Task Force on Education
Minutes from the Fourth Meeting on July 20, 1998

U.S. Department of Energy Training Center
950 L'Enfant Plaza - Suite 800

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Task Force Chair, Dr. Hanna Gray, convened the fourth meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Education at 8:30 am on July 20th, 1998. In her opening remarks, she noted the Task Force had sent a letter report to Secretary Peña in June with the Task Force's initial recommendations on the Department s role in education. Since a new Secretary was about to be confirmed, she suggested the next letter on teacher education programs should reemphasize the importance of advocating science education at the Secretarial level.

Dr. Gray stated the meeting would focus on two matters: 1) scientific literacy, and articulating why a whole variety of institutions, organizations, groups and government agencies should make it a priority; and 2) education of teachers. She noted the Task Force had come to the conclusion that teachers may be helped in teaching science better and having their understanding of science strengthened by programs at DOE laboratories.

She pointed out that the Task Force had not yet agreed on the question on whether DOE s education programs should focus on: 1) the gifted student/future scientists, or 2) the general K-12 student. She noted the Department s programs in the past seemed to have focused on the gifted, motivated students.

She stated the next letter should contain examples of current programs that are particularly effective. She noted the Task Force agrees there is no single model for laboratory education program, and pluralism within the lab system should continue to be encouraged. It is also apparent that DOE headquarters has a role in coordinating, in assuring quality through evaluation, and in central advocacy. In citing specific examples, the Task Force aims to show some of the diversity which underlie its recommendations.


Discussion of Public Understanding of Science

Dr. Leon Lederman, Director Emeritus of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, began the morning discussion by reminding the Task Force members that the Terms of Reference instructs the Task Force to provide the Department with guidance on how to combine its everyday activities with community outreach and enhances the scientific literacy of the American public on energy and energy-related environmental issues.

Dr. Lederman discussed the internal debate over the focus of DOE's education programs: some people advocate intervention at the pre-school level, while others propose intervention at the middle school or high school level. Dr. Lederman indicated that he believes each approach has a role, and provided a metaphor about education being like an electrical circuit: if the circuit is cut anywhere, no current flows. Similarly, all forms of education are important. The benefits of education eventually returns to families and preschools in a repetitive cycle. This is analogous to educating the public about science, and influencing parents, teachers, voters, legislators, scientists, etc. The people who emerge from our educational system eventually return, or go back into the circuit.

Dr. Lederman then discussed public understanding of science, which he characterized as being a very elaborate and professional activity. There is even a journal on the subject to inform a profession of expert people on various aspects of public understanding of science. Dr. Lederman noted that National Science Foundation (NSF) had just released its latest edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, 1998 [NSB-98-1]. He stated the report contains just about anything you would want to know about science in the U.S. Chapter 7 is devoted to public understanding of science, and every year the NSF measures the attitudes of the public towards science and scientists, the public s knowledge base, etc.

There are some general cliches within the subject of public understanding of science: 1) before the public can understand scientists, the scientist must understand the public; or, if you want to rub elbows with the masses, you have to get off your pedestal; and 2) public understanding is not synonymous with public appreciation. In fact, the debate between these two issues of public understanding and public appreciation is extremely vigorous.

These issues epitomize one of DOE s problems: there is a thin line between educating the public on issues in which DOE is involved, and marketing the Department and its laboratories. There seems to be great Congressional animosity to anything resembling the marketing or promotion of DOE. However, the missions of the Department include contentious areas such as environmental remediation, research & development, and other goals which will be extremely difficult to resolve without public consensus that these are activities the Department should be conducting. Thus, public understanding of science is crucial for DOE to carry out its mission. Dr. Lederman indicated he believes DOE explaining its activities falls on the side of education, not marketing.

Dr. Lederman suggested the Department collaborate with common-cause agencies such as NASA, NIH, the NSF, all of whom are also mission-oriented and can make the unified claim that public understanding of science and technology is critical for DOE and other agencies to carry out their missions successfully. When marketing is broadened across agencies, it's not as contentious as one agency doing it.

Dr. Lederman stated that when he started working at Fermilab in the late 1970s, the laboratory conducted outreach by inviting students and their parents to tour the laboratory. In the early 1980's someone decided to have an open house, and to their surprise, over 20,000 people showed up. They were overwhelmed by the initial response, but large numbers of people have continued showing up whenever the laboratory opens its doors to the public. He stated that inviting the public into the laboratory is an easy and an effective tool for increasing public understanding of science.

Dr. Lederman indicated there is heated discussion over how to define public understanding of science. John Durant, curator of a science museum in England, has articulated eight important characteristics which the public should know in order to understand science:

Dr. Lederman noted the histories of science and technology are different. At one time they were completely separate, i.e. technology belonged to inventors, tinkerers, designers of useful things, whereas science used to be characterized as useless. Today, science and technology are so intimately connected that it is difficult to distinguish the two.

Dr. Lederman also pointed out that there are many way to reach the general public: TV movies, cinema, newspapers, magazines, books, print media, radio, museums and science centers. There are increasingly more please touch exhibits and museums, libraries, and organized events. He noted DOE sponsors the Science Bowl, and the Westinghouse Science Awards. Dr. Lederman also commended Bill Nye for being at the forefront in terms of children science programming. Some of the reasons he cited for the success of Mr. Nye's show were its uniqueness in explaining science in an exciting way, and his emphasis on the human element of science.

Dr. Lederman described an effort by several scientists and himself to develop a dramatic television series which they wanted to call L.A. Science. They envisioned each episode would teach about science one area of science, and reasoned that after five years on the air, the show would have educated a lot of people about science. They obtained money from NSF and DOE, and started writing scripts. Two or three years later, they had a bible, or an outline of characters that would appear every week. However, when they brought their idea back to the network, the people whom they had originally spoken to were no longer there. Dr. Lederman indicated he hoped someone would steal their idea, and produce and develop the series, while Dr. Lederman and his colleagues would be retained as consultants. Unfortunately, nothing became of it.

Dr. Lederman stated he was worried by the increasing amount of anti science or junk science in the media: UFO sightings, stories of intelligent viruses, human monsters, psychics, the government in collusion with aliens, and firsthand experiences of alien abduction, as well as the notion that certain national leaders could base their decisions on advice from fortune teller or psychics.

He provided three major reasons why public understanding of science is crucial:

1) Science creates wealth. People need to understand this because economic prosperity depends on science and technology operating comfortably.

2) It raises the quality of decision making, and citizens who are knowledgeable about science and technology are better-informed voters.

3) Greater employment opportunities and flexibility for those who are educated about science.

Dr. Lederman noted that the NSF monitors the level of the general public's scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, the results are not promising.

He stated DOE should strive to obtain more attention for its Science Bowl, by increasing the stakes, much like the Westinghouse Awards and America First contests have done. Mr. Nye and Dr. Sessoms agreed with this point, with Dr. Sessoms adding that rewards are the best way to generate more interest and attention.

Dr. Nelson indicated the contest itself does not provide math and science education, but generates interest with children, and pressures schools to improve science education. Dr. Lederman commented he was looking at this issue from the perspective of getting the public interested in the Science Bowl contest. Once DOE has the public's attention, it can teach people all kinds of things about science.

Dr. Nelson emphasized contests must be followed up with substance, because public awareness does not equate with public understanding or acceptance.

Dr. Lederman added that DOE must be able to explain its mission clearly and concisely. He stated the Department had recently become more open abou t the challenges it faces, but DOE must also devise a realistic schedule in seeking to obtain public acceptance. The Department must reach out to the American public so people understand that science is a major part of DOE's mission and activities. The laboratories and facilities are where the Department is embedded with communities and with the general public. DOE should utilize the teachers who come to the laboratories as spokespersons for the Department's activities, and encourage them to have meetings with their local PTA and Kiwanis Clubs to discuss the problems and issues the Department faces. In addition, a traveling museum could illustrate DOE s research activities and various problems.

He noted these activities would require additional funding, but if you have a good program you can obtain some co-op funding from outside sources. For example, it would be interesting to have a television segment on how to decommission a nuclear weapon. Another example might be DOE's environmental remediation mission, the legacy of the cold war. Cleaning up the environment and the storage of nuclear waste are two important subjects the public should know about which would increase its understanding of science.

The conservation ethic was suggested as another candidate for a public campaign. Mr. Bill Nye suggested saving a million miles a week, in which every person be asked to save a mile on every errand. Through incremental savings, the country could obtain a huge savings in energy conservation.

Dr. Lederman suggested the use of television for educating the public about science. He noted an organization called the Scientists Institute of Public Information (SIPI) which used to act as a scientific referral service for reporters. The group would periodically sponsor dinners in which scientists and engineers would discuss particular scientific subjects at lengths with members of the media.

Dr. Gray noted that Dr. Lederman's definition of education included allowing the Department of Energy to make the public aware of its missions. She stated the central idea of public understanding of science is not a matter of the public knowing particular scientific facts, but an understanding of how science works, why it matters, knowing the critical problems DOE faces, and how these problems affect other public areas.

She stated the media is a powerful instrument in our world, and better utilization of it and the opportunities it offers is something DOE should address, whether it is through contests, publicity campaigns, or other incentives to encourage students to study science, to improve curricula, etc. The big assumption behind all of these activities, however, is that the media has an effect on the public understanding of science. The mechanism for enhancing public awareness may be more sophisticated that what the media have to offer. How does one translate awareness into serious interest, commitment, and sustained activity for science and its problems?

Stating that she was playing devil's advocate, Dr. Gray stated that much of what comes out of the media is superficial, and she asked the Task Force members for their opinions on the cost benefits of putting one's limited resources into what might be called consciousness raising and image enhancement, as opposed to putting them into education programs that have already been created and are successful.

Mr. Bill Nye responded that his show was largely started by funding from DOE. He suggested the Department provide more funding for the Science Bowl, and make it more popular and accessible to the media. He also suggested DOE provide teacher scholarship grants. He stated that the Department must make education a priority. The two reasons why basketball players make so much money is because they are extremely good at it, and because they have to make a lot of money in order to be respected and treated better by management. He noted many parents say they want their kids to have the best available teachers, but they don t want their kids to grow up to be teachers because they don t make very much money. The best way to enhance the prestige of teachers is to provide higher salaries.

Dr. Gray responded that it was not all about money, but respect. The public estimation of doctors and lawyers is falling, but is staying the same or rising for teachers.

Dr. Lederman added that recent NSF measurements indicate that the public's attitudes towards science and scientists are very high, but so is its ignorance of science. If one believes in public awareness of science and scientific literacy from the point of view of democratic processes, it's not clear that science will benefit. It is good for people to be informed about science, as long as it is based on real science, and not the preponderance of junk science that is out there.

Dr. Lederman discussed the phenomenon of problem-based learning (PBL) in which the subjects of biology, chemistry and physics are studied on the basis of a major project, such as establishing a space station on Mars. PBL students have to think about science issues such as gravity, the energy and materials involved in launching, what they are going to take along, what sort of dome they are going to make, etc. Solving these problems requires learning an enormous amount of science. The Department should take this approach in teaching the public about its problems because educating the public about its missions will also teach science and raise the scientific literacy of the public. DOE can discuss many areas, such as nuclear waste disposal, the dwindling supply of energy, etc. In addition, NASA and NIH can talk about their problems, and soon everyone will have a better understanding of how much their world impinges on science and technology.

Dr. Lederman noted that somebody had estimated that society's knowledge base is a third derivative function that is currently doubling every eight years. Projecting blindly into the future, in twenty years the knowledge base will double every half a year. The public must be scientifically literate to determine what is important, what is not important, and to process all the information they are bombarded with in order to function as citizens.

Mr. Katz expressed his concern that the Science Bowl only reaches the upper quartile students. He stated the best way to increase scientific literacy is better school programs, i.e. focusing on teachers. Mr. Katz also suggested DOE try to obtain air time on some of the many TV news programs. He noted the anniversary of the energy crisis was coming up in October, an opportune time to do something about the subject on TV.

Dr. Sessoms commented he would prefer less involvement from DOE headquarters in the laboratories education programs. He stated it is not DOE's mission to market science and technology, but rather to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile and clean up the legacy associated with the production of nuclear weapons. He added that news magazine programs will not provide sustained coverage of issues important to the Department. In order for to sustain the message, there must be a multi-tiered effort involving the laboratories.

In response to a question about the Department's role is in science education, Dr. Sessoms stated that DOE's laboratories require trained manpower and public acceptance in order to survive. DOE should play a major role in energy policy. DOE's approach to education must be broad, but not solely to support specific DOE projects. DOE can promote issues such as solar energy, but only in concert with other organizations. It would be most palatable for the public if DOE's laboratories were to do it, e.g. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The laboratories are more capable of promoting a consistent, rational message. He noted that when DOE (headquarters) tried to promote the Superconducting Super Collider, the project was terminated.

Dr. Byron Pipes pointed out that there were two main approaches DOE can take: education of scientists, and public understanding of science. The goal of educating scientists is immediately defendable because DOE's laboratories have personnel needs, thus the evolution of scientists in America is something in which the Department of Energy should be interested. The goal of public understanding of science is less defensible unless one argues that the stimulus for becoming a scientist comes solely from public education.

The United States is one of the few countries in the world where one can go from a non-scientist to a scientist as late as college. The rest of the world thinks scientists must begin disciplined training when they are very young, much like ballet artists. In America, we believe in the concept of offering science education to everyone, which is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because our system captures wonderful people who otherwise would be censored out of the scientific population. On the other hand, science education in the U.S. has many challenges, ranging from teachers who are less well prepared then they should be, to students who are less motivated than they need to be.

The efforts of DOE should be focused on developing growth opportunities in science for students and teachers, as early as possible in the life of a student. Although the overall motivation may be creation of a scientifically-literate society, some of the wealthiest people in our society did not pursue science as a career but used technology to obtain prosperity, e.g. Bill Gates.

Mr. Nye stated DOE has a role in education because the United States is using energy at an alarming rate, and the public needs to be educated about it. He suggested the Department sponsor a teacher of the year award, and offer large prizes. He stated this would draw a lot of attention and help raise the prestige of teachers.

Ms. Hurst stated the problem with science bowls is they only reach the elite students, and do close to nothing for the average students. The Department needs to collaborate with other agencies to inform all students in the K-12 system about careers in science.

Dr. Lederman stated DOE s role in education is connected to its missions: national security, environmental remediation, [energy research and science and technology] and the fact that it is one of the largest basic research agencies in the Federal government (4th).

Dr. Gray suggested the Task Force should not focus on DOE s mission, but rather on the essential activities DOE must do to carry out its mission. From this basis, one can say DOE must educate the public about science in order to build public understanding of what it is doing. This means DOE has an outreach mission beyond educating the public and educating scientists.

Dr. Lederman provided the example of the recent radiation leak at Brookhaven as a relatively small and confined problemthat ended up becoming a public relations fiasco for DOE primarily because people do not understand the basic attributes of radiation. He stated DOE often is impeded in carrying out its missions because of public ignorance of science.

Dr. Gray concluded the discussion by summarizing its main points. She noted the Department of Energy must conduct particular activities in pursuit of its missions and constituting the work of the Department, which are related to education. Educating the public about science, in a way, comes before educating teachers, students, communities, and future scientists -- activities in which the Department has done so much. She noted Dr. Pipes had made the point that not everybody is equipped to be a scientist, in the same way that not everybody who knows how to read and write is equipped to become a great writer or literary critic. While it is important to teach everybody what constitutes great writing by reading Shakespeare, and to teach everybody to express themselves clearly, this is done in order to make people think rather than to make them great writers or literary critics. Scientific literacy is similar in that we hope, for instance, to help the public understand what happened at Brookhaven, even if they aren't scientists.

She noted that Dr. Pipes believes the primary task should be educating scientists, whereas Dr. Lederman thinks the primary task should be educating the public about science. Both tasks are important.

Dr. Lederman stated that he had been wrestling with the question of how to propose a quality program about science to the media which would still have depth. He noted that as a child he watched short biographies of scientists such as The Life of Madam Curie, and another one on Louis Pasteur. These were biographical movies that motivated him to seek a career in science. Nowadays, there are movies about teachers such as Mr. Chips, or Dead Poets Society. He asked whether these more recent movies have had an effect on motivating more kids to become teachers.

Dr. Pipes stated the recommendations the Task Force issues must reflect DOE's primary charter. What DOE does in education must be different from what other organizations are doing if they are going to survive. The Department's uniqueness resides in its laboratories, which are assets upon which DOE should build its future programs. Education of the public fades in comparison to using those assets to educate students, or teachers (who in turn educate students). He indicated that educating the public is harder to justify because everyone can claim to have this same charter, whereas use of the laboratories to create scientists is a unique role for DOE. Neither the NSF nor the Department of Education has the scientific infrastructure DOE does.

Dr. Nelson pointed out that science education from elementary school to high school covers both the future general public and future scientists. A six year old today is only twelve years away from voting, and not long from being a member of the general public. By the time most kids are eighteen years old, the majority of them are going to be as educated in math and science as they ever are going to be. If DOE wants to work on the short term public understanding of science, that is really public awareness, not education. To make a lasting impact, one must focus on educating students and teachers.

In response, Dr. Lederman noted that adults can also learn. He provided Carl Sagen's Cosmos and The Ascent of Man series as examples of exemplary scientific programs that had far-reaching impact on both parents and kids by getting them excited about scientific careers. Through these programs, adults gained a greater sense of the wide variety of science and technology and their impact on our daily lives. He concluded by stating he believes adults can learn science, and that its within DOE s mission to raise public understanding of science.

Dr. Katz pointed out that many Task Force members had discussed greater collaboration between the Department of Energy and outside groups. His organization, the national Energy Education Development (NEED) Fund, plans to release its preliminary guidelines on what very student should know about energy upon graduation from high school in October 1998.

Dr. Gray noted that she liked the distinction Dr. Nelson had made that everybody needs to be educated about science during the early stages, but later there comes a time when some students begin to stand out as talented in science. The students who might become future scientists should be encouraged and have opportunities at the national laboratories. Dr. Gray suggested that whenever the Task Force discusses K-12, it ought to distinguish between earlier and later stages, and what it is, or how it is that the labs, in cooperation with schools, are going to approach education questions. She noted the Task Force had already stated there is a selective process for undergraduate and graduate students.

Dr. Nelson stated the message which would raise public interest and awareness more than any other would be a two-order magnitude increase in those kinds of programs which focus on the Department's missions, and not to worry about impact.

Dr. Gray asked whether the scientific issues related to the Department's mission might not grab the public's attention, i.e. nobody seems to take the notion of an impending energy crisis seriously, and many people are bored by environmental remediation. However, there must be some public acknowledgment that the Department s mission and accompanying functions are important.

Ms. Hurst stated that the laboratories need to do more outreach to younger students and encourage greater interest in science. The Department should look at what NASA is doing for ideas to emulate, and emphasized that the vehicle must be available to everyone.

Dr. Sessoms suggested that every college or university that receives a grant from DOE should be mandated to do something with the local school or school system in the area.

Ms. Skila Harris, Executive Director of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, indicated that a recent contract with the University of California as the M&O contractor of a DOE laboratory contained a provision requiring educational outreach.

Dr. Gray stated she was wary of putting any more conditions into contracts, or anything that stipulates the use of overhead and require additional bureaucratic oversight. She suggested DOE invite institutions to make proposals about how they would conduct outreach to communities.

Dr. Nelson stated he did not agree with the notion that schools of education should take all the blame for teachers not knowing math and science -- teachers do not learn math and science in schools of education, but in schools of arts and sciences. He noted that there are several examples of adding provisions to contracts which have worked, but they must be carefully thought out.

Dr. Gray agreed that any educational program must be carefully managed. She added that is why its good to ask the institution to make proposals. She discussed the Howard Hughes Medical Institute as an example: Howard Hughes makes large grants to local arts colleges and to universities with undergraduate colleges for science education. Howard Hughes puts $30-40 million a year into these programs. Every one of them has an education component with the local schools. All the programs are different and often they are programs which the institutions had already created. Some portion of each of those grants goes to a particular component in K-12 education. Howard Hughes also spends $320 million a year in different places for Howard Hughes Laboratories. Each of these laboratories is given specific monies to interact with local schools. This is very similar to what DOE laboratories are doing -- many distinguished scientists conduct educational outreach as a part of their work. Dr. Gray added that there are probably over a hundred institutions receiving money from these grants, thus there are places which don't rely entirely on schools of education.

Dr. Pipes stated that at the K-6 level, the question of whether to focus on scientific literacy or on educating scientists is really moot because they overlap. On the subject of adding burdensome things to research contracts, he agreed with Dr. Gray's position. He reiterated that the central focus for DOE is its laboratories, but added that he didn't believe it would be politically viable to expand the Department's undergraduate and graduate programs at the labs.

Dr. Pipes stated he had spoken with executives at IBM several years ago who informed him that they were no longer interested in investing in higher education because it was in such good shape. They were putting their philanthropy into earlier stages of education, where it was most needed. He added that everyone agrees the elementary school is where our educational system weaknesses lie. There are many reasons for this including: poor teacher training, lower student motivation, and lack of support from family. He concluded the Department should use it laboratories to focus on programs aimed at the elementary level.

Dr. Gray stated Congressional budget cuts at DOE meant the laboratories would probably have to pay for their education programs out of their discretionary budgets. The recommendations and principles the Task Force comes up with must take this into account, or they risk being meaningless. On the other hand, the Department ought to take leadership, make clear the importance of science education and the Department s missions, and promote greater public understanding of its missions and the science it conducts. DOE headquarters ought to encourage, stimulate, and set high expectations for everyone. Although raising these types of issues will not require huge amounts of resources, it can be a symbol and create a high degree of visibility.

The new Secretary must be informed that the Department is not well understood and that he has the opportunity to amend many public misperceptions about the Department. She also suggested greater DOE collaboration with the private sector, such as sponsoring public events to highlight science education. Skila Harris suggested this could be done in concert with the White House s Millennium Project.

Dr. Lederman agreed with the earlier assessment that K-12 is the highest priority. He stated that addressing all students at this level would capture the ones who will eventually become scientists. If we accomplish K 12 reform in the right way, the issue of public understanding of science would diminish over time because high school graduates would have higher levels of scientific understanding, and thus be educated citizens. Ultimately, we would not have to deal with the problem of educating a scientifically ignorant public. In the meantime, we cannot ignore the general public because they are going to vote on issues that are going to affect society today, tomorrow, and the next year. There are many things the laboratories can do for increasing public understanding of science.

Dr. Lederman added that there are some programs beyond the laboratories, such as the Science Bowl, which affects a lot more people than the ones who make it to the finals. Extending the Science Bowl and making it more visible and popular is a task that the Secretary should be encouraged to do. He admitted the Bowl could use some improvements in awards to obtain greater public attention.

Dr. Lederman concluded by suggesting DOE attract the attention of TV magazines to cover DOE science issues, and suggested the Secretary assemble a group of professionals to look at the possibility for collaboration with other agencies to find outside sources which would help fund entertaining science programs which reach the public and inform them how science affects their lives and the lives of their children.

Presentation and Discussion of Teacher Training

Dr. Terry Woodin, Lead Program Director of the National Science Foundation s (NSF) Collaborations for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, addressed the Task Force about potential collaborations between DOE and NSF in teacher training, particularly in regard to enhancing the experiences and background knowledge of students preparing to be teachers by spending time with scientists at DOE laboratories.

She stated one of the first items needed for a successful program was determining objectives and evaluation metrics. Previous evaluations and feedback suggest that not all laboratory mentors are very good at involving people in research. Only a few mentors are able to help students see how their studies can be translated into research experience. All mentors should receive training in how they can best serve the students/teachers with their research activities.

In addition, there needs to be internal evaluation. A cohort of teachers and students at a laboratory should meet together at least once or twice a week to discuss important issues: not just how science is conducted, e.g. problems they are having in the laboratory, working with scientists, ethics, etc. All the lessons learned should then be compiled and used to create a lesson plan or module for others to use. There should also be an annual meeting in which three or four members from each laboratory group meet with the other laboratories to express ideas and exchange their experiences -- this will provide them with some visibility and create the feeling that they are part of a national effort. She suggested mentors may have no idea what the current science standards are, and they should meet with teachers to learn the standards and how classrooms are grappling with such issues as the use of technology in schools, etc.

Dr. Woodin stated DOE could make a particular difference in local areas near its laboratories. Laboratory engineers have a lot to offer as teachers -- they work with materials, and kids love to work with their hands and machines. In addition engineers work in cooperative groups to design equipment, and their team approach to solving problems is an important skill to pass along, and can be easily applied to teaching.

Dr. Woodin stated NSF does not like to be the sole provider of funds to a program, but rather prefers encouraging the organizations that host students and teachers to provide seed money and take ownership of the program. NSF can provide greater access to collaborations that are already established. For example, NSF gives each of its 16 sites across the nation $100,000 each for scholarships to potential teachers. These scholarships conceivably could be used for internships for students/teachers at DOE laboratories. She indicated the biggest stumbling block was not logistics, but bureaucratic paperwork.

In response to a question from Dr. Gray about how successful NSF''s teacher programs have been, Dr. Woodin stated she did not know of any specific hard measurements, but then she provided several anecdotal stories, including a NSF-sponsored program that resulted in an increase in Native American enrollment at Montana community colleges. She stated her office's original goal was better prepared teachers, not more teachers, but now the emphasis is on more and better teachers. She stated one good metric might be the number of school districts that are trying to hire the students associated with NSF s program.

She noted that education students who did internships with NASA and museums, were not lured away by the glamour of higher salaries of these places, but rather they indicated they emphasized the fact that their experiences would help them be better teachers.

Dr. Woodin noted that in the next few years, there will be a need for two million more teachers, and the teachers who will be in most demand are those with strong background in science, math, and English as a second language.

In response to a question from Mr. Katz about whether many people go into teaching as a second career, Dr. Woodin stated many people in one-year education masters programs are former engineers and scientists, many of whom were successful in their fields, but simply wanted to become teachers. She noted many of the professionals learn about the one-year programs via the Internet.

She also discussed evaluation. After the NSF program had been running for five years, they requested an external evaluation which revealed the number of teachers produced as a result of the program. They have also received letters from teachers administrators, deans and provosts which indicate that large resources are being spent to continue the program. Dr. Woodin indicated NSF is pushing for more department tie-ins because they realize departments run institutions. One site in New Mexico is participating with Los Alamos National Laboratory. She noted that all sites are looking at introductory courses, and trying to reach many students, particularly the ones who plan to become elementary school teachers.

Mr. Katz mentioned Future Teachers Clubs as a good resource for students who are planning to become teachers. They provide support groups for discussing issues. Dr. Woodin agreed, noting that unfortunately, not many places have these types of groups in the areas in which they are most needed.

Dr. Sessoms mentioned that New York colleges were trying to make sure that arts and sciences faculty take partial ownership of teacher preparation programs, instead of leaving it up to the schools of education. He added that colleges are building math, science, and technology elementary schools on campus which require the faculties in math, physics, and chemistry to learn how to teach in those environments.

Dr. Woodin noted that a program which works well at one site may not work at another. For instance, in Louisiana an example of a successful program which was top-down may not work in a state like Colorado, which is less doctrinaire. Its easy for a scientist to go into a classroom for a day and do a good job, but ensuring that more students become science teachers is a more difficult task. She described three ways in which different places had established successful programs which matched their tastes: 1) In Louisiana, a number of faculty became involved because they were impressed with what the best teachers were doing. 2) At MIT, a component of their program was students doing some community service. Some students went to local schools to work with teachers, and the students informed their MIT faculty about what they were doing, which perked the interest of the faculty. Now, MIT is applying for a teacher certification component, and 25 of their students plan to become teachers. 3) A third way is for some sites to bring outstanding math and science teachers back to college to help prepare students who were preparing to become teachers of these subjects. In this case, the school district was paid to hire substitutes for a year so the teachers would not lose their health benefits, retirement, etc.

Dr. Woodin stated NSF reaches approximately 10% of education students (i.e. 140,000 people). In response to a question from Dr. Nelson about transferring resources between two federal agencies, Dr. Woodin stated that it is fairly common, although there is a lot of paperwork which often becomes a barrier. She stated, however, that the role of government is to serve communities, and if the best way is to pool money, then the NSF supports that and will do it.

Dr. Nelson stated that teachers from NSF's collaborative program who have the opportunity to spend a summer at a DOE laboratory in a program are extremely lucky. It is a spectacular opportunity and a win-win situation for everyone. However, if it comes at the expense of other programs that the collaboratives have already been planned, then it is not likely going to happen. If DOE can bring its resources to bare and provide research opportunities at its laboratories, then it seems like a good use of government resources. If, on the other hand, NSF is funding DOE to have a research experience in their labs, that doesn t seem very beneficial.

Dr. Woodin commented that some collaborations are easy to do and don't cost much money, like joint workshops. She concluded by stating that some highly visible government collaborative programs can be done for little cost.


Discussion of Task Force Action Plan

Dr. Gray indicated the Task Force would now discuss the role of DOE laboratories in teacher education.

Dr. Lederman stated that the teacher enhancement (in-service training) level is very late in the process. He added poor preparation of teachers is a pressing problem. Everybody has a role in education, including DOE. When DOE lost funding in 1994, Fermilab was able to continue its programs by obtaining money from the State of Illinois and the Superintendent of Schools. He stated DOE had done a lot to help make school teachers better prepared to teach math and science, primarily due to the efforts of powerful individuals like Secretary Watkins.

He also stated DOE has a role in recruiting teachers and bringing them to the laboratories to enhance their teaching skills. He noted Fermilab stimulated industry and other companies in the Chicago area to hire young people during the summer and make sure they went back to school in the fall. He added that the Department of Energy is unique in being such a large repository of scientists and engineers energized to address the problem.

Dr. Sessoms suggested that more could be done to build incentives for brighter students to go into teaching. In addition to scholarships, he suggested juniors who plan to go into teaching should be rewarded for their chosen career path by having an opportunity to conduct research for a semester at a DOE laboratory. DOE laboratories are more interesting than university laboratories because they can provide the students with a broader exposure to science than they receive at school, and allows them to meet real scientists which can raise their esteem for science as a profession.

Dr. Nelson stated that a part of a semester at a DOE laboratory should also include students spending a week with their peers and their scientist mentors discussing how to teach, learning about the national or their home state's standards, and how to align curricula with those standards. It should not be ad hoc, rather some metrics and an analytical component must be included to answer such questions as: how are we going to measure success? How are we going to track the kids? Is the research experience going to make a difference in teachers teaching?

Dr. Gray noted one of the justifications for DOE s role in teacher education is recruitment.

Dr. Sessoms stated DOE could work with the universities in building a new ethic for teacher education that includes faculty participation in math and science. He added DOE could justify its involvement because it's building long-term capacity in the scientific and technological infrastructure of the United States. NSF spends $600 million a year on education. There is no way DOE can compete with these resources, but DOE must leverage its resources to its advantage and for the good of the public.

Dr. Gray asked what the capacity of DOE s laboratories was for all these programs. Dr. Lederman responded that this was a good, but unanswered question.

Ms. Hurst commented that students who are planning to become teachers usually must commit by their sophomore year in college. Attached to that commitment is a summer or September experience in which the student observes or volunteers in a classroom setting. She noted this may be a good time for students to become involved with a national laboratory. However, it also means that recruitment must reach down to the level of high school seniors.

Dr. Lederman noted there were alternative routes for teacher certification including the one-year masters program students who have obtained a B.S. in a scientific field, or an intensive 8-10 week course for professional scientists to learn classroom culture.

Dr. Gray noted that foreign nationals were being lured to teach in American schools. Dr. Sessoms added that these students do not usually last very long because so many languages are spoken in a classroom that their job becomes little more than crowd control. Dr. Gray added that many foreign nationals leave teaching when they discover they can earn three times more in the computer services industry.

Dr. Gray stated the Task Force was in disagreement over three areas: 1) whether the Department should focus on teacher enhancement (in-service) or teacher education (pre-service); 2) whether it is a good idea to recruit students to DOE laboratories; and 3) whether the Task Force should encourage a collaborative program such as TRAC, in which DOE provides the facilities and the scientific and technical personnel.

Dr. Nelson suggested adding a question about scale to the list, i.e. how many students or teachers should DOE attempt to reach. He noted that DOE's laboratories could probably handle a thousand teachers a year, which is a very small number compared to the number of teachers of science and math. He indicated the Task Force will also have to make the case that what DOE does can make a difference, as well as encourage emulation from other industry and government laboratories. He stated that it all goes back to metrics and demonstrating how they make an impact. Claiming DOE is going to save teacher recruitment or pre-service education with a thousand students would be an overstatement.

Dr. Gray indicated that one can say there is a big problem in education, and that DOE can make a difference, but not the difference. There are over 3000 institutions of higher education, and 22 DOE laboratories and a number of DOE facilities. Together they can make a difference, but it is matter of modest enhancement. The same logic applies to the statement that technology is the answer to everything. She added that the Task Force could make a stronger report by acknowledging these limitations. At the same time, the Task Force can point out some very specific examples in which DOE is making a difference, and suggestions for more programs, e.g. DOE collaboration with NSF in teacher education. She noted the Task Force should point out specific examples which demonstrate the diversity of approaches, recognizing the limitation of scale while at the same time discussing the variety of opportunities within DOE.

Dr. Sessoms stated the laboratories have more capacity than was earlier suggested because people need not be at the laboratory of facility all the time. They could meet in a symposium for a day or two, and several students could stay at the laboratory to do some work. If NSF can reach 10% of teachers, DOE can offer some significant value-added to their collaborative programs and reach many more teachers.

Dr. Gray mentioned that the letter report should mention education precedes one person at a time. Teachers are never dealing with already educated people, they are always starting over. Although many people will be affected by a DOE program, and in turn may influence many others, not everybody will be successful as a result.

Dr. Lederman agreed with Dr. Gray's statement, saying that this was particularly true for science. Science is an inflection phenomenon. You can affect one person in the group, and that person then does something marvelous for society, such as find a cure for a disease. Since you don t know who it is that s going to discover a cure for a disease, you have to treat everyone as if they are capable of doing it. That is the same reason why one is often scientifically justified in sampling a small number.

Dr. Gray indicated the Task Force must put into writing its consensus on DOE's involvement in teacher education. She also stated the Task Force had already spoken about DOE's undergraduate and graduate programs, and that the real issue was science education K-12. She stated a part of the latter issue obviously involves teachers, how they are prepared, and what kinds of experiences they can obtain at the laboratories. She indicated the Task Force must answer questions about the quantity and quality of teachers, recruitment, and defining what DOE's role might be in addressing the problem. The Task Force agrees DOE has a role in both the recruitment function and the strengthening of teachers knowledge capacity (including imparting that knowledge to other teachers). The Task Force has also said that to make these points, it must mention specific examples.

Dr. Gray added that if there are any major differences, the Task Force should not water down what it says in order to agree on a statement, but rather should say there are some legitimate differences. For example, on the question of focusing on public understanding of science, or on educating future scientists, the Task Force might simply say that both are important.

Dr. Nelson and Dr. Sessoms indicated the letter report should mention something about the limitation of current resources at DOE. Dr. Lederman stated that since Congress declined to continue funding education programs, the laboratories have found ways to continue by requesting donations from the private sector, etc. He also added that it would be better for continuity and sustainability if DOE's education programs received line-item funding.

Dr. Nelson stated the Task Force needs to make an honest estimate of what kinds of resources would be necessary for the efforts the Task Force was considering.

Dr. Sessoms added that DOE must work with the NSF and other agencies to maximize the possibility of an educated populace. The fifteen million DOE request which was rejected, was nowhere near enough. He added DOE should be significantly concerned that if there are shortages of math and science teachers now, there will be shortages of scientists and engineers later, which would be a major problem for DOE, not to mention the Nation.

Dr. Sessoms added that whatever the case, it is going to cost money, and DOE should work with other agencies to make sure that money is used in the most effective way. There should be collaboration across government, and DOE must have the flexibility to use its current resources and personnel to address the problem.

Dr. Nelson added that DOE has a unique capability in education, and its capability can only be realized by providing them with the necessary resources to use them.

Dr. Lederman suggested looking at what other agencies like NASA and NIH spend on education as rules of thumb for DOE.

Dr. Gray stated that she would not support prescribing a specific figure, rather she would prefer a Task Force discussion on resources and making recommendations which estimated a range need for some initial programs and targets. She noted this would have the virtue of saying we are not asking for everything at once for new program, but building on programs which already exist and should be expanded.

Several Task Force members suggested proposing a list of people in high tech industries whom DOE would consult with concerning the importance of knowledge, education and training.

Dr. Gray stated DOE is more likely to make a difference by working through teachers than through student programs. She also suggested the Task Force cite different kinds of current programs, rather than laying out a program for DOE. Since the laboratories and the communities they serve are so diverse, there are many effective programs, given their different functions, locations and programs. The Task Force should provide examples of different programs as guidelines and suggest other possibilities.

Ms. Hurst and Mr. Nye emphasized that the programs selected should not only impact those in the surrounding communities. Ms. Hurst suggested Laboratory Directors discuss opportunities for in-service training at DOE laboratories with the state directors of education or state directors of schools.

Dr. Lederman stated there are many successes within DOE about overcoming distance barriers. He provided an example of a successful program at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory which made an impact thousands of miles away from Idaho. He noted the people from the program keep in touch and network via e:mail. He noted this may be different from how it is done in other parts of the country.

Dr. Sessoms noted all the laboratories have visitors centers, some of which are more effective than others. He added that Bill Nye has been a great success. His show reaches six million people, and is an example of the power and legitimacy of popular mechanisms that influence education.

In response to a comment about student programs, Dr. Gray stated the Task Force had already indicated strong support for DOE s outreach to students, and the discussion in no way should detract from that pronouncement. Dr. Gray stated the Task Force must come up with a set of recommended priorities, and address whether the biggest difference can be made through teachers, or through attracting young students.

Dr. Lederman offered the experience of Fermilab as an example. When most of Fermilab's education funding was cut by Congress, enough was available for them to survive with a smaller staff. To obtain more funding, Fermilab went to the state of Illinois for a grant. They obtained the grant, and led seven high schools in the Chicago area into a new science curriculum: ninth graders start with physics, tenth graders have chemistry, and eleventh graders take biology. The state of Illinois and others are now beginning to require three years of science. Science must be taught coherently, so they are starting with physics.

Dr. Lederman stated the people at Fermilab believed it would be a good pilot program. They convinced City of Chicago schools and four schools in the suburbs to take a chance and revolutionize and restructure the way science is taught. The project is currently underway. Each school supplies four or five teachers who work intensively during the summer and at times during the school year. It represents a case of an unexpected initiative which arose out of an environment on the central nature of science and the imagination of people devoted to science education.

Dr. Gray agreed that it was a very good example of working with schools. She stated her vision for DOE's student programs is very much like a university. DOE scientists will do their best and have greater impact on motivated kids; DOE can make a large difference, but there is going to be a considerable range of talent from the gifted students to the children who will come to the labs just for a class visit. However, all these efforts will require resources, access, and volunteers.

Mr. Nye indicated the Task Force should think bigger, like making a video that goes to 140,000 schools, or a device/toy that goes to as many fourth grade teachers as the seat belt video did. Mr. Nye stated teacher programs at the laboratories are well run, but a video emphasizing and illuminating the importance of energy that goes to 140,000 schools would have much greater visibility. It is a form a public education that goes far beyond the laboratories.

Mr. Katz noted the laboratories can t reach everyone, but 110 chapters of engineers can. If you want to think big, how about a thousand workshops on Saturdays and Sundays. Companies in small towns and cities would be interested if approached to be one of the sponsors of a workshop.

Dr. Gray responded that there is no real contradiction in doing the big things that reach many people, which dramatize, stimulate, and get a lot of attention, but these things take a lot of resources. On the other hand, without big, one is not going to obtain the kind of consciousness raising that is wanted, nor the kind of awareness and excitement which all of these programs deserve. The Department needs greater visibility and understanding of what its mission is, and the activities it does in carrying out that mission.

Dr. Nelson stated that a single device in the classroom or a videotape that gets distributed to every school is not going to change education. It is more akin to public relations, but if public relations are needed by DOE in order to open the door to education efforts, then that is probably something worth considering.

Mr. Nye stated he was driving at an awareness of energy. They devices he mentioned would be educational tools that make elementary students aware of energy as a fundamental cornerstone of their everyday lives.

Dr. Lederman asked the Task Force to image it being 7 p.m., and children not going to sleep until after a program (funded by a technological corporation) has aired called: Frontiers and Matter in Space, Time and Energy. DOE would provide the scientific knowledge, and its seal of approval, and the program would be about scientific awareness and education. It would change the attitude of people towards DOE, and making its job easier, but also be education.

He added that it might even teach the fact that energy itself is a very abstract concept; that energy is a concept invented as a convenient way of describing certain things like mass and velocity squared. Energy is very abstract when you get down to the physics of energy, but it primarily seen in a more popular way, that is why there is so much confusion about it.

Dr. Sessoms pointed out that several oil companies have already made movies about energy. He stated if DOE is going to put out a video, it should be in the context of education. DOE should discuss making a movie with national professional organizations, have them produce it, and DOE would give it the seal of approval.

Dr. Gray commented that this would probably represent another category within public awareness. She concluded by stating that the Task Force must articulate the importance of a DOE education program and for a variety of big projects with professional organizations.

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