Earlier this week the House Appropriations Committee released the FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill, which provides for discretionary funding for the federal government through the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 2016.

The bill funds the Department of Education at $68 billion, a $1.2 billion increase above the fiscal year 2015 level.

Although the program was not reauthorized in the Every Student Succeeds Act, FY16 funding for the Math and Science Partnerships was $152,717,000. Title II Teacher Quality grants were funded at $2,349,830,000 and 21st Century Community Learning Centers were funded at 1,166,673,000. Congress did not provide funding for Next Generation High Schools, a new program heavily promoted by the Obama Administration.

Title I grants to local school districts received $14.9 billion, an increase of $500 million above the 2015 level. Funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would increase by $415 million, to $11.9 billion total.  See the chart of funding for FY2016 STEM federal programs.

A tax proposal would extend the teacher tax credit that allows teachers to deduct out-of-pocket classroom expenses through the end of 2016, and adjust the $250 tax credit for inflation in future years.

Overall funding for the science agencies was very positive this year. The National Science Foundation saw a modest 1.6 percent funding increase, up $119.3 million for a total budget of $7.46 billion for FY2016. NSF’s education programs received $880 million, a $14 million increase from last year. STEM+C Computer Science Partnerships Program was level funded at $57 million.

NASA saw a 7.1% increase in funding, the NOAA increase was 5.8 %, and the increase for funding for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) was 11.6 %. The Department of Energy Office of Science received a 5.5 % increase, while funding for the DOD Science and Technology will increase 8.2%.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the funding package this Friday, December 18, with a Senate vote shortly thereafter. The government is currently being funded with a short term stop gap funding resolution that will expire on December 22.

What’s Next for the Every Student Succeeds Act?

What’s ahead for the new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, now that the president has signed the bill into law?

States and schools will have to transition to the new law from No Child Left Behind. The waivers to NCLB provided to states will be void by August 1, 2016, and the new federal law is expected to be in place beginning in the 2017-18 school year. Some issues in the new law will require the Department to do negotiated rulemaking, a process where representatives from the Department of Education and members from the education community meet to negotiate the terms of the new law.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the Department will send out guidance to states on the new law and next steps for implementation soon.

Jodi Peterson is Assistant Executive Director of Legislative Affairs for the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and Chair of the STEM Education Coalition. e-mail Peterson at jpeterson@nsta.org; follow her on Twitter at @stemedadvocate.

The mission of NSTA is to promote excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all.

Follow NSTA

The people involved with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have indicated that they did not plan to “mess” with teaching goals, professional development of teachers, and the ways teachers teach which were used as headings in the 1996 National Science Education  Standards (NSES).  But the National Governors Association has called for improving “training” of teachers — but many professionals find the word “training” of teachers as an example of failure to indicate any teachers and their teaching as “professional.”  The report focuses on career pathways without adequate evidence for achieving the reforms; nor does it suggest the need for collaboration for teachers, administrators, parents, and community leaders. Perhaps, more is needed in the New Standards than merely STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) efforts as the heart of the outline for the NGSS for all to use in 2016 and beyond?

When the NSES (1996) was released, it indicated four goals for school science to produce students who: 1) experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world; 2) use of appropriate science processes and principles in making personal decisions; 3) engage in public discourse and debate about matters of scientific and technological concern; and 4) increase their economic productivity in their use of the knowledge, understandings, and skills of scientifically literate persons concerning their careers.

The teaching section of the Standards began with major ways science teaching should improve.  The advocated changes were the easiest to assess and to develop (with little debate or objections).  These Standards said there should be less emphasis in teaching of the following: 1) treating all students alike and responding to the group as a whole; 2) rigidly following curriculum; 3) focusing on student acquisition of information; 4) presenting scientific knowledge guided by lectures, texts, and demonstrations; 5) asking for recitation of acquired knowledge; 6) testing students regarding factual information at the end of the unit or chapter; 7) maintaining teacher responsibility and authority; 8) supporting competition; and 9) working alone.

Conversely, the Standards called for more emphasis on the following:

1) understanding and responding to student interests, strengths, experiences, and needs; 2) selecting and adapting curriculum; 3) focusing on student understanding and use of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry processes; 4) guiding students in active and extended scientific inquiries; 5) providing opportunities for discussion and debates among students; 6) continuously assessing student understanding (and involving students in the process); 7) sharing responsibilities for learning with students; 8) supporting a classroom community via cooperation, shared responsibilities, and respect; and 9) working with other teachers to enhance the school science program.

Interestingly, there has been little progress to increase emphasis of these nine conditions.  And unfortunately, the items that the NSES said be emphasized less remain largely unchanged with respect to the changes advocated.  The Governors Association report does not seem to help with the reforms and the actual changes needed in teaching for the reforms to succeed.  They ignore the Wiggins and McTighe’s recommendations for “Backward Design.”  The stages in the Backward Design process are:  identify desired results, determine acceptable evidence, and do both before planning learning experiences and lesson planning.

It has been 50 years since Vygotsky offered the Constructivist Learning Theory.  It essentially encouraged students to construct their own interpretations of actions as they explored the environment they are in and offer their own ideas for explaining the objects and events encountered.  The constructivist practices have been described as: 1) posing problems of emerging relevance to learners; 2) structuring learning around “big ideas” or primary concepts; 3) seeking and valuing varied student points of view; 4) adapting curriculum to address student involvement; and 5) assessing student learning in the context of reform teaching.

Constructivist theory influenced Carl Sagan’s statement that all humans start out as scientists who are curious, seek explanations, collaborate with others concerning questions and ideas about their current and daily lives.  Constructivist practices encourage all to explore the explanations that are offered by others and encourage all to collect evidence for supporting their explanations.  Yet K-12 students of science seldom accomplish better understanding of the universe.  How can we get more practitioners involved in correcting the real problems with school science?  

Robert E. Yager

Professor of Science Education

University of Iowa

[youtube]https://youtu.be/ThHYGzvrxZ0[/youtube]

In this video, columnist Jared Mader shares information from the Science 2.0 column, “Did They Really Read It?” that appeared in a recent issue of The Science Teacher. Read the article here.