A new report presents decidedly mixed news about the impact of college professors in one of the National Science Foundation’s signature, nationwide projects to improve mathematics and science education. The test scores of school students involved in the Math and Science Partnership program have risen, for example, but little evidence exists that the professors deserve the credit.
On the plus side, schoolteachers and college faculty members said their participation in the program was worthwhile and stimulating, according to the report on a study by researchers at Westat Inc., a research corporation based in Rockville, Md. But many participants also harbored doubts about whether the improvement efforts at schools and colleges would persist after NSF financing ended, even though the projects are intended to continue on their own.
The NSF started the Math and Science Partnership program, or MSP, in 2002 to test a simple notion: that college professors in math and science could help improve the mediocre performance of American students on mathematics and science tests relative to peers in other countries. The idea was that the academics could help schoolteachers improve their content knowledge and that the professors would encourage more of their college students to consider careers as schoolteachers.
To date, the NSF has financed 75 such projects involving 150 colleges, most of which are still in progress. A research university is typically the lead partner. Congress has supported the program as a way to boost the economy through technological innovation; the program’s budget this year is $61-million.
No Silver Bullet
Despite high hopes that colleges would spark change, relatively few college professors have joined the program—about 900 as of 2006, Westat found. Many tenure-track professors were not rewarded for participation because tenure-and-promotion policies at research institutions reward faculty members in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) primarily based on their scholarship. And most universities that received the program’s grants did not change their policies significantly to help the faculty members involved.
“Proponents who are looking for a silver bullet to solve STEM education woes will be slightly disappointed at the results” of the program so far, said Westat’s report, “Who Benefits? The Effect of STEM Faculty Engagement in MSP,” which was financed by the science agency. “However, for opponents who think STEM faculty are irrelevant in the picture, their criticisms are not substantiated either.”
The lack of evidence that the participating academics affected students’ test scores reflects that the professors were working directly with schoolteachers, not students, wrote the Westat authors, who were led by Xiaodong Zhang. The connection between the scores and the professors’ involvement is difficult to study rigorously even though it represents a key component of the program’s success, they wrote.
That link remains of interest to the NSF and is being studied by other scholars financed by the agency, says the program’s director, James E. Hamos. A formal evaluation of the program, by a different firm, is in progress.
The Westat report also suggests that liberal-arts colleges and regional state colleges might prove a better venue for future improvement efforts because of their commitment to teaching. And college scholars not on the tenure track may be an untapped source of participants.
