Task Force on Education
Minutes from the Second Meeting on April 20, 1998

Call to Order

Task Force Chair, Dr. Hanna Gray, convened the second meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Education at 8:30 am on April 20, 1998. Dr. Gray restated the three charges Secretary Peña had given the Task Force at the first meeting: 1) defining the problem in math, science, and technology education; 2) determining the role of the Department of Energy (DOE) in solving the problem; and 3) evaluating the effectiveness of DOE's current programs.

Dr. Gray noted the Secretary also agreed it would be useful for the Task Force to review teacher training programs and the level of scientific literacy for all Americans, as well as develop an action plan for implementing the Department's education plan.

Dr. Gray briefly described the three subgroups the Task Force had formed at the first meeting. She stated that although Secretary Peña has announced his departure at the end of June 1998, it would in no way affect the mandate given to the Task Force, nor the importance of the topic for DOE.

Dr. Gray then introduced Allen Sessoms, President of Queen's College and co-leader of one of the Task Force subgroups on the effectiveness of DOE's education programs.

Discussion of Outcomes and Evaluation of DOE's Undergraduate Research Programs

Dr. Sessoms started the discussion by providing his observations on DOE's education programs. He stated that he had examined DOE's education programs with regard to three goals: 1) enhancing science, mathematics, and technology achievement for students K-12; 2) encouraging more undergraduates to go into math, science and technology careers; and 3) at the graduate level, ensuring an adequate science and technology manpower for the future needs of the Department of Energy and U.S. economy.

Dr. Sessoms indicated that enhancing K-12 education is an extremely difficult problem whose solution has eluded everyone, including DOE and teacher education schools. No one has found the right formula, and from his personal experience the dominant factor is not money, but local politics. There is always a battle for local control, which increases the difficulty for everyone to agree on appropriate metrics and standardized tests. He stated that some argue whether it is even appropriate to measure success by tests, since most tests do not measure the qualities that the future workforce will need to succeed: e.g. creativity. Tests primarily measure the ability to obtain credentials. In our economy, there are many examples of people who either did not do well in school, or who did not obtain the traditional credentials associated with success: e.g. Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Michael Dell of Dell Computers.

Dr. Sessoms stated schools should measure student achievement, and acknowledged the difficulty in coming up with ways of measuring success in which characteristics such as creativity are given more emphasis than credentials, particularly at the K-12 level. Exams are necessary, and students should be encouraged to succeed. However, the way to change the system should not focus at the level of one teacher or one student at a time.

He indicated that there are many examples of DOE's success in education, but these primarily are in communities near DOE laboratories. Dr. Sessoms stated that if DOE expects to augment student achievement on standardized exams, DOE should not be involved in education at the level of one teacher or one student at a time. Systemic reform is required. DOE laboratories provide excellent teacher enhancement programs, but these programs primarily affect teachers who already are highly-motivated and effective educators. The question is how to reach ordinary teachers. Systemic reform is part of the answer, but its difficult to instigate change in this area due to local politics. The solution also requires: 1) forming partnerships, not with individual schools, but with systems and probably universities; 2) curricular reform; 3) and encouraging an environment in which teachers can excel.

One of the problems of education colleges is students tend to major in non-science subjects because these majors require less credit hours. We must change the system so education majors who want to become math and science teachers are not penalized by being forced to take more classes.

Dr. Sessoms summed up his views on the first goal, stating the education system continues to fail in student achievement for grades K-12. He also expressed reservations about the program NSF and DOE has established, and would like the Task Force to review it. [A presentation and discussion on the NSF/DOE partnership occurs later in the meeting]

With regard to the second goal of encouraging more undergraduates to go into math, science and technology careers, Dr. Sessoms stated that DOE has had unqualified success. He pointed out a member of the audience, Wayne Stevenson, from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), who has collected data that verifies that students who have been through DOE programs were positively influenced toward seeking advanced degrees in scientific subjects, and/or toward pursuing math and science careers.

Dr. Sessoms stated that graduate programs sponsored by DOE are among the premier ones in the world, having produced some of the world's most extraordinary scientists. However, these students have already been 'captured,' by the system. That is, they have already chosen to go into scientific fields. DOE simply facilitated their aspirations by providing access to knowledgeable people and specialized equipment.

The real problem is on the K-12 level, where nobody has been successful, and where there is no hard data to corroborate whether teachers who have obtained additional training has led to higher test scores for their students.

Dr. Sessoms asked Wayne Stevenson to briefly describe the data ORISE collects in its "Participant and Reporting System" (PARS). Mr. Stevenson described how ORISE works with NSF to benchmark its data, and make the information they collect more compatible with NSF's statistics. He provided the Task Force a summary report highlighting some of ORISE's data and findings over the past ten years.

Dr. Lederman spoke about the education institute at Fermilab. The Center, which began in 1990 and concentrates at the K-12 level, instructs primary school teachers on how to teach math and science. Most teachers want to become better educators, but most of them lack an adequate background in math and science to teach those subjects. The Center is involved with 75 primary school and 3,000 teachers in the Chicago area. The Center involves parents, community groups, principals, local school councils, and treats the entire network as a systemic unit.

After three years of the program, favorable results began showing up on the Illinois Goals Assessment test. Even with a high turnover rate among elementary school teachers, and normalization of data taken into account, statistics have confirmed an improvement in the scores of grade schoolers in Chicago schools due to the program. This is a lesson in how a local problem can be mitigated by an intensive, sustainable program supported by the local community.

Dr. Sessoms stated NSF and DOE's programs do not do what Leon Lederman's Center at Fermilab has done: working with everyone involved over a sustained period of time. It takes more than a summer or two, and may take up to three years before favorable results are seen.

Dr. Lederman added the program did not start as a pilot project, so initial mistakes were made which may account for the some of the time it took to obtain measurable improvements in student achievement. These problems would probably not be repeated at other sites which used Fermilab's current program as a model. He also stated that compared with the multibillion dollar budget for Chicago's schools, the cost of $3,000 a year per teacher is not prohibitive: the overall program cost per teacher is analogous to the cost of one year of graduate school. The Fermilab people spend 120 hours a year of contact time with each teacher, supervising them in school. Its a rigorous program requiring a lot of effort, but the problem should have been fixed in the beginning. He added that teachers should have better opportunities for professional development.

Dr. Gray asked Dr. Lederman how DOE is currently involved with Fermilab's education program, and what the varying sources of funding are. Dr. Lederman responded that DOE provides access for students and teachers to knowledgeable lab people, i.e. volunteer hours. Many initiatives were started by people who grew up around the laboratories, some of whom were involved in local education long before DOE provided any funding.

Dr. Lederman said he was concerned about the low level of public understanding of science and education because the problem affects everyone. Something must be done to raise the prestige and incomes of teachers. He stated that DOE has access to many of the most exciting areas of science, as well as prospects for improving conditions in many areas of society. We know science creates wealth. DOE knows this, and must become more involved in raising the general public's understanding of science.

Dr. Gray asked why should DOE be involved in public understanding of science. Dr. Lederman answered that DOE cannot function in a country where people do not understand energy and the future sources of energy, nor the complex problems DOE grapples with in terms of the environment and nuclear weapons. DOE is at the forefront of some of the most important technological areas where science impacts society. Unless DOE helps to raise the level of discussion in these areas, we as a society will likely make wrong decisions.

Dr. Sessoms noted that many of DOE's stakeholders are extremely vocal and have vested interests in a particular outcomes, which are usually not in the best interests of the community. DOE also has to grapple with the broad ignorance of the people. A case in point is the recent public controversy over shipments of naplam. Instead of being destroyed, napalm is now sitting somewhere in an unstable form. Special interests groups and intervenors with their propaganda machines can dominate an ignorant public. Dr. Sessoms pointed out that DOE is distrusted by many people because it misled the public in the past by omitting key facts. The Department has made tremendous strides in opening up over the past several years, but reputations change very slowly.

Dr. Gray stated she would like the discussion to stay focused, and indicated that she would play Devil's Advocate in summarizing the major points so far: 1) there is almost no money for education programs at DOE; 2) DOE is one of a number of agencies, some of which have a longer tradition and more resources to approach the problem; 3) one has to be selective on what one does to make an impact; 4) DOE has not managed to educate the public on its missions, nor on the issues pertaining to scientific understanding of the areas in which DOE is engaged; 5) there is a desire on the part of DOE to play a part in science education, particularly where they are successful at the undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate levels, and one might ask why this isn't enough given their mission, since DOE is, after all, a research-oriented enterprise; 6) however, everyone agrees this is not where the problem lies, and DOE should be active at the K-12 level, as well as in educating the public on a broader level; 7) then it was said that fixing the problem is so expensive the DOE couldn't possibly be responsible for doing it, although Dr. Lederman noted that DOE possesses unique resources and people which can be one of the major components of a community system working to solve the problem.

Dr. Gray stated the question for the Task Force members becomes: 1) should we be concerned about all the needs in science education for young people and the general public; or 2) should we focus on promoting public understanding of the impact and consequences of science on society; or 3) are we concerned about the whole problem and asking where DOE can make a difference, understanding the limitations in resources and the need for collaboration, as well as the limitations of what any one agency can do within its charter or mission areas.

Dr. Lederman indicated he supported the third position, and would urge the Secretary and/or the Secretary-designate to communicate with agencies in similar situations. DOE, like NASA and other agencies, has a mission to educate the public about its activities. DOE can leverage the billions of dollars invested in volunteer men- and women for free. There are many talented DOE people who communicate well. Dr. Lederman stated that DOE does not have to mention its name on everything it does, but should be involved in educating the public on issues of energy and its impact on the future of the Nation and the planet. He also suggested DOE conduct a year long pilot campaign of newspaper and television ads on fundamental issues in science and their effects on society.

Dr. Pipes stated as we move into the information age, knowledge will be the basis of prosperity. Education will be even more important in the future than it is today. He noted that Dr. Sessoms had provided examples of several citizens who were outsiders from the standpoint of the educational system, but became major generators of wealth. However, these people are exceptions. The overall level of education of a society will determine the best way to put knowledge to work at creating prosperity.

Dr. Pipes added that in order to help DOE's involvement in the education, we must first understand the larger context of where education and all its aspects are today. The U.S. produces some of the most exciting new science in the world, perhaps even a majority of it. The U.S. has more Nobel Prize winners and creates more wealth than any other country. Something is right about this great education system we have. He added that the system may go wrong if the human talent pool being developed is lacking in certain areas. Its a systemic question requiring better understanding of the problem. DOE's unique contribution is its laboratory scientists. They work at the forefront of many technologies and unlike their academic counterparts, are not entirely consumed with self promotion, and thus may have more time for these types of endeavors. He stated that the Task Force should concentrate in areas where the national problem and DOE assets intersect. If there is no money, there is no charter. One has to create the charter, and it most focus on DOE's missions: the advancement of science to promote the proper use of energy, and dealing with the environmental and national security issues of the Department.

Dr. Pipes submitted that the Task Force should not make suggestions which stray too far from DOE's primary missions because its competitors will never allow it. DOE's role is closely tied to its laboratories. The question is not whether benefits have been had by DOE's program, its whether optimum benefit to society is being achieved with the amount of funds being spent.

Dr. Pipes concluded by stating that the Task Force needs to understand the problem more fully before it advises DOE on where it should be involved, and the Task Force should focus on the DOE assets already in place, and where they intersect with the national problem.

Dr. Sessoms replied that nobody understands the entire problem of education in the United States, so it would be a too broad a statement for the Task Force to suggest that it does. Education is extremely fragmented and different from place to place. He also endorsed the earlier suggestion that DOE should supply information for public-service TV messages, perhaps with industry support, which would explain the role of energy in society. Dr. Sessoms stated that the President has asked the heads of all government Departments to see what they could do to help K-8 education. The Department has the necessary talent pool and facilities to play a major role in a systemic effort to improve science and math education.

Dr. Sessoms pointed out that New York City spends $80-100 a year per student. The city has an overall budget of $8.2 billion, only a fraction of which is allocated to teacher professional development. DOE must find ways to leverage the scientific talent at its national laboratories, and join ongoing initiatives in systemic reform. DOE should form pilot projects, try to transform the way people look at science and math education, bring knowledgeable scientists into the classroom to stimulate curricula change, and work with administrators, teachers of teachers, and the teachers themselves. Many of these activities could be done through volunteerism.

Dr. Lederman responded that volunteerism only works for the leadership, and the key word for any successful program is 'sustainability' Teachers have become wary of short-term enthusiastic interventions that end up fading in time. To be credible, the effort must be sustainable. The teacher development budget in New York is one-tenth of a percent. In Japan its fifty percent, i.e. fifty percent of teachers' salaries in Japan is being spent on their becoming better teachers.

Dr. Nelson pointed out that the Task Force already has a good idea of what the problems are in education, and it would not be useful to spend more time researching the problem. He indicated that there are some credibility problems, even at DOE laboratories. For instance, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (at Hanford, WA) is near some of the most polluted land on earth. The lab has a real opportunity to demonstrate a combined effort with universities and government to clean up the site. However, the students in Washington state are not given any opportunity to participate in potential solutions to the problem because they are locked out of the system by the people running the site. This happens while PNNL works on global warming science, which may be interesting, but has little to do with the problem at hand, and hurts the lab's credibility with the public.

Dr. Nelson added that the scientists can make a significant impact by going to the schools, but warned that this would be dangerous without proper training. He added that the $3,000 a year figure mentioned earlier might be better spent on teaching scientists on ways to integrate what they are doing at the labs with their local schools. Here's a chance for DOE to train people in more effective outreach activities with their schools. DOE cannot solve education problems alone, but it can be an exemplary agency in how a focused effort can make a difference. Perhaps the Department should start with a demonstration project, perhaps using the documented experience at Fermilab for improving test scores, and then extending the program to other locations.

Dr. Gray stated there appears to be two approaches in which DOE laboratories can contribute to K 12 education: 1) at the broad level, which includes improving the general scientific literacy of the American people, and 2) bringing talented students to the laboratories to raise their levels of interest and experience. The Task Force may want to think about whether there are any educational areas where DOE currently lacks a presence, but perhaps should play a role.

Dr. Johnson commented that schools are the only institutions in America dealing with all of society's comprehensive social problems. Perhaps the scientists should not just concentrate on outreach to the schools, but to the masses, such as civic groups. Dr. Johnson stated that he operates a school district with 50,000 students, with only half the resources per student of some of the places previously mentioned. Professional development for teachers occurs on Saturdays and in the evenings, which demonstrates their commitment to education. He concluded by saying there are many ways of making significant contributions to education that don't cost much money.

Mr. Nye stated he was against the Task Force's producing another report because it probably would just be added to the pile of reports already written on the subject. He added that a television show or newspaper ads to promote DOE is a separate issue, and not germane to the Task Force. The U.S. has a large number of Nobel Laureates, but immigrants are becoming an increasingly larger proportion of the graduate student population. Mr. Nye cautioned against promoting the notion that DOE scientists have a lot of time on their hands for community outreach, whereas university professors don't. He also cautioned against viewing the Department of Education as a competitor. He stated the Task Force agrees DOE does well at the university level and beyond, but the problem lies at the K-12 level. He then provided suggestions in which areas he would like to see greater investment by DOE: 1) better promotion of its Science Bowl by getting the media excited about the competition and its finals; 2) providing outreach kits with classroom laboratory style experiments for kids; 3) promoting a top teacher grant to those who are particularly effective; 4) developing a classroom devise which would measure the amount of energy going in and out of each classroom, so kids can see the impact of energy in their everyday lives; and 5) the Department should change its logo because its too reminiscent of the cold war.

Mr. Katz stated that the Science Bowl is primarily for the top students, i.e. those who have already decided to pursue careers in energy and scientific fields. He expressed concern that DOE should be reaching out to the rank and file students. Mr. Katz indicated he has been working with schools on systemic reform for years, and trying to get the kids in the 50th percentiles excited about learning and leadership. Mr. Katz also stated he has worked with the Association of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Illuminating Engineers, the Petroleum Engineers, etc., and they all are interested in doing something to improve science education. For example, the Petroleum Engineers have a kit they call the "magic suitcase," which they bring to schools and teach about petroleum engineering. He added that there are many other groups and associations, like the Boy Scouts, with whom the Department could form partnerships. He stated that people support that which they helped create, and we should encourage kids to become involved in leadership roles at the elementary and junior high level. He concluded by stating that the 25th anniversary of the oil embargo is this October, which would be a perfect time to kick off an educational campaign on energy.

Dr. Sessoms indicated his support for the suggestion that DOE invest in a pilot project, such as Dr. Lederman's Center, and focus on improving student performance, then measure, evaluate and report the results. The advantage of Dr. Lederman's program is that it has been in place for eight years. If the program proves to be affordable and successful, the Department has some backing to request funds to replicate the program elsewhere. In addition, Dr. Sessoms suggested that the Secretary convene a meeting between the association directors in the energy business, or those affiliated with energy businesses, in order to find out what they are doing in education and perhaps find opportunities for partnerships with DOE, the Department of Education, other federal agencies, and universities.

Dr. Nelson noted that we must not lose sight of the fact that the emphasis for DOE's education programs should be on energy and energy-related issues. DOE should not be in the business of promoting itself, or teaching K-12 about what DOE does, except within the context of the national consensus of what constitutes scientific literacy in these areas.

Dr. Johnson stated that the education needs of approximately 50% of this nation's student population are not being met, i.e. the urban and the rural communities. He added that one of the best ways DOE could make an impact is raising the expectation levels of the teachers, students, and communities.

Dr. Lederman stated that DOE should use energy as a hook to educate people. The subject of energy can be used to build curricula and obtain the interest of the media so that people are educated in the process. He also commented that by the time the Science Bowl reaches its finals, thousands of kids have participated, and thus everyone who participates in it is in some ways a winner.

Mr. Nye commented that he uses hooks on his television show, and asked whether anyone knew the 4th grade definition of energy: Energy makes things go, run, or happen. Several Task Force members agreed that this was a good definition, and could be a good slogan to work from in promoting energy education.

Dr. Gray summarized what she believed the Task Force had agreed upon: DOE's involvement in undergraduate, graduate, and post graduate education is working well, is vital, and should be a part of DOE's ongoing mission. There is some agreement with the 1994 GAO Report, that teacher education, in itself, as it is usually conducted, cannot make a difference. To make a difference requires continuity and a sustained effort.

She added there is the question of whether DOE has a role in teacher training and/or continued professional education. There is also the question at the elementary and high school level whether DOE should: 1) focus on those students with a particular motivation for doing science, and help to enrich their educational experiences; 2) or focus on the average student or citizen who is going to need more technological skills and scientific understanding to be a functional member of society in the future.

She stated the Task Force had also discussed the importance of public understanding, and whether that means the general problems of science, or those that have to do with energy and science, and scientific understanding associated with energy. The Task Force had also discussed whether understanding of public issues with a scientific component are a DOE concern. Does DOE's role, whether on-site or through the activities of its laboratory scientists working in the schools have to do with teacher education as it relates to energy subjects, or does it have to do with the general scientific literacy?

She stated that DOE has a large set of choices of where it can focus its energies and make a difference at the elementary and secondary school level. At the same time, the Task Force has emphasized that the programs DOE funds must be sustainable if they are going to make an impact on student achievement. DOE should also seek out ways to use resources already in place, and to form partnerships and collaborations with other organizations: e.g. kits and 'gizmos' developed by different organizations such as museums and professional associations. These groups may also be able to provide advice and experiences that would be useful to DOE.

Presentation and Discussion of NSTA/DOE Mentoring Partnership

Don Priester from DOE's Office of Energy Research provided a briefing of the partnership between DOE and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) to recruit 2,000 scientists from DOE's laboratories to be mentors for K-12 teachers. The program will be on-line, and allow each teacher to develop long-term relationships with a mentor. He emphasized that this was not an "ask the scientist" forum, rather it will resemble a long-term dialogue between two people. As of late April 1998, 450 DOE scientists had signed up to become mentors.

Dr. Sessoms asked whether the teachers and the mentors will meet face-to-face at some point, or whether they will have access to videoconferencing technology. Dr. Priester indicated that one of the biggest problems is many teachers do not even have e:mail, so video conferencing technology is probably out of the question. Dr. Pipes and Dr. Sessoms concurred that face-to face contact was crucial for developing trust. Dr. Pipes suggested a future gathering of mentors and teachers.

Dr. Nelson asked whether there were any plans to scale up the project, and what the number limitation were. Dr. Priester responded that the goal is 2,000 mentors, with three to five teachers per mentor, thus an upper limit of 10,000 teachers would be impacted.

Dr. Nelson asked whether DOE was modeling its program after the popular "Ask an Astronomer" website. Dr. Priester responded that DOE had looked at these sites, but the concept envisioned by DOE and NSTA will be something more than an "Ask the scientist" website. The relationship between teacher and mentor will be more personal and characterized by long-term discussions, chat sessions off-line, and on-line light boards [in which someone writes on the screen via the internet, and everyone can see it].

Dr. Johnson [President of NSTA] stated the key point is sustainability, and added he would like to see better dissemination of the information generated by the discussions. He stated one of the frequent errors he had come across in the past with similar programs is the lack of information dissemination to others who could use it. Dr. Priester responded that the discussions on-line will be captured by a database which will then be accessible to everyone.

Mr. Nye inquired about the numerous subject categories on the prototype screen, and suggested it be simplified. Dr. Priester replied that the site is still under development, and DOE would take his suggestions under advisement.

Dr. Lederman asked whether DOE is screening the volunteer mentors. Dr. Priester replied they are being filtered, and the ones chosen to be mentors will receive training. Dr. Nelson agreed the mentors should receive training, and added it should include a working knowledge of the national standards.

Dr. Pipes stated that as we enter the information age, the way knowledge is disseminated will continue to change rapidly. The possibility that DOE scientists will play a prominent role in information technology such as the internet, video display, and telecommunication exchange, is great. He suggested DOE develop a performance model, the first step of which would be building trust by having face-to-face contact; the second step would be defining the objectives, which must be done in real-time, but not necessarily in the same place; and the third step would be executing the plan, which can be done at any time and place. Performance models have proven that education does not have to occur at the same place and time. Education technologies require just a small amount of resource investment. He suggested the Task Force discuss the huge leveraging capacity of education technologies at a future meeting. Dr. Gray agreed, and later requested Dr. Pipes to lead a Task Force discussion on this subject at the next meeting.

Presentation and Discussion of NSF/DOE Teacher Enhancement Programs

Celeste Pea of the National Science Foundation (NSF) discussed a Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NSF to form a partnership to enhance teacher ability and improve science, math, engineering, and technology education in the United States. She stated NSF is interested in using DOE's laboratories for research-based professional development for high school teachers. DOE and NSF are in the process of developing an implementation plan, the primary purpose of which is to expose teachers to scientists in a research environment in the hope that this will enhance their knowledge content and thus make them more effective teachers.

Dr. Sessoms expressed his concern that average teachers will not benefit from the program, and that most math teachers barely know mathematics, let alone physics. He also stated that most teachers in New York do not have e:mail. Ms. Pea responded that there are over 35,000 math and science teachers in New York. The DOE/NSF plan is to reach out to the energetic teachers, who in turn will train other teachers. She also stated that most states have passed legislation to fund technology upgrades in the schools.

Dr. Sessoms expressed concern that NSF primarily chooses the best teachers for enhancing their professional development, which is a select few. He also stated that the problem in New York is not technology. Billions of dollars are spent on technology, although most of it sits unused because the teachers are not trained in how to use it. The real problem is the lack of teacher professional development.

Leon Lederman asked who pays for the DOE/NSF teachers' enhancement program at the laboratories. Ms. Pea responded that NSF pays for the teachers, and DOE provides the location (laboratories) and people (scientists). Ms. Pea concluded by stating that NSF is primarily interested in using the technologies and science at DOE laboratories to enhance teachers' knowledge, and thus improve their teaching of math, science and technology.

Task Force Discussion on DOE Workforce Issues Report

After a lunch break, Dr. Gray brought the meeting back into session. She asked Skila Harris, Executive Director the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, to summarize an internal DOE study on the Nation's future workforce needs in science and engineering.

Ms. Harris summarized the major trends described in the report: 1) in some areas there may be shortages in matching people with specific skills and educational backgrounds to particular workforce needs, whereas in other areas there may be a surplus; 2) there are indicators which show more women and minorities are entering scientific fields; and 3) there is a slight decrease in the number of non-Americans who are entering the workforce and going to U.S. universities.

Dr. Gray indicated the Task Force should not attempt to answer numerical questions on the future needs of the workforce. At the same time, however, the Task Force should remain aware of the significance and centrality of scientific understanding as the basis for ensuring effective citizens and workers for the next century. She asked whether the Task Force should concern itself with determining if the focus of DOE's education programs should include issues such as ensuring enough women and minorities entering science and engineering fields, and the role of foreign scientists and mathematicians.

Dr. Pipes commented that two major forces were in operation: 1) the growth of "underrepresented minorities," who will in due course become majority populations. It's imperative that the Nation brings members of these groups into the science and engineering mainstream, however, it is not the primary theme of this Task Force; 2) the international integration of the scientific enterprise: much of the R&D that used to be independently conducted in the United States will now take place on an international level. For instance, General Electric outsources $300 million of its computer software development per year to places such as India and Eastern Europe. Scientific literacy is not just an national issue, it is an international one. The Task Force must take this force into account. He concluded his statement by saying that in a decade, there will not be any national boundaries for science and engineering because the movement of knowledge over the internet is so fluid.

Dr. Johnson stated that minorities now constitute close to 50% of the population. The Nation must demonstrate commitment, which means providing resources and raising the expectations of the students and teachers.

Dr. Pipes clarified his remarks to say that with the advent of the Internet and advanced communications over the past decade, the human talent supply available to work on American problems has vastly increased. The Task Force need to recognize this trend and take it into account with its findings.

Dr. Sessoms stated the majority of people in colleges and universities are women, and most people live in an urban environment. Any initiative by DOE in education must recognize and take into account these obvious facts. It is wrong for American industry to go overseas for scientists and engineers, while neglecting significant, intellectual resources in the United States. This is an irresponsible trend because it generates greater societal problems.

Ms. Harris stated the Department has programs which specifically targets women and minorities, and offered to provide the Task Force with a report on the subject. Dr. Gray indicated she would appreciate looking at the report to see whether it would warrant further Task Force discussion.

Dr. Lederman stated demographic data should neither deter nor encourage the Task Force in any way. The Task Force must recognize we are living in a world of tremendous change, driven by science and technology. In order to cope with change, we need a higher level of scientific and technological understanding. He noted that Chicago has an Institute of Science and Law, and other organizations where business and science overlap, and that one of the biggest problems in businesses today is the disconnect between the R&D component and the rest of the business. He added that many of the problems in this country come from a low level of scientific understanding. DOE has attempted to mitigate this problem in the past by sponsoring scientific television programming, museum displays, etc. The Task Force does not need to worry about whether we are going to make too many scientists or too few scientists; that is not the issue. Science understanding is the issue, the rest of the adjustment will take care of itself. The only exceptions are specific cases where DOE recognizes a shortage in a particular area, and thus supports programs to ensure that more people enter that field (e.g. graduate traineeships).

Dr. Gray responded that sustaining an adequate flow of first-rate scientists, and enhancing and expanding general scientific understanding are not mutually exclusive goals.

Testimonials on DOE's Undergraduate Research Programs

Neal Abraham, president of the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) and professor of Physics at Bryn Mawr College, provided a briefing on the organization he heads. CUR is an association of 3, 500 faculty members and administrator from approximately 800 institutions devoted to the promotion of undergraduate research opportunities for faculty members and students. Four students whose research was sponsored by a Department of Energy laboratory provided short briefings of their research: Dustin Froula on Sonoluminescence, Jennifer Jacobs on Biofiltration of Chloroorganics, Ralph Bridge on Nanoindentation, and Marlene Platero on erbium oxide

The students were in Washington, D.C. for a Poster Session on their research projects on Capitol Hill. The four were among 100 students giving 84 presentations, as well as making brief courtesy visits with their Congressional delegations to discuss the importance of continuing undergraduate research opportunities for future students.

Dr. Abrahams stated the Congressionally mandated cuts to DOE's education programs eliminated funding for 3,000 faculty members, graduate and undergraduate seminars, summer research internships, and a host of collaborations and derivative activities. The students who have worked at the labs since the cuts have been funded primarily by the laboratories.

Federal laboratories specialize in applied research. Students who are lucky enough to go to a national lab to research develop a maturity level they would otherwise never have from conducting research at an academic institution, where the focus is primarily on basic research. He emphasized the importance of continuing undergraduate programs at federal laboratories because they provide research-enriched educational opportunities for students and faculty members.

Dr. Abrahams briefly discussed science education reform. He suggested bringing inquiry-based education and research opportunities to introductory levels of education, and energizing faculty members to give up some of their topics in favor of teaching an appreciation for the way science is conducted. He said both of these things would change science education and prepare our children to live in a complex and changing world.

Dr. Sessoms commented the most effective way to persuade members of Congress on this issue is to explain to them how valuable undergraduate research is to their constituents. Dr. Johnson responded that he recently spoke to a young Congressperson who ran on a platform of education, who was truly committed. He suggested a cadre of support may be developing in Congress for these programs.

Dr. Abrahams stated if it were not for women, there would be a precipitous drop in the number of physics majors. He asked why the higher quality institutions are more restrictive in terms of output, and why more minority students who are recruited are being pushed away from scientific careers in inappropriate ratios.

Dr. Gray commented the Knoll Foundation had done a study describing cases in which minority students, just as gifted as majority students or with similar SAT scores, performed less well in college, even though there is no reason why they should perform less well. Several Task Force members concurred that this was a problem.

Discussion of Task Force Action Plan

Dr. Gray summarized the earlier discussion. She stated the Task Force would modify a portion of the Secretarial charge associated with future manpower needs: the Task Force shall take into account the trends in the internationalization of science, and the situation with women and minorities. The Task Force has expressed its commitment to bring into the mainstream, those who have not been encouraged, nor had equal opportunities in science and math. However, she stated the Task Force does not regard figuring out future manpower needs to be a principal charge, and the Task Force would not appoint a subgroup to look into this question.

Dr. Gray summarized some of the key points Under Secretary Ernest Moniz had made during a luncheon discussion with the Task Force. She said the Under Secretary provided a more particularized view of the Secretary's mandate to ensure the flow of high-quality scientists and engineers into areas of importance to DOE's missions. Dr. Gray stated the mechanism the Under Secretary discussed was graduate traineeships. She indicated the Task Force would not need to form a subgroup on this question, although the Task Force may want to come back to this in future conversations.

For undergraduates, Dr. Moniz was responsive to many of the things discussed by Dr. Abraham and the students, and she indicated the Task Force needed to give this area some thought, although the Under Secretary did not express an opinion of what should be done on this subject.

The Under Secretary's emphasis was on high schools and the issues of how to encourage more teachers to become more involved in research, professional enhancement, and in teaching students how to go about conducting scientific inquiry, setting up experiments, etc. The Under Secretary was concerned about public outreach and ways to evaluate DOE's outreach programs. Other points of discussion were greater participation and partnerships with community programs, in particular looking toward the technician training and the opportunities that might exist with technical colleges.

She stated many of these questions the Task Force addresses must be answered from the context of DOE: How much ought to be happening at the center? How much should be gathered into the center either by way of coordination of the setting of standards and direction of an overall program? And how much should be happening in the decentralized, or distributed areas, i.e. the laboratories?

There is always a tendency at the center to feel as though they have the greatest quality control, or leverage. There is always the feeling on the part of the individual departments, or in this case laboratories, that the incentive for initiative comes from them, where they have more creative ideas and less bureaucratic stifling. Diversity or pluralism has a certain quality as well. She stated that the Task Force should come up with some broad statement of where the center of resources should be, and where funds should be applied to implement education programs, should DOE have its funding restored.

She stated another point made by the Under Secretary's was the need for some clarity on the distribution and roles of all Federal agencies in education. The Task Force could assist the Department in developing a framework in which there would be an overarching sense of what the responsibility of DOE might be in relation to other agencies.

She briefly discussed the subject of leveraging resources, and the central role of technology and the future role of technology in education. She asked Dr. Pipes whether he would be willing to lead a group discussion of this issue at the next meeting.

Dr. Nelson stated that almost every organization/agency is involved in education technology, i.e. using computers. The one area where DOE can make a difference is in promoting technology education of those students who are using tools to learn about the process of design and building.

Dr. Gray indicated Dr. Lederman should lead a future meeting discussion on scientific literacy. She stated it is unclear whether a separate subgroup on graduate and undergraduate education is needed or not. The key questions the Task Force was discussing have to do with education in the schools, and the issue of education in technology, as opposed to education using technology.

On the subject of scientific literacy, the question for the Task Force is where to focus: 1) on the general public, 2) on some selection of students with particular aptitude, or 3) on some balance between the two. Is it a general policy for DOE to coordinate from the center, or some balance between headquarters and the laboratories? Is DOE going to have to fight for its programs alone, or is there some opportunity to relate DOE to other agencies in some rational way.

She stated the whole Task Force agrees that any recommendations must incorporate teacher and students, school administrators and communities, wherever possible. The Task Force has many alternatives to from which to choose on where to focus and the methods by which those objectives could be met, on what priorities should be emphasized under scare resources and time constraints, and on how these activities could be leveraged with outside groups such as professional associations and other partnerships.

Mr. Katz stated that he would like to bring in a couple of education people at professional associations to discuss how DOE can partner with them.

Dr. Gray stated that the Task Force would like to convey its initial impression to the Secretary in the form of a letter, and the other Task Force members agreed. Dr. Gray indicated that the next meeting would take place on June 5th.

The Task Force discussed the possibility of visiting a DOE laboratory to view their educational programs. Dr. Nelson indicated that each laboratory was different, thus it would be difficult to obtain an overall view of the laboratories by visiting just one of them.

Dr. Sessoms suggested talking to the school districts and constituencies of the laboratory education programs in order to obtain an objective viewpoint. Dr. Gray indicatedthe emphasis needs to be on the K-12 environment.

Dr. Sessoms indicated he would like to hear from a Congressional staffer to obtain their perspective, and the Task Force agreed they would like to meet with Neal Lane, [Director of the NSF, and nominated to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy].

There being no public comment, the meeting was adjourned at 3:14 p.m.