« PreviousContinue »
viding some sort of incentives. That same process has the advantage of helping us to prepare a scientific and literate society. These have to go together. I don't believe we must, or should, sacrifice one for the other.
Mr. PEASE. If I read you correctly then what you are basically telling us is that NSF is committed to education, science education, at the lower levels in the hope that that will spark an interest on the part of the young people and that once they reach the college or graduate school level they will make it on their own. In other words, if you had to make a choice between one or the other you would choose to go down at the lower levels and try to exhibit a little general interest and leave the people in the colleges and graduate school on their own, is that right?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Pease, you don't give me very happy choices. I suppose that if we were in the terrible position of having to decide to put all of our resources at one place or another, that I would go down to the 10- and 15-year-olds. I think there is so much evidence that that is when they make up their minds about themselves and about the nature of the world. Thev get interested in mathematics. They decide they can learn it or not. They cut themselves out of the possibility or not. It is just that the premise that we have to concentrate that strongly our resources seems to be wrong.
Mr. PEASE. I must say that I am concerned. I think I understand your position now, and I realize you would prefer it not to be an either/or choice, but if it is not either/or there are emphases involved, and I think you have indicated what NSF's emphasis is. That concerns me a little bit because the possibilities for dilution are so great when you are taking really what you have told us is an inadequate amount of money and spreading it over a great wide area. I just have very grave concerns that when we are spending a small amount of money rather than an adequate amount that we are not spreading it so thinly among the 10- and 15-vear-olds as to make it almost ineffective in producing any kind of result. You apparently have faith that something is going to happen from that thin spreading of our resources over a very wide area.
Dr. RUTHERFORD. I would prefer that they weren't thin in the first place. I shouldn't over-emphasize. For every $1 we put at the precollege levels, we are putting $11/2 in undergraduate education. It is not as though we were overwhelmingly putting our money at the lower levels.
Furthermore, in our system, we deal with the parts but not all members of each part. That is to say there are 3,000 undergraduate institutions out there, and we really do not fund all of them because they compete. It is the better of them-in the sense of coming up with ideas for improving education--that get our support. When we talk about early adolescence, we are not supporting all of the schools and all of the teachers. What we are trying to do is to see if we can find ways to help the schools get better junior high school teachers in science and mathematics, those teachers who have a better understanding of science and how it fits into our society. We are talking about tremendous new kinds of materials and ways of teaching them to people. So we couldn't overpower any part of the system with our money even if we put it all in one place. Since it is a system, however, with all of its parts, we have to pay at least some attention to each of the parts.
Mr. PEASE. Dr. Rutherford, what is the increase this year percentagewise in your requested funding for the Education Directorate of NSF?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. The number is 9.6 percent. I think in looking at those numbers it is a little more difficult this year because they involve some of these transfers.
Mr. PEASE. You told us and Dr. Atkinson has told us about your concerns for science education, and if you are that concerned I would think that your budget figures from year to year would indicate more of a shift, more of an attempt to shift the emphasis from one area to another, and a 9.7 percent increase for this year over last year does not seem to represent any shift at all, much less a substantial shift. Does this tell us something about the depth of commitment of NSF to science education or the depth of your concern that there is an imbalance of some kind and we need to spend more on it?
Dr. ATKINSON. I don't think that can be answered in the framework of NSF alone. We must look at the total Federal investment in education at different levels and the total Federal investment in research, particularly basic research.
The National Science Foundation has been assigned an increasing role in support of basic research. To look at percentages and trends of percentages in NSF is not the way to look at the issue. NSF's program should be considered in relation to the total education effort.
There is no question we would like to see more funding: When I recruited Dr. Rutherford, I described to him the plans of the National Science Board for science education. At that time, we had a budget request of $120 million for fiscal year 1978; we are still a long way from that figure. It is clear that NSF puts a high priority on science education, but NSF also puts a high priority on basic research funding.
Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman yield to me, just briefly?
Dr. Atkinson, I gather that one of the thrusts of your statement and Dr. Rutherford's is that we do need to put this in the perspective of the total effort of the Federal Government, both as to the basic research goal and the education goal as it may be conducted in other areas. So my question is, are you suggesting that we do need to look at the education budget here and possibly at the work we have done in the new Department of Education or the work being done in NIH or in other research funding institutions of the Federal Government?
Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Brown, very much so. Just as NSF coordinates total-budgets across various fields of science, NSF provides the same coordination of plans for science education. NSF has close working relationships with the National Institute of Education and other parts of that Department. Those relationships and the exchange of information are critical to NSF's funding decisions.
Mr. Brown. I raise the question because it is conceivable that the committee is not looking broadly enough at this whole picture, and we might want to do a little bit of research on that.
Mr. PEASE. I thank the chairman for that contribution. It does interest me, however, that you would want to put our efforts in science education in a broader perspective. I think everybody knows that as a result of Congressional directive, the Administration's proposed FY 81 budget for the new Department of Education calls for a funding level
that is substantially below the current rate of inflation. In addition, the new Department of Education will be required to reduce the staff of the Department by 500 positions at the end of FY 81. What is happening elsewhere in the Federal government or in the new Department of Education or in some other agency with regard to improving the quality of science education that would lead you to feel in NSF
that you need not expand the percentage of your resources allocated to, science education?
Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Pease, the President put forward a stringent budget for fiscal year 1981. He emphasized four areas for special attention: one is energy, another is defense, a third is growth in employment, and the fourth is basic research. It is a key thrust of his budget, one area where his budget does give special consideration.
The science education increases requested for NSF are somewhat ahead of those for the Department of Education; they represent NSF's high priority for this effort. But the 9.6 percent increase must be viewed across the President's requests for education in general, and the fact that it is as high as it is at the Foundation indicates the strength of the argument that NSF made.
Mr. PEASE. You mean it could have been zero or minus 15 percent or minus 20 percent?
Dr. ATKINSON. Given the President's budget, yes.
Mr. PEASE. I think we ought to just admit to ourselves that we are not showing any growth this year at all in science education other than what is necessary to compensate for inflation. Is that a correct statement ?
Dr. ATKINSON. I doubt that 9.6 percent will meet the rate of inflation. I also doubt that OMB thinks 9.6 percent matches inflation; it is going to be a little less than inflation.
Dr. Cota-ROBLES. It is true that the National Science Board is taking up the priorities given to science education, and that some of us are very concerned about making sure that this is examined by the policymaking board.
Mr. PEASE. I appreciate that. I think it is not enough to examine it though. I presume from what you have said before that NSF is already convinced that science education is very important, and it has not been treated adequately in the past. But I also assume what you told me that that does not transcend to other matters of importance like basic research. You made no decision which will result in any shift of priorities; is that correct?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. It is not an accurate description of the way our budget comes about, which isn't to say let's put all basic research in one item and balance that against science education and see which has a higher priority. It is almost a division-by-division, program-by-program analysis of priorities.
Now, you can look at the results and say that in fact the policy appears to be one in which, under the kinds of constraints we have now, basic research is going to receive greater increases and more support than science education, but that isn't really the decision. I think the heartening thing is not so much that the other agencies in town are doing much for science education but that there is some potential there. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the President himself are concerned about this problem. There will be on the part of the administration a very serious look at the question of the quality and quantity of our science education projections for the future and what not only NSF but the new Department of Education can do about it.
Similarly, not only is the National Science Board going to devote some analysis to the policy and priority question of science education, but they also have had a special session in which they invited the Chairman of the Science Education Advisory Committee to make a report to the Board on the situation as the committee sees it. Incidentally, that report has been submitted to you.
Mr. Pease. Thank you. Are there programs called development in science education, and research in science education; are those in your directorate, sir?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEASE. I notice that they have enjoyed a 41-percent increase from fiscal year 1979 to fiscal year 1981. Can you tell us the rationale for that?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. The research and development activity at the Foundation in science and mathematics learning had shrunk to a small base. As a matter of fact support for research was essentially zero a few years ago, and the development activities primarily were developing new undergraduate programs with a small base.
It was decided as a matter of priorities within the directorate over the next few years to greatly increase our ability to support R. & D. in science education. The percentage increases have been large, but we started from a small base. Even though we are asking for $17.5 million in fiscal year 1981, it is not a large amount of money compared to what was true in the 1960's in these kinds of activities. It is our investment in R. & D. which is our long-term investment in the future.
Mr. PEASE. OK. Now, I would like to turn to undergraduate faculty development in science and refer to the report, "Undergraduate Faculty Development in Science,” prepared by your Directorate pursuant to the mandate of the conference committee in last year's NSF authorization bill.
Do I understand that this year you have proposed no funding at all for yearlong or extensive programs in undergraduate sabbatical type programs?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Yes; even with the requested $1 million increase in funding available for the support of the renewal of college level science and mathematics and engineering faculties, it sems to me that the resources we have available are extremely small compared to the task to be done. There must be some kind of focusing, of bringing our resources to bear in a way that will bring about the greatest increase in the total enterprise out there for the people who teach science and mathematics and engineering. At that level of funding it was not good management, we thought, or a good distribution of resources to spread the money over too many different kinds of activities. Given a choice of the sort you talked about earlier-not having resources equivalent to the task the study that we completed and the responses to it confirmed that this year's allocation is the better way to distribute resources. It is not so important or useful; it is just that if we can only
serve 70 or 80 each year we are not reaching enough of the faculty out there. The other mode provides that.
Mr. PEASE. The study I just referred to was, as I say, mandated by the conference report, and it asked the NSF to have extensive consultation with faculty members who have been beneficiaries of this program in the past or potentially might participate in the program. I see your report has six reviewers, six people who commented.
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Twelve.
Mr. PEASE. It started out as six. Do you consider that to be an extensive consultation?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Yes; because each of them in turn have a wide experience with the people they represent in the academic community. In fact, most of them did do some consulting of that sort. For us to do this kind of study-where we personally would make all of these contacts—would be much too large a project in a reasonable period of time. We thought the issues clear enough, Mr. Pease; they are not new issues.
I myself have visited some colleges recently and talked to the faculties. There simply is no question that whatever the faculties have had of our program they swear by it. Take, for example, the Chautauqua program. I visited three small colleges. They said, "Whatever you do, don't let the resources for Chautauqua go away. They are a lifesaver for us.” Where people have had fellowships, they point to their value. The faculties I talked to said, “Why can't we have the kind of institutes and seminars we had in the 1960's! They were strong. They helped us. We need them."
So our problem isn't finding people who will support one or another kind of activity; it is how can we—among all these good things— best balance what we have.
Mr. PEASE. I understand that. Now, again, I point out that the conference report asked you to have extensive consultation with those faculty members who have participated or potentially might participate. Of the 12 people who are listed as reviewers on your program, can you identify for me which are alumni of this program ? Have any of them actually participated in the program in the past?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. I don't know. I could surely find out.
Dr. RUTHERFORD. In spite of what the request may have been, the people were selected by professional societies representing the various disciplines. To me, this provides a kind of guard against biasing. After all, if NSF selects all the people we are either going to interview or get responses from, we are much more likely to find people who share our views.
Mr. PEASE. It is certainly desirable that you would guard against bias in that way, and I fully appreciate that. However, I think it was the desire of Congress to have review comments on the long-term fellowship by people who have participated in the program in the past, so that we might have the benefit of their views as to the value of the program, and I recognize that you point out that people would tend to think the program is valuable if they went. By doing what you have done, by going instead to representatives of organizations, it seems to me that you have introduced a large element of administration in education as opposed to the teaching of science in the program, and