FlSF Education Programs: Lean and Limited The education programs of the National Science Foundation are undergoing major changes. Summer institutes are out, implementation programs are in; graduate fellowships in traditional disciplines are all but eliminated, those in interdisciplinary areas have token support; continuing education for scientists and technicians is in favor, continuing education for science teachers is set aside; public understanding programs a t the elementary and secondary level are in vogue, those a t the college level are passe. From the outside, the changes in priorities and the new programs appear to be exploratory rather than directionsetting, but they all are dominated by the hard fact that the NSF hudget for education has decreased steadily from $164.9 million in 1970 to $60.5 million in 1975, even though the total NSF hudget has increased from $460.9 million in 1970 to more than $650 million in 1975. NSF education program activities for 1975 are structured around four basic objectives 1) Improvement of education for careers in science. The purnose of this oraeram is "to helo assure an avvropriate num-
needs." 2) Development of science literacy. The goal here is "to in-
crease substantially the number of persons who are able to make use of the methodology of science, as well as the results of scientific discovery, in their work and personal lives, whether or not they are engaged in scientific or technical occupations." 3) Increasing the efficiency of educational processes. The aim here is to improve effectiveness and efficiency in science education so as to help lower the cost of education while cantinuing to improve its quality. 4) Problem assessment and experimental projects in science. This will consist of a variety of studies directed toward improving the effectiveness and impact of NSF (and other) programs that were developed to improve science education. Descriptions of these programs, and other information concemina them are available from NSF, Washington, D.C. 20550. While the new programs represent new vitality, and a hint of enlightened leadership in the education section of NSF, they offer little real help for those who bear the dayby-day burden of educating the public in science and introducing future scientists to their disciplines. Nowhere is this more apparent than in summer programs for secondary school teachers. During the period 1967-71 this activity was supported at a level of about $22 million/year. In 1974 the funding dropped to $5.2 million; in 1975 it is expected to he no more than $2.8 million. The outlook is no brighter in the area of instructional improvement implementation, where the goal is to foster major curriculum and course development. Of the $8 million spent in 1974, 90 percent was used for continuing programs, and only 10 percent was used to start new programs. Despite the crying need for creative courses for the nonscience majors, most of the funds went into continuing nrograms that alreadv have been thoroughly implement.. ed; some of these long-ago outlived their usifuiness: It is difficult to take seriouslv the arguments advanced for discontinuing the major support for the upgrading of teachers and for developing new courses and curricula. According to one argument, the disaffection of the Ameri~
.
~
Ieditorially
1
speaking
can public with science is a consequence of poor science instruction in the schools. Therefore, continued support of those responsible for this can only lead to more disaffection with science. Said one NSF official: "After all, we have spent three-fourths of a billion dollars on teachers' stipends since 1957, and what have we got to show for it?" A second, and somewhat parallel argument maintains that most of the science courses developed with federal funds were designed to identify and develop future scientists, with the result that many students with science talent were tumed on, and most others were turned off toward science. This led to an over-supply of scientists and engineers, and an increasingly large anti-science component among young adults. In light of these developments, there is little confidence by those in Washington that money spent on new courses and curricula can improve the situation. These arguments are based on just enough truth to make them palatable to the unwary and irresistible to the demagogue. If the same reasoning were applied to all programs of the NSF, a case could he made for reducing the entire hudget of the agency to about 10 percent its present value. While it is true that science instruction, particularly for the nonscientist, is not all it should and can be, only the most narrow can argue in conscience that education in science for all citizens has not come a long way since Sputnik. For every graduate student who has the impression that silver chloride is a pale green gas, there are hundreds of other graduate students and tens of thousands of ordinary citizens who know far more about certain aspects of chemistry than any beginning graduate student knew twenty years ago. While it also is true that our own CHEMS and CBA courses, along with comparable courses in most other disciplines, were perhaps too strongly oriented toward the science-talented student, who in NSF or.in the scientific community a t the time these programs were developed would have agreed to federal support for anything less than discipline-oriented rigorous instructional units? If nothing else, the summer institutes and the courses developed with federal funds have shown that such programscan have a profound effect on the educational effort in this country. I t is absurd to think that the persons and mechanism& that have brought about this effect are unable to bring about further modification and improvement in the programs. Even worse, it is vexing to realize that, having learned what is needed to make substantive changes in the education process, we ignore the experience and cast off in other directions. The news from NSF continues to he discouraging. Not only has the education portion of the hudget dropped from 35 percent in 1970 to well under 10 percent in 1975, but the most successful and oewasive of the education orograms have been virtuall; eliminated, and the experience of nearlv. 20 . vears anoears to have been disregarded in for.. mulating new programs. Still, the new education programs, though lean and limited, offer opportunities for creativity and contribution. And there is always the opportunity to write in concern to the education staff at NSF or to members of the National Science Board.
WTL Volume 51.
Number 10. October 1974 / 627
