 3-2-1 Contact

—25 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Visit a science center or museum

--25 percent of school-age students each year

Visit a science center or museum

—50 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Visit an aquarium or zoo

—90 percent of 4- to 12-year-olds

Take an inservice course at a science center or museum

—Less than 1 percent of teachers

Participate in an intervention program

—Less than 1 percent of Black and Hispanic students

Participate in an intervention program

—Less than 0.1 percent of female students

Enroll in a weekend or summer science enrichment program

—0.1 percent of high school graduates

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

grams, aimed especially at enriching the mathematics and science preparation of females, Blacks,

Hispanics, and other minorities can rebuild confidence and interest, tapping pools of talent that

are now underdeveloped.

preparing for school, in progressing through the

educational system, and shaping perceptions of

careers. 1

‘This is the motivation for the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s LINKAGES Project, and particularly for the

appeal for minority parental involvement in their children’s education, as illustrated by The College Board, Get Into the Equatjon:

(contlnueci on ne~t page J

91
92

Although it can be illustrated in many ways,

the strong influence of families is indicated by biographic data on winners of the Westinghouse Science Talent Search (WSTS). The WSTS is one of

America’s oldest high school competitions in the

sciences. Between 1942 and 1985, it awarded $2

million to 1,760 young scientists. Its winners have

gone on to earn five Nobel Prizes, two Fields Medals, and four MacArthur Foundation (“genius”)

Awards. Two surveys of previous winners, one

conducted in 1961 and another in 1985,2 suggest

(continued from previous 

 and Science, Parents and Children (New York, NY: College

Entrance Examination Board, September 1987).

 A. Edgerton, Science Early Identification and

Continuing Development (Washington, DC: Science Service, Inc.,

1961 ); and Science Service, Inc., Survey Westinghouse Science

 Search Winners (Washington, DC: Westinghouse Electric

Corp., November 1985).

that parents, close relatives, or teachers played

critical roles in their decisions to become scientists. Male family members were especially important influences (the bulk of the winners were

male). For example, in the 1985 survey, 35 percent of winners had fathers who were professional

scientists or engineers. Among other influences,

62 percent of the WSTS sample cited a professor

or a teacher as playing a major role in their career decision, and 44 percent reported that they

became interested in their current professional

fields in high school.

Parental involvement in education has always

been recognized as important. An innovative

mathematics program called Family Math, based

at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, California, is designed to encourage parents to work

Photo credit: William Mills, Montgomery County Public Schools

Parents are instrumental in shaping their children’s attitudes toward education.
93

with children in solving problems and learning

mathematics. Having parents learn something

about science and mathematics will, in turn, help

children learn.

.

3 

‘David Holdzkom and Pamela B. Lutz, k’esearch JYithin Reach:

Science Education; A Research Guided Response to the Concerns

THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF SCIENCE

The public image of science and engineering

conveyed by television and the other media is ambiguous. On the one hand, science is portrayed

as being of great benefit to economic progress and

to health. On the other, it is portrayed as a sinister force that bestows power on its adherents and

is manipulated by inhumane people. 4 In any

case, the process of scientific and technological

advance is poorly understood by the public. While

the sometimes dismal image of science is one part

of the cacophony of discouraging signals that an

aspiring young scientist receives (and will certainly

cause some students to shun science), evidence

suggests that poor images of science are probably

not a leading cause of students’ failing to pursue

careers in these fields. Academic preparation ultimately is far more important. s

Television Images of Science

The public image of science has been studied

in a number of separate settings over the years.

One study dissected the content of network primetime dramatic programs between 1973 and

1983. ’ The study found that: 1) some aspect of

science and technology appears in 7 of every 10

dramatic television programs; 2) doctors are more

positively portrayed than are scientists; and 3) scientists are not as successful in their on-screen occupations as other occupational groups. In fact,

for every scientist in a major role who fails, two

succeed, whereas for every doctor who fails, five

‘See, for example, Spencer Weart, “The Physicist as Mad Scientist, ” Physics Today, June 1988, pp. 28-37.

‘The following is based on Robert Fullilove, “Images of Science:

Factors Affecting the Choice of Science as a Career, ” OTA contractor

report, September 1987.

‘George Gerbner, “Science on Television: How It Affects Public Conceptionsr ” Issues in Science and Technologyr vol. 3, No. 3,

winter 1987, pp. 109-115.

of Educators (Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory,

1984), pp. 192-202; Beth D. Sattes, Educational Services office, Appalachia Educational Laboratory, “Parent Involvement: A Review

of the Literature, ” unpublished manuscript, November 1985; Jean

Sealey, Appalachia Educational Laboratory}, “Parent Support and

Involvement, ” R&D Interpretation Service Bulletin in Science, n.d.;

Jean Kerr Stenmark et al., Family Math (Berkeley, CA: Regents of

the University of California, 1986); and The College Board, op. cit,,

footnote 1,

succeed, and for every law enforcer who fails,

eight succeed. The study also documented a link

between these images and viewers’ attitudes and

concluded that, while television dramas generally

presented positive images of science, the more that

viewers see, the more they perceive scientists as

odd and peculiar.

Television is a pervasive influence on many students’ lives.7 It is argued that the effects of television viewing may be strongest for children under 11 years old, because up until that age children

are continuing to develop interpretive skills and

sophistication in analyzing the content of material. 8 Children’s attitudes toward televised material will be influenced, in other words, by what

they have seen and learned of the world. As children grow older, television is critical in the formation of an understanding of social relationships

and of the social forces that govern adult life. This

window on the adult world may be particularly

important in shaping attitudes toward careers and

occupations, because adolescents have few social

contacts outside their own age group. ”

Television viewing can have positive and negative effects. It can promote racial and sexual

stereotypes and perceptions of occupational segregation, or help change attitudes toward the races

Unpublished data from the mathematics and science assessments

of the 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate

that 24 percent of Blacks in grade 11 and 44 percent of Blacks in

grade 7 watch 6 hours or more of television daily, compared to 9

percent and 24 percent for the whole populations in grades i’ and

11, respectively (Marion G. Epstein, Educational Testing Service,

personal communication, June 1987).

8Fullilove, op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 30-3b,

“Gary W. Peterson and David F. Peters, “Adolescents’ Construction of Social Reality: The Impact of Television and Peers, ” Youth

and Soc~ety, VOI. 15, No. 1, September 1983, pp. 65-85. Also see

Joan Ganz Cooney, “We Need a ‘Sesame Street’ for Big Kids: Television Can Help Our Children Learn Math and Science for the ‘90s, ”

Washington Post, Sept. 11, 1988, pp. 16-17.
94

and sexes, depending on the content of programmingo

10 Heavy television viewing reduces the

time students spend on homework, thus depressing their academic performance. However, television viewing by adolescents is reported to have

remained roughly constant over the time that, for

example, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have

fallen.”

From a policy perspective, however, even if a

link between television portrayals of science and

engineering and career aspirations were established, the challenge would be to design television

programming that could affect those aspirations

positively. Research suggests that it is easier to

change attitudes, and therefore aspirations, than

to change behaviors .12

Students’ Images of Science

In a nationwide study sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS) in 1957, high school students were asked

to compose short essays describing their impressions of scientists and their work. Margaret Mead

and Rhoda Metraux wrote a composite description of science and of scientists from their reading of 35,000 such essays .13 They found that:

The number of ways in which the image of the

scientist contains extremes which appear to be

1°Fullilove, op. cit., footnote 5.

1lMark Fetler, “Television and Reading Achievement: A Secondary Analysis of Data From the 1979-80 National Assessment of

Educational Progress, ” presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1983; and Barbara

Ward et al., The Relationship of Students’ Academic Achievement

to Television Watching, Leisure Time Reading and Homework

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, September 1983).

Television viewing has been cited as one of the possible causes for

the decline in the Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of America’s collegebound students that occurred in the 1970s. See College Entrance Examination Board, On Further Examination: Report of the Advisory

Panel on the Scholastic Aptitude Test Score Decline (New York,

NY: 1977). See also, U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office,

Educational Achievement: Explanations and Implications of Recent

Trends (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1987), pp. 69-71.

121cek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and

Predicting Social Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

1980); and J. Baggaley, “From Ronald Reagan to Smoking Cessation: The Analysis of Media Impact ,“ New Directions in Education

and Training Technology, B.S. Alloway and G.M. Mills (eds. ) (New

York, NY: Nicholds Publishing Co., 1985).

13 Margaret Mead and Rhoda Metraux, “Image of the Scientist

Among High-School Students, ” Science, vol. 126, Aug. 30, 1957,

pp. 384-390.

contradictory-too much contact with money or

too little; being bald or bearded; confined to work

indoors, or traveling far away; talking all the time

in a boring way, or never talking at all—all represent deviations from the accepted way of life,

from being a normal friendly human being, who

lives like other people and gets along with other

people.

A 1977 study, 20 years after the work of Mead

and Metraux, found that perceptions had changed

little. Over 4,OOO children from kindergarten to

grade five in Montreal, Canada, were asked to

draw pictures of what they thought a scientist

looked like. The dominant image of scientists

found by Mead and Metraux a generation earlier

was held by younger students as well. In addition, more elements of the stereotype appear as

students advance through the grades.14

The Potential of

Educational Television

Educational television can be a powerful way

to introduce new images and teach students. A

prominent example is the Children’s Television

Workshop’s 3-2-1 Contact, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Education, and broadcast daily on most

public television stations. This show’s target audience is children 8 to 12 years old (although many

younger children watch as well). Its aim is to interest these students in science, with particular emphasis on female and minority children. Extensive research has been done on this series. It is

estimated that the series is seen in nearly onequarter of all households with at least one child

under 11 years old. Themes in 3-2-1 Contact are

echoed in series-related science clubs and a maga-

“David Wade Chambers, “Stereotypic Images of the Scientist:

The Draw-A-Scientist Test,” Science Education, vol. 67, No. 2, 1983,

pp. 255-265, The stereotypes apparently persist into adulthood, although for many citizens the ambivalence toward science never subsides. Etzioni and Nunn found in a review of national public opinion polls on the attitudes of Americans toward science that most

Americans value science for its contribution to the Nation’s high

standard of living; similarly, Americans hold generally favorable

opinions of scientists and trust their judgment. But images of what

a scientist does remain fuzzy, and opinions on science vary significantly by age, education, region, socioeconomic class, and personality type. Amitai Etzioni and Clyde Nunn, “The Public Appreciation of Science in Contemporary America, ” Science and Its Public:

The Changing Relationship, G. Holton and W.A. Blanpied (eds. )

(Boston, MA: D. Reidel, 1977), pp. 229-243.
95

zinc, and it is estimated that one-half of all viewers

have done some science-related activity,*’

The impact of a television message may depend

more on the characteristics of the viewer, such

as his or her age, than on the characteristics of

the message. OTA finds no compelling support

for the hypothesis that poor images of science by

themselves deter students from science and engineering careers. Television is a powerful force,

both for good and for bad, but its effect also depends on the prior experience and knowledge of

viewers.

“Research Communications, Ltd., “An Exploratory 

 Contact Viewership, ” National Science Foundation contractor

report, June 1987.

The Informal Environments Offered by

Science Centers and Science Museums

Science centers and museums aim to bring science alive with exhibits and displays that show

scientific phenomena in action, and dedicated

staffs determined to spark interest in science. They

have important positive effects on students’ attitudes toward science and knowledge of physical

phenomena.

Science museums were first set up to house and

archive the achievements of science and technology through artifacts such as experimental apparatus, machines, field notes, and pictures. As attitudes toward science and science learning have

changed, new institutions, called science centers,

have sprung up with the primary aim of exciting

and educating visitors in science and technology

rather than of chronicling its history. 1“ Indeed,

this development was presaged by science museums. At the turn of the century, the Deutsches

Museum in Munich, West Germany, was the first

science museum to invite the public to participate

in its exhibits, and to introduce cutaways and

working models to encourage the public to learn

about how things work rather than what they

look like. This model was soon copied for use in

the new Chicago Museum of Science and Industry in the 1930s. The preeminent example of a science center is the Exploratorium, in San Francisco,

which opened in 1972.

Today, both science museums and science

centers use “hands-on” exhibits to illustrate scientific principles through “object-based learning”

that schools and school systems often cannot provide because the equipment is too expensive or

unavailable .17 Science centers are also making

increasing use of new technology such as computers, video, and videodiscs, both as exhibits in

their own right, and as a means of illustrating scientific and technological concepts.

 Sheila “Science Centers Come of Age, ” 

Science & Technology, 4, No. 3, spring 1988, 70-7s.

 Michael Templeton, “The Science Museum: Object Lessons

in Informal Education, ” Annual 1987, Marvin (cd. )

(Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association, forthcoming ).
96

Learning in Science Centers

The learning that occurs in a science center is

grounded in the relevance of science to practical

daily life, in arousing curiosity, and in allowing

people to explore and explain for themselves.

Most important, it has no particular aim; no tests

are in sight, no goals are prescribed or proscribed,

and visitors are free to choose the exhibits that

they would like to explore in detail and to ignore

the rest. The function of these centers, from the

point of view of the education of future scientists

and engineers, is not so much to teach scientific

concepts, as to interest students and to relate abstract learning in schools to experience of how

physical phenomena work and can be altered by

humans.

Nationally, there are about 150 centers and

museums dedicated to improving public understanding of science and technology; an umbrella

organization, the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), represents most of these

centers. A recent survey by ASTC indicated that

these 150 centers had about 45 million visitors in

1986, up from 32.5 million in 1979.18 part of this

increase is due to expansion in the number of science centers; over one-half opened after 1960, and

16 percent opened after 1980. The survey suggests

that as many children and young people as adults

visit the centers. Probably about 6 million children and young people come on school trips. Interest in science centers is very high. Once largely

the preserve of large cities, centers are now being built in many smaller towns, cities, and rural

areas.

The people who work in science centers are

skilled at helping both adults and children learn

about science. Science centers’ target audience is

the population that is curious but not confident

about science. About 100 science centers conduct

mathematics and science teacher training programs, funded by school districts, States, or Title 11 funds from the Federal Government. These

programs often aim at elementary and middle

school teachers, many of whom have almost no

grounding in science. About 65,000 teachers parlsThe~e and data cited below are from Association of ScienceTechnology Centers, “Basic Science Center Data Survey 1988, ” unpublished.

Photo credit: Nancy Rodger, Exploratorium

Science centers, which allow children to touch and

play with equipment and exhibits, expose them to

scientific concepts in an appealing setting.

ticipated in such programs in 1985. Few centers

have programs for high school teachers.19

Science centers have developed close working

relations with school systems in the areas in which

they serve, while remaining independent of them.

This unique role is often cited as being useful, because it allows the centers to take risks and experiment in science education in ways that school

systems find difficult. Nancy Kreinberg, Director of the EQUALS program (see box 5-A) based

at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, California, has put it this way:

We are in the schools, but we are not of the

schools. We are in the community, but we don’t

represent one faction of the community. We are

seen as representing a lot of different interests, and

I think that is an enormous source of strength that

every science center has to offer .20

A novel program run by the San Diego School

District sends every fifth grader in the city to

spend a week at Balboa Park, the city’s museum

district. A special team of teachers spends the

week with the students, exploring both art and

science museums. Although designed primarily to

assist racial desegregation (the students are formed

‘9Jacalyn Bedworth (cd.), Science Teacher Education at Museums: A Resource Guide (Washington, DC: Association of ScienceTechnology Centers, 1985).

~OAssociation of Science-Technology Centers, Natural Partners:

How Science Centers and Community Groups Can Team Up to increase Science Literacy (Washington, DC: July 1987).
9 7

Box 5-A.—The EQUALS Program

EQUALS is a program designed to improve the

awareness of gender- and race-related issues in

mathematics and science education. It. encompasses projects for teachers, counselors, adrnini~

trators, parents, and school board members to

promote the participation of female and minority

students in mathematics and computer courses.

EQUALS provides curriculum materials, staff development seminars, and family learning opportunities. It is located at the Lawrence Hall of Science (University of California at Berkeley). Since

1977, 14,000 California educators and 9,000 educators from 36 other States and abroad have participated in EQUALS courses. Sites have been

established across the United States.

Evaluation data from extensive interviews and

questionnaires indicate that EQUALS programs

increase student enrollment in advanced science

and mathematics classes, improve attitudes and

interest in related occupations, enhance the

professional growth of teachers, and, perhaps

most importantly, encourage parent involvement

in the schools (the Family Math Program is currently being evaluated with National Science

Foundation funds). EQUALS publications, including We All Count in Family Math and I’m

Madly in Love With Electricity and Other Comments About Their Work by Women in Science

and Engineering, are geared for use in all types

of “classrooms,” since the emphasis is on handson, active problem solving. Materials in Spanish are also available and widely used.

SOURCE: EQUALS Program, Lawrence Hall of Science, Univwaity of California at Serkeley.

into heterogeneous groups of 5 to 10 students

drawn from different schools, neighborhoods,

races, and ethnicities), the program makes use of

existing facilities that are neither available to

schools nor would readily fit into existing school

learning patterns and curricula.21

Costs and Benefits

A recent survey indicates that the average science center costs about $1.5 million per year to

run, and that most charge between 75 cents and

“Judy Diamond, Natural History Museum, San Diego, personal

communication, June 1988.

$5 for admission.22 About 40 percent of expenses

incurred by the average center are defrayed by

admissions, memberships and other fees, and

from sales of souvenirs and food; State and local

districts pay, on average, about 28 percent of the

costs, while corporations contribute another 10

percent. The average contribution of the Federal

Government to ASTC member centers is 6 percent, but the bulk of this goes to the three centers

it wholly supports .23 The remaining centers receive, on average, just 2 percent of their income

from Federal sources.

Several Federal programs fund science centers,

including the Informal Science Education Program

of NSF, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the

Institute of Museum Services, and the Department

of Education’s Secretary’s Discretionary Fund.

Only the Institute of Museum Services will contribute toward routine operating expenses (and

it sets a limit on its contribution of $75,000 per

museum per year); the other sources will fund

only particular programs and novel educational

projects. Indirect Federal support has in the past

also come from contributions of equipment and

facilities. (Seattle’s successful Pacific Science Center, for example, is housed in the United States

pavilion built for the 1962 World’s Fair, which

was given free to the center. )

Evaluations of the effects of science centers on

students are limited. The research that has been

done indicates that science centers can be effective arenas to demonstrate aspects of the natural

world, but have more limited impacts in conveying understanding of the scientific concepts underlying particular exhibits. Visitors often acquire

lasting memories of phenomena, such as the formation of a rainbow by the use of a prism, but

are less readily able to explain what they have seen

or give the proper scientific terms that describe

the phenomena. Written information beside exhibits is not often well assimilated. Visitors thus

ZZA]l data in this paragraph are from Association of ScienceTechnology Centers, op. cit., footnote 18. Note that this database

excludes a few science centers and museums that are not association members.

~~These three centers are the Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of American History in Washington, DC (both part

of the Smithsonian Institution), and the Bradbury Science Museum,

Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
98

build up a good intuition of how things work,

based on their experience of phenomena, but little analytical knowledge. Students who are used

to figuring things out for themselves, ignoring instructions, often find science centers interesting;

the style of learning that science centers employ

is radicalIy different from that in formal classrooms where the emphasis is often on obeying

rules and memorizing facts.

Learning that takes place in science centers is

thus difficult to measure using conventional tests

of factual recall (which do not demonstrate “learning” at all), but is clearly important. When families visit and explore exhibits together, parents

can often become more confident about science

and hence more supportive of any interest that

their children might develop.24 An interesting

study of the “Explainer” program at the Exploratorium, in which nonscientifically inclined but enthusiastic high school students explain particular

exhibits to visitors, found that, 10 years later,

former Explainers were still very interested and

confident in science, academic pursuits, and work

experiences. (See box 5-B. )

ASTC is working to improve attendance and

use of science centers by females and minorities,

and is encouraging its members to form links with

24 Diamond, op. cit., footnote 21.

community and service organizations in the female and minority communities, such as the National Urban League, Girls Clubs of America, and

the National Action Council for Minorities in

Engineering. 25 Several foundations are helping

fund such outreach programs. Minority students,

in particular, often need to be encouraged to develop interests in science and engineering, and science centers can help build their confidence in

these areas. Several science centers have held

highly successful “camp-ins,” in which students

or teachers spend a whole night learning and playing in a science center,

Informal Learning

Informal education, then, is not just museums

and science centers. Informal learning also takes

place through reading, watching television, visiting libraries, and participating in clubs. It is this

additional informal education, as one NSF staffer

puts it—4-H Clubs, Girl’s Club of America, Girl

Scouts—that warrants”. . . a concerted effort to

give kids direct hands-on experience. ”26

‘

sAssociation of Science-Technology Centers, op cit., footnote

18. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s

Office of Opportunities in Science, through its LINKAGES project,

has been the source of many activities spearheaded by the Association of Science-Technology Centers.

2’George W. Tressel, “The Role of Informal Learning in Science

Education, ” presented to the Chicago Academy of Sciences, Nov.

14, 1987, p. 11.

INTERVENTION AND ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS

Some kinds of informal education programs are

designed to enrich, or even replace, traditional

schooling in mathematics and science. One form

is the “intervention program, ” designed to improve educational opportunities for special groups

not often well served in regular classrooms (particularly females and minorities). Other programs

for the entire school population allow students to

participate, for example, in science experiments

in research laboratories, including Federal laboratories, or to enhance their progress through the

regular school mathematics and science curriculum. These programs are known as enrichment

progams,

Intervention Programs

Ideally, all students would have access in school

to high-quality courses in mathematics and science, and their teachers, fellow students, and guidance counselors would be sensitive to the overt

and covert racism and sexism that interferes with

learning. In ‘practice, however, the quality of

courses is very uneven, and social attitudes still

deter females and minorities from pursuing further science and engineering study. While schools

are reforming and improving the situation, change

is slow and certainly lagging the demographic

changes already occurring. Negative attitudes
99

Box 5-B.—Learning by Teaching: The Explainer Program at San Franasco’s Exploratorium

One of the most powerful ways to learn is by teaching others. The Explainer program at San Francisco’s Exploratorium, a science center designed to offer visitors maximum involvement with scientific

phenomena and experiments, gives a small group of enthusiastic just this chance. Explainers are

located around some of the Exploratorium’s exhibits to help visitors by conducting demonstrations, answering questions, and sparking discussion about the concepts that the exhibits convey. The Explainer program is intended both as a service to visitors to the ExpIoratorium, and as a work and educational program

to give teenagers an appreciation for science and for learning.

The Exploratorium recruits Explainers from local high schools for their enthusiasm for working with

the public, rather than for their interest in science as such. The program deliberately reaches out to students outside the academic and science mainstream; good grades or interest in science are not prerequisites,

and in fact are not desired. Potential Explainers have to be friendIy and keen to help visitors, and represent

diversity among the population. Over one-half of Explainers are from minority groups; they are equally

divided between males and females.

Explainers are hired for a 4-month session, are paid an hourly wage, and receive about sO hours of

paid training before and during the job. The program costs the Exploratorium about $250,000 per year

(or about $4,000 to $5,000 per Explainer). Most Explainers work only one session.

An evaluation of nearly 900 alumni of the Explainer program was conducted in 1985-86. 1 Former Explainers universally report that their stint at the Exploratorium was a tremendous learning and social experience, as well as a boost to their self-esteem. One of the greatest benefits the Explainers cited was working intensely with a small, diverse group (15 to 20 Explainers work with visitors at any one session), and

enjoying professional camaraderie with the Exploratorium staff. Explainers acquired confidence in their

ability to learn about subjects they had previously thought inaccessible. They learned to deal with not knowing “all the answers”; they also developed communication and people skills that they later found valuable

at college and in the workplace.

Among the comments made by former Explainers were these:

There would be times when something didn’t catch my interest in class, but it did when I learned it

here. It was hands on. There was actual proof. It wasn’t something read from a textbook.

I learned to tolerate a lot of my own mistakes. . . . You learn to appreciate that you can learn from

those that know better. Once at an eye dissection, I got into a conversation with an ophthalmology student.

I’d be explaining things but all of a sudden I was learning new stuff by talking to this guy.

It got rid of a stigma for me and let me go and pursue science, which is really what I wanted to do

in the first place. I found out that, yeah, you can enjoy science and you’re not weird if you do, so why

not? Before, I would just keep it to myself, I never told anybody that I read science books before I came here.

That was one of the key things to come out of the Exploratoriuxn experience: becoming a people-oriented

person. When you explain something and you see the spark in people’s eyes, you are enriching them. You

are giving them something, and in return you’re getting the feeling that you are enriching their lives.

Part of the reason I liked it a lot was that it gave me the feeling that I was teaching for the first time.

1 was showing people things instead of always having them shown to me.

In sum, the curiosity and desire to learn that Explainers acquired stayed with them in their later lives. ,

Women were much more likely than the men to report that they becae interested in science and engineering and improved their communication skills as a result of the ExpIainer program. Students who were

already interested in science and engineering strengthened their confidence; other students gained general

self-esteem and were encouraged to go to college.

The Explainer program also helps visitors enjoy themselves and learn. Explainers can particularly help

reach their peers—other teenagers who traditionlly have been tough customers for science centers and

IJudy Diamond et al., The Exploratorium, ‘The Exploratorium Explainer Program: The Long-Term Impact on Teenagers of Teaching Science to

the Public and a Survey of Science Museum Programs for High School Students, ”mimeo, June 19s6. The Explainer program has operated since the

opening of the museum in 1%9. For the study, 32 representative alumni were interviewed at length, and a questiomaire was developed on the basis

of those interviews and sent out to former Explainers. Other information on Explainers was gathered from interviews with museum visitors and applicants to the Explainer program.
100

toward careers in science and engineering conveyed by influences outside schools, such as the

media, families, and friends, will not readily be

altered.

Against this background, special efforts to intervene must be made in order to attract and encourage females and minorities in science and

engineering. Most of these efforts, though few in

number, take place out of school during students’

free time. Although intervention programs have

only been in existence for about 20 years, many

successful techniques have been developed for

boosting the self-image, enthusiasm, and academic

preparation of females and minorities for science

and engineering careers. Indeed, some of these

techniques (such as stressing the relevance of science understanding to everyday experiences, the

use of small groups, and participation in handson activities) clearly warrant dissemination to the

entire population of students.

The Content and Reach of

Intervention Programs

The Office of Opportunities in Science of

AAAS collects data on intervention programs,

and is an enthusiastic advocate of them. 27 The

programs differ from each other considerably in

terms of their longevity, bases of operation,

sources of support, goals, and quality. Universities, museums, and research centers house the

?,TA~~~iC~~ A~~ociation for the Advancement of Science, Office

of Opportunities in Science, “Partial List of Precollege Mathematics

and Science Programs for Minority and/or Female Students by

State, ” unpublished manuscript, July 1987;and Shirley M. Malcom

et al., Equity and Excellence: Compatible Goals; An Assessment

of Programs That Facilitate Increased Access and Achievement of

Females and Minorities in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education, AAAS 84-14 (Washington, DC: American Association for the

Advancement of Science, Office of Opportunities in Science, December 1984).

majority of intervention programs, and many

serve junior high and high school students. Most

effective intervention programs involve learning

science by doing, rather than through lectures or

reading; working closely with small groups of

other students; contact with attentive advisors,

mentors, and role models who foster self-confidence and high aspirations; and an emphasis on

disseminating information about science and engineering careers. Intervention programs for minority students often reach a high percentage of

females as well, both minority and majority.

Evaluations suggest that early, sustained intervention can bring minority achievement to the same

level as that of white males.

AAAS has examined exemplary intervention

programs and has found that they have strong

leadership, highly committed and trained

teachers, parental support, adequate resources,

a sustained focus on careers in science and engineering, clear goals, and continual evaluation.

Many combine academic and informal learning,

and involve teachers and parents. They often focus on enriching students’ experiences in science,

rather than in providing remedial treatment for

the poor quality experiences that most students

have had from formal education; many also stress

techniques, such as peer learning, that help students learn how to learn. The intervention programs that work best start early in students’

educational careers and have a long-term focus,

with the ultimate goal of making successful intervention techniques part of the normal apparatus of the school system.

Most intervention programs require extraordinary staff commitment and support, and are not

easy to replicate in other locations. The most

talented teachers and leaders can only fully serve

a limited number of students, even using technol89-126 0 - 88 - 3
101

ogies such as distance learning. Some programs

have, however, been replicated. Perhaps the most

successful is the Mathematics, Engineering, and

Science Achievement (MESA) program based in

Berkeley, California. MESA-modeled programs

now operate in about 10 other States.

Differences Among Intervention Programs

Intervention programs recognize the different

problems that can face females and minorities in

science and engineering. Most females, for example, have access to the high school science and

mathematics courses that they would need for science and engineering careers; the issue is one of

self-image and self-confidence. Some female students mistakenly believe they do not even need

to take optional mathematics and science courses

for entry to science and engineering majors in college. In addition, during group work in classrooms, male students frequently dominate experimental equipment and computers, leaving female

students taking notes and acting as “secretaries. ”

In all-female intervention programs, each student

can fully participate in operating equipment and

enjoy the whole experience of making scientific

observations. Intervention programs need to focus on encouraging an interest in science and improving student self-confidence in mathematics

and science.

Many minorities, on the other hand, do not

have access to the necessary mathematics and science courses and are less likely than whites to plan

to attend college. While many Blacks and Hispanics are interested and aware of science and

engineering careers—historically a route to social

mobility—they lack the preparation to enter

them. Accordingly, intervention programs need

to improve the probability that minorities will be

prepared to attend college at all, and then focus

on improving their learning of mathematics and

science .28

Within the minority population, however, there

are significant differences that affect the design

of intervention programs. Many Mexican-Americans come from poor rural backgrounds and have

strong family bonds, but tend to receive little encouragement at home for “book learning. ” CubanAmerican students often come from well-educated

families and do very well in academic coursework.

Black students in northern cities may be aware

of the rewards of science and engineering, but are

often poor and enrolled in poorly funded school

systems; their access to necessary courses is

limited. Black students in the South, however, are

more likely to live in rural areas, and have less

knowledge of (and correspondingly, interest in)

science and engineering careers. Programs for

Black students are needed early in their educational careers, because deficiencies in preparation

accumulate at an early age. Asian-Americans are

often very well prepared for science and engineering careers, but those from territories of the United

States with significant Asian populations, Pacific

Islanders such as American Samoa, tend to lack

preparation. Boxes 5-C, 5-D, and 5-E illustrate a

variety of intervention programs.

Funding Intervention Programs

Despite the effort that has been put into developing intervention programs in the last two decades, and the urgent need for them, there is still

only a modest number of programs and, collectively, they reach only a small proportion of their

target populations. The leaders of several major

intervention programs meet as the National Association of Precollege Directors (NAPD), which

estimates that intervention programs reach 40,000

minority students annually (or less than 1 percent

of the total minority student population). But

25,000 participants in NAPD programs have graduated from high school, over half to major in science or engineering .29 Expansion is limited both

by the shortage of individuals prepared to commit the time and energy necessary to initiate these

programs and by lack of funding. A local base

of support seems to be an essential ingredient of

success.

Some intervention programs owe their origins

to Federal funding. Many today are supported by

States, foundations, and industry. Federal funds,

28For discussion of the more general goal, see Gloria De

Necochea, “Expanding the Hispanic College Pool: Pre-College Strategies That Work, ” Change, May/June 1988, pp. 61-65.

*qJoel B. Aranson, “NSF Initiatives—A Minority View, ” Opportunities for Strategic Investment in K-12 Science Education: Options

for the National Science Foundation, Michael S. Knapp et al. (eds. )

(Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), vol. 2, p. 112.

89-136 0 - 88 - 4
102

Box 5-C.-National Council of La k

The National Council of La I&a is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has program Qffices in

Phoenix, Edinburg (Texas), and Los Angeles. Over the Iast several years, the organizatiort bdawbped

and demonstrated five innovative community-based approaches to improve the educMomd status of

Hispanics. Three of the five projects cater to precollege students in special %&risk” populatkms; the other

two focus on the needs of parents and teachers. Origid support was provided by the American Can Co.

Foundation, and further funding has come from AT&T and Carn@e Corp. ~ants. Pr-tiI@nsas~ty,

Phoenix, and Houston recently received grants from Time, Inc. and the Xerox Corp. Projects in Several

other cities have community and foundation funding.

The council’s educational programs supplement school offerings, their ratkmale being mat enrichtnmt

programs improve the educational experience of Hispanic children more than do re-p-arns that

repeat school lessons. The counciI serves as a national advocacy cwganizatitm to encourage $ystemcareforms in teacher training, continuing education, and effective sclmd practices. Ptoject coordinators am

confident that much change can be initiated through community-generated local pmjacts, The five

community-based approaches are the Academia del Pueblo, Project Success, Project fkcord Chwtce, Parents as Partners, and the Teacher Support Network.

The problems of early academic failure and the large number of Hispanic chikkm wh~ muat repaat

grades are addressed by the Academia de~ Pueblo, which provides after-scbd and mmmm %ackies”

for elementary school-aged children. These efforts help students meet and exceed gmde prornntiotirequirements. Project Success provides career and academic counseling to help j@or M@ stude@s r~ their

expectations and to support their eventuzd progress to h@ tiwl gr~uat~. Pr~ject_@w~ tvgets dropouts using volunteer mentors and tutors. The Parents as P~tners -am was dw-to r@rtforce the concept that parents are effective teadwrs, a concept that”is k,~sx

communities. l%is project trains and assists paregts to encourage and be tut~~~ th& a.T& Te#wr

Support Network brings together cwnrnunity resources to train and support M_h~ nonff~dc

teachers who work with Hispanic children.

The council assists demonstration sites with the necessary tra’ “ arid twhnkal ‘ “’ *go impk- -dti ment the models, and monitors and evaluates the projects. The court

demonstration projects. A necessary component of any council program is tkb develb-t ofp$@k@urtd

Spanish language skills, either as an in@grd component of the curriculum orasa second hirqpx~’. k &Mition, the council is assisting the Association of Science-Technology Centers to identify M_ communi#ybased organizations with a mathematics and science education focus to encourage their partiapatkm in

science centers and museums.

however, play an important base role. Since many and age; intervention programs began to attract

intervention programs piggy-back on existing facilities in schools, science centers, research laboratories, and universities, the programs are

relatively inexpensive. They are labor- not capitalintensive, and many have budgets of several hundred dollars per student. (College-level programs

tend to be more expensive, sometimes around several thousand dollars per student, although this

sum might include tuition and scholarship

support. )

Intervention programs were one outgrowth of

the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Federal

law eventually was extended to address many

forms of discrimination, by race, sex, handicap,

Federal funding as a way of breaking down some

of the barriers to full participation of these groups

in science and engineering. One source of the

funding was the Women’s Educational Equity Act

of 1974, administered by the Department of Education. Another was grants for State programs,

funded under Title IX of the Higher Education

Amendments of 1974. Federal funds have often

acted, and been most effective, as seed funding

to initiate intervention programs; if successful,

such programs have sometimes then been funded

by States and industry in their community.

By contrast, NSF historically has not emphasized either intervention programs or other ways
103 — — — .

Photo credit: William Mi//s, Montgomery County Pub//c Schoo/s

Intervention programs, like the summer research programs for Hispanic students shown here, give students a chance

to work together on real research projects.

Box 5-D.—American Indian Science and Engineering Society

The American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) is a nonpolitical national organization

of American Indian scientists and engineers. The society’s primary purpose is to expand American Indian

participation in science and engineering careers and to promote technical awareness among other Indians.

Since it was founded in 1977, AISES has grown to represent 61 tribes in 36 States and Canada. Projects

are designed to encourage academic excellence at all education levels. The precollege programs coordinate

teacher training seminars and summer enrichment programs, provide materials (including computers), introduce role models through science fairs and camps, sponsor competitions, coordinate student chapters,

and publish newsletters and videotapes. Collegiate programs include mentorships, internships, and workshops. The Collegiate Chapter Program includes an annual 2-day conference for leadership training and

focuses on providing scholarship information and peer support at 35 institutions. Professional programs

are also available for Indian scientists and engineers.

Funding sources are public and private, including the National Science Foundation, the Department

of Education Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Hewlett Packard, and Hughes Aircraft. The society also earns some income from the publication of Winds of Change, a quarterly magazine designed to disseminate information on educational

opportunities and AISES activities, and to promote involvement of Indian and non-Indian participants in

Indian concerns. To benefit from AISES programs, schools and agencies must affiliate with the society.

The society’s annual conference brings together Indian students, the affiliates, and non-lndian professionals

from the public and private sectors.

SOURCE: American Indian Science and Engineering Society, Boulder, CO.
104

taining financial aid. Enrollment

PRIME serves more than 3,000 students each year. Recent statistics show that 92 percent of PRIME

high school graduates college, and 73 percent of those enter technical and/or engineering programs.

Eighty-five percent earn baccalaureate degrees.

‘‘* .

.

of improving the “career chances” of females and

minorities in science and engineering. NSF programs that have had some success include: the

Women in Science program (1974-76, 1979-81);

the Resource Centers for Science and Engineering program, aimed at minorities (1978-81); and

the Research Apprenticeship for Minority High

School Students (1980-82). None of these programs was reestablished when NSF’s Science and

Engineering Education (SEE) Directorate was reborn in 1983, although the Research Apprenticeship for Minority High School Students and the

Resource Centers program have recently been

resurrected. With these two exceptions, none of

SEE’s current programs directly address “underrepresented” groups. Programs for these groups

have not been well funded through other NSF efforts, although some receive funding (for example, through Science and Mathematics Education

Networks, and Teacher Enhancement). SEE encourages the submission of proposals for projects

to address underrepresented groups.30

Funding sources for intervention programs have

varied according to the program’s target populations. Mission agencies have set different priorities. NSF and the Department of Education have

established intervention programs for females;

foundations, the military, and other Federal agencies (such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, and the Department of Energy)

While the National Science Foundation proposed two specific

minority programs for fiscal year 1988 and is planning more, their

approach has been criticized as insufficient for the magnitude of the

problem. See ibid., pp. 111-112.
105

have tended to fund programs for minorities.

Overall, however, there have been few sustained

funders of “women in science” programs. Much

targeted human resource support is done institutionally to categories such as historically Black

colleges and universities. But this support, too,

seems modest relative to the number of lives they

are supposed to change and careers they claim to

launch.”

Initially, intervention programs were based outside schools. Schools, in fact, have often been

viewed by advocates of intervention programs as

part of the problem rather than part of the solution. But in recent years, schools have increasingly begun to work with intervention programs

such as the METRO Achievement Program in

Chicago. Interventions such as the Ford Foundation’s Urban Mathematics Collaborative work

directly with mathematics teachers outside the

310TA research found that benefactors scale down their gifts to

fit their expectations of success when historically Black institutions

are involved. Foundations that give $1 million to an Ivy League

school will give an institution with primarily minority enrollment

$100,000 for the same activity. Also see Tom Junod, “Are Black

Colleges Necessary?” Atlanta, vol. 27, October 1987, pp. 78-81.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that intervention and enrichment programs are a valuable supplement to formal education. The expectations and attitudes of parents

and teachers; differential access to courses, instrumentation, and educational technologies; and

lack of information or mentoring by role models

lead many female and minority students away

from science and engineering careers. The magnitude and complexity of the problem requires a

large and continuing effort.

Experience with intervention programs has provided considerable knowledge on elements of successful models to replicate in future programs. The

reasons why intervention programs have failed,

not surprisingly, have tended not to be well documented.

school systems in the cities that the program

serves; this frees teachers from the organizational

and attitudinal constraints that such systems engender. It is important that intervention programs

complement efforts to improve the formal education system.

Enrichment Programs

Many programs are designed to enrich or speed

the progress of talented individuals through science and mathematics courses. Several Federal

laboratories, most prominently those of the Department of Energy, provide summer research

participation programs that allow students to experience science in the flesh by active participation in real research. While there is no conclusive

evidence that such programs change students’ career destinations, they have a potent effect in confirming student inclinations that research can be

fun. Several universities operate summer courses

in mathematics and science for talented individuals. The best known are the Center for the Advancement of Talented Youth at The Johns Hopkins University and the Talent Identification

Program at Duke University. (See box 5-F. )

When provided with early, excellent, and sustained instruction and guidance, the achievement

levels of females and minorities in science and

engineering can match those of any other student.

In other words, there are no inherent barriers to

participation. The Federal role in intervention programs is to encourage new starts, possibly to expand funding, and to provide networks for the

elements of successful programs to be disseminated and shared. Some programs should be

based in schools, while others should not. Tailoring each to the needs of specific populations,

circumstances, and problems, is, in this domain

as well as in many other areas of education, the

key to success.
106
Improving Sc

Chapter 6

hool Mathematics
CONTENTS

Page

The Systemic Nature of the Problems Facing American Schools. . .............109

Incremental and Radical Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..110

Local and State Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........110

Federal Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................115

The Federal Interest in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education. . ..........115

Evaluation of Federal Science and Mathematics Education Programs. . . .. ....118

Title II of the Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 . . . . . . . . ........123

Data and Research Funded by the Department of Education and the

National Science Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...126

Education Programs in the Mission Research Agencies . . . . . . . . . ............127

Rethinking the Federal Role in Mathematics and Science Education. . ..........131

Boxes

Box Page

6-A. Opportunities for Future Investment in K-12 Mathematics and Science

Education: Recommendations by SRI International to NSF’s Science and

Engineering Education Directorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...111

6-B. Problems in Evaluating Science Education Programs . ...................119

6-C. 4-H: Five Million Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................130

Figure

Figure Page

6-1. Distribution of Federal Funds Appropriated Under Title II of the Education

for Economic Security Act of 1984 . . . . . . . . ............................124

Tables

Table Page

6-1. Summary of Kinds of Local Initiatives to Reform K-12 Mathematics and

Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................112

6-2. Comparison of Recommended and Actual Amounts of Time Devoted to

Mathematics and Science in Elementary Schools . .......................114

6-3. Recommended Number of Courses in Mathematics and Science Needed for

High School Graduation, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..114

6-4. Summary of Mission Agency K-12 Mathematics and Science Education

Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................128
Chapter 6

Improving School Mathematics

and Science Education

Now when 1 say “education, “ I’m going beyond what is in NSF’S Science and

Engineering Education Directorate and looking at the education capabilities

and programs of the foundation [NSF]. We have the responsibility

capabilities along the whole educational pipeline. 1 don’t think

agency, whether State or Federal, has that mission.

to advance

any other

Erich Bloch, 1988

The American system of public schooling is

large, diverse, and stolid. Pressure to reform various features of the system, especially curricula,

graduation standards, and the education of

teachers, has been building since at least the early1980s, and some change, much of it led by the

States, has been realized. The “education reform

movement, ” as it is called, has drawn strength and

encouragement from leaders in government, education, business, and higher educational Much

of the pressure for reform has been bolstered by

economic arguments, stressing the need for international competitiveness and the industrial advantages of a well-educated work force.

ing Office, 1983); and Gerald Holton (cd.), “ ‘A Nation at Risk’

Revisited, ” The Advancement of Science, and Its Burdens (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

‘See, for example, National Commission on Excellence in Education, A IVation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintTHE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF THE

FACING AMERICAN SCHOOLS

The problems that face mathematics and science education in the schools are complicated and

interrelated. In the broadest sense of the term,

they are systemic. Reforms of any one aspect of

mathematics and science teaching, such as coursetaking, tracking, testing, and the use of laboratories and technology, can and have been undertaken. But each change is constrained by other

aspects of the system, such as teacher training and

remuneration, curriculum decisions, community

concerns and opinions, and the requirements and

influences of higher education.2 Very little analPROBLEMS

ysis has been undertaken of the costs and benefits of different kinds of improvements that could

be made in mathematics and science education.

A recent review suggested that schools’:

. . . influence on learning does not depend on any

particular educational practice, on how they test

or assign homework or evaluate teaching, but

rather on their organization as a whole, on their

goals, leadership, followership, and climate. . . .

These organizational qualities that we consider to

be the essential ingredients of an effective school

—such things as academically focused objectives,

‘Iris R. Weissr OTA workshop summary, September 1987; F.

James Rutherford, “Activities in Precollege Education, ” Competition for Human Resources in Science and Engineering in the 1990s,

Symposium Proceedings (Washington, DC: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, Oct. 11-12, 1987), pp. 60-65;

Arthur G. Powell et al., The Shopping Mall High School: Winners

and Losers in the Educational Marketplace (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); and Ernest L. Boyer, High Schoo): A Report on

Secondary Education in America (New York, NY: Harper & Row,

1983).

109
110

pedagogically strong principals, relatively autonomous teachers, and collegial staff relations—do

not flourish without the willingness of superintendents, school boards, and other outside authorities to delegate meaningful control over

school policy, personnel, and practice to the

school itself. Efforts to improve the performance

of schools without changing the way they are

organized or the controls they respond to will

therefore probably meet with no more than modest success; they are even more likely to be

undone.3

Incremental and Radical Reforms

Against this background, a case can clearly be

made for “starting all over” with a new system

of organizing, administering, and even funding

schools. The education system has evolved incrementally, and, during the last 200 years, has

adapted to changing societal expectations, expanded its reach to almost the entire population

of students up to age 18, been influenced by the

changing economy of the United States, and responded to judicial intervention in many aspects

of its organization, including its financing. These

changes have been made on the superstructure of

existing culture and practices, and have not necessarily resulted in the “best” system. But starting all over is not practical or politically feasible:

too much is invested in the current system of

mathematics and science education. The best

short-term focus, therefore, will be on incremental

improvements within the existing system.4

In 1985, Congress asked the National Science

Foundation (NSF) to commission a special study

of investment options for NSF to undertake in science and mathematics education. The contractor,

SRI International, was asked to identify specific

niches that the Science and Engineering Education

Directorate of NSF could fulfill, given the existing structure, experience, and expertise of the

Agency. The report of this study, published in

3John E. Chubb, “Why the Current Wave of School Reform Will

Fail, ” Public Znterest, No. 90, winter 1988, pp. 28-49. Also see Peter

T. Butterfield, “Competitiveness Plank Seven—Education: The Foundation for Competitiveness, ” Making America More Competitive

(Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 1987), pp. 69-76.

4

For the perspective of the former Secretary of Education, see

William J. Bennett, American Education: Making It Work (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, April 1988), esp. pp.

23, 31, 35, 41, 45.

June 1987, makes many concrete suggestions of

ways NSF could use its special experience and expertise.’ Ten current areas for future NSF investment are listed in box 6-A. The SRI report also

discussed the trade-off between incremental

change and wholesale renovation, arguing that

while incremental improvements may not be the

way to effect fundamental change, far-reaching

innovations in science education not grounded in

the current elementary and secondary school system will simply not be adopted.’

For now, incremental reform is the likely way

American mathematics and science education will

be improved. The remainder of this chapter examines some improvements that are taking place

and others to be contemplated, against the background of intersecting local, State, and Federal

interests.

Local and State Initiatives

Local and State initiatives could go a long way

toward improving elementary and secondary

mathematics and science education. Much can be

and is being done to improve mathematics and

science education at the local level of the school

board and the school, from introducing magnet

programs to re-equipping science facilities.

The many different initiatives spawned by

schools and school districts are difficult to summarize because they do not form part of a single

State, regional, or national plan. This does not

detract from their importance; they can be highly

beneficial. In 1983, the American Association of

School Administrators (AASA) sent a questionnaire to 1,500 school administrators, mainly superintendents. From these and other data, AASA

compiled a list of the top 10 most common actions already being taken by school districts to

improve mathematics and science education. (See

table 6-l. )

‘Michael S. Knapp et al., Opportunities for Strategic Investment

in K-12 Science Education: Options for the National Science Foundation, Summary Report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June

1987). Also see Robert Rothman, “NSF Urged to Assert Itself in Push

to Improve Education, ” Education Week, Sept. 9, 1987, p. 12.

Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, pp. 36-39. This chapter draws

on the SRI report in discussing various National Science Foundation elementary and secondary mathematics and science education

efforts.
111

Box 6-A. —Opportunities for Future Investment in K-12 Mathematics and Science Education:

Recommendations by SRI International to NSF’s Science and Engineering Education Directorate

Opportunities to Devising Appropriate Content and Approach

● Redesign and improve existing mathematics curricula at all grade levels. The amount of repetitive computation should be reduced, and the amount of effort devoted to other topics, such as the skills of mathematical problem solving, probability and statistics, and computer sciences, should be expanded.

● Redesign the way in which elementary school science is taught. Elementary school science, despite NSF’s

attempts in the 1960s to develop ‘“hands-on” curricula, is still very limited in scale and depth. NSF has

begun an initiative in this area.’ Similary, one priority should be to redesign and improve middle and

high school curricula.

● More effort shouId be made to match mathematics and science education with the needs and backgrounds

of students, particularly females and minorities. The reach of existing programs and curricula must be

extended, but experiments are also needed to tailor teaching to the special needs of each type of learner.

Opportunities to Strengthen the Professional Community

● The people who assist mathematics and science teachers, such as lead teachers, curriculum specialists,

and science and mathematics coordinators, need more help and support. Multiyear training programs,

recognition programs, and development of stronger alliances between higher education and school districts would enhance this support function.

● The number training to become mathematics and science teachers needs to be increased, and their training improved. NSF could enhance the “professionalization” of the teaching force, the content of teacher

training courses, and the utilization of knowledge about teacher recruitment and training programs.

● Strengthen the informal science education community. Educators out of schools—on television and in

museums and science centers-are becoming increasingly important. These people need training and professional development, and would benefit from larger networks and closer collaboration,

Opportunities to Leverage Key Points in Educational Infrastructure

● improve and expand publishing capabilities in mathematics and science education. An emphasis on

broadening the base of learners will require new and different teaching materials: current materials are

largely aimed at the “science- and engineering-bound.” Collaborative programs with existing publishers

would help improve the textbook publishing process, and promotion of alternative publishing routes

would help provide a diversity of materials that the current mechanisms of market operation are not

able to support.

● Improve testing and assessment methods and practices in mathematics and science. The growing power

of testing over curricular and teaching decisions indicates the urgency of developing and implementing

tests that measure a broader range of skills, concepts, and attitudes than current fact-oriented tests. NSF’s

skill at research and development gives it special expertise in managing research programs in testing.

● Work with State mathematics and science education reform leaders. Interest among these leaders in improving the teaching of these subjects is strong, but their familiarity with the educational issues involved

is limited. NSF could assist State-level groups to devise and implement reforms, and to develop networks.

● Expand the proven power of informal education programs and assist their assimilation into schools. These

programs are effective at reaching and motivating large and diverse groups of students. Innovations are

needed, as is better outreach to more communities.

T1w National Science Foundation’s first solicitation in this area, in fiscal year 19s6, addremed elementary mathematics curricula, and resulted in

six MWXI&, A second solicftatkm, also in fiscal year 1986, addressed elementary science curricula and aimed to develop “. . . partnerships among pubIiahers, achool ayatema and scientists/s&rtat educatcws for the purpose of providing a number of competitive, high quality, alternative science programs

for use in typical Ater@tt -entary schools.” Among these latter awards has been the Technical Education Research Center’s project in linking computers and _ learning. A H&d round of awards wits made in May 1988. See National Science Foundation, Directorate for Science and Engineering

Education, “Summary ofknts, H 19S4-86: Instructional Materials Development Program,” NSF86-85, unpublished document, March 1987; National

Science Foundation, Program SoIication, “Programs for Elementary School Science Instruction II,” NSF 87-13, unpublished document, 1%7; science,

“NSF Announces Plans for Elementary Science,” vol. 235, Feb. 6, 1987, p. 630; and “N. S.F. Gives $7.2 Million for ‘Hands-On’ Science Material, ” &kation JVeek, May 2S, 1988, p. 19. On elementary science curricula generally, see Marcia Reecer, “Pointing Out and Disseminating,” Science and Children,

vol. 24, No. 4, January 1987, pp. 16-18, 1s8-160.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988, based on Michael S. Knapp et al., Opportunities for Strategic lrrvestrnent jn K-z.2 Sc/ence Education: Options for the National

Science Foundation, Summary Report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), pp. 10-16.
112

Education policy begins at the local level.

States are playing an increasing role in K-12

education, through finance, curriculum and

graduation requirements, and assessment and

monitoring. Most States are funding a growing

proportion of the cost of public elementary and

secondary education (see figure 2-1 in ch. 2),

spurred by the warnings contained in the rash of

educational reform reports of the early 1980s.7

This activity has been chronicled in recent surveys by the Education Commission of the States

and the Council of Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO). 8

These two reports document the ways in which

States have become more active in four areas:

. curriculum requirements;

● assessment of the extent to which curriculum

‘National Governors’ Association, Results in Education–1987:

The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education (Washington, DC: 1987),

pp. 36-37. “State,” as used here includes the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.

8Education commjs5ion 0[ the Shih%, SUrVeY of s~a~e ‘n;tiatjves

to Zmprove Science andkfathematics Education (Denver, CO: September 1987); Jane Armstrong et al., “Executive Summary: The Impacts of State Policies on Improving Science Curriculum, ” prepared

for the Education Commission of the States, unpublished manuscript,

June 1988; and Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade, State Education F’o)icies Related to Science and Mathematics (Washington, DC:

Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment

Center Science and Mathematics Indicators Project, November 1987).

For State actions in relation to all subjects, see ibid.; and Denis P.

Doyle and Terry W, Hartle, “Leadership in Education: Governors,

Legislators, and Teachers, ” Phi Delta Kappan, September 1985, pp.

21-27.

Table 6-1.—Summary of Kinds of Local Initiatives to

Reform K.12 Mathematics and Science Education

The 10 most common and frequent actions being taken by

school districts:

1. Revise, reconstruct, and strengthen the science and mathematics curricula. Committees are at work discarding old

content, adding new units, and expanding the scope and

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

sequence in established and new offerings. A major aim

is to bring about an articulation of offerings, in kindergarten through grade 12.

Generate new activities to retrain, reeducate, and lend a

helping hand to classroom practitioners. Inservice education, in doses more massive than ever before, goes on

at an ever-increasing pace within school systems and on

college campuses. Cooperation with colleges and universities is at a high level on behalf of both science and mathematics.

Modernize and expand facilities needed for science, providing better-equipped laboratories for upper grades, and

offering teachers suitable working space for elementary

hands-on science activities.

Make available new textbooks and other instructional materials for science and mathematics. They buy “packaged

programs” (STAMM, COMP, SCIS, ESS), but, above all,

districts develop their own curriculum guides, teacher resource handbooks, and units for students—all geared to

local district philosophy, aims, and objectives.

Raise requirements for the study of science and mathematics, often under the spur of State legislation, at times

by decision of boards of education. The big push is toward

more years of science and mathematics at the secondary level, and more time spent on task in the elementary

grades.

Monitor science and mathematics programs more closely

than ever before. They assess, evaluate, and measure.

Methodology, content, and student achievement are

under close scrutiny at all times by principals, but more

often by specialized personnel using new tools and instruments.

Go into partnerships with industry, higher education, and

community groups. Out of these cooperative efforts—

also called alliances and consortiums-come advanced

content (from scientists and mathematicians); new opportunities for inservice education (from colleges and universities); and greater support for science and mathematics

programs (from community and civic groups.)

8. Devise new programs to attract and hold students who

have so far been largely bypassed by science and mathematics education—Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians,

and other minorities.

9. Support, with greater interest than ever before, extracurricular activities for science and mathematics students.

They seek the establishment of clubs and encourage

greater student participation in science and mathematics

fairs, olympiads, and other competitions—both for the

able and the average student.

10. Seize the role of advocacy, sensing this is the time and

opportunity to rebuild and strengthen the science and

mathematics curriculums.

SOURCE: The material in this table is from Ben Brodinsky, Improving ~ath and

Science Education (Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators, 1985), pp. 29-30.
113

requirements are met;

● providing special programs for female, minority, gifted and talented, handicapped, and

learning disabled students; and

• recruitment of mathematics and science

teachers and improvement of their skills.

Most of these initiatives are too recent to have

been evaluated, and it is difficult to say which are

effective and which not. CCSSO is developing a

set of indicators for mathematics and science education to allow State-by-State comparison as well

as national evaluation of trends.9

There is increasing corporate support of K-12

mathematics and science education, but its overall amount remains very small compared with

public spending.l0 Industry can also contribute

valuable resources in kind, such as equipment,

trained scientists and engineers, and site visits.

Much of this attention is driven by industrial concerns about the poor quality of high school

graduates—the entry level work force to many

firms–rather than the question of who will become scientists and engineers.

Course and Curriculum Requirements

States are trying to control and expand what

students learn by means of curriculum requirements, tightened graduation requirements, and

encouragements to teachers and students to address higher order thinking skills. With respect to

graduation requirements, anecdotal data suggest

that college admission requirements may be more

important than State policies for the collegebound in science and engineering. Indeed, the

‘For the pitfalls of making and interpreting State-by-State comparisons of student performance, see Alan L. Ginsburg et al., “Lessons From the Wall Chart, ” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 10, No. 1, spring 1988, pp. 1-12.

IOA recent estimate is that total spending in 1986 by 370 companies was about $40 million (6 percent of total corporate spending

on education), up from $26 million in 1984. See Council for Aid

to Education, Corporate Support of Education 2986 (New York,

NY: February 1988); Anne Lowrey Bailey, “Corporations Starting

to Make Grants to Public Schools, Diverting Some Funds Once Earmarked for Colleges, ” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 10,

1988, pp. A28-30; and Ted Kolderie, “Education That Works: The

Right Role for Business, ” Harvard Business Review, September/ October 1987, pp. 56-62.

trend toward tightening graduation requirements

may actually be deleterious for this group, by

stretching existing teaching resources in mathematics and science too thinly.

Many States have begun to issue reasonably

detailed curriculum guidelines, and a few, such

as California, have comprehensive guides built

around an integrated approach to curriculum development, textbook adoption, and teacher training. Curriculum guides in mathematics and science are used by 47 States; most of these guides

are not actually mandatory for school districts.

Policies on the amount of time that should be

devoted to mathematics and science in elementary schools have been adopted by 26 States. Of

these States, most recommend, but do not require,

that about 100 to 150 minutes per week be spent

on K-3 science, and 225 to 300 minutes per week

be spent on K-3 mathematics. For grades four to

six, normal recommendations are 175 to 225 minutes per week on science and 250 to 300 minutes

per week on mathematics. (See table 6-2.)*’

All but seven States (and all but four of the fully

constituted States) set formal requirements for the

award of a high school graduation diploma. (See

table 6-3. ) (The Constitution of Colorado explicitly forbids the State from setting such requiremerits. ) Almost all of the States that do set formal requirements have, since 1980, steadily

increased the number of mathematics and science

courses that students must take. Of 47 States that

set requirements, 36 require 2 courses in mathematics and 39 require 2 courses in sciences, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas each set a higher standard, requiring at least one more mathematics course for

a total of three.

“Blank and Espenshade, op. cit., footnote 8, table I. There is no

sound estimate of the average length of the elementary school day

available. In 1984-85, it was estimated that the average public school

day in elementary and secondary schools included about 300 minutes (5.1 hours) of classes. U.S. Department of Education, Office

of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Education

Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1987 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, May 1987), table 89.
114

Table 6-2.—Comparison of Recommended and

Actual Amounts of Time Devoted to Mathematics

and Science in Elementary Schools

Teacher estimates of average number

of minutes per day spent on subject

Actual Actual

Grades/subiects in 1977 in 1986 Recommended

Mathematics:

K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 38 45-60

4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 49 50-60

Science:

K-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 20-30

4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 38 35-45

NOTE: There is no estimate of the average length of the elementary school day

available. In 1984-85, it was estimated that the average public school day

in elementary and secondary schools included about 300 minutes (5.1

hours) of classes. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Edu.

cation Statistics 1987 (VVashlngton, DC: U.S Government Printing Office,

May 1987), table 89.

SOURCE Actual amounts of time from Iris R Weiss, Report of the 1985-88 ~a.

tiona/ Survey of Sc/ence and Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, November 1987), table 1, p

12 Recommended times from Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade,

State Education Po//cies Related to Science and kfafherrrafics

(Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center Sc!ence and Mathematics Indicators

Project, November 1987), p 2

However, control of the number of mathematics or science courses alone is a relatively blunt

policy tool, for it disregards the curricular content of those courses. In addition, mandating extra courses in mathematics and science will be of

little use if there are too few well-qualified teachers

available to teach them. Indeed, some argue that

increasing graduation requirements may actually

harm the college-bound in science and engineering, for teachers of the specialized courses that

these students now take will be transferred to

teach more mainstream courses. Schools with

already poorly equipped science laboratory facilities will be asked to spread thin resources even

thinner. Thus, tightening graduation requirements

must be part of a balanced strategy that also provides adequate teaching and facilities for the new

mandated classes in mathematics and science.

Even where States set mandatory minimum requirements, schools and school districts may set

IJBen Brodinsky, improving Math and Science Education (Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators, 1985),

pp. 7-8. Some argue that the trend toward increased control over

classroom teaching and learning is both a distinguishing trait of

American education and a major weakness. See Arthur E. Wise,

“Legislated Learning Revisited, ” Phi Delta Kappan, January 1988,

pp. 328-333.

Table 6.3.—Recommended Number of Courses

in Mathematics and Science Needed for

High School Graduation, by State

(for class of 1987 unless specified)

Courses for

Courses for advanced/honors

regular diploma diploma

Math Science Math Science

Alabama (1989) . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas (1988) . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware ., . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia (1988). . . . . . . . .

Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho (1988). . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois (1988). . . . . . . . . .

Indiana (1989) . . . . . . . . .

lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas (1989) . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . .

Louisiana (1988) . . . . . . .

Maine (1989) . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland (1989) . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi (1989) .

Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . .

New Jersey (1990) . . . .

New Mexico . . .

New York. . . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . . . . .

North Dakota . . . . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania (1989) .

Puerto Rico. . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island (1989) . . . .

South Carolina .

South Dakota (1989) .

Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah (1988) . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia (1988) . . . . . . . . .

Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . .

Washington (1989) . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 2

2 2

2 2

5 combined

2 2

Local board

3 2

2 2

2 2

3 3

2 2

3 3

2 2

2 2

2

2 2

Local board

2 2

3 2

3 3

2 2

3 2

Local board

Local board

O

a O

a

2 2

2 2

2 1

Local board

2

2 2

3 2

3 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 1

2 2

2 2

3 3

2 2

2 2

3 2

2 2

2 2

3 2

2 2

5 combined

5 combined

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

Local board

3

4

3

4

4

3

3

2

a

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

a

2

3

3

aNew York State Regents courses for credit toward Regents diploma. Minnesota has no State requirements for grades 10-12, 1 math and 1 science required

for grades 7-9.

KEY: Combined = 3 mathematics and 2 science or 2 mathematics and 3 science;

Local board = requirements determined by local school boards.

SOURCE Rolf Blank and Pamela Espenshade, State Education Policies Related

to Scierrce and Mathematics (Washington, DC: Council of Chief State

School Officers, State Education Assessment Center Science and

Mathematics Indicators Project, November 1%37), table 2.
115

higher standards. Most of those States that do not

have minimum requirements set recommended

graduation requirements and apply strong pressure on districts to abide by them; some States,

such as Michigan, even offer financial incentives

to those that do.

Several States, including Indiana, Kentucky,

Idaho, Virginia, Texas, and Missouri, now offer

advanced or honors diplomas designed explicitly

for the college-bound, that require additional

coursework or demonstration of competence

(again see table 6-3). New York has long offered

a “Regents” examination, designed for the collegebound. Data suggest that this examination is effective in encouraging students to take more

preparatory mathematics and science courses than

is common in other States. 13

Assessment of What Students Learn

States are making efforts to ensure that teachers

address higher order thinking skills in science and

mathematics teaching, either through teacher

1‘Penny A. Sebring, “Consequences of Differential Amounts of

High School Coursework: W’ill the New Graduation Requirements

Help?’ Educational Evaluation and Poliq Analwis, vol. 9, No. 3,

fall 1987, pp. 258-273.

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

State and local programs have long been supplemented by Federal efforts.15 Although these

programs have been controversial politically, because of the constitutional limitations on Federal

involvement in education, many in mathematics

and science education have been reasonably successful in meeting their stated objectives. They are

reviewed below.

Given the generally accepted importance of

education to the national economy, the Federal

Government has long had not only an interest in

education issues, but also a mandate to redress

inequities in access and provide opportunities for

various disadvantaged groups. From the time of

“See Deborah A. Verstegen, ‘Two Hundred Years of Federalism:

A Perspective on National Fiscal Policy in Education, ” /our-na/ ot

Education F/nance, vol. 12, spring 1987, pp. 516-548.

training programs, curriculum frameworks, or

through competency testing programs. The Missouri Mastery and Achievement Test, for example, has been designed to include items that assess higher order thinking skills. Higher order

thinking, although much sought after, is difficult

to define and there appears to be little agreement

on how it can be taught.

Statewide testing programs are used in 4 6

States, indicating a broad response to the public

pressure for accountability. But only 30 of these

States include science knowledge in these tests,

whereas 43 include mathematics. Five States

(Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, and Vermont) delegate responsibility for assessment to

school districts or schools themselves. A recent

OTA survey found that 21 States now require students to pass a minimum competency test in designated basic skill areas prior to graduation. Fifteen States include mathematics in such tests and

five include science. CCSSO found that 30 States

either have, or are planning, competency tests in

mathematics, and 6 States in science. 14

“U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Testing Practices, “ Background Paper, NTIS ~P1388-155056,

December 1987

the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Government has indirectly supported education through

financial and land contributions. In 1862, when

the U.S. Office of Education was established, that

role was augmented by the task of information

gathering, research, and analysis. At the turn of

the century and for the next 20 years, in response

to the increasing industrialization of the Nation,

the Federal Government began to take an interest

in manpower needs and training and, under Federal law, sought to promote vocational training.

The Federal Interest in K-12

Mathematics and Science Education

Large-scale Federal funding of basic research began after World War II, when demand for research scientists and engineers was strong. NSF,
116

created in 1951, was given a mandate to ensure

the adequacy of science and engineering education and manpower at all levels. NSF’s prime education goal, however, was the cultivation and

education of enough scientific talent to fuel the

new research-intensive industries and national laboratories. Ever since, NSF has made a significant

contribution, by leadership and funding, to science education, but skewed toward students destined for science and engineering careers.

Serious concerns about the adequacy of mathematics and science education developed in the

mid-1950s, as Cold War competition with the

U.S.S.R. and the baby boom population strained

educational resources. Significant NSF involvement in science education, however, originated

with the “Sputnik crisis” of the late-1950s. The

National Defense Education Act of 1958 was a

bold new law to bolster supplies of scientific and

other skilled manpower. The act gave grants to

school districts to improve or build laboratory facilities and sponsor teacher training in mathematics and science, as well as foreign language

instruction. Congress increased funding for science education at NSF, to the point where education was apportioned at about one-half of NSF’s

buclget. 16 The 10 years following Sputnik were

the “golden years” of NSF’s mathematics and science education effort, highlighted by funding for

teacher training institutes, curriculum development, informal education, and research participation programs for high school students and their

teachers.

Federal funding for education in all subjects

reached its zenith in the early -1960s, when anxiety about regional, economic, and racial disparities in educational provision led Congress to adopt

ambitious programs of support for underprivileged students. The Federal role in promoting equity became generally accepted as a consequence

of the implementation of these programs, which

were successful in achieving their limited goals .17

“Myron J. Atkin, “Education at the National Science Foundation: Some Historical Perspectives, An Assessment, and A Proposed

Initiative for 1989 and Beyond,” testimony before the House Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mar. 22, 1988.

17Michael S. Knapp et al., Cumulative Effects of Federal Education Policies on Schools and Districts: Summary Report of a ConThe Reagan Administration’s policy of diminishing, if not removing, Federal involvement in

education was enacted by major cuts in education programs at the beginning of the 1980s. Federal support fell from about 8 percent to 4 percent of total national education expenditures. The

“new federalism” ideology held that funds were

to be apportioned among States on an entitlement

basis; States should be allowed to spend funds as

they saw fit, and not necessarily in accord with

any Federal policies or programs.18 In 1981-82,

the Science and Engineering Education Directorate

(SEE) of NSF was disbanded. However, this latter move was most unpopular with mathematics

and science educators and in 1983, under pressure, the SEE Directorate was resuscitated.19

By 1984, continuing anxiety about international

economic competitiveness and the apparently

poor quality of public schooling led Congress to

pass the Education for Economic Security Act

(EESA), designed to promote teaching of mathematics, science, and foreign languages. Title 11 of

this act directs the Department of Education to

provide grants to school districts and States to improve the teaching of mathematics, science, computer science, and foreign languages that are critical to national economic well-being. Although

the Administration has proposed extending the

criteria for funding under this program to all subject areas, this proposal has not been supported

in Congress. Title II was part of the package of

education programs reauthorized in 1988; the new

name for Title 11 is the Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mathematics and Science Education Act.20

The Federal Division of Labor

in Science Education

Today, Federal mathematics and science education programs are enjoying a resurgence of

gressionally Mandated Study (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International,

January 1983).

‘8See Paul Peterson, When Federalism Works (Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institution, 1987).

*’The power of the science education lobby is described in Morris

H. Shames, “A False Alarm in Science Education, ” Zssues in Science & Technology, vol. 4, spring 1988, pp. 65-69.

*°For a synopsis of elementary and secondary education legislation introduced in fiscal year 1988, including that targeted to science and engineering education, see U.S. Congress, Congressional

Research Service, Major Legislation of the Congress (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1988), Issue No. 3,

pp. MLC-016 - MLC-021.
717

funding and considerable bipartisan support, even

in the current stringent budgetary climate. They

come from three sources:

●

●

●

NSF, which is generally recognized as the

lead agency for mathematics, science, and

engineering education;

the Department of Education, which has

overall charge of Federal education programs, but within which mathematics and

science education is a relatively low priority;

and

mission agencies that have a direct interest

in developing a pool of skilled scientific talent; such agencies include the Department of

Energy (DOE), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Institutes of

Health (NIH), and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA).

There is an important difference between NSF

and the Department of Education in the scale of

the programs that each mounts, Whereas NSF’s

entire budget is now somewhat under $2 billion

annually (and is principally spent on research),

that for the Department of Education is about $20

billion. Although most of the Department’s programs provide funding either on a categorical basis to providers of education or to ensure equitable access to education, the Department has one

program specifically addressed to K-12 mathematics and science education: Title II of the EESA.

Appropriations for Title 11 have been comparable to NSF spending on precollege education, but

represent only a few percent of the entire spending of the Department of Education. The dollars,

however, are distributed to the States in a formulaic way, with little technical assistance to implement their use or monitor their impacts. No

special interest in programmatic mathematics and

science education at the Department of Education

is apparent.

Some argue that mathematics and science education programs conducted by NSF might flourish were they relocated in the Department of Education. Proponents say that the Department of

Education would not concentrate only on the

brightest and best students and on funding proposals from rich research universities the way NSF

does.

21 In addition, some note that NSF is most

comfortable in dealing with and through universities and, until recently, has made few efforts to

work closely with States and school districts, as

favored by the Department of Education. NSF is

now attempting to improve its working relationships with the States. Giving a greater role to the

Department of Education in mathematics and

science education programs is rejected by most

of NSF’s existing clients in the scientific and science education research communities, among

whom the Department of Education has little

credibility. 22

Consideration of the propriety of Federal education programs is, at root, a highly ideological

battle and invokes constitutional concerns. From

a public policy perspective, it is important to examine whether and how Federal funding of mathematics and science programs changes the actions

that State and local bodies would otherwise have

taken. Do Federal programs merely replace funds

that would otherwise have been raised by State

and local sources or do they allow States and local school districts to do things that they would

not or could not otherwise do? Conversely, do

Federal programs merely encourage States and local school districts to avoid reforming their own

operations, including possibly raising local and

State taxes?

There are no clear answers, but Federal programs may work best when they identify aspects

of the K-12 education system that have fallen

through the cracks of the different agencies involved in education, and address those aspects

directly. For example, the “Great Society” legislation of the 1960s improved educational provision to poor and disadvantaged children, and the

National Defense Education Act was successful

in supplying science equipment and teacher training to school districts.

‘lThis is addressed by Don Fuqua in his personal conclusions kJllowing hearings by the Science Policy Task Force, American Science and Science Policy Issues, Chairman’s Report to the Committee on Science and Technolog}~, U.S. House of Representativesr Wh

Congress, 2nd Session, December 1986, pp. 80-84 (Committev Print),

%ee Atkin, op. cit., footnote 16,
118

NSF’s Role in Science and

Engineering Education

NSF has been the lead Federal agency in precollege science and mathematics education since

the agency’s inception. NSF in recent years has

been ambivalent towards science education.23

With its limited funding of K-12 programs, NSF

aims to be a catalyst for interplay between the

research community and schools and school districts—to generate new ideas for others to implement; to leverage its funding through States,

school districts, and foundations; and to do research on mathematics and science education. In

its 1987 study, SRI International suggested that

NSF’s approach to K-I2 mathematics and science

education should be based on three principles:

●

●

●

identifying targets of opportunity that are important problems and amenable to NSF’s influence;

supporting core functions of professional exchange among scientists, engineers, teachers,

and education researchers; data collection;

and experiments in education; and

investing as part of a coherent strategy to

broaden the base of science learners.

The SRI report identified six characteristics of

the SEE Directorate that distinguish it from other

actors:

●

●

o

●

●

●

national purview of problems and solutions;

quasi-independent status rather than an executive branch department;

connection to the mathematics, science, and

engineering communities;

large amounts of discretionary funding (i.e.,

those that are allocated on a project/proposal

basis);

a central position vis-a-vis various actors involved in improving mathematics and science

education; and

an established track record in K-12 mathe23See Deborah Shapley and Rustum Roy, Lost at the Frontier:

U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift (Philadelphia, PA: 1S1

Press, 1985), pp. 109-114; J, Merton England, A Patron for Pure

Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-

1957 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, National

Science Foundation, 1982), ch. 12; and U. S.~ongress, Office of

Technology Assessment, Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade

School to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988), pp. 104-107.

matics and science education programs, especially at the secondary level .24

NSF also attempts to define a leadership role

in mathematics and science education issues, a

function which, especially in the decentralized

American education system, should not be underestimated.” The ongoing challenge for NSF in

science and engineering education will be locating particular niches where it can make a useful

and detectable difference, rather than being an

agent of change on a broad scale. Investments by

the SEE Directorate in science and mathematics

education must differ from support for science and

engineering research. Developing NSF’s capability to invest strategically in education programs

may take 5 to 10 years. ’b

Evaluation of Federal Science and

Mathematics Education Programs

Too little is known about the effectiveness of

previous and current Federal efforts to improve

elementary and secondary mathematics and science education. Evaluation of these efforts, for

a number of reasons, is very difficult. (See box

6-B. ) This review has been supported by an informal questionnaire survey of members of the

National Association for Research in Science

Teaching (NARST), an association of university

researchers in mathematics and science education

that aims to improve teaching practices through

research. Many Federal programs in this area have

been tried, and appendix C lists some of them.

Most have emphasized science rather than mathematics.

Three principal Federal programs have been designed to improve mathematics and science education:

● NSF-funded teacher training institutes;

. NSF-funded curriculum development; and

● Title II of the EESA, administered by the Department of Education.

24 K napp et al., OP. cit. ‘ footnote

2 5Atkin, op. cit., footnote 16, p.

‘dKnapp et al., op. cit., footnote

5, pp. 9-1o.

10.

5, p. 5.
119

Box 6-B.-Problems in Evaluating Science Education Programs

Much of the current literature and data on the effectiveness of previous Federal efforts in science education is of poor quality and has limited utility for policy purposes. To be useful for policy, research must

measure, quantitively or qualitatively, the effects of a particular program upon a prior situation. It must,

therefore, measure what was there before, what happened after, and describe mechanisms by which the

addition of a program led to changes apparent by the time of the final obseervation. Ideally, research should

also address the relation between the costs of the program (in money, time, and effort) and its results.

Shortcomings of current research have two origins: 1) the fundamental scientific difficulty of defining

and conducting good educational evaluation studies, and 2) idiosyncratic problems with samples and interpretations of research.

The fundamental difficulty is that there is no consensus on what attributes of students should be considered definitive “output” or “input” measures to an educational intervention. For example, many studies

measure the student’s achivementt on multiple-choice tests. Other valid output measures might equally

be related to discipline and behavior in school, attitudes and interest in the subject, manual skills, the ability to achieve higher order thinking and reasoning about problems, and the extent to which students feel

that they have mastered science and feel confident about it. At the moment, there is broad agreement that

standardized achievement test scores should not be used as definitive measures of the outputs of education,

but there is no consensus on what combination of other output measures should be used instead.

Such difficulties aside, practical research in the literature often fails to explain fully the effects of programs. Studies of programs that identify highly atble children and educate them apart from their peers often

show that these children’s achievement scores increase more rapidly than those of their age peers. To determine the contribution to achievement scores added by the program, account must be taken of the differential in the rise of scores (due, for example, to maturation) that would have occurred in any case; observations on a control group should be part of the analysis.

In addition, problems in reaching conclusions that are of national relevance arise from the difficulty

evaluators have in gaining access to already-beleaguered schools to study programs, and from the expense

of doing national evaluations of the worth of particular programs. Schools are increasingly reluctant to

allow researchers access to classrooms, since they feel that they are asked to provide too much information

already, with too much of it being used against them. These factors sometimes lead researchers to use small

samples chosen from unrepresentative school environments for their studies, which diminish the force of

research findings. Sometimes researchers argue that the results can be extrapolated to much larger populations, but that argument can only be sustained when other characteristics of the populations, such as socioeconomic status, ethnic composition, and urbanicity of the school chosen, are matched.

NSF Teacher Training Institutes Program most of the institutes focused on improving

Between 1954 and 1974, NSF spent a total of

over $500 million (or over $2 billion in 1987 dollars) on teacher training institutes, most of them

for secondary school teachers.” These institutes

came in several forms. Most were full-time summer programs, others part-time after-school programs, and others full-time academic year programs. Some were aimed at high school teachers,

others at elementary and middle school teachers,

and others at science supervisors. At that time,

the consensus was that the teaching force was deficient in content knowledge about science, and

271 bid., vol. 1, p. 133. Expression in 1987 dollars is an OTA

estimate.

teachers’ knowledge about science, largely by

means of lectures. Few of them addressed teaching practices. Most institutes were based at colleges and universities, which organized the programs and paid teachers stipends and travel

expenses for attending.

By today’s standards, the model that these institutes adopted—that giving mathematics and science teachers better subject knowledge would lead

to better teaching—seems rather primitive. Any

replication of these institutes would now focus on

achieving a balance between knowledge and experience of how to teach science and mathematics

together with what to teach. Nevertheless, evi-
1 2 0

dence suggests that the former mathematics and

science teaching force was so poorly endowed

with subject knowledge that emphasis on content

over practice was largely inevitable.

At their peak in the early -1960s, about 1,000

institutes were offered annually, each with between 10 to 150 teachers meeting over a 4- to 12-

week period; just over 40,000 teachers were

reached annually (about 15 percent of the high

school mathematics and science teaching force).

The institutes were reorganized in 197’0, by which

time NSF had judged that the institutes had

reached about as many teachers as any voluntary

program ever would. A survey taken in 1977

found that many teachers had participated in NSFfunded institutes. The survey indicated that nearly

80 percent of mathematics and science supervisors had attended an institute, as had 47 percent

of science teachers and 37 percent of mathematics

teachers of grades 10 to 12. Only about 5 percent

of teachers of kindergarten through third grade

had attended such an institute.

Improvement of the skills of the elementary

teaching force will always be difficult, because

there are over 1 million individuals who teach at

least some elementary mathematics and science

(along with many other subjects), and because

university-based mathematics and science educators generally find it harder to reach elementary

teachers than they do high school teachers. For

example, it is estimated that NSF’s current efforts

reach, at most, 2 or 3 percent of secondary mathematics and science teachers .28

Evaluation of the effects of these institutes has

yielded no consensus on their usefulness. Teachers

who participated are enthusiastic about them and

remember them as stimulating and professionally

refreshing. The General Accounting Office reviewed research on NSF-funded institutes and

found little or no evidence that such institutes had

improved student achievement scores.29 Whereas

NSF remains cautious in claiming effectiveness,

‘blb]cl., vol. 1, pp. 133-134.

WSuch a post hoc measure, however, may bear no relation to the

~ priori goal of the institutes, namely, to update teacher’s knowledge. See U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, New Directions tor Federal Programs To Aid Mathematics and Science Teaching, GAO ~ PEMD-84-5 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government printing

Office, Mar. 6, 1984).

many science educators think that the institutes

were very successful. Various studies, incIuding

one by the Congressional Research Service in

1975, found that the institutes had positive

effects. 30

NSF did not attempt a systematic comprehensive evaluation of its own during the lifetime of

the institutes. The institutes concentrated on improving the mathematical and scientific knowledge

of teachers, but there is no direct relationship between teachers’ knowledge, their effectiveness as

teachers, and educational outcome measures such

as students’ achievement test scores .31 In practice, teachers need both some knowledge of mathematics and science and some pedagogical skills

to be effective teachers.

Anecdotal evidence drawn from a history of this

program and from the OTA survey of NARST

members indicated that the teacher institutes program had these important effects:

● It brought teachers up-to-date with current

developments in science.

Ž It brought teachers closer to the actual process of doing science and thereby improved

both their identification with, and sense of

competence in, science.

Ž It helped teachers share common solutions

and problems, and gave them a network of

peers that they kept in touch with many years

after the programs ended.

• It allowed teachers to do experimental work

in science, which many of them had never

done before, and thereby encouraged them

to replicate this experience for their students.

● It helped define leaders for the science education community, who now are effective

voices for this community in professional

meetings and policy debates.

30U S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, The National

Science Foundation and Pre-College Science Education: 19.50-1975,

Committee Print of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee

on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research,

and Technology, January 1976; Hillier Krieghbaum and Hugh

Rawsom, An lnvestrnent in Knowledge (New York, NY: New York

University Press, 1969); and Victor L. Willson and Antoine M.

Garibaldi, “The Association Between Teacher Participation in NSF

Institutes and Student Achievement, ” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 13, No. 5, 1976, pp. 431-439.

31 Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 1, p. 130.
121

● It recognized the importance of the work of

mathematics and science teachers.

● It inspired and invigorated teachers to face

another year of teaching.

Among problems with the institutes, however,

were the following:

● Since teacher participation was voluntary,

only those teachers who were the most interested and motivated in science teaching

participated. The least interested and least

qualified shunned the program, which consequently reached at best only about one-half

of all teachers (though this is not an insignificant number).

● Since many of the institutes offered graduate credit, the program helped subsidize students’ progress toward master’s and doctoral

degrees in education. Possession of these

degrees may have helped impel good teachers

out of active teaching into administration,

or into other jobs entirely.

● The institutes succeeded in conveying much

information about new developments in science, but gave teachers few clues as to how

to teach this information to their classes.

● The institutes were typically lecture courses.

The costs of the teacher institutes were large,

particularly for the academic year institutes, for

which teachers were pulled from classrooms.

Typical costs today for teacher institute programs

are reported at about $25 to $40 per hour per

teacher. If a minimum of 100 hours is assumed

for length of the institute to make it meaningful,

for a total cost per teacher of about $3,000, it

would cost about $600 million to put all secondary mathematics and science teachers through one

institute each.32

A small program of teacher institutes is now

funded through the Teacher Preparation and Enhancement Program at NSF. In general, these put

more emphasis on teaching techniques in mathematics and science than did the earlier institutes.

Evaluations of these institutes indicate that they

are having some success .33

jzlbid,, VO]. 1, p. 132.

33 Renate C. Lippert et a]”~ “An Evaluation of Classroom Teaching Practices One Year After a Workshop for High School Physics

Teachers, ” unpublished paper, May 1987; and Margaret L. While

Any future replications could build on successful NSF-sponsored models for inservice education,

and would need to be based on a stronger partnership between school districts and universities

than existed 20 years ago. Alternatively, NSF

could try to act as a catalyst, persuading States

and school districts to fund such inservice education directly.34 Either way, the school must be

recognized as the appropriate unit; teachers alone

are neither the problem nor the solution. Organizational change is needed, and that impinges

on all aspects of the system, from the classroom

and school administration to the local district and

State jurisdictions.

NSF-Funded Curriculum Improvements

In the 1960s and 1970s, NSF spent about $200

million on over 50 curriculum reform efforts.

Their main focus was on the sciences rather than

mathematics, and the new curricula have had a

significant impact on the science education of

many students.

To protect against Federal domination of curriculum, NSF did not review these projects once

completed and ensured that the materials were

held and disseminated by the developer rather

than by NSF. Nevertheless, a fifth grade social

studies curriculum, “Man: A Course of Study, ”

attracted considerable criticism and congressional

scrutiny in 1975; some critics found it offensive

and unacceptable for children. NSF has since been

extremely cautious in curriculum development

ever since.

The curricula were almost all developed by

teams headed by scientists, but often involved

mathematics and science educators, and general

educators; they were largely designed to convey

the content and structure of the separate scienet al., “Biosocial Goals and Human Genetics: An Impact Study of

NSF Workshops,” Science Education, vol. 71, No. 2, 1987, pp.

137-144.

340r the National Science Foundation could concentrate on developing a smaller number of lead mathematics and science teachers

who would then enthuse the remaining teacher force. This latter

strategy is advocated in the recent SRI report, primarily because

of the cost and difficulty of organizing another mass program to

reach all mathematics and science teachers. Such a program, however, would focus change one further step away from students’ actual learning about mathematics and science than even the teacher

institute program would. See Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, p.

135.
122

tific disciplines.35 Many believed that the high

school curricula were too demanding, however,

and worked well only for those planning college

majors in science and engineering. Many believed

that the scientists dominated the projects and that

feedback on the new materials was not sought.

In 1968-69, it was estimated that nearly 4 million students (about 10 percent of the total) were

using some kind of NSF-funded curriculum materials. A 1977 survey found that about one-half

of the science classes in grades 6 to 12 were using

such materials, although only about 10 percent

of mathematics classes in these grades were.36

NSF recently reinstated curriculum development,

and is funding a series of three-way collaborative

projects (involving publishers, universities, and

school districts) to develop elementary science curricula,

Research reflects a consensus that the new curricula worked quite well. A review of evaluation

studies found that, compared to control groups,

students taking new curricula scored higher on

achievement tests, had more positive attitudes

toward science, and exhibited fewer sex differences in these attributes. Students taught by

teachers who had been through preparatory

teacher institutes for the curricula scored more

highly than their peers taking the new curricula

without this benefit.

37 It is clear that successful

implementation of new curricula is very closely

tied to teacher training; curriculum projects are

of little use without support for teachers to master the new curriculum and put it into practice.

Earlier elementary science education curricula,

such as the Science Curriculum Improvement

Study (SCIS), Elementary Science Study (ESS),

and Science: A Process Approach (SAPA) did not

3’Ibid., vol. 1, p. 92.

‘“Iris R. Weiss, Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science,

Mathematics, and Social Studies Education (Research Triangle Park,

NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, 1978), p. 83.

3TA comprehensive analysis of 81 other studies is reported in

James A. Shymansky et al., “A Reassessment of the Effects of 60’s

Science Curricula on Student Performance: Final Report, ” mimeo,

n.d. (a reworking of material originally published in 1983). Also

see Patricia E. Blosser, “What Research Says: Research Related to

Instructional Materials for Science, ” School Science and Mathematics, vol. 86, No. 6, October 1986, pp. 513-517; and Ted Bredderman, “Effects of Activity-Based Elementary Science on Student

Outcomes: A Quantitative Analysis, ” Review of Educational Research, VOI. 53, No. 4, winter 1983, pp. 499-518.

become well established in schools largely because

teachers were ill-prepared to teach them.38

Among the positive effects of new curricula

were a spill-over effect to the entire mathematics

and science curriculum, such that traditional textbooks from commercial publishers began to adopt

many of the techniques, such as hands-on science.

The main NSF-funded mathematics curriculum,

the School Mathematics Study Group, explicitly

aimed at affecting publishers’ own curricula .3”

The success of new curricula is partially attributed to the considerable research that went

into them. Many are still in use in some schools;

they have influenced teachers and textbooks ever

since. Many teachers have extensive experience

with these curricula, and now know how to avoid

some of the problems that the curricula can cause.

NARST members particularly cited the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), the ESS,

the SAPA, and the SCIS (the last three being

elementary science curricula), as effective and valuable curricula. Many of these curricula have

apparently been translated and adopted for use

in schools in South Korea and Japan. It has been

estimated that the BSCS has been used in about

one-half of all biology classes in the United States.

One-quarter of those who graduated with a baccalaureate degree in physics in 1983-84 had taken

BSCS physics in high school.’”

Problems cited with these curricula included:

●

●

●

●

A lack of adequate financial and moral support to teachers introducing the new curricula.

A focus on “pure” science rather than its reallife applicability.

A design with only the future scientist and

engineer in mind, which frustrated large

numbers of mainstream students.

A domination by research scientists rather

than science educators, precluding develop-

‘Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 1, p. 68. Ironically, anecdotal evidence suggests that these programs were especially successful

with minority and disadvantaged students (Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of Science, personal communication, August 1988).

39Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, p. 48.

‘“Ibid., vol. 1, p. 92.
123

ment of a needed team approach to the design and implementation of the curricula.

● An approach embracing a view of science as

a collection of neutral and immutable facts,

to the exclusion of other conceptions of

science.

Today’s science curricula have slipped back into

stressing facts at the expense of reasoning and understanding. One approach to future science curricula might be to disregard traditional disciplinary boundaries in science, and focus on hybrid

disciplines or unifying themes and ways of observing and measuring. Many science-intensive

schools integrate science with mathematics

courses, an innovation that could be followed by

most schools. In any case, the design of new curricula requires the active participation of the relevant scientific research communities .41

Mathematics curricula also need to be improved. Less emphasis needs to be placed on traditional rote learning. The curricula could concentrate on new developments in mathematics and

its applications, such as mathematical problem

solving, probability and statistics, and computer

science. Deficiencies of mathematics curricula

have been demonstrated by data collected for the

international comparisons of achievement .42

Curricula need to reflect the availability of the

hand-held calculator. One example of a reform

in progress is the new Mathematics Framework

for California Public Schools, which encourages

calculator use from primary grades upward.

Title II of the Education for Economic

Security Act of 1984

Title II of the EESA (Public Law 98-377 as

amended by Public Law 99-159 and Public Law

100-297) was a major congressional initiative to

address the problems apparent in mathematics

and science education in the early -1980s. It provides funds to both States and school districts to

improve the skills of teachers and the quality of

instruction in mathematics, science, computer

learning, and foreign languages in both public and

private schools. Title II established teacher training as first priority and directed that the funds

allocated to school districts must be spent on training. Only if school districts demonstrate to States

that there is no further need for such training can

such funds be used for other purposes, such as

equipment and materials purchases or training in

foreign language or computer instruction. ’3 The

legislation also contains provisions intended to

boost the participation of “underrepresented” and

“underserved” groups. The legislation was reauthorized in 1988 (Public Law 100-297), and renamed the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics

and Science Education Act.

Title II has been funded unevenly by Congress:

$100 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1985,

$42 million in fiscal year 1986, $80 million in fiscal 1987, and $120 million in fiscal year 1988. For

comparison, the total expenditure on public and

private elementary and secondary education in

1986 was about $140 billion; the total spending

on mathematics and science teacher training was

probably about $500 million to $1 billion. Total

spending by the Department of Education was

$19.5 billion in fiscal year 1987 (so that Title II

was a small portion of the Department’s total effort). Another way of evaluating spending on Title II is to recall that, nationally, a $40 million

education program equates to a spending of $1

per pupil or $20 per teacher.

The Department of Education’s implementation

of Title II has been slow. Although funds for fiscal 1985 were provided by Congress, grant awards

were not announced until July 2, 1985, immediately after the end of the school year (effectively

delaying implementation by 12 months). However, the Department now hosts regular meetings

of State Title II coordinators and publishes some

information on exemplary State and local pro-

~lSee Philip W. Jackson, “The Reform of Science Education: A

Cautionary Tale, ” DaedaIus, vol. 112, No. 2, spring 1983, pp.

143-166.

42Curtis C. McKnight et al., The Underachieving Curriculum

(Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., January 1987); and Knapp

et a]., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 2, pp. 35-60.

43Even then, no more than 30 percent of the funds provided to

each school district can be used to purchase computers or software,

and no more than IS percent can be used for foreign language instruction. Note also that some of the funds appropriated under the

act are spent on these areas via the Secretary’s Discretionary Fund

(see below).
124

grams that have been funded through the Title

II program.”

The legislation specifies in some detail the intended fate of the sums appropriated, leaving relatively little discretion to the Department of Education, the States, or school districts. It is worth

examining the provision of the legislation in some

“Carolyn S. Lee (cd.), “Exemplary Program Presentations, Title

II of the Education for Economic Security Act, ” mimeo prepared

by the U.S. Department of Education for the December 1987 meeting of Title 11 coordinators, Washington, DC; and Carolyn S. Lee

(cd.), “Exemplary Projects: Mathematics, Science, Computer Learning, and Foreign Languages: A Collection of Projects Funded

Through Title 11 of the Education for Economic Security Act,” mimeo

prepared for December 1987 meeting of Title 11 Coordinators, Washington, DC.

detail to understand the way in which mathematics and science education programs administered through the Department of Education operate. (See figure 6-1.) 45

Of the funds appropriated under Title II, 90 percent is sent straight to the States as categorical

grants. Nine percent is retained by the Department of Education to be spent on “National Priority Programs“ in science, mathematics, computer, and foreign language education via the

Secretary of Education’s Discretionary Fund, and

‘

s

The following is based on the allocations that applied during

fiscal years 1985 to 1988. They have been amended somewhat in

the recent reauthorization of the legislation.

Figure 6-l.— Distribution of Federal Funds Appropriated Under Title II of

the Education for Economic Security Act of 1984

5%

5%

School districts 44%

Exemplary programs

run by State Education

Agencies 12. 6%

Technical assistance

to school districts

by States 3.1%

State administration 3.1%

Higher education

(State higher education agencies)

75% Grants to

CoIIeges/universities

20%

20% Cooperative

programs 5.4%

5%

State administration

1.4%

I

25%

Colleges, universities,

States, nonprofits,

school districts

7.5%

Colleges/u diversities

for foreign language

instruction

2,5%

NOTE: Numbers in italics are final percentages of the original Department of Education 100Yo allocation; the numbers not Italicized are distribution formulas.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988; based on data from the U.S. Department ot Education.
125

the remaining 1 percent is divided equally between

the U.S. Territories and Insular Areas and the

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Each State must

submit a plan for the use of the funds to the Secretary of Education before the State’s allocation

can be released.

The States’ 90 percent allocation is divided

among the States (including Puerto Rico and the

District of Columbia) on the basis of the size of

their school-age populations, with the proviso that

each State must receive at least 0.5 percent of the

total appropriation. Of the sum that each State

receives, 30 percent must be given directly to the

State’s higher education agency (primarily for

elementary and secondary teacher training programs), leaving 70 percent to be allocated by the

State education agency for elementary and secondary education (no more than 5 percent of each

of these allocations can be used for State administrative costs). Of the funds given to each State’s

education agency, 70 percent must be divided

among the school districts, giving equal weight

to the size of the total public and private schoolage population and the number defined as “disadvantaged” under the Chapter 1 program of the

Education Consolidation and Improvement Act

of 1981. The 30 percent share of funds intended

for elementary and secondary education that is

retained by the State must be spent on exemplary

programs in teacher training and instructional

equipment, including those designed specifically

to benefit the disadvantaged or the gifted, and on

technical assistance to school districts.

Of the sum allocated to the Secretary’s Discretionary Fund, 25 percent must be awarded to

higher education for use in foreign language instruction improvement, and 75 percent must be

spent on competitive awards for special programs.

So far, two competitions for this fund have been

held, awarding $5 million. In these competitions,

special consideration must be given to magnet

school programs for gifted and talented students

and for historically underserved groups in science

and engineering.

The net effect of the Title 11 legislation is to disperse appropriated funds very widely without

consideration of whether dilution reaches a threshold where the funds make no discernible impact

on mathematics and science education. Almost

all school districts in the Nation have received

small amounts of these funds; the problem is the

size of the allocation. One-half of all the annual

grants made to school districts under Title II were

for less than $1,000 and one-quarter were for under $250; some districts have refused to apply for

the funds, citing the desultory amounts of money

that they would get as a result.46 Most State Title II coordinators do not collect detailed data on

the uses of these funds, but they believe that most

are used for inservice training and workshops.

Very little goes to support alternative certification and programs for training new teachers or

teachers switching into science and/or mathematics. 47

The legislation required States to justify their

needs for this funding by providing needs assessments to the Department of Education, describing their plans for upgrading teacher quality in

mathematics, science, computer learning, and foreign languages. Data yielded by these assessments

have been of variable quality. CCSSO, with funding from NSF, did attempt to encourage States

to report their data using common formulae and

tabulations, and about 33 States (mainly the

smaller States) supported this program. Congress

required the Department of Education to provide

it with a summary of the needs assessments in the

fiscal 1986 NSF authorization (Public Law 99-1!59);

the Department fulfilled this requirement in September 1987, although this document itself noted

that it was of limited usefulness since the”. . . resuiting needs assessment reports . . . are highly

idiosyncratic and do not readily lend themselves

to national generalizations .”48

lbThe evaluation of the distribution of funds under the program

notes that one (unnamed) school district, which would receive $25

under the program, was advised by its State Title iI coordinator

to discuss the district’s inservice training needs for teacners over two

and a half cases of beer.

47Ellen L. Marks, Title II of the Education for Economic Security

Act: An Analysis of First-Year Operations (Washington, DC: Po]-

icy Studies Associates, October 19$6).

48Royce Dickens et al., “State Needs Assessments, Title 11 EESA:

A Summary Report, ” prepared for U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, August 1987.
126

Data and Research Funded by the

Department of Education and the

National Science Foundation

The Federal Government, through NSF and the

Department of Education, supports a great deal

of data collection and analysis, as well as educational research and evaluation that is relevant to

mathematics and science education. The following programs are active:

● Office of Studies and Program Assessment,

NSF, providing data and management information on the national state of mathematics

and science education;

● Program of Research in Teaching and Learning, NSF, funding educational research on effective teaching and learning in schools and

universities;

● Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI),

Department of Education, providing national

data on education in all subjects; and

● research programs in OERI, funding educational research by individual investigators

and centers, and its dissemination through

research and development (R&D) centers and

databases, such as ERIC.

The overall system of data collection on mathematics and science education would benefit from

greater formal coordination between NSF and the

Department of Education.49 The best work has

been done by NSF, particularly its two National

Surveys of Mathematics and Science Education

(in 1977 and 1985-86, respectively). But data on

class enrollments by sex, race, and ethnicity are

not available from the 1985-86 survey, and preliminary data on course-taking by high school

graduates from the National Assessment of Educational Progress 1987 High School Transcript

Study appeared late in 1987. A new Department

of Education study, the National Educational Longitudinal Study, officially began in 1988. It would

4QInformal coordination has been practiced for a long time, including joint National Science Foundation (Science and Engineering Education Directorate) -Department of Education review of

educational research proposals (Richard Berry, former National Science Foundation staff, personal communication, August 1988).

be valuable to have recent data to gauge the effects of educational reforms.5o

Educational research in mathematics and science is in even more tenuous shape, however,

having suffered (along with research in other subject areas) from budget cuts,51 disputes among

several relevant disciplines (including psychology

and cognitive science), and a failure to pursue

more active development programs as well as

basic research.52 In particular, education research in mathematics and science is still recovering from the shutdown of NSF’s SEE Directorate

in the early 1980s. 53 The key to better research,

ultimately, will be better dissemination and development work that builds on the base of empirical knowledge. Data collection from States and

school districts should be improved by changes

enacted by Congress during the recent reauthorization of Federal education legislation.

The Department of Education also runs the National Diffusion Network (NDN), established in

1973, which disseminates and provides some funding for implementation of curricula that are of

demonstrated educational benefit. NDN programs

cover all levels of education, including higher education. By December 1987, there were 450 programs in NDN, and they were being used in about

20,000 schools with 2 million students. Ten of

these programs were in science, four of which had

originally been developed, in part or whole, with

funds from NSF. Recent programs had been developed with Title II funds. NDN funds dissemination of programs, and the average grant is

about $50,000 over 4 years.54

50The CounC.] of chief state School Officers also coordinates

various data collections by the States. Other Department of

Education-funded longitudinal studies, the National Longitudinal

Study and the High School and Beyond survey, have proved to be

invaluable as well.

51U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Education Information: Changes in Funds and Prion”ties Have ALfected Production and

Quality, GAO/F’Eh4D-88-4 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, November 1987).

Szon rewarch needs in science education genera]ly, see Marcia

C. Linn, “Establishing a Research Base for Science Education: Challenges, Trends, and Recommendations, ” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, No. 3, 1987, pp. 191-216.

53See Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 5, vol. 2, pp. 1-27 to 1-50.

For example, see National Science Foundation, Summary of Active

Awards, Studies and Analyses Program (Washington, DC: March

1988).

~All data are from U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, Science Education Pro-
127

Education Programs in the

Mission Research Agencies

Federal R&D mission agencies are active in

mathematics and science education. The bulk of

activity is in informal outreach programs, such

as classroom visits, NASA’s Spacemobile, laboratory open houses, career days, and science fairs.

These programs touch tens of thousands of students—but only to a small degree. Some Federal

laboratories “adopt” a high school, and thereby

develop extensive contact with teachers and students. Adoption programs usually involve little

or no direct cost to the agency, since they rely

on employee volunteers to speak at schools, judge

fairs, or host a visiting school group. Because

these kinds of programs are informal in nature,

they do not have established budgets or staff at

the agency, and depend on the initiative of research staff as well as any education coordinators that the agency may have. They tend to wax

and wane. Usually only a handful of people at

any agency (including its field laboratories) work

full time on education.

A few agencies also have modest programs to

train and support mathematics and science

teachers, ranging from summer research and

refresher courses to resource centers where they

can work with and copy instructional materials.

None of the extensive teacher training workshops

reach more than a few dozen teachers, however.

One exception is NASA’s interactive videoconferences on NASA’s activities in space science education, which have drawn about 20,000 teachers

each time.

The other genre of program is in research participation or apprenticeships, which reaches only

a very few students but in much greater depth.

These programs bring students, usually juniors

or seniors in high school, into agency laboratories

for research experience in ongoing mission R&D.

These research apprenticeships are powerful

mechanisms. For example, since 1980, the NIH

Minority High School Student Research Apprenticeship Program has awarded grants to univergrams That Work: A Collection of Proven Exemplary Educational

Programs and Practices in the National Diffusion Network, PIP 88-

849 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).

sities and medical schools to bring students in for

summer research projects. Students participate in

all aspects of research; they collect data, review

literature, attend seminars, use computers, and

write up findings. In 1988, over 400 students will

be supported on NIH grants totaling $1.5 million.

At the program’s peak in 1985-86, 1,000 students

participated each summer. Over half the participants are Black; about 20 percent are Hispanic,

another 20 percent Asian. Over half are female.

Students are selected for aptitude and motivation,

and on the recommendation of their science

teacher. 55

Mission agency summer research programs together support perhaps a few thousand high

school students—certainly under 10,000—but, in

any case, more than NSF’s comparable program

does. Full-fledged programs cost on the order of

just under $1,000 to around $3,000 per student.

Most of the cost is in salary for the student; there

usually is significant cost-sharing with the host

laboratory, and often with industry and other private supporters. Shorter summer programs, where

students come in for a few weeks, or programs

that mix hands-on research with instruction or career sessions, are less costly per student (up to a

few hundred dollars); they also provide a less intensive experience.

Mission agency education activities, mostly local and informal, complement to a large extent

the formal, research-oriented and nationwide programs of NSF. The mission agencies are particularly successful at reaching diverse populations.

The programs build on the existing agency staff

and facilities; many make special efforts to reach

females and minorities. Formal minority research

apprenticeships were established in 1979 by the

Office of Science and Technology Policy for the

major R&D agencies.

The mission agencies have unique strengths in

reaching out to young science and mathematics

‘

sThe National Institutes of Health evaluation testifies to the success of the research apprenticeships in encouraging participants to

attend college and pursue a research career; 60 percent of students

say that the experience influenced their career decisions. One of the

touted strengths of the program is its flexibility and the institution’s

leeway in awarding and using the grants (the grants include salary

for the apprentice, which may also be used for supplies or any relevant education activity). National Institutes of Health, personal communication, May 1988.
128

students. Federal research laboratories around the

country are a particularly valuable resource for

education, with unique facilities and equipment.

DOE and NASA have large, visible laboratories

doing state-of-the-art research in exciting areas

such as space flight, lasers, the environment, and

energy. Many of these laboratories are in areas

where there is little or nothing else in the way of

sophisticated research facilities. There is no place

else students (or teachers) can see, touch, and

work with equipment like rocket engines, whether

it is for an afternoon visit or a summer of research.

The thousands of researchers at these laboratories

are likewise a valuable resource, offering inspiration, expertise on careers and nearly any special area of research, real-life role models for

youngsters, and mentors for students doing research.

The ethos behind mission agency education efforts is to improve the quality and coverage of

elementary and secondary education in their mission area, and ultimately to help ensure an adequate supply of scientists and engineers working

both for the agency and in areas that support the

agency’s mission. (See table 6-4. )

Major Mission Agency Programs

NASA is one of the most active and innovative mission agencies in education. Public education has been an integral part of NASA since its

inception, and is a natural response to the continuing interest of children—and adults—in space

science and exploration. The excitement of

NASA’s space mission clearly is an interesting

way to package basic science and mathematics lesTable 6-4.—Summary of Mission Agency K-12 Mathematics and Science Education Programs

FY 1988 Number of Females/

Agency programs budget students minorities?

Summer research and enrichment:

DOE High School Honors Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOE Minority Student Research Apprenticeships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NIH Minority High School Student Research Apprenticeships . . . . . . . . . .

DoD Research in Engineering Apprenticeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DoD High School Apprenticeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(Office of Naval Research, Army Research Office, Air Force Office of

Scientific Research)

USDA Research Apprenticeship (Agricultural Research Service). . . . . . . . .

NASA Summer High School Research Apprenticeship Program . . . . . . . . .

General enrichment: a

DOE Prefreshman Engineering Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DoD/Army Computer-Related Science and Engineering Studies

(4 weeks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DoD UNITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NOAA D.C. Career Orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EPA summer internships

USDA 4-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher training and support:

NASA education workshops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NASA resource centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOE research experience and institutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

USGS summer jobs for teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Informal outreach: b

All agencies (especially NASA and DoD); (also NIST, DOE, USDA, NOAA,

USGS, EPA, NIH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$550,000

$120,000

$1.5 M

$250,000

$300,000

$50,000

$30,000

$70-100 M

$1 M+

$250,000

unknown

320

200

410

200

125

2,000

60

500-2,000

24

5 M

unknown

unknown

50

20-90

hundreds of

thousands

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

aResearch, instruction, career orientation’ usually short-term residential.

bclassroom visits and demon~tration~, science fairs, talent searches, career fairs, laboratory open houses, weekend instruction and hands-on programs, partnerships

(“adopt a school”), materials development and lending.

NOTE: Most programs include cost-shartng with host institution, and often with local industry and other sponsors.

KEY: DOE = Department of Energy NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NIH = National Institutes of Health EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

USDA = US. Department of Agriculture USGS = U.S. Geological Survey

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration NLST = National Institute of Standards and Technology

DoD = Department of Defense

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.
129

sons. An educational affairs division was formally

created in 1986. NASA supports elementary and

secondary teachers with workshops and resource

materials at NASA’s field centers. NASA is also

reviewing and supplementing existing curricula,

and has produced videotapes, satellite broadcasts,

videodiscs, electronic tutors, and other innovative educational technologies. NASA has a summer high school apprenticeship, which employs

about 125 students, most of them minority. In

addition, about 30 full-time education outreach

staff (mostly former teachers) spend over 160 days

on the road with the Spacemobile (a mobile resource center for children about the space program), presenting school assemblies and class

rooms. 56

DOE, in cooperation with its national laboratories, has one of the most extensive programs for

student summer research among the Federal agencies. It has several programs, for example, the high

school honors research program (320 students,

$550,000), and minority student research apprenticeships (200 students, $120,000). DOE brings in

teachers, offering them research experience and

training (in 1988, 50 teachers, $250,000). It is also

building science education centers in its national

“See National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Educational Affairs Plan: A Five-Year Strategy, FY 1988 -1992,” unpublished manuscript, October 1987.

Photo credit Children Television Workshop

There are many Federal programs which support

innovation and research i n science

and mathematics education.

laboratories as part of a university-laboratory cooperative program.

DOE and the Department of Defense (DoD) are

the only agencies with substantial involvement in

early engineering education. The prefreshman

engineering program (PREP) awards money to

universities to sponsor summer programs for females and minorities in junior high and high

school. PREP programs include research experience, instruction, and career and college preparation. It reaches 2,000 students ($300,000), and

benefits from substantial cost sharing and in-kind

support.

Various offices of DoD support UNITE (Uninitiated Introduction to Engineering), which range

from short stays to many-week research apprenticeships on engineering campuses. UNITE sessions include engineering and other technical

classes, planning for college, career seminars,

visits to military laboratories and facilities, and

meetings with military engineers. Extensive followup of students shows that the program works.

Students report that it helped shape their career

goals; it turned some off, but it turned many more

on to engineering. (UNITE is a military offshoot

of programs sponsored by the Junior Engineering Technical Society, or JETS, a private organization with extensive corporate support. JETS

coordinates Minority Introduction to Engineering programs to introduce students to engineering and college, most often as 1- or 2-week summer programs at universities. ) The Research in

Engineering Apprenticeship Program pays several

hundred high school students to do mentored

summer research at defense laboratories.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of

Standards, is a relatively small agency with few

regional facilities. However, it does extensive informal outreach from its major laboratories in

Maryland and Colorado. NIST encourages its research staff to give talks and demonstrations at

schools, and work with science fairs and informal education programs.

USDA is surprisingly active in early science

education. In particular, the well-established 4-

H program, which has over 5 million participants

in counties throughout the Nation, reaches an
130

enormous number of children. USDA is launching an initiative to bring more basic science content into 4-H programs, involving such modern

areas relevant to agricultural research as biotechnology and remote sensing. (See box 6-C. ) They

have received a small amount of funding from

NSF to develop innovative science programs

within 4-H. USDA also has many informal outWithin the Department of the Interior, the U.S.

Geological Survey has extensive and well-organized elementary and secondary education programs. They also sponsor summer jobs for geology teachers. Other branches of the Department

of the Interior have educational programs, mostly

informal outreach. Much of the work of the Interior lends itself to summer internships for

reach and career programs. The Agricultural Re- students.

search Service is the home for USDA’s summer

research apprentice program, which supports

about 200 students each summer.
131

RETHINKING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

In thinking of any policy problem, it is useful

to identify what goals a system is intended to

meet, what alternative actions need to be weighed,

and how those actions can be implemented to fulfill system goals. In the case of elementary and

secondary mathematics and science education, it

is the last of these that is the most difficult. What

needs to be done is much more obvious than determining how it is to be done. The Federal Government is historically at least one step removed

from those who have the most direct influence on

teaching and learning-families, teachers, schools,

and students. The Federal Government can and

does provide incentives and support for some actions rather than others; rethinking the mechanisms of Federal support affects the larger issue

of the division of roles nationally in education.

Mathematics and science education are part of

a much larger set of issues with national dimensions; all, however, are built from the ground up:

neighborhood schools, locally elected school

boards, and State governments. The tension between national and local priorities has a long history, but is ultimately an essential part of the

American system of participatory democracy.

Reconciling national and local visions should be

regarded as the job of educational policymaking,

not an obstacle in its way.

Today, a new phase of Federal interest in education is developing. It is based on the need to

train a better quality work force as well as the

need to ensure equity of educational provision to

all young Americans. The heightened importance

of these needs will require change in several areas,

including organizational arrangements in schools

and school districts, the upgrading of the teacher

work force, and, ultimately, new spending. The

real cost of elementary and secondary education

is already rising. More important, the need to improve mathematics and science course offerings,

introduce more experimental work in classrooms,

extend informal learning opportunities, and fuel

enrichment programs both in and out of school

cannot be met by improvements in the existing

system alone. In particular, greater use will be

made of both individual and collective learning

styles in class and out.

The special challenge to formal mathematics

and science education is its ability to command

adequate, but not excessive, attention relative to

the vast number of other issues that arise in

elementary and secondary education.
Appendixes
Appendix A

Major Nationally Representative Databases

on K-12 Mathematics and Science

Education and Students

Longitudinal

1972-86 (continuing)’

National Longitudinal Study (National Center for

Education Statistics, Department of Education). The

cohort studied is 23,451 high school seniors (1972), enrolled in a total of 1,318 high schools. Followups were

conducted in 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77, and 1979-80.

A fifth followup was conducted on a subsample in

1986. In each followup, data were collected on high

school experiences, background, opinions and attitudes, and life plans. Participants were subjected to

a battery of achievement tests only in the first survey.

1980- Present

High School and Beyond Survey (Center for Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

Department of Education). This survey contains two

cohorts, starting in 1980. The first is a sample of 30,000

high school sophomores, and the second a sample of

28,000 high school seniors. These cohorts were enrolled in 1,015 public and private schools and are sampled every 2 years. The purpose of the survey is “. . .

to observe the educational and occupational plans and

activities of young people as they pass through the . . .

system and take on their adult roles. ” The 1980 and

1982 surveys consist of a questionnaire (on attitudes,

educational plans, family background, socioeconomic

status data, and activities outside of school) and cognitive tests. The tests were developed by the Educational Testing Service and were intended to measure

cognitive growth in three domains: verbal, mathe-

‘Dates refer to time of data collection. Post-1986 databases currently under construction and subject solely to primary analysis are excluded. For titles of ongoing database projects supported by the National Science Foundation, see Summary of Active Awards, Studies and Analysis Program

(Washington, DC: March 1988).

‘General note on the two surveys in this catego~: although they are intended to be similar and comparable, they differ. High School and Beyond

includes data from parents and teachers, as well as from high school transcripts (allowing relationships between course-takings, achievement, and destinations to be estimated). The definition of “Hispanic” has also changed between the two studies, affecting comparisons of minority performance, The

low response rate to the National Longitudinal Study limits its usefulness.

The 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study will reduce such limitations,

matics, and science. The most recent followup data

were released in 1988. No achievement tests were

administered in the 1986 surveys.

Cross-Sectional

Various Years

National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEp) (formerly administered by the Education

Commission of the States and now by Educational

Testing Service, Inc. (ETS)). NAEP is a congressionally mandated program, funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the Department

of Education, that assesses national achievement in

education, including science and mathematics.3 ETS

now refers to it as “The Nation’s Report Card. ” The

most recent science and mathematics assessments were

in 1985-86 (published in June 1988); previous assessments were in 1981-82, 1977-78, 1972-73, and, for science only, 1969-70. Each science test measured both

science attitudes and achievement. The 1981-82 and

1985-86 assessments addressed attitudes to science in

more detail than before and the 1985-86 assessment,

for the first time, asked for background information

on science experiences out of school and on what is

being taught in science classrooms. In 1985-86, teachers

were also asked to provide information on their training and experience, instructional methods, and their

intended curriculum. To conduct the assessment,

NAEP identifies a stratified probability sample of

schools and tests students in three age groups: 9, 13,

and 17. Anywhere between 60,000 and 90,000 students

take NAEP tests, although any given test item is taken

only by 2,600 individuals. (ETS terms the technique

“Balanced Incomplete Block Spiraling.”) After assuming responsibility for NAEP, ETS introduced a degree

of cohort matching into its assessment design.4 Co3The National Assessment of Educational Progress was initiated in 1969.

Note that the 1981-82 science assessment was not funded by the Department

of Education or conducted by the Educational Testing Service, but through

a special grant from the National Science Foundation to the University of

Minnesota.

‘The purpose of cohort matching is to improve the confidence that can be

placed in conclusions about changes in student achievement through time.

The matching will work by applying the same sampling technique to 9-year-

(continued on next page)

135
136

hort matching has not been applied to assessments before 1985, which limits the ability of NAEP to support conclusions about improvements or declines in

science and mathematics achievement over time.

1977 and 1985

National Surveys of Science and Mathematics Education, sponsored by the National Science Foundation

and conducted by Iris Weiss of Research Triangle Institute. The survey requested science and mathematics

course offerings and enrollment (by race, ethnicity,

and sex), science facilities and equipment, instructional

techniques used, and teacher training. All data were

self-reported. The 1985 survey covered 425 schools,

public and private, including 6,000 teachers, and was

stratified by grades: K-3, 3-6, 7-9, and 10-12. The survey was published in November 1987. The data do not

address achievement.

1985

Survey of High School Teachers and Course Offerings, conducted by the National Science Teachers

Association (NSTA). The survey was based on an

“Official U.S. Registry of Teachers” maintained by

NSTA, which is intended to list all science teachers

of grades 7-12. All private and public secondary school

principals were asked to name all their science teachers

and the number of classes of each type of science that

the teachers will teach during the coming school year.

A stratified random sample of 2,211 high schools was

culled from 26,000 responses, derived in turn from a

total pool of 48,427 forms mailed. Stratification was

by seven ranges of school size, three grade structures

(K-12, 7-12, and either 9-12 or 10-12), and by public

or private status. Data have been used by NSTA to

estimate the number of sections of each type of science course taught, the number of high schools that

offer either no physics, chemistry, or biology courses,

the number of teachers teaching “in-field” and “outof-field, ” and the teaching load of average physics, biology, and chemistry teachers.

Annually

The American Freshman, conducted by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). CIRP and

UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute annually

survey incoming freshmen in full-time study in colleges

and universities. Some longitudinal followup studies

(continued from previous page)

olds in 1985-86 as will be applied to 13-year-olds in 1989-90 and 17-yearolds in 1993-94. The individuals tested will not be identical, however.

are attempted to track students 2 and 4 years after college entry. All incoming freshmen are surveyed and

the data are stratified by type of college, public or private control, and the “selectivity level” of the institution. The survey instrument solicits data on high

school background, including Scholastic Aptitude Test

or American College Testing program score and grade

point average, intended major and educational destination, career intentions, financial arrangements, and

attitudes.

Cross-Sectional and lnternational5

1980-82

Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS)

(U.S. Co-ordinator: College of Education, University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Published as The Underachieving Curriculum, January 1987). Data were

collected in 1980-82 and covered 20 countries. The

U.S. survey covered 500 classrooms in 2 populations:

grades eight and those completing secondary school

and taking a large number of mathematics courses (defined as 12th graders taking college preparatory mathematics). Both SIMS and the Second International Science Study (S1SS) focused on three stages of the

educational process: the intended curriculum (what is

in the textbooks), the implemented curriculum (what

the teacher actually does in class and how), and the

attained curriculum (what the students learned). The

intended curriculum is based on a content analysis of

textbooks, while the implemented curriculum was

measured by asking teachers to complete questionnaires. The attained curriculum was tested by multiplechoice achievement tests. SIMS attempted to study the

relationship between what happens in schools and

what students learn, so the achievement batteries were

administered twice: once at the beginning and once at

the end of each school year.

1983 and 1986

Second International Science Study (U.S. Coordinator: Teachers College, Columbia University). SISS,

similarly to SIMS, attempted to address what it termed

the “intended, “ “translated,” and “achieved” curricula

for science instruction in 25 countries. SISS studied

‘The fol~wing two studies were conducted under the aegis of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a nongovernmental association of educational researchers. The first international

science study was in 1970 and the first international mathematics study was

in 1964. Both the second mathematics and science studies are “deeply” stratified probability samples of different types of schools, made under internationally agreed on and applied guidelines. The processing and interpretation

of results have been hampered by lack of funding and of a central location

for performing the necessary work.
137

both public and private schools, and surveyed a total

of 2,000 U.S. students, broken into four populations:

grade 5; grade 9; grade 12 taking second-year physics,

chemistry, and biology; and grade 12 taking no science (1983 only’). In the United States, 125 schools

were surveyed and the tests addressed science achievement, attitudes, “a science learning inventory, ” and

a word knowledge test. Background data on the school

and about teachers were also requested. Some items

common with the First International Science Study

were included; at grade 5, there were 26 such items,

and at grade 9, there were 33. Both grades five and

nine showed an improvement over performance in

1970. Results from the two grade 12 populations in

‘Data for 1983 are suspect due to only a 30 percent response rate.

the United States have not been published. Data from

other countries are still being processed in Stockholm,

funded by the Swedish Ministry of Education and the

Bank of Sweden. The 1986 survey addressed process

skills and content, as well as teacher activities and

other factors in the school environment that might affect achievement. Data were collected from students,

science teachers, and school administrators. Process

and achievement skills were tested for both grades five

and nine. Achievement was be tested in these groups:

I0th grade biology, 11th grade chemistry, and 12th

grade students with more than 1 year of study in one

or more of physics, chemistry, or biology. Technical

aspects of this survey, including data collection but

not instrument design, were contracted to the Research

Triangle Institute.
Appendix B

Mathematics and Science Education in

Japan, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union

During recent years, a steady stream of international

comparisons of elementary and secondary education

has painted an increasingly bleak picture of the deficiencies of American mathematics and science education. Depressing comparisons with teaching practices

in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea have

been seized on by many of those pressing for the

United States to address its crumbling competitiveness.

The source of competitive advantage is often referred

to as “human resources” or “human capital’’—skilled,

talented, and flexible workers. For example, a recent

commentary noted that international comparisons of

mathematics education “ . . . typically depict Korean

10-year-olds working out the Four-Color-Map Problem in their heads while Americans of the same age

struggle to do double-digit multiplication without

removing their socks. ”1

Problems in Making International

Comparisons

While international comparisons do point to significant differences in mathematics and science course

offerings, curricula, and teaching, it is important to

bear in mind two major problems in any sort of policyoriented comparisons among cultures and countries:

● developing a sufficiently accurate explanation of

the causes of observed differences, which are very

often rooted in what are, to the outsider, opaque

cultural and social differences in the roles of families, business, the State, law, and education; and

hence

• determining what aspects of other systems could

readily be appropriated and transferred across

cultures and societies, and which would be foolish or even counterproductive to consider transferring.

For example, the United States could adopt a national curriculum, but such a move would be resisted

strongly by many policymakers. Such a move would

threaten the fragile compacts between national and local autonomy stipulated in the Federal as well as State

constitutions. Further, a “national curriculum” would

likely consist of little more than a lowest common

‘Edward B. Fiske, “Behind Americans’ problems With Math, A Question

of Social Attitudes, ” New York Times, June 15, 1988, p. B8.

denominator of topics defined by special interest

groups and argued out line by line in highly partisan

congressional debates. Rather than providing models

to be emulated, the ultimate value of doing international comparisons may be to provide a kind of “mirror” in which to examine and better understand the

reasons for well-entrenched, culturally rooted American educational practices and policies.

On an analytical level, it is difficult to make sound

international comparisons in education unless studies

are designed to compare “like with like” and to collect enough data to build a picture of overall educational capacity—teachers, students, and schools—in

each country. In considering the high school students’

exposure to mathematics and science, for example, it

is important to note that the American school system

is designed to retain all students to age 18 (and actually succeeds in enrolling about three-quarters of this

group), whereas schools in other countries typically

enroll a much more select group of students in the 14-

to 18-year-old range.

These caveats aside, it is generally agreed that the

American education system devotes relatively less time

to mathematics and science education compared with

other countries; estimates are that American students

spend only one-third to one-half as much time on

learning science as their peers in Japan, China, the

U. S. S. R., the Federal Republic of Germany, and the

German Democratic Republic.’ Significant differences

in the mathematical progress of children in selected cities in the United States, Taiwan, and the People’s

Republic of China have been found from the elementary grades. Japanese kindergarten children already

surpass American children in their understanding of

mathematical concepts.3

It is evident that differences

are across the entire educational system of each nation.

Japan

The country with which commentators most enjoy

making international comparisons of mathematics and

science education is Japan.’ Japanese children study

2

F. James Rutherford et al., Science Education in Global Perspective: Lessons From Five Countries (Washington, DC: American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 1985).

‘Harold W. Stevenson et al., “Mathematics Achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American Children, ” Science, vol. 231, Feb. 14, 1986, pp. 693-699.

‘The following is based largely on William K. Cummings, “Japan’s Science and Engineering Pipeline: Structure, Policies, and Trends, ” OTA con138
139

far more mathematics and science than American children, and more of them emerge from schools with a

greater degree of scientific and technological literacy

than do American children. Japanese institutions of

higher education can draw from an exceptionally wellqualified crop of students. In addition, many go on

to science and engineering majors; it is estimated that,

in proportion to its population, Japan produces as

many scientists and twice as many engineers as does

the United States.

Japanese education resides within the cultural milieu

of Japan. A well-known recent study explored the importance of families in mathematics education. While

Japanese families considered poor performance in

mathematics to be a consequence of lack of effort,

American families more often attributed success to innate ability, despite poor teaching.5

Japanese students typically attend school for 240

days per year (compared with 190 in the United

States), because they work a half day on Saturdays.

It is believed that they spend a greater proportion of

class time on academic activities. ’

In elementary schools, the science curriculum includes matter and energy, living things and their environments, and the Earth and the universe. These

themes are often reinforced by educational television

programs broadcast by the Japan Broadcasting Association and coordinated with the curriculum.7 Students often go on field trips with their school. It is

widely reported that Japanese mathematics and science

curricula demand more from their students than those

in the United States: Japanese students simply cover

more ground. Although Japanese and American elementary school students spend a similar amount of

time on mathematics and science, from six to eight

periods per week, the time is far more intensively used

in Japanese schools.

tractor report, October 1987 See also U.S. Study of Education in Japan, ]apanese Education Today, OR 87-500 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Educat]on, January 1987); John Walsh, “LJ. S,-Japan Study Aim Is Education

Reform, ” Science, vol. 235, Jan 16, 1987, pp. 274-275; Debra Viadero, “Japan and U.S. Release Assessments of Each Other’s Education Systems, ” Education Week, Jan. 14, 1987, pp. 9, 19; Willard J. Jacobson et al., Analyses

and Comparisons of Science Curricula in Japan and the United States, Second IEA Science Study (New York, NY, Columbia University Teacher’s College, 1986); and Wayne Riddle, Congressional Research Service. “Public Secondary Education Systems m England, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, the

United States, and West Germany: A Comparative Analysis, ” EPW &I-TTO,

Issue Brief, 1984, pp. 16-21,

‘Stevenson et al., op. cit., footnote 3, p. 697; U.S. Study of Education in

Japan, op. cit , footnote 4, p 3.

“The amount of time spent on a subject is one, somewhat crude, indicator of the amount of learning in that sublect, But the amount of learning also

depends on the efficiency of that learning, which depends in part on the quality

of teachtng methods employed and, In the elementary years, the hnks w]th

other subjects Learning in mathematics and science by elementary, school

ch]ldren depends in part on their read]ng and writing abillties.

‘Tornoyukl Nogami et al , “Science Educat]on in Japan—A Comparison

W]th the U.S ,“ mimeo prepared for the National Science Teachers Association 35th National Convent Ion, Mar. 27, 1987, pp. 2-3

Research data suggest that there is less variation

among students in mathematics and science learning

than in the United States. In part that is because Japanese elementary schools are not grouped or tracked

by ability, and the use of mixed-ability cooperative

learning groups, or han, is very common. But it is also

due to the assumption that everyone can and must be

competent in these subjects. A recent book notes that:

It is simply taken for granted . . . that every child must

attain at the very minimum “functional mathematics, ”

that is, the ability to perform mathematical calculations in order to accomplish requirements successfully

at home or work.8

Japanese lower secondary schools, which cover

grades seven to nine, are similar to American junior

high schools, but have few or no electives, Students

are required to wear uniforms and adopt a more serious and disciplined approach to work than they had

in elementary schools, There is still no sorting by ability, although the use of cooperative learning groups

is rare. Upon completion of lower secondary schools,

at the end of ninth grade, all students have taken some

elementary geometry, trigonometry, algebra, and

probability and statistics. They have devoted between

6 to 8 out of 30 weekly class periods to mathematics

and science. In science, students take a variety of general science topics, including biology, chemistry,

physics, and earth science. Teachers specialize in a subject area and teach only that area. The pressure to get

into a good upper secondary school leads students in

lower secondary schools to be highly competitive and

neurotic, and the consequent pressure to succeed is

often cited as a cause of teenage suicide. Many students attend out-of-school juku, which are coaching

lessons that prepare them for examinations for entry

to upper secondary schools, mostly concentrating on

English and mathematics.

The final 3 years of school, upper secondary schooI,

are quite different from the preceding 9. Entry to this

level is on the basis of lower secondary school records

and common entrance examinations administered by

the local prefecture; schools can be highly selective,

and there is considerable variation in the courses that

students take. Attendance at upper secondary schools

is voluntary, and tuition is charged. About 90 percent

of young people attend them. Typically, several upper secondary schools serve students within a given

neighborhood and there is a clear ranking of prestige

among them. Some upper secondary schools specialize in academic-preparatory programs and other vocational programs; only about 30 percent offer both programs. ’ While the post-war reforms at first embraced

‘Ben]amin Duke, The Japanese School: Lessons for Industrial America

(Westport, CT: Praeger Special Stud] es, 1986), p. 82.

W S. Study of Education ]n Japan, op cit., footnote 4, p, 41,
140

the neighborhood comprehensive high school principle, parents often lobbied officials to send their children to the better neighborhood schools and upper secondary schools now are definitely not equal.

Within Japanese upper secondary schools, students

select a given course of classes, and it is very difficult

to change course or take classes outside those specified for that course. There are few or no electives.

Typically, academic-general and vocational-specialized courses are offered, although both often have

common coursework in the first year. Within the academic-general course there is often a branch at the end

of the first year of upper secondary school, at which

point those planning science and engineering majors

are separated from those planning arts majors. Students are often further sorted by ability levels within

each course. About two-thirds of the students take

academic-general courses, one-quarter take vocational

courses, and the remainder enter specialized colleges

of technology or training schools, or enter the work

force directly.

Those planning science and engineering majors take

a total of 102 credits over 3 years, of which 18 are in

mathematics and 16 are in science; these credits include

calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology. In grade 10,

students spend 10 out of 34 hours per week in mathematics and science courses, rising to 14 and 18 hours

in grades 11 and 12, respectively. In grade 12, the

science-bound take 5 hours per week of integral and

differential calculus as well as both physics and chemistry. In total, one-half of those in academic high schools

are in science courses. Nevertheless, the core courses

required for both the arts and the vocational-specialized courses are sufficiently demanding in mathematics

and science that some students who have taken these

courses can still compete for entry to college science

and engineering programs. The uniformity of classes

means that Japanese students have no equivalent of

the advanced placement examirlations, and must all

start with freshman mathematics science programs at

college. The upper secondary school curriculum is very

demanding, and some students fall behind and lose interest. The net effect is that, while the proportion of

22-year-olds that receive baccalaureates in the United

States and Japan is about the same (23 to 24 percent),

about one-quarter of these in Japan are in natural science and engineering as compared to 15 percent in the

United States.

Japanese public upper secondary schools are complemented by a number of private upper secondary

schools, in part because only a limited number of public schools were built after the war and the education

in lower grades was emphasized. About one-quarter

of upper secondary schools are private. While some

of these schools are highly selective, others enroll those

who failed to qualify for the limited number of places

in the public sector. Public schools generally carry

more prestige.

For the college-bound, the upper secondary years

are extremely demanding as students prepare to take

college entrance tests, In the Japanese system, there

is well-defined ranking of higher education institutions

and a student’s decision to enroll in a particular institution will have, through contacts with students and

professors, a great effect on his or her later career, job

prospects, and life. The college education that students

receive is relatively unchallenging. The great competition to enroll in the “right” university has created

pressure for a very intensive academic curriculum and

the extensive use of examinations to sort and prepare

students for college entrance in the upper secondary

school years. Students often take both the nationally

administered First Stage Standardized Achievement

Examination and examinations set by the particular

university to which they are applying, These examinations test only factual recall and include no testing

of skills with experiments and the process of construction of new scientific knowledge. In preparing for the

examinations, students often enroll in yobiko which

are similar to the juku at lower secondary level.

In many ways, it is ironic that the Japanese school

system does so well in mathematics and science

whereas the American system has problems, because

Japan’s schools were reorganized along American lines.

The ultimate aim was to democratize and demilitarize

Japan during the post-war American occupation.

Japan’s schools have also made good use of curricula

and instructional material developed in America. Japanese schools are run by about 50 prefectural-level

school boards and 500 local school boards which, unlike many of their American counterparts, are filled

by people appointed from above rather than elected.

The national Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture (monbusho) prescribes curricula, approves textbooks, provides guidance and funding, and regulates

private schools. The prefectural boards of education

appoint a prefectural superintendent of education,

operate those schools which are established by the

prefectures (primarily upper secondary schools),

license and appoint teachers, and provide guidance and

funding to municipalities. Municipal boards operate

municipal schools, choose which textbooks to use from

those approved by monbusho, and make recommendations about the appointment and dismissal of

teachers to the prefectural board.

The cost of education is shared by the various tiers

of government and, at later stages, by parents directly,

The Japanese government pays about half of the cost,
141

including some subsidies to private schools. Special

budget equalizing regulations direct the central government to augment the spending of poorer districts

up to a minimum level; there still remains a 60 percent variation in average per pupil expenditure among

school districts. There is a uniform national pay scale

for teachers, with a modest starting salary and steady

annual increments that can triple a teacher’s income

after 20 years of service. Overall salaries are competitive with other occupations, and teaching is an attractive job; there are normally at least enough applicants

for teaching positions, even in mathematics and sciences. Teaching remains one of the limited number of

professional occupations that are readily available to

women, but most teach only in elementary schools;

only 18 percent of teachers in upper secondary schools

are female. Most teachers have degrees in single academic disciplines other than education, although substantial numbers have no degree at all. Each prefecture and large city has an education center for its

teachers, which provides inservice training and conducts educational research.

Curricula, in principle, are controlled by local

school boards, but the central Ministry of Education

sets standards in a “National Course of Study” and

approves textbooks. In practice, it is believed that there

is considerable uniformity of curricula. Curricula emphasize mastery of key subjects, such as mathematics

and science, and make few concessions to individual

learning styles, predilections, and idiosyncrasies. It is

a belief in Japanese culture that creativity is only possible once fundamentals are mastered.

Just as Americans admire the uniformity and excellence of the Japanese system, many Japanese are

searching for ways to make their system less monolithic and competitive, and more respectful of individual creativity, particularly as the country is now stressing the development of a basic research capability.10

Japanese students are schooled to master factual material rather than analysis, investigation, or critical

thinking. Teacher lectures from textbooks are very

common, although considerable use is also made of

laboratory work in science.]] Similar programs of

educational reform analysis and activity exist in Japan

and the United States; the United States program is

often taken as a model .12 The Prime Minister’s National Council on Education Reform called in September 1987 for the school system to put more emphasis

‘Whe Japanese parallel to the U.S. Study of Education report is Japanese

Study Group, Japan-United States Cooperative Study on Education, “Educational Reforms in Japan, ” mimeo, January 1987, which studied aspects of U.S.

educational reform that might translate to Japan, especially the transition

between secondary and higher education.

“U.S. Study of Education in Japan, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 34.

“Ibid., pp. 63-67; and Walsh, op. c]t , footnote 4.

on diversity and creativity, but the council has been

split by internal controversy over the shape of possible reforms. It is believed that these calls may lead

some prefectures to combine lower and upper secondary schools and to put a reduced emphasis on examination-based sorting. ’3

Great Britain

Most observers of Great Britain’s system of mathematics and science education have concluded that it

is very good for those who plan college study in science and engineering, but comparatively weak for the

rest.14 Students, by international standards, specialize

at a very early age, and are offered few opportunities

to shift interests. Preparation for examinations, which

are externally set and assessed, is the dominant activity for those college-bound, Enrollment in higher education institutions is restricted both by financial mechanisms and fairly strict entry requirements, and the

proportion of British 18- to 22-year-olds that enroll

in college may be the smallest in any developed nation.

Like the United States, comparatively little science

is taught in British elementary schools and there are

few teachers qualified or motivated in the subjects. The

emphasis instead is on mathematics. Most students

begin science classes in one or more of the fields of

physics, chemistry, and biology in the sixth grade,

and continue them to the end of eighth grade. In

grades 9 and 10, students choose a limited menu of

courses to specialize in for the purposes of taking nationally administered school-leaving examinations

(now known as the General Certificate of Secondary

Education) at the end of 10th grade. Those collegebound in science and engineering might take six to

eight subject exams, of which three or four are in mathematics and science subjects. Enrollment in grades 11

and 12 is voluntary, and is normally restricted to those

preparing for nationally administered college entrance

examinations (known as Advanced-level, or A-level)

examinations. At this stage, students normally specialize in only two or three subjects, which tend to be related to each other, although proposals have often

been made to expand this number in the interests of

giving college students a “broader education. ” In these

grades, the science- and engineering-bound can take

only mathematics and science subjects, if they choose.

Entry to colleges and universities in Great Britain

is granted on the basis of grades and the number of

passes awarded in the A-level examinations, and most

“David Swinbanks, “Reform Urged for ‘Helllsh’ Japanese Education Systern, ” Nature, vol. 326, Apr. 16, 1987, p. 634.

“See Joan Brown et al., Science in Schools (Philadelphia, PA: Open

Umversity Press, 1986).
142

institutions make offers to students conditional upon

their achievement of certain grades. A minimum of

two passes in two subjects at A-level is normally required, and entitles the student to free tuition and access to a grant program for living expenses while at

the university.

The Soviet Union

In many ways, the mathematics and science education system in the Soviet Union is similar to the American and British systems.l5 Each is a very uneven SYStem, geared primarily to training those who will

become professional scientists and engineers. The bulk

of the school population learns relatively little and is

left largely alienated from science and engineering. The

extremes in the Soviet Union, however, are quite distinct. The layer of top quality students, which ranks

internationally with the best, is very thin; there is a

steep drop-off below that level.

The education system in the Soviet Union, like that

in the United States, Great Britain, and Japan, is undergoing reforms. The impetus for these reforms is the

new national desire to improve the efficiency of industry.

Soviet elementary and secondary education is split

into three phases:

● primary or elementary education, grades 1-3

● “incomplete” secondary education, grades 4-8;

and

● “complete” secondary education, grades 9 and 10.

Most students complete eighth grade, normally

achieved at age 15, and then choose among several

different paths. Some continue in general education

secondary schools and are most likely to enter higher

education, while others enter the work force but continue their secondary education via evening or correspondence courses. Higher education is open to students from each of these routes, but most college

students come from those who enrolled full time in

general education secondary schools. A third path after eighth grade is to enroll in a technical or vocational

school. These schools are primarily intended to train

future skilled workers and technicians. For the most

talented students, there are a number of specialized

schools, often residential, some of which specialize in

mathematics and science,

Entry to higher education in the Soviet Union is

competitive, with an approximate oversupply of secondary school graduates of between two and three

times the number of higher education places available.

“The following is based on Har[ey Balzer, “Soviet Science and Engineering Education and Work Force Policies: Recent Trends, ” OTA contractor report, September 1987.

Admission to higher education institutions is primarily by means of examinations. Political considerations

are often important, and students who participate in

extracurricular social service activity, such as agricultural work, are often given some preference in admissions and award of stipends. Although only about 20

percent of students go on to higher education, about

half of these are in science and engineering, with the

effect that a larger proportion of each birth cohort

graduates in sciences and engineering than in the

United States.

Reforms in progress include a requirement for students to begin full-time education a year earlier, at age

6 rather than age 7. The extra year will allow time for

study of additional subjects such as labor education

and computer science. At the moment, computers are

very rarely used in classrooms, but their use has become a national priority. All students will have required courses in information science, but it is likely

that many of these classes will be taught without hardware. To improve the skills of the work force, all students in general secondary education learn manual labor skills, even those who go on to higher education.

The current phase of curriculum reform is designed to

introduce less demanding, but more comprehensive,

curricula in many subjects, including mathematics and

science. This last step is ironic, because the intensity

of the traditional mathematics and science curriculum

is often praised by American commentators. More

money is being allocated to education; teachers’ salaries are being increased and merit pay arrangements

are being introduced.

Under the reforms, closer links are being forged with

both higher education institutions and local firms and

enterprises. All schools are being paired with neighborhood factories and businesses: enterprises will be

required to provide financial and material assistance

to schools and hope to receive better trained workers, Many higher education institutions are signing

agreements with secondary schools, under which college faculty will assist in secondary school teaching.

Students will be given access to research facilities at

colleges, and the colleges will admit a specified number of students to higher education. Research laboratories are also being encouraged to participate in such

agreements. So far, 30 of about 900 higher education

institutions have signed agreements of this kind. While

reforms of this kind should improve the quality of education of future scientists and engineers, they will force

students to specialize at a younger age, often 15 or 16,

than has been the case.

As a further part of the Soviet reform program,

more students will be encouraged to enter technically

oriented vocational programs in grades 9 and 10 rather
143

than general education secondary programs. Although

the training these students receive is supposed to be

equivalent to that in general education secondary programs, this step will probably reduce the already oversubscribed pool of qualified high school graduates

planning to enter higher education. College entry

standards have also been tightened during the last 8

years, except in fields such as computer science, and

biology, which have been targeted for expansion.

Conclusions

While mathematics and science education in other

countries contains many features to be admired, including the commitment to these subjects, the emphasis

on academic learning, and the geographical equalization of learning opportunities, each system contains

some features that disturb many American educators.

They include unswerving allegiance to the mastery of

facts rather than creativity and individual expression

and the extensive use of lectures. Other unappealing

features are the limited number of women teaching in

upper secondary schools, the central control over

many aspects of teaching, and the teaching of science

and technology literacy to a select few rather than the

full cohort of students. Above all, many other countries have a greater degree of centralization in educational decisionmaking than exists in the United States.

Schools and school districts need to identify practices

that are transferable, but also need to be extremely

cautious of the cultural and social assumptions underlying some of these practices.
Appendix C

OTA Survey of the National Association

for Research in Science Teaching

The National Association for Research in Science

Teaching (NARST) is an organization of university researchers in mathematics and science education. In

June 1987, OTA mailed questionnaires to the American membership of NARST, asking for their opinions

on a range of current and past Federal programs designed to improve precollege mathematics and science

education. Of 500 questionnaires mailed out in this informal, one-shot survey, 135 were returned for a response rate of just over 30 percent.

The survey was designed to give OTA a general impression of the opinions held by individuals knowledgeable about previous Federal efforts in this area.

NARST includes many active participants and evaluators of previous Federal mathematics and science education programs; their responses provided valuable,

often first-hand, accounts of programs such as National Science Foundation (NSF) summer institutes and

curriculum development programs. Respondents also

had extensive familiarity with other local, State, and

NSF-sponsored programs that are listed below. OTA

recognizes that the members of NARST are neither

representative of the broad population of researchers

and teacher educators in mathematics and science education, nor are the responses statistically representative of the entire NARST membership.

OTA solicited opinions on the effectiveness of the

following programs:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

grants for equipment and supplies under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958;

NSF summer institutes and other inservice training for teachers;

NSF summer institutes for students and other research participation programs for students;

NSF-funded new curriculum programs;

assistance for magnet schools for racial desegregation purposes;

funds allocated through Title II of the Education

for Economic Security Act of 1984; and

support for informal science education, including

educational television and science and technology

centers.

Of these programs, NSF teacher institutes, research

participation for students, and curriculum development programs received the highest ratings. Many respondents thought that significant lessons had been

learned from the teacher institutes and curriculum de144

velopment programs, such as the need to ensure that

participating teachers are given followup training and

that training covers both subject knowledge and ideas

for teaching mathematics and science in real-life situations. Magnet school programs were the least highly

rated, although less than one-half of the respondents

cited these programs at all.

OTA also asked respondents to identify other Federal programs that they thought had had a positive

effect on mathematics and science education. These

nominations provide a fairly comprehensive overview

of the kinds of Federal programs that have been attempted since passage of the NDEA:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

NSF-funded Institutes for Science and Mathematics Supervisors;

funds for Research on Teaching and Learning of

Science and Mathematics;

NSF-funded Chautauqua Institutes for Teachers;

the Department of Education’s National Diffusion

Network for the dissemination of effective curricula materials;

Programs for Metric Education;

the Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education;1

Presidential Awards for Teaching Excellence in

Mathematics and Science;

the National Assessment of Educational Progress,

funded by the Department of Education;

NSF’s Project SERAPHIM;

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s program for sending astronauts and scientists to schools, and a similar program funded by

NSF;

the Clearinghouse for Research in Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education that is part

of the ERIC system;

National Sea Grant College Marine Education

Activities;

the Department of

gram; and

NSF’s program of

and Engineering.

Energy’s Honors Science ProResource Centers for Science

‘Despite its name, this source has funded some precollege programs, such

as the }ami/y A4ath series of books and material; from t-he- EQ-UALS program at the Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley.
145

Several respondents made noteworthy observations

regarding:

● the importance of educating guidance counselors, ●

principals, and school board members about the

problems of science education, particularly to

convey that science is a collection of facts as well

as a way of exploring and examining the world,

and that the interest of many students in science ●

needs to be developed;

● the diminutive size of Federal mathematics and

science education programs in relation to the size ●

of the problems;

● the fact that past programs have not done a good

job at distinguishing between programs for training future scientists and engineers and programs

for boosting technological literacy. NSF programs ●

have often been aimed at the former, and have

made too great a use of working scientists who

have limited appreciation of the culture of schools

and the need to involve parents, school boards,

and administrators if improvement is to be lasting and meaningful;

the need for ongoing training and support for programs, once mounted. In many cases, programs

have attempted too much too quickly, and have

failed to follow through, allowing the status quo

to be reasserted;

the increased use of science specialists and consultants to be shared among schools or even

school districts;

the need for more emphasis on elementary mathematics and science education, where the battle

is won or lost, rather than on secondary education when too many deficiencies are already irrevocable; and

the recognition that good teachers are an absolute precondition to improvements in other areas,

such as curriculum, equipment, and testing. Science and mathematics teacher education programs

at universities need to be updated and fortified.
Appendix D

Contractor Reports

Full copies of contractor reports prepared for this project are available through the

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), either by mail (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161) or by calling them

directly at (703) 487-4650.

Elementary and Secondary Education (NTIS order number PB 88-177 WI/AS)

1. “Images of Science: Factors Affecting the Choice of Science as a Career, ” Robert

E. Fullilove, III, University of California at Berkeley

2. “Identifying Potential Scientists and Engineers: An Analysis of the High SchoolCollege Transition, ” Valerie E. Lee, University of Michigan

International Comparisons (NTIS order number PB 88-277 969/AS)

1. “Japan’s Science and Engineering Pipeline: Structure, Policies, and Trends, ” William K. Cummings, Harvard University

2. “Soviet Science and Engineering Education and Work Force Policies: Recent Trends, ”

Harley Balzer, Georgetown University

146

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OF1-’ICE : 1988 0 - 89-136 : QL 3