Politics and Professional Beliefs in Evaluation

The Case of Calculus Renewal
  • Alphonse Buccino
Chapter

Abstract

Policy is a big industry in Washington, D.C.—making it, criticizing it, or changing it. Policy is often like a cloud of galactic dust. Sometimes it coalesces into a star, but mostly it remains a cloud of dust whose particles are sometimes discernible. A policy wonk is someone who tries to discern policy or articulate what it is even when there isn’t any. Webster’s Dictionary defines “wonk” as a student who studies excessively, which helps understand what “policy wonk” really means. There are a lot more policy wonks than policymakers, but it is not always easy to tell them apart.

Keywords

National Science Foundation Curriculum Development Clinton Administration General Account Office Science Education Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. R. House, “The Politics of Evaluation in Higher Education,” Journal of Higher Education XLV(8)(1974):618–627.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V Bush, Science-The Endless Frontier (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1945). [Reprinted by the National Science Foundation in 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 to mark the decennial anniversaries of its establishment.]Google Scholar
  3. D. J. Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Interpretation of Science-The Endless Frontier,” Isis 68(March I977):5–26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. M. England, A Patron of Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–57 ( National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Aaron, “Budget-The Big Picture” [Editorial], Science 281 (1998): 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. M. Sapolsky, “Financing Science after the Cold War,” in D. Guston and K. Kennison (eds.), The Fragile Contract: University Science and the Federal Government ( MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Kreighbaum and H. Rawson, An Investment in Knowledge.- The First Dozen Years of the National Foundation ‘s Summer Institutes Programs to Improve Secondary School Science and Mathematics Teaching 1954–1965 ( New York University Press, New York, 1969 ).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. W Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,” American Economic Review,1961 [reprint of the 1960 Presidential Address to the American Society of Economists].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, 3rd ed. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993) [1st ed. 1964,2nd ed. 1975 ].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1996 (U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 1996) Table 155, p. 151.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Lomax, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation ( National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, The Imperative for Educational Reform (U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    General Accounting Office, New Directions for Federal Programs to Aid Mathematics and Science Teaching, GAO/PEMD-84–5 (U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Committee on Education and Human Resources of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science Engineering and Technology, Pathways to Excellence: A Federal Strategy for Science, Mathe-matics, Engineering, and Technology Education (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1992 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Science Foundation, Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Report of the Advisory Committee for Undergraduate Education ( National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. A. Hoskinen, Statement on Government Performance and Review Act of 1993, Testimony for the Office of Management and Budget before the House Committee on Reform and Oversight, February 12, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation FY 1999 GPRA Performance Plan1998. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E J. Rutherford and A. Ahlgren, Science for All Americans ( Oxford University Press, London, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Shamos, The Myth of Scientific Literacy ( Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W E. Haver, Calculus: Catalyzing a National Community for Reform, NSF Awards 1987–1995 ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1998 ).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Mervis, “Mixed Grades for NSF’s Bold Reform of Statewide Education, ” Science 282 (1998): 1800–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. L. Roberts, E.H. Moore’s Failed Attempt to Involve the American Mathematical Society in Pedagogy, Presentation at the American Mathematical Society Meeting in Philadelphia, April 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. C. Tucker and J. R. C. Leitzel, Assessing Calculus Reform Efforts: A Report to the Community ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Holt, “The Joy of Sets: Who’s Responsible for the New Math?” Lingua Franca (October 1998): 76.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Rowe, “New Trends and Old Images in the History of Mathematics,” in R. Calinger, Ed. Vita Mathematica ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1996 ).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. G. Douglas (ed.), Toward A Lean and Lively Calculus ( Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Mumford “Calculus Reform for the Millions,” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 44 (5) (1997): 559–563.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The four are: (a) Tucker and Leitzel, Ref. 23; (b) A. W. Roberts, Calculus: The Dynamics of Change (Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1996); (c) Haver, Ref. 20; and (d) S. L. Ganter, Ten Years of Calculus Reform: A Report on Evaluation Efforts and National Impact (Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, in press).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Cipra, “Calculus Reform Sparks a Backlash,” Science 271 (1996): 901–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Klein and J. Rosen, “Calculus Reform for the $Millions,” Notices of the American Mathematical Society 44 (10) (1997): 1324–1325.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Rosen, “Mathematics Education and Policy” [Letter], Notices of the American Mathematical Society 43 (5) (1996): 534–535.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. E. Slavin, “A Rejoinder: Yes, Control Groups Are Essential in Program Evaluation: A Response to Pogrow,” Educational Researcher 28 (3) (1999): 3638.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    T. D. Cook and D. T. Campbell, Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings ( Rand McNally, Chicago, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. T. Campbell and J. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research ( Rand McNally, Chicago, 1966 ).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    COSEPUP, Evaluating Federal Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. A report of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine ( National Academy press, Washington, DC, 1999 ).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. ( Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    F. Newman, The Second Newman Report: National policy and higher education; report of a special task force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,Frank Newman, chairman (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973). [Note: The first Newman report was published in 1971 under the title: Report on higher education,by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.]Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Tobias, D. Chubin, and K. Aylesworth, Rethinking Science as a Career ( Research Corporation, Tucson, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh (Dutton, New York, 1926) (reprinted by Puffin Books of Penguin Press, 1992 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alphonse Buccino

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations