Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED368565: Look of the Future: Report of the Governor's Committee on High School Science Laboratories for the 21st Century."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 



ED 368 565 



SE 054 303 



AUTHOR 
TITLE 



INSTITUTION 
PUB DATE 
NOTE 
PUB TYPE 



Boyd, Laslo; Sachwald, Judith 
Look of the Future: Report of the Governor's 
Committee on High School Science Laboratories for the 
21st Century, 

Maryland State Dept. of Education, Baltimore. 

Aug 92 

33p* 

Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) — Reports - General 
(140) 



EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



MF01/PC02 Plus Postage. 

Educational Change; High Schools; Instructional 
Improvement; Science Education; ^^Science 
Laboratories; ''^Secondary School Science 
Maryland 



ABSTRACT 

This document includes the strategies being used by 
the state of Maryland to reach five goals and six essential outcomes 
regarding science education for their students. Also included is a 
discussion of seven recommendations made by committee members and 
reviewers of this effort to improve the quality and use of science 
laboratories in Maryland. The recommendations are: (1) Science 
education must be a high priority; (2) there should be a strong focus 
on the laboratory experience; (3) the "Maryland School Science 
Facilities Guidelines" should be updated; (4) advanced and 
specialized laboratory facilities and equipment need to be provided; 
(5) science teachers need continuing education; (6) partnerships 
among high schools, universities, private industry, and government 
should be encouraged; and (7) state financial support should be tied 
to science outcomes. Appendixes include a letter from the governor 
and a list of reviewers. (ZWH) 



* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 

* from the original document. * 



QO 

Q 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE: 

Report of the 
Governor's Committee on 
High School Science Laboratories 
for the 21st Century 



' PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS u.r Dt^AprrMENT of cducation 

MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 0«« <^ educ*.K>n., R.—rCh .rO .mcKOVmen, 

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 

YalP qhenzlAr centerieriq 

^ ^^-^^ ax:en^i.er ^ ^^^^ document htt b«en reproduced 

\ ' received from the pertor> or or9ar>i2ahon 

O 



received from the pertor> or or9ar>i2ahon 
ongmetir^g it 
C Mmor cher>ges heve been made to impfove 
reprodifCtion quahty 



' I TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES StEtC Of MarVland • ^^'^I'^^^^JT ^^J^^V^^^^^^^ 

I INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." AUgUStl992 OERi poa.tK^n or poi.cy 

O 
vU 

ERIC ^ 



Governor's Committee on 

High School Science Laboratories for the 21st Century 



Michael Hooker, Chairman 

President, University of Maryland Baltimore County 

Richard Ayers 

Principal, Ayers Saint Gross, Architects 
Edward Felegy 

Superintendent of Schools, Prince George's County Public Schools 
Nancy Grasmick 

State Superintendent of Schools, Maryland State Department of Education 
Paul Hanle 

Executive Director, Maryland Science Center 
Freeman Hrabowski 

Executive Vice President and Provost, University of Maryland Baltimore County 
Loren Jensen 

CEO, EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc. 
John KUneberg 

Direaor, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center 
Richard Linder 

President, Elearonic Systems Group, Westinghouse Electric Corporation 
Lois Martin 

Retired, Executive Director, Governor 's Commission on School Performance 
John McGoldrick 

Science Teacher, Winston Churchill High School 
Joseph Perpich 

Vice President for Grants and Special Projects, Howard Hughes Medical Institute 
Jo Ellen Roseman 

Curriculum Direaor, Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science 
Albert Strickland 

Direaor, Baltimore Polytechnic Institute 
Albert Westwood 

Vice President, Research & Technology, Martin Marietta Corporation 



Representatives from Federal Agencies 
Milton Goldberg 

Direaor, Office of Research, U.S. Department of Education 
Jay Moskowitz 

Associate Direaor for Science Policy and Legislation, National Institutes of Health 
Lana Skirboll 

Associate Direaor, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration 



ERLC 



3 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE: 

Report of the 
Governor's Committee on 
High School Science Laboratories 
for the 21st Century 



Drafted by: 

Laslo Boyd 

Associate Vice President 
University of Maryland 
Baltimore County 

Judith Sachwald 

Executive Assistant for Education 
Office of the Governor 



For further information: 

Yale Stenzler 

Executive Director 

Public School Construction Program 

200 W. Baltimore Street 

Baltimore MD 21201 

410-333-2505 















J 









THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

BALTIMORE COUNTY CAMPUS 
Office of the President 




August 3, 1992 



The Honorable William Donald Schaefer 
State of Maryland 
State House 

Annapolis, Maryland 21401 

Dear Governor Schaefer: 

On behalf of the members of the Governor's Committee on High School Science labs for 
the 21st Century, I am pleased to transmit to you our report. 

I know that all the members of the committee share my conviction that high quality 
science education is vital to the future of Maryland and of the country. For that reason, we have 
felt privileged to be able to make a contribution toward achieving the goal of improving science 
education in Maryland's high schools. 

Science education has received a great deal of attention and thoughtful examination in 
both Maryland and the nation in recent years. The committee benefitted enormously from the 
many studies, reports, and recommendations on science education and attempted to build its 
recommendations for science labs on the foundation that has been established by them. We 
received information and advice from national experts and from classroom teachers as we studied 
the subject and later in response to various drafts of our report. The process for bringing these 
recommendations to you has been a far-reaching and inclusive one. 

The recommendations in this report provide the basis for improving the quality of science 
education in Maryland's high schools. We must be candid, though, and point out that these are 
not quick fixes. These recommendations will make a difference if there is a iong-term 
commitment by the State of Maryland and by local school districts. We saw schools with 
outstanding science lab facilities, which could be even better, and we saw science labs that are 
clearly inadequate by any standard. The leadership that you have already provided in requesting 
this report makes us confident that our recommendations will indeed help make Maryland a 
national leader in high school science education. 

Sincerely, 



Michael Hooker 
President 

Enclosure 

iwmc 

O , Baltimore, Maryland 21228-6398 (301) 465-2274 5 

£I^C (^01) 455-3233 (Voice/TDD) 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION i 

HOW THE COMMITTEE DID ITS WORK iv 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANALYSIS 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 

RECOMMENDATION #1 2 

RECOMMENDATION #2 4 

RECOMMENDATION #3 5 

RECOMMENDATION #4 9 

RECOMMENDATION #5 10 

RECOMMENDATION #6 12 

RECOMMENDATION #7 14 



APPENDICES 

A — CHARGE LETFER FROM GOVERNOR SCHAEFER 

B — SCIENCE LABORATORIES AND FACILITIES 
VISITED BY COMMITFEE MEMBERS 

C — REVIEWERS 

D — MEETING DATES AND LOCATIONS 

ERIC 



Introduction 



Sykesville, Maryland. October 17, 2014 

The morning sun touches the sensor on Lisa and Jason Mallory 's house. 
Their computer moves the sensor daily so that rain or shine, the sun's 
first rays always hit it at exactly 6:30 AM. They do not want their kids 
to miss any of the interactive science enrichment program which starts 
promptly at 7:00 AM. These days power outages are rare, but if one 
occurs, the light-sensor feature of their smart house package makes sure 
all systems are on time. 

The children love working on the science enrichment program each 
morning before they leave for school. Like most families , their television 
and personal computer with built-in modem are compatible and make 
participation in such programs very easy. This early morning program 
for adolescents always includes a five-minute segment on careers in 
science and technology. Both young Mallorys are looking forward to 
high school so they can have more time in the science laboratory. 

Lisa Mallory, like an ever growing number of workers, does not have to 
commute; she uses the family computer to connect to the London office 
of her company. She processes medical insurance claims. Her 25-hour 
work week is flexible, but generally she works while the kids are in 
school 

Jason Mallory is still a commuter. He finishes his coffee and heads out 
the front door. As he passes a sensor, the garage door opens and the 
electric switch disconnects its charging cord from his car. Jason smiles 
as he walks toward the car. He works for the car's manufacturer and 
his team built this car. It still amazes him that the factory employs fewer 
than 100 people and produces as many cars as they did 25 years ago 
with thousands of workers. And, the cars are tailor-made in 48 hours 
to orders placed by customers via computer— often from the comfort of 
their homes. 

Jason enjoys his commute, for he does not have to fight through heavy, 
unpredictable rush hour traffic. He simply enters the code for a pre- 
programmed route that takes him to the homes of three fellow carpoolers 
and then to work. He helped develop the electronic guidance system and 
is delighted that it has not only eliminated traffic jams, it also has made 
automobile accidents rare. 



i 



To ensure that all Americans are ready for this type of future, science 
education in the United States has to be improved dramatically. A series 
of highly respected studies and reports have documented the serious 
deficiencies in scientific knowledge of American students. Further, 
analyses of the future needs of the American economy, with its emphasis 
on the creation and application of knowledge rather than the use of 
energy, reinforce the vital need for a work force that is scientifically 
literate and that includes an increased number of world-class scientists 
and engineers. 

These national concerns are also Maryland's concerns. In our State, 
discussions among policy makers, educators and the business community 
have led to questions about the priority we need to place on science 
education, about the best means to increase interest in science among 
students, about how to raise the level of scientific knowledge and 
competence of all students, and about how to provide enrichment 
opportunities for the highest achieving high school students in Maryland. 

In May 1990 the Maryland State Board of Education adopted ten goals 
for the State's public schools to meet by the year 2000. Significantly, 
five of these goals are related to improving student performance in 
science and mathematics. 

Those five goals state that: 

■ Maryland will rank in the top five states in the nation on national and 
international comparisons of student achievement and other measures 
of student success. 

■ 50% of Maryland's students will achieve excellence levels of 
achievement in mathematics and science on state developed 
assessment measures. 

■ 95% of Maryland's students will achieve satisfactory levels of 
achievement in mathematics and science on state developed 
assessment measures. 

■ 100% of Maryland students will be functionally literate in 
mathematics. 

■ The number of Maryland students pursuing post-secondary studies in 
mathematics, science and technology will increase by 50%. 



8 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 




At present, two major policy documents provide direction for responding 
to the challenge of improving science education in Maryland, One is the 
February 1992 report of the Maryland Task Force on Mathematics, 
Science and Technology appointed by the State Board of Education and 
chaired by Dr. Freeman Hrabowski, Executive Vice President and 
Provost, University of Maryland Baltimore County. The other is the list 
of six "essential outcomes" for science education in all Maryland public 
schools which built upon the 1989 report of the Governor's Commission 
on School Performance (the Sondheim Commission). 

These six essential outcomes are: 

■ Students will demonstrate their acquisition and integration of major 
concepts and unifying, themes from the life, physical, and earth/space 
sciences. 

■ Students will demonstrate the ability to interpret and explain 
information generated by the exploration of scientific phenomena. 

■ Students will demonstrate ways of thinking and acting inherent in the 
practice of science. 

■ Students will demonstrate positive attitudes toward science and its 
relevance to the individual, society, and the environment and 
demonstrate confidence in their ability to practice science. 

■ Students will demonstrate the ability to employ the language, 
instruments, methods and materials of science for collecting, 
organizing, interpreting, and communicating information. 

■ Students will demonstrate the ability to apply science in solving 
problems and making personal decisions about issues affecting the 
individual, society, and the environment. 

With these policies as background, in .Tanuary 1992 Governor Schaefer 
appointed his Committee on High School Science Labs for the 21st 
Century. (See Appendix A for a list of committee members.) 

Governor Schaefer charged this committee with the responsibility of 
making recommendations on how high school science facilities and 
equipment could support and reinforce the goal of improving the quality 
of science education in Maryland. 



ERLC 



9 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



111 



Quality mathematics and science education is essential for a healthy economy. 
Success in mathematics/science opens doors to careers, enables citizens to develop 
informed decisions, and provides our State with the knowledge to compete in this 
technological society. Donald Hutchinson, President, Maryland Economic 
Growth Associates, Inc. /Maryland Chamber of Commerce 



How THE COMMITTEii; DID ITS WORK 

The basic working premise of the committee was that recommendations 
about facihties and equipment must be tied directly to curriculum goals. 
For that reason, the committee began by focusing on the major efforts 
to reform the content of science education. In addition to briefings and 
written materials about the two Maryland policy documents cited above, 
the committee heard a presentation on and discussed the 
recommendations of the long-term effort by the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science known as Project 2061: Science for All 
American s. These discussions were greatly enhanced by the expertise 
of the committee members themselves. 



Science goes on in many different settings. Scientists are em.ployed by 
universities, hospitals, business and industry, government, independent research 
organizations, and scientific associations. They may work alone, in small groups, 
or as members of large research teams. Their places of work include classrooms, 
offices, laboratories, and natural field settings from space to the bottom of the 
sea. Project 2061: Science For All Americans 



The second stage of the committee's examination involved visits to a 
number of science laboratories, including high schools and advanced 
research laboratories in the State. (See Appendix B.) The opportunity 
to observe these facilities and to discuss their use with teachers and 
science coordinators as well as with scientists in the private sector was 
extremely valuable to the committee's deliberations. 

The result of the first two stages of investigation was the identification 
of a list of critical questions that needed to be answered. This process 
allowed the committee to understand clearly the assumptions that it was 
making and the choices that had to be faced in making specific 
recommendations. After developing a preliminary report, the committee 
shared its work with numerous educators, scientists and engineers. 
Thus, this document reflects the collective wisdom of the committee 
members and the reviewers. (See Appendix C.) 

10 

LOOK OF THE FUTURE 




Recommendations and analysis 



Summary 

1 . Science education must be a high priority in Maryland and in all 
local school systems. 



2. Science education should include a heavy focus on the laboratory 
experience rather than being limited to textbooks. 



3. The Maryland School Science Facilities Guidelines , developed 
and published by the Maryland State Department of Education in 
1977, should be updated, republished and distributed to assist 
school systems in developing science laboratories for the 21st 
century. 



4* More advanced and specialized laboratory facilities and 
equipment need to be provided on a selective basis to allow 
enrichment opportunities for students with the ability to take 
advantage of them. 



5. Science r^^achers qeed continuing education in their field and 
increased support for the operation and maintenance of 
laboratory facilities. 



6. Partnerships between high school science programs and 
universities, government laboratories and private industry need 
to be encouraged and supported. 



7. State financial support for science facilities and equipment must 
be tied directly to ftilfillment of the Maryland Science Outcomes. 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



u 



RECOMMENDATION 1 



SCIENCE EDUCATION MUST BE A HIGH PRIORITY IN 
MARYLAND AND IN ALL LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS. 

To achieve the goal of scientific literacy for all students, the State of 
Maryland must assure that science education is a high priority. Science 
needs to be considered as a "new basic" when the State Board of 
Education reviews graduation requirements. It is no less critical to the 
future than those areas of learning that we have traditionally thought of 
as the basics. 

As science becomes more a part of our daily life, all citizens will need 
a basic understanding of scientific knowledge and ways of thinking. In 
addition, the economic vitality and competitiveness of the State will 
increasingly depend on a population that is scientifically literate and 
contains growing numbers of skilled scientists and engineers. The 1991 
report by the Greater Baltimore Committee, Baltimore. Where Science 
Comes To Life , on the role of life sciences in Baltimore's future is a 
noteworthy example of this point. 



A Scientifically Literate Citizen Might Ask 

■ Can using a professional lawn treatment service have a negative affect on the 
Chesapeake Bay? 

■ Is irradiated food safe to eat? 

■ Do certain automobiles or household appliances contribute to air pollution? 



As Project 2061 : Science for All Americans points out, achieving the 
goal of scientific literacy is not a matter of increasing the content of the 
science curriculum, but of concentrating on topics that are at the core of 
scientific understanding and teaching those better. To that end, the 
Project 2061 report describes the scientifically literate person as one who 
is aware that "science, mathematics, and technology are interdependent 
human enterprises with strengths and limitations; understands key 
concepts and principles of science; is familiar with the natural world and 
recognizes its diversity and unity; and uses scientific knowledge and 
scientific ways of thinking for individual and social purposes." 



12 

LOOK OF T h'e v'U't L " R 




This formal commitment to science education must be put into practice 
at the local school level. Budget support for science, particularly 
laboratories (including equipment and supplies) and teacher training, 
must be increased if advances in science education are to be achieved. 

Similarly, local schools and school systems need to provide adequate 
time for teaching science. The traditional one-period time slot is not the 
best way to teach science. Just as successful high school athletic teams 
are not limited to 45 minutes of practice each school day, successful 
science education needs extended class time. Finding ways to give 
students access to the science laboratories and their experiments will 
require serious discussion and innovative solutions. Being able to work 
in the laboratory during a free period, or in the evening, or on a 
weekend would encourage scientific inquiry by high school students. A 
variety of approaches, including the possibility of longer school days or 
restructuring the school day, may be necessary to accomplish this 
objective. 

Rapid advances in technology are likely to make possible educational 
experiences in science on a much wider and fuller basis than is currently 
possible. Indeed, these breakthroughs in educational technology have the 
potential to transform the teaching of science. The use of multimedia 
computer stations can make every branch of science available to all 
students. 



Scientists thrive on curiosity - and so do children. Children enter school alive 
with questions about everything in sight; and they differ from scientists only in 
not yet having learned how to go about finding answers and checking to see how 
good those answers are. Project 2061: Science for All Americans 



Finally, despite the fact that the explicit focus of this committee was on 
high school science facilities, we believe it is important to emphasize that 
science education must be given a high priority in schools prior to high 
school. Nurturing interest in science among students must begin at the 
kindergarten level and include hands-on, laboratory-type experiences. 
Parents and communities should complement school-based science 
experiences by taking advantage of resources like the Maryland Science 
Center. Here children can actively "play" with science and further 
develop their natural curiosity-an essential characteristic for scientists 
and the scientifically literate. Also, the Maryland Science Week 
Commission can play a critical role by providing resources and ideas to 
parents for informal science education. 



ERLC 



13 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



RECOMMENDATION 2 



SCIENCE EDUCATION SHOULD INCLUDE A STRONG FOCUS 
ON THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN BEING 
LIMITED TO TEXTBOOKS. 

This conclusion comes through clearly and emphatically in all the recent 
studies on science curriculum, including both the Project 2061 report and 
the Maryland science outcomes. This committee completely agrees. 

For both the general population and those who will be scientists and 
engineers, the world of the fast-approaching 21st century will require an 
understanding of the methods and processes, as well as the application, 
of science. This kind of understanding will not come from merely 
hearing and reading about science or watching the teacher do an 
experiment, but requires that students have multiple, hands-on, real 
world experiences with science and technology. 

A different way to express this critical point is that the goal of science 
education should be for all students to be able to ask basic scientific 
questions* Traditionally, too great an emphasis has been placed on 
memorization, a particularly great risk when the predominant learning 
tool is the textbook. Initially, understanding how to formulate the 
questions is much more important than knowing the answers. The next 
step is learning how to construct the answers. Achieving this goal would 
be a major step toward science literacy. 

Two corollary points are tied to other recommendations. Inadequate 
budget support, mentioned in Recommendation #1, may lead to 
inadvertent over reliance on textbooks over laboratory experiences. 
Secondly, the critical role of the teacher suggests the importance of 
involving teachers as well as science supervisors in the planning and 
design of science laboratories. 



Engineers have used supercomputers to learn about damage to buildings, bridges 
and other structures during an earthquake. Using San Francisco's 1989 quake as 
a model, engineers have compared earthquake simulations on a supercomputer 
with field studies of actual damage from the event. This information has helped 
state agencies decide whether to repair or rebuild damaged structures, and how 
to retrofit structures built before quake-resistant construction techniques were 
developed. Science and Engineering Research Benefits . National Science 
Foundation, 1991 



14 

LOOK OF THE F U T U iTe 




RECOMMENDATION 3 



THE MARYLAND SCHOOL SCIENCE FACILITIES GUIDELINES , 
DEVELOPED AND PUBLISHED BY THE MARYLAND STATE 
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN 1977, SHOULD BE UPDATED, 
REPUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED TO ASSIST SCHOOL 
SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPING SCIENCE LABORATORIES FOR THE 
21ST CENTURY. 

Much of the work and thought that went into the 1977 Maryland School 
Science Facilities Guidelines is still valid today. This guide formed a 
solid base for planning science laboratories in the 1980s and 1990s, and 
with some modifications would be useful into the next century. 

As a result of our work, we have identified a number of principles and 
concepts that have implications for the design, construction and 
utilization of science laboratories. Colleges and universities ought to 
consider developing coursework addressing the elements of laboratory 
design to offer to science supervisors. The State Board of Education 
might want to consider requiring such preparation as part of the 
certification standards for science supervisors. 

Some specific planning and design factors that should be considered in 
addition to those in the 1977 Maryland School Science Facilities 
Guidelines follow. 

General 

■ Generic designs for science laboratories that can respond as 
science curriculums become integrated across science disciplines 
should be considered. 

■ The duration of time for science programs may vary from the 
standard 40-50 minute period per day for instruction and 
laboratory work. 

■ More students in the future will be taking more science and 
science-related courses. 



ERLC 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



15 



Relationship to Other Activities 

■ Science facilities could be clustered together in a school building. 

■ Consideration should be given to locating the science facilities 
adjacent to other instructional programs in order to integrate 
curriculums--i . e . , mathematics , computer labs , technology 
education, home economics, etc. 

■ A portion of each school site should be developed for 
environmental science activities. 



Spatial Requirements 

■ The number of computers to be placed in each science laboratory 
should be reviewed and, if appropriate, additional square footage 
provided. 



Su pport Facilities 

■ Space that is directly accessible from the science laboratory for 
long-term student projects should be provided. This space could 
be 200-300 square feet with utilities and ventilation for 
laboratory work. 

■ Student project spaces for short-term projects could also be 
provided in a separate space of 100-150 square feet or 
accommodated in the laboratory itself. 

Building System Requirements 

■ In generic science laboratories, install one fume hood directly 
vented to the exterior. 

■ In addition to perimeter duplex electrical outlets, consider an 
electrical power distribution system to reach all parts of the 
laboratory-i.e., pull-down (retracting) lines, electrical power 
poles, etc. 

■ All electrical and electronic systems and circuits should include 
ground fault protection. 

16 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



Building System Requirements (continued) 

■ Provide each science laboratory with a projection system or 
hookup to the classroom's TV receivers and printer, paper tray, 
laser disk player, modem and VCR. 

" Provide each student with access to a computer-equipped student 
technology workstation. 

■ The computer-equipped portion of the workstation may be 
mobile. 

« Provide a projection surface or pull-down screen for audio-visual 
purposes. 

■ Emergency shut-off valves or switches for electricity and gas that 
are easily accessible should be provided in each laboratory. 

■ The teacher and student workstations should be networked with 
the laboratory, but also have the capacity to function 
independently. Consideration could be given to networking with 
other areas of the building as well as external locations. 

■ Provisions should be made to darken the science laboratory for 
certain scientific experiments and audio-visual purposes. 

■ Emergency eye washes and showers with floor drains should be 
provided. 

■ Provisions should be made for chemical and biohazard disposal. 
Handicapped Access 

■ An adapted laboratory station that can accommodate an 
individual in a wheelchair - counter height, sink design, access 
to controls for water, gas and electric, etc. 

■ Handles, bars, and/or handrails where added support is required. 

■ Adapted safety equipment - eye wash, shower, fire 
extinguishers. 



17 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



7 



Handicapped Access (continued) 



■ Specialized equipment for hearing impaired students - visual 
aids, visual computer commands, amplifiers, decoders for closed 
captioned presentations and visual warnings signals. 

■ Specialized equipment for visually impaired students — scientific 
measurement equipment that presents an auditory message 
(talking digital readers); electronic voice (talking) computers; 
braille printers and translators to printed English; recordings of 
workbooks, textbooks and other printed matter with recording 
and listening equipment; and audio warning signals. 

Recommended Science Facility Planning Guide Resources 

■ DiBerardinis, Louis J., Janet Baum, Melvin W. First. Gari T. 
Gatewood, Edward Groden, and Anand K. Seth. Guidelines for 
Laboratory Design: Health and Safety Considerations . New 
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987 

■ Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), Model 
Educational Specifications for Technology in Schools . 
Baltimore: MSDE, March 1991. 

■ Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), Maryland 
School Science Facilities Guidelines . Baltimore: MSDE. 1977 

■ Motz, LaMoine L., and Gerry M. Madrazo, Jr. Third 
Sourcebook for Science Supervisors . Washington DC: National 
Science Supervisors Association and National Science Teachers 
Association, 1988. 

■ Rosenlund, Sigurd J. The Chem ical Lab oratory: Its Design and 
Operation . Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Publications, 1987. 

■ Texas Education Agency, Planning a Safe and Effective Science 
Learning Environment . Austin: Texas Education Agency, 1989. 

Building upon the approach to science education that forms the basis of 
the recommendations of this Report, the specific guidelines on 
laboratories, facilities and equipment are likely to be altered over time 
as new technologies are refined and become more affordable. 



18 



ERIC 



8 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



RECOMMENDATION 4 



MORE ADVANCED AND SPECIALIZED LABORATORY 
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT NEED TO BE PROVIDED ON A 
SELECTIVE BASIS TO ALLOW ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR STUDENTS. 

This recommendation recognizes that in addition to the goal of achieving 
science literacy for all, the economic future of the nation and the State 
is dependent on producing more top scientists, engineers and technicians. 
As the pool of students with an interest in science grows and the basic 
science curriculum for all students improves, the number of students 
with the interest and ability to move beyond the basic level is likely to 
increase. It is critical to provide meaningful opportunities for these 
students. 

In addition to noting the absence of even basic levels of science facilities 
and equipment in some schools, the committee also observed both the 
existence and effective use of first-rate science laboratories in others. 
Those effective examples provide a foundation on which the State needs 
to build. 

The basic requirements described in Recommendation #3 for all high 
school science laboratories do not necessitate the most sophisticated 
facilities and equipment available. As universities, private industry and 
federal laboratories strive to keep up with the advances in technology, 
there may be more opportunities to recycle their equipment for use in 
high school science laboratories. Some recycling is already going on, 
but there should be ways to expand on this practice. Care must be taken 
to ensure that schools do not become repositories for obsolete equipment. 

A number of options should be explored to provide enrichment 
opportunities for students. The State in collaboration with local school 
systems should develop regional centers that have more advanced science 
facilities that could be available to students from a number of different 
schools. Some sharing. of facilities already has been done, but ought to 
be expanded. Special attention should be given to the development of 
magnet schools in parts of the State where they are not currently 
available* Institutions of higher education, working with science 
teachers and supervisors, should help with the establishment and 
operation of these facilities and actually serve as regional centers in some 
areas* 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



19 



9 



Moreover, the State should consider developing a model facility to 
provide access for both teachers and students to those state-of-the-art 
technologies that cannot be made widely available because of prohibitive 
costs. 

Another possibility is to have specialized laboratories within some 
schools in addition to the general facilities for all students. The number 
and type of specialized laboratories, at a particular high school would 
depend on the expertise of the faculty as well as on the willingness of 
industry partners to make equipment and expertise available. Portable 
equipment could provide more flexibility. 

Distance learning technologies also can provide opportunities not 
currently available in many schools. If regional centers were developed 
around the State, connecting them to distance learning networks would 
greatly expand their capacity to provide access to science laboratory 
experiences that could not be made available to each individual school. 

Finally, access to the advanced laboratory facilities of both State 
universities and private industry, discussed in more detail in a separate 
recommendation, would be another means of providing enrichment 
opportunities for advanced students in science. 



RECOMMENDATION 5 



SCIENCE TEACHERS NEED CONTINUING EDUCATION IN 
THEIR FIELD AND INCREASED SUPPORT FOR THE OPERATION 
AND MAINTENANCE OF LABORATORY FACILITIES. 

The committee's examination of high school science laboratories led 
back to a familiar conclusion: the key to good science education is 
knowledgeable and motivated teachers. Centering science education in 
the laboratory experience and providing the kinds of facilities and 
equipment described in Recommendations #3 and #4 will have a real 
impact only if the teachers have the necessary background and interest. 

A lesson learned from the dramatic increase in the availability of 
computers in schools over the past several years was that the level of 
teacher training was directly related to the level of the impact computers 
have on the learning process. It should be obvious that the same point 
transfers to other kinds of science and technological facilities and 
equipment. Specifically, there needs to be on-going training programs 

20 

o 

ERJC 10 LOOKOFTHEFUTURE 



for teachers on the use of the equipment available to them. 

Furthermore, the need for continuing professional development for 
teachers in the sciences is critical for at least two reasons. First, the 
advances and discovery of new knowledge in all the fields of science 
place a significant burden on the high school teacher who completed 
formal education years ago. Secondly, the emphasis on scientific 
literacy and on laboratory experience rather than reliance on textbooks 
requires a reorientation for teachers. Teachers become facilitators in the 
instructional process instead of explainers of the textbook. Teachers 
model scientific behavior. Like the Maryland Task Force on 
Mathematics, Science and Technology, the committee strongly urges the 
State Board of Education to take a close look at the nature of continuing 
education and certification requirements for science teachers in light of 
these considerations. 



Most elementary school teachers and many middle school teachers have not been 
required to have the mathematics and science background necessary to adequately 
teach these subjects. Likewise, the majority of these teachers are not trained in 
the use of technology. 

Although many secondary school teachers have stronger backgrounds in 
mathematics and science than elementary school teachers, they are not prepared 
to implement the latest teaching strategies (e.g., integration of technology, 
cooperative learning, thinking skills, application of concepts to current issues.) 
Report of the Maryland Task Force on Mathematics, Science and Technology, 
February 1991 



By implication, the issues concerning continuing professional 
development for those currently teaching have relevance for colleges and 
universities preparing students to become the next generation of science 
teachers. Teacher preparation programs should focus on science 
literacy, the pivotal role of the laboratory experience, knowledge of and 
comfort with the advances in technologies for teaching science, as well 
as the new role of the teacher in teaching for conceptual understanding. 

In addition to traditional, formal programs of continuing professional 
development and training, more opportunities for science teachers to 
work in industry and government laboratories would provide valuable 
continuing education. The Martin Marietta Graduate Fellows Program 
for graduates of the Governor's Academy on Mathematics, Science and 
Technology is an exciting step. Beginning during summer 1992, 
participants combine six to eight weeks working in research laboratories 
with workshops on how to relate this experience to their students and 




LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



21 



11 



other teachers. They also will receive continuing support from 
University of Maryland System mathematicians and scientists upon 
returning to their schools. More opportunities of this type need to be 
available. 

Finally, if we have knowledgeable, motivated teachers in up-to-date 
science laboratories, there must be a continuing commitment to provide 
both adequate operating budgets, particularly in the life sciences, and 
maintenance funds for basic and specialized equipment to allow teacher 
and laboratory to function in a way that can advance the quality of 
science education in Maryland, 



rd like to see them [corporations] confer dignity, status and recognition on 
teachers... They can fund summer institutes for teachers. And they can teach 
schools how to reward teachers for teaching. Companies have learned how to 
confer money and prestige on engineers who stay at the drawing boards, or 
researchers who remain in the lab, but the only way for even the most 
outstanding teacher to get ahead is to become a principal or football coach. 
Ernest Boyer, President, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 
The New York Times . March 24, 1992 



RECOMMENDATION 6 



PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE PROGRAMS 
AND UNIVERSITIES, GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES AND 
PRIVATE INDUSTRY NEED TO BE ENCOURAGED AND 
SUPPORTED, 

A number of partnerships are actively functioning and producing 
impressive results. The Maryland Equipment Incentive Fund 
administered by the State Department of Education is entering its fourth 
year. Grants are made to local school systems for the purchase of 
mathematics and science equipment. The funds are leveraged by 
requiring u.at State dollars be matched by local funds and private sector 
contributions. There are many other exciting and innovative 
partnerships, the challenge is to build upon this foundation. 

Our previous recommendations suggest a number of possibilities. First, 
a more systematic and comprehensive way of making available the high 
quality laboratory facilities in State universities, government research 

22 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



SOME PARTNERSHIPS THAT WORK 



■ Funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) have 
provided research opportunities for Montgomery County teachers and 
students at the laboratories of the National Institutes for Health. 
Another HHMI grant makes possible week-long workshops for 
teachers in the DNA Learning Center of the Cold Spring Harbor 
Laboratory and supports a "Vector Van" (named after recombinant 
DNA vectors) to transport equipment and supplies to the schools. 

■ The Cooperative Satellite Learning Project housed at Laurel High 
School (Prince George's County) that involves NASA/Goddard Space 
Flight Center, Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, Falcon 
Microsystems, University of Maryland College Park and Capitol 
College. 

" The Potomac Edison technology center in Western Maryland, 

■ The Johns Hopkins Space Grant Consortium is a cooperative effort 
among The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins University 
Applied Physics Laboratory, Morgan St<>.te University, and the Space 
Telescope Institute. The corporate sponsors include Westinghouse, 
Computer Science Corporation, Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, 
and Martin Marietta. The Consortium sponsors programs for students 
and teachers to promote strong science, mathematics and technology 
education. 

■ W.R. Grace employees work with students of Atholton High School 
(Howard County) to stimulate their interest in science. Test scores are 
up and so is participation in science fairs and related activities. 

■ The Govemo'^'s Academy for Mathematics, Science and Technology, 
administered Dy the State Department of Fxiucation in cooperation with 
the University of Maryland Baltimore County and Towson State 
University, serves 120 elementary, middle and high school teachers 
each year. 

■ The Montgomery Education Connection Resource Bank is a data base 
of more than 4,{)(X) volunteer experts in science and mathematics who 
come into classrooms as speakers, tutors, consultants or mentors. 



23 



ERIC 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



13 



laboratories and private industry as enrichment opportunities to high 
school students needs to be found. One possibility would be a program 
where these facilities make a commitment to work with a number of high 
school science students and provide regular supervised laboratory 
experiences. Creating more opportunities for high school science 
teachers to spend time in university and industry research laboratories 
also is important. Another possibility is to find ways for more scientists 
and engineers to share their expertise directly with high school students. 

As noted above, these kinds of activities are already underway. They 
need to be refined and expanded for incorporation into every school's 
science program. There needs to be a better tracking of these 
partnerships as well. An encouraging development in this area is the 
CREST initiative (Combining Resources in Engineering, Science and 
Technology) funded by the Maryland Higher Education Commission that 
links higher education, business, industry, government laboratories and 
professional organizations with science and technical programs in 
Maryland's elementary and secondary schools. CREST is planning to 
publish a resource book on partnerships and could play a valuable 
clearinghouse role. 



RECOMMENDATION 7 



STATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR SCIENCE FACILITIES AND 
EQUIPMENT MUST BE TIED DIRECTLY TO FULFILLMENT OF 
THE MARYLAND SCIENCE OUTCOMES. 

Curriculum and laboratories are intertwined parts of the same whole, not 
separate topics. A State commitment to improving the quality and 
priority of science education needs to tie together the various pieces of 
State policy. An important step in starting to implement the 
recommendations in this report would be to begin providing State funds 
explicitly designated for achieving the standards for high school science 
laboratories' that have been identified here. However, as we noted 
initially, we do not believe our recommendations should be treated 
separately. Therefore, funds for science laboratories must be directly 



' On April 29, 1992, the Maryland Board of Public Works approved the use of $2,000,000 of the State 
Public School Construction Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1993 for school construction projects 
to improve high school science laboratories. They also determined that projects will require local funding based 
upon the State/local shared cost formula utilized for ifunding through the State Public School Construction 
Program. 

24 



ERIC 



14 LOOKOFTHEFUTURE 



supportive of the curricular goals discussed in this report. 

The State should establish a competition for science laboratory funds 
using a Request for Proposals type of process. Requests for those funds 
would include a description of how their use would support the 
Maryland science outcomes. The requests should be evaluated by a jury 
knowledgeable about the science outcomes. Funding might be divided 
into phases to allow monitoring of progress. High school science 
teachers and science coordinators, scientists from universities, 
government research laboratories and private industry, and experts 
involved in the national movement to rethink science education should 
be involved in both drafting the Request for Proposals and in evaluating 
the proposals that are submitted. Providing technical assistance to 
applicants as well as sharing reviewer*s comments should be an integral 
part of this process. 

While the specific criteria for review of applications needs to be 
developed by the panel, this committee recommends that the funds be 
broadly distributed across the State both to schools seeking to develop 
advanced laboratory facilities and to those proposing to meet the basic- 
level requirements. A long-term commitment by the State is essential if 
Maryland science education is to make significant advances. 

We urge the State to go even farther and incorporate the principles and 
guidelines embodied in the Maryland science outcomes in the criteria for 
both new construction and renovation of schools that are eligible for 
State funds. There may, in addition, be other opportunities to connect 
State funding and curricular goals. For example, it may be possible to 
evaluate the use by local school systems of the federal funds under Title 
II, the Eisenhower State Grants program with respect to the Maryland 
science outcomes. The Maryland Equipment Incentive Program, 
described previously, also should require a clear relationship between 
equipment requests and curriculum goals. The spirit of this 
recommendation is to strengthen and facilitate systemic change in the 
way science is taught in Maryland's public schools. 



The next century will rest on a foundation of science and technology. Yet many 
of our schools aren't prepared or equipped to give students the scientific 
grounding that will be so essential when they enter the work force. Students are 
our best, and only, hope for the future - but they must be given the tools and 
education to succeed. Editorial, The Evening Sun . June 2, 1992 



25 



ERIC 



LOOK OF FUTURE 



15 



APPENDIX A 



STATE OF MARYLAND 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 




IN REPLY REFER TO 



PG 



January 13, 1992 



Dr. Michael Hooker 
President 

University of Maryland Baltimore County 
5401 Wilkens Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland 21228 



WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER 

GOVERNOR 

ANNAPOMS OFHCe 
STATf HOUSf 
ANNAPOLIS MARYLAND ?H01 
CM)\i 9 74 .,1901 

HAlTlMOnC OFFICL 
ROOM 1513 
301 Wf P/nSTON STREtT 
BALTlMOnr MARYLAND ?irOl 
(3011 ?Pr>-4800 

WASHINGTON OFFlCt 
SUiTt 31f> 

4^.1 NORTH CAPITOL STRf FT N W 
VVASHINGTC.'J DC POOOl 

(2a;') G30 i':Mi> 

TDD (301) 333-3098 



Dear Dr. Hooker: 



A variety of state (Task Force on Mathematics, Science and Technology of the 
Maryland State Board of Education) and national (Project 2061, NSF's Statewide 
Systemic Initiative) efforts have been undertaken to enhance elementary and 
secondary science education. The early signs from many of these etforts are positive. 
However, it appears that little, if any, attention has been directed towards facilities. I 
am especially concerned about science laboratories in high schools. High school 
students have moved beyond the hands-on science experiences which can be done at 
one's desk. They must have laboratory facilities and equipment that enable them to 
think and function as scientists-in-training. 

In order to prepare scientists for the next century, our efforts to improve science 
instruction must be accompanied by an examination of existing facilities and the 
identification of what facilities and equipment are needed to support the science 
curricnlum into the 21st century. Accordingly, I am establishing the Governor's 
Committee on High School Science Labs for the 21st Century. I am pleased to 
appoint you Chairman of the Committee. Dr. Yale Stenzler, Executive Director, 
Interagency Committee on School Construction will provide staff support to your 
Committee, 



The Committee is requested to include the following tasks in its work: 

(1) Examine current and projected science education curriculum and determine their 
impact on facilities and equipment; 

(2) Visit several high school science labs, industrial scientific labs, and scientific 
business establishments to determine if effective; 



26 



Dr. Michael Hooker 
January 13, 1992 
Page 2 



(3) Identify the facility requirements to support the science education curriculum 
including the establishment of specific design criteria and features; 

(4) Identify the types of technological equipment that are required to support the 
instructional program; 

(5) Develop financial resources to support the implementation of the required facility 
changes and the acquisition of the required equipment; 

(6) Disseminate the findings and design guidelines. 

I ask that the Committee submit its report to me no later than May 15, 1992. Prior 
to sharing the report with me I hope that you seek reactions from classroom teachers 
and experts in other states. It is my expectation that our study of high school science 
facilities will become a valuable resource for all states. 

The task that you are about to begin is vitally important. Your willingness to accept 
this responsibility is greatly appreciated. 




Sincerely, 



27 



APPENDIX B 

SCIENCE LABORATORIES AND FACILITIES 
VISITED BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, Baltimore, Maryland 

EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., Hunt Valley, Maryland 

Eleanor Roosevelt High School, Greenbelt, Maryland 

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 

Northwestern High School, Baltimore, Maryland 

MARTEK Corporation, Colun.bia, Maryland 

Maryland Science Center, Baltimore, Maryland 

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 

Northwestern High School, Hyattsville, Maryland 

Oakland Mills High School, Columbia, Maryland 

Oxen Hill High School, Oxon Hill, Maryland 

Patterson High School, Baltimore, Maryland 

Quince Orchard High School, Gaithersburg, Maryland 

South Hagerstown High School, Hagerstown, Maryland 

Southwestern High School, Baltimore, Maryland 

University of Maryland at Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland 

University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland 

Watkins Mill High School, Gaithersburg, Maryland 



28 

o 

ERIC LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



APPENDIX C 



REVIEWERS 

The draft report that was discussed by the committee on May 15, 1992 was 
distributed for comments. Written comments were received from the 
following individuals: 

Ron Barnes, Supervisor of Science, Baltimore County Public Schools 

Jay Brill, Consultant, Technology and Disabilities 

Karen Bundy, Supervisor of Science, Allegany County Public Schools 

Bill Burd, Supervisor of Science, Queen Anne's County Public Schools 

Thomas Custer, Coordinator of Science, Anne Arundel County Public Schools 

Timothy Durkin, Teacher, Liberty High School 

Jeanne Marie Ecton, Teacher, North Hagerstown High School 

James W. Harr, Supervisor of Science, Charles County Public Schools 

William Hunter, Supervisor of Science, Harford County Public Schools 

James Kaufman, Director, Laboratory Safety^ Workshop, Curry College, Milton MA 

Paul S. Keyser, Supervisor of Science, Howard County Public Schools 

Greg Letterman, Teacher, Watldns Mill High School 

Michael Marchizza, Teacher, Largo High School 

LaMoine Motz, Coordinator, Science Education, Oakland County Schools, Waterford MI 
Glen Moulton, Supervisor of Science, Calvert County Public Schools 
Wayne Meyer, Coordinator, Secondary Science, Montgomery County Public Schools 
Aline Novak, Teacher, Clear Spring High School 

(ieorge Patrinicola, Specialist in Science, Baltimore County Public Schools 
Timothy Perry, Teacher, Mt. Hebron High School 



29 



ERIC 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



REVIEWERS (continued) 



Walter Plosila, President, Montgomery County High Technology Council 

Salvatore Raspa, Supervisor of Instruction for Science, St. Mary's County Public Schools 

Dan Richardson, Supervisor of Science, Worcester County Public Schools 

Mary Ann Sankey, Teacher, Mt. Hebron High School 

Paulette Shockey, Curriculum Specialist, Secondary Science, Frederick County Public 
Schools 

Peter H« Smeallie, Consultant Federal Programs, New Jersey Institute of Technology 
Virginia Sutula, Teacher, Laurel High School 

Joyce Swartney, Associate Dean, Natural and Social Sciences, Buffalo State College 

Samuel Walker, Supervisor of Science, Wicomico Count)' Public Schools 

Russell G. Wright, Director, Event-Based Science Project, Montgomery^ County Public 
Schools 

Brad Yohe, Supervisor of Science, Carroll Public Schools 
Douglas Yust, Teacher, Westminster High School 



O 

ERJC LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



30 



APPENDIX D 

COMMITTEE MEETING DATES AND LOCATIONS 



February 6, 1992 NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center 

Greenbelt, Maryland 



February 19, 1992 Quince Orchard High School 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 



March 11, 1992 EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc. 

Hunt Valley, Maryland 



April 13, 1992 Maryland Science Center 

Baltimore, Maryland 



May 15, 1992 University of Maryland Baltimore County 

Baltimore, Maryland 



31 



LOOK OF THE FUTURE 



The Committee was assisted by: 



Allen Abend, Coordinator, School Construaion, Maryland State Department of Education 

Laslo Boyd, Associate Vice President for University Relations, University of Maryland Baltimore 
County 

Joy Boyer, Office for Science Policy and Legislation, National Institutes of Health 

Susan Boyer, Direaor, Academic Outreach, University of Maryland Baltimore County 

Mary Ann Brearton, Specialist in Science, Maryland State Department of Education 

Bonnie Copeland, Deputy State Superintendent of Schools, Maryland State Department of 
Education 

David Dymecki, Principal, Ayers Saint Gross, Architects 

Keith Garland, Manager, Research and Development, Martin Marietta Corporation 

Nicholas Hobar, Assistant State Superintendent for Instruction, Maryland State Department of 
Education 

Particia Hoben, Program Officer, Pre-college and Public Science Education Program, Howard 
Hughes Medical Institute 

Gertrude Jeffers, Executive Assistant, Office of the Governor 

Bonnie Kalberer, Assistant to Associate Director for Science Policy and Legislation, National 
Institutes of Health 

Judith Leasure, Direaor, Corporate Facilities, EA Engineering Science and Technology, Inc. 

Joyce Murphy, Senior Research Associate, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U,S. 
Department of Education 

Eileen O'Keefe, Assistant to the Direaor, Office of Science, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental 
Health Administration 

Kim Parks, Programs Assistant, Office of the Governor 

Judith Sachwald, Executive Assistant for Education, Office of the Governor 

Mary Lewis Sivertsen, Senior Research Associate, Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement, U,S, Department of Education 

Allan Spencer, Executive Assistant, Electronic Systems Group, Westinghouse Corporation 

Yale Stenzler, Executive Director, Interagency Committee on School Construction 

James Strandquist, Supervisor of Science, Prince George's County Public Schools 

Richard Tagler, Associate Director, Mission Operations and Data Systems Directorate, 
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center 

ERLC 



Sute of Maiyland 
Willifttn Donald Schaefer, Governor 
State House Annapolis MD 21401 

3^