Title: Preparing Our Children: Math and Science Education in the
National Interest
Date: March 1, 1999
Preparing Our Children:
Math and Science Education in the National Interest
NSB 99-31
Issued March 1999
National Science Board
National Science Foundation
Acknowledgments
TASK FORCE ON MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT
The Task Force on Mathematics and Science
Achievement, or "TIMSS Task Force," was created
in March 1998 by then-NSB Chairman Richard N.
Zare in the wake of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study. The Task Force
reported to the NSB Committee on Education and
Human Resources (EHR).
Task Force Members
Mary K. Gaillard
Chair, Task Force
Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan
Richard A. Tapia
Vera C. Rubin
Bob H. Suzuki
Chair, EHR Committee (ex officio)
Daryl E. Chubin
Executive Secretary
This report may be accessed at the NSB website
. The NSB also
welcomes your comments by telephone
(703/306-2000; TDD: 703/306-0090) or mail:
National Science Board Office
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230
The National Science Board
The National Science Board (NSB) consists of 24
members plus the Director of the National
Science Foundation (NSF). Appointed by the
President, the Board serves as the governing
body for NSF and provides advice to the
President and the Congress on matters of
national science policy.
NSB MEMBERS
Eamon M. Kelly, NSB Chairman; President Emeritus
and Professor, Payson Center for International
Development and Technology Transfer, Tulane
University
Diana S. Natalicio, NSB Vice Chairman;
President, The University of Texas at El Paso
John A. Armstrong; IBM Vice President for
Science & Technology (Retired)
Pamela A. Ferguson; Professor of Mathematics,
Grinnell College
Mary K. Gaillard; Professor of Physics,
University of California-Berkeley
Sanford D. Greenberg; Chairman and CEO, TEI
Industries, Inc.
M. R. C. Greenwood; Chancellor, University
of California-Santa Cruz
Stanley V. Jaskolski; Vice President, Eaton
Corporation
Anita K. Jones; University Professor, Department
of Computer Science, University of Virginia
George M. Langford; Professor, Department of
Biological Science, Dartmouth College
Jane Lubchenco; Wayne and Gladys Valley
Professor of Marine Biology, Oregon State
University
Eve L. Menger; Director, Characterization
Science & Services (Retired), Corning Inc.
Joseph A. Miller Jr.; Senior Vice President for
R&D & Chief Technology Officer, E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co.
Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan; Vice Chancellor,
Academic Affairs and Dean, University of
California-Los Angeles
Robert C. Richardson; Vice Provost for Research
and Professor of Physics, Cornell University
Vera C. Rubin; Staff Member, Department of
Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of
Washington
Maxine Savitz; General Manager, AlliedSignal Inc.
Ceramic Components
Luis Sequeira; J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus,
Departments of Bacteriology and Plant Pathology,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert M. Solow; Institute Professor Emeritus,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bob H. Suzuki; President, California State
Polytechnic University-Pomona
Richard A. Tapia; Professor, Department of
Computational and Applied Mathematics, Rice
University
Chang-Lin Tien; NEC Distinguished Professor of
Engineering, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of California-Berkeley
Warren M. Washington; Senior Scientist and Head,
Climate Change Section, National Center for
Atmospheric Research
John A. White Jr.; Chancellor, University
of Arkansas - Fayetteville
MEMBER EX OFFICIO
Rita R. Colwell; Director, National Science
Foundation
Marta Cehelsky; Executive Officer, National
Science Board
Executive Summary
In a culture dedicated to opportunity for all,
nothing is more important than
". . . as American preparing our children for the future
schools fail more workplace. For a mobile population, local
youngsters, this schools are de facto national resources for
nation’s capability learning.
to innovate, solve
problems, and The National Science Board (NSB), charged with
produce--to sustain advising the President and the Congress on
world leadership national science policy, urges a nation-wide
is in jeopardy." consensus on a core of knowledge and competency
in mathematics and science. The Board believes
it is both possible and imperative to develop
national strategies that serve the national
interest while respecting local responsibility
for K-12 teaching and learning.*
In this report, the NSB draws on research and
analysis that show how stakeholders working in
their home communities can converge on what
matters most in promoting student achievement.
The Board further suggests that the science and
engineering communities--both individually and
through their institutions--represent a special
resource for local schools, teachers, and
students.
Math and Science Standards in the National
Interest
The future of the Nation depends on a strong,
competitive workforce and a citizenry equipped
to function in a complex world. That interest
encompasses what every student in a grade
should know and be able to do in mathematics
and science. The connection of K-12 content
standards to college admissions criteria is
vital for conveying a national expectation:
educational excellence improves not just the
health of science, but every-one’s life chances
through productive employment, active
citizenship, and continuous learning.
According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, one in three students changes
schools more than once between grades 1 and 8.
Thus, the needs of our mobile student
population beg for some coordination of content
and resources. This is a systemic problem that
demands systemic solutions. For U.S. student
achievement to rise, no one can be left behind.
The Board believes that stakeholders must
develop a much-needed consensus on a common
core of mathematics and science knowledge and
skills to be embedded consistently in classroom
teaching and learning.
Imparting core competencies neither defines an
entire curriculum nor precludes locally-held
prerogatives about the content of curricula.
For example, NSF, NASA, and other agencies have
funded instructional materials development that
reflects professional consensus on what
constitutes teachable and rigorous content in
mathematics and science. The evaluation and
distribution of such materials help districts,
teachers, and administrators make informed
choices among resources.
Areas for Action
Implementing standards creates opportunities to
change both the conditions for learning and the
performance of U.S. students. The
recommendations that follow suggest strategies
for implementing the Board’s core belief. Of
special emphasis are areas of action in which
the science community can collaborate to
advance the consensus on core competencies. The
NSB proposes three areas for consensual
national action to improve mathematics and
science teaching and learning: instructional
materials, teacher preparation, and college
admissions.
According to the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), U.S.
students are not taught what they need to know.
Most U.S. high school students take no advanced
science, with only one-quarter enrolling in
physics, one-half in chemistry. From the TIMSS
analysis we also learned that mathematics and
science curricula in U.S. high schools lack
coherence, depth, and continuity, and cover too
many topics in a superficial way.
Without some degree of consensus on content for
each grade level, textbooks will continue to be
all-inclusive and superficial. They will fail
to challenge and motivate students to be
curious and use mathematics and science as ways
of knowing.
Student achievement should reflect the value
added by schooling. Asserting that "all
children can learn" reflects the power of
standards and accountability. Through
district-level policy changes in course and
graduation requirements, all students can be
held to the same high standard of performance.
At the same time, teachers and schools must be
held accountable so that race, ethnicity,
gender, physical disability, and economic
disadvantage can diminish as excuses for subpar
student performance.
Amidst education experimentation across the
U.S., the Washington Post noted last Fall that
"class size, physical resources, local
administration--can help. But good teaching is
the vein of gold. To mine it, we’ll have to pay
more to attract and keep the best. And we’ll
need to be sure we get our money’s worth by
requiring strong preparation, and performance
up to measurable standards."
According to the National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, as many as one
in four teachers is teaching "out of field."
The National Association of State Directors of
Teacher Education and Certification reports
that only 28 states require prospective
teachers to pass examinations in the subject
areas they plan to teach, and only 13 states
test them on their teaching skills.
Widely shared goals and standards in teacher
preparation, licensure, and professional
development provide mechanisms to ensure
teacher quality. We cannot expect world-class
learning of mathematics and science if U.S.
teachers lack the confidence, enthusiasm, and
knowledge to deliver world-class instruction.
While updating current teacher knowledge is
essential, improving future teacher preparation
is even more crucial.
Providing the best possible teachers for our
schools requires juggling the competing
pressures faced by besieged districts, schools,
and classroom teachers. The community partners
of schools--higher education, business, and
industry--share the obligation to heighten
student achievement.
Content standards, clusters of courses, and
graduation requirements bestow advantages on
students. They illuminate the path to college
and the workplace by forming a foundation for
later learning, and draw students’ career
aspirations within reach. How high schools
assess student progress, however, has
consequences for deciding who gains access to
higher education.
Longitudinal data on 1982 high school graduates
point to course-taking or "academic intensity,"
as opposed to high school grade point average
or SAT/ACT scores, as predictors of completion
of baccalaureate degrees. Nevertheless,
short-term, quantifiable measures such as
standardized test scores tend to dominate
admissions decisions. Such decisions promote
the participation of some students in
mathematics and science, and discourage others.
Data suggest, too, that the cumulative
disadvantages of family income will be
compounded by admissions criteria that apply
the wrong filters and restrict opportunities.
State efforts to create a "seamless" education
system--K-12 schools and colleges working
together to set standards and curricula--and
hold colleges accountable (much as schools
already do) are laudable for tying state
resources to performance.
Acting as "all one system" means that the
strengths and deficiencies of one educational
level are not just inherited by the next.
Instead, they become spurs to better
preparation and opportunity for higher
learning. Partnering by an institution of
higher education demands adjusting the reward
system to recognize service to local schools,
teachers, and students as instrumental to the
mission of the institution.
Research Informing Practice
Policymakers, business leaders, and parents are
increasingly vexed over the academic
achievement of U.S. students. Clearly, the
issues raised in this report shape a research
agenda: What do we need to know and how best
can we engender reliable and usable knowledge
about, for example, which tests should be used
for gauging progress in teaching and learning,
and how children learn in both formal and
informal settings? What would attract the
participation of the requisite communities? How
can an interagency portfolio of research be
devised?
The National Science Board sees research,
supported at a national level and in a global
context, as a necessary condition for improved
student achievement in math and science.
Research on "what works" should inform those
seeking a change in practice and learning
outcomes, especially teachers. Like other
professionals, teachers need support networks
that deliver information, helping to refine and
renew their knowledge and skills.
Conclusions: A Shared Responsibility
A generation ago, the NSB Commission on
Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science
and Technology advised: "Our children are the
most important asset of our country; they
deserve at least the heritage that was passed
to us ... a level of mathematics, science and
technology education that is the finest in the
world, without sacrificing the American
birthright of personal choice, equity and
opportunity."
The health of science and engineering tomorrow
depends on improved mathematics and science
preparation of our students today. But we
cannot delegate the responsibility of teaching
and learning mathematics and science solely to
teachers and schools. And we cannot expect
instant results.
Improved student performance in mathematics and
science will be short-lived if the conditions
for schooling do not change and our strategies
are uninformed by research. These needs
transform the national interest into a national
imperative. Educational excellence K-16 is a
shared responsibility and, above all, a
tractable challenge to us all.
___________
*The National Science Board first articulated
this belief in Failing Our Children:
Implications of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, July 31, 1998,
NSB-98-154.
Student Achievement as a Shared Responsibility
Almost 10 years ago, President Bush and the
state governors "set goals aimed at
"Without a standard, preparing all the Nation’s children to improve
tests become mere their achievement in core subjects and outpace
comparisons among the world in at least math and science by
students . . . 2000." 1 The urgency of the ensuing national
they measure what not debate on how to improve academic achievement
children bring by U.S. elementary, middle, and high school
to school,what students--and the consequences of failing to do
they learn in so-- remains undiminished today. At issue is
school." who ostensibly defines the content to be
learned, and who ensures the opportunity to
teach and learn it well. While resolutions will
be local, the dialogue that precedes them
should reflect experiences from across the
Nation, as well as research and evaluation of
processes and outcomes, including international
comparisons.
The National Science Board (NSB), the governing
body for the National Science Foundation, is
charged with advising the President and the
Congress on matters of national science
policy.* Last July, the NSB issued Failing Our
Children, a statement urging "all stakeholders
in our vast grass-roots system of K-12
education to develop a nation-wide consensus
for a common core of knowledge and competency
in mathematics and science." | "In the new
global context," the statement continues, "a
scientifically literate population is vital to
the democratic process, a healthy economy, and
our quality of life."
Just as the inability to read puts a child at
risk of truancy and becoming a school dropout,
deficiencies in mathematics and science have
become a barrier to higher education and the
21st century workplace. Preparation of new
generations for entry to both of these worlds
is a community responsibility; it cannot be
delegated solely to teachers and schools. Thus,
the articulation of K-12 content standards with
college admissions criteria is vital for
conveying the national expectation that
educational excellence improves not just the
health of science, but everyone’s life chances
through productive employment, active
citizenship, and continuous learning.
Moreover, the future of the science enterprise
is renewed through a continuous flow of talent
into the Nation’s science and engineering
workforce--talent that embodies certain core
skills and competencies derived from education
and training shaped by the highest standards of
quality.~ The NSB believes that nothing is more
essential to the health of the science
enterprise than human resources--the people who
are prepared for careers that produce the next
generation of knowledge, products, and
processes in all sectors of the economy.
It is imperative to raise the voice of the
science and engineering communities,** as the
chief practitioners of research and education,
in the national dialogue on improving the
teaching and learning of mathematics and
science. Together with elected officials,
school administrators, classroom teachers,
parents, and employers (especially those from
knowledge-based industries), scientists and
engineers bring a valuable perspective on
mathematics and science as a way of knowing, a
transferable skill, and a citizenship tool as
we enter a new millennium.
In a culture dedicated to opportunity for all,
nothing is more important than preparing our
children for the future workplace. In the
science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology (SMET) education of all students,
K-12 through post-graduate, the NSB believes
that rigor and depth of content are keys to
preparation.|| Education reform is a long-term
proposition. In this report, the Board sets
forth what it considers the necessary
conditions for academic achievement, including
concurrence on what constitutes "basic skills"
for the 21st century.
Science education in the U.S. has received
several national wake-up calls since the
launching of Sputnik in 1957, including the
publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983. More
recently, the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS)2 warned that
America’s children ages 13-17 are, on average,
not leading, but lagging the world in
mathematics and science achievement. Every
parent--not just scientists, educators, and
employers--should be alarmed by these results.
The school systems of high-performing countries
share characteristics that can be gleaned from
the TIMSS data. These data range from content
analysis of textbooks, curricula, and classroom
videotapes, to ethnographic case studies and
surveys of teachers’ attitudes and students’
course taking.3 The characteristics that emerge
include:
* a coherent vision of what all students
in each successive grade should learn,
with a focus on a few topics in depth
both in their textbooks and classroom
instruction;
* instruction delivered by teachers
well-prepared in the subject, who
benefit from out-of-class opportunities
to develop lessons, and consult
regularly with teachers and other
resource persons; and
* alignment between what is expected,
taught, tested, and rewarded for
students, teachers, and schools.
All high-performing countries show student
gains between grades 3 and 4, and again between
grades 7 and 8. The U.S. does not. Even in 4th
grade, where U.S. students do well relative to
those in other countries, their performance in
physical science areas is weak, foreshadowing
their average performance at 8th grade and
their unacceptably poor showing at 12th grade.
When we compare our K-12 schools and curricula
in light of the TIMSS results, we find many
teachers lacking good content preparation and,
in the aggregate, a muddled and superficial
curriculum. Even excellent pedagogy cannot
inspire learning what the world’s
best-performing children are expected to know
in these circumstances. Amidst the diversity of
students and systems--large and small, wealthy
and disadvantaged, urban and suburban and
rural--there is an overarching reality: in too
many American schools there is too little
quality science and mathematics being taught
and learned.
In addition, while U.S. graduate education
remains the envy of the world, the declining
interest and participation of domestic students
in science and engineering must be taken as a
disturbing sign that K-12 mathematics and
science education is failing to renew, expand,
and prepare our talent pool.4 This decline
clearly suggests that the performance of U.S.
students signals uneven preparation for
college-level study, a lack of readiness for
the world of work, an accumulating disadvantage
in the global economic competition to come. A
further implication, more subtle and harder to
demonstrate, is that as American schools fail
more youngsters, this nation’s capability to
innovate, solve problems, and produce--to
sustain world leadership--is in jeopardy.
With such a prospect in mind, the National
Science Board asks how to address the national
interest through local strategies that promote
academic achievement in mathematics and
science. Drawing on research and analysis, this
report asserts that stake-holders working in
their home communities can converge on what
matters most for mathematics and science
achievement--rigorous content standards, high
expectations for teaching and learning,
teachers well-prepared in the subjects they are
teaching, and meaningful measures of
accountability. Such convergence can help
clarify shared responsibility, identify where
contention resides, and suggest how research
can illuminate both what is known and what
needs to be known. The Federal role in
elevating education practice and student
performance is catalytic and analytical--one
resource among many helping to foster the
conditions under which all students, schools,
parents, and communities can together boost
academic achievement.
___________
*As stipulated in the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 42.U.S.C.
Sec. 1861.et seq.
|National Science Board, Failing Our Children:
Implications of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, July 31, 1998,
NSB-98-154 (hereafter referred to as the "July
statement").
~In its 1980 reauthorization in the Science and
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C.
1885) and subsequently in Title I of the
Education for Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C
3911 to 3922), NSF was given additional
authority to increase participation by groups
historically underrepresented in science.
**The words "science" and "scientists"
sometimes appear in this report as a shorthand
for the principal participants in the community
of"scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and
technologists," as well as math and science
educators at grades K-16. They are all central
to what is sometimes called "SMET education."
||One of NSF’s three overarching goals is to
"Achieve excellence in U.S. science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology
education at all levels." This "requires
attention to needs at every level of schooling
and access to . . . educational opportunities
for every member of society" NSF in a Changing
World: Executive Summary of The National
Science Foundation’s Strategic Plan (1995, NSF
95-142): 3.
Content Standards for All Schools
No topic in education has stirred more emotion
than "standards." As communities debate the
" ... mobility essence and intended influence of standards on
becomes another what teachers teach and their children learn, the
disadvantage that national interest often recedes from view. The
accumulates, leaving national interest is grounded in the importance
some children further of a strong, competitive workforce for the future
behind or labeling of the Nation and a citizenry equipped to function
them in a complex world. That interest encompasses what
inappropriately." every student in a grade should know and be able
to do in mathematics and science (among other
core subjects). Today’s mobile society means
that local schools have become a de facto
national resource for learning.
In the remainder of this section, we address two
issues that under-pin this core recommendation:
the need for standards in a mobile population,
and the role of nation-wide standards in the
context of local school governance.
Student Mobility
The NSB believes that
In the July statement, stakeholders must
the NSB notes that develop a much-needed
"Students often move consensus on a common
several times during core of mathematics and
their K-12 education, science knowledge and
encountering varying skills to be embedded
curricula and consistently in
instructional materials classroom teaching and
that cover an increasing learning.
number of topics while
sacrificing depth and rigor." National data show
that 31 percent of the 8th grade class of 1988
changed schools two or more times between grades
1 and 8.* Ten percent changed schools two or
more times during high school, i.e., between
1988 and 1992. White students were less likely
to move than ethnic minorities; students who
lived with their mother and father during the
8th grade were less likely to have changed
schools than students in single-parent or other
family situations. And students in low-income
families were more likely to change schools than
students with family incomes exceeding $20,000.
According to the U.S. Department of Education,
"students change schools for academic, personal,
and family-related reasons. Those who make
frequent school changes can experience
inappropriate placement in a new school, lack of
continuity of lesson content, disruptions in
social ties, and feelings of alienation.
Teachers may also find it difficult to identify
and meet the academic needs of the highly mobile
student." 5 This "mobile student" segment of the
school population also has implications for
other phenomena that affect the Nation’s
workforce--high school dropouts and
completions.|
Special local programs alone will not compensate
for the learning deficiencies created by the
movement of children between school districts. A
sounder approach is student access to exemplary
teachers and support that begins with agreement
on the "minimum requirements" of what, say, all
5th graders should know and be able to do in
mathematics and science. Without defining these
requirements, mobility becomes another
disadvantage that accumulates, leaving some
children further behind or labeling them
inappropriately.
If the content of instruction encountered by
students in 5th grade math classes in Missoula
is unlike its counterpart in Cincinnati, then
every transfer student--regardless of what she
has been taught and is prepared to learn--will
have little opportunity (exacerbated by the lack
of continuity) for making academic progress.
This situation is all too common across the
U.S.~
A remedy is content--instructional materials,
teaching, and testing aligned to something
beyond, or in addition to, a local standard that
gauges learning by every old and new kid on the
block. The needs of the mobile student
population beg for some coordination of content
and resources. Structures and practices must
help to prevent mobile students-- who tend to be
ethnic minorities, poor, or come from one-parent
families--from slipping through the cracks of a
school or district. Better record-keeping is
only a start. To help recognize learning needs,
classroom teachers must be better informed about
the content preparation of newly-arrived
students.**
Student mobility illustrates a systemic problem
that demands systemic solutions. Unless the
needs of the mobile student population are
addressed, other bigger problems loom. If school
imparts too few skills, the teenager is at
greater risk of dropping out and becoming
dependent on another set of social services. If
transience and mobility between schools reduces
students’ access to quality teachers,
instruction, and materials because of content
that lacks consistency across districts and
grades, then guidelines that transcend statewide
practices and help to minimize the disruptions
of change should be welcome.
Standards and Accountability
A decade ago, national standards in mathematics
and science began to be designed by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM), and the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), in close consultation with all
stakeholders in education--preschool to graduate
school. These standards, while evolving, have
been endorsed--generically if not
specifically--by organizations as diverse as the
American Federation of Teachers, The Business
Roundtable, the Education Commission of the
States, and the CEOs of over 200 Silicon Valley
high-tech companies.6
The reality today is that virtually all states
have curriculum frameworks that use the NCTM,
AAAS, and the NAS documents as points of
reference for teaching challenging mathematics
and science.7 These independently-generated
frameworks signify an emerging consensus that
offers a national resource on which local
districts across the U.S. can draw as they
define "basic skills" and formulate guides to
classroom practice.
The existence of frameworks has not translated
content standards into widespread classroom
practice.8 "Translation," of course, requires
change--teacher by teacher, textbook by
textbook, classroom by classroom. There is no
"one size fits all" implementation plan. In this
sense, the Federal role in the national movement
toward standards is at best supportive.
"National" standards do not mean "federal,"
"federally mandated," "standardized," or
"homogeneous." Indeed, the relation of
"nation-wide" standards to state frameworks and
to what is actually taught in classrooms remains
murky at best.|| Imparting core competencies
neither defines an entire curriculum nor
precludes locally-held beliefs and prerogatives
about the content of that curriculum.
Rather, math and science competencies must try
to anticipate future national needs as
convergence on the definition, content, and use
of standards continues to grow.9 For example,
NSF, NASA, and other agencies have funded
instructional materials development, yielding
models that reflect professional consensus on
what constitutes teachable content standards in
mathematics and science.~~ The evaluation and
distribution of such materials help districts,
teachers, and administrators make informed
choices among innovative resources.***
In a recent review of the status of standards,
the President of the National Center on
Education and the Economy identified what will
reinforce high academic performance.10 Attaining
such performance, by pursuing the following, is
consistent with the states’ role as chief
accountability agent:
* assessments set to the standards (if you cannot
accurately measure progress toward the
standards, they are unlikely to influence
behavior);
* curriculum set to the standards (what is taught
is what is learned);
* incentives for the students to meet the
standards (students presently have incentives
to stay in high school to get the diploma, but
little incentive to take tough courses or work
hard);
* a relentless focus on results (develop a strong
rewards-and-consequences system tied to the
standards and directed to the staff of schools;
making progress would be rewarded, repeatedly
dismal performance would put jobs at risk);
* a modern accountability system (put performance
standards in place, institute appropriate
measures of progress, and decide how to raise
the students to the standards); and
* accurate, detailed, up-to-date data on student
performance (readily available to parents and
policymakers).|||
The reality of educational accountability lags
these attainable prerequisites for student
achievement. As Quality Counts ’99, a survey of
state policies on accountability, concludes,
"most have a long way to go in making their
accountability systems clear, fair, and
complete." The survey finds, for example, that
49 states (all but Iowa) have or are drafting
standards in core subjects, 48 now test their
students, and 36 publish annual report cards on
individual schools. Fewer than half publicly
rate the performance of all schools or identify
low-performing ones. Only 16 states have the
power to close, take over, or overhaul
chronically failing schools. While 19 require
students to pass tests to graduate from high
school, only two have attempted to tie teacher
evaluations to student performance. Finally,
while most states rely on test scores to help
determine "rewards and sanctions," the focus is
primarily on schools rather than individual
educators, penalties are threatened but not
imposed, and there is no agreed-upon strategy
for fixing failing schools.11
Accountability may begin with standards. But
because content standards are mere abstractions
until melded with instructional and student
performance standards, teaching and assessment
are intimately (and perhaps inevitably) bound up
in discussions of standards.12 Bound up as well
are expectations--not just of students but also
of teachers, parents, and the Nation. Test
performance, too, must be interpreted relative
to something, be it expectations or course
offerings, and course taking (i.e., curriculum
and the opportunity to learn it). Without a
standard, tests become mere comparisons among
students--norm-referenced tests--uncalibrated by
content. They also risk missing or mismeasuring
complex cognitive and performance proficiencies.
In the very worst case, they measure what
children bring to school, not what they learn in
school. Student achievement, in short, should
reflect the value added by schooling, not the
distribution of class or home (dis)advantages
that characterize the U.S. student population.
Standards should help us think about the
relation of science literacy to basic skills.
What those skills are fuels the ability to apply
knowledge to new contexts and problems.
Controversy over how students acquire them seems
to distract communities from achieving what most
avow is in the national interest.
Teachers’ cognitive expectations, or what they
believe the child can learn, set the stage for
performance. Additionally, the child must be
convinced of his/her own capability. Asserting
that "all children can learn" reflects the power
of standards and accountability: increasing
mathematics and science graduation requirements
(to at least three and preferably four years of
each); eliminating remedial courses (and the
tracking and ability grouping they denote); and
holding principals, guidance counselors, and
teachers--along with students
themselves--accountable for academic
improvement. All students can be held to the
same high standard of performance, so that race,
ethnicity, gender, physical disability, and
economic disadvantage can diminish as excuses
for subpar performance.~~~
Likewise, parents’ expectations influence
achievement. The research literature indicates
that parents decide to become involved in the
education of their children due to three
principal factors: what they believe is
important, necessary, and permissible for them
to do with and on behalf of their children; the
extent to which they believe they can exert
positive influence on their children’s
education; and their perceptions that the child
and the school want them to be involved. Various
factors, but particularly change of residence,
inhibit parental involvement.13
Of course, adoption of curricula with
challenging content and parental involvement
will not willy-nilly boost American students’
academic achievement. Curriculum innovations
have historically failed to influence teaching
and learning practices due, in part, to
teachers’ scarce opportunities to learn new
content and improve their practice. Although
teachers are instrumental in student learning,
no one component can transform the quality of
schooling, improve student achievement, and
communicate to all stakeholders (especially
parents) why changes should be tried, indeed
supported, before positive results will be
observed (much less measured). That is why a
systemic vision--the U.S. as a "common market"
for knowledge workers with transferable
skills--is needed to integrate all components of
teaching and learning.
For U.S. student achievement to rise, a
consensus on standards, from classroom to
state-house, must be forged. The recommendations
discussed below all contribute to effective
implementation of the Board’s core
recommendation. Implementation is addressed to
areas of action for which stakeholders share
responsibility. Of special emphasis are NSB
proposals for how the science community can
collaborate to advance the consensus on core
competencies, and how national and international
experience should inform decisions about
mathematics and science teaching and learning.
_______
*U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988, Base Year (1988) and
Second Follow-up (1992) Surveys. Data that
extend this time series will not be available
until 2000. Also, mobility rates in urban
districts are probably higher than this national
average. The Houston Independent School
District, for instance, reports a 38 percent
mobility rate in 1998 (C. Lanius, personal
communication, Sept. 18, 1998).
|Most strikingly, Hispanics--the fastest growing
segment of the school-age population--drop out
of high school at higher rates and attain lower
levels of education than other groups. U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, The Condition of
Education--1998, Indicator 24
/nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98/c9824a01.html>.
~Content standards need not encroach on
teachers’ creativity in presenting material. As
Finn et al. ("Four Reasons Why Most [State
Standards] ‘Don’t Cut the Mustard,’" Education
Week, Nov. 25, 1998: 56, 39) put it: "Standards,
if done right, should not standardize what
happens within schools. Rather, they should free
the schools from top-down dictates while
obliging them to focus on results. This will
enable various school models to emerge, from
‘progressive’ to ‘traditional,’ and everything
in between--a range of choices that can better
serve the needs and learning styles of children
and the passions and talents of teachers" (quote
from 39).
**For example, the IEP (Individualized Education
Program) is a locally administered but
nationally standard tool used to guide and
monitor services specifically designed to meet
the needs of special education students.
Depending on the disability, a statement of
goals, setting, and supports necessary for the
student to perform academically must be
completed, with parents’ consent, before
services can be provided, as stipulated in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). One idea is to encapsulate a version of
the IEP in a "digital portfolio," e.g. a CD-ROM,
containing each student’s academic history--what
courses s/he has taken and learned at what level
of proficiency. This would travel with the
student, so that "receiving" districts would not
have to rely on the records and responsiveness
of "sending" districts. A version of this
innovation was a prize-winner in the 1998
Bayer/NSF Award for Community Innovation
competition that challenged student teams to use
science and technology in developing solutions
to real-life community problems. A team from
Atlanta proposed T.A.S.K.--Tracking and Saving
Kids Force, creating a clearing-house to assist
parents in locating, retrieving, and storing the
school and immunization information of homeless
and transient students. See
/www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/events/bayernsf/winrelea.htm>.
||In the words of a recent commentary,
"Standards should not prescribe teaching
methods, devise classroom strategies, or
substitute for lesson plans. Standards are about
ends, not means. Yet many states either do not
understand this distinction or do not agree with
it. Too often, pedagogy and ideology have seeped
into their standards." See C.E. Finn, Jr., et
al., op.cit., 1998.
~~NSF programs, for instance, support a range of
projects. In its NSF oversight role, the NSB
would apply the national policy analysis of this
report to NSF programs designed to address the
myriad needs of school systems. In its 1999
Government Performance and Results Act
performance report, NSF will evaluate the
outcomes of its investments in Education and
Training. With this NSF report is in hand, the
NSB could better address NSF portfolio
questions.
***For example, see AAAS’ Project 2061 at
. This "Guidebook
to Examine School Curricula" is part of the
TIMSS Resource Kit at
/timss.enc.org/TIMSS/timss/curicula>; and
features a "curriculum analysis procedure" for
evaluating existing classroom materials. It is
part of the TIMSS Resource Kit found at
/timss.enc.org/TIMSS/timss/curicula>.
|||"What standards should do, among other
things, is tell teachers what the experts think
[based on research] is most worth teaching . . .
Looked at that way, the changes that have taken
place since the start of the standards movement
are impressive, but not nearly enough. That is
hardly cause for despair. It is cause for
redoubled effort." M.S. Tucker, "The State of
Standards: Powerful Tool or Symbolic Gesture?"
Expecting More (Newsletter on Standards-Based
Reform), 1 (Spring 1998): 2. Also see D. French,
"The State’s Role in Shaping a Progressive
Vision of Public Education," Phi Delta Kappan,
November 1998: 185-194.
~~~Such changes are examples of "policy drivers"
that are central to the program design of NSF’s
Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI). While each USI
may follow a different reform trajectory for
achieving the goal of system-wide, challenging
mathematics instruction for all students,
progress toward this goal--as reflected in
student achievement data--is the chief outcome
for which the districts are held accountable.
"Such improvements are called ‘systemic’ because
they fundamentally alter the school systems in
which they occur." See L.S. Williams, The Urban
Systemic Initiatives (USI) Program of the
National Science Foundation: Summary Update,
March 17, July 1998, quote from 3; and The
National Science Foundation’s Urban Systemic
Initiatives (USI) Program: Models of Reform of
K-12 Science and Mathematics Education
(Westat*McKenzie Consortium, October 1998).
Building a Seamless Education System, K-16
Content standards that nurture a science-literate
population serve the national interest.
"Most innovative Implementing standards creates opportunities to change
science curricula . . both the conditions for learning and the performance of
. stress inquiry, a U.S. students. This is a call to transcend a dangerously
connectivity among balkanized system and assist local communities to
disciplines, a support teachers and learners of mathematics and
concern for societal science, K-16. To reiterate the NSB July statement, "No
implications, and a nation can afford to tolerate what prevails in American
scientific ‘way of schooling: generally low expectations and low
knowing.’ " performance, with only pockets of excellence at a
world-class level of achievement."
RECOMMENDATION 1 The NSB proposes three areas for consensual national
action to improve mathematics and science teaching and
To implement its learning: instructional materials, teacher preparation,
core recommendation and college admission. We address each in turn.
(above) through
instructional Instructional Materials
materials:
U.S. students, TIMSS showed us, are not taught what they
1. The NSB urges need to know. Most U.S. high school students don’t take
(a) broad advanced science; they opt out, with only one-quarter
adoption of the enrolling in physics, one-half in chemistry.
principle of Instructional materials are not the only culprit, but
citizen review; surely contribute to this science-aversion. As the
(b) active president of the American Physical Society puts it,
participation "Both common sense and modern educational theory tell us
on citizen that students, when asked to memorize disconnected facts
advisory boards without truly understanding them, quickly lose interest
by educators in the subject."*
and practicing
mathematicians
and scientists, From the TIMSS analysis we also learned that mathematics
as well as and science curricula in U.S. high schools lack
parents and coherence, depth, and continuity; they cover too many
employers from topics in a superficial way. In short, TIMSS
knowledge-based demonstrated that content matters--and students must
industries; and have the opportunity to learn it. While most countries
(c) use of introduce algebra and geometry in the middle grades,
public forums only one in four U.S. students take algebra before high
to foster school. Topics on the general knowledge 12th grade
dialogue mathematics assessment were covered by the 9th grade in
between the U.S., but by 7th in most other countries. In the
textbook general science assessment, topics in the U.S. were
publishers and covered by 11th grade, but by 9th grade in other
advisory boards countries.
in the review
process. Students’ exposure to challenging mathematics and
2. Accompanying science content is limited, it seems, by what is offered
this process them and the course taking choices they make. According
should be an to TIMSS, 90 percent of U.S. high school students stop
ongoing taking math before getting to calculus. Among
national college-bound students, half had not taken physics or
dialogue on trigonometry; three in four had not taken calculus,
appropriate while one in three had taken less than four years of
measures for mathematics.
evaluation of
textbooks and The TIMSS analysis also disclosed that most general
instructional science textbooks in the U.S. touch on many topics
materials for rather than probe any one in depth. The five most
use in the emphasized topics in 4th grade science texts accounted
classroom. The for 25 percent of total pages compared with an
NSB urges international average in the 70-75 percent range.
professional General mathematics textbooks in the U.S. contain an
associations in average of 36 different topics; texts in Japan cover 8
the science topics, in Germany, 4-5. In middle school (grades 5-8),
community to while the world proceeds to teach algebra and geometry,
take a lead in the U.S. continues to teach arithmetic. All
stimulating high-performing countries show student gains between
this dialogue grades 3 and 4, and again between grades 7 and 8. The
and in U.S. does not. Like others, the NSB believes this
formulating reflects a muddled, unfocused, repetitious, and
checklists or superficial curriculum.
content
inventories Without some degree of consensus on content for each
that could be grade level, textbooks will continue to be all-inclusive
valuable to and superficial. If used as the foundation for
their members, instruction, these textbooks will fail to challenge and
and all motivate students to exercise their curiosity and
stake-holders, experience mathematics and science as ways of knowing.
in the
evaluation At their best, curriculum materials energize learning.
process. But we learn in different ways. Curriculum developers
therefore offer alternative formats for their
textbooks.| Some emphasize rote learning, others
coherent knowledge of science content and process,
"Acting as ‘all one sometimes with the concurrent use of mathematics.14 Few
system’ means that introduce real-world inter-disciplinary problems and
the strengths and serve as the foundation for Advanced Placement courses,
deficiencies of one school-to-work transition courses, or the challenges of
educational level a liberal arts college education.~ Most innovative
are not just science curricula, for instance, seek coherence,
inherited by the integration, and movement from concrete ideas to
next." abstract concepts. Furthermore, they stress inquiry, a
connectivity among disciplines, a concern for societal
"The NSB urges implications, and a scientific "way of knowing." Taken
formation of together, they would foster in the high school graduate
three-pronged what we would term "science literacy."
partnerships:
Institutions that Teaching and learning to high standards cannot be the
graduate new province only of some schools, teachers, and students.
teachers working in To be systemic, 15,000 school districts should not
concert with engage in the same curriculum-based experiments and
national and state repeat all-too-familiar mistakes. They should reap the
certification benefit of what other districts have tried. Since most
bodies, and local decisions on textbooks and related instructional
school districts." materials are made at state or local district levels,
they frequently incorporate some mechanism for citizen
review and advice.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Teacher Preparation
To implement the
core recommendation Public opinion overwhelming favors "ensuring a
through teacher well-qualified teacher in every classroom" as the top
preparation and education priority. Indeed, teachers--once viewed as
professional central to the problem of student underachievement--are
development: now being recognized as the solution.** In teacher
1. The NSB urges preparation there is a "multiplier effect" that can span
formation of generations. While a sound undergraduate science
three-pronged education is essential for producing the next generation
partnerships: of scientists, it is equally critical for future
institutions teachers of science. The refrain, "you can’t teach what
that graduate you don’t know," 15 surely applies.
new teachers
working in There are many signs that teachers in the classroom
concert with cannot rely on their undergraduate education when
national and teaching mathematics or science. According to the
state National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, as
certification many as one in four teachers is teaching "out of field."
bodies, and The National Association of State Directors of Teacher
local school Education and Certification reports that only 28 states
districts. require prospective teachers to pass examinations in the
These subject areas they plan to teach, and only 13 states
partnerships test them on their teaching skills.16 Many students who
should form turned away from mathematics and science in college
around the become elementary school teachers.
highest
possible The NSB thus believes that improving future teacher
standards of preparation is crucial for improving their performance
subject content in the classroom and the achievement of their students.
knowledge for One commentator has noted that all the experimentation
new teachers, in full bloom across the U.S.--"class size, physical
and aim at resources, local administration--can help. But good
aligning teaching is the vein of gold. To mine it, we’ll have to
teacher pay more to attract and keep the best. And we’ll need to
education, be sure we get our money’s worth by requiring strong
certification preparation, and performance up to measurable
requirements standards." 17 There is a threshold of preparation and
and processes, competence that all future teachers of mathematics and
and hiring science must initially reach, and then augment, as their
patterns. careers unfold.
2. Mechanisms for
the support of The distributed character of our education system and
teachers, such the diversity of higher education institutions
as sustained illuminate the problem. Over 1250 colleges and
mentoring by universities prepare future teachers, and 700 are
individual regularly audited by the National Council for the
university Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), which has
mathematics, contractual relations with 36 States. But NCATE
science, and accredits programs, while the 50 States credential
education teachers,18 and the teachers are employed by 15,000
faculty, as
well as other independent school districts. This recipe for
teacher support distributed responsibility has resulted in much variance
mechanisms such in course requirements for budding teachers and uneven
as pay quality in teacher education. Maintaining, enhancing,
supplements for and "scaling up" or spreading quality in a distributed
board system are difficult at best. Codified, widely shared
certification, goals and standards in teacher preparation, licensure,
should be and professional development provide mechanisms to
implemented overcome these difficulties.
through the
three-pronged What we have learned about mathematics and science
partnerships. teachers already in the classroom is dismaying. While
most teachers embrace a vision of high standards for all
students, cooperative learning (in small groups), and
RECOMMENDATION 3 the use of technology (computers and calculators), their
instructional strategies fall short of the vision.||
To implement the Many teachers lack support to plan and deliver quality
core recommendation instruction: 1 in 2 teachers feel inadequately prepared
through the college to integrate computers into instruction, and 2 in 5 feel
admissions process, inadequately prepared to use math or science textbooks
the NSB urges: as a resource rather than as the primary instructional
tool, or to use performance-based assessments. Fewer
1. institutions of than 1 in 3 teachers feel prepared to teach life
higher science, and only 1 in 10 feel prepared for the physical
education to science course they are teaching. In addition, more than
form a third of elementary teachers, and more than half of
partnerships high school mathematics and science teachers in 1993,
with local felt unprepared to involve parents in the education of
districts/schools their children!
that create a
more seamless Thus, in addition to teacher preparation, we have the
K-16 system, continuing challenge of professional development, where
increasing the school districts update the knowledge, skills, and
congruence strategies that teachers bring into the classroom. No
between high professional is equipped to practice for all time, i.e.,
school be an inexhaustible "vein of gold." We cannot expect
graduation world-class student learning of mathematics and science
requirements in if U.S. teachers lack the confidence, enthusiasm, and
math and knowledge to deliver world-class instruction.
science and
undergraduate As a body of scientists and engineers, the NSB believes
performance that content background matters for classroom
demands; and, performance. For example, the proportion of Presidential
2. faculty and awardee teachers in mathematics and science with
student degrees in the fields they teach is much higher than in
incentives that the total teacher population.~~
motivate
interactions to Likewise, professional development--intensive and
reveal linkages rigorous, with follow-up--can overcome flaws in content
between and pedagogical training. Recently, a decade-long study
classroom-based clearly established the links among professional
skills and development, changes in teaching practice, and improved
experiences and student achievement in California.19 But school
the demands on districts should not be left to shoulder the burden of
thinking and training that undergraduate education failed to deliver.
learning in the This becomes an expensive form of compensatory teacher
workplace. education--and a diversion of scarce resources that
could be put toward much-needed merit-based salary
increases for teachers, the purchase of new materials
and classroom equipment, and ongoing professional
development.***
As another commentator notes, it is important to connect
professional development to the evaluation of teachers
and to student performance:
The disconnect between professional
development and growth-oriented performance
appraisal is hard-wired into prevailing
practice, if not into collective bargaining
agreements. Few principals align their
evaluations of teachers with expected
competencies addressed through professional
development. . . . What’s good for students
should be good for our teachers. In schools,
professional development must be viewed as
part of a comprehensive system . . . that
supports teachers and administrators in
continually improving their proficiency with
respect to specific competencies linked to
student-learning outcomes.20
Without instructional quality control,
motivating students to learn to world-class
standards is futile. But teacher-strapped
districts are apt to sacrifice quality for
quantity-- more experience for less salary--in
hiring. State agencies routinely issue
temporary, emergency, and provisional
licenses.||| The challenge of recruiting and
retaining well-prepared teachers bumps up
against other considerations, including reduced
class size, which requires more teachers,
straining the already limited supply of those
with significant content background in
mathematics and science.~~~ A simultaneous
increase in student enrollment levels and
teacher retirements will increase the pressure
to hire unqualified teachers.21
Only the resolve of all partners who contribute
to the training, certification, hiring,
evaluating, and professional development of math
and science teachers will reduce "out of field"
teaching.**** Then those with solid grounding in
these subjects will have to confront the
quandary of career choice--alternative sources
of attractive employment opportunities. For
districts to compete with these opportunities,
as the NSB stated in July, communities must
build "a system of rewards and incentives,
including appropriate salaries, for well-trained
teachers who are knowledgeable about content and
pedagogically skillful."
Ideas worth pursuing include: forgivable student
loans and state income tax credits for new
teachers with content certification, creation of
a national job bank to assist school districts
in locating teachers with the desired
mathematics or science and grade level
credentials, and awarding merit raises for the
acquisition by teachers of specific skills and
content concentrations.||||
These factors create contradictory pressures for
states and local districts. Convergence on what
a science or mathematics teacher at the
elementary, middle, and secondary level must
know and be able to do in the classroom will be
a key factor in resolving some of these
contradictions.~~~~
Ensuring the best possible teachers for our
schools poses a formidable policy dilemma: how
to juggle competing pressures on besieged
districts, schools, and classroom teachers?22
The community partners of schools--higher
education, business, and industry--share the
obligation to heighten student achievement. A
combination of support for strong content and
pedagogical preparation of teachers, continuing
professional development linked to classroom
performance and improved student achievement,
and incentives that keep good teachers in the
classroom provides an avenue for acting--in the
name of accountability-- upon that obligation.
Another avenue, using categorical Federal
education programs such as Title I for poor
children, would increase incentives for
educators or students to do well.23 One option,
for example, would make improved performance
part of the standard for payment under Title I,
a provision that could be built into the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act that is
subject to reauthorization in 1999.
College Admissions
Quality teaching and learning of mathematics and
science bestows advantages on students. Content
standards, clusters of appropriate courses, and
graduation requirements illuminate the path to
future advantages. They smooth the transition to
college and the workplace by forming a
foundation for later learning and drawing
students’ career aspirations within reach. But
how high schools assess student progress has
consequences for deciding who gains access to
higher education and, moreover, who is prepared
to succeed at the baccalaureate level and
beyond. Congruence between what is needed to
exit secondary education and enter higher
education would be ideal. Because the metrics
for each leave much to chance, how to define and
predict student "success" remains a matter of
contention.
Longitudinal data on 1982 high school graduates
point to the role of course-taking or "academic
intensity," as opposed to high school grade
point average or SAT/ACT scores, in predicting
completion of baccalaureate degrees. (Academic
intensity refers to trigonometry, precalculus,
and calculus, as well as laboratory science,
especially chemistry and physics). By 1993, only
42 percent of black students who had gone
directly into four-year colleges and
universities had received the baccalaureate as
compared to 72 percent of white students in the
cohort.*****
An education researcher recently observed,
Grades are a crapshoot, varying wildly from
teacher to teacher and from school to
school; a single standardized-test score is
merely a snapshot of a student’s
performance on a Saturday morning. But a
student invests years in a course of study,
which provides momentum into higher
education and beyond. The effects of grades
and tests diminish in time, but the
sub-stance of learning does not go
away....[So] which of these
indicators--grades, scores, or
courses--would you rather rely on in
admissions decisions? In which area does
achievement seem to be most meaningful for
students’ success? And which can educators
change most easily? The student’s course of
study wins, hands down.24
Nevertheless, short-term and readily
quantifiable measures such as standardized test
scores tend to dominate admissions decisions.
Such decisions promote the participation of some
students in mathematics and science, and
discourage others.|||||
Data suggest that the cumulative disadvantages
of family income will be compounded by
admissions criteria that apply the wrong filters
and restrict opportunities.~~~~~ For example,
nearly 60 percent of low-income nonattending
students cite an inability to afford college as
the reason.****** If preparation is the key to
college access and enrollment, then we must find
ways of reducing the achievement gap in high
school performance between majority and minority
students. There is new evidence that, even in
suburban schools where family income and per
pupil spending is high, peer pressure may
suppress minority student performance.25 This
would suggest that out-of-class influences,
which are less amenable to policy intervention,
have pernicious effects on achievement.
Students simply face different classroom
experiences due to factors unrelated to interest
or ability. Recent studies suggest that
"successful theories will probably have to look
more carefully at the way black and white
children respond to the same classroom
experiences, such as being in a smaller
classroom, having a more competent teacher,
having a teacher of their own race, or [one] ...
with high expectations for those who perform
below the norm for their age group." 26 The
President of the National Education Associate
writes: "Until large numbers of students in the
same school and the same neighbor-hood value
academic achievement, success will continue to
be the exception . . . If universities and urban
public schools could become ‘sister cities,’our
most troubled schools might be saved from
within." 27
For university faculty to embrace collaboration
with schools and K-12 educators, there must be
some incentive for spending professional time in
support of a community partner.28 A Southern
Education Foundation report lauds some state
efforts to create a "seamless" education system:
K-12 schools and colleges work together to set
standards and curricula, and to hold colleges
accountable--much as schools already are--by
tying state resources to performance on a set of
indicators, including the status of minority
students.29 In this spirit, it has been
hypothesized that:
States and school districts are reluctant
to pursue reforms more aggressively until
they are sure higher education admissions
and placement processes will accommodate
their students. The result is stasis: Both
sides are waiting for the other to pull the
"trigger." We must adjust, and even
overhaul, the current melange of K-16
education policies that sends confusing
signals to students and schools about what
knowledge is worth knowing. Universities
must collaborate with K-12 leaders and
policymakers to improve policies that will
enhance academic preparation, elevate
education standards, and let prospective
college students know what lies ahead.30
In the July statement, the NSB exhorted
stake-holders to establish "college admissions
criteria that reinforce high standards in K-12
education and bolster participation of all
students in mathematics and science." Acting as
"all one system" means that the strengths and
deficiencies of one educational level are not
just inherited by the next. Instead, they become
spurs to better preparation and the opportunity
for higher learning.
By committing university resources to offering
programs for middle and high school students,
supplying mentors for teachers, etc., higher
education provides glimpses at what preparation
for college and advanced learning means.||||||
Partnering demands adjusting the institutional
reward system to recognize such service as
instrumental to the mission of the university.
___________
*Content is closely monitored due to its
potential impact on the kinds of instructional
materials that textbook publishers produce for
students nation-wide. For example, see J.
Basinger,"Coalition Lashes Out at California’s
Proposed Science-Education Standards for
Schools," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Sept. 3, 1998
/chronicle.com/daily/98/09/98090301n.htm>.
|Middle school math textbooks, for example,
offer few excellent choices. Separate reviews by
AAAS’ Project 2061 and a parent group called
"Mathematically Correct" found little agreement
on which texts to recommend. They differ over
learning strategies, with the Project 2061
review team of 24 teachers and mathematicians
giving Connected Mathematics consistently high
marks on the content criteria or "benchmarks"
used to rate a dozen textbooks. See D.J. Hoff,
"Reviews of Math Text Parallel Pedagogy Rifts,
Education Week, Jan. 27, 1999
. Also see
M.T. Battista, "The Mathematical Miseducation of
America’s Youth," Phi Delta Kappan, February
1999: 425-433.
~M.G. Bardeen and L.M. Lederman, "Coherence in
Science Education," Science, vol. 281, July 10,
1998, pp. 178-179. By reconceptualizing the
traditional sequence of biology, chemistry, and
physics, for instance, science curricula face
serious barriers to implementation. Materials
and tests would have to change. Teachers would
require professional development to compensate
for their lack of command of content. Teamwork
among teachers with the requisite expertise
would be essential. Nothing short of a
restructured school day and calendar would need
to be instituted--in all, systemic change.
**Teaching was recently hailed as "the essential
profession." See J. Archer, "Public Prefers
Competent Teachers to Other Reforms, Survey
Finds," Education Week, Nov. 25, 1998: 6. The
survey results for The Essential Profession can
be seen at .
||The most recent national study, based on a
probability sample of 1250 schools and 6000
teachers in grades 1-12, is the 1993 National
Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. See
I. Weiss, "The Status of Science and Mathematics
Teaching in the United States: Comparing Teacher
Views and Classroom Practice to National
Standards," NISE Brief (University of
Wisconsin-Madison), 1 (June 1997): 1-8. A new
U.S. Department of Education report, "Teacher
Quality: A Report on the Preparation and
Qualifications of Public School Teachers," based
on a national survey of 4000 veteran and new
teachers of all subjects (not just math and
science) confirms these results. See J.
Basinger, "Most New Schoolteachers Feel
Unprepared for Recent Demands of the Classroom,
Survey Finds," The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Jan. 29, 1999, and
.
~~In 1996, a sample of 930 recipients of
Presidential Awards for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, bestowed
annually since 1982 on a mathematics teacher and
a science teacher at the secondary level from
every State and U.S. territory, was surveyed for
the first time. The findings showed that over 70
percent of the high school Awardees had majored
in a science discipline, compared to 54 percent
nationally. Awardees in mathematics similarly
majored in math in a proportion well beyond the
national average (55 v. 39 percent). This survey
was sent to 1390 Awardees with at least 15 years
of teaching experience, yielding an 82 percent
response rate. See I. Weiss and J. Raphael,
Characteristics of Presidential Awardees: How Do
They Compare with Science and Mathematics
Teachers Nationally? (Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon
Research, Inc., 1996).
***For example, testimony at the NSB field
hearing May 29, 1998, in Los Angeles on informal
science learning indicated that museums and
science centers are deeply involved in
professional development of science teachers
employed by districts in their proximity. This
connection of the formal and informal systems is
neither well-recognized nor systematically
exploited. See especially the keynote address of
the Executive Director and CEO of the L.A.
Natural History Museum, James L. Powell,
.
|||Some governors favor incentives to attract
and retain qualified teachers. See, for example,
"Taft Targets Math, Science Testing," Columbus
Dispatch, Sept. 3, 1998. Voluntary certification
through the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards is expected to grow as the
districts coalesce on the implementation of
content standards for students in core subjects
(see /www.nbpts.org>). It is germane here as
well that references to the command of modern
technology as a teaching necessity are barely
visible in the education literature, with
computer-aided instruction hardly seen as a
mainstream tool in teacher preparation (see
below).
~~~There has been much "political caterwauling
about class size" (see L. Monteagudo, "MORE
Teachers? What About the Ones We Have Now?"
Education Week, Jan. 13, 1999: 72). Indeed, most
new funding--over $1 billion--for education in
the FY 1999 budget was designated for hiring new
teachers to reduce class size. But any gain in
individual student attention derived from
reducing class enrollment from 22 to 17 will be
nullified by that teacher’s lack of content
knowledge. As Monteagudo notes, "Especially in
rural and inner-city areas, it is already hard
enough to attract strong applicants. By
earmarking Federal funds for hiring additional
teachers as opposed to investing in the ones we
have in place now, we are placing an even
greater burden on those districts."
****L. Pearlstein, "Schools Cautioned on Hasty
Hiring," Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1998, p.
A12. Education Secretary Riley is quoted as
saying, "Too many school districts, I am afraid,
are sacrificing quality for quantity in order to
meet the immediate demand of putting a warm body
in front of a classroom." More recently, the
Secretary has been more blunt in challenging
higher education institutions to make teacher
preparation a priority, stating "Our colleges of
education can no longer be the sleepy backwaters
that many of them have been. There must be
greater collaboration from all parts of the
university community, including the arts and
sciences." Quoted in J. Basinger, "College
Presidents Must Lead Effort to Improve Teacher
Training, Education Chief Says, " The Chronicle
of Higher Education, Feb. 17, 1999. Related to
this are the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education draft standards that would
hold education programs responsible for the
quality of their graduates’ teaching. See "Draft
Standards Issued for Teacher Education, " The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 5, 1999:
A38.
||||Monetary incentives are endorsed not only by
the president of the National Education
Association, but also by the Committee on
Science of the U.S. House of Representatives.
See B. Chase, "Why Not the Best Teacher?"
Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1998, p. C5;
Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National
Science Policy. A Report to Congress by the
House Committee on Science, Sept. 24, 1998
; and
summarizing the work of Linda Darling-Hammond,
director of the National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future, A.C. Lewis,"Just Say
‘No’to Unqualified Teachers," Phi Delta Kappan,
November 1998: 179-180. The President of the
Council for Basic Education reminds us that the
reauthorized Higher Education Act offers loan
forgiveness to teachers willing to work in
inner-city schools for five years. He proposes,
as part of strengthening Social Security,
waiving the cap on "retirement earnings for
anyone involved in teaching or school
administration." An incentive could be provided
for states to do so as well. See C.T. Cross,
"Retirees in the Classroom," Washington Post,
Dec. 31, 1998: A27.
~~~~For example, the U.S. Department of
Education’s Lighthouse Models of Excellence and
NSF’s Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher
Preparation program unite mathematics and
science departments with colleges of education
and local school districts in preparing
content-based teachers. These programs, the
Department’s Eisenhower Professional Development
Program, NSF’s Local Systemic Change
Initiatives, and other tools for teacher
training are described in U.S. Department of
Education and National Science Foundation, An
Action Strategy for Improving Achievement in
Mathematics and Science, Report of an
Interagency Working Group, February 1998
(Arlington, VA: NSF 98-79), appendix 4.
*****"Controlling for socioeconomic status, high
school curriculum is 48 percent more accurate
than test scores and 72 percent more accurate
than class rank or grade-point average in
predicting whether a student will get a
bachelor’s degree." C. Adelman, "Forget What
Color You Are, It’s Where You Went to School,"
Washington Post, Nov. 2, 1998: A19.
|||||The NSB Committee on Education and Human
Resources has defined for further examination in
1999 the issue of standardized tests, especially
the SAT and the GRE, in the college and graduate
school admissions processes. The NSB study will
build on W.G. Bowen and D. Bok, The Shape of the
River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering
Race in College and University Admissions
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1998);
commentary such as "Elite Colleges’
Race-Sensitive Policies Opened Doors to Black
Success, Says Broad New Study, The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Sept. 9, 1998
/chronicle.com/daily/98/09/98090901n.htm>; E.
Bonner, "Study Strongly Supports Affirmative
Action in Admissions to Elite Colleges," New
York Times, Sept. 9, 1998: B10; W.G. Bowen and
D. Bok, "Get In, Get Ahead: Here’s Why,"
Washington Post, Sept. 20, 1998: C1; and S.M.
Malcom et al., Losing Ground: Science and
Engineering Graduate Education of Black and
Hispanic Americans (Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science,
1998).
~~~~~The National Education Longitudinal Survey
of 1988 shows that among those who scored in the
top third of a standardized test, low-income
students were five times more likely to skip
college than were high-income students. Students
who took advanced mathematics and science
courses were more likely to attend college than
those who didn’t, but low-income students lagged
their high-income peers. "Money, More Than
Brains, Governs Whether Students Will Attend
College, Study Finds," The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Aug. 10, 1998
/chronicle.com/daily/98/08/98081003n.shtml>.
******A quarter of these students’ parents claim
an inability to get financial aid information
when their child was in 8th grade and they were
deciding whether college would be affordable. A
quarter also reports that they did not apply for
financial aid because they did not know how to
do so. Information on the financial aid process
must reach families early; the end of high
school may be too late. Institutions of higher
education are also revising their financial aid
policies to attract more students from low- and
middle-income families. See "Change in Aid
Policy Nets Princeton More Students From Low-
and Middle-Income Families," The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Aug. 14, 1998
/chronicle.com/daily/98/08/98081402n.htm>.
||||||Recently, the NSB Committee on Education
and Human Resources held a field hearing to
explore models for creating such a seamless
system. See All One System: Developing Human
Capital and Infrastructure for Science and
Engineering, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Oct. 7, 1998
For
appraisals of the "statewide systemic" approach,
see J. Mervis, "Mixed Grades for NSF’s Bold
Reform of Statewide Education," Science, 282,
Dec. 4. 1998: 1800-1805.
How Research Can Better Inform Practice
The role of research and evaluation in informing--and
changing--education practice has itself become a policy
"The National Science issue.* Making research reliable, timely, and relevant to
Board sees research classroom teaching and learning has long been a concern of
as a necessary policy-makers, educators, and researchers alike. Public awareness
condition for of this need has grown as "high standards" are translated from a
improved student concept into high-visibility efforts to challenge students,
achievement in teachers, parents, and communities--and hold all accountable for
mathematics and academic achievement.
science . . .
Analysis based on
national and The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education
international data Statistics (NCES) has sought to develop a moving picture of how
sources can help to well American schools and their students are faring.31 The
explain the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) compares the
conditions that performance of today’s students with performance by their age
affect performance." peers in the past. Policy-makers, business leaders, and parents
increasingly ask if American students are achieving academically
as much as they can. International comparisons such as TIMSS
RECOMMENDATION 4 provide a "world" benchmark for gauging achievements.32 The NSB’s
own Science and Engineering Indicators--1998report summarizes, in
To implement the addition to TIMSS and NAEP, robust time series since the 1970s on
core recommendation the performance of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds in mathematics,
through research: science, and other subjects.33
1. The National The need for research on practice relates, too, to differing
Science expectations of stakeholders. What do they seek to learn and how
Foundation and best can data be used to refine system-, school-, and
the Department classroom-level practice? Some caution that education
of Education interventions alone will not suffice.34 Others seek education
must spearhead
the Federal investments different in magnitude and kind.| A topic for
contribution to continuing debate within professional communities, among parents,
SMET education and by policymakers, for example, remains which tests should be
research and used for gauging progress in teaching and learning--and for other
evaluation. purposes of teaching and school accountability. A broader topic is
2. Overall, the ways and styles of learning in both formal and informal
investment settings--how do children learn with understanding and refine the
should quality of their thinking?35 No research area than cognitive
increase--by development is more multidisciplinary or longitudinal in
the Federal approach.~ Finally, studies of systemic change are needed: ". . .
government, as efforts to reform the elementary and secondary system expand,
private new indicators of governance, partnerships, and alignment among
foundations, various parts need to be developed, and research on the
and other measurement of learning of science and mathematics must be
sponsors--in extended into undergraduate education." 36
research on
schooling,
educational Clearly, an agenda such as the one examined in this report is a
systems more cogent justification for research: what do we need to know and how
generally, and best can we engender reliable and usable knowledge?** What
teaching and organizational arrangement would attract the participation of the
learning of requisite research communities? How can an interagency portfolio
mathematics and of basic and applied research that goes beyond extant programs be
science in devised?37
particular.
3. To focus and The National Science Board sees research as a necessary condition
deepen the for improved student achievement in mathematics and science.
knowledge base, Further, research is best supported at a national level and in a
an interagency global context. While student achievement is the "bottom line" for
Education parents, teachers, schools, communities, and policymakers,
Research analysis based on national and international data sources can help
Initiative, led to explain the conditions that affect performance.
by NSF and the
Department of In 1999, NCES and NSF will revisit the 4th grade population that
Education, performed so well on TIMSS in international competition. TIMSS-R
should be will sample 8th graders who were in the 4th grade in 1995. Through
implemented. It an analysis of teacher and school questionnaires and the
should be administration of a new achievement test linked to TIMSS, TIMSS-R
distinguishable will test the robustness of the TIMSS 4th grade results and allow
as a joint examination of schooling in the middle grades. Comparative
venture within research is a prerequisite for suggesting appropriate responses by
the agencies’ systems at any or all--State, district, school, subject, and
respective classroom--levels.||
research
missions, and In 1997, both NSTC and PCAST recommended not only a larger
cooperatively investment, but also a larger-scale program of rigorous,
funded. systematic research on education to demonstrate the efficacy of
transferring exemplary practices among our
nation’s schools.~~ The National Science Board
endorses research that can generalize to a
diversity of classrooms, student populations,
and school districts.***
An experimental program of research is
particularly needed on how information and
computer technologies influence the processes of
teaching and learning of science and mathematics
by children of various ages and in different
classroom settings.||| Harnessing the creativity
and power of innovative tools and pedagogy
should be a priority.
Research on "what works" should thus inform
those seeking a change in practice and learning
outcomes. The dissemination and adaptation of
research results, however, pose other problems.
The knowledge base is thin; gaps abound and what
is known from empirical study is not--even in
this age of electronic communication and
information retrieval--conveniently catalogued,
updated, advertised, and/or accessible to the
so-called end-users in schools. Research simply
remains outside the purview of most classroom
teachers.~~~
Like other professionals, teachers need support
networks in various forms--Internet bulletin
boards, websites, in-person professional
development experiences, university faculty
mentors, etc.--to refine their knowledge and
skills. Technical assistance by those who
understand classroom settings and have the
confidence of teachers is essential. In short,
"getting the word out" only begins a process of
using knowledge to inform ongoing teacher
preparation and education practice.
Above all, we should remain mindful that
"schools reflect society far more than they
shape it, and that test scores tell us much more
about what schools are facing than how they’re
failing. Surely, we must challenge teachers and
administrators to do their utmost, but not to
work miracles. And not by themselves."38
_______
*For example, see N. Lane, Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology,
"Educational Technologies: How Will We Know
They’re Working?" 1998 Educational Technology
Leadership Conference, Council of Chief State
School Officers, Washington, DC, Nov. 12, 1998
(typescript).
|Two reports are noteworthy: National Science
and Technology Council, Committees on
Fundamental Science and on Health, Safety, and
Food, Investing in Our Future: A National
Research Initiative for America’s Children for
the 21st Century (Washington, DC: OSTP, April
1997), which recommends research focused on,
among other topics, learning, influence of
families and communities on development,
longitudinal studies, and policy; and Report to
the President on the Use of Technology to
Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States,
March 1997
,
which calls for at least 5 percent of all public
K-12 education spending in the U.S. (or
approximately $13 billion annually in constant
1996 dollars) to be designated for research--a
significant increase over the current level of
1.3 percent. (Note: The FY 1999 Federal
investment in K-12 education exceeds $15
billion.)
~A massive Federal initiative to track
children’s learning and development from birth,
and again from the start of school, was launched
in Fall, 1998. One NCES study will test 21,000
kindergartners in 1000 public and private
schools and interview their parents and
teachers. Another interagency effort called the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study will begin in
2000 by following 12,000 newborns through their
6th birthdays. Both studies will help to
distinguish empirically the large learning gaps
among children when they enter school and how
and why those gaps often persist through high
school. See D. Viadero, "NCES Launches Broad
Study on Early Childhood," Education Week, Dec.
16, 1998
/www.edweek.org/ew/current/16nces.h18>.
**In 1991, the independent National Academy of
Education outlined a national research agenda
for sparking positive changes in schools. The
agenda encompassed the main challenges that
persist today: active learning over the
lifespan; assessment; bolstering achievement of
historically underserved, minority, and
impoverished groups; school organization; and
connection to teachers and teaching. National
Academy of Education, Research and the Renewal
of Education. Project on Funding Priorities for
Educational Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, 1991), pp. 5-6.
||Study designs such as TIMSS-R hold great
potential for specifying teaching and learning
linkages among curriculum materials, school
organization, classroom practices, and student
achievement among a sample of 8th grade U.S.
students. Such research includes efforts like
the First in the World Consortium in northwest
suburban Illinois that paid to participate in
TIMSS to gauge its students’ progress against
that of other "countries" of the world. See
OERI, U.S. Department of Education, "Seminar on
The First in the World Consortium," Aug. 20,
1998, unpublished notes, and
.
~~Through workshops with researchers from
various communities held in September 1998,
advice on a research agenda for teaching and
early learning of mathematics, science, and
reading (the latter with the participation of
the NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health)
was solicited on developing a Request for
Proposals in FY 1999. OSTP and OMB are
spearheading this collaboration for a 5-year
initiative that will produce measurable outcomes
of progress through various research and
evaluation designs.
***More generally, results of competitively
funded research can only inform future
investments by districts and local schools, and
guide policymakers’ decisions about "what
works," if they are evaluated to determine the
cost and learning effectiveness of scaling up to
serve more students. "Randomized field trials,"
a staple of medical research but seldom employed
to test education reforms, allows investigation
of a "treatment" randomly assigned to two
groups. If the groups are sufficiently similar,
then differences in average outcomes of the
treatment can be attributed to exposure of the
factor under investigation. See P.E. Peterson,
"Rigorous Trials and Tests Should Precede
Adoption of School Reforms," The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Jan. 22, 1999: B4.
|||Limited national data are equivocal,
suggesting that with some students new
technology is being used for the same old
drill-and-practice in mathematics; yet in the
hands of technology-trained middle school
teachers, computers can enhance academic
performance. See J. Mathews, "Study Faults
Computers’ Use in Math Education," Washington
Post, Sept. 30, 1998: A3; and E. Bonner,
"Computers Help Math Learning, Study Finds," New
York Times, Sept. 30, 1998,
;
and A.. Fisher, "High Tech, High Grades?"
Popular Science, January 1999: 64-69.
~~~Polls show, not surprisingly, that local
schools in turn fail to provide parents with
enough information to make them advocates for
what their children are expected to know. These
are the same people who simultaneously support
rigorous content standards but are intimidated
by them. See A.D. Coles,"Parents Ill-Informed
About Standards, Poll Finds," Education Week,
Oct. 28, 1998: 6.
Conclusions
The Nation’s concern for excellence in K-12 and
undergraduate teaching and learning environments
is magnified by time: it takes time for any
system and the organizations within it to adapt
to emerging needs and mounting pressures. We
cannot expect instant results.
While the national education goals set by the
governors in 1989 will not be realized on the
envisioned timetable, the momentum for lifting
student performance is unquestioned. Today we
take as axiomatic that improved student
performance will be short-lived if the
conditions for schooling do not change. "To have
any real effect, standards must be incorporated
into the life of the school: They must be
embraced by the students who must learn them,
and embraced by the business community and
colleges who must make informed decisions about
whom to invite into their ranks." 39 The key to
energizing education systems throughout the
Nation is consensus on content standards for the
teaching and learning of mathematics and
science. This leaves much room for choice and
diversity of process and pedagogy, while
reinforcing a common market of demand for the
skills that will dominate the 21st century
workplace.
Through recommendations for implementing
content-based materials, teaching, college
admissions, and other practices informed by
research, the National Science Board affirms that
there is no greater national need than equipping
the next generation with the tools of the
workplace and citizenship. This will require a
greater consensus among stakeholders on the
content of K-16 teaching and learning. High
expectations will not suffice in raising
achievement in mathematics and science; neither
will a single-minded emphasis on teachers,
curriculum, assessment, or technology.
A generation ago, the NSB Commission on
Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology advised: "Our children are the most
important asset of our country; they deserve at
least the heritage that was passed to us ... a
level of mathematics, science and technology
education that is the finest in the world,
without sacrificing the American birthright of
personal choice, equity and opportunity." 40
The health of science and engineering tomorrow
depends on improved mathematics and science
preparation of our students today. The national
interest is now a national imperative. We must
see educational excellence as a shared
responsibility and, above all, a tractable
challenge to us all.
Notes
1. D.J. Hoff, "With 2000 Looming, Chances of
Meeting National Goals Iffy," Education Week,
Jan. 13, 1999: 28-30, quote at 28.
2. For details on TIMSS methodology and
findings, see W.H. Schmidt et al.,
Characterizing Pedagogical Flow: An
Investigation of Mathematics and Science
Teaching in Six Countries. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996;
National Center for Education Statistics,
Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S.
Fourth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement
in International Context. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, June 1997 (NCES
97-255); and I.V.S. Mullis et al., Mathematics
and Science Achievement in the Final Year of
Secondary School: IEA’s Third International
Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill,
MA: TIMSS International Study Center, February
1998. The Commissioner of Education Statistics
has also responded to criticisms of the TIMSS
methodology and interpretation of findings. See
Center for Education Reform and Empower America,
Achievement in the United States: Progress Since
A Nation at Risk? Washington, DC, National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education, April 3, 1998: 11
.
3. The following is distilled from W.H. Schmidt,
Executive Director, U.S. National Center for
TIMSS, presentation to the National Science
Board, May 7, 1998. Also see G.A. Valverde and
W.H. Schmidt, "Refocusing U.S. Math and Science
Education," Issues in Science and Technology
(Winter 1997-98): 60-66; and W.H. Schmidt and
C.C. McKnight, "What Can We Really Learn from
TIMSS?" Science, 282, Dec. 4, 1998: 1830-1831.
These characteristics appear to be necessary,
but not sufficient conditions for high student
performance.
4. National Science Board, The Federal Role in
Science and Engineering Graduate and
Postdoctoral Education (Arlington, VA: Feb. 26,
1998, NSB 97-235); and K. Olson, "Despite
Increases, Women and Minorities Still
Underrepresented in Undergraduate and Graduate
S&E Education," SRS Data Brief, Jan. 15, 1999,
NSF 99-320.
5. U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, The Condition of
Education--1995, Indicator 46: Student Mobility
/nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9546a01.html>.
6. American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Science for All Americans: A Project
2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science,
Mathematics, and Technology (Washington, DC:
AAAS, 1990); National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards
for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: NCTM, 1989);
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics
(Reston, VA: NCTM, 1991); and National Academy
of Sciences, National Research Council, National
Science Education Standards (Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1996). At a White House
"Education Announcement/Roundtable" on April 2,
1997, the President remarked that "240 companies
have endorsed this national standards movement"
. NCTM is
currently revising and updating the mathematics
standards. A draft is available for public
comment at .
7. See Education Week, Quality Counts (January
22, 1997).
8. C.T. Cross, "The Standards War: Some Lessons
Learned," Education Week, Oct. 21, 1998
/www.edweek.org/ew/current/08cross.h19>.
9. K.K. Manzo, "Report for Goals Panel Calls for
Consensus on Standards," Education Week, Sept.
9, 1998 .
Also see K.K. Manzo, "Think Tank Inks Blueprint
to Lift Achievement," Education Week, Nov. 18,
1998: 6, reporting on the Consortium on Renewing
Education’s 20/20 Vision: A Strategy for
Doubling America’s Academic Achievement by the
Year 2020.
10. M.S. Tucker, "The State of Standards:
Powerful Tool or Symbolic Gesture?" Expecting
More (Newsletter on Standards-Based Reform), 1
(Spring 1998): 2.
11. Education Week, Quality Counts ’99 (January
11, 1999)
.
12. P. Black and D. Wiliam, "Inside the Black
Box: Raising Standards through Classroom
Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1998:
139-148.
13. American Educational Research Association
Letter, April 18, 1997.
14. J. Mervis, "U.S. Tries Variations on High
School Curriculum," Science, vol. 281, July 10,
1998, pp. 161-162.
15. D. Rich, "You Can’t Teach What You Don’t
Know," Education Week, Sept. 16, 1998
.
16. "In State of the Union Speech, President
Urges Testing of Prospective Teachers," The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 20, 1999
/chronicle.com/daily/99/01/99012001n.html>.
17. G. Overholser, "To Work on the Schools,"
Washington Post, Sept 16, 1998, p. A17.
18. S. Tobias, "Some Recent Developments in
Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science,"
NISE Occasional Paper, No. 4, April 1997: 2.
19. D.K. Cohen and H.C. Hill, "State Policy and
Classroom Performance: Mathematics Reform in
California," CPRE Policy Brief, RB-23-January
1998: 10-11.
20. C. Mojkowski, "Teachers and Standards: Sauce
for the Goose . . .," Education Week, Jan. 13,
1999: 39.
21. R.W. Riley, "An End to ‘Quiet Backwaters’:
Universities Must Make Teacher Education a Much
Higher Day-to-Day Priority," The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Oct. 2, 1998: B10. Also see C.
Pipho, "A ‘Real’ Teacher Shortage," Phi Delta
Kappan, November 1998: 181-182. Also see N.
Lane, "The Integral Role of Two-Year Colleges in
Science and Mathematics Preparation of
Prospective Teachers," SACNAS Journal, Summer
1998 .
22. See R.L. Linn, "Standards-Based
Accountability: Ten Suggestions," CRESST Policy
Brief, adaptation of Technical Report 490,
Assessments and Accountability, 1998, available
at .
23. For example, see "Good Teaching Matters: How
Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap,"
Thinking K-16 (A Publication of The Education
Trust), Summer 1998: 1-15; and H.J. Walberg,
"Incentivized School Standards Work," Education
Week, Nov. 4, 1998: 48, 51.
24. C. Adelman, "To Help Minority Students,
Raise Their Graduate Rates," The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Sept. 4, 1998, p. B8.
25. See M.A. Fletcher, "A Good-School, Bad-Grade
Mystery," Washington Post, Oct. 23, 1998: A1.
26. Quote from C. Jencks and M. Phillips, "The
Black-White Test Score Gap," Education Week,
Sept. 30, 1998: 44, 32.
27. B. Chase, "A Hope in the Unseen," Washington
Post, Oct. 18, 1998: C5.
28. For example, see S. Hebel, "Report Urges
State Universities to Become Engaged with Their
Communities," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Feb. 4, 1999 and
.
29. D. Lederman, "Report Sees Lack of Progress
by Southern States in Educating Black Students,"
The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 4,
1998: A57.
30. M.W. Kirst, "Bridging the Remediation Gap,"
Education Week, Sept. 9, 1998
.
31. For example, see The National Center for
Education Statistics, The 1994 High School
Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data
on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994,
1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates.
Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Education,
1997 (NCES 97-260).
32. See and National Research Council, Center
for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
Education, Mathematics and Science Education
Around the World--What Can We Learn? Washington,
DC: National Academy Press, 1996; and J.M. Atkin
and P. Black, "Policy Perils of International
Comparisons: The TIMSS Case," Phi Delta Kappan,
September 1997: 22-28.
33. National Science Board, Science and
Engineering Indicators--1998 (Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 1998, NSB-98-1),
esp. ch. 1.
34. L. Cuban, "The Myth of Failed School
Reform," Education Week, Nov. 6, 1995: 41, 51;
and J.J. Gallagher, "Education, Alone, Is a Weak
Treatment," Education Week, July 8, 1998.
.
35. For example, National Academy of Sciences,
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and
School (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
March 1999 (forthcoming). Also see Council of
Economic Advisors, "The First Three Years:
Investments That Pay," White Paper, Apr. 17,
1997.
36. Division of Research, Evaluation, and
Communication, Directorate for Education and
Human Resources, Indicators of Science and
Mathematics Education 1995. L.E. Suter, ed.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1996
(NSF 96-52), p. 109. Also see R.L. Linn and E.L.
Baker, "Back to Basics - Indicators as a
System," The CRESST Line (UCLA Newsletter of the
National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing), Winter 1998:
1-3.
37. For example, see M.A.Vinovskis, Changing
Federal Strategies for Supporting Educational
Research, Development, and Statistics
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Educational Research Policy and
Priori-ties Board, September 1998), esp.
Appendix C.
38. R. Evans, "The Great Accountability
Fallacy," Education Week, Feb. 3, 1999
.
39. S. Pimentel and L.A. Arsht, "Don’t Be
Confused by the Rankings; Focus on Results,"
Education Week, Nov. 25, 1998: 56, 40.
40. National Science Board Commission on
Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology, Educating Americans for the 21st
Century: A Plan of Action for Improving
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
for all American Elementary and Secondary
Students so that Their Achievement is the Best
in the World by 1995 (Washington, DC: National
Science Foundation, 1983, CPCE-NSF-03): v.