U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

33–612PS 2007

IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE

FOR AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND

SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 8, 2007

Serial No. 110–9

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

BART GORDON, Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member

MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

March 8, 2007

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12

Panel 1:

Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Panel 2:

Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of Science Education; Director,

Center of Science and Math in Context (COSMIC), University of Massachusetts, Boston

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

Biography .......................................................................................................... 22

Ms. Linda K. Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers’ Association;

K–8 Science Department Chair, Weston Public Schools, Weston, Connecticut

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Biography .......................................................................................................... 31

Dr. Jerry Mundell, Professor of Chemistry, Cleveland State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34

Biography .......................................................................................................... 36

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

H.R. 524, To establish a laboratory science pilot program at the National

Science Foundation .............................................................................................. 54

(1)

IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE

FOR AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:10 p.m., in Room

2320 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Improving the Laboratory Experience

for America’s High School Students

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On March 8, 2007 the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing

to receive testimony on the shortcomings of the use of laboratories in high school

science education and to consider related legislation. H.R. 524 directs the National

Science Foundation (NSF) to establish a pilot program of grants to partnerships of

high schools and other institutions to identify best practices for improving the educational effectiveness of science laboratories. The bill is in response to the findings

of the National Research Council’s (NRC) 2005 report, America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.

This hearing will discuss how issues like lack of coordination between the laboratory exercises and classroom lectures, inadequately trained teachers, languishing facilities, and current high school organization diminish the value these exercises can

have or prohibit them all together. Most importantly, this hearing will highlight

how a strong hands-on experience can create scientifically literate students, interested in pursuing a career in science.

Witnesses

Panel 1

The Honorable Rube ́n Hinojosa, the Representative from the 15th district of

Texas

Panel 2

Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, Distinguished Professor of Science Education, Director of

the Center of Science and Math in Context, University of Massachusetts, Boston,

Graduate College of Education; co-author of America’s Lab Report: Investigations in

High School Science.

Mrs. Linda Froschauer, President, National Science Teachers Association.

Dr. Jerry Mundell, Adjunct Professor and General Chemistry Laboratory Manager, Department of Chemistry, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Overarching Questions

• How important is the laboratory experience in teaching students to understand scientific concepts?

• What are the common obstacles for creating and maintaining laboratories and

developing curriculum to teach laboratory experiences?

• Will H.R. 524 help address those obstacles and make lab instruction more accessible to all students?

Summary of National Research Council’s America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science

In 2005 the National Research Council published America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, a study which looked at the role laboratory learning

can have for the country’s high school students, the current situation of laboratory

learning, and what can be done to improve these often unproductive programs. The

NSF commissioned this study as a precursor to fulfilling the mandate Congress gave

4

the agency in the 2002 NSF Authorization Act (P.L. 107–368) to launch a secondary

school systemic initiative, which would ‘‘promote scientific literacy’’ and ‘‘meet the

mathematics and science needs for students at risk of not achieving State student

academic achievement standards.’’ Specifically, section 8(E) of the law required NSF

to support programs for such activities as ‘‘laboratory improvement and provision

of instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of

mathematics, science, engineering, and technology instruction.’’ As scientific and

technical fields become an increasing part of the global economy, it is imperative

that America’s students be adequately prepared to compete for high-tech jobs and

create the innovation that drives the economy.

The NRC report found that the laboratory science programs in high school classrooms are in disarray, and certain factors seriously hamper efforts to improve them.

The NRC report committee concluded that there exists no commonly agreed upon

definition of laboratories in high schools amongst researchers and educators. Without agreement on a definition of what constitutes a laboratory exercise, research

and the accumulation of knowledge on specific methods to improve the experience

for student is undirected, difficult to classify, and difficult to draw conclusions from.

Though research on laboratory exercises may not be well delineated, American

students poor achievement in science is. Assessments of national trends in science

learning show that American students at all levels are at roughly the same level

of proficiency in science that they were at 30 years ago. International assessments

show American students fare worse than their peers in other countries. It is clear

from studies of undergraduate science students that many are unprepared for college-level work. A 2002 survey of first-year students planning a major in science,

technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) showed 20 percent in need of remedial math work and 10 percent in need of remedial science work. Those who come

unprepared for college-level work often do not succeed and will leave the STEM

fields.

Through their review of the available studies, the NRC report committee developed a list of desired outcomes for laboratory experiences. The studies showed that

laboratory experiences may help students enhance mastery of subject matter, develop practical skills with tools and instrumentation, develop teamwork abilities,

and cultivate an interest in science. Additionally, the NRC committee noted that

laboratory experiences expose students to the complexity and ambiguity of real empirical work. These concepts cannot be taught in lectures or textbooks. Students

must interact directly with scientific phenomena to appreciate this aspect of science.

Unfortunately, the typical laboratory experience for most of the country’s high

school students is poor. Studying the current situation in the classroom, the NRC

report committee concluded that teachers often implement laboratory exercises that

are not synchronized to the classroom lecture, do not have clear learning goals, neglect student feedback and discussion, or are not designed to integrate the learning

of science material with the learning of scientific process. Teachers are rarely provided adequate pre-service training or in-service professional development to lead

these exercises. The lack of flexibility in high school organization can also impedes

the implementation of more effective laboratory exercises.

The NRC report committee came to the conclusion that State standards are also

to blame for the failures in the laboratory. Teachers must cover an extensive list

of standards, leaving little time for the development and implementation of laboratory curricula. The NRC report points to one study of California State standards

showing that students are required to carry out laboratory exercises that engage in

activities like hypothesis forming, data collection, problem solving, but at the same

time they must also master an extensive list of science topics that puts impossible

time constraints on laboratory exercises. And, since large-scale assessments of

science mastery are not designed to measure student attainment of laboratory goals,

laboratory exercises are further neglected.

H.R. 524

H.R. 524 amends the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 to establish a pilot program

at NSF to fund grants to improve laboratory sciences. The grants, which require a

funding match, must go to partnerships between high schools and institutions of

higher learning (including community colleges), businesses, eligible non-profit organizations, State educational, or other public agencies, National labs, or communitybased organizations. These grants are intended to support the development of laboratory exercises integrated with classroom curriculum and teacher development,

and to provide for the acquisition of laboratory equipment and instrumentation. A

provision is also made in the bill for supporting these activities in schools serving

minority populations under-represented in science and engineering.

5

The pilot projects authorized by H.R. 524 will address some of the needs for research and demonstration activities raised by the NRC report. Because the NRC

committee found the evidence on best practices for high school science laboratories

too inconclusive to make specific recommendations, they delivered a series of questions in five broad categories for policy-makers, researchers, and educators to address. These areas are: the assessment of student learning in laboratory exercises;

the most effective pedagogy methods for laboratory exercises; how to serve a diverse

population of learners; the best organization of schools and school systems for a

well-functioning laboratory program; and the best way to prepare educators to administer effective laboratory programs.

Questions for Witnesses

The panelists were asked to address the following questions in their testimony before the Subcommittee:

Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft

• Please explain the background that was the impetus of the National Research

Council’s report America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.

What were the report’s findings? Can you characterize one or two as being

the most critical in implementing a successful laboratory program?

• What recommendations would the study committee make to improve the laboratory experience for students?

Mrs. Linda Froschauer

• How important is the laboratory experience for students in understanding scientific concepts? What is current state of laboratory facilities and instruction

in the country?

• What are the biggest concerns your member science teachers have about laboratory education and implementing an effective program?

• Will H.R. 524 assist in developing and implementing effective science laboratory programs for high school students?

Dr. Jerry Mundell

• Please describe the curriculum you’ve developed for students in the Cleveland

Public schools. How has your position at Cleveland State University informed

your motivation and ideas for high school laboratory curriculum?

• What obstacles have you encountered in creating lab programs for high school

students? Have you assessed students’ mastery of concepts using the curriculum you’ve developed? What methods have you used to measure this?

• Will H.R. 524 assist in developing and implementing effective science laboratory programs for high school students?

H.R. 524, To Establish a Laboratory Science Pilot Program at the National

Science Foundation

Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

This bill would establish a pilot program at the National Science Foundation to

award grants to partnerships to improve science laboratories at the secondary school

level. The grants may be used for a variety of activities to improve the laboratory

experience for high school students with particular regard to minorities who are

under-represented in science and engineering.

Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 524

Section 1. Findings

Section 2. Grant Program

– Amends Section 8(8) of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of

2002 to include a section authorizing a laboratory science pilot program for secondary schools.

– Requires the National Science Foundation Director to establish a pilot program

designated as ‘Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science’ to award grants to

partnerships to improve laboratories and provide instrumentation as part of a

comprehensive program to enhance the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology instruction at the secondary school level.

6

– Requires that the grants awarded be used for the following types of activities: to

purchase, rent, or lease equipment; maintain, renovate, or improve laboratory facilities; engage in professional development and training activities for teachers;

develop instructional programs designed to integrate the laboratory experience

with classroom instruction and be consistent with State mathematics and science

academic achievement standards; the training in laboratory safety for school personnel; the design and implementation of hands-on laboratory experience to encourage the interest of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and

Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in mathematics,

science, engineering, and technology and help prepare such individuals to pursue

post-secondary studies in these fields; and assessment of the activities funded by

this pilot program.

– Requires the grants awarded under amended subparagraph A be to a partnership

that includes an institution of higher education or a community college, a highneed local educational agency, a business or eligible nonprofit organization, and

may include a State educational agency, or other public agency, National Laboratory, or community-based organization.

– Requires that the federal cost share for these grants be no more than 50 percent.

Section 3. Report

– Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to evaluate the effectiveness of activities carried out under this grant program and submit a report,

no later than five years after the enactment of the act, to the Committee on

Science and Technology of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation and on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions of the Senate. The report shall identify best practices and materials developed and demonstrated by grant awardees.

Section 4. Authorization of Appropriations

– Authorizes the appropriation of $5,000,000 to the National Science Foundation for

fiscal year 2008 and such sums that may be necessary for the three succeeding

fiscal years to carry out this Act.

7

Chairman BAIRD. This hearing will come to order. I appreciate

the presence of our witnesses, we had recent votes, so I apologize

for the delay, but we are very glad you are all here.

We are also waiting on a fellow Member who undoubtedly is tied

up with some other committee business. Mr. Hinojosa, we hope,

will be here shortly. If he arrives, we will insert him into the proceedings as well.

I want to first welcome everyone, and thank you all for coming

to this afternoon’s hearing on Improving the Laboratory Experience

for America’s High School Students. This is particularly exciting for

me. It marks the very first hearing of the Research and Science

Education Subcommittee for this Congress, and I want to take just

a moment to express how pleased I am to be able to chair this particular subcommittee.

I want to especially thank my good friend and colleague, Ranking

Member Dr. Ehlers, who was the leader of this very committee

until recently. He has been a true leader on the Science Committee

in general, has extensive knowledge of and experience with the important issues that come before this committee, and I look forward

to drawing upon his knowledge and his friendship, and also, working together in a bipartisan manner throughout this Congress. I

am pleased he will be leading this subcommittee on the Republican

side, and also, am glad to see Mr. Hall here.

Oh, Mr. Hinojosa is here. Well, welcome. We are just getting

started. So come on up, my friend, and we will start with you once

I get through all my initial palaver.

I also want to acknowledge, though she is not with us today, on

the Democratic side, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who preceded me as

the Democratic lead on this subcommittee, in her role as Ranking

Member. I intend to continue her good work, and especially, her

commitment to math and science education, particularly as it pertains to under-represented communities. I am pleased that Ms.

Johnson has decided to continue her service on this committee.

As it is the first Committee hearing, I want to take just a brief

moment to offer a few observations of how I will approach this committee, and hopefully, that will set the stage for some of what we

will do in the future. I would say at the start that long before I

was in Congress, I was a scientist. I hold a doctorate in clinical

psychology, specialized in neuropsychology, and science is not just

a committee I serve on, as I know it is the same with Dr. Ehlers.

This is something that is in our blood. We are scientists. We are

passionate about it, and I am passionate about it not just as a scientist, but as a Member of Congress. I believe that reason, informed by fact, is a pretty darn good way to lead your life, and it

is a very good way to make public policy. And we are not alone in

that. Those who know the history of this great country know that

some of our greatest Founders, Franklin especially, but also Jefferson and Washington, as well, had a passionate commitment to

science and to investigative research as a way to guide agriculture,

as well as public policy.

At the same time, because I have been in the scientific field, I

recognize that science has its share of problems, and there is room

for improvement. And I want to underscore from the outset that ultimately, government-funded scientific research, as important as it

8

is, exists by taking the hard-earned money of taxpayers, who could

use that money in countless other ways, to fund their health care,

to send their kids to school, to pay for their house, you name it,

and they take that money, we as government take that money from

hardworking taxpayers, and we give it to scientists to conduct their

studies. That seems to me to place a particular responsibility on

the scientists who receive such funds. Simply put, if someone cannot explain why it is worthwhile to take another person’s hardearned money to do a study, maybe that study should not be done.

And I know that is a strong principle, and I am passionate about

science, but I believe scientists have a responsibility to recognize

where the money comes from that funds their studies.

I also believe that because we have placed such a high premium

and value on scientific research, it is especially incumbent upon the

scientific community to hold themselves to the highest standards of

integrity, objectivity, and honesty when reporting scientific information, not only to the Congress, but to the broad scientific community. We make important decisions based on the work of scientists, and the onus is on them to make sure their work merits

that credibility.

I recognize fully that many times, scientific research at the initial stages is not always transparent, in terms of how it might be

applied down the road, but I would urge all scientists, especially

those receiving government funds, to ask themselves at some point:

‘‘How do I justify that to the crab fishermen on the Pacific Coast,

or the logger in the mountains, or the farmer in Kansas, or the

steelworker in Pennsylvania, who have given their money to fund

my research?’’ And we will keep that in mind as we proceed

through this Congress and through this committee.

I finally want to say this: I believe that one of the great things

about science is it should not be partisan. Information, reason, informed discussion has no preference, necessarily, for one party or

another. I have come to learn, since I have been in Congress, there

are many good ideas on both sides of the aisle, and we should listen to them regardless of which side they come from. I have also

come to believe there are many stupid ideas on both sides of the

aisle, and we should evaluate them accordingly.

But on this committee, I will say to my friends, Dr. Ehlers, Mr.

Hall, I look forward to working with you. If you folks have some

things we can work on together, by all means, let us do it. And as

we are working forward on issues coming from our side, we will approach you and see how we can make it better for everybody concerned.

So, thank you for your leadership, and with that, I want to say

that, turning to today’s testimony, I want to particularly welcome

Congressman Hinojosa, who is appearing before us. He has introduced H.R. 524, a bill that would authorize the National Science

Foundation to make matching grants to partnerships between high

schools and institutions of higher education, business, or other

community organizations, to explore ways to improve science labs

for students. These grants will be used for teacher training and development, equipment and facilities, and curriculum development.

The research and demonstration projects will be focused on improving labs at high schools serving large populations of students

9

under-represented in science and math careers today. Studies show

it is these kids at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, who

are most lacking in this valuable learning experience.

How valuable is the lab experience for teaching science, and

what is wrong with the labs in high schools now? The National Research Council brought attention to this issue in 2005 with their

report, ‘‘America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School

Science.’’ The report presents an in-depth look at the problems

plaguing the effective use of what many consider to be an integral

part of learning science. To be sure, languishing facilities and old

equipment are problems. The report, though, brings attention to

the non-physical issues, such as inadequate teacher training and

preparation, lab exercises not designed to fit with classroom curricula, and State science standards that are too extensive to actually allow time in the laboratory.

This subcommittee is devoted to improving science education, so

devoted that we added science education to the name of the Subcommittee itself. We are concerned that American students are not

achieving their potential in science and math education. It is a concern not only as we look at competing in a knowledge-based global

economy for the high paying technology jobs, but at all levels of our

economy. Folks need to have an understanding of science and math

in order for them to succeed as individuals, and our nation to succeed as a country.

Improving K–12 science education is the ultimate key to the future prosperity and strength of our nation, as the National Academy pointed out in its report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm.’’

Improving K–12 education needs to be the keystone of any innovation agenda. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,

and I want to recognize, now, Dr. Ehlers, for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone and thank you for coming to this

afternoon’s hearing on Improving the Laboratory Experience for America’s High

School Students.

This marks the very first hearing of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee this Congress, and I want to take just a moment to express how pleased

I am to be able to chair this particular subcommittee.

I want to thank Ranking Member Ehlers. He has been a true leader on the

Science Committee and has extensive knowledge on the important issues that will

come before this subcommittee over the next couple of years. I am pleased that he

will be leading this subcommittee with me, and look forward to working with him

closely.

I also want to acknowledge the great work of Congresswoman Eddie Bernice

Johnson, who preceded me as the Democratic lead on this subcommittee. I intend

to continue her commitment to math and science education, particularly in underserved communities, and am pleased that she has decided to continue her service

on this subcommittee.

Long before I was a Member of Congress, I was a scientist. Long after I complete

my service in this body, I will still be a scientist. Science is in my blood, it is part

of my being. I value science not just for the astonishing discoveries and inventions

it has produced, but as a method of making decisions and, in some ways, of leading

one’s life. Reason, informed by careful, critical evaluation of evidence, strikes me as

the key not only to science, but to a successful personal life and—perhaps more importantly for our purposes here—to a successful republic. That view, as Members

of this subcommittee will all know, was embraced by the Founding Fathers, many

of whom were either practicing scientists in the world, or avid consumers of scientific research, as exemplified by Jefferson and Washington.

10

From that background, I approach the opportunity to chair this subcommittee

with a mixture of profound excitement and some concern. Excitement—because this

committee will have the opportunity and responsibility to address some of the core

government programs that support much of the most advanced research being conducted anywhere in the world. To those of us who so passionately care about the

scientific endeavor, and who see that endeavor as holding the keys to some of our

most vexing national problems, this is a thrilling prospect.

At the same time, because I have spent time in the scientific field, I recognize

that we scientists are not perfect and that there is room for improvement in the

science community.

Ultimately, government funded scientific research takes the hard earned money

of taxpaying citizens, money that those citizens could otherwise put toward paying

for their own health care, for their homes, for their retirement, for their children’s

education, money that was not easily come by and is not easily parted with, and

gives that money instead to scientists to pay for their research. Government funded

scientists need to appreciate this fundamental sacrifice and, thereby, the responsibility it carries.

Simply put, if someone cannot explain why it is worthwhile to take another person’s hard-earned money to do a study, maybe the study should not be done. That

may seem shocking to say so directly, but I sincerely believe it is a matter of principle.

I recognize that in many instances, the government investment in science has

paid off a thousand-fold in ways not easily imagined when the core research was

being funded or conducted. At the same time, however, there is also much government funded research that provides very little return and yields only marginally

used or applicable information. I recognize that there are no easy answers to these

questions, but I think it is important that this subcommittee at least consider these

questions as we move forward with our work.

I also believe that scientists who receive government money have a special responsibility to ensure that the research they perform with that money is consistent with

the highest standards methodologically. Precisely because science and scientists are

held in such high esteem by the public and policy-makers, I believe they bear a special responsibility for honesty, objectivity, rigor and integrity.

Finally, before turning to today’s hearing, I wanted to say that I have always believed that there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle here in Congress. I very

much want this subcommittee to operate in a bipartisan manner. I look forward to

the input of Members of both parties as we work together to further the important

work of this subcommittee.

Today, we’ll be hearing testimony on the use of the laboratory experience in high

school science classrooms. For a number of reasons, which we’ll hear about today,

this part of the science curriculum is currently in disarray across the country. I use

the term ‘‘laboratory experience’’ rather than just ‘‘lab’’ because the challenge of effectively using a laboratory to teach students science turns out to be more difficult

than just making sure we have enough Bunsen burners and beakers in every classroom.

I’d like to welcome Congressman Hinojosa who is appearing before us today. He

has introduced H.R. 524, a bill that would authorize the National Science Foundation to make matching grants to partnerships between high schools and institutions

of higher educations, businesses, or other community organizations to explore ways

to improve science labs for students. These grants can be used for teacher training

and development, equipment and facilities, and curriculum development. The research and demonstration projects will be focused on improving labs at high schools

serving large proportions of students under-represented in science and math careers

today. Studies show that it is these kids, at the lowest rungs on the socio-economic

ladder, who are most lacking in this valuable learning experience.

How valuable is the lab experience for teaching science, and what’s wrong with

the labs in high schools now? The National Research Council brought attention to

the issue in 2005 with their report, America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High

School Science. The report presents an in depth look at the problems plaguing the

effective use of what many consider to be an integral part of learning science. To

be sure, languishing facilities and old equipment are problems. The report, though,

brings attention to the non-physical issues, such as inadequate teacher training and

preparation, lab exercises not designed to fit with the classroom curriculum, and

State science standards too extensive to allow time in the laboratory.

This subcommittee is devoted to improving science education—so devoted that we

added science education to the name of the Subcommittee. We are very concerned

that American students are not achieving their potential in science and math education. This is a concern as we look at competing in a knowledge-based global econVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 033612 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\030807\33612 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

omy, and it’s a concern when we look at being able to give every American an opportunity for those high-paying technology-based jobs. Improving K–12 science education is the ultimate key to the future prosperity and strength of our nation. As

the National Academy pointed out in its report Rising Above the Gathering Storm,

improving K–12 education needs to be the keystone of any innovation agenda.

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on

your new post. We welcome you to that. I have always admired

your honesty and your integrity in dealing with issues, and I totally agree with you. Science is not partisan. Science policy can be

partisan, but the science itself should not be.

And I might just add an editorial comment, that I am upset at

all those people who are trying to label the current White House

as not being scientifically correct, and I recognize some members

of the Administration might be, but I have watched Presidents over

the years. Most of them are not very good at science. Most of them

are not very good at using science, and I find it very disturbing

that in spite of that record, and I don’t think President Bush is any

worse than anyone else who came along, probably somewhat better,

but a pseudo-scientific group and certain scientists are trying to

make science a partisan issue in the White House, and I don’t

think that is either helpful or appropriate.

Let me also say, picking up on your comment about justifying the

use of taxpayers’ money. I totally agree with you, and I remember

Chairman Sensenbrenner’s frequent questions, when he chaired

the Full Committee of Science, and scientists would come to him

and ask for money for their particular projects. His first question

always was: ‘‘Have you talked to your Rotary Club about this?’’ And

this just sets them back, ‘‘Why should I talk to my Rotary Club?’’

And his answer was simply: ‘‘If you can’t sell it to your local Rotary

Club, how do you expect me to sell it to the Congress.’’ And that

is the key point, all scientists should be out selling their particular

work to the public, so they know it is being done, and the public

will come to appreciate it.

Having said that, let me give a somewhat more formal statement. Laboratory experiences are a significant part of the greater

issue of improving STEM education in our nation. U.S. science literacy is weak at the K–12 levels, compared to other countries, and

our universities are burdened with a tremendous amount of remedial work in these areas. I am constantly on a mission to find ways

that we can strengthen our system of education at all levels to incorporate support for STEM teachers and students, STEM of course

standing for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

I am very pleased that my colleague, Representative Hinojosa,

has introduced a bill to improve high school laboratory science, particularly for those in the highest need. I expect that the witnesses’

reflections on laboratory science and the proposed legislation will

be an invaluable part of the Committee process. There is clearly a

need to improve upon high school laboratory experiences. One of

the conclusions of the National Research Council’s report on lab

science was that educators and researchers do not agree on how to

define high school lab science. This is a fundamental and necessary

place to start. In fact, the NRC report found that there are such

limited data on typical laboratory experiences that it is difficult to

draw any conclusions about their effect on student learning.

12

The experts on the NRC panel scrutinized the strengths of integrated lab experiences, and discovered that a lab is only helpful

when it is fully integrated into the learning process. Additionally,

the report revealed that there is a dearth of research in this area,

and students across the Nation could benefit from a study on the

best way to establish a successful laboratory.

Let me also add a parenthetical note about why laboratory instruction is so essential today. A hundred and fifty years ago, over

90 percent of the people in this country lived on farms. And I don’t

know how many present have lived on a farm or worked on a farm.

I grew up in a farming community, and every child who grows up

on a farm learns physics by using the equipment on a farm. Today,

only a small fraction of our population is on the farm, approximately two percent. That means 98 percent of our population is

likely not experiencing the use of physics and physical equipment

before they get into the schools, particularly high school, so it is essential for us to give them that experience that used to come with

ordinary life, but no longer does.

Another aspect of this is that Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman, who

has been working in this area for years now, in fact, has recently

decided to work full-time on improving science education. During

his tenure at the University of Colorado, he developed a physics

educational technology project using simulations for both teaching

and learning physics, and has made them freely available through

a website. These simulations emphasize the connections between

real life phenomena and the underlying science, and draw heavily

on prior research findings.

Though Dr. Wieman’s project was far from a traditional or even

hands-on type of laboratory, the undergraduate physics students

who used his simulations showed an increased mastery of concepts.

In one of his research papers, Dr. Wieman concluded that ‘‘many

physicists find it quite mysterious, and somewhat disturbing, that

carefully developed simulations are more educationally effective

than real hardware.’’ In other words, simply saying we have to

have laboratory experiments may not be the entire answer. It may

not even be the correct answer. Perhaps simulations may be more

effective. Again, that is something that should be studied.

As the National Research Council High School Lab Report also

determined, I think that more evidence is necessary to determine

what an effective laboratory looks like.

I look forward to the discussion about developing integrated laboratories and to learn from our witnesses. All of them have tremendous experience in the trenches, and I welcome them here today.

Thank you very much. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Laboratory experiences are a significant part of the greater issue of improving

STEM education in our nation. U.S. science literacy is weak at the K–12 levels, and

our universities are burdened with a tremendous amount of remedial work in these

areas. I am constantly on a mission to find ways that we can strengthen our system

of education at all levels to incorporate support for STEM teachers and students.

I am very pleased that my colleague, Representative Hinojosa, has introduced this

bill to improve high school laboratory science, particularly for those in highest need.

I expect that the witnesses’ reflections on laboratory science and the proposed legislation will be an invaluable part of the Committee process.

13

1Physics Today, November 2005, pp. 36–40

There is clearly a need to improve upon high school laboratory experiences. One

of the conclusions of the National Research Council’s Report on lab science was that

educators and researchers do not agree on how to define high school lab science.

This is a fundamental and necessary place to start. In fact, the NRC Report found

that there is such limited data on typical laboratory experiences that it is difficult

to draw any conclusions about their effect on student learning. The experts on the

NRC panel scrutinized the strengths of integrated lab experiences, and discovered

that a lab is only helpful when it is fully integrated into the learning process. Clearly, there is a dearth of research in this area, and students across the Nation could

benefit from a study on the best way to establish a successful laboratory.

Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman has been working in this area for years now—in

fact, he has recently decided to work full time on improving science education. During his tenure at the University of Colorado, he developed a Physics Education

Technology project with simulations for teaching and learning physics and has made

them freely available from a website. These simulations emphasize the connections

between real-life phenomena and the underlying science, and drew heavily on prior

research findings. Though Dr. Wieman’s project is far from a ‘‘traditional’’—or even

‘‘hands-on’’ type of laboratory, the undergraduate physics students who used his

simulations showed an increased mastery of concepts. In one of his research papers

Dr. Wieman concluded that ‘‘Many physicists find it quite mysterious and somewhat

disturbing that carefully developed simulations are more educationally effective

than real hardware.’’ 1 As the National Research Council High School Lab Report

also determined, I think there is a lot more work necessary to determine what an

effective laboratory looks like.

I look forward to the discussion about developing integrated laboratories, and to

learn from our witnesses. All of them have tremendous experience ‘‘in the trenches,’’

and I welcome them here today.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. If there are any other

Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your

statements will be added to the record.

At this time, I would like to introduce the witness for our first

panel, Congressman Rube ́n Hinojosa from Texas, the author of

H.R. 524. Rube ́n, we are pleased to have you appear before us

today to talk about your bill.

I now recognize my friend from Texas for his testimony.

Panel 1:

STATEMENT OF HON. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. HINOJOSA. Good afternoon. Is the microphone on? I would

like to thank Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers and all

the Members of the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to

present testimony on a pressing need: access to high quality laboratory science in our high schools.

I would especially like to thank my fellow Texan, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and Chairman of the Full Committee, Congressman Bart Gordon, for their advice and support in

developing H.R. 524, the Partnerships for Laboratory Science Act,

better known as PALS, which we are here to discuss today.

I would like to express my appreciation to the STEM education

community, particularly the chairs of the STEM Education Coalition, James Brown of the American Chemical Society, and Jodi Peterson of the National Science Teachers Association, for their advocacy on behalf of opportunities for our young people, and for their

commitment to ensuring that we do not lose future scientists and

14

engineers because they did not get preparation in laboratory

science in high school.

We have major holes in our pipeline for preparing future professionals in science, technology, engineering, and math, better known

as the STEM fields. None is more glaring than the lack of preparation for college level work for the students graduating from high

schools that have high concentrations of poor and minority students.

The National Science Foundation commissioned a study by the

National Research Council on the state of America’s high school

labs. I would like to draw your attention to two glaring findings in

that report.

One, the current quality of laboratory experiences is poor for

most students, and educators and researchers do not agree on what

constitutes an adequate high school laboratory, hampering the accumulation of research on how to improve labs.

The second finding, schools with higher concentrations of nonAsian minorities and schools with higher concentration of poor students are less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities than

other schools.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the rest of my

statement be included in the record, because I would like to speak

from personal experience of what I have seen in the good laboratories and in the poor ones.

I come from an area in South Texas that is 250 miles south of

San Antonio. The area is 80 percent Hispanic, and an area that has

for too many years been neglected. We didn’t see a sitting President in that area from 1953 to 1998, for 45 consecutive years.

Shameful. Big neglect.

So, I can tell you that the area is now progressing, because we

have been investing in human capital, in education of public

schools, in colleges and universities, and other infrastructure

projects that are helping that area prosper.

But I want to share with you that we have the South Texas Independent School District with five magnet schools, two of which are

listed in the top 1,000 high schools in the country. The Math and

Science Academy is in the top ten, and has been for three consecutive years, and then, the Allied Health is a magnet school that is

really focusing on allied health careers, and nursing, and we have

produced a lot of practicing medical doctors.

And the important thing is that we focused a great deal on the

science labs. Why? Because, as one of the members of the Education Committee, here in Congress, I went to visit Thomas Jefferson High School, and that is in Northern Virginia, and always

among the top producers of National Merit Scholars. It is amazing

that they can produce 70 semifinalists for that designation, and

that out of those 70 semifinalists, 40 got the National Merit Scholarship, and so, that is proof that what I am going to say makes a

big difference, and that is that when I took a delegation from the

Math and Science Academy of South Texas, there were about ten

men and women who work there, the Superintendent, several of

the Professors, and several school board members, and we noted

that their laboratories was the most exciting thing that the students had in their rigorous educational program. You couldn’t get

15

a job at that school, because nobody wants to quit. They had teachers with Master’s and Ph.D.s, and the students, you couldn’t get

them out, because they had such exciting projects.

All this to say that we know that it works, because we now have

two schools in the top 100 in the Nation, an area that has more

migrant children than any other region in the country, and when

they featured it one of the business periodicals, it was interesting

that they selected a child from a migrant family who scored 1500

on her SAT, and so good are the SATs and ACT scores that they

are recruited from the best Ivy League schools in the country, East

Coast to West Coast, full scholarships and 97 percent of their graduates are going on to college.

Folks, there is no doubt in my mind that we are on the right

track with this legislation. I am pleased to tell you that in just a

short while this afternoon, less than 45 minutes, I gathered 40 cosponsorships to add to the original 30 sponsors of this legislation

for a total of 70 bipartisan Members of Congress thinking why, or

asking me, what has taken you so long?

Also, I am pleased to report to the Committee that Senator

Menendez over in the Senate side is offering the mirror legislation

that we have in the House, and so, I believe that we just simply

need to raise the level of awareness of the condition of our science

labs, and get the appropriators to build up some courage and invest

in our high school labs, and I think that things are going to really

improve.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA

Good Afternoon. I would like to thank Chairman Baird and Ranking Member

Ehlers and all of the Members of the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity

to present testimony on a pressing need—access to high quality laboratory science

in our high schools.

I would especially like to thank my fellow Texan, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice

Johnson and the Chairman of the Full Committee, Congressman Bart Gordon for

their advice and support in developing H.R. 524, the Partnerships for Laboratory

Science Act, which we are here to discuss today.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the STEM Education community,

particularly the chairs of the STEM Education Coalition, James Brown of the American Chemical Society, and Jodi Peterson of the National Science Teachers Association for their advocacy on behalf of opportunities for our young people and for their

commitment to ensuring that we do not lose future scientists and engineers because

they did not get preparation in laboratory science in high school.

We have major holes in our pipeline for preparing future professionals in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics—the STEM fields. None is more glaring

than the lack of preparation for college level work for students graduating from high

schools that have high concentrations of poor and minority students.

The National Science Foundation commissioned a study by the National Research

Council on the state of America’s High School Labs. I would like to draw your attention to two glaring findings in that report:

1. The current quality of laboratory experiences is poor for most students and

educators and researchers do not agree on what constitutes an adequate high

school laboratory, hampering the accumulation of research on how to improve labs.

2. Schools with higher concentrations of non-Asian minorities and schools with

higher concentrations of poor students are less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities than other schools.

Here are some other things that we know:

16

• Last spring the American Council on Education issued a report, Increasing

the Success of Minority Students in Science and Technology, which identified

lack of a rigorous high school curriculum as a major barrier to completing a

college degree in the STEM fields.

• The latest science report card included an astonishing figure—only one in

four Black or Hispanic students take the three major laboratory sciences—biology, chemistry, and physics—that are the foundation for future STEM work

in college.

With these types of statistics, it should come as no surprise that we are losing

our competitive edge in producing experts in math, science, and engineering. We

must redouble our efforts to engage young people in these fields early in their academic careers. As we look at a broad based, national innovation or competitiveness

agenda, we need to bring in partners to address this part of the pipeline.

That is why I introduced the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science Act.

This legislation will establish a pilot program that will partner high need school districts with colleges and universities, and the private sector to improve high school

laboratories as part of a comprehensive plan to improve science instruction and student learning outcomes.

This pilot is intended to develop models and test effective practices for improving

laboratory science in high need schools. It will leverage resources from the local

community and the private sector, and it will build on our base of knowledge of

what works in teaching science. The legislation is a logical next step forward from

the National Research Council’s report on high school labs.

Our next generation of scientists and engineers are waiting to be discovered in

our nation’s high schools. Let’s make sure that our schools are equipped to provide

them with the laboratory experiences they need to develop their talents and foster

a life-long interest in science. This is something that we can accomplish together.

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I would be happy to answer any of

your questions.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the gentleman, and unless there are

any urgent questions on any Members of the Committee, as is the

custom, we will excuse the gentleman and thank him very much

for his testimony, for his leadership on this.

You speak with great passion and experience, and we would hope

that we could, in all of our districts and across this country, replicate the kind of successes you have described.

Thank you very much, Rube ́n, for your leadership on this.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you much, sir. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. At this time, I would like to introduce the witnesses on our second panel, and if Mr. Hinojosa wishes to stay, he

is of course welcome to. If he needs to go, we understand that as

well.

First is Dr. Arthur Eisenkraft, a Distinguished Professor of

Science Education and Director of the Center for Science and Math

in Context at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. He also

served on the National Research Council committee that authored

‘‘America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science.’’

Next is Ms. Linda Froschauer, President of the National Science

Teachers’ Association. She is also the K–8 Science Department

Chair for the Weston Public Schools of Weston, Connecticut.

And Dr. Jerry Mundell is a chemistry Professor at Cleveland

State University in Cleveland, Ohio, where he serves as coordinator of the Freshman Chemistry Committee.

I would remind our witnesses that spoken testimony is limited

to five minutes each. You have got those little lights there. My dear

friend, Dr. Ehlers, and when he was Chair, reminded people that

at the yellow light, you should pay close attention, because when

the light turns red, a trapdoor emerges beneath your chair, and

you will disappear from view. We have modified that. It will still

17

apply to the witnesses. It now also applies to the Members as well.

When we exceed our time commitment, there is a trapdoor, and we

will be gone two floors down and picked up by maintenance later

in the day.

But seriously, we look forward very much to the testimony. You

have done some great work. We look forward to hearing about it,

particularly in the concept of the outstanding legislation introduced

by Mr. Hinojosa.

Dr. Eisenkraft, please.

Panel 2:

STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR EISENKRAFT, DISTINGUISHED

PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE EDUCATION; DIRECTOR, CENTER

OF SCIENCE AND MATH IN CONTEXT (COSMIC), UNIVERSITY

OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON

Dr. EISENKRAFT. As the spring baseball and softball season begins, I thought it would be good to take a moment to imagine two

teams getting ready for this season. Both teams have fans and

baseball players and good coaches, and one of them gets to practice

with bats and balls, and gets on the field, and the other gets to

watch videotapes and learn and read books about baseball. And we

have to wonder, which team would you rather have your child on?

Who is going to do better this season?

Well, it is a silly question to ask, because the answer is obvious.

You want the team who can practice, and yet, the same situation,

a parallel situation exists today in our high school labs, where

some students get the opportunity to investigate the processes of

science by doing science, others get to hear about science, listen to

people talk about science, and perhaps watch videotapes.

The National Research Council of the National Academy of

Sciences produced this study at the request of the National Science

Foundation. Eight of my colleagues and some staff members

worked on this for a good amount of time, and we agreed on a definition of laboratory experiences, and we looked at the goals and effectiveness of labs in America.

The legislation considered here corresponds to two of the conclusions reached here, related conclusions. One was that labs on the

whole are not doing what we thought they would be doing. They

are poor in most respects. And also that, in spite of how poor those

labs are, children in poor communities aren’t even getting those

labs, and children who are lower in academic ability in affluent

school districts are not getting those labs, either.

So, why do we care about lab experiences? Why are the poor

quality of labs and the unavailability of labs to segments of our

population concerns? So, no amount of watching other people do

science is an adequate substitute for doing science one’s self. For

25 years, I have watched my wife. She takes these two sticks, and

she goes like this, and then a sweater pops out after a certain

amount of time. And now, I have watched this for 25 years with

care, and what are the chances, you think, if you gave me some

yarn and some knitting needles, I could make a sweater? Well,

most people don’t give me a 50/50 chance or even a 10 percent

chance. Only the kindest of people give me a one percent chance.

18

Most people say you have no chance, and yet, we think, though,

that students can watch somebody else do science, and they will be

able to figure out. If I can’t do it with knitting a sweater, I don’t

think they will be able to do it by doing that. That is one reason

we have labs, to provide these experiences to students.

But the other reason is related to the common experience. There

was a study in the New York Times three years ago which showed

the learning, the television viewing habits of black and white

Americans. Out of the top ten television programs, only two were

in common on both lists. What that meant to me was that every

time I give a television reference in class, I was disenfranchising

students in the school who were not like me. That same thing exists in all segments of our society, so every textbook in science

talks about waves in the harmonic oscillators or whatever, and

they all say like the waves at the beach. Well, I will tell you there

are kids in Boston and kids in Los Angeles who have never been

to the beach, and it is only five miles from their house. So, I have

no idea what kids in Nebraska are thinking when they read in the

book like the waves at the beach.

What we do in the lab is we give people a tub of water, they

slosh it back and forth. They make observations, they make measurements, they draw conclusions based on that, so that we don’t

have to assume that the only people who have an understanding

of this are the ones who were lucky enough to vacation at the

beach in some part of their lives. We need these kinds of experiences in order to level the playing field of all the students.

Once we figure out that we need labs, we have to figure out how

to do them better. How do we integrate them into the instructional

units? How do we make them meaningful? How do we give them

a context? How do we use the best learning from the cognitive psychology research in order to help them?

If Olympic teams were performing as poorly as our students are

in international competitions, there would be a national cry for

more attention, for improved coaching, for more opportunity, for

better equipment. We should have the same sense of urgency for

our students. Instead of just being science students, they can be

student scientists.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Eisenkraft follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTHUR EISENKRAFT

As the spring baseball and softball season approaches, we can take a moment to

imagine two teams getting ready to begin their season. Both teams have energetic

players, dedicated coaches and supportive fans. Both teams have playing manuals,

novel strategies and team building exercises. The only difference between the teams

is that one practices using bats, balls and gloves while the other team listens to lectures and watches videotapes of professional players. If you wanted your children

to win, which team would you put them on?

While it seems silly to think that some parents would want their children to play

a sport without actually practicing, we have created a similar scenario in our high

school science classrooms. Students in some classrooms investigate the processes of

science by performing experiments, making measurements and drawing conclusions

from this data. Students in other classrooms read about the processes of science, listen to stories about how experiments are conducted, and watch videotapes. If we

want our children to be good scientists, which classrooms should we put them in?

The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recently completed a study entitled, ‘‘America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School

19

Science’’ at the request of the National Science Foundation. I had the opportunity

to serve on that committee along with nine other colleagues and staff members of

the NRC. The committee agreed on a definition of laboratory experience, reviewed

the research on the goals and effectiveness of laboratory experiences in our high

schools and arrived at a number of conclusions that are all relevant to this committee’s deliberations.

The first conclusion of the committee focused on the need to create a definition

of laboratory experience to insure that we agree on the instruction we are describing

and in order to assist the research community in future studies. The committee’s

agreed-upon definition that ‘‘Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models and theories of

science’’ includes studies of friction on inclined surfaces, of how metals react with

acids and observations of a drop of water with a microscope. It also recognizes that

some laboratory experiences do not permit students to record data but instead involve analyzing data from large databases. For example, science researchers study

climatic change by reviewing data recorded over the past centuries rather than recording this data themselves. It also does not restrict laboratory experiences to a

lab room and includes field experiences where researchers study the ecology of

deserts or rain forests.

The committee also culled from the research a list of goals of laboratory experiences which includes:

• Enhancing mastery of subject matter;

• Developing scientific reasoning;

• Understanding the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work;

• Developing practical skills;

• Understanding the nature of science;

• Cultivating interest in science and interest in learning science; and

• Developing teamwork abilities.

The legislation being considered by the Committee includes references to the third

conclusion of the study and a related concern: that ‘‘[t]he quality of current lab experiences is poor for most students,’’ and ‘‘[s]tudents in schools with higher concentrations of non-Asian minorities spend less time in laboratory instruction than students

in other schools, and students in lower level science classes spend less time in laboratory instruction than those enrolled in more advanced science classes.’’

Why do we care about lab experiences in high school classes? Why are the poor

quality of labs and the unavailability of labs to segments of our population concerns?

No amount of watching other people do science is an adequate substitute for doing

science oneself. For 25 years, I have watched my wife take two sticks and bang

them back and forth and to and fro and then a sweater pops out. I really have

watched at times with interest and fixed attention. What are the chances that you

could give me knitting needles and some yarn and I would produce a sweater? Most

people tell me that there’s not a 50/50 chance, not even a 10 percent chance. Only

the kindest people give me a one percent chance while most people give me no

chance at all. If I cannot knit a sweater after watching my wife knit for 25 years,

why do we expect that our science students will be able to conduct experiments

when they have only observed teacher demonstrations at a distance or, even worse,

have only viewed pictures of experiments in textbooks?

In addition to teaching students how to do science, laboratory work also creates

a common experience among the students that can be used to improve discussions

and increase achievement. The New York Times published an article listing the top

ten most viewed television programs by whites and blacks in America. There were

only two programs that appeared on both lists. The important message from that

study is that every time I used a television reference in class, I disenfranchised students who are not like me. When I mentioned a specific popular television program

in order to engage the students or provide an analogy, some students did not understand the reference. In most science books about waves, the author describes harmonic motion using the example of waves at the beach. While you and I have seen

the ocean, many students in Boston and Los Angeles have never been to the beach

and it is only five miles from their home. What is a student in Nebraska able to

understand when the text reference is to the waves at the beach? In our wonderfully

diverse schools and society, we cannot assume that everybody has seen the same

TV programs or the same movies; we do not go to the same churches or go on the

same vacations; we do not have the same experiences. The laboratory provides a

20

place where students can observe water waves, measure water waves and draw conclusions about water waves. It provides a common experience for all students and,

in that way, levels the playing field and provides all students an entry into the

science lesson and does not limit that entry to students who have been fortunate

enough to have vacationed at a beach.

Once we are convinced of the need for lab experiments in schools, then we must

also address the quality of those labs. The NRC report is quite clear that the ‘‘typical’’ lab does not meet the goals of laboratory experiences while the ‘‘integrated instructional unit’’ does. With respect to laboratory experiences, the ‘‘integrated instructional units’’ should provide for exploration of what prior knowledge students

bring to the classroom. The lab should then have them compare and contrast their

prior knowledge with the results of their laboratory investigation. The lab should

not be taught in isolation, but should relate to a larger unit of study. ‘‘Just because

students do a laboratory activity, they may not understand what they have done.’’

Moving teachers toward this more viable approach to labs requires teacher training—both pre-service and in-service. Teachers and curriculum developers should

apply the following ‘‘four principles of instructional design,’’ as enumerated in the

report, to make the lab experiences ‘‘achieve their intended goals.’’

1. ‘‘[the labs] are designed with clear learning outcomes in mind,

2. they are thoughtfully sequenced into the flow of classroom science instruction,

3. they are designed to integrate learning of science content with learning

about the processes of science, and

4. they incorporate ongoing student reflection and discussion.’’

The present-day ‘‘typical’’ lab doesn’t produce the intended goals of labs because

the lab is often not part of a successful instructional sequence. The ‘‘typical’’ lab is

sometimes presented before the discussion of the related concepts while other times

it is presented weeks after the concept is discussed. Many times the lab is delayed

until the lab room or equipment becomes available. The ‘‘typical’’ lab often asks students to follow a set of ‘cookbook’ instructions and does not mirror the inquiry aspects that can help students learn about and experience the processes of science.

In contrast, the ‘‘integrated instructional unit’’ follows the design principles outlined above. The labs are used to provide experiences to students prior to having

them provide explanations of those experiences. The teacher role is to help students

make sense of their data and their explanations and to assist the students in coordinating their observations with accepted scientific content and understandings.

Many science frameworks require that students understand the concept of density. If you were to pick up a traditional textbook, you may find the following paragraph: Density explains why rocks sink and wood floats. Density is defined as the

mass divided by the volume. D = M/V. Let’s do a problem: A piece of wood has a

mass of four grams and a volume of five cm3. Calculate the density. The text then

goes on to solve this sample problem followed by a more difficult one where the

mass and density are given and the student is required to calculate the volume. Students may learn the definition of density and be able to solve such problems, but

have no idea why density is important or why we study it. They may or may not

then go to the lab to actually make measurements of mass and volume and apply

the definition. And, if they do go to the lab, they often engage in a ‘‘typical’’ lab

where the steps are outlined and the purpose is to confirm what they have been

told. Student misconceptions related to density are rarely addressed. An alternative

approach to this concept is used in Active Chemistry, an NSF-supported high school

science curriculum. Students are first asked to compare a kilogram of feathers and

a kilogram of lead. This helps teachers to gauge their students’ prior understanding

of the concepts. The students then conduct an investigation where they measure the

mass and volume of different amounts of water. When they divide the mass by the

volume, they find the ratio is always 1g/cm3. They repeat the same investigation

with alcohol and find that the new ratio is always 0.79 g/cm3. They repeat the same

investigation with clay and find the ratio is now always 2.6 g/cm3. Students are

then asked the question, ‘‘If someone were to tell you the mass and volume of a material, could you determine if it were water, alcohol or clay.’’ Students easily respond, ‘‘Sure. You divide the mass by the volume. If the ratio is one, it’s water; if

the ratio is 0.79, it’s alcohol; and if the ratio is 2.6, it’s clay.’’ When the teacher asks,

‘‘But what if I had only a small amount of the material?’’ the students respond, ‘‘Oh

the amount doesn’t matter. We know that because we tried it many different times

with different amounts and the ratio always stays the same.’’ The teacher can then

explain that because of its importance, we give this ratio a name—we call it density.

Density is a characteristic property of matter. It’s one way in which we can deterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 033612 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\030807\33612 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

mine if you have a diamond or glass ring or whether something is solid gold or goldplated. Of course, the students then complete problems with calculations as required

on exams. In this approach, the concept emerges from the students’ experiences in

the high school lab. The activity precedes the concept introduction and the concept

precedes the introduction of vocabulary. This more closely mirrors how science

evolves. Scientists do not invent words and then hope that these words will be

linked to important and meaningful concepts. Unfortunately, too many science texts

and science programs approach science in this way. In the preferred approach to

density, students explore their prior understandings, find patterns in the data, draw

conclusions about the importance of the ratio of mass to volume and then return

to compare and contrast these findings with their prior understandings. In the Active Chemistry unit where this concept is introduced, students must also transfer

this content knowledge to a new domain where they have to apply the concept of

density to the creation of a special effect for a movie.

A large part of the NRC study surrounded the question of whether labs are effective means of instruction. In other words, do high school labs make a difference?

After a careful review of the literature, the committee attempted to respond to this

question by looking at each of the goals mentioned above. The review was complicated by the lack of a coherent definition of laboratory experience across the studies. In addition, many of the studies did not control for all variables nor did they

take into account how other factors may affect performance. Other confounding factors also made the task of literature review and drawing conclusions from this review difficult.

What the Committee was able to conclude was that the ‘‘typical laboratory experiences’’ did not meet the goals we have for lab investigations while the ‘‘integrated

instructional units’’ showed promise in meeting the majority of the goals.

With regard to the first goal, mastery of subject matter, ‘‘exposure to these integrated instructional units leads to demonstrable gains in student mastery of a number of science topics in comparison to more traditional approaches.’’ Specifically, ‘‘In

physics, these subjects include Newtonian mechanics (Wells, Hestenes and

Swackhamer, 1995; White, 1993); thermodynamics (Songer and Linn, 1991); electricity (Shaffer and McDermott, 1992); optics (Bell and Linn, 2000; Reiner, Pea, and

Shulman, 1995); and matter (Lehrer, Schaubl, Strom, and Pligge, 2001; Smith,

Maclin, Grosslight, and Davis, 1977; Snir, Smith, and Ra, 2003). Integrated instructional units in biology have enhanced student mastery of genetics (Hickey,

Kindfield, Horwitz, and Christie, 2003) and natural selection (Reiser et al., 2001).

A chemistry unit has led to gains in student understanding of stoichiometry (Lynch,

2004).’’

With regard to the second goal of developing scientific reasoning, typical laboratory experiments can help students improve on some of the aspects of scientific reasoning but fall short in assisting students in formulating research questions or designing experiments. In contrast, once again, integrated instructional units can assist students in developing all aspects of scientific reasoning. ‘‘They can learn to design experiments (Schauble et al., 1995; White and Fredericksen, 1998), make predictions (Friedler, Nachmias, and Linn, 1990), and interpret and explain data (Bell

and Linn, 2000), and interpret and explain data (Bell and Linn, 2000; Coleman,

1998; Hatano and Inagaki, 1991; Meyer and Woodruff, 1997; Millar, 1998; Rosebery,

Warrren, and Conant, 1992; Sandoval and Millwood, 2005). Engagement with these

instructional units has been shown to improve students’ abilities to recognize discrepancies between predicted and observed outcomes (Friedler et al., 1990) and to

design good experiments (Dunbar, 1993; Kuhn et al., 1992; Schauble et al., 1995;

Schauble, Klopfer, and Raghavan, 1991).

With regard to goal three, developing practical skills, there has been very little

specific study in either typical lab experiences or in integrated instructional units.

One study did show that girls handle lab equipment less frequently than boys and

this is associated with less interest and less self-confidence in science ability in

girls.

The remaining goals—understanding the nature of science, cultivating interest in

science and interest in learning science, and developing teamwork abilities—follow

a similar pattern. The research results are not uniformly consistent in whether the

typical lab experiences or the integrated instructional units help students achieve

these goals. However, it appears that the integrated instructional units show greater promise than the typical lab experiences.

From the evidence on the effectiveness of labs, the committee recommends that

specific design principles mentioned earlier can help laboratory experiences meet

their intended learning goals. In addition, the committee concluded that ‘‘a serious

research agenda is required to build knowledge of how various types of laboratory

22

experiences (within the context of science education) may contribute to specific

science learning outcomes.’’

The introduction of a lab program into a high school is an expensive venture. Lab

facilities and equipment require capital expenditures. The replenishment of supplies

requires additional annual funds. In addition, safety requirements place limits on

the number of students that can be properly supervised in a classroom. Too often,

administrators ask teachers to accept unsafe conditions by packing too many students in the lab space. When teachers object, the administrator may suggest that

we sacrifice the quality of teaching by not providing lab experiences at all. This

Hobson’s choice forces teachers to make a bad decision—unsafe conditions or poor

instruction. In contrast, high schools across the United States support football

teams that similarly require large expenditures for equipment and subscribe to required safety requirements. The football coach is never asked to use sub-standard

helmets or to cancel play. High school science should not be considered less important than high school football.

Michael Faraday is arguably the most accomplished experimental physicist of the

19th century. Living as a poor boy in England, Faraday was apprenticed at a young

age to a bookbinder. After little schooling and meager math skills, Faraday went

on to solve the largest puzzle of his time—how to produce electricity. He accomplished this because of his access to laboratories and his hard work and true talent

for experimentation. What would happen to a Michael Faraday in American schools

today? As a poor student, he may attend an urban school where there are no labs.

As a student with few math skills, he may be enrolled in a science class for underachieving students with no laboratory period. Either way, today’s Faraday is denied

the opportunity to discover his extraordinary talents in the laboratory and our society is impoverished as a result.

We must provide labs to high school students in order to give them experience

with the processes of science in much the same way that I have to practice on knitting needles in order to make a sweater. We have to provide labs to students so

that they have a common experience with which to explore science content. And we

must insure that all students have equal access to labs regardless of their socio-economic status or whether they are enrolled in an honors class or a remedial class.

These labs should reflect what we know about effective, high quality lab instruction

as well as what we know about student learning.

If Olympic teams were performing as poorly as our American students are in

international competitions, there would be a national cry for more attention, for improved coaching, for more opportunity, and for better equipment. We should have

the same sense of urgency for our students. Instead of just being ‘‘science students,’’

they can be ‘‘student scientists.’’

REFERENCES:

Eisenkraft, Arthur. 2006. Active Chemistry. Armonk, N.Y. It’s About Time.

National Research Council (NRC). 2006. America’s Lab Report: Investigations in

High School Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2006. NSTA Position Statement: The

integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction.

Citations for all research studies quoted here can be found on pages 108–115 of

America’s Lab Report. The text can be accessed at www.nap.edu

BIOGRAPHY FOR ARTHUR EISENKRAFT

Arthur Eisenkraft is Distinguished Professor of Science Education at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, where he also directs the Center of Science and Math

in Context (COSMIC). He previously taught physics and served as science coordinator in New York public school districts for 28 years. He is a Past President of

the National Science Teachers Association and has been involved in a number of its

projects, creating and chairing the Toshiba ExploraVisions competition and the

Duracell science scholarship competition. He is Project Director of Active Physics, an

NSF-supported curriculum project, which is introducing physics instruction for the

first time to all high school students. He is also Project Director of Active Chemistry.

He initiated U.S. involvement in the International Physics Olympiad, was Academic

Director for the first eight teams and then served as the Executive Director of the

XXIV International Physics Olympiad in 1993 when the United States hosted the

competition for forty participating countries. He holds a U.S. patent for an improved

vision testing system using Fourier optics. At the National Research Council, he was

a member of the curriculum working group that helped develop the National Science

Education Standards, the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, the Committee on Attracting Science and Mathematics Ph.D.s to K–12 EduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 033612 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\030807\33612 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

cation, and the Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy. He is a fellow of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a recipient of the

Presidential Award for Excellence in Science Teaching (1986) and the Disney

Science Teacher of the Year (1991). He has been recognized for his contributions to

science education by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the

American Physical Society (APS) and the National Science Teachers Association

(NSTA). He has a B.S. and M.A. degrees from Stony Brook University and a Ph.D.

from New York University.

Chairman BAIRD. Ms. Froschauer.

STATEMENT OF MS. LINDA K. FROSCHAUER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION; K–8 SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT CHAIR, WESTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WESTON,

CONNECTICUT

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the National Science Teachers’ Association. I

am Linda Froschauer, and I am the President of NSTA. I am also

an eighth grade science teacher and Science Department Chair in

Weston, Connecticut, and I have been a science teacher for over 32

years now.

The National Science Teachers’ Association is committed to promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning

for all, and we provide our members with a variety of resources

and support, including high quality professional development, publications, networking opportunities, and curriculum materials.

NSTA strongly supports H.R. 524 and the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science grants. We applaud the Science Committee for realizing the importance of high school laboratory experiences, and for its leadership and dedication to this issue. The PALS

legislation would create a pilot program at NSF to study the best

ways to train teachers in lab instruction, the best way to set up

staff and manage labs, and ensure that those labs have the best

possible equipment, materials, and supplies. The PALS bill will

help fill our gaps in knowledge in a way that will make it possible

for a large range of schools to benefit from the results of the pilot

research program.

So, why is PALS necessary? A 1995 report from the U.S. General

Accounting Office, titled ‘‘School Facilities: America’s Schools Not

Designed or Equipped for the 21st Century,’’ found that 42 percent

of all schools surveyed nationally reported they were not at all

well-equipped in the area of laboratory science. A second GAO report in 2005, titled ‘‘Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics Programs and Related Trends,’’ found that approximately 40 percent of those college students who left the science

fields reported some problems related to high school science preparation. The under-preparation was often linked to problems, such

as not understanding calculus, and the lack of laboratory experience.

We know we have many challenges ahead in our efforts to reform

and strengthen the science education that we provide to students.

For science to be taught properly and effectively, labs must be an

integral part of the science curriculum. But in many schools, lab

science is done poorly or not at all.

Several days ago, we asked NSTA members via email to tell us

about the lab experience in their school. Hundreds of teachers told

24

us about the poor state of the lab facilities and instruction in their

schools, and the challenges that they face in providing a quality lab

experience for students.

This urban teacher wrote: ‘‘In my urban, inner city school, I

teach a lab science in an old business room. There are no tables,

benches, water, or gas service, no sinks, fire extinguisher, eyewash

stations, fire blankets, or any other equipment.’’ Another teacher

told us: ‘‘I have no specific safe area in which to conduct labs. My

yearly budget is the same as it was 12 years ago. I must purchase

all of my equipment and supplies. I have no safety equipment other

than a portable eyewash station and a fire extinguisher. My district claims that labs are extracurricular and not mandated by my

subject. My kids are accustomed to labs using kitchenware or materials I have purchased at Wal-Mart. They have no idea how to use

scientific equipment or even what it looks like due to lack of funding.’’

This biology teacher wrote: ‘‘I have been teaching high school biology for ten years. I have old microscopes that I could actually

swap out for Coke bottles and not even notice the difference. However, the greatest problem I see is my lack of skill in the area of

lab investigations. I agree that this is the best source of learning

that my kids can get, but I simply don’t have the skill to design

these labs. Safety is a huge concern. We do not have any rooms to

use as actual laboratories. Although we have lots of equipment, we

have no place to safely use it, and few teachers who know how to

use it. Currently, the one room that had been a lab is used by

teachers to sell hot chocolate and nachos to students to raise money

for trips to Washington, D.C., for a very small group of students.

The lab cannot be used as a lab. They removed the tables, and replaced them with desks.’’

And finally, we heard this from a teacher who confesses about

his own shortcomings in the classroom: ‘‘I have not learned how to

facilitate real thinking and essential planning for authentic lab experiences. I don’t know what students really need in an introductory chemistry experience at the high school level, and I cannot figure out how to teach logical thinking and sequencing to over 20

students in a lab at the same time.’’

In conclusion, H.R. 524 partnership grants can be instrumental

in helping schools to develop and maintain a safe, well-equipped

lab space, and bring ongoing professional development to teachers.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Froschauer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA K. FROSCHAUER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee

Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the National

Science Teachers Association. My name is Linda Froschauer, and I am President of

the NSTA. For 32 years I have been a science teacher and I am currently an 8th

grade science teacher and Department Chair at the Weston Public Schools in Connecticut.

The National Science Teachers Association is committed to promoting excellence

and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. We offer members a wide

variety of resources and support, including high quality professional development,

publications, networking opportunities, and curriculum materials.

NSTA strongly supports H.R. 524 and the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory

Science grants. We applaud the Science Committee for realizing the importance of

25

high school laboratory experiences and for its leadership and dedication to this

issue. As you well know core competencies in STEM are absolutely vital to our nation’s future in this global economy. American schools must cultivate the finest scientists, engineers, and technicians—from every part of our society—so that we can

create the innovations of tomorrow that will keep our nation strong.

The PALS legislation would create a pilot program at NSF to study the best ways

to train teachers in lab instruction; the best way to set up, staff, and manage labs;

and ensure that labs have the best possible equipment, materials, and supplies. The

PALS bill will help fill in our gaps in knowledge in a way that will make it possible

for a large range of schools to benefit from the results of the pilot research program.

Science educators are firmly committed to the role of the laboratory in the teaching and learning of chemistry, physics, biology, and earth sciences. The American

Chemical Society is similarly committed to quality laboratory experiences: their

Guidelines for the Teaching of High School Chemistry states ‘‘the laboratory experience must be an integral part of any meaningful chemistry program. ACS recommends that approximately thirty percent of instructional time should be devoted

to laboratory work.’’

The American Association for the Advancement of Science Project 2061 Designs

for Science Literacy states ‘‘Learning science effectively. . .requires direct involvement with phenomena and much discussion of how to interpret observations.’’

NSTA has a position paper on laboratory science which was developed with a

great deal of input from the National Research Council’s report America’s Lab Report, Investigations in High School Science. Both NSTA and the NRC believe that

quality laboratory experiences provide students with opportunities to interact directly with natural phenomena and with data collected by others. Developmentally

appropriate laboratory experiences that integrate labs, lecture, discussion, and reading about science are essential for students of all ages and ability levels.

Throughout the process, students should have opportunities to design investigations, engage in scientific reasoning, manipulate equipment, record data, analyze results, and discuss their findings.

If done correctly quality lab experiences are an important part of inquiry and help

students to understand the natural world. NSTA recommends that all pre-K–16

teachers of science provide instruction with a priority on making observations and

gathering evidence, much of which students experience in the lab or the field, to

help students develop a deep understanding of the science content, as well as an

understanding of the nature of science, the attitudes of science, and the skills of scientific reasoning (NRC America’s Lab Report, 2006, p. 127).

Lab investigations should not be a rote exercise where students simply follow directions, as though they were reading a cookbook. Properly designed laboratory investigations should:

• have a definite purpose that is communicated clearly to students;

• focus on the processes of science as a way to convey content;

• incorporate ongoing student reflection and discussion; and

• enable students to develop safe and conscientious lab habits and procedures

(NRC America Lab Report, 2006, p. 101–102).

Unfortunately, we know that laboratory science is a high-priced luxury beyond the

reach of far too many public high schools. A 1995 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, titled School Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped

for the 21st Century, found that 42 percent of all schools surveyed nationally reported that they were not at all well-equipped in the area of laboratory science.

In addition the report found that:

• 43 states reported that one-third or more of their schools met functional requirements for laboratory science not well at all.

• 49 percent of schools with a minority student population greater than 50 percent reported meeting functional requirements for laboratory science not well

at all.

• Over 48 percent of schools where 40 percent of the student population qualified for free or reduced lunch reported meeting functional requirements for

laboratory science not at all.

A second GAO report in 2005 titled Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics Programs and Related Trends found that ‘‘In addition to teacher quality, students’ high school preparation in mathematics and science was cited by university officials and others as affecting students’ success in college-level. . .. Researchers found that ‘‘approximately 40 percent of those college students who left

the science fields reported some problems related to high school science preparation.

26

The under preparation was often linked to problems such as not understanding calculus; lack of laboratory experience or exposure to computers; and no introduction

to theoretical or to analytical modes of thought.’’

NSTA is also very concerned about the equity issue involved with the high school

laboratory experience. It is imperative that all students—including students with

academic, remedial, or physical needs; gifted and talented students; and English

language learners—have the opportunity to participate in laboratory investigations

in a safe environment.

We know we have many challenges ahead in our efforts to reform and strengthen

the science education we provide to students. We agree with Representative

Hinojosa that ‘‘Our next generation of scientists and engineers are waiting to be discovered in our nation’s high schools. Let’s make sure that our schools are equipped

to provide them with the laboratory experiences they need to develop their talents

and foster a life-long interest in science.’’ To quote American Chemical Society President Dr. Katie Hunt, ‘‘Simply put, when science is taught well with adequate resources, it can capture imaginations.’’

For science to be taught properly and effectively, labs must be an integral part

of the science curriculum. H.R.524 is a positive step forward in developing quality

lab experiences for all students.

Many schools would benefit from this pilot program and the research that it will

bring. To get a sense of the current situation with high school labs, on March 5 we

asked NSTA members via e-mail, ‘‘What are the problems with the lab experience

in your school?’’

Hundreds of teachers told us about the current state of the lab facilities and instruction in their schools and the challenges they face in providing a quality lab experience for students:

• In my urban, inner city school, I teach a lab science in an old business room.

There are no tables, benches, water or gas service, sinks, fire extinguisher,

eye-wash stations, fire blankets, or other equipment. In addition, while there

is a high rate of attrition towards the end of the year, each September starts

with 50 students in each class.

• I have no specific, safe area in which to conduct labs. My yearly budget is

the same as it was 12 years ago. I must purchase all my own equipment and

supplies. I have no safety equipment other than a portable eye-wash station

and a fire extinguisher. My district claims labs are ‘‘extracurricular’’ and not

mandated by my subject. My kids are used to labs using kitchenware or materials purchased at Wal-Mart. They have no idea how to use scientific equipment or even what it looks like due to a lack of funding.

• I have been teaching high school biology for ten years. I have old microscopes

that I could swap for coke bottles and not notice a difference. However, the

greatest problem I see is my lack of skill in the area of lab investigations.

I agree that this is the best source of learning that my kids can get, I just

simply do not have the skill to design these labs. IF the NSTA wants to make

a change in science education, THIS is where it should be

done. . .TRAINING.

• My high school building was built in 1970. The budget for yearly supplies has

not changed in the six years I have been here. I have a supply budget of $750

per year. I teach between three and four science subjects per year seven classes per day, two of them being chemistry and physics. I have absolutely no

supplies to teach electricity and magnetism or optics. My chemistry supplies

are even worse. My lab facilities are set up for physics, but I am expected

to teach chemistry in low benches. I don’t know a chemist who will use a

Bunsen burner sitting down. Hence, I do not teach the labs that require Bunsen burners because I feel it is unsafe to use the burners in my room. I also

do not have a ventilation hood in my room.

• We do not have any rooms to use as actual laboratories. Although we have

lots of equipment, we have no place to safely use it and few teachers who

know how to use it. Currently the one room that had been a lab is used by

teachers to sell hot chocolate and nachos to students to raise money for trips

to Washington, DC, for a very small group of students. . .the lab cannot be

used as a lab. . .they removed the lab tables and installed desks for all the

students.

• I have not learned how to facilitate real thinking and essential planning for

authentic lab experiences. I don’t know what students really need in an introductory chemistry experience at the high school level, and I cannot figure out

27

how to teach logical thinking and sequencing to 20+ students in lab at the

same time. My time management skills are lacking. There’s much more, too.

• I teach chemistry and Earth science in a room with six lab tables; it was

originally designed to be a physics lab room. There is electricity to the tables,

but it doesn’t work. There are not sinks, therefore no eye-washes; there are

no gas outlets. The sink at my instructors table has the water turned off and

the gas turned off. We were given a budget of $5000 for each department last

year, but the orders were not filled because. . .who knows? I have not received the supplies I ordered for eight out of the last 10 years. When I first

took over this class-lab room and associated storeroom, there was a great

amount of equipment and glassware and old kits and a little of everything.

It is not possible to do any other than the most elementary labs at this school.

It would be unsafe and probably criminally liable to attempt most chemistry

labs. The fire extinguisher doesn’t work.

• While I do not teach high school science currently but do teach in a two-year

community college, I see many students entering with virtually no lab experience. While some students come quite prepared, it’s very frustrating for me

to have students coming into a college biology class with no knowledge of

basic lab equipment and techniques, such as using beakers, graduated cylinders, pipettes, or even basic microscopy skills.

• Our school does not provide enough funding for lab experiments. In addition,

senior members of the department do not believe that other than AP students

and some honors classes—should have access to lab experiments. Therefore

the classes I teach—college bound and special education—have little to no

money that goes towards lab science in the Biology classroom. Furthermore,

the set up of the classroom also is a problem when it comes time to do lab

experiments.

• I teach biology in a portable without any sinks, no storage, and only four outlets. It’s such a challenge to put together a real lab. My portable is far away

from the real science labs so it’s hard to even get materials over here. There’s

no prep area out here so I have to go to one of the main buildings to prep.

Yet those prep rooms are not easily accessed if you don’t have an attached

classroom. My room has carpet so I am reluctant to use many chemicals because they are difficult to clean up if spilled.

• Our school has minimal funding for improving the quality of lab sciences. Individual teachers are encouraged to write for grants using their own time

without pay. Three of our four science rooms do not have eye-wash stations

or proper venting equipment. There is no interest in funding the purchase of

electronic data collection equipment/computer based labs by the administration. Little effort is made in our district to train teachers to improve the quality of lab experiments and the necessary follow-up assessment.

• Several things need to be addressed. (1.) The large amount of time to get a

lab ready, carried out and cleaned up. Teachers need more time or a paid lab

assistant. (2.) The equipment and supplies are lacking due to inadequate

budgets. (3.) I was not trained or shown how to conduct labs. I had to learn

it on my own. (4.) Students have never been taught how to behave in a lab.

They think it’s playtime not learning time. (5.) Six teachers share one lab.

Scheduling is a major problem.

• We do not have adequate materials for labs at our school. We have one set

of materials for each discipline (Earth science, biology, chemistry and physics)

and five or six teachers trying to use the materials for their class. The budget

for our science department (high school of about 1,900 students and growing)

is $6,000/year.

• Besides funding for lab science, my own school has 1964 construction, which

means, the science rooms were built in a time when the accepted teaching

method was direct instruction and not inquiry based learning. There is no

space for ongoing projects.

• If this country is serious about educating our children in science, then we

need to provide designated laboratory teachers and updated equipment to

these 50-year-old facilities. Administrators need to be adequately trained or

have someone who is, to give advice and support. Each school needs a lab

budget, and not be dependent on the pockets of the struggling teacher.

• I am our district’s K–12 science coordinator and have taught high school for

many years in our district and in other districts. The two biggest problems

I see (and hear from other teachers) too many students in classes and not

28

being supported financially. Some principals feel science is too expensive.

Currently due to the lack of support our AP Chemistry labs are taught by

the classroom teachers at the local university.

• I teacher upper middle school Science. We have NO equipment to do Science

labs. Our school is five years old and no equipment was bought when the

school was built. There is no way I can I do labs without the basic equipment.

The students beg for lab work but I have to say no because lack of funding.

• In our school district, the quality of lab experiences are hindered by the large

class sizes (36 in a class). Along with the large class sizes comes unsafe conditions, including lack of space. A number of teachers also lack lab experience

and are not qualified to lead labs correctly. Our district would benefit from

teacher trainings on lab experience and labs that meet State standards.

• The major problems are lack of storage space for equipment and lack of funds

to repair equipment or replace equipment with more modern and student accessible equipment.

• When our building was redesigned, a dedicated room for chemical storage was

left off of the plans. We have had to divide our chemical stockroom among

three prep rooms, which after two years are still not equipped with the storage and safety features needed. The rooms designated for Chemistry do not

have fume-hoods installed, making it hard to do many of experiments safely.

In addition, a majority of our science classes have at least 30 students in a

classroom, with some lab classes having between 40 and 50 students in one

classroom. With poor organization of resources, a large student-to-teacher

ratio, chemistry teachers not highly qualified to teach the subject, and numerous safety issues, labs become exceptionally difficult to do.

• My district has newly refurbished laboratories. I am qualified to supervise

labs as I have both industry and academic experience in chemistry. However,

even though the lab is set up to safely accommodate 24 students, the school

administration insists this is just a guideline and insists of overcrowding the

labs with up to 28 students. This makes it hazardous for the students, as they

are crowded together. It also makes it hard for me to supervise the students,

especially in classes where there are students with IEP’s or other learning

issues. One teacher cannot safely supervise that many students in a lab involving chemicals, hot plates, burners, and glassware. In fact, in a class with

multiple IEP’s, twenty four students is too many for one teacher to supervise.

There needs to be a maximum of students per teacher (allowing for weighting

of students with IEP’s) in a lab environment, or schools should hire lab aides

to help teachers if that number is exceeded.

• Many teachers in my district, which is well-funded and well equipped, lack

the confidence to conduct lab experiences. They most often have poor classroom management and therefore believe that the students would not practice

safety and that someone could be injured. Another factor is several science

teachers are also coaches and therefore will not conduct lab experiences with

their students because coaching takes priority over instruction. They say that

they don’t have time to set up the labs.

• I believe lab science should play a key role in science education. Our main

problem is lack of funding. We are not allowed to charge lab fees and our

budget is $3,000 for 1,500 students (seven teachers). Over half of our budget

is used for paper (copies) so less than $1,500 is available for science. That

doesn’t buy much. It limits not only what we do but also limits the use of

technology in science. We have highly qualified teachers to teach labs but not

the funds to support them. We just recently cleaned closest to literally get rid

of the old equipment from the 1950’s and 1960’s which was the last time we

had large amounts of funding.

• We are assigned 37+ students per class making it difficult if not impossible

to provide worthwhile safe laboratory experiences. Additionally, the lack of

preparation time and no lab technician support means if a science teacher

wants to provide his/her students with a laboratory experience he/she must

work late into the evening to properly prepare.

• Most of the problems center around getting the individual teacher to accept

that labs are integral to the understanding of science. Most of our freshmen

science teachers do not want to bother with setting up the lab equipment or

monitoring students while they do the lab. It’s much easier to maintain control while the students are in their seats taking notes.

29

• I teach Chemistry and Physics at a Catholic High School. We are hampered

by a lack of resources. I have lots of glassware and other materials that do

not wear out, but when I came here last year we had no chemicals. I have

ordered a bare minimum of chemicals, but our budget is small. Physics is in

a little better shape, but most of the equipment is circa 1970’s.

• We currently have three chemistry labs for seven teachers, one physics lab

for three teachers, and five biology labs for eight teachers. Class sizes frequently are 30+ students for biology, 26+ for chemistry, and 24+ for physics.

The main problem we face is lack of space and time to do labs. Our classes

are overcrowded to the extent that the chemistry teachers have cut back on

labs due to safety concerns. Our class time for labs has been cut from 74 minutes to 48 minutes in all general and honors classes, and this also impacts

ability to do labs, especially as we share lab space with other teachers. To

compound these issues, in 2008 we are bringing the 9th grade into the high

school (we are currently 10–12), and this will add about 700 students into the

building who will all be required to take lab science classes. We as a staff

have no idea how we are going to manage this. Many of us are doing paper

‘‘labs’’ and computerized lab activities because of our safety concerns.

• I love labs, but I am not given very much money to spend. Last year I was

able to purchase several LAB-Aids kits. This year I was not allowed to purchase refill kits for them. The schools should be forced to allow a set amount

of money for the purchase of equipment and supplies. I can’t afford to pay

out-of-pocket. I took over physics this year. It has been taught as a math class

for several years. I asked for lab equipment and was turned down.

• Maybe I am in the minority but we have a fantastic situation. Our district

just remodeled our science labs. We have a great space and good equipment.

Our district not only supports but encourages science.

• We do not have the funds needed to do labs as we should. I am lucky if I

get to do one or two actual labs for each of our seven units. We do lots of

hands-on activities, but they just aren’t the same as experimentation.

• In the past we have had funding for the equipment but recent budget cuts

have prevented us from buying the annual consumables, so the equipment

just sits there.

• I am currently an 8th grade Science Teacher and attempting to be as much

help to High School Science Teachers as I can. I have taught for 30 years and

have watched as funding, lab facilities and equipment have declined. As a

Middle School teacher we could assist the high school with preparation for the

science experience of all students, however our funding has been drastically

cut along with the liability issues of labs. Simple science is difficult when we

cannot even use pond water and are now required to purchase expensive purchased samples or pre-prepared slides. If science suppliers would assist with

some financial breaks for the middle schools it would help our cause. I am

sitting with microscopes which we cannot use, aquariums that remain empty

as districts take a close look at liability of mold, mildew and ventilation.

• As a private school, we have all the necessary equipment and materials to

run excellent labs. All our teachers are trained as lab instructors, and we

make sure even the general students perform labs at least three times a

month. That being said, teenagers do tend to push the limits at every chance.

I have at least five ‘‘firebugs’’ who look for opportunities to do something dangerous. Consequently, constant vigilance is required. It is exhausting to set

up, and most set-ups need to be refreshed between classes. However, the nature of science requires lab experiences for a true inquiry approach. I can see

why school systems would get rid of labs altogether, relying on on-line simulations, but it is certainly worth the effort. Perhaps having a specific lab instructor who would run and maintain the labs, similar to a college environment, would work.

• Current situation: one biology lab, 22 bio classes; one chemistry lab, 19 chemistry classes; no physics lab; bio and chem labs are unsafe, run-down, illequipped. Future (2007): new science wing to be built, 15 lab/classroom combos, fully equipped and technologically up-to-date; science educators expect

science education here to go from mediocre at best to hands-on, interactive,

interesting, creative, . . .a very positive experience. There is a definite need

for professional development in science labs. Today’s teachers have so little

experience because of the conditions offered at most public high schools.

• One of the biggest problems I have faced in my teaching is that I have too

many students in my room to safely do lab activities. I have one room with

30

the lab area around the perimeter of the room and desks in the middle of the

room. I have so many students in my room that the desks are pushed right

up next to the lab counters on all sides. To do any activity where the students

need to stand at the lab benches, the desks need to be pushed to the center

and then there is not enough room for all students to stand at the counters

together. In teaching the physics portion of 9th grade physical science I am

fortunate that I have not had a lab that uses the gas, I would be quite hesitant to do so in this room because I do not believe it could be done safely.

There is no recourse in my district for the number of students in my class;

in fact I have heard that next year they are going to try to put more in my

room. Due to this space constraint, I have done fewer lab activities.

• Our primary hurdles are lack of funds and equipment. Since we are a small,

rural district with limited industry and local income, our budget for the entire

science program is $1200. This is barely enough to replace consumables in

chem, phys sci, and biology, much less order the more expensive equipment.

In addition, emphasis is more readily placed on math and English as these

are the primary areas of standardized testing. Additionally, our class size is

sometimes such that labs must be limited due to space and safety issues. For

the most part, our science teachers do a good job of implementing labs to the

best of our ability.

• As a suburban district in an affluent community, we have very frequent lab

opportunities—we have lab activities two to four times per week in biology.

We recognize the importance of laboratory experience and are limited primarily by time available.

• Actually—we have a wonderful lab experience for our middle school. One day

a week we have students for 80 minutes to do lab—this is balanced against

their history class—so on the alternate day they have history for 80 minutes.

Works well and our kids leave having a good grasp of good laboratory practices.

• My middle school does not have a lab. I have to use two desks side by side

to get a large enough flat area so students can do what I call desk-top labs.

Money of course is also a problem so to get around that I sometimes ask students to bring in items from home such as different liquids so we can use

them to test for pH. I sometimes have students work in groups of four to cut

back on expenses when the ideal would be to work in groups of two. Due to

lack of space in the classroom, labs requiring extended observation time can’t

be done. So students complete these as at-home experiments. I require them

to bring in the evidence to prove the task was actually done along with a completed lab guide. I avoid dangerous chemicals and use votive candles if flames

are necessary.

• We have a wonderful lab science program for our 7–12 grade students. It is

set-up as a college model with a full-time lab instructor who preps, runs, and

grades the lab work. Lab procedures are consistently followed, and students

know what to expect. Labs are scheduled on a regular basis since classroom

teachers do not have to make time to set-up/take-down labs.

• The biggest obstacle to providing quality lab experiences for science students

in my high school is funding. The budget simply does not allow for in depth

or multiple labs. We must pick and choose which labs to do, which is often

determined by which labs are the cheapest. I feel that we are doing a disservice to our kids in this area.

• Science labs used to meet for a double lab period once a week. That got cut

in the 90’s at many schools due to mandated testing for education reform. It

is very difficult to run a lab investigation in a 45-minute or one hour format.

You end up carrying it into the next class and losing the point. Also many

science or lab aid position have been cut requiring teachers to do all prepping,

make solutions, order supplies, etc. This is very time consuming never mind

grading, planning and of course teaching.

• As a chemistry teacher I am, as expected, adamantly in favor of integrating

laboratory experience into my curricula. I am fortunate in that I work in a

high school with a once spectacular laboratory facility that was for over 20

years maintained by a trained laboratory technician. Four years ago that

technician’s position was cut, and since then the state of our lab has declined.

Routine maintenance of equipment as well as preparation for every experiment is left to the instructors; in effect, doubling or tripling our work, depending on the experiment performed. Given these conditions, many teachers have

opted to eliminate many of the more challenging experiments their students

31

once performed. Wouldn’t it be great if we science teachers received a check

in the mail to spend on equipment rather than a half nod and a heap of rhetoric from our elected officials?

• No money for lab supplies. . .I buy almost all my lab supplies out of my own

pocket. . .and there is very little equipment. . .I improvise all the time,

using recycled bottles and jars from home, and plastic cups from the supermarket.

• My chemistry lab is very outdated and worn out. The space provided is nowhere near the suggestions for science lab classrooms today. There is only one

exit which has 22 desks between it and the lab area. I have to constantly

fight to keep my eye-wash and shower working ‘‘just in case!’’ The drains leak

and are wrapped with towels, which is someone’s idea of preventing slow

leaks. It is very much inadequate, but that doesn’t keep me from doing a lot

of lab work. I just try to keep it very benign as much as possible. It would

be GREAT to have a renovated lab. I have done research and put in the request, but funding is tight and it is just not in the school’s budget.

• I know the materials I want/need to teach my content, but I am inhibited by

unnecessary (way stricter than State standards) safety requirements for

chemicals by my district, lack of funding for equipment, disinterest by district

administrators in providing resources for ‘‘regular’’ (not honors) classes. And

it was only last year that safety equipment (proper eye-washes, showers. . .)

were installed in the classrooms. I didn’t have those in my prep room. The

fume hoods don’t all work. The lab benches aren’t bolted to the floor and get

bumped around easily. THERE ARE TOO MANY KIDS IN MY CLASSES.

• I agree that lab science is a much-needed partner with other science deliveries. In my school, I try to do at least one lab a week (either myself or as

a class). Our school was built in 1954; there are many experiments that simply aren’t safe in our laboratory. We have no fume hoods and ventilation is

poor at best. Also, I am given a $1,000 budget per year to spend on all classroom consumables including chemicals. I can only order (restock) certain

chemicals every year as ordering just 30 items would put me over budget.

• Though we are lacking some supplies, for the most part we have the bulk of

items that we need to do basic experiments. However, many teachers do not

do them for lack of understanding the science and fear of labs with ‘‘tough,’’

hard-to-teach kids. Labs take a lot of teacher effort, especially labs that work

(like inquiry). Many of my colleagues are not held accountable for the lab

component; therefore, they do not do the lab component.

In conclusion, H.R. 524 partnership grants can be instrumental in helping schools

to develop and maintain a safe, well-equipped lab space and bring ongoing professional development to teachers. Research-based pilot programs will help fill in the

gaps in our knowledge about how best to employ labs. The best practices and materials developed in this pilot program can be used as a model by stakeholders who

want to strengthen high school lab science in their communities. We call on Congress to support this innovative legislation to improve science education.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LINDA K. FROSCHAUER

National Science Teachers Association President, 2006–2007

Linda K. Froschauer, K–8 Science Department Chair at the Weston Public

Schools, in Weston Connecticut, is President of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). She began her one-year term on June 1, 2006.

Froschauer has been a devoted teacher and dedicated leader in science education.

She began her teaching career as an elementary school teacher in Matteson, Illinois;

moved on to middle level teaching at the Greenwich Public Schools, in Greenwich,

Connecticut; and has been with the Weston Public Schools since 1985. She combines

her work in the classroom with a leadership role in her school, serving as grades

K–8 Science Department Chair/mentor teacher. Outside the classroom she has

worked as an instructor for Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry; as a writer/

consultant for many publications; and as a field editor, reviewer, and consultant for

numerous organizations.

For more than 30 years, Froschauer has been a leader and active member of

NSTA. In 1976, she was named the first Preschool/Elementary Division Director to

serve on the NSTA Board of Directors. She later worked on many NSTA committees, including the International Convention Planning Committee, the Preschool/Elementary Committee, and the Informal Education Committee, and she has chaired

32

both the Awards and Recognition Committee and the Committee on Nominations.

She also has served as Middle Level Division Director, worked on the Committee

and Board Operations Task Force, and led the development of NSTA’s first Family

Science Day, which was held in conjunction with the NSTA National Convention in

Boston.

Froschauer’s devotion to science education is evidenced by her involvement in numerous other professional organizations. She has served as President of the Connecticut Science Supervisors Association (CSSA), the National Middle Level Science

Teachers Association (NMLSTA), and the Council for Elementary Science International (CESI). She is also a member of the Connecticut Academy for Education

in Mathematics, Science, and Technology; the Association of Presidential Awardees

in Science Teaching; and the Society of Elementary Presidential Awardees. She has

been actively involved in Project 2061, a national effort to improve science education

sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Froschauer was chosen as a Connecticut Science Educators Fellow and named

Weston Teacher of the Year in 1999. Her other awards and accomplishments include

receiving the NSTA Distinguished Teaching Award, Middle Level, in 2001; National

Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification, also in 2001; the CSSA

Charles Simone Award for Outstanding Leadership in Science Education in 1998;

a Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching in 1993;

and the Educational Press Association of America’s Distinguished Achievement

Award in 1991.

Froschauer earned a BS degree in education from Northern Illinois University, an

MA in science teaching from Governors State University, and a sixth-year degree

in curriculum and supervision from Southern Connecticut State University.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Mundell.

STATEMENT OF DR. JERRY MUNDELL, PROFESSOR OF

CHEMISTRY, CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. MUNDELL. While preparing my testimony for the Subcommittee, I decided to confront my general chemistry class with

some background questions concerning their high school laboratory

experiences. My survey consisted of several questions, to which the

66 students responded with their clickers. Here are some samples

of the questions and their responses.

‘‘Did the lab portion of your high school course help you to better

understand chemical concepts?’’ 44 percent agreed. ‘‘Did the lab

portion of your high school chemistry course stimulate your interest in chemistry?’’ Now, only 33 percent agreed. And finally, ‘‘Did

the lab portion of your high school chemistry course help to prepare

you for your college chemistry course?’’ Only 21 percent agreed.

Early in my career, first as an industrial research chemist with

the Lubrizol Corporation, and later, while working on my doctorate

degree at Case Western, I found laboratory routine and research

the most vibrant part of my work. Whether it was a problem involving chemical synthesis or the employment of investigative techniques to characterize substances, the physical pursuit of the

science was always pulling me back into the laboratory. It is the

nature of this physical pursuit which can inform and sometimes enlighten, and within the proper setting, such as a high school laboratory, even provide opportunities of growth and inspiration.

Traditionally, these opportunities do not occur in the normal experiences found in high school science labs, which are highly structured around classical laboratory techniques and chemical syntheses. It should be our chief concern to replace these traditional

high school lab exercises with experiences of exploration and discovery. With the participation of local colleges and universities,

such laboratory experiences may be developed and readily accessible to area high school students.

33

An example of such a program is now ongoing at Cleveland State

University. CSU is participating in a five year, NSF-funded program which provides such opportunities for its undergraduate students. The Research Experience to Enhance Learning Program,

which is REEL, addresses the issue of student experiencing the discipline of chemistry through participation in actual research situations. Instead of performing a series of lab experiments listed on

a syllabus, the students learn to design and execute green chemistry experiments performed on local environmental samples.

During the course of the semester, students utilize many of the

topics covered in the corresponding general chemistry lecture, in

addition to advanced laboratory instrumentation and techniques

unavailable to students enrolled in traditional general chemistry

lab courses.

The assessment at the end of the course is based on individual

PowerPoint presentations of each student’s research, accompanied

by their written write-ups. Students also are encouraged to publish

in research journals such as Journal of Undergraduate Research,

as well as making presentations at the real chemistry symposiums

and local ACS meetings-in-miniature.

Although this particular program is set up on the university

campus, with additional funding and proper training of school

teachers, this type of program could be offered at a secondary

school level. Within this type of laboratory experience, students are

soon to acquire a sense of ownership of the subject. Participating

in actual research situations instills maturity in students. They are

no longer just learning for the grade, but instead, applying their

knowledge to real life problem solving, but this depth of experience,

for students would only come, with a similar depth of commitment

from the teachers.

In conclusion, I strongly support House Bill H.R. 524, especially

subparagraph (B), article 5, which identifies a need of funding for

professional development and training for teachers.

As important as supplies, equipment, and well-constructed laboratories are in the implementation of a valuable teaching program, I strongly believe that the failure of our high school students

to successfully participate in college level science curriculum is, in

part, due to our failure to inspire them. This inspiration can only

come from well-informed teachers with strong attachments to their

subjects. Good science teachers need to be well-grounded in their

turf. They need opportunities outside of the normal coursework to

continually develop not only as teachers, but also, as scientists, and

this can evolve by building closer associations between the secondary school teachers and the college and university research faculty.

By implementing programs which enable school teachers to actively participate in summer research opportunities within their research, area universities and high school teachers would better be

able to appreciate and understand the nature of science.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mundell follows:]

34

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY MUNDELL

My position with the Chemistry Department at Cleveland State University (CSU)

has provided me the opportunities to assess the status and effect of high school

science laboratory instruction from two perspectives: 1) the performances of the students, both prior to and as they enter into post secondary science education; and

2) the information I have received either directly from public school teachers whom

I have taught as part of the Ohio Teaching licensure program or those teachers I

have interacted with in several CSU/Cleveland School programs. Although most of

my teaching at Cleveland State University has been involved with students enrolled

in freshman chemistry courses, I have had many occasions to instruct high school

students (CSU Upward Bound Summer Program), Middle School Teachers (Mathematics and Science Partnership) and High School Teachers (Cleveland Teaching

Leadership Program). Through these interactions with both students and teachers,

including my participation in programs such as the regional Northeastern Ohio Center for Excellence, NEOCEx, and the CSU funded 9–16 Committee, I believe myself

to be adequately prepared to both comment and recommend on the subject of the

importance of science laboratory experience in the education of high school students.

While preparing my testimony for this subcommittee, I decided to put the numbers and studies aside for a moment and indulge the thoughts of those primarily

affected by this situation. Instead of starting the 8:30 lecture with a graded quiz

question projected on the two screens at the front of the lecture hall, I confronted

my general chemistry class with some background questions concerning their high

school laboratory experiences. My survey consisted of several questions, to which the

students would respond with their ‘‘clickers’’ (i.e., electronic personal response transmitters).

Of the 66 students who participated in the survey 85 percent took a high school

chemistry course which contained a laboratory component. Although 79 percent of

those students felt that their lab instructors were well informed, only 62 percent believed the lab instructions were clear and comprehensive, and only 56 percent

thought the labs were well equipped. Having addressed the instruction and equipment aspects of the courses, I used the final three questions of the survey to summarize their high school lab experiences:

1) Did the lab portion of the course help you to better understand chemical concepts? (44 percent agreed);

2) Did the lab portion of your high school chemistry course stimulate your interest in chemistry? (33 percent agreed);

3) and finally, Did the lab portion of your high school chemistry course help to

prepare you for your college chemistry course? (21 percent agreed).

Although this survey only represented a minor population of all those CSU students enrolled in the College of Science, the results parallel the current national

trend of students receiving substandard or insufficient high school science laboratory experience. Although I presently do not have the tools to accurately quantify

the success or failure on individual high school chemistry lab courses, I do have first

hand experience with incoming freshmen who generally lack the sufficient interest

or skills to properly engage in a college chemistry course.

Each fall semester, the final grades of my General Chemistry course reflect approximately 25 percent of the class receiving letter grades of D, F, or W (a withdrawal from the course). The 2006 Book of Trends, published by Cleveland State

University, indicates similar final grades in other freshman science courses: College

Chemistry courses (Chemistry for non-science majors) with 33–36 percent of the

class receiving letter grades of D, F, or W; and entry level Biology courses with similar results. Results which indicate that 25–36 percent lack the sufficient foundation

in science to successfully compete in post secondary science courses.

Similar trends are occurring at the university level at CSU. As an urban university, consisting of 18 percent Black and two percent Hispanic student enrollments,

retention rates of 41 percent and 36 percent respectively are of much concern.

In a response, to better prepare high school students for the academic challenges

of post-secondary education, CSU has aligned itself to the teachers in primary and

secondary institutions by participation in grant programs designed to better prepare

the public school students for post-secondary education:

1) Teaching by Inquiry: Nature of Science, Academic Standards, and Supervising of Instruction. PI: Dr. Frank Johns, Professor Emeritus, College of

Education, Cleveland State University.

Teaching secondary school principals to observe and evaluate science lab

teaching.

35

2) Partners for Success. PI: Dr. Joann Goodell, Associate Professor, College of

Education, Cleveland State University, and Facilitator: Dr. Robert Ferguson,

Assistant Professor, College of Education, Cleveland State University.

Augmentation of content knowledge and including laboratory experience.

The program consists of four meeting sessions over the academic year and

a one week session during the summer, with a two commitment by each

cohort.

3) Urban Stream Scholars. PI: Dr. Robert Ferguson, Assistant Professor, College of Education, Cleveland State University, and Dr. Michael Walton, Associate Professor, College of Science, Cleveland State University.

This program trains secondary school teachers to perform science labs and

incorporate research methods and hands-on activities into the classroom

(start-up date: summer 2007).

4) Mathematics and Science Partnership. PI: Dr. Joann Goodell, Associate Professor, Cleveland State University.

CSU is working in collaboration with Youngstown University, John Carroll

University, and the University of Akron to educate both Middle School and

High School Teachers in the content of laboratory training in the sciences.

5) NEOCEx. PI: Dr. Joann Goodell, Associate Professor, College of Education,

Cleveland State University; CoPI: Dr. Roland Pourdavood, Associate Professor, College of Education, Cleveland State University.

Northeastern Ohio Research Center for Excellence consists of four universities: Kent State University, University of Akron, Youngstown State University, and Cleveland State University. The focus of the research is to understand and interpret how the Learning of Science and Mathematics effects high school students’ attitudes and disposition toward science.

Throughout my years as a teacher of freshman chemistry, I had tried various

ways of engaging the interest and commitment of my students enrolled in one of

the traditional lab courses with varying degrees of success.

An instructive laboratory exercise doesn’t need to be costly, dangerous, or steeped

in convoluted instructions and incomprehensible scientific concepts. With a laboratory balance, a package of toy balloons, and a three dollar package of dry ice, I have

conducted the following exercise in an ordinary classroom and illuminated a couple

dozen students about the nature of gas behavior, the function of proportionality constants, the implication of significant figures, and the importance of group work.

Before conducting the exercise, the students break into groups of three and each

group receives a balloon. The groups are instructed to record the mass of the balloons before the instructor places approximately one gram of dry ice into the balloons. The groups then tie off the end of their balloons before recording the mass

of the balloons containing the dry ice. After the dry ice has completely sublimed and

the balloons are completely inflated the groups are instructed to measure and record

the circumferences of the balloons.

With the mass of the dry ice and the circumference measurements, students are

instructed to 1) calculate the volume of the balloons using the proper numbers of

significant figures, and 2) determine the value of the proportionality constant in the

equation relating the volume to the mass of dry ice. Another sample of dry ice in

a weighed balloon is given to each group. Using the derived equations, each group

is instructed to calculate the expected volume their balloon should produce. Finally,

the calculated volumes are compared to the resultant volumes.

I have presided over this exercise in classrooms of high school students, classrooms of college students, and classrooms of school teachers with similar positive

results in all.

The high school laboratory experience can also be set up with real research situations in which the students learn to function and think as scientists. Early in my

career, first as an industrial research chemist with the Lubrizol Corporation and

later while working on my doctorate degree at Case Western Reserve University,

I found laboratory routine and research the most vibrant part of my work. Whether

it was a problem involving chemical synthesis or the employment of investigative

techniques to characterize substances, the physical pursuit of the science was always pulling me back into the laboratory. It is the nature of this physical pursuit

which can inform, and sometimes enlighten, and within the proper setting, such as

a high school laboratory, even provide opportunities of growth and inspiration.

Traditionally these opportunities cannot be found in the normal experiences found

in high school science labs, which are highly structured around classical laboratory

techniques and chemical synthesis. These exercises although instructive, don’t motivate or inspire. It should be our chief concern to replace the traditional high school

36

lab exercises with experiences of exploration and discovery. With the participation

of local colleges and universities, such laboratory experiences maybe developed and

readily accessible to area high school students.

An example of such a program is now ongoing at CSU: The Chemistry Department of Cleveland State University is participating in a five-year NSF funded program, which provides such opportunities for its undergraduate students. The Research Experience to Enhance Learning program addresses the issue of students experiencing the discipline of Chemistry through participation in actual research situations. Instead of performing a series of lab ‘‘experiments’’ listed on a syllabus, the

students learn to design and execute green chemistry experiments performed on

local environmental samples. At this time, the focus of the work is on the presence

of PAH, polyaromatic hydrocarbons—pollutants that exist in the Cleveland community. During the course of the semester, students utilize many of the topics covered

in the corresponding General Chemistry lecture in addition to advanced laboratory

instrumentation and techniques unavailable to students enrolled in traditional general chemistry lab courses. The assessment at the end of the course is based on individual Power Point presentations of each student’s research accompanied by their

written reports. Students are also encouraged to publish their research in the Journal of Undergraduate Research as well as making presentations at the REEL Chemistry symposiums and local ACS Meetings in Miniature.

Although this particular program is set up on a university campus, with additional funding and proper training of school teachers, this type of program could be

offered at a secondary school level. Within this type of laboratory experience, students are soon to acquire a sense of ownership of the subject. Participating in actual

research situations instills maturity in students. They are no longer just learning

for the grade, but instead applying their knowledge to real life problem-solving. But

this depth of experience for the students would only come with a similar depth of

commitment from the teachers.

In conclusion, I strongly support House Bill H.R. 524 goals of enhancing the

teaching of laboratory teaching in the high schools. Of the articles under subparagraph B, article v, which identifies the need of funding for professional development

and training for teachers. As important as supplies, equipment, and well constructed

laboratories are in the implementation of a viable teaching program, I strongly believe that the failure of our high school students to successfully participate in college

level science curriculum is, in part, due to our failure to inspire them. This inspiration will only come from well informed teachers with strong attachments to their

subjects. But I further recommend that a continuous series of science courses will

not remedy this situation. Good science teachers need to be well grounded in their

turf. They need opportunities outside of the normal course work to continually develop not only as teachers, but also as scientists. And this can evolve by building

closer associations between the secondary school teachers and the college and university research faculty. By implementing programs which enable school teachers to

actively participate in summer research opportunities within their area universities,

high school teachers would be better able to appreciate and understand the nature

of science.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JERRY MUNDELL

Dr. Jerry Mundell is the Coordinator of the Freshman Chemistry Committee in

the Chemistry Department at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio. Within his work experience at CSU, he has written a Peer-Led lecture notebook for the

students of general chemistry, produced two laboratory course preparation CDs, and

introduced new teaching technologies into the Chemistry Department. Dr. Mundell

graduated from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst with a B.S. in Chemistry

in 1980 and received his Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry from Case Western Reserve

University in 1990.

During his teaching career, Dr. Mundell also won several awards for his commentaries on Cleveland Public Radio where he was a weekly commentator for three

and a half years. Dr. Mundell currently lives in Cleveland Heights, Ohio with his

wife, Deborah and his two step-children, Christina and Sean.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. I thank our witnesses. We will now begin a

round of questioning, and I will begin by yielding myself five minutes, and then, we will yield to Mr. Hall after that.

37

I find this very troubling, as I am sure you do. Ms. Froschauer,

your description of the teachers who had no labs, no rooms to conduct the labs, what did they do? You know, in absence of this, what

did they do to try to help young people learn science?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Well, obviously, if they have no lab facilities,

it certainly isn’t lab-oriented. However, I do believe that most

teachers know the value of the experiences of working with data,

and if they are not able to have the students experience collection

of data and analysis on their own, then they probably provide them

with datasets, and they provide them with experiences that can be

as closely matched to those that they would have in a laboratory

experience, without actually having the manipulatives and being

able to participate in that kind of experience.

Of course, all of that has to be connected, really, to the strong

content, and be an integral part of what they are teaching, and not

in isolation of what they are teaching, and so, even constructing

that can be a challenge for some teachers.

Chairman BAIRD. So, to some extent, it is comparable to Dr.

Eisenkraft’s opening analogy of which they watch baseball, but

they don’t get to play it.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Exactly. Yes.

Chairman BAIRD. If any of you could address this. You know, I

was fortunate. I ended up with a doctorate in science, and was fortunate to have good science classes along the way, with pretty good

labs, and can remember my basic physics and chemistry and biology classes, and we had good equipment, even though it was a

rural, small, not super wealthy district.

But one of my questions is, it seems like we spend money, and

NSF has, in the past, funded the development of curricula, we

come up with models, and you folks do good research, and I appreciate the work you do. I have read much of that report. How do we

disseminate it, A, so that actually, it has an impact not just in the

schools, but in the teaching institutions, the colleges of education,

so that when we understand what works to teach science, it is actually disseminated in some meaningful way, and then, how do we

sustain it?

And I open that up to any of the three.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. Well, I think that certainly, the NRC report, on

America’s Lab Report, brings it to people’s attention. I think that

studies which show that we are not doing as well in science brings

it to people’s attention.

I think the issue you are speaking of, on one part, is just the lack

of a sense of urgency to improve education in America, and this is

as much our responsibility as it is your responsibility in Congress,

and the Nation’s responsibility, that somehow, we can’t seem to

capture the sense of urgency that I know we all share, that we

have to turn this around or it is going to be too late to make the

changes.

The National Science Foundation does a wonderful job of funding

good research curriculum projects, and what happens is it does get

disseminated. People do end up utilizing that research in their

teaching, and they look for better direction. The other direction

which is very positive is that, in fact, the research projects do get

38

incorporated into all forms of curriculum, and the question is how

do we find the best way to communicate this?

I think there are meetings—the National Science Teachers’ Association has conferences. I think professional development through

teachers, all of these opportunities to get the word out, through

journals and things like that, to teachers and communities. But I

think the larger issue is really the sense of urgency.

Chairman BAIRD. A societal and cultural issue; the point being

you could do your work and identify the problem, we could pass

Mr. Hinojosa’s bill, come up with some model programs, but unless

the society embraces the mission, it will ultimately not be as successful as it could be.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. We all have to make choices, as you said in

your opening testimony, about where we are going to spend our

limited dollars, and often, that decision is very interesting. Do we

fund a science lab, in fact, where we say well, we can’t have the

safety equipment? When we fund a football team, those helmets

are $250. Nobody says well, let us do it without helmets this year,

or we will buy the cheap helmets. They don’t skimp there, but

somehow, in the science lab, we skimp. So, it is really a question

of priorities, urgency, what are the long range benefits.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Mundell, you looked like you might have

a comment.

Dr. MUNDELL. I was suggesting this. As far as dissemination of

the information, there is work that is being done now throughout

Cleveland, at least, of establishing websites where a curriculum is

basically tested, and put out there for the other school teachers in

the Cleveland School District. I did some work with NEOSEC a

couple of years ago, where we had actually come up with short,

safe experiments that could be done in most classroom, also inexpensive experiments, and then, they would be posted at the website

for teachers to basically access.

So, that is one way to get some of this information out.

Chairman BAIRD. I appreciate that. I have many more questions,

but I will yield now as a courtesy to my good friend and colleague,

Mr. Hall, for five minutes.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your

very kind and thoughtful offers of cooperation. It is not unusual for

you to do that, and Bart Gordon has also extended the same thing.

We have a good committee, and a good thing going. Honored to

have men as leaders with your outlook and attitude. I look forward

to working with you.

I have a question for Ms. Froschauer. Your testimony indicates

that a lot of teachers are paying out of pocket for lab equipment,

and I want to congratulate Mr. Hinojosa on his bill, and his usual

support in pushing for science and math, and every one of us ought

to have our shoulder to the wheel to try to set aside the bad statistics we have of an even number of engineers with China, India, and

many other countries; just unbelievable distortion there of—and I

don’t know who has been negligent in pushing that, or pressing for

it, but I know we are on that avenue now, and I am wondering just

how we are going to catch up, and it will be through testimony like

yours here, and leaders like our Chairman and Dr. Ehlers.

39

I want to go into this a minute. I know we are focusing on high

schools today, but in my own district, in Texarkana, Texas, they

have built a science-focused elementary school. I dedicated it a

week ago, I believe. And it is very unusual. All the classrooms are

labs, and students are exposed to scientific ideas and concepts early

in their educational life, and it is a joint venture between Texas

A&M Texarkana and the Texarkana School District.

Teachers at the elementary school and A&M graduate students

and professors work together to develop curricula, mentor students,

and create an innovative lab experience, and I thank the committee

and the chairman for bringing these witnesses here today to tell us

why they think lab science is important, and how they believe a

true partnership between NSF, educational institutions, and industry can work together to create the same type of innovative lab

science experience in high school.

But it is kind of hard for me to understand why teachers are

paying out of their own pockets, and why aren’t states and school

districts providing funds for lab equipment? Is there some state

law? Do certain states have certain laws that they can’t invade

that province, or are they using it all for the athletic thrust, which

is kind of suggested there by some of your testimony? Are there

federal programs already available to help the purchase of lab

equipment for schools?

Ms. Froschauer.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Hall.

Actually, teachers have been paying from their own pockets for

many years, not just in science, but some teachers are even buying

pencils for their students. It is exacerbated by the topics that we

cover in science, and by the costs of hands-on manipulatives, as

well as consumables that makes it an unusually large amount of

money, particularly for science teachers.

There is no law against giving teachers money to buy equipment,

but it seems that right now, in particular, there is a great deal of

emphasis on other subject areas, and not as much emphasis on

science. And you probably realize that English and math have more

emphasis currently than does science, and so, there are more resources that are going into those subject areas, especially at the elementary level, than is going into science.

What PALS is going to do for us is it is going to provide us with

research, much needed research, on how labs are utilized, and

what is needed for quality laboratory experiences for students in

high school. However, that research can also impact and influence

what is happening in middle schools, and then, of course, elementary schools as well. And if we are going to expand this resolution,

we could expand it, and add a lot more money to it, and perhaps

consider researching into middle schools as well. But high school

is a great place to start, and it will provide us with the kind of research that we need. We have many questions, and they can be addressed through PALS.

Mr. HALL. Are there federal programs already available to help

with the purchase of lab equipment for schools, and how does Congressman Hinojosa’s bill work in with that? Is there already a program that he is adding to?

40

Ms. FROSCHAUER. I have no knowledge of any program that he

is adding to.

Mr. HALL. If other federal programs already exist, I just wonder

how this legislation we are considering today is going to be an extension of those programs, or how it works in with it. Do any of

the three of you have that answer?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. This is independent of anything else that is

happening.

Mr. HALL. Okay. Well, I think it is a great thrust, and I guess

I will ask all of the witnesses, is a lack of laboratory equipment a

bigger problem than adequate teacher training in how to use these

labs?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. It is hard to say which one you would put first.

Absolutely, teachers need a great deal more training, but even with

training, what do you do if you don’t have the equipment, and if

you are given the equipment and you don’t have the training, you

don’t know what to do with it, either. So, it is—both of them go

very much hand in hand. They both are vitally important.

Mr. HALL. Well, I think it is a good time, and I think the Congressman has a great time to introduce this bill because I feel an

urge and a move to support teachers, rather than to suppress

them, and put them first on an agenda because we are seeking

math and science and trying to catch up.

Even on the Social Security thrust, I have been voting for extra

Social Security for teachers, to pay them for what we didn’t pay

them for the last 50 years. I am not sure that I am on sound

ground, dipping into the Social Security fund, because it is supposed to go broke some time in the next 10 or 15 years, but there

is a move toward teachers and appreciation of teachers, just like

9/11 brought us to really appreciate firemen and policemen, you

know, it brought us a new look at them. I think there is a new look

at education, a new look at science, and a new look at those of you

who delve a little bit further than the normal, ordinary school

teacher.

I am of a school teaching family. My only wife, my only sister,

my only mother were all teachers. I was a school superintendent

at one time, and I just know that we are at a time when the timing

is right on his bill, and I sure support it, and am going to be a cosponsor on it, if I am not already, but I just wonder if there is already a Federal Government program, are we already putting some

money in there? If we are, is this more, is this going to support it,

will this add to it? I think those are things we will probably have

some testimony on later, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. We will indeed.

Mr. HALL. I think my time is up. I yield back. And I thank you

very much for the time. Dr. Ehlers, thank you for letting me go.

I have a teacher I have to meet up in my office in a few minutes.

She is my sister.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank Superintendent Hall for his testimony.

We learn something new about Ralph every day, and it is always

a delight.

And Mr. Carnahan will return in a moment. In his absence, I

will yield five minutes to Dr. Ehlers.

41

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Dr.

Eisenkraft, I was interested in your Olympics analogy, and yes, obviously, if our failings were that publicly known, we would take action.

But they are certainly well-known. I think people are catching

on. But the problem is deeper than that, because a recent poll of

parents asked them whether they thought it was more important

for kids to learn more math and science, and almost universally,

they said yes, yes we definitely need to. Then, they were asked if

they thought their kids were learning enough. Oh, yeah, they are

learning enough. In other words, they know it in a theoretical

sense, but not in a practical, absolute sense.

Dr. Eisenkraft, one of your conclusions was that due to a lack of

a standardized definition of a lab, it is very hard to measure the

impact of lab experiences on learning. In view of that statement,

and that is why in particular, I wanted to refer to Carl Wieman’s

work, which is about simulation rather than labs. What do you

think of that? What kind of work would be necessary to implement

successful lab experiences? What kind of research do you think has

to be done, and would you see that being done under the auspices

of this bill or not?

Dr. EISENKRAFT. Well, thank you Congressman Ehlers. The question about the definition of labs, we required a definition because

it was very difficult for us to interpret all of the research which has

been done. People were defining labs in all sorts of ways, or not defining them, and so, you are trying to say these are research reports telling us the same thing, and it wasn’t obvious, because they

weren’t defining labs the same way.

So, the definition, which seems to have hit some resonance with

the community, that is in the NRC report, speaks to a way of defining labs, so that we can then begin a research agenda, and answer

some of the questions that are noted there.

We certainly want to know, because of the expense and the time,

and all sorts of concerns having to do with labs, is that money

being well-spent? How does it result in student achievement, student interest in science, student motivations, understanding the

processes of science, how does it help us in terms of people moving

into STEM careers?

And we have to look at different elements of that, but the lab

itself, as the report says, cannot be an isolated portion of the environment. So, what happens too often is a teacher in a school which

does have labs, they end up going to the lab when it is available.

So I will go two weeks ahead, before I teach the topic, or I will go

three weeks after I taught the topic, or I will go when somebody

else isn’t using the equipment, instead of saying no, no, no, we

have learning models, instructional models, which help people to

understand better, that we know help with student achievement.

The idea is that you go to the lab so that you can have experiences,

take data, and then, draw conclusions on data you have taken, and

then, see ‘‘How did I interpret it?’’ ‘‘How did the scientists interpret

it?’’ Is it the same way? How do I get over misconception?

So, the question is when you do a lab experiment, there are a

number of different factors you can research on. Certainly, there is

the content question. There is the affective domain, interest in

42

science, do you want to take more science? I think the questions

that Dr. Mundell asked his students, was the lab an integral part

of your program? What did it mean to do a lab? Was the lab actually you doing it, or was it you watching somebody else do it? So,

there are a host of questions.

Carl Wieman served on the committee with us, and it was a wonderful privilege, and I have known him for a number of years, and

he is extremely dedicated to education, and his generosity of his

time and, actually, his Nobel money to help create those simulations, is quite an inspiration, I think, to all scientists.

The question is, when you provide simulations, this report did

not speak to that. Could simulations replace laboratory experiments? It is not part of the research. It was not part of our charge.

There is a question, though, of that simulation, in helping people

understand that it is part of a larger, integrated program. But we

could do simulations of all sorts of experiments on computers, but

the scientists don’t do that now. They still say no, I have to go into

the lab. I have to get dirty to make sure I understand what nature

is telling me, not what some programmer is telling me.

So, there is probably not one tool for one job, but this idea of the

integrated instructional unit, the good instructional model which

uses direct instruction, labs, computer simulations, but in a way

that we know enhanced education is what it is all about, and we

have to do research on that to show it can be done.

It has been shown in small studies. What I think this bill allows

us to do is to scale it up to a larger program, to show it can be

effective, and then we hope people will take notice and say, I want

to do that. And then, people come onboard with the schools of education and the high schools.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, thank you, and I have a follow-up, but my

time has expired, so——

Chairman BAIRD. Go ahead.

Mr. EHLERS. Oh. My followup is just based on what you just said,

and this, I would like to address to all witnesses. Is the lack of laboratory equipment a bigger problem, well, I am sorry, not—let me

restate it.

We have been fighting very hard to maintain an educational mission at the National Science Foundation, and it has been a very

tough go, because that portion of the budget has been decreasing

year by year. I think we have finally reversed it, through exercising

every bit of political clout that we have.

But now, the question in this bill comes along. This is going to

be a pilot program, and probably the best place for it is NSF, in

terms of doing a pilot program, doing the evaluation, which NSF

is very good at, and so forth. Where do you think it is most appropriately housed at NSF, and secondly, if it proves to be a good program, should it still be housed at NSF, or should it be moved over

to the Department of Education, or handled in some other way?

So, we will go backwards. This time, Dr. Mundell, do you want

to start first?

Dr. EISENKRAFT. If they are passing to me, I can certainly speak

to it.

Mr. EHLERS. Oh, okay. I will let you.

43

Dr. EISENKRAFT. NSF is certainly the right place to kick off this

study. Well, the Directorate of—well, the research and K–12 now,

the new Director of Research, K–12, but the Department of Educational Curriculum Development, or the Instructional Materials

Development. They changed their names, but you know, instructional materials development, DR K–12 is the new proposal. They

have put together the $43 million that way.

No, they certainly have the expertise. They have the peer review.

They can find the quality studies that have to be done because of

that expertise from all the possibilities that are out there.

The question is, what happens when the bill gets passed, so we

will be optimistic here, and we will have some followup studies

over the next few years, and we will get money, and we will show

that this can be effective, and we recognize the importance of this

for all students, so we have to make sure that students in impoverished areas, minority students, get this opportunity to do labs, and

we find out that in the affluent schools, that the students who

didn’t perform well academically, they should also get an opportunity to have labs. Then, labs are expensive. You know, this kickoff $5 million is

very nice for a small section of Boston, much less the United

States, when you are talking about the kind of magnitude that different reports brought before this committee, the Gathering Storm

or whatever, have talked about in terms of the money needed, I

don’t know who should handle that kind of money, or how it is best

allocated. But to turn around science labs in America is an expensive venture.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, and that is where I wanted to look at the next

step. Should it stay at NSF with its limited funds, in which case,

we could try to increase funding, or move it to the Department of

Education, and have them handle it, or maybe the Defense Department, since they have all the money?

Dr. EISENKRAFT. I think that the peer review process is a very

important component of having quality research done, and I think

that NSF is best situated to do that quality research at this point.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Mr. Carnahan is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here

for this inaugural hearing, and congratulations again to you, and

to the Ranking Member. I think you are going to bring some very

much needed bipartisan leadership in this research area.

I guess I just want to also say it is great to see the emphasis

on the committee adding the science education into the title. I

think it really deserves that, and again, makes a strong statement

that it is going to be an important focus of the Subcommittee and

the Full Committee.

I don’t have the science background, like these other gentlemen

have, trained as a lawyer, don’t hold that against me. But my area

in St. Louis has some of the top public and private research institutions in the country. This is very important to them. You don’t

have to convince me. I mean, we have seen all the studies that talk

about how we are lagging behind. We have seen how important it

is to capture the students early and get that interest perked.

44

I have heard from the business community how they are worried

about the workforce of the future. I guess my question, and one of

the things that has been frustrating to me is while all these things

seem so obvious and necessary, there tends to be this kind of general hesitancy of people in the science community to get involved

in politics. And I don’t know if that is just a characteristic of people

that are in science or engineering, but you know, how can we do

a better job? I have talked to many different science and engineering groups about how important it is for them to speak up, in

terms of this public policy debate.

And I guess my question is how can we best really mobilize and

make the case to the scientists and the engineers and the teachers

to get involved in this debate, so they can do a better job?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Well, this is one way to do it, isn’t it?

Mr. CARNAHAN. It is. It is.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. It is. And actually, I believe that you will see

that teachers are becoming more involved politically, that we do realize the importance of legislation that can support the efforts and

the things that we are doing in the classroom every day. And without the strong legislation, that we probably cannot accomplish our

goals to really teach all children well. And so, and I think that

NCLB actually has helped some of that, by the way, because it has

really put it out front. It puts something in front of us that was

legislative, that now we are focusing on, and so we realize the

power of legislation. Certainly, teachers are not the most vocal people when it comes to individuals and pronouncing what their needs

are. Obviously, we would have more in education, I believe, if they

were, but I do believe that we are moving forward.

NSTA actually just started our legislative efforts within the last

couple of decades. We were not that legislatively alert, and we were

not paying attention to what was going on on the Hill the way we

should have been, but our members really had an outcry, and said

we need to get involved. We need to find out about the bills that

are being passed on the Hill, and what kinds of things are happening to us legislatively. And that is why we now have a very

strong legislative component.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Well, thank you for getting your group involved.

I really appreciate that.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. Just to mention the National Science Teachers’

Association will have about 15,000 science teachers coming to St.

Louis in a few weeks to learn about science, and to advocate for

better instruction. I think that Members, your colleagues, Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Baird, Rush Holt, Congressman

Holt, I mean, these are scientists who have made this transition,

and recognize the importance of politics. Most scientists don’t understand how it works. They are very good at doing their bench

science, but it just makes sense, school teachers, it just makes

sense you should support education. I don’t understand what we

are supposed to do out there to—how do you convince people when

it makes sense to everybody? And so, we don’t know how to do

that.

And I think teachers, in general, are very shy about getting involved in politics, because they play this very sensitive role with

children, and they have to keep their personal views to themselves

45

as they explain scientific concepts to their students. And for them

to take on an advocacy role, often they find that in conflict with

their primary responsibility of teaching, and they think that if they

get caught up in politics, that that might detract from what they

are supposed to be doing.

It is not true. I mean, we all have to be involved in our communities, involved in the Nation—but the question of how do you become an advocate, and how do you do that, and how do you make

that step. I think for most scientists, most teachers, we don’t know

how. We just say everybody agrees with us, we need better schools,

we need better teaching. We need more equipment. We need labs.

If everybody understands it, how do we get them to do it? That is

the part that I think you are asking, why don’t teachers move to

the next step, scientists move to the next step? I don’t think they

know how.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Doctor.

Dr. MUNDELL. Yes, thank you, sir.

Well, part of what I am doing here is kind of representing the

university community and how we are affected by this. And one of

the questions that was directed, and the information I got was how

do I assess this problem.

The assessment is in our decline of enrollment, retention of our

students, okay. Our minorities are down to about a 44 percent retention rate at CSU, and a lot of this goes to the lack of preparation and foundation they have, when they come into our university.

And I have a feeling this is probably a widespread phenomenon.

But anyway, I think where part of this can come out—where part

of the support for this can come out is out of the university community.

We are taking an interest in Cleveland, and I imagine elsewhere,

they are, too, trying to smooth transitions from high school into college, and also, working more with secondary school teachers, as

well as primary and middle school teachers. As a matter of fact,

every summer for the last several years, I have been teaching

chemistry to middle school teachers for their licensure.

What I would just like to say about this is, I feel like this is part

of the movement to get things more into the public’s consciousness,

that coming out of the community universities and community colleges, they are concerned for where their students are coming from,

and why they are so poorly equipped to start the rigors of college

academia.

Anything you want to add to that, or—okay. Thank you.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Well, I just want to close by saying thank you

all for being here, and working with your networks and your organizations to really encourage that, because I think to the extent we

can encourage more scientists and engineers to speak out as part

of this public discussion, and to make the case, it really helps the

public policy-makers in pushing that, and making it a priority here

in Washington, and in State and local governments around the

country.

So, thank you all very much.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan, and I thank the

witnesses. I want to ask a series of followup questions, if I may,

and I know Dr. Ehlers has a couple more as well.

46

I want to do a little housekeeping first of all. Dr. Ehlers mentioned that by using all the political clout we have, we have been

able to reverse some of the decline in funding, and some of the redirection. I want to give Dr. Ehlers credit for some of that, along

with the Chair of this committee, Mr. Gordon. Together, it is the

two of them who have really led the fight in that, and they deserve

the credit, and frankly, the thanks of the scientific community for

their leadership in that. They certainly have my gratitude.

I also want to mention that a resource for the science teachers

is the website of this very committee. Last year, this committee

made a big push to try to provide science research, or science

teaching and experiential tools on its website. I don’t know if we

have a link to the physics program Dr. Ehlers referenced, but we

should try to add at least a link to that. So, I would encourage you

to perhaps let your fellow teachers know, especially at this upcoming convention.

I was hoping, Dr. Eisenkraft, that you were going to say that

15,000 teachers were descending not on St. Louis, but—was it St.

Louis you said? But on Washington, D.C. You are in the wrong

town. St. Louis is a lovely place, but——

Dr. EISENKRAFT. As I said, we don’t quite know how to do it.

Chairman BAIRD. Yes. Well, we need some geography teachers.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, they are coming to my hometown.

Chairman BAIRD. Sorry. I see why that was—well, it is a fine

place, St. Louis, and they have got some great representatives, as

you know. But I mean it actually fairly seriously, Ms. Froschauer.

If every Member of Congress who had teachers in the kind of

straits that you have described from the testimonials you reported

to us knew that, I think we would be appalled, and I think many

Members may not know the condition of those schools. I make it

a personal point to visit every high school in my district every two

years, if I can. It is some 40 plus, almost 50 schools, and I think

they are relatively well-equipped.

I confess I haven’t been to the science labs of all of them, but I

have been to the schools, but if your teachers are in those straits,

please encourage them to let their Member of Congress know that,

because from my perspective, and you know, as we reference a lot

in this committee, we will reference it many more times, the Beyond the Gathering Storm report, one of the fairly soft, but I found

intriguing proposals alluded to in there is the notion of a voluntary

national science curriculum, where you take best practices, and it

becomes a voluntary national curriculum, and part of why I feel so

interested in that is that you heard, I thought, compelling testimony by Mr. Hinojosa, about how a relatively disadvantaged area

can just fall off the radar screen.

In an ideal world, in an ideal country, let us not say world necessarily, but in an ideal country, at least, your access to a quality

science education should not depend on the accident of where your

parents happen to live or work. Every kid should have access to

equal quality education, and one of the things that intrigues me

about a voluntary national curriculum would be that possibly, we

could use research like that defined in Mr. Hinojosa’s experience,

some of the work Dr. Eisenkraft has done, come up with a national

47

curriculum, pair the teaching pedagogy with the equipment, and

those schools that participate would have access to that.

I would welcome your thoughts on whether that is a dumb idea

or a good idea, or what the problems might be, and then open that

up to anybody.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. One of the problems right now with what is

happening with science curriculum is that, as you probably realize,

we have a couple of documents that really do provide us with the

structure of the content, and those two documents are the National

Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy,

out of Project 2061 with AAAS. Those two documents really are the

documents that have been used by the states, as now, they have

addressed content issues and curriculum issues for NCLB. And so,

now, we have states who have also developed their own set of

standards, benchmarks, frameworks, they are calling them a variety of different things.

And so, we have a lot of people who have come up with a variety

of solutions to what they believe is good science, and they—I believe they will fight for their beliefs in what is good science. And

so, as you can probably imagine, it would be very difficult to come

up with a national curriculum, per se.

However, there is a problem that we think can be addressed.

Right now, through Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Science Education Standards, we have many, many points

that need to be addressed within the science curriculum, contentspecific. Too much, no one can possibly teach everything that is in

those documents, because they are so hefty, there is so much there.

And so, what we believe can be done that might help teach us a

great deal is to narrow those points down into a more manageable

number, something that we really consider the essential anchors of

science education, and that that might help teachers.

So, not quite the national curriculum that you are thinking

about, but if there were a manageable number of content points or

anchors that teachers were looking at, then they could develop

around them a richer curriculum, rather than trying to spread out

the curriculum over many points.

Chairman BAIRD. Especially as we talk about lab experience, and

Dr. Ehlers and I have probably got lots of firsthand experience

with this. When you look at these bullet points, it seems like the

notion behind teaching science is to make sure we have covered

certain key topic areas. To be perfectly honest, in my own experience, it would be far less important to cover all the topic areas

than to give me a hands-on experience with the process, and a way

of solving and approaching problems, that involves hypothesis generation, well data review, hypothesis generation, study design, hypothesis test, data analysis, report, et cetera. If I do that a few

times, I can apply that to all the other realms, that general structure, and that will be far more useful to me conceptually throughout my lifespan than would memorizing a particular set of answers

to a broad array.

Is that the kind of point you are making?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Yes, and I appreciate your point of saying

cover all of the points, the bullet points that are identified. The

specificity makes it to a point where you can’t even cover them,

48

even close to being well-covered. And covering is not what this is

about. This is conceptual understanding. You cannot develop conceptual understanding on all of those points, and we want conceptual understanding, and so, that is why we need these very specific

anchors that are the essentials of the science curriculum.

Chairman BAIRD. But if all those points are now set out as the

477 commandments now, or whatever they are tantamount to.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Yeah.

Chairman BAIRD. And if they are going to be incorporated in the

NCLB testing, the fear of God is now on the school boards and the

science teachers, I would assume, in the feeling they have to gear

up to cover that stuff, possibly at the expense of laboratory experience?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Very possibly. Very possibly.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. I would hope not, though. I would hope that,

you know——

Chairman BAIRD. My fear is are we having unintended consequences?

Dr. EISENKRAFT. Well, I think that there are unintended consequences, and the question is when the states produce exams in

order to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, or the

Federal Government produces a voluntary exam that you might

want to do, the quality of that exam will drive the curriculum.

So, if that exam only asks questions about what does this mean,

fact, fact, fact, fact, and doesn’t talk about the processes of science,

how do we know, then of course, teachers are going to move, and

say forget these ways of teaching which talk about process, which

talk about experiments, let us just give a lot of worksheets and get

the facts, because that is all that is really required, and we want

to protect ourselves. So, the formation of the exams, and the quality of questions there drives the curriculum. And so, we have to ensure that when the states do give exams, that we make sure that

those exams reflect what we want students to know in science as

you enumerated.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much.

Just, first of all, a comment on some of the discussion you just

had. And it always struck me, when I taught laboratories, that

very often, students would do the laboratory experiment, then come

to me and show me the result, and say is this the right answer?

And I would always tell them, no matter what you got, it is the

right answer, because that is what you got from doing the experiment and making the measurements.

They felt extremely uncomfortable with that. Sometimes, I would

tell them about the experience I had in my first physics lab at the

college level, when we were supposed to measure the coefficient of

heat expansion of rods. You were given a rod, the thermometers,

all that. And I measured it, and the rod, as I heated it, contracted.

And somehow, that didn’t seem good, so I repeated the measurement and got the same answer. So, I went to the instructor and

said, I have observed a very interesting phenomenon. And he said

that can’t be. So, he did the experiment, and got the same result.

Apparently, a maverick instructor at one point had ordered a speVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:51 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 033612 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\030807\33612 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
49

cial material rod just to confuse the students and test them, and

this particular instructor didn’t even know about it.

But the point is simply the answer you get is the right answer.

Now, you may have to worry about uncertainties, et cetera, but it

is very hard to convey that to students.

One of the first things we will face, if we report this bill out, and

it goes to the floor, colleagues will say oh, new program, we don’t

have any money for new programs. That could stop it in its track.

The question I have for you, based on your vast knowledge, do

you know of any similar program that we could somehow integrate

this into, so that it does not appear to be a new program? Would

you consider this just out of the blue, totally new, or is there something else we could tie it into?

Dr. EISENKRAFT. I am unclear on what—you mean the bill?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. Yeah, the——

Dr. EISENKRAFT. No, I think that most of the legislation and

funding for improved laboratories often goes to universities and colleges. I don’t think it often goes to high schools. I think that is usually left to the district or the city or whatever. But we have inroads

into this. I mean, people recognize the need. The Los Angeles Unified School District, with 700,000 students, decided three years ago

to provide lab experiences to all of their ninth graders, at great expense, recognizing this, and then, to begin a program of professional development for all of their 360 ninth grade science teachers,

in order to help them to do this effectively.

Whether Los Angeles can then, after providing this quality experience in ninth grade, can you find the money, then, for tenth

grade, eleventh grade, and twelfth grade? That is the question. But

I don’t think I know of programs which specifically give, target

money for investigation of labs and equipment, and to test these

instructional models.

Certainly, there are parts of other NSF programs where this is

a small part of it, but not the major directive, not saying no, labs

are important enough for us to get behind and figure out what

works and what doesn’t.

Mr. EHLERS. That raises the next point relating to this question.

I asked that for a reason. Because perhaps the best approach is to

modify the bill, so that all programs are tied to universities, grants

are given to universities to work with local schools. In other words,

combined grant requests. Do you think that would be an appropriate approach to use on this, particularly in view of the evaluation requirements, which most university faculty, who are used to

getting grants, would know how to do the evaluation properly.

Maybe high schools would not. Any comments on that?

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Well, part of the partnership within the bill is

for university involvement.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. And you are suggesting that perhaps the funding would go to the university to conduct the research? I think——

Mr. EHLERS. I am suggesting perhaps we broaden it with the

principal investigator being at a college or a university, and——

Ms. FROSCHAUER. But not taking it out of NSF.

Mr. EHLERS. Not taking it out of NSF, no.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Because I—sorry.

50

Mr. EHLERS. It would continue to be an NSF program.

Ms. FROSCHAUER. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Because there are similar programs in the NSF for

that, but not specifically related to laboratory work.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. I am not sure how to micromanage that. You

know, I think the legislation right now speaks to some kind of partnership between——

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah.

Dr. EISENKRAFT.—university, high school, and industry. I think

that is a wonderful concept, and I would really leave it to the National Science Foundation to write up a request for proposals,

which could take into account all of these different possibilities, so

they can weigh the merits of well, if the university is the PI, how

much money is going to the high schools, what will be the most effective, how is the research done? So, I don’t know if it is a simple

answer.

Mr. EHLERS. There are no simple answers in Washington, but

this may be a simpler approach to take finally, so—thanks.

Dr. MUNDELL. Yes, sir. Can I add something to that?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, Dr. Mundell.

Dr. MUNDELL. I always felt that what we need to have is more

of a presence of the urban university or urban college in the school

systems, and I think by this kind of partnership that we are discussing right now, that would kind of lend itself to that sort of a

presence, of having not only—develop a curriculum, but also have,

excuse me, university faculty being more of a presence physically

within the public schools.

So, I would be very much in favor of that type of thing. How the

funding actually works, I have no idea about that aspect of it, what

would be the best way to do it.

Mr. EHLERS. Another option might be, perhaps, that we make

the partners, or have the industrial partners, whoever they might

be, responsible for handling the equipment purchases, and the university or the school be responsible for paying for the training for

the teachers.

I am just looking for handle to restructure so that it fits better

within NSF, but also, makes it easier to get it passed into law.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. It is very possible that the research coming out

of the Math Science Partnerships over the past few years, with the

National Science Foundation, could better inform us about what

happens when you create a partnership, so we know how to use the

money most effectively in the future.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I have one last question, and then, perhaps, we will conclude the hearing for the day.

I was trained in clinical psychology at the University of Utah and

in addition learned how to be a ski instructor, and it strikes me,

actually, that maybe the instruction I got as a ski instructor may

be better, in some ways, than what people get as science teachers.

And the reason I say this is that any ski instructor in America who

is certified has a certain core curriculum that they know, a certain

sequence of skill development and exercises designed to achieve

those skills, and the equipment is fairly standard, because everybody has got their skis and boots and poles, and they go through

51

that, and you are taught that. So, you don’t just say well, you can

ski pretty good, go teach people how to do what you do. That is not

how it works. You first teach this technique, then this.

So, my question is does that happen in our colleges of education?

In other words, if I am in a college of education, and I am training

to be an eighth grade science teacher, and my specialty area is

physics, let us say, or biology, pick it, doesn’t matter, do I get

trained in a series of activities and accompanying materials and exercises, that have in some way been tested and demonstrated effectively, and I will then convey that knowledge through those exercises to the students? Is that what happens, or what—that is how

it seems like it ought to happen to me? I don’t know if it does.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. I think Lee Schulman and Linda Darling-Hammond working on this will tell you that happens in the best colleges and universities training teachers, and it doesn’t happen in

many of them. And that is another question that I think, you know,

how much is devoted to labs? Do we know how to teach effectively?

So, that is a whole different area that again, the Carnegie Foundation is looking at very closely, how do we make teaching a profession in the same way that engineers get trained, or lawyers get

trained.

Chairman BAIRD. Or ski instructors.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. Or ski instructors get trained. And I am sure

we can all learn from one another. But anyway, it is another issue,

and yes, the best schools do. We do know that research has shown

that when you work with teachers, if you tie that professional development to the curriculum they are doing in their class, it is

more effective than when you have generic, and I think that that

is speaking toward—something or saying so—if they are teaching

curriculum A in their class, and you gear the professional development toward curriculum A, there is less of a jump for that teacher

to be able to transfer that knowledge to their classroom, and it is

more effective.

Chairman BAIRD. I have talked to a number of teachers and faculty in the discipline-based majors in academia, and the difference

for me would be it is one thing if you teach me about neutrinos,

let us say, and maybe that is not the best—let us take something

more simple, Newton’s laws, basic laws of mechanics. So, you are

teaching about those conceptually. If you want to make a good

teacher of that, you then say okay, so here is the concept. How do

you convey that concept, and why it matters to the kids? So, you

link the content-specific area from the discipline-based portions of

a university directly with the teaching curriculum.

Is that being done in places? Because that seems, to me, to be

the best way to do it.

Dr. EISENKRAFT. That is an interesting instructional model, and

it is part of good instructional models, but it is not all. Congressman Ehlers said nothing is simple in Washington, and you know,

in education, either, so——

Chairman BAIRD. I have been in academia. We both have. So, I

think——

Dr. EISENKRAFT. I think my colleague and mentor Cliff Schwartz

used to say, you know, elementary education is no simpler than elementary particles, for your neutrino example. It is a complex

52

world. The question about whether activities precede concepts, you

know, concepts preceding vocabulary, all of those elements, when

do you, how do you engage students intellectually? What does that

research say? All of these come together for strong instructional

programs.

Chairman BAIRD. When I referred to academia as being dismal,

I didn’t necessarily mean it is all dismal, but trying to get a logic

to why curricula are what they are can be a very astonishing process.

Dr. Ehlers, any other questions?

Mr. EHLERS. No, thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. With that, before I bring the hearing to a close,

I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the Committee

today, and for your work beyond today. You have all worked in distinguished careers, and contributed in so many ways. We are grateful for you sharing your expertise.

And if there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional statements from the Members, and for answers to any followup questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.

Without objection, so ordered, and this brings the hearing to a

close. The hearing is now adjourned.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(53)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

54

55

56

57

58

59