personnel. The study found that about one-fourth of the principals in any grade range felt that they were "not well qual ified" to supervise science instruction. The percentage of department chairmen found in the schools decreased from a high of 74 percent in senior high schools to a low of 27 percent in the primary grades. Chairmen who received additional compensation increased from a low of one in ten in the primary grades to one in two in senior high schools.

Teachers who had consultant and supervisory help were more satisfied than those who had to work more or less on their own. Elementary teachers, especially, receive little supervisory, consultant, and leadership support in teaching science, although they are most comfortable when such support is available. The studies found also that candidates for elementary teacher certification are "seldom required to take more science content than that required for the general education component of their undergraduate program." Thus teachers who are least well prepared to deal with the teaching of science are given the least assistance.

More and more, two separate systems-management and instructionalare developing within the schools and are interacting less and less. The management system absorbs the energies and time of administrators at both the central administration and individual school levels. The instructional system functions through the efforts of individual teachers working largely without leadership and direction except in those few instances where curriculum and supervisory personnel are available. The need is evident. The absence of curricular and supervisory direction is subject to local attention and correction by local schools' initiatives. The development of an effective science program requires constant attention, leadership, and support; it cannot be left to develop by chance through the unorganized and undirected efforts of individual teachers, regardless of how excellent these individual efforts may be.

V. With what do teachers teach? The individual classroom teacher still determines the primary mode of instruction in most classrooms, with the textbook the primary tool. Less than 10 percent of the schools have used practices such as modular scheduling or television instruction. Nor do the majority

of teachers at any grade level consider computers or computer terminals necessary. Similarly, most science classes do not use cameras. While fewer than 15 percent of science classes make use of greenhouses, almost 40 percent would use them if they were available. Almost identical figures were given for use of weather stations. Microscopes and scientific models, on the other hand, are widely used. Almost 30 percent of K-3 science classes use microscopes, while an additional 20 percent would like to have them. Usage goes up to more than 60 percent in fourth grade and remains at least that high through all of secondary school. Even though a third of 1012th grade classes use calculators, only a tenth of junior high school classes use them, and only about 2 percent of elementary schools report any calculator usage.

"The greatest single concern of almost everyone involved in education is for an improved program of financial support."

Financial Needs. Although little information was collected about the financial support of science instruction, that which was gathered is worth sharing: The greatest single concern of almost everyone involved in education is for an improved program of financial support. While the percentage of financial support for the schools from federal and state sources has increased since 1955, federal support for science education has declined since the late 1960s. Since state support tends to follow federal trends, state support for science education has also declined and is likely to continue to do so.

At the time of the study (1977), the average per pupil expenditure in school districts across the nation was $1,246. A recurring concern in the Case Studies was that increasing energy costs and frequent voter rejection of special school levies were reducing funds available for the school science program. Relatively few schools have specific budgets for science equipment and supplies. In general, schools are more likely to have specific budgets for science supplies than for equipment, and secondary schools are significantly more likely than elementary schools to have specific

budgets for both.

A sizable number of school districts over one-third-did report receiving funds in 1975-76 from the National Defense Education Act for facilities, equipment, and supplies used in science instruction, and one-fourth got similar funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the same school year. On the other hand, only a very small number of school districts received science instruction funding from other government grants, specific state grants, private foundations, or parent organizations.

Teachers considered inadequate facilities, insufficient funds for purchasing equipment and supplies, and lack of

materials for individualized instruction as the three most serious problems affecting science instruction. More than half of them wanted money to buy supplies on a day-to-day basis. This is an appropriate request that could be accommodated within the limits of existing financial support if administrators and teachers would work cooperatively toward a solution.

Inadequate student reading abilities and lack of teacher planning time were also considered serious problems by teachers; in addition many of them felt that the major area that needed improvement was the availability of laboratory assistants or paraprofessional help. Insufficient time to teach science was considered a more serious problem in the lower than in the upper grades.

VI. Whom do teachers teach? Accurate enrollment figures are typically difficult to get, but the studies do furnish us with some general information and with what may be a discouraging note. While enrollments in public elementary schools were increasing from 1955-1969, class sizes during that period were reduced. During that same period, secondary school enrollments also increased, as did the percentage of students enrolled in science courses. That percentage has remained relatively stable. Enrollments, however, are now beginning to decline, with elementary enrollment declining more rapidly than secondary. Public school enrollments, particularly, have dropped considerably in some areas where integration and consolidation of schools have led to the emigration of substantial numbers of students to private and church-related schools. Inevitably, just as the increas

ing enrollments had an impact on schools, the decreasing enrollments will have an impact, especially financially.

teachers as partners. This speaks for
more effective organizational patterns in
the schools in which the talents and
ideas of teachers are harnessed and di-
rected by knowledgeable school leaders.
It also means a willingness on the part of
teachers and administrators to be flexi-
ble and empirical in considering new
content, methods, and goals.

The continuing rejuvenation of sci-
ence content and teaching methods in
response to new findings and societal
goals requires access to and utilization
of the national wisdom. Otherwise, local
initiatives will amount to little more

Jerome Berkowitz photo than stirring the pot! Large-scale infusions of curriculum innovations, such as the NSF-sponsored projects, are valuable in that they provide materials which no school district could develop on its own. The continued availability of such materials is essential to the growth and improvement of the science education enterprise in the United States. Indeed, most superintendents felt that federal support for continued curriculum development was essential (66 percent) and

Despite the fact that the percentage of secondary school students taking science courses has not decreased, it is nevertheless true that the percentage taking chemistry and physics is very small. It seems likely that one reason these numbers are so small is that only 21 percent of the states require more than one year of science in grades 9-12. For the great majority, that one year is tenth-grade biology, with fewer than half advancing into chemistry. The attri

tion becomes even more severe in physics, with fewer than half of the nation's chemistry students going on into that fundamental discipline.

that NSF should help teachers learn how to use the new curricula (77 percent). Implementation of new materials can only take place at the local level and then only if teachers are prepared and willing

to use them.

Since so much depends on teachers, it becomes necessary to focus attention there. Unfortunately, the study found that many teachers feel they have little power to change things, see little more they can do themselves, and are re

VII. Do teachers count?
Almost all elementary school science is
taught by teachers in self-contained
classrooms. Secondary science classes
are taught more often by special science
teachers. The studies found, not surpris-
ingly, that within any classroom the sci-
ence taught and the way it is taught is
dependent primarily on what the in-
dividual teacher believes, knows, and
does. Numerous studies indicate that
the type of instruction does affect stu-
dent learning and that the teacher is the
most important instructional variable.
The critical role of the teacher in institut... final responsibility
ing changes in science teaching is well
documented.

signed to the status quo. Many problems

and conditions which teachers feel inThe fact is that many of these obstac hibit science teaching were reported. les such as insufficient background in science, lack of equipment, inadequate room facilities, and insufficient timecan be eliminated or at least attenuated if teachers will refuse to accept them as barriers.

Changes in science teaching nationwide are simply the summations of changes in individual schools functioning independently with or without strong and inspired local initiatives and leadership. Any movement to change science teaching and learning will require the wholehearted support, cooperation, and creative involvement of

for what happens in science teaching does not rest solely on the shoulders of teachers, but a successful school program in science education is solely dependent upon what they do with their students."

Teachers must assume more responsibility for creating conditions which will enhance their efforts in the classroom. This may seem an unreasonable expectation to teachers enmeshed in the demands of each day's teaching, but teachers and administrators within individual schools must find ways to provide time for unhurried thought and deliberate planning. Total and final responsibility for what happens in science teaching does not rest solely on the shoulders of teachers, but a successful school program in science education is solely dependent upon what they do with their students. Unmistakably, the teacher is the key!

VIII. What can be done?

We have described and interpreted three

NSF-sponsored studies on science education to inform teachers and to suggest areas in which they can continue to influence the quantity and quality of science education. We have taken the posistem only from the initiatives and efforts tion that ultimately improvement can of teachers supported and assisted by local administrative and supervisory personnel. While local efforts will surely

have limitations, we believe that much

can be accomplished by teachers, administrators, and parents who are committed to improving the science programs of their schools, even in the absence of federal or state funds. This will require leadership, energy, and a clear definition of school priorities. Schools which are not well managed and which

ignore the basic precepts of organiza

tion and team building are not going to improve their science curricula in any substantial way, even if federal or state funds are available. Federal efforts to support research and development in science education are essential, but we cannot expect governmental support to solve what are essentially local problems.

The studies have confirmed constructive changes in the schools as a result of the infusion of new courses and teaching approaches in the sixties. It is our view that the continuing promotion and support of curriculum development and related teaching innovations by NSF, USOE, and other federal or state funding agencies are essential to consolidate and build upon the accumulated experience and positive changes which have taken place. While these national efforts do not necessarily have to be directed to the

creation of complete courses in the PSSC, BSCS, and CHEM Study traditions, much more attention needs to be paid to the creation and trial of methods which build upon the research and development efforts of the past two decades, with emphasis on the use of new technologies such as videodiscs and microcomputers to individualize instruc

tion.

We further believe that more economical and productive approaches to curriculum development and dissemination can be organized at the national level without a loss in effectiveness. We propose that professional science education organizations should assume responsibility for exploring and developing such alternative approaches. For example, the success of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in gaining access to schools-once assurances were given that the results of the assessment would not be attributable to individuals or systems-suggests that a subject matter assessment is feasible. An assessment of the present science content of the school curriculum should be organized and conducted by a team of academic scientists and outstanding science teachers and educators.

A study of this type would be appropriately sponsored by a consortium of disciplinary science societies and their science education counterparts. We envision that NSTA, ACS, AAPT, NABT, and other societies would have major responsibilities. The results of such a study would command immediate attention of teachers, school decision makers, and curriculum planners for much the same reasons that the curriculum reform movement of the 1960s attracted such a ready audience. The science teachers who are most capable of providing school curriculum leadership are the ones most active in the affairs of their professional societies. They are the teachers who want to keep in close contact with the science research community because they find that this contact is intellectually stimulating and enhances their teaching. It is this sense of community, as much as any other circumstance, which made it possible for curriculum reform to proceed as rapidly as it did. If we believe that much of the science content of our secondary school courses (particularly that intended for students who will not go on in science) warrants re-examination, we must turn to the network of school and college sci

“An assessment of the present science content of the school curriculum should be organized and conducted by a team of distinguished academic scientists,...science teachers, and educators."

ence teachers created by the curriculum development efforts of the last two decades.

We have earlier indicated the need for immediate and appropriate assistance at the elementary level. Given the fiscal and political realities of the next decade, it is unlikely that federal funds can be made available on the scale required to provide direct in-service or summer science training to a significant fraction of elementary school classroom teachers. Several alternatives suggest themselves. Federal and state agencies could provide support on a competitive basis to colleges and universities seeking to sponsor special resourcepersonnel workshops for elementary school team and grade-level leaders whose schools make commitments to organize subsequent inservice training programs using these personnel. These workshops would focus both on subject matter and on classroom techniques designed to enable children, and teachers, to learn science effectively. This form of support is appropriate for federal and state governments, attractive to colleges and universities, and useful for school personnel. Serious consideration must also be given to similar training in preservice programs to avoid perpetuating the problems.

The U.S. Office of Education could earmark funds for state departments of education to award to schools seeking to upgrade elementary school science programs, on a competitive and matching (or in-kind) basis. School systems would be free to specify how these funds would be used in the science program. Options might range from the hiring of science specialists and consultants to the purchasing of laboratory equipment and supplies.

The effectiveness of local efforts to improve science education-on all levels could be vastly increased if the faculties and administrators of schools, colleges, and universities worked to

gether rather than separately. Currently few, if any, coordinated and focused activities exist in science education involving schools and nearby higher education institutions as partners. As an example, funds could be provided to support those proposals developed by teachertraining institutions-in complete cooperation with local school districts-that involve appropriate pre- and in-service training programs in which science teacher training is seen as a continuum, with both groups having important and essential roles to play. Emphasis in such teacher preparation should be on ways to increase openness, flexibility, inquiry, and student involvement.

The NSF/CCSS institutes of the past represented a small but significant step in that direction. Additional models need to be developed and tried. NSTA and similar national associations should lead in stimulating school and college faculties to organize and implement local working relationships which will enable teachers from schools and colleges in a community to know and learn from each other while being constructively occupied with projects designed to accomplish tasks of common concern.

References

1. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education, Iris R. Weiss. US Government Printing Office. Wash., D.C. 1978 (stock no. 038-000-00364-0) 2. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education: 1955-1975 Volume I: Science Education. Stanley L. Helgeson, Patricia E. Blosser, and Robert W. Howe U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978. (stock no. 038-000-00362-3)

3. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathemat ics, and Social Science Education: 1955-1975. Volume II. Mathematics Education. Marilyn N. Suydam and Alan Osborne. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978. (stock no. 038-000-00371-2)

4. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathemat ics, and Social Science Education 1955-1975. Volume III Social Science Education. Karen B. Wiley and Jeanne Rice. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 1978. (stock no. 038-000-00363-1)

5. Case Studies in Science Education. Volume 1: The Case Reports Robert E. Stake, Jack Easley. et al. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1978. (stock no. 038-000-00377-1) 6. Case Studies in Science Education. Volume II: Design, Overview and General Findings. Robert E. Stake, Jack Easley, et al. US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978. (stock no 038-000-00376-3)

7 The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathematics and Social Studies Educational Practices in U.S. Schools: An Overview and Summaries of Three Studies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1978. (stock no. 038-00000383-6, $3.50)