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.
IMPLEMENTATION Successful achievement of the objectives of our recom- mendations will require leadership, cooperation between the scientific and educational communities, and continuing govern- ment support for private initiative. Leadership Most of the leadership must come from scientists and scientific organizations. The NSF studies indicate that leadership in this effort is quite unlikely to come from any- where within the educational system. Only a small percentage of school superintendents and principals are primarily inter- ested in science or mathematics. Teachers rate them low among available sources of help on problems in teaching science and mathematics. A maze of state and federal regula- tions and requirements forces them to be systems managers rather than educational leaders. Some subject matter coordinators could serve as leaders, but the excellently qualified ones are few in number, and typically they are able to devote only about a fourth of their time to working with teachers on instructional matters. The individual teachers who are interested are geograph- ically scattered. Working on curricular reform and the development of innovative teaching materials is not generally rewarded in most school systems. Some of the specialized societies, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathe- matics or the National Science Teachers Association, can be very helpful. But the major national association, the National Education Association, has lost most of its former interest in educational matters as it has become an aggres- sive labor union. Thus, responsibility for leadership seems to lie in the hands of scientists and scientific associations. In the 1950's and 1960"s most of the scientists actively involved in the curriculum projects came from academic institutions, and that will probably be true in the future. But there is also a rich source of talent among scientists and engineers in industry, and they may be of special value as greater emphasis is given to improving science learning for all students, whether or not they are going to college or whether they are likely to follow careers in the scientific and tech- nical fields. From wherever they may come, scientists will have to take the initiative. Many are not satisfied with the present 74
performance of the nation's schools, and believe that improve- ment is possible and necessary. They now have the choice between doing the hard work necessary to provide leadership in bringing about the desired improvements or of resigning themselves to the expectation that those improvements will not occur. Institutional as well as individual leadership will be necessary, and the National Science Foundation is the most experienced and appears to be the most appropriate institu- tional leader. Other federal agencies, school systems, and private foundations should help, as they have in the past, but a leading agency is required to focus the governmental interest and support. One of the unknowns of the legislative future is whether Congress will vote to establish a new Department of Education, and if it does so, whether it will transfer the pre-college educational responsibilities of NSF to that new Department, as some of the advocates of the new Department propose. The case can be argued either way. Science education is part of education and should therefore be part of the new Department. Or, science education is part of science and should remain in close alliance with other scientific activities. If a new Department of Education is established, it may develop in such a way as to make the transfer seem desirable. But for the time being, we give more weight to two reasons for retaining responsibility in the National Science Foundation. One reason is the nature of the activities to be supported. The recommendations presented above will require individual decisions as to which proposals, among a number submitted, are most meritorious and can be supported. NSF has had much more experience in the support of individual projects selected as most meritorious by the processes of peer review than has either the Office of Education or the National Institute of Education. Indeed a substantial part of the Office of Education responsibility has been for programs in which funds are allotted by formula instead of on a selective basis. The other reason concerns the personnel involved. Scientists, who will have to lead the whole effort, already have well-established working relationships with NSF. Moreover, because the interests of scientists in education are often closely linked to their interests in research, strong continuing relationships with NSF are altogether likely. For these historical and organizational reasons, we believe that the NSF should continue to be the federal agency with major responsibility for supporting efforts to improve science education at the pre-college level. 75
Cooperation Leadership will come from scientists, but they should make greater efforts to enlist the active cooperation of the educational community than they did in the 1950's and 1960's. Specialists in education are needed and they can be of much help in getting improved programs accepted by the educational community. They can also be more directly effective in devising systems to reward teachers for using better materials and methods, and can help build into the education system the idea of a continuing effort toward improvement. New curricular materials are generally more demanding of teachers than were the textbooks that preceded them. They call for greater understanding of subject matter, and require effective use of teaching skills that are not required by simple reading and recitation. But this is not what is emphasized in most schools of education. So far the schools of education have had relatively little involvement in the course improvement effort. Individuals, particularly specialists in science education, have been valuable members of many of the project teams. And some of the institutes for teachers have been sponsored by schools or departments of education. But the education profession did not initiate the major efforts to improve education in science and mathematics, and the initiators of that effort have not done enough to enlist the continuing cooperation of that profession. Now, with clear recognition that a continuing effort is needed, the leaders of that effort should seek means of involving more effectively the deans and professors of educa- tion. In the long run,it is they who will determine whether new teachers enter their first positions reasonably well grounded in their fields and able to use teaching methods that help young students learn to think and develop rational abilities. The schools of education should inculcate the attitude that curricular improvement and the development of better materials and methods will be an expected and con- tinuing part of each teacher's professional life. Support for Private Initiative Twenty years ago, NSF clearly distinguished the educa- tional responsibilities of the federal government from those of the private sector and local government. Congress had recognized the need for federal assistance to the nation's schools, and NSF was authorized to use part of its funds for that purpose. But it would not try to control; instead, it would support "the activities of competent persons and groups in the scientific and academic communities in carrying out what those communities judge to be needed and proper. The 76
Foundation takes pains to avoid wherever possible the impli- cation of endorsing or specifying attitudes, the nature of course content, or related items which are properly the prov- ince of the educational community. The initiative must derive from the academic community" (quoted from 1959 budget state- ment, NSF, 1975, Vol. II, p. 21). In taking this posture, NSF was honoring the long and deep tradition that educational responsibility is reserved to private institutions and to state and local government. At the same time, NSF was honoring another deeply rooted American tradition, that voluntary private action is often the most effective way to accomplish major public purposes. In supporting research, NSF had already followed this course. It was accustomed to selecting the most promising proposals from among all those submitted, but it did not try to decide what problems should be tackled next or what methods should be employed. Scientists actively engaged in research were considered to be the best judges of those matters. And so it was with improvements in education; scientists and the educational specialists and teachers who were working with them were considered to be better judges than the NSF staff members of what should be taught to pre-college students and of how it should be taught. For several reasons there has been appreciable back- sliding from this position. Congress still pays tribute to the tradition of local autonomy, and in fact has reprimanded NSF when it thought some of the Foundation's implementation activities had gone too far in influencing school systems as to the curricular materials they should use. Congress itself has not tried to dictate what should be taught in the nation's schools, but it has come dangerously close in deciding some things that should not be taught. When some of the NSF- funded projects in the biological and social sciences encoun- tered criticism in Congress as being value-laden or contro- versial, NSF was seized by anxiety. Both Congress and the General Accounting Office have warned NSF that it cannot avoid being responsible for the content and conduct of cur- riculum development projects, and that it should take a more active role in determining in advance what is needed in the way of educational improvement and then seek means of respond- ing to those needs. NSF has been immensely valuable in achieving many of the improvements in science and mathematics education of the past quarter century. Other federal agencies and some pri- vate foundations have also been involved, but NSF has clearly been the primary supporter of the whole movement. In large part its success has been due to the fact that it had the confidence of the scientific community, and it, in turn, was 77
geared to provide financial support for the best ideas and proposals that were generated in that community. NSF was successful because it did not try to mastermind the whole effort and because it could pick and choose from among all the ideas emanating from the community of scientists and educators interested in the improvement of education. Much experience tells us that the support of private interest and effort is often the most effective way to achieve a public purpose. But when private initiative is supported by public funds there is strong temptation for the provider of those funds to exert more and more control. Unless that temptation is resisted, the private initiative that started the whole effort is weakened, and is likely to be squeezed out. The fact that this tendency is wrong in principle and usually inefficient in practice is likely to be forgotten by a bureaucracy that is overly responsive to criticism. Nothing useful in education can expect universal approval. The response to criticisms must not be the typical bureau- cratic remedy of stronger central control. In looking toward the implementation of the recommenda- tions made above, the tendency toward centralization and increasing national regulations should be resisted as vigor- ously and continuously as possible. The teaching resource centers we have proposed will operate in individual communi- ties, some as parts of school systems and others under other organizational sponsors. Each should be planned, organized, and managed in terms of its local resources, opportunities, and customs. Similarly, as efforts are made to improve education in mathematics â to achieve something better than the traditional emphasis on computation and better than the original versions of the new math â it is surely teachers and mathematicians in the field, not staff members in Washington, who can best decide what to try and whether what has been tried has worked as effectively as it might. What is called for is enlightened self-restraint on the part of the National Science Foundation, the Office of Manage- ment and Budget, and the Congress. All recognize the prin- ciple involved, but in day to day dealing with details staff members are always under pressure to take the "safe" course of increasing central control or adopting another national regulation. Yet principle should be made to prevail. NSF surely does not want authority over the substance of what is taught in the schools. Congress would not want that power to be held by any agency of the Executive Branch nor to arrogate it to itself. The proper role for NSF is to allocate public funds in the encouragement of the best independent initiative. Of course NSF must then see to it that those funds are non- 78
estly and competently used for the purposes intended. But decisions as to what educational improvements are most needed and how those needs can best be met are emphatically not decisions to be made by an agency of the federal government. 79
