I editorially
Struggle for Support: OMB and the NSF Budget The dismal outlook for federal support of science education through the National Science Foundation reported on or referred to several times in recent months, [C.f., THIS JOURNAL, 48, 492, 711, 719, 800 (1971)], could be improved slightly if Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) accept the Fiscal 1973 budget recommendations of the NSF Director and his staff, and even a portion of the advice on this matter offered by spokesmen for The Association of American Universities, The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, The American Association of State Colleges and Universities, The Association of American Colleges, The Associated Colleges of the Midwest, The American Association of Junior Colleges and The Great Lakes Association. Congress, an empathetic and long-standing friend of science education can be counted on to consider carefully the recommendations and the advice, and to act with prudence. By contrast, OMB has an especially poor record on such matters and, if it continues to function as it has in the past year, the outlook for science education can become nothing short of disastrous. The following table summarizes and updates the NSF budget picture over the past four years giving the total budget, the budget for science education, includimg institutional support and support for graduate students, and the percent of the total budget going to science education activities. Fiscal Yea? Total Budget (millions) Subtotal for Science Education (millions) Pweent to Science Education
1970 460.9
1971 496.1
1972 601.1
1973a 653=
164.9
133.2
107.1
9@
35
27
18
15n
Requested in the Administration Budget.
The trends are obvious and ominous. Both the dollar amounts budgeted and the percent of the total available to science education are dropping sharply. Clearly, this is a reflection of a change in priorities by the management of NSF-a change that at the very least must not be unacceptable to the National Science Board. Fortunately, Congress does not seem to feel that such downgrading of priorities for science education is desirable. I n Fiscal 1972, it appropriated (after extensive public hearings) 128.1 million for improvement of science education, some 29 million over the agency's request. However, the ONIB has refused to release a t least 21 million of this, deferring it "for use in subsequent years." Now before Congress is the NSF budget for Fiscal 1973 which asks for 653 million, including 96 million for science education. Of this 96 million. 14 million is earmarked for graduate student support (down from 20 million in '72 and 30.5 million in '71), 12 million is set aside for institutional grants, (down from 21 million in
-
'72 and 34.4 million in '71), and 70 million is requested for science education improvement (up from 66 million in '72 and 68 million in '71). The decrease in graduate student support includes the discontinuance of graduate traineeships by the end of Fiscal 1973, and represents a decreased emphasis on the production of professional scientists. The continuous decline in institutional grants represents a decreased emphasis on improving institutional quality. Spokesmen for the higher education associations listed above, in testimony before various committees of Congress, have requested increases of 22 million for graduate student support and 18 million for institutional grants above that requested by NSF in the Fiscal 1973budget. Science education improvement programs are presented in a different format in the 1973 budget. This format reflects new emphasis on the responsibility of NSF to stimulate appropriate education in science for all students, and provides mechanisms for encouraging and facilitating the development and implementation of such programs. The 70 million requested under this item includes about 31 million as an investment in the future, to stimulate new development such as alteruative instructional methods and materials, and new experimental models; about 33 million for implementation of instructional improvement as an investment in the present or the immediate future; and about 6 million in a talented students program as an investment in developing the individual with unusual talent. As commendable and as imaginative as these programs are, only by the most phenomenal good fortune can we hope to make any substantial improvement in science education with the funding levels proposed by the Administration for them. Considering the various areas of science that must be involved, it is difficult to see how measurable progress can be made unless the funding levels reach a minimum of 40 million for the new development program and 50 million for instructional improvement implementation. Prospects are good that Congress will support science education activities a t somewhere near the 140 million level, especially if those who see the need here will communicate and document this to their representatives. However, there is a strong conflict of wills between Congress and OMB, and there is no telling what OMB will do with the appropriation after it clears - Congress. The fact that ORlB apparently has the power to alter a budget line-by-line without open hearings and a~oarentlvagainst the advice of grouas as distinguished aiAthe~ a t i t n a Science l Board o r that of the agency Director, and the fact that it can in effect overrule the Congress of the United States after that body has taken deliberative action, is nothing less than remarkable. Still, one would hope that the OMB is attuned mith and subservient to the public interest, so that the chances of a repetition of what happened with the 1972 budget wTL should be minimal at best. Volume
49, Number 5, May 1972 / 301
