89–006

107TH CONGRESS REPT. 107–133 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1

NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT

JULY 11, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 100]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.

100) to establish and expand programs relating to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with

an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 1

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 6

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 6

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 7

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 8

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 9

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section) ................................. 10

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 11

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 12

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 13

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 14

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 14

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 14

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 15

XV. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 15

XVI. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 15

XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 15

XVIII. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 15

XIX. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 15

XX. Exchange of Committee Correspondence .................................................. 16

XXI. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup ...................................................... 17

XXII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 72

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
2

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Science Education Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) As concluded in the report of the Committee on Science of the House of

Representatives, ‘‘Unlocking Our Future Toward a New National Science Policy’’, the United States must maintain and improve its preeminent position in

science and technology in order to advance human understanding of the universe and all it contains, and to improve the lives, health, and freedoms of all

people.

(2) It is estimated that more than half of the economic growth of the United

States today results directly from research and development in science and

technology. The most fundamental research is responsible for investigating our

perceived universe, to extend our observations to the outer limits of what our

minds and methods can achieve, and to seek answers to questions that have

never been asked before. Applied research continues the process by applying the

answers from basic science to the problems faced by individuals, organizations,

and governments in the everyday activities that make our lives more livable.

The scientific-technological sector of our economy, which has driven our recent

economic boom and led the United States to the longest period of prosperity in

history, is fueled by the work and discoveries of the scientific community.

(3) The effectiveness of the United States in maintaining this economic

growth will be largely determined by the intellectual capital of the United

States. Education is critical to developing this resource.

(4) The education program of the United States needs to provide for 3 different kinds of intellectual capital. First, it needs scientists, mathematicians,

and engineers to continue the research and development that are central to the

economic growth of the United States. Second, it needs technologically proficient

workers who are comfortable and capable dealing with the demands of a

science-based, high-technology workplace. Last, it needs scientifically literate

voters and consumers to make intelligent decisions about public policy.

(5) Student performance on the recent Third International Mathematics and

Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current K–12 science and mathematics education in the United States, particularly when compared to other

countries. We must expect more from our Nation’s educators and students if we

are to build on the accomplishments of previous generations. New methods of

teaching science, mathematics, engineering, and technology are required, as

well as better curricula and improved training of teachers.

(6) Science is more than a collection of facts, theories, and results. It is a process of inquiry built upon observations and data that leads to a way of knowing

and explaining in logically derived concepts and theories. Mathematics is more

than procedures to be memorized. It is a field that requires reasoning, understanding, and making connections in order to solve problems. Engineering is

more than just designing and building. It is the process of making compromises

to optimize design and assessing risks so that designs and products best solve

a given problem. Technology is more than using computer applications, the

Internet, and programming. Technology is the innovation, change, or modification of the natural environment, based on scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles.

(7) Students should learn science primarily by doing science. Science education ought to reflect the scientific process and be object-oriented, experimentcentered, and concept-based. Students should learn mathematics with understanding that numeric systems have intrinsic properties that can represent objects and systems in real life, and can be applied in solving problems. Engineering education should reflect the realities of real world design, and should involve hands-on projects and require students to make trade-offs based upon evidence. Students should learn technology as both a tool to solve other problems

and as a process by which people adapt the natural world to suit their own purposes. Computers represent a particularly useful form of technology, enabling

students and teachers to acquire data, model systems, visualize phenomena,

communicate and organize information, and collaborate with others in powerful

new ways. A background in the basics of information technology is essential for

success in the modern workplace and the modern world.

(8) Children are naturally curious and inquisitive. To successfully tap into

these innate qualities, education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology must begin at an early age and continue throughout the entire school

experience.
3

(9) Teachers provide the essential connection between students and the content they are learning. Prospective teachers need to be identified and recruited

by presenting to them a career that is respected by their peers, is financially

and intellectually rewarding, contains sufficient opportunities for advancement,

and has continuing access to professional development.

(10) Teachers need to have incentives to remain in the classroom and improve

their practice, and training of teachers is essential if the results are to be good.

Teachers need to be knowledgeable of their content area, of their curriculum,

of up-to-date research in teaching and learning, and of techniques that can be

used to connect that information to their students in their classroom.

SEC. 3. MASTER TEACHER GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

(1) The term ‘‘sponsoring school’’ means an elementary or secondary school

that employs a teacher who is participating in a program funded in accordance

with this section.

(2) The term ‘‘nonclassroom time’’ means time during regular school hours

that is not utilized by a master teacher for instructing elementary or secondary

school children in the classroom.

(3) The term ‘‘master teacher’’ means a mathematics or science teacher who

works to improve the instruction of mathematics or science in kindergarten

through 9th grade through—

(A) participating in the development or revision of science, mathematics,

engineering, or technology curricula;

(B) serving as a mentor to mathematics or science teachers at the sponsoring school or other schools;

(C) coordinating and assisting teachers in the use of hands-on inquiry

materials, equipment, and supplies, and when appropriate, supervising acquisition and repair of such materials;

(D) providing in-classroom teaching assistance to mathematics or science

teachers; and

(E) providing professional development, including for the purposes of

training other master teachers, to mathematics and science teachers.

(4) The term ‘‘mathematics or science teacher’’ means a teacher of mathematics, science, engineering, or technology in an elementary or secondary

school.

(b) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—(1) The Director of the National Science Foundation

shall establish a program to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants to institutions of higher education (or consortia thereof) to train master teachers and assist

elementary and secondary schools to design and implement master teacher programs.

(2) Institutions of higher education receiving grants under this section shall offer

programs to train master teachers. As part of such programs, a grantee shall—

(A) recruit and select teachers to receive training;

(B) ensure that training covers both content and pedagogy;

(C) ensure that participating teachers have mentors; and

(D) assist participating teachers with the development and implementation of

master teacher programs at their sponsoring schools.

(3) Grants awarded under this section may be used to—

(A) develop and implement professional development programs to train elementary or secondary school teachers to become master teachers and to train

existing master teachers;

(B) provide stipends and reimbursement for travel to allow teachers to participate in professional development programs in the summer and throughout the

year;

(C) provide guidance to sponsoring schools to enable them to develop and implement a plan for the use of master teachers;

(D) support participating teachers during the summer in research programs

conducted at institutions of higher education, private entities, or government facilities;

(E) provide educational materials and equipment to master teachers;

(F) provide computer equipment and network connectivity necessary to enable

master teachers to collaborate with other master teachers, to access educational

materials available online, and to communicate with scientists or other mentors

at remote locations; and

(G) fund any other activities the Director determines will accomplish the

goals of this section.

(c) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding

under this section shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and
4

containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum— (A) a description of which classroom subjects and grade levels the training

will address;

(B) a description of the activities to be carried out, including— (i) how such activities will be aligned with State and local standards and

with other activities that promote student achievement in mathematics and

science; and

(ii) how such activities will be based on a review of relevant research and

why such activities are expected to strengthen the quality of mathematics

and science instruction;

(C) a description of how the applicant will ensure the active participation of

its mathematics, science, or engineering departments in the development and

implementation of the program;

(D) an explanation of how the program will ensure that teachers are given

instruction in both content and pedagogy;

(E) a description of how the applicant will recruit teachers to participate in

the program and the criteria that will be used to select the participants;

(F) a description of the type and amount of any financial assistance that will

be provided to teachers to enable them to participate; and

(G) a description of how the applicant will work with schools to ensure the

success of the participating teachers.

(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under this subsection, the Director

shall consider, at a minimum— (A) the ability of the applicant to effectively carry out the proposed program;

(B) the experience the applicant has in developing and implementing highquality professional development programs for mathematics or science teachers;

and

(C) the extent to which the applicant is committed to making the program a

central organizational focus.

(3) In evaluating the applications submitted under this subsection, the Director

shall give priority to those applications that demonstrate the greatest participation

of mathematics, science, or engineering departments.

(d) TEACHER ELIGIBILITY.—(1) To be eligible to participate in a program funded

under this section, a mathematics or science teacher shall submit to the Director,

at such time and in such manner as the Director may require, an assurance executed by the sponsoring school, that, after completing the program funded by this

section, the participating teacher will be provided sufficient non-classroom time to

serve as a master teacher. A copy of this assurance must be submitted to the institution of higher education as part of the teacher’s application to participate in the

master teacher program.

(2) No funds authorized by this section may be used to train any teacher who has

not complied with paragraph (1).

(e) ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISSEMINATION.—(1) The Director shall evaluate the activities carried out under this section. At a minimum such evaluations shall use a

common set of benchmarks and assessment tools to identify best practices and materials developed and demonstrated with funds provided under this section.

(2) The results of the evaluations required under this subsection shall be made

available to the public, including through the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library, and shall be provided to the

Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

(3) Materials developed under the program established under this section that are

demonstrated to be effective shall be made available through the National Science,

Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library.– (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each

of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

SEC. 4. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON REQUIRED COURSE OF STUDY FOR CAREERS

IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Science Foundation shall, jointly

with the Secretary of Education, compile and disseminate information (including

through outreach, school counselor education, and visiting speakers) regarding—

(1) typical standard prerequisites for middle school and high school students

who seek to enter a course of study at an institution of higher education in

science, mathematics, engineering, or technology education for purposes of

teaching in an elementary or secondary school; and

(2) the licensing requirements in each State for science, mathematics, engineering, or technology elementary or secondary school teachers.
5

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to the National Science Foundation to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of

fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT STUDY EVALUATION.

(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Director of the National Science Foundation shall

enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering

under which the Academies shall review existing studies on the effectiveness of

technology in the classroom on learning and student performance, using various

measures of learning and teaching outcome including standardized tests of student

achievement, and explore the feasibility of one or more methodological frameworks

to be used in evaluations of technologies that have different purposes and are used

by schools and school systems with diverse educational goals. The study evaluation

shall include, to the extent available, information on the type of technology used in

each classroom, the reason that such technology works, and the teacher training

that is conducted in conjunction with the technology.

(b) DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION.—The study evaluation required by subsection (a)

shall be completed not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this

Act.

(c) DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY.—In this section, the term ‘‘technology’’ has the

meaning given that term in section 3113(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6813(11)).

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to the National Science Foundation for the purpose of conducting the study evaluation required by subsection (a), $600,000.

SEC. 6. SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS EDUCATION

CONFERENCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this

Act, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall convene the first of an

annual 3- to 5-day conference for kindergarten through 12th grade science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education stakeholders, including—

(1) representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, private industries, private businesses, and professional organizations;

(2) educators;

(3) science, mathematics, engineering, and technology educational resource

providers;

(4) students; and

(5) any other stakeholders the Director determines would provide useful participation in the conference.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the conference convened under subsection (a)

shall be to—

(1) identify and gather information on existing science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education programs and resource providers, including

information on distribution, partners, cost assessment, and derivation;

(2) determine the extent of any existing coordination between providers of

curricular activities, initiatives, and units; and

(3) identify the common goals and differences among the participants at the

conference.

(c) REPORT AND PUBLICATION.—At the conclusion of the conference the Director

shall—

(1) transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a

report on the outcome and conclusions of the conference, including an inventory

of curricular activities, initiatives, and units, the content of the conference, and

strategies developed that will support partnerships and leverage resources; and

(2) ensure that a similar report is published and distributed as widely as possible to stakeholders in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to the National Science Foundation to carry out this section—

(1) $300,000 for fiscal year 2002; and

(2) $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

SEC. 7. DISTANCE LEARNING GRANTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National Science Foundation shall establish

a program to award competitive, merit-based grants to institutions of higher education to provide distance learning opportunities in mathematics or science to elementary or secondary school students.
6

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—Grants awarded under this section shall be used by institutions of higher education to establish programs under which elementary or secondary school students can participate in research activities in mathematics or

science occurring at the grantees’ institution via the Internet.

(c) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding

under this section shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and

containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum—

(A) a description of the research opportunities that will be offered;

(B) a description of how the applicant will publicize these research opportunities to schools and teachers;

(C) a description of how the applicant will involve teachers of participating

students in the program;

(D) a description of how students will be selected to participate;

(E) a description of how the institution of higher education will ensure that

the research is enhancing the participants’ education and will make it more

likely that the participants will continue their studies in mathematics or

science; and

(F) a description of how the funds will be spent.

(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under this subsection, the Director

shall consider—

(A) the ability of the applicant to effectively carry out the proposed program;

(B) the extent to which the proposed program will enhance the participants’

education and encourage them to continue the study of mathematics or science;

and

(C) the extent to which the proposed program will provide opportunities that

would not otherwise be available to students.

(3) The Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that the program established under this section serves students in a wide range of geographic areas and

in rural, suburban, and urban schools.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to the National Science Foundation to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of

the fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term ‘‘elementary school’’ has the meaning given that term by section

14101(14) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.

8801(14)).

(2) The term ‘‘secondary school’’ has the meaning given that term by section

14101(25) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.

8801(25)).

(3) The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given that

term by section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 100 is to authorize appropriations for

science, mathematics, engineering and technology (SMET) education programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and

other purposes. The bill authorizes appropriations of $60.9 million

for Fiscal Year 2002 and $60.2 million for Fiscal Years 2003 and

2004.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

In 1945 when Dr. Vannevar Bush transmitted his landmark report, ‘‘Science—the Endless Frontier’’, he paraphrased Harvard

President John Conant in making the case for the importance of a

targeted investment in mathematics and science education as part

of a National research policy:

In every section of the entire area where the word

science may properly be applied, the limiting factor is a

human one. We shall have rapid or slow advance in this

direction or in that depending on the number of really
7

first-class scientists who are engaged in the work in question. . . . So in the last analysis, the future of science in

this country will be determined by our basic educational

policy.

This analysis is as true today as it was fifty years ago. Recent

studies have shown that the most important factor in successful

educational improvement efforts, especially those in science, math,

engineering and technology, is the skill of enthusiastic and wellprepared teachers. When integrating the needs of learners into the

context of the emerging needs of the American workplace and society, the truth of the observation ‘‘teaching is the essential profession, the one that makes all other professions possible’’ is obvious.

Teachers provide the essential connection between students and

the content they are learning. A gifted and well-trained teacher can

instill the excitement of scientific inquiry while anchoring the material in the context of everyday life.

Thus, high quality teachers must be identified, recruited, and retained in every school district throughout the Nation. K–12 science,

mathematics, engineering, or technology teachers should be respected by their peers, rewarded financially and intellectually, and

have sufficient opportunities for advancement. In exchange, we

must expect that all teachers have mastered their content area,

curricula, up-to-date research in teaching and learning, and techniques that can be used to connect information to the students in

their classrooms.

The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching

for the 21st Century concluded that the most efficient way to disseminate information about best practices and to improve the quality of professional development was to train a cadre of master

teachers. These teachers, who must be well versed in the most effective teaching methods, have demonstrated the ability to obtain

high student achievement, and be able to effectively use technology

for teaching and learning, can assume responsibility for reviewing

and modifying curriculum and developing and implementing professional development and mentoring programs for their peers.

H.R. 100, the National Science Education Act (NSEA) responds to

these recommendations and authorizes the Director of the National

Science Foundation to establish a program to provide grants to universities to train master teachers and for other purposes designed

to improve the instruction of elementary and secondary mathematics and science education.

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On Wednesday, March 7, 2001, the House Committee on Science

held a hearing to gather teachers’ perspectives on how the federal

government can help improve K–12th grade science and math education. Testifying before the committee were four teachers representing elementary, middle, and secondary math and science

educators, three of whom were recipients of the prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. These witnesses spoke to the importance of improving the

quality and availability of professional development, developing

better student assessment tools, increasing the prestige of mathematics and science teachers, reducing the professional isolation ex-
8

perienced in the classroom, and building stronger partnerships between schools and universities.

On Wednesday, May 2, 2001, the House Science Committee’s

Subcommittee on Research held a hearing on ways the National

Science Foundation could most effectively stimulate K–12 math

and science education reform. The witnesses addressed the central

role that higher education, business, and school district partnerships can play in stimulating science and mathematics education

reform. The witnesses emphasized the importance of high quality

professional development programs, the important role that the

prestige of business partners can play in encouraging broader acceptance of reform activities, the need to recruit better prepared

teachers, the important mentoring role that can be played by master teachers, and the importance of long-term rather than shortterm programs.

On May 10, 2001, the House Service Committee’s subcommittee

on Research held a hearing to examine the gap that currently exists between what is known about how people learn and the methods and materials educators use to teach. The witnesses gave testimony to the critical importance of establishing a long-term research agenda designed to bridge the gap between cognitive science

and education research and to finding better ways to ensure that

the results of this research are incorporated into teacher education,

professional development, and classroom activities.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On January 3, 2001, Dr. Vernon J. Ehlers (MI) joined by seven

other co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 100, the National Science Education Act, a bill to authorize appropriations for science, mathematics, engineering and technology education for Fiscal Years 2002

through 2004. The Subcommittee on Research met to consider H.R.

100 on June 7, 2001, and entertained the following amendment—

Amendment 1. Mr. Boehlert (NY) offered an amendment in the

nature of a substitute: (1) to revise Section 4, the master teacher

program, by authorizing grants to institutions of higher education

for the purpose of training master teachers; (2) to revise Section 9,

the distance learning grant program, by providing grants to higher

education institutions for the implementation of K–12 distance

learning programs; and (3) to strike Section 3—Assurance of Continued Local Control, Section 7—Teacher Technology Professional

Development, Section 10—Scholarships to Participate in Certain

Research Activities, and Section 11—Interagency Coordination of

Science Education Programs. The amendment was adopted by voice

vote.

With a quorum present, Ms. Johnson moved that the Subcommittee favorably report the bill, H.R. 100, as amended, to the

Full Committee on Science with the recommendation that it be in

order for the amendment, in the nature of a substitute adopted by

the Subcommittee, to be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five minute rule at Full Committee,

and that the staff be instructed to make technical and conforming

changes to the bill as amended. The motion was agreed to by a

voice vote.

On June 13, 2001, the Full Committee met to consider the bill,

H.R. 100, as adopted by the Subcommittee on Research. With a
9

quorum present, Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably

report the bill, H.R. 100, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass, and that the staff

be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill

as amended and prepare the legislative report, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for

consideration. The motion was agreed to by a voice vote.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The National Science Education Act, H.R. 100, focuses on improving elementary and secondary science, mathematics, engineering and technology education. H.R. 100 would authorize appropriations of $60.9 million for fiscal year 2002 and $60.2 million for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. More specifically, the bill— • Authorizes the Director of NSF to award grants to institutions

of higher education (or consortia thereof) to develop and implement

programs to train master mathematics and science teachers. In

order to participate in the program, teachers must obtain a written

assurance from their school or school district that they will be provided with sufficient release time to fulfill the responsibilities of a

master teacher. The program is authorized at $50 million for each

of fiscal years 2002–2004.

• Authorizes the Director of NSF to compile and disseminate to

students information regarding the typical prerequisites for middle

school and high school students seeking to pursue post-secondary

degrees in mathematics, science or engineering in order to become

teachers. The program is authorized at $5 million for each fiscal

years 2002–2004.

• Authorizes the Director of NSF to enter into an agreement

with the National Academy of Sciences to review studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom. The study is authorized

at $600,000.

• Authorizes the Director of NSF to convene an annual business

conference on science, mathematics, engineering, and technology

education. The purpose of the conference is to identify and disseminate model programs developed or implemented by business for the

reform of mathematics and science education. The conference is authorized at $300,000 for fiscal year 2002 and $200,000 for fiscal

years 2003 and 2004.

• Authorizes the Director of NSF to award grants to institutions

of higher education to provide elementary and secondary school

students an opportunity to participate over the Internet in research

projects conducted in laboratories at institutions of higher education. The program is authorized at $5 million in each of fiscal

years 2002–2004.

Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the authorizations in

H.R. 100.

TABLE 1.—THE NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT

[By fiscal year; in millions of dollars]

Activity FY 2002

authorization

FY 2003

authorization

FY 2004

authorization Total authorization

NSF:

Total Grants .................................................. 55.0 55.0 55.0 165.0

Total Other .................................................... 5.9 5.2 5.2 16.3
10

TABLE 1.—THE NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT—Continued

[By fiscal year; in millions of dollars]

Activity FY 2002

authorization

FY 2003

authorization

FY 2004

authorization Total authorization

Grants:

Master Teacher Grants ................................. 50.0 50.0 50.0 150.0

Distance Learning Grants ............................. 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0

Other:

Course Dissemination ................................... 5.0 5.0 5.0 15.0

Study Evaluation ........................................... .6 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Business Conference ..................................... .3 .2 .2 .7

Total ..................................................... 60.9 60.2 60.2 181.3

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

Cites the Act as the ‘‘National Science Education Act.’’

Section 2. Findings

The Committee finds that: (1) the United States must maintain

its preeminent position in science and technology to advance

human understanding and to improve the lives of all people; (2) the

growth of the economy depends upon continued scientific and technological research; (3) economic growth is possible only through intellectual capital and education is instrumental to developing this

resource; (4) educational institutions must provide for three kinds

of intellectual capital: that needed by scientists, mathematicians

and engineers, that needed by other workers to succeed in a hightechnology workplace, and that needed by the general citizenry to

enable them to make informed and educated decisions as voters

and consumers; (5) student performance on recent assessments indicates that American students are being outperformed by their

international peers. We must expect more from American educators

and students, and new methods, better curricula and improved

training of teachers is needed; (6) science, mathematics, engineering and technology are more than subjects that contain facts to

memorized—each is the foundation of principles that must be applied throughout a lifetime; (7) science, mathematics, engineering

and technology must be learned by doing; (8) children are naturally

curious and learning of science, mathematics, engineering and

technology must begin early and continue from kindergarten

through high school; (9) teachers are the most essential component

of a successful learning experience and teachers must be offered a

career that is respected by their peers, is financially and intellectually rewarding, provides continuing access to professional development and offers opportunity for advancement; and (10) teachers

must have incentives to remain in the profession and improve their

practice and they must be knowledgeable about their content area,

the curriculum, and effective pedagogical techniques.

Section 3. Master Teacher grant program

Establishes within NSF a master teacher program, which awards

funds to institutions of higher education for the purpose of training

science or math teachers to lead instruction and manage hands-on

resources in grades K–9. Grantees must recruit and select teachers
11

to participate, provide training in both content and pedagogy, provide teachers with mentors, and assist teachers in the implementation of master teacher programs in their schools. Authorizes $50

million for each of FY2002–FY2004.

Section 4. Dissemination of information on required course of study

for careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology

education

Requires NSF and the Department of Education to disseminate

to high schools information explaining the high school courses typically prerequisite to pursuing a college teaching degree in science

and math. Authorizes $5 million for each of FY2002–FY2004.

Section 5. Requirement to conduct study evaluation

Authorizes an evaluation of studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom for learning. Authorizes $600,000 to be obligated within one year of enactment of this Act.

Section 6. Science, mathematics, engineering, and technology business education conference

Authorizes NSF to convene a conference to bring together private

sector participants in education. Authorizes $300,000 for FY2002,

$200,000 for FY2003 and FY2004.

Section 7. Grants for distance learning

Authorizes NSF to make grants to institutions of higher education to provide research opportunities to elementary and secondary school students via the Internet. Authorizes $5 million for

each of FY2002–FY2004.

Section 8. Definitions

Defines: (1) ‘‘elementary school’’ and ‘‘secondary school’’ as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and

(2) ‘‘institution of higher education’’ as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965.

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Sec. 3—Master Teacher grant program

The Committee has authorized the Director of the National

Science Foundation to award grants to institutions of higher education (or consortia thereof) to recruit and train master teachers.

The Committee believes that it is absolutely essential that master

teachers be provided with sufficient release time from the classroom to allow them to fulfill the responsibilities of a master teacher

(including, developing and providing professional development for

other teachers, leading curriculum review activities, management

of laboratory materials and equipment). In order to ensure that

sufficient release time is provided, the Director of NSF is required

to secure a written assurance from the school or local educational

agency that employs a teacher participating in the master teacher

program. The written assurance shall guarantee that the school or

local educational agency shall provide the master teacher with paid

release time to fulfill the responsibilities of a master teacher upon

completion of the program.
12

Sec. 4—Dissemination of information on required course of study

for careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology

education

Recent surveys conducted by the National Science Foundation

have revealed that many students fail to understand the importance of taking mathematics and science courses throughout their

middle and secondary school years. These same surveys reveal that

an alarming number of students who wish to pursue careers in engineering, medicine, mathematics and science fail to take the required mathematics and science courses. Inadequate mathematics

and science preparation during a student’s middle school and high

school years can have a profound negative impact on the number

and kind of higher education and professional opportunities available to a student. The Committee authorizes the Director of NSF

to coordinate with the Secretary of Education in developing a program to ensure that students and their parents better understand

the importance and consequences of decisions to pursue or not pursue additional coursework in mathematics and science.

The Committee believes that hands-on science instruction will

motivate students to pursue careers in math and sciences and that

dissemination of information regarding prerequisite secondary

school courses will be a helpful tool for students considering careers

in teaching. However, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated in this bill may be used for the purpose of requiring any

individual student to pursue any particular career.

IX. COST ESTIMATE

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of

a public character to contain: (1) an estimate, made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out such

bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which it is reported and

in each of the five fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the

authorized duration of any program authorized by such bill or joint

resolution, if less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate

of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by

such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when

practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for

the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate levels

under current law. However, House Rule XII, clause 3(d)(3)(B) provides that this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate

and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional

Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the report

and included in the report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause

3(c)(3). A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of

the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and is included

in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause

3(c)(3).

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report that accompanies a measure providing new
13

budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new

spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in revenues

or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when

practicable with respect to estimates of new budget authority, a

comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant

program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law.

H.R. 100 does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenue or tax expenditures. Assuming that the

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 100 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Officer report on the bill, which is contained in

Section X of this report.

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2001.

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 100, the National Science

Education Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Melissa Zimmerman

and Kathleen Gramp.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 100—National Science Education Act

Summary: H.R. 100 would authorize several new programs at

the National Science Foundation to promote science and technology

in elementary and secondary education. The bill would authorize

approximately $60 million for a year for fiscal years 2002 through

2004 for these initiatives. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 100 would

cost $167 million over the 2002–2006 period. The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures

would not apply.

H.R. 100 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

This bill would benefit state and local governments, including local

school districts and public universities. However, any costs incurred to participate in the program would be voluntary.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 100 is shown in the following table. The cost

of the legislation falls within budget function 250 (general science,

space, and technology):
14

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorized Level ............................................................... 0 61 60 60 0 0

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 9 36 52 48 22

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will be appropriated for each year, beginning in

2002. We assume outlays will follow historical spending patterns

for similar programs. Over the 2002–2004 period, the bill would authorized $50 million a year for grants to colleges and universities

to support master teacher programs; $5 million a year for initiatives related to distance learning; and $5 million a year for the creation and distribution of teaching-career information to students.

In addition, H.R. 100 would authorize $300,000 for fiscal year 2002

and $200,000 a year for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for annual education conferences and $600,000 for the National Academies of

Sciences and Engineering to evaluate the effectiveness of technology in the classroom.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 100 contains

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in

UMRA. The bill would benefit state and local governments, including local school districts and public universities, by authorizing appropriations to the National Science Foundation for grant programs

designed to improve science education. Any costs incurred by intergovernmental entities to participate in grant programs would be

voluntary.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Melissa Zimmerman and

Kathleen Gramp; impact on State, local, and tribal governments:

Elyse Goldman; impact on the private sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 100 contains no unfunded mandates.

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report to include oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The

Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations

are reflected in the body of this report.

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public

character to include a statement citing the specific powers granted

to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by

the bill or joint resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution

of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R.

100.
15

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 100 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of

any advisory committee.

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 100 does not relate to the terms

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).

XVI. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

XVII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THIS BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute.

XVIII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 13, 2001, a quorum being present, the Committee on

Science favorably reported the National Science Education Act, by

a voice vote, and recommends its enactment.

XIX. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 100

are to improve student mathematics and science achievement in elementary and secondary schools through the education and training of master teachers, encourage middle school and high school

students to take additional mathematics and science courses and

encourage greater collaboration between businesses and other education stakeholders.

Section 3 of the Act authorizes the Director of NSF to provide

grants to institutions of higher education to recruit and train master teachers. It is the performance objective of this program to improve elementary and secondary school student achievement by increasing the number and quality of master teachers that are available to reform curricula, implement professional development programs, and serve as mentors to other teachers.

Section 4 of the Act authorizes the Director of NSF to compile

and disseminate information (through outreach, school counselor

education, and visiting speakers, etc.) about the courses middle and

high school students must take to pursue science, mathematics, engineering and technology education at institutions of higher education to become elementary or secondary school teachers. The general performance goal of this program is to encourage middle and

high school students who are considering careers in teaching to

take additional science and mathematics courses.

Section 6 of the Act authorizes the Director of NSF to convene

an annual conference for kindergarten through 12th grade science,

mathematics, engineering, and technology stakeholders. The general performance goals of the conference are to share information

about business initiated education reform programs and to improve

collaboration among stakeholders.

Section 7 of the Act authorizes the Director of NSF to establish

a program to provide distance learning opportunities in mathe-
16

matics or science to elementary or secondary school students. The

general performance objective of the program is to increase student

achievement by using distance learning technologies to provide students with opportunities to participate in research projects conducted at institutions of higher education.

XX. EXCHANGE OF COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC, June 25, 2001.

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER,

Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BOEHNER: Thank you for your letter of June 26,

2001 regarding H.R. 100, the National Science Education Act.

I appreciate your waiving your Committee’s right to a referral on

this bill so that it can move expeditiously to the floor. I recognize

your Committee’s jurisdiction in this area and will support any request you may make to have conferees on H.R. 100 or similar legislation.

The exchange of letters between our two committees will be included in the Committee report on H.R. 100 and will be made part

of the floor record.

Sincerely,

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2001.

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN BOEHLERT: Thank you for working with me regarding H.R. 100, the ‘‘National Science Education Act’’, which was

introduced by Rep. Vern Ehlers, referred to the Committee on

Science and in addition the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and ordered favorably reported by your Committee on June

13, 2001. I understand your desire to have this legislation considered expeditiously by the House; hence, I do not intend to hold a

hearing or markup on this legislation.

In agreeing to waive consideration by our Committee, I would expect you to agree that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on Education and the

Workforce’s jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this or any

similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in

the future. I would also expect your support in my request to the

Speaker for the appointment of conferees from my Committee with

respect to matters within the jurisdiction of my Committee should

a conference with the Senate be convened on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your including our exchange of letters in your

Committee’s report to accompany H.R. 100. Again, I thank you for
17

working with me in developing this legislation and I look forward

to working with you on these issues in the future.

Sincerely,

JOHN BOEHNER, Chairman.

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

H.R. 100, NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT

JUNE 7, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

Chairman SMITH. To move forward now with the consideration of

Mr. Ehlers’ bill, H.R. 100, we will now consider that bill to establish and expand programs relating to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education and for other purposes. I would

now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, the author of the bill for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I have a prepared statement but in the interest of time I ask that you have it

entered.

Chairman SMITH. Without objection the statement will be included in the record.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

[Statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON J. EHLERS

Today we are marking up H.R. 100, the National Science Education Act, the first

of three bills aimed at improving science, math, engineering, and technology education—known as ‘‘SMET ed.’’ H.R. 100 is a similar version to H.R. 4271, which

passed this Committee by a unanimous vote during the 106th Congress. I want to

thank Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Smith for their leadership on this issue.

Our K–12 education system serves three main purposes: it is responsible for preparing future scientists and engineers for further study in college and graduate

school; it provides all future workers the basic technical skills they will need in a

21st century workforce, where nearly every job will have a technical component; and

it provides scientific and technical understanding so that citizens may make informed decisions as consumers and voters. Unfortunately, recent international assessments of student performance in science and math showed that our twelfth

grade students were well behind their international peers.

As most of you know, during the 106th Congress, this Committee conducted a series of hearings to further examine the state of the nation’s math and science education, and to suggest improvements. While there are many factors that impact student achievement, a common theme that arose from our discussions is that there

is no substitute for a knowledgeable and well-prepared teacher in the classroom.

Teachers, particularly at the elementary and middle school level, often lack time

and school resources to implement an inquiry-based, hands on science curriculum.

H.R. 100 authorizes a competitive grant program for higher education institutions

to train teachers with strong backgrounds in math, science, engineering and technology to become master teachers. Master teachers would be trained to provide ongoing professional development, in-classroom assistance, and oversight of hands-on

science materials to a group of elementary and middle school SMET teachers. This

is the type of support our teachers deserve and should be receiving.

In addition, this bill requires NSF and the National Academies to evaluate existing studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom on learning and student performance. Federal, state, and local governments have done a good job providing funds for technology acquisition, but it is unclear what technologies and how

technology enhance student learning.
18

This bill also creates a program for higher education institutions to provide distance learning opportunities for elementary and secondary students. Distance learning invites exciting possibilities for student learning, particularly for student scientific research.

I look forward to having my colleagues’ input today and to consideration by the

full Committee and full House in the future. With this effort, our nation’s teachers

and students will be one step closer to receiving the support they so much deserve.

I would like to close by thanking Chairman Boehlert and Chairman Smith for

working with me to bring this bill forward today.

Mr. EHLERS. I deeply appreciate the interest in science education

on the part of the Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Boehlert, and the

Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Smith. I think it has been a number

of years since we had a combination like that, and I especially appreciate Mr. Boehlert’s deep interest in promoting science and insuring that our students have a good opportunity to learn science

when they are in elementary schools and that we will have an adequate number of trained citizens in the future.

I also appreciate that we now have a President who has made

education a high priority and naturally, science education is part

of that.

We all recognize, I believe, as the Subcommittee Chairman mentioned during his comments that today’s economic boom is largely

related to the work that we have done in science and technology

and the discoveries that we have made there.

What most people in this nation do not recognize, however, is the

role of improved education in providing the workforce for that economic boom and also the continuing research to keep it going. And

that is the purpose of this bill and the previous bill.

Expressing it in three specific purposes, number one, we want to

make sure we have an adequate supply of well-trained scientists

and engineers. Number two, we want to insure that we have

enough technically-trained workers for the many technically-oriented positions that are going to be in the workplace of the future,

and thirdly, we want to make sure that we have an insured electorate and an insured group of consumers in this country.

If you ask the question, how can you best impact science and

math education in the K–12 system, the obvious answer is through

better-trained teachers. I have worked in this field for over 30

years now, and I am pleased to say that the problem is not that

the teachers don’t want to teach science or that they are incapable

of teaching science. It is that they really do sincerely want to do

a good job of teaching science and mathematics. The difficulty is

they have not been properly trained in their college or university

experiences, and so I believe our first goal has to be to adequately

train the teachers who are already in the classrooms who have not

received sufficient training when they were in the higher educational system.

A subsidiary to that which we will address later on in other bills

is how do we train teachers currently in the higher educational system in a better way to teach math and science.

So the emphasis of H.R. 100 is twofold. First of all, making certain that we do a good job of training existing teachers, and secondly, to provide a master teacher system, what I call the go-to

teacher. In my personal experience in working with the schools the

single biggest factor in whether or not a teacher succeeded in the

classroom in teaching math and science when they had not had a
19

large amount of training in it, the single biggest factor was whether they had a go-to person in the school that they could go to for

help and advice when the guppies died or the plants failed or the

equipment broke. And if they did not have that go-to person, generally the science program did not succeed because the average

teacher does not have the expertise or the time to take care of

problems like that.

It does take extra time and effort to teach science properly, particularly with the hands-on approach. And the—at the university

level we have no extra time for faculty to teach science through the

laboratory system. We do not do that in the K–8 system, and we

need people around who are trained in the field who can serve as

a resource for the classroom teacher and particularly who can take

care of the equipment, make certain that it is up to snuff and repair it when it is not.

The purpose of the H.R. 100 bill, the primary purpose is to train

a core of master teachers who will have the knowledge and expertise to help other teachers in their particular school building do an

adequate job of teaching math and science but who will also serve

as a resource person in terms of the equipment and materials needed.

I deeply appreciate the willingness of the Chair of the Subcommittee and the Chair of the Full Committee. They have been

very, very helpful in reviewing this bill. As most of you know this

bill went to the floor last year. It passed this Committee unanimously. It was defeated on suspensions last year for another reason which we incidentally have corrected in this bill but it still received a majority of the votes last year. There is a lot of support

for it. I appreciate the help I have had from the Committee and the

Subcommittee, both the Chairs and the staff in revising the bill to

take account of some of the objections raised last year.

I believe it is in great shape, and I ask for your support. I thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SMITH. We would thank the gentleman for—from

Michigan for his leadership in this area. I would like to note for

the record that this Subcommittee has held two hearings in this

area of improving math and science education, and it was interesting that two of the witnesses suggested that the initial interest

and excitement and motivation to move ahead and take up math

and science started in the kindergarten through the third grade.

And also that parents are so vital in lighting that initial fire that

tends to keep burning as far as pursuing the interest and the

knowledge in this area.

So it is my hope that we also can look at that kind of example,

that kind of success that has been exhibited in some areas of kindling that initial fire of interest and then continuing with the quality kind of education.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and

open to amendment at any point, and without objection it is so ordered.

I move the first reading of the bill be dispensed with if that is

in accord with the wishes of the Subcommittee. Without objection

it is so ordered.
20

We will move to the first amendment on the roster, which is the

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman

Boehlert, and the clerk will report the amendment.

Madam CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

100 offered by Mr. Boehlert.

Chairman SMITH. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense

with the reading. Without objection it is so ordered. Mr. Boehlert

is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to

offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute on behalf of Dr.

Ehlers who will explain ifs contents momentarily. Just let me say

once again this is a bipartisan amendment that insures that all the

goals of H.R. 100 will be met. And as we all know very well the

most important ingredient in a child’s education is not a fancy new

physical plant, although we want our youngsters to have good facilities, not the brightest and best-illustrated textbooks, although

they are very important. The most important ingredient in a child’s

education is the teacher. And we are focusing on the teacher, and

let me congratulate Dr. Ehlers for his leadership in this area. And

Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate you also, the dynamic duo from

Michigan I guess.

But it just bothers me as it should bother all Americans that depending on whose figures you believe a disproportionately high

share of our youngsters K through 12 education are taking their

science courses from people who are not trained to teach science

course. Dedicated educators, they may have majored in French or

history or something. They are in the classroom teaching science

because that is their assignment.

We want to help them, and we want to get the best qualified

science disciplined major teachers in the classroom, and we want

to get them the best instruction they have, and Dr. Ehlers’ suggestion on the development of master teacher core is just outstanding.

So with that I would hope that the Committee will move forward,

and I look forward to Dr. Ehlers’ more comprehensive explanation

of the amendment.

Chairman SMITH. The Chair would recognize for five minutes the

Ranking Member, the gentle lady from Texas, Representative

Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to support the substitute amendment. It addresses the main

concern I had with the underlying bill by recasting the master

teacher provision in such a way as to provide for the professional

development and training of master teachers.

The provision as now constituted is consistent with the approach

taken by the master teacher language in H.R. 1693, the Hall

Science Education Bill. I would like to add that the master teacher

language in the bill follows the approach that Congressman

Etheridge recommended.

During the Committee’s consideration of the Ehlers’ Science Education Bill last year the other provisions in the amendment are

consistent with what was approved in a bipartisan manner by the

Committee last year, and I recommend passage of this substitute

amendment. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Chair would recognize the gentleman from

Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for a brief explanation of the amendment.
21

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I believe I was can

do it in less than five minutes because I have already referred to

parts of it. I appreciate the support evidenced, and this shows that

the legislator process does work because the—everyone on this

Committee has participated in some way in revising the bill from

last year and I think has improved it.

The H.R. 100 as introduced provided grants to schools to hire

master teachers, and that was a subject of some contention last

year when it reached the floor. This amendment changes this program by providing grants to institutions of higher education for the

purpose of training master teachers but when they do that, there

will have to be a commitment from the school that the teacher is

employed by that they will use the newly-trained talents of the

master teachers to maximum advantage so we are not just putting

money into training. We are insuring that the schools make a commitment to use that training in a beneficial way.

This amendment also changes a provision in the bill we had last

year which provided for distance learning. It—rather than providing grants directly to schools for distance learning activities as

we had last year, the substitute amendment before us would provide the grants to higher education institutions or implementation

of K–12 distance learning programs, primarily intended so that the

universities can develop distance learning experiments so that students in elementary and secondary schools can actually be involved

in ongoing university experiments, doing it all through distance

learning through the internet.

This amendment also strikes Section 710 and 11, which were—

which we have determined to be duplicative of other legislative proposals that are currently moving through the House in the President’s Education Bill.

So it is a streamlined bill compared to last year’s but it gets at

the essence, and I think it improves the essence that we had last

year.

I appreciate the assistance everyone has given, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Chairman SMITH. Any other discussions? If not, the vote occurs

on the amendment. All in favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed

no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments? Hearing none the question

is on the passage of the bill H.R. 100 as amended. All those in

favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the

Chair the ayes have it.

The Ranking Member for a motion.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the substitute—the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 100 is

amended to the Full Committee with the recommendation that it

be an order for the amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Subcommittee, be considered as an original bill for the

purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule of the Full Committee.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be instructed to

make all necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill as

amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.
22

Chairman SMITH. The Committee has heard the motion. Those in

favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it,

and the motion is agreed to.

[H.R. 100 follows:]
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Chairman SMITH. Without objection the motion to reconsider is

laid on the table, and the Chair notes the presence of a quorum.

I would like to thank all of the members of the Committee and

good work, and with that I applaud everybody that has been working on this. And the Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

H.R. 100, NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT

JUNE 13, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 100, National

Science Education Act. And I think in view of the action on the

floor, we probably should suspend our deliberations for now. Go to

the floor, cast our ballots and come right back. And we should be

able to dispense of another very important bill in short order.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes.

[Statement of Nick Smith follows:]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.

To: Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman.

From: Nick Smith, Chairman Subcommittee on Research.

Re: Subcommittee Mark-up of H.R. 1858.

On June 7, 2001, the Subcommittee on Research held a mark-up of H.R. 1858,

National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act. A Manager’s Amendment was

offered by Mr. Smith and Ms. Johnson and was adopted by a voice vote.

Attached for your information is a section by section analysis and a copy of the

measure.

H.R. 1858, AS REPORTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON JUNE 7, 2001

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE

‘‘National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

Discuss the goal set by the nation’s Governors to establish the U.S. as the world’s

leaders in math and science achievement by the year 2000, the failure to reach that

goal, and the need to redouble efforts to provide all of the country’s students with

a world-class education in math, science, engineering, and technology.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS

Provides the standard references to define ‘‘institution of higher education’’, ‘‘local

educational agency’’, ‘‘state educational agency’’, ‘‘Director’’, and defines ‘‘eligible

nonprofit organization’’.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

Any authorization of appropriations in the bill is in addition to amounts otherwise

authorized or appropriated for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
73

SEC. 5. MATCHING REQUIREMENTS

Allows the Director of NSF to establish matching fund requirements for any of

the programs authorized by the bill, with the exception of the Noyce Scholarship

program described in Title IV.

TITLE I. MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS

Subtitle A. Mathematics and science education partnerships

Establishes a competitive, merit-based program to award grants to institutions of

higher education or eligible nonprofit organizations to establish math and science

partnership programs. Requires institutions of higher education to partner with one

or more local educational agencies to be eligible to receive a partnership grant. Partnerships may also include a state educational agency and/or one or more businesses.

Requires that the higher education institution include a mathematics, science or engineering department in the programs carried out through the partnership. At least

50% of the partnerships must include businesses.

Lists allowable activities for partnership programs that include teacher recruitment, training, and professional development—including training in educational

technologies—distance learning programs, development of curricular materials and

assessment tools, and others, including any other activities the NSF Director determines will accomplish the goals of the program. Specifies that the allowable activities for partnerships shall include programs to encourage the ongoing interest of

girls in science, mathematics, engineering and technology and prepare them to pursue college and graduate-level study in these fields. Requires NSF Director to ensure, to the extent practicable, that partnership grants be awarded in a geographically diverse fashion, and that the partnerships include a diverse array of rural,

urban and suburban school districts.

Authorization of $200 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

Subtitle B. Teacher research scholarship program

Establishes a competitive, merit-based grant program for institutions of higher

education or eligible nonprofit organizations to provide research opportunities in

mathematics, science, and engineering for math and science teachers. Businesses or

State laboratories may be included as partners in the program. Grant recipients recruit and select teachers, give them opportunities to conduct research, and provide

them with mentors and programming support. Grant recipients must provide a stipend to participating teachers and may provide room and board. Requires NSF Director to ensure, to the extent practicable, that partnership grants be awarded in

a geographically diverse fashion, including rural, urban and suburban areas.

Authorization of $15 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

TITLE II. NATIONAL SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY

EDUCATION DIGITAL LIBRARY

Directs the NSF Director to expand the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library program by providing grants, on a

competitive, peer-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education or other qualified entities to provide timely and continuous dissemination of K–12 science, math,

engineering, and technology educational resources, materials, practices, and policies

through the Internet and other digital technologies. Allows grant recipients to use

funds to provide assistance to schools for the selection and adaptation of curricular

materials, practices, and teaching methods that are made available through the Digital Library. Allows the Director to contract out operation of the Digital Library.

Authorization of $20 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

TITLE III. STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

Subtitle A. Centers

Directs the NSF Director to establish four multidisciplinary Centers for Research

on Learning and Education Improvement by awarding grants, using a merit-based,

competitive process, to institutions of higher education. Centers are to conduct and

evaluate research in cognitive science, education and related fields and to develop

ways in which the results of such research can be applied to the teaching of K–12

math and science. Each Center is to have a distinct research focus, determined by

the Director in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences. Requires the

Director to convene an annual meeting of the Centers.

Authorization of $12 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
74

Subtitle B. Fellowships

Establishes a fellowship program for K–12 teachers to pursue education research

fellowships at institutions of higher education. Grants are to be awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis to institutions of higher education to set up programs

that will enable K–12 teachers to conduct research on cognitive science or education

research under the guidance of a researcher at the institution. Grant recipients

must recruit and select teachers, give them opportunities to conduct research, and

provide them with mentors and programming support. Grant recipients must provide a stipend to participating teachers and may provide room and board.

$5 million authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

TITLE IV. ROBERT NOYCE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Establishes a competitive, merit-based grant program for institutions of higher

education to obtain grants in order to award scholarships to recruit and train K–

12 science and math teachers. Grant recipients are to use the funds to establish programs that encourage top college juniors and seniors majoring in science, math and

engineering, as well as science, math, and engineering professionals to become K–

12 science and math teachers by administering scholarships and stipends, offering

programs to help scholarship/stipend recipients become certified to teach in K–12

schools, and offering programs to help scholarship/stipend recipients to become better mathematics and science teachers. Grant recipients will also offer programs to

provide professional and academic support to scholarship/stipend recipients during

their early years of teaching.

Scholarships for undergraduates are to be awarded for $7500 or the cost of attendance, whichever is less. Stipends for science, math, and engineering professionals are to be awarded for $7500 or the cost of tuition, whichever is less. Individuals may receive a maximum of two years’ worth of support, and must agree to complete two years of teaching in a K–12 school for every year of scholarship or stipend

funds awarded.

Scholarship recipients who do not complete even a single year of their service obligation would be required to pay back the amount of the award (plus interest) multiplied by two. Scholarship recipients who complete at least one year of their service

obligation but do not complete the rest must repay only the total amount of their

award, less $3750 for each year of service completed, plus interest.

Requires NSF Director to ensure, to the extent practicable, that partnership

grants be awarded in a geographically diverse fashion, and prepare recipients for

jobs in rural, urban and suburban areas.

$20 million authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

TITLE V. REQUIREMENTS FOR RESEARCH CENTERS

Requires the Director of NSF to ensure that grants that establish new research

centers at institutions of higher education incorporate an elementary and secondary

mathematics, science, engineering or technology education component into their program.

TITLE VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Mathematics and science proficiency partnerships

Establishes an NSF program to award grants of not more than $300,000 (on a

peer-reviewed, competitive basis) to local educational agencies to develop math,

science, and information technology curricula, purchase equipment necessary to establish such programs, and provide professional development opportunities for

teachers. In order to qualify for such a grant, the local educational agency must execute an agreement with a private sector entity to provide services and funds that

include: donations of computers, establishment of internship and mentoring programs, and the provision of college scholarships for students committed to pursuing

a career in math, science or information technology. Special priority is to be given

to grant applicants that demonstrate the greatest economic need and the greatest

ability to attract funds and services from the private sector.

$5 million authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

Sec. 602. Articulation partnerships between community colleges and secondary

schools

For grant awards authorized under section 3(c)(2) of the Scientific and AdvancedTechnology Act of 1992, requires the Director to give priority to grant proposals that

involve secondary schools with a majority of students from groups that are underrepresented in the science, mathematics, and engineering workforce.

$5 million authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
75

Sec. 603. Assessment of in-service professional development programs

Requires the Director to review all NSF programs that support teacher training

programs to determine (1) what level of resources and degree of emphasis is placed

on the training of teachers in the effective use of information technologies and (2)

the allocation of resources between summer activities and follow-on training and

support to participating teachers during the school year. Requires that a report be

made to Congress on the results of the review.

TITLE VII. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Establishes an NSF program to award grants (on a peer-reviewed, competitive

basis) to institutions of higher education to establish centers to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of information technologies in K–12 math and science education. Centers would be required to identify and study the effectiveness of educational approaches and techniques that are based on the use of information technology, to identify the key variables affecting educational effectiveness, and then to

ensure that the results of this analysis are widely disseminated and effectively applied by K–12 schools. Allows the Director to sponsor conferences, workshops, and

websites in order to disseminate information further.

$25 million authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004; $30 million authorized for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95

Mr. SMITH. Would it be possible, with the consent of the sponsor

of the bill that maybe we could do this in the next 5 minutes, before we go to the floor?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure we can.

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. I ask unanimous consent that

the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.

I ask the members to proceed with the amendments in the order

of the roster. I move that the first reading of the bill be dispensed

with. I—let’s see. Chair recognizes Mr. Ehlers.

[Statements of Vernon J. Ehlers and Sheila Jackson Lee follow:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VERNON J. EHLERS

Today we are marking up H.R. 100, the National Science Education Act, the first

of three bills aimed at improving science, math, engineering, and technology education—known as ‘‘SMET ed.’’ H.R. 100 is similar to H.R. 4271, which passed this

Committee by a unanimous vote during the 106th Congress. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for his leadership on this issue.

Our K–12 education system serves three main purposes: it is responsible for preparing future scientists and engineers for further study in college and graduate

school; it provides all future workers the basic technical skills they will need in a

21st century workforce, where nearly every job will have a technical component; and

it provides scientific and technical understanding so that citizens may make informed decisions as consumers and voters. Unfortunately, recent international assessments of student performance in science and math showed that our twelfth

grade students were well behind their international peers.

As most of you know, during the 106th Congress, this Committee conducted a series of hearings to further examine the state of the nation’s math and science education, and to suggest improvements. While there are many factors that impact student achievement, a common theme that arose from our discussions is that there

is no substitute for a knowledgeable and well-prepared teacher in the classroom.

Teachers, particularly at the elementary and middle school level, often lack time

and school resources to implement an inquiry-based, hands-on science curriculum.

Unlike H.R. 4271 of last year, which authorized grants to elementary and middle

schools to hire master teachers, H.R. 100 authorizes a competitive grant program

for higher education institutions to train teachers to become master teachers. Teachers with strong backgrounds in math, science, engineering and technology would be

trained as master teachers to provide on-going professional development, in-classroom assistance, and oversight of hands-on science materials to a group of elementary and middle school SMET teachers. This is the type of support our teachers deserve and should be receiving.

In addition, this bill requires NSF and the National Academies to evaluate existing studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom on learning and student performance. Federal, state, and local governments have done a good job providing funds for technology acquisition, but it is unclear what technologies and software work best and how technology enhances student learning.

This bill also creates a program for higher education institutions to provide distance learning opportunities for elementary and secondary students. Distance learning invites exciting possibilities for student learning, particularly for student scientific research.

I look forward to having my colleagues’ input and support today and to consideration by the full House in the future. With this effort, our nation’s teachers and students will be one step closer to receiving the support and education they so much

deserve.

I would like to close by thanking Chairman Boehlert and subcommittee Chairman

Smith for working with me to bring this bill forward today.

STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Ralph Hall for

this opportunity to markup, H.R. 1858, which would make improvements in mathematics and science education in our nation, and H.R. 100, the National Science and

Education Act. These bills are long over due and are much needed in ensuring that

we have adequate numbers of trained scientists and mathematicians for the technological and economic challenges of tomorrow.
96

H.R. 1858 offers support to current teachers and help to recruit and retain new

teachers who are trained and accredited to teach math and science.

In order to accomplish the goals of this legislation it would create new approaches

for the Nations Science Foundation (NSF) to take in building a stronger and more

diverse repository of mathematics and science trained teachers. The long range goal

is to provide instruction in math and science by teachers who are trained in those

areas, and through this effort increase the number of students who pursue math

and science undergraduate and graduate degrees.

It is my goal along with the committee’s to create a public education system that

would develop a technologically capable workforce that can compete in the global

economy.

Toward this end, I have offered several amendments to H.R. 1858. The first

amendment directs that the National Digital Library contain information about

electronic links to materials that educators may access. The second amendment requires that research center awards focus on research and development of educational practices designed to improve the academic performance of a broad range

of students, including those from underrepresented groups.

Through the committee hearing process on these particular bills the groups that

are underrepresented have been identified as African Americans, Hispanics, Native

Americans and women.

The last amendment directs that the NSF provide information on the awarding

of Robert Noyce Scholarships. As a result of this amendment the NSF will be required to collect relevant statistically and demographic data on scholarship recipients and information on the locations at which scholarship recipients carry out their

teaching requirement. This report is required by year 7 of the program assessing

its impact on drawing math and science students into teaching careers, including

students from underrepresented groups.

I thank the Chair and committee members for their consideration of these amendments and look forward to their inclusion in the final bill sent to the House by this

committee.

Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening statement. In the interest of time, I will just give that to the reporter

to enter into the record.

Let me just say this bill has had thorough examination and

passed this Committee last year, unanimously. It has been improved since that time. I think it deserves the same action today,

that is, unanimous passage. And in the interest of time, I will just

withhold further comment at this time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Is there any other

discussion? No amendments? Then—I move that the Committee report that bill H.R. 100, as amend—no amendments. Further, I

move to instruct the staff to prepare the legislative report to make

technical and confirming amendments and that the Chairman take

all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. The vote is on the bill, H.R. 100. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The chair notes the presence of a reported quorum. The question is then—well, we already did that. I

move that the members have 2 subsequent calendar days in which

to submit supplemental, minority or additional views on the measure. Mr. Gordon?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee favorably report H.R. 100 as amended to the House, with the recommendation

that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that the

staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and performing changes. That the Chairman take

all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We do have a reporting quorum. All in

favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And I move that the
97

Members have 2 subsequent calendar days, et cetera. This Committee is now adjourned. Good work.

[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ