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.
INTRODUCTION Beginning in the 1950's, several groups of scientists and mathematicians set out to achieve major improvements in the teaching of science and mathematics in the nation's schools. Congress responded quickly and generously by providing finan- cial support for the National Science Foundation's Course Content Improvement Program, and for hundreds of institutes to enhance the knowledge and teaching effectiveness of thou- sands of teachers. These cooperative efforts produced a rich variety of carefully prepared and well proven materials for teaching science^ at all ages from kindergarten through grade 12. All over the country some teachers, particularly at the high school level, are making good use of at least parts of these materials and some of the innovations have been imitated in texts prepared under more traditional arrangements. Some teachers are helping their students learn how to ask ques- tions and search for answers instead of simply relying on what the textbook says. And many teachers are better trained than they would have been without the benefit of attendance at a National Science Foundation institute for teachers. In short, the teaching of science in grades K-12 is on a higher plane than it was when the Course Content Improvement Program started. Yet there has also been considerable slippage. Many of the innovative teaching programs are being used less widely than they were. Some of their ideas and techniques have been watered down as they have been transplanted into new settings and adapted by new authors. Science is not alone in having difficulties; the whole educational system is in trouble. The inability of many students to read and write as well as expected is a frequent complaint at all school levels from the middle grades to college. Criticisms of the schools and of some educational innovations have induced a defensive reaction that encourages a "back to the basics" emphasis on the three R's and allots correspondingly less attention to science. Tax revolt, flight of some students to the suburbs or to private schools, and declining enrollments have restricted the funds that might have been used to overcome some of these difficulties. Unless the context or wording indicates a narrower meaning, soienoe is used in this report, as it is in many reports of the National Science Foundation, to include mathematics, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.
Aware of these troubles and aware also of the declining usage of the innovative teaching programs that had been developed under its auspices, the National Science Foundation commissioned three studies of the status of teaching of mathe- matics and the natural and social sciences in American schools. The Research Triangle Institute of North Carolina conducted a national survey of school administrators and teachers. The Ohio State University, with help from the Social Science Education Consortium of Boulder, Colorado, searched and summarized the literature on the teaching of mathematics, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. The University of Illinois carried out case studies of 11 selected and widely distributed high schools and the lower schools from which each drew its students. All three of these studies were expected to result in status reports; their authors were not invited to make suggestions for improvement or change. Following receipt of these three studies, the National Science Foundation invited the National Academy of Sciences "to submit a proposal outlining an approach to summarizing relevant findings (of the three studies) and developing needs statements from the point of view of the membership". Simul- taneously, similar requests were addressed to seven other organizations that were expected to view the status of the teaching of science and mathematics from the points of view of their constituencies. Judged on the basis of the Panel members' other knowl- edge about American schools, these reports provide a clear and representative picture of the current status of pre- college education in science and mathematics. The statistical survey conducted by the Research Triangle Institute yielded useful information from a representative sample of teachers, principals, and curriculum supervisors. The Panel found the information regarding course offerings, enrollments, and current usage of federally-funded curriculum materials to be the most valuable. It is unfortunate, how- ever, that this survey did not provide statistical informa- tion that was more relevant to some of the serious questions raised by the NSF case studies. The literature reviews seemed to be an adequate and fair review of much of the existing literature concerning educa- tional practices and needs in science, mathematics, and social studies. For the Panel's purposes, however, these literature reviews were less useful than the other two studies. The NSF case studies, like all such studies, concentrated on an in-depth analysis of some particular school settings.
There is no way of telling how representative the eleven school districts selected are, but the case study approach did allow the investigators to present detailed descriptions of a series of specific problems that are certainly not un- common in many other American schools. The three studies will be referred to so often in this report they need a standard form of reference. When all three are meant, they will be called the three NSF studies. The national survey conducted by the Research Triangle Institute will be called "the NSF statistical survey" and will be cited as (Weiss, 1978). The literature search was in three volumes. When referred to separately, they will be identified and cited as follows: "the science education literature review" (Helgeson, Blosser, and Howe, 1977); "the mathematics education literature review" (Suydam and Osborne, 1977); and "the social science education literature review" (Wiley and Race, 1977). When all three volumes are meant, the collective reference will be to the "NSF literature review". The case studies and their analyses will be referred to as "the NSF case studies" and will be cited as (Stake and Easley, 1978). Responsibility for reviewing these three studies and preparing this report was assigned to the National Research Council's Commission on Human Resources, which appointed an ad hoc Panel on School Science for the purpose. Members of the panel were: Leallyn B. Clapp, Department of Chemistry, Brown University Johns W. Hopkins, III, Department of Biology, Washington University *Grace M. Hopper, Captain, United States Navy *Gordon Millar, Vice President Engineering, Deere and Co. John A. Moore, Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside David Page, Departments of Education and Mathematics, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle, Chicago Captain Hopper and Dr. Millar did not attend either meeting of the Panel. Dr. Colin Hudson of Deere and Company attended both meetings as an observer and made valuable suggestions.
James Perkins, Department of Chemistry, Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi Gerard Piel, Publisher, Scientific American Sylvia D. Roberts, The Spence School, New York City David Z. Robinson, Carnegie Corporation of New York John G. Truxal, College of Engineering and Applied Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook Dael Wolfle (Chairman), Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington Jerrold R. Zacharias, Education Development Center, Newton, Massachusetts Douglas Lapp, Science Specialist for the Fairfax County (Virginia) School System, served as consultant to the Panel. The first three chapters following this introduction were written by Dr. Douglas Lapp. They review the three NSF studies and on a number of points compare the findings of those studies with information from other sources. These chapters analyze the data and observations provided by the three NSF studies to answer the following questions: (1) What emphasis do science, mathematics, and social studies receive in the curriculum of the elementary schools? (2) What constitutes the curriculum in science, mathematics, and social studies in the nation's secondary schools? (3) What factors currently appear to be adversely affecting the quality of pre-college instruction in science, mathematics, and social studies? The remainder of the report is the work of the Panel members. Its recommendations are based upon the findings of the three studies, other reports reviewed by the Panel, and the collective experience of the Panel members.
