Attendance
Members Present:
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr., Chair, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Indira Nair, Vice-Chair Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. David R. Burgess, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
Dr. Luis Echegoyen, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Dr. Marian Johnson-Thompson, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC
Dr. Beverly Karplus Hartline, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL
Dr. Robert L. Lichter, Merrimack Consultants, LLC, Atlanta, GA
Dr. Gustavo Roig, Florida International University, Miami, FL
Dr. Carol Halpert Schwartz, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY
Dr. Telle Whitney, Institute for Women and Technology, Palo Alto, CA
Dr. Thomas Windham, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Ms. Sara Young, American Indian Research Opportunities, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

Members Absent:
Dr. Lilian Shiao-Yen Wu, IBM Corporation, Somers, NY
Dr. Samuel Proctor Massie, Jr. (Retired) Organic Chemist, Laurel, MD

CEOSE Executive Liaison and Executive Secretary:
Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, Senior Advisor, Office of Integrative Activities/NSF

Non-Member Who Presented Oral or Written Statements:
Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation
Dr. Joan Burrelli, Senior Analyst in the Division of Science Resource Statistics/NSF
Dr. Linda Carlson, Division Director for Science Resource Statistics/NSF
Dr. Mary E. Clutter, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences/NSF
Mr. Floyd Des Champs, Senior Staffer/U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Mr. Ronald Fecso, Senior Analyst in the Division of Science Resource Statistics/NSF
Dr. Norman L. Fortenberry, Director of the Center for t he Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education/National Academy of Engineering
Dr. Mary J. Frase, Deputy Division Director in the Division of Science Resource Statistics/NSF
Dr. James E. Hamos, Program Director for Math and Science Partnership/ Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director of the Office of Integrative Activities/NSF
Ms. Jane Stutsman, Administrative Officer for the Education and Human Resources Directorate/NSF
Ms. Marilyn Suiter, Program Director for Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science,
Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM)
/Human Resources Development Division/Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF
Mr. John Tsapogas, Senior Analyst in the Division of Science Resource Statistics/NSF
Mr. John F. Wilkinson, Senior Staff Associate for Workforce Development/Office of the NSF Director

The winter meeting of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) was held February 20-21, 2003 at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Virginia.

Welcome and Introductions
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr., Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and welcomed the Committee members.
Introductions were made.

Action on the Meeting Minutes
The minutes of the June 20-21, 2002 meeting were reviewed and approved with the understanding that revisions would be made as identified by members.

Report of Executive Liaison/CEOSE Executive Secretary
Dr. Margaret E.M. Tolbert, Executive Liaison and Executive Secretary for CEOSE, introduced herself and provided a brief summary of her background.
Her biographical sketch is located at http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/staff/tolbert.htm. Since her appointment in September 2002 as the position of Senior Advisor, which included serving as CEOSE Executive Liaison and Executive Secretary, Dr. Tolbert has provided input to inquiries from Congress and presented a paper to the Directors of Science and Technology Centers that encouraged them to focus attention and resources on increasing participation by underrepresented groups. She has also made several other presentations and had interactions with a number of organizations in the local area that focus on minorities. Within NSF, Dr. Tolbert is engaging in dialog with the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, and other senior staff to help emphasize CEOSE issues within the NSF management structure.

Dr. Tolbert thanked Ms. Mary Pully, Mr. Christopher Deshazor, Ms. Maxine Hynson, and others who worked with her in providing support to CEOSE.

Actions on New Committee Members
Dr. Pearson welcomed the new members-Dr. Echegoyen, Dr. Hartline, Dr. Lichter, Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Whitney, and Ms. Young-to CEOSE and noted that their biographies were provided in the meeting notebooks. Dr. Samuel Proctor Massie, Jr., a new member, will not be able to participate in future CEOSE meetings.

A most informative orientation session was held for new members on February 19th at NSF. This is the first formal orientation session held for CEOSE members in its history. Several continuing members attended the session, along with new members. The speakers were as follows: Dr. Joseph Bordogna, NSF Deputy Director; Mr. Arthur A. Elkins, Counsel to the Inspector General; Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, NSF General Counsel; Dr. Donald Thompson, Director of the Human Resource Development Division/EHR/NSF; Dr. Victor Santiago, Program Officer of the Human Resource Development Division/EHR/NSF; and Dr. Mary E. Clutter, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences/NSF. Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director of the Office of Integrative Activities/NSF, joined Dr. Pearson in moderating the session.

Discussion of Committee Agenda, Future Meeting Dates, and Other Topics
Dr. Pearson reviewed the agenda, and with no objections, the meeting proceeded as planned.

The process for producing the CEOSE report was changed in the past year. For the 2002 report, CEOSE is producing a smaller document that focuses on things that can be implemented and ideas on how resources can be obtained to make them happen, rather than just on statistics on underrepresented groups. CEOSE members were sent the draft 2002 report for comments and corrections. After the completion of deliberations, the incorporation of corrections/changes, and the completion of printing, the report will be delivered to the Director of NSF. The NSF Director will send it to Congress.

CEOSE members continue to serve on NSF Directorate Advisory Committees to help ensure that relevant issues (to CEOSE) are on the agenda and are addressed. Dr. Pearson advised that a primary and, if possible, an alternate person should be assigned to each NSF advisory committee. Assignments are provided on page 7 of this summary.

Dr. Pearson suggested that members work through ad hoc subcommittees to complete some of the work of CEOSE. Ad hoc subcommittee members can communicate with each other via e-mail and telephone if necessary. This would help make CEOSE meeting time more efficient and productive. Future CEOSE meeting dates are presented on page 16 of this report.

Math and Science Partnership Program
Dr. James E. Hamos, Program Director, EHR/NSF, provided an overview of the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program. It is a cross-directorate program that was originally conceived as part of the President's "No Child Left Behind" initiative. Dr. Hamos reviewed the framework of the partnership involving NSF and the U.S. Department of Education and what was accomplished in the first year.

The MSP program seeks to improve K-12 student achievement through a sharp focus on three inter-related issues: 1) student achievement, 2) teacher workforce, and 3) evidence-based outcomes. The distinctive features of the program include an emphasis on the role of partnerships, the need to engage disciplinary faculty, a requirement to commit to institutional change, and the creation of a collaborative learning laboratory.

The MSP competitions are looking for innovative programs that will impact student achievement and the teacher workforce. Dr. Hamos reviewed the MSP competitions for FY2002 and FY2003. Partnership projects fall into two major areas: 1) Comprehensive projects that include partnerships in math and science covering the entire K-12 spectrum, and 2) Targeted projects which focus on one small piece, i.e. middle school Algebra. Some of these projects are co-funded with the U.S. Department of Education. There is an effort to establish a program for MSP Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA), and discussions are underway for establishing Teacher Institutes for the 21st century with a math and science focus.

In FY2002, 24 awards were made. Dr. Hamos reviewed the elements in the successful proposals. Data on the geographic distribution of the FY2002 awards and institutions awarded were provided. NSF received $160 million in funding, and the U.S. Department of Education received $12.5 million in funding for the program.

The FY2003 Comprehensive and Targeted Projects solicitation is more focused with total funding of approximately $127.5 million for NSF projects. At the time of the CEOSE meeting, the U.S. Department of Education FY2003 appropriation for MSP was unclear. NSF expects to fund up to ten comprehensive and 30 targeted projects from its appropriation. Panels will be reviewing the 270 proposals received in the next few weeks. Proposals in response to the RETA solicitation are due in May 2003. Dr. Hamos defined what is meant by evidence-based design and outcomes and provided more details on the MSP Learning Network. Additional information can be found on the MSP web site at https://www.ehr.nsf.gov/msp.

In the discussion that followed, Dr. Hamos shared examples of a few innovative projects. He also clarified that many of these programs are still in the early stages. The MSP program hopes, over time, to increase industry participation. Several CEOSE members applauded the program as innovative and well funded. CEOSE members would like to be informed about MSP workshops being held around the country to stimulate interest. CEOSE was also pleased to hear that the panels that reviewed proposals were diverse (as were the awardees) by discipline, gender, race, and research communities. More could be done in increasing the diversity of the teacher workforce.

The group thanked Dr. Hamos for his presentation.

Discussion of Challenges Associated with Increasing the Number of STEM Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Persons from Underrepresented Groups
Dr. Thomas Windham provided a presentation on "Striving Toward Equity: A Work in Progress" to address the challenge posed to CEOSE a year ago of increasing the number of underrepresented minorities receiving PhDs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) by 100 per year. His approach to the question was to develop several scenarios that indicated what number of PhDs would need to be earned in order for there to be parity with whites.

Data were presented on PhD Degrees Awarded to Underrepresented Minorities showing an increase from 1991 to 1998 with a modest decrease from 1998 to 2001. Several other charts were displayed illustrating lower percentages of underrepresented minorities earning PhDs, graduate school enrollments and bachelor's degrees in Natural Science and Engineering. The numbers were then compared to the U.S. population by race/ethnicity for 25-29 year olds. For every 100 natural science and engineering Bachelor's Degrees awarded to members of an underrepresented minority (URM) group, fewer than three (2.8) PhDs are awarded. For every 100 Bachelor's Degrees awarded to members of the United States white population, six PhDs are awarded. The ratio of PhD recipients to Bachelor's Degree recipients for each year has remained almost constant at 3% for URM populations during the ten-year period, 1991 -2000, despite the fact that the total number of PhDs awarded to URMs has certainly been increasing. This increase is a reflection of the increasing number of URM Bachelor's Degree recipients. Barriers continue to exist that prevent URMs from earning PhD Degrees at a rate/ratio comparable to their white counterparts.

In looking at several "what if" scenarios, Dr. Windham showed that if 100 additional underrepresented minorities received STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) PhDs each year and the number of whites receiving PhDs remains constant, the percentage goes up to 4.1% from 2.8%. Though a modest gain, parity would not be achieved anytime soon. To reach parity in ten years, the United States would need to produce 175 additional underrepresented minority PhDs per year over the next ten years for a percent increase of 12%. To achieve parity in 15 years, 143 additional PhDs per year are needed, and to achieve it in 20 years, 130 additional PhDs per year will have to be produced. If everything remains constant (as far as population growth) and only 100 additional PhDs are produced each year, parity would be achieved in 2053. However, the reality is that the U.S. population is expected to have a large increase in the Hispanic population from 2001 to 2030.

• Dr. Windham concluded by posing the questions: What is the desired goal? Is it parity, and what number of PhDs are we seeking? He noted that he is optimistic that we can produce 175 additional underrepresented minorities with PhDs over the next several years, if not in the next year, with strong programs like the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Program, Interdisciplinary Graduate Education in Research Training (IGERT), and Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP). Dr. Roig commented on his involvement in the LSAMP and the need for the motivation of minority students to complete STEM degree work, strategies needed to open doors for them to complete their education, and the subsequent tracking of those students. Dr. Mary E. Clutter commented on efforts in the Biological Sciences to enhance the participation of minorities in STEM programs. It was suggested that Dr. Jennings be invited to a future CEOSE meeting to make a presentation on Criterion 2 for Interdisciplinary Graduate Education in Research Training (IGERT) grants.

The committee agreed that the objective should be defined first and then the numbers established based on that objective. A report on the programs/data would also be helpful. The LSAMP Program is producing over 22,000 underrepresented minorities with Bachelor's Degrees per year. This may be a tremendous avenue to help America. Another point raised was that programs like these focus on the "push" end - getting students into degree programs - but what about programs to address where they are going to go once they have completed their degree work? Are they being hired by Research 1 Institutions? The tracking of these program participants is becoming increasingly more important and necessary.

Dr. Windham stated that copies of slides used in his presentation would be made available upon request.

The committee thanked Dr. Windham for his presentation.

Lack of Attractive S&E; Career Opportunities: Another Barrier to Minority Participation
Dr. Marian Johnson-Thompson shared with committee members an article from the January 10, 2003 edition of Issues in Science and Technology entitled "Attracting the Best and the Brightest". Previously, CEOSE members had discussed some of the barriers to underrepresented groups obtaining PhDs or going into research careers. The article supported one aspect of the earlier discussion - that a career as a research scientist is not very attractive compared to other career alternatives.

Dr. Johnson-Thompson highlighted several points in the article about why a scientific research career is unattractive to include: 1) long apprenticeship time (7-8 years instead of 4), 2) inadequate compensation, and 3) the uncertain prospect for autonomous research positions (in reality there is a lack of prospect for a permanent job). Dr. Johnson-Thompson also added the impact on family. Parents share responsibilities and focus more on family today compared to years ago. For minorities, there is also an observed lack of mentorship to include support and encouragement to publish their research results. Dr. Johnson-Thompson said often in minority families, there is less "family wealth" to support the student through a six- to eight-year PhD process. It is difficult to support the family and the student, given the lack of or low compensation offered to most graduate students.

The article that was distributed contains information on the lack of growth for permanent jobs (excluding the life sciences). In two studies conducted by the authors, the resulting data indicate that graduates in science and engineering obtained Master's degrees in Business Administration (MBAs) and other degree fields instead of staying in science and engineering. The number of students with no plans to enter graduate programs has more than doubled. In support of this statement, Dr. Johnson-Thompson shared specific data from the article.

CEOSE members discussed several issues pertinent to the report by Dr. Johnson-Thompson:

• Sometimes the opportunities for advancement are not facilitated by a graduate-level scientific degree. For example, some engineers may advance more in their careers with an MBA instead of a graduate degree in Engineering. This allows them to move into management positions. This may have some positive impact as management with a background in science or engineering is providing the guiding direction for technology.
• The leadership of the scientific workforce is also an important discussion topic. In other areas as well (i.e., industry, business, and business schools), the actual representation of underrepresented minorities at senior levels is also disproportionate compared to the rest of the population.
• Issues are different in the different disciplines of science, engineering, and mathematics. Identifying these differences might help bring some cohesiveness.
• It is important to think of multiple paths to a career - not all paths will lead to academics. It was suggested that CEOSE members help identify opportunities for young people so that they will have the choices/foundation to make decisions about their careers. The desire is to see increased diversity for people in positions of research leadership, academia, and other sectors of society.
• Dr. Burgess agreed to share information from a AAAS report that documents the lack of publications by minorities obtaining PhDs. Minority graduate students tend to publish less and present at meetings less. *
• What can be done to provide incentives to mentors to help ensure that their students publish their research results and make presentations at scientific and engineering meetings? The AGEP program may be one avenue through which NSF can leverage this issue and establish criteria/measurements for the success of the program to include publications.*
• Networking is an important factor in finding people to hire in academia. One suggestion was to establish a database that would contain information on underrepresented minorities of all disciplines and levels. This would help to remove the excuse-"we can't find them"-when it comes to finding potential candidates for academic positions. Dr. Pearson noted that the University of South Carolina, Council of Graduate Schools and ETS are working on a portal for such a database.

Discussion of Report for Year 2002 and Development of Plans for the Year 2004 Report
Mr. John Wilkinson of the Office of the NSF Director distributed a draft of the CEOSE Report for the Year 2002. Upon completion, this report will be sent to the NSF Director for submission to Congress and members of committees on Capitol Hill. Also, it will be published on the NSF Website.

CEOSE members discussed other groups and agencies (e.g., federal agencies, and leaders in the scientific and professional societies) that should receive the report. They also discussed ways to disseminate the report to include:

• Publication of articles on the report as feature stories in professional society newsletters and/or journals,
• Presentations of the report by television and radio broadcasters and scientific writers,
• Discussion of the report at an NSF press conference,
• Presentations at scientific and engineering conferences (e.g., AAAS meetings), and
• Presentation at a Congressional Hearing for Congressional persons and key staff members on Capitol Hill.
Suggestions for the FY2004 report included:
• Solicit comments from professional societies to help improve the FY2004 report;
• Complete writing assignments earlier, and lengthen the report development process;
• Following each CEOSE meeting, prepare notes for inclusion in the report;
• Decide on what the contents of the report are to be, and arrange activities accordingly;
• Identify items from prior meeting discussions/reports, and come to resolution on them.

Mr. Wilkinson provided the last CEOSE report's distribution list. Since CEOSE members would like to have a wider distribution of the report, Mr. Wilkinson will talk to the NSF public relations department officials about avenues to use for better distribution. CEOSE members will review the list provided by Mr. Wilkinson and make recommendations to add (or delete) organizations for the distribution of the report. They will include names/contacts for other organizations, as well.

Committee members thanked Mr. Wilkinson for working with them on the report and for serving as the Interim Executive Secretary. Dr. Pearson presented him with a Certificate of Appreciation, which had been signed by Dr. Rita R. Colwell, NSF Director.

Preparation for Discussion with Congressional Staff
At the request of Dr. Pearson, Dr. Tolbert provided background information on Mr. Floyd Des Champs, Senior Staffer on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He is one of the key persons to review CEOSE reports. Mr. Des Champs, who has a mechanical engineering degree has served on Capitol Hill for approximately seven years and has experience gained in the engineering workforce, can provide insight into Congressional concerns and share comments on issues relevant to CEOSE. Dr. Tolbert advised that Mr. Des Champs was invited to hold an informal discussion with CEOSE members and that he would first make a few brief remarks and then respond to questions. She advised the committee that Mr. Des Champs has agreed to have the discussion on February 21st.

NSF has a well-organized process for interactions with Congressional persons. It was noted that NSF also has a program officer serving as a staff liaison to Rep. Bob Etheridge (Democrat - North Carolina; Committees: Science Committee, Committee on Homeland Security, and Agriculture Committee). In terms of interacting with Congressional persons, an NSF public relations officer briefs NSF staff members prior to their meetings with Congressional staff. NSF staff members keep the public relations officers apprised of developments/interactions relative to their Congressional meetings.

CEOSE members noted that it would be helpful to have a small set of overheads or a PowerPoint file of highlights in the 2002 CEOSE report to be used for making presentations to other committees and to Congressional staff. If not in the hard copy report, the materials should also mention the "untapped pool" of underrepresented groups and persons with disabilities-an important aspect of our homeland security in ensuring we have a strong group of U.S. citizens in the scientific workforce.

Reports from CEOSE Liaisons to Directorate Advisory Committees
Each CEOSE member who serves as a liaison to an NSF advisory committee was asked to provide a brief report on CEOSE related issues that resulted from each meeting. Report summaries follow.

Dr. Roig - Directorate for Engineering Advisory Committee (ENG AC): The ENG AC met October 17-18, 2002. ENG is conducting a search for a new Assistant Director. Also, during the ENG AC meeting, a discussion pertinent to the importance and enforcement of Criterion 2 was held. The Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program within ENG is being modified with an expanded focus, and ENG is partnering with other directorates to increase the "pipeline".

Dr. Windham - Directorate for Geosciences Advisory Committee (GEO AC): The GEO AC met November 6-8, 2002. Dr. Leinen, the Assistant Director for GEO, talked about Criterion 2 and made a general comment that much more attention is now being paid to Criterion 2 and a separate page on this is now required. In findings presented from the Committee of Visitors report, the response by proposers and reviewers to Criterion 2 was mixed. Within the GEO AC discussions, there is a focus on education and outreach and a subcommittee has been formed that is now chaired by Dr. Windham. The current focus is on science education at the K-12 level with an emphasis on middle schools. Dr. Windham noted that he will try to steer the conversation more towards issues of diversity and hopes to have an update at the next meeting.

Dr. Nair - Directorate for Education and Human Resources Advisory Committee (EHR AC): The EHR AC met November 6-7, 2002. Dr. Nair said that the highlight of the EHR AC meeting was a presentation on math education by Dr. Deborah Ball. STEM proposals now require the project summary to address education and outreach, and proposals are returned if they do not. During the meeting, EHR held a joint session with MPS to help change the view of EHR as a "supplement" to other grants, but instead as a partner with other directorates. EHR intends to do this with other directorates as well. The EHR AC also discussed the need for a built-in assessment process and more integrated research and education. They also concluded that general education for science and technology literacy ought to be a more central concern to the research directorates. Dr. Nair indicated that she will request an opportunity to present the data from Dr. Windham's CEOSE presentation at a future EHR meeting.

Dr. Pearson - Directorate for Mathematics and Physical Sciences Advisory Committee (MPS AC):

The MPS AC met November 6-8, 2002. MPS is also searching for a new Assistant Director. Dr. Pearson summarized the discussions of the meeting. MPS has a subgroup to work on educational issues. This subgroup meets prior to MPS AC meetings. The MPS directorate is very diverse as far as disciplines and has a number of programs that are trying to attract underrepresented groups. They work closely with minority serving institutions, particularly in physics.

Persons with disabilities were not particularly addressed. The COV reports have all addressed Criterion 2. Initially it was not being addressed very well. In the past year and a half, it is being addressed more fully. MPS is doing outreach to the scientific community to explain how Criterion 2 can be addressed.

Dr. Johnson-Thompson - Directorate for Biological Sciences Advisory Committee (BIO AC): The BIO AC met November 7-8, 2002. Dr. Johnson-Thompson noted that there were several topics of interest to CEOSE. Dr. James Collins had an agenda item on the changing environment at universities as it related to diversity, funding and Criterion 2. There was discussion on whether there was a need to validate investigator statements about Criterion 2 and an eventual need to quantify it for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) report. There was some discussion about attracting minorities in science and the time it takes to earn a PhD. There was a presentation on a program called the "Year of Undergraduate Research" (YOUR Biology), which funds multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research for a year. The subsequent discussion led to how this could interest inner city youth to connect their environment and biology. It could also link NSF to the local communities. During the meeting, the BIO AC received copies of the draft Ten Year Agenda for Environmental Research Education. Dr. Johnson-Thompson noted that she provided comments on the draft (i.e., it did not contain any information on Tribal Colleges, although diversity was mentioned).

Appointment of CEOSE members to Directorate Advisory Committees
Dr. Pearson reviewed the list of advisory committees within NSF and requested volunteers to serve as CEOSE liaisons. The liaisons are members of the advisory committees and can participate in committee discussions and serve on subcommittees. Their primary role is to help ensure that issues of diversity are brought into the discussions and properly addressed. Alternates should be identified if a member is unable to attend an advisory committee meeting.

The following assignments were made:
• BIO - Dr. David Burgess
• CISE - Dr. Telle Whitney
• EHR - Ms. Sara Young
• ENG - Dr. Lilian Wu (following Dr. Roig's term if she agrees)
• ERE - Dr. Robert Lichter
• GEO - Dr. Thomas Windham
• MPS - Dr. Luis Echegoyen (following Dr. Pearson's term)
• OPP (Office of Polar Programs) - Dr. Beverly Hartline
• SBE - Dr. Carol Schwartz

A suggestion was made to bring the chairs of the various advisory committees together for a micro-symposium on increasing diversity and helping to keep it an issue of concern. Also, the question was asked if a CEOSE member should serve as a liaison to the NSF Management Advisory Committee.

Report on the Mentoring Conference/Workshop/Initiative
CEOSE agreed last year to focus on an initiative about mentoring. Ms. Marilyn Suiter of HRD/EHR/NSF is the cognizant NSF program officer for the referenced award to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). At AAAS, the funding is under the oversight of Ms. Yolanda George. This funding is to be used for the development of a working session (workshop) to identify methods of scaling up the expertise of identified expert mentors to improve and to increase the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM professions.

Ms. Marilyn Suiter, Program Director, Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Mathematics Mentoring (PAESMEM), provided an update on the mentoring workshop since Ms. Yolanda Scott George of AAAS, was unable to attend the meeting. Although the grant award is new, some updated information on activities was provided.

The CEOSE committee indicated (6-8 months ago) a strong interest in looking at mentoring activities as a catalyst for the development of underrepresented minorities' participation in the STEM workforce. The goals of the working session are to identify methods of scaling up the expertise of identified mentors and to consider best methods for implementing such strategies. Dr. Suiter noted that this task has multiple issues for multiple audiences. The first step in the project is to establish a baseline of activities in mentoring (as apposed to research on mentoring). This research will include a bibliography of identified publications on mentoring research. The challenge is to try to come up with measurements to define mentoring more specifically and to identify success.

It is hoped that the workshop will be held in conjunction with the June CEOSE meeting in Washington, DC, even though the dates are not set. CEOSE members suggested considering a later date, perhaps in the fall, to allow more lead time in contacting participants and preparing the agenda. Approximately 30 to 50 people would be invited to participate. Various aspects of mentoring that might be addressed are: What mentoring is and how it happens; mentoring within institutions; mentoring within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics areas; and mentoring for underrepresented groups within STEM.

Ms. Suiter suggested that Drs. Pearson and Nair work with Ms. George to provide advisory input from CEOSE. Dr. Windham, Dr. Burgess and Dr. Johnson-Thompson were also suggested as key persons to provide input.

Dr. Pearson requested that CEOSE members be kept informed of the planning process and what role members can expect to play, since it will be a CEOSE associated activity. It is also important that persons with disabilities and women be included in addition to underrepresented minorities as part of the community of underrepresented populations considered. Dr. Windham agreed to meet with Ms. George and provide more details to CEOSE members on plans for the event.

Ms. Suiter suggested that CEOSE members may wish to make a list of individuals that they recommend for invitations to the mentoring event and why. Also, Dr. Lichter noted that research on mentoring conducted by Dr. James Blackwell, a sociologist who was formerly at the University of Massachusetts, is in the research literature.

Cross Boundary Activities at the National Science Foundation
Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director of Office of Integrative Activities/NSF, noted the important role that CEOSE has in making recommendations to NSF and Congress. He reviewed the core strategies and strategic goals found in the NSF Strategic Plan. Performance Plans for NSF are updated annually. Strategic Plans are updated every three to five years. CEOSE plays a role in continuing to inspect NSF to determine if the agency really values diversity and adequately address the associated issues. NSF is really struggling with issues of diversity. CEOSE has to ask the tough questions about Americans in the workforce and be proactive in obtaining the responses that assure the involvement of all Americans. Also, CEOSE should review funding dollars that NSF is spending on broadening diversity and participation and make recommendations accordingly. Note that budgetary information was presented as a part of the Orientation Session held on February 19th.

NSF wants to make sure that all programs do something and that they meet Congress's expectations. The issue of disciplinary versus interdisciplinary is important. Core research should be supported since one can't have strong interdisciplinary research without strong disciplines, but at the same time, cross boundary activities also need to be supported. NSF is looking for activities that cross research with education and cross private and applied partnerships with basic and core research. It is important to realize that CEOSE is not just an advisory body to NSF; Congress mandated it. This committee has the authority to act just like the other advisory bodies and provide recommendations to NSF on the frontier of diversity in the context of education and research. CEOSE can advise NSF on how to guide an enterprise that deals with 22,000 institutions that hold the next generation of researchers and educators.

Dr. Pitts stated that the adoption and enforcement of Criterion 2 was a specific example of programmatic changes within NSF as a result of CEOSE committee activities. Proposals that do not address both review criteria are now being returned to the proposers. This is the first time this is being enforced this strictly. CEOSE has made other significant contributions as well.

Sampling Designs for the 2003 Surveys of Scientists and Engineers and Discussion of an SRS Report
Dr. Lynda T. Carlson, Division Director, Science Resource Statistics (SRS), introduced several SRS staff members to CEOSE members. SRS is one of 14 federal statistical agencies and is responsible for data and analyses on the entire science and engineering enterprise. The Census Bureau is one of the largest providers of contract type services to other statistical agencies. Dr. Carlson noted that SRS would like to continue holding dialog with CEOSE and to provide updates on SRS activities on a periodic basis.

National Survey of Recent College Graduates: Mr. John Tsapogas, Senior Analyst/SRS/NSF, provided an update on the 2003 National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) and the sample redesign. The survey is designed to measure the flow of students coming out of universities and going into the workforce (past, current, and future educational patterns). This survey has been conducted every two years since 1974. In the current redesign, several factors influenced changes. Race, ethnicity, and gender data are important to NSF. The sample declined significantly in the 1990s, and the lack of data in these fields was of great concern to CEOSE and other S&E; policy groups. The new sample design addresses these issues.

Mr. Ronald Fecso provided a review of the changes in the 2003 NSRCG sample design. The sample size was increased to 18,000 and two health-related fields were added. The race/ethnicity groups for sampling (but not for analysis) were modified to improve efficiency: 1) Non-Hispanic white, 2) Asian (including Pacific Islanders, temporary residents, and unknown races), and 3) underrepresented minorities (Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native). The sampling minimum and maximum and over-sampling rates were modified to improve estimation. There is some controlled overlap of schools between the 2001 and 2003 surveys, and there is a larger sample of schools for 2003. The criteria for selecting the sampled institutions were reviewed and weighting was adjusted for institutions with higher minority participation and large numbers of S&E; graduates. In concluding, Mr. Fecso summarized that the 2003 design is more efficient; provides more information on graduates with degrees in health fields; improves the diversity of the sample; and provides the ability to make better estimates for more cells (by gender/by race and ethnicity, and by major degree field).

National Survey of College Graduates:
Dr. Mary J. Frase, Deputy Division Director/SRS/NSF, provided an overview of the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG) and the sample redesign for that survey. The survey methodology was reviewed also. The data from the NSCG are combined with data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients and the National Survey of Recent College Graduates into SESTAT. In the 1990s, SESTAT data indicated that 70 percent of people with S&E; degrees were not employed in S&E; occupations. (SRS is looking for ways obtain data on the estimated one million people employed in S&E; without a Bachelor's degree.) The 2003 survey data should provide a better sense of employment in the information technology field. In the past, SRS has drawn a completely new NSCG sample each decade (based on the decennial Census). For 2003, SRS will also retain a portion of the sample from the prior decade as well as adding new participants from the National Survey of Recent College Graduates throughout the decade. The new split-sample design will allow longitudinal analysis of the retained cases and can help increase the number of cases in small cells of interest. This will also allow SRS to compare estimates from the portion of the sample from the old group to estimates from the new census data based samples. Such comparisons are useful for future planning purposes as there may not be a long form of the census in the next decade.

A CEOSE member expressed concern in grouping the underrepresented minorities as one race classification. The number of Native Americans is significantly smaller than Blacks and Hispanics. What can be done to sort out data for the different races? SRS explained that additional resources would be needed for selective sampling for these populations or the sampling size would be too small for use in detailed breakouts of the data. SRS was asked to research what compromises, in terms of data, would have to be made to disaggregate the data or what the cost would be to increase the overall sample size to provide data on Hispanics vs. African Americans vs. Native Americans.

SRS wants to take advantage of what has been learned over the last decade. Staff members are looking at the kinds of analyses for which the data are used and the questions that have not been answered due to sample size (persons with disabilities, minorities, and women). The NSCG survey has a larger sample size (40,000) than the NSRCG; therefore, there are more data on race/ethnicity/gender. From the long form decennial Census, SRS samples based on occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, citizenship, and degree levels.

CEOSE members were pleased that, although it has required more and more follow-up effort, SRS has been able to maintain a high response rate. The committee thanked SRS representatives for their presentations and noted that they were impressed with the sophistication and care that goes into the survey design/samples. Dr. Frase said that SRS will continue to work on increasing sample sizes for underrepresented minority and persons with disabilities as cases are added from the Survey of Recent College Graduates. SRS staff members are available to answer questions and are willing to make future presentations at CEOSE meetings.

Discussion of Plans for the 2004 Report on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering:
Dr. Joan Burrelli, Senior Analyst, SRS/NSF, noted that the Report on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering is a Congressionally mandated report. The 2002 report will be released soon. For 2004, they are thinking about moving to a primarily electronic format. A hard copy "summary" folder with cards and a CD inside would be provided instead of a hard copy thick report. The data will be continually updated on the web so that it is more current. Dr. Burrelli provided a demonstration of the prototype site. The web application provides the opportunity to organize data in a number of ways, making it easier to find information, and it can provide links to additional sources of information. PowerPoint charts with bullets and source data will be viewable and downloadable. Excel tables and a PDF version of the report can also be downloaded.

During the summer of 2003, the tables and figures for the 2004 report will be available for feedback. There will be opportunities for continual updating and suggestions/improvements. Also, SRS can add other tables of data in the future. This is a statistical report, and the electronic version will have more detailed tables than the number for which the hard copy publication can accommodate. The final report is projected to be released at the end of January 2004. The report will require approval from OMB even though it will be an electronic publication.

CEOSE members thanked Dr. Burrelli on the innovative approach that she described. This approach should prove to be extremely useful in the scientific community.

CEOSE requested that data be disaggregated by gender and ethnicity and offered to work with SRS to identify data that are important. Dr. Pearson asked CEOSE members-Dr. David Burgess, Ms. Sara Young and Dr. Marian Johnson-Thompson-to work with SRS (particularly Dr. Carlson) to organize a panel discussion to be held at the October meeting on data on Native Americans.

Preparation for Discussions with Deputy Director: Committee members identified several questions that they wanted to raise with Dr. Bordogna, and Dr. Pearson assigned members to draft those questions. They noted it was important to lay the groundwork for the questions prior to asking them.

There was some discussion as to the charge in the legislation for CEOSE and if it applied only to NSF or across the federal government. The objective would be to leverage the influence of CEOSE with counterparts in other agencies. It was clarified that the CEOSE mandate addresses the role with NSF. However, interactions with other agencies to enhance the work of CEOSE relative to NSF would be welcomed.

Dr. Tolbert noted that a report on the past ten years of findings of CEOSE must be prepared, along with a description of past and present policies and activities of NSF to encourage the full participation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science, mathematics, and engineering fields; and an assessment of relevant trends in participation, etc. She provided a copy of the page of the NSF authorization bill (H.R. 4664, page 81), which contains the pertinent information.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

At 6 p.m., committee members and guests held informal discussions over dinner at a local restaurant.

---

Friday, February 21, 2003

The meeting reconvened at 8:35 a.m.

Committee Brainstorming
Dr. Pearson asked CEOSE members to review the questions drafted for Dr. Bordogna, with the objective of making them concise and to-the-point. In addition, Dr. Pearson advised that CEOSE not only wants an inventory of what programs NSF has that emphasize diversity, but also what research has been funded on diversity issues.

Meeting with NSF Deputy Director
Dr. Bordogna requested CEOSE to look carefully at what NSF is doing. NSF feels priority areas are one way to help move things forward more robustly. In the new Workforce for the 21st Century priority area, NSF is trying to include elements that address diversity issues. This program has $8.5 million for FY2003 and could be a source of funding for such program elements. CEOSE can be helpful by reviewing and providing input on NSF's priority areas.

Dr. Pearson noted that CEOSE members are proud of the vision shown by NSF. They have seen the effects with the production of undergraduate talent in such programs as AGEP. NSF has made strong moves on behalf of the nation.

Following the preceding comments by the Chair of CEOSE, members posed the questions they had prepared for Dr. Bordogna.

• Increasing the number of underrepresented minorities with PhD Degrees and parity: Dr. Windham noted that Dr. Colwell had shared a desire to see an increase in PhDs awarded to the underrepresented minority populations to 100 per year. She also talked with CEOSE about the vertical integration of programs like LSAMP, and AGEP. CEOSE members have been thinking along those lines, as well. Dr. Windham summarized his presentation that provided scenarios on increases in the number of underrepresented minorities receiving PhDs. For Every 100 Bachelor's Degrees earned by the United States white population, six (6%) will obtain PhDs. For every 100 Bachelor's Degrees earned by underrepresented minorities, fewer than four (3.8%) will obtain PhDs. Increasing the number of PhDs awarded to underrepresented minorities by 100 over the next50 years will bring this ratio from 3.8% to slightly above four. In addition to accelerating the number of PhDs awarded each year, Dr. Windham introduced the concept of parity whereby a second goal would be to increase the percentage of URMs receiving PhDs from the current 3.8% to no fewer than 6%. A few recommendations CEOSE identified were to introduce a formal mentoring program into AGEPs with measurable criteria so students that come out of a PhD program have a quality degree and are employable. A second recommendation was to identify institutions that are currently producing these minority PhDs and offer incentives for them to "up the ante". Of the top 60 minority serving institutions, about one-third are AGEP lead institutions and another third are AGEP partners. Dr. Bordogna said NSF is on the same page in reference to this topic. The Workforce for the 21st Century priority area includes integrative institutional collaborations. Resources are available to take programs that are doing well and couple them with HBCUs and Science and Technology Centers (STCs). Programs need to concentrate on increasing numbers for United States citizens AND broadening participation. Parity is an important measurement. Dr. Bordogna also pointed out that the number of whites obtaining PhDs is not good either. He noted that K-12 teachers are important and are also part of the overall faculty of the nation. Faculty members need to be interested and enabled to help bring about change. He appreciated the suggestions for the AGEP program - the programs will evolve. NSF hopes it will be purposeful and keep moving the frontier.

• Program Officer's Role in Embedding Diversity: Dr. Lichter thanked Dr. Bordogna for taking leadership in these areas and noted that NSF's efforts are appreciated. Program Officers and reviewers play a key role in the way project funds are directed. What is NSF doing at the Program Officer level to embed issues of diversity in their decisions (output and outcome), and how can CEOSE help in that process? Dr. Bordogna responded that things don't get done without leadership, and he reviewed the NSF senior management. He said NSF has a very good team that can couple people and work across boundaries. The NSF Director and Deputy Director have to believe in the programmatic strategies and believe in what they are trying to do. There are 42 Division Directors and about 300 programs. Everyone needs to believe in the importance of diversity. In hiring the Assistant Directors, NSF spends time on reviewing the strategies. Division Directors are important as they are closest to the Program Officers, and it is important to keep them coupled. There is a seminar for new Program Officers in which these issues are discussed. Division Directors also have seminars. Dr. Bordogna and Dr. Colwell meet with them annually and discuss boundary-crossing activities. The question is how to manage this. NSF has people responsible for a piece and for part of the whole - this helps ensure that one cannot just "go for their piece" and ignore the whole. NSF is trying to recruit the right people that believe in the strategies to use in addressing diversity and structures priority areas to be run jointly. They have formally started the NSF Academy, which is intended to develop career paths for NSF employees. NSF wants people to think of diversity every time they are doing something and to see the next dimension when they are doing their job. NSF is recruiting for a Dean for this Academy. There is a big management push to get these things done.

• Other Federal Agencies and Diversity Issues: Dr. Hartline stated that there are many federal agencies that support science and engineering (S&E;) and require a diverse S&E; workforce. How can CEOSE help engage these other agencies to facilitate the inclusion of S&E; diversity in their planning and programs? Dr. Bordogna noted that CEOSE may wish to have a presentation at the next meeting on what the other agencies are doing. Dr. John Marburger, Science Advisor to the President, and Dr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. (OMB) both have interest in the workforce and science and engineering education. Other agencies, excluding the U.S. Department of Education, don't have a mission for education, but there is room to be more deliberate and strategic in what they do. Agencies NSF routinely talks with include the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Defense, and NASA. Dr. Hartline clarified that the question is looking beyond just diversity in education but also in hiring staff and contractors. Dr. Bordogna said having an eclectic mix of people intellectually and ethnically is a great value.

• Diversity at Research 1 Institutions: Dr. Echegoyen stated that he is impressed with the NSF programs that deal with minority issues. He shared this at the meeting during the deliberations when there was concern expressed about the lack of diversity at Research 1 Institutions at all levels. Dr. Echegoyen asked: Is NSF doing anything about it, and how can CEOSE help to increase diversity in Research 1 institutions? Dr. Bordogna responded that partnering Research 1 Institutions with other institutions was one strategy. The Workforce in the 21st Century priority has partnering in it, as well. This can help the "have nots" benefit from the "haves". Dr. Bordogna was asked suggestions on how to get the Research 1 Institutions to buy into diversity, and he responded frankly that if the President doesn't want to do it, it won't happen. Motivated people are needed to bring about change. The resources are there. CEOSE members requested NSF to prepare a chart for the June meeting that would show the Research 1 Institutions and how they rank in terms of diversity for faculty and students.

• ADVANCE-like Program for Diversity: Dr. Whitney remarked that the ADVANCE (Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers) program has made a significant investment to focus on institutional changes in regards to women faculty and tenure track. What is NSF doing to have a similar impact with respect to underrepresented minorities? Dr. Bordogna responded that it may be time to make some changes to ADVANCE, as well. The success rate is going down as more people are applying to the program. NSF can learn from the ADVANCE program, but probably cannot do the exact same things for minorities as there are more legal issues involved. The Workforce in the 21st Century program is similar to ADVANCE in some ways in that it is intended to fund people that can move things forward in their institution.

• Data on Programs within NSF that Broaden Participation: Dr. Pearson said that CEOSE has requested data on programs within NSF that broaden participation. NSF also supports research on diversity and the committee wanted to know to what extent information from this research is used to set policy and priorities for NSF. Dr. Bordogna said the 21st Century Workforce program calls for research. The EHR directorate is also working to build a research investment portfolio. Dr. Pearson said it is good to know that there is progress.

Dr. Pearson told Dr. Bordogna that SRS staff members have been helpful and have worked closely with CEOSE members on various projects. CEOSE is also grateful for the support from Mr. John Wilkinson, the former Executive Liaison and acting Executive Secretary of CEOSE. Dr. Bordogna said that he appreciates the fact that NSF and CEOSE can be bold in discussions. CEOSE needs to continue to look at NSF critically and provide recommendations for improvement/enhancement relative to its mandate.

Discussion with Congressional Staff Member
Mr. Floyd Des Champs, Senior Professional Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation met with CEOSE members and shared in a discussion with them. Mr. Des Champs works primarily with Senator McCain on the committee, which covers NSF along with other agencies such as NASA, the Technology Administration at Commerce, and the Earthquake Research Program. Also, his committee will be covering the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Last spring the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation was presented with the proposed Allan-McCain bill that dealt with funding minority-serving institutions to establish programs focused on wireless and digital networks. This bill was originally written for funding through the U.S. Department of Commerce, but after a review, it seemed more appropriate for funding through NSF. When the earlier bill was presented to Congress, there was negative reaction to funding NSF to operate this program, instead of another federal agency. To address the concerns, NSF was requested to provide a report on funding made to minority serving institutions. In education, NSF funding to minority serving institutions was 15 to 16%, but in the research directorates, the percentage was significantly lower (1.5-1.6%). NSF agreed that the funding level is a problem and advised that there is no clear strategy to address it yet. NSF was requested to provide historical funding trends to minority serving institutions and to develop a plan to improve the percentages of funding. Mr. Des Champs remarked that the expectation is that CEOSE will be a part of that plan formulation.

Early this year, Senator McCain and several other co-sponsors proposed a revised bill for $250 million for digital and wireless infrastructure for minority serving institutions that would fit within the NSF authorization. In a hearing on this bill several college presidents expressed a desire to ensure that individuals and faculty at the minority serving institutions are included in the review process. The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will monitor this as they go forward.

CEOSE members took advantage of the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Des Champs. Ms. Jane Stutsman of EHR/NSF provided a point of clarification relative to funding for minority serving institutions. Dr. Tolbert thanked him for his presentation and his discussion with CEOSE members, particularly his comments on Minority Serving Institutions and the information on the Allan-McCain bill, which has not been passed in Congress yet.

Committee Discussion
The CEOSE had an opportunity to discuss several topics in more depth.

Reactions to Discussion with Dr. Bordogna:
• It is clear that Dr. Bordogna wanted the CEOSE members to carefully review the 21st Century Workforce priority area as outlined in the NSF Budget Report for FY2004 and to provide feedback.
• Dr. Bordogna's willingness to openly discuss NSF's efforts to embed diversity within its programs is commendable.
• It was helpful to hear what NSF is doing internally to embed a focus on diversity.
• There is continued need for data and metrics related to the cultural aspects of success, such as publications when obtaining a PhD degree.
• Strong pre-professional development is needed to ensure students are well prepared and competitive in the marketplace.

Mentoring Workshop: CEOSE members would like to ask questions about the mentoring workshop to help ensure that they have a usable and defined product and also to ensure that it will address questions about attributes that are needed to be successful in a science or engineering career. Also, the negative mentoring models should be reviewed. Answers to these matters are needed soon. Dr. Windham will talk with Ms. Yolanda Scott George of AAAS and will let CEOSE members know if they can contribute in any way. It also appeared that tying the event to the October CEOSE meeting would be better than June for many of the CEOSE members.

CEOSE will have to report on the accomplishments of this event. The 2002 CEOSE Report notes that this event will "result in actual mentoring models that can then be implemented nationally". There should be a plan to couple the results into practice - otherwise they won't get disseminated.

Chair and Co-Chair Discussions with Dr. Bordogna: Dr. Pearson summarized topics he and Dr.Nair talked about with Dr. Bordogna. These included broadening participation, integrative institutional participation and Historical Black College and University (HBCU) programs.Vertical integration of programs like LSAMP was also a topic. Dr. Bordogna requested input from CEOSE on ways to increase diversity in the scientific and engineering workforce and asked for a concrete plan. He noted that an ADVANCE program for minorities might pose more of a legal challenge than one for gender.

Other Deliberations:

• CEOSE members discussed the high percentage of foreign students versus U.S. citizens in graduate schools. This issue has been raised several times in the context of homeland security. It was pointed out that education is a major export for the United States. Even after the students complete their education programs and return to their respective countries, they can be ambassadors for the United States. Does the issue of increasing the number of U.S. citizens (and underrepresented groups) in graduate programs have to be a zero sum game? One member stated that minority participation should be supported and enhanced without excluding international students. This stimulated a great deal of discussion. Several members suggested that using foreign students as graduate assistants allows faculty "to take the easy route" as these students don't need the attention that CEOSE has been talking about such as mentoring and financial support. The question is: Why waste or neglect American human resources-underrepresented minorities? Americans first is the call. For the most part, the foreign students are in the United States with a mission to earn their degrees. This comment prompted a discussion on the kinds of conditions to which faculty members are allowed to subject students (i.e., long hours, cheap labor).
• The large number of foreign faculty also poses problems for minority students given the cultural and language differences. For example, it was stated by one member that there is a tremendous amount of prejudice of Asian populations to minorities. Language barriers (e.g., heavy accents) also pose a problem for students being taught by foreign faculty members. It appears that most minority serving institutions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities) cannot find adequate numbers of African Americans to serve on their faculties as instructors/professors and mentors and researchers.
• The point was raised that increasing the quantity of minority graduates was not enough. The quality of the degrees and experience is also important. This is true for women and persons with disabilities, as well.
• Several additional barriers to change were discussed. Entrenchment in leadership at minority serving institutions can be a barrier. Funding is needed to foster the right individuals in the right places. Successful programs are well-funded. A university's Board of Trustees impact the hiring process and their role/influence has not been discussed.

Increasing diversity is a challenging issue. There are multiple problems and multiple solutions. The challenge for CEOSE is to critically assess NSF programs to determine how they can: 1) first of all attract American students to S&E;, 2) ensure that students have high quality experiences, and 3) ensure that students have employment opportunities. The question posed at the conclusion of the discussion was "How do we transform what we know about women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities so that we begin to see positive changes in senior positions at management and leadership levels in institutions and businesses and other areas in the workforce"?*

Update on New Engineering Center:
Dr. Norman L. Fortenberry, Director of the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education (CASEE) provided an update on the new Center. Established in 2002 by the National Academy of Engineering, the CASEE will catalyze diverse elements of the engineering community to leverage opportunities for continuous and significant improvements in engineering education. The Center's ultimate objective is to enhance the quality and quantity of engineers in the workforce by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of engineering education. The Center's key strategy is to increase the capacity for the conduct of research on engineering education and to translate the results of such research into more effective practices in educational and workplace settings.

The CASEE has a broad research agenda, which includes some of the issues discussed by CEOSE.The Center will actively engage the community at large through the use of senior and post-doctoral fellows, linkages with campus-based research centers, and development of an implementation network of affiliates willing to serve as testbeds for experiments and pilot projects. Individuals pursuing relevant research in areas outside of engineering education will be affiliate scholars.

Projects under current development at the CASEE include:
• An electronic portal that will provide "one-stop" access to an array of journals highlighting education research in science and engineering disciplines (e.g. Journal of Engineering Education and Journal of Research in Science Teaching). The portal will also provide a mechanism to discuss metrics of high quality research;
• Workshops for department chairs in engineering disciplines to discuss the rigor in education research and the implications of having engineering faculty pursue education research as one of their dominant research areas; and
• Recognizing those offerors of faculty professional development whose content and methods adhere to the highest quality standards for education research.

Dr. Fortenberry noted that although the CASEE is focused on engineering education, it necessary must take broad cognizance of developments in science disciplines and must work collaboratively with those disciplines.

CEOSE members thanked Dr. Fortenberry for providing details on the CASEE and encouraged him to continue to impress upon institutions that research on engineering education is an important and a valid activity.

Committee Wrap Up
Future CEOSE meeting dates were set for June 12-13, 2003 (Thursday/Friday) and October 7-8, 2003 (Tuesday/Wednesday). These meetings will be held at NSF.

Dr. Pearson reviewed ad hoc subcommittee assignments:
• Mentoring: Dr. Thomas Windham, Dr. David Burgess, Dr. Marian Johnson-Thompson, and Dr. Gustav Roig. Dr. Windham will start by meeting with Ms. Yolanda Scott George at AAAS.
• Data on Native Americans and other small populations (persons with disabilities): Dr. David Burgess, Ms. Sara Young, and Dr. Marian Johnson-Thompson. The group would work with SRS to gather data on these populations to present at the October meeting. Dr. Windham suggested the subcommittee to also look at the struggle of Native science in the science community.
• NSF-Sponsored Research on Diversity: Dr. Lilian Wu, Dr. Robert Lichter, and Dr. Carol Schwartz. This group will need to help define the question and look at what NSF has supported in terms of research on diversity. It is unclear if NSF uses the research findings to affect its practices.
• Review of Past CEOSE Minutes and Reports: Dr. Luis Echegoyen, Dr. Indira Nair, Dr. Beverly Hartline, and Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr. This group will review past CEOSE minutes and the 2002 CEOSE Report to identify action items that still need to be addressed and issues that require a status report.

Reports from these ad hoc subcommittees will be presented at the June 2003 CEOSE meeting. If travel is needed to facilitate subcommittee meetings, Dr. Tolbert should be contacted.

Other issues:


• Ms. Young and Dr. Whitney agreed to help draft recommendations for an ADVANCE-like program for underrepresented groups and persons with disabilities. Dr. Fortenberry of NAE noted he is willing to provide input as well.*
• Recommendations from CEOSE members on the types of activities CEOSE should support were welcome. Ideas should be submitted to Dr. Pearson or Dr. Nair.
• The proposed distribution list for the 2002 CEOSE report should be reviewed and additions provided to Dr. Pearson. Input was requested on who the recipients of the report should be as well as the fashion it in which it should be delivered (i.e., hearings, the website, in-person delivery, and/or news media).
• A comment was made that CEOSE needs to also focus on data for persons with disabilities and barriers they face in their discussions.

Dr. Pearson thanked CEOSE members for their participation in the meeting and for their contributions to the deliberations. With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

---

Certification of the Accuracy of the CEOSE Meeting Minutes:
Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr. - Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering -
approved the meeting minutes on May 21, 2003.
On June 12, 2003, CEOSE members unanimously concurred that approval.

Click here for copy of: WORD document