a&c&tbz 4 CHEMICAL EDUCATION

R - w S q

Message from the Chairman

Science Education and the National Science Foundation

It has been my privilege to appear as a ~vit,ness for t,hr Association of American Colleges aud t,he iYational Council of Independent Colleges and Universities before the House Subcommittee and also before the Scnat,e. Committee on Appropriations on behalf of the National Science Foundation I'iscal Year 1972 Budget.. To be a part of these discussions is an educational experknce. The facts are startling and their implications in regards to the priority being given to science education in the formulation of the budget are disturbing.

The facts of the situation are summarized in the table. The format of the table and the values in the first three columns come directly from the initial presentation of Dr. William D. NcElroy, Director, N:~tional Science Foundhon, to the House Committee on Scieuce and Astronautics.' The third column is the Administration F Y 1972 Budget, the budget sent to the Congress from the White House early in 1971. The values in the Ad- ministration F Y 1972 Budget show an overall increase as compared F Y 1970 and ICY 1971 (460.9 to 495.3 to 619.2 million dollars) \ ~ i t h increases in all categories except Institutional Support for Science and Scieuce Education Support.

The values eiven in the remainins columris have beeu

Anna J. Harrison Mount Holyoke College

South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075

out a bill which reduces the total from the 619.2 to 582.0 million but reh ins the values given by the Aut,horiza- tiou Subcommit,tec for Instit,utional Support for Science and Science Education Support (fifth column).

The Senat,e Authorization Committee increased the t,ot;d hudget to 703.7 million by increasing Scientific Research and lhcilities Support, National and Special Rcsearch Progmms, Instit,utional Support for Science and Science Education Support (sixt,h column). The uext crucial development is the bill to be reported out by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (seventh column).

The following statement appears in the Report from t,he House Committee on Appropriations: "The Com- mit,tee will expect the Foundation to utilize the funds

1 IToose of ilepresentativer, Hearings before the Committee un Science and Astnmaut.ies, 92nd Congress, First Session, on H.R. 4743.

2 The Ilouse Authorization Subcommittee rest,ored, within the large Science Education Support line, the St,udent Science Training Pmgram (S2.0 million), the Undergraduate lteseareh I'xrticipstian (4.0), the Post-Doctoral Fellowxhipn (1.5), the Science Faculty Fellowships (2.0) and the College Teacher Pro- gram (1.5), and increased the Graduate Fellowahips and Trainee- shim from 20.0 to 20.0 million and the Precolleze Level Institates -

collected from the various bills t&t have been intro- from 23.3 to 25.3 million. They also specified, within the lsrge

duced by the appropriate subcommittees or committees Institt~tionsl Support for Science line, $4.0 million for the In- stmctional Scientifir Equipment Program. SSTP and URP were

in the House and in the Senate. The House Authoriza- high priol.ity by minimum .,all,eu (2.0 and tion Subcommittee reported out a bill which retained the 4.0). same total as the Administration Budeet. but assiened W ~ o o ~ e of lle~resentatives, 92nd Congress, First Session, ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ - , - different values within the budget including marked 1b0rt92-305. increases in Institutional Support for Science and 4 Senate, 92nd Congrem, First Session, Report 92-23?.

"he exclusive zip code number for NSF is 20550. Science Education Support (fourth c o l ~ m n ) . ~ The I ~ h e d i r w t o r nf OMR is hfr. Genrw P. Schnltz and his address .. .. .- ~ . - -~ . -~

House Committee on kppropriations has reported is The White Houw.

Survey of Federal Appropriations to Science - Committee Action in Congrens------- Budget Program Comparisons FY (millions of dollars)

1970-1972 House House Senate Senate mdhonu of dollars) ( ' 'L Authoriaa- Approprin- Aothoriza- Appropria-

Actual Wnnnte Estimate tion tion tion tion Proerams FY 1970 FY 1971 FY 1072 FY 1072 FY 1972 F Y 1972 FY 1972

Scientific Research and $168.2 $181.7 $&5'S. 6 $255.4 $235.8 $298.6 Facilities Support

National and Special 78.6 117.7 198.9 16U.3 152.9 198.9 Research Programs

National Research Centers 27.2 37.1 40.4 40.4 39.8 40.4 Institutional Support For 44.7 34.6 1B.O $8.8 $8.8 .34.6 88.8

Science Science Education Support 180.8 100.8 77.5 99.S 99.3 104.8 99.3 Program Development and 21.7 23.7 27.0 27.0 25.4 27.0 - - - - - -- 27.0

hlanqement Subtotals 460.8 496.3 619.$ 619.8 588.0 70-7.7 619.8 Miscellaneous Adjustments -22.6 8.6 -0.2 Total Salaries and Expenses 438 .O 503.9 619.0 Foreign Currency 2 . 0 2 .0 3 . 0

Appropriation Total NSF Programs 440.0 505.9 622.0

492 / Journal of Chemical Education

included for science education support and institutional support for science as recommended, instead of the diversion of additional funds to basic or applied re~earch!'~

The Senate Authorization Bill specifies ". . . not less than $34,500,000 shall be available only for institutional support for science and not less than $104,316,215 shall be available only for science education support." The Report from the Senate Committee on Authorization also specified ". . . in the event the appropriation for fis- cal year 1972 is less than the $703,516,215 authorized by this section, the Director of the National Science Foun- dation is authorized to reduce ratably the amounts set aside in this section specifically for institutional support for science and science education support."'

What are the implications of this mass of factual information?

Clearly the priorities which led to the establishment of the Administration Budget are not the same as the priorities which led to the actions of the Congressional Committees which have reported out bills. Why are these priorities so different? This question cannot be answered but we can partially analyze some of the fac- tors related to the actions taken.

The National Science Board is the major policy-mak- ing body of NSF. The Director of NSF and his staff prepare the budget that goes to the Office of Manage- ment and Budget. That budget or a modified budget goes to the White House. In turn that budget or a mod- ified budget goes to Congress. The Administration Budget is thus the end of this evolutionary process.

Has it been the unannounced policy of NSB for sev- eral years to phase out Science Education Support a t NSF? The values of $120.2 million in 1970, 100.6 in 1971 and 77.3 in 1972 could indicate this. The testi- mony of Dr. H. E. Carter, Chairman, NSB, before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics1 points out the impact of changes in society on science education but does not take a strong position with respect to the support of education below the graduate level. The same statement also applies to the testimony of Dr. McElroy. The twenty-page supplemental statement of Dr. Lloyd G. Humphreys, Assistant Direc- tor of Education, NSF, read into the record of the same committee, seems to he a much stronger statement for the support of science education than his own oral testi- mony. All of this raises the question as to what extent is OMB acting as a policy-determining body. Since the Administration FY 1972 Budget went to Congress, there has been an impressive flow of communications to committee chairmen and individual congressmen. These have undoubtedly focused attention on science education. The House Appropriations Subcommittee has been most sympathetic to the problems of science education. They have, however, pointed out repeat- edly to witnesses that the battle was being fought in the wrong arena and suggested that the academic commun- ity should make a more effective input into policy decisions before another NSF budget goes to the White House. They also expressed considerable interest in the avenues open to the academic community to make such an input.

The National Science Board consists of 24 public membera appointed by the President from industry and the academic community. Eight appointments are to be made early in 1972 from a slate of sixteen names

prepared by NSB this fall. The members of NSB are undoubtedly distinguished. The Board does not, how- ever, include a t this time a member who is attached to a primarily undergraduate institution.

Communications to Dr. Carter and the Director of NSF in regards to policy could be very helpful in focusing their attentions on science education and in strengthening their position in regards to science edu- cation. Communications to Dr. Humphreys in regard to innovations within existing programs and the in- novation of new programs could also be very effective in ptoviding maximum strength for the budget proposed.5 The FY 1973 NSF Budget goes to OMB October 1. After that date it may be effective to communicate directly with individuals at OMB.'

From the standpoint of policy, three points seem to be of prime importance: science education should be sup- ported through NSF, science education should be con- sistently supported at a substantial level, and the man- ner in which it is supported should not further polarize the scientific community. NSF has done a great deal to bring the scientific community together, and it is for exactly this reason that a strong case should be made for NSF to place increasing emphasis on its college and pre- college education programs. Even if college and precol- lege science education were to be very ably funded by another agency or foundation, the separation would sever the sense of continuity that is developing in the scientific community. The separation would tend to magnify the differences between graduate education and undergraduate education, between those who do research and those who teach. Nothing could say more clearly that research is science, teaching is not science, and the two are unrelated. Nothing could be more destructive to the quality of teaching-particularly in institutions which have strong graduate programs.

The question of the degree to which science education is funded is a value judgment regarding the role of sci- ence education in a democratic society. No one ques- tions the desirability of increased funding for Scientific Research and Facilities Support and the National and Special Research Programs. It is important that meri- torious fundamental research dropped from other pro- grams he continued. It is important that research be directed to the solution of the changing national prob- lems. It is important that the employment of very competent scientists be supported through research. It is also important that effort be directed to the solu- tion of changing national problems in science education. It is also important that very competent scientists be supported in their desire to participate in the creative development of broad science programs. The nation needs scientists who understand the broad problems of society and non-scientists who understand a great deal more about science. No one questions our ability to produce highly specialized professional scientists but we have been much less successful in producing a high level of scientific literacy throughout the populace. Experimentation must go on at all levels-the schools, the colleges and the universities. Experimentation in most cases will require the cooperation of two or more well-educated individuals--not necessarily all scientists. This is an expensive process in terms of manpower and in most eases will require financial assistance from out- side the institution. Every effort should be made to

(Continued on page 514)

Volume 48, Number 8, August 1971 / 493