SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
90–162PS
2004
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM:
VIEWS FROM THE FIELD
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 30, 2003
Serial No. 108–32
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
ROB BISHOP, Utah
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CHRIS BELL, Texas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
VACANCY
Subcommittee on Research
NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
JIM MATHESON, Utah
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAVID FINGER Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
JAMES HAGUE Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 30, 2003
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Witnesses:
Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant, SUNY–Brockport
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Mr. Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Mr. Jeffrey M. Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District, New York
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Dr. M. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, University of Texas, El Paso
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, Michigan State University
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Discussion
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant, SUNY–Brockport
Mr. Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York
Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District, New York
Dr. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, University of Texas, El Paso
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, Michigan State University
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of the Museum of Science, Boston, MA
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATH AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: VIEWS FROM THE FIELD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:33 p.m., in Room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
90162a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Implementation of the
Math and Science Partnership Program:
Views From the Field
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2003
12:00 P.M.–2:00 P.M.
2325 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
1. Purpose
On Thursday, October 30, the Subcommittee on Research of the House Science Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the implementation of the Math Science Partnership (MSP) Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The MSP Program, part of President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative, was authorized by the House in last year's NSF Authorization Act, which was signed into law in December. The program provides grants to partnerships of universities and school districts (and sometimes businesses) to improve K–12 math and science education. This hearing will be the Congress's first look at how this major new initiative is working.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Witnesses
Dr. Osman Yasar (Oz-mon Yash-ar), lead researcher for the Targeted MSP award at the State University of New York (SUNY) Brockport. Dr. Yasar is a professor and chair of the computational science department at SUNY College at Brockport. He established the first undergraduate program in computational science in the United States and, prior to SUNY, he was a staff scientist at the Center for Computational Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Mr. Ed Chi (Chee), Science Teacher at Brighton School District in New York. Mr. Chi teaches science to 7th and 8th grade students at Twelve Corners Middle School in Rochester, New York. Twelve Corners Middle School is the sole institution educating students in grades 6–8 in the Brighton School District.
Mr. Jeff Mikols, Math Teacher, at Rochester City School District in New York. Mr. Mikols has been a teacher with the Rochester City School District since 1993, and he has taught courses ranging from pre-algebra to AP calculus. Currently, Mr. Mikols is the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher, which makes him responsible for providing professional development to other secondary school math teachers. Mr. Mikols received his B.A. in Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics Education from SUNY–Geneseo, and he is currently enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in School Administration.
Dr. Susana Navarro (Nav-ARR-o), lead researcher for the Comprehensive MSP award at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Dr. Navarro is the founder and the head of the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, a city-wide effort to improve the academic achievement of El Pasoans. Prior to the Collaborative, Dr. Navarro served as National Director of Research and Policy Analysis of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Executive Director of the Achievement Council. She graduated from the University of Texas–El Paso with a degree in political science and she continued her graduate studies at Sanford University, where she ultimately earned her Ph.D. in educational psychology.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy (Fer-RINI-Mun-dy), lead researcher for the comprehensive MSP grant at Michigan State University. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Math Education in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University, where she is also a Professor of Mathematics and Teacher Education. Prior to joining Michigan State, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy co-founded the SummerMath Program for Teachers at Mount Holyoke College and she has been the principal investigator of several research and teacher education grants. She also has served as a Visiting Scientists at NSF's Teacher Enhancement Program and as Director of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board at the National Research Council.
3. Overarching Questions
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
How will awardees ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—are active in the program, drawing on the expertise of all partners? What role, if any, will businesses or non-profit organizations play in the partnership?
How will awardees provide meaningful, high quality training for pre-service and in-service teachers? How will this close the gap between the research findings on the way students learn and actual classroom practice? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
How will reform efforts align with each State's challenging math and science standards and accountability measures? What sort of in-depth, quantitative evaluation will be conducted? And how will the results be disseminated?
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Are the awards a sufficient size to develop and test new education reform models? How will the partnerships coordinate with State educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?
4. Brief Overview
For decades, educators and policy-makers have seen statistics that demonstrate a lackluster performance of U.S. students in math and science. Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that a majority of U.S. students score below ''proficient'' in math and science, and the Third International Math and Science Study highlight our problems relative to other countries (see below).
In response, Congress enacted two bills—the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001—and created Math and Science Partnership Programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.
These partnerships were to work together, with the National Science Foundation supporting model programs that create partnerships between the departments of math, science and engineering at colleges and universities with school districts to improve math and science proficiency for K–12 math and science teachers and students. The Department of Education was tasked with bringing the reform efforts to scale with grants to States and school districts.
The annual authorization for the Department of Education partnership program is $450 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 and such sums for the next five fiscal years. The FY 2002 appropriation was $12.5, but the FY 2003 appropriation grew to $100.3 million. The authorization for the National Science Foundation partnership program is $200 million for FY 2003, $300 million for FY 2004, and $400 million for FY 2005. The FY 2002 appropriation was $150 million and the FY 2003 appropriation was $127.5 million. The President has requested $12.5 million and $200 million in FY 2004 for the Department of Education and National Science Foundation partnership programs respectively.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
5. Background
As part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368), the Congress established the Math and Science Partnership Program in response to President Bush's challenge to leave no child behind in education. Underlying this effort was data that showed that U.S. eighth and twelfth graders did not do well either by our own measurements or by international standards.
Student Achievement in Math and Science
The most recent results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that the trend for student achievement is generally up over the last 30 years, yet large numbers of U.S. students demonstrate a mastery of only rudimentary mathematics. In fact, 31 percent of 4th graders, 34 percent of 8th graders and 35 percent of 12th graders scored below ''basic.'' Students in the basic category cannot demonstrate even partial mastery of the material that is appropriate for their age group, with, for instance, few 4th graders even knowing how many fourths make up a whole.
These low levels of achievement are more likely among minority groups and among children from low-income backgrounds. In the 2000 NAEP, 68 percent of African American 8th graders scored below basic in math compared to 23 percent of white students. And the achievement gap in NAEP math scores between white and black students and between white and Hispanic students has remained relatively unchanged since 1990.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), an assessment that evaluates the math and science performance of 4th, 8th and 12th grade students from 42 different countries, U.S. performance relative to other nations declined with increased schooling. While U.S. children scored above average in elementary school, those in 12th grade—including our most advanced students—ranked among the lowest of all participating countries, outperformed by nearly every industrialized nation and ahead of only Cyprus and South Africa.
These scores are disappointing and the reasons for them are complex. Yet one thing is certain—U.S. students are not getting a math and science education that will allow them to learn to their greatest ability. And their lessons neither engage nor challenge them. As a result, unacceptably low numbers of students are motivated to enroll in physics or chemistry and only 20–25 percent of graduating high school seniors have completed enough mathematics to be ready to study science or engineering. Because students who require remedial education are less likely to consider majors that require prerequisite classes in math, such as those in the physical, engineering and computer sciences, lack of preparation at the high school level clearly plays a role in many students' decisions to choose a major other than those in science, mathematics, engineering or technology. It is therefore no surprise that science and engineering degrees as a percentage of the population of 24 year olds have remained virtually constant at 5–6 percent. Within this group, women and minorities are seriously under-represented.
Legislation
Raising student achievement is the focus of No Child Left Behind, an initiative by President Bush to fundamentally reform K–12 education. As part of this five-year effort, Math and Science Partnerships Programs seek to unite the activities of higher education, school systems and business in support of improved math and science proficiency for K–12 students and teachers. This is in large part a response to national concerns regarding too many teachers teaching out of field, too few students taking advanced course work and too few schools offering challenging curricula.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ultimately, two programs were created. The first established a competitive, merit-based grant program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), as part of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–368). As enacted, this program would award grants to partnerships between institutions of higher education and one or more school districts to improve math and science education. Funds would be used to develop innovative reform programs that, if proven successful, would be the key to large-scale reform at the State level. The second was housed at the Department of Education and was created by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–110).
Although similarly titled, the programs were created to be complementary to—not duplicative of—each other. Specifically, NSF was to fund innovative programs to develop and test new models of education reform, thereby remedying a lack of knowledge about math and science research, while the Department of Education would broadly implement and disseminate new teaching materials, curricula and training programs. In so doing, the Education Secretary was required to consult and coordinate with the NSF Director.
NSF's Math and Science Partnership Program
NSF's Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program competitively awards grants to institutions of higher education, or other eligible nonprofits, and their partners—one or more school districts—to improve K–12 math and science education. In particular, the MSP Program must have the active participation of a math, science, or engineering department (as opposed to the education department) at the college or university, and the collaborations must be well-grounded in sound educational practices. Funds are required to be used for activities that improve K–12 math and science education, consistent with State standards, which may include:
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
recruiting and preparing students for careers in K–12 math and science teaching,
offering professional development for math and science teachers;
offering pre-service and in-service programs to help math and science teachers use technology more effectively;
developing distance learning for teachers and students;
developing a cadre of master teachers;
offering teacher preparation and certification programs for people who want to switch careers and begin teaching;
developing tools to evaluate MSP activities;
developing/adapting K–12 math and science curricular materials that incorporate contemporary research on the science of learning;
developing initiatives to increase and sustain the number, quality and diversity of pre-K–12 teachers of math and science, particularly in under-served areas;
using professionals to help recruit and train math and science teachers;
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
developing or offering enrichment programs for students;
providing research opportunities for students and teachers; and
bringing scientists, engineers and other professionals to the classroom.
NSF supports two types of partnerships—Comprehensive and Targeted. Comprehensive projects are funded for a five-year period for up to $7 million annually, depending on the scope of the project. These projects are intended to implement change in mathematics and/or science education practices in both institutions of higher education and in schools and school districts to result in improved student achievement across the K–12 continuum. Targeted projects focus on improved K–12 student achievement in a narrower grade range or a disciplinary focus in mathematics and/or science and are funded for up to $2.5 million a year for up to five years. In addition, the MSP Program funds Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) projects, which provide large-scale research and evaluation capacity and assist Comprehensive and Targeted awardees in the implementation and evaluation of their work.
The first competitions for MSP were held in FY 2002, for which $160 million was appropriated, and resulted in seven Comprehensive awards, 17 Targeted awards and 12 RETA awards. More recently, on October 2, NSF announced the award of $216.3 million in funding for the second year of the MSP Program, with five Comprehensive awards, seven Targeted awards, and 10 RETA awards.
Education
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The MSP Program at the Department of Education, which is authorized by Title II, Part B of the No Child Left Behind Act, requires partnerships to include a State educational agency, the engineering, math, or science department of an institution of higher education and a high-need school district. Partners are required to use their grants for one or more specific activities. Among them are the following:
professional development to improve math and science teachers' subject knowledge;
activities to promote strong teaching skills;
math and science summer workshops;
recruitment of math, science or engineering majors to teaching through signing and performance incentives;
stipends for alternative certification and scholarships for advanced course work;
development or redesign of more rigorous standards aligned math and science curricula;
distance learning programs for math and science teachers; and
opportunities for math and science teachers to have contact with working mathematicians, scientists and engineers.
Unlike the NSF program, where funds are awarded competitively, the MSP Program at the Department of Education turns into a formula program to States when the amount appropriated exceeds $100 million. In FY 2002, $12.5 million was appropriated for this program, but, in FY 2003, the appropriations hit the trigger ($100.3 million) and the funds were allocated to the States by the program's need-based formula.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
6. Award Abstracts on the MSPs run by Hearing Witnesses (verbatim, as provided to NSF)
Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics/Science Education (PROM/SE)—(Michigan State)
Award Number: 0314866
Start Date: September 1, 2003
Expires: August 31, 2008 (Estimated)
Expected Total Amount: $35,000,000.00 (Estimated)
Investigator: Joan Ferrini—jferrini@msu.edu (Principal Investigator)
Sponsor: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
NSF Program: MSP—Comprehensive Awards
Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education (PROM/SE) is a five-year effort by a joint partnership between Michigan State University (MSU) and five consortia of school districts in Michigan and Ohio. The consortia includes three Intermediate School Districts in Michigan, Ingham, Calhoun, and St. Clair County, and two consortia in Ohio, the High AIMS Consortium and the SMART Consortium. The sixty-nine districts represent the broad range of social, economic, and cultural characteristics found in the United States as a whole being situated in large urban cities (Cleveland and Cincinnati) and their suburbs, in medium size cities with large minority populations such as Lansing, and in very rural areas such as those in St. Clair and Calhoun Counties.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Partnership utilizes a unique combination of research and practice. Detailed data from all students and teachers using instruments from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) is gathered. On the basis of these data Action Teams of mathematicians, scientists, teacher educators and K–12 personnel collaborate to develop more focused and challenging content standards, align standards with instructional materials and improve mathematics and science teaching. Evidence-based and content focused professional development improves the subject matter knowledge of over 4,500 teachers of mathematics and science. Associates for mathematics and for science are fully prepared and engaged in the complex work of helping undertake substantial reform in all 715 schools. The mathematics and science opportunities for approximately 400,000 students improve and tracking disappears in all schools by 2006.
Eight hundred pre-service students participate and MSU reforms the preparation of future teachers through revision of pre-service education courses and programs. Partner sites mirror the diversity of the Nation as a whole and the prototype is exportable and replicable on a larger scale.
El Paso Math and Science Partnership
Award Number: 0227124
Start Date: October 1, 2002
Expires: September 30, 2007 (Estimated)
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Expected Total Amount: $29,319,178 (Estimated)
Investigator: Susana Navarro—navarro@utep.edu (Principal Investigator)
Sponsor: U. of Texas–El Paso, University Ave. at Hawthorne, El Paso, TX 79968
NSF Program: MSP—Comprehensive Awards
The El Paso Math and Science Partnership (El Paso MSP) includes the three urban school districts that encompass El Paso, nine rural school districts in El Paso and Hudspeth counties, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), El Paso Community College, the Region 19 Education Service Center, and El Paso area civic, business and community organizations and leaders.
The El Paso MSP is aimed at improving student achievement in mathematics and science among all students, at all pre-K–12 levels, and at reducing the achievement gap among groups of students. The goals of the partnership include:
fully engaging university and community college leadership and mathematics, science, engineering and education faculty in working toward significantly improved K–12 math/science student achievement;
ensuring the number, quality and diversity of K–12 teachers of mathematics and science across partner schools, particularly schools with the greatest needs;
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
building the capacity of area districts and schools to provide the highest quality curriculum, instruction and assessment, and to ensure the highest level achievement in mathematics and science for every student;
ensuring the K–16 alignment of mathematics and science curriculum, instruction and assessment, to ensure that students graduating from area high schools are prepared to enroll and be successful in mathematics, science and engineering courses at UTEP and El Paso Community College; and prioritizing research on educational reform and pre-K–16 partnerships.
SUNY–Brockport College and Rochester City (SCOLLARCITY) Math and Science Partnership: Integrative Technology Tools for Pre-service and Inservice Teacher Education
Award Number: 0226962
Start Date: January 1, 2003
Expires: December 31, 2007 (Estimated)
Expected Total Amount: $3,385,448 (Estimated)
Investigator: Osman Yasar (Principal Investigator)
Sponsor: SUNY–Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NSF Program: MSP—Targeted Awards
Abstract
The project is proposed by a partnership between SUNY–Brockport, Rochester City School District (RCSD) third largest in New York State with the lowest achievement scores and Brighton Central School District (BCSD) with similar gaps among under-represented groups yet with one of the highest overall achievement rates in the State. Additional partners are the Shodor Foundation and The Krell Institute. The primary goal for the partnership is to improve student outcomes in mathematics and science in grades 7–12 by creating a multi-agency approach for the recruitment and professional development of mathematics and science teachers. A Computational Mathematics Science and Technology (CMST) approach to learning science is employed in which students and teacher are engaged in fieldwork, laboratory experiments, mathematical modeling, computer simulation and visualization.
CMST employs math models to describe physical phenomena therefore bringing a new perspective about the usefulness of math as a tool in real life. The method is designed to make science and mathematics concepts more easily comprehensible. A Challenge program incorporating CMST is providing tools and motivation for 200, grades 7–12 students, under the supervision of participating teachers. The approach in addition to teaching science concepts is designed to promote teamwork, collaboration and new strategies for problem solving. A component of the comprehensive professional development program for mathematics and science teachers is a four-week summer institute each year serving a total of 240 teachers. In addition there is a Master's degree program for 30 teachers. Pre-service education programs at SUNY–Brockport are being revised and new courses are to be introduced to assure an improvement in the quality quantity and diversity of the new teacher workforce.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
7. Questions for Witnesses
Dr. Yasar
How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—remain active in the program? What role, if any, will the Shodor Foundation and the Krell Institute play in the partnership and in continuing the reforms after the award period expires?
What type of professional development will your partnership provide? How will you accommodate the unique professional development needs of individual schools, especially since they vary widely in terms of student achievement? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform model and achieve your partnership goals?
What sort of in-depth, quantitative evaluation will be conducted? And how will the results of this evaluation be disseminated?
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy
How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—remain active in the program? How will you tailor your program to the unique needs of the sixty-nine participating school districts?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What type of professional development will your partnership provide for pre-service and in-service teachers? How will you engage the nearly 4,500 teachers of math and science, all at different levels of ability and knowledge, in your reform efforts? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform models and achieve your partnership goals? How will the partnerships coordinate with State educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?
Dr. Navarro
How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—remain active in the program? What role, if any, will businesses and non-profit organizations play in the partnership?
What type of professional development will your partnership provide for pre-service and in-service teachers? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform models and achieve your partnership goals? How will the partnerships coordinate with State educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?
Mr. Chi and Mr. Mikols
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How has the SUNY–Brockport MSP Project helped teachers and administrators understand and embrace the need to teach to high quality, standards-based math and science? Based on what you know—and have experienced to date—are the participating schools getting closer to providing high quality math and science education for all students?
How have the professional development opportunities provided by the MSP Project been different from other teacher training programs in terms of content, duration and intensity?
What do you believe is the greatest barrier to bringing the latest and best research on math and science education into the classroom? Based on what you know, is teacher practice in the classroom changing?
Based on your experience, how do we recruit and retain the best math and science teachers? How has the MSP Project addressed—or failed to address—these issues?
Chairman SMITH. The Subcommittee on Research will come to order. I want to welcome everybody here today. I apologize for the delay in the starting time.
As a farmer, I use the analogy that our meeting today is a little bit about protecting our seed corn. What we are after, especially in this post-9/11 era, is a situation where we are going to have to be a little less dependent on students from other countries coming into our university systems to do our research. NSF reports that almost half of our research is still being done by foreign students who, through new regulations, are now under a little greater pressure to leave our country after they finish their postgraduate or graduate work.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last year, during the consideration of legislation to authorize the Math and Science Partnership Program, I asked our witnesses to consider the following question: if education, especially in the early years, is more the lighting of a fire, an interest, rather than filling a container with knowledge, when is the fire lit? And several of the witnesses said probably between four years old and six or seven years old. To get that kind of an interest early on and then the follow-up question, of course, is how do you kindle that fire to keep it going through the rest of high school and through college?
The results from the most recent Third International Math and Science Study, the TIMSS study, as well as evidence all around us, demonstrate, I think in very stark terms, the need to improve math and science achievement for all students. Our witnesses today are experts in that area. We look forward to your suggestions and ideas as we move ahead, and the situation is that while U.S. students are nearly first in the world in science, and above the international average in mathematics in grade four, this leadership or predominance is short-lived. In fact, the longer U.S. students are in school, the farther they fall behind. By twelfth grade, U.S. students rank among the lowest of all participating countries, and ahead of only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
In response to this data, President Bush proposed the Math and Science Partnership. We moved ahead legislatively to put that into action. We have had it for the fiscal years '02 and '03. Now, we are moving into '04. Through its awardees, the Math and Science Partnership Program also seeks to address, in a comprehensive manner, the weaknesses in U.S. math and science education. While recognizing that there is no one factor that makes all the difference, we do know that kids can't learn what their teachers don't truly understand. We also know that too many standards lack the necessary academic rigor, or they maybe exist in name only, having not yet been linked with assessments and professional development and curricula and classroom practice.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our goal here today is not to, I think, point a finger of blame at anybody. Our goal is to join the search for solutions and to underscore two fundamental truths: that all children can learn, and that no child should be denied the math and science spark that is so important in our new technological age.
Today, I am especially pleased to welcome true experts in education reform, teachers and educators and implementers of our new Math and Science Partnership Program, and as you can imagine, my colleagues and I spend a lot of time talking about you, but perhaps too little time listening to you. It is such an important endeavor, and so crucial to the economic success of the United States.
As we look at other countries that are copying our ways of producing, trying to be as efficient as we are, what is going to keep us at the cutting edge, it would seem to me, is the math and the science and the evolving research of developing new products that people want to buy, and developing the kind of methods to produce those products that allow us to be efficient and competitive with, ultimately, the price we sell the product for.
In conclusion, let me thank you again for being here, and before we get to our witnesses, I would call on Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. She took us down to Texas last year to study a similar situation of how we do a better job moving ahead in math and science, so Representative.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK SMITH
I want to welcome everyone here for what I hope will be a series of hearings on the Math and Science Partnership Program and the implementation of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 generally.
Last year, during the consideration of legislation to authorize the Math and Science Partnership Program, I asked our witnesses to consider the following question: if education is more the lighting of a fire than the filling of a container, when is that fire lit for math and science and what keeps it burning?
They all had different answers. Some said third grade. Others said kindergarten. And still others said pre-school. Yet they all agreed that our greatest failure—and our greatest challenge—was that too many children failed to experience the spark at all. As a result, too few pursued math and science education.
Results from the most recent Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS)—as well as evidence all around us—demonstrate in stark terms the need to improve math and science achievement for all students. While U.S. students are nearly first in the world in science and above the international average in mathematics in grade four, this predominance is short-lived. In fact, the longer U.S. students are in school, the farther they fall. By 12th grade, U.S. students rank among the lowest of all participating countries and ahead of only Cyprus and South Africa.
In response to this data, President Bush proposed the Math and Science Partnership Program as part of his comprehensive No Child Left Behind reform initiative. This program was created to support partnerships between colleges and universities and elementary and secondary schools but it also sought to challenge long held practices and to support innovative projects in math and science.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through its awardees, the Math and Science Partnership Program also seeks to address in a comprehensive manner the weaknesses in U.S. math and science education. While recognizing that there is no one factor that makes all the difference, we do know that kids can't learn what their teachers don't truly understand. We also know that too many standards lack the necessary academic rigor or they exist in name only, having not yet been linked with assessments, professional development, curricula, and classroom practice.
Yet, our goal here today is not to point the finger of blame. Our goal is to join in the search for solutions and to underscore two fundamental truths—that all children can learn and that no child should be denied the math and science spark that will carry them through their formal education and into the world of work.
Today, I am especially pleased to welcome true experts in education reform—teachers and education researchers. As you can imagine, my colleagues and I spend a lot of time talking about you, but perhaps too little time listening to you. So it is indeed a great honor to have you here to explain how you are using the Math and Science Partnership funds to light the spark of interest and improve the achievement of all students.
I would also be interested to know how we can encourage even more businesses and private organizations—perhaps through recognition or awards—to join in these partnerships and help extend our reach to more students and teachers. I know I speak for the entire subcommittee when I say that we look forward to your testimony.
In just a moment, I will proceed with introductions but I will first recognize Ranking Member Johnson for whatever statement she may wish to make.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this initial hearing on the implementation of the National Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership Program. I especially would like to thank Dr. Susana Navarro, who is leading the El Paso Math and Science Partnership, for appearing today. Her project involves several urban and rural school districts, and has an important goal of working to reduce the achievement gap often seen by disadvantaged students.
During the last Congress, the Science Committee examined in some depth the question of how to improve science, math and technology education for all students in the Nation's schools. We looked at such issues, at improving teacher training and professional development, developing more effective curriculum, making use of education technologies and stimulating greater student interest in science.
The Committee's inquiries led to legislation whose centerpiece was the Math and Science Partnership Program. I had been trying to pass it for years. The program—I was the wrong party—the program was subsequently enacted as part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act last year.
The key components of the partnerships program, in my view, are to obtain a serious commitment of time and effort from science, math and engineering faculty at the participating institutions, to institute changes at all the participating institutions that will lead to lasting educational improvement and to assure that the program has built-in and effective mechanisms to assess program outcomes.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, we will hear from some awardees from the Math and Science Partnership Program. I hope we will learn how they form their partnerships and get a sense of the level and engagement of the participants from academia and the schools. I am also interested in the kinds of educational activities that the partnerships will focus on, and to what extent they are guided by research findings on human development and learning.
While I am pleased to see that a few minority serving institutions have been able to participate as partners in the Math and Science Programs, three historically black universities, Tuskegee, Fayetteville State and Lincoln University, the Northwest Indian College and the University of Puerto Rico, which are not African-American, of course, I am quite disappointed that no minority serving institutions have been granted an award as a lead partner, and this is particularly disturbing, considering the roles of HBCUs and other minority serving institutions play among institutions of higher education to increase this nation's supply of math and science teachers in the minority communities.
Finally, I would like to welcome any recommendations from the panel on ways to strengthen the National Science Foundation's partnerships program, including any suggestions for improving the administration of the program.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today, and I look forward to discussion. If there is anyone in the house from the number one science and engineering high school in the country, which is in my district, I would like to acknowledge them. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this initial hearing on the implementation of the National Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership Program.
I especially would like to thank Dr. Susana Navarro, who is leading the El Paso Math and Science Partnership, for appearing today. Her project involves several urban and rural school districts and has an important goal of working to reduce the achievement gap often seen for disadvantaged students.
During the last Congress, the Science Committee examined at some depth the question of how to improve science, math and technology education for all students in the Nation's schools. We looked at such issues as improving teacher training and professional development, developing more effective curriculum, making use of educational technologies, and stimulating greater student interest in science.
The Committee's inquiries led to legislation whose centerpiece was the Math and Science Partnerships Program. The Program was subsequently enacted as part of the NSF Authorization Act last year.
The key components of the partnerships program, in my view, are to obtain a serious commitment of time and effort from science, math and engineering faculty at the participating institutions, to institute changes at all of the participating institutions that will lead to lasting educational improvements, and to assure that the program has built-in and effective mechanisms to assess program outcomes.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, we will hear from some awardees from the Math and Science Partnership Program. I hope we will learn how they formed their partnerships and get a sense of the level of engagement of the participants from academia and the schools. I am also interested in the kinds of educational activities the partnerships will focus on and to what extent they are guided by research findings on human development and learning.
While I am pleased to see that a few Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) have been able to participate as partners in the Math and Science Program (three Historically Black Universities, Tuskegee, Fayetteville State and Lincoln Universities, Northwest Indian College and the University of Puerto Rico), I am quite disappointed that no MSIs has been granted an award as a Lead Partner. This is particularly disturbing considering the roles HBCUs and other MSIs play among institutions of higher education in increasing this nation's supply of math and science teachers in our minority communities.
Finally, I would welcome any recommendations from the panel on ways to strengthen the NSF partnerships program, including any suggestions for improvements in the administration of the program.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.
The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for calling this important hearing on the National Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership (MSP). Every program we design here in the Science Committee, every initiative we fund at NASA or at the DOE or elsewhere, will be critically dependent on having qualified scientists and engineers to fill the tech jobs of the future. All of our great plans could be pipe dreams if we don't make the appropriate investment in our children. That investment could pay huge dividends in the future, if we help give kids the skills in math and science that will place them on the cutting edge in their careers to come.
Unfortunately, we have not been making the right investments, and it shows. For decades, American children have been performing poorly in science and math when compared to their international counterparts, or when measured against American standards. Across the board, about one third of kids cannot even score the ''basic'' level on standardized tests. It seems that a large proportion of our children are being left behind. Those children from low-income families, or minority groups are especially at risk.
This poor performance does not bode well for the future of our scientific endeavors or our high-tech economy. That is why the Congress moved in 2002 to establish the MSP in the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. The program will provide grants to enable collaborative efforts amongst schools, universities, colleges, and the private sector to improve the experiences of K–12 children in science and math. This program is meant to compliment the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now that we have had a year or so to let this program work, I think it is an excellent time to get some input on how things are going at the ground level. Unfortunately, the Congress has not yet fully funded these programs. In fact, for FY 2003, MSP was funded at a level just a bit more than half of its authorized level. So, it probably has not yet had much of an effect. However, hopefully we can get some indications of challenges and pitfalls from the field that will enable us to tune the program, or maybe motivate appropriators to fund this program fully in the future.
I thank the panelists for taking the time out of their busy schedules to share their experiences with us today. I especially welcome the teachers. Your classrooms are where the rubber hits the road. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, and just a moment. Allow me to introduce our great witnesses today.
Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is the lead researcher for the Comprehensive MSP grant at Michigan State University. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Math Education in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University, where she is also a professor of mathematics and teacher of education. Prior to joining Michigan State, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy co-founded the SummerMath Program for Teachers at Mount Holyoke College and she has been the principal investigator of several research and teacher education grants, both at Michigan State University and the University of New Hampshire. She also has served as a visiting scientist at NSF's Teacher Enhancement Program.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Osman Yasar is lead researcher for the Targeted MSP award at the State University of New York at the SUNY–Brockport. Dr. Yasar is a professor and Chair of the Computational Science Department at SUNY College at Brockport. He established the first undergraduate program in computational science in the United States and prior to SUNY, he was a staff scientist at the Center for Computational Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Mr. Ed Chi, science teacher at Brighton School District in New York. Mr. Chi teaches science to seventh and eighth grade students at Twelve Corners Middle School in Rochester, New York. Twelve Corners Middle School is the sole institution educating students in grades six to eight in the Brighton School District, so we will look forward to a person on the ground on your suggestions of dealing with students.
Mr. Jeffrey Mikols is a math teacher, Rochester City School District in New York. Mr. Mikols has been a teacher with the Rochester School District since 1993, and he has taught courses ranging from pre-algebra to AP calculus. Currently, Mr. Mikols is the secondary mathematics lead teacher, which makes him responsible for providing professional development to other secondary school math teachers, and Mr. Mikols received his B.A. in mathematics and master of science in mathematics education from SUNY in Geneseo and—is that right, Geneseo?
Mr. CHI. Geneseo.
Chairman SMITH. Geneseo. And he is currently enrolled in the certificate for advanced study in the school administration.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Susan Navarro, lead researcher for the Comprehensive MSP award at the University of Texas at El Paso. Dr. Navarro is the founder and head of the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, a city-wide effort to improve the academic achievement of El Paso students. Dr. Navarro has served as National Director of Research and Policy Analysis of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Dr. Navarro, we appreciate you being here. You also graduated from the University of Texas in El Paso with a degree in political science. And again, thank you all for being here and for sharing some of your thoughts with us, and Dr. Yasar, we are asking you to proceed with your first testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. OSMAN YASAR, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE TARGETED MSP GRANT AT SUNY–BROCKPORT
Dr. YASAR. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, I am honored to be here. Thank you for inviting me. I was born in Turkey, so I went through a different public school system. I came here for a graduate education, and several things that—bring me into this project, certainly one is that I have a child in the school system at Brighton, 13 years old, whose interest in science may be slipping away, so I am really interested in helping her school and herself.
Another effort that I have been involved with is, as you said, in the Department of Computational Science, one of a kind in the country. This is a unique way of approaching mathematics, science and computing, in an integrated way. We have great results at the college level, and the idea of taking that to K–12 to raise the interest of students was very interesting, and I thank the NSF and the review panels for allowing us this opportunity to work on this.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I might report right away that our project has been very successful in terms of creating enthusiasm in teachers and students. I am sure you will be hearing from Mr. Mikols and Mr. Chi about their experience. This project involves SUNY College and two school districts, an urban school district and a suburban school district. This is a pretty common pattern in the country. Rochester, with 35,000 students and Brighton, with 3,000 students.
Rochester has been experiencing very low achievement rates, as low as 11 percent in eighth grade mathematics, so there is a definite need there. Brighton's role here is not only to benefit from our unique methodology, using technology, but also to give to the partnership through its experience and so on.
We also have two national organizations, Shodor Education Foundation and Krell Institute. I have colored them on my presentation. Their role is to bring to us their experience from the national level, as well as help us disseminate the result.
Texas Instruments is part of this partnership. We use their specialists, training specialists. The Xerox Corporation's role is to offer internships to our students, both in high school and at the college level, and then to disseminate our results in the local community, we work with the Monroe County School Boards Association and New York State Education Department. We have partnered with another NSF MSP project, the Council of Chief State Schools Officers, to use their evaluation instrumentation.
And now, recently, we have been invited to work with another partnership program under NSF named PACI (Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure). I believe this is also reviewed under this committee.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this partnership project is not only partnership in school districts and colleges. Certainly, the goal is to improve student achievement and interest, both at the public schools and colleges, and as you may see in other projects in this program, raising quality and quantity of teachers is the key here.
Another partnership that goes on under this umbrella is the partnership of mathematics and science as topics. And this, I believe, is our approach. We have taken an integrated approach to mathematics and science, in a way, to present the mathematics and technology in a context of applications. This, we believe, raises student interest and so on.
Our way to achieve this goal is certainly to offer professional development to teachers and faculty members in the college through training and mentoring, through support, including technology scholarships and stipends, and through team approaches and peer networking.
From students' point of view, teachers with new pedagogies, using technology in an integrated approach, as well as scholarships, is a way that our team has chosen to attack this problem.
In the past year, we held a summer institute that brought together 56 teachers from two school districts, and the training brought together math and science and technology teachers. All of them were subject to the same material. All of them had a chance to work together to see how useful mathematics is in the context of applications and so on. Again, our approach is well documented in the testimony here. We believe this offers a layered approach and inquiry-based approach, some of the things that are very new for a project like ours.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under professional development, we have an education component and a challenging component to make sure the needs of many schools and individuals are also addressed here. I will be skipping to my last slide here to sum up. The results of our training so far have been evaluated by independent consultants, and 100 percent of teachers have rated this very successful, and they want to come back the next year. This is an ongoing training and education opportunity for teachers as well as students. We are very hopeful that the dissemination of this project and the lessons learned here will help others in the country as well.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Yasar follows:]
90162b.eps
90162c.eps
90162d.eps
90162e.eps
90162f.eps
90162g.eps
90162h.eps
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
90162i.eps
90162j.eps
90162k.eps
90162l.eps
90162m.eps
90162n.eps
90162o.eps
90162p.eps
90162q.eps
90162r.eps
90162s.eps
90162t.eps
90162u.eps
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
90162v.eps
90162w.eps
90162x.eps
90162y.eps
90162z.eps
90162aa.eps
90162bb.eps
90162cc.eps
90162dd.eps
90162ee.eps
90162ff.eps
90162gg.eps
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
90162hh.eps
90162ii.eps
90162jj.eps
90162kk.eps
90162ll.eps
90162mm.eps
90162nn.eps
90162oo.eps
90162pp.eps
90162qq.eps
90162rr.eps
90162ss.eps
90162tt.eps
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
90162uu.eps
90162vv.eps
90162ww.eps
90162xx.eps
90162yy.eps
90162zz.eps
90162a3.eps
Chairman SMITH. I am going to proceed the way you are arranged in my book, so Mr. Mikols, if you would—if you're comfortable in going next.
Mr. MIKOLS. Sure. Okay. Again, I asked the——
Chairman SMITH. Actually, I see Mr. Chi is ahead of you in my book.
Mr. MIKOLS. Oh.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. So it is not your turn.
Mr. MIKOLS. Oh. Then I will—let me turn mine off.
Mr. CHI. There we go.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chi, excuse me, please.
STATEMENT OF ED CHI, SCIENCE TEACHER, BRIGHTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW YORK
Mr. CHI. That is not a problem, Chairman. First, I would like to thank everyone on the Committee for the invitation to come and speak.
And I first would like to begin with talking about why the MSP program is a necessary program. First, it is truly interdisciplinary. Through it, I have learned, and I have also shown my students, that no subject is an island. I often hear in my class that—they see, they are beginning to see connections between science and math and technology. And it often astounds them, because I guess in the past, they have seen each subject treated as an individual, and not together in a group, so this is one of their first opportunities to see all these different disciplines coming together in one activity.
Also, it is truly interdisciplinary in the fact that it incorporates math and technology into the science classroom. We are using math and we are using technology to do science in our classrooms, and I often hear my students say ''Wow, this class is getting to be more like a math class than a science class.'' They are often checking to see if they are in the right room. So, I think that is testimony in itself that the program is working.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another reason why this is a necessary program is because it is truly unique. I have attended many programs for professional development, and very few have really put together teachers that are in fact helping to shape the program as well. There is a youthful energy to everyone in the program, because we are—we feel as though we are on the cutting edge, and that is inspiring us and that is motivating us, and we are bringing that into the classroom as well.
Also, there is long-term continuous collaboration going on. Oftentimes, the second workshop is done, we get a little handout rating the workshop, but there has not been a clear cutoff point for this program. It is continuous. There is continuous collaboration going on between teachers in the classrooms and professors at the college, and amongst teachers between districts. And we also feel that the program and its administrators are invested in us. We feel as though we are—I hate to put it this way, but we feel as though we are star players in this program, and we definitely appreciate that.
Secondly, how is the MSP program achieving its goals? We are collaborating with teachers. Teachers are talking to each other. There is open conversation going on. We are not just isolated in our own classrooms any more. They have also helped us to develop meaningful lesson plans. We have been able to overcome our initial fear of technology being incorporated into the classroom. They are exposing us and forcing us to be adventurous with our teaching styles. We have also been able to hone existing skills, any prior knowledge or any existing skills. We are able to advance and also we are able to share this with fellow colleagues. There is collaboration with administrators. There are plans to have a get together to discuss our mission statement with administrators all over the districts that are involved.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, we are getting students excited and interested, and ultimately, that is what we want. The simulation programs and the modeling programs have put them in charge. They are in charge of their own learning. They are beginning to—they are the creators of their learning, and they are pulling the strings, and by taking us, by that I mean the teachers, by taking us out of the driver's seat and putting them into it, they are beginning to own their education. They are—because they are so inspired—they go beyond where we would typically bring them.
There are, of course, some barriers to achieving our goals. There is always administration who aren't always as supportive as they could be, in terms of valuing technology and seeing it as an important component of education. Then there are also teachers who feel as though they themselves are not savvy enough to take on the responsibility and take on the skills that are required to teach technology and incorporate it into the science and math classroom, but the program is slowly but surely taking teachers who are savvy and teachers who are willing to take risks, and bringing them into the school, so that they can inspire students, and at the same time, because we have inspired students, other teachers are curious as to what we are doing to inspire students, and therefore, that is sort of a contagious atmosphere where other teachers can take some of that fear away and dive into the technology as well.
And that is really all I have to say for today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chi follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ED CHI
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How has the SUNY–Brockport MSP Project helped teachers and administrators understand and embrace the need to teach to high quality, standards-based math and science? Based on what you know—and have experienced to date—are the participating schools getting closer to providing high quality math and science education for all students?
The CMST program has made plans to speak to and collaborate with participating teachers and their administrators. Their goal is to share the CMST mission statement with these administrators and seek ways to support the efforts of the CMST teachers and coaches. At Twelve Corners we have taken steps to load modeling software onto school networks and share activities and knowledge with faculty at department meetings. The students in my classes have expressed great interest in receiving training on modeling software and creating opportunities to allow them to take charge of their learning.
How have the professional development opportunities provided by the MSP Project been different from other teacher training programs in terms of content, duration and intensity?
The content was technologically intensive yet practical. We could see ways to integrate them into our own programs. There was a constant theme of interdisciplinary approaches to these activities. They made every attempt to include math, science and technology into every aspect of the training. This was no small feat.
Most professional development workshops end when the presenters and facilitators hand out evaluation forms. The CMST has kept their promise to continue the collaboration well beyond the end of the summer program. We communicate via weekly teacher's logs and coach's logs. There have been invaluable meetings where we have offered feedback and suggestions on ways to make the program more effective. I feel as though I am partly responsible for shaping the CMST program not just participating in it. Perhaps it is because this is a young program in Brockport or because the people are confident enough in their own area of expertise to listen to others. Whatever the reason I feel a true sense of collegiality here.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What do you believe is the greatest barrier to bringing the latest and best research on math and science education into the classroom? Based on what you know, is teacher practice in the classroom changing?
For myself thus far the greatest barrier has been the lack of technology available in the schools. This can stifle the efforts of the teacher to incorporate meaningful activities in the classroom. If it was not for the talents of the CMST faculty I would be unable to provide my students with the ability to explore the connections between science, math and technology in my classroom in a meaningful way.
Based on your experience, how do we recruit and retain the best math and science teachers? How has the MSP Project addressed—or failed to address—these issues?
Good pay incentives, access to technology plus the support to get it into the hands of students and use it effectively in the classrooms attracts good teachers and keeps them. I will admit that the pay, technology, and support incentives provided by the CMST program drew me in, and has meet and exceed my expectations.
BIOGRAPHY FOR ED CHI
Ed Chi teaches science to 7th and 8th grade students at Twelve Corners Middle School in Rochester, New York. Twelve Corners Middle School is the sole institution educating students in grades 6–8 in the Brighton School District.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
90162b3.eps
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chi, very good, thank you. Mr. Mikols.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. MIKOLS, MATH TEACHER, ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, NEW YORK
Mr. MIKOLS. Again, I would like to thank this committee for inviting me to speak and give testimony about what it is that we have experienced. And in my role as a lead teacher in the Rochester City School District, I am in a unique—I have a unique opportunity to promote change, and as you, Mr. Smith, mentioned with the TIMSS Report, the concern that we have as to how the United States is doing is something I share within our own district. Our district, right now, as Dr. Yasar has mentioned, is not a high performing district right now, and it is a burden that we all carry, and we realize that the need for change is extremely important.
And technology is one of the mechanisms we can use to change the way that teachers are approaching math and science. Technology, for many kids, in and of itself, is very, very interesting to them. I have two young sons at home, and just get them a Game Boy and they are clicking away, and they have a great time with that. But perhaps more importantly, what technology does is it facilitates investing in topics of student interest. They find something that they are interested in, and the use of technology lets them gather information, draw conclusions, verify conclusions in a way that is much quicker than we have ever been able to do before, so this use of technology is very appropriate.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Technology has made it possible to change the way teachers approach math and science, and they can make lessons that are exciting and relevant to student interest. That is the key thing. Teachers can teach what they think is important, but until it gets down to the point where students are pursuing things that are directly relevant to them and interesting to them, they are not going to achieve to where we want them to be achieving.
In my role, I do conduct quite a bit of professional development, and having been trained in the Summer Institute, and also having some prior experience with graphing calculators, we have made that a priority in our district, that all schools should have teachers that are competent in using these tools with their students. Additionally, there were other tools that we used in the CMST [computational math, science, and technology] program, such as STELLA, AgentSheets, Excel, and a lot of these tools are things that are so applicable to what students would find interesting, and still cover the types of mathematical and scientific content that are required in standards.
In our district, as I mentioned, we are low achieving, but making teachers aware that these avenues are available, and that change is necessary, this is one of the first steps that we can make toward improving math and science education in our district.
The CMST program, under the MSP project, has offered some excellent opportunities in terms of professional development. The Summer Institute was extremely well-staffed with knowledgeable professors, and a lot of us went in not knowing how to use a lot of the tools that were being used, and we were provided with very quick feedback that was extremely helpful.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The MSP project also provides ongoing training during the school year, with the expectation that teachers trained are going to continue using the training. That is extremely important, because when you talk about implementing professional development effectively, if there is no follow-up to that professional development, it is rare that that change is going to have any kind of long-lasting effect. And so there are regular checkpoints along the way to make sure that teachers who were trained in this program are continuing to work in the things that they were trained in and having direct implementation into the classroom lessons that they are preparing.
Some of the barriers that I would like to discuss, one of them is perhaps financial. It is not the greatest barrier, because I think there are—through the availability of grants and other types of monies, the types of tools that we use can be available for students. I think the greatest barrier is, perhaps, the lack of willingness for teachers to change their practice. We were discussing over lunch that many times, teachers feel uncomfortable in changing their practice and John Dewey used a term called cognitive dissonance, which mentioned that until people feel uncomfortable, real learning doesn't occur. Once they feel uncomfortable and feel the need to take on something, to do something about that discomfort, then people will pursue that and learn something from it. Teachers may be very, very reluctant to work in these different kinds of changes that we are asking them to, but in a sense, that discomfort is a good sign, because they realize that they need to do something different, so it is very important that they are pursuing those things.
In terms of recruiting the best teachers, and I know I am getting very close to running out of time, so I want to make this one last point, in terms of recruiting the best possible teachers, we need to reach our students early and we need to make them lovers of mathematics and science at an early age, and if we can do that, the likelihood that they are going to pursue a career in math and science teaching I think goes up.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mikols follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. MIKOLS
I have been a teacher for the Rochester City School District since 1993. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics Education from the State University of New York College at Geneseo. I am currently enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in School Administration from the State University of New York College at Brockport. During my tenure with the Rochester City School District, I have had the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses from Pre-Algebra in the seventh grade to Advanced Placement Calculus to seniors. I am currently the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher. I am responsible for providing professional development to mathematics specialists assigned to each of our secondary buildings. These building specialists then provide this professional development to the teachers in their building. Additionally, I work in classrooms with teachers modeling, coaching, and serving as resource to them.
Testimony
I have had the opportunity to be a participant in the CMST Program at the State University of New York College at Brockport. As a participant in the MSP Project, I received four weeks of intensive training in technology, with the intent of applying this to classroom lesson planning. We were trained on the Texas Instruments TI–83+ graphing calculator, STELLA, AgentSheets, and Interactive Physics. I had the opportunity to apply this training to writing lesson plans that incorporate the use of technology. As the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher of the Rochester City School District, I have begun to train teachers to implement technology and promote change in the mathematics classroom.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The SUNY–Brockport MSP Project has helped teachers and administrators by providing training in technology based approaches to mathematics and science lessons. Technology has made it possible to change the way teachers approach mathematics and science to make lessons that are exciting to students and relevant to their interests. New York State Educational Standards specifically target the use of technology as methods of communication and information gathering systems. The natural curiosity of students concerning technology has enabled teachers to design and carry out lessons that involve an inquiry approach.
In the Rochester City School District, I have made it a priority to begin training building specialists on the TI–83+ graphing calculator so they can train the teachers in their individual buildings. We have trained these specialists in lessons from eighth grade curriculum up to eleventh grade curriculum. The earlier our students are proficient with graphing calculators, the more they will benefit from them as they move through the high school curriculum. Teachers that participated in the CMST Summer Program are beginning to implement training they received into their classroom and are producing high quality lessons. This is a primary step in improving math and science education in our schools.
The professional development provided by the MSP Project has been different than other professional development I have received on many levels. The MSP Project provides teachers with direct training on specific methods to change mathematics and science teaching. Teachers were trained on the technology and then asked to reflect and implement what they learned in planning classroom lessons. The Summer Institute was well staffed with knowledgeable professors. Questions pertaining to the programs we were trained on were answered efficiently yet thoroughly. The training went very fast at times, but there was support available. The MSP Project provides ongoing training during the school year with the expectation that teachers trained are going to continue using the training they received throughout the school year. There are regular checkpoints of accountability in place to ensure that teachers are doing this. The participating teachers have each been assigned a coach to provide help where necessary. This ongoing training and accountability are essential for any professional development to have a lasting effect on the way teachers conduct their practice.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that the greatest barrier in implementing the latest and best research into the classroom is teachers not changing their practice. This failure to change practice is partially because of lack of training and awareness of alternative methods, but also because teachers do not admit the need to change is necessary. The MSP Project is a good model to approach this problem. It has provided teachers with the necessary training and subsequent support to facilitate change in classroom practice. As teachers implement technology into their lessons, and students learn more and enjoy mathematics and science more, it is my belief that other teachers who are reluctant to change their practice will take notice of the improved student outcomes and want to change as well. I have begun trying to implement this change in approach with building specialists in my district. The specialists have been very eager to be trained on the TI–83+ graphing calculator, so the potential for change at their individual buildings is a reality. I have seen teachers in classrooms beginning to implement graphing calculators into their lessons, and they are realizing the benefits of using them.
The best way to recruit high quality mathematics and science teachers is to create students that love to learn these subjects. If high school students enjoy learning these subjects and see the relevance in their lives that these subjects have, there is a better chance that these students will consider teaching these subjects as a career. There must be exciting opportunities for students to experience technology and real life application in mathematics and science. The MSP Project has tremendous potential to foster this type of interest. Many students have a natural interest in technology and how it is applied. Recently, the MSP Project hosted an Interactive Physics Day where students from Rochester City Schools and Brighton Central schools received the opportunity to see how technology relates to Physics. I believe the MSP Project could make more inroads into the individual schools by presenting demonstrations for students to participate in. The benefits of teaching mathematics and science must be ''advertised'' more effectively and earlier in the students high school career. Teaching must be made a first choice, not a career to fall back on.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY M. MIKOLS
I have been a teacher for the Rochester City School District since 1993. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Master of Science in Mathematics Education from the State University of New York College at Geneseo. I am currently enrolled in a Certificate for Advanced Study in School Administration from the State University of New York College at Brockport. During my tenure with the Rochester City School District, I have had the opportunity to teach a wide range of courses from Pre-Algebra in the seventh grade to Advanced Placement Calculus to seniors. I am currently the Secondary Mathematics Lead Teacher. I am responsible for providing professional development to mathematics specialists assigned to each of our secondary buildings. These building specialists then provide this professional development to the teachers in their building. Additionally, I work in classrooms with teachers modeling, coaching, and serving as resource to them.
90162c3.eps
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Dr. Navarro.
STATEMENT OF M. SUSANA NAVARRO, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE MSP GRANT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, EL PASO
Dr. NAVARRO. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here to share with you the work of the NSF-funded El Paso Math and Science Partnership.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past decade, the NSF has been a valuable partner in supporting improved math and science instruction and achievement across the El Paso community. What the MSP now provides is an opportunity to bring together partners across our entire community, K–16, toward the shared development and implementation of high quality practices aimed at improving academic achievement among all students.
Over the last decade, the community of El Paso has distinguished itself as one that is deeply committed to ensuring academic success among all of our youngsters. Our strong focus on education in El Paso reflects the reality that there is so much at stake in ensuring that this growing, largely Hispanic community is able to create opportunities for its more than 700,000 citizens and over 155,000 students.
Currently, our per capita income lags behind both the State and the Nation, and the median household income ranks sixth lowest in the U.S. The overall educational attainment of our citizenry is low as well. Just 68 percent of the population aged 25 and older have earned a high school diploma and fewer than 16 percent of El Pasoans hold bachelors degrees or higher.
Against these tremendous odds, the El Paso community has demonstrated its commitment to high academic achievement and we have shown that we can do it. For example, the achievement gap of which Member Johnson spoke of, as measured by TAAS mathematics, is at its lowest point since El Paso's NSF-funded systemic reform efforts began in 1994. From a high that year of 21 points between Hispanic and white students and 27 points between African-American and white students, the gap has been reduced to 5.7 and 7.9 points respectively.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, enrollment in college preparatory math and science courses, which we consider absolutely key, has increased significantly over the past year, with over three fourths of our students, of all of our students, now enrolled in algebra I, geometry, algebra II, biology and chemistry. This is a radical shift from what occurred——
Chairman SMITH. From one of the other, or all of them?
Dr. NAVARRO. All of our students, over three fourths of all of our students.
Chairman SMITH. I mean all of those courses, they are in one of those courses?
Dr. NAVARRO. That is right.
Most significantly, pass rates improved greatly over the past year. Notably in geometry, where 86 percent of students passed the course, and in chemistry, where 78 percent of students passed the course. These increases in enrollment and pass rates represent possibly the most important aspect of NSF-supported work in El Paso schools.
And yet, enormous challenges remain, particularly in fully preparing students for math and science success in college. We have made great strides K–12. It is ensuring that students are able to make that leap and be able to do well in college math and science. That is what we are very much focused on now.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Shared concerns about this and other challenges have brought together 12 El Paso area school districts with the El Paso Community College and the University of Texas at El Paso to focus on identifying strategies for ensuring the academic success of all of our youngsters. We are grateful that funding for the El Paso MSP will allow us to address these critically important problems.
The El Paso MSP is built around five key priorities. These include one, increasing and sustaining the quantity and quality of pre-K–12 math and science teachers, absolutely a burning issue for us. Two, building the capacity of schools and districts to effectively support efforts to improve math and science instruction and achievement. Three, aligning curriculum instruction and assessment of math and science to ensure that what is taught reflects shared expectations for students from kindergarten through university. Four, promoting efforts to increase college going rates among El Paso area students, because if they don't go to college, they can't get degrees in math and science and then go and do research and other things with math and science. And five, conducting research that advances knowledge and understanding about the systemic improvement of math and science instruction. Strategies addressing each of these priorities focus on local needs, though many have relevance to communities across our country, which we hope will benefit from the lessons that we learn in MSP.
Let me quickly tell you about some of the lessons that we have learned in the over 13 months of implementing MSP so far. First, we have learned that this work absolutely must be done K–16, that is from kindergarten through university and beyond. Reforming K–12 will only work for the long-term if our teacher preparation programs and colleges and universities have themselves improved, if they, too, are focused on the best national content standards, if they are also aggressively working toward fully engaging students in the learning process. And given that teacher preparation encompasses the entire university, not just colleges of education, those that educate prospective teachers in the core subject areas, the colleges of science, the departments of mathematics, colleges of liberal arts, must also work toward improving teacher quality.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A second lesson learned is that partnerships must address the issue of K–16 curriculum alignment. What does that mean? It really means seamlessly linking what is taught at each point in the education continuum, from elementary, middle and high school, with what is expected and taught at community college and at university. The MSP Math and Science Alignment Project brings together K–12 teachers of math and science, as well as math faculty from community college and faculty from U. Tex. colleges of education, engineering and science.
A major goal of the initiative is to develop course outlines along with curriculum frameworks that will be implemented by teachers across the twelve districts. These outlines and frameworks provide clear and specific information about math and science content at each grade level that students must understand and be able to do, and the level of rigor at which they must be able to do them. This really takes standards to the next level, because standards are a great big mass of things that, while helpful, don't provide the direction to teachers that is needed in order for teachers to know what is most important, and the level at which students need to know that particular topic in mathematics or science. Our frameworks are helping to do that.
And the final lesson learned is that we have to provide a full and robust set of support and assistance mechanisms necessary for building school capacity. We do that by working with teachers. We also do that by working with faculty members, deans, superintendents and the like, but we put our greatest emphasis on teachers. In my written testimony, you can see the kinds of things that we do with teachers, but I guess I want to close by just saying that what drives our work is our absolute belief in what students deserve, the importance of focusing on equity and partnerships.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are delighted and very thankful to have this opportunity to do more of the work that we have been doing and to do it at a level that we have not done before, so thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Navarro follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF M. SUSANA NAVARRO
Greeting and Overview
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to share with you the work of the National Science Foundation-supported El Paso Math/Science Partnership (MSP), and the opportunities that it provides for students across El Paso. Over the last decade, the National Science Foundation has been a valuable partner in supporting improved math and science instruction and achievement across the El Paso community. What the MSP now provides is an opportunity to bring together partners across the community, K–16, toward the shared development and implementation of high quality math and science content and instructional practices aimed at improving student achievement among all students.
Over the last decade, the community of El Paso has distinguished itself as one that is deeply committed to ensuring academic success among all students. In fact, education has come to be seen as a key element in improving the quality of life in our community, which is working very hard to turn around life chances for its large and growing population. Our strong focus on education in El Paso reflects the reality that there is much at stake in ensuring that this growing, largely Hispanic community is able to create opportunities for its 700,000 citizens. Currently, our per capita income lags behind both the State and the Nation, and the median household income ranks sixth lowest in the United States. The overall educational attainment of our citizenry is low as well. Just 68 percent of the population (aged 25 and older) has earned a high school diploma and fewer than 16 percent of El Pasoans hold a Bachelor's degree or higher.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Against these tremendous odds, the El Paso community has demonstrated its commitment to high academic achievement among all students. For example, the achievement gap, as measured by TAAS mathematics, is at its lowest point since El Paso's NSF-funded systemic reform efforts began in 1994. From a high that year of 21.2 percentage points between Hispanic and White students, and one of 26.7 points between African Americans and Whites, the gap has been reduced to 5.7 and 7.9 points respectively in 2002. In addition, enrollment in college preparatory math and science courses has increased significantly over the past year, with over three-fourths of all students across the MSP districts now taking Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Biology and Chemistry. Most significantly, pass rates improved greatly over the past year—notably in Geometry (86 percent) and Chemistry (78 percent). These increases in enrollment and pass rates represent possibly the most important impact of NSF-supported work in El Paso schools.
And yet, enormous challenges remain, particularly in fully preparing students for math and science success in college. Shared concerns about this and other challenges has brought together 12 El Paso area school districts with the El Paso Community College and the University of Texas at El Paso to focus on identifying strategies for ensuring the academic success of our young people. We are grateful that funding for the El Paso MSP will allow us to address these critically important problems.
Key Components of the El Paso MSP
The El Paso Math/Science Partnership is built around five key priorities identified as critical to ensuring the academic achievement and opportunities for future success of El Paso area students. These include: one, increasing and sustaining the quantity and quality of pre-K–12 mathematics and science teachers; two, building the capacity of schools and districts to effectively support efforts to improve math and science instruction and achievement; three, aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment of math and science education to ensure that what is taught reflects shared expectations for students from kindergarten through university; four, promoting efforts to increase college-going rates among El Paso area students; and five, conducting research that advances knowledge and understanding about the systemic improvement of mathematics and science instruction. Strategies addressing each of these priorities focus on local needs, though many have relevance to communities across the Nation, which we hope will benefit from the lessons we learn in MSP.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increasing and Sustaining the Quantity and Quality of Pre-K–12 Mathematics and Science Teachers
The first key element of the El Paso MSP addresses our efforts to increase and improve the quantity and quality of certified math and science teachers across our twelve partner districts. Strategies include roles for partners at UTEP, EPCC, the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, the Region 19 Educational Service Center, as well as participating districts, and range from increasing the number of fully certified math and science teachers, to providing intensive professional development to in-service teachers, to encouraging high school students to consider careers in math and science teaching.
Among the most notable accomplishments in the last year, are the enhancement of a Master of Arts in Teaching Mathematics (MATM) and the establishment of a Master of Arts in Teaching Science (MATS) program. Currently, 15 high school Mathematics teachers and 21 Science teachers are supported by the El Paso MSP and enrolled in courses leading to a Master's degree. In addition, a Pre-MAT program has been established to support prospective Master's participants who do not have the required prerequisites—most notably in college-level Calculus. Through the El Paso MSP, UTEP faculty have also developed a Physical Science degree plan for the MATS focusing on Physics and Chemistry.
Identifying and supporting prospective teachers is also taking place through promotion of alternative certification for prospective teachers with math and science backgrounds, high school teaching magnet programs and the recruitment of undergraduate engineering students into secondary math/science teaching.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Local concerns—that also reflect national trends—pertaining to support for new math and science teachers are being addressed through a newly established teacher induction program, into which new teachers have been enrolled and participate in an intensive two-year support program.
Intensive support for current teachers is being provided through MSP-supported Staff Developers—a highly qualified cadre of math and science master teachers—who provide professional development, sustained and connected over time, in teachers' classrooms. The focus of the Staff Developers' work includes support for teachers in covering topics and activities most central to improving the quality of their teaching.
Building School and District Capacity
The second key element of the El Paso MSP focuses on supporting the improvement of math and science instruction in pre-K–12 classrooms via leadership at the school and district levels, as well as support for increased parent engagement.
The MSP recognizes that a factor critical to implementing and sustaining standards-based instruction is the ability of school administrators to facilitate and actively support teacher efforts for improving teaching and learning. Principal Academies include attention to results-based reform efforts, data analysis, strategic planning, and content-focused coaching aimed at the successful implementation of the K–16 math and science curriculum frameworks. In addition, regular, ongoing meetings are held with superintendents and other district leaders to ensure coherence, consistency, ownership, and support for all MSP goals and activities.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, the El Paso MSP recognizes the role of parents and the community in supporting math and science reform. Key efforts include monthly meetings for parent teams from area schools addressing the importance of high-level mathematics and science for preparation for higher education, and the role parents play in supporting greater student achievement. Parents' sessions also address State standards, and the rigors and demanding nature of the State assessment. Discussions also center on the expectations of students and implications of the ''No Child Left Behind'' Act. Community engagement through the El Paso MSP has also focused on preparation for higher education.
Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment of Mathematics and Science Education
To support students in achieving higher levels of mathematical and scientific understanding in preparation for higher education, the El Paso MSP is working with mathematicians and scientists from UTEP and EPCC, along with pre-K–12 teachers, in developing high level mathematics and science curriculum course frameworks that will guide instruction and assessment at all levels. To date, frameworks have been developed in K–12 mathematics, Algebra I and Algebra II. This year, work is commencing with Geometry, and Chemistry and Physics.
The institutionalization of the curriculum frameworks will be carried out through the development and enactment of policies pertaining to the implementation of the frameworks across local districts, EPCC and UTEP. Also critical will be the alignment and integration of the frameworks with instruction provided by post-secondary educators, including math/science teacher faculty at both higher education institutions.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Increasing College-Going Rates
Along with the improvement of science and mathematics education, a priority of MSP is to ensure that increasing numbers of El Paso area students recognize the importance of a post-secondary education and early preparation for college. The fourth key element of the El Paso MSP focuses on: 1) increasing college-going rates through the THINK COLLEGE NOW Initiative; 2) increasing attention to the work of counselors in supporting students' preparation for higher education; and, 3) implementing the College of Engineering's Infinity Project—a curriculum for high school students that addresses concepts and skills related to engineering.
Implementing a Research Agenda that Advances Knowledge and Understanding about the Systemic Improvement of Mathematics and Science Instruction
The final key element in the El Paso MSP recognizes that research on the impact of MSP efforts informs critically important decisions about what works, where, and under what conditions. Priorities include the implementation of math/science field based research pedagogical laboratories, which are underway; research training for El Paso MSP Staff Developers and District Directors; and the awarding of small research grants to teachers.
Responses to Specific Questions
How will you ensure that participants—mathematicians, scientists, and engineers from higher education as well as K–12 teachers and administrators—remain active in the program? What role, if any, will businesses and non-profit organizations play in the partnership?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The involvement of El Paso MSP partners across higher education and pre-K–12 institutions, as well as in the business and non-profit community, is focused on building a long-term commitment toward shared goals for the students in the El Paso community. This commitment starts with the leadership at higher education institutions and school districts—many of whom play key roles in the El Paso MSP. Beyond the fulfillment of the priorities laid out, these leaders are focused on ways in which our partnership can sustain itself for the long term. The University of Texas at El Paso, for example, has committed to graduating more credentialed mathematics and science teachers and increasing the number of teachers holding math and science masters degrees. MSP districts, too, are committed to continue prioritizing and supporting mathematics and science education after MSP, including the use of district resources to support continued intensive professional development and acquisition of the best standards-based math and science materials. El Paso MSP partners, including business, community organizations and civic leaders, will continue to participate actively in promoting key MSP priorities, including making presentations to students, parents and community groups about the importance of math and science literacy and of going to college.
What type of professional development will your partnership provide for pre-service and in-service teachers? How will improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy be assessed?
Professional development for both pre-service and in-service teachers will be provided to increase and sustain the quantity and quality of pre-K–12 mathematics and science teachers. Teachers' content knowledge will also be enhanced by the K–16 curriculum alignment frameworks that include expectations about what student should know and be able to do from kindergarten through higher education.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Assessing the impact of these efforts in supporting both teacher content knowledge and pedagogy will occur through a combination of strategies. Teachers receiving a Master's of Arts in Teaching either Mathematics or Science will be required to have attained Master's-level content knowledge in order to graduate. At the same time, prospective teachers coming to the profession through alternative certification and engineering backgrounds will be expected to have mastered their content knowledge in order to proceed with their certification. The familiarity of both pre-service and in-service teachers with the rigorous content addressed in the frameworks, and its integration into classroom practices will also be measured. Classroom teacher observation protocols and surveys, for example, will provide a guide for formative evaluation of teachers' progress in implementing the content addressed in the frameworks.
Is your award a sufficient size to develop and test your education reform models and achieve your partnership goals? How will the partnership coordinate with State educational agencies to foster and sustain the reform effort after the award period expires?
The support we have received from the National Science Foundation has been extremely beneficial in allowing us to develop and refine our reform models from which longer-term implementation and sustainability can be built. This work is an enormously costly proposition. Over the past 20 years, we have seen first-hand that making the transformations expected through the partnership are expensive and take significant time. What has been so valuable is the significant NSF investment in promoting the value of our pre-K–16 partnerships and those in other communities. This leadership and attention to our work has also allowed the El Paso MSP to more effectively leverage resources from our own community.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Though we do not directly coordinate our efforts with the Texas Educational Agency, we continue to share products and lessons from the work of the El Paso MSP. One key example, will be the broader dissemination of the mathematics and science curriculum frameworks, which have applicability across every school in the State.
Plans for Evaluation of the El Paso Math/Science Partnership
As you can see, the El Paso MSP is an ambitious initiative with multiple and interrelated components. Thus to evaluate it, we must monitor the implementation and results of many strands of activity within a clear, overarching framework. Our evaluation has two key aims: accountability through the rigorous measurement of results; and ongoing improvement in our programs.
We believe in holding ourselves accountable for measuring change in the lives of young people. We have begun with the identification of key objectives and benchmarks for which indicators have been developed to measure the major outcomes of the Partnership. Examples include trends regarding the percent of area students passing the mathematics and science portions of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, and the percent of students completing a college-preparatory high school program. We use student data to identify the overall results of our efforts and to highlight areas in which more work is needed. Looking at student achievement and attainment over time is an indispensable part of our work, and we appreciate federal support for the collection and rigorous analysis of student data.
In order to enhance our program we utilize evaluation planning, data collection and reporting that include the systematic monitoring of interrelated program improvements intended to contribute to success on each outcome indicator. We examine the extent to which we are achieving our numerical benchmarks and track backwards to examine interim steps and program interventions that influenced their outcomes.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because we are committed to improving the programs that our partnership has launched in El Paso, we need to gather and systematically analyze evidence about those programs in our own context. We welcome this nation's growing commitment to supporting experimental research in education, while recognizing that full-blown experimental trials cannot provide all the answers that our MSP partnership needs. We have programs in place right now that have achieved varying degrees of success which we need to understand in detail. While we await better answers from the education research community, we are working with an external evaluator to conduct comparisons and analyses, on the ground, in our own classrooms.
The program elements of the El Paso MSP are intended to make a difference in the supply of well-qualified math and science teachers, in school and district leadership, in classroom practices, and ultimately in student achievement. Our evaluation plan takes into account that all partners have roles to play, and multiple new and established programs to support. Thus, our evaluation plan will focus attention on the following: the implementation of key program elements across participating districts, schools, and post-secondary departments; the short-term results of implementation; and how the presence or absence of particular program elements contributes to longer-term results.
For example, we will analyze enrollment and completion statistics in a college-preparatory core curriculum, by district, feeder pattern, and student group. Where students are not completing this curriculum at the desired rate, we will identify the courses they are not completing and the program interventions in those subjects that they have or have not experienced. We will also analyze relevant data on school leadership, counseling, and classroom practices affecting those students. These comparative analyses of different conditions and supports across schools will point the way to improvement in our efforts.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Similarly, we will look at the rates at which prospective teachers are entering and completing each of the pathways to certification introduced or enhanced through support from the El Paso MSP. Profiles of typical enrollees in each pathway will be compared. Through surveys of participants (and non-participants, such as engineering students who do not choose to enter teaching), we will identify reasons for entry and persistence in these certification routes.
Staff Developers' work will be analyzed from several related perspectives. Teachers and Lead Learners will provide data on the kinds of support they receive from Staff Developers. Through classroom observation, we will follow-up to measure the results of this support infrastructure. The work of Staff Developers will also be examined as one component in a more comprehensive system of teacher induction and support that may help in teacher retention as well as the improvement of classroom practice. We will identify facilitating mechanisms and barriers to effective staff development that may exist in district and State policies, principals' actions, teachers' schedules, and the learning opportunities available to the Staff Developers themselves.
The evaluation questions about alignment will also be addressed through measures of the enacted curriculum. In addition, we will look at progress in curriculum alignment all the way from elementary through post-secondary education.
The research component of the El Paso MSP will be a subject of our evaluation in its own right, as a significant intervention intended to engage classroom teachers, post-secondary faculty, and others in systematic reflection on practice and results. We will study the operations of such key elements as the collaborative working relationships between post-secondary faculty and pre-K–12 teachers, which have traditionally proved difficult to establish. We will also incorporate the results of teacher research into our inquiry.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, by tracking back from key benchmark indicators to the specific mechanisms intended to affect them, by understanding instances of success and failure and by taking into account the mutually reinforcing nature of related program efforts, we expect to generate reports that are realistic, useful, and analytically sound. Evaluation is helping us hold ourselves accountable for results, and it is helping us strengthen our programs as we go forward.
Lessons Learned
Let me share with you some of the lessons we have already learned over the 13 months of implementing MSP. First, we have learned that this work must be undertaken K–16. Reforming K–12 will only work for the long-term if our teacher preparation programs in colleges and universities have themselves improved, if they too are focused on the best national content standards, if they are also aggressively working toward fully engaging students in the learning process. And, given that teacher preparation encompasses the entire University, not just Colleges of Education, those that educate prospective teachers in the core subject areas—the Colleges of Science and Liberal Arts—must also work toward improving teacher quality.
A second lesson learned is that partnerships must address the issue of K–16 curriculum alignment, that is, seamlessly linking what is taught at each point in the education continuum—from elementary, middle and high school—with what is expected and taught at community college and at university. The MSP Mathematics and Science Alignment brings together K–12 teachers from all MSP school districts, MSP staff developers, as well as mathematics faculty from the El Paso Community College, and faculty from UTEP's Colleges of Education, Engineering and Science. A major goal of the initiative is to develop course outlines along with curriculum frameworks, that will be implemented by teachers across the twelve districts. Those outlines and frameworks provide clear and specific information about math and science content at each grade level that all students must understand and be able to do and the level of rigor demand at which they must be able to do them in order to prepare for college level mathematics and science. The outline is mapped to textbooks and materials used by the districts and is not limited to any one adopted mathematics program. We have completed work on Algebra I and II, as well as K–8 and are beginning work on Geometry, K–8 science and the high school science courses.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A third lesson learned is that we must ensure a full and robust set of support and assistance mechanisms necessary for building school capacity. Our professional development work is focused on building knowledge and leadership about school improvement and institutional change among principals and other site administrators, district leaders, college and university faculty and deans. We have, however, prioritized teachers and making sure that all who teach math and science are fully qualified. MSP is helping to do that through increasing the number of teachers certified and earning masters in math and science. In addition, we also provide professional development to ensure a deep understanding of concepts, among in-service teachers to the point where they can build student capacity to do high level math and science. We not only focus on content but also on pedagogical content. That is, implementation of instructional practices appropriate to specific math and science concepts. This deepening of knowledge and practice requires a reorganization of where and how we deliver professional development. The majority of that development is now provided in classrooms by MSP staff developers, thus bridging the teacher learning and practice gap. Through all of this professional development work, we continue to raise issues of teacher and administrator beliefs and attitudes about who can learn—and who cannot—and support educators to begin to come to terms with their beliefs and the impact of those beliefs on their students' achievement.
Conclusion
Woven throughout this brief picture of our MSP work I trust that you've been able to see the elements that are critical to us:
Equity
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Partnerships—in particularly K–16 partnerships
Deep commitments and understanding about what all children deserve.
This is work very much in progress. We've had our share of things that have worked very well—and those that haven't. Through it all we remain committed to continuing to learn what it takes to bring about real and lasting improvements for every single student in our community.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify, and for your interest in the El Paso Math/Science Partnership. I would be happy to respond to any questions.
BIOGRAPHY FOR M. SUSANA NAVARRO
Susana Navarro graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso with a major in political science in 1968. After working at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in Washington on a landmark study of Mexican American education, she began her graduate studies at Stanford University, where she received her Ph.D. in educational psychology in 1980.
After earning her doctorate, she worked with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) for five years as National Director of Research and Policy Analysis. From 1985 until early 1991, she worked with the Achievement Council, a statewide non-profit organization in California, which she helped create, as Associate then Executive Director.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1991, she returned to El Paso, where with regional education, business and civic leaders, she founded the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, an organization which she has headed since its inception. The Collaborative, a city-wide effort to improve academic achievement among all young El Pasoans, is now in its twelfth year of operation and has become a national model for urban school reform. Dr. Navarro's work has been featured in numerous national publications, including Education Week, The Chronicle of Higher Education and Phi Delta Kappan. She serves as Principal Investigator for the El Paso Mathematics and Science Partnership, a $30 million grant, which was awarded to the Collaborative in 2002. In addition to MSP and other grants from the National Science Foundation, the Collaborative has received support for its systemic reform work from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the U.S. Department of Education, the Lucent Foundation, Exxon and the Coca Cola Foundation, among others.
90162d3.eps
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE MSP GRANT AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear here before the Subcommittee and provide testimony on the Math Science Partnership Program, and in our particular case, the project PROM/SE, which is currently at its very early stages of implementation at Michigan State University, in collaboration with our five partner consortia.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am the co-leader of PROM/SE with my colleague at Michigan State, Dr. William Schmidt, who had a lead role in TIMSS, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. This effort has just been launched in the past month. We are grateful to the National Science Foundation for this opportunity to have a major impact on mathematics and science learning, and frankly, we are daunted by the enormity of the task.
PROM/SE is a comprehensive research and development effort to improve mathematics and science teaching and learning in grades K–12. It is based on assessment of students and teachers, improvement of standards and frameworks, and the preparation and professional development of teachers.
I emphasize that our partnership is a research and development effort. We are committed to understanding through this work how the multiple models for improving teaching and learning that we will build within PROM/SE actually will impact student learning in a range of ethnic, cultural, racial and economic settings that are so diverse that they mirror the diversity of the Nation.
PROM/SE is a partnership among six entities. Five of these are K–12 consortia of school districts in Michigan and Ohio, together with Michigan State University. The project is large in scope. We intend to impact nearly 400,000 students through work with hundreds of teachers across nearly 70 school districts.
The goals are straightforward. First, we intend to use empirical evidence as a basis for our efforts to improve mathematics and science learning. We will assess students in grades three through twelve using TIMSS-like instruments and other instruments that are being designed currently, and we will survey teachers and administrators about their instruction, about their contexts and about their curricula.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, we will work with our partners to develop and to agree upon challenging content standards that will work to align instruction and assessment in those local districts with these standards. Mathematicians, scientists, school leaders, all together will work to accomplish this design of standards and action teams that bring together people from higher education and from the K–12 partners.
Third, we are interested in designing professional development that helps all teachers have the capacity to teach to these high standards, and that emphasizes subject matter knowledge in ways that support teachers in their daily work in classrooms. The professional development involves a model of building level associations, called PROM/SE associates, as well as the technologically-based resource system that will be designed, again, by our mathematicians, scientists and educators.
Fourth, at Michigan State University, we are engaged in rethinking the ways in which future teachers are prepared to teach, to high standards in mathematics and science, and the MSP part of that work will be particularly focused in science.
Fifth, and ultimately, we are aiming to improve students' learning and achievement across our districts, across our partner sites and across the diversity that our project encompasses.
In the TIMSS study, analysis of the curriculum standards in the high-achieving countries showed that those standards were mathematically and scientifically coherent. These tables indicate down along the rows, essentially, a progression of subject matter, from more straightforward, fundamental concepts to more advanced concepts, and the columns suggest in which grades these topics are typically treated across the high-achieving countries, and you see, basically, this pattern of a focus on depth, on central ideas, on beginning and ending ideas across a relatively small grade span, and then moving on to more sophisticated ideas.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In PROM/SE, we will work on standards and frameworks that emphasize significant ideas in mathematics and science and that convey high expectations for all students, and that are well-articulated across the grades. TIMSS also provides the kind of analytic tools that we will use as a starting point for our decision-making and for gathering evidence.
Let me say more about what I mean by that. This table, or this diagram, shows down in the lower right-hand corner the results of student performance on an item about seesaws and fulcrums. The graph on the left, and that student achievement spans grades three through twelve, and you see an upward trend, in the graph to the left, you see that achievement trend again, and above it, in the line graph, you see how much time is devoted to the teaching of this topic across the grades three through eight. You can imagine that as we put together sets of items and take these sorts of measurements, and take a look at what is going on in our partner districts, we will be able to tell lots of stories, in particular about what is happening within areas of the content, and these analyses will provide us with the basis for our work in PROM/SE.
The professional development efforts in the projects will use this evidence. Structurally, the model rests, in part, on our work with PROM/SE associates. These will be teachers who represent schools across the partnership and will serve as resources, coaches and math science experts for their colleagues. We will build technological resources that these teachers can access at all levels.
Very briefly, because we are just beginning, the five-year project begins with assessment and identification of the associates, continues with data analysis standards revision and professional development. PROM/SE provides a number of opportunities as well as challenges. Let me discuss them. First, despite the scale of the project, our approach, with this emphasis on data and evidence, we hope will allow us to customize the PROM/SE activities to local needs. Districts will be able to select the areas of mathematics and science content that they feel need special attention and work together with the PROM/SE team to focus on those areas.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is our hope that the professional development we provide will be layered in ways that enables teachers with differing needs to access it in individual ways. For example, more seasoned teachers who are looking to refresh their subject matter knowledge will need to be able to access this material in one way. Newer teachers who are looking for interesting lesson ideas and ways to support their day to day practice may need to access it in a different way, and we are hopeful that we will be able to produce materials and compile materials that allow all of these sorts of options.
We are already learning that an initiative such as PROM/SE involves building new ways of communicating among mathematicians, scientists, educators, classroom teachers and school administrators. This is about building new communities with strong communication channeled through them.
We will be producing standards that we hope can serve as national models, and finally, I reiterate that we are strongly committed to research, to learning about how change and improvement can be effected and sharing what we learn nationally through this project.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferrini-Mundy follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY
Good afternoon Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee and provide testimony on the Math and Science Partnership Project—PROM/SE—presently at the early stage of implementation at Michigan State University. Michigan State University and its five K–12 partners—St. Clair County, Ingham County, and Calhoun County Intermediate School Districts in Michigan, and the High AIMS and SMART consortia in Ohio—have joined in Project PROM/SE (Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education), and on September 26, 2003 were notified that their $35,000,000 Math Science Partnership project would be funded by the National Science Foundation. At Michigan State University, Dr. William Schmidt and I are the co-leaders of this effort.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Partnership goals
PROM/SE has four goals:
Gather empirical evidence as a basis for revising content standards, aligning instructional materials with those standards, and monitoring student learning.
Improve mathematics and science opportunities for all students, especially those from under-represented and disadvantaged groups by developing more coherent, focused and challenging content standards; aligning standards with instructional materials; and eliminating tracking in grades K–8.
Improve mathematics and science teaching so it is aligned with standards, through subject specific professional development.
Reform the preparation of future teachers so that teachers at all levels are ready to teach challenging mathematics and science to diverse student populations.
Our theory of how to improve achievement for all children is simple: we need to understand what students know, what standards expect, and what teachers teach, and work to improve all three. At the outset, students in grades 3–12 across the partner sites will be assessed in mathematics and science, using items from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), as well as other instruments. Teachers will be surveyed about background, knowledge, preparation, and topics that they teach, and districts will be surveyed about their standards, instructional materials, and professional development. On the basis of data, we will review and revise standards, analyze alignment of standards with curriculum and teaching practice, and provide professional development for teacher leaders, teacher participants, and guidance counselors. Related reform in the MSU teacher education program will be undertaken during this same five-year period together through Teachers for a New Era, a project funded by the Carnegie Corporation.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Lessons learned to date
Although our MSP funding has only recently been announced, this group of partners has been working together to design and envision our effort for more than two years. In particular, the partners share a commitment to the use of data and evidence as key tools in the revision and strengthening of standards and the design and implementation of professional development of teachers so that teachers will be well equipped to teach to high standards. The ultimate goal is improved learning and achievement in mathematics and science for all students.
We are learning that it is crucial to build on the infrastructures that exist in each of these distinct K–12 partners, including the professional development efforts already underway through local resources in all of these areas, and the grade-by-grade standards that are being developed in States to address No Child Left Behind. For instance, MSU has collaborated extensively with our partner in the St. Clair ISD through a project called Promoting Results in Science and Math (PRISM). Initiated in 2000, PRISM is a multi-year collaboration between the ISD and MSU to evaluate and improve the quality of the curriculum and teaching for all students. The first phase involved a thorough analysis of the curriculum. TIMSS assessments were administered in May 2001 to about 17,000 students in grades 3–12. Using these data, St. Clair ISD began in the fall of 2002 the design and implementation of a reformed curriculum and of a customized professional development approach based on the data. St. Clair's experience serves as a showcase for the partnership's evidence-based approach.
Our extensive baseline data-gathering will ensure that we can tailor our program to the unique needs and circumstances of our 69 participating school districts. Each will have access to the results of students' performance and analysis of standards and teacher practice, so that it will be possible to build on a base of knowledge that serves as the foundation for continued improvement.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also are learning that the enormous challenges of communication and relationship building are central in a project of this magnitude. Engaging school personnel in decision-making and implementation of project ideas from the outset, helping stake-holders within the school communities come to understand and develop commitment to the premises of PROM/SE, and enabling the project working groups to build new cultures and norms that span mathematics, science, education, and the world of the K–12 schools, are crucial to the success of PROM/SE.
Ensuring that participants remain active in the program
In addition to the hundreds of teachers and school leaders who will have direct roles in the program, and the thousands of teachers who will benefit from the professional development resources that will be designed, more than 50 Michigan State University scientists, mathematicians, and education faculty have agreed to participate in various roles in the project. They will be able to be part of the assessment design and analysis, the design and implementation of the professional development, and the revision and analysis of standards. Two of the MSU co-PIs, Dr. Peter Bates (Chair of the Department of Mathematics) and Dr. George Leroi (Dean of the College of Natural Science) are well positioned to promote and reward the engagement of MSU faculty.
The design of the project relies on sustained participation of personnel in the K–12 sites, including Site Coordinators and PROM/SE Associates, who will work closely with MSU faculty in all aspects of the project. We anticipate that PROM/SE will generate new collaborations and relationships among groups that have not traditionally engaged together in work of this type. Such collaborations are likely to lead to new project and spin-off efforts during the five years of PROM/SE, and, we hope, in the post-PROM/SE years as well.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tailoring PROM/SE to the unique needs of the participating school districts
With its emphasis on evidence-based improvement, PROM/SE is designed to be responsive to the particular and unique needs of the participating partners. We anticipate finding certain areas of mathematics and science that are strong in some sites, and that need improvement in others, and will build a comprehensive professional development system that allows these sites to access the key areas in which they wish to focus. In addition, because we will be examining local standards in use in the districts, together with data about teachers' instruction, we will have a baseline for articulating the different emphases and instructional priorities across the partner sites. We will build accordingly on these differences in all project efforts.
Because our five K–12 partners span a range of socioeconomic and contextual situations, we also stand to learn a great deal about the ways in which this variation interacts with efforts to improve standards and instructional practice. This requires acknowledging and understanding the differences among the participating districts.
Professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers
Richard Elmore describes the challenges that today's accountability climate creates for teachers in schools: teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors are being asked to ''do something new—engage in systematic, continuous improvement in the quality of the educational experience of students and to subject themselves to the discipline of measuring their success by the metric of students' academic performance'' (Elmore, 2002, p. 3). He goes on to assert that few people in K–12 schools are prepared, either through their education or previous experience, to do this. Indeed, our approach in PROM/SE is to help teachers build and use tools, based on evidence, that will help them in this new climate, and to model how this might be achieved nationally. The PROM/SE professional development (PD) model will have as a unique resource the detailed evidence base that allows us to build on information about student achievement, teachers' understanding of the subject matter, the nature of district standards and their alignment with instructional materials. Teachers need to know where students have difficulty, what kinds of difficulties they have, and how to help them overcome them, while moving toward significant content goals in mathematics and science.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Elmore makes the interesting point that ''if most of what teachers learn about practice they learn from their own practice, it is imperative to make the conditions and context of that practice supportive of high and cumulative levels of achievement for all students'' (Elmore, 2002, p. 19). This has implications for where, when, and how professional development occurs; it needs to be physically close to where the teaching occurs; it needs to happen while teachers are teaching; and the curriculum of professional development needs to be based on the content and challenges that arise for teachers in classrooms. Our model involves a combination of summer experiences and academic year offerings, as well as virtual professional development. By involving principals and counselors, as well as district leaders, we are addressing context and conditions. Our strategy combines a teacher-leader (coaching) model with a technology-based PD curriculum.
Because the students we are trying to impact are located in all of the more than 700 school buildings that our partnership encompasses and because we wish to leave no child behind, we are committed in our PD to ''leaving no building behind.'' This means identifying a resource person for mathematics and for science (the same person for elementary schools) in each school together with the principal and in the case of secondary schools, a counselor as well. The role of PROM/SE Associates will be to understand the data, the way that the data can be used to drive improvement, and the notion of tying instruction and instructional materials to challenging and coherent standards. And, it will be teams of PROM/SE Associates, working with MSU personnel and other district leaders, who actually do the revision of the district and partner standards—an important element for their own professional development.
The professional development for the Associates will occur during summer institutes, weekend workshops in the academic year, and virtually through on-line offerings. The first summer institutes will focus on the revision of standards on the basis of information about student achievement, teacher characteristics, and district context. Associates will also have opportunities to learn about leadership, coaching, and working with their peers to improve mathematics and science teaching. Associates will be prepared to work locally in their districts on the standards revision process, on using student data, and on helping teachers work with a wide array of instructional practices and materials to align them with local standards. The Associates will begin their work with the larger group of Teacher Participants in partner-site based weekend workshops and in summer institutes. Associates will be involved in providing site-based, ongoing PD for teachers in their districts in the ensuing academic years.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through the PROM/SE Associates and the MSU-based PROM/SE staff, we ultimately plan to provide PD directly for about 25 percent of the teachers of mathematics and science in our partner sites; these 4500 teachers will have opportunities to come to summer institutes and academic year workshops sponsored through the project, and to work directly with the District Associates in their buildings. The remaining 12,500 teachers of mathematics and science in the partner sites also will benefit from the activity of PROM/SE; the data and evidence to be gathered in each partner site will be widely available, and the revised content standards will be a resource for all teachers.
Research indicates that professional development should be focused on a well-articulated mission, aimed at improving student learning, content driven, derived from analysis of student learning of specific content in a specific setting, based on instructional materials that the teachers are using, and connected with the specific issues of instruction and student learning in the context of actual classrooms (see, for example, Ball, 1997; Cohen & Hill, 2000; Elmore, 2002, p.7; Loucks-Horsley et al., 1998). The PROM/SE PD model will incorporate all of these views, and will have as a unique resource the detailed evidence base that allows us to build on information about students' learning and teachers' understanding of the subject matter. We regard the ongoing professional development of teachers in the partner sites as the most crucial intervention of our PROM/SE activity. Our professional development has three main goals. We will enable teachers to:
use evidence about student learning to influence their teaching practice
use coherent and rigorous content standards as a guide to providing all children with opportunities to learn challenging mathematics and science
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
employ instructional practices and materials in ways that align with those standards
At this time we envision these professional development activities to be organized topically and to span the K–12 spectrum. Mathematics and science topics will ultimately be determined by what we learn from the data-gathering phase, but we can predict some areas at this time: functions; rational numbers and proportional reasoning; and data and statistics, for example, in mathematics, and properties and changes of matter, structure and functions of living systems, and structure of earth systems in science. In our planning discussions, the K–12 partner sites have expressed a number of needs for their teachers, which include: ''how to help teachers develop and implement more rigorous and coherent curriculum'' (St. Clair County), ''how to build capacity for coaching and building-level support'' (Ingham), ''getting a handle on data collection and how to use data'' (High AIMS), and ''doing gap analysis, and delivering the content effectively'' (Calhoun). The partners express a sense that teachers' subject matter knowledge for different areas of the curriculum is uneven, and are concerned that teachers who seem to ''have the content'' are still unable to ''deliver the curriculum.''
After teachers have participated in summer institutes and project workshops, the project will also provide academic year connection to PROM/SE virtually, through a variety of on-line professional development resources for teachers, designed in a virtual PROM/SE Professional Development System. The idea is to establish—beginning with the initial assessment—a culture of collaborative learning, goal-setting and lesson planning, implementation, assessment and evaluation similar to that observed in Japan (Jacobs et al., 1997; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). We envision using technology both as a repository for resources designed especially for this project, as well as material selected and embedded into our project context. For example, video-conferencing may make possible the sharing of progress, ranging from full district reports on particular innovations, to crafted lessons by a particular group of teachers in a given school. We will examine various platforms, as possible tools to help teachers ''make their teaching visible'' by creating their own video library of their practice and by developing their capacity to interact with these videos. PROM/SE Associates will be prepared to help teachers in their districts videotape lessons in the focal topic areas for site-based or on-line professional development discussions and will encourage the sharing of these videos within schools as well as across schools within and beyond their district. We will promote the use of monitored chat rooms as well. We will also expand and adapt a set of on-line courses already successfully implemented at MSU to facilitate professional development as part of the Virtual PD; these courses eventually will become part of a set of master's offerings for in-service teachers interested in refreshing their mathematics and science content knowledge.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Assessing improvements in teacher content knowledge and pedagogy
Beginning with the baseline assessment activities, we will be designing and using new tools for examining teaching knowledge and practice. Over the course of the project we plan to design special studies in selected areas to look more deeply at the relationship of teacher content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as it relates to student achievement and to classroom practice. This collection of coordinated research studies will allow us to gain a deeper understanding of these complex relationships. These studies will be designed in consultation with our National Advisors and with the project evaluator.
Coordination with State agencies
MSU faculty in the PROM/SE team have been deeply involved in efforts to revise the Michigan Department of Education Mathematics Standards, and thus have current connections with key State officials involved in assessment and standards. In addition, personnel from the Michigan and Ohio Departments of Education will be invited to serve as members of the project advisory boards and action teams. We will pay particular attention to the maintenance and growth of these relationships over time so that State personnel come to know the capacity that will be generated through PROM/SE, in terms of school and university faculty who can become engaged in State efforts in mathematics and science education.
Sufficient resources to develop and test our models
We have found that, with the announcement of PROM/SE, a number of districts are inquiring about joining the project—and the PROM/SE Executive Management Team is developing policies and guidelines for the addition of new partners, with the notion that new partners will need to bring their own resources to this effort.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PROM/SE is an ambitious project of enormous scope and complexity. The project team holds as a high priority the idea that we will conduct research around the activities of PROM/SE, so that this effort can provide us with models and understandings of how improvements of this type can be implemented in a range of contexts. We believe the resources are indeed sufficient for the implementation that is planned in PROM/SE, but to conduct the kind of research and evaluation that can truly help us learn from this project and others like it will require additional resources.
Conclusion
The Math Science Partnership Program provides an exciting opportunity for significant improvement of mathematics and science teaching and learning across educational levels beginning in the earliest grades and through the undergraduate years. The improvement toward which all of us in the MSP Programs strive should not be the sole measure of the success of this substantial investment. In addition, we need, as educators and citizens, to learn from the MSP program about the ways in which models, embedded experiments and innovations, and particular implementations of different theories of action all interact with these improvement efforts. Resources and capacity for building strong research agendas around the MSP programs would seem to be essential to ensure a lasting and sustained benefit from this important set of initiatives.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. L. (1997). Developing mathematics reform: What don't we know about teacher learning—but would make good working hypotheses. In S.N. Friel & G.S. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF Teacher Enhancement in K–6 Mathematics (pp. 77–110). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cohen, D.K., & Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 294–343.
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker Institute.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., & Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Price, J. & Jacobs, J.E. (1997). Teaching, Learning, and Learning Teaching: The Exxon/Cal Poly Conference on the Preparation and Professional Development of Mathematics Teachers. Reston VA: NCTM.
Stigler, J.W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
90162e3.eps
90162f3.eps
90162g3.eps
90162h3.eps
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
90162i3.eps
90162j3.eps
90162k3.eps
90162l3.eps
90162m3.eps
90162n3.eps
90162o3.eps
90162p3.eps
90162q3.eps
BIOGRAPHY FOR JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY
Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy is Associate Dean for Science and Mathematics Education in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University, where she is also a Professor of Mathematics and Teacher Education. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy has worked in mathematics teacher education since 1982 when she co-founded the SummerMath for Teachers Program at Mount Holyoke College. Since that time she has been the principal investigator of several State, federal, and foundation grants in research and teacher education, both at the University of New Hampshire, where she was on the Mathematics Faculty for 16 years and directed the Master of Science for Teachers Program, and at MSU. Ferrini-Mundy served as a Visiting Scientist in NSF's Teacher Enhancement Program (1989–91), and as Director of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board at the National Research Council (1995–1999). She received the Louise Hay Award for Contributions to Mathematics Education from the Association for Women in Mathematics in 1999, and won awards for teaching and for public service at UNH, as well as the Balomenos Award from the New Hampshire Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Ferrini-Mundy has been active in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (e.g., Chair of the Writing Group for Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, member of the Board of Directors, Chair of the Standards Impact Research Group), the American Mathematical Society, and the Mathematical Association of America.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Currently, Ferrini-Mundy serves as co-PI of the MSU Teachers for A New Era Initiative, a reform of the MSU Teacher Education Program, funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and partner foundations. Ferrini-Mundy also directs an NSF-funded research project, ''A Study of the Algebra Knowledge for Teaching'' and is a Co-director of the NSF-funded ''Study of the Development of Leaders in Mathematics and Science Education.'' With Dr. William Schmidt, she serves as co-leader of the recently awarded NSF Math and Science Partnership project ''Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Science and Mathematics Education'' (PROM/SE). She served on the Mathematical Sciences Education Board RAND Mathematics Study Panel (2000–2002), the NAEP Mathematics Assessment Framework Committee (2002), the ACHIEVE Mathematics Advisory Panel (1999–2002), the TIMSS 2003 Expert Panel (2002–2003), and the NSF EHR Mathematics Education Portfolio Review Expert Panel (2003–present). Ferrini-Mundy's publications include edited books, textbooks, chapters, and papers. She is a frequent presenter at national and international meetings, and participates as an advisor to several mathematics and science education projects and initiatives across the Nation. Her research interests span calculus teaching and learning, the development of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching, and K–12 mathematics education reform.
90162r3.eps
Discussion
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I am going to start with you, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. What do you mean by improving math and science learning? What does that mean?
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. At a surface level, it means seeing achievement scores go up, and we are——
Chairman SMITH. Whose—so——
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY [continuing]. Absolutely committed to that. The students, K–12 students.
Chairman SMITH. Quality or quantity, how do you balance quality and quantity?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I think we have to aim for both. We want all students to show gains. We also want them to be learning significant mathematics, important math and science skills, as well as concepts, and so a big piece of our emphasis will be on meeting and understanding. We want these students to be able to use their mathematics and science, to apply it, to move to the next level with understanding. And so a lot of this involves designing assessments and working with assessments that let us take a look at those kinds of features.
Chairman SMITH. Any other comments in this area? Dr. Yasar?
Dr. YASAR. I know we are looking at the achievement scores, but that—it may not tell the whole story, so in student attitude and interest and their progress over a number of years could tell us that students have learned from these projects.
Chairman SMITH. I am glad to see representatives from our educational area of NSF here, and from the Department of Education. I mean just from my Michigan farms, a barnyard standpoint, it seems to me like you need a capable teacher and a capable student, and then you need motivation and balance and that sort of comes down to the classroom. Mr. Mikols, Mr. Chi, how do you motivate an unmotivated student, or isn't that the right question?
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHI. Well, I would like to take a stab at trying to answer that question. I think if we start with what that student is interested in, I am sure that we could find the science and find the math that is inherent in anything that they are interested in. I think part of the reason why they feel unmotivated is because they lack control, that they are not pursuing interests that they have, and I think that being able to seek out the concepts that are inherent in anything that they are interested in is a way to draw them into the science classroom and the math classroom and the technology classroom. I think the MSP project provides that opportunity to have a network available to any teacher to try to cross disciplines and try to bring students in a variety of different subjects.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Mikols, any thought then, and then Dr. Navarro.
Mr. MIKOLS. Yeah, just to go with what Mr. Chi said, a lot of time, student interest is so crucial, and if we can allow students to pursue something that is of interest to them, and then try to tie the mathematics and the science to that, then the students are more likely to be motivated, because it is something of their choosing. It is something of their design. And allowing them to design the kinds of questions that then need to be asked to pursue the problem that they are trying to solve, and then working in the content with that. And sometimes, it is just a matter of also offering students a sampling of some of the different things that technology is capable of doing, and exposing kids to things that they, perhaps, haven't seen or thought of before, as well. And if you can kind of mix those two ideas together, allowing some choice for the student, but also opening things up for them, then perhaps that will help with the motivation of students.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. You had a comment, Dr. Navarro.
Dr. NAVARRO. What we have done is tried to get scientists and engineers into the classroom to begin to show practical applications of math and science learning. That begins to kind of pique the interest of students, and we also try and provide them information about what they can do, not only in terms of practical applications of math and science, but how it has implications for employment opportunities for the future, and what the employment opportunities will result in financially and in a variety of ways. That gets the interest of lots of students.
Chairman SMITH. You mentioned how important it was, K–16. How about the technology that is moving into the assembly line for a lot of these students that—I don't know what percentage of your students go on to college, but how important do you think just the math and science ability is going into the new technology of computerized pressing and stamping operations and molding operations?
Dr. NAVARRO. Well, that is one of the things that we have realized, that it is tremendously important not just for students that are going on to college, but for all students that are hoping to try and find a job that will provide them a living wage, and we are trying to make clear to students what the linkages are between what they learn in math and science, and again, what they will do in even a regular kind of job. It doesn't necessarily have to be a college level job. That we have found to be a tremendously important piece of information that students and especially parents don't understand now, so parents are less asking us why do my kids have to take Algebra I and Algebra II. I think they are increasingly understanding it because of the presentations we have made to parents, not just educators, but business people as well.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. Yes, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I think on this point, particularly in mathematics, emphasis on some of the sorts of skills and processes of the discipline can be really compelling in trying to make the case that this prepares all people for all sorts of workplaces, so problem-solving, reasoning, justification, inquiring, being able to formulate conjectures, the sorts of things that don't necessarily show up on lists of topics of content, but that are crucial to the teaching of math and science.
Chairman SMITH. I think I had better move on. My time has gone up, but we will do enough rounds to get all of your answers and part of my questions. I mean, part of the goal of this hearing is should we—is there anything we need to do in changing NSF, the way we are peer reviewing, the way we are modeling the goals of this science math partnership effort? So we are looking for improvements of direction, how much knowledge is out there that we probably might try to capture some of the knowledge that is out there. Mr.—Dr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has given me a title that I haven't earned yet.
Chairman SMITH. You have earned it.
Mr. HONDA. Well, I appreciate the presence of the witnesses and your experiences, also, and they are all sort of compartmentalized in terms of your area of expertise and practice. But what I have heard was that they need to be integrated and they need to be applied accordingly. To the classroom teacher, Mr. Chi, and to Mr. Mikols or Mikols, I appreciated your field-based experience and your insights. And my question would be, given that experience and given those insights, you have talked about, I guess, to paraphrase, sort of integrating the subject matters and not compartmentalize them is a critical thing, because we tend to school our youngsters to compartmentalize everything from the get-go, and by the time they are in high school or middle school, you know, every subject is separate and they shouldn't be integrated. And I think that that is a large mistake in something that, as a policy, that may be a suggestion that you may want to think about for board members. So I guess my question would be, based upon your experience, which you have gathered now and some insights, what policy changes would you recommend to the board, not to superintendents, they are the implementers, but to the board, so that you can enhance the kinds of things you see.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Integrating teacher energies and encouraging integrated approaches to curriculum development and instructions, where science and math are integrated with English and history, because we want to have our youngsters feel that they have some roots in some of the history. For instance, the Mayans had astronomy and math as well developed as the Arabs and the Moors had, and they both developed the concept of zero. You know, youngsters from ethnic backgrounds are not taught that, that they have a history, and so that can be integrated. It is going to take a lot of work in terms of team building among the instructors, but are those ideas that could be turned into policies for school boards?
And then, as the national policy, should we be looking at that rather than only curriculum development? Teacher preparation, it seems to me, critical from what I am hearing, and rather than only looking on—focusing on kids, I assume all kids can learn, so my question is what policy implications do you look at in terms of teacher preparation at a national level? What you have experienced personally, I think, becomes very powerful. My question to the researchers and the teachers are—what you have learned now, is that replicated in—if you do the research on literature, and if that is so, why are we not making that next step? What is that next step in terms of a national policy, so that we can move away from focusing on student achievement, and talk about national expectations? And it may come down to us putting resources where our mouth is, and stop blaming the victims.
So, those are my questions. You may not have time to respond to them all orally, but if you have a written response that you wouldn't mind sharing, I would love to read it, and I appreciate all of your experiences.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. YASAR. Can I comment? There may be things to be done, not only at the school district level, but also at higher education. As you know, the target in our project is——
Chairman SMITH. Turn your microphone on.
Dr. YASAR. Sorry. To have a formal education in CMST, in other words, MST. If MST certification were recognized at the station education departments, where teacher candidates get their certification in MST, rather than just in mathematics or in science and technology, they could be very useful in the school districts. I have—some of my students who graduated from other programs, who were exposed to education in math, science and technology, in the school districts, they are teaching not only mathematics, but also science and technology. And for school districts, this is going to take care of a huge need, because most computer science graduates go to industry, and school districts have problems finding teachers who can teach technology. They go to math teachers and say can you teach this, they say no. I didn't receive a formal education. So, through the training, or formal education, or State education departments creating MST certification, we could have teachers who are able to teach in more than one area, and team teaching, of course, is also another solution in the districts, and I believe that is what is going on in other projects at this point.
Mr. HONDA. You know, Mr. Chairman. Just a real quick comment. I think I also heard from Mr. Chi that there is a need for teachers as a profession to always tell ourselves that we are only good teachers when we constantly remain students, and that somewhere along the line, we stop being students, and we get stuck in our instructional capabilities, and we forget that students need to learn constantly and so should teachers, and so that—I appreciated that insight. I hope that always stays with you, and becomes a strand in the policy and philosophy. I think perhaps we have lost—also, perhaps in your written response, you might want to discuss the concept of equity in education, because I suspect that equity does not exist even in one school district. And then I guess the other one is where is instruction? Where can it be conducted? Does it have to be in the four walls? Stepping back from our institutionalized thinking of instruction, are there ways that we can maximize technology, the presence of technology in other places and look at different ways? You have the toughest job in the world, and you are not being compensated properly, but I appreciate your stick-to-it-iveness in education and I just want to thank you.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. We will do a second round and a third round and a—we will try not to wear you out too much. We appreciate what you have done to get here. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, how are you going to go about discovering what works and making that kind of report? At Michigan State, is that a five-year project, or a four-year?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Five.
Chairman SMITH. How—and then, what would be—is there going to be in a fashion that we can put it out across the country, is it—how usable is it going to be?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. We hope it will be usable. I mean, as I have mentioned, we are just starting, and we are just trying to create a shape for this project. We will begin with this building of a sort of baseline set of data. So, we will look at where students are, what teachers——
Chairman SMITH. Is your mike on?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. It says it is on. We look at where students are, what teachers are doing—is that—what kinds of standards are in place. We will try to summarize that information and then track that as this project unfolds. We also expect, because this is so large, that different parts of the project, different districts, different schools, even different buildings, will use variations of professional development. Some might do a sort of coaching model, where teachers work with their colleagues inside classrooms to support their instruction. Others might move more into a technology-oriented, Web-based sort of e-learning.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. Did your proposal include dissemination?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes. Yes, our sense will be that we will conduct a range of studies within the big project and create a plan for actually producing that into a form that is disseminatable and shared with the White House.
Chairman SMITH. Do we have, and I don't know, maybe I should ask the question to you—of all the knowledge out there, of all of our efforts to improve the way we teach and learn, has somebody got that on a database someplace that you can—that researchers can go pick out different studies that have taken place over the last 100 years, and do we have that?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. There are examples of that. There are also syntheses, wonderful research syntheses. The National Research Council produced a report called ''Adding It Up: A Mathematical Proficiency for All Students.'' That compiles research about mathematics teaching and learning for grades K–8, and there are examples like that and folks access those sorts of things.
Chairman SMITH. Do we have any initial—Mr. Chi, Mr. Mikols—do we have any initial data, or do you have suggestions on—I don't know what to call them, demonstrations, hands-on projects that tend to stimulate interests? Does that work in your classrooms? Do you use it?
Mr. MIKOLS. Yeah, we use hands-on projects, and——
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. Well, with your technology and computers and——
Mr. MIKOLS. Right. And as Mr. Honda was asking, is there a mechanism in place where we could require students to incorporate the different disciplines. In my district, they mandate that students have a certain number of hours of community service, so why we can't mandate that there is some sort of project that is hands-on and technology-based that is interdisciplinary as part of a requirement for a student to graduate. I don't know why that couldn't be possible, and it could be something that is of a student's choosing. I have done several different projects in conjunction with science teachers, and those have been effective, measured mainly by reactions from the students. They are—the projects that I have done have been with advanced placement students, I have taught advanced placement calculus, and I did them in conjunction with an advanced placement biology teacher, and the response that we get is that this was an extremely worthwhile project that they learned a lot, and it incorporated technology and it is something that they would be able to use, and it is something that they talk a lot about.
We have also done hands-on projects with some of our younger students as well, and they are appreciative of the fact that they do have some say in what it is that they are learning, and it is tied to content that is linked to standards, so——
Chairman SMITH. The question as far as any guidance or suggestions to the National Science Foundation. What were your—what might be—what were your major barriers to implementation? Should there be any changes in terms of future partnerships? Any thoughts you have on was there sufficient outreach by NSF, in anything other than saying you're approved? Yeah, Mr. Yasar.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. YASAR. NSF brought together MSP projects last year in January, and there is going to be another one in this coming January for all these projects to interact and discuss how to build a culture of evidence, so there is a lot of emphasis on that. We are all aware that money has been put into education for many years, but we need to do things differently. As we try different things, we need to build in a culture of evidence, of evidence-based, and there is a great emphasis on that. NSF also expected all the MSP projects to develop strategic plans. I am so thankful that they require that, because we took our grant proposal probably 10 degrees deeper in developing an evaluation plan that addressed student progress, teacher—impact on teacher, and we hope that at the end of the five year period, we will have a lot of data to contribute to this evidence base.
Chairman SMITH. Okay. Dr. Navarro, I sort of got the impression from some of your comments that the money coming in allowed you to continue the good things you are doing. Is there an endpoint? Are we discovering something that eventually other schools without being given additional Federal money grants, can continue the kind of effort?
Dr. NAVARRO. I mean, I think that there are many things that are coming out of the MSPs and the previous NSF-funded efforts that will provide direction to districts and schools that don't get these funds. The reality, though, is that if you have a large school system, as we do with the close to 160,000 students in it, and you are trying to get them from where they are now, how they are teaching math and science, the level of knowledge that their teachers have, and you want to get them to a dramatically new place, it seems to me that additional resources will be needed. That is what MSP is allowing us to do, and engaging the full resources of higher education institutions——
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. But you will continue——
Dr. NAVARRO [continuing]. To help us do that.
Chairman SMITH [continuing]. The quality program that you have instigated after the Federal funding stops?
Dr. NAVARRO. Absolutely. We have gotten commitments from higher education institutions and the districts to continue this, and they are finding ways of building it in—slowly but surely—into their budgets and into their own strategic plans.
Chairman SMITH. One of the complaints many teachers have is that the faculty and institutions of colleges, university, higher education, have the content knowledge, but are often somewhat weak on what it takes to be a teacher and teach that knowledge. Any comments that any of you might have in terms of this Math Science Partnership in helping—and should we move in the direction of helping cure some of those problems, or is it a problem?
Dr. NAVARRO. I think that if you—if I could just—I think if you get people to the table, K–16, without a notion that the higher ed people are going to be kind of telling the K–12 people what to do, or that they are the only ones with the content knowledge, I think that that helps enormously. People come together at the same place, at the same table, in our MSP, and that helps everyone understand that we all have something to learn from one another, and that there are plenty of content experts at K–12 as well, and that there is a lot to be learned about teaching and learning at the higher education level from K–12 people.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. Any other thoughts on this issue, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. No. I would echo what Dr. Navarro has said, and add that when people are at the table on sort of equal footing, it is also quite interesting when the K–12 folks, the classroom teachers in particular, start to raise the real issues that they face in their teaching, and the subject matter questions that K–12 math and science teachers face are hard, and they are different from the subject matter questions that professional mathematicians and scientists face, and that professional mathematicians and scientists can't always figure out the best way to help a child understand what a fraction is, or the best way to help a child understand what place value is about, and so when you get them together and really looking at the problems of teaching, I think you do find an equal footing.
Chairman SMITH. So, will anything in your particular project proposal, going through Michigan State, look at the ability to light my fire, and excite kindergarten and first grade and second grade students in science, math, in relation to their science and math training, as opposed to their teaching abilities and love of students?
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Right, I mean, our hope is to try to bring those together, to put them in a place where those two conversations are going on at the same time, with people who have strong content knowledge and strong knowledge of teaching.
Chairman SMITH. I have a question for you, Mr. Chi, and you, Mr. Mikols. We often find that those schools with the lowest levels of academic achievement have teachers with the lowest levels of skills and knowledge, and in many cases, these teachers want to do the very best for their students, but are unable, due to a lack of information or education. Upon graduation, were you prepared to teach your State's standards in math and science, and generally, moving it away from a personal question, what do you see as the possible lack of students coming from the education—the university system and going into teaching of science and math in K–12? Starting with you, Mr. Chi, and then you, Mr. Mikols.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHI. Well, just to address, sort of at the same time, your question before, I think the MSP program has really encouraged a collaboration between higher education and teachers in the middle school and teachers in the high school system, and because of that, there has become an increased awareness on the part of the teachers in higher education, in the colleges and universities, that—of the different kinds of issues and problems that are faced by teachers in the high school and middle school. Because of that, they are becoming more sensitive, and as a result, they are better able to approach their students as well, and so I think there is a little bit of a rubbing off. There is content being disseminated from the colleges to the high school and middle school level, and there is a sensitivity to pedagogy and the intricacies of teaching to the college and university professors as well.
As far as how prepared I was, in terms of my college and university experience related to my ability to teach my content area, which is science, I feel that I was extremely well-trained, and I came out of college with a plethora of skills to better present the topics and to increase student interests in my classroom. So I feel pretty fortunate in that area.
Chairman SMITH. And that was—be a combination of the curricula that you—that—whatever the—that you took while you were in school, or some of your own initiatives, or a combination, I suspect?
Mr. CHI. Well, where I attended college, which was SUNY–Geneseo, I was there as a secondary education major, and, being a content specialty of biology, it was almost as though I was double majoring, where I had a very rigorous content in terms of my biology background and my science background, and at the same time, there was a very intense training, in terms of the pedagogy, so I feel I was very well balanced when I came out.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. And Mr. Mikols, then we will move on to Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. MIKOLS. The comment that was made that low achievement, many times, is linked to schools with high teacher turnover and having a large population of teachers that are uncertified or not adequately trained. That is true. And one of the schools in my district, that I am working in, because it is a cited school from the State as a low-performing school. They have a population of 1,200 students and they had one returning teacher in their math department for this school year, so the idea that we are training teachers and then losing them the next year, and then having brand-new teachers come in and having to retrain them again, and then when that pool of qualified teachers runs out, we are having to go to hiring uncertified teachers to fill those positions, and it is a huge problem.
There is a college in our area, Roberts Wesleyan College, that has a program in conjunction with the city school district that is allowing students to take a teaching job. I am sorry, I shouldn't say students, because it is—you are thinking of high school students, but they are allowing people to take a teaching job while they are students at Roberts Wesleyan achieving their teacher certification. So we are dealing with many, many teachers that don't have a lot of training, and they are being put right in the classroom. So, the recruitment issue that I think the MSP program can enhance, to me that is huge. We have to attract teachers early and often that are highly qualified that are thinking of teaching as a primary career, not something to fall back on once other things have not been successful.
Professional development is another thing: you just can't overemphasize the value of quality professional development that is ongoing, that is accountable, that takes teachers and moves them out of their comfort zone to get them to change and become learners of stuff that is going to be helpful to students.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will close with one other statement. I graduated from Geneseo as well in 1992, with a degree in mathematics, and part of our curriculum was graphing calculators back then, so I feel well prepared, in the sense that even 10, 11 years ago, the need for technology was known then, and I felt like I was ahead of the game with that.
To get certified, I had the degree in mathematics, and then we also had to minor in education, so then we also had pedagogy courses that helped us to take that content and deliver it in ways that would be effective in the classroom.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize for having to step out. I may have missed, obviously missed some of the questions, so if I am—if it has already been asked, just forgive me. I obviously didn't hear the answer. When I was in school, all math courses were taught, I think, Mr. Honda may have touched on this a little bit earlier, as stand alone courses. I mean, I can remember, you know, taking algebra and geometry and trigonometry and finally, when I got to college and was introduced to calculus, everything was just kind of stand alone, and it wasn't—I never really enjoyed math as much as I think I should have. I never really thought that there was any connection between math and physics and chemistry, but as I went through college, and approached my Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry, I finally realized that all of this stuff, at some point, sort of comes together. It all is the same basic thing, but I never understood that until I was almost a college graduate and about to disappoint my pure science teachers and go to medical school.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I guess my question for any of you, maybe in particular the high school teachers, Mr. Chi and Mr. Mikols, if there were some way at the outset, and let us call the outset the eighth or ninth grade, to explain to students, maybe an introductory course to mathematics, so that they understand that, at some point in their career, all of this is going to come back together, and it is going to have some real meaning to them and some real utility, and it is not just passing another course, and each and every one is stand alone and there is no rhyme or reason to it, and that is the experience I had. Now, that is a long time ago, I have to admit, I hate to admit, but there has just got to be some way to excite youngsters to math and science, and I want to hear what your thoughts are in regard to that, because maybe it is happening. I don't—I was a school board member before I became a State Senator, before I became a Member of Congress, but I didn't see it as a school board member, and you know, I went into a lot of schools. It is still like, ugh, you know, I have got to sign up for chemistry or physics or whatever, and this nerd concept and all of that stuff, you know, you get. Members of Congress, I think, don't want to sign up for the Science Committee. There is still a little bit of that mentality, excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
We have got some great scientists on the Committee, some Ph.D.s, and I am honored to be a Member of this committee, and to serve on Chairman Smith's Subcommittee, but you know what I am saying. It is that mentality that we just need to get beyond, because this is a world in which, you know, science is exciting and, I mean, you know, somebody mentioned earlier possibly having someone come into the classroom, whether it is a surgeon or maybe the F–18 fighter pilot that I had the honor to fly with recently in full flight gear, and to talk about aviation, physics and that sort of thing and negative gravity. It is just, you know, so if you all would comment on that particular suggestion of an introductory course to mathematics where people at the very beginning would understand that there is something to this, and not just everything stand alone.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CHI. Well, I think where we need to sort of begin is to change the perception about what the typical scientist is. I think you sort of touched upon that a little bit, and many students have a misconception that a person who is involved in the mathematics and the sciences is stiff and nerd-like or what have you, but to broaden their perspective and to show them that a fighter pilot, an aviator, a criminologist, is doing science and using mathematics and incorporating technology into their field, I think that will broaden their perspective on what it means to be involved in the sciences. That is a first—that is an important first step, and to get students interested, I think—I would hate to put it this way, but somewhat, we need to disguise some of these activities and mention the science and the mathematics later on, introduce them as fun, interesting topics to investigate, and then later on, sort of reveal to them that there is some science and there is some mathematics and there is some technology involved in these activities, these fun catch activities are scattered through our curriculum in Brighton, and oftentimes, the ''sleeper student'' who is just cruising through and just trying to pass the course may suddenly be sparked with some interest when we are getting ready to drop a 10 pound pumpkin out of a window, when we start to discuss the idea of gravity, and it is those activities that, as you pointed out earlier, grab and get student attention, and those are some of the activities that need to be incorporated into some of these curriculums, or curricula.
Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Yasar.
Dr. YASAR. You just gave me an opening, and on your display, I have a system that I just—it took me probably, if you were watching, 10 or 20 seconds to build, and we have offered this to students. I don't know if there are any physics Ph.D.s here, but I can put a system up here in a minute and in 10 seconds, I said, and it will take a physics professor 10 pages of handwriting and probably an hour to develop equations of motion and predict the system. Here, we have a tool that allows not only me, but only—but also middle school students to simulate a physical system. And any student, or any person who sees this, asks the question, wow, what can I do with this? Well, they can do all kinds of things.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, a layered approach using technology, layered approach means I show you something, get your interest. I don't tell you what it is taking to do this. I hide the mathematics and the laws behind this. You don't need to know the physical—physics laws, and you don't need to know how to solve a mathematical equation. I show you this, you build an interest, and then you come with more questions. Then I introduce to you the mathematics.
I believe the threatening aspect of mathematics is that it involves multiple steps. That is why students are afraid of taking up on mathematics, and I think this is the largest problem in mathematics and science education.
Mr. GINGREY. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you. I think this is a great example, if you can keep it there. So bump this discussion up now to the teacher preparation world, where the segmentation and the sort of compartmentalization that you mentioned that you experienced in high school continues. People who are in mathematics departments divide themselves up, the topologists are different from the analysts are different from the algebraists, and the courses that are taken in mathematics or in physics or in chemistry are still quite separate from one another. And yet you think about what knowledge a teacher would need to bring to bear with this task, with this model in place, how they would necessarily need to use their mathematics and their physics in concert, how they would need to understand how those ideas worked together to apply to this situation. It is not likely, I would venture, that the physics and mathematics that they have studied in college necessarily prepares them for handling a piece of curriculum that has the richness of this thing that we are looking at right now.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, your question leads into very interesting and difficult challenges in teacher education. How do we offer capstone courses or integrative kinds of experiences for the prospective teacher, so they could do the sort of thing that I think you are pointing toward, which seems very promising and interesting.
Dr. NAVARRO. Right, and I would just add that just as you are saying, Joan, about the issue of teacher preparation as being the place where you really want to try and bring all of those elements together, one of the issues that I think we would have to address is the issue of curricula, and how do we provide the kinds of curricula that help synthesize all of this for students, so that not necessarily when—would we wait until they get into high school, but in their early school experiences, we are helping them see how they need to bring all of these elements together. And we have to make that easy for teachers to do, because even given the best teacher preparation, they still will be guided by the curricula that they have, and that is where we need to make the linkages and synthesize this knowledge for them.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I know I have used up all of my time, and I apologize for that, and if there is another round, maybe we can continue on this, or do we—can we hear from——
Chairman SMITH. I will take my next five minutes now and then give it to you. Some schools have decided, some school boards have decided that at the minimum, every student has to take algebra and pass it, as a qualification for graduating from high school. And it was interesting, the reaction of a couple students that said well, they didn't like the math. It was really too much work, but as long as it is a requirement, they are going to do it. Says it takes a little extra homework, and so I am not sure where the motivation—I mean, it is obvious where the motivation comes from in this one. I wanted to ask the question, also, about parents, and anything in our studies, or should we encourage some of the studies to involve parents in this whole effort of exciting math and science education? Who would like to—and how do you do it? How should we research it? Or should we have a special effort in some of the requests for proposals that include that? Anybody wish to respond?
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. NAVARRO. Well, I will just talk a little bit about the first issue that you raised, and also link it to parents, and that is we really believe that we have to expect more of students before they will recognize how important it is to deliver on things, so that one of the things that we did was work closely with our partner districts to support them in requiring that all students take three to four years of college preparatory mathematics and science in order for students to graduate. We strengthened that when we realized that some schools, and schools with the largest number of poor and minority students were most likely to be waiving lots of their students from those requirements.
Now, we limit the requirements to just 10 percent, but parents were a very big part of this, because some of the parents were just very upset, why does my child have to take algebra II? Why does my child have to take chemistry? It is very hard, it requires too much homework, and I think that is where these presentations on the part of key business and community leaders are really crucial. Parents, once they understand that this will enhance the ability of their children to do well in the world of work, to earn far greater lifetime incomes, are easy to be persuaded. Now, you also have to provide supports for students so that they can take these courses and do well, and that there is tutoring available and that sort of thing. Parents will require that, but we have been very successful in providing education, particularly to key leaders within each of the communities, each of the school communities, so we are focusing on three or four parent leaders and provide them the education and training, the information that is needed, and then they reach larger sets of parents back at the school.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gingrey, I am going to let you get this.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Mikols, I think you were going to respond to my question and didn't get a chance.
Mr. MIKOLS. Yeah, the point that you were bringing out is where do the kids start to see the link between math and science, and where is the interest level. We know by shows like CSI that that interest is there, it is just how do we get it into the classroom, and Dr. Yasar was talking about layering things and Dr. Navarro was saying well, this is not something that should just be something that is from grades twelve through sixteen, but where do we begin it? And one of the tools that we have used in the CMST program is a tool called STELLA, and it is a program that you can use to make mathematical models of rates of change, and we have made a program that models half-life, and half-life, I think, is a fairly easy topic for even younger students, fifth, sixth, maybe seventh grade, to grasp of what is happening, but the program is layered in the sense that it does take quite a bit of thinking to make the program, so that is something that you could offer to students of—at the higher levels, but to use the program, that is something that sixth, seventh and eighth grade students could do and get it, a good idea of how mathematics is used to discuss what half-life is, and there are different graphs, and the analysis of graphs is something that kids and adults need to know how to do.
So this is just an example of one of the tools that we have had in CMST that does take math and science and link it together in such a way that you could present that to students of varying degrees of sophistication in math and science.
Chairman SMITH. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy wanted to respond. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I wanted to just pick up from this and come back to your question about parents. The sorts of instructional approaches that you are hearing about here, this notion of integration of math and science, this notion of hands-on and inquiry-oriented model, base sorts of teaching. That kind of instruction looks unfamiliar to lots of parents, particularly when you say well, this really is mathematics, or this really is physics. It doesn't look like the mathematics or the physics that parents may have studied themselves, and so the education piece is really crucial in looking at different models for how to help parents see the value of this kind of course work and at the same time, understand that these approaches have promise, and that children will learn something useful even from something that might look quite unfamiliar to a parent. I think those are really hard questions and continued efforts along those lines are needed.
Chairman SMITH. My short version has been that—telling parents that Social Security is going broke and maybe their retirement security depends on how well their kids do in math and science.
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. That is good.
Dr. YASAR. I don't want to put my school district on the spot, but there is some difference in terms of parental involvement in these two school districts. At Brighton, teachers are running away from parents. At City School, parents are running away, we can't find them. So, you could attribute some of the low success, you know, achievement, to lack of parental involvement at the City, and I believe there is an MSP project already that targets parental involvement, so we need to see more of that.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. The phone call I got is, there is somebody that came through security that shouldn't have gotten through security, so I told my guards to—Mr. Gingrey, we will start your five minutes, Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your suggestion about a Social Security scare tactic is not a bad one, because you know of what you speak. I have heard you do many special orders on what is going to happen to Social Security if we don't reform it. But while we are waiting on that, I did want to ask about the idea of paying math and science teachers more, particularly at the high school level. I know a lot of times that it is a third rail to mention that to any of the education establishment. In no way to suggest that the arts and language and history and other things are not extremely important, but it is tough to teach math and physics and chemistry, and it takes—in my opinion—a really dedicated and very intelligent teacher to do that, and if we had a Mr. Chi or a Mr. Mikols in every high school in the country, we wouldn't have a problem. I am very, very impressed with your testimony and—of everybody that is here who has testified, but you know, I have always thought that—and I know in some school districts maybe it is an optional thing that they can do at the local level, but you just can't expect bright teachers that we need to teach math and science, to stay in a low-paying profession, although I know there is other gratification, other reasons why you do it.
What do you think about that? What do you think about the idea of—in every school, paying more to math, science and physics teachers, and I am talking about the pure science and, you know, you—we might quabble over what is science, but I am talking about math, physics and chemistry. Can you comment on that?
Chairman SMITH. I think the two teachers might——
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIKOLS. Yes. Yeah, I would be the first one to say sure, you know, that is a great idea. But it is a question of market. You know, you have a certain supply, you have an overwhelming demand, and I think what we can try to do, by offering more money to people to go into math and science teaching, is to increase the supply of math teachers, because right now, in my district, we don't have enough, and financial benefit is one thing that may get people to consider a career in the Rochester City School District. And you know, with our passing rates at the eighth grade exam, what they are, we are looking at lots of different options, and one of the things that has been mentioned is paying stipends to teachers to go from some of the higher-performing schools, and some of the teachers with proven success and experience to go to some of these schools that are on the cited list as low-performing, to try to get them to go and lend their expertise and their experience so that these other teachers that I told you about, that are making up the huge overwhelming majority of their staff, that are extremely inexperienced, have someone who is skilled and has a lot of experience to go to, so—and maybe money is the way to do that.
Dr. NAVARRO. We have provided additional resources at several points in the continuum. First, there are through NSF-funded scholarships and fellowships, more students studying math and science and going into education at the secondary level in math and science that are receiving help with tuition and fees, so those scholarships and fellowships is a draw for students, particularly in our low income area. Secondly, a number of the districts have found it necessary, because of the severe shortages, particularly of secondary teachers, to offer those additional stipends for teachers that are fully certified in math, science to go into the high schools, and so that has been an important aid in getting some additional teachers that are fully certified into these high schools.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the arguments that people have made in our community is that if individuals graduating with a degree in science can move into industry and get jobs at $50,000 plus, what is it that, beyond their concern for their fellow human beings, is going to draw them to schools where we know the demands are great, and sometimes, the challenges are enormous, so if there is a small financial incentive for doing that, we think that it can be used effectively.
Mr. GINGREY. Well, we have a course at the Federal level. We have done a number of things and as we move toward the final reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, there is more—there is going to be, hopefully, more loan forgiveness for math and science teachers and at the local levels, I think a lot of school systems will pay an incentive, a bonus, if you will, for a math or a science teacher to go into a high need area, and that is great. But I mean, I think, and I think you have answered my question, that you just literally, at the very outset, the generic starting salary should—there should be—because again, and you mentioned, I think, Mr. Mikols, about supply and demand. I think that is the bottom line, that we just don't have enough of you guys and gals that, you know, are math and science teachers, and we need to incentivize you, to not only start in that direction, but to stay there.
Chairman SMITH. We are going to wind this up pretty soon. A couple questions I have got is I have been encouraging my schools of education that turn out any teacher to start requiring a basic course in math and science, so whether they are teaching English or phys ed or whatever, they have at least a little understanding in math and science that maybe helps in some of the questions that might be asked, some of the stimulus, some of the—prevent some of the teachers from saying well, boy, don't ask me, I never did as good at it and it didn't hurt me.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Any comments? Shall I keep doing that?
Dr. NAVARRO. Yes. Absolutely. We require an increasing number of courses for all teachers, and I think it is now up to something in the range of 28 credit hours in mathematics and science for all teachers, irrespective of what they are going to be teaching. The big issue for us is who is teaching those courses at the post-secondary level, and that is one of our challenges in MSP is to make sure that the university faculty members that are teaching those courses can excite these teachers rather than frighten them, make sure that those prospective teachers get more excited rather than—about math and science, rather than come to feel that their initial perceptions that this was not something I wanted to learn were right.
Chairman SMITH. Are any of your MSPs partnering in any way with the private sector?
Dr. NAVARRO. We are working with our Chambers of Commerce to do these presentations at the middle school level about—in particular, about ensuring that students know why they should go to college, and also why they should study math and science. That is something that has worked very well. The business people love to make those presentations. They come into contact with real teachers and students, and we help them understand what the issues are, so we provide a script for them, they can tailor it to a certain extent.
Chairman SMITH. I mean we put——
Dr. NAVARRO. They like doing it.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SMITH. We specifically put it in the legislation that it has got to be a university and it has got to be a K–12, but with the option of partnershipping with the private sector and as we were discussing before we put the gavel down, there are a lot of companies out there that are trying to enhance at least their—the math and the science interest in their schools, and so a lot of companies do a lot of work, and I would hope, somehow, to NSF or wherever, we need to—we are going to start looking at some of the work that they are doing. Dr. Yasar.
Dr. YASAR. In Rochester, Xerox gets a lot of its employees from the city school district or others, so they have an interest in supporting education through scholarships and internships. I think that is a great example for MSPs. Can I add a comment? It may not be directly related to business. We talked about teachers, and I know there is a lot of burden on them. We could make things a little bit easier for students, and please note that I went to school in a different country, where students were given 15 minutes breaks between classes. They had time to relax, plus they stayed in one classroom, rather than racing between different classrooms. I think we put a lot of burden on students, and not giving them enough time for break, it just builds the tension in them. Second, time management, class management, becomes a burden on them. So, these may be other factors you may consider in—for schools to restructure their classes and so on.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gingrey, do you have any more questions?
Mr. GINGREY. I would like each one of you, maybe, if you would like, to conclude with about a minute on anything that you would like to pass on to the Committee. What happens is the other Members of the Committee will review the testimony and anything that you would like to add, starting with you, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes, I would just again thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, to say that I think, although we are new at it, that this MSP program looks very promising. I think that there will be some things that NSF seems already to be doing that may become quite crucial. Connecting these projects, I mean it is obvious just from the conversation here that we can learn from each other and if the Agency is able to really enable us to do that, that will be crucial, and also, to build up this commitment, I think, to evidence, to sharing research findings, to learning from these projects. I think it could be a wonderful contribution to the improvement of mathematics and science learning.
Chairman SMITH. Dr. Yasar.
Dr. YASAR. I want to thank you for inviting me, and I want to thank NSF and the Federal Government for the opportunity. I have never been so excited about a project, so whatever education, 25 years of education I had, it all comes to a culmination here, and the integrated math and science education, I never found a champion program under DOE or NSF for years, and MSP gave us that opportunity, and brought school districts and higher education and industry together, so I would like you to support this program, as long as and as much as you could. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chi.
Mr. CHI. Well, I would like to address something that was brought up earlier. I forget which one. One of you mentioned equity in one of your comments, and I think the MSP program has, through its funds, has provided access to some of the technologies, to peoples that might not necessarily be able to get their hands on that technology, be it for financial reasons, economic reasons, and by narrowing the gap between the haves and have-nots, I believe that we are coming closer to a place and time where people have access to and skills in technology that will open up opportunities for them that they might not otherwise have, if it wasn't for programs like this.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MIKOLS. Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Mikols.
Mr. MIKOLS. And just with the job I have to do with my district, we realize that change is necessary. Change can be fearful, but we also realize that change is possible and that change represents growth, and through programs like the CMST, where we are able to use technology to allow students to take on a larger role in the responsibility of their learning, we see that it is crucial.
Chairman SMITH. Dr. Navarro.
Dr. NAVARRO. I think this is—I have been doing this work for about 20 years. I think MSP is the hardest work I have ever done, that our community has ever done, and I just hope that as we run into the inevitable difficulties and complications of this, that there will be an understanding that the difficulty and the problems are part of the process, and that we can learn from those and share our understanding and that NSF and Congress will understand when we run into these problems and will see it as an opportunity to really learn much more about what it takes to really excite and light the fire in young people about math and science.
Chairman SMITH. Again, thank you all, not only for being here, but for the work that you do to improve math and science education. That is, I think, so important to our future. And one last request I would have of you. If you would consider answering any questions that staff thinks that maybe we didn't answer, that we asked, that we should have asked, and defining Mr. Honda's question that he wanted you to respond to, if you would—we would send those to you and if you might respond, we would appreciate it.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Osman Yasar, Principal Investigator, Targeted MSP Grant, SUNY–Brockport
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. The most effective way to implement a fully integrated approach would be through a mechanism or a tool that demonstrates the interplay of subject matters. Today, many disciplines in humanities and sciences use simulation and modeling technology to advance knowledge and discovery. There must be a curriculum in schools that draws upon modeling-based computational and information technologies. There is need for quality professional development to train teachers how to use a curriculum that is student centered, multidisciplinary, and uses technology effectively. Furthermore, there is need for a multidisciplinary education and preparation teachers. No real change could occur at K–12 without changes in our colleges.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to students at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?
A2. Assessments and standards on the State and eventually the federal level should address a multidisciplinary approach. Use of technology to promote such an approach could be easily sold to students. As traditional, lecture-based classroom roles are changing, educators and students work collaboratively in more open-ended teaching and learning experiences. The motivational aspect of technology is a principal reason that educators try so hard to master and apply technology tools. Perhaps the best way to sell this model is to pilot such a multidisciplinary (integrated) curriculum. Government funding should be made available to schools and communities. School administrators could push to mandate projects at all grade levels that require a multidisciplinary approach. School boards must have tangible evidence that this approach works if they are going to buy into it. Satisfied students and teachers demonstrating achievement of State and national standards will be very convincing. A concerted effort by federal funding agencies and professional societies could help bring national attention and endorsement.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. State Education Departments need to issue multi-area teaching certifications. An example is a certification in math, science, and technology (MST). There are many advantages of such a combined MST-certification to its holders, including improved employability and adjustability to changing job environment and school needs. Universities need to offer degree programs with necessary credits to satisfy certification requirements in more than one area. Teacher preparation and training programs need to incorporate a multidisciplinary and technology-based education. An example is our MSP project at the SUNY College at Brockport.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Ed Chi, Science Teacher, Brighton School District, New York
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. In my opinion, the project portfolio based model would be able to take a more integrated approach to the subject matter. Not only can science, mathematics, literature and social studies be included but also art and technology. In this model, students approaching the end of their high school studies are required to create a portfolio with an overarching theme of their own choosing. Their choice must be submitted well in advance of their presenting their portfolio to a team of their teachers. The portfolio would include an exploration of the historical, literary, scientific, even the artistic and technological aspects of their topic. For example, a student may choose Civil War America as their overarching theme. The student can include a paper on the Red Badge of Courage, an analysis of the cotton plant's life cycle and explanation of its transformation from seed to fabric to fulfill the Literature, Science and Technology requirements. The student can create a paper analyzing the consequences leading up to the Civil War. At a set time students will present their portfolio to a team of their teachers where the student will be interviewed about their experience and the process of creating their portfolio.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. Do you have any suggestions on how this model could be sold to school boards at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?
A2. To my knowledge, many schools have tried this model in the recent past. However, it has since fallen out of fashion. However, I feel colleges and universities who train teachers can continue to include this model in their educational foundations courses.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. State University of New York College at Geneseo had an educational foundations course that required students from a variety of disciplines to work on a portfolio-based assessment project. During this project, teams of students chose themes and put together a sample of such a portfolio. We also created assessment rubrics and critiqued other student teams' projects.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Jeffrey M. Mikols, Math Teacher, Rochester City School District, New York
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and science together, bat also including such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. There must be curriculum used in schools that support such a model. Many teachers use creativity in planning lessons that will engage students and address a multidisciplinary approach There exists curricula, however, created by experts in education that have been carefully researched, planned, arid field tested that is ready for teachers to use. Using such curricula does not absolve teachers from planning lessons, it just gives them a place to start their planning process. There are curricula, some funded by NSF, that take a multidisciplinary approach that is not solely math and science linked. It would not be wise to roll out this type of curriculum without training. This emphasizes the need for quality professional development to train teachers how to use a curriculum that is student centered, multidisciplinary, and uses technology effectively. It is also important that a school district adopts a curriculum such as this for K–12. I currently work in a school district where there is a traditional mathematics curriculum used K–5, a multidisciplinary, student centered, conceptual based mathematics curriculum used in grades 6–8, then a traditional mathematics curriculum used in grades 9–12. It is confusing to students to go from a traditional approach to a student centered approach, then back to a traditional approach.
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to students at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?
A2. State assessments often determine what teachers value as important to train their students on. Assessments on the State and eventually the federal level should address a multidisciplinary approach. There must be research presented to local school boards that demonstrates that this approach will work with the demographics in their community. Another important component is to show that this curriculum is aligned with local, State, and national assessments. It is not sufficient to teach to any test, but ignoring assessment components is not a valid option, either. Perhaps the best way to sell this model is to pilot such a curriculum and demonstrate student work and allow teachers and students to present to school boards what it is they are learning and how they enjoy this model of learning. School administrators should push to mandate projects at all grade levels that require a multidisciplinary approach. School boards must have tangible evidence that this approach works if they are going to buy into it. Satisfied students and teachers demonstrating achievement of State and national standards will be very convincing.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. Professional development is the key to implementing effective change in an education system. There are many crucial components to effective professional development. Professional development must be embedded in the regular school day with actual classrooms and students. Teachers can use their training with their target audience while being supervised and coached by expert teachers. Theoretical training about what should happen in the classroom is not enough. Teachers must have the opportunity to experience what should happen first hand. Expert teachers could coach, co-teach, model, and help with planning the teacher being trained. This support must be ongoing. Professional development must be nurtured over a period of time. A one time training during an all day session with no follow-up will not lead to the type of change necessary for this model to work. Establishing model classrooms where multidisciplinary, student centered curricula are being used would be an effective way to allow trainee teachers to see first hand the effectiveness this type of environment provides. These model classrooms provide opportunities for the ongoing professional development that is necessary. Teachers being trained could visit at any time and see exactly what they are being told they should establish in their own classroom.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by M. Susana Navarro, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, University of Texas, El Paso
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. It is my view that a fully integrated approach to subject matter would not necessarily require that all disciplines be taught together, but that students draw from different disciplines in learning all subjects. It is also critical that students have a strong grasp in core areas—particularly reading fluency, comprehension and writing—in order to be successful in all content areas.
My colleagues and I at the El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, recognize the importance of literacy in ensuring that students are successful in all subjects. Because of this, we are implementing the Literacy in Action initiative as a key strategy for assisting students facing increasing language laden content in all subjects, but particularly in mathematics and science. Our work in Literacy prepares students to think at deeper levels and drew on the skills necessary for reading in the various content areas—including math and science—using informational/expository texts.
To address the need for reading in the content areas, full time Literacy Leaders work collaboratively with teachers in piloting and revising a writing curriculum produced to support capacity building needs. By utilizing the writing curriculum there has been an increase in comprehension and application in the classroom. A priority continues to be the use of text analysis, particularly in non-narrative forms of writing, as a way of helping students to increase their ability to read and comprehend content in standards-based curricula in mathematics, science and other content areas. As a result of our work in Literacy, we can report: higher than expected student scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which also exceeded the state average; improved student writing selections as shown through an increase in length and complexity both in general course work and state writing assessments; an increased number of hours of professional development in classrooms and through non-traditional forms such as book groups and small grade-level study groups; higher levels of professional discourse due to professional reading and discussions; restructuring of school budgets to prioritize increased funds for the purchase of informational/expository texts; and increased participation by secondary teachers participating in professional development activities, including the Guest Author series.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Relevant policies for promoting strong skills in literacy to support learning across all content areas, could include requirements that teachers across all subject areas receive sufficient professional development pertaining to key components of literacy.
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to school boards at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?
A2. In promoting the integration of content areas—particularly a more comprehensive approach to literacy—it is important to recognize first that discipline-based standards and testing determine what is taught in the classroom, and that efforts to better integrate core subject areas need to be reflected in the standards, textbooks and other curriculum materials, and ultimately tests for which students and schools are being held accountable.
An emphasis on ensuring that teachers are effectively trained to integrate key competencies—particularly focused on literacy—into all subjects is where the greatest difference can be made. This requires that sufficient time and resources be allotted for professional development.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such an integrated education system?
A3. Teacher preparation typically reflects the value of singular content specialization and training has been emphasizing content specialization rather than inter-disciplinary approaches. At times, there are important reasons for this—particularly at the secondary level where students sometimes are taught by teachers without a degree in their field. It must also be recognized, however, that within higher education—faculty tend to focus on their own disciplines. Despite these challenges, however, the importance and value of applying high-level skills, in literacy for example, to all content area cannot be diminished.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to encouraging higher education faculty to emphasize the importance of literacy in training teachers, Congress may want to consider funding demonstration projects—within higher education institutions and school districts—to promote inter-disciplinary coordination among university faculty, across colleges and departments. Once these models are evaluated, it would then be useful to share best practices and lessons learned.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Principal Investigator, Comprehensive MSP Grant, Michigan State University
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. What approaches and policies could move the K–12 educational framework toward a model that takes a fully integrated approach to subject matter [where fully integrated would mean moving beyond the idea of teaching just math and science together, but also including such other disciplines as history, literature, etc.]?
A1. The concept of a ''fully integrated approach to subject matter'' in K–12 education is both tantalizing and daunting. Intellectually, the idea that curriculum might be organized in an elegant way so that main ideas and themes are taught through a rich mix of contexts across the academic disciplines is highly appealing. There have been efforts to move in this direction, including various middle school ''thematic'' approaches to instruction, including team teaching that couples teachers of social studies with teachers of science, large projects for students that take up some major problem such as global warming, and use it as a setting from which to address key ideas in the academic areas of science, mathematics, the language arts, etc. A common pairwise ''integration'' is often proposed between mathematics and science, and there have been some curricula over the years. (E.g., In the 1970s, the Unified Science and Mathematics for Elementary Schools project (USMES) was funded at the Education Development Center by the National Science Foundation based on recommendations by Cambridge Conference on the Correlation of Science and Mathematics in Schools. This was an elementary integrated mathematics and science curriculum. More recently, COMAP has produced Mathematics: Modeling Our World, a grades 9–12 standards-based curriculum. Each unit of the program is based on a theme, such as medical lab testing and the broad range of mathematics that is used in that field.) These materials are attractive, interesting, and highly engaging for students and teachers. However, they are not widely used.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The challenges with integration are quite substantial. First of all, K–12 curricular organization in the U.S. historically has been by subject matter. When integration is broached, new agreements about curricular goals need to be reached, and inevitably, even when only two areas are being integrated (such as mathematics and science), the traditional curricular goals of one area take a back seat to those of the other, for practical reasons. So, for instance, a curriculum organized around interesting themes that have a science orientation is likely to take up mathematical tools and applications that are needed to advance the ideas of the science, but might not take up other areas of mathematics that have been considered essential in the U.S. curriculum for years.
So, given that I am somewhat hesitant to claim that a fully integrated model is reasonable, I certainly would agree that more integration in the K–12 system would be desirable. What policies and approaches would help support the system in this direction? Here are a few ideas:
Provide funding for the continued development, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of K–12 instructional materials that are interesting models of integration
Support research that helps us learn about the impact of integrated instructional materials on student learning and achievement in traditionally valued areas of the school curriculum
Design assessment tools to measure ''integrated'' understanding. In addition, if high stakes assessments, such as those that will be used by states in NCLB, explicitly addressed students' understanding of key integrative themes and ideas, then possibly instructional practice might shift.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In closing, however, I cannot underscore how ambitious it would be to move in a concerted way toward more systemic integration in K–12 education. There are enormous conceptual obstacles (disagreement about what is meant by integration, what areas of the curriculum should be integrated, in what ways, what would be left out, etc.), capacity issues (teachers are not prepared in ways that help them to do this kind of integration; universities are organized along disciplinary lines and so reform in undergraduate education would be needed as well), and resource issues (very few suitable instructional materials exist, assessments need to be designed, etc.).
Q2. Do you have suggestions on how this model could be sold to school boards at the local level, as well as how this could be achieved on a national level?
A2. Again, this question assumes that a strong model could be designed that would be defensible within the education community. Taking that assumption (which I feel is unrealistic), then to ''sell'' this to school boards, as well as nationally, it seems, would require having solid educational research, conducted over several years, to demonstrate the impact of the model, and variations of it, on student learning under a wide range of conditions (e.g., in urban settings, with teachers who are well prepared, in communities with strong involvement of local business, etc.). Because an integrated approach would require rethinking of educational standards in states and nationally, a massive effort in assessment and research, keyed to the new ''integrated'' goals, would be needed. Such a program of conceptualization, development, research, and refinement is probably at least a 15-year undertaking.
Q3. Do you have any policy recommendations for ways to change teacher training and professional development so that teachers will be prepared to teach in such an integrated education system?
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A3.
In teacher education, introduce integrated courses (e.g., mathematics and science, or mathematics and language arts) in the subject matter preparation of teachers
Provide funding for the continued development, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of instructional materials for use with pre-service and in-service teachers that are interesting models of integration
In terms of policy, we would need shifts in teacher certification policies at the State level, and in the definitions of ''highly qualified teachers'' that are part of NCLB.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
90162s3.eps
90162t3.eps