| |
House Science Committee's Basic Research Subcommittee
On NSF's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI)
July 23, 1998
The focus of any systemic reform initiative should
be on building the capacity needed to sustain reform,
and NSF's legacy with systemic initiatives will largely
depend on this, lawmakers told.
The Basic Research Subcommittee of the Committee on
Science held a hearing to discuss NSF's Statewide
Systemic Initiatives (SSI). The hearing provided a
lively debate and discussion with the general conclusion
that systemic reform is complicated, and that the
steps needed to implement it are uncertain. All witnesses,
as well as members, called the SSI program a bold
experiment and agreed that these initiatives need
to remain experimental.
Dr. Daryl Chubin, representing NSF, noted that the
SSI's at NSF are an inaugural attempt to stimulate
systemic reform by permeating whole schools and systems
to achieve comprehensive impact on curriculum, policy,
professional development of teachers, assessment,
resource allocation and student performance. The idea
is to intervene in the status quo to deliver science
and math education differently. Evidence to date compiled
by NSF, States and third-party evaluators, like SRI
International, suggest that systemic reform has provided
a substantial contribution to standards-based systemic
reform. NSF recognizes that positive results come
from a complicated array of school-based conditions
and community forces, and continues to monitor, evaluate,
learn from and share lessons about the various reform
efforts against SSI program objectives. Dr Chubin
noted that NSF alone cannot create the capacity needed
for continued success, but can help States be vigilant
in improving outcomes. He said NSF's SSI Phaseout
and Phase II processes are the clearest statement
of what the agency has learned in the seven years
of the SSI program.
Dr. Stan Metzenberg, Assistant Professor of Biology,
California State University Northridge, said that
NSF has chosen the wrong path by embracing the National
Science Education Standards and the AAAS Benchmarks
for Science Literacy, stating that they are shockingly
low in content knowledge expectations and are based
on flimsy research and misstated findings. He said
benchmarks focus on what children cannot learn at
an early age and do not prepare them for the future.
Dr. Mark St. John, from Inverness Research, said there
should be more of a focus on what's being done in
the field rather than on how to implement standards,
which, he said, currently occupies about 95% of efforts.
He said teachers need a series of critical supports
- training, understanding of the subject matter, supportive
schools, etc. He stated that the focus of any systemic
initiative should be on building capacity, and noted
that SSI's have begun this process. He advocates strengthening
local leadership, connecting people across districts
and better access to good resources. The key to success
for NSF, he stated, is to infuse the system with knowledgeable
people, which, he said, has been marginal to date.
Accountability, he noted, should take a macro, not
micro, approach and not place unrealistic expectations
on initiatives. NSF, he said, should get credit for
being bold.
Dr. Thomas Baird, from the Florida Department of Education,
said that since the end of its SSI, Florida has implemented
many of the reforms NSF was seeking and feels the
SSI legacy can be seen in initiatives like area centers
for education enhancement, Florida sunshine standards,
etc. He further noted that the SSI had a positive
effect on science and math teaching. One criticism
he had was that two years into the Florida SSI, NSF
requested major changes in the focus and direction
of the project. In this regard he noted that the expectation
of States is not commensurate with funds provided
because of the time frame involved and NSF directives,
which frequently change. He said NSF tends to micro-manage,
and recommended that the agency work on its partnerships
with States and be consistent with expectations.
Questions covered a wide range of topics from why
the need for more studies to why some Initiatives
work better than others. Most of the discussion, however,
centered on content vs. inquiry teaching, teacher
preparedness, and building capacity. Dr. St. John
responded to Rep. Vern Ehlers' (R-MI) questions on
building capacity by stating that when trying to implement
systemic changes, resources are currently limited
and knowledge and expertise is lacking, and that these
elements need to be strengthened. In response to questioning
from Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-MN) on content vs. inquiry,
Dr. Chubin noted that they are not mutually exclusive
terms and that if teachers lack content learning,
they cannot pass it on to students. This was a concern
of all witnesses. Dr. Metzenberg added that schools
deliver content too late in the educational process.
Rep. Etheridge (D-NC) addressed the notion of vertical
and horizontal systemic change both in institutions
of higher education who prepare teachers, and those
teachers already in the field. Dr. St. John said the
most promising avenue in high schools is in teacher
networking to bring in the most qualified teachers.
He said changing how universities teach physics and
math, for example, will be harder. Dr. Baird agreed
that teacher preparation is the key - that many teachers
are only minimally qualified, and since several start
at community colleges, there is a need to focus attention
here also. He further noted that high school teachers
do not know what middle school teachers are teaching,
which leads to a lack of accountability and repetition.
Dr. Chubin noted that if teachers are ill prepared
to teach, the burden falls on the districts that hire
them to develop their knowledge and skills. This need
reflects on the complicated connections among graduation
requirements, certification, and hiring practices.
He said teachers must be treated as professionals
and continue to be learners.
Rep. Chip Pickering, Chairman of the Basic Research
Subcomittee, closed the hearing by emphasizing the
need for continued peer review of SSI's and the need
for better science and education interaction in the
context of building capacity for sustained reform.
|
|
