This document has been archived.
File: | presawards.pdf |
---|
Pages: | 1 to 25 of 25 |
---|
Document Body | Page Navigation Panel |
Prepared
under
Contract
#SED
92-55369
by
Nancy
Vaden-Kiernan
Joan
Michie
Joy
A.
Frechtling
Westat,
Inc.
October
1994
NSF
Program
Officer
Conrad
Katzenmeyer
Directorate
for
Education
and
Human
Resources
Division
of
Research,
Evaluation,
and
Dissemination
The
Foundation
welcomes
proposals
from
all
qualified
scientists
and
engineers,
and
strongly
encourages
women,
minorities,
and
persons
with
disabilities
to
compete
fully
in
any
of
the
research
and
related
programs
described
here.
In
accordance
with
federal
statutes,
regulations,
and
NSF
policies,
no
person
on
grounds
of
race,
color,
age,
sex,
national
origin,
or
disability
shall
be
excluded
from
participation
in,
denied
the
benefits
of,
or
be
subject
to
discrimination
under
any
program
or
activity
receiving
financial
assistance
from
the
National
Science
Foundation.
Facilitation
Awards
for
Scientists
and
Engineers
with
Disabilities
(FASED)
provide
funding
for
special
assistance
or
equipment
to
enable
persons
with
disabilities
(investigators
and
other
staff,
including
student
research
assistants)
to
work
on
an
NSF
project.
See
the
program
announcement
or
contact
the
program
coordinator
at
(703)
306-1636.
The
National
Science
Foundation
has
TTD
(Telephone
Device
for
the
Deaf)
capability,
which
enables
individuals
with
hearing
impairment
to
communicate
with
the
Foundation
about
NSF
programs,
employment,
or
general
information.
This
number
is
(703)
306-0090.
Short-Term
Impact
Study
of
the
Presidential
Awards
for
Excellence
in
Science
and
Mathematics
Teaching
PREFACE
This
report
summarizes
the
findings
of
an
impact
study
of
the
National
Science
Foundations
Presidential
Awards
for
Excellence
in
Science
and
Mathematics
Teaching
program.
The
program
provides
recognition
to
outstanding
mathematics
and
science
teachers
in
all
50
states
and
territories.
Although
the
program
has
been
in
place
for
over
a
decade
and
is
considered
to
be
extremely
valuable,
little
information
has
been
gathered
about
its
impact
on
those
who
are
recognized.
In
1994,
NSF
asked
Westat
to
carry
out
a
series
of
informal
conversations
with
a
small
number
of
awardees
to
gather
more
systematic
information
on
what
it
means
to
be
recognized
as
an
awardee
and
how
receiving
the
award
has
affected
the
teachers
lives
and
careers.
This
report
presents
the
results
of
these
conversations.
This
report
is
based
upon
work
supported
by
the
National
Science
Foundation
under
NSF
contract
no.
SED
92-55369.
Any
opinions,
conclusions,
or
recommendations
expressed
in
this
report
are
those
of
the
authors
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
views
of
the
National
Science
Foundation.
Short-Term
Impact
Study
of
the
Presidential
Awards
for
Excellence
in
Science
and
Mathematics
Teaching
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
Presidential
Awards
for
Excellence
in
Science
and
Mathematics
Teaching
program
(PAESMT)
was
begun
in
1983
to
recognize
outstanding
science
and
mathematics
teachers
in
all
50
states
and
the
territories.
Since
that
time,
over
1,600
teachers
have
received
national
recognition
for
their
subject
matter
competence
and
teaching
skills.
Although
PAESMT
is
a
well
recognized
and
respected
program,
no
formal
evaluation
of
its
impact
on
participants
has
ever
been
conducted.
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
examine
program
impact
as
perceived
by
the
awardees
themselves.
Conversations
were
held
with
115
of
the
430
teachers
who
received
awards
in
1990
and
1991.
Topics
covered
included
·
the
impacts
of
the
recognition
on
the
awardees,
·
their
use
of
financial
rewards
and
gifts,
·
their
reflections
on
the
nomination,
selection,
and
award
process,
and
·
their
suggestions
for
strengthening
the
program
and
broadening
its
coverage.
Our
findings
show
that
PAESMT
is
seen
as
an
overwhelming
success
in
terms
of
its
impact
on
participants
and
the
recognition
it
provides
to
the
importance
of
good
mathematics
and
science
instruction.
Strong
positive
effects
are
found
on
the
personal
level,
the
professional
level,
and
the
public
level
for
those
who
have
been
recognized.
Awardees
report
increased
respect
for
teachers
and
the
teaching
profession
and
a
renewed
sense
of
validation
for
their
efforts
and
motivation
to
continue
as
teachers.
Few
awardees
leave
teaching;
many
take
on
increased
duties
and
responsibilities.
The
monetary
reward
($7,500)
associated
with
the
award
is
used
in
a
wide
variety
of
ways,
with
most
recipients
spreading
the
funds
among
a
number
of
different
uses,
and
many
seeking
opportunities
to
combine
them
with
other
resources
to
make
a
larger
and
more
long-lasting
impact.
Many
teachers
look
for
ways
to
share
the
reward
with
their
colleagues,
providing
support
for
conferences
or
other
training
activities.
Ninety
percent
see
the
financial
award
as
an
important
part
of
the
recognition.
While
many
of
the
awardees
have
received
considerable
personal
recognition
and
publicity
as
a
result
of
the
award,
awareness
of
the
award
itself
and
the
nomination
process
was
described
as
less
broad
based
and
in
need
of
improvement.
Some
felt
that
only
those
actively
involved
in
professional
teacher
organizations
were
sufficiently
familiar
with
it.
Other
suggestions,
besides
increased
publicity
for
bringing
a
wider
representation
of
the
teaching
force
into
the
recognition
circle,
centered
on
possible
revisions
to
the
application
process
itself.
The
application
process
was
described
as
being
"burdensome"
and
discouraging
to
some
very
worthy
candidates.
Taken
as
a
whole,
the
findings
indicate
that
PAESMT
is
a
program
of
significant
merit
and
that
its
positive
impacts
reach
far
beyond
the
1,400
teachers
who
have
been
individually
recognized.
BACKGROUND
The
Presidential
Awards
for
Excellence
in
Science
and
Mathematics
Teaching
program
(PAESMT)
was
begun
in
1983
to
recognize
secondary-level
mathematics
and
science
teachers.
Over
the
last
decade,
the
program
has
expanded
to
include
elementary
as
well
as
secondary
teachers
in
all
50
states
and
the
territories.
Over
1,600
teachers
have
received
national
recognition.
In
addition,
individual
states
have
provided
celebrations
to
recognize
the
talents
of
hundreds
of
teachers.
Criteria
for
selection
include
subject
matter
competence
and
evidence
of
sustained
professional
development,
an
understanding
of
how
children
learn
mathematics
and
science,
an
ability
to
engage
students
in
direct,
hands-on
learning
activities,
and
an
ability
to
foster
curiosity
and
generate
excitement
among
students.
Awardees
are
expected
to
provide
examples
of
their
innovative
approaches
to
teaching,
as
well
as
their
leadership
abilities
(description
taken
from
PROFILES:
A
Closer
Look,
NSF,
in
press).
Although
PAESMT
is
a
well
recognized
and
respected
program,
no
formal
evaluation
of
it
has
ever
been
conducted.
In
an
effort
to
gain
knowledge
that
will
enhance
and
improve
the
program,
the
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF)
has
requested
a
study
of
the
program's
impact
as
seen
through
the
eyes
of
recent
awardees.
The
purpose
of
the
impact
study
is
to
gather
data
from
a
small
sample
of
awardees
that
will
be
used
to
examine
both
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
program
and
to
determine
the
effects
on
a
teacher
selected
for
this
program.
METHODOLOGY
The
sample
for
this
impact
study
was
drawn
from
430
awardees
recognized
in
1990
and
1991.
We
selected
this
group
because
·
Teachers
from
all
grade
levels
(elementary
and
secondary
teachers)
were
included
(elementary
teachers
were
added
to
the
program
in
1990);
·
All
awardees
received
a
$7,500
award
to
use
for
educational
purposes
(this
amount
was
established
in
1989);
·
The
relative
recency
of
the
award
would
result
in
comments
on
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
program
that
are
current;
and
·
Sufficient
time
has
passed
to
allow
the
development
of
a
meaningful
picture
of
the
impact
of
being
named
an
awardee.
A
sample
of
126
awardees
was
drawn
using
the
following
rules:
·
Awardees
were
sorted
by
state.
·
Awardees
from
Puerto
Rico,
the
Department
of
Defense
schools,
and
the
U.S.
territories
were
excluded.
·
All
minorities
were
selected
with
a
probability
of
"1."
(These
awardees--25
in
total--were
heavily
concentrated
in
two
locations,
the
District
of
Columbia,
6,
and
Hawaii,
5.)
·
The
remaining
101
members
of
the
sample
were
selected
within
states,
balancing
out
subject
matter
and
grade
level.
Telephone
interviews
were
completed
with
115
awardees,
91.3
percent
of
those
sampled.
The
remaining
11
were
not
interviewed
because
of
problems
in
scheduling
or
locating
the
awardee
or
because
he
or
she
had
died.
None
of
the
awardees
contacted
declined
to
be
interviewed.
The
exhibit
that
follows
presents
the
characteristics
of
the
respondent
sample.
The
respondent
sample
(1990
and
1991
awardees)
Elementary
Secondary
(N=58)
(N=57)
American
Indian.......
1
0
Asian
.......................
7
2
African
American.....
5
4
Hispanic
..................
0
2
White.......................
45
49
Male........................
3
17
Female.....................
55
40
Mathematics
............
28
27
Science
....................
30
30
A
telephone
interview
protocol
was
developed
to
guide
the
conversations.
Although
the
exact
questions
varied
from
respondent
to
respondent,
the
menu
of
topics
covered
included
the
following:
·
the
impacts
of
the
recognition
on
the
awardees,
·
their
use
of
financial
awards
and
gifts,
·
their
reflections
on
the
nomination,
selection,
and
award
process,
and
·
their
suggestions
for
strengthening
the
program
and
broadening
its
coverage.
Overview
of
Findings
Our
conversations
with
the
sample
of
awardees
from
the
1990
and
1991
program
years
indicate
that
the
Presidential
Awards
for
Excellence
in
Science
and
Mathematics
Teaching
program
is
clearly
seen
as
a
success
in
the
eyes
of
the
many
elementary
and
secondary
teachers
who
have
been
recognized.
Impacts
are
found
on
the
personal,
professional,
and
public
levels.
The
program
appears
to
be
tremendously
effective,
not
only
in
terms
of
its
impact
on
individuals,
but
also
for
the
recognition
it
provides
for
the
many
success
stories
in
the
field
of
teaching.
Further,
the
benefits
of
the
program
are
shared
by
many
colleagues
and
students
with
whom
the
awardees
interact.
The
pages
that
follow
present
what
we
learned
from
our
conversations
with
the
115
awardees,
frequently
in
their
own
words.
And,
while
there
are
some
problems
that
were
revealed
and
some
rough
edges
that
need
smoothing,
it
is
evident
that
PAESMT
is
a
program
of
significant
merit.
Impacts
of
the
Recognition
The
awardees'
widespread
view
of
the
PAESMT
was
extremely
positive.
Many
expressed
the
thrill
of
winning
the
award,
the
benefit
of
the
recognition,
and
the
changes
that
the
financial
award
allowed
them
to
make.
Many
felt
that
the
award
gave
them
renewed
interest
in
continuing
a
teaching
career.
And,
fortunately,
most
of
the
outstanding
teachers
have
chosen
to
remain
in
the
classroom.
The
sentiment
heard
over
and
over
again
was
that
of
"validation."
The
award
validated
their
own
personal
belief
in
the
importance
of
teaching
and
their
confidence
in
their
ability
to
make
a
difference.
As
one
awardee
put
it,
It
was
an
incredible
experience.
I
am
still
floating.
It
expanded
me
professionally
and
gave
me
the
freedom
to
do
what
I
want
to
do.
Others
discussed
the
statement
the
award
makes
about
the
teaching
profession.
One
awardee
commented,
It
is
a
big
award
and
a
great
honor.
It's
difficult
for
teachers
to
be
recognized
and
this
award
says
that
what
you
do
is
important.
Another
said,
It
stresses
that
excellence
in
education
is
recognized
and
encouraged.
Other
awardees
emphasized
what
the
award
allowed
them
to
do
for
other
people.
Because
of
the
award,
noted
one
recipient,
he
will
affect
many
students
with
the
upgrading
of
education
accomplished
through
his
leadership
efforts.
As
he
put
it,
the
students
are
the
real
recipients
of
the
award.
The
awardees
also
reported
that
the
award
affected
the
attitudes
of
their
students
and
their
students'
parents,
enhanced
interest
and
respect
for
excellence
in
teaching
among
local
school
personnel,
affected
opportunities
for
awardees
to
make
changes,
and
led
to
increased
opportunities
for
networking
with
other
teachers.
Unfortunately,
not
all
of
the
effects
of
the
award
were
positive.
Some
teachers
experienced
jealousy
from
their
fellow
teachers
and
from
administrators.
In
some
cases
the
jealousy
served
as
a
positive
motivating
factor
and
created
a
beneficial
competition,
while
in
other
cases
it
created
a
negative
atmosphere
for
the
awardee.
Both
the
positive
and
negative
effects
of
the
award
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below.
Where
possible,
percentages
are
provided
to
summarize
results.
In
other
cases,
the
range
of
activities
engaged
in
by
awardees
are
described
as
examples
of
activities
rather
than
as
percentages.
Changes
in
Job
Duties
By
and
large,
the
teachers
recognized
by
the
program
have
remained
teachers
and
continue
to
provide
high
quality
educational
experiences
for
their
students.
The
majority
of
teachers
(73
percent)
did
not
experience
significant
changes
in
their
job
duties
or
responsibilities
following
the
award,
although
over
a
third
(37
percent)
mentioned
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
respect
that
they
were
given
at
their
job.
Some
awardees
said
that
the
increased
respect
and
credibility
came
from
other
school
personnel,
while
others
described
increased
respect
from
parents.
Many
indicated
that
others
trusted
their
judgment
more
and
that
they
were
now
asked
to
contribute
whenever
important
decisions
were
made.
Some
also
mentioned
that
the
award
enhanced
respect
for
the
school
within
the
community.
Of
those
27
percent
of
respondents
who
experienced
changes
in
their
job
duties,
these
changes
were
largely
in
the
direction
of
a
higher
level
of
responsibility
than
they
had
prior
to
the
award.
(It
should
be
noted
that
some
teachers
did
not
experience
significant
changes
in
job
responsibilities
because
they
already
had
a
high
level
of
responsibility
at
the
time
of
the
award.)
For
those
who
did
experience
significant
changes,
new
responsibilities
included
becoming
the
chair
of
the
department
or
the
coordinator
of
curriculum,
starting
new
programs,
being
on
committees,
and
training
other
teachers.
Other
respondents
changed
schools
or
began
teaching
at
the
university
level.
Few
of
the
respondents
intended
to
leave
teaching.
Only
12
of
the
113
respondents
(11
percent)
who
had
been
classroom
teachers
at
the
time
of
their
award
did
not
intend
to
remain
so.
Of
these,
2
were
no
longer
teaching
because
they
had
retired.
The
others
who
reported
that
they
were
no
longer
involved
in
teaching
(or
intended
to
leave
teaching
shortly)
remained
in
the
field
of
education
in
roles
such
as
training
other
teachers
or
working
at
the
state
level.
Almost
half
of
the
awardees
(49
percent)
who
were
still
teaching
at
the
time
of
the
interview
Percentage
of
classroom
teachers
intending
to
remain
in
teaching
(1990
and
1991
awardees)
(N=113)
11% Leaving
89% Remaining
said
that
the
award
had
increased
their
enthusiasm
for
teaching.
Most
of
those
who
said
their
enthusiasm
had
not
increased
indicated
that
they
had
always
loved
teaching
and
their
enthusiasm
was
always
high.
Of
those
who
noted
a
change
in
their
enthusiasm,
many
mentioned
that
the
PAESMT
award
renewed
them
and
made
them
believe
that
what
they
were
doing
was
important.
For
example,
respondents
said
that
the
award
was
"a
real
shot
in
the
arm,"
a
"boost,"
and
that
it
gave
them
"renewed
spirit."
The
following
comments
illustrate
awardees'
responses.
[The
award]
energized
me
and
enhanced
my
commitment
to
science
education.
[The
award]
gave
me
new
techniques
and
the
confidence
to
try
them.
[The
award]
validated
that
I
had
something
to
offer
and
gave
me
a
greater
sense
of
what
I
can
give
back
to
others.
Others
mentioned
the
need
for
increased
enthusiasm
in
the
midst
of
troubled
times
for
schools.
One
awardee
said
the
award
came
at
a
low
point
in
her
career
because
of
the
poor
status
of
her
school
system.
The
PAESMT
award
was
very
uplifting
for
her
morale.
Another
respondent,
who
had
taught
for
18
years
prior
to
the
award,
said
that
the
award
had
come
at
a
time
when
education
was
at
a
low
point.
There
had
been
many
cutbacks,
but
the
award
gave
me
a
tremendous
feeling
of
validation.
It
was
what
I
needed.
Aspect
of
the
Program
with
the
Largest
Impact
When
asked
about
what
aspect
of
the
program
had
the
biggest
effect,
62
percent
of
respondents
said
that
it
was
the
recognition.
Other
aspects
mentioned
frequently
by
respondents
were
the
financial
award
and
the
networking
both
in
Washington
and
through
the
association
for
awardees.
One
respondent
also
mentioned
the
beneficial
effect
of
the
IBM
computer
that
was
given
as
part
of
the
PAESMT
package.
Effect
of
Award
on
Parents
and
Students
When
asked
whether
the
award
had
affected
the
attitudes
of
the
respondents'
students
and
their
parents,
96
percent
said
that
it
had.
Of
those
who
said
that
it
had
not,
many
of
them
mentioned
either
that
they
had
always
had
high
credibility
with
parents
and
students
or
that
expectations
for
teaching
excellence
were
so
high
at
their
school
that
the
award
was
to
be
expected.
Only
one
respondent
said
that
the
parents
and
students
did
not
know
about
the
award.
In
this
case,
there
had
been
many
previous
PAESMT
winners
in
the
district.
Because
it
was
not
a
new
occurrence,
there
was
not
widespread
publicity
about
the
award.
Most
respondents
reported
that
parents
and
students
were
proud
and
congratulatory,
and
some
mentioned
the
pride
brought
to
the
school
and
community.
One
teacher
said
that
her
school
had
a
pep
rally
for
her
and
that
the
mayor
named
the
day
in
her
honor.
Another
said
that
the
award
brought
positive
recognition
to
a
school
and
teachers
that
were
[otherwise]
perceived
very
poorly
by
parents,
by
the
administration,
and
by
the
media.
[The
award]
validated
that
I
had
something
to
offer
and
gave
me
a
greater
sense
of
what
I
can
give
back
to
others.
Teachers
in
this
community
had
been
"embarrassed"
to
say
in
public
what
they
did.
In
her
community,
the
PAESMT
award
was
a
real
uplift,
"
a
local
phenomenon."
Many
of
the
respondents
reported
that
the
award
reinforced
for
parents
and
students
that
the
awardee
was
a
good
teacher.
As
one
awardee
said,
PAESMT
gave
the
parents
confidence
in
me.
Another
teacher
said
that
the
award
made
parents
more
attentive
at
workshops
and
resulted
in
the
parents
supporting
her
more.
Another
teacher
noted
a
change
in
parents'
perceptions
of
the
meaning
of
an
education.
In
her
community,
education
had
been
perceived
only
as
a
means
to
an
end
for
a
job.
To
make
math
a
fun
science
was
the
farthest
thing
from
their
minds.
But
through
her
differing
approaches
to
teaching
and
the
validation
of
the
award,
parents'
views
of
education
changed.
Despite
almost
all
positive
effects
on
parents
and
students,
two
teachers
mentioned
negative
effects.
One
noted
that
although
it
was
nice
to
be
recognized
and
to
have
parents
want
to
have
their
children
in
his
class,
not
all
children
could
be
in
the
same
class
and
this
caused
some
problems
for
those
left
out.
Also,
parents'
requests
are
sometimes
difficult
for
the
teachers
who
are
not
requested.
Another
teacher
mentioned
that
because
he
was
frequently
out
of
the
classroom
due
to
his
increased
opportunities,
parents
and
students
complained.
Effect
of
Award
on
Enhancing
Interest
and
Respect
for
Excellence
in
Teaching
Almost
all
teachers
(90
percent)
indicated
that
the
award
had
enhanced
interest
and
respect
for
teaching
among
other
local
school
personnel.
Some
teachers
reported
that
other
teachers
now
come
to
them
for
advice.
Other
awardees
have
been
asked
to
do
inservice
training
of
fellow
teachers.
Others
mentioned
that
their
award
has
encouraged
other
teachers
to
try
to
get
PAESMT
awards.
Although
the
award
had
many
positive
effects,
15
percent
of
respondents
indicated
that
there
was
some
jealousy
about
their
award.
And,
respondents
indicated
how
disappointed
they
were
to
experience
animosity
from
those
whom
they
thought
were
their
friends.
One
believed
the
jealousy
at
the
school
stemmed
from
limited
resources.
Another
believed
that
the
school
did
not
publicize
the
award
for
fear
of
jealousy.
Still
another
noted
that
he
had
to
handle
the
financial
award
in
a
way
designed
to
avoid
jealousy.
He
tried
to
spend
it
on
the
school
building
and
not
just
on
his
classroom
and
himself.
He
also
sent
a
picture
of
the
school
to
President
Bush
in
order
to
make
the
school
feel
ownership
of
the
honor.
Effect
of
Award
on
Influence
at
the
Local
School
or
District
Despite
some
negative
effects
of
the
award
among
school
personnel,
a
majority
of
teachers
(86
percent)
said
that
the
award
increased
their
opportunities
to
make
changes
or
have
influence
over
how
math
or
science
was
taught
at
the
local
school
or
district.
Thirty-one
percent
of
these
respondents
said
that
following
the
award
their
opinions
carried
more
weight
in
how
math
or
science
was
taught.
Many
awardees
became
involved
in
curriculum
development,
while
others
taught
inservice
workshops
for
other
teachers
or
mentored
teachers
in
other
ways.
Effect
of
Award
on
Opportunities
Beyond
the
Local
School
or
District
A
majority
of
teachers
(83
percent)
reported
that
the
award
affected
their
opportunities
for
leadership
or
influence
at
the
state
level.
Opportunities
at
the
state
level
varied
widely.
Twenty-six
percent
of
those
involved
at
the
state
level
reviewed
nominations
for
the
next
PAESMT
awardees,
and
19
percent
were
involved
in
developing
Statewide
Systemic
Initiative
(SSI)
programs.
Other
such
involvement
included
working
on
committees
for
student
awards,
developing
curriculum,
consulting
with
other
districts,
providing
leadership
in
state
board
testing
performance
evaluation,
sitting
on
review
panels
for
grants
of
higher
education,
teaching
workshops
at
universities,
teaching
a
course
for
NSF,
working
on
state
competencies,
speaking
to
the
state
legislature,
and
setting
state
standards.
Over
a
fifth
(23
percent)
of
teachers
indicated
that
the
award
affected
their
involvement
at
the
federal
level.
Of
these,
52
percent
were
involved
in
NSF
grant
review
panels.
Other
types
of
involvement
varied
greatly.
These
included
being
involved
in
NSF
teacher
enhancement,
being
part
of
an
NSF
reading
panel,
addressing
PAESMT
awardees,
and
participating
in
proposal
reviews
for
the
U.S.
Department
of
Education.
One
teacher
was
also
an
advocate
to
the
Science
and
Space
Committees
in
Congress
for
appropriations
for
aircraft
to
carry
an
infrared
telescope.
She
was
one
of
the
first
elementary
school
teachers
to
fly
in
the
KUIPER
C141,
which
carries
as
its
cargo
for
NASA
a
2-meter
telescope
that
does
infrared
exploration
of
the
universe.
The
award
affected
other
types
of
opportunities
for
respondents
as
well.
Almost
three-fourths
of
respondents
(74
percent)
believed
that
the
award
had
affected
their
opportunities
in
teacher
associations.
Activities
in
this
area
included
giving
talks
at
association
meetings,
being
part
of
planning
conference
activities,
being
on
the
editorial
board
of
the
National
Council
for
Teachers
of
Mathematics
(NCTM)
arithmetic
panel,
being
involved
in
the
NCTM
National
Goals
Panel,
and
being
on
a
National
Science
Teachers
Association
(NSTA)
committee
task
force.
Sixty-four
percent
of
respondents
indicated
opportunities
in
the
public
media.
(However,
it
should
be
noted
that
some
respondents
counted
publicity
about
the
award
itself
in
answering
this
question,
while
others
did
not.
Thus,
this
percentage
may
be
inflated.)
Much
of
the
public
media
opportunities
mentioned
by
teachers
appeared
to
concern
publicity
about
the
award
itself.
Few
teachers
had
other
opportunities
in
the
public
media,
with
some
exceptions.
For
example,
one
teacher
had
a
regular
radio
program
and
another
made
a
videotape
of
her
teaching
for
an
educational
television
station.
Others
had
contributed
to
a
PBS
television
series,
and
one
teacher
had
a
regular
television
program
during
the
school
year.
Although
the
question
was
not
specifically
asked,
about
9
percent
of
the
respondents
volunteered
that
they
were
involved
in
publishing.
Activities
in
this
area
included
authoring
books,
textbooks,
and
journal
articles.
Over
half
(57
percent)
of
the
teachers
were
offered
opportunities
in
the
private
sector.
Again,
these
activities
varied
widely.
They
include
teaching
at
universities,
being
on
an
advisory
board
for
a
museum,
working
with
PBS
on
a
math
program,
and
working
with
businesses
in
the
community.
Percentage
of
sample
reporting
that
the
award
enhanced
interest
and
respect
for
teaching
among
other
local
school
personnel
(1990
and
1991
awardees)
(N=107)
90% Enhanced Interest
10% No Change
Over
a
third
of
teachers
(37
percent)
believed
the
award
affected
their
opportunities
to
further
their
own
education.
Some
have
pursued
administration
and
supervision
certificates,
master's
degrees,
and
Ph.D.'s,
while
others
have
taken
more
credit
hours
in
a
subject,
attended
special
institutes,
or
received
training
in
specific
areas
of
interest,
such
as
meteorology
and
family
math.
One
teacher
said
that
the
award
gave
her
motivation
to
go
back
to
school.
Before
the
award,
she
had
never
thought
of
getting
a
higher
level
of
education.
Most
teachers
(85
percent)
indicated
that
the
effects
of
these
awards
were
long
lasting,
even
though
many
of
their
opportunities
arose
right
after
the
award.
A
few
teachers
had
received
several
other
awards,
and
the
PAESMT
award
in
combination
with
these
had
a
"snowball
effect."
Effect
of
Award
on
Opportunities
for
Networking
A
vast
majority
of
teachers
(90
percent)
indicated
that
the
award
affected
their
networking
with
other
teachers,
including
fellow
awardees,
and
getting
to
know
other
teachers
at
conventions
and
meetings.
Networking
has
been
helpful
to
teachers
in
sharing
ideas,
keeping
current
on
the
latest
issues
in
their
field,
getting
teaching
ideas,
and
gaining
support
for
teaching.
Many
teachers
network
with
other
awardees.
As
one
teacher
said,
When
I
need
a
resource
person,
I
pull
out
my
PAESMT
directory.
Although
many
respondents
noted
that
the
networking
was
the
biggest
"plus"
of
the
award,
others
were
disappointed
in
the
networking,
especially
at
the
national
level.
Some
said
they
had
not
networked
as
much
as
they
had
hoped
because
they
did
not
have
enough
time
or
it
was
not
something
that
came
to
them
easily.
Others
said
that
they
could
not
afford
to
go
to
conventions,
and
still
others
said
they
wish
that
continuing
meetings
with
other
awardees
was
a
mandatory
part
of
the
PAESMT
program
so
that
they
would
be
sure
to
maintain
their
contacts.
Of
note
was
that
many
teachers
reported
not
being
able
to
use
their
computers
to
network
with
other
teachers.
Many
mentioned
the
need
for
more
training
in
this
area.
Comparison
Between
Whites
and
Minorities
of
Opportunities
Resulting
from
Award
There
were
few
differences
in
opportunities
between
whites
and
members
of
minority
groups
in
opportunities
that
were
the
result
of
the
award.
For
example,
there
were
only
slight
differences
in
the
percentages
of
minorities
and
whites
who
reported
increased
opportunities
at
the
state
level.
Eighty-six
percent
of
minority
members
and
83
percent
of
whites
reported
increased
opportunities.
There
were
also
only
small
differences
in
opportunities
to
participate
in
teacher
associations
(71
percent
minorities
versus
74
percent
whites)
or
networking
opportunities
(86
percent
of
minorities
and
91
percent
of
whites).
However,
minorities
reported
more
opportunities
than
whites
in
involvement
at
the
federal
level
(33
percent
minorities
versus
22
percent
whites)
and
in
the
private
sector
(76
percent
minorities
versus
53
percent
whites).
Whites,
however,
reported
more
opportunities
than
minorities
in
making
changes
or
influencing
how
math/science
is
taught
at
the
school
or
It
made
an
entire
school
that
was
not
into
science
become
interested
and
understand
the
significance
of
what
was
going
on
in
science.
Percentage
of
awardees
reporting
positive
effects
on
opportunities
for
leadership
at
various
levels
(N=115)
Federal
level
........................................
23%
State
level............................................
83%
Teacher
associations
............................
74%
Public
media........................................
64%
Private
sector.......................................
57%
district
level
(96
percent
whites
versus
70
percent
minorities)
and
in
opportunities
for
continuing
their
education
(38
percent
whites
versus
29
percent
minorities).
Impact
of
Financial
Award
and
Gifts
This
section
provides
information
on
how
the
awardees
used
the
monies
that
they
were
given.
As
the
responses
illustrate,
their
choices
were
innovative,
creative,
and
in
many,
many
cases,
unselfish.
Virtually
all
respondents
said
that
the
financial
award
was
important
and
made
an
impact
on
what
they
were
doing.
Some
typical
comments
follow.
I
had
the
ability
to
buy
something
that
never
would
have
been
possible
with
the
limited
school
budget.
By
helping
each
teacher,
I
helped
each
child
and
everyone
was
touched
by
the
grant.
It
was
an
award
for
all.
It
gave
me
a
little
bit
of
a
voice.
Once
the
principal
saw
how
the
computer
was
used
in
the
classroom,
the
principal
got
an
additional
nine
computers
the
next
year.
It
gave
me
the
freedom
to
explore
other
options
that
are
not
tied
to
the
local
bureaucratic
system.
It
made
an
entire
school
that
was
not
into
science
become
interested
and
understand
the
significance
of
what
was
going
on
in
science.
Use
of
Award
Money
Respondents
were
asked
for
some
specific
details
about
how
they
had
spent
their
$7,500
award.
The
vast
majority
had
spent
the
money
on
more
than
one
item,
sometimes
using
it
as
seed
money,
sometimes
combining
it
in
innovative
ways
with
other
sources
of
funds.
Only
9
of
the
115
respondents
(8
percent)
reported
that
they
used
all
the
money
on
one
item.
At
least
59
percent
of
the
respondents
spent
all
or
part
of
the
money
on
other
teachers
in
their
school
or
district.
A
few
commented
that
sharing
the
award
with
other
teachers
had
been
suggested
during
the
week
in
Washington.
Of
the
69
respondents
who
had
used
part
of
the
money
for
other
teachers,
46
percent
used
it
for
attendance
at
conferences
or
meetings,
36
percent
for
materials,
and
39
percent
for
training
or
workshops.
(Some
respondents
sponsored
more
than
one
activity.)
Among
the
comments
made
by
respondents
were
these.
I
tried
to
spread
the
money
among
other
teachers
and
get
them
involved.
I
tried
to
give
other
teachers
more
opportunities.
I
was
very
open
to
teacher
requests.
I
looked
for
things
that
would
inspire.
Three
teachers
spent
all
$7,500
on
the
training
of
other
teachers.
One
of
them
got
matching
funds
from
the
district
and
funded
a
10-day
training
program
on
new
strategies
for
teaching
mathematics
for
elementary
and
secondary
teachers.
One
awardee
sent
a
fifth
grade
teacher
who
hated
math
to
the
NCTM
convention
in
Seattle.
This
"turned
her
on
to
math."
As
the
awardee
said,
I lighted another fire.
Another
awardee
provided
the
funds
for
an
aide
to
attend
a
national
science
convention;
she
said
a
district
would
never
fund
an
aide
to
do
this.
The
experience
motivated
the
aide,
who
now
has
a
degree.
At
least
three
math
teachers
provided
materials
for
the
science
teachers.
One
math
teacher
established
a
three-tiered
approach
for
spending
the
money:
1)
for
teachers,
materials
for
math
and
science;
2)
for
students,
scholarships
for
a
summer
program
for
at-risk
students;
and
3)
for
parents,
information
packets
as
part
of
a
parent
program.
One
awardee
formed
a
group
of
staff,
parents,
and
community
members
to
identify
how
to
spend
the
money.
Computers
were
purchased
by
about
one-third
of
the
respondents
(31
percent).
Other
kinds
of
equipment,
such
as
graphing
calculators,
laser
disk
players,
microscopes,
and
printers,
were
mentioned
by
58
percent.
Manipulatives
and
materials
for
hands-on
instruction
were
mentioned
by
17
percent.
About
one-third
(31
percent)
had
used
part
of
the
money
to
attend
a
professional
conference
or
meeting;
these
expenses
included
travel
and
lodging
as
well
as
the
cost
of
a
substitute
teacher.
Other
ways
in
which
the
individual
respondents
spent
the
money
varied
considerably.
A
listing
of
some
of
the
innovative
uses
of
funds
is
presented
on
the
following
page.
Sometimes
the
awardees
mentioned
certain
barriers
that
impeded
their
use
of
funds,
but
such
occurrences
were
relatively
rare
and
idiosyncratic.
Of
the
respondents
who
were
asked
about
barriers
in
spending
the
money,
82
percent
said
there
were
none.
In
a
few
cases,
there
was
disagreement
regarding
how
the
money
would
be
spent.
In
three
instances
where
such
conflicts
arose,
NSF
was
called
in
to
help
resolve
the
problem.
Some
of
the
problems
that
arose
are
as
follows:
·
In
two
cases,
the
school
had
a
new
principal
who
wanted
to
spend
the
money
on
such
things
as
renovations,
replacement
equipment,
and
a
rug
for
the
office.
·
In
another
case
the
administration
wanted
to
purchase
materials
that
the
respondent
did
not
think
the
other
teachers
were
ready
to
use.
As
a
result
of
the
disagreement,
one
administrator
still
does
not
speak
to
her.
·
Three
other
respondents
had
trouble
with
the
type
of
account
they
wanted
to
set
up.
For
example,
one
district
insisted
that
the
money
be
put
in
the
general
fund
and
could
not
be
in
an
interest-bearing
account.
After
a
letter
was
sent
from
NSF,
the
money
was
put
in
a
separate
account,
but
it
does
not
earn
interest.
·
One
awardee
ran
into
problems
when
she
switched
districts.
·
The
other
respondents
experiencing
barriers
made
more
general
comments
about
the
red
tape
involved.
Awardees
comments
regarding
the
financial
award
(N=115)
Important
...........................................
90%
Essential.............................................
44%
Meaningful
and
motivational...............
23%
Needed
for
an
impact..........................
23%
Importance
of
the
Financial
Award
The
financial
award
is
an
important
part
of
the
program,
according
to
90
percent
of
the
respondents.
For
44
percent
of
them,
it
is
an
essential
part
of
the
award.
In
fact,
for
four
respondents,
the
only
reason
they
applied
to
the
program
was
because
of
the
possibility
of
receiving
money
for
their
students.
Several
commented
that
the
money
gives
credibility
to
the
program.
Others
said
that
it
was
essential
in
schools
that
have
few
resources.
An
Innovative
Uses
of
Award
Funds
(1990
and
1991
awardees)
Environmental
·
Improvements
to
a
model
stream
fish
hatchery
·
·
Surveying
a
nature
trail
behind
the
school
·
·
Conversion
of
a
room
to
a
greenhouse
·
·
Purchase
and
construction
of
a
log
cabin
to
serve
as
the
science
classroom;
around
the
cabin
is
an
outdoor
learning
center
with
herb
and
vegetable
gardens
·
·
Two-day
ecology
summer
camp
for
students
Telecommunication
·
·
Establishment
of
a
statewide
telecommunications
center
·
·
Telecommunications
center
for
tracking
storms
·
·
Establishment
of
a
direct
satellite
receiver
station
·
·
Weather
satellite
imaging
project
·
·
Computer
center
for
distance
learning
in
a
district
with
students
in
small
rural
schools
that
are
150
miles
away;
the
students
can
continue
to
live
at
home
and
take
courses
in
physics
and
chemistry
Other
·
Foreign
travel
with
a
scientific
emphasis
--
one
teacher
went
to
the
Peruvian
Amazon
and
the
other
to
East
Africa
to
study
biodiversity
·
·
Organization
of
an
alliance
of
physics
teachers
under
the
American
Physical
Society
·
·
Special
little
projects,
each
costing
a
few
hundred
dollars,
that
the
awardee
would
ordinarily
hesitate
to
do.
For
example,
the
teacher
has
a
contest
for
the
students
in
which
they
must
mail
a
potato
chip
to
him.
They
must
design
the
package
to
weigh
as
little
as
possible,
and
the
potato
chip
must
arrive
intact.
The
postage
and
materials
cost
about
$100
per
year.
·
·
Conference
for
young
girls
to
expand
their
horizons
in
math;
minority
students
were
encouraged
to
attend
·
·
Mobile
science
shows
that
travel
throughout
the
rural
area
of
the
state
additional
23
percent
said
that
it
was
important,
meaningful,
and
motivational.
In
addition,
23
percent
said
that
the
money
was
needed
in
order
to
have
an
impact.
Comments
from
the
awardees
were,
It
enables
the
school
to
share
in
the
recognition.
The
effect
of
the
money
is
to
the
school
and
the
district.
You
come
back
from
Washington
with
a
mission;
for
some
things
you
need
money.
One
awardee
commented,
I'd
like
to
say,
"No,"
that
it's
not
essential,
but
money
makes
the
district
and
people
around
sit
up
and
notice.
The
few
respondents
who
said
that
the
money
was
not
a
necessary
part
of
the
program
still
thought
it
was
wonderful
to
have.
Many
respondents
said
that
the
money
gave
them
the
freedom
to
do
what
they
wanted.
It
was
a
mechanism
for
empowering
teachers.
Some
illustrative
comments
by
respondents
follow.
It
enabled
me
to
do
special
things
I
couldn't
do
otherwise.
It
gave
a
cushion
to
act
in
a
professional
way.
There
are
so
many
reforms
going
on.
You
can't
do
a
lot
without
resources.
Many
teachers
buy
things
with
their
own
money.
In
our
society,
money
talks.
I
have
taught
a
science
program
on
a
budget
of
$142
for
the
entire
year.
So
you
can
imagine
what
this
infusion
of
$7,500
means
to
us.
It
mentally
empowered
me.
I
have
money
that
I
can
spend
and
don't
have
to
ask
for.
It's
power
you
don't
have
in
teaching.
For
57
percent
of
the
respondents,
the
award
would
not
be
less
meaningful
without
the
financial
component.
They
said
that
the
recognition
was
far
more
important
and
that
being
acknowledged
is
sufficient.
A
few
added
that
for
the
individual
teacher,
it
is
the
honor
that
is
important.
For
the
43
percent
of
the
respondents
who
disagreed,
the
money
was
seen
as
adding
meaning
and
prestige.
Most
respondents
thought
that
the
amount
of
the
financial
award
was
sufficient
to
make
an
impact.
Over
four-fifths
(84
percent)
thought
the
amount
was
sufficient,
although,
not
surprisingly,
many
of
these
added
that
more
would
be
better.
Additional
Donations
or
Gifts
Many
of
the
respondents
had
received
a
number
of
small
gifts
after
winning
the
award.
It
was
often
unclear
if
these
were
gifts
for
all
awardees
that
year
or
just
for
the
individual.
One
awardee
commented
that
she
wrote
74
thank
you
notes.
The
kinds
of
awards
received
by
the
respondents
include
$1,000
from
a
consortium
of
electric
companies
and
$1,500
from
a
gasoline
company.
In
addition,
many
of
the
PAESMT
awardees
have
won
other
awards
as
well,
many
of
which
come
with
money
and/or
gifts.
One
respondent
suggested,
"Other
programs
use
the
Presidential
Award
list
as
a
guide
for
selection."
Some
respondents
were
able
to
use
the
award
to
leverage
additional
funds.
It
got
me
to
start
writing
grants
for
more
money.
The
pot
is
large
enough
to
get
business
to
match.
The
Presidential
Award
gave
a
foot
in
the
door.
It's
a
high
profile
award
and
receives
much
media
attention.
This
makes
it
easier
to
get
local
grants.
The
awardee
who
made
the
last
comment
also
received
$1,000
from
the
local
utility
company
to
spend
however
she
wanted.
She
received
additional
money
from
the
National
Tandy
Technology
Scholar
award.
The
award
also
made
it
easier
for
her
to
apply
to
a
local
philanthropic
organization.
However,
some
awardees
tried
unsuccessfully
to
obtain
additional
money.
One
said
that
the
superintendent
was
not
comfortable
with
teachers
making
contacts
with
businesses.
Examples
of
how
awardees
used
the
additional
funds
follow.
One
awardee
received
a
Chevrolet
van
from
29
dealers
in
the
state.
She
used
it
for
her
mobile
science
show,
which
was
taken
throughout
the
state.
This
awardee
also
established
a
summer
training
program
for
teachers
in
the
state
and
received
$750,000
to
support
this
effort.
One
respondent
now
teaches
in
the
same
building
as
the
previous
year's
awardee.
They
pooled
some
of
their
award
money
to
establish
a
statewide
telecommunications
line.
The
system
has
been
used
to
do
environmental
monitoring.
Both
of
the
awardees
also
received
Christa
MacAuliff
awards
of
$30,000
each.
They
have
used
this
money
for
the
network.
The
respondent
also
received
$35,000
from
the
Tapestry
awards
sponsored
by
Toyota.
In
addition,
he
has
gotten
grants
through
local
banks.
He
commented,
"Once
a
project
gets
going
and
has
a
track
record,
it
is
more
likely
to
be
funded.
The
initial
seed
money
is
the
hard
part."
"NSF
encourages
getting
funding
from
other
sources,
an
extremely
worthwhile
idea,"
was
a
statement
made
by
another
awardee.
The
materials
for
a
weather
imaging
project
cost
$5,000.
In
addition
to
PAESMT
money,
the
awardee
used
money
from
an
effective
schools
grant,
from
the
State
Office
of
Basic
Industry,
and
from
a
school
fundraiser
(a
carnival).
In
addition,
she
received
a
GTE
gift
grant
to
integrate
physics
and
algebra;
$7,000
was
shared
between
math
and
science.
Nomination,
Selection,
and
Award
Process
Another
area
we
explored
in
the
conversations
with
awardees
was
the
nomination,
selection,
and
award
process.
We
were
especially
interested
in
finding
out
how
the
process
differed
by
states.
Respondents'
comments
indicated
somewhat
of
a
lack
of
knowledge
in
this
area,
particularly
where
the
awardee
had
not
been
called
upon
to
play
a
role
in
the
selection
of
others.
We
were
not,
therefore,
able
to
develop
a
very
good
picture
of
the
differences
that
do
exist
and
what
might
affect
them.
Program
Administration
Familiarity
about
the
administration
of
the
program
varied
considerably
across
respondents.
Some
simply
did
not
know
how
the
program
was
administered.
Others
were
more
aware
because
they
had
served
on
a
committee
to
select
the
winners.
I
have
taught
a
science
program
on
a
budget
of
$142
for
the
entire
year.
So
you
can
imagine
what
this
infusion
of
$7,500
means
to
us.
The
pot
is
large
enough
to
get
business
to
match.
The
Presidential
Award
gave
a
foot
in
the
door.
The
general
picture
across
states
is
quite
similar.
Nominations
are
sent
to
the
state
department
of
education
or
state
board
of
education,
which
then
sends
an
application
packet
to
the
nominees.
The
nominees
complete
the
materials
and
submit
them
to
the
state
office.
A
selection
committee,
generally
composed
of
representatives
from
several
arenas,
including
past
awardees,
picks
the
three
state
finalists
for
each
category.
The
names
of
the
finalists
are
submitted
to
NSF,
which
makes
the
final
selection.
Some
respondents
thought
that
the
state
science
and
math
teachers'
organizations
were
involved
in
the
process,
or
actually
ran
it.
However,
responses
from
teachers
in
the
same
state
differed,
so
a
complete
picture
was
not
obtained.
In
one
state
the
process
is
overseen
by
the
math
consultant
in
the
state
department
of
education.
The
consultant
has
two
senior
awardees
who
serve
as
facilitators;
the
respondent
was
one
of
the
facilitators.
The
facilitators
are
responsible
for
getting
the
readers
together
and
for
most
of
the
administration
of
the
process.
The
facilitators
do
not
serve
as
readers.
This
year,
the
respondent
sent
all
nominees
a
personal
letter
in
which
she
offered
to
help
them
with
the
paperwork.
Three
people
did
ask
for
help.
In
another
state,
an
information
meeting
is
held
for
the
whole
state
before
the
application
is
due.
One
of
the
respondents
currently
conducts
this
session.
Nomination
Process
Nominations
were
most
frequently
made
by
principals
(43
percent
of
respondents);
curriculum
coordinators,
supervisors,
and
department
chairs
(18
percent);
and
teachers
and
colleagues
(17
percent).
Others
making
nominations
included
students,
the
president
of
the
state
math
association,
a
daughter
who
is
also
a
teacher,
and
the
state
superintendent
of
schools.
Four
of
the
respondents
said
that
they
had
asked
someone
else
to
nominate
them;
in
three
cases
it
was
the
principal.
Some
awardees
were
nominated
by
more
than
one
person.
Indeed,
one
had
been
nominated
by
28
people.
Thirteen
percent
of
the
respondents
did
not
know
who
had
nominated
them.
An
additional
12
percent
were
unsure
but
mentioned
who
they
thought
had
made
the
nomination.
Three
respondents
had
attended
a
Woodrow
Wilson
Foundation
program
and
thought
that
all
participants
were
nominated
for
the
PAESMT.
Most
respondents
thought
that
their
experience
was
typical
of
the
way
people
become
nominated.
A
few
respondents
had
been
pressured
to
apply.
One
was
sent
an
application
by
the
math
supervisor,
but
she
refused
to
fill
it
out
because
it
was
too
lengthy.
However,
her
principal
insisted.
Another
respondent
said,
The
principal
is
an
assertive
person
who
likes
to
be
involved
in
this
kind
of
thing.
The
principal
said,
"Don't
you
want
to
do
it
for
the
money
for
the
school?"
It
was
more
of
a
directive.
One
respondent
was
nominated
as
the
result
of
a
serendipitous
event.
He
was
supposed
to
meet
someone
for
breakfast,
but
the
person
never
showed
up
at
the
restaurant.
The
winner
from
the
previous
year,
who
also
teaches
in
the
same
district,
happened
to
be
there
and
they
started
talking.
The
respondent
described
what
he
was
doing
in
his
classes
and
the
previous
awardee
became
most
interested
in
his
ideas
and
decided
to
nominate
him.
Almost
half
(48
percent)
of
the
respondents
had
been
nominated
before.
Generally,
they
had
been
nominated
once
or
twice
before
and
had
often
been
one
of
the
three
state
finalists.
Two
respondents
had
been
nominated
five
times
Major
sources
of
nomination
for
awards
Principals...............................................
43%
Curriculum
coordinator,
supervisors,
department
chairs
.................................
18%
Teachers
and
colleagues
.........................
18%
before.
One
science
awardee
had
been
nominated
the
year
before
in
mathematics.
Four
respondents,
each
from
a
different
state,
said
that
in
order
to
nominate
someone
or
to
be
nominated
you
must
have
taught
for
either
3
or
5
years,
depending
on
the
state.
(It
should
be
noted
that
the
guidelines
call
for
5
years
of
teaching.)
Awareness
About
the
Program
Respondents'
comments
suggested
that
"awareness"
may
be
somewhat
of
a
problem
and
that
lack
of
awareness
may
result
in
limited
numbers
of
applications
in
some
states
or
from
some
groups.
A
significant
number
of
those
addressing
this
issue
(41
respondents)
suggested
that
awareness
was
linked
to
membership
in
professional
organizations
or
being
"in
the
network"
of
science
and
math
teachers.
The
following
comments
are
illustrative.
In
1990,
when
I
got
the
award,
I
wasn't
that
aware
of
it.
Awareness
has
grown
since
then.
It's
a
small
state
and
the
number
of
awardees
has
grown.
Teachers
who
are
active
in
the
state
organizations
are
definitely
aware.
For
the
others,
I
would
guess
that
awareness
is
low.
The
crowds
I
hang
out
with
are
very
active
and
very
aware,
but
this
is
not
a
majority.
In
a
department
of
10
to
12
teachers,
only
1
or
2
attend
conferences.
The
award
is
mentioned
in
the
newsletters
of
math
professional
groups
but
you
have
to
belong
to
get
the
information
and
many
are
not
members.
Awareness
may
have
increased
since
1990,
both
because
of
the
wider
coverage
of
the
teaching
force
(the
addition
of
elementary
school
teachers)
and
explicit
efforts
toward
wider
publicity.
Teachers
are
very
aware
now
because
of
the
statewide
telecommunications
network.
The
state
also
has
a
strong
science
teacher
association,
which
has
a
weekend
science
camp
attended
by
about
1,000
people
each
year.
There
is
a
reception
for
the
winners
as
a
part
of
the
camp.
It
used
to
be
more
of
an
"old
boys
network."
The
process
has
improved
and
the
program
is
becoming
more
known
throughout
the
state.
More
teachers
are
willing
to
participate
now
that
the
selection
process
is
fairer.
Information
is
there
if
people
take
the
time
to
read
it.
A
state
newsletter
goes
to
every
teacher
in
the
state.
The
award
is
mentioned
in
the
state
professional
organization
newsletter
and
the
state
union
literature.
A
spring
conference
is
held
on
all
awards.
Nomination
forms
are
sent
to
every
district.
Some
respondents
commented
that
teachers
are
aware
of
the
program,
but
many
do
not
apply
because
of
the
difficult
application.
As
one
stated,
"Probably
30
percent
of
those
nominated
never
apply
because
the
application
packet
burden
is
horrific."
Suggestions
for
making
the
application
process
more
user
friendly
are
presented
in
the
Suggestions
for
Strengthening
the
Program
section
of
this
report.
The
week
in
Washington
made
me
feel
proud
of
myself
and
through
this
I
was
able
to
motivate
other
teachers.
Publicity
About
the
Award
Publicity
received
by
awardees
ranged
from
overwhelming
to
"no
media
coverage."
For
77
percent
of
the
awardees,
the
amount
of
publicity
was
moderate
to
substantial,
particularly
at
the
local
level.
The
most
common
forms
of
publicity
were
newspaper
articles,
television
and
radio
interviews,
and
articles
in
professional
publications.
Twenty-three
percent
of
the
respondents
said
they
had
received
little
coverage
or
not
enough.
Some
of
the
more
unique
stories
regarding
publicity
are
as
follows:
·
One
awardee
had
a
telephone
interview
with
the
Secretary
of
Education.
·
One
respondent
wanted
to
"low
key"
the
publicity.
However,
the
teacher
who
nominated
him
called
the
newspaper.
He
was
on
the
front
page
with
a
picture.
In
addition,
this
respondent
has
served
as
the
chief
negotiator
for
the
teachers
in
his
district
for
14
years.
Settlement
came
on
the
same
day
as
the
award,
so
a
second
article
about
him
appeared
on
the
front
page.
"It
showed
that
you
can
be
a
strong
union
advocate
and
a
strong
teacher.
I
am
most
proud
of
this."
He
was
also
named
citizen
of
the
month
and
received
other
local
recognition.
The
state
union
put
an
article
in
its
monthly
publication
with
a
picture.
·
One
respondent
was
one
of
the
awardees
interviewed
by
CNN
during
the
week
in
Washington.
She
also
went
up
on
Capitol
Hill
and
spoke
before
the
Education
Committee.
She
was
one
of
seven
speakers--three
math
winners,
three
science
winners,
and
Luther
Williams,
the
director
of
NSF's
Education
and
Human
Resources
Directorate.
·
The
local
utility
company
publicizes
the
winners
of
both
the
state-
and
nationallevel
awardees.
·
One
awardee
was
named
state
person
of
the
week.
A
full
page
in
the
newspaper
was
written
about
her.
Articles
also
appeared
in
the
education
association
and
district
newsletters.
·
One
awardee
received
no
state
publicity
--
"absolutely
no
TV,
no
radio,
no
newspaper
had
any
news
about
the
award."
The
announcement
came
on
the
same
day
as
the
teams
involved
in
the
greatest
college
football
rivalry
in
the
state
played,
"so
that
was
the
news
and
the
rest
was
old
the
next
day."
·
The
public
relations
person
for
the
district
made
the
publicity
arrangements
for
one
awardee.
He
was
written
up
in
three
different
newspapers.
He
also
received
a
proclamation
from
the
State
House
of
Representatives.
·
Mostly
as
the
result
of
the
PAESMT,
one
respondent
was
named
a
State
Farm
good
neighbor
in
1993.
There
was
a
magazine
ad
campaign
in
many
national
magazines
(Life,
U.S.
News
&
World
Report,
etc.)
with
a
picture
of
her
and
several
of
her
students
and
a
write
up
about
her
and
her
school.
·
The
annual
state
math
conference
was
dedicated
to
one
awardee.
There
was
an
awards
ceremony
and
a
square
dance
was
named
in
her
honor.
Suggestions
for
Strengthening
the
Program
Major
Strengths
and
Weaknesses
of
the
Program
When
asked
about
strengths
of
the
program,
respondents
expressed
their
happiness
with
the
recognition
given
to
them
through
the
award,
the
excitement
of
the
week
in
Washington,
the
networking,
and
the
opportunities
created
from
the
financial
aspect
of
the
award.
A
strength
mentioned
by
many
was
that
PAESMT
rewards
hard-working
and
creative
teachers.
For
most,
the
week
in
Washington
was
one
of
the
highlights
of
the
program.
One
said
the
week
was
"totally
impressive,
wonderful,
and
organized."
Another
said,
The
week
in
Washington
made
me
feel
proud
of
myself
and
through
this
I
was
able
to
motivate
other
teachers.
Several
commented
that
they
were
glad
that
elementary
school
teachers
could
now
be
awardees.
When
asked
about
the
weaknesses
of
the
program,
almost
a
fifth
of
respondents
(18
percent)
indicated
the
need
for
more
publicity
about
the
award.
Many
teachers
also
mentioned
this
in
the
context
of
increasing
the
participation
of
underrepresented
groups.
Nineteen
percent
of
respondents
indicated
the
need
for
more
followup
after
the
award
and
the
need
to
have
a
contact
person
at
NSF
to
inform
about
their
activities.
Some
had
written
reports
of
their
activities
after
a
year
and
a
half
and
were
wondering
whether
they
should
write
a
final
report.
They
had
no
idea
who
to
contact
at
NSF
to
ask
questions
or
to
share
the
exciting
activities
in
which
they
had
been
involved.
They
seemed
unaware
that
there
was
a
program
officer
overseeing
PAESMT
or
may
have
been
confused
because
of
the
rotating
nature
of
this
position.
Also,
almost
a
fourth
(24
percent)
of
awardees
noted
the
tremendous
amount
of
time
involved
in
completing
the
application.
The
application
was
described
by
some
as
"harrowing."
Many
suggested
streamlining
the
application
so
that
it
did
not
require
so
much
paperwork.
Others
discussed
that
the
application
due
date
should
not
be
at
the
time
that
grades
are
due,
but
should
be
in
the
summer
when
teachers
have
more
time.
Although
many
respondents
disliked
the
application,
others
said
that
they
enjoyed
completing
it
because
it
allowed
them
to
evaluate
where
they
had
been
and
where
they
were
going.
Others
said
they
realized
that
the
lengthy
and
difficult
application
was
necessary
to
make
good
selections.
Some
suggested
that
the
application
process
depended
too
much
on
how
applicants
"look
on
paper."
Many
suggested
the
need
for
classroom
observations
or
videotapes
in
order
to
see
the
teacher
in
action.
Despite
the
increased
amount
of
networking
that
has
resulted
from
the
award,
some
respondents,
nonetheless,
suggested
the
need
for
expanding
opportunities
for
networking.
Some
discussed
the
need
for
more
time
in
the
networking
sessions
during
the
week
in
Washington.
One
wanted
to
have
money
set
aside
to
send
awardees
to
conventions
so
that
they
would
be
able
to
network.
Another
mentioned
the
need
for
a
reunion
of
awardees
to
reestablish
a
national
perspective
on
the
award
and
discuss
reform
in
education.
Another
wanted
an
alumni
association
of
awardees.
(
This
may
be
a
case
of
the
awardee
being
unaware
of
existing
organizations
or,
perhaps,
wanting
an
alumni
organization
that
is
somehow
different
in
nature
from
those
that
already
exist.)
Others
said
that
NSF
needs
to
draw
more
on
the
talent
pool
of
PAESMT
awardees.
As
one
respondent
put
it,
she
loved
being
wined
and
dined
in
Washington,
but
while
they
were
being
wined
and
dined,
their
brains
could
have
been
picked
more.
We're
a
resource
that
doesn't
get
used
enough.
Others
mentioned
the
raffle
in
D.C.
as
an
area
of
concern.
Because
awardees
can
go
away
with
vastly
different
amounts
of
prizes,
they
suggested
discontinuing
the
raffle
and
making
gifts
to
teachers
of
equal
value.
We're
a
resource
that
doesn't
get
used
enough.
Other
suggestions
made
by
awardees
were
that
they
thought
middle
school
teachers
should
not
have
to
compete
with
secondary
school
teachers,
that
the
awards
should
be
scheduled
as
much
as
possible
around
the
schedule
of
the
President,
that
the
award
should
be
tax
exempt,
that
the
financial
award
be
made
directly
to
the
teacher
to
control
expenditures,
that
all
applicants
be
notified
about
results,
and
that
there
be
more
focus
on
the
state
winners.
As
one
respondent
said,
They are winners too.
Suggestions
for
Increasing
Participation
Most
discussion
in
this
area
focused
on
increasing
participation
among
underrepresented
groups,
such
as
minorities
and
the
disabled.
Many
teachers
who
have
been
in
the
position
to
review
PAESMT
applications
were
concerned
about
the
small
numbers
of
minorities
who
apply.
Others
were
aware
of
the
problem
in
other
states,
but
came
from
states
where
there
were
few
minorities.
Nevertheless,
some
had
been
active
in
nominating
minorities
themselves.
Teachers'
suggestions
for
increasing
participation
among
underrepresented
groups
mainly
focused
on
having
greater
publicity,
especially
outside
professional
organizations,
which
may
have
low
minority
memberships.
Almost
a
fourth
(23
percent)
indicated
that
the
award
should
be
more
publicized.
One
suggested
providing
information
about
the
award
in
magazines
like
Newsweek.
Others
suggested
using
television
announcements
and
using
PBS.
Respondents
also
noted
the
need
for
administrators
and
teachers
to
know
about
the
award,
and
some
mentioned
the
need
for
the
announcement
of
the
award
to
be
made
in
Spanish.
Many
mentioned
that
the
announcement
should
be
sent
to
every
school
with
a
note
about
encouraging
minorities.
Special
emphasis
should
be
put
on
inner
city
schools.
Other
respondents
mentioned
the
need
for
mentoring
minorities
and
providing
assistance
with
application
materials.
Several
suggested
that
previous
awardees
should
fulfill
these
roles.
Winners
who
are
members
of
minority
groups
may
be
especially
encouraging
to
other
minorities.
One
respondent
suggested
a
1-800
number
be
used
for
help
with
the
application.
Ten
percent
of
the
respondents
suggested
that
there
be
workshops
for
persons
interested
in
the
award.
Workshops
could
be
used
to
improve
writing
abilities
and
provide
information
about
how
to
complete
the
application.
Also,
because
several
noted
that
some
cultures
value
humility
and
have
difficulty
with
self-promotion
and
asking
for
others
to
promote
them,
workshops
could
be
used
to
address
"blowing
your
own
horn"
and
how
to
ask
for
letters
of
recommendation.
Finally,
many
respondents
noted
the
need
to
get
more
members
of
underrepresented
groups
into
teaching
so
that
they
could
be
nominated
for
the
PAESMT.
In
many
states,
minorities
have
very
low
representation
in
math
and
science.
Thus,
more
work
needs
to
be
done
at
the
high
school
and
college
levels
to
encourage
members
of
underrepresented
groups
to
go
into
these
areas
of
study.
Conclusion
The
findings
from
our
conversations
with
teachers
recognized
by
PAESMT
in
1990
and
1991
indicate
that
the
program
is
one
of
significant
merit.
It
provides
recognition
to
individual
teachers
and
the
teaching
profession,
motivates
the
awardees
themselves,
and
empowers
those
recognized
to
share
their
skills
and
resources
with
their
colleagues
and
the
community.
The
word
heard
over
and
over
again
was
"validation,"
both
individual
and
collective,
for
those
who
devoted
themselves
to
teaching.
In
presenting
our
findings
we
have
tried
to
use
the
words
of
awardees
themselves
as
much
as
possible
because
their
comments
to
us,
more
than
any
statistical
figures,
provide
a
rich
documentation
of
the
impact
that
PAESMT
has
had.
Even
with
using
the
awardees
own
words,
however,
it
is
not
possible
to
convey
the
enthusiasm
that
permeated
the
conversations
and
the
excitement
that
was
reflected
in
the
stories
that
were
shared.
PAESMT
is
a
program
with
significant
impact
on
the
teachers
recognized;
the
teachers
recognized,
in
turn,
have
impacted
their
colleagues
in
some
very
significant
ways.
By
recognizing
1,400
individuals,
NSF
has
positively
touched
several
times
that
number
of
teachers
and
learners.
I lighted another fire.