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^
