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.
APPENDIX I Funding of Professional Development This appendix presents information on the funding of professional-develop- ment programs. Programs cannot be successful unless they are adequately funded. The federal government is redefining how it categorizes the education programs that it supports, and recent data were not available. However, the issue of fund- ing is too important to neglect so the committee has included the information available to it at the time of publication in this appendix rather than as part of the main report. The recommendations at the end of the appendix are important for the advancement of professional-development programs. Science-based professional-development activities are funded by a variety of federal, state, local, and private sources. The increase in the number of programs over the last decade suggests a response to a perceived need for professional- development activities. The primary sources of funds are federal agencies, state departments of education (including flowthrough funds from national programs), national and local private foundations, industry, and professional organizations. Because programs and funding sources change constantly, we describe here only major sources of funding, and the descriptions might not be current. FEDERAL SOURCES The primary sources of federal funding for professional-development activi- ties are the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Education, but a few other federal agencies have some education activities at the K-12 level. The FY 1993 appropriation for professional development (called teacher enhancement) was about $93 million through NSF's Directorate for Education 228
FUNDING OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 229 and Human Resources, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Educa- tion. The FY 1994 request for teacher enhancement was $106.5 million (CRS, 1993~. NSF awards most of its teacher-enhancement grants to principal investi- gators in colleges and universities through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. Some funds are also granted to private organizations and professional societies for programs that directly benefit teachers. The Department of Education, through the Dwight D. Eisenhower Profes- sional Development Program (formerly the Mathematics and Science Education Program), supports professional development of teachers. The Eisenhower pro- gram has two components. The state component awards funds to state education agencies, which then apportion funds to local education agencies through a for- mula-grants program that considers both overall school-age population and state shares of Chapter 1 basic grants. (The Chapter 1 program provides aid to local education agencies for the education of disadvantaged children). The state com- ponent is designed to provide support of elementary- and secondary-school teach- ers for training and retraining only in the sciences and mathematics. Funds are to be used primarily for teachers' professional-development activities. Some Eisenhower funds are also used to enable teachers to attend national or regional meetings of professional teachers organizations (NSTA Reports, 1993; SRI, 1990~. Some state organizations use Eisenhower funds to provide opportunities for staff-development presentations by teachers. The national component sup- ports such national- or regional-level projects as the National Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Materials and regional math- ematics and science education consortia. The FY 1993 appropriation for the whole Eisenhower program was $275 million; the appropriation for the state component was $246 million. The Eisenhower program was reauthorized in October 1994 as part of the General Education Provisions Act and its Title II, Improving Teaching and Learning. A new Part A of Title II authorizes the Dwight D. Eisenhower Profes- sional Development Program to support professional development of elemen- tary- and secondary-school teachers in core academic subjects. It replaces the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act programs. De- spite the change in name and the inclusion of other fields, the new program is designed to place emphasis on professional-development programs at the state level in science and mathematics; 94% of the funds are directed toward science and mathematics. Most other provisions of the previous Eisenhower program appear to remain in force, including support of the clearinghouse. Several agencies have designed programs that correspond to their own scien- tific missions. The Department of Energy has a program that pays a stipend to selected teachers to work in national laboratories during the summer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded nearly $6 million in grants in FY 1991 in its Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) program, whose goal was "to link scientists with creative educators to produce projects that foster
230 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS excitement about the health sciences in young people and the public." For ex- ample, in Seattle, a SEPA grant has linked Group Health Hospital, the University of Washington Nursing School, and the Pacific Science Center to create a multi- faceted professional-development program. For middle-school teachers and stu- dents, the Brain Power van has hands-on activities that accompany a student- centered school-assembly program. STATE AND LOCAL SOURCES Most funds for science and mathematics education at the state and local levels consist of flowthrough funds from federal agencies. Most of the flow- through funding used for professional-development activities comes from the Department of Education's Eisenhower funds. Those funds flow through state education agencies for elementary and secondary education and are distributed to local education agencies, to state demonstration and exemplary projects, or to state agencies for higher education for cooperative projects or competitive grants to institutions of higher education. Most local funds for science and mathematics education also come from federal formula-grant programs, primarily the Department of Education's Eisenhower state funds. In the midst of severe budgetary constraints in most local economies, science often has a low priority, as do professional-develop- ment activities for science teachers. In some areas, utility companies and some community organizations and special-interest groups offer small grants for teacher-initiated special projects. PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS Private foundations are an important source of funds for professional-devel- opment activities. In the life sciences, a major contributor in the last few years has been the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). Its Undergraduate Biological Science Education Program focuses on improving undergraduate life- science education through institutional grants, many of which provide an oppor- tunity for biology and other science teachers to enhance their skills. Through the outreach mechanism of the grants, several institutions have summer institutes specifically for teachers. About $65.5 million (23%) of the $290 million spent on the program in 1987-1994 was awarded to expand relationships between higher education and precollege institutions with an emphasis on professional develop- ment of teachers. HHMI estimates that in 1988-1994, about 11,500 elementary- and secondary-school teachers participated in outreach activities sponsored by the 213 institutions that received Undergraduate Biological Science Education Program awards. Another HHMI initiative, the Precollege and Public Science Education Pro- gram, focuses more on elementary-school children and has awarded $20.8 mil
FUNDING OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 231 lion beginning in 1992, when $6.4 million was awarded to 29 science and children's museums for programs targeted primarily at K-8 children and their teachers and parents. The initiative encourages cooperation and collaboration between science-resource centers and elementary schools. In 1993, HHMI awarded $4.2 million for similar initiatives at 22 institutions, this time including aquariums, botanic gardens, and zoos. For 1994, the program provided $10.3 million to 42 biomedical research institutions for outreach programs with stu- dents and teachers in their areas. HHMI reports that in 1992-1993, as a result of the above efforts, nearly 79,000 students (65% from underrepresented minorities and 55% female), 3,500 teachers, and 31,000 family members visited museums, attended summer science camps, participated in mentor programs, or helped to conduct research. Local and regional philanthropic organizations are another potential source of funds. The Foundation Directory (Foundation Center, 1992), Sourcebook Profiles, and Taft Foundation Reporter are good places to start searching for information about local giving priorities. Those references are available in many university development offices and in libraries. INDUSTRY Industry has become more involved in professional-development activities for science teachers. Its involvement reflects a variety of motivations, including public service to the local community, concern about entry-level workforce needs, and concern about the science pipeline. Several notable examples are Pfizer (Connecticut), Hoffmann-La Roche (New Jersey), Immunex (Seattle), and Indus- try Initiatives in Science and Mathematics Education, a consortium of companies in the San Francisco Bay area. In general, their programs are designed primarily for highly selected teachers, who are given the opportunity to work in research laboratories over the summer with a competitive salary. At a small expense to the companies, teachers are offered a unique opportunity not only to conduct re- search, but also to see what types of career opportunities are available to their students. In 1992, the Council for Aid to Education published a comprehensive document that lists the range of educational activities that industry is involved in supporting. Industry has also established a number of partnerships. The Science Educa- tion Advisory Board of the University of California, Irvine, for example, com- prises representatives of 16 corporations, 16 faculty members, and six commu- nity members. The adjunct honorary board comprises 13 members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The Advisory Board has overseen the development of science-educa- tion programs and has contributed $100,000 per year to support those programs over the last 10 years. Another major partnership in the Los Angeles area is Project LEARN, which has formed a partnership among corporations, district
232 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS administrators, educators, parents, and community agencies to revitalize science and mathematics teaching in the Los Angeles School District. The partnership is funded at $10 million per year. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS During the last few years, scientific professional societies have developed activities to engage teachers in their own communities. Most events are in the form of special sessions at annual meetings. Opportunities for teachers to work in research laboratories on university campuses during the summer, however, are growing in popularity. Teachers participate in research projects, develop supple- mentary classroom activities, and foster teacher-scientist collaborations. Some of the most active life-science societies in this regard are the American Physiologi- cal Society, the American Association of Immunologists, the American Society for Cell Biology, the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. In some cases, funding comes directly from the professional organization; in others, the organization receives a grant from a federal agency, such as NSF or NIH. RECOMMENDATIONS Federal agencies and private organizations directly and indirectly provide a large proportion of funds that are used for the professional development of sci- ence teachers. Because teachers' continuing education relies so heavily on the availability of those funds, it is important that the organizations provide continu- ing support for programs that have been shown to be working. As noted in Chapter 5, lasting change must be supported in a variety of ways. The recommendations offered here are directed primarily to federal agen- cies, although many also apply to private organizations. . Increase the duration of education grants. Improving science education takes time, but the short duration of most federal and private grants, usually 3 years, inhibits institutionalization of change. Unlike conventional research grants, education grants require collaboration between people with different back- grounds, goals, and interests. In addition, the chief goal of an effective education program better learning for students is a long-term goal and cannot be effec- tively measured by testing students' knowledge immediately after the interven- tion. An average duration of 5-10 years would be more conducive to promoting effective education partnerships. This extended duration requires a well-devel- oped, rigorous plan for continuing and overall program evaluation. · Provide long-term funding for effective professional-development pro- grams. Many effective programs disappear because they fail to receive funding
FUNDING OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 233 renewals. Programs that have shown evidence of success should receive long- term funding. · Create more education "add-one" to research grants. An efficient and cost-effective way to have an immediate impact on science education would be for granting agencies to allow an education components as parts of research grants. Add-ons to grants would create opportunities for undergraduates, teach- ers, and even some high-school students to participate in laboratory or field research. They would also lead university scientists to become involved in edu- cation endeavors. An effective research laboratory where students, faculty, tech- nicians, postdoctoral fellows, and others participate in a common scientific research effort is a model of an ideal intellectual community of learners a community suggested in much of the education-reform literature. Such research- laboratory communities can be particularly supportive of members of under- represented minorities and women. · Fund professional, third-party evaluation to determine the effectiveness of major programs. As noted in Chapter 6, principal investigators often are responsible for evaluating their own programs. We recommend that a separate funding pool be created to support the evaluation of clusters of similar programs. In particular, funding should be made available to look for clear evidence that evaluate how well programs have succeeded in being used in classrooms in penetrated into the schools and school districts. · Encourage programs that focus on systemic change. When designing future program announcements, funding agencies should require program plan- ners to identify how specific projects will support, supplement, or initiate sys- temic-reform efforts at the local level. This will require that proposals will include clear evidence that program planners have researched existing science- education programs. Systemic efforts can build on the efforts of creative and innovative people who have established an atmosphere within a school or school district where change can occur. · Fund programs that eliminate barriers and stimulate cooperation between science and teacher-education departments in colleges and universities. Science and education departments at colleges and universities collaborate, or even coop- erate little, but we believe that each community can benefit from collaboration. We encourage funding agencies to develop requests for proposals that will foster closer linkages between education research and educational practice. · Provide substantial grant funds for supplies and equipment to support implementation of programs by teachers in their classrooms. Most federal educa- tion grants do not allow grantees to buy supplies and equipment. For science programs, this is particularly troublesome, in that all effective programs require some kind of hands-on activities and supplies. We recommend a change in the rules so that teachers will be able to purchase the supplies they need to conduct inquiry-based activities in their classrooms. · Link funding of curriculum development with professional development.
234 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE TEACHERS Many good science curricula already exist, especially at the elementary-school level. If curriculum development is proposed, grantors should require that those programs include a strategy for linking curriculum development with profes- sional development and demonstrate that new curricular initiatives do not dupli- cate ones that already exist. Involve both scientists and educators in the peer-review process. Peer- review panels should include scientists who are well informed about science- education reform efforts, education researchers, and outstanding teachers. · Fund activities to improve that are aimed at determining methods of evalu- ating how professional-development programs affect students' learning of sci- ence. As noted in Chapter 6, there is a paucity of evaluative methods to deter- mine the impact of programs for teachers on student achievement. More research must be conducted, and grants should be given to encourage research in this field. A granting mechanism should also be set up to direct research into evaluation of the relative effectiveness of different kinds of programs in terms of both costs and impacts on students. · Fund the establishment of an information and dissemination center for professional-development programs. NSF has funded hundreds of science-edu- cation programs over the years, but there is no central repository of programs. Descriptions of programs and their successes would be particularly useful for scientists who want to become involved in professional development of teachers and for others who want to become involved in science education. . REFERENCES (CRS) Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress. 1992. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act: Overview and Issues for Reauthorization. CRS Report for Con- gress 93-5 EPW, by J. B. Stedman. Washington, DC. Foundation Center. 1992. The Foundation Directory. New York, NY: Foundation Center. National Science Teachers Association. 1992-93. Standards for the preparation & certification of teachers of science, K-12. In NSTA Handbook. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. SRI International, Policy Studies Associates, and Inverness Research Associates. 1991. The Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program: An Enabling Resource for Reform. Technical Report. A National Study of the Education for Economic Security Act (EESA) Title II Program. Prepared by M. S. Knapp, A. A. Zucker, N. E. Adelman, and M. St. John for the Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.