News & Views item - March 2006

 

 

Funding for Pre-university Science and Mathematics Programs Takes a Hit at the US' National Science Foundation. (March 6, 2006)

    According to Science "at an elite science high school in Dallas, Texas, President George W. Bush told the assembled students that the United States "needs a workforce strong in engineering and science and physics" to remain the world's top economic power."

 

It's not clear how President Bush would classify physics or why mathematics was ignored, but that may indicate why the US' National Science Foundation's (NSF) initiatives in pre-university science education which are run by its Education and Human Resources directorate (EHR) is in serious trouble. For example the Math and Science Partnership (see graph below) has had its funding slashed from US$140 million in 2004 to just over US$47 million in 2006.

 

CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES (PHOTO); SOURCE: NSF BUDGET DOCUMENTS - from Science 24 March 2006

 

But what really seems to be at the centre of the difficulties is a turf war between the Department of Education and NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate, and a lack of leadership at EHR over the past year which may or may not be resolved with the decision by NSF Director Arden Bement to give acting EHR Director Donald Thompson the mandate to reshape the education directorate.

 

Science reports:

Researchers and policymakers are especially troubled by the cuts to NSF's pre-college programs, part of what they see as a conscious shift of resources by the Bush Administration to the Department of Education (ED). In addition to hosting the proposed math and science education initiatives in the president's 2007 budget, ED runs its own version of the MSP [Maths and Science Partnerships] program, which has grown from $12.5 million in 2002 to $182 million this year. In contrast, the MSP program at NSF would receive $47 million, down from $63 million this year and $140 million in 2004.

 

That shift in the MSP program is a mistake, say researchers and policymakers, who believe that it will deprive U.S. schools of effective, science-based improvements in teaching and learning. "Both programs should be continued because they serve different purposes," says Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a former physics professor and indefatigable campaigner for improving U.S. science education. "The ED money goes to states as block grants," he explains, and each state doles out the money as it sees f it. In contrast, he says, NSF's "are peer-reviewed grants for individual projects" that survive a rigorous competition. "It's the difference between a meritocracy and an egalitarian system," says Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC), who chairs the panel's research subcommittee. "NSF looks for the best, while ED is supposed to serve everyone."

NSF Director Bement claims all's well and it's just a matter of the Foundation's Education and Human Resources directorate determining its priorities, and he says that the new emphases will give program officers greater flexibility "to address some grand educational challenges, such as finding new ways to make science exciting for elementary school children by incorporating some of the recent advances in the field."

 

But the immediate past president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, is characteristically blunt in his assessment of problems with the Education and Human Resources directorate, "It's not enough to ask if a particular program is working; what you want is general information that would help people do it better the next time," and he concludes, "I don't think NSF evaluations have been very effective in providing anything that is useful to anybody else. Maybe NSF education programs need to be rethought."

 

According to Science:

Part of the obstacle to reforming EHR is recognizing its limitations. NSF's budget isn't big enough, nor does it have the direct links to school districts, to improve U.S. science and math education. Its strength lies in working with the academic community, and the challenge for NSF officials is to meld that expertise with the practitioner-driven focus of [the Department of Education]. "All the time I was in D.C., there has been a war between ED and NSF over jurisdiction on K-12 programs," says Alberts. "If I were Arden [Bement], I'd try to straighten out [the relationship] with ED before I went ahead [with any changes] at NSF."

From an Australian viewpoint now that we have a new Minister for Education, Science and Training and a new Chief Scientist perhaps they might consult with practicing young Australian scientists, to get their views on what to do to upgrade the teaching of maths and the sciences in Australia and how to go about it, and then work out a far reaching multi-partisan program.

 

Just a passing thought.