This document has been archived. Title : NSF 95-3 - Third National Conference on Diversity in the Scientific & Technological Workforce Type : Report NSF Org: EHR Date : March 27, 1995 File : nsf953b FORUM ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION: AN OPEN DIALOGUE PRESIDER Elmima C. Johnson Staff Associate Division of Human Resource Development, EHR, NSF MODERATOR Diana S. Natalicio President University of Texas at El Paso RESOURCE PERSONS Gary D. Keller, Executive Director, Project 1000 of the Hispanic Research Center, Arizona State University Carolyn Meyers, Associate Dean for Research and Interdisciplinary Programs, College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology James M. Rosser, President, California State University at Los Angeles Robert F. Watson, Division Director, Undergraduate Education, EHR OPENING REMARKS Elmima Johnson This is the Forum on Undergraduate Education and it will focus on the major issues surrounding science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education (SMETE) at the baccalaureate level. This forum is part of an ongoing dialogue at NSF and reflects concern nationwide regarding the current status of undergraduate education. It has been more than 10 years since the National Science Board completed its first comprehensive study of undergraduate education, and there is a growing realization today that all citizens need to become literate and competent in science and technology, not just science majors. The focus on undergraduate education is a logical extension of our efforts to reform K-12 SMETE, and includes recognition of changing demographics of those persons attending college. We have distributed a background paper, a summary of the issues in undergraduate education as identified by the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). This is not an exhaustive list; it is meant to stimulate and guide the discussion this morning. OPENING STATEMENTS Diana Natalicio The purpose of this session is to stimulate discussion and to encourage you, the participants in this forum, to share with us and with NSF more broadly your best thinking on directions that NSF can take in addressing the major issues relating to undergraduate education. We are going to present some introductory remarks and then the program will shift to you. We want this to be an open forum. We want to know what you think about undergraduate education, about the issues that we're facing, and about the ways in which we might best address them. The focus on undergraduate education is, obviously, no accident. NSF has been looking at precollegiate programs (as was suggested earlier in Dr. Williams' remarks and mentioned by Elmima Johnson), and NSF has also been very active at the graduate level and obviously in research. But what we have discovered within the framework of this educational continuum is that a key element is clearly undergraduate education: No matter how hard we work to increase the size of the pool within the precollegiate sector, and no matter what we do to enhance research and graduate opportunities, if we don't have undergraduate education well in focus, we are not going to make progress in addressing the critical underrepresentation of minorities in science and engineering. I think all of us are familiar with the kinds of challenges that we face. The undergraduate experience is critical not only to develop a scientifically literate population and workforce, it is critical not only to produce future generations of scientists and engineers, but it also has the very important function of preparing future teachers. It is this confluence of responsibilities at the undergraduate level that all of us must be concerned about and committed to meeting. It is also very clear, however, that within the framework of higher education, the undergraduate experience has not had the kind of attention, at least during the past several decades, that it has deserved. How do we know that? We know that not only because of our own involvement in undergraduate education, but also through the rising criticism and commentary coming from the media, elected officials, and from parents who are paying higher and higher levels of tuition and taxes and who wonder why classes are so large, why students are being taught by teaching assistants, and the like. Such questions are raised not only within the higher education community, but by critics on a variety of external fronts, so accountability is a significant issue for us. I think we are all looking for new directions, ways in which we can improve not only the undergraduate experience in science and engineering, but the general undergraduate experience at our institutions. We thought it would be helpful, as a start, for Dr. Robert Watson, Division Director of Undergraduate Education at NSF, to give us a brief overview of the activities of that division and how it has framed the issue. Robert Watson Both the national scene and NSF have changed dramatically over the past several years. Major developments--such as the end of the Cold War, intensified international competitiveness, the restructuring of U.S. industry, the advance of technology, and the increased diversity of American society--have all contributed to a new centrality and importance for undergraduate education in the U.S. educational enterprise. It serves as the wellspring not only for future scientists and engineers, but also for the future technical industrial workforce, leaders, and citizens who need competence in science and technology to function effectively, as well as for future teachers. Indeed, efforts to improve grades K-12 may have limited success without concomitant changes in higher education. NSF's program for undergraduate education is an agencywide effort, with the Division of Undergraduate Education in EHR serving as the focal point. The overall activity has its origins in the National Science Board study and report, "Undergraduate Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education," often referred to as the Neal Report. The current NSF program involves leadership activities and leveraged program support that encompass several principal themes. These include the curriculum (broadly defined), laboratories, faculty development and support, student support, and increasing participation of underrepresented groups, particularly minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. EHR has mounted two new targeted efforts, the Advanced Technological Education Program (NSF's first focus on the industrial technical workforce) and the NSF Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation (aimed at the undergraduate education of future elementary and secondary school teachers). As a consequence of these changing conditions, trends, and needs, a number of issues confront undergraduate education that are of particular concern and interest to NSF. We ask you to consider the following areas: the preparation and vitality of teachers and professors; science and technology literacy; the preparation of students for careers in both the academic and industrial workforce; and the comprehensive reform of undergraduate education. Throughout all of these areas and their underlying issues, of highest priority is the goal of achieving equity and diversity in all aspects of SMETE. We welcome your comments and wisdom on these and other issues that you feel are relevant to undergraduate education. Gary D. Keller The most popular metaphor for progress in education, beginning in kindergarten and going through graduate school, is the pipeline. The metaphor is a good one because it expresses both the sense of progress and the impediments or obstacles to progress. Those obstacles can well be described as the joints or pressure points in the pipeline. At the undergraduate level, there are at least three major joints: between high school and the freshman year of college; between community college and the four-year college (or between lower and upper undergraduate status); and at the culmination, between the baccalaureate and graduate program status for those students who are interested in and who would potentially benefit from graduate school. The Coalition to Increase Minority Degrees (CIMD), which I direct, has paid very close attention to each of these joints in an effort to minimize loss at the pressure points and to maximize the flow or progress of students from one level to the next, more advanced status. The CIMD has made strong efforts to bind together the 11th and 12th grades with the early college careers of students. We do this by having many of our students take honors or advanced placement courses in the 11th or 12th grades for college credit, once the student has been accepted into college. Not only do the students complete advanced work in high school, but they get a good (and often very successful) taste of working at the college level, and the students earn college credit while still in high school. This fusing together at the joint of high school and college greatly helps our retention of students. Another program that we have used is the summer bridge, which caters to students who have been accepted into college and gives them a strong program of early academic enrichment the summer before the freshman year, emphasizing mathematics, science, and English. At the joint between community college or underclass-upperclass status the CIMD has established a second summer bridge program, recruiting students into our participating four-year colleges and providing students with additional coursework in mathematics, engineering, science, or English to maximize their potential to graduate from college. Finally, Project 1000 advises undergraduate students interested in graduate school at the sophomore and junior levels, and helps these students apply to graduate school as seniors. Among the services of Project 1000 are the following: Students can apply to as many as seven graduate programs around the nation on one consolidated application form; application fees are usually waived by the participating graduate schools; students consult with Project 1000 on how to frame their applications and statements of purpose; professors writing letters of recommendation need write only one per student and submit it to Project 1000; and, finally, we work with the participating graduate schools and outside agencies and foundations to help students secure financial aid. James Rosser I'd like to begin my remarks in hopes of stimulating some further discussion with some observations. First of all, it seems to me that reform of undergraduate education, especially with an emphasis on SMET, requires that we do something fundamental with regard to what I would call lower division undergraduate education in this country. It seems that at least as far as college students are concerned, that is where the emphasis ought to be placed. Clearly, given a comment that was raised earlier this morning with Dr. Williams, when we talk about lower division undergraduate education, if we're focusing on underrepresented students, such discussions must involve the two-year colleges. So we must be concerned about lower division undergraduate education. That is where, at least at the collegiate level, students either get further turned on to or turned off of (if you will) SMET and SMET-related fields and disciplines. I'm not sure that enough attention is given to that concern. As we think about reforming undergraduate education with an emphasis on science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, we ought to ask ourselves what all students--irrespective of whether they start at our institution or transfer in and irrespective of what they look like at entry--ought to be able to demonstrate in terms of functional competencies after two years of a collegiate education. Before a student enters the junior level of a collegiate education, shouldn't that student--in terms of oral and written communication skills, math, and science--be able to demonstrate some minimum functional level of competency that enables him or her to choose on a far more appropriate basis where to matriculate for a degree? Doesn't that help us solve a far more fundamental problem: how teacher education varies across the 50 States? In California, you need a baccalaureate degree and then you enter a credentials program. A great deal of emphasis is placed on what happens at the undergraduate baccalaureate level, but there is no focus, generically speaking, on what a baccalaureate graduate ought to be able to demonstrate functionally. To the extent we can solve this problem in those first two years, whether it is a two-year or a four-year institution, and to the extent that we can agree that there are some basic minimum functional competencies, we have essentially raised the level of the tide for everybody, thereby creating greater opportunity for everybody. It is my considered opinion that no one should be allowed to teach prekindergarten through the 12th grade who does not meet what I would call minimum functional competencies that someone who graduates from the 12th grade should be able to demonstrate. A kindergarten teacher who can't function at a 12th-grade level probably should not be teaching in a kindergarten. A 1st-grade teacher who can't function at a 12th-grade level shouldn't either, and certainly such a 12th-grade teacher shouldn't be able to continue to teach. It seems to me that this is just a minimum expectation for every teacher: that at some level they can demonstrate that they can function at what we would call a 12th-grade level. Otherwise, how can you explain why there's atrophy across grade levels and why there's an achievement gap that exists among students, even though most students enter the schools with a given level of support? We have a major responsibility in terms of the workforce that already exists that doesn't meet these competencies, many of whom have not even been discipline-trained in math or science. That doesn't mean putting down people who are currently in the structure. What it means, to my way of thinking, is accepting why they're where they are and the fact that there are things that we can do to mitigate the deficiencies they have. Faculty who teach, especially basic undergraduate courses, must themselves be competent teachers, not just people with Ph.D. degrees in mathematics or microbiology or physics. A Ph.D. does not guarantee that one is able to teach effectively (especially lower division undergraduate students), since the primary focus of the Ph.D. is generally on research and not necessarily on teaching. I think we have a major role to play in that context, and that gets us back to the issue of our two-year college colleagues, especially those who teach math, science, and basic competency in communication skills. Clearly, the role of the comprehensive universities and the two-year colleges is important as we go forward. I would also say that in a lot of our colleges and universities, because of the concern for writing and because of the concern for the ability to use standard written English, we talk about writing across the curriculum. Maybe there ought to be science across the curriculum as well, and maybe we ought to agree among ourselves that, given the nature of knowledge and information these days, the disciplinary boundaries are no longer appropriate and we need to seek more effective ways of communicating information through the curriculum so we are able to retain the interest of students across the curriculum while they're at the institution. There needs to be, in my view, diversity training in the areas of cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity and across cultural communications for SMET faculty, irrespective of where we might be. That also includes those of us who might feel that because we're of a particular ethnic group we have some particularly inherent knowledge as relates to what that might mean for an African American student. Interestingly enough, the African American students might do better in colleges and universities if they were taught English as a second language as well, in terms of enhancing their capability to communicate in an oral and written context. There is a need for faculty development and instructional strategy for incorporating technology; additionally, advisement is an extraordinarily critical aspect of this whole notion about retention. There is a need for solid, informed, and consistent advisement, including mentoring. The last comment I would make is that it seems that there are some programs that NSF has been involved with, that Bob has been involved with over time, that have demonstrated that there are some "best practices" out there. Maybe there needs to be a greater commitment on our part, particularly across those first two years, to ensure that there is some standardization of best practice applications if, in fact, we want to attain the desired outcome for the greatest numbers of students in the near future. Carolyn Meyers Engineering, science, and technology have reached a significant milestone in history in that next year marks the 50th anniversary of the document "Science: The Endless Frontier" by Vannevar Bush. On rereading this document, one part strikes me as special and noteworthy: that "It is in keeping with the American tradition, one which made the U.S. great, that new frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American citizens." Fifty years later, we are certainly still facing endless frontiers in SMETE. I had the privilege this summer of being a chair for a conference sponsored by the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education. Engineering faculty examined the restructuring of engineering education. With this experience in mind and mindful that I have spent my career in engineering education, I will confine my remarks to engineering education. Primary and central to the conference was the new vision that my colleagues developed. This vision considers a growing and a national competition, the global environment in which our students will participate, an increasingly diverse population, and, of course, the rapid growth and change in information technology. This new engineering education will welcome and encourage motivated and talented students from all segments of the population. It will also offer flexible curricula that recognize and respond to individual learning styles and diverse career paths. This is a tall order. In our discussions at the conference we agreed that the responsibility for the quality of engineering education rests on everybody involved in the educational enterprise, as Dr. Rosser just mentioned. Educators at all levels must buy into and embrace this responsibility; my colleagues and I believe that certain levels of science and technological literacy will be necessary for people to be active and contributing participants in society in the 21st century. This order is getting even taller! Critical to the realization of the vision is the development of faculty, not just at the collegiate level, but at every level in the educational process. It is the faculty who actually comprise the front line in delivering any quality educational system. This faculty is envisioned as diverse, diverse in their cultural and professional experiences. Diverse faculty bring diverse solutions to problems. Thus, the challenge to the institutions and to each of us in academia is to push for incentives that reward and celebrate diversity, that value the development of this diverse faculty, and that appreciate and recognize diverse solutions and diverse ideas of the faculty. The Dean of Engineering at Georgia Tech, John White, at our recent retreat, gave us a picture of a global village, which I want to share with you. This is the global village of today: If the world were a village of 1,000 people, today there would be 584 Asians, 150 Europeans, 124 Africans, 84 Latin Americans, 52 North Americans, and 6 Australians and New Zealanders. Seven out of 10 people would be Africans or Asians. What many of us do not realize is how diverse our global population really is. And from all demographic indicators, the global village of the 21st century will be even more diverse. From this "village" will come the SMET leaders of tomorrow. It is therefore clear that in order to develop a diverse pool of technically talented, active, and gifted people, the faculty who teach them and who will be involved in the entire educational process must be engaged. These diverse faculty not only offer tangible examples of success for students, but also promote changes in pedagogy and content that all students will need to be productive in the 21st century. The July 1994 Joint Report of the Engineering Deans Council and the Corporate Roundtable expects that the faculties of the 21st century will reexamine the curricula and the programs, incorporating in their teaching activities an understanding of environmental and societal impacts. Team skills among the students will be built, and collaborative and active learning will be the norms--no more just lecturing, as we heard mentioned this morning. These faculty will respond to different teaching and learning styles of our students. These faculty will promote communication, leadership, and ethics. These faculty will impart to their students a systems perspective to problem solving and design, multidisciplinary approaches, integrated knowledge throughout the curriculum, and an appreciation of diversity. What they are really doing, what will really happen as a result of these new paradigms is that the message will be sent to the students that the practice of engineering is no longer local or even national: It is a global endeavor. This diverse faculty and student body, as I mentioned, will be celebrated for their differences in leadership and problem solving and perspective, and ultimately will contribute, I firmly believe, to the health of the university and also to the wealth, if you will, of our respective disciplines. In summary, I am passionate about a lot of things. I am passionate, obviously, about my children and family and traditional things. I am also passionate about my profession and my specialty, which is the mechanical behavior of materials. One of my favorite materials is a quenched and tempered steel. I am happy talking about metals. I love them. It is an old material. It is a workhorse material. This steel is strong, just like the U.S. educational system's track record in educating scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and technicians for the world. Our educational system is good--and is recognized as such. This steel, this quenched and tempered steel, performs its intended function because, in addition to being strong, it is tough and it is ductile. Now the challenge to us in education is to be tough, to absorb the impact on society of our engineering decisions and designs while still maintaining our strength. We must use our ductility like the steel, our ability to stretch or to bend without breaking. Those of us in education, as well as the systems or units we represent, have a shared responsibility to be strong, tough, and ductile in our actions and reactions. Diversity--in all its many forms--like an alloy addition to metals, can enhance our properties, in this case the pedagogy, content, and overall educational experiences of our students--the leaders of the 21st century. Thank you. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Diana Natalicio I want to thank all of you who have come to this session. Your presence here suggests that you are concerned about and committed to undergraduate education and we are very grateful for your presence. But your presence is not quite enough. Now we want your input. We'd like you to tell us what you think. We ask that you be brief, out of respect for all of the people who might want to comment, and we assure you that the remarks that you share with us today will be transmitted through Dr. Robert Watson and through NSF as input into the further development of programs at the undergraduate level. Audience comments and the responses of resource persons are summarized below. o We must provide the latest equipment and facilities for high school preparatory science and mathematics courses to prevent the need for "catch-up" skill development and content learning freshman year in college. o At the college level, the information explosion makes it impossible to expose students to all of the knowledge available in a field. Therefore we need to synthesize the growing knowledge base and teach the fundamentals, but in a different context. o There are attempts to teach (integrate) engineering principles across the curriculum, from freshman through senior year, for example in mathematics, physics, and chemistry classes. The goal is to provide students with perspective and tools. o A first step in implementing systemic reform is the "fusing" of high school and college. Emphasis should be placed on the senior year of high school and the freshman year of college, because this is the period during which we lose a large percentage of potential scientists. Suggestions included offering courses for college credit beginning in the 11th grade. o We should deemphasize the current structured timeframe and mode of delivery of information, and focus on accelerating outcomes and learner productivity. o An interdisciplinary emphasis in undergraduate education serves as the basis of the NSF collaborative program. This program requires collaboration between colleges of science and education and thus serves as a catalyst for the desired interaction. o Science education reform will not be driven by new technologies, but by the use of the scientific method in instructional delivery. However, many current K-12 teachers were not trained in this methodology, but in a "fact-based" approach. College science faculty will have to assist in retraining these teachers, and their institutions must support them in these efforts. [Dr. Natalicio noted that college faculty play a major role in determining their own reward system; thus, faculty belief in the importance of collaboration with precollege teachers would facilitate obtaining the support of university officials.] o More college faculty must be convinced that there is a crisis in education and a need for diversity in the workplace. Universities are changing the education paradigm from an emphasis on student failure to one on student success (graduation). o While college-level faculty traditionally have minimum training, if any, in teaching methods, this is a major responsibility for many. The question was raised, Shouldn't teaching faculty be as competent in the art of teaching as they are in their discipline area? It was noted that a few institutions are now evaluating teaching skills of job candidates. o More support should be given to successful minority science programs. Many are not being institutionalized at their host universities and the need for NSF support for these programs was expressed. An opposing view was that this is an institutional, not an NSF, issue. That is, each institution should be committed to the success of every student that it admits. In addition, individual faculty must become more proactive and vigilant regarding the support of those efforts to assist minority science students. CLOSING REMARKS Diana Natalicio We want input from the community, not only from the higher education community, but also from the broad community that is represented at this conference. We want your help in structuring new ways of thinking about the undergraduate experience. Not in and of itself, but as it relates to all of the other pieces of this complex puzzle that we are attempting to put together. We want to ensure that all young people in our society have a real chance to succeed and to become the scientists and engineers they seek to be. So we thank you for your input, for your presence here today, and do let us hear from you. We are very interested in your input. Thank you very much. Additional comments regarding the status of undergraduate education or suggestions of ways to improve the enterprise should be addressed to Dr. Robert Watson Director Division of Undergraduate Education Directorate for Education and Human Resources Room 835 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 BACKGROUND PAPER Current Issues in Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education The context for SMETE has changed. NSF recognizes that major developments such as the end of the Cold War, intensified international competitiveness, the advance of technology, and the increased diversity of American society require us to rethink NSF strategy for undergraduate education. The year 1995 is the fiftieth anniversary of the appearance of Vannevar Bush's seminal report, "Science: The Endless Frontier." This defining document for postwar U.S. science states: "The frontier of science remains. It is in keeping with the American tradition--one which has made the United States great--that new frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American citizens." Indeed, ensuring that new frontiers of knowledge are created, developed, and accessed by all summarizes much that NSF has done and must continue to do. NSF views undergraduate education as the linchpin connecting research to teaching, and precollege education to graduate education. That the principal Federal effort in SMETE is in an agency devoted equally to research and education reflects the need to infuse SMETE with knowledge and investigation. Of interest to NSF are 3,000 varied institutions that instruct 13 million American undergraduates. The specific targets of NSF action are all undergraduate students of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) and their instructors, with their diverse backgrounds and interests. We invite your thoughts on the reorientation of NSF undergraduate efforts. The following are the areas in which issues pertinent to this consideration arise. Questions might concern what is being done versus what needs to be done, and what should be the scale of activities. o The preparation and vitality of teachers and professors(rom) o Learning how to teach must be balanced by personal knowledge of subjects, the balance depending on level. o School teachers, especially primary teachers, have unique needs in SMET. o Teacher preparation is recognized by few SMET faculty; the need to prepare professors to teach is recognized by almost no one. o The attraction of teachers and professors across race, gender, disability, and ethnicity is uneven. o The reward systems in schools, colleges, and disciplines may be inadequate to promote excellence. o Science literacy o SMET should become central in the intellectual heritage and culture transmitted in higher education. o Institutions must set goals in terms of student learning and competency in SMET. o We do not know whether quality in the lessons aimed at literacy and those aimed at mastery for majors is the same or different. o Barriers to SMET literacy owing to ethnicity or gender need attention. o Careers o Many undergraduates we educate become technicians, yet SMETE has traditionally ignored their needs. o The attraction of talented young people to careers as scientists, engineers, and technicians across the spectrum of diversity of origins remains vitally important. o While disciplines remain the homes of quality control of new knowledge and of basic competency, the problems are increasingly interdisciplinary. o The right connections, networks, and collaborations are needed to facilitate student careers. o Comprehensive reform of undergraduate education o The exponential growth of our subjects is matched by the growth of capabilities of instructional technology, but development and application of the latter lags the former. o Our teachers and professors are inadequately informed about advances in pedagogy, content, technology, information resources, connections to societal needs, etc. o The institutional problems of initiating and sustaining curricular change are intense. o Change needs to transcend traditional categories, disciplines, and structures. STUDENT FORUM: "ASK NSF" The forum sessions provided student participants with an opportunity to interact directly with NSF/EHR officials and grantees who served as a panel of resource persons. These were informal sessions with no set agendas, and students were encouraged to comment on a variety of issues related to their educational experiences and career options. Below are edited and summarized excerpts from those sessions. We thank the students for their participation and candor and invite their continued feedback at the following address: Directorate for Education and Human Resources National Science Foundation, Room 805 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 Attention: Dr. Elmima C. Johnson SESSION A: Precollege Students MODERATOR Joseph G. Danek, Director, Office of Systemic Reform, EHR RESOURCE PERSONS Wanda E. Ward, Special Assistant, Office of the Assistant Director, EHR Costello L. Brown, Program Director, Career Access, Division of Human Resource Development, EHR Panel member: Why don't you tell me what your project is about? Student: My project was finding out how harvest ants locate their nest. From that we conducted different experiments to find out if they follow each other, follow chemical substances, follow the sun, radiation waves, and several different things. I also researched experiments that were conducted by major scientists and other people who know more about it than I do. I gathered their information and compared it with mine, and it was very similar information. Panel member: Do you feel you have a better understanding or even preparation for your regular math and science courses when you go back to school? You just completed this project in the summer, right? Now you're involved in your regular math in school. What's the relationship between your research and your readiness to study when you go back to the regular classroom? When you combine the two, does it make you a better student? Student: Well, yes, because when I first went to summer science camp, I liked math better than I liked science. We did more science than math. Now I'm more motivated to do things in science class, to talk a little bit more, because I know a little bit more than I did last year. Panel member: I have a question to ask all of you. Dr. Williams is here and we give out grants. Suppose I give you a million dollars. What two or three things would get more of your classmates interested and excited about science? Student: I suggest that you put in more programs for the precollege students. Because the point is to get more kids into college and get more programs in the inner-city area where they are needed most. Like Philadelphia. I go to a magnet school and that's probably one of the reasons I'm in this program. Because if I wasn't in the magnet school, I definitely wouldn't have done a science project. It was my teachers who suggested that I do one. So if you've got more programs like that, you'd get more kids interested in science and mathematics. Panel member: Who else wants a million dollars? Student: Well, I live in a rural area, and in my school I don't think it's all about money. I think that if people visit our school and get our school to have science fairs--because we have never had a science fair in our school--and have more activities pertaining to science and more programs like you said--I think students will become more interested. They have to make it fun and not just have lectures all the time. I think that will motivate students. Panel member: How many of you have never had a science fair in your school? Most of you haven't. Student: I would make school more fun, like looking at the students' interests instead of just doing what you think they're going to do. You look at their interests and do more experiments. Because a lot of kids don't like looking at textbooks. They like doing experiments, so I would bring more experiments into the classroom. Student: I would just like to say I started a program in which minorities on the college level come to the precollege level as role models or mentors and show them (the kids) that it's cool to be in science. You know, you don't have to be a nerd to do science. And I think students would have more fun in a lab, because you have an older person to look up to, and you have the lab. Student: Well, first of all, you need to educate people that have the programs. A couple of my cousins go to majority white schools and when they send out the program information, they hand it to the white kids instead of the Hispanics, the blacks, the Asians--minority groups. So people don't know about the programs and they don't get the opportunity to participate. Student: Part of the reason I'm here at the diversity conference is because of my high school's link with Morgan University. I think that if more high schools had a connection with local colleges, if young high school students were able to walk on the college campuses, be a part of the college atmosphere, and work with science professors, I think more students would have some type of relationship with science in the future. Panel member: Just to comment on this, we have created what we're calling the Urban Systemic Initiative. We have large projects in a number of cities in which you reside, one in Baltimore, in which we are doing exactly that. What we're trying to do is link the universities with the school districts, beginning to form a team that can help change the school districts by putting in place quality science programs for all children in the city of Baltimore. So that's an excellent suggestion, and in fact there is an activity at NSF that's beginning to do that. Panel member: Other comments on the question about what you would do with a million dollars? There's got to be more thinking about it. Student: I think we should have a camp that's run by students, maybe seniors in high school or something like that. I think we relate better to seniors in high school than to adults. So I would start a camp that had the seniors in high school in charge, and then a couple of adults who would just stand by. We would get the high school students to teach. I think this would be more fun for the high school students and also more fun for us. Panel member: With nobody over 20 allowed. Student: Well, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the teachers and the people who helped us with our labs and stuff would be the high school seniors, which would be fine. Panel member: In fact, some of the projects have that feature. They still have the instructors--the math and science instructors, some of whom come from colleges and universities; some come from high schools. Some of the projects, I know, have both undergraduate students and upper high school students who serve as instructional aides. So, in fact, it is a very relevant suggestion that you're pointing out and it's happening in some places, but not in all places, as you know. Student: I think the colleges should give more scholarships. Everyone's saying, "You should be a scientist. You should be in science and go to college." But not everybody has the money to go to college. Many people want to do great things, but you need money to do all that kind of stuff. So I think you need more scholarships and more information about them. Student: I think that the idea of being in collaboration with the local university is good. And also, a lot of kids look at the financial benefits of doing programs. Like the students who went up and got plaques, those are confidence builders--plaques and getting $500 for doing something well. I enjoy presenting in front of people and explaining my ideas. Also I play basketball, so I'm used to a crowd showing up. Panel member: So there are lots of different ways to show off, right, which is good, both mentally and physically, right? Great. Student: I'm a high school senior and I'm starting a program something like this: I just got a grant from a company called NETSEF and they help people start their own businesses. Basically the program is going to have high school seniors and juniors teaching middle school students. But it's going to be more than just that. It's going to have science fair projects, mentoring, homework, test-taking skills, note-taking skills--all kinds of things. And its going to have a computer workstation and kids from the neighborhood and from all over Philadelphia can use the computers to find out about different colleges, different contests, and other things that are available to them. They need more programs like this in other places. My mom helped me come up with the idea. Panel member: That's great. Other comments? Other questions? Student: I would make the programs more appealing to students. Because I know a lot of people who, when they come into a forum like this, would just sit in the back, because they think it's going to be real boring. Nobody would ask them questions and they'd just sit there, listening to words that they don't understand. To make a project more interesting, you should talk to the people and not at them or over their heads. SESSION C: Undergraduate and Graduate Students MODERATOR Daryl E. Chubin, Director, Division of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination, EHR RESOURCE PERSONS Thomas W. Cole, Jr., President, Clark Atlanta University J. Elenora Sabadell, Program Director, Engineering, NSF [Session in progress. The panel of resource persons gave brief presentations on the minority-focused programs in the Education and Human Resources and Engineering directorates.] Panel member: I would suggest that the current undergraduates go to the research office or to whatever office you deal with and ask for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program solicitation. Panel member: All of these programs are targeted at various points in the pipeline. So that as one moves along the continuum that Daryl has on his slide, and looks at it going all the way through, we will see 5 years from now, 10 years from now, that the numbers will increase. The bottom line for you is that everywhere in your scientific career there is an opportunity with NSF support--at the undergraduate, master's, and doctoral levels. And it's very important for you to identify those opportunities, because there should never be a question in any of your minds about whether you're going to graduate school and about whether or not somebody's going to pay for that. Perhaps you don't know where all of the resources are, but now you have the names of three people at NSF who can help you sort through the maze of projects and programs that are available for students when they go to graduate school. Panel member: Let me add just one item to that. In terms of this national action plan that was presented at the conference, there are specific targets in terms of degree production at all levels. The point is for us as an agency to be able to monitor the progress that we are making at those various points. So we should be able to tell you the numbers of students who are being served by each one of these programs at every juncture in the system. Your local institutions should be able to give you some of those data, because they're supposed to be collecting them as well. And certainly if there is a request for an Minority Research Centers of Excellence (MRCE) project, they have to generate those data on a regular basis. I know that, because we require that they give us the numbers. So we do this collaboratively. Unless we have a good sense of how well we're doing in drawing and maintaining students in our programs, we have no way of telling whether our programs are making a difference. We have to evaluate all these programs that have been mentioned, some of which support you in one way or the other. Panel member: Do you recall the comments made about Lifetime Achievement Award winner Warren Henry today? There was another man sitting at the table with him named Lafayette Frederick. He was recognized last year for having accomplished the same thing in biology that Warren Henry accomplished in physics. There is another gentleman at Morehouse College in Atlanta named Henry MacBay who was honored (by others) for the same thing in chemistry. The point I'm making is that in almost every case where you look at a successful core of scientists, there is a teacher, either in high school or college. And we don't have enough of them. That's one of the reasons why the pipeline is drying up, because we have not given enough attention to quality science and math teaching at the high school and college levels. And so if you do teach, I applaud and encourage you to continue that and get others to join you. Because that is as important as pushing back the frontiers of research on the other side of the equation. In the past, NSF has given lip service to research and education, but I think now they mean it. Because they're putting resources behind the Education Directorate and giving more meaning to the mission of education as a parallel responsibility to the research mission of the foundation. Panel member: We always have been interested in education, so much so that every grant that is given has to have graduate students included in the grant. Undergraduates were added around 10 years ago. Panel member: Let me expand on a point. The Education and Human Resources Directorate now is the second-largest directorate in the National Science Foundation. I would argue in full support of your comment that NSF really didn't get serious about undergraduates until 1988, and it is just now getting serious about community colleges and the contribution that they make in moving students into four-year institutions and into science, particularly science degrees. Engineering colleges and universities have been quite good, actually, in harvesting students from two-year institutions. The sciences have lagged behind, for a whole range of reasons, some of which have been discussed at this conference. Now there's no turning back. The challenge to us at NSF is to do a better job of consolidating research and education along that continuum. We can't pursue these as separate enterprises. The expectations are too high and the needs are too great. And so we are in a position of putting our money where our rhetoric has been. And you, just by your presence here, are one indicator that we're doing something right. You've got to keep the pressure on at your local institution, which also means you've got to start mentoring the people who are coming up behind you, because we all have an obligation here. Student: First of all, you asked a question about what programs we are funded by. Well, I'm funded by AMP. My question is, in high school there aren't too many minority teachers in math and science. Has anyone looked into supplementing incomes or opportunities for minority math and science teachers at the high school level? Panel member: Well, you have to make a distinction, I think. The Department of Education budget is about $18 billion a year. The Directorate for Education and Human Resources' budget is no comparison with that. So what NSF can do in this whole pipeline is act more as a catalyst, more as a facilitator, because the resources are really not there to nationally solve this problem. Also you have to take into account that the State and locality have a large responsibility for their school system. We don't have national standards. Panel member: I would echo that there is a program called the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI), which is designed to create systemic change in the teaching of science and math in public schools. It does not directly affect the area that you suggested--that is, salaries of teachers--but it can influence the environment, the culture of public education, so that more minorities will want to go into teaching without having to deal with the disincentives that public education now provides. So I think that USI, coupled with programs aimed at producing more minority teachers, will begin to address the problem of the rather small number of minority teachers in the public school system. Student: Are you saying it should start from the bottom up, like local, then regional, then national, rather than national on down? Panel member: You have to influence your local PTA, council, whatever. You have to make your voice heard. But you have to put in the money to prepare this teacher. Panel member: Dr. Williams has come in and we should use this opportunity to get him to answer one or two questions. So this is your chance. Student: This question springboards off another question. There's been an emphasis on urban high schools and programs to develop inner-city youth and young adults. What has NSF done to help the rural communities? Dr. Williams: We've launched an initiative that is an analog to the USI that's focused entirely on rural communities. To be precise, using the Department of Labor's definition of rural communities--rural and economically impoverished. It's for the last forgotten American. It will do precisely what the urban initiative is doing. As Dr. Jones has indicated, these grants will be comprehensive. They will have all of the elements. They almost by design are going to be a mix of education per se (to cater to the educational system) and science and technology training. One of the things we want to do is improve the economic ambience in rural communities. So the idea is to employ our math and science education agenda to provide the opportunity for young adults in the community--many of whom are marginally employed or unemployed--to join the workforce. So it's a clear reform program that is precisely the analog of the urban one. It addresses substantial pockets of minorities in rural communities. There is one set of issues that have to do with urban school systems, and an entirely different set of issues that have to do with rural communities, particularly rural communities in the Southeast and Southwest--communities that have made the transition from an agricultural base to a quasi-high-tech base, but do not yet have the requisite education and training. Basically what you have in these very, very large communities in rural Louisiana, some parts of Georgia, and especially in South Carolina are huge pockets of minorities who basically aren't dealt with by anyone. Long answer, but that's what we're going to do. NSF DIRECTORATE PRESENTATIONS OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE-FOCUSED ACTIVITIES Session A: Directorate for Engineering Research program officers from the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) will discuss the most advanced areas of research currently being supported by the Directorate. Directorate representatives will also present programs sponsored by ENG to support students at the precollege, undergraduate, and graduate levels, and new and experienced faculty. Contact Person: Daniel Davis, Program Officer, Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program, ENG/EEC, (703) 306-1380. Session B: Mathematical and Physical Sciences The Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Directorate of NSF will host a short workshop and roundtable discussion highlighting education and research opportunities for minority students in various MPS programs. An overview of MPS activities and programs that directly impact science and mathematics education and research for ethnic minority students will be given. This will be followed by a roundtable discussion in which program directors from the mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and materials research divisions will describe specific activities within their own divisions, and answer questions from conferees. Contact Person: Richard Hilderbrandt, Program Director, Physical Chemistry Program, Theoretical and Computational, MPS/CHE, (703) 306-1844. Session C: Computer and Information Science and Engineering The Institutional Infrastructure for Minority Institutions program consists of projects designed to increase the number of minority computer scientists and engineers. Awards run up to 5 years with budgets between $750,000 and $1,500,000. Some typical projects that will be described include the following: o Laboratory Enhancement at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's) o Mentoring and Recruiting at Hispanic-Serving Institutions o Bridging Activities at a Native American College o A new Ph.D. Program for Puerto Rico Most of the remaining Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) activities focused upon minority students are in the Special Projects Program. Among these, the Minority Graduate Fellowships, Minority Attitude Study, Strategy Workshops, and Conference Travel projects will be discussed. Information concerning participation in these and future programs in the CISE Directorate will be distributed. Contact Person: Dr. John Cherniavsky, Head, Office of Cross-Disciplinary Activities, CISE/CDA, (703) 306-1980. Session D: Biological Sciences The Biological Sciences (BIO) Directorate will hold a workshop to describe BIO program activities to support training and research in biology. Particular attention will be given to those programs providing special opportunities for minority students and faculty at all career levels. Program officers will discuss application procedures for grants such as Research Assistantships for Minority High School Students, Research Experiences for Undergraduates, Graduate Student Dissertation Awards, Postdoctoral Research Fellowships for Underrepresented Ethnic Minorities, Faculty Early Career Development Awards, Research Planning Grants, and Research Support Grants in biology. Printed program description materials will be available, and questions from the audience will be encouraged. Contact Person: Thomas Quarles, Deputy Division Director, BIO/BIR, (703) 306-1470. Session E: Directorate for Geosciences The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) supports research in the atmospheric, geological, and oceanographic sciences--advancing scientific knowledge of the Earth's environment and the ability to predict natural phenomena of economic interest such as weather, climate, and earthquakes. The geoscience disciplines require a broad base of talent and a variety of facilities and instruments--including multiuser facilities such as research aircraft and vessels, global arrays of seismometers, and supercomputers--to accomplish their research objectives. NSF is the Nation's principal supporter of academic-basic research in geosciences, providing about 70 percent of Federal support for research conducted at U.S. universities. Minority students have been involved with geosciences programs in different ways, ranging from work with individual scientists in their laboratories or in the field to major coordinated programs involving a number of scientific groups, or as part of the activities of a national center such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Specific examples of these activities will be given by representatives of the three GEO research divisions, namely Atmospheric (ATM), Earth (EAR), and Ocean Sciences (OCE), as well as by students who have participated in the programs. Contact Persons: Pam Stephens, ATM, (703) 306-1528; Judy Hannah, EAR, (703) 306-1557; Joan Mitchell, OCE, (703) 306-1580. Session F: Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences The Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) consists of three divisions, each with distinct programs and goals. A speaker from each division will discuss programs, with emphasis on efforts to encourage or understand minority participation in science and engineering. Division of International Programs (INT): The division sponsors programs designed to strengthen the international experience of students, postdoctorates, and young faculty in all fields of science and engineering supported by NSF. These programs include summer institutes, postdoctoral fellowships, center-to-center programs, and workshops for junior investigators. The speaker will use examples from NSF's Japan program to illustrate the types of opportunities available to young U.S. researchers for work in many areas of the world. Contact Person: Patricia J. Tsuchitani, INT, (703) 306-1701. Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS): Selected findings will be presented from the new NSF report, "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering," which examines the participation of underrepresented groups in the ranks of the Nation's technical workforce. Contact Person: Mary J. Golladay, SRS, (703) 306-1774. Division of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research (SBER): There will be a discussion of NSF programs and opportunities for minority students and faculty in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. The discussion will provide data and statistics on minority participation in SBER programs and will contain an overview of research supported by SBER on minority issues. Contact Person: Patricia White, SBER, (703) 306-1762. Session G: Department of Education The Department of Education (Eisenhower State Program) session will describe the following two projects: o Minority Mathematics and Science Education Cooperative (MMSEC) is a partnership inservice program--involving 9 universities, 2 community college campuses, and 28 schools--that is distinctive in integrating affective with cognitive strands to improve the performance and classroom achievements of minority children. It involves teachers and principals in a systematic process of recognizing and comprehending the special contexts and customary ways in which children perceive and construct scientific knowledge. These resources are then applied to facilitate and promote the learning of mathematics and science. o Four Institutionalized Reforms in Science Training (Project FIRST) How do we develop classroom instructional leaders who mirror the changing California school-age population? This project is designed to increase the number of teachers from underrepresented groups who become master teachers of science while also completing the requirements for enhanced degrees in science. It enables teachers who, through a previous Eisenhower-funded project, developed their skills in teaching science to go a step further to establish their leadership roles. Contact Person: Christine Jackson, Senior Education Program CLOSING SESSION PRESIDER Luther S. Williams Assistant Director Education and Human Resources, NSF OPENING STATEMENT We are pleased to have Dr. Anne Petersen, deputy director of the National Science Foundation, provide closing comments on the conference from the point of view of the leadership of the Foundation. She is extremely interested in the efforts that have been the subject of our several days of meeting. As she will indicate, Dr. Lane, the director, is unavoidably involved elsewhere in activities that are extremely important to our agenda. Dr. Petersen was kind enough to come to offer closing comments on behalf of NSF, even though she has another commitment that is almost concurrent with this activity. So at the end of her comments, if you have questions, she will take a few, then she has to depart. KEYNOTE ADDRESS Anne C. Petersen Deputy Director National Science Foundation Thank you. It is a great honor to join you this afternoon. I want first to express greetings on behalf of NSF Director Neal Lane. I know Neal wanted to be here with you as well, but he has spent most of this week on the road--traveling in Florida and California. (Somebody has to do it.) Today, in fact, he participated in the dedication of the new National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University. I mention this only because, in addition to being a preeminent national and international research facility, this new laboratory holds great promise for promoting NSF's goals in education and human resource development. The facility is already developing plans for outreach activities involving the Tallahassee schools. This is just one example of how virtually every dollar NSF spends and everything we do as an agency is done with an eye toward promoting diversity in the scientific and technological workforce. Both Neal and I strongly support the goals of this conference, and we want all of you to know that the entire Foundation stands behind your efforts. Education is at the core of NSF's mission, and increasing diversity in science and technology is a central goal of all of the agency's programs. After I was nominated to become NSF's deputy director and began doing my homework about the agency's programs, I was struck by the breadth of programs NSF supports to improve the participation of women and other underrepresented groups in science and engineering. I get the sense that we start reaching kids before they enter school--through the television shows and various informal science education activities we support. And our involvement continues at all levels of education and even beyond graduate school--through programs like the Minority Postdoctoral Fellowships and Visiting Professorships for Women. The fact that the Foundation has assumed such a valuable leadership role in these areas is one of the main reasons that I am very excited about working here. The Foundation has taken on this role for many reasons. I know that the changing demographics of our Nation make it imperative that we promote increased diversity in science and technology. But as powerful as these arguments are, I think there are even more powerful arguments that have nothing to do with demographics. All of us know that research in science and engineering is a process that requires imagination, creativity, and a strong sense of commitment. This process draws upon the talents and ideas of the individual researchers, teachers, and students who participate in the research. For this reason, it almost goes without saying that engineering and science in general will benefit from increased diversity. I like to tell people that the recipe for good research involves lots of mixing--mixing ideas, blending perspectives, and pulling together diverse ideas. The different and diverse backgrounds that each of us brings to our work are essential to this mixing process. At NSF we want to make this a part of everything we do. My next point is that the themes of this conference are a top priority not just for NSF, but for the administration as well. Vice President Gore made this clear at the release in early August of the administration's major report on science policy, Science in the National Interest. He called on the science and engineering community to become actively involved in raising the scientific and technological literacy of all Americans and attracting more women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to careers in scientific and technological fields. The report itself speaks to this very point. It notes that "America derives great strength from its diversity, yet the country has not had a coherent policy for developing all our human resources for science and technology." The report made two recommendations that will help to shape this "coherent policy." First, the President's National Science and Technology Council has committed itself to developing a policy for sustaining excellence and promoting diversity in the science and technology workforce. This is important because this policy will affect all Federal agencies, not just NSF. In addition, this policy will affect all programs--research as well as education--in keeping with the important role that research experiences play in education and training. Second, the administration has established a new Presidential Awards program to recognize individuals and institutions that have outstanding records in mentoring students from underrepresented groups in science, mathematics, and engineering. I would not be at all surprised if a number of the first recipients of this award are sitting in this room. The first awards are expected to be announced late next year. I want to make one other point before I close. In virtually all organizations today--universities, businesses, government agencies--more and more people are focusing on the issue of accountability. In addition to serving as NSF's deputy director, I am also the agency's chief operating officer. This position was created as part of the National Performance Review, the effort being led by the Vice President to reinvent government. This means a large part of my job is to see that our programs are held accountable to their goals. For this reason, it gives me great satisfaction to see that the results of our efforts to promote diversity in science and engineering are beginning to take shape. We now sponsor 20 projects under our Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP) Program, and 75,000 students are enrolled in these projects this year. That's up from six projects and about 41,000 students in 1991. In total, NSF's programs for minority students at the undergraduate level are reaching more than 76,000 students today. These are very impressive numbers by any accounting. But we also know they are not nearly enough, and at NSF we know better than to contemplate resting on our laurels. As you no doubt have been hearing, NSF has set even more ambitious goals to increase minority representation in scientific and technological fields by the year 2000. Are they attainable or just wishful thinking? I believe they are attainable, through conferences such as this and through action plans such as the one you have worked to develop these past 3 days. To conclude, therefore, I just want to add that the Foundation will not rest until all segments of the population have the same opportunity to learn and the same opportunity to be productive and prepared citizens. Nothing is more important to the future of America's scientific and technological workforce. NSF is committed to serving as a catalytic agent for change in science and engineering. I hope the day comes when our leadership is no longer needed. But until that day arrives, the Foundation will stand firmly behind its commitment to invest in all students--so that everyone in our society can succeed in science and engineering. CLOSING REMARKS Luther Williams First, I would like to mention that I have just been informed that conference attendance at the last count exceeded 1,900. That is remarkable. That is more than 500 more than last year and more than twice the attendance of the first conference. What I would like to do now is highlight what I think we have achieved at this conference vis-À!À-vis the objectives. That's exceedingly important, because, as you know, the point of this conference and the two previous ones is to use them as an integral part of our overall effort to solve problems, not to have conferences for which there are no explicit outcomes and expectations. The first point in this summary focuses on variables in a larger problem set, that, in my view, we have to effectively address in order to accomplish our goals. Clearly, we need explicit and substantial support from the administration, meaning the President's office. I and others, including Anne Petersen, have referred to the presidential white paper, Science in the National Interest. I am unaware of another presidential statement that rendered explicitly a set of activities coupled--I emphasize, coupled--with the epicenter of national transactions having to do with science, technology, and the economy; that elevated individuals underrepresented and underserved by the enterprise to the level that one now finds in Science in the National Interest. So we have, in fact, a policy framework, strategic guidance in a context to connect our efforts with the national interest. Second Point: Obviously another sector or player that is important for the effort is the U.S. Congress. Over the last several years, programs such as AMP have grown from zero to 20 such projects around the country. We also have completed a cycle of Comprehensive Regional Centers for Minorities (CRCM) and employed them to serve as precursors to the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI), which is not designed, per se, to focus on minority students, but will certainly serve them because they are focusing in the 25 cities that have substantial minority populations. The directorate has mounted programs such as the Summer Science Camps and others, and has begun to build a continuum of programs, kindergarten through graduate education, even into postdoctoral education. Paralleling these efforts, to the extent to which resources permitted, there has been a deliberate effort to explain the agenda to selected members of Congress, to try to persuade members of Congress to elevate our agenda vis-a-vis a whole set of competing agendas--welfare, health care, the general state of the economy, jobs, etc. I think you would agree, based on Congressman Stokes' observations, that we have been able to bring our agenda appropriately to the public policy arena, to the budget and fiscal resource acquisition process, and Congress has supported it. But they also require a high level of accountability. As Mr. Stokes clearly pointed out, they will provide the support, but the expectations with respect to outcomes and achievements are enormous. Third, we felt when we initiated this effort several years ago that we needed a document, not very different from the President's document, that would speak globally to what the country will attempt to achieve broadly in science and engineering research and education. We needed a document that would explicate what we were attempting to accomplish and would provide a context that would relate our programs to specific goals and objectives. Our objective clearly is not to simply operate a plethora of programs but to achieve a larger goal, for example, ensuring a substantial and appropriate increase in the number of minority professionals who occupy the niche of mathematics and science K-12 instruction. We have gone through several iterations of the plan. We discussed it briefly yesterday. You have had the opportunity to look at the details in more focused sessions this afternoon. While I did not attend those sessions, I am sure NSF staff moderators reiterated that any additional comments should be made in a timely fashion. We will collect all of the input, write the final version of the plan, publish it, and broadly disseminate it. Most assuredly, we will send it to all of the NSF "performers," principal investigators or project directors, to the administration and the U.S. Congress, but also to the broad community. The idea is to use the plan as a mechanism to explain to all sectors of American society what we are attempting to do. We are also employing the plan as a device to entice the participation of others. You saw evidence of that yesterday, for example, in the statements by Ms. Cornwell Rumsey from the Department of Energy, which has entered a formal collaboration agreement with NSF. Dr. Poodry did not emphasize this in his comments, but we have a similar agreement with the National Institutes of Health, and with Cliff now in a leadership role, we will do more. We have in place an effort with the Department of Education that focuses on its Goals 2000 program and the congruence between that agenda and ours, and we will pursue others. The roundtable was initially designed to obtain congressional perspectives on our efforts. Because there is a cadre of very talented people at this conference, we were able to do it without the members of Congress. It was different but important, because what we attempted to do in the context of our programs and the action plan was to identify strategies that would translate our current effort into a national enterprise. That meant that barriers had to be addressed, and the point of the conference was to identify them. They were summarized, and they will be integrated into the action plan. So the roundtable was a very important process, and it certainly is not going to be the last such activity. We took very few questions from the larger audience during the presentation of the plan; therefore, we are considering a mechanism by which we could repeat this process on a regional basis. I think there are some obvious ways to do it. For example, we could repeat the focused discussion we had here yesterday in areas of the country where we have companies and programs, either cities with AMP projects or the 25 largest USI cities. We could do it in Chicago or in Los Angeles or other places, with the goal of enticing a larger segment of the American public to understand and participate in our agenda. Another achievement of this conference is the increased attendance from other agencies and from the research directorates at NSF. That is exceedingly important, and it is consistent with Dr. Petersen's observation that under Dr. Lane's leadership there is increased interest in creating synergy between the programs that are supported in research and those supported in education, thereby eliminating the artificial distinction between the two. I should point out to those of you who are from the higher education sector and operate the various programs represented here that such increased integration will have a very profound effect on the kind of proposals that you might submit to NSF in the future. The awards ceremony is long. Perhaps we can find ways to abbreviate it in duration, but I hope you would agree that we should not abbreviate it in terms of goals and objectives. It is exceedingly important to continue the awards ceremony to acknowledge the historical context for what we are attempting to accomplish, as represented by the Lifetime Achievement Award winners, Jewel Plummer Cobb and Lafayette Frederick last year, Lloyd Cook the first year, and Warren Henry and Fred Begay this year. It is particularly important for the young people who participate in the conference to understand this point. It is also important to continue the other honors, not only because the students deserve them, but because it is important to bring Phi Beta Kappa, the Council of Graduate Schools, and NSTA to our agenda. So we will find ways to do more in less time, consistent with streamlining the government, but not decreasing the activity. I am extremely pleased that we were able to engage an increased number of participants in the conference through the exhibits, and that activity can only grow. I was there briefly yesterday, and there seemed to be more than 1,000 people, especially young people, who had converted the exhibit hall into an open classroom, and a very exciting and effective educational process was occurring. It even continued through this morning. We also added participants through the Summer Science Camp (SSC) projects. These were the very young people you encountered who had not participated previously. We did that with some trepidation, because it is somewhat challenging to bring 7th, 8th, and 9th graders to Washington. We had to worry about all kinds of liability. The Foundation's $3-plus billion budget would be almost instantaneously consumed in legal fees if we did not do it well. I have talked with several of these students to get some sense of their security and how they felt about participating. Did they feel awed by the scientists and engineers? The answer to that question was absolutely not. My sense is that, based on this experience, we should do more in that regard, that is, involve more SSC project students. The memory that I will retain forever of these young people is not just of the projects that they presented, but two additional things: the very healthy sense of self-esteem they have developed and the healthy disposition that says, "I have not allowed anyone to impose restraints on what I can learn." That is absolutely delightful. The challenge is, what can we do to facilitate that learning? This then summarizes the conference, and I appreciate all of the individuals who have assisted us with the conference. This includes the two members of the National Science Board who are in attendance, Jaime Oaxaca and Jim Powell, who presided and assisted us in presenting awards at the luncheon. I thank Anne Petersen for coming to represent the Director's Office, and I thank members of the Education and Human Resources National Advisory Committee who are here and assisted us--Peter Gerber, Tom Cole, and Diana Natalicio, who is now a nominee to the National Science Board. I want to express appreciation to the teachers and administrators from the D.C. Public Schools, the Baltimore Public Schools, and all of the public schools whose students came yesterday in very large numbers. I want to thank Courtesy Associates, the conference contractor who's been with us for 3 years and continues to improve; they are doing a splendid job, also. I appreciate the staff of the hotel; they have been very helpful to us. There are three people--before I talk about the next steps--whom I would like to acknowledge publicly. Roosevelt Calbert's division has responsibility for the human resource development programs and I ask you to join me in publicly acknowledging the leadership that he has brought to this process. When we decided to initiate this conference 3 years ago, I was told that we had a problem. The problem was that we were asking a large number of students to make presentations, and we did not have the staff within the Foundation or a system or process to handle it. Eugene DeLoatch, Dean of the School of Engineering, Morgan State University, agreed to do this, and he has done it splendidly for 3 years. One of the reasons you are able to see the students with their posters and presentations so very well organized is that he is a schoolmaster in the very best sense of the word. Please join me in expressing thanks, much belated and inadequate thanks, to Eugene DeLoatch. Last, and last for the obvious reason that what I have to say publicly I can say basically in one sentence: There would be no conference this year, nor would there have been one the previous 2 years, without one individual: Elmima Johnson. We have spent some time debating what we should do in the future. The question for the fourth conference is how to actually build on what has happened in the previous three. That fits my requirement for the dynamics of the fourth conference being more than an extension of the previous ones. We need to do it again because we have, in large measure, changed the stakes. Eugene DeLoatch has to find a way to involve even more students. (I am not sure how, but that is his challenge.) And while the USI has a different mandate, it seems to me after talking to Ms. Johnson, the general superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, and others, there is an advantage in including elements of that program in this conference. In addition, this is the first time we included the Summer Science Camp projects and there are, in fact, other programs with precollege students and several reasons they should be a part of this activity. Finally, we need to meet on an annual basis to candidly assess our progress in meeting our goals. I thank all of you for your participation and want you to know that I value the terrific work that you are doing on these projects in your various institutions and schools. I particularly want to thank the array of people from the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources, whom I have not acknowledged by name.