Review of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Draft Memorandum: NAVSEA's 21st Century Engagement, Education, and Technology Initiative (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

• The committee agrees with NAVSEA’s view that a diverse workforce is important to its future and commends the efforts that it has taken thus far to engage the minority community. With that in mind, the report has a very strong emphasis on the role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and has only fleeting reference to the potential of women and Hispanics and other people of color to its future workforce. While the draft memorandum lays out a very broad program, the execution plan it describes is narrowly focused on HBCUs. While this is a good start, NAVSEA should decide where it wants to take this program and what resources it will need to make it sustainable. • In the K-12 area, the committee recommends that NAVSEA undertake further research on how to engage effectively in this important but very broad arena. There are a number of existing successful programs in the Department of Defense (DOD) and in the private sector that should be examined. PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. NAVSEA should more clearly identify the problems that these initiatives were designed to address, with particular emphasis on using this information to measure the success of the activities. Specifying the problems would both enable a better understanding of the programs and serve as a basis for establishing metrics by which achievement of program objectives can be measured. This is the most important, first step in refining the memorandum. NAVSEA’s S&E personnel needs relate to a variety of factors, including existing vacancies, future retirements, efforts to increase the diversity of personnel, increasing skills needs, need for security-cleared workers, downsizing, hiring authorizations, and competition from the private sector (including the issue of competitive salaries).7 Without more information on which of these areas constitute NAVSEA’s primary concerns, the committee could not determine with any specificity what actions might be the most effective. This is an important issue not directly addressed in the memorandum. NAVSEA should clarify the nature of its demand for S&E personnel (e.g., its personnel and skills needs) in relation to the supply of S&E personnel (e.g., number of degrees awarded and availability of individuals with appropriate skills). Appendix IV provides some data which may be useful to NAVSEA in exploring these issues: the number of S&E personnel and new hires in Navy laboratories (Figures IV.1 and IV.2), the number of graduate students in science and in engineering (Figure IV.3), the number of graduate 7 One area where NAVSEA may face a substantively different challenge than for the United States at large is in the need for personnel who are U.S. citizens. Richard Freeman writes: “U.S. agencies that hire citizen S&E talent only will have increasing difficulty maintaining top-flight workforces. With a smaller U.S. share in the global supply of science and engineering talent, any policy that restricts agencies involved in R&D and national security issues to U.S. citizens risks lowering the productivity of those agencies relative to what it would be if, like the major multinationals, they globally searched for the best candidates for jobs.” Richard Freeman, Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and National Security, pp. 81-89, in Titus Galuma and James Hosek, Perspectives on U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp., 2007, CF-325-OSD. 3 

students by individual engineering field (Table IV.1), and the number of all S&E graduate students who are U.S. citizens (Figure IV.4). Figures IV.5 and IV.6 describe the employment sector of S&E degree holders in general and of doctoral degree recipients specifically. While these data provide interesting background, more information is needed to identify where there are particular imbalances between supply and demand for NAVSEA S&E personnel. 2. NAVSEA should attempt the three phases (plant, nurture, and produce) of its program simultaneously. Initially, there was some confusion as to whether the draft memorandum described the evolution of the proposed NAVSEA activity (e.g., “plant” would refer to the early years of the activity) or whether it referred to three phases of activity related to the ages (or the stages of development) of the individuals to be targeted. In conversations with NAVSEA personnel it became clear that it is the latter. In the memorandum, it would help to directly state that NAVSEA will initiate activities at each of the three phases (levels) in year one. The initiative may be described as an “incremental effort,” but it has activities that can result in NAVSEA hires in the near term (e.g. graduate fellowships) and not just ten years out. Navy leadership will be more interested in this approach because it is known to want results in the near term and will look for progress each year in order to sustain the needed funding. In addition, NAVSEA should consider enunciating how resources will be divided among these three phases and how this, in turn, will influence the scope of the activities to be undertaken during each phase. 3. NAVSEA should work more with other Navy programs and other services to identify lessons learned in order to improve the chances that its activities will be successful and will not needlessly duplicate other efforts. NAVSEA already has some programs in place, as noted in the draft memorandum. Additionally, it participates in programs with other parts of the Navy. Examples include the joint NAVSEA/ONR National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering (NNRNE) program8 and the SeaPerch program9, the latter of which provides hands-on underwater robotics experiences for K-12 students and has been largely supported by NAVSEA and ONR.10 Similarly, the Human Powered Submarine (HPS) races for high school and college students, held every other year at the NSWC- Carderock, already involve close Navy interaction. There are also existing programs in the other services (e.g., in the Army lab community), in other federal agencies and departments, and in the private sector that could be mined for lessons learned. It may be possible to link to some of these programs as well. The committee had some concern that NAVSEA work to build efficiencies across the DOD. Of course, it, may implement an idea done elsewhere, if its target population is not being reached. NAVSEA might want to begin to think now about how its programs, if proven successful, might be scaled up, as well as how they might articulate with similar efforts. For instance, it might very well be that the plant and nurture phases can be articulated with other efforts and pathways so that participants could be channeled into multiple pathways. 8 http://www.nnrne.com/Main_History.htm 9 http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/edu/seaperch/ 10 http://www.coe.drexel.edu/seaperch/overview/index.php 4 

4. NAVSEA should focus on a few initiatives. Several of the activities sound like very interesting and good ideas. For example, the Carrier, Ship and Sub Camps are excellent ideas, and we encourage moving forward soon in defining how they would operate, where they would be located, how they would be funded, etc. The camps have the potential to both impart STEM skill experience and facilitate student interaction directly with NAVSEA personnel. NAVSEA might draw lessons from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Space Camps as one successful model. Some of the activities need further development. In particular, the NAVLAB is an area where further details would be essential to understand the potential for NAVSEA to engage in this type of enterprise. Based on the information presented in the memorandum the committee questions the viability of a NAVSEA-managed laboratory at an educational institution.11 There are numerous regulatory and conflict issues which need to be addressed before this concept should be considered. Several criteria can aid NAVSEA in considering how to select from among the menu of activities outlined in the draft memorandum. First, as noted in Recommendation 1, clearly specifying the problem will facilitate a prioritization of activities. An additional step is to conduct a cost/benefit analysis on each activity. For example, in the proposal to “Expand the NAVSEA potential to fund R&D at Advancing Minority Interest in Engineering (AMIE) institutions to $500M over the next 10 years,” the objective should be rephrased to emphasize what is to be gained by such an investment. Evidence that AMIE institutions have the capacity to absorb that level of funding in an effective way or develop and put forth alternatives should also be included. A third step in prioritizing these initiatives is to ask whether similar programs already exist and whether it would be preferable to devote more resources to them or expand them. Finally, NAVSEA should elaborate on its unique value added in conducting the activities. Concerning the discussion of basic research, for example, it is not immediately clear that NAVSEA is best equipped to execute this program; it might be better served by leveraging the Navy’s existing programs through the ONR. 5. NAVSEA should concentrate its efforts where it can best leverage its existing resources and its broad geographic presence. Working with the local communities where NAVSEA has a large presence has more promise for two main reasons: 1) it would contribute to the community in which the current workforce lives, e.g. through summer work programs and the proposed camps at NAVSEA activities, and 2) the current NAVSEA workforce can volunteer (or be paid for) their time to work on the programs, e.g. the camps and K-12 outreach visits. Where NAVSEA has large installations there are employees with STEM careers (and others) who can talk to and mentor students from nearby schools. NAVSEA personnel can make visits and act as role models, thus encouraging students not just to gain STEM skills but to consider working for NAVSEA in the future. Also, programs like the Carrier, Ship and Sub Camps, that bring students to NAVSEA facilities once a month, will be better attended and vastly less expensive if the students involved live in the local area. There is a strong trend today for corporations to take on more community responsibility. 11 An alternative model would be to actively recruit educational institutions willing to send their high school or undergraduate students to conduct experiments at the Navy laboratories. 5 

Communities view large organizations such as NAVSEA like corporations, and if. NAVSEA’s activities have a substantial local involvement, they can be “sold” as asserting strong community responsibility. Current NAVSEA employees will also find it rewarding to see their community benefit from such programs. Overall, NAVSEA has a wonderful opportunity to connect to and contribute to local communities through some of its initiatives. 6. NAVSEA should expand the scholarship component. The committee thought very highly of the scholarship component of the initiatives. NAVSEA should consider sponsoring more than 80 undergraduate and graduate scholarships over 10 years. The awards should be competitive. At least some fellowships and scholarships should be targeted towards women and underrepresented minorities; all should be targeted to U.S. citizens. Finally, fellowships and scholarships should include an internship at a NAVSEA facility,12 which can be an additional way to connect to the local community. Internships need to be carefully managed. Interns need to be given challenging assignments consistent with their level of education, lest they lose interest. The memorandum mentions a number of existing exchange and intern programs, including the Undergraduate Training Assistance Program (UTAP), the Naval Research Enterprise Intern Program (NREIP), and the Undersea Research Scholar Program. Additional programs are the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships program, which gave over 60 ONR sponsored awards in 200713, the Science and Engineering Apprentice Program (SEAP) funding eight-week internships for high school students at a handful of DOD laboratories (including six Naval Surface or Undersea Warfare Centers)14, SMART fellowships15, the ONR Summer Faculty Leave/Sabbatical Leave program16, and the HBCU Future Engineering Faculty Fellowship Program,17 and the Krell fellowships at the Department of Energy (DOE), which require internship work at a DOE laboratory and include annual conferences for awardees.18 In addition, the Navy itself has several internship/fellowship programs targeting minorities, high school, college, and graduate students, and faculty. NAVSEA should carefully consider whether to create new internship programs rather than expand existing ones. In either case, it can draw lessons from existing programs in the Navy as well as other external programs. 7. NAVSEA should broaden its diversity focus to include women and Hispanics. The committee is in agreement with NAVSEA’s view that a diverse workforce is important to its future, and that it should focus its efforts where it has the best chance of finding its future workforce. NAVSEA’s current work with HBCUs is to be complemented; these programs seem to be quite effective. At the same time, it is very good to build upon organizations and programs that have a proven track record, and NAVSEA could and should go further. While the report makes a 12 Given the high cost of education, paid internships are preferred. 13 https://www.asee.org/ndseg/2007awardees.cfm 14 http://www.asee.org/seap/index.cfm 15 http://www.asee.org/fellowships/smart/Navy-Labs.cfm 16 http://www.asee.org/summer/ 17 http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/3t/corporate/hbec.asp 18 http://www2.krellinst.org/csgf/index.shtml 6 

reference to the potential of women and Hispanics for its future workforce, there is an opportunity for NAVSEA to directly address this very important segment. Both of these populations represent a huge potential pool for the STEM workforce. While the memorandum discusses a very broad program, the plan of execution seems very narrowly focused on a small part of the potential pool with its emphasis on the role of HBCUs. Diversity is an important goal for the U. S. Navy.19 The challenge facing the Navy is that the demographics of the student population and the future naval workforce are changing. On the one hand, the proportion of underrepresented minorities and women in the population is growing, as are their numbers in higher education. A second challenge facing the Navy is the rise in the number of foreign students seeking education in science and engineering and a reduction in the number of U.S. students in some fields in higher education. The Navy needs people who can gain security clearances—usually U.S. citizens. Underutilized sources of U.S. citizens are women (half or more of the population) and minorities, including Hispanics (fast becoming a dominant segment of the population), all of whom have low representation in STEM careers. Successfully reaching out to all these potential workers will require including, but going beyond, the HBCUs. There are 104 HBCU institutions in the U.S. with 11 (soon to be 13) that have ABET20 accredited engineering programs and are therefore eligible for membership in the Advancing Minorities Interest in Engineering (AMIE) program. The 11 AMIE schools, representing about three percent of all engineering schools in the country, enroll and graduate between 25 percent and 30 percent of all African Americans who receive baccalaureate degrees in engineering each year, and have begun to award a growing number of the graduate degrees awarded annually to this population. NAVSEA has appropriately elected to pilot its program where there is a critical mass of both students and programs. By the same token, there are minority students at other institutions that NAVSEA could also target. NAVSEA could also encourage university-affiliated research centers (UARCs) to do more partnering with minority serving institutions and work with professional societies that focus on women (e.g., Society for Women in Engineering) or minorities (e.g., the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering) to disseminate information about NAVSEA opportunities and programs. 8. In the K-12 area, NAVSEA should do further research on how to engage effectively in this important but very broad arena. The NAVSEA authors are clearly and correctly concerned about middle and high school connections. Generating interest in STEM in K-12 education is important for the nation. The memorandum focuses on breadth, mentioning many good ideas. NAVSEA should first and foremost assess the return on investment from focusing resources on K-12 education. Many current middle or high school students will not end up working at NAVSEA. Second, should NAVSEA wish to pursue activities in this realm, it is encouraged to design one or perhaps two, focused, targeted initiatives aimed at middle and high schools, that include a component to conduct research on their effectiveness. 19 “CNO: Diversity a Leadership Issue.” Meridian, Fall/Winter 2005, p. 3. 20 Formally known as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. 7 

In so doing, it will be important to have a clear understanding of the context of K-12 schools and professional development. There are many ways to influence curriculum development and reform, but they require a long-term investment in collaborative efforts between scientists, mathematicians, curriculum developers, learning theorists, and teachers. Such development requires pilot and field testing of new curricula, and substantial revision of curricula based on feedback. Concerning teacher development, there are a wide range of professional development opportunities offered for teachers. Teachers tend to select opportunities in their particular area of interest. If NAVSEA wants to reach large numbers of teachers, then a strategy that works through a state or school district is more likely to succeed. High quality professional development includes multiple components: long-term opportunities to experiment with ideas in classrooms and reflect on those experiences; materials that are aligned with standards and assessments; early and steady “buy in” by teachers; materials focused on student learning of specific content; grounding in research and clinical knowledge of teaching and learning; facilitated collaboration among teachers both within and across schools; use of existing teacher expertise to plan activities and cultivate leaders: and mechanisms for garnering support from principals. Such programs focus on good practices and provide teachers with active learning opportunities, to build teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills. Finally, they are intensive, sustained over time to allow for integration of new knowledge into practice, and include follow-up support.21 Recognizing this complexity, NAVSEA should work with organizations that are knowledgeable about designing effective professional development programs so that its efforts to encourage teachers to incorporate principles, examples, etc. of interest to NAVSEA are most effective. Any work at the K-12 level requires considerable knowledge of the current policy environment. NAVSEA might consider establishing one or two partnerships with school districts to build collaborative curriculum and professional development projects using NAVSEA expertise and infrastructure, and NAVSEA should encourage its employees to work with those young people (leave time given). FIRST is an example of a program that might be a helpful model,22 along with examples in the DOD and private sector programs such as Project Lead the Way.23 21 I.R. Weiss, & Pasley, J. D. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvement through teacher professional development: Insights from the local systemic change initiative. Research report of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (R8-44). Philadelphia: CPRE. 22 For a description of the FIRST program, see: http://www.usfirst.org/who/default.aspx?id=34. 23 http://www.pltw.org/index.cfm 8