Triangle Coalition For Science And Technology Education

Last week, June 11-12, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee began its expected two-day markup to debate and amend legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The last time the bill was reauthorized was 2002, and Congress has been trying to reauthorize the current statute since 2007.

The bill being marked up was the Strengthening America Schools Act (SASA), S. 1094, which was recently introduced by Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and supported by all of the Democratic members of the Committee. With about 40 potential amendments filed before the start of the markup, the proceedings were expected to be collegial, but partisan, since Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (R-TN) were unable to agree on a comprehensive, bipartisan proposal.

In 2011, then-Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) had managed to work with Chairman Harkin to devise a proposal that had support from a few Republicans. This time, Senator Alexander introduced his own bill that reflects a more conservative and “flexible” approach to changing the 2002 K-12 education law. His bill reflects his belief that the federal role in education has evolved to such an extent that the Department of Education “has become so congested with federal mandates that it has become, in effect, a national school board.” It could be argued that Senator Alexander’s proposal, which is about 200 pages in length, represents what he considers to be the appropriate size of federal government in state and local education decisions. Senator Harkin’s 1,100-page SASA represents his.

At the end of two days of debate, during which Democrats made the case for a government that partners with schools and Republicans insisted that the government is behaving like a “national school board,” the bill was adopted on a 12-10 party-line vote. The Republican members of the committee, led by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), put forth their own proposal which was defeated 10-12 early on in the markup. At the conclusion of the executive session, despite passing a partisan proposal, Senators Harkin and Alexander talked optimistically about bringing the bill to the Senate floor for a full debate later this year.

This week, attention will turn to the House Education and the Workforce Committee, where a markup is scheduled for Wednesday on a reauthorization proposal put forth by Chairman John Kline (R-MN). Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) has a bill of his own that has not yet been released. It is anticipated that the House markup will be a carbon copy of the HELP Committee debate, but in reverse. The Chairman’s bill will pass with no Democratic support and all Democratic amendments will be soundly defeated. Chairman Kline has said he has a commitment from the leadership to bring his ESEA bill to the floor in July, where it will surely pass with very little, but perhaps some, bipartisan support. If a conference committee does meet, the divide between the two measures is so wide that it is hard to imagine a bridge to bring them together.

To read full summaries on the Senate markup, visit:

• http://www.wpllc.net/_documents/SenateHELPCmteESEAmarkup06112013.pdf for day one, and
• http://www.wpllc.net/_documents/SenateHELPCmteESEAmarkup06122013.pdf for day two.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

On Tuesday, June 4, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee held a hearing to review the Administration’s proposed five-year strategic plan for the consolidation and re-organization of federal science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education programs. Witnesses included Dr. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President (EOP); Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation (NSF); and Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator for Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

During the hearing, witnesses discussed the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) process for reviewing the STEM education portfolio across many different agencies, and the role of the White House’s Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education (CoSTEM) in drafting the Administration’s proposed reorganization.

During questioning, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked Dr. Holdren about the involvement of the White House in the development of CoSTEM’s five-year strategic plan and the genesis of the consolidation strategy.  Dr. Holdren said representatives from the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participated in discussions. He said that the idea for consolidation arose from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that suggested OSTP develop a government-wide strategy for STEM initiatives to ensure efficiency, while eliminating duplication and ineffective programs. Smith also asked Dr. Ferrini-Mundy if members of CoSTEM made any changes to the strategic plan after the President released his FY 2014 budget request.  She explained that the development of the strategic plan was an ongoing process and that the committee was working on it at the time of budget release and after.

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) asked Holdren to provide rationale as to why the Smithsonian was chosen as a lead agency. Dr. Holdren emphasized the Smithsonian’s “enormous experience and expertise in programs of engagement” and their ability to reach out to very broad communities.  He said giving them a coordinating role would bring more coherence to informal STEM education.  In addition, the Smithsonian will act as a central clearinghouse, he said, for the development of new materials with the added contribution of the mission agencies’ expertise.

Multiple members of the Committee asked questions about how the proposed re-organization would affect local STEM programs and organizations. Dr. Holdren emphasized that tough budgetary times warrant focused investing in high-priority areas.  Concluding the hearing, Chairman Smith noted the Members’ mixed feelings about the Administration’s proposed reorganization, but said the discussion was “a step in the right direction.” Read the Hearing Brief here.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX); Representatives Ralph Hall (R-TX); Randy Hultgren (R-IL); Larry Buchson (R-IN); Bill Posey (R-FL); Chris Stewart (R-UT); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR); Joseph Kennedy (DMA); Ami Bera (D-CA); Mark Takano (D-CA); Donna Edwards (D-MD); and Elizabeth Esty (D-CT).

WITNESSES

• The Honorable John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
• Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation (NSF)
• Mr. Leland D. Melvin, Associate Administrator for Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Full witness statements and a recording of the hearing, are available here.

The CoSTEM report and supporting documents can be found here.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

On Wednesday, May 22, Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Chairwoman Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ranking Member Jim Risch (R-ID) held a roundtable discussion on “Bridging the Skills Gap: How the STEM Education Pipeline Can Develop a High-Skilled American Workforce for Small Business.” Participants included numerous small business leaders and government employees. Senator Landrieu opened the discussion asking the central question—what are the skills potential employees need in order to support the growth and expansion of small businesses and is the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744) a step in the right direction?

Ranking Member Risch discussed the importance of fostering an understanding and interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in children at an early age in order to build a STEM-educated US workforce. Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Assistant Director of Education and Human Resources for the National Science Foundation (NSF), noted the poor attrition rate among students who begin college in a STEM field, but do not graduate with a STEM degree. She said NSF efforts to increase retention have focused on trying to provide students with high-quality teachers, engaging hands on activities and real-life experience through fellowships.

Loren Goodman, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of InRule Technology in Chicago, IL, emphasized the need for schools to incorporate programming literacy in the K-12 curriculum, explaining that a course in “how to build apps for money” provides students with a greater sense of relevancy of STEM fields.  Dr. Shree Raylor, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Delta Decisions of DC, agreed with Goodman and discussed the importance of demystifying STEM subjects for students, with particular attention given to efforts to attract women and other underrepresented groups. Rose Wang, Founder and CEO of Binary Group, also recommended incorporating internships at the K-12 level as an additional way to depict relevancy and increase interest in the field.  In response to the small business leaders’ suggestions, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy noted programs NSF supports that focus on these areas—hands-on robotics competitions, informal summer learning opportunities through the Innovation Technology Experience for Students and Teachers (I-TEST) and engaging underrepresented groups through the CREST (Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology) for minority institutions. Johan Uvin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the Department of Education (ED), also mentioned the addition of STEM innovation networks to develop and share effective teaching practices in STEM areas and focus on preparing high-quality K-12 STEM teachers through the STEM master teacher corps.  Camsie McAdams, Senior Advisor for the STEM Office of Program Evaluation and Policy at the Department of Education, highlighted the importance of public-private partnerships and urged small business leaders to voice their needs and concerns to help guide and develop a local pipeline of workers that accommodate unfilled positions.

Landrieu also asked panelists for their thoughts on the Senate immigration bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.744), wondering if an increase in the number of H-1B visas mitigated their workforce problem by allowing more foreign professionals to be employed in the US. Goodman said that because navigating and processing a single visa requires approximately $30,000 and 40 to 80 hours of dedicated efforts, simply increasing the number of visas available will not adequately address the issue.  The US must still prepare students to fill these highly skilled positions. More information, including a recording of the hearing, is available here.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

On Tuesday, May 7, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on “Raising the Bar: Exploring State and Local Efforts to Improve Accountability,” to discuss the federal government’s role in accountability and to learn about current state and local efforts to hold schools accountable for student performance.

Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) convened the hearing expressing the importance of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the need to reauthorize the legislation “in the coming months.”  “It’s time to change the law,” he said. “These waivers are a short-term fix for a long-term problem and leave states and districts tied to a failing law.”  Kline went on to highlight the four Republican priorities for the rewrite of this law as: 1) restoring local control; 2) reducing the federal footprint; 3) improving teacher effectiveness; and 4) empowering parents. “We have an opportunity to work together in good faith to bring true reform to America’s K-12 schools.  To change the law to more effectively support the teachers, school leaders, superintendents, and parents who are working tirelessly each and every day to ensure our children have the skills they need to succeed,” Chairman Kline said.

While Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA) expressed his concerns with the Department of Education’s ESEA waivers, as well as the need to provide states and districts flexibility to support their work and move away from the more prescriptive nature of current law, he also supported a slightly more activist role for the federal government.  “The federal government will never actually improve a school nor should it try,” Miller said. “However, we must continue to support the simple idea that low-performing schools should be identified and required to improve.”  Louisiana State Superintendent of Education John White expressed support for a less complex K-12 framework and said, “A strong ESEA reauthorization will be uncompromising in its commitment to accountability but humble in its view of the federal role and its potential to create confusion more than coherence.”  Dr. Chris Richardson, Superintendent of Northfield Public Schools in Northfield, Minnesota, stressed that a new ESEA is necessary to provide “all schools and students with relief from the broken, outdated components of current law.”  Mr. Matthew Given, Chief Development Officer of EdisonLearning, commented on the “tremendous opportunity” that a reauthorized ESEA could offer in terms of allowing for innovative accountability solutions.

For more information, including a recording of the hearing and witness testimony, go to: http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=332571.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

Last week the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and its Subcommittee on Technology held hearings to examine the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Budget Request for science agencies and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

During Wednesday’s full Committee hearing, witness John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, highlighted the President’s strong support of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NIST, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, explaining that the three agencies are “repeatedly identified as important in maintaining America’s preeminence in the global marketplace.”  Other highlights of the President’s budget he noted were investments in clean-energy initiatives through the Advanced Research Projects Agency –Energy (ARPA-E) and the consolidation of STEM education programs.

Committee Chairman Smith (R-TX) asked Dr. Holdren about taxpayer funding for social science and political science studies at the National Science Foundation (NSF), and how research spending might be better prioritized.  Holdren cautioned against Congress micromanaging how agencies such as NSF award research grants, but added that there is “room for improvement” in how NSF prioritizes research initiatives based on potential value to the national interest.

On Thursday, Patrick Gallagher, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of NIST testified before the Technology Subcommittee to discuss the 24 percent increase in discretionary funding and an additional $1 billion in mandatory funding requested.  Half of the proposed increased in discretionary funding would focus on advanced manufacturing research both at NIST laboratories and through a federal-state-private sector partnership and the $1 billion mandatory account would establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), which aims to bring together researchers, companies and entrepreneurs to collaborate and develop new manufacturing technologies, he explained.

During the hearing questions, Subcommittee Chairman Tom Massie (R-KY) inquired how NIST plans to deliver on NNMI if the $1 billion in funding is not provided and if NIST would contribute any discretionary funding to the cause.  Gallagher mentioned leveraging existing programs that supports through Research and Development (R&D) in industrial science or small business program outreach.

Ranking Member Wilson (D-FL) asked him to further describe advanced manufacturing research initiatives. Gallagher outlined a strategy to improve supply chain development by closing the research gap between universities, federal labs and other entities with that of many small manufacturers and providing them with new technologies to improve their products and processes.

More information, including full witness statements and a recording of the hearing, is available at:  http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-technology-hearing-overview-fiscal-year-2014-budget-proposal-national-institute and http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-review-president%E2%80%99s-fy-2014-budget-request-science-agencies.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

On April 10, the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education held a hearing titled, “Raising the Bar: Reviewing STEM  Education in America.”  The hearing focused on improving the efficiency of federal investments in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education.  Subcommittee Chairman Rokita (R-IN) opened the hearing by noting the asymmetry between the rapid growth of STEM jobs in the US and the shortage of skilled workers to fill these positions.  He went on to state that while the federal government has taken an active role in improving STEM education, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had completed “reports [that] have shown that taxpayers’ multi-billion dollar investments are failing to produce results.”  The GAO found in FY 2010 alone, there were 209 programs operated by 13 different agencies that invested over $3 billion in efforts designed to increase knowledge of the STEM fields and degree attainment.  In addition, 83 percent of these programs overlapped with at least one other program and many of the programs lacked a strategic plan or accountability standards.

In her opening remarks, Ranking Member Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) said “STEM education is a worthwhile investment that Congress must consider furthering.”  “The Democratic approach to reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) should be looked at as a model for STEM education,” said McCarthy explaining that the Democratic approach ensures students are “assessed in science and it provides dedicated funding for STEM education, while still giving states and districts flexibility to use those funds as they think best.”

Representative Phil Roe (R-TN) asked panelists for their thoughts about how to encourage young people to take interest in science and technology and improve the federal government’s efficiency in providing these services.  George Scott, Director for Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues for the GAO, pointed out the need for the government to develop a government-wide STEM education and strategic plan that ensures programs have meaningful transparent performance goals and measures with periodic evaluations to determine effectiveness.

Ranking Member McCarthy asked Bill Kurtz, the Chief Executive Officer of the Denver School of Science and Technology, to identify practices that are the most successful among minority populations and how these efforts could be replicated.  Mr. Kurtz said the school’s “non-track” program is the most important aspect, explaining how tracking can limit the “potential and possibility” of certain students.  He went on to state, “There is a complete belief that all students can get there and we will help them get there regardless of their background.”

Chairman Rokita asked panelists their thoughts on having retired professionals from particular industries enter the teaching profession.  Dr. Steve Schneider, the Senior Program Director for WestEd, discussed industries that are allowing employees to participate in STEM education.  He spoke about an initiative at Microsoft that allows young computer programmers “who thought about going into teaching, but decided they couldn’t afford it” to work with teachers who are interested in teaching advanced placement (AP) computer science courses but may not be fully prepared to do so.  The Microsoft employees instruct one class per day for two years while helping to develop the teacher’s content skills.

More information, including full witness statements and a recording of the hearing, is available at:  http://edworkforcehouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=143.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

On Wednesday, President Obama released his budget plan for fiscal year 2014. The budget includes significant changes to the federal STEM education portfolio and increases the government’s investment in STEM education to $3.1 billion, up by 6.7 percent from 2012.

The Administration’s plan also calls for major reorganization and consolidation of federal STEM education programs, from a total of 226 down to 112 programs. This movement will severely affect agencies with smaller education programs and especially initiatives at NASA. Nearly $180 million will be shifted from these consolidated programs to the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Smithsonian Institution to implement a coordinated national strategy.

The strategy will focus on four core reform areas for STEM education: K-12 instruction, undergraduate education, graduate fellowships, and informal/out-of-school education. With these changes, the Administration intends to reduce fragmentation, enhance evaluation, and increase the impact of the federal investment in STEM education programs.

For the Department of Education, the proposal included an overall 4.6 percent increase. The budget includes $35 million to pilot the Master STEM Teacher Corps initiative and $80 million for STEM Teacher Pathways to support the President’s goal of preparing 100,000 new STEM teachers in the next decade. More details on the Department of Education’s STEM programs are here.

Though the President’s budget is just a proposal which must still be addressed by Congress, it lays out the Administration’s priorities for the coming fiscal year which begins October 1. Read more details about the President’s plan for STEM education in this White House announcement.

Join Triangle Coalition for a Conference Call
STEM Education in the President’s Budget 

• When: Wednesday, April 17, 10:00 a.m. EDT
• Presenter: Camsie McAdams, Senior Advisor on STEM Education, U.S. Department of Education; Einstein Fellow Emeritus
• Details: The President’s newly released budget has significant implications for STEM education. Get an inside look from the Department of Education’s Senior Advisor on STEM Education on the major STEM initiatives and changes outlined in the budget. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions and gain a deeper understanding of the Administration’s plan for the next year.
• RSVP to receive dial-in details: Email guelzowa@triangle-coalition.org 

The White House announced last week that President Obama will send his fiscal year 2014 budget plan to Congress on April 10, 2013. The budget is typically released earlier in the year as the fiscal year begins October 1. Following the release of the budget, the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education will host a webinar detailing the budget’s potential implications for education, especially related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Watch for details on the webinar in next week’s STEM Education News.

Last Wednesday, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research held a hearing titled, “STEM Education: Industry and Philanthropic Initiatives,” which featured a panel of representatives from industry and programs to discuss corporate and philanthropic investments in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education.  Referencing current government spending on STEM initiatives and programs—more than $3 billion annually across 12 federal agencies—Subcommittee Chairman Larry Bucshon (R-IN) cited a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggesting the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) develop a government-wide strategy for STEM initiatives to ensure efficiency while eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs.

Ranking Member Dan Lipinski (D-IL) emphasized America’s ranking behind other countries in science and math achievement and implications of this comparative weakness on the workforce. House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) noted the importance of learning about partnerships and programs taking place outside of the federal government to address this workforce issue to avoid duplicative programs and ensure the effective use of resources.  Chairman Smith asked the panelists for input on how the federal government can avoid the duplication of programs. Shelly Esque, President of the Intel Foundation, recommended the federal government provide funding to seed research to prove the effectiveness and validity of STEM programs, so corporations can make informed decisions on investments and partnerships.   Dr. Vince Bertram, President and CEO of Project Lead the Way, recommended STEM initiatives remain focused on their work and “not move into other areas simply to chase funds.”  Andrea Ingram, Vice President of Education and Guest Services at the Museum of Science and Industry (MSI), expressed a different view, explaining that in recent years, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has directed the majority of their grant awards to undergraduate universities to conduct research and evaluation.  Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) asked why the panelists would not prefer to eliminate federal bureaucracy and distribute the federal $3 billion investment in STEM education as scholarships to students interested in pursuing STEM careers.  Explaining the issues of retaining students in the STEM fields, Esque noted the difficulty retaining students in post-secondary STEM curriculum because they lack adequate K-12 foundations.  She asserted that providing the fundamental training in K-12 is essential for students to successfully obtaining post-secondary STEM credentials. More information, including full witness statements and a recording of the hearing, is available at:  http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-research-stem-education-industry-and-philanthropic-initiatives.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC

Despite the implementation of sequestration, Washington, DC is still here.  But it is showing a bit of wear and tear.  As was much written about and discussed, one week ago, on March 1, the sequestration that enacts automatic spending cuts across the federal government took effect.  Since then, education advocates have been scrambling for information on what that really means.  Sequestration was such an abstract concept and a consequence so severe that many hoped it would not come to pass.

Now that the sequester has been triggered, agencies have two months to develop a clear path forward under the across-the-board cuts.  There is new information daily regarding how each individual agency will apply reductions.  As for programs administered by the Department of Education (ED), such as Title I funds for poor schools and districts, and campus-based aid programs for college students, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent letters to governors this week letting them know what to expect in terms of program cuts.  Since many of the programs that affect K-12 education are forward funded, the cuts will not affect these programs until the allocations that are scheduled for July—meaning the cuts will affect resources for the 2013-2014 school year, and not the current one.  For the competitive grant programs the agency oversees, current grantees won’t see any cuts.  Cuts will come out of FY 2013 (the current fiscal year) funds, but the plan is not to cut continuation grants from multi-year grants but to reduce funding for new grants or contracts.  After some analysis, there are those in the education community that assert that the reductions in K-12 spending will be particularly painful in North Dakota,  Mississippi, New Mexico, Idaho and South Dakota—the five states that rely most heavily on federal education money.

As for higher education programs, ED has no authority to waive or change the campus-based allocation formulas that drive awards. Additional guidance for TEACH grants is coming, and College Access Challenge Grants are subject to the sequester-required 5.1 percent cut, since that is a program funded by mandatory dollars. For the TRIO programs, ED expects every grant to be cut by 5 percent.  Student loan borrowers will also be affected almost immediately, since loan origination fees on federal direct loans will increase for new loans disbursed after March 1.  For Stafford loans, the fee will increase from 1 percent to 1.051 percent; for PLUS loans, the fee will increase from 4.0 percent to 4.24 percent.  Over at the National Science Foundation (NSF), it has been announced that cuts will affect future awardees—in that there will be fewer of them.  Current grants shouldn’t be affected.  Those institutions that receive significant federal dollars for research programs and other efforts from NSF and other agencies should be checking in directly with those agencies.

From a more practical perspective, the advocates in Washington, DC that are on Capitol Hill trying to address the cuts and support better futures for federal investments in education are already directly affected by the cuts.  The meetings and discussions are hard enough, but this week it was announced that the sequester means that there will not be enough Capitol Police to man all of the entrances to the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings, and fewer of them will be open.  That means longer lines.  On the upside, longer lines are powerful motivators.

Prepared for Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education by Washington Partners, LLC