Task Force on Education
Minutes from the First Meeting (February 2, 1998)

CALL TO ORDER

Task Force Chair, Dr. Hanna Gray, convened the first meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Education at 9:00 am, February 2, 1998. She greeted the public, asked the Task Force members to introduce themselves, and then turned the meeting over to Secretary Peña, who thanked the members for serving on the Task Force.

Secretary Peña summarized President Clinton's priorities for education which he had discussed in his 1998 State of the Union Address: 100,000 new teachers, reducing classroom size, and making college education a reality for all Americans who want to attend. In addition, he referenced the President's commitment to having every school connected to the internet

Secretary Peña stated that when he first arrived at the Department, he was surprised to learn about the many extraordinary scientists, engineers and technicians the Department employs. He noted most Americans were probably unaware of the incredible scientific work the Department does at its laboratories. He said he was working to make the Department's technical expertise available to K-12 students and teachers. The Department is also working with the laboratories and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) to enlist 1,000 volunteers across the DOE laboratory complex to answer questions from teachers and students via internet. In addition, he said the Department is working in conjunction with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop tutorials in science and math for elementary and secondary students.

The Secretary said the need for the support of the Department was evident because of how American students compare with their foreign counterparts in international tests in science and math. He asked the Task Force to determine whether the discrepancy is real, or whether it can be explained by an inherent bias in the tests, or by other factors.

The Secretary charged the Task Force with three tasks:

Number 1: Define the problem facing the Nation in math and science education. For example, are we going to experience a shortage of scientists, engineers and technicians in the 21st century? In reference to international tests, are we looking at the right data? Is there a crisis, or not?

Number 2: Define the Department's role in solving the problem. In what ways can DOE scientists contribute to the solution, particularly at the elementary and secondary school level?
Historically, the Department has focused most of its resources in the graduate and post graduate lab programs, and community outreach. The Secretary asked the Task Force to investigate whether laboratory outreach activities are limited to the immediate geographic area surrounding the labs. If so, how can the Department and its labs extend their reach? He also asked the Task Force to help determine what the Department's niche in science and mathematics education should be.

Number 3: Provide the Department with an honest and thorough evaluation of DOE's current education programs. Have the Department's previous investments in education made an impact and/or achieved their desired goals, or is it time to reevaluate what the Department does, and perhaps do things differently?

Secretary Peña also asked the Task Force to develop suggestions on what the Department can do to help improve the general scientific literacy of the American people. At the conclusion of his remarks, he asked the members of the Task Force for their comments.

Dr. Nelson asked the Secretary whether the Task Force should focus on graduate programs, on the current DOE and laboratory programs, or on K-12. The Secretary stated that he would like the Task Force to concentrate on what the Department is currently doing, which is approximately 60-80% in the graduate and post-graduate area, but he would also like the Task Force to look at the results of the Department's past and current investments in education to determine their effectiveness, and whether past programs achieved their original goals.

Dr. Sessoms commented that given his experience with education in the New York City area, he believes that there is a lack of capability, understanding, and education on the part of teachers.
Secretary Peña responded that he would appreciate the Task Force's views in the area of teacher ability, and noted that the National Science Foundation and others are studying ways to improve how universities train potential science teachers. He noted that the Department is enlisting 1,000 volunteers from across the DOE complex to help teachers and students with math and science tutorials at many grade levels.

Dr. Lederman stated that the question concerning the future needs for scientists and engineers is closely related to the current academic under-performance by American students. He suggested that it is very difficult to predict the number of scientists and engineers that will be needed five to ten years from now. However, if the efforts of DOE and other agencies focused on increasing public understanding of the interconnected roles of education, science, and technology for the future of the Nation, then our capability for turning out a greater (or lesser) number of scientists would be greatly enhanced. Secretary Peña agreed, and indicated that he would support combining the question on general scientific literacy with the first charge of the Task Force.

Mr. Katz suggested that the Department should enlist the support of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration Air-Conditioning Engineers, the Society and Petroleum Engineers, the Society of Geologists, and other groups, to help improve science and math education.

Mr. Nye stated that the oldest age one can encourage a child to become excited about science is around nine to eleven years old, or around the fourth grade. He said the Department of Energy does an incredible job at the graduate level, but the main problem lies in the elementary schools. The Department should invest the $15 million [FY 1999] budget request in elementary school programs. People make choices about their careers based on their fundamental enthusiasm, what is typically referred to as the beauty, passion and joy of science. Scientific literacy must be encouraged at an early age. For example, in Japan its prestigious to be scientifically literate. There, technicians and engineers are seen as heros, and they typically become heads of major corporations.

The Secretary stated his regret that he would have to leave at this point due to previous commitments with the FY1999 Budget Roll Out. He asked the Task Force members to contact Skila Harris, Executive Director of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, if they have any questions or concerns about how the Task Force is progressing.

Dr. Gray stated that the first meeting would primarily be devoted to understanding DOE education programs, and obtaining a sense of the work and role of the laboratories.

Dr. Baum expressed her concern about the wide breath of the Task Force's mission, and suggested they focus on a particular area. Dr. Gray responded that the Task Force should focus on DOE's comparative advantages and strengths, and opportunities where it can assist science and math education. This doesn't necessarily narrow the question, but helps the Task Force to focus.

DOE Program Activities - Sam Rodriguez (DOE/ER) and Beverly Berger (DOE/DP)

Sam Rodriguez, manager of the Office of Energy Research's scientific education programs, provided a briefing on the Department headquarter's current education activities. He reported that DOE's mentoring initiative with the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and teacher training program with the NSF are being implemented. In response to a question from Dr. Sessoms, Mr. Rodriguez stated that 63,000 teachers are involved in NSF's teacher training program, of whom 500 to 1,000 will be involved in the DOE/NSF joint effort during its first year.

The joint mentoring program between the Department and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) seeks to help K-12 teachers develop and use curriculum materials in energy science and technology. For the past twenty years, the Department has been highly regarded for its laboratory cooperative program, which has placed undergraduates at DOE laboratories for 10-16 weeks.
The Department continues to support the Careers for Learning program, and the National Science Bowl, which attracts over 8,000 students in 46 regional competitions. In addition, the Department maintains a science education website called 'ESTEEM.'.

In response to a question from Dr. Nelson about standards-based curricula, Sam Rodriguez replied that the Department has agreed to use the standards for each grade level developed by the National Science Teachers Association and the National Council of Teachers in Mathematics. Thus, the Department will not develop new standards, but rather apply the ones which have already been developed and endorsed by teachers and other education organizations. DOE scientists and engineers at the laboratories will be able to cater their lesson plans according to an established level of knowledge acquisition, and expectations by grade level.

Dr. Beverly Berger stated that the education programs in the Department's Office of Defense Programs (DP) are required to support the DP mission, as well as draw unique capabilities to the DP laboratories. The DP education office at DOE headquarters seeks to balance those requirements with its own goals, which includes a focus on under represented groups.

Last year, DP's education programs were allocated $9 million and had 20,000 participants, of which 17,000 were K-12. Only eighteen percent were white males, thus 82 percent of the participants were ethnic minorities or women.

Dr. Berger pointed out that DP's education projects are based at the laboratories because they are the ones with the technical programs, competencies, and facilities. For instance, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory allows high school students access to their facilities for modeling simulation, and Sandia National Laboratories targets programs that engage undergraduate students in summer or research semesters. Sandia encourages students to obtain advance degrees, and upon completion offers the possibility of employment at the lab.

Some labs have programs linked to vocational technical schools and community colleges that target students from diverse backgrounds, and creates a base from which the lab or high technology company in the area can hire future employees. These community college programs have replaced earlier, more expensive internship programs in which each lab tech who graduated cost approximately $100,000 over the five year period.

She further described a teacher enhancement program at Los Alamos National Laboratory for K-12 in northern New Mexico which external reviewer have given high marks for outreach activities to a diverse, low density population. Other collaborators in the region for this program include Intel Corp., and the Navajo Nation. Due to the region's remoteness, the lab personnel in New Mexico spend much of their time building support teams and educating people on how to troubleshoot internet and hardware problems. This is in contrast to Lawrence Livermore in California, which uses an old navy aircraft tower as a training center for teachers. The center is open nights and weekends, and teachers can schedule to bring in their students.

Dr. Lederman asked Dr. Berger how DP knows whether their programs are any good. Dr. Berger replied that the laboratories conduct internal evaluations of their programs each year, subsequently modifying them when appropriate. In addition, the larger programs are externally reviewed. They all usually receive high ratings, although changes occur following reviews which provide constructive suggestions for improvement.

Dr. Gray asked how DP's funding survived, whereas ER's did not. Dr. Berger stated it goes back to the days of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was authorized to spend funds for education supporting the AEC mission. This continues today, with Defense Programs carrying on the missions of the former AEC. Much of the credit for the success of the program resides with the lab personnel, who rely on ingenuity to keep programs afloat, and leverage opportunities with the private and local government sectors to stretch scarce resources.

Dr. Berger indicated that in the early 1990's the spending level for DP's education activities was $20 million per year; in FY 1996-97 it was $10 million in 1996-97; and in FY 1998 and in the out-years it is expected to remain at $9 million per year.

PANEL 1: Discussion of DOE's Historical and Ongoing Education Activities

A. Rich Stephens, former Director of DOE's Science Education Programs

Rich Stephens stated that he has been involved in all aspects of DOE's education programs since 1975. He said the tradition began with the AEC's University Laboratory Cooperative Program at Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1952. It was subsequently expanded to all AEC laboratories, and became the foundation for the program which is currently being kept alive today by the laboratories. The Lab Coop Program brings undergraduate students, faculty members, and graduate students to the national laboratories for hands-on research experiences. The laboratories are not educational institutions, but world class research facilities

Mr. Stephens reported that in 1975, the AEC centralized its education programs into a office which he headed. The role of the office was to orient cross-cutting issues, and to fund the Department's pre-college efforts. At its peak, the central office controlled 95% of the Department's resources allocated to K-12 education. The office also analyzed national trends, manpower projections, and coordinated interagency activities.

During 1975-77, the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA) broadened the Laboratory Cooperative Program beyond the nuclear fields into all energy-related scientific and technical disciplines. From 1977 to the early 1980's, DOE initiated a traineeship program to support graduate students in specific disciplines relevant to DOE's long-term research needs. DOE continued pre-college efforts, classroom curricula, modules, and information pamphlets in all energy fields. The Department also supported summer institutes for teachers on university campuses -- 70 institutes at its peak, with 25-50 teachers per institute in all fields. At this time, Mr. Stephens said the Department was spending $12 million on pre-college, of which very little was spent at the laboratories.

In 1978, in response to an Executive Order by President Carter, the Department made a more pronounced effort to support research and education projects with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). In 1981, the Department won another first for a Federal agency by arranging formal partnership between the laboratories and minority serving universities.

Mr. Stephens explained in 1982, President Reagan's budget essentially eliminated all graduate traineeship programs, and all of DOE's pre-college programs. Everything was eliminated except the Laboratory Cooperative Program. The National Science Foundation education budget was also eliminated during this period. Only the graduate research fellowship program remained. During this period, the budget of DOE's central education office fell to less than $3 million.

In 1983, the Department gradually built back funding for its Laboratory Cooperative Program, and even initiated a new program called the Science and Engineering Research Semester Program.

In 1985, a High School Honors Program, the only one of its kind, began at Livermore, and eventually was expanded to seven labs. The program allowed students to conduct summer research at a lab, and return after obtaining their doctorates. An 1988 Energy Research Advisory Board report recommended expansion of the Laboratory Cooperative Program, and institutionalizing and expanding the summer research program for teachers. This led to the Teacher Research Associates Program (TRAC) program.

Mr. Stephens said in 1989, Admiral Watkins became Secretary of Energy and made education a major mission of the Department - not just in energy, but in all areas of science and technology. In fact, the Admiral initially supported changing the name of the Department of Energy to the Department of Science, or the Department of Science and Technology.

From 1989 to 1994, the Department's budget for pre-college education increased 40% to $30 million, out of a total of $50 million for all education activities. Programs expanded beyond the laboratories into new initiatives such as the museum education initiative, to public television, and to such programs as Bill Nye, the Science Guy. The Department also expanded beyond its traditional organizational boundaries, and focused on ways to reach children and excite their minds.

Mr. Stephens concluded by summarizing what he considers to be the lessons learned from the different phases the Department has gone through in science education. First, at its peak, the headquarters central office was staffed by 23 people of which only three had any real K-12 experience. Most of the Department's K-12 expertise resides at the laboratories where the people who are closest to the problem -- former teachers and science educators -- reside. These are the people who remain at the laboratories, year after year, and through changes in Administrations.

Second, leadership is a requirement for success. Secretarial leadership is needed, as well as at the Lab Director level, and on down.

Finally, Mr. Stephens said the Department clearly went beyond its traditional base. DOE became just another funding agency, began to diverge from its mission, and lost sight of what truly contributes to the national cause. No evaluation or assessment system was developed, and Congressional staff was not informed of many activities DOE was undertaking.

He concluded by saying the role of the laboratories is critical. Leadership at all levels is important, and the people working closest to the problem (i.e. the laboratory people) must be empowered to do their job effectively.

B. DOE Laboratory Representatives:

Dr. Trivelpiece, Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Dr. Trivelpiece provided several anecdotal stories about the importance of science education at the Department over time. He recounted Secretary Herrington's diligence in pursuing an education program at Livermore and his own experience at Oak Ridge.

He said the Department of Energy should support both pre-college and college programs. DOE is a major player in education. It is not a substitute for the Department of Education, but it can do something which the Department of Education cannot -- DOE can provide kids with real live contact and experience with working science and engineers at an age when they can be inspired to consider careers in science and education.

Twenty-four thousand K-12 kids go through Oak Ridge National Laboratory each year. If 1% of them end up altering their career path as a result of the experience, the investment -- most of it in the form of volunteers -- is extremely worthwhile and beneficial to the kids and the nation.

He suggested that the Department strive for stability and continuity. He echoed what Rich Stephens had stated earlier that many people involved in education have experienced a roller coaster of ups and downs in terms of support. He stated that the Department starts many programs, and then suddenly funding is eliminated, and the lab is forced to fund programs through its overhead.

The entire nation will benefit from having kids better trained in science and engineering. DOE is not the only player in the game, but it ought to be a serious player in it.

Dr. John Peoples, Director of Fermilab

Dr. Peoples indicated the focus of his presentation would be on a statement the Secretary had made about the role of the Department in education. He said Fermilab is a program-dedicated laboratory filled with talented scientists, engineers, and computer professionals who are interested in their work; as well as in their own children, most of whom are K-12. This motivates the lab personnel to become involved in their local school systems.

He explained that the Fermilab program started by Leon [Lederman] brings laboratory research experience to teachers because very few who teach K-8 have any real experience in science. Fermilab's program attempts to remedy this problem. A measure of its success is the number of teachers who come back and provide positive testimonials about their participation in the programs.

Dr. Peoples noted that DOE does not provide funding for Fermilab's education programs, it was eliminated in 1994. Fermilab has consequently subsisted on the financial support of Friends of Fermilab, a foundation started by Leon Lederman. The laboratory spends approximately $1 million a year on educational outreach, half of which comes from Friends of Fermilab, and the other half from G&A [lab overhead].

When funding disappeared in 1994, Dr. Peoples said he had to decide whether Fermilab would abolish its education program. Since education funding was roughly the same size as a large experiment, Dr. Peoples decided to the education programs because they are beneficial to the staff, teachers, and students. It is also one of the primary ways DOE can convey a sense of value to the community, and demonstrate a direct impact on peoples' lives.

Dr. Irene Hays, Director of Education Programs, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Dr. Hays stated that she would speak on laboratory education programs from the viewpoint of a multiprogram laboratory -- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. She opened by acknowledging that the laboratories have unique resources, and play a major role in national science, mathematics, and technology education reform. The Department should not seek to duplicate what others can do better, but rather build on its unique resources, investments, and the hard work and creativity of its scientists and educational staff.

Dr. Hays said that PNNL began teacher research participation programs in 1984 with six teachers. By 1994, the Teacher Research Associates Program (TRAC) had grown to fifty participants. In 1992, PNNL developed a state model which in 1993 became a national model, funded by the NSF and used by all of DOE's national laboratories.

Although PNNL is deeply committed to education, budget cuts have left the lab scrambling for resources to maintain its programs until funding is restored. Emerging DOE programs like ESTEEM, NSF partnerships, and programs in educational technology hold promise, and are the sign of the beginning of a turn around. However, there is only so much time a laboratory can hold onto expertise and deliver programs without direct funding.

At PNNL, the leadership supports education expertise, but they are looking forward to a time when the programs are better funded, and thus make a greater impact on the national science and education reform agenda.

Dr. Diane Carroll, Director of Education Programs at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Dr. Carroll stated that one of the most satisfying jobs at a laboratory is Education Director, because that is where budgets and policies intersect with real people and programs She said PPPL is a single-purpose laboratory whose primary mission is research in high temperature plasmas and the development of fusion energy. The lab treats public relations very seriously because the future of fusion science relies on a broad public understanding and acceptance of the research PPPL conducts. PPPL has tours, publications, websites, and Saturday morning lectures for high school students on cutting edge topics.

She pointed out that the National Teacher Enhancement project undertaken by 10 laboratories is in its fifth year. The teachers in this program work in teams with scientists on real problems in science and technology. This program is a working example of implementing s many of the recommendations in national science standards for teacher professional development. If we want teachers to work with students in doing science, teachers have to know how to do science.

Evaluators have found that the program changed how teachers conduct their classes, how they teach their students, and how they reach out to their peers. For summer 1998, PPPL is planning a plasma camp in which high school teachers design experiments, run and analyze the data, and work in teams with scientists to develop ways to integrate what they learn into their curricula.

In addition, PPPL also has designed the Interactive Plasma Physics Experiment in which teachers and students work collaboratively with scientists in an interactive virtual fusion reactor on the internet. The project was funded by a grant from the NSF and a block grant from the State of New Jersey for technology and infrastructure development. The state of New Jersey was very explicit in what they wanted PPPL to contribute to IPPEX: substance, a reason to use the internet for conducting real science, and obtaining scientific experience. The state hopes this will encourage students to pursue careers in research.

Dr. Carroll closed by reporting that PPPL reaches out to under-represented groups. The lab has a seven year partnership with the Trenton Public Schools, and works with partners to help reform the school district's curriculum, to get parents more involved, and to create a teacher development program. Flexibility and long-term commitment are necessary for change. PPPL's comparative advantage is enriching teachers' science teaching capabilities, and collaborating with regional and local institutions to enhance science education.

Dr. Diane Scott, Director of Education Program at Sandia National Laboratories

Dr. Scott, stated that Sandia's comparative advantages are its technical expertise, facilities, and scientist role models.

She said Sandia has a partnership with the Lawrence Hall of Science in teacher training institute programs. The Hall provides lesson plans on how to teach K-12 teachers, and Sandia provides the scientific content. For example, one of the programs is the Leadership Academy for Science Education Reform (LASER). In this program, Sandia provides technical expertise, and the other partners provide lessons in areas such as how to teach science to grade schoolers.

Sandia also brings 24 teachers from six schools to the lab each year to obtain experience with hands-on science. The teachers spend fifteen days during the summer, and eight days during the school year immersed in science and in learning various scenarios such as characterizing sensors associated with the nuclear weapons dismantlement project at Pantex. In addition to the time the teachers spend at the lab, the school districts allocate four and a half days for the teachers [approximately four teachers per school district] to teach the other twenty or so teachers in their districts. In all, the LASER program impact about 150-200 teachers per year.

Dr. Scott said this is real systemic reform. In California, classes have been reduced to twenty students per class. There are many new elementary science teachers, but unfortunately, a high attrition rate. The 24 teacher in the LASER program teach the new teachers, who in turn become interested and sign up for the LASER program as well.

She closed by saying Sandia's programs are evaluated both internally and externally. The program evaluates the teachers in thirty-six areas at the beginning and end of each school year. The program has led to dramatic systemic reform in California.

Task Force Discussion with Panel I

Dr. Sessoms commented that the number of requirements for teacher education programs in New York state has increased. He inquired how much time would be required for a typical teacher or student to become sufficiently excited, or a least not afraid, to teach science. Dr. Scott responded that research has indicated that it takes a minimum of three weeks for a teacher at a development institute to feel comfortable teaching a subject.

Dr. Hays stated that the National Teacher Enhancement program required three weeks a summer for three years to develop a group of teachers who could lead other teachers. In general, it takes two weeks for teachers to grasp and feel comfortable enough with the particular content of a subject area to teach it to students. It takes longer to be able to develop a comfort level to instruct other teachers.

Dr. Gray asked the panel whether teacher education programs have more impact, given the multiplier effect. Dr. Trivelpiece stated that smart kids actually teach the teachers, so he prefers programs for students.

Dr. Peoples stated that it is not a matter of simply speaking to teachers at institutes. Human contact is essential. Part of the Fermilab program is to encourage teachers to meet on their own. The internet is great, but one still needs the reinforcement of personal relations.

Dr. Scott stated the Department needs to decide whether it is interested in influencing education reform, or educating students. If the Department wants to impact and play a strong role in science, mathematics and technology education reform, then teachers are the key. Many of the laboratories have programs to increase the knowledge depth of science teachers.

Dr. Lederman stated that, in his experience, teaching primary school teachers how to teach science is extremely difficult. They work hard and come to the lab on weekends, or in the evenings, or sometimes during the day when the school district can afford substitutes, or during the summer. Fermilab works with less affluent schools and teachers. Aside from the high teacher turnover problem, it takes more than 100 contact hours a year, for a least three years, before he believes a teacher can manage a classroom. Dr. Lederman said he believes it is extremely difficult to change a teacher, and he has never found a lead teacher concept to work. It would be economical if teachers could teach their colleagues, but it doesn't work.

Dr. Trivelpiece agreed it was difficult, but student to student contact should not be overlooked as a solution. During the Livermore summer honors program, the kids indicated that they were most impressed by what they learned from each other. It was the first time in many of their lives that they had the opportunity to talk with a group of kids their own age and with similar interests, without being mocked for their intelligence.

Dr. Trivelpiece stated that this country needs to establish systems which allow kids to help each other, rather than insisting on a hierarchy and forming a structure in which the teacher must obtain the knowledge first, and subsequently impart it to the students.

Dr. Nelson indicated that he agrees with Dr. Lederman about the difficulty of training teachers, and that Project 2061 has been given some credit for starting systemic reform. He also agreed with Dr. Trivelpiece that systemic change occurs one child at a time. The system has to change so that if you reach one kid, you still have a system that can reach the next kid and so on. DOE has incredible scientists and scientific equipment at the laboratories, but teachers are the ones who know how to deal with kids. We try to provide teacher with some content knowledge, but the people who are providing the knowledge content, don't necessarily know how to teach.
Dr. Nelson said that the scientists and technicians at the labs need to have the tools, training and background so they can become effective instructors for real teachers (i.e., those who teach for a living).

Dr. Lederman briefly described the Saturday Morning Physics program which he started in 1979 at Fermilab. Three times a year, one hundred kids come to Fermilab for ten Saturdays to participate in a three hour lecture. The program does not cost much because it is run by volunteers and postdocs doing research at the laboratory. The Saturday morning program works because the original postdoctoral students at Fermilab insisted they be involved in teaching kids. It is both education and fun. Dr. Lederman used to teach even when he was [Laboratory] Director, because he would experience withdrawal symptoms when he wasn't teaching.

Dr. Gray summed up the discussion stating that there is no one single program which stands out as the most beneficial across the DOE laboratory complex. There are general directions which ought to involve higher end, secondary, and elementary education; and they ought to involve teachers and students. Circumstances vary according to the type of laboratory, the particular interests or expertise the people can provide, the quality and character of the schools and school systems, and the community needs.

Rich Stephens stated that when he was Director, the education office at DOE headquarters served primarily as a cheerleader for the programs. They were the laboratory programs' most avid supporters. He agreed with Dr. Peoples, that one must decide very carefully which programs to fund; and if one can only fund a few programs, they must be well managed. In addition, the Department should align itself with the NSF as closely as possible. NSF can provide political coverage on Capitol Hill. NSF can provide the national agenda, and DOE can provide the content and substance. .

Dr. Trivelpiece said that the question of how the labs can inspire young people should focus on making positive progress towards the goal, rather than on the details of how to get there. The laboratories provide a contact/experience environment better than anybody else. We should not allow ourselves to become bogged down with the specifics of a particular academic or education program.

Dr. Peoples stated that a central office can assure communications among the laboratories and their programs. All the laboratories in the complex can learn from the successes and failures of the others. The central office can ensure the general quality of the programs. In addition, some types of specific programs benefit from a national approach, such as the honors scholars where two people from each state are chosen to participate. These programs are valuable, but they primarily serve as a public relations/recruiting tool for the laboratories.

Dr. Hays said that DOE should act as a fund manager and view education as an investment. The first decision for the Department is whether to consider education as a growth fund or as an income fund. Dr. Hays believes it should be considered a growth fund, so programs can be protected from those who only want a short-term return on their investment. Another requirement is to review the portfolio to see if it meets national needs and coincides with the missions of the Department.

Dr. Baum asked whether there is any communication between the laboratories about best practices, or any efforts to replicate successful programs between laboratories.

Dr. Scott stated that an example of a program instituted across the laboratory complex is the LASER program. The program was started by the NSF, and was individualized by the laboratories to best fit their communities. As for best practices, an extensive evaluation program occurred several years ago, and template/guidelines were developed. Most of the education directors at the laboratories communicate often, and thus learn about best practices at other laboratories from each other.

Dr. Gray asked whether more education director meetings would be useful. Dr. Scott indicated that in the past meetings have been useful for developing a network of contacts. Dr. Peoples noted that the education directors used to meet more often when the programs were better funded, and added that the Berkeley Conference in 1990 was particularly interesting and useful. Peer groups advance themselves, and education directors should meet just like every other peer group.

Ms. Hurst stated that the local school district, her students, and the state government's increased graduation requirements, all put demands on her time schedule. She asked the panel how can people take the time to communicate with their peers.

Dr. Trivelpiece stated that much of the backing for local programs must come from the State or local government. It's clear that there is an exponential drop off in what DOE can do, the further away from a national lab a particular community is located. There are many tools available to the community which are in close proximity to a national laboratory, but if it is not, simply sorting through the acronyms to find out what resources are available is difficult.

Go to: Minutes from the 1st meeting (continued)