|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 143
8
Indicators of Financial and
Leadership Support
RESOURCES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
High-quality mathematics and science instruction requires sig-
nificant financial support. As pointed out in Chapter 6, to attract
and retain talented science and mathematics teachers, the schools
must provide adequate salaries and the resources that teachers need
to teach well. Moreover, good facilities, adequate time for planning
instruction, and continuing professional development are necessary
not only to attract talented teachers and support their teaching ef-
forts, but also to support the development and use of curricula of
high quality. Traditionally, financial support has been monitored
through such indicators as expenditures per pupil, expenditures per
student as a percentage of income per capita, average teacher salary,
nail /teacher ratio or nul)il/staff ratio, federal funds as a percent-
age of school revenues, and the like (see, e.g., National Center for
Education Statistics, 1985~.
There are two reasons why the committee does not recommend
the collection of additional information of this sort at the district level
focused specifically on mathematics and science instruction. First,
indicators of the particular resources purchased with school funds and
how these resources are used to produce instruction, including time
spent on specific subjects, provide more reliable evidence of the ad-
equacy of financial support for mathematics and science instruction
rid--/ ~
143
OCR for page 144
144 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
than do data on expenditures per pupil and other such traditional in-
dicators of investments in education (Wiley and Harnischfeger, 1974;
Denham and Lieberman, 1980; Levin, 1980~. Second, the accounting
systems in use in most American school districts do not permit the
calculation of meaningful numbers on expenditures at the district
level specifically supporting science and mathematics instruction. In
a commissioned paper for the committee, Alexander (1985) described
the requirements for a cost-accounting system that would be needed
by local school districts to measure program costs for science and
mathematics. According to Alexander (1985:163:
An analysis of program costs for mathematics and science requires
that expenditure components attributable to the respective programs
be identified. Costs and expenditures are not synonymous. To find the
actual costs of a particular program may involve expenditures from
several budgetary components as well as indirect costs which must
be prorated among programs or areas.... Costs for mathematics
and science programs must necessarily derive from a school and
course analysis. Costs for programs at the school district level would
be derived from aggregation. Sue costs of programs can only be
accurately determined by analysis at the school level.
The amount of time and effort that would be needed to develop,
implement, and operate such a cost-analysis system in each local
district is likely to discourage this approach to a financial indicator,
particularly in view of the mixed findings in the literature on the con-
nections between general educational expenditures and educational
outcomes (see, e.g., Cohn and Riew, 1974~.
After considerable discussion, the committee concluded that the
best indicators would focus, not on dollars per se, but on the things
money buys in a good educational program, namely, competitive
salaries; the materials, supplies, and facilities needed to teach and
learn well; time for teachers to plan instruction and engage in other
professional activities; and opportunities provided to teachers for
professional growth. Chapter 6 discusses these matters in greater de-
tai] and provides recommendations for the development of indicators
of salaries, adequacy of working conditions, and availability and use
of facilities, instructional materials, and supplies.
FEDERAL FINANCIAI, SUPPORT
One way of gauging social commitment to an enterprise is to
examine the amount of resources expended on it. Policy analysts
(see, e.g., Wildavsky, 1979) have argued that the intent of public
OCR for page 145
INDICATORS OF FINANCIAL AND LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
145
policy is to use public resources to achieve desired ends. The in-
vestment of federal funds in education certainly is a case in point.
Concern with production of sufficient manpower in fields of perceived
shortages has led to federal funding of fellowships for graduate and
professional education; federal funds have supported the creation and
maintenance of special educational programs for a variety of popu-
lations seen as underserved by the schools poor children, children
with physical handicaps and learning disabilities, children whose first
language is not English, and children from minority ethnic groups
(e.g., the recent program of magnet schools); in the 1960s, federal
funds were invested in science and mathematics education to ensure
a well-educated corps of scientists and engineers.
Although the federal financial contribution to elementary and
secondary school science and mathematics instruction at any time
has been small relative to state and local contributions, the fed-
eral government is in a unique position to exercise leadership for
example, by supporting the development of innovative curricula, by
sponsoring educational and recognition programs for teachers, and by
emphasizing that all children should have science and mathematics
instruction of high quality. Therefore, indicators of federal support
can provide important evidence of the social commitment to science
and mathematics education (Catterall, 1986~. The committee be-
lieves that it would be valuable to collect information annually on the
level of federal financial support for elementary and secondary school
science and mathematics instruction. This information should be
broken down by discipline supported, school level (elementary, mid-
dIe school, high school), and type of activity supported (materials
development, teacher education/professional development, research
and assessment, facilities and supplies, informal education, recogni-
tion programs, student activities).
Collecting information on the level of federal financial support
of science and mathematics instruction is not straightforward. Some
of the problems in obtaining reliable information on federal support
were described by Mason (1985) in a paper written for the com-
mittee. Foremost is the fact that support comes from a number of
federal agencies, but in several of the agency budgets, the dollars
devoted to support for elementary and secondary school science and
mathematics instruction do not appear as separate line items. Where
data are available, they are found at two levels, at the macro-level of
agency budgets and appropriations and at the micro-level of projects
and activities.
OCR for page 146
146 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
An indicator of federal financial support based on macro-level
data would include the portion of an agency budget specifically des-
ignated for mathematics anti science education. For example, federal
funds for education provided under the National Defense Education
Act (NDEA) would have been included in a macro-level indicator,
since the act included specific line item programs for improving pre-
college science and mathematics education, such as grants to public
schools for laboratory and other special equipment used in teaching
science and mathematics. A more recent example is the Education
for Economic Security Act of 1983 (P.~. 98-377), which authorized
financial assistance for state and local education agencies and in-
stitutions of higher education to improve the skills of teachers in
mathematics, science, computer learning, and foreign languages.
The programs of the National Science Foundation (NSF) are the
most visible and well-documented federal activities in science and
mathematics education, and the NSF budget for education activities
is often cited as an indicator of federal support. For the period from
1952 to 1980, science education obligations of NSF were reported ac-
cording to function and level of education, with five main functional
categories: research and development, students, teachers, institu-
tions, and science and society. Currently, the precollege science edu-
cation budget at NSF is organized as follows: materials development
and informal education; teacher preparation and enhancement; and
studies, research, and program assessment. The budget categories
of NSF provide a useful starting point for developing indicators, but
some analysis of project support would be necessary to report trend
lines (Knapp et al., 1987~.
It is not satisfactory to base an indicator of federal financial
support on the NSF budget alone, since NSF is only one of several
sources of federal support for science and mathematics education.
However, an assessment of other federal financial support would re-
quire analyses of data at the micro-level of projects and activities
administered by each agency. This kind of analysis can be conducted
with varying degrees of ease or difficulty. For example, in the Depart-
ment of Education, the largest grant programs to states and local
districts are targeted broadly at students with special needs rather
than at particular curricular areas. The Education for All Handi-
capped Children Act and Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation
and Improvement Act, which is targeted on disadvantaged children,
provide funding for compensatory education. Although mathematics
education is a major component of these programs, and, to a lesser
OCR for page 147
INDICATORS OF FINANCIAL AND LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
147
degree, science and computer activities, no figures are currently avail-
able on dollars allocated to specific subjects. A special study would
be needed to determine levels of funding by subject. Such a study
would have to be sensitive to the problem of equating compensatory
courses or activities in mathematics or science with regular instruc-
tion and making judgments on the extent to which compensatory
education indicates improvement or decline in the quality of educa-
tion in gracles 1-12. Similarly, research and development supported
by the Department of Education is not disaggregated by budget line
items for specific subject areas. To develop an indicator, an analysis
would be needed of the projects, grants, and contracts funded each
year.
Other federal agencies, for example, the Department of Energy
and the Department of Defense, may provide significant support for
science and mathematics education in the schools and through out-
of-schoo] programs. Even with data at the micro-level of projects and
activities, however, it would be difficult to make the needed distinc-
tions within the budgets of these agencies for three reasons. First,
funding data are not typically aggregated by function, and relevant
projects or activities are not always identified as education projects
or activities. Second, education activities, even when identified, are
not necessarily classified as precollege or college-level activities. And
third, science and mathematics education activities may not be dis-
tinguished from other subject areas. Thus, neither review of agency
budgets nor analyzing lists of projects or activities may be effective in
developing a reliable indicator of federal financial support for science
and mathematics education in grades 1-12.
Categories of agency budgets tend to be highly generalized, and
for most policy-analysis purposes it is necessary to obtain special
cross-cIassifications or subcategories. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) publishes a special analysis (K) on research and
development from all agencies, but research and development related
to science and mathematics education is not separately identified.
Until a few years ago, OMB published a special analysis of education,
but without breakdowns by subject area. According to OMB staff,
there are no current plans for special analyses of education by subject
(Bernard Martin, OMB, personal communication, August 1986~.
OCR for page 148
148 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
Recommendation
Supplementary Indicator: The committee recommends
the construction of a set of accounts detailing the level and
type of support for science and mathematics education from
all departments and agencies of the federal government that
fund relevant programs.
The importance of having reliable annual data on the level of
federal financial support merits the investment necessary to con-
struct such a set of accounts. Agencies should be encouraged to
report budget and funding data by categories identifiable as precol-
lege mathematics and science education, and funds should-be made
available (possibly through NSF) to perform the necessary analy-
ses. The kind of disaggregation of financial support for science and
mathematics education found in the NSF budget could be used as
a model for developing the recommended cross-agency indicator of
federal support.
A somewhat similar argument could be made for a state-level
indicator of financial investment in mathematics and science educa-
tion. State policy makers continually have to make funding choices
among all the curriculum areas. For example, should a program
manager for state discretionary money direct the program staff for
gifted students to emphasize the arts or science in its grant awards?
Should policy makers influence program managers to use discre-
tionary monies for staff development in reading or in mathematics?
Should more mathematics and science specialists or consultants be
hired? These state-level decisions not only demonstrate fiscal prior-
ities but also send direct messages to local school personnel about
what is important. Therefore, such decisions are also a way of de-
scribing the leadership role the state has taken in curriculum areas,
particularly if there are discernible trends in financial support over
time.
Financial support for student testing is another indicator of how
important a curriculum area such as science is considered to be. For
example, only half the states provide for state assessment of science
knowledge, and the national assessment occurs at best every four
years, whereas mathematics and reading are tested more frequently
at both state and national levels.
While the committee has not suggested specific indicators of fi-
nancial investment in mathematics and science education at the state
or district level for the reasons indicated above, individual states and
OCR for page 149
INDICATORS OF FINANCIAL AND LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
149
localities may wish to consider whether tracking such investments
would give them useful information on curricular priorities.
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Support for elementary and secondary science and mathematics
education at the national level should be measured not only in federal
dollars but also in terms of the activities and efforts of the national
scientific leadership. In the committee's view, the level of general
social commitment to science and mathematics education needs to
be motivated and shaped by the commitment of national leaders and
leadership organizations of the scientific community (see Committee
on Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education,
1987~. Examples from the past could be cited: the American Chemi-
cal Society, together with Glenn Seaborg, a national leader in science
and education then and now, sparked the initiation and develop-
ment of one of the major curriculum development projects of the
1960s (Seaborg, quoted in Committee on Research in Mathematics,
Science, and Technology Education, 1987~. The School Mathematics
Study Group, probably the most influential curricuTum-reform group
of mathematics in the 1960s, was organized under the auspices of the
American Mathematical Society, representing active researchers in
mathematics, which "made it possible for a large number of distin-
guished college teachers and research mathematicians to enter whole-
heartedly into cooperation with high school teachers in a concerted
effort to improve the quality and presentation of school mathemat-
ics" (Wooton, 1965:13~. It is not evident to what extent the scientific
community remains involved in the improvement of science educa-
tion. Since the success of any national effort will depend critically on
the participation of scientific leaders, measures of the degree of their
involvement are urgently needed.
While the interest and involvement of individual scientists in
elementary and secondary education will always be idiosyncratic,
the involvement of national scientific bodies ought to be constant
and sustained. To monitor such commitment, a possible indicator
might be the fraction of the staff and budget of relevant organiza-
tions that is devoted to advancing and improving elementary and
secondary school science and mathematics education. These orga-
nizations include the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Mathematical Asso-
ciation of America, the American Institute of Physics, the American
OCR for page 150
150 INDICATORS OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
TABLE 8-1 Investment in Education by the American Chemical Society
Level
Percentage
1986 1987
Elementary 7 8
High school 17 18
College 33 33
College and high school* 15 15
Other 28 26
Total funding
$985,000 $1,033,000
Some programs serve both the college and high school communities.
Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and
the American Geological Institute. Some of these organizations have
education divisions and ongoing projects of support to education; it
would therefore be relatively easy to track increases and decreases
in support over time. For example, the American Chemical Society
intends to spend about 22.4 percent of its dues on education, divided
as shown in Table 8-1.
The society has about 16 staff members who provide educational
services supported by dues. In addition, in 1986, grant-supported
programs provided for educational activities funded at $658,000; in
1987, this figure is expected to exceed $500,000. The society also op-
erates self-sustaining activities budgeted for revenues of $2,249,000
in 1986 and $2,375,000 for 1987. This includes development and
distribution of all kinds of educational materials such as newsletters,
classroom curricular materials, comic books for elementary school
children, textbook series for prospective chemistry technicians, and
a variety of training programs (Kenneth Chapman, personal commu-
nication, September 26, 1986~.
This sort of information should be available in a systematic
way, but it is not. There are two reasons why it is important to
obtain it on a continuing basis for individual fields of science and
their associated professional bodies. First, if data on investments in
education by scientific bodies were available periodically, one could
track the level of involvement of the scientific community in the
improvement of science education over time. Second, the efforts of
individual professional societies could be compared with the needs
in each field and with the efforts of their sister societies. In that
OCR for page 151
INDICATORS OF FINANCIAL AND LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
151
connection, it also would be of interest to obtain an estimate of the
pro-rated time of top executives and elected officials that is devoted
to education-related activities. Such measures, after appropriate
analysis, would provide evidence of changes in the extent to which the
national scientific leadership devotes time and energy to improving
science and mathematics instruction in elementary and secondary
school.
Recommendation
Supplementary Indicator: The committee recommends
that indicators be designed using budgetary data of scien-
tific bodies and information on staff time and volunteer time
devoted to education and that these indicators be routinely
available to reflect the commitment of resources by scien-
tific bodies for the improvement of mathematics and science
education in the schools.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
science education
