| Tuesday, August 01, 2000 - 09:54 am Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:55:42 -0400 (EDT) From: AIP listserver <fyi@aip.org> To: fyi-mailing@aip.org Subject: FYI #93 - Education Events FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 93: July 31, 2000 Capitol Hill Events Target K-12 Education Hardly a week has gone by this summer in which K-12 science and math education has not received attention on Capitol Hill. The American Chemical Society, through its "Science and the Congress" project, has played a role in keeping the K-12 education topic visible to Members of Congress through a series of briefings. A July 25 discussion, co-hosted by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and Rush Holt (D-NJ), examined the problems of teacher recruitment and retention, while a July 13 roundtable before the Senate Science and Technology Caucus addressed innovative private-sector approaches to improving math and science education. Ehlers' trio of bills to improve science education has also continued to garner attention, at a July 19 hearing on H.R. 4273 and the House Science Committee's mark-up of H.R. 4271 on July 26. HOUSE BRIEFING: At the July 25 luncheon briefing, education experts Emily Feistritzer, founder and president of the National Center for Education Information, and Richard Ingersoll, of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, discussed issues surrounding the shortage of qualified teachers. Ingersoll argued that the topic is "widely misunderstood" as a problem of teacher recruitment. Instead, he said, the larger concern is retention: nearly 40 percent of teachers leave the field in their first five years of teaching. He urged more attention to making the classroom a better environment for teachers, and giving them more say in decisions that affect them. "What does this men for the [teacher shortage] conventional wisdom?" Ingersoll asked. The issue is not "too few teachers out there, but too many qualified teachers leaving," he concluded. Feistritzer pointed out that many school districts have so few students that expecting all science teachers to have degrees in their subject matter is "economically not feasible." Instead, she urged creative solutions such as sharing of teachers among school districts, and allowing private sector employees to teach science classes. Feistritzer advocated high-quality alternative certification programs that target areas where there is a need, help teachers find a position, and then ensure that beginning teachers receive continued support. Asked about a federal role, Ingersoll praised Ehlers' science education legislation for a provision that would authorize mentoring for new teachers, and also suggested classroom size reduction initiatives. Feistritzer said the federal government should encourage flexibility and creativity in seeking solutions. SENATE ROUNDTABLE: At the Senate Science and Technology Caucus roundtable, co-chaired by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Bill Frist (R-TN), representatives from Intel, DuPont and Verizon described their contributions and programs for K-12 students and teachers. As might be expected from high-tech companies, much of their emphasis was on training children and their teachers in uses of educational technologies and providing such resources for the classroom. Another focus was on real-world applications of math and science. Verizon has a program to give teachers laboratory experience and encourage them to collaborate and share experiences. Robert Ballard, discoverer of the RMS Titanic and founder of the non-profit JASON Project, described how his program involves students and teachers in actual scientific research and discovery. "So much of teaching is motivation," Ballard noted. In the same spirit, Intel sponsors science competitions, and afterschool clubhouses to provide underprivileged students with access to technology. A common theme among the speakers was the importance of reaching students at the middle school level, when so many children are turned off of science. HEARING ON H.R. 4273: A July 19 House Science Committee hearing focused on H.R. 4273, the third of Ehlers' science education bills, which would expand provisions in the tax code to provide tax credits for future teachers' college tuition and externships for in-service teachers, and to companies for including teachers in workforce training programs and contributing equipment, technology, and other resources to K-12 education. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over tax code issues. Alfred Berkeley, president of the NASDAQ Stock Market, testified in support of the bill: "In order for [the nation's] economic growth to continue into the future, we must continue to fund basic research, and we must build a workforce that is capable and interested in careers in science and mathematics.... [P]ublic policies targeting the education of our future workforce - such as those proposed in H.R. 4273 - must be adopted if we hope to have the capable human resources necessary to fill the jobs being created." MARK-UP OF H.R. 4271: On July 26, the Science Committee marked up Ehlers' first education bill, H.R. 4271, which would authorize programs within NSF to improve science and math education. In an overwhelming show of support, the bill was approved unanimously. A number of amendments were added during the mark-up. While the full text of the revised bill is not yet available, these amendments included a provision to authorize NSF grants to improve the undergraduate education of future teachers, and encourage collaboration between schools of education and science departments. Additional provisions would make it easier for science graduates to pursue teaching credentials, would encourage women and minorities to go into S&T fields, and would direct OSTP to lead the coordination of federal efforts in K-12 science and math education across all agencies. (See http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2000/fyi00.041.htm for details on all three of Ehlers' bills as originally introduced). ############### Audrey T. Leath Public Information Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org (301) 209-3094 http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/ ##END##########
| |
| Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 09:52 am Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:53:19 -0500 (EST) From: AIP listserver <fyi@aip.org> To: fyi-mailing@aip.org Subject: FYI #17 - K-12 Education FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 17: February 16, 2000 K-12 Education Reform Takes Center Stage K-12 education reform is clearly a hot topic in Washington. Not only has President Bush made it an early priority of his Administration, but there is currently a window of opportunity to transform the programs of the Department of Education through reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Authorization for these federal programs lapsed during the last session of Congress, but efforts to pass a new ESEA bill stalled in the Senate and eventually were abandoned for the session. Yesterday, members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from Education Secretary Rod Paige on Bush's education proposal, "No Child Left Behind," which is intended as a blueprint to guide the ESEA reauthorization. In addition to the Bush plan and several Democratic alternatives for ESEA, other legislative proposals have been introduced to strengthen science and math education specifically. ESEA authorizes a large portion of the federal funds that go to states and localities for K-12 education, from Title I support of the neediest schools, to the Eisenhower grants program, which provides dollars for teacher professional development in general, and science and math in particular. (The Eisenhower program received $485 million for FY 2001, with $250 million set aside strictly for science and math.) Although federal education funding accounts for only about seven percent of all education money, there are strong and conflicting opinions about how those federal funds should be used. Bush's plan would consolidate about 50 Education Department programs into five general areas, giving the states more flexibility on how to use the federal money, while requiring more accountability in the form of annual testing of 3rd- through 8th-grade students in math and reading. If school districts did not adequately improve student achievement for three consecutive years, low-income students would be able to use federal money, through vouchers, to attend another public or a private school. This is probably the most controversial provision in Bush's proposal. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), leading a group of New Democrats, plans to reintroduce a bill which is similar in many respects to Bush's plan. It would consolidate many programs into five general categories, and emphasize flexibility and accountability, but would not provide for vouchers. More traditional Democratic proposals (S. 7 and H.R. 340) have been introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate and Rep. George Miller (D-CA) in the House, which would do less consolidation of federal programs. Of specific interest to the science community, Bush's plan would consolidate the Eisenhower program into a larger Teacher Quality initiative, eliminating the set-aside for science and math professional development. However, Bush's proposal also includes a provision authorizing funding for states and local education authorities to join in partnerships with higher education institutions to improve science and math standards, curricula and teacher preparation and training. It encourages university science and math departments to work with schools of education in these partnerships. The President's plan also calls for challenging state content standards, but not annual testing, in science. Of the Democratic alternatives, Lieberman's proposal would also consolidate the Eisenhower program into a Teacher Quality initiative, eliminating the science/math set-aside. It would require regular student performance assessments in science as well as math and reading. The Kennedy and Miller bills would retain the Eisenhower program and increase the science/math set-aside to $300 million. Kennedy's legislation would also require yearly science assessments. Added to the mix are several smaller bills targeted specifically to improving science and math education. Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Connie Morella (R-MD) have proposed legislation (H.R. 117) incorporating many of the Glenn Commission's recommendations, including authorizing 15 Glenn Academies to provide summer professional development workshops and year-long Fellowships for prospective teachers. Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) has reintroduced his trio of science education bills from last year (now H.R. 100, 101, and 102; see FYIs #39, 41, and 130, 2000), which would enhance science education programs at NSF and the Education Department and provide tax breaks for teachers' college tuition and industry contributions to science education. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) plans to reintroduce companion legislation in the Senate; at yesterday's hearing he called improving science and math education for U.S. students "a matter of national security." Several other committee members also mentioned the importance of science and math education, with Chairman James Jeffords (R-VT) urging greater collaboration between colleges of education and science and math departments to improve teacher preparation, curricula, and educational research in those disciplines. The hearing was in general very positive, with Paige and most of the committee members agreeing to work together on reform of the nation's education system. The committee plans to mark up a draft bill by the end of this month, and take it to the Senate floor by mid-March. However, many Democratic committee members expressed concern that the full details of Bush's budget submission, including what the President plans to request for the Education Department, would not be available until the first week in April. Paige promised that the committee would receive a general indication of likely budget numbers before the end of February. It is important to keep in mind that all of the legislative efforts mentioned above are authorization, and not appropriations, bills. Authorization bills are intended to set policy and spending guidelines, but do not provide the actual money. How well any of these efforts fare, even if they are passed, depends on whether they are funded adequately in the relevant appropriations bill. ############### Audrey T. Leath Public Information Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org (301) 209-3094 http://www.aip.org/gov ##END##########
|
| Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information. |