No Child Left Behind? Teaching Science and the Department
of Education Budget Good Intentions, Political Realities, Unintended
Consequences
Kenneth J. Heller
With a great flourish Congress
passed and the President signed the law authorizing funding the Department
of Education for 2002, the No Child Is Left Behind Act of 2001. Its
primary goal seems to be to give States greater flexibility in spending
Federal education money and to hold them accountable for results
by measuring student performance on a yearly test. The multifaceted
nature of the Federal budget mirrors the complexity of our countrys
educational problems. As physicists, however, many of us feel a special
responsibility to improving the level of science teaching in our
schools. We know the survival of our society depends on having a
steady flow of young people into science and technology. We also
believe that the funding of research in this country requires an
increasingly scientifically literate population to support it. Our
political leaders are familiar with the problem and often state it
as a National Security issue (see for example the report of the U.S.
Commission on National Security http://www.nssg.gov/Reports/reports.html.
)
The nation is on the verge
of a downward spiral in which current shortages will beget even
more acute future shortages of high-quality professionals and competent
teachers. The word crisis is much overused, but it
is entirely appropriate here. If the United States does not stop
and reverse negative educational trendsthe general teacher
shortage, and the downward spiral in science and math education
and performanceit will be unable to maintain its position
of global leadership over the next quarter century.
The difficulty is that the consequences of science education are
in the future while schools have to survive the present. Overcrowded
classrooms, drugs, weapons in schools, teacher shortages, multilingual
classrooms, special education, etc, etc, are the focus of attention.
As they say in Florida: When youre up to your ass in
alligators, its hard to remember youre trying to drain
the swamp. Within Congress, there are two strong voices in
the House of Representatives calling attention to the importance
of Federal funding for improving science teaching in our schools:
the physicists, V. Ehlers (R, Michigan) and R. Holt (D, New Jersey).
The Congressional Record shows they fought hard in the losing battle
to keep the federal funding targeted for improving science teaching.
Now the Eisenhower grants that many university and college physics
departments used to provide professional development to science teachers
have been eliminated. Funding still exists that the States could
use for this purpose but they can also be used for other needs. If
we believe federal funds should be used to support improved science
teaching, physicists, in cooperation with other science and technology
professionals, must become more engaged in guiding State and local
school funding. There are tools that remain in the law, described
below, that can be useful.
The good news is that the 2002 budget of the Department of Education
increased about 15% to 51.4 billion dollars with about 2/3 going
directly to the states. The law that determines this federal spending
comes in three different parts. The first part is the authorization
law. This is H.R. 1 or the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 signed
into law as P.L. 107-110 (public law number 110 from the 107th Congress).
It sets forth policy but only gives guidelines for allocating money.
The second part is the appropriations law H. R. 3061 signed into
law as P.L. 107-116. This is the law that actually allocates
the funding and as such modifies the policy set forth in the authorization
law. The third part is the Congressional Conference Report 107-342.
This report is attached to the appropriations law to specify how
Congress intends the budgeted money to be spent. All of these documents
are available from the Library of Congress Web Site, Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov)
.
Good Intentions
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 contains the good
intentions of Congress and the President. There are two parts of
the Act that most directly impact science teaching. First, the Act
requires the testing of students for mathematics and reading proficiency
beginning in 2002 and science in 2007;
Each State plan shall demonstrate that the
State educational agency, in consultation with
local educational agencies, has implemented a set
of high-quality, yearly student academic assessments that include,
at a minimum, academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language
arts, and science that will be used as the primary means of determining
the yearly performance of the State and of each local educational
agency and school in the State in enabling all children to meet
the States challenging student academic achievement standards,
except that no State shall be required to meet the requirements
of this part relating to science assessments until the beginning
of the 20072008 school year.
Second, it authorizes Congress to appropriate $450M
for mathematics and science partnerships. This funding was to replace
the Eisenhower grants that were previously used to fund professional
development for mathematics and science teachers. In the new law
the partnerships have the following set of authorized activities:
An eligible partnership shall use funds provided
under this part for one or more of the following activities related
to elementary schools or secondary schools:
(1) Creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing
professional development of mathematics and science teachers that
improves the subject matter knowledge of such teachers.
(2) Promoting strong teaching skills for mathematics
and science teachers and teacher educators, including integrating
reliable scientifically based research teaching methods and technology-based
teaching methods into the curriculum.
(3) Establishing and operating mathematics and
science summer workshops or institutes, including follow-up training,
for elementary school and secondary school mathematics and science
teachers that
(A) shall
(i) directly
relate to the curriculum and academic areas in which the teacher
provides instruction, and focus only secondarily on pedagogy;
(ii) enhance the ability of the teacher to understand
and use the challenging State academic content standards for mathematics
and science and to select appropriate curricula; and
(iii) train teachers to use curricula that are
(I) based on scientific research;
(II) aligned with challenging State academic content
standards; and
(III) object-centered, experiment-oriented, and
concept- and content-based; and
(B) may include
(i) programs that provide teachers and prospective
teachers with opportunities to work under the guidance of experienced
teachers and college faculty;
(ii) instruction in the use of data and assessments
to inform and instruct classroom practice; and
(iii) professional development activities, including
supplemental and follow-up activities, such as curriculum alignment,
distance learning, and activities that train teachers to utilize
technology in the classroom.
(4) Recruiting mathematics, engineering, and science
majors to teaching through the use of
(A) signing and performance incentives that are
linked to activities proven effective in retaining teachers, for
individuals with demonstrated professional experience in mathematics,
engineering, or science;
(B) stipends provided to mathematics and science
teachers for certification through alternative routes;
(C) scholarships for teachers to pursue advanced
course work in mathematics, engineering, or science; and
(D) other programs that the State educational agency
determines to be effective in recruiting and retaining individuals
with strong mathematics, engineering, or science backgrounds.
(5) Developing or redesigning more rigorous mathematics
and science curricula that are aligned with challenging State and
local academic content standards and with the standards expected
for postsecondary study in mathematics and science.
(6) Establishing distance learning programs for
mathematics and science teachers using curricula that are innovative,
content-based, and based on scientifically based research that
is current as of the date of the program involved.
(7) Designing programs to prepare a mathematics
or science teacher at a school to provide professional development
to other mathematics or science teachers at the school and to assist
beginning and other teachers at the school, including (if applicable)
a mechanism to integrate the teachers experiences from a
summer workshop or institute into the provision of professional
development and assistance.
(8) Establishing and operating programs to bring
mathematics and science teachers into contact with working scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers, to expand such teachers subject
matter knowledge of and research in science and mathematics.
(9) Designing programs to identify and develop
exemplary mathematics and science teachers in the kindergarten
through grade 8 classrooms.
(10) Training mathematics and science teachers
and developing programs to encourage young women and other underrepresented
individuals in mathematics and science careers (including engineering
and technology) to pursue postsecondary degrees in majors leading
to such careers.
Political Reality
An authorization law giveth and the appropriations law taketh away.
The appropriations law is almost impossible to understand from a
simple reading. This is probably because it is designed to amend
existing law and because, in this case, it was passed before the
authorization bill. It creates a category called School Improvement
Programs funded at a level of $7.8B. The Conference Report
attached to the appropriation law clarifies what is really to be
funded and is summarized by tables at the end of the Report. The
appropriation reduces science and mathematics partnership funding
from $450M to $12.5M. This amount is clearly too little to be distributed
to States and in no way replaces the $375M Eisenhower grants allocated
last year. However, under School Improvement Programs the
Conference Report has a section called Improving teacher quality funded
at $2.85B. The report states:
Grants for Improving Teacher Quality consolidates
and streamlines the Eisenhower Professional Development program
and the Class Size Reduction program to allow greater flexibility
for local school districts. The purpose of this part is to provide
grants to States, school districts, State agencies for higher education,
and eligible partnerships to: (1) increase student academic achievement
through such strategies as improving teacher and principal quality
and increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom
and highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools;
(2) hold districts and schools accountable for improvements in
student academic achievement; and (3) hold districts and schools
accountable so that all teachers teaching core academic subjects
in public elementary schools and secondary schools are highly qualified.
Although nothing in the purpose of the $2.85B mentions teaching
science or professional development, the Conference Report continues
with specific intentions about funding for mathematics and science
teaching.
The conferees believe that providing high-quality
math and science instruction is of critical importance to our Nations
future competitiveness, and agree that math and science professional
development opportunities should be expanded. The conferees therefore
strongly urge the Secretary and the States to continue to fund
math and science activities within the Teacher Quality Grant program
at a comparable level in fiscal year 2002.
Referring to the $12.5 M for mathematics and science partnerships,
the Conference Report goes on to state:
The conferees note that, although this is
a separate program designed specifically for the development of
high quality math and science professional development opportunities,
in no way do the conferees intend to discourage the Secretary and
States from using other federal funding for math and science instructional
improvement programs. The conferees strongly urge the Secretary
and States to utilize funding provided by the Teacher Quality Grant
program, as well as other programs funded by the federal government,
to strengthen math and science education programs across the Nation.
When reading the Conference Report, it is important to note that
the Teacher Quality Grant program is not burdened by a special interest
laundry list redirecting money to local projects that, however valuable,
are not arrived at by allowing the local educational community to
determine its priorities. This flexibility is carried even further
since, from the authorization law, a State can redirect up to half
of the grant to any other educational function funded by the law.
Unintended Consequences
The funding for the School Improvement Programs is to be distributed
such that 95% goes to the local school districts, 2.5% is for State
activities, and 2.5% is for local partnerships. Strongly urge is
not the same as require but it does give the intent of
Congress. However, local school districts must be convinced that
allocating some funds for improved science teaching is in their interest. Instead of being recognized
as a national priority by targeted funding, science teaching will
now compete with other school needs drawing from a federal block
grant to the States. This is a victory for those who believe in less
federal control of educational policy. However, the playing field
for the funding competition is not level. Mathematics
and reading tests are mandated almost immediately but science tests
will come, if at all, in the future. School districts, especially
those in academically disadvantaged communities, will feel the pressure
to spend all available money on math and reading basic skills.
One measure of the countrys current status in teaching science
is the achievement of students on various national and international
tests. None of these results show that science literacy is a solved
problem so that educational effort can be directed elsewhere. For
example, the Department of Education's 2000 National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) for science is given on the following table http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/results/:
level |
4th Grade |
8th Grade |
12th Grade |
|
1996 |
2000 |
1996 |
2000 |
1996 |
2000 |
Below
basic |
33% |
34% |
39% |
39% |
43% |
47% |
Basic |
38% |
37% |
32% |
29% |
36% |
34% |
Proficient |
26% |
26% |
26% |
28% |
19% |
16% |
Advanced |
03% |
04% |
03% |
04% |
03% |
02% |
There is the very real danger that the country will slide backwards
in the preparation of its children for a technologically advanced
society. It might be natural for school systems with already above
average reading and math scores, typically suburban schools, to fund
science teaching improvement while those that are below average,
typically inner city schools, to fund only reading and math efforts.
This could lead to a larger science and technology gap which, in
turn, could lead to a larger gap in earning potential for the graduates
of those school systems.
On the other hand, it is not clear that we have been making great
progress under the old scheme of Eisenhower funding either. Perhaps
it is too early to tell or perhaps the tests are measuring the wrong
thing. In any case we now have an opportunity to use the larger amount
of funding available to improve teacher quality to significantly
improve science teaching in this country. Science will no longer
be an isolated item in a school districts budget that teachers
and principles view as not a real academic subject but
is taught only because there is funding available. States and local
school districts will now have to decide if science is important
enough to compete for funding with other areas. In many places, science
teaching will only survive in the schools if there is an effort of
concerned citizens and teachers stressing its importance for children.
The language of Congress in both the authorization law and the committee
report accompanying the appropriation law can give weight to those
efforts. It will clearly help if university and college groups in
collaboration with school districts design professional development
programs for science teachers that also help increase math and reading
test scores.
Kenneth J. Heller is Past Chair of the Forum on Education and
is a Professor of Physics at the University of Minnesota