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

90–162PS 2004

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM:

VIEWS FROM THE FIELD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 30, 2003

Serial No. 108–32

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.,

Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

ROB BISHOP, Utah

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

CHRIS BELL, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

ZOE LOFGREN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ZOE LOFGREN, California

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

DAVID FINGER Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members

JAMES HAGUE Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

October 30, 2003

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 13

Witnesses:

Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant, SUNY–

Brockport

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Biography .......................................................................................................... 63

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 68

Mr. Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 69

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 70

Biography .......................................................................................................... 71

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 72

Mr. Jeffrey M. Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District, New

York

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 72

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 74

Biography .......................................................................................................... 75

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 76

Dr. M. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant,

University of Texas, El Paso

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 76

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 79

Biography .......................................................................................................... 84

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 85

Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant,

Michigan State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 86

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 88

Biography .......................................................................................................... 106

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 107

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 108

Page

IV

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant, SUNY–

Brockport .............................................................................................................. 126

Mr. Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York ..................... 127

Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District, New York ....... 128

Dr. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, University of Texas, El Paso ..................................................................................... 129

Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant,

Michigan State University .................................................................................. 131

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of the Museum of Science, Boston, MA ............................................... 134

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATH AND

SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: VIEWS

FROM THE FIELD

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:33 p.m., in Room

2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Implementation of the

Math and Science Partnership Program:

Views From the Field

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003

12:00 P.M.–2:00 P.M.

2325 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Thursday, October 30, the Subcommittee on Research of the House Science

Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the implementation of the Math Science

Partnership (MSP) Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The MSP

Program, part of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind initiative, was authorized

by the House in last year’s NSF Authorization Act, which was signed into law in

December. The program provides grants to partnerships of universities and school

districts (and sometimes businesses) to improve K–12 math and science education.

This hearing will be the Congress’s first look at how this major new initiative is

working.

2. Witnesses

• Dr. Osman Yasar (Oz-mon Yash-ar), lead researcher for the Targeted

MSP award at the State University of New York (SUNY) Brockport.

Dr. Yasar is a professor and chair of the computational science department

at SUNY College at Brockport. He established the first undergraduate program in computational science in the United States and, prior to SUNY, he

was a staff scientist at the Center for Computational Sciences at the Oak

Ridge National Laboratory.

• Mr. Ed Chi (Chee), Science Teacher at Brighton School District in

New York. Mr. Chi teaches science to 7th and 8th grade students at Twelve

Corners Middle School in Rochester, New York. Twelve Corners Middle

School is the sole institution educating students in grades 6–8 in the Brighton

School District.

• Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, at Rochester City School District in

New York. Mr. Mikols has been a teacher with the Rochester City School

District since 1993, and he has taught courses ranging from pre-algebra to

AP calculus. Currently, Mr. Mikols is the Secondary Mathematics Lead

Teacher, which makes him responsible for providing professional development

to other secondary school math teachers. Mr. Mikols received his B.A. in

Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics Education from SUNY–

Geneseo, and he is currently enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in

School Administration.

• Dr. Susana Navarro (Nav-ARR-o), lead researcher for the Comprehensive MSP award at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Dr.

Navarro is the founder and the head of the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, a city-wide effort to improve the academic achievement of

El Pasoans. Prior to the Collaborative, Dr. Navarro served as National Director of Research and Policy Analysis of the Mexican American Legal Defense

and Education Fund and Executive Director of the Achievement Council. She

graduated from the University of Texas–El Paso with a degree in political

science and she continued her graduate studies at Sanford University, where

she ultimately earned her Ph.D. in educational psychology.

• Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy (Fer-RINI-Mun-dy), lead researcher for the

comprehensive MSP grant at Michigan State University. Dr. FerriniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
4

Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Math Education in the College of

Natural Science at Michigan State University, where she is also a Professor

of Mathematics and Teacher Education. Prior to joining Michigan State, Dr.

Ferrini-Mundy co-founded the SummerMath Program for Teachers at Mount

Holyoke College and she has been the principal investigator of several research and teacher education grants. She also has served as a Visiting Scientists at NSF’s Teacher Enhancement Program and as Director of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board at the National Research Council.

3. Overarching Questions

The hearing will address the following overarching questions:

• How will awardees ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and

engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—are active in the program, drawing on the expertise of all partners?

What role, if any, will businesses or non-profit organizations play in the partnership?

• How will awardees provide meaningful, high quality training for pre-service

and in-service teachers? How will this close the gap between the research

findings on the way students learn and actual classroom practice? How will

improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?

• How will reform efforts align with each State’s challenging math and science

standards and accountability measures? What sort of in-depth, quantitative

evaluation will be conducted? And how will the results be disseminated?

• Are the awards a sufficient size to develop and test new education reform

models? How will the partnerships coordinate with State educational agencies

to foster and sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?

4. Brief Overview

• For decades, educators and policy-makers have seen statistics that demonstrate a lackluster performance of U.S. students in math and science. Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that a majority of U.S. students score below ‘‘proficient’’ in math and science, and the

Third International Math and Science Study highlight our problems relative

to other countries (see below).

• In response, Congress enacted two bills—the National Science Foundation

Authorization Act of 2002 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001—and created Math and Science Partnership Programs at the Department of Education

and the National Science Foundation.

• These partnerships were to work together, with the National Science Foundation supporting model programs that create partnerships between the departments of math, science and engineering at colleges and universities with

school districts to improve math and science proficiency for K–12 math and

science teachers and students. The Department of Education was tasked with

bringing the reform efforts to scale with grants to States and school districts.

• The annual authorization for the Department of Education partnership program is $450 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 and such sums for the next

five fiscal years. The FY 2002 appropriation was $12.5, but the FY 2003 appropriation grew to $100.3 million. The authorization for the National Science

Foundation partnership program is $200 million for FY 2003, $300 million for

FY 2004, and $400 million for FY 2005. The FY 2002 appropriation was $150

million and the FY 2003 appropriation was $127.5 million. The President has

requested $12.5 million and $200 million in FY 2004 for the Department of

Education and National Science Foundation partnership programs respectively.

5. Background

As part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–

368), the Congress established the Math and Science Partnership Program in response to President Bush’s challenge to leave no child behind in education. Underlying this effort was data that showed that U.S. eighth and twelfth graders did not

do well either by our own measurements or by international standards.

Student Achievement in Math and Science

The most recent results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) show that the trend for student achievement is generally up over the last

30 years, yet large numbers of U.S. students demonstrate a mastery of only rudiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

mentary mathematics. In fact, 31 percent of 4th graders, 34 percent of 8th graders

and 35 percent of 12th graders scored below ‘‘basic.’’ Students in the basic category

cannot demonstrate even partial mastery of the material that is appropriate for

their age group, with, for instance, few 4th graders even knowing how many fourths

make up a whole.

These low levels of achievement are more likely among minority groups and

among children from low-income backgrounds. In the 2000 NAEP, 68 percent of African American 8th graders scored below basic in math compared to 23 percent of

white students. And the achievement gap in NAEP math scores between white and

black students and between white and Hispanic students has remained relatively

unchanged since 1990.

On the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), an assessment that evaluates the math and science performance of 4th, 8th and 12th grade

students from 42 different countries, U.S. performance relative to other nations declined with increased schooling. While U.S. children scored above average in elementary school, those in 12th grade—including our most advanced students—

ranked among the lowest of all participating countries, outperformed by nearly

every industrialized nation and ahead of only Cyprus and South Africa.

These scores are disappointing and the reasons for them are complex. Yet one

thing is certain—U.S. students are not getting a math and science education that

will allow them to learn to their greatest ability. And their lessons neither engage

nor challenge them. As a result, unacceptably low numbers of students are motivated to enroll in physics or chemistry and only 20–25 percent of graduating high

school seniors have completed enough mathematics to be ready to study science or

engineering. Because students who require remedial education are less likely to consider majors that require prerequisite classes in math, such as those in the physical,

engineering and computer sciences, lack of preparation at the high school level

clearly plays a role in many students’ decisions to choose a major other than those

in science, mathematics, engineering or technology. It is therefore no surprise that

science and engineering degrees as a percentage of the population of 24 year olds

have remained virtually constant at 5–6 percent. Within this group, women and minorities are seriously under-represented.

Legislation

Raising student achievement is the focus of No Child Left Behind, an initiative

by President Bush to fundamentally reform K–12 education. As part of this five-year

effort, Math and Science Partnerships Programs seek to unite the activities of higher education, school systems and business in support of improved math and science

proficiency for K–12 students and teachers. This is in large part a response to national concerns regarding too many teachers teaching out of field, too few students

taking advanced course work and too few schools offering challenging curricula.

Ultimately, two programs were created. The first established a competitive, meritbased grant program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), as part of the NSF

Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368). As enacted, this program would award

grants to partnerships between institutions of higher education and one or more

school districts to improve math and science education. Funds would be used to develop innovative reform programs that, if proven successful, would be the key to

large-scale reform at the State level. The second was housed at the Department of

Education and was created by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–110).

Although similarly titled, the programs were created to be complementary to—not

duplicative of—each other. Specifically, NSF was to fund innovative programs to develop and test new models of education reform, thereby remedying a lack of knowledge about math and science research, while the Department of Education would

broadly implement and disseminate new teaching materials, curricula and training

programs. In so doing, the Education Secretary was required to consult and coordinate with the NSF Director.

NSF’s Math and Science Partnership Program

NSF’s Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program competitively awards grants

to institutions of higher education, or other eligible nonprofits, and their partners—

one or more school districts—to improve K–12 math and science education. In particular, the MSP Program must have the active participation of a math, science, or

engineering department (as opposed to the education department) at the college or

university, and the collaborations must be well-grounded in sound educational practices. Funds are required to be used for activities that improve K–12 math and

science education, consistent with State standards, which may include:

• recruiting and preparing students for careers in K–12 math and science

teaching,

6

• offering professional development for math and science teachers;

• offering pre-service and in-service programs to help math and science teachers use technology more effectively;

• developing distance learning for teachers and students;

• developing a cadre of master teachers;

• offering teacher preparation and certification programs for people who want

to switch careers and begin teaching;

• developing tools to evaluate MSP activities;

• developing/adapting K–12 math and science curricular materials that incorporate contemporary research on the science of learning;

• developing initiatives to increase and sustain the number, quality and diversity of pre-K–12 teachers of math and science, particularly in under-served

areas;

• using professionals to help recruit and train math and science teachers;

• developing or offering enrichment programs for students;

• providing research opportunities for students and teachers; and

• bringing scientists, engineers and other professionals to the classroom.

NSF supports two types of partnerships—Comprehensive and Targeted. Comprehensive projects are funded for a five-year period for up to $7 million annually,

depending on the scope of the project. These projects are intended to implement

change in mathematics and/or science education practices in both institutions of

higher education and in schools and school districts to result in improved student

achievement across the K–12 continuum. Targeted projects focus on improved K–

12 student achievement in a narrower grade range or a disciplinary focus in mathematics and/or science and are funded for up to $2.5 million a year for up to five

years. In addition, the MSP Program funds Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) projects, which provide large-scale research and evaluation capacity

and assist Comprehensive and Targeted awardees in the implementation and evaluation of their work.

The first competitions for MSP were held in FY 2002, for which $160 million was

appropriated, and resulted in seven Comprehensive awards, 17 Targeted awards

and 12 RETA awards. More recently, on October 2, NSF announced the award of

$216.3 million in funding for the second year of the MSP Program, with five Comprehensive awards, seven Targeted awards, and 10 RETA awards.

Education

The MSP Program at the Department of Education, which is authorized by Title

II, Part B of the No Child Left Behind Act, requires partnerships to include a State

educational agency, the engineering, math, or science department of an institution

of higher education and a high-need school district. Partners are required to use

their grants for one or more specific activities. Among them are the following:

• professional development to improve math and science teachers’ subject

knowledge;

• activities to promote strong teaching skills;

• math and science summer workshops;

• recruitment of math, science or engineering majors to teaching through signing and performance incentives;

• stipends for alternative certification and scholarships for advanced course

work;

• development or redesign of more rigorous standards aligned math and science

curricula;

• distance learning programs for math and science teachers; and

• opportunities for math and science teachers to have contact with working

mathematicians, scientists and engineers.

Unlike the NSF program, where funds are awarded competitively, the MSP Program at the Department of Education turns into a formula program to States when

the amount appropriated exceeds $100 million. In FY 2002, $12.5 million was appropriated for this program, but, in FY 2003, the appropriations hit the trigger ($100.3

million) and the funds were allocated to the States by the program’s need-based formula.

7

6. Award Abstracts on the MSPs run by Hearing Witnesses (verbatim, as

provided to NSF)

Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics/Science Education (PROM/

SE)—(Michigan State)

Award Number: 0314866

Start Date: September 1, 2003

Expires: August 31, 2008 (Estimated)

Expected Total Amount: $35,000,000.00 (Estimated)

Investigator: Joan Ferrini—jferrini@msu.edu (Principal Investigator)

Sponsor: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

NSF Program: MSP—Comprehensive Awards

Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education (PROM/SE)

is a five-year effort by a joint partnership between Michigan State University (MSU)

and five consortia of school districts in Michigan and Ohio. The consortia includes

three Intermediate School Districts in Michigan, Ingham, Calhoun, and St. Clair

County, and two consortia in Ohio, the High AIMS Consortium and the SMART

Consortium. The sixty-nine districts represent the broad range of social, economic,

and cultural characteristics found in the United States as a whole being situated

in large urban cities (Cleveland and Cincinnati) and their suburbs, in medium size

cities with large minority populations such as Lansing, and in very rural areas such

as those in St. Clair and Calhoun Counties.

The Partnership utilizes a unique combination of research and practice. Detailed

data from all students and teachers using instruments from the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) is gathered. On the basis of these data

Action Teams of mathematicians, scientists, teacher educators and K–12 personnel

collaborate to develop more focused and challenging content standards, align standards with instructional materials and improve mathematics and science teaching.

Evidence-based and content focused professional development improves the subject

matter knowledge of over 4,500 teachers of mathematics and science. Associates for

mathematics and for science are fully prepared and engaged in the complex work

of helping undertake substantial reform in all 715 schools. The mathematics and

science opportunities for approximately 400,000 students improve and tracking disappears in all schools by 2006.

Eight hundred pre-service students participate and MSU reforms the preparation

of future teachers through revision of pre-service education courses and programs.

Partner sites mirror the diversity of the Nation as a whole and the prototype is exportable and replicable on a larger scale.

El Paso Math and Science Partnership

Award Number: 0227124

Start Date: October 1, 2002

Expires: September 30, 2007 (Estimated)

Expected Total Amount: $29,319,178 (Estimated)

Investigator: Susana Navarro—navarro@utep.edu (Principal Investigator)

Sponsor: U. of Texas–El Paso, University Ave. at Hawthorne, El Paso, TX 79968

NSF Program: MSP—Comprehensive Awards

The El Paso Math and Science Partnership (El Paso MSP) includes the three

urban school districts that encompass El Paso, nine rural school districts in El Paso

and Hudspeth counties, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), El Paso Community College, the Region 19 Education Service Center, and El Paso area civic,

business and community organizations and leaders.

The El Paso MSP is aimed at improving student achievement in mathematics and

science among all students, at all pre-K–12 levels, and at reducing the achievement

gap among groups of students. The goals of the partnership include:

• fully engaging university and community college leadership and mathematics,

science, engineering and education faculty in working toward significantly improved K–12 math/science student achievement;

8

• ensuring the number, quality and diversity of K–12 teachers of mathematics

and science across partner schools, particularly schools with the greatest

needs;

• building the capacity of area districts and schools to provide the highest quality curriculum, instruction and assessment, and to ensure the highest level

achievement in mathematics and science for every student;

• ensuring the K–16 alignment of mathematics and science curriculum, instruction and assessment, to ensure that students graduating from area high

schools are prepared to enroll and be successful in mathematics, science and

engineering courses at UTEP and El Paso Community College; and

prioritizing research on educational reform and pre-K–16 partnerships.

SUNY–Brockport College and Rochester City (SCOLLARCITY) Math and

Science Partnership: Integrative Technology Tools for Pre-service

and Inservice Teacher Education

Award Number: 0226962

Start Date: January 1, 2003

Expires: December 31, 2007 (Estimated)

Expected Total Amount: $3,385,448 (Estimated)

Investigator: Osman Yasar (Principal Investigator)

Sponsor: SUNY–Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420

NSF Program: MSP—Targeted Awards

Abstract

The project is proposed by a partnership between SUNY–Brockport, Rochester

City School District (RCSD) third largest in New York State with the lowest

achievement scores and Brighton Central School District (BCSD) with similar gaps

among under-represented groups yet with one of the highest overall achievement

rates in the State. Additional partners are the Shodor Foundation and The Krell

Institute. The primary goal for the partnership is to improve student outcomes in

mathematics and science in grades 7–12 by creating a multi-agency approach for the

recruitment and professional development of mathematics and science teachers. A

Computational Mathematics Science and Technology (CMST) approach to learning

science is employed in which students and teacher are engaged in fieldwork, laboratory experiments, mathematical modeling, computer simulation and visualization.

CMST employs math models to describe physical phenomena therefore bringing

a new perspective about the usefulness of math as a tool in real life. The method

is designed to make science and mathematics concepts more easily comprehensible.

A Challenge program incorporating CMST is providing tools and motivation for 200,

grades 7–12 students, under the supervision of participating teachers. The approach

in addition to teaching science concepts is designed to promote teamwork, collaboration and new strategies for problem solving. A component of the comprehensive professional development program for mathematics and science teachers is a four-week

summer institute each year serving a total of 240 teachers. In addition there is a

Master’s degree program for 30 teachers. Pre-service education programs at SUNY–

Brockport are being revised and new courses are to be introduced to assure an improvement in the quality quantity and diversity of the new teacher workforce.

7. Questions for Witnesses

Dr. Yasar

• How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—

remain active in the program? What role, if any, will the Shodor Foundation

and the Krell Institute play in the partnership and in continuing the reforms

after the award period expires?

• What type of professional development will your partnership provide? How

will you accommodate the unique professional development needs of individual schools, especially since they vary widely in terms of student achievement? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be

assessed?

• Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform

model and achieve your partnership goals?

9

• What sort of in-depth, quantitative evaluation will be conducted? And how

will the results of this evaluation be disseminated?

Dr. Ferrini-Mundy

• How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—

remain active in the program? How will you tailor your program to the

unique needs of the sixty-nine participating school districts?

• What type of professional development will your partnership provide for preservice and in-service teachers? How will you engage the nearly 4,500 teachers of math and science, all at different levels of ability and knowledge, in

your reform efforts? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge

and pedagogy be assessed?

• Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform models and achieve your partnership goals? How will the partnerships coordinate

with State educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after

the award period expires?

Dr. Navarro

• How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—

remain active in the program? What role, if any, will businesses and non-profit organizations play in the partnership?

• What type of professional development will your partnership provide for preservice and in-service teachers? How will improvements in teacher content

knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?

• Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform models and achieve your partnership goals? How will the partnerships coordinate

with State educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after

the award period expires?

Mr. Chi and Mr. Mikols

• How has the SUNY–Brockport MSP Project helped teachers and administrators understand and embrace the need to teach to high quality, standardsbased math and science? Based on what you know—and have experienced to

date—are the participating schools getting closer to providing high quality

math and science education for all students?

• How have the professional development opportunities provided by the MSP

Project been different from other teacher training programs in terms of content, duration and intensity?

• What do you believe is the greatest barrier to bringing the latest and best

research on math and science education into the classroom? Based on what

you know, is teacher practice in the classroom changing?

• Based on your experience, how do we recruit and retain the best math and

science teachers? How has the MSP Project addressed—or failed to address—

these issues?

10

Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee on Research will come to

order. I want to welcome everybody here today. I apologize for the

delay in the starting time.

As a farmer, I use the analogy that our meeting today is a little

bit about protecting our seed corn. What we are after, especially in

this post-9/11 era, is a situation where we are going to have to be

a little less dependent on students from other countries coming into

our university systems to do our research. NSF reports that almost

half of our research is still being done by foreign students who,

through new regulations, are now under a little greater pressure

to leave our country after they finish their postgraduate or graduate work.

Last year, during the consideration of legislation to authorize the

Math and Science Partnership Program, I asked our witnesses to

consider the following question: if education, especially in the early

years, is more the lighting of a fire, an interest, rather than filling

a container with knowledge, when is the fire lit? And several of the

witnesses said probably between four years old and six or seven

years old. To get that kind of an interest early on and then the follow-up question, of course, is how do you kindle that fire to keep

it going through the rest of high school and through college?

The results from the most recent Third International Math and

Science Study, the TIMSS study, as well as evidence all around us,

demonstrate, I think in very stark terms, the need to improve math

and science achievement for all students. Our witnesses today are

experts in that area. We look forward to your suggestions and ideas

as we move ahead, and the situation is that while U.S. students

are nearly first in the world in science, and above the international

average in mathematics in grade four, this leadership or predominance is short-lived. In fact, the longer U.S. students are in school,

the farther they fall behind. By twelfth grade, U.S. students rank

among the lowest of all participating countries, and ahead of only

two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.

In response to this data, President Bush proposed the Math and

Science Partnership. We moved ahead legislatively to put that into

action. We have had it for the fiscal years ’02 and ’03. Now, we are

moving into ’04. Through its awardees, the Math and Science Partnership Program also seeks to address, in a comprehensive manner, the weaknesses in U.S. math and science education. While recognizing that there is no one factor that makes all the difference,

we do know that kids can’t learn what their teachers don’t truly

understand. We also know that too many standards lack the necessary academic rigor, or they maybe exist in name only, having

not yet been linked with assessments and professional development

and curricula and classroom practice.

Our goal here today is not to, I think, point a finger of blame at

anybody. Our goal is to join the search for solutions and to underscore two fundamental truths: that all children can learn, and that

no child should be denied the math and science spark that is so important in our new technological age.

Today, I am especially pleased to welcome true experts in education reform, teachers and educators and implementers of our new

Math and Science Partnership Program, and as you can imagine,

my colleagues and I spend a lot of time talking about you, but perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

haps too little time listening to you. It is such an important endeavor, and so crucial to the economic success of the United States.

As we look at other countries that are copying our ways of producing, trying to be as efficient as we are, what is going to keep

us at the cutting edge, it would seem to me, is the math and the

science and the evolving research of developing new products that

people want to buy, and developing the kind of methods to produce

those products that allow us to be efficient and competitive with,

ultimately, the price we sell the product for.

In conclusion, let me thank you again for being here, and before

we get to our witnesses, I would call on Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. She took us down to Texas last year to study a similar situation of how we do a better job moving ahead in math and

science, so Representative.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK SMITH

I want to welcome everyone here for what I hope will be a series of hearings on

the Math and Science Partnership Program and the implementation of the National

Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 generally.

Last year, during the consideration of legislation to authorize the Math and

Science Partnership Program, I asked our witnesses to consider the following question: if education is more the lighting of a fire than the filling of a container, when

is that fire lit for math and science and what keeps it burning?

They all had different answers. Some said third grade. Others said kindergarten.

And still others said pre-school. Yet they all agreed that our greatest failure—and

our greatest challenge—was that too many children failed to experience the spark

at all. As a result, too few pursued math and science education.

Results from the most recent Third International Math and Science Study

(TIMSS)—as well as evidence all around us—demonstrate in stark terms the need

to improve math and science achievement for all students. While U.S. students are

nearly first in the world in science and above the international average in mathematics in grade four, this predominance is short-lived. In fact, the longer U.S. students are in school, the farther they fall. By 12th grade, U.S. students rank among

the lowest of all participating countries and ahead of only Cyprus and South Africa.

In response to this data, President Bush proposed the Math and Science Partnership Program as part of his comprehensive No Child Left Behind reform initiative.

This program was created to support partnerships between colleges and universities

and elementary and secondary schools but it also sought to challenge long held practices and to support innovative projects in math and science.

Through its awardees, the Math and Science Partnership Program also seeks to

address in a comprehensive manner the weaknesses in U.S. math and science education. While recognizing that there is no one factor that makes all the difference,

we do know that kids can’t learn what their teachers don’t truly understand. We

also know that too many standards lack the necessary academic rigor or they exist

in name only, having not yet been linked with assessments, professional development, curricula, and classroom practice.

Yet, our goal here today is not to point the finger of blame. Our goal is to join

in the search for solutions and to underscore two fundamental truths—that all children can learn and that no child should be denied the math and science spark that

will carry them through their formal education and into the world of work.

Today, I am especially pleased to welcome true experts in education reform—

teachers and education researchers. As you can imagine, my colleagues and I spend

a lot of time talking about you, but perhaps too little time listening to you. So it

is indeed a great honor to have you here to explain how you are using the Math

and Science Partnership funds to light the spark of interest and improve the

achievement of all students.

I would also be interested to know how we can encourage even more businesses

and private organizations—perhaps through recognition or awards—to join in these

partnerships and help extend our reach to more students and teachers. I know I

speak for the entire subcommittee when I say that we look forward to your testimony.

12

In just a moment, I will proceed with introductions but I will first recognize Ranking Member Johnson for whatever statement she may wish to make.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this initial

hearing on the implementation of the National Science Foundation’s Math and Science Partnership Program. I especially would

like to thank Dr. Susana Navarro, who is leading the El Paso Math

and Science Partnership, for appearing today. Her project involves

several urban and rural school districts, and has an important goal

of working to reduce the achievement gap often seen by disadvantaged students.

During the last Congress, the Science Committee examined in

some depth the question of how to improve science, math and technology education for all students in the Nation’s schools. We looked

at such issues, at improving teacher training and professional development, developing more effective curriculum, making use of

education technologies and stimulating greater student interest in

science.

The Committee’s inquiries led to legislation whose centerpiece

was the Math and Science Partnership Program. I had been trying

to pass it for years. The program—I was the wrong party—the program was subsequently enacted as part of the National Science

Foundation Authorization Act last year.

The key components of the partnerships program, in my view,

are to obtain a serious commitment of time and effort from science,

math and engineering faculty at the participating institutions, to

institute changes at all the participating institutions that will lead

to lasting educational improvement and to assure that the program

has built-in and effective mechanisms to assess program outcomes.

Today, we will hear from some awardees from the Math and

Science Partnership Program. I hope we will learn how they form

their partnerships and get a sense of the level and engagement of

the participants from academia and the schools. I am also interested in the kinds of educational activities that the partnerships

will focus on, and to what extent they are guided by research findings on human development and learning.

While I am pleased to see that a few minority serving institutions have been able to participate as partners in the Math and

Science Programs, three historically black universities, Tuskegee,

Fayetteville State and Lincoln University, the Northwest Indian

College and the University of Puerto Rico, which are not AfricanAmerican, of course, I am quite disappointed that no minority serving institutions have been granted an award as a lead partner, and

this is particularly disturbing, considering the roles of HBCUs and

other minority serving institutions play among institutions of higher education to increase this nation’s supply of math and science

teachers in the minority communities.

Finally, I would like to welcome any recommendations from the

panel on ways to strengthen the National Science Foundation’s

partnerships program, including any suggestions for improving the

administration of the program.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today, and I look forward to discussion. If there is anyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

one in the house from the number one science and engineering

high school in the country, which is in my district, I would like to

acknowledge them. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this

initial hearing on the implementation of the National Science Foundation’s Math

and Science Partnership Program.

I especially would like to thank Dr. Susana Navarro, who is leading the El Paso

Math and Science Partnership, for appearing today. Her project involves several

urban and rural school districts and has an important goal of working to reduce the

achievement gap often seen for disadvantaged students.

During the last Congress, the Science Committee examined at some depth the

question of how to improve science, math and technology education for all students

in the Nation’s schools. We looked at such issues as improving teacher training and

professional development, developing more effective curriculum, making use of educational technologies, and stimulating greater student interest in science.

The Committee’s inquiries led to legislation whose centerpiece was the Math and

Science Partnerships Program. The Program was subsequently enacted as part of

the NSF Authorization Act last year.

The key components of the partnerships program, in my view, are to obtain a serious commitment of time and effort from science, math and engineering faculty at

the participating institutions, to institute changes at all of the participating institutions that will lead to lasting educational improvements, and to assure that the program has built-in and effective mechanisms to assess program outcomes.

Today, we will hear from some awardees from the Math and Science Partnership

Program. I hope we will learn how they formed their partnerships and get a sense

of the level of engagement of the participants from academia and the schools. I am

also interested in the kinds of educational activities the partnerships will focus on

and to what extent they are guided by research findings on human development and

learning.

While I am pleased to see that a few Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) have

been able to participate as partners in the Math and Science Program (three Historically Black Universities, Tuskegee, Fayetteville State and Lincoln Universities,

Northwest Indian College and the University of Puerto Rico), I am quite disappointed that no MSIs has been granted an award as a Lead Partner. This is particularly disturbing considering the roles HBCUs and other MSIs play among institutions of higher education in increasing this nation’s supply of math and science

teachers in our minority communities.

Finally, I would welcome any recommendations from the panel on ways to

strengthen the NSF partnerships program, including any suggestions for improvements in the administration of the program.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.

The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for calling this important hearing on the National Science Foundation’s Math and Science Partnership (MSP). Every program we design here in the

Science Committee, every initiative we fund at NASA or at the DOE or elsewhere,

will be critically dependent on having qualified scientists and engineers to fill the

tech jobs of the future. All of our great plans could be pipe dreams if we don’t make

the appropriate investment in our children. That investment could pay huge dividends in the future, if we help give kids the skills in math and science that will

place them on the cutting edge in their careers to come.

Unfortunately, we have not been making the right investments, and it shows. For

decades, American children have been performing poorly in science and math when

compared to their international counterparts, or when measured against American

standards. Across the board, about one third of kids cannot even score the ‘‘basic’’

level on standardized tests. It seems that a large proportion of our children are

14

being left behind. Those children from low-income families, or minority groups are

especially at risk.

This poor performance does not bode well for the future of our scientific endeavors

or our high-tech economy. That is why the Congress moved in 2002 to establish the

MSP in the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. The program will provide grants to enable collaborative efforts amongst schools, universities, colleges, and the private sector to improve the experiences of K–12 children in science and math. This program

is meant to compliment the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Now that we have had a year or so to let this program work, I think it is an excellent time to get some input on how things are going at the ground level. Unfortunately, the Congress has not yet fully funded these programs. In fact, for FY 2003,

MSP was funded at a level just a bit more than half of its authorized level. So, it

probably has not yet had much of an effect. However, hopefully we can get some

indications of challenges and pitfalls from the field that will enable us to tune the

program, or maybe motivate appropriators to fund this program fully in the future.

I thank the panelists for taking the time out of their busy schedules to share their

experiences with us today. I especially welcome the teachers. Your classrooms are

where the rubber hits the road. I look forward to your testimony.

Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, and just a moment. Allow me to

introduce our great witnesses today.

Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is the lead researcher for the Comprehensive

MSP grant at Michigan State University. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Math Education in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University, where she is also a professor of mathematics and teacher of education. Prior to joining

Michigan State, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy co-founded the SummerMath

Program for Teachers at Mount Holyoke College and she has been

the principal investigator of several research and teacher education

grants, both at Michigan State University and the University of

New Hampshire. She also has served as a visiting scientist at

NSF’s Teacher Enhancement Program.

Dr. Osman Yasar is lead researcher for the Targeted MSP award

at the State University of New York at the SUNY–Brockport. Dr.

Yasar is a professor and Chair of the Computational Science Department at SUNY College at Brockport. He established the first

undergraduate program in computational science in the United

States and prior to SUNY, he was a staff scientist at the Center

for Computational Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Mr. Ed Chi, science teacher at Brighton School District in New

York. Mr. Chi teaches science to seventh and eighth grade students

at Twelve Corners Middle School in Rochester, New York. Twelve

Corners Middle School is the sole institution educating students in

grades six to eight in the Brighton School District, so we will look

forward to a person on the ground on your suggestions of dealing

with students.

Mr. Jeffrey Mikols is a math teacher, Rochester City School District in New York. Mr. Mikols has been a teacher with the Rochester School District since 1993, and he has taught courses ranging

from pre-algebra to AP calculus. Currently, Mr. Mikols is the secondary mathematics lead teacher, which makes him responsible for

providing professional development to other secondary school math

teachers, and Mr. Mikols received his B.A. in mathematics and

master of science in mathematics education from SUNY in Geneseo

and—is that right, Geneseo?

Mr. CHI. Geneseo.

15

Chairman SMITH. Geneseo. And he is currently enrolled in the

certificate for advanced study in the school administration.

Dr. Susan Navarro, lead researcher for the Comprehensive MSP

award at the University of Texas at El Paso. Dr. Navarro is the

founder and head of the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, a city-wide effort to improve the academic achievement of El

Paso students. Dr. Navarro has served as National Director of Research and Policy Analysis of the Mexican-American Legal Defense

and Educational Fund, and Dr. Navarro, we appreciate you being

here. You also graduated from the University of Texas in El Paso

with a degree in political science. And again, thank you all for

being here and for sharing some of your thoughts with us, and Dr.

Yasar, we are asking you to proceed with your first testimony.

STATEMENT OF DR. OSMAN YASAR, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE TARGETED MSP GRANT AT SUNY–

BROCKPORT

Dr. YASAR. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, I am honored to be here. Thank you for inviting me. I was

born in Turkey, so I went through a different public school system.

I came here for a graduate education, and several things that—

bring me into this project, certainly one is that I have a child in

the school system at Brighton, 13 years old, whose interest in

science may be slipping away, so I am really interested in helping

her school and herself.

Another effort that I have been involved with is, as you said, in

the Department of Computational Science, one of a kind in the

country. This is a unique way of approaching mathematics, science

and computing, in an integrated way. We have great results at the

college level, and the idea of taking that to K–12 to raise the interest of students was very interesting, and I thank the NSF and the

review panels for allowing us this opportunity to work on this.

I might report right away that our project has been very successful in terms of creating enthusiasm in teachers and students. I am

sure you will be hearing from Mr. Mikols and Mr. Chi about their

experience. This project involves SUNY College and two school districts, an urban school district and a suburban school district. This

is a pretty common pattern in the country. Rochester, with 35,000

students and Brighton, with 3,000 students.

Rochester has been experiencing very low achievement rates, as

low as 11 percent in eighth grade mathematics, so there is a definite need there. Brighton’s role here is not only to benefit from our

unique methodology, using technology, but also to give to the partnership through its experience and so on.

We also have two national organizations, Shodor Education

Foundation and Krell Institute. I have colored them on my presentation. Their role is to bring to us their experience from the national level, as well as help us disseminate the result.

Texas Instruments is part of this partnership. We use their specialists, training specialists. The Xerox Corporation’s role is to offer

internships to our students, both in high school and at the college

level, and then to disseminate our results in the local community,

we work with the Monroe County School Boards Association and

New York State Education Department. We have partnered with

16

another NSF MSP project, the Council of Chief State Schools Officers, to use their evaluation instrumentation.

And now, recently, we have been invited to work with another

partnership program under NSF named PACI (Partnerships for

Advanced Computational Infrastructure). I believe this is also reviewed under this committee.

Mr. Chairman, this partnership project is not only partnership in

school districts and colleges. Certainly, the goal is to improve student achievement and interest, both at the public schools and colleges, and as you may see in other projects in this program, raising

quality and quantity of teachers is the key here.

Another partnership that goes on under this umbrella is the

partnership of mathematics and science as topics. And this, I believe, is our approach. We have taken an integrated approach to

mathematics and science, in a way, to present the mathematics

and technology in a context of applications. This, we believe, raises

student interest and so on.

Our way to achieve this goal is certainly to offer professional development to teachers and faculty members in the college through

training and mentoring, through support, including technology

scholarships and stipends, and through team approaches and peer

networking.

From students’ point of view, teachers with new pedagogies,

using technology in an integrated approach, as well as scholarships, is a way that our team has chosen to attack this problem.

In the past year, we held a summer institute that brought together 56 teachers from two school districts, and the training

brought together math and science and technology teachers. All of

them were subject to the same material. All of them had a chance

to work together to see how useful mathematics is in the context

of applications and so on. Again, our approach is well documented

in the testimony here. We believe this offers a layered approach

and inquiry-based approach, some of the things that are very new

for a project like ours.

Under professional development, we have an education component and a challenging component to make sure the needs of many

schools and individuals are also addressed here. I will be skipping

to my last slide here to sum up. The results of our training so far

have been evaluated by independent consultants, and 100 percent

of teachers have rated this very successful, and they want to come

back the next year. This is an ongoing training and education opportunity for teachers as well as students. We are very hopeful that

the dissemination of this project and the lessons learned here will

help others in the country as well.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Yasar follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

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

Chairman SMITH. I am going to proceed the way you are arranged in my book, so Mr. Mikols, if you would—if you’re comfortable in going next.

Mr. MIKOLS. Sure. Okay. Again, I asked the——

Chairman SMITH. Actually, I see Mr. Chi is ahead of you in my

book.

Mr. MIKOLS. Oh.

Chairman SMITH. So it is not your turn.

Mr. MIKOLS. Oh. Then I will—let me turn mine off.

Mr. CHI. There we go.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chi, excuse me, please.

STATEMENT OF ED CHI, SCIENCE TEACHER, BRIGHTON

SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW YORK

Mr. CHI. That is not a problem, Chairman. First, I would like to

thank everyone on the Committee for the invitation to come and

speak.

And I first would like to begin with talking about why the MSP

program is a necessary program. First, it is truly interdisciplinary.

Through it, I have learned, and I have also shown my students,

that no subject is an island. I often hear in my class that—they

see, they are beginning to see connections between science and

math and technology. And it often astounds them, because I guess

in the past, they have seen each subject treated as an individual,

and not together in a group, so this is one of their first opportunities to see all these different disciplines coming together in one activity.

Also, it is truly interdisciplinary in the fact that it incorporates

math and technology into the science classroom. We are using

math and we are using technology to do science in our classrooms,

and I often hear my students say ‘‘Wow, this class is getting to be

more like a math class than a science class.’’ They are often checking to see if they are in the right room. So, I think that is testimony in itself that the program is working.

Another reason why this is a necessary program is because it is

truly unique. I have attended many programs for professional development, and very few have really put together teachers that are

in fact helping to shape the program as well. There is a youthful

energy to everyone in the program, because we are—we feel as

though we are on the cutting edge, and that is inspiring us and

that is motivating us, and we are bringing that into the classroom

as well.

Also, there is long-term continuous collaboration going on. Oftentimes, the second workshop is done, we get a little handout rating

the workshop, but there has not been a clear cutoff point for this

program. It is continuous. There is continuous collaboration going

on between teachers in the classrooms and professors at the college, and amongst teachers between districts. And we also feel that

the program and its administrators are invested in us. We feel as

though we are—I hate to put it this way, but we feel as though we

are star players in this program, and we definitely appreciate that.

Secondly, how is the MSP program achieving its goals? We are

collaborating with teachers. Teachers are talking to each other.

There is open conversation going on. We are not just isolated in our

70

own classrooms any more. They have also helped us to develop

meaningful lesson plans. We have been able to overcome our initial

fear of technology being incorporated into the classroom. They are

exposing us and forcing us to be adventurous with our teaching

styles. We have also been able to hone existing skills, any prior

knowledge or any existing skills. We are able to advance and also

we are able to share this with fellow colleagues. There is collaboration with administrators. There are plans to have a get together to

discuss our mission statement with administrators all over the districts that are involved.

Also, we are getting students excited and interested, and ultimately, that is what we want. The simulation programs and the

modeling programs have put them in charge. They are in charge

of their own learning. They are beginning to—they are the creators

of their learning, and they are pulling the strings, and by taking

us, by that I mean the teachers, by taking us out of the driver’s

seat and putting them into it, they are beginning to own their education. They are—because they are so inspired—they go beyond

where we would typically bring them.

There are, of course, some barriers to achieving our goals. There

is always administration who aren’t always as supportive as they

could be, in terms of valuing technology and seeing it as an important component of education. Then there are also teachers who feel

as though they themselves are not savvy enough to take on the responsibility and take on the skills that are required to teach technology and incorporate it into the science and math classroom, but

the program is slowly but surely taking teachers who are savvy

and teachers who are willing to take risks, and bringing them into

the school, so that they can inspire students, and at the same time,

because we have inspired students, other teachers are curious as

to what we are doing to inspire students, and therefore, that is sort

of a contagious atmosphere where other teachers can take some of

that fear away and dive into the technology as well.

And that is really all I have to say for today. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ED CHI

How has the SUNY–Brockport MSP Project helped teachers and administrators

understand and embrace the need to teach to high quality, standards-based math

and science? Based on what you know—and have experienced to date—are the participating schools getting closer to providing high quality math and science education

for all students?

The CMST program has made plans to speak to and collaborate with participating

teachers and their administrators. Their goal is to share the CMST mission statement with these administrators and seek ways to support the efforts of the CMST

teachers and coaches. At Twelve Corners we have taken steps to load modeling software onto school networks and share activities and knowledge with faculty at department meetings. The students in my classes have expressed great interest in receiving training on modeling software and creating opportunities to allow them to

take charge of their learning.

How have the professional development opportunities provided by the MSP Project

been different from other teacher training programs in terms of content, duration and

intensity?

The content was technologically intensive yet practical. We could see ways to integrate them into our own programs. There was a constant theme of interdisciplinary

approaches to these activities. They made every attempt to include math, science

and technology into every aspect of the training. This was no small feat.

71

Most professional development workshops end when the presenters and

facilitators hand out evaluation forms. The CMST has kept their promise to continue the collaboration well beyond the end of the summer program. We communicate via weekly teacher’s logs and coach’s logs. There have been invaluable meetings where we have offered feedback and suggestions on ways to make the program

more effective. I feel as though I am partly responsible for shaping the CMST program not just participating in it. Perhaps it is because this is a young program in

Brockport or because the people are confident enough in their own area of expertise

to listen to others. Whatever the reason I feel a true sense of collegiality here.

What do you believe is the greatest barrier to bringing the latest and best research

on math and science education into the classroom? Based on what you know, is

teacher practice in the classroom changing?

For myself thus far the greatest barrier has been the lack of technology available

in the schools. This can stifle the efforts of the teacher to incorporate meaningful

activities in the classroom. If it was not for the talents of the CMST faculty I would

be unable to provide my students with the ability to explore the connections between science, math and technology in my classroom in a meaningful way.

Based on your experience, how do we recruit and retain the best math and science

teachers? How has the MSP Project addressed—or failed to address—these issues?

Good pay incentives, access to technology plus the support to get it into the hands

of students and use it effectively in the classrooms attracts good teachers and keeps

them. I will admit that the pay, technology, and support incentives provided by the

CMST program drew me in, and has meet and exceed my expectations.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ED CHI

Ed Chi teaches science to 7th and 8th grade students at Twelve Corners Middle

School in Rochester, New York. Twelve Corners Middle School is the sole institution

educating students in grades 6–8 in the Brighton School District.

72

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chi, very good, thank you. Mr. Mikols.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. MIKOLS, MATH TEACHER,

ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW YORK

Mr. MIKOLS. Again, I would like to thank this committee for inviting me to speak and give testimony about what it is that we

have experienced. And in my role as a lead teacher in the Rochester City School District, I am in a unique—I have a unique opportunity to promote change, and as you, Mr. Smith, mentioned

with the TIMSS Report, the concern that we have as to how the

United States is doing is something I share within our own district.

Our district, right now, as Dr. Yasar has mentioned, is not a high

performing district right now, and it is a burden that we all carry,

and we realize that the need for change is extremely important.

73

And technology is one of the mechanisms we can use to change

the way that teachers are approaching math and science. Technology, for many kids, in and of itself, is very, very interesting to

them. I have two young sons at home, and just get them a Game

Boy and they are clicking away, and they have a great time with

that. But perhaps more importantly, what technology does is it facilitates investing in topics of student interest. They find something

that they are interested in, and the use of technology lets them

gather information, draw conclusions, verify conclusions in a way

that is much quicker than we have ever been able to do before, so

this use of technology is very appropriate.

Technology has made it possible to change the way teachers approach math and science, and they can make lessons that are exciting and relevant to student interest. That is the key thing. Teachers can teach what they think is important, but until it gets down

to the point where students are pursuing things that are directly

relevant to them and interesting to them, they are not going to

achieve to where we want them to be achieving.

In my role, I do conduct quite a bit of professional development,

and having been trained in the Summer Institute, and also having

some prior experience with graphing calculators, we have made

that a priority in our district, that all schools should have teachers

that are competent in using these tools with their students. Additionally, there were other tools that we used in the CMST [computational math, science, and technology] program, such as STELLA, AgentSheets, Excel, and a lot of these tools are things that are

so applicable to what students would find interesting, and still

cover the types of mathematical and scientific content that are required in standards.

In our district, as I mentioned, we are low achieving, but making

teachers aware that these avenues are available, and that change

is necessary, this is one of the first steps that we can make toward

improving math and science education in our district.

The CMST program, under the MSP project, has offered some excellent opportunities in terms of professional development. The

Summer Institute was extremely well-staffed with knowledgeable

professors, and a lot of us went in not knowing how to use a lot

of the tools that were being used, and we were provided with very

quick feedback that was extremely helpful.

The MSP project also provides ongoing training during the school

year, with the expectation that teachers trained are going to continue using the training. That is extremely important, because

when you talk about implementing professional development effectively, if there is no follow-up to that professional development, it

is rare that that change is going to have any kind of long-lasting

effect. And so there are regular checkpoints along the way to make

sure that teachers who were trained in this program are continuing

to work in the things that they were trained in and having direct

implementation into the classroom lessons that they are preparing.

Some of the barriers that I would like to discuss, one of them is

perhaps financial. It is not the greatest barrier, because I think

there are—through the availability of grants and other types of

monies, the types of tools that we use can be available for students.

I think the greatest barrier is, perhaps, the lack of willingness for

74

teachers to change their practice. We were discussing over lunch

that many times, teachers feel uncomfortable in changing their

practice and John Dewey used a term called cognitive dissonance,

which mentioned that until people feel uncomfortable, real learning

doesn’t occur. Once they feel uncomfortable and feel the need to

take on something, to do something about that discomfort, then

people will pursue that and learn something from it. Teachers may

be very, very reluctant to work in these different kinds of changes

that we are asking them to, but in a sense, that discomfort is a

good sign, because they realize that they need to do something different, so it is very important that they are pursuing those things.

In terms of recruiting the best teachers, and I know I am getting

very close to running out of time, so I want to make this one last

point, in terms of recruiting the best possible teachers, we need to

reach our students early and we need to make them lovers of

mathematics and science at an early age, and if we can do that,

the likelihood that they are going to pursue a career in math and

science teaching I think goes up.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikols follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. MIKOLS

I have been a teacher for the Rochester City School District since 1993. I have

a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics Education

from the State University of New York College at Geneseo. I am currently enrolled

in a Certificate for Advanced Study in School Administration from the State University of New York College at Brockport. During my tenure with the Rochester City

School District, I have had the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses from

Pre-Algebra in the seventh grade to Advanced Placement Calculus to seniors. I am

currently the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher. I am responsible for providing

professional development to mathematics specialists assigned to each of our secondary buildings. These building specialists then provide this professional development to the teachers in their building. Additionally, I work in classrooms with

teachers modeling, coaching, and serving as resource to them.

Testimony

I have had the opportunity to be a participant in the CMST Program at the State

University of New York College at Brockport. As a participant in the MSP Project,

I received four weeks of intensive training in technology, with the intent of applying

this to classroom lesson planning. We were trained on the Texas Instruments TI–

83+ graphing calculator, STELLA, AgentSheets, and Interactive Physics. I had the

opportunity to apply this training to writing lesson plans that incorporate the use

of technology. As the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher of the Rochester City

School District, I have begun to train teachers to implement technology and promote

change in the mathematics classroom.

The SUNY–Brockport MSP Project has helped teachers and administrators by

providing training in technology based approaches to mathematics and science lessons. Technology has made it possible to change the way teachers approach mathematics and science to make lessons that are exciting to students and relevant to

their interests. New York State Educational Standards specifically target the use of

technology as methods of communication and information gathering systems. The

natural curiosity of students concerning technology has enabled teachers to design

and carry out lessons that involve an inquiry approach.

In the Rochester City School District, I have made it a priority to begin training

building specialists on the TI–83+ graphing calculator so they can train the teachers

in their individual buildings. We have trained these specialists in lessons from

eighth grade curriculum up to eleventh grade curriculum. The earlier our students

are proficient with graphing calculators, the more they will benefit from them as

they move through the high school curriculum. Teachers that participated in the

CMST Summer Program are beginning to implement training they received into

their classroom and are producing high quality lessons. This is a primary step in

improving math and science education in our schools.

The professional development provided by the MSP Project has been different

than other professional development I have received on many levels. The MSP

75

Project provides teachers with direct training on specific methods to change mathematics and science teaching. Teachers were trained on the technology and then

asked to reflect and implement what they learned in planning classroom lessons.

The Summer Institute was well staffed with knowledgeable professors. Questions

pertaining to the programs we were trained on were answered efficiently yet thoroughly. The training went very fast at times, but there was support available. The

MSP Project provides ongoing training during the school year with the expectation

that teachers trained are going to continue using the training they received

throughout the school year. There are regular checkpoints of accountability in place

to ensure that teachers are doing this. The participating teachers have each been

assigned a coach to provide help where necessary. This ongoing training and accountability are essential for any professional development to have a lasting effect

on the way teachers conduct their practice.

I believe that the greatest barrier in implementing the latest and best research

into the classroom is teachers not changing their practice. This failure to change

practice is partially because of lack of training and awareness of alternative methods, but also because teachers do not admit the need to change is necessary. The

MSP Project is a good model to approach this problem. It has provided teachers with

the necessary training and subsequent support to facilitate change in classroom

practice. As teachers implement technology into their lessons, and students learn

more and enjoy mathematics and science more, it is my belief that other teachers

who are reluctant to change their practice will take notice of the improved student

outcomes and want to change as well. I have begun trying to implement this change

in approach with building specialists in my district. The specialists have been very

eager to be trained on the TI–83+ graphing calculator, so the potential for change

at their individual buildings is a reality. I have seen teachers in classrooms beginning to implement graphing calculators into their lessons, and they are realizing the

benefits of using them.

The best way to recruit high quality mathematics and science teachers is to create

students that love to learn these subjects. If high school students enjoy learning

these subjects and see the relevance in their lives that these subjects have, there

is a better chance that these students will consider teaching these subjects as a career. There must be exciting opportunities for students to experience technology and

real life application in mathematics and science. The MSP Project has tremendous

potential to foster this type of interest. Many students have a natural interest in

technology and how it is applied. Recently, the MSP Project hosted an Interactive

Physics Day where students from Rochester City Schools and Brighton Central

schools received the opportunity to see how technology relates to Physics. I believe

the MSP Project could make more inroads into the individual schools by presenting

demonstrations for students to participate in. The benefits of teaching mathematics

and science must be ‘‘advertised’’ more effectively and earlier in the students high

school career. Teaching must be made a first choice, not a career to fall back on.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY M. MIKOLS

I have been a teacher for the Rochester City School District since 1993. I have

a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics Education

from the State University of New York College at Geneseo. I am currently enrolled

in a Certificate for Advanced Study in School Administration from the State University of New York College at Brockport. During my tenure with the Rochester City

School District, I have had the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses from

Pre-Algebra in the seventh grade to Advanced Placement Calculus to seniors. I am

currently the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher. I am responsible for providing

professional development to mathematics specialists assigned to each of our secondary buildings. These building specialists then provide this professional development to the teachers in their building. Additionally, I work in classrooms with

teachers modeling, coaching, and serving as resource to them.

76

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Dr. Navarro.

STATEMENT OF M. SUSANA NAVARRO, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE MSP GRANT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, EL PASO

Dr. NAVARRO. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson and

Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to share with

you the work of the NSF-funded El Paso Math and Science Partnership.

Over the past decade, the NSF has been a valuable partner in

supporting improved math and science instruction and achievement across the El Paso community. What the MSP now provides

is an opportunity to bring together partners across our entire community, K–16, toward the shared development and implementation

of high quality practices aimed at improving academic achievement

among all students.

77

Over the last decade, the community of El Paso has distinguished itself as one that is deeply committed to ensuring academic

success among all of our youngsters. Our strong focus on education

in El Paso reflects the reality that there is so much at stake in ensuring that this growing, largely Hispanic community is able to

create opportunities for its more than 700,000 citizens and over

155,000 students.

Currently, our per capita income lags behind both the State and

the Nation, and the median household income ranks sixth lowest

in the U.S. The overall educational attainment of our citizenry is

low as well. Just 68 percent of the population aged 25 and older

have earned a high school diploma and fewer than 16 percent of

El Pasoans hold bachelors degrees or higher.

Against these tremendous odds, the El Paso community has demonstrated its commitment to high academic achievement and we

have shown that we can do it. For example, the achievement gap

of which Member Johnson spoke of, as measured by TAAS mathematics, is at its lowest point since El Paso’s NSF-funded systemic

reform efforts began in 1994. From a high that year of 21 points

between Hispanic and white students and 27 points between African-American and white students, the gap has been reduced to 5.7

and 7.9 points respectively.

In addition, enrollment in college preparatory math and science

courses, which we consider absolutely key, has increased significantly over the past year, with over three fourths of our students,

of all of our students, now enrolled in algebra I, geometry, algebra

II, biology and chemistry. This is a radical shift from what

occurred——

Chairman SMITH. From one of the other, or all of them?

Dr. NAVARRO. All of our students, over three fourths of all of our

students.

Chairman SMITH. I mean all of those courses, they are in one of

those courses?

Dr. NAVARRO. That is right.

Most significantly, pass rates improved greatly over the past

year. Notably in geometry, where 86 percent of students passed the

course, and in chemistry, where 78 percent of students passed the

course. These increases in enrollment and pass rates represent possibly the most important aspect of NSF-supported work in El Paso

schools.

And yet, enormous challenges remain, particularly in fully preparing students for math and science success in college. We have

made great strides K–12. It is ensuring that students are able to

make that leap and be able to do well in college math and science.

That is what we are very much focused on now.

Shared concerns about this and other challenges have brought together 12 El Paso area school districts with the El Paso Community College and the University of Texas at El Paso to focus on

identifying strategies for ensuring the academic success of all of

our youngsters. We are grateful that funding for the El Paso MSP

will allow us to address these critically important problems.

The El Paso MSP is built around five key priorities. These include one, increasing and sustaining the quantity and quality of

pre-K–12 math and science teachers, absolutely a burning issue for

78

us. Two, building the capacity of schools and districts to effectively

support efforts to improve math and science instruction and

achievement. Three, aligning curriculum instruction and assessment of math and science to ensure that what is taught reflects

shared expectations for students from kindergarten through university. Four, promoting efforts to increase college going rates

among El Paso area students, because if they don’t go to college,

they can’t get degrees in math and science and then go and do research and other things with math and science. And five, conducting research that advances knowledge and understanding

about the systemic improvement of math and science instruction.

Strategies addressing each of these priorities focus on local needs,

though many have relevance to communities across our country,

which we hope will benefit from the lessons that we learn in MSP.

Let me quickly tell you about some of the lessons that we have

learned in the over 13 months of implementing MSP so far. First,

we have learned that this work absolutely must be done K–16, that

is from kindergarten through university and beyond. Reforming K–

12 will only work for the long-term if our teacher preparation programs and colleges and universities have themselves improved, if

they, too, are focused on the best national content standards, if

they are also aggressively working toward fully engaging students

in the learning process. And given that teacher preparation encompasses the entire university, not just colleges of education, those

that educate prospective teachers in the core subject areas, the colleges of science, the departments of mathematics, colleges of liberal

arts, must also work toward improving teacher quality.

A second lesson learned is that partnerships must address the

issue of K–16 curriculum alignment. What does that mean? It really means seamlessly linking what is taught at each point in the

education continuum, from elementary, middle and high school,

with what is expected and taught at community college and at university. The MSP Math and Science Alignment Project brings together K–12 teachers of math and science, as well as math faculty

from community college and faculty from U. Tex. colleges of education, engineering and science.

A major goal of the initiative is to develop course outlines along

with curriculum frameworks that will be implemented by teachers

across the twelve districts. These outlines and frameworks provide

clear and specific information about math and science content at

each grade level that students must understand and be able to do,

and the level of rigor at which they must be able to do them. This

really takes standards to the next level, because standards are a

great big mass of things that, while helpful, don’t provide the direction to teachers that is needed in order for teachers to know what

is most important, and the level at which students need to know

that particular topic in mathematics or science. Our frameworks

are helping to do that.

And the final lesson learned is that we have to provide a full and

robust set of support and assistance mechanisms necessary for

building school capacity. We do that by working with teachers. We

also do that by working with faculty members, deans, superintendents and the like, but we put our greatest emphasis on teachers.

In my written testimony, you can see the kinds of things that we

79

do with teachers, but I guess I want to close by just saying that

what drives our work is our absolute belief in what students deserve, the importance of focusing on equity and partnerships.

We are delighted and very thankful to have this opportunity to

do more of the work that we have been doing and to do it at a level

that we have not done before, so thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Navarro follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF M. SUSANA NAVARRO

Greeting and Overview

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, I am

pleased to be here today to share with you the work of the National Science Foundation-supported El Paso Math/Science Partnership (MSP), and the opportunities that

it provides for students across El Paso. Over the last decade, the National Science

Foundation has been a valuable partner in supporting improved math and science

instruction and achievement across the El Paso community. What the MSP now provides is an opportunity to bring together partners across the community, K–16, toward the shared development and implementation of high quality math and science

content and instructional practices aimed at improving student achievement among

all students.

Over the last decade, the community of El Paso has distinguished itself as one

that is deeply committed to ensuring academic success among all students. In fact,

education has come to be seen as a key element in improving the quality of life in

our community, which is working very hard to turn around life chances for its large

and growing population. Our strong focus on education in El Paso reflects the reality that there is much at stake in ensuring that this growing, largely Hispanic

community is able to create opportunities for its 700,000 citizens. Currently, our per

capita income lags behind both the State and the Nation, and the median household

income ranks sixth lowest in the United States. The overall educational attainment

of our citizenry is low as well. Just 68 percent of the population (aged 25 and older)

has earned a high school diploma and fewer than 16 percent of El Pasoans hold a

Bachelor’s degree or higher.

Against these tremendous odds, the El Paso community has demonstrated its

commitment to high academic achievement among all students. For example, the

achievement gap, as measured by TAAS mathematics, is at its lowest point since

El Paso’s NSF-funded systemic reform efforts began in 1994. From a high that year

of 21.2 percentage points between Hispanic and White students, and one of 26.7

points between African Americans and Whites, the gap has been reduced to 5.7 and

7.9 points respectively in 2002. In addition, enrollment in college preparatory math

and science courses has increased significantly over the past year, with over threefourths of all students across the MSP districts now taking Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Biology and Chemistry. Most significantly, pass rates improved greatly

over the past year—notably in Geometry (86 percent) and Chemistry (78 percent).

These increases in enrollment and pass rates represent possibly the most important

impact of NSF-supported work in El Paso schools.

And yet, enormous challenges remain, particularly in fully preparing students for

math and science success in college. Shared concerns about this and other challenges has brought together 12 El Paso area school districts with the El Paso Community College and the University of Texas at El Paso to focus on identifying strategies for ensuring the academic success of our young people. We are grateful that

funding for the El Paso MSP will allow us to address these critically important

problems.

Key Components of the El Paso MSP

The El Paso Math/Science Partnership is built around five key priorities identified

as critical to ensuring the academic achievement and opportunities for future success of El Paso area students. These include: one, increasing and sustaining the

quantity and quality of pre-K–12 mathematics and science teachers; two, building

the capacity of schools and districts to effectively support efforts to improve math

and science instruction and achievement; three, aligning curriculum, instruction,

and assessment of math and science education to ensure that what is taught reflects

shared expectations for students from kindergarten through university; four, promoting efforts to increase college-going rates among El Paso area students; and five,

conducting research that advances knowledge and understanding about the systemic

improvement of mathematics and science instruction. Strategies addressing each of

80

these priorities focus on local needs, though many have relevance to communities

across the Nation, which we hope will benefit from the lessons we learn in MSP.

Increasing and Sustaining the Quantity and Quality of Pre-K–12 Mathematics and

Science Teachers

The first key element of the El Paso MSP addresses our efforts to increase and

improve the quantity and quality of certified math and science teachers across our

twelve partner districts. Strategies include roles for partners at UTEP, EPCC, the

El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, the Region 19 Educational Service

Center, as well as participating districts, and range from increasing the number of

fully certified math and science teachers, to providing intensive professional development to in-service teachers, to encouraging high school students to consider careers in math and science teaching.

Among the most notable accomplishments in the last year, are the enhancement

of a Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics (MATM) and the establishment of a

Master of Arts in Teaching Science (MATS) program. Currently, 15 high school

Mathematics teachers and 21 Science teachers are supported by the El Paso MSP

and enrolled in courses leading to a Master’s degree. In addition, a Pre-MAT program has been established to support prospective Master’s participants who do not

have the required prerequisites—most notably in college-level Calculus. Through the

El Paso MSP, UTEP faculty have also developed a Physical Science degree plan for

the MATS focusing on Physics and Chemistry.

Identifying and supporting prospective teachers is also taking place through promotion of alternative certification for prospective teachers with math and science

backgrounds, high school teaching magnet programs and the recruitment of undergraduate engineering students into secondary math/science teaching.

Local concerns—that also reflect national trends—pertaining to support for new

math and science teachers are being addressed through a newly established teacher

induction program, into which new teachers have been enrolled and participate in

an intensive two-year support program.

Intensive support for current teachers is being provided through MSP-supported

Staff Developers—a highly qualified cadre of math and science master teachers—

who provide professional development, sustained and connected over time, in teachers’ classrooms. The focus of the Staff Developers’ work includes support for teachers in covering topics and activities most central to improving the quality of their

teaching.

Building School and District Capacity

The second key element of the El Paso MSP focuses on supporting the improvement of math and science instruction in pre-K–12 classrooms via leadership at the

school and district levels, as well as support for increased parent engagement.

The MSP recognizes that a factor critical to implementing and sustaining standards-based instruction is the ability of school administrators to facilitate and actively support teacher efforts for improving teaching and learning. Principal Academies include attention to results-based reform efforts, data analysis, strategic planning, and content-focused coaching aimed at the successful implementation of the

K–16 math and science curriculum frameworks. In addition, regular, ongoing meetings are held with superintendents and other district leaders to ensure coherence,

consistency, ownership, and support for all MSP goals and activities.

Finally, the El Paso MSP recognizes the role of parents and the community in

supporting math and science reform. Key efforts include monthly meetings for parent teams from area schools addressing the importance of high-level mathematics

and science for preparation for higher education, and the role parents play in supporting greater student achievement. Parents’ sessions also address State standards, and the rigors and demanding nature of the State assessment. Discussions

also center on the expectations of students and implications of the ‘‘No Child Left

Behind’’ Act. Community engagement through the El Paso MSP has also focused on

preparation for higher education.

Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment of Mathematics and Science Education

To support students in achieving higher levels of mathematical and scientific understanding in preparation for higher education, the El Paso MSP is working with

mathematicians and scientists from UTEP and EPCC, along with pre-K–12 teachers, in developing high level mathematics and science curriculum course frameworks

that will guide instruction and assessment at all levels. To date, frameworks have

been developed in K–12 mathematics, Algebra I and Algebra II. This year, work is

commencing with Geometry, and Chemistry and Physics.

81

The institutionalization of the curriculum frameworks will be carried out through

the development and enactment of policies pertaining to the implementation of the

frameworks across local districts, EPCC and UTEP. Also critical will be the alignment and integration of the frameworks with instruction provided by post-secondary

educators, including math/science teacher faculty at both higher education institutions.

Increasing College-Going Rates

Along with the improvement of science and mathematics education, a priority of

MSP is to ensure that increasing numbers of El Paso area students recognize the

importance of a post-secondary education and early preparation for college. The

fourth key element of the El Paso MSP focuses on: 1) increasing college-going rates

through the THINK COLLEGE NOW Initiative; 2) increasing attention to the work

of counselors in supporting students’ preparation for higher education; and, 3) implementing the College of Engineering’s Infinity Project—a curriculum for high

school students that addresses concepts and skills related to engineering.

Implementing a Research Agenda that Advances Knowledge and Understanding

about the Systemic Improvement of Mathematics and Science Instruction

The final key element in the El Paso MSP recognizes that research on the impact

of MSP efforts informs critically important decisions about what works, where, and

under what conditions. Priorities include the implementation of math/science field

based research pedagogical laboratories, which are underway; research training for

El Paso MSP Staff Developers and District Directors; and the awarding of small research grants to teachers.

Responses to Specific Questions

How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists, and engineers

from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—remain active

in the program? What role, if any, will businesses and non-profit organizations play

in the partnership?

The involvement of El Paso MSP partners across higher education and pre-K–12

institutions, as well as in the business and non-profit community, is focused on

building a long-term commitment toward shared goals for the students in the El

Paso community. This commitment starts with the leadership at higher education

institutions and school districts—many of whom play key roles in the El Paso MSP.

Beyond the fulfillment of the priorities laid out, these leaders are focused on ways

in which our partnership can sustain itself for the long term. The University of

Texas at El Paso, for example, has committed to graduating more credentialed

mathematics and science teachers and increasing the number of teachers holding

math and science masters degrees. MSP districts, too, are committed to continue

prioritizing and supporting mathematics and science education after MSP, including

the use of district resources to support continued intensive professional development

and acquisition of the best standards-based math and science materials. El Paso

MSP partners, including business, community organizations and civic leaders, will

continue to participate actively in promoting key MSP priorities, including making

presentations to students, parents and community groups about the importance of

math and science literacy and of going to college.

What type of professional development will your partnership provide for pre-service

and in-service teachers? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and

pedagogy be assessed?

Professional development for both pre-service and in-service teachers will be provided to increase and sustain the quantity and quality of pre-K–12 mathematics and

science teachers. Teachers’ content knowledge will also be enhanced by the K–16

curriculum alignment frameworks that include expectations about what student

should know and be able to do from kindergarten through higher education.

Assessing the impact of these efforts in supporting both teacher content knowledge and pedagogy will occur through a combination of strategies. Teachers receiving a Master’s of Arts in Teaching either Mathematics or Science will be required

to have attained Master’s-level content knowledge in order to graduate. At the same

time, prospective teachers coming to the profession through alternative certification

and engineering backgrounds will be expected to have mastered their content

knowledge in order to proceed with their certification. The familiarity of both preservice and in-service teachers with the rigorous content addressed in the frameworks, and its integration into classroom practices will also be measured. Classroom

teacher observation protocols and surveys, for example, will provide a guide for

82

formative evaluation of teachers’ progress in implementing the content addressed in

the frameworks.

Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform models

and achieve your partnership goals? How will the partnership coordinate with State

educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after the award period

expires?

The support we have received from the National Science Foundation has been extremely beneficial in allowing us to develop and refine our reform models from

which longer-term implementation and sustainability can be built. This work is an

enormously costly proposition. Over the past 20 years, we have seen first-hand that

making the transformations expected through the partnership are expensive and

take significant time. What has been so valuable is the significant NSF investment

in promoting the value of our pre-K–16 partnerships and those in other communities. This leadership and attention to our work has also allowed the El Paso MSP

to more effectively leverage resources from our own community.

Though we do not directly coordinate our efforts with the Texas Educational

Agency, we continue to share products and lessons from the work of the El Paso

MSP. One key example, will be the broader dissemination of the mathematics and

science curriculum frameworks, which have applicability across every school in the

State.

Plans for Evaluation of the El Paso Math/Science Partnership

As you can see, the El Paso MSP is an ambitious initiative with multiple and

interrelated components. Thus to evaluate it, we must monitor the implementation

and results of many strands of activity within a clear, overarching framework. Our

evaluation has two key aims: accountability through the rigorous measurement of

results; and ongoing improvement in our programs.

We believe in holding ourselves accountable for measuring change in the lives of

young people. We have begun with the identification of key objectives and benchmarks for which indicators have been developed to measure the major outcomes of

the Partnership. Examples include trends regarding the percent of area students

passing the mathematics and science portions of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, and the percent of students completing a college-preparatory high

school program. We use student data to identify the overall results of our efforts

and to highlight areas in which more work is needed. Looking at student achievement and attainment over time is an indispensable part of our work, and we appreciate federal support for the collection and rigorous analysis of student data.

In order to enhance our program we utilize evaluation planning, data collection

and reporting that include the systematic monitoring of interrelated program improvements intended to contribute to success on each outcome indicator. We examine the extent to which we are achieving our numerical benchmarks and track backwards to examine interim steps and program interventions that influenced their

outcomes.

Because we are committed to improving the programs that our partnership has

launched in El Paso, we need to gather and systematically analyze evidence about

those programs in our own context. We welcome this nation’s growing commitment

to supporting experimental research in education, while recognizing that full-blown

experimental trials cannot provide all the answers that our MSP partnership needs.

We have programs in place right now that have achieved varying degrees of success

which we need to understand in detail. While we await better answers from the

education research community, we are working with an external evaluator to conduct comparisons and analyses, on the ground, in our own classrooms.

The program elements of the El Paso MSP are intended to make a difference in

the supply of well-qualified math and science teachers, in school and district leadership, in classroom practices, and ultimately in student achievement. Our evaluation

plan takes into account that all partners have roles to play, and multiple new and

established programs to support. Thus, our evaluation plan will focus attention on

the following: the implementation of key program elements across participating districts, schools, and post-secondary departments; the short-term results of implementation; and how the presence or absence of particular program elements contributes

to longer-term results.

For example, we will analyze enrollment and completion statistics in a college-preparatory core curriculum, by district, feeder pattern, and student group. Where students are not completing this curriculum at the desired rate, we will identify the

courses they are not completing and the program interventions in those subjects

that they have or have not experienced. We will also analyze relevant data on school

leadership, counseling, and classroom practices affecting those students. These comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
83

parative analyses of different conditions and supports across schools will point the

way to improvement in our efforts.

Similarly, we will look at the rates at which prospective teachers are entering and

completing each of the pathways to certification introduced or enhanced through

support from the El Paso MSP. Profiles of typical enrollees in each pathway will

be compared. Through surveys of participants (and non-participants, such as engineering students who do not choose to enter teaching), we will identify reasons for

entry and persistence in these certification routes.

Staff Developers’ work will be analyzed from several related perspectives. Teachers and Lead Learners will provide data on the kinds of support they receive from

Staff Developers. Through classroom observation, we will follow-up to measure the

results of this support infrastructure. The work of Staff Developers will also be examined as one component in a more comprehensive system of teacher induction and

support that may help in teacher retention as well as the improvement of classroom

practice. We will identify facilitating mechanisms and barriers to effective staff development that may exist in district and State policies, principals’ actions, teachers’

schedules, and the learning opportunities available to the Staff Developers themselves.

The evaluation questions about alignment will also be addressed through measures of the enacted curriculum. In addition, we will look at progress in curriculum

alignment all the way from elementary through post-secondary education.

The research component of the El Paso MSP will be a subject of our evaluation

in its own right, as a significant intervention intended to engage classroom teachers,

post-secondary faculty, and others in systematic reflection on practice and results.

We will study the operations of such key elements as the collaborative working relationships between post-secondary faculty and pre-K–12 teachers, which have traditionally proved difficult to establish. We will also incorporate the results of teacher

research into our inquiry.

In summary, by tracking back from key benchmark indicators to the specific

mechanisms intended to affect them, by understanding instances of success and failure and by taking into account the mutually reinforcing nature of related program

efforts, we expect to generate reports that are realistic, useful, and analytically

sound. Evaluation is helping us hold ourselves accountable for results, and it is

helping us strengthen our programs as we go forward.

Lessons Learned

Let me share with you some of the lessons we have already learned over the 13

months of implementing MSP. First, we have learned that this work must be undertaken K–16. Reforming K–12 will only work for the long-term if our teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities have themselves improved, if they too

are focused on the best national content standards, if they are also aggressively

working toward fully engaging students in the learning process. And, given that

teacher preparation encompasses the entire University, not just Colleges of Education, those that educate prospective teachers in the core subject areas—the Colleges of Science and Liberal Arts—must also work toward improving teacher quality.

A second lesson learned is that partnerships must address the issue of K–16 curriculum alignment, that is, seamlessly linking what is taught at each point in the

education continuum—from elementary, middle and high school—with what is expected and taught at community college and at university. The MSP Mathematics

and Science Alignment brings together K–12 teachers from all MSP school districts,

MSP staff developers, as well as mathematics faculty from the El Paso Community

College, and faculty from UTEP’s Colleges of Education, Engineering and Science.

A major goal of the initiative is to develop course outlines along with curriculum

frameworks, that will be implemented by teachers across the twelve districts. Those

outlines and frameworks provide clear and specific information about math and

science content at each grade level that all students must understand and be able

to do and the level of rigor demand at which they must be able to do them in order

to prepare for college level mathematics and science. The outline is mapped to textbooks and materials used by the districts and is not limited to any one adopted

mathematics program. We have completed work on Algebra I and II, as well as K–

8 and are beginning work on Geometry, K–8 science and the high school science

courses.

A third lesson learned is that we must ensure a full and robust set of support

and assistance mechanisms necessary for building school capacity. Our professional

development work is focused on building knowledge and leadership about school improvement and institutional change among principals and other site administrators,

district leaders, college and university faculty and deans. We have, however,

84

prioritized teachers and making sure that all who teach math and science are fully

qualified. MSP is helping to do that through increasing the number of teachers certified and earning masters in math and science. In addition, we also provide professional development to ensure a deep understanding of concepts, among in-service

teachers to the point where they can build student capacity to do high level math

and science. We not only focus on content but also on pedagogical content. That is,

implementation of instructional practices appropriate to specific math and science

concepts. This deepening of knowledge and practice requires a reorganization of

where and how we deliver professional development. The majority of that development is now provided in classrooms by MSP staff developers, thus bridging the

teacher learning and practice gap. Through all of this professional development

work, we continue to raise issues of teacher and administrator beliefs and attitudes

about who can learn—and who cannot—and support educators to begin to come to

terms with their beliefs and the impact of those beliefs on their students’ achievement.

Conclusion

Woven throughout this brief picture of our MSP work I trust that you’ve been able

to see the elements that are critical to us:

• Equity

• Partnerships—in particularly K–16 partnerships

• Deep commitments and understanding about what all children deserve.

This is work very much in progress. We’ve had our share of things that have

worked very well—and those that haven’t. Through it all we remain committed to

continuing to learn what it takes to bring about real and lasting improvements for

every single student in our community.

Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify, and for your interest in

the El Paso Math/Science Partnership. I would be happy to respond to any questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR M. SUSANA NAVARRO

Susana Navarro graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso with a major

in political science in 1968. After working at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

in Washington on a landmark study of Mexican American education, she began her

graduate studies at Stanford University, where she received her Ph.D. in educational psychology in 1980.

After earning her doctorate, she worked with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) for five years as National Director of Research and Policy Analysis. From 1985 until early 1991, she worked with the

Achievement Council, a statewide non-profit organization in California, which she

helped create, as Associate then Executive Director.

In 1991, she returned to El Paso, where with regional education, business and

civic leaders, she founded the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, an organization which she has headed since its inception. The Collaborative, a city-wide

effort to improve academic achievement among all young El Pasoans, is now in its

twelfth year of operation and has become a national model for urban school reform.

Dr. Navarro’s work has been featured in numerous national publications, including

Education Week, The Chronicle of Higher Education and Phi Delta Kappan. She

serves as Principal Investigator for the El Paso Mathematics and Science Partnership, a $30 million grant, which was awarded to the Collaborative in 2002. In addition to MSP and other grants from the National Science Foundation, the Collaborative has received support for its systemic reform work from the Pew Charitable

Trusts, the U.S. Department of Education, the Lucent Foundation, Exxon and the

Coca Cola Foundation, among others.

85

86

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE MSP GRANT AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear here before the

Subcommittee and provide testimony on the Math Science Partnership Program, and in our particular case, the project PROM/SE,

which is currently at its very early stages of implementation at

Michigan State University, in collaboration with our five partner

consortia.

I am the co-leader of PROM/SE with my colleague at Michigan

State, Dr. William Schmidt, who had a lead role in TIMSS, the

Third International Mathematics and Science Study. This effort

has just been launched in the past month. We are grateful to the

National Science Foundation for this opportunity to have a major

impact on mathematics and science learning, and frankly, we are

daunted by the enormity of the task.

PROM/SE is a comprehensive research and development effort to

improve mathematics and science teaching and learning in grades

K–12. It is based on assessment of students and teachers, improvement of standards and frameworks, and the preparation and professional development of teachers.

I emphasize that our partnership is a research and development

effort. We are committed to understanding through this work how

the multiple models for improving teaching and learning that we

will build within PROM/SE actually will impact student learning

in a range of ethnic, cultural, racial and economic settings that are

so diverse that they mirror the diversity of the Nation.

PROM/SE is a partnership among six entities. Five of these are

K–12 consortia of school districts in Michigan and Ohio, together

with Michigan State University. The project is large in scope. We

intend to impact nearly 400,000 students through work with hundreds of teachers across nearly 70 school districts.

The goals are straightforward. First, we intend to use empirical

evidence as a basis for our efforts to improve mathematics and

science learning. We will assess students in grades three through

twelve using TIMSS-like instruments and other instruments that

are being designed currently, and we will survey teachers and administrators about their instruction, about their contexts and about

their curricula.

Secondly, we will work with our partners to develop and to agree

upon challenging content standards that will work to align instruction and assessment in those local districts with these standards.

Mathematicians, scientists, school leaders, all together will work to

accomplish this design of standards and action teams that bring together people from higher education and from the K–12 partners.

Third, we are interested in designing professional development

that helps all teachers have the capacity to teach to these high

standards, and that emphasizes subject matter knowledge in ways

that support teachers in their daily work in classrooms. The professional development involves a model of building level associations,

called PROM/SE associates, as well as the technologically-based reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

source system that will be designed, again, by our mathematicians,

scientists and educators.

Fourth, at Michigan State University, we are engaged in rethinking the ways in which future teachers are prepared to teach, to

high standards in mathematics and science, and the MSP part of

that work will be particularly focused in science.

Fifth, and ultimately, we are aiming to improve students’ learning and achievement across our districts, across our partner sites

and across the diversity that our project encompasses.

In the TIMSS study, analysis of the curriculum standards in the

high-achieving countries showed that those standards were mathematically and scientifically coherent. These tables indicate down

along the rows, essentially, a progression of subject matter, from

more straightforward, fundamental concepts to more advanced concepts, and the columns suggest in which grades these topics are

typically treated across the high-achieving countries, and you see,

basically, this pattern of a focus on depth, on central ideas, on beginning and ending ideas across a relatively small grade span, and

then moving on to more sophisticated ideas.

In PROM/SE, we will work on standards and frameworks that

emphasize significant ideas in mathematics and science and that

convey high expectations for all students, and that are well-articulated across the grades. TIMSS also provides the kind of analytic

tools that we will use as a starting point for our decision-making

and for gathering evidence.

Let me say more about what I mean by that. This table, or this

diagram, shows down in the lower right-hand corner the results of

student performance on an item about seesaws and fulcrums. The

graph on the left, and that student achievement spans grades three

through twelve, and you see an upward trend, in the graph to the

left, you see that achievement trend again, and above it, in the line

graph, you see how much time is devoted to the teaching of this

topic across the grades three through eight. You can imagine that

as we put together sets of items and take these sorts of measurements, and take a look at what is going on in our partner districts,

we will be able to tell lots of stories, in particular about what is

happening within areas of the content, and these analyses will provide us with the basis for our work in PROM/SE.

The professional development efforts in the projects will use this

evidence. Structurally, the model rests, in part, on our work with

PROM/SE associates. These will be teachers who represent schools

across the partnership and will serve as resources, coaches and

math science experts for their colleagues. We will build technological resources that these teachers can access at all levels.

Very briefly, because we are just beginning, the five-year project

begins with assessment and identification of the associates, continues with data analysis standards revision and professional development. PROM/SE provides a number of opportunities as well

as challenges. Let me discuss them. First, despite the scale of the

project, our approach, with this emphasis on data and evidence, we

hope will allow us to customize the PROM/SE activities to local

needs. Districts will be able to select the areas of mathematics and

science content that they feel need special attention and work together with the PROM/SE team to focus on those areas.

88

It is our hope that the professional development we provide will

be layered in ways that enables teachers with differing needs to access it in individual ways. For example, more seasoned teachers

who are looking to refresh their subject matter knowledge will need

to be able to access this material in one way. Newer teachers who

are looking for interesting lesson ideas and ways to support their

day to day practice may need to access it in a different way, and

we are hopeful that we will be able to produce materials and compile materials that allow all of these sorts of options.

We are already learning that an initiative such as PROM/SE involves building new ways of communicating among mathematicians, scientists, educators, classroom teachers and school administrators. This is about building new communities with strong communication channeled through them.

We will be producing standards that we hope can serve as national models, and finally, I reiterate that we are strongly committed to research, to learning about how change and improvement

can be effected and sharing what we learn nationally through this

project.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferrini-Mundy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY

Good afternoon Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the

Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee and provide testimony on the Math and Science Partnership Project—PROM/SE—presently at the

early stage of implementation at Michigan State University. Michigan State University and its five K–12 partners—St. Clair County, Ingham County, and Calhoun

County Intermediate School Districts in Michigan, and the High AIMS and SMART

consortia in Ohio—have joined in Project PROM/SE (Promoting Rigorous Outcomes

in Mathematics and Science Education), and on September 26, 2003 were notified

that their $35,000,000 Math Science Partnership project would be funded by the National Science Foundation. At Michigan State University, Dr. William Schmidt and

I are the co-leaders of this effort.

Partnership goals

PROM/SE has four goals:

• Gather empirical evidence as a basis for revising content standards, aligning

instructional materials with those standards, and monitoring student learning.

• Improve mathematics and science opportunities for all students, especially

those from under-represented and disadvantaged groups by developing more

coherent, focused and challenging content standards; aligning standards with

instructional materials; and eliminating tracking in grades K–8.

• Improve mathematics and science teaching so it is aligned with standards,

through subject specific professional development.

• Reform the preparation of future teachers so that teachers at all levels are

ready to teach challenging mathematics and science to diverse student populations.

Our theory of how to improve achievement for all children is simple: we need to

understand what students know, what standards expect, and what teachers teach,

and work to improve all three. At the outset, students in grades 3–12 across the

partner sites will be assessed in mathematics and science, using items from the

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), as well as other instruments. Teachers will be surveyed about background, knowledge, preparation,

and topics that they teach, and districts will be surveyed about their standards, instructional materials, and professional development. On the basis of data, we will

review and revise standards, analyze alignment of standards with curriculum and

teaching practice, and provide professional development for teacher leaders, teacher

participants, and guidance counselors. Related reform in the MSU teacher education

89

program will be undertaken during this same five-year period together through

Teachers for a New Era, a project funded by the Carnegie Corporation.

Lessons learned to date

Although our MSP funding has only recently been announced, this group of partners has been working together to design and envision our effort for more than two

years. In particular, the partners share a commitment to the use of data and evidence as key tools in the revision and strengthening of standards and the design

and implementation of professional development of teachers so that teachers will be

well equipped to teach to high standards. The ultimate goal is improved learning

and achievement in mathematics and science for all students.

We are learning that it is crucial to build on the infrastructures that exist in each

of these distinct K–12 partners, including the professional development efforts already underway through local resources in all of these areas, and the grade-bygrade standards that are being developed in States to address No Child Left Behind.

For instance, MSU has collaborated extensively with our partner in the St. Clair

ISD through a project called Promoting Results in Science and Math (PRISM). Initiated in 2000, PRISM is a multi-year collaboration between the ISD and MSU to

evaluate and improve the quality of the curriculum and teaching for all students.

The first phase involved a thorough analysis of the curriculum. TIMSS assessments

were administered in May 2001 to about 17,000 students in grades 3–12. Using

these data, St. Clair ISD began in the fall of 2002 the design and implementation

of a reformed curriculum and of a customized professional development approach

based on the data. St. Clair’s experience serves as a showcase for the partnership’s

evidence-based approach.

Our extensive baseline data-gathering will ensure that we can tailor our program

to the unique needs and circumstances of our 69 participating school districts. Each

will have access to the results of students’ performance and analysis of standards

and teacher practice, so that it will be possible to build on a base of knowledge that

serves as the foundation for continued improvement.

We also are learning that the enormous challenges of communication and relationship building are central in a project of this magnitude. Engaging school personnel

in decision-making and implementation of project ideas from the outset, helping

stake-holders within the school communities come to understand and develop commitment to the premises of PROM/SE, and enabling the project working groups to

build new cultures and norms that span mathematics, science, education, and the

world of the K–12 schools, are crucial to the success of PROM/SE.

Ensuring that participants remain active in the program

In addition to the hundreds of teachers and school leaders who will have direct

roles in the program, and the thousands of teachers who will benefit from the professional development resources that will be designed, more than 50 Michigan State

University scientists, mathematicians, and education faculty have agreed to participate in various roles in the project. They will be able to be part of the assessment

design and analysis, the design and implementation of the professional development, and the revision and analysis of standards. Two of the MSU co-PIs, Dr. Peter

Bates (Chair of the Department of Mathematics) and Dr. George Leroi (Dean of the

College of Natural Science) are well positioned to promote and reward the engagement of MSU faculty.

The design of the project relies on sustained participation of personnel in the K–

12 sites, including Site Coordinators and PROM/SE Associates, who will work closely with MSU faculty in all aspects of the project. We anticipate that PROM/SE will

generate new collaborations and relationships among groups that have not traditionally engaged together in work of this type. Such collaborations are likely to lead

to new project and spin-off efforts during the five years of PROM/SE, and, we hope,

in the post-PROM/SE years as well.

Tailoring PROM/SE to the unique needs of the participating school districts

With its emphasis on evidence-based improvement, PROM/SE is designed to be

responsive to the particular and unique needs of the participating partners. We anticipate finding certain areas of mathematics and science that are strong in some

sites, and that need improvement in others, and will build a comprehensive professional development system that allows these sites to access the key areas in which

they wish to focus. In addition, because we will be examining local standards in use

in the districts, together with data about teachers’ instruction, we will have a baseline for articulating the different emphases and instructional priorities across the

partner sites. We will build accordingly on these differences in all project efforts.

90

Because our five K–12 partners span a range of socioeconomic and contextual situations, we also stand to learn a great deal about the ways in which this variation

interacts with efforts to improve standards and instructional practice. This requires

acknowledging and understanding the differences among the participating districts.

Professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers

Richard Elmore describes the challenges that today’s accountability climate creates for teachers in schools: teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors are

being asked to ‘‘do something new—engage in systematic, continuous improvement

in the quality of the educational experience of students and to subject themselves

to the discipline of measuring their success by the metric of students’ academic performance’’ (Elmore, 2002, p. 3). He goes on to assert that few people in K–12 schools

are prepared, either through their education or previous experience, to do this. Indeed, our approach in PROM/SE is to help teachers build and use tools, based on

evidence, that will help them in this new climate, and to model how this might be

achieved nationally. The PROM/SE professional development (PD) model will have

as a unique resource the detailed evidence base that allows us to build on information about student achievement, teachers’ understanding of the subject matter, the

nature of district standards and their alignment with instructional materials.

Teachers need to know where students have difficulty, what kinds of difficulties

they have, and how to help them overcome them, while moving toward significant

content goals in mathematics and science.

Elmore makes the interesting point that ‘‘if most of what teachers learn about

practice they learn from their own practice, it is imperative to make the conditions

and context of that practice supportive of high and cumulative levels of achievement

for all students’’ (Elmore, 2002, p. 19). This has implications for where, when, and

how professional development occurs; it needs to be physically close to where the

teaching occurs; it needs to happen while teachers are teaching; and the curriculum

of professional development needs to be based on the content and challenges that

arise for teachers in classrooms. Our model involves a combination of summer experiences and academic year offerings, as well as virtual professional development. By

involving principals and counselors, as well as district leaders, we are addressing

context and conditions. Our strategy combines a teacher-leader (coaching) model

with a technology-based PD curriculum.

Because the students we are trying to impact are located in all of the more than

700 school buildings that our partnership encompasses and because we wish to

leave no child behind, we are committed in our PD to ‘‘leaving no building behind.’’

This means identifying a resource person for mathematics and for science (the same

person for elementary schools) in each school together with the principal and in the

case of secondary schools, a counselor as well. The role of PROM/SE Associates will

be to understand the data, the way that the data can be used to drive improvement,

and the notion of tying instruction and instructional materials to challenging and

coherent standards. And, it will be teams of PROM/SE Associates, working with

MSU personnel and other district leaders, who actually do the revision of the district and partner standards—an important element for their own professional development.

The professional development for the Associates will occur during summer institutes, weekend workshops in the academic year, and virtually through on-line offerings. The first summer institutes will focus on the revision of standards on the basis

of information about student achievement, teacher characteristics, and district context. Associates will also have opportunities to learn about leadership, coaching, and

working with their peers to improve mathematics and science teaching. Associates

will be prepared to work locally in their districts on the standards revision process,

on using student data, and on helping teachers work with a wide array of instructional practices and materials to align them with local standards. The Associates

will begin their work with the larger group of Teacher Participants in partner-site

based weekend workshops and in summer institutes. Associates will be involved in

providing site-based, ongoing PD for teachers in their districts in the ensuing academic years.

Through the PROM/SE Associates and the MSU-based PROM/SE staff, we ultimately plan to provide PD directly for about 25 percent of the teachers of mathematics and science in our partner sites; these 4500 teachers will have opportunities

to come to summer institutes and academic year workshops sponsored through the

project, and to work directly with the District Associates in their buildings. The remaining 12,500 teachers of mathematics and science in the partner sites also will

benefit from the activity of PROM/SE; the data and evidence to be gathered in each

partner site will be widely available, and the revised content standards will be a

resource for all teachers.

91

Research indicates that professional development should be focused on a well-articulated mission, aimed at improving student learning, content driven, derived from

analysis of student learning of specific content in a specific setting, based on instructional materials that the teachers are using, and connected with the specific issues

of instruction and student learning in the context of actual classrooms (see, for example, Ball, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Elmore, 2002, p.7; Loucks-Horsley et al.,

1998). The PROM/SE PD model will incorporate all of these views, and will have

as a unique resource the detailed evidence base that allows us to build on information about students’ learning and teachers’ understanding of the subject matter. We

regard the ongoing professional development of teachers in the partner sites as the

most crucial intervention of our PROM/SE activity. Our professional development

has three main goals. We will enable teachers to:

• use evidence about student learning to influence their teaching practice

• use coherent and rigorous content standards as a guide to providing all children with opportunities to learn challenging mathematics and science

• employ instructional practices and materials in ways that align with those

standards

At this time we envision these professional development activities to be organized

topically and to span the K–12 spectrum. Mathematics and science topics will ultimately be determined by what we learn from the data-gathering phase, but we can

predict some areas at this time: functions; rational numbers and proportional reasoning; and data and statistics, for example, in mathematics, and properties and

changes of matter, structure and functions of living systems, and structure of earth

systems in science. In our planning discussions, the K–12 partner sites have expressed a number of needs for their teachers, which include: ‘‘how to help teachers

develop and implement more rigorous and coherent curriculum’’ (St. Clair County),

‘‘how to build capacity for coaching and building-level support’’ (Ingham), ‘‘getting

a handle on data collection and how to use data’’ (High AIMS), and ‘‘doing gap analysis, and delivering the content effectively’’ (Calhoun). The partners express a sense

that teachers’ subject matter knowledge for different areas of the curriculum is uneven, and are concerned that teachers who seem to ‘‘have the content’’ are still unable to ‘‘deliver the curriculum.’’

After teachers have participated in summer institutes and project workshops, the

project will also provide academic year connection to PROM/SE virtually, through

a variety of on-line professional development resources for teachers, designed in a

virtual PROM/SE Professional Development System. The idea is to establish—beginning with the initial assessment—a culture of collaborative learning, goal-setting

and lesson planning, implementation, assessment and evaluation similar to that observed in Japan (Jacobs et al., 1997; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). We envision using

technology both as a repository for resources designed especially for this project, as

well as material selected and embedded into our project context. For example, videoconferencing may make possible the sharing of progress, ranging from full district

reports on particular innovations, to crafted lessons by a particular group of teachers in a given school. We will examine various platforms, as possible tools to help

teachers ‘‘make their teaching visible’’ by creating their own video library of their

practice and by developing their capacity to interact with these videos. PROM/SE

Associates will be prepared to help teachers in their districts videotape lessons in

the focal topic areas for site-based or on-line professional development discussions

and will encourage the sharing of these videos within schools as well as across

schools within and beyond their district. We will promote the use of monitored chat

rooms as well. We will also expand and adapt a set of on-line courses already successfully implemented at MSU to facilitate professional development as part of the

Virtual PD; these courses eventually will become part of a set of master’s offerings

for in-service teachers interested in refreshing their mathematics and science content knowledge.

Assessing improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy

Beginning with the baseline assessment activities, we will be designing and using

new tools for examining teaching knowledge and practice. Over the course of the

project we plan to design special studies in selected areas to look more deeply at

the relationship of teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as

it relates to student achievement and to classroom practice. This collection of coordinated research studies will allow us to gain a deeper understanding of these complex relationships. These studies will be designed in consultation with our National

Advisors and with the project evaluator.

92

Coordination with State agencies

MSU faculty in the PROM/SE team have been deeply involved in efforts to revise

the Michigan Department of Education Mathematics Standards, and thus have current connections with key State officials involved in assessment and standards. In

addition, personnel from the Michigan and Ohio Departments of Education will be

invited to serve as members of the project advisory boards and action teams. We

will pay particular attention to the maintenance and growth of these relationships

over time so that State personnel come to know the capacity that will be generated

through PROM/SE, in terms of school and university faculty who can become engaged in State efforts in mathematics and science education.

Sufficient resources to develop and test our models

We have found that, with the announcement of PROM/SE, a number of districts

are inquiring about joining the project—and the PROM/SE Executive Management

Team is developing policies and guidelines for the addition of new partners, with

the notion that new partners will need to bring their own resources to this effort.

PROM/SE is an ambitious project of enormous scope and complexity. The project

team holds as a high priority the idea that we will conduct research around the activities of PROM/SE, so that this effort can provide us with models and understandings of how improvements of this type can be implemented in a range of contexts. We believe the resources are indeed sufficient for the implementation that is

planned in PROM/SE, but to conduct the kind of research and evaluation that can

truly help us learn from this project and others like it will require additional resources.

Conclusion

The Math Science Partnership Program provides an exciting opportunity for significant improvement of mathematics and science teaching and learning across educational levels beginning in the earliest grades and through the undergraduate

years. The improvement toward which all of us in the MSP Programs strive should

not be the sole measure of the success of this substantial investment. In addition,

we need, as educators and citizens, to learn from the MSP program about the ways

in which models, embedded experiments and innovations, and particular implementations of different theories of action all interact with these improvement efforts. Resources and capacity for building strong research agendas around the MSP programs would seem to be essential to ensure a lasting and sustained benefit from

this important set of initiatives.

REFERENCES

Ball, D. L. (1997). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know about

teacher learning—but would make good working hypotheses. In S.N. Friel &

G.S. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF Teacher Enhancement in K–6

Mathematics (pp. 77–110). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance:

The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–

343.

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert

Shanker Institute.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Price, J. & Jacobs, J.E. (1997). Teaching, Learning, and Learning Teaching: The

Exxon/Cal Poly Conference on the Preparation and Professional Development of

Mathematics Teachers. Reston VA: NCTM.

Stigler, J.W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s

teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY

Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Mathematics Education

in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University, where she is also

a Professor of Mathematics and Teacher Education. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy has worked

in mathematics teacher education since 1982 when she co-founded the SummerMath

for Teachers Program at Mount Holyoke College. Since that time she has been the

principal investigator of several State, federal, and foundation grants in research

and teacher education, both at the University of New Hampshire, where she was

on the Mathematics Faculty for 16 years and directed the Master of Science for

Teachers Program, and at MSU. Ferrini-Mundy served as a Visiting Scientist in

NSF’s Teacher Enhancement Program (1989–91), and as Director of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board at the National Research Council (1995–1999).

She received the Louise Hay Award for Contributions to Mathematics Education

from the Association for Women in Mathematics in 1999, and won awards for teaching and for public service at UNH, as well as the Balomenos Award from the New

Hampshire Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Ferrini-Mundy has been active in

the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (e.g., Chair of the Writing Group

for Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, member of the Board of Directors, Chair of the Standards Impact Research Group), the American Mathematical

Society, and the Mathematical Association of America.

Currently, Ferrini-Mundy serves as co-PI of the MSU Teachers for A New Era Initiative, a reform of the MSU Teacher Education Program, funded by the Carnegie

Corporation of New York and partner foundations. Ferrini-Mundy also directs an

NSF-funded research project, ‘‘A Study of the Algebra Knowledge for Teaching’’ and

is a Co-director of the NSF-funded ‘‘Study of the Development of Leaders in Mathematics and Science Education.’’ With Dr. William Schmidt, she serves as co-leader

of the recently awarded NSF Math and Science Partnership project ‘‘Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Science and Mathematics Education’’ (PROM/SE). She served on

the Mathematical Sciences Education Board RAND Mathematics Study Panel

(2000–2002), the NAEP Mathematics Assessment Framework Committee (2002), the

ACHIEVE Mathematics Advisory Panel (1999–2002), the TIMSS 2003 Expert Panel

(2002–2003), and the NSF EHR Mathematics Education Portfolio Review Expert

Panel (2003–present). Ferrini-Mundy’s publications include edited books, textbooks,

chapters, and papers. She is a frequent presenter at national and international

meetings, and participates as an advisor to several mathematics and science education projects and initiatives across the Nation. Her research interests span calculus teaching and learning, the development of teachers’ mathematical knowledge

for teaching, and K–12 mathematics education reform.

107

108

DISCUSSION

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I am going to start with you, Dr.

Ferrini-Mundy. What do you mean by improving math and science

learning? What does that mean?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. At a surface level, it means seeing achievement scores go up, and we are——

Chairman SMITH. Whose—so——

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY [continuing]. Absolutely committed to that.

The students, K–12 students.

Chairman SMITH. Quality or quantity, how do you balance quality and quantity?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I think we have to aim for both. We want

all students to show gains. We also want them to be learning significant mathematics, important math and science skills, as well as

concepts, and so a big piece of our emphasis will be on meeting and

understanding. We want these students to be able to use their

mathematics and science, to apply it, to move to the next level with

understanding. And so a lot of this involves designing assessments

and working with assessments that let us take a look at those

kinds of features.

Chairman SMITH. Any other comments in this area? Dr. Yasar?

Dr. YASAR. I know we are looking at the achievement scores, but

that—it may not tell the whole story, so in student attitude and interest and their progress over a number of years could tell us that

students have learned from these projects.

Chairman SMITH. I am glad to see representatives from our educational area of NSF here, and from the Department of Education.

I mean just from my Michigan farms, a barnyard standpoint, it

seems to me like you need a capable teacher and a capable student,

and then you need motivation and balance and that sort of comes

down to the classroom. Mr. Mikols, Mr. Chi, how do you motivate

an unmotivated student, or isn’t that the right question?

Mr. CHI. Well, I would like to take a stab at trying to answer

that question. I think if we start with what that student is interested in, I am sure that we could find the science and find the

math that is inherent in anything that they are interested in. I

think part of the reason why they feel unmotivated is because they

lack control, that they are not pursuing interests that they have,

and I think that being able to seek out the concepts that are inherent in anything that they are interested in is a way to draw them

into the science classroom and the math classroom and the technology classroom. I think the MSP project provides that opportunity to have a network available to any teacher to try to cross

disciplines and try to bring students in a variety of different subjects.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Mikols, any thought then, and then Dr.

Navarro.

Mr. MIKOLS. Yeah, just to go with what Mr. Chi said, a lot of

time, student interest is so crucial, and if we can allow students

to pursue something that is of interest to them, and then try to tie

the mathematics and the science to that, then the students are

more likely to be motivated, because it is something of their choosing. It is something of their design. And allowing them to design

109

the kinds of questions that then need to be asked to pursue the

problem that they are trying to solve, and then working in the content with that. And sometimes, it is just a matter of also offering

students a sampling of some of the different things that technology

is capable of doing, and exposing kids to things that they, perhaps,

haven’t seen or thought of before, as well. And if you can kind of

mix those two ideas together, allowing some choice for the student,

but also opening things up for them, then perhaps that will help

with the motivation of students.

Chairman SMITH. You had a comment, Dr. Navarro.

Dr. NAVARRO. What we have done is tried to get scientists and

engineers into the classroom to begin to show practical applications

of math and science learning. That begins to kind of pique the interest of students, and we also try and provide them information

about what they can do, not only in terms of practical applications

of math and science, but how it has implications for employment

opportunities for the future, and what the employment opportunities will result in financially and in a variety of ways. That gets

the interest of lots of students.

Chairman SMITH. You mentioned how important it was, K–16.

How about the technology that is moving into the assembly line for

a lot of these students that—I don’t know what percentage of your

students go on to college, but how important do you think just the

math and science ability is going into the new technology of computerized pressing and stamping operations and molding operations?

Dr. NAVARRO. Well, that is one of the things that we have realized, that it is tremendously important not just for students that

are going on to college, but for all students that are hoping to try

and find a job that will provide them a living wage, and we are trying to make clear to students what the linkages are between what

they learn in math and science, and again, what they will do in

even a regular kind of job. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a college level job. That we have found to be a tremendously important

piece of information that students and especially parents don’t understand now, so parents are less asking us why do my kids have

to take Algebra I and Algebra II. I think they are increasingly understanding it because of the presentations we have made to parents, not just educators, but business people as well.

Chairman SMITH. Yes, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I think on this point, particularly in mathematics, emphasis on some of the sorts of skills and processes of the

discipline can be really compelling in trying to make the case that

this prepares all people for all sorts of workplaces, so problem-solving, reasoning, justification, inquiring, being able to formulate conjectures, the sorts of things that don’t necessarily show up on lists

of topics of content, but that are crucial to the teaching of math

and science.

Chairman SMITH. I think I had better move on. My time has

gone up, but we will do enough rounds to get all of your answers

and part of my questions. I mean, part of the goal of this hearing

is should we—is there anything we need to do in changing NSF,

the way we are peer reviewing, the way we are modeling the goals

of this science math partnership effort? So we are looking for imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
110

provements of direction, how much knowledge is out there that we

probably might try to capture some of the knowledge that is out

there. Mr.—Dr. Honda.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has given me a title

that I haven’t earned yet.

Chairman SMITH. You have earned it.

Mr. HONDA. Well, I appreciate the presence of the witnesses and

your experiences, also, and they are all sort of compartmentalized

in terms of your area of expertise and practice. But what I have

heard was that they need to be integrated and they need to be applied accordingly. To the classroom teacher, Mr. Chi, and to Mr.

Mikols or Mikols, I appreciated your field-based experience and

your insights. And my question would be, given that experience

and given those insights, you have talked about, I guess, to paraphrase, sort of integrating the subject matters and not compartmentalize them is a critical thing, because we tend to school our

youngsters to compartmentalize everything from the get-go, and by

the time they are in high school or middle school, you know, every

subject is separate and they shouldn’t be integrated. And I think

that that is a large mistake in something that, as a policy, that

may be a suggestion that you may want to think about for board

members. So I guess my question would be, based upon your experience, which you have gathered now and some insights, what policy changes would you recommend to the board, not to superintendents, they are the implementers, but to the board, so that you can

enhance the kinds of things you see.

Integrating teacher energies and encouraging integrated approaches to curriculum development and instructions, where

science and math are integrated with English and history, because

we want to have our youngsters feel that they have some roots in

some of the history. For instance, the Mayans had astronomy and

math as well developed as the Arabs and the Moors had, and they

both developed the concept of zero. You know, youngsters from ethnic backgrounds are not taught that, that they have a history, and

so that can be integrated. It is going to take a lot of work in terms

of team building among the instructors, but are those ideas that

could be turned into policies for school boards?

And then, as the national policy, should we be looking at that

rather than only curriculum development? Teacher preparation, it

seems to me, critical from what I am hearing, and rather than only

looking on—focusing on kids, I assume all kids can learn, so my

question is what policy implications do you look at in terms of

teacher preparation at a national level? What you have experienced

personally, I think, becomes very powerful. My question to the researchers and the teachers are—what you have learned now, is

that replicated in—if you do the research on literature, and if that

is so, why are we not making that next step? What is that next

step in terms of a national policy, so that we can move away from

focusing on student achievement, and talk about national expectations? And it may come down to us putting resources where our

mouth is, and stop blaming the victims.

So, those are my questions. You may not have time to respond

to them all orally, but if you have a written response that you

111

wouldn’t mind sharing, I would love to read it, and I appreciate all

of your experiences.

Dr. YASAR. Can I comment? There may be things to be done, not

only at the school district level, but also at higher education. As

you know, the target in our project is——

Chairman SMITH. Turn your microphone on.

Dr. YASAR. Sorry. To have a formal education in CMST, in other

words, MST. If MST certification were recognized at the station

education departments, where teacher candidates get their certification in MST, rather than just in mathematics or in science and

technology, they could be very useful in the school districts. I

have—some of my students who graduated from other programs,

who were exposed to education in math, science and technology, in

the school districts, they are teaching not only mathematics, but

also science and technology. And for school districts, this is going

to take care of a huge need, because most computer science graduates go to industry, and school districts have problems finding

teachers who can teach technology. They go to math teachers and

say can you teach this, they say no. I didn’t receive a formal education. So, through the training, or formal education, or State education departments creating MST certification, we could have

teachers who are able to teach in more than one area, and team

teaching, of course, is also another solution in the districts, and I

believe that is what is going on in other projects at this point.

Mr. HONDA. You know, Mr. Chairman. Just a real quick comment. I think I also heard from Mr. Chi that there is a need for

teachers as a profession to always tell ourselves that we are only

good teachers when we constantly remain students, and that somewhere along the line, we stop being students, and we get stuck in

our instructional capabilities, and we forget that students need to

learn constantly and so should teachers, and so that—I appreciated

that insight. I hope that always stays with you, and becomes a

strand in the policy and philosophy. I think perhaps we have lost—

also, perhaps in your written response, you might want to discuss

the concept of equity in education, because I suspect that equity

does not exist even in one school district. And then I guess the

other one is where is instruction? Where can it be conducted? Does

it have to be in the four walls? Stepping back from our institutionalized thinking of instruction, are there ways that we can maximize technology, the presence of technology in other places and

look at different ways? You have the toughest job in the world, and

you are not being compensated properly, but I appreciate your

stick-to-it-iveness in education and I just want to thank you.

Chairman SMITH. We will do a second round and a third round

and a—we will try not to wear you out too much. We appreciate

what you have done to get here. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, how are you

going to go about discovering what works and making that kind of

report? At Michigan State, is that a five-year project, or a fouryear?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Five.

Chairman SMITH. How—and then, what would be—is there going

to be in a fashion that we can put it out across the country, is it—

how usable is it going to be?

112

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. We hope it will be usable. I mean, as I have

mentioned, we are just starting, and we are just trying to create

a shape for this project. We will begin with this building of a sort

of baseline set of data. So, we will look at where students are, what

teachers——

Chairman SMITH. Is your mike on?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. It says it is on. We look at where students

are, what teachers are doing—is that—what kinds of standards are

in place. We will try to summarize that information and then track

that as this project unfolds. We also expect, because this is so

large, that different parts of the project, different districts, different

schools, even different buildings, will use variations of professional

development. Some might do a sort of coaching model, where teachers work with their colleagues inside classrooms to support their

instruction. Others might move more into a technology-oriented,

Web-based sort of e-learning.

Chairman SMITH. Did your proposal include dissemination?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes. Yes, our sense will be that we will conduct a range of studies within the big project and create a plan for

actually producing that into a form that is disseminatable and

shared with the White House.

Chairman SMITH. Do we have, and I don’t know, maybe I should

ask the question to you—of all the knowledge out there, of all of

our efforts to improve the way we teach and learn, has somebody

got that on a database someplace that you can—that researchers

can go pick out different studies that have taken place over the last

100 years, and do we have that?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. There are examples of that. There are also

syntheses, wonderful research syntheses. The National Research

Council produced a report called ‘‘Adding It Up: A Mathematical

Proficiency for All Students.’’ That compiles research about mathematics teaching and learning for grades K–8, and there are examples like that and folks access those sorts of things.

Chairman SMITH. Do we have any initial—Mr. Chi, Mr. Mikols—

do we have any initial data, or do you have suggestions on—I don’t

know what to call them, demonstrations, hands-on projects that

tend to stimulate interests? Does that work in your classrooms? Do

you use it?

Mr. MIKOLS. Yeah, we use hands-on projects, and——

Chairman SMITH. Well, with your technology and computers

and——

Mr. MIKOLS. Right. And as Mr. Honda was asking, is there a

mechanism in place where we could require students to incorporate

the different disciplines. In my district, they mandate that students

have a certain number of hours of community service, so why we

can’t mandate that there is some sort of project that is hands-on

and technology-based that is interdisciplinary as part of a requirement for a student to graduate. I don’t know why that couldn’t be

possible, and it could be something that is of a student’s choosing.

I have done several different projects in conjunction with science

teachers, and those have been effective, measured mainly by reactions from the students. They are—the projects that I have done

have been with advanced placement students, I have taught advanced placement calculus, and I did them in conjunction with an

113

advanced placement biology teacher, and the response that we get

is that this was an extremely worthwhile project that they learned

a lot, and it incorporated technology and it is something that they

would be able to use, and it is something that they talk a lot about.

We have also done hands-on projects with some of our younger

students as well, and they are appreciative of the fact that they do

have some say in what it is that they are learning, and it is tied

to content that is linked to standards, so——

Chairman SMITH. The question as far as any guidance or suggestions to the National Science Foundation. What were your—what

might be—what were your major barriers to implementation?

Should there be any changes in terms of future partnerships? Any

thoughts you have on was there sufficient outreach by NSF, in anything other than saying you’re approved? Yeah, Mr. Yasar.

Dr. YASAR. NSF brought together MSP projects last year in January, and there is going to be another one in this coming January

for all these projects to interact and discuss how to build a culture

of evidence, so there is a lot of emphasis on that. We are all aware

that money has been put into education for many years, but we

need to do things differently. As we try different things, we need

to build in a culture of evidence, of evidence-based, and there is a

great emphasis on that. NSF also expected all the MSP projects to

develop strategic plans. I am so thankful that they require that, because we took our grant proposal probably 10 degrees deeper in developing an evaluation plan that addressed student progress,

teacher—impact on teacher, and we hope that at the end of the five

year period, we will have a lot of data to contribute to this evidence

base.

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Dr. Navarro, I sort of got the impression

from some of your comments that the money coming in allowed you

to continue the good things you are doing. Is there an endpoint?

Are we discovering something that eventually other schools without

being given additional Federal money grants, can continue the kind

of effort?

Dr. NAVARRO. I mean, I think that there are many things that

are coming out of the MSPs and the previous NSF-funded efforts

that will provide direction to districts and schools that don’t get

these funds. The reality, though, is that if you have a large school

system, as we do with the close to 160,000 students in it, and you

are trying to get them from where they are now, how they are

teaching math and science, the level of knowledge that their teachers have, and you want to get them to a dramatically new place,

it seems to me that additional resources will be needed. That is

what MSP is allowing us to do, and engaging the full resources of

higher education institutions——

Chairman SMITH. But you will continue——

Dr. NAVARRO [continuing]. To help us do that.

Chairman SMITH [continuing]. The quality program that you

have instigated after the Federal funding stops?

Dr. NAVARRO. Absolutely. We have gotten commitments from

higher education institutions and the districts to continue this, and

they are finding ways of building it in—slowly but surely—into

their budgets and into their own strategic plans.

114

Chairman SMITH. One of the complaints many teachers have is

that the faculty and institutions of colleges, university, higher education, have the content knowledge, but are often somewhat weak

on what it takes to be a teacher and teach that knowledge. Any

comments that any of you might have in terms of this Math

Science Partnership in helping—and should we move in the direction of helping cure some of those problems, or is it a problem?

Dr. NAVARRO. I think that if you—if I could just—I think if you

get people to the table, K–16, without a notion that the higher ed

people are going to be kind of telling the K–12 people what to do,

or that they are the only ones with the content knowledge, I think

that that helps enormously. People come together at the same

place, at the same table, in our MSP, and that helps everyone understand that we all have something to learn from one another,

and that there are plenty of content experts at K–12 as well, and

that there is a lot to be learned about teaching and learning at the

higher education level from K–12 people.

Chairman SMITH. Any other thoughts on this issue, Dr. FerriniMundy?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. No. I would echo what Dr. Navarro has

said, and add that when people are at the table on sort of equal

footing, it is also quite interesting when the K–12 folks, the classroom teachers in particular, start to raise the real issues that they

face in their teaching, and the subject matter questions that K–12

math and science teachers face are hard, and they are different

from the subject matter questions that professional mathematicians and scientists face, and that professional mathematicians and

scientists can’t always figure out the best way to help a child understand what a fraction is, or the best way to help a child understand what place value is about, and so when you get them together and really looking at the problems of teaching, I think you

do find an equal footing.

Chairman SMITH. So, will anything in your particular project

proposal, going through Michigan State, look at the ability to light

my fire, and excite kindergarten and first grade and second grade

students in science, math, in relation to their science and math

training, as opposed to their teaching abilities and love of students?

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Right, I mean, our hope is to try to bring

those together, to put them in a place where those two conversations are going on at the same time, with people who have strong

content knowledge and strong knowledge of teaching.

Chairman SMITH. I have a question for you, Mr. Chi, and you,

Mr. Mikols. We often find that those schools with the lowest levels

of academic achievement have teachers with the lowest levels of

skills and knowledge, and in many cases, these teachers want to

do the very best for their students, but are unable, due to a lack

of information or education. Upon graduation, were you prepared

to teach your State’s standards in math and science, and generally,

moving it away from a personal question, what do you see as the

possible lack of students coming from the education—the university

system and going into teaching of science and math in K–12? Starting with you, Mr. Chi, and then you, Mr. Mikols.

Mr. CHI. Well, just to address, sort of at the same time, your

question before, I think the MSP program has really encouraged a

115

collaboration between higher education and teachers in the middle

school and teachers in the high school system, and because of that,

there has become an increased awareness on the part of the teachers in higher education, in the colleges and universities, that—of

the different kinds of issues and problems that are faced by teachers in the high school and middle school. Because of that, they are

becoming more sensitive, and as a result, they are better able to

approach their students as well, and so I think there is a little bit

of a rubbing off. There is content being disseminated from the colleges to the high school and middle school level, and there is a sensitivity to pedagogy and the intricacies of teaching to the college

and university professors as well.

As far as how prepared I was, in terms of my college and university experience related to my ability to teach my content area,

which is science, I feel that I was extremely well-trained, and I

came out of college with a plethora of skills to better present the

topics and to increase student interests in my classroom. So I feel

pretty fortunate in that area.

Chairman SMITH. And that was—be a combination of the curricula that you—that—whatever the—that you took while you were

in school, or some of your own initiatives, or a combination, I suspect?

Mr. CHI. Well, where I attended college, which was SUNY–Geneseo, I was there as a secondary education major, and, being a content specialty of biology, it was almost as though I was double majoring, where I had a very rigorous content in terms of my biology

background and my science background, and at the same time,

there was a very intense training, in terms of the pedagogy, so I

feel I was very well balanced when I came out.

Chairman SMITH. And Mr. Mikols, then we will move on to Mr.

Gingrey.

Mr. MIKOLS. The comment that was made that low achievement,

many times, is linked to schools with high teacher turnover and

having a large population of teachers that are uncertified or not

adequately trained. That is true. And one of the schools in my district, that I am working in, because it is a cited school from the

State as a low-performing school. They have a population of 1,200

students and they had one returning teacher in their math department for this school year, so the idea that we are training teachers

and then losing them the next year, and then having brand-new

teachers come in and having to retrain them again, and then when

that pool of qualified teachers runs out, we are having to go to hiring uncertified teachers to fill those positions, and it is a huge

problem.

There is a college in our area, Roberts Wesleyan College, that

has a program in conjunction with the city school district that is

allowing students to take a teaching job. I am sorry, I shouldn’t say

students, because it is—you are thinking of high school students,

but they are allowing people to take a teaching job while they are

students at Roberts Wesleyan achieving their teacher certification.

So we are dealing with many, many teachers that don’t have a lot

of training, and they are being put right in the classroom. So, the

recruitment issue that I think the MSP program can enhance, to

me that is huge. We have to attract teachers early and often that

116

are highly qualified that are thinking of teaching as a primary career, not something to fall back on once other things have not been

successful.

Professional development is another thing: you just can’t overemphasize the value of quality professional development that is ongoing, that is accountable, that takes teachers and moves them out

of their comfort zone to get them to change and become learners

of stuff that is going to be helpful to students.

I will close with one other statement. I graduated from Geneseo

as well in 1992, with a degree in mathematics, and part of our curriculum was graphing calculators back then, so I feel well prepared, in the sense that even 10, 11 years ago, the need for technology was known then, and I felt like I was ahead of the game

with that.

To get certified, I had the degree in mathematics, and then we

also had to minor in education, so then we also had pedagogy

courses that helped us to take that content and deliver it in ways

that would be effective in the classroom.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize for

having to step out. I may have missed, obviously missed some of

the questions, so if I am—if it has already been asked, just forgive

me. I obviously didn’t hear the answer. When I was in school, all

math courses were taught, I think, Mr. Honda may have touched

on this a little bit earlier, as stand alone courses. I mean, I can remember, you know, taking algebra and geometry and trigonometry

and finally, when I got to college and was introduced to calculus,

everything was just kind of stand alone, and it wasn’t—I never

really enjoyed math as much as I think I should have. I never really thought that there was any connection between math and physics and chemistry, but as I went through college, and approached

my Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry, I finally realized that

all of this stuff, at some point, sort of comes together. It all is the

same basic thing, but I never understood that until I was almost

a college graduate and about to disappoint my pure science teachers and go to medical school.

But I guess my question for any of you, maybe in particular the

high school teachers, Mr. Chi and Mr. Mikols, if there were some

way at the outset, and let us call the outset the eighth or ninth

grade, to explain to students, maybe an introductory course to

mathematics, so that they understand that, at some point in their

career, all of this is going to come back together, and it is going

to have some real meaning to them and some real utility, and it

is not just passing another course, and each and every one is stand

alone and there is no rhyme or reason to it, and that is the experience I had. Now, that is a long time ago, I have to admit, I hate

to admit, but there has just got to be some way to excite youngsters

to math and science, and I want to hear what your thoughts are

in regard to that, because maybe it is happening. I don’t—I was a

school board member before I became a State Senator, before I became a Member of Congress, but I didn’t see it as a school board

member, and you know, I went into a lot of schools. It is still like,

ugh, you know, I have got to sign up for chemistry or physics or

whatever, and this nerd concept and all of that stuff, you know,

117

you get. Members of Congress, I think, don’t want to sign up for

the Science Committee. There is still a little bit of that mentality,

excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

We have got some great scientists on the Committee, some

Ph.D.s, and I am honored to be a Member of this committee, and

to serve on Chairman Smith’s Subcommittee, but you know what

I am saying. It is that mentality that we just need to get beyond,

because this is a world in which, you know, science is exciting and,

I mean, you know, somebody mentioned earlier possibly having

someone come into the classroom, whether it is a surgeon or maybe

the F–18 fighter pilot that I had the honor to fly with recently in

full flight gear, and to talk about aviation, physics and that sort

of thing and negative gravity. It is just, you know, so if you all

would comment on that particular suggestion of an introductory

course to mathematics where people at the very beginning would

understand that there is something to this, and not just everything

stand alone.

Mr. CHI. Well, I think where we need to sort of begin is to

change the perception about what the typical scientist is. I think

you sort of touched upon that a little bit, and many students have

a misconception that a person who is involved in the mathematics

and the sciences is stiff and nerd-like or what have you, but to

broaden their perspective and to show them that a fighter pilot, an

aviator, a criminologist, is doing science and using mathematics

and incorporating technology into their field, I think that will

broaden their perspective on what it means to be involved in the

sciences. That is a first—that is an important first step, and to get

students interested, I think—I would hate to put it this way, but

somewhat, we need to disguise some of these activities and mention the science and the mathematics later on, introduce them as

fun, interesting topics to investigate, and then later on, sort of reveal to them that there is some science and there is some mathematics and there is some technology involved in these activities,

these fun catch activities are scattered through our curriculum in

Brighton, and oftentimes, the ‘‘sleeper student’’ who is just cruising

through and just trying to pass the course may suddenly be

sparked with some interest when we are getting ready to drop a

10 pound pumpkin out of a window, when we start to discuss the

idea of gravity, and it is those activities that, as you pointed out

earlier, grab and get student attention, and those are some of the

activities that need to be incorporated into some of these curriculums, or curricula.

Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Yasar.

Dr. YASAR. You just gave me an opening, and on your display,

I have a system that I just—it took me probably, if you were

watching, 10 or 20 seconds to build, and we have offered this to

students. I don’t know if there are any physics Ph.D.s here, but I

can put a system up here in a minute and in 10 seconds, I said,

and it will take a physics professor 10 pages of handwriting and

probably an hour to develop equations of motion and predict the

system. Here, we have a tool that allows not only me, but only—

but also middle school students to simulate a physical system. And

any student, or any person who sees this, asks the question, wow,

what can I do with this? Well, they can do all kinds of things.

118

So, a layered approach using technology, layered approach means

I show you something, get your interest. I don’t tell you what it is

taking to do this. I hide the mathematics and the laws behind this.

You don’t need to know the physical—physics laws, and you don’t

need to know how to solve a mathematical equation. I show you

this, you build an interest, and then you come with more questions.

Then I introduce to you the mathematics.

I believe the threatening aspect of mathematics is that it involves multiple steps. That is why students are afraid of taking up

on mathematics, and I think this is the largest problem in mathematics and science education.

Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you. I think this is a great example,

if you can keep it there. So bump this discussion up now to the

teacher preparation world, where the segmentation and the sort of

compartmentalization that you mentioned that you experienced in

high school continues. People who are in mathematics departments

divide themselves up, the topologists are different from the analysts are different from the algebraists, and the courses that are

taken in mathematics or in physics or in chemistry are still quite

separate from one another. And yet you think about what knowledge a teacher would need to bring to bear with this task, with this

model in place, how they would necessarily need to use their mathematics and their physics in concert, how they would need to understand how those ideas worked together to apply to this situation. It is not likely, I would venture, that the physics and mathematics that they have studied in college necessarily prepares them

for handling a piece of curriculum that has the richness of this

thing that we are looking at right now.

So, your question leads into very interesting and difficult challenges in teacher education. How do we offer capstone courses or

integrative kinds of experiences for the prospective teacher, so they

could do the sort of thing that I think you are pointing toward,

which seems very promising and interesting.

Dr. NAVARRO. Right, and I would just add that just as you are

saying, Joan, about the issue of teacher preparation as being the

place where you really want to try and bring all of those elements

together, one of the issues that I think we would have to address

is the issue of curricula, and how do we provide the kinds of curricula that help synthesize all of this for students, so that not necessarily when—would we wait until they get into high school, but

in their early school experiences, we are helping them see how they

need to bring all of these elements together. And we have to make

that easy for teachers to do, because even given the best teacher

preparation, they still will be guided by the curricula that they

have, and that is where we need to make the linkages and synthesize this knowledge for them.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I know I have used up all of my

time, and I apologize for that, and if there is another round, maybe

we can continue on this, or do we—can we hear from——

Chairman SMITH. I will take my next five minutes now and then

give it to you. Some schools have decided, some school boards have

decided that at the minimum, every student has to take algebra

and pass it, as a qualification for graduating from high school. And

119

it was interesting, the reaction of a couple students that said well,

they didn’t like the math. It was really too much work, but as long

as it is a requirement, they are going to do it. Says it takes a little

extra homework, and so I am not sure where the motivation—I

mean, it is obvious where the motivation comes from in this one.

I wanted to ask the question, also, about parents, and anything in

our studies, or should we encourage some of the studies to involve

parents in this whole effort of exciting math and science education?

Who would like to—and how do you do it? How should we research

it? Or should we have a special effort in some of the requests for

proposals that include that? Anybody wish to respond?

Dr. NAVARRO. Well, I will just talk a little bit about the first

issue that you raised, and also link it to parents, and that is we

really believe that we have to expect more of students before they

will recognize how important it is to deliver on things, so that one

of the things that we did was work closely with our partner districts to support them in requiring that all students take three to

four years of college preparatory mathematics and science in order

for students to graduate. We strengthened that when we realized

that some schools, and schools with the largest number of poor and

minority students were most likely to be waiving lots of their students from those requirements.

Now, we limit the requirements to just 10 percent, but parents

were a very big part of this, because some of the parents were just

very upset, why does my child have to take algebra II? Why does

my child have to take chemistry? It is very hard, it requires too

much homework, and I think that is where these presentations on

the part of key business and community leaders are really crucial.

Parents, once they understand that this will enhance the ability of

their children to do well in the world of work, to earn far greater

lifetime incomes, are easy to be persuaded. Now, you also have to

provide supports for students so that they can take these courses

and do well, and that there is tutoring available and that sort of

thing. Parents will require that, but we have been very successful

in providing education, particularly to key leaders within each of

the communities, each of the school communities, so we are focusing on three or four parent leaders and provide them the education

and training, the information that is needed, and then they reach

larger sets of parents back at the school.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gingrey, I am going to let you get this.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Mikols, I think you

were going to respond to my question and didn’t get a chance.

Mr. MIKOLS. Yeah, the point that you were bringing out is where

do the kids start to see the link between math and science, and

where is the interest level. We know by shows like CSI that that

interest is there, it is just how do we get it into the classroom, and

Dr. Yasar was talking about layering things and Dr. Navarro was

saying well, this is not something that should just be something

that is from grades twelve through sixteen, but where do we begin

it? And one of the tools that we have used in the CMST program

is a tool called STELLA, and it is a program that you can use to

make mathematical models of rates of change, and we have made

a program that models half-life, and half-life, I think, is a fairly

easy topic for even younger students, fifth, sixth, maybe seventh

120

grade, to grasp of what is happening, but the program is layered

in the sense that it does take quite a bit of thinking to make the

program, so that is something that you could offer to students of—

at the higher levels, but to use the program, that is something that

sixth, seventh and eighth grade students could do and get it, a

good idea of how mathematics is used to discuss what half-life is,

and there are different graphs, and the analysis of graphs is something that kids and adults need to know how to do.

So this is just an example of one of the tools that we have had

in CMST that does take math and science and link it together in

such a way that you could present that to students of varying degrees of sophistication in math and science.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy wanted to respond. Dr.

Ferrini-Mundy.

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I wanted to just pick up from this and come

back to your question about parents. The sorts of instructional approaches that you are hearing about here, this notion of integration

of math and science, this notion of hands-on and inquiry-oriented

model, base sorts of teaching. That kind of instruction looks unfamiliar to lots of parents, particularly when you say well, this really

is mathematics, or this really is physics. It doesn’t look like the

mathematics or the physics that parents may have studied themselves, and so the education piece is really crucial in looking at different models for how to help parents see the value of this kind of

course work and at the same time, understand that these approaches have promise, and that children will learn something useful even from something that might look quite unfamiliar to a parent. I think those are really hard questions and continued efforts

along those lines are needed.

Chairman SMITH. My short version has been that—telling parents that Social Security is going broke and maybe their retirement

security depends on how well their kids do in math and science.

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. That is good.

Dr. YASAR. I don’t want to put my school district on the spot, but

there is some difference in terms of parental involvement in these

two school districts. At Brighton, teachers are running away from

parents. At City School, parents are running away, we can’t find

them. So, you could attribute some of the low success, you know,

achievement, to lack of parental involvement at the City, and I believe there is an MSP project already that targets parental involvement, so we need to see more of that.

Chairman SMITH. The phone call I got is, there is somebody that

came through security that shouldn’t have gotten through security,

so I told my guards to—Mr. Gingrey, we will start your five minutes, Mr. Gingrey.

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your suggestion

about a Social Security scare tactic is not a bad one, because you

know of what you speak. I have heard you do many special orders

on what is going to happen to Social Security if we don’t reform it.

But while we are waiting on that, I did want to ask about the idea

of paying math and science teachers more, particularly at the high

school level. I know a lot of times that it is a third rail to mention

that to any of the education establishment. In no way to suggest

that the arts and language and history and other things are not

121

extremely important, but it is tough to teach math and physics and

chemistry, and it takes—in my opinion—a really dedicated and

very intelligent teacher to do that, and if we had a Mr. Chi or a

Mr. Mikols in every high school in the country, we wouldn’t have

a problem. I am very, very impressed with your testimony and—

of everybody that is here who has testified, but you know, I have

always thought that—and I know in some school districts maybe

it is an optional thing that they can do at the local level, but you

just can’t expect bright teachers that we need to teach math and

science, to stay in a low-paying profession, although I know there

is other gratification, other reasons why you do it.

What do you think about that? What do you think about the idea

of—in every school, paying more to math, science and physics

teachers, and I am talking about the pure science and, you know,

you—we might quabble over what is science, but I am talking

about math, physics and chemistry. Can you comment on that?

Chairman SMITH. I think the two teachers might——

Mr. MIKOLS. Yes. Yeah, I would be the first one to say sure, you

know, that is a great idea. But it is a question of market. You

know, you have a certain supply, you have an overwhelming demand, and I think what we can try to do, by offering more money

to people to go into math and science teaching, is to increase the

supply of math teachers, because right now, in my district, we don’t

have enough, and financial benefit is one thing that may get people

to consider a career in the Rochester City School District. And you

know, with our passing rates at the eighth grade exam, what they

are, we are looking at lots of different options, and one of the

things that has been mentioned is paying stipends to teachers to

go from some of the higher-performing schools, and some of the

teachers with proven success and experience to go to some of these

schools that are on the cited list as low-performing, to try to get

them to go and lend their expertise and their experience so that

these other teachers that I told you about, that are making up the

huge overwhelming majority of their staff, that are extremely inexperienced, have someone who is skilled and has a lot of experience

to go to, so—and maybe money is the way to do that.

Dr. NAVARRO. We have provided additional resources at several

points in the continuum. First, there are through NSF-funded

scholarships and fellowships, more students studying math and

science and going into education at the secondary level in math

and science that are receiving help with tuition and fees, so those

scholarships and fellowships is a draw for students, particularly in

our low income area. Secondly, a number of the districts have

found it necessary, because of the severe shortages, particularly of

secondary teachers, to offer those additional stipends for teachers

that are fully certified in math, science to go into the high schools,

and so that has been an important aid in getting some additional

teachers that are fully certified into these high schools.

One of the arguments that people have made in our community

is that if individuals graduating with a degree in science can move

into industry and get jobs at $50,000 plus, what is it that, beyond

their concern for their fellow human beings, is going to draw them

to schools where we know the demands are great, and sometimes,

122

the challenges are enormous, so if there is a small financial incentive for doing that, we think that it can be used effectively.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, we have a course at the Federal level. We

have done a number of things and as we move toward the final reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, there is more—there is

going to be, hopefully, more loan forgiveness for math and science

teachers and at the local levels, I think a lot of school systems will

pay an incentive, a bonus, if you will, for a math or a science teacher to go into a high need area, and that is great. But I mean, I

think, and I think you have answered my question, that you just

literally, at the very outset, the generic starting salary should—

there should be—because again, and you mentioned, I think, Mr.

Mikols, about supply and demand. I think that is the bottom line,

that we just don’t have enough of you guys and gals that, you

know, are math and science teachers, and we need to incentivize

you, to not only start in that direction, but to stay there.

Chairman SMITH. We are going to wind this up pretty soon. A

couple questions I have got is I have been encouraging my schools

of education that turn out any teacher to start requiring a basic

course in math and science, so whether they are teaching English

or phys ed or whatever, they have at least a little understanding

in math and science that maybe helps in some of the questions that

might be asked, some of the stimulus, some of the—prevent some

of the teachers from saying well, boy, don’t ask me, I never did as

good at it and it didn’t hurt me.

Any comments? Shall I keep doing that?

Dr. NAVARRO. Yes. Absolutely. We require an increasing number

of courses for all teachers, and I think it is now up to something

in the range of 28 credit hours in mathematics and science for all

teachers, irrespective of what they are going to be teaching. The

big issue for us is who is teaching those courses at the post-secondary level, and that is one of our challenges in MSP is to make

sure that the university faculty members that are teaching those

courses can excite these teachers rather than frighten them, make

sure that those prospective teachers get more excited rather than—

about math and science, rather than come to feel that their initial

perceptions that this was not something I wanted to learn were

right.

Chairman SMITH. Are any of your MSPs partnering in any way

with the private sector?

Dr. NAVARRO. We are working with our Chambers of Commerce

to do these presentations at the middle school level about—in particular, about ensuring that students know why they should go to

college, and also why they should study math and science. That is

something that has worked very well. The business people love to

make those presentations. They come into contact with real teachers and students, and we help them understand what the issues

are, so we provide a script for them, they can tailor it to a certain

extent.

Chairman SMITH. I mean we put——

Dr. NAVARRO. They like doing it.

Chairman SMITH. We specifically put it in the legislation that it

has got to be a university and it has got to be a K–12, but with

the option of partnershipping with the private sector and as we

123

were discussing before we put the gavel down, there are a lot of

companies out there that are trying to enhance at least their—the

math and the science interest in their schools, and so a lot of companies do a lot of work, and I would hope, somehow, to NSF or

wherever, we need to—we are going to start looking at some of the

work that they are doing. Dr. Yasar.

Dr. YASAR. In Rochester, Xerox gets a lot of its employees from

the city school district or others, so they have an interest in supporting education through scholarships and internships. I think

that is a great example for MSPs. Can I add a comment? It may

not be directly related to business. We talked about teachers, and

I know there is a lot of burden on them. We could make things a

little bit easier for students, and please note that I went to school

in a different country, where students were given 15 minutes

breaks between classes. They had time to relax, plus they stayed

in one classroom, rather than racing between different classrooms.

I think we put a lot of burden on students, and not giving them

enough time for break, it just builds the tension in them. Second,

time management, class management, becomes a burden on them.

So, these may be other factors you may consider in—for schools to

restructure their classes and so on.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gingrey, do you have any more questions?

Mr. GINGREY. I would like each one of you, maybe, if you would

like, to conclude with about a minute on anything that you would

like to pass on to the Committee. What happens is the other Members of the Committee will review the testimony and anything that

you would like to add, starting with you, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes, I would just again thank you for the

opportunity to speak here today, to say that I think, although we

are new at it, that this MSP program looks very promising. I think

that there will be some things that NSF seems already to be doing

that may become quite crucial. Connecting these projects, I mean

it is obvious just from the conversation here that we can learn from

each other and if the Agency is able to really enable us to do that,

that will be crucial, and also, to build up this commitment, I think,

to evidence, to sharing research findings, to learning from these

projects. I think it could be a wonderful contribution to the improvement of mathematics and science learning.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Yasar.

Dr. YASAR. I want to thank you for inviting me, and I want to

thank NSF and the Federal Government for the opportunity. I

have never been so excited about a project, so whatever education,

25 years of education I had, it all comes to a culmination here, and

the integrated math and science education, I never found a champion program under DOE or NSF for years, and MSP gave us that

opportunity, and brought school districts and higher education and

industry together, so I would like you to support this program, as

long as and as much as you could. Thank you.

Chairman SMITH. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chi.

Mr. CHI. Well, I would like to address something that was

brought up earlier. I forget which one. One of you mentioned equity

in one of your comments, and I think the MSP program has,

through its funds, has provided access to some of the technologies,

to peoples that might not necessarily be able to get their hands on

124

that technology, be it for financial reasons, economic reasons, and

by narrowing the gap between the haves and have-nots, I believe

that we are coming closer to a place and time where people have

access to and skills in technology that will open up opportunities

for them that they might not otherwise have, if it wasn’t for programs like this.

Mr. MIKOLS. Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity

to appear here.

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Mikols.

Mr. MIKOLS. And just with the job I have to do with my district,

we realize that change is necessary. Change can be fearful, but we

also realize that change is possible and that change represents

growth, and through programs like the CMST, where we are able

to use technology to allow students to take on a larger role in the

responsibility of their learning, we see that it is crucial.

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Navarro.

Dr. NAVARRO. I think this is—I have been doing this work for

about 20 years. I think MSP is the hardest work I have ever done,

that our community has ever done, and I just hope that as we run

into the inevitable difficulties and complications of this, that there

will be an understanding that the difficulty and the problems are

part of the process, and that we can learn from those and share

our understanding and that NSF and Congress will understand

when we run into these problems and will see it as an opportunity

to really learn much more about what it takes to really excite and

light the fire in young people about math and science.

Chairman SMITH. Again, thank you all, not only for being here,

but for the work that you do to improve math and science education. That is, I think, so important to our future. And one last

request I would have of you. If you would consider answering any

questions that staff thinks that maybe we didn’t answer, that we

asked, that we should have asked, and defining Mr. Honda’s question that he wanted you to respond to, if you would—we would

send those to you and if you might respond, we would appreciate

it.

With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(125)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

126

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant, SUNY–

Brockport

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where

fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and

science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature,

etc.]?

A1. The most effective way to implement a fully integrated approach would be

through a mechanism or a tool that demonstrates the interplay of subject matters.

Today, many disciplines in humanities and sciences use simulation and modeling

technology to advance knowledge and discovery. There must be a curriculum in

schools that draws upon modeling-based computational and information technologies. There is need for quality professional development to train teachers how

to use a curriculum that is student centered, multidisciplinary, and uses technology

effectively. Furthermore, there is need for a multidisciplinary education and preparation teachers. No real change could occur at K–12 without changes in our colleges.

Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to students at the local

level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?

A2. Assessments and standards on the State and eventually the federal level should

address a multidisciplinary approach. Use of technology to promote such an approach could be easily sold to students. As traditional, lecture-based classroom roles

are changing, educators and students work collaboratively in more open-ended

teaching and learning experiences. The motivational aspect of technology is a principal reason that educators try so hard to master and apply technology tools. Perhaps the best way to sell this model is to pilot such a multidisciplinary (integrated)

curriculum. Government funding should be made available to schools and communities. School administrators could push to mandate projects at all grade levels that

require a multidisciplinary approach. School boards must have tangible evidence

that this approach works if they are going to buy into it. Satisfied students and

teachers demonstrating achievement of State and national standards will be very

convincing. A concerted effort by federal funding agencies and professional societies

could help bring national attention and endorsement.

Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training

and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such

an integrated education system?

A3. State Education Departments need to issue multi-area teaching certifications.

An example is a certification in math, science, and technology (MST). There are

many advantages of such a combined MST-certification to its holders, including improved employability and adjustability to changing job environment and school

needs. Universities need to offer degree programs with necessary credits to satisfy

certification requirements in more than one area. Teacher preparation and training

programs need to incorporate a multidisciplinary and technology-based education.

An example is our MSP project at the SUNY College at Brockport.

127

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where

fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and

science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature,

etc.]?

A1. In my opinion, the project portfolio based model would be able to take a more

integrated approach to the subject matter. Not only can science, mathematics, literature and social studies be included but also art and technology. In this model,

students approaching the end of their high school studies are required to create a

portfolio with an overarching theme of their own choosing. Their choice must be

submitted well in advance of their presenting their portfolio to a team of their

teachers. The portfolio would include an exploration of the historical, literary, scientific, even the artistic and technological aspects of their topic. For example, a student may choose Civil War America as their overarching theme. The student can

include a paper on the Red Badge of Courage, an analysis of the cotton plant’s life

cycle and explanation of its transformation from seed to fabric to fulfill the Literature, Science and Technology requirements. The student can create a paper analyzing the consequences leading up to the Civil War. At a set time students will

present their portfolio to a team of their teachers where the student will be interviewed about their experience and the process of creating their portfolio.

Q2. Do you have any suggestions on how this model could be sold to school boards

at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?

A2. To my knowledge, many schools have tried this model in the recent past. However, it has since fallen out of fashion. However, I feel colleges and universities who

train teachers can continue to include this model in their educational foundations

courses.

Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training

and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such

an integrated education system?

A3. State University of New York College at Geneseo had an educational foundations course that required students from a variety of disciplines to work on a portfolio-based assessment project. During this project, teams of students chose themes

and put together a sample of such a portfolio. We also created assessment rubrics

and critiqued other student teams’ projects.

128

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Jeffrey M. Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District, New

York

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where

fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and

science together, bat also including such other disciplines as history, literature,

etc.]?

A1. There must be curriculum used in schools that support such a model. Many

teachers use creativity in planning lessons that will engage students and address

a multidisciplinary approach There exists curricula, however, created by experts in

education that have been carefully researched, planned, arid field tested that is

ready for teachers to use. Using such curricula does not absolve teachers from planning lessons, it just gives them a place to start their planning process. There are

curricula, some funded by NSF, that take a multidisciplinary approach that is not

solely math and science linked. It would not be wise to roll out this type of curriculum without training. This emphasizes the need for quality professional development to train teachers how to use a curriculum that is student centered, multidisciplinary, and uses technology effectively. It is also important that a school district

adopts a curriculum such as this for K–12. I currently work in a school district

where there is a traditional mathematics curriculum used K–5, a multidisciplinary,

student centered, conceptual based mathematics curriculum used in grades 6–8,

then a traditional mathematics curriculum used in grades 9–12. It is confusing to

students to go from a traditional approach to a student centered approach, then

back to a traditional approach.

Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to students at the local

level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?

A2. State assessments often determine what teachers value as important to train

their students on. Assessments on the State and eventually the federal level should

address a multidisciplinary approach. There must be research presented to local

school boards that demonstrates that this approach will work with the demographics in their community. Another important component is to show that this curriculum is aligned with local, State, and national assessments. It is not sufficient

to teach to any test, but ignoring assessment components is not a valid option, either. Perhaps the best way to sell this model is to pilot such a curriculum and demonstrate student work and allow teachers and students to present to school boards

what it is they are learning and how they enjoy this model of learning. School administrators should push to mandate projects at all grade levels that require a multidisciplinary approach. School boards must have tangible evidence that this approach works if they are going to buy into it. Satisfied students and teachers demonstrating achievement of State and national standards will be very convincing.

Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training

and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such

an integrated education system?

A3. Professional development is the key to implementing effective change in an education system. There are many crucial components to effective professional development. Professional development must be embedded in the regular school day with

actual classrooms and students. Teachers can use their training with their target

audience while being supervised and coached by expert teachers. Theoretical training about what should happen in the classroom is not enough. Teachers must have

the opportunity to experience what should happen first hand. Expert teachers could

coach, co-teach, model, and help with planning the teacher being trained. This support must be ongoing. Professional development must be nurtured over a period of

time. A one time training during an all day session with no follow-up will not lead

to the type of change necessary for this model to work. Establishing model classrooms where multidisciplinary, student centered curricula are being used would be

an effective way to allow trainee teachers to see first hand the effectiveness this

type of environment provides. These model classrooms provide opportunities for the

ongoing professional development that is necessary. Teachers being trained could

visit at any time and see exactly what they are being told they should establish in

their own classroom.

129

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by M. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP

Grant, University of Texas, El Paso

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where

fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and

science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature,

etc.]?

A1. It is my view that a fully integrated approach to subject matter would not necessarily require that all disciplines be taught together, but that students draw from

different disciplines in learning all subjects. It is also critical that students have a

strong grasp in core areas—particularly reading fluency, comprehension and writing—in order to be successful in all content areas.

My colleagues and I at the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, recognize the importance of literacy in ensuring that students are successful in all subjects. Because of this, we are implementing the Literacy in Action initiative as a

key strategy for assisting students facing increasing language laden content in all

subjects, but particularly in mathematics and science. Our work in Literacy prepares students to think at deeper levels and drew on the skills necessary for reading

in the various content areas—including math and science—using informational/expository texts.

To address the need for reading in the content areas, full time Literacy Leaders

work collaboratively with teachers in piloting and revising a writing curriculum produced to support capacity building needs. By utilizing the writing curriculum there

has been an increase in comprehension and application in the classroom. A priority

continues to be the use of text analysis, particularly in non-narrative forms of writing, as a way of helping students to increase their ability to read and comprehend

content in standards-based curricula in mathematics, science and other content

areas. As a result of our work in Literacy, we can report: higher than expected student scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which also

exceeded the state average; improved student writing selections as shown through

an increase in length and complexity both in general course work and state writing

assessments; an increased number of hours of professional development in classrooms and through non-traditional forms such as book groups and small grade-level

study groups; higher levels of professional discourse due to professional reading and

discussions; restructuring of school budgets to prioritize increased funds for the purchase of informational/expository texts; and increased participation by secondary

teachers participating in professional development activities, including the Guest

Author series.

Relevant policies for promoting strong skills in literacy to support learning across

all content areas, could include requirements that teachers across all subject areas

receive sufficient professional development pertaining to key components of literacy.

Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to school boards at

the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?

A2. In promoting the integration of content areas—particularly a more comprehensive approach to literacy—it is important to recognize first that discipline-based

standards and testing determine what is taught in the classroom, and that efforts

to better integrate core subject areas need to be reflected in the standards, textbooks

and other curriculum materials, and ultimately tests for which students and schools

are being held accountable.

An emphasis on ensuring that teachers are effectively trained to integrate key

competencies—particularly focused on literacy—into all subjects is where the greatest difference can be made. This requires that sufficient time and resources be allotted for professional development.

Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training

and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such

an integrated education system?

A3. Teacher preparation typically reflects the value of singular content specialization and training has been emphasizing content specialization rather than inter-disciplinary approaches. At times, there are important reasons for this—particularly at

the secondary level where students sometimes are taught by teachers without a deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 22:34 Feb 18, 2004 Jkt 090162 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES03\103003\90162 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
130

gree in their field. It must also be recognized, however, that within higher education—faculty tend to focus on their own disciplines. Despite these challenges, however, the importance and value of applying high-level skills, in literacy for example,

to all content area cannot be diminished.

In addition to encouraging higher education faculty to emphasize the importance

of literacy in training teachers, Congress may want to consider funding demonstration projects—within higher education institutions and school districts—to promote

inter-disciplinary coordination among university faculty, across colleges and departments. Once these models are evaluated, it would then be useful to share best practices and lessons learned.

131

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP

Grant, Michigan State University

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where

fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and

science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature,

etc.]?

A1. The concept of a ‘‘fully integrated approach to subject matter’’ in K–12 education is both tantalizing and daunting. Intellectually, the idea that curriculum

might be organized in an elegant way so that main ideas and themes are taught

through a rich mix of contexts across the academic disciplines is highly appealing.

There have been efforts to move in this direction, including various middle school

‘‘thematic’’ approaches to instruction, including team teaching that couples teachers

of social studies with teachers of science, large projects for students that take up

some major problem such as global warming, and use it as a setting from which

to address key ideas in the academic areas of science, mathematics, the language

arts, etc. A common pairwise ‘‘integration’’ is often proposed between mathematics

and science, and there have been some curricula over the years. (E.g., In the 1970s,

the Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools project (USMES) was

funded at the Education Development Center by the National Science Foundation

based on recommendations by Cambridge Conference on the Correlation of Science

and Mathematics in Schools. This was an elementary integrated mathematics and

science curriculum. More recently, COMAP has produced Mathematics: Modeling

Our World, a grades 9–12 standards-based curriculum. Each unit of the program

is based on a theme, such as medical lab testing and the broad range of mathematics that is used in that field.) These materials are attractive, interesting, and

highly engaging for students and teachers. However, they are not widely used.

The challenges with integration are quite substantial. First of all, K–12 curricular

organization in the U.S. historically has been by subject matter. When integration

is broached, new agreements about curricular goals need to be reached, and inevitably, even when only two areas are being integrated (such as mathematics and

science), the traditional curricular goals of one area take a back seat to those of the

other, for practical reasons. So, for instance, a curriculum organized around interesting themes that have a science orientation is likely to take up mathematical tools

and applications that are needed to advance the ideas of the science, but might not

take up other areas of mathematics that have been considered essential in the U.S.

curriculum for years.

So, given that I am somewhat hesitant to claim that a fully integrated model is

reasonable, I certainly would agree that more integration in the K–12 system would

be desirable. What policies and approaches would help support the system in this

direction? Here are a few ideas:

• Provide funding for the continued development, implementation, evaluation,

and dissemination of K–12 instructional materials that are interesting models

of integration

• Support research that helps us learn about the impact of integrated instructional materials on student learning and achievement in traditionally valued

areas of the school curriculum

• Design assessment tools to measure ‘‘integrated’’ understanding. In addition,

if high stakes assessments, such as those that will be used by states in

NCLB, explicitly addressed students’ understanding of key integrative themes

and ideas, then possibly instructional practice might shift.

In closing, however, I cannot underscore how ambitious it would be to move in

a concerted way toward more systemic integration in K–12 education. There are

enormous conceptual obstacles (disagreement about what is meant by integration,

what areas of the curriculum should be integrated, in what ways, what would be

left out, etc.), capacity issues (teachers are not prepared in ways that help them to

do this kind of integration; universities are organized along disciplinary lines and

so reform in undergraduate education would be needed as well), and resource issues

(very few suitable instructional materials exist, assessments need to be designed,

etc.).

132

Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to school boards at

the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?

A2. Again, this question assumes that a strong model could be designed that would

be defensible within the education community. Taking that assumption (which I feel

is unrealistic), then to ‘‘sell’’ this to school boards, as well as nationally, it seems,

would require having solid educational research, conducted over several years, to

demonstrate the impact of the model, and variations of it, on student learning under

a wide range of conditions (e.g., in urban settings, with teachers who are well prepared, in communities with strong involvement of local business, etc.). Because an

integrated approach would require rethinking of educational standards in states and

nationally, a massive effort in assessment and research, keyed to the new ‘‘integrated’’ goals, would be needed. Such a program of conceptualization, development,

research, and refinement is probably at least a 15-year undertaking.

Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training

and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such

an integrated education system?

A3.

• In teacher education, introduce integrated courses (e.g., mathematics and

science, or mathematics and language arts) in the subject matter preparation

of teachers

• Provide funding for the continued development, implementation, evaluation,

and dissemination of instructional materials for use with pre-service and inservice teachers that are interesting models of integration

In terms of policy, we would need shifts in teacher certification policies at the

State level, and in the definitions of ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’ that are part of

NCLB.

(133)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

134

135