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.

Mr. PEASE. Would you like to run through that rationale for me? 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

63-392 0 - 80 - 33

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 thingsbest 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. ATKINSON. We don't know. We didn't select them on that basis. 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

that the reviewers may be reacting as administrators rather than as faculty members who teach.

Dr. RUTHERFORD. I think many of them are not. For example, some of the ones I know from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents are mathematicians and teachers, so there is certainly little danger of that. I would recommend, Mr. Pease, that you query Dr. Nelson on this this afternoon. He had made a year-long study of the situation and has interviewed faculty members all over the country, and I am sure that he can give to you some responses from the kinds of people that they are talking about.

I would also point out that large-scale studies involving the collection of information are a long process, because, among other things, we have to clear through OMB. You know the problem of getting something done in a timely way.

Dr. ATKINSON. Let me just comment, Mr. Pease. I don't think we were aware of that language or we would have complied and sent this report to you. We will be happy to provide a sample of the people who have participated in our program. But I also want to echo Dr. Rutherford's remarks. The people who participated in these programs are highly enthusiastic and they should be. It is a marvelous experience. I recommend it, and I want to see it continued. There is a question of limited resources, however, of how to spend those resources. Mr. PEASE. Very fine. I am not happy but at least grateful for the information that you weren't aware of this language. Is there some better way that we in the Congress can communicate the language of conference reports to the NSF in the future so that you are able to know what we put in the conference report?

Dr. ATKINSON. Your admonishment will lead us once again into those matters. I think we are able to read the language.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you. Well, given that most of the 12 people who reviewed it are probably more administration than teaching right now, I have looked over them and I still find it very interesting that not 1 of the 12 really is critical of these long-term fellowships, and I would like to read a paragraph from one of the reviews by Mr. Louis Salter. He says:

What is remarkable, given the divergence and starting point and style is the unanimity in recommendation as between the two studies.

This is as between the studies by Dr. Kormandy and Dr. Bergquist.

Both agree in recommending a mix of extended- and intensive-mode strategies. The two modes are complementary. Both are needed for faculty development, and particularly if the needs of undergraduate science teachers are to be met. Kormandy is unequivocal in recommending an increase in NSF funding for the Foundation's faculty fellowship program.

He also goes on to recommend a balanced mix of intensive-mode activity-study enumerating strengths and weaknesses of the two pure modes. And then goes on to strongly recommend a combination of the two, suggesting several different strategies for achieving them.

Now, apparently you disagreed with these two studies that the NSF commissioned and decided to go ahead only with the short-term program, is that correct?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. No; that is a different question, Mr. Pease. I strongly believe in the mix, but I think it is not disassociated from

the funds you have available to support and administer such a mix. Every program we do takes people to do it. We could have as many variations as we want. If we run short courses, if we run research experience which has its advocates and which is very important these days and if we run a fellowship program, that is really three programs. We don't have three people; we have limited funds, so we do 40 of this and 100 of that. It is simply not good management, I believe, with such small numbers to have a mix of all of the good things you can think of. They are all good, all of them, but until we can get the resources up so that we can manage them sensibly and truthfully, I still believe we have set the proper priority. The responses suggest that if we have to make choices, these are the priorities. Incidentally, people who respond usually do not have the job of having to make choices. But we are in that situation, and good management and other considerations set the priorities the way we have them.

Mr. PEASE. In the introduction to this report, you say, "Our recommendations and proposed program plan for faculty development are as follows:" Then you say, "At the minimum level, approximately a $3 and $5 million funding range."

Do you propose essentially intensive activities and at an intermediate level, $5 to $10 million, you propose going on to some other possibilities, including multimedia approaches? And then you say at the optimum level, above $10 million, you would propose to instituteI might say reinstitute the time-extended activities which have been the sole program up to this point.

Now, I am interested in knowing, Where are we now in the funding range?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. $4 million.

Mr. PEASE. $4 million?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. PEASE. And so you would need an increase of over two and a half times before you would find it worthwhile to reinstitute what you are planning to phase out; is that correct?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. Perhaps worthwhile is not quite the right word. Before I think it would be good policy; yes, sir. Incidentally, I suppose part of your question is: Why do we have something intervening between these two modes about which there is so much discussion: the industrial research participation? I think there is a different order of argument here, but it serves the strong need to have more of our faculty understand, to do some research, and to do some of that research in industry, so they can get a better sense of that aspect of our economy. We were beginning to make some headway on that, and that is the part of the research resource problem, too.

Mr. PEASE. You have people in NSF, your staff people, working essentially now, at least up until this year, on one program-the extended faculty grant program. And now you are proposing at the $4 million level and, if we ever get up to that, the $5 million level, going into three different areas: Intensive 4- to 6-week activities, research participation in summer research, and these new mechanisms and delivering modes. So you are willing to invest the administrative time and resources of NSF administering three different programs rather than the time-extended activity. That suggests to me that you