- Part l -

The Report - A Nation at Risk

The time of writing of this essay coincides with the tenth anniversary of the inception of The National Commission on Excellence in Education, which issued the now famous report, "A Nation At Risk."(¹) Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell phoned me on August 17, 1981, to describe the proposed Commission, its goals, meeting agenda and 18-month time scale for presentation to President Ronald Reagan of its report and recommendations for renovation of pre-college education. Bell turned him down because I thought I just didn't have the time, I received another phone call on August 19, 1981, from the designated Commission Chairman, David Pierpont Gardner (at that time President of the University of Utah, to become President at the University of California in 1983). He persuaded me to reverse my decision and to serve as a member of the 18-member Commission. Yvonne W. Larsen, immediate Past-President of the San Diego City School Board, served as Vice Chairman and Milton Goldberg, as Executive Director of the Commission.

The Commission, which became operative on August 26, 1981, met a total of eight times, generally in Washington, D.C., with the first meeting on October 9-10, 1981, the decisive penultimate meeting on January 21-22, 1983, and the final meeting on April 26, 1983 (Figure 1). In addition, there were about a dozen public hearings, panel discussions and symposia, including testimony from some 250 experts, and about five dozen commissioned papers by educational experts, to help us formulate our conclusions and recommendations.

Our final report, "A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform," was handed to President Reagan, in a ceremony well attended by interested members of the public, government officials and the press, at the White House on April 26, 1983. We had gone through a period of contentious argument before we could agree on these dramatic opening paragraphs:

We succeeded in drawing almost unprecedented attention from educators, parents, public and press. (Incidentally, President Reagan used the occasion to advocate voluntary prayer in schools, and tuition tax credits and abolishing the Department of Education, but the press, of course, could find no reference to these suggestions in our report. Ironically, the overwhelmingly favorable reception of our report also doomed his plan to abolish the Department of Education.)

It is now apparent that the pre-college educational crisis and the urgent need for educational reform are broadly perceived as being a top priority. Since the report, "A Nation At Risk," there have been over 100 reports by a wide spectrum of American organizations that have emphasized the deplorable state of pre-college education in science and math in the United States today. These reports indicate that while some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done to resolve this crisis in education. This should become apparent from what follows in this essay.

The recommendations in "A Nation At Risk" are worth repeating here with some comments on the progress that has been made in implementing them.(², ³)

Although many states have raised their high school graduation requirements, their requirements still fall far short of this recommendation. The three years of science are needed to insure that high school graduates include chemistry or physics, or preferably both, in their curriculum. Only four states have upgraded the requirements to require three years of science for graduation from high school. By 1990, 37 states required four years of English, 28 required three or more years of social studies, and 10 states required three years of mathematics.

Some progress has been made on this. Many colleges and universities have raised their requirements for admission. However, there is very little progress in raising entrance requirements to include substantially more science. There is some movement In the direction of upgrading the entrance requirements of the University of California to include three years of science.

Longer school days are reported in 40% of high schools, 30% of middle schools, and 34% of elementary schools. A longer school year has been established in 17% of high schools, 16% of middle schools, and 18% of elementary schools. More homework has been required In 27% of high schools, 30% of middle schools, and 32% of elementary schools. Thus, while some progress has been made, there is still a long way to go.

Because of the special relevance of this to what follows, I quote the seven parts.

Many of these recommendations are the subjects of later comments in this essay. I shall comment here on only parts l and 5:

1. Teaching standards have been subjected to some changes. Today's teachers are tested in 39 states as compared to only a handful of states in 1980. Three states test only for admission to teacher education programs, 18 test only for teacher certification, and 18 test for boffi admission and certification.

5. The number of science centers in the United States has nearly doubled since the appearance of "A Nation At Risk," to a total of several hundred, and they serve as an integral part of the educational community. They serve 10 million students annually--six million at the center and four million through outreach programs. Some 100 centers conduct teacher training workshops serving more than 50,000 teachers annually.

Because I am going to expand on this later I quote one of the implementing recommendations for this.

Many of these organizations are making contributions to this effort. I shall mention the programs of one, Science Service (an institution devoted to the public understanding of science), which I have served as Chairman for the last 25 years. Science Service sponsors the annual Westinghouse Science Talent Search for high school seniors, In which 40 finalists (with scholarships for the top ten), are chosen from 300 Honorable Mentions, who are selected from some 20,000 participants. The 2,000 finalists for the last 50 years, were invited to a reunion meeting and dinner in Washington, D.C., on March 3-4, 1991. Of these 2,000 finalists, five have won the Nobel Prize; two, the Fields Medal (highest honor in the field of mathematics); eight have won MacArthur Foundation Fellowships; 51 have been named Sloan Fellows; and 28 have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Seventy per cent of those who are old enough have earned a Ph.D. or an M.D.

Science Service also sponsors the annual International Science and Engineering Fair, started in 1950, with more than 750 student contestants from over 400 affiliated fairs in the United States and foreign nations. It culminates a selection process involving thousands of school and regional fairs, their student participants, and their 800 Judges from science, engineering, medicine and industry. Students in the 9th through 12th grades compete for more than 575 awards, given by over 50 societies, federal agencies, universities and corporations.

Science Service publishes Science News, the only weekly news magazine of science in the United States, that brings to its readers a rapid overview of all fields of science and of public issues of science in a compact, well-written form. Science News serves the needs of both scientists and the lay public.

Overall, the lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of the report, "A Nation At Risk," has been discouraging. Recently budget crises in city after city, and in state after state, have led to the broad scale firing of teachers. (In California, the amount of support per student has actually decreased during the last three years.)

In his testimony(⁴) on February 20, 1991 before the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the House of Representatives, D. Allan Bromley, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), had this to say: "At the pre-college level, mathematics and science achievement in the United States is a disgrace, with American students typically scoring at or near the bottom in international comparisons of industrialized countries."

In the following sections of this essay I shall, following a description of the central role of science in our society, describe a number of current and planned future efforts to improve pre-college science education.

The Central Role of Science

We all recognize that we live in a rapidly changing, increasingly high technology world. I have characterized our present age as that of the Third Revolution. The Revolution of Independence gave birth to our nation and established the democratic principles on which our classical concept of "equality of opportunity"--largely through education--is based. The Industrial Revolution rewarded the American spirit of inventiveness and made us leaders in the world's economy, blessed with an extremely high standard of living. The Third Revolution, the Revolution of Science, has already transformed how we understand our world- -through the remarkable expansion of knowledge in a few decades--and Is radically altering almost every aspect of our lives. Our response to the challenges of the revolution in science will, quite simply, decide our future. Our most valuable resources are our intelligence and ingenuity. As a nation, we pride ourselves on our history of pioneering new technologies; in the future much will depend not only on that capacity for innovation but also on our general preparedness to participate in the practice and production of those technological advances. The strength of our technological and scientific enterprise will determine our economic well-being, our security and our health and safety.

Science plays a central role in the world of today. Research in basic science leads to advances in applied science and then to widespread practical applications of this acquired knowledge in the derived technology. Incremental scientific advances, as well as major discoveries, result in new technologies of great commercial importance. They can give us entire new industries, as in the case of advances in molecular biology. They can give us whole new ranges of products, as in the case of polymer chemistry. They can revolutionize other technologies and industries, as has been the case for the transistor and the laser.

Basic research leads to the creation not only of new products but also new industrial processes and manufacturing systems. These can greatly increase industrial productivity, reduce costs, and improve the quality of products. For example, advances in microelectronics are aiding the production of automobiles, steel, and many other manufactured goods. Discoveries in biology are influencing the processing and production of pharmaceuticals, foods, and chemicals.

This country cannot afford another generation of students that is ill-prepared to respond to the worldwide rapid growth of scientific knowledge and technological power. The nation's future depends on them. The National Science Foundation has predicted a shortfall of about half a million scientists and engineers by the end of the century. It Is particularly frightening that this shortfall is happening at a time when overall educational standards in our country are dismally low in comparison to those of our major industrial competitors. (Japan produces more engineers than the United States -- the U.S. produces more attorneys than any other country.)

However, it's not just the future scientists and engineers who need a better foundation in math and science. We must improve general science education for all of our young (and not only for those who plan to continue their education and become professional scientists, mathematicians or engineers) because we need a large number of scientifically literate, nonprofessional workers with the understanding and skills to manufacture, operate, and repair increasingly complex technological equipment. Future employment opportunities, necessary to replace Jobs lost in our declining "smokestack industries," will be in areas requiring technical sophistication and will depend on a work force endowed with a practice In learning and the flexibility of mind to adapt to a society constantly changing. The old concept of a replaceable worker standing in a production line and doing one thing over and over Is obsolete. The workplace demands workers who understand the automated equipment that they use and who can adjust and repair it. They must understand and apply the statistics of quality control and make decisions which requir'e knowledge and judgment. The definition of "basic skills" is changing to include such areas as critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, reasoning, teamwork, adaptability, and computer literacy. (Oregon has approved an education plan that would be the first in the nation to establish a statewide apprenticeship program that would Include preparation for work in technical fields and improve the quality of Oregon's workforce. The students would choose between job training or a college preparatory curriculum after the 10th grade.) Federal funding to train and retrain American workers has dropped more than 50% (from $13.2 billion to $5.6 billion) from its level in 1980. Most other countries devote a much higher percentage of their GNP to workplace training.

We must actively recruit and prepare, for these more sophisticated Jobs, young people from what have been traditionally underrepresented populations--women and minorities. It has been estimated that white males, regarded only a generation ago as the mainstays of the economy, will comprise only 15% of the net additions to the labor force between 1985 and 2000. Nationwide, in 1985 one in five 18-year-olds was black or Hispanic; in 2010 the ratio will be one in three. The workforce in 2000 is estimated to be 82% minorities and women. The need to increase the participation of minorities and women as scientists and engineers is also apparent--blacks constitute only 2.3% and Hispanics only 4% of the Ph.D. candidates and the number of female engineers has actually been declining during the last ten years.

In addition to the need for trained scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and nonprofessional workers with an understanding of complex technological equipment, we need widespread understanding of science among the general population. The vitality of a democracy assumes a certain "core of knowledge" shared by everyone which serves as a unifying force. It is fundamental to the effectiveness of our democratic system that our citizens be able to make informed Judgments on the more and more complex Issues of scientific and technological public policy. Decisions must be made which are of critical importance to our health and safety.

There can be no doubt that scientific literacy, a solid understanding of science and mathematics, is now more important than ever before--and there is irrefutable evidence that the skills of our youth are not only not progressing with the increasing demands--but actually are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Besides our need for improvement In pre-college education In science there is need for the broad-scale addition of science courses for non-science majors at the post-secondary level. While our nation's needs for both an educated citizenry and a technologically trained workforce have grown by leaps and bounds, our ability to satisfy those needs has diminished. We must act now to reverse this self-destructive trend.

We all have an important stake in the success of our education system, and every part of our society must be involved in meeting the challenge. Education Is an Investment, not an expense. The Committee for Economic Development reports that each year's class of dropouts costs the nation about $240 billion in crime, welfare, health care, and services. For every $1.00 spent on education, it costs $9.00 to provide services to dropouts. For example, about 80% of all prison inmates are school dropouts, and each inmate costs the nation about $28,000 per year.

There is good news, however. Trends in SAT scores are not universally discouraging. One positive trend is the narrowing of the gap between minority and non-minority students. Between 1978 and 1988, scores of black students rose 21 points on the verbal and 30 points on the math portions of the SAT. Native Americans, Asians and Hispanics also showed gains.

Some Proposals and Programs

Nationwide, many proposals and programs (with overlapping and interlacing suggestions) have been developed by people committed to improving the quality of pre-college education in this country and the future prospects for our youth and our economy.

In September 1989 governors from almost every state in the Union attended the summit conference convened by President Bush in Charlottesville, Virginia. Six national goals(⁵) were established at that time and announced by President Bush in his 1990 State of the Union message:

Just recently (in July 1991) the National Science Foundation started a program conceived in conjunction with the National Governors' Association. In this program, called the Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI), thousands of scientists and engineers throughout the nation, from both academia and industry, are expected to participate. The Initial $75 million program is to be augmented by various levels of matchIng funds for the initial ten selected states--from state sources, local companies, private foundations and other non-federal sources--so as to sustain the program when NSF funding terminates. The money will be used to operate programs that bring working scientists into the classroom, to train future teachers, and to run workshops and summer programs to enhance the skills of present teachers. A second round is planned for next year with the hope that up to ten more states will be selected.

On October 9-10, 1989 I co-hosted with Secretary of Energy Admiral James D. Watkins a major educational summit at the Lawrence Hall of Science. On May 22, 1990 we held a press conference in Washington, D.C. to announce our plan of action(⁶). l would like to give you a brief summary of our goals and objectives. I quote:

Secretary Watkins has inaugurated and implemented an extensive and effective program of utilizing the scientists and resources of the national laboratories of the Department of Energy to aid schools in improving and extending science and mathematics education. In Part II of this essay I describe, as an example of this, some of the contributions of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

Over the past year the Committee on Education and Human Resources of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) has been working on defining how the federal government can contribute to meeting the 1989 Governors National Education Goal No.4. (By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement.). I would commend to you their recently released (February 1991) report, entitled "By the Year 2000: First in the World."(⁷) The Committee, chaired by Secretary of Energy Watkins, had the benefit of participation from top leaders of federal agencies. As Admiral Watkins wrote In his letter conveying the report to Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Allan D. Bromley:

The task of guiding the intellectual (and often social) development of our young is an all-important one. We must begin to recognize teachers' contributions not only by adequately compensating them for their service, but also by giving them due respect which would motivate them to refine their skills and expand their knowledge to meet future challenges. There are a number of vital new programs and proposals which address this need.

Another thing about the FCCSET's Committee report that encourages me is the recognition that a top priority should be to increase the supply of well-trained science and mathematics teachers. Half of the newly employed teachers of mathematics, science, and English are not qualified to teach these subjects. This probably accounts for the fact that so many students are turned off from math and science in the early grades. Fewer than one-third of U.S. schools have qualified physics teachers. In part as a result of this, 30% of our high schools offer no courses In physics; 17% offer none In chemistry, and 70% offer none in earth or space science. According to the FCCSET Committee report(⁷).

On April 8, 1991 President Bush announced his strategy, based on the Governors' Conference of September 1989, to move the nation toward achieving the national education goals and educational excellence for all Americans--"America 2000, the President's Education Strategy."(⁸) "America 2000" builds on four related themes:

President Bush announced on July 8, 1991, the formation of the private, non-profit corporation, the New American Schools Development Corporation, with the hope that businesses will donate as much as $200 million for the creation of the 525 experimental schools intended to be models of reform for the nation. The members of the board of this Corporation consist of 18 business, education and political leaders. The National School Boards Association immediately criticized this proposal as too limited to move "a nation of 16,000 school districts, almost three million teachers, and 40 million students, toward excellence by the end of the decade."

I am extremely pleased by the appointment last May of Lamar Alexander as Secretary of Education and of David Kearns as his Deputy. Immediately following the publication of "A Nation At Risk," Mr. Alexander, then Governor of Tennessee, acted to push through far-reaching and effective educational reforms. He made it clear that education was a top priority for the State of Tennessee, and I am hopeful that he will be as dynamic a leader for change in the federal government. Mr. Kearns used his plafform as chairman of the Xerox Corporation to bring out in the open some of the deficiencies of our emerging workforce, to advocate decisive action to improve every American's opportunities, and to urge the participation--using both financial and human resources--of the private sector. I am looking forward to seeing this new team in action.

There are many interesting new curriculum development projects. Among the most fascinating to me is an initiative by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061 (so named to make clear its goal of revolutionizing the teaching of science by the time of the arrival of the next Halley's Comet). Its report, "Science for All Americans" (1989)(9) makes fascinating reading: it represents Phase l (Goals) of the project by attempting to define what basic core of scientific knowledge should be included in the education of all young Americans. Phase II (Formulation) makes recommendations on new science curricula, instructional materials, testing methods, teacher training, school organization, and educational research and development programs. Phase III (Implementation) will probably take a good deal longer to accomplish!

Another idea which has been picked up and further developed by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) is called "Scope, Sequence. and Coordination" (¹⁰) Students in grades 7 through 12 would study biology, chemistry, physics and earth sciences each year, concentrating on phenomenological studies in 7th and 8th grades, empirical studies in 9th and 10th grades, and theoretical studies in 11th and 12th grades. With leadership coming from Tom Sachse (Manager, Math/Science/Environ-mental Education Unit for the State of California) and Bill Honig (the able California State Superintendent of Schools), a plan to test these ideas in 100 schools across California has been developed and proposed for funding.

The California State Department of Education is implementing in the fall of 1991 a new Science Framework for California Schools,(¹¹) a student-centered program that develops concepts and an enhanced understanding of the connections among the disciplines of science. To help implement this in the San Francisco Bay Area the Science Education Academy of the Bay Area (SEABA) is being created. The mission of the Academy is to coordinate teacher education efforts of over 25 institutions (e.g., the Lawrence Hall of Science, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Stanford Linear Accelerator, the Exploratorium, the California Academy of Sciences) so that all K- 12 science teachers (some 35,000 in number) in the nine-county Bay Area become fully qualified and effective in delivering the best science education available. Besides programs to educate teachers, some are available to educate school administrators (i.e., the Principals for the Advancement of Leadership in Science, PALS, Network program, offered by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The functions of SEABA would include (1) coordination and dissemination on teacher education opportunities in the Bay Area, (2) data collection and reporting on teachers' professional development activities, and (3) provision of opportunities for networking among teacher educators In the Bay Area.

On a broader scale the U.S. Department of Energy is developing Regional Consortia. Based on the SEABA model, the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development is proposing the establishment of a Science and Mathematics Multi-State Implementation Network (SAMMIN),(¹²) involving states within the Western Region, including Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah. The objectives of this project include (1) the establishment of a Multi-State Science and Mathematics Resource Clearinghouse, (2) the establishment of a model Urban Science Resource Network, (3) the dissemination to science and mathematics educators throughout the region and the nation of the most current information in emerging issues in science and mathematics education, models for providing professional development for science and mathematics teacher leaders, and high quality products available for science and mathematics instruction, and (4) the cultivation of leadership in the Western Region science and mathematics community.

Another initiative, of increasing importance, is the growing involvement of the corporate world in contributing to the improvement of pre-college education, as illustrated by the essays in this book. Worth mentioning in this connection is California's Educational Partnership Week, the statewide "Principal for a Day" program, sponsored by Chambers of Commerce and the business world, in which l had the privilege of participating on April 30, 1991, as the Principal of Morrill Middle School in San Jose.

Another initiative of California's diverse business community, of which I served as co-chairman during 1983-1985, was that of the Math Science Task Force, sponsored by the California Roundtable and the California Round Table on Educational Opportunity; the resulting report, "The challenge of Improving Mathematics and Science Education in California,"(¹³) recommended:

Unfortunately, there was no follow up action to try to implement these recommendations. However, these are still valid and desirable objectives for implementation.

The business community can play an important role in solving the problem of pre-college science and mathematics education. It is not possible to mention all of the organizations involved, or potentially involved, but I shall mention some leading local and statewide participants--Industry Initiatives for Science and Math Education (IISME), about which I shall have more to say later, the Industry Education Council of California (the sponsor of this book of essays), the California Business Roundtable (Education Committee), the Bay Area Council, and the California Engineering Foundation; on a broader scale, we have the National Alliance for Business and The Triangle Coalition (a consortium representing industry, education, and science and industry).

In its 1991 so-called "annual report card on federal spending for education," the National Education Association (NEA) criticized the Bush Administration for not adequately funding the Head Start program (the highly regarded early childhood program) and the remedial program for disadvantaged children. (An adequately funded Head Start program would help find Goal l of the September 1989 governors report--by the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn.) The report concluded that the federal commitment to public education declined over the 1980s. Other organizations have also criticized the lack of adequate funding for the Head Start program. Also, in July 1991, the American Federation of Teachers criticized the Bush Administration's "school choice" plan, (part of theme No. 1 of President Bush's strategy announced on April 18, 1991 as described above) under which federal funds would follow each child (through the use of "vouchers") instead of being allocated to public schools on the basis of enrollments; it was stated that this would provide financial aid for private schools rather then help public schools achieve the national educational goals. This plan has also been criticized by many other organizations. Perhaps the "school choice" plan, which has the advantage that it would force schools to make needed improvements, would be more acceptable if it were limited to public schools.

Some Personal Suggestions

There have been many suggestions for how to improve pre-college teaching, especially in science, mathematics and technology: enact state laws to raise standards in education, place more computers in the schools, lengthen the school day and year, increase the requirements in science and mathematics, provide incentives to attract college graduates into science teaching, raise teachers' salaries, establish more teacher recognition programs, establish teacher mentor programs, increase summer teacher training opportunities, reform teacher credentialing to make retired scientists eligible to teach, establish more magnet schools featuring science and mathematics, reform schools of education, develop new teaching materials and curricula, utilize more science centers for teacher training and curricula development, form partnerships and alliances to bring business into collaboration with schools to improve science education, improve collaborations between higher education and schools, institute standardized tests for students and teachers, demand that school educators and leaders reform themselves, institute free market competition for students' choice of schools, increase parents' interest and participation in schools, increase school budgets, decrease number of students per classroom, ameliorate some of the social problems (drugs, violence, vandalism, poverty, teenage pregnancies), establish statewide and national strategies for pre-college education, etc.

Each of these suggestions has some importance. In many cases some progress has been made. However the remaining task is of monumental magnitude and a solution (or solutions) to the problem will require effort on an extraordinarily high level. And overall reform will require the infusion of vast amounts of money--DOLLARS.

Obviously, I cannot comment on all of these problems, or even on several of them, in the space available to me. I shall comment on two aspects that I deem of prime importance.

On the first item I can be brief. We need to refashion the method by which we educate our pre-college teachers, especially in the fields of science and mathematics. We need to establish a system, throughout our colleges and universities nationwide, whereby students majoring in science or mathematics can obtain pre-college teaching credentials upon completing a four-year curriculum. We must eliminate the extra year of methods courses traditionally required by Schools of Education. Cooperation between science and mathematics departments and Schools of Education (not easily arranged) to include essential methods courses during the four-year curriculum, and modification in teacher credentialing requirements, should make this possible. At the University of California, Berkeley, discussions are underway between representatives of the College of Chemistry and School of Education to provide a joint cooperative program whereby chemistry majors can qualify for pre-college teaching credentials on the basis of a four year (or four years plus a summer session) curriculum. The American Chemical Society is spearheading a national move in this direction--a chemistry/education option that would enable chemistry majors to qualify for pre-college teacher certification upon completion of a four-year curriculum. In a related movement, teacher credentialing should be, and In many parts of the country is being, modified so as to allow qualified (perhaps with some Instruction In educational methods) retired industrial and military scientists to augment the pre-college science teaching force.

The other aspect that I want to emphasize is that the federal government (in collaboration with the states) should assume leadership in the effort to reform pre-college science education. Historically, the federal government has instigated major new reforms in education. The Morrill Act of 1862 established the land-grant universities; the World War II "G.I. Bill" instigated the now prevalent federal financial help for young people to attend college; the creation, in 1950, of the National Science Foundation led to the creation of an effective system of support of graduate (and more recenfly undergraduate and pre-college) education in science; the now largely defunct National Defense Education Act (NDEA), inspired by the advent of Sputnik, provided funds to states for building and equipping high school laboratories and providing elementary schools with laboratory equipment and Instigated the still operating Eisenhower State Mathematics Science Education Program. It Is amazing that no comparable action has been undertaken by the federal government to meet the challenge of the present crisis in pre-college science education. (Education is the only profession that has not been radically reshaped by modern technology).

The federal government should establish national goals and standards, cast in very concrete terms, for pre-college education, should keep the problem and suggested solutions before the public through an adequate number of meaningful statements by the president (an indispensable action) and other leaders, should take the lead in extensive K-12 curriculum reform, take the lead in modernizing the educational system, give special attention to the needs of minorities, define the roles of federal, state and local involvement, establish a national R & D capability in pre-college education, and, especially, broaden the base for federal support for precollege science education.

Of these, broadening the base for federal support for pre-college science education is of prime importance. (Overall, federal funding for education has declined since 1980, a trend that has continued during the Bush administration.) Probably the paramount requirement for improving pre-college science education is to attract to the teaching profession well qualified science majors. This can only be done by raising salaries dramatically! This would cost, nationally, tens of billions of dollars additional per year. Although this is traditionally a local or state responsibility I think that it cannot be done without federal help. Other areas of presumed federal responsibility for pre-college science education--such as curriculum reform, modernization and educational R & D would add additional billions of dollars per year. This presents a sizeable problem. In a rational environment, not necessarily forthcoming in the near future, such a financial cost could be met by cutting back on no longer needed military spending. Actually, overall national security would be much enhanced if this federal money were devoted to such civilian national security needs.

F. James Rutherford of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the prime mover of Project 2061 referred to above, has some interesting suggestions in a paper prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government (which is engaged in an exhaustive, carefully prepared and eagerly awaited analysis, with recommendations for remedial actions, of our educational crisis). Rutherford makes a number of recommendations:

It should be clear from the preceding account that our nation needs a clearly defined plan of action if we are going to meet the goals for reform of our pre-college education in science and mathematics by the year 2000 or soon thereafter. Perhaps, the forthcoming report of the Task Force on K-12 Science and Mathematics Education of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government will help serve that purpose.

Conclusion

The report, "A Nation At Risk," initiated a decade ago, stated that "we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our education system for the benefit of all." Emphasizing pre-college education, and the central role of science in today's high technology, internationally competitive society, the report made five broad recommendations for the improvement of education in our country. Although some progress has been made, the goal that these recommendations "be implemented over the next several years" has not been realized in substantial measure.

Improvements in pre-college education in science and mathematics are needed in order to provide (1) the needed number of scientists and engineers, (2) workers with the understanding and skills to manufacture, operate and repair increasingly complex technological equipment, and (3) widespread understanding of science (scientific literacy) among the general population. Numerous programs and proposals, including some from the corporate world (the focus of this book of essays), have been suggested and implemented in order to achieve these goals.

Emphasized in this essay are (1) the need to refashion the method by which we educate and reward our pre-college science teachers and (2) the central role of our federal government in establishing national goals and standards and providing massive financial support for pre-college science education. Without these actions, I believe the attempts to solve our national problem of pre-college science education will fail.

In part II of this essay the Important role of science centers in curriculum development, teaching students, and educating and retraining teachers is described, in particular that of the University of California's Lawrence Hall of Science (Figure 2). Also featured is the role of national laboratories, especially the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Figure 2).

- PART II -

The Lawrence Hall of Science, which Professor Marian C. Diamond serves as Director and I as Chairman, is an institution committed to improving the quality of mathematics and science instruction for pre-collegiate students. For over two decades the Hall has dedicated its superior resources as part of the University of California to the continuing battle against educational mediocrity.