jump to navigation

Issues of Equity in Physics Access and Enrollment August 6, 2015

Posted by PER Section Chair in : History, Policy and Education (HPE), Physics Education Research (PER) , add a comment

High school physics is a gateway course for post-secondary study in science, medicine, and engineering, as well as an essential component in the formation of students’ scientific literacy.  Yet, despite reports to the contrary, the availability of physics as a course for high school students is not equitably distributed throughout the United States.

While some schools provide physics for all who wish to take it, a more common scenario is limited availability. This is particularly true in urban districts, where physics is not universally available in secondary school.  The existence of policies that restrict science opportunities for secondary students results in diminished outcomes in terms of scientific proficiency.

Recently researchers at Columbia University examined the 316 secondary schools in the New York City Public School system to identify factors related to availability of physics courses.  New York City’s (population 8.1 million) public schools system  is the largest school district in the United States, with approximately 300,000 secondary school students (15.1% White, 33.6% Black, 38.2% Hispanic, 13.0% Asian).

Overall Enrollment

Overall, physics enrollment in the 298 responding surveyed schools totals 14,935 (5.2%) out of 286,862 students. This corresponds to approximately 21% of students graduating having studied physics, which is lower than the state and national average of 31% for public schools. Analysis of the availability of physics in schools shows that access to physics is not equitably distributed – a remarkable 55% (164 of 298) of the surveyed New York City high schools simply do not offer physics as a subject. This translates to approximately 23% of the city student population not having access to any physics course in high school.

Where is Physics Available?

School size strongly influences whether physics is available. The vast majority of large high schools offer physics as a course, while fewer than half of mid-sized schools and only a quarter of the small schools do. Eliminating schools that only have grades 9 or 10 (and thus may offer physics in future years), still only 39% of small schools offer physics. Although small schools present a promising option in many respects, the question of access to advanced science courses needs to be addressed. Student graduation rates are likely to increase, but the city may actually graduate fewer physics students than they do today.

New York State leads the nation in Advanced Placement participation, with 23% of its high school graduates earning a passing score on at least one exam before graduation (the national average is 14%). Despite this prominence, AP Physics is a rarity in New York City’s public high schools, offered in only 20 (6.7%) of the surveyed schools, including all of the magnet schools.

Correlations to Race and Socioeconomic Status

The racial composition of students in schools that do not offer physics is notably different from the city as a whole, with White and Asian students much less likely to be found in these schools.Schools that offer AP Physics also show a much higher percentage representation of Asian and White students.Schools that do offer physics typically have a racial composition of 36% Black, 36% Hispanic, 15% White, and 13% Asian; schools that do not offer physics have 45% Black, 46% Hispanic, 5% White, and 5% Asian.These disparities illustrate large racial inequities in access to physics.

Socioeconomic status, measured by percent eligible for free lunch, displays a similar relationship, with poorer students having restricted access to schools that provide physics as a science option.The average percentage of students who qualified for free lunch in New York City was 69% during 2004-2005; compared with 77.7% at non-physics schools and 53.3% at schools that offer physics.

Both race and socioeconomic status are inherent factors in determining the likelihood that students have access to Advanced Placement physics in NYC. Only 33.5% of students in schools offering AP Physics are eligible for free lunch. The racial breakdown of students showed similar disparities. The percentage of White and Asian students is nearly triple the citywide average in schools that offer AP Physics, while the percentage of underrepresented minorities is 38% lower than the citywide average.Further illustrating this point, the Bronx, the poorest borough in New York City with the largest population of underrepresented minorities, has only two high schools that offer AP Physics (one is a highly selective science magnet school).

Often, students’ addresses, race, or socioeconomic status are major determining factors in whether they have the opportunity to study secondary physics at any level. This inequity in access to physics needs to be addressed in a comprehensive plan to improve science education for students in urban locales if the goal of “science for all” is to be attained. Major changes are required in schools’ structuring of physics course offerings; additionally, keeping an eye on racial and socioeconomic balance is essential in providing socially just opportunities in the study of physics. The evidence presented here is a starting point for identifying the extent of inequities in order to develop long-term reform efforts to improve physics access.

Policy Recommendations

NSBP calls for the following policies to increase access to K-12 physics courses for all students.

  1. States and the NCAA, which collects high school course data, should improve their databases of what schools are offering physics courses.  Each State should have a verifiable system of course offerings and student outcomes.
  2. In the No Child Left Behind Act or its successor, Congress should emphasize opportunity to learn and adequate funding.
  3. Congress, the States, STEM and teacher professional organizations should have mechanisms for meaningful science education standards for all K-12 schools and students.

For more information on the New York City schools study contact
Angela M. Kelly, Ph.D.
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Center for Science & Mathematics Education (CESAME)
CESAME: 094 Life Sciences Building | 631.632.7075 (office)
PHYSICS: A-141B Physics Building | 631.632.8168 (office)
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5233
www.stonybrook.edu/cesame

In Memoriam: Edmund C. Zingu April 26, 2013

Posted by International.Chair in : Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Physics Education Research (PER), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , 2comments

Zingu
Professor Edmund Zingu served on the South African Institute of Physics (SAIP) Council from 1999 to 2006, and was President of the SAIP from 2003 to 2004.  He was in fact the first black President in the history of the SAIP[1].

He played crucial leadership roles in many projects, particularly in physics related development issues.  He was Vice President of the IUPAP, and Chair of the C13 Commission on Physics for Development.  He was primarily responsible for bringing to South Africa the iconic ‘Physics for Sustainable Development’ conference in 2005[2] as a part of the International Year of Physics.  This conference cast a distinct spotlight on physics as an instrument for development in Africa.

We would like to specifically mention his tremendous contribution to two extremely important projects of the Institute.  The first was the highly successful Shaping the Future of Physics, where he contributed to the design of the project and also served as chair of the Management and Policy Committee that oversaw the international review in 2003.

The Shaping the Future of Physics in South Africa report was written by a body designated as the ‘International Panel’ or IP.  The IP was composed of M. A. Hellberg (convenor), M. Ducloy, K. Bharuth-Ram, K. Evans-Lutterodt, I. Gledhill, G. X. Tessema, A.W. Wolfendale, and S. J Gates.  The report has served exceedingly well as a national strategy and planning document for the South African physics community in a manner that none of its authors had foreseen in terms of its scope, duration or effectiveness.

Dr. Zingu’s management of the entire Shaping process was a marvelous testament of his dedication to the health of the physics field in South Africa.  His skills as a manager of personnel were on direct display in the assembly of the IP.  He advocated for selection of representatives from South Africa (Bharuth-Ram, Gledhill, and Hellberg), from Europe (Ducloy, and Wolfendale), and the USA (Evans-Lutterodt, Gates, and Tessema) as a reflection of his understanding of the global nature of the interactions required for physics to thrive in South Africa in the new millennium.  He also saw to it that the IP was assembled in such a way as to be a final executive part of the process that lived up to his high expectation and vision.

The Shaping Report is among the greatest of tributes to Dr. Zingu as it continues almost a decade later to have a substantial impact on thinking about South African physics.  The report challenged all of the stake-holding communities to plan on multiple levels.  Projects like the projects like the SAIP Executive Office, National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NiTheP), South African National Research Network (SANReN), SA-CERN, and SKA-Africa have become a reality.  The report called also for the possibility of other ‘flagship’ projects such as a South African synchrotron, to drive the large scale development of the field, and there has been significant encouraging progress here.  At the more granular level there was a call for transformation so that the field would be open to all citizens of the country.  Physics in South Africa has grown significantly since then, largely because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Review.  Also during this time Dr. Zingu authored the very influential article, Promoting Physics and Development in Africa, which appeared in Physics Today[3].

For one of us (Gates), the Shaping Report was preparation for service as a policy advisor for both the Governor of Maryland (via my role on the Maryland State Board of Education) and for President Barack Obama (via my role on the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology – PCAST).  These accomplishments are due in part to Edmund’s confidence in me and his abilities as a mentor.  I owe this great South African an enormous debt of gratitude for how he challenged me to grow professionally.

The second project was the Review of Undergraduate Physics Education.  Once again he contributed to the design of the Review and chaired the Management and Policy Committee.  He led the development of the South Africa Draft Benchmark Statement for Physics Training, and guided the Review process, including the partnership with the Council for Higher Education.  The Review of Physics Training is well advanced but still in progress.

Professor Zingu began his physics career at the University of the Western Cape (UWC).  He was a materials physicist, and with his collaborators at Cornell University invented a new method to study atomic diffusion by transmission electron microscopy[4].  Later he studied diffusion phase transitions in thin films due to induced thermal stress[5].  He had a period of employment at Turfloop, QwaQwa Campus, then as Head of the Physics Department and later Dean of Basic Sciences (1990-1993) at MEDUNSA.  He later returned to UWC and served as Head of the Physics Department (1994-1998), and finally Vice Rector of Mangosuthu University of Technology in Umlazi, Durban until the time of his retirement.

Edmund was a pioneer for physics in post-apartheid South Africa, a visionary, a tireless campaigner for strengthening the discipline of physics* and, above all, a true gentleman.  His leadership and contributions were characterized by sensitivity, perceptiveness, vision, ethics, wisdom, global standards and great industry.  He will be sorely missed.

Simon Connell
President, South African Institute of Physics (2012-2014)

Nithaya Chetty
President, South African Institute of Physics (2007-2009)

S. James Gates, Jr.
President, National Society of Black Physicists (1996-1998)

More comments from Dr. Zingu’s friends and colleagues

Professor Zingu was a dear friend and professional colleague over the past ten years.  He was extremely helpful during the deliberations of the 2004 Review of iThemba LABS that I chaired for the National Research Foundation.  During that time, Professor Zingu was President of the South African Institute of Physics.  In another effort, he was one of the main drivers in working with Professor Alfred Msezane of Clark Atlanta University and a number of us at the African Laser Centre to organize the 1st US-Africa Advanced Studies Institute on Photon Interactions with Atoms and Molecules.  That institute convened in Durban during November 2005, just after the World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development, which was part of the United Nation’s International Year of Physics.  Professor Zingu leaves a tremendous legacy for all African and other peoples to emulate.  We will miss his kind demeanor and tremendous insights into the future.
Sekazi K. Mtingwa

I met Prof. Edmund Zingu nearly 20-years ago in November 1995 at the University of the Western Cape, in Cape Town, where he was Chair of the Physics Department. Edmund invited me on my first travel to South Africa for nearly two-weeks to  lecture on Ultrafast Optical Phenomena at several institutions — U. of Port Elizabeth, the National Accelerator Centre, U. of Cape Town, U. of Witwatersrand, U. of the Western Cape and the Foundation for Research Development (analog of the US National Science Foundation). This was the first and only time that I spent time away from my family during Thanksgiving, and Edmund provided a warm and inviting environment for my visit. I spent several days with Edmund’s wonderful family and learned a great deal about South Africa and its people. Arriving not long after the release of Nelson Mandela and the official end of Apartheid, Edmund with his gentle, soft-spoken and brilliant nature alleviated my natural apprehension of visiting South Africa at that time. I had a truly wonderful visit and scientific exchange orchestrated by Prof. Edmund Zingu and I am truly saddened by the loss of this extraordinary individual — my deepest condolences go out to his family.
Anthony M. Johnson

Two weeks ago, at a diaspora gathering for STEM in Africa, the challenge that African scientists face on the continent was discussed. The critical question was “How can academics in Africa get the attention of the leaders?”  The idea of international advisory panels modeled after the 2004 Shaping panel was received with much enthusiasm. The composition of the panel, the charge to the panel, and the implementation was such a testimony of the high quality of the leadership of SAIP under Edmond Zingu. May he rest in peace.
Tessema G.X.

To this excellent tribute, I would like to add my personal sadness at the passing of a truly great South African, whose impact on my own life enabled me to transform to our new democracy.
Japie Engelbrecht

 


[1] Physics Today, Vol 54 (9) Sept 2001, p 27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1420507

[2] Physics World, October 2005, pp 12-13, http://physicsworld.com/cws/archive/print/18/10

[3] Physics Today, Vol 57 (1) Jan 2004, p 37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1650068

[4] Chen, S. H., L. R. Zheng, J. C. Barbour, E. C. Zingu, L. S. Hung, C. B. Carter, and J. W. Mayer. “Lateral-diffusion couples studied by transmission electron microscopy.” Materials Letters 2, no. 6 (1984): 469-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-577X(84)90075-2

Zingu, E. C., J. W. Mayer, C. Comrie, and R. Pretorius. “Mobility of Pd and Si in Pd2Si.” Physical Review B 30, no. 10 (1984): 5916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.30.5916

[5] Zingu, E. C., and B. T. Mofokeng. “Diffusional Phase Transformation under Induced Thermal Stress.” In MRS Proceedings, vol. 230, no. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/PROC-230-145

Zingu, E. C., and B. T. Mofokeng. “Stress Relaxation During Diffusional Phase Transformation Under Induced Thermal Stress.” In Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, vol. 308, pp. 85-85. Materials Research Society, 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/PROC-308-85

Diale, M., C. Challens, and E. C. Zingu. “Cobalt self‐diffusion during cobalt silicide growth.” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 62, no. 9 (1993): pp 943-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.108527

[6] P. Whitelock,  Tribute given at the Memorial Service for Prof Edmund Zingu held on 25 April 2013 at the University of the Western Cape

Dr. Kartik Sheth, ALMA, and SKA March 19, 2013

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Cosmology, Gravitation, and Relativity (CGR) , add a comment

by JC Holbrook

National Society of Black Physicists members Eric Wilcots and Kartik Sheth were part of a new initiative to foster radio astronomy collaborations with South African astronomers and students. Last week marked the official inauguration of ALMA, the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array, in the high altitude Atacama desert of Chile, South America. I was able to sit down with Dr. Sheth to discuss the broader issue of radio astronomy and South Africa.

“I think this celebration was the culmination of thirty years worth of work from a lot of different people. The inauguration of the array was a chance for us to celebrate how much hard work has gone into it.” Dr. Sheth said of the inauguration ceremony in Chile. “We started science operations September 30th of 2011. We have been collecting data for over two and a half years, because even with a small ALMA it is still the most powerful [millimeter/submillimeter] telescope in the world.”

Since ALMA is an array of dishes similar to the radio dishes of the Very Large Array in New Mexico, even during construction as each dish was put into place and connected, the astronomers were already using what was available to collect data. Thus, the months of science data collection with ALMA before the official inauguration.

I pointed out, “You were not even there!”

Dr. Sheth laughed, “Only the dignitaries were invited, so a lot of people from the political arena in the twenty-five plus countries that are part of ALMA. President Piñera inaugurated ALMA…For me it doesn’t mean much… but I’m kinda sad that I’m not there because I really wanted to be there. But I knew that I wasn’t going to be invited, so coming here [to South Africa] really was driven by the NASSP deadline for Master’s proposals.” NASSP is the National Astrophysics and Space Sciences Programme in South Africa. In 2010, I began writing a book about NASSP. The program is a dramatic success story about educating underrepresented groups in astrophysics and space sciences. NASSP include one honor year and a two year masters of science degree. Nearly all NASSP students are funded by the program.

Dr. Sheth explained, “The idea is to foster bridges between the faculty here that are taking on students who eventually want to work with MeerKat and SKA. But MeerKAT and SKA are not built, yet. So, what we would really like the faculty to do is to think about including radio data from existing telescopes and NRAO operates four of them.”

The SKA is currently under construction, yet the South African astronomy students need to learn everything about radio astronomy and the analysis of radio data. Dr. Sheth along with other American radio astronomers is here to encourage South African astronomers and their students the opportunity to learn by working with the existing facilities and their archival data. The four facilities are ALMA, the Robert C. Byrd Greenbank telescope a single dish in West Virginia, the Jansky Very Large Array (JVLA or EVLA) which is the enhanced VLA in New Mexico, and the Very Large Baseline Array (VLBA) which is spread across the Northern Hemisphere. Thus, the visit before the NASSP deadline for submitting Masters of Science thesis proposals. Dr. Sheth hopes that a few NASSP students will propose radio astronomy projects including using NRAO facilities for their Masters work.

According to Dr. Sheth the JVLA is the Northern Hemisphere equivalent of what MeerKat will be. MeerKat is the precursor to the SKA, the Square Kilometer Array.  It is a new state of the art radio observatory currently being built in South Africa. The SKA array itself will consist of 3000 dishes spread across nine African countries: South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Zambia, Ghana, and Kenya. The SKA Africa headquarters are in Cape Town, South Africa, and they will be coordinating all of the African construction. A question I thought would be uppermost in the minds of South Africans was: Will ALMA be competition for SKA?

His response, “No, not at all. ALMA operates at higher frequencies than what the SKA will operate at. They are not looking at the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum but they will be looking at the same type of objects. EVLA is a mini version of SKA. With the SKA, it will be observing thermal emission and synchrotron emission from sources…” In an email he added, “We are looking at electrons energy as they cool around star forming regions or zip around magnetic fields. So you can get a real idea of the magnetic field that pervades the Milky Way and with the SKA across cosmic time. ALMA cannot really look at atomic gas unless its at very high red shift (i.e. the lines are red shifted into the regime that ALMA can observe) and only using atomic gas tracers like ionized carbon, nitrogen, or oxygen. ALMA cannot look at the atomic hydrogen gas which is emitting in the wavelengths that MeerKat and SKA will work at. So SKA & Meerkat are looking at the atomic gas from which molecular gas forms. And the molecular gas is what ALMA looks at which from stars form. And the stars are what HST and JWST look at. So it is a nice transition.  Together these are giving you the full picture of what the universe looks like. Additionally there is a lot about magnetic fields and transient phenomena — these are also MeerKat and SKA’s core strengths. For instance, these will be excellent instruments for looking at the timing of pulsars.”

Trying to put it altogether I asked, “So, anything that is hot and has electrons moving around will be able to be studied by SKA?”

Kartik Sheth clarified, “No, I wouldn’t call it ‘hot’. The atomic gas is quite cold as well. It is hotter than the molecular gas but not hot compared to stars.”

As a student of astronomy, I had always had a fascination with the connection between wavelengths of light or color, physical properties, chemistry, and celestial bodies. Planetary nebulae, which are mentioned in my last Vector blog, in visible light appear greenish in color. The color is the result of a specific atomic transition in the oxygen atom that occurs under very low density conditions. First the oxygen has to be ionized twice, i.e. it has to have lost two electrons, then it is through collisions that the transitions producing the characteristic green lines emit. A rule-of-thumb temperature for planetary nebulae is 10,000 degrees Kelvin. Thus, if there is a celestial body that appears ‘green’ in visible light you can conclude that it might include oxygen especially if it is a nebula which tends to have low density and it should be around 10,000 degrees Kelvin. Hydrogen is also found in planetary nebulae and the strongest transition line, known as H-alpha, occurs when its electron goes from an excited state to a less excited state releasing energy in the form of red light.

In the case of ALMA and SKA, they are probing two different sections of the electromagnetic spectrum similar to studying green light or red light. In the fullness of time, SKA will cover the same wavelengths and types of celestial bodies as the EVLA but focused on the Southern sky rather than the Northern, but also be more sensitive revealing more physical details. ALMA will add to our understanding of the same region of the sky but is studying different physical properties of celestial bodies. Both will add to our understanding of the Milky Way and the Universe.

The First Telescope Has Arrived for the Total Solar Eclipse in Cairns and “Black Sun” November 11, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS) , add a comment

by JC Holbrook

Dr. Alphonse Sterling arrived safely in Cairns with telescope, mount, filters, cameras, and a suitcase. His excess baggage fees were unmentionable. The blue case is the body of the telescope. Alphonse is staying about 30 minutes to the west of Cairns in the Trinity Beach area in a very swank three bedroom apartment with ocean views. He will be sharing the apartment with scientific teammembers students Amy Steele and Roderick Gray.

In preparation for the eclipse, Alphonse has to create a ‘flat’ image as part of the calibration of the flaws in the telescope. When doing traditional night observing at an observatory, flats are taken of the dome. That is, before you start observing you put diffuse light onto the dome of the telescope and take a series of images. What is revealed is any specs of dust in the optics and other flaws. Next, the astronomer would go on to observe the celestial bodies and at dawn take another series of flats. When processing the images of the celestial bodies these flats would be used to remove the optical flaws thus flattening the images. This way what you have is just what is found in space not some artifact left by the optics of the telescope.

When doing observations of the Sun, daytime observing, creating a flat is not so simple. Alphonse has experimented with multiple different light sources to determine which is the best for creating a good flat.
What he found is he has to rig something up himself. That meant that we had to go to the hardware store to find the parts he needed!

After a long search we found: exacto knife, white cardboard, LCD flashlight, masking tape, electrical switch, compass. He had his own wire to create an external switch for his new light source. Over the next couple of days he will be putting everything together. I can’t wait to see what the final device will look like!

Be part of “Black Sun” donate today at
https://www.austinfilm.org/film-black-sun.

8 Policy Issues that Every Physicist Should Follow October 5, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (AMO), Chemical and Biological Physics (CBP), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Medical Physics (MED), Nuclear and Particle Physics (NPP), Photonics and Optics (POP), Physics Education Research (PER), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

#1. Federal Science Budget and Sequestration
The issue of funding for science is always with us.  With few exceptions everyone seems to agree that investment in science, technology and innovation is fundamentally necessary for America’s national and economic security.  Successive Administrations and Congresses have rhetorically praised science, and have declared that federal science agencies, particular NSF, DOE Office of Science and NIH should see their respective budgets doubled.  Where the rhetoric has met with action in the last decade, recent flat-lined budget increases, and the projections for the next decade erode these increases in real terms, and in fact in the next few years the federal R&D budget could regress back to 2002 levels and in several cases to historic lows in terms of real spending power.

What is sequestration?
Last year Congress passed the Budget Control Act with the goal of cutting federal spending by $1.2T relative to the Congressional Budget Office baseline from 2010 over 10 years.  The broad policy issues in the Budget Control Act follow from the fact that the total amount and the rate of growth of the federal public debt is on an unsustainable path.  The Budget Control Act would only reduce the rate of growth but not reduce the debt itself.  The basic choices are to increase taxes and/or to decrease spending.

The Budget Control Act also established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was to produce a plan to reach the goal.  If the committee did not agree on a plan, the legislation provided for large, automatic – starting in January 2013 (already one quarter through FY13), across-the-board cuts to federal spending.  This is called sequestration.  The committee could not come to an agreement, and as a result the federal government faces what has been termed a ‘fiscal cliff’ where simultaneously several tax provisions will expire (resulting in tax increases) in addition to the sharp spending cuts.  This will most certainly plunge the economy into a recession.

Sequestration would require at least 8% budget cuts immediately in FY13 (the current year).  In the political lexicon on this topic federal spending is divided into defense and non-defense.  The current formula would put somewhat slightly more of the cuts on non-defense programs, but there is talk of putting all burden of sequestration on non-defense programs.  If the burden is borne only by non-defense programs, some agencies could lose as much as 17%.

It is important to emphasize that these would be immediate cuts starting with FY13 budgets, so a $100K grant for this year would suddenly become $92K, or possibly $83K.  Then from the sequestration budgets, the Budget Control Act would require flat budgets for the subsequent 5 years.  While it would generally be up to the agencies to figure out how to distribute the immediate cuts, it is instructive to see how the cuts would impact agencies that are important overall to physics and astronomy research.

How does it impact physics?
The R&D Budget and Policy Program at AAAS has done a masterful job at analyzing sequestration and its impact on science agencies. The cases of DOD and NIH provide some general indications of the effects of sequestration.  DOD is the single largest supporter of R&D amongst the federal agencies, and NIH is the second largest.  Under sequestration they would lose $7B and $2.5B, respectively.  Inside the DOD number is funding for basic and applied science, including DARPA programs.  These accounts would lose a combined $1.5B.  But there is an important dichotomy between DOD and NIH.  IF the Congress and Administration decide to apply the cuts only to non-defense programs, the cuts at NIH would have to be deeper (to meet the overall targets), while the cuts at DOD would remain unchanged.

At NSF, if the cuts are applied truly across the board, $500M would immediately be eliminated from the agency’s FY13 budget.  In a scenario where the cuts are applied only to non-defense spending the NSF cuts could be just over $1B.  It would be as if the NSF budget had regressed back to 2002 levels, basically wiping out a decade of growth.  To further put these cuts into context, NSF’s total FY13 budget request for research and related activities is $5.7B, including $1.345B for the entire Math and Physical Sciences Directorate.  One billion dollars is what the agency spends on major equipment and facilities construction and on education and human resources combined.  It is by far larger than the Faculty Early Career Development and the Graduate Research Fellowship programs.  And put one last way, the cuts would mean at least 2500 fewer grants awarded.

Under the sequestration scenario where defense and non-defense program bear the brunt of cuts equally, the DOE Office of Science could lose $362M immediately in FY13, while NNSA which funds Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia national labs, would lose at least $300M.  Again these cuts would be deeper if the Congress votes, and the President agrees to subject the cuts only to non-defense programs.  The Office of Science cut is nearly equivalent to the requested FY13 budget for fusion energy research ($398M).  The Office of Science had enjoyed a fair level of support in the past decade, but sequestration would take the agency back to FY08 spending levels or to FY00 if the cuts are applied to non-defense programs only.

NASA would immediately lose at least $763M with the Science Directorate losing nearly $250M.  Again these cuts would be much deeper if distributed only to non-defense programs.  In that scenario NASA would immediately lose $1.7B in FY13, more than the FY13 budget for James Webb Space Telescope ($627M) or the Astrophysics Division ($659M).

What should you do?
In summary, the overall objective of the Budget Control Act is to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2T over the next decade.  This would slow the rate of increase of the overall federal debt.  The Act was resolution of political gamesmanship over raising debt ceiling, which has to be increased from time to time to authorize the federal government to make outlays encumbered in part by prior year obligations.  The sticky issue was taxes.  The GOP, which generally desires more spending cuts than Democrats, was not willing to agree to anything that involved a tax increase.

Besides wanting to preserve more investments in discretionary programs, President Obama was not willing to push too hard on increasing taxes given the weak economy, and probably wanting to avoid the adverse politics of increasing taxes before the election.  Subsequently because the Congress could not agree on a way to produce $1.2T in deficit reduction over 10 years, the law requires sequestration of FY13 budgets, i.e., immediate and draconian cuts (8-17%), the mechanics of which would have serious adverse effects to the entire US economy.

Both before the election and after you should contact the President, your Senators and Representative, and urge them act urgently to steer the federal government away from sequestration and the fiscal cliff.


#2. Timeliness of Appropriations
What is the issue?
The US Constitution requires that “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Each year the federal budget process begins on the first Tuesday in February when the President sends the Administration’s budget request to Congress.  In a two-step process Congress authorizes programs and top-line budgets; then it specifically appropriates spending authority to the Administration for those programs.  The federal fiscal year begins on October 1st, and when Congress does not complete their two-step process, operations of the federal government are held in limbo.  Essentially the government is not authorized to spend money.  This is overcome by passing “continuing resolutions” that basically continue the government’s programs at the prior year programmatic and obligating authorities.

How does it affect physics?
Continuing resolutions wreak havoc for the Administration, i.e, for funding agencies, and consequently for federal science programs.  They prevent new programs from coming online and the planned shutdown of programs.  Because federal program directors cannot know what their final obligating authority will ultimately be, they have to be very careful with how much they spend.  The consequences of over-spending obligating authority are unpleasant.  Keeping a science program going under the uncertainty of the continuing resolution is hard, and in some cases impossible.

What should you do?
Physicists would be well advised to tune into the status of appropriations for agencies from which they get funding, plan accordingly, and use their voices to pressure Congress to finish the appropriations process by October 1st.

#3. Availability of Critical Materials: Helium, Mo-99 and Minerals
Helium shortage?
Helium is not only an inordinately important substance in physics research, but also in several other industrial and consumer marketplaces.  But despite its natural abundance, it is difficult to make helium available and usable at a reasonable cost.  Usable helium supplies are actually dwindling at a troubling rate, and price fluctuations are having very undesirable effects in scientific research and other sectors.

Most usable helium is produced as a by-product in natural gas production.  Gas fields in the United States have a higher concentration of helium than those found in other countries.  Those facts, combined with decades of recognition of helium’s value to military and space operations, scientific research and industrial processes, Congress enacted legislation to create the Federal Helium Program, which has the largest reserve of available helium in the world.

Enter the policy issues.  In an effort to downsize the government in 1996, Congress enacted legislation to eliminate the helium reserve by 2015 and to privatize helium production.  But the pricing structure required by the 1996 legislation led to price suppression, and thus private companies have been slow to come into the industry as producers, even as demand has been steadily increasing.  So with the federal government’s looming exit from helium production, it does not seem that there is another entity with the capacity to meet the growing demand of helium at a reasonable price.  The few other sources of usable helium available from other countries have nowhere near the US government’s production capacity.

To address this problem Senator Bingaman of New Mexico introduced the Helium Stewardship Act of 2012.  This is a bipartisan bill sponsored by two Democratic and two Republican Senators.  This legislation would authorize operation of the Federal Helium Program beyond 2015.  It would maintain a roughly 15-year supply for federal users, including the holders of research grants.  This should guarantee federal users, including research grant holders, a supply of helium until about 2030.  It would also set conditions for private corporations to more easily enter the helium production business.

But since no action was taken in this Congress, it will have to be reintroduced in January 2013 when the new Congress convenes, and it will have to be taken up in the House after being passed in the Senate.

[Update] On March 20, 2013 the House Natural Resources Committee unanimously approved legislation that would significantly reform how one-half of the nation’s domestic helium supply is managed and sold. H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act would maintain the reserve’s operation, require semi-annual helium auctions, and provide access to pipeline infrastructure for pre-approved bidders, in addition to other provisions on matters such as refining and minimum pricing. The bill now moves to the House floor. On the Senate side, Senators Wyden and Murkowski have released a draft of their legislation addressing this issue.

Mo-99 is in short supply too.
There are other critical materials for which Congressional action is pending.  Molybdenum-99 is used to produce technetium-99m, which is used in 30 million medical imaging procedures every year.  But the global supply of molybdenum-99 is not keeping up with the global demand.  There are no production facilities located in the United States, but legislation pending in Congress would authorize funding to establish a DOE program that supports industry and universities in the domestic production of Mo-99 using low enriched uranium.  Highly enriched uranium is exported from the US to support medical isotope production, but this is considered to be a grave global security risk.  The legislation would prohibit exports of highly enriched uranium.

Again this legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress but was not taken up in the House.  It will have to be reintroduced in the next Congress, which convenes in January 2013.  But a technical solution announced by scientists in Canada and another by a team from Los Alamos, Brookhaven and Oak Ridge national laboratories may change the landscape for this particular problem.

Another piece of legislation called the Critical Minerals Policy Act sought to revitalize US supply chain of so-called critical minerals, ranging from rare earth elements, cobalt, thorium and several others.  It was opposed by several environmental groups, and the economics of some mineral markets are attracting some private investment in American sources.

What should you do?
Urge the Senators and Representatives on the relevant committees to reintroduce the Helium Stewardship Act, the Critical Minerals Policy Act as well as legislation that authorizes and appropriates funding for Mo-99 production in the US.

#4. K-12 Education: Common Core Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards
What are the Common Core Standards Initiative and the Next Generation Science Standards?
In 2009 49 states and territories elected to join the Common Core Standards Initiative, a state-led effort to establish a shared set of clear educational standards for English language arts and mathematics.  The initiative is led jointly by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  In 2012 the ‘Common Core’ standards were augmented with the Next Generation Science Standards.

How does this affect physics?
The National Research Council released A Framework for K-12 Science Education that focused on the integration of science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that together constitute rigorous scientific literacy for all students.  The NGSS were developed with this framework in mind.  The goal of the NGSS is to produce students with the capacity to discuss and think critically about science related issues as well asbe well prepared for college-level science courses.

Setting and adopting the Common Core and NGSS are not federal matters.  The federal government has a very small footprint in the overall initiative.  Rather the policy action on adopting these standards will at the state, school district, and maybe even the individual school levels.

What should you do?
Physicists in particular should be collaborative with K-12 teachers and help where appropriate to implement the curriculum strategies that best position students for STEM careers.  Physicist-teacher collaborations are also very necessary to ensure that the content of physical science courses cover the fundamentals but also incorporate the forefront of scientific knowledge.

#5. State Funding for Education
National Science Board signals the problem
The National Science Board, the oversight body of the National Science Foundation, recently released report on the declining support for public universities by the various governors and state legislatures.  According to the report, state support for public research universities fell 20 percent between 2002 and 2010, after accounting for inflation and increased enrollment of about 320,000 students nationally.  In the state of Colorado, the home of JILA, between 2002 and 2010 state support for public universities fell 30 percent.

Public research universities perform the majority of academic science and engineering research that is funded by the federal government, as well as train and educate a disproportionate share of science students.  But government financial support for public universities has been eroding for decades actually.

The issue is not so much the movement of the best students and faculty from public institutions and private institutions.  All institutions of higher education are federally tax-exempt organizations, thus in some sense they all are public institutions.  Rather the issue is support for the infrastructure that supports innovation, economic prosperity, national security, rational thought, liberty and freedom.

How does this impact physics?
In physics we saw the effects of declining support of higher education in Texas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Florida where physics programs where closed.  In other states budget driven realities have meant physics departments being subsumed by large math or chemistry departments.

What should you do?
Public and private universities will have to find efficiencies and yield to greater scrutiny as they always have.  But physicists will have to stand up and remind their state governors and legislators of their value to institutions of higher education in terms of educating a science-literate populace as well as producing new knowledge and knowledge workers needed for innovation and economic growth.

#6. College Student Enrollment and Retention
Earlier this year the Presidential Council of Science and Technology Advisors released a report entitled Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Economic projections point to a need for approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S.  will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence in science and technology.  To meet this goal, the United States will need to increase the number of students who receive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates.  Currently the United States graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM fields annually.

The problem is low retention rates for STEM students
Fewer than 40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree.  Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would, alone, generate three quarters of the targeted 1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade.  The PCAST report focuses much on retention.  It proposes five “overarching recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high school to college” and during the first two undergraduate years, (1) catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices, (2) advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses, (3) launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics preparation gap, (4) encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers, and (5) create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.

How is physics impacted?
The New Physics Faculty Workshops put on by APS and AAPT were mentioned in the report for changing the participants’ teaching methods and having had positive effects on student achievement and engagement.  The report also explicitly calls for NSF to create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program.  But the delegation that met with the Texas Board of Higher Education was confronted with student retention data in physics compared to other STEM fields, and was

This all ties together with federal budgets for STEM education and research, and to the issue of state support for public education.  The lesson from Texas in particular is that physics must do a better job of retaining students in the major or face relative extinction in the academe.

What should you do?
PCAST would say engage your students to excel.  Everyone involved in physics instruction should continually assess their teaching methods and student outcomes.  Every thing from textbooks and labs used to the social environment of the department should be on the table for improvement.


#7. Attacks on Political Science and Other Social Sciences
When science is politicized, caricatured and ridiculed we all lose
In May 2012 the US House of Representatives voted to eliminate the political science program at the National Science Foundation.  The effort was spearheaded by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake.

Congressman, now Senator, Flake was ostensibly concerned about Federal spending and wants to make the point there are some government programs that we must learn to do without.  But the concern for scientists is the approach of singling out individual projects and programs and subjecting them to ridicule only based on their titles.  This rhetorical and political device is used quite a bit, even in biomedical science.  And when it is, it diminishes science everywhere.

More recently, Representative Cantor and others have spoken out against funding social science research, targeting specifically political science research by saying that taxpayers should not fund research on “politics”.  It is important to understand the difference between political science and politics.  Political science research is necessary knowledge for citizens to enjoy the fullness of freedom.  Moreover political science research is especially a hedge against tyranny and deception by politicians.

Attacks on NSF funding of the social science are not new.  NSF funding for the social sciences was slated to be zeroed out during the Reagan administration.  One result was a spirited defense of the importance of such work by the National Science Board that appeared in its annual report provocatively titled, “Only One Science.”  The Board was then chaired by Lewis Branscomb, a distinguished physicist, who led the effort to build the case for the social sciences.

Physicists today need to channel Dr. Branscomb and be more learned and active on policy matters.  Particle physics, astronomy and cosmology are not immune from the same kind of attacks being waged against political science.   There are of course many tales of even the most esoteric results of physics research from yesterday having an profound impact in our economy today.  Generally it seems politicians judge the utility of a funded research project from the project name or maybe its brief project summary.  That in itself tends to ridicule science and scientists in ways that are quite destructive.   So all scientists should advocate for intellectual inquiry and its innate public benefits.  Golden Fleece attacks against science may focus on genetic analysis in Drosophila melanogaster one day, political dynamics in a small foreign country another day, but it could be cold atoms on an optical lattice the next.

[UPDATE] On March 20, 2013 the bill to fund the government for the rest of FY13 passed the Senate contained an amendment to bar NSF from funding political science research unless the director can certify that the research would promote “the national security or economic interests of the United States.”  The House passed the same bill the next day.  President Obama is expected to sign it.  So for the next few months at least certain political scientists may be frozen out of NSF funding.

The Colburn amendment probably could not have made it through in regular order, i.e., the normal process of budget legislating consisting of the President’s request, Congressional authorization followed by appropriation, and final action by the President.   But in a situation where time becomes a critical element, and there is “must-pass” legislation actively under consideration, these things can happen.  This underscores the need for political knowledge and information, as well as vigilant, persistent and nimble activism.

What should you do?

The bill eliminating NSF’s political science program has only passed the House.  It was never taken up in the Senate.  But in 2011 Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn advocated for the elimination of the entire NSF Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate.  If either measure was to become law it would have to be reintroduced in the next Congress.  Physicists should stay abreast of attacks on other intellectual disciplines, because one day those attacks will be directed at physics and astronomy research.

[Update March 27, 2013]  Political scientists suffered a setback in the continuing resolution for FY-13.  Both the House and Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Coburn that would bar NSF from awarding any grants in political science unless the director can certify that the research would promote “the national security or economic interests of the United States.” The political science programs at NSF have a combined budget of $13 million. The legislation requires the NSF director to move the uncertified amount to other programs. President Barack Obama as signed the legislation. This kind of action against social science research is not new, but this is the first time in a long while that such a measure actually has become law.

Given the exact wording of the Coburn amendment, it is only valid until September 30, 2013, when the continuing resolution expires.  As a distinct point of lawmaking it may or may not survive the regular order of budgeting, authorizing and appropriating.

#8. Open Access to Research Literature
There is much public concern about having access to the output (manifest as journal articles) from publicly funded research.  And scientists worldwide are of course very concerned about rising journals subscription prices.

Last December the Research Works Act (RWA) was introduced in the U.S.  Congress.  The bill contains provisions to prohibit open-access mandates for federally funded research, and severely restrict the sharing of scientific data.  Had it passed it would have gutted the NIH Public Access Policy.  Many scientists considered the RWA antithetical to the principle of openness and free information flow in science.  Perhaps owing to much public outcry, the proposed legislation was abandoned by its original sponsors.

The United Kingdom and the EU have just adopted a policy where all research papers from government funded research will be open-access to the public.  To support this policy financing for journals will sourced from author payments instead of subscriber payments.  This is a major change that will require much transition in marketing, management and finance.

Open-access policy should balance the interests of the public, the practitioners of the scholarly field, as well as commercial and professional association publishers that add value to the process of communicating and archiving research results.  Scholarly publishing is a complex, dynamic and global marketplace.  It is not likely that one solution will be satisfactory for all consumers and producers (which in this marketplace are sometimes one in the same).  New business models, new communication strategies and realizations what the true demand for scholarly articles will likely be more helpful than precipitous government action.

What does Physics First mean to you? April 29, 2012

Posted by admin in : History, Policy and Education (HPE) , add a comment

Did you know that in today’s economy, where millions cannot find a job, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs for which employers cannot find qualified U.S. born workers?

What does physics education have to do with putting your child in position to be among those who can qualify for the jobs of tomorrow in advanced manufacturing and traditional STEM fields?

• Physics is a gateway course for post-secondary study in science, medicine, and engineering, as well as an essential component in the formation of students’ scientific literacy.
• Physics classes hone thinking skills.
• An understanding of physics leads to a better understanding of other science disciplines. Physics classes help polish the skills needed to score well on the SAT and ACT.
• College recruiters recognize the value of taking high school physics.
• College success for virtually all science, computing, engineering, and premedical majors depends in part on passing physics.
• The job market for people with skills in physics is strong.
• Knowledge of physics is helpful for understanding the arts, politics, history, and culture.
Ref: Ten Reasons Why No Student Should Go Through High School Without Taking Physics

Currently only 25% of Black and Hispanic high school students take any course in physics. Thus many do not even get to the gateway. The availability of physics as a course for high school students is not equitably distributed throughout the U.S. While some schools provide physics for all who wish to take it, a more common scenario, particularly for urban schools, is limited availability. The existence of policies that restrict science opportunities for secondary students results in diminished outcomes in terms of scientific proficiency, and lack of diversity in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics professions.

Reforming the system and Physics First
In most high schools the science course sequence is chemistry first, biology second and physics last. This sequence was born many decades ago before people knew a lot of the fundamental scientific principles of chemistry and biology (Shepard and Robbins, 2003). We now understand that physics is at the foundational roots of all that we know and can learn about the other sciences. So it makes sense to first learn the fundamental concepts of physics before proceeding to learn chemistry, biology and Earth sciences. This is called logical development of scientific cognition, and it is imperative that in the 21st century that our education system catches up to this idea.

Physics First is the educational strategy that sequences high school science courses beginning with physics in the 9th or 10th grade, chemistry in 10th or 11th grade, culminating with biology and earth science in the 12th; while developing proficiency in mathematics and computing in lock-step over the entire 4 years. Schools that have adopted Physics First have shown much higher student appreciation for science, more science course taking in subsequent grades, and higher test scores. But also, when a school commits to Physics First, in many cases they are reforming the system from “physics not at all”. And that reform of providing a formal opportunity to learn physics allows students to pass through an important gateway to higher achievement and prosperity.

A first course in physics need not be overly saddled with advanced mathematics. The emphasis should be focused on conceptual understanding rather than mathematical manipulation. In fact conceptual understanding of physics need not wait until high school. Even middle school students can profit from a conceptual physics course. Conceptual understanding of physics taps into students’ natural curiosities of how and why the world the world works around them. That conceptual understanding, not its mathematical expression, is what will improve performance in later courses in other disciplines. As mathematical maturity is further developed, students can revisit the advanced mathematical expression of physics.

Richard Hake has suggested that Physics First could be the opening battle in the war on science/math illiteracy  as envisaged by the AAAS ‘Project 2061.  This is because a widespread first physics course for ALL ninth graders might (a)
help to overcome some systemic roadblocks to science/math literacy of the general population – most importantly the severe dearth of effective pre-college science/math teachers, (b) enhance the numbers of physics major and graduate students, through programs designed to provide a large corps of teachers capable of EFFECTIVELY teaching physics to vast numbers of students in the Physics First schools: ninth-graders plus those taking high school honors and AP physics courses.

What can you do?
Every child deserves the opportunity to learn physics. This is a message you must make to your teachers, principals, and district administrators. Physics First works out very well for high school students and should be vigorously supported as an important opening battle in the full scale war on science/math illiteracy.  But learning physics does not have to wait until high school. With the availability of all kinds of smart phone apps, even middle grade students can do experiments in motion, sound and light, which are bedrock principles in physics. And in the primary grades, learning physics comes when teachers tap into young kids’ natural curiosity about how and why things work. The key to developing kids of today for jobs of the future is to foster curiosity, encourage discovery, and provide opportunities to learn concepts and principles.

NSBP Member, Hakeem Oluseyi, selected to be a TEDGlobal 2012 Fellow March 31, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Cosmology, Gravitation, and Relativity (CGR), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Photonics and Optics (POP), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment
Florida Institute of Technology professor, Hakeem Oluseyi, has been selected to be 2012 TED Global Fellow.  He will participate in the TED conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, June 25-29.  Dr. Oluseyi is an astrophysicist, inventor and science educator whose research focuses on measuring the structure and evolution of the Milky Way galaxy and characterizing new planetary systems.  Oluseyi has lectured widely in the US and Africa.  He was one of the founding members of the African Astronomical Society and is currently an officer of the National Society of Black Physicists.  TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design.  Past TED Fellows include CERN’s Bilge Demirkoz, Harvard’s Michelle Borkin, and NASA’s Lucianne Walkowicz.
 
Dr. Hakeem M. Oluseyi is an astrophysicist with research interests in the fields of solar and stellar variability, Galactic structure, and technology development.   After receiving his B.S. degrees in Physics & Mathematics from Tougaloo College in 1991, he went on earn his Ph.D. at Stanford University with an award winning dissertation, "Development of a Global Model of the Solar Atmosphere with an Emphasis on the Solar Transition Region."  His Ph.D. adviser was legendary astrophysicist, Arthur B. C.  Walker.
 
During his tenure at Stanford, Oluseyi participated in the pioneering application of normal-incidence, EUV multilayer optics to astronomical observing as a member of the Stanford team that flew the Multi-Spectral Solar Telescope Array (MSSTA) in a series of rocket flights from 1987 to 1994.  This technology has now become the standard for solar EUV imaging.  He was a major contributor to the analyses that illustrated flows in solar polar plumes for the first time and also showed for the first time that plumes were not the sources of the high-speed solar wind as was believed.  He also led the effort that discovered the structures responsible for the bulk of solar upper transition region (plasmas in the temperature range from 0.1 – 1.0 MK) emission and ultimately presented a new model for the structure of the Sun's hot atmosphere. 
 
After leaving Stanford in 1999 Dr. Oluseyi joined the technical staff at Applied Materials, Inc. where he invented several new patented processes for manufacturing next-generation, sub 0.1-micron, refractory metal transistor gate electrodes on very thin traditional and high-k dielectrics.  He also developed patented processes for in-situ spectroscopic process control and diagnostics, facilitating elimination of test wafers in semiconductor manufacturing.  This work has resulted in 7 U.S.  patents and 4 E.U.  patent.
 
In 2001 Dr. Oluseyi joined the staff of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) as an Ernest O. Lawrence Postdoctoral Fellow.  There he established a new laboratory, the CCD Production Facility, and developed new techniques for characterizing and packaging large-format, thick (300 micron), p-channel charge coupled devices (CCDs).  As a member of the SuperNova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) satellite collaboration and the Supernova Cosmology Project at LBNL, Dr. Oluseyi participated in the development of high-resistivity p-channel CCDs and performed spectroscopic observation of supernovae utilizing the Shane Spectrometer on the Lick Observatory's Nickel 3-m telescope. 
 
In January 2004 Dr. Oluseyi joined the physics faculty of The University of Alabama in Huntsville where he continued his research in solar physics, cosmology, and technology development but also focused on increasing the number of Black astrophysicists.   His efforts have thus far resulted in producing one of only two Black female solar physicists working in the U.S., mentoring a total of three African American graduate students, and six African graduate students. 
 
Oluseyi also began working extensively in Africa beginning in 2002.  He visited hundreds of schools and worked directly with thousands of students in Swaziland, South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, and Kenya as a member of Cosmos Education in the years 2002, 2003, 2004.  In 2005 he began working with the South African Astronomical Observatory.  In 2006 he was the co-organizer of the 2006 Total Solar Eclipse Conference on Science and Culture.  Also in 2006, he co-founded a thriving Hands-On Universe branch in Nairobi, Kenya.  In subsequent years he worked with other teams dedicated to improving science research in Africa including the 2007 International Heliophysical Year conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the First Middle-East Africa, Regional IAU Meeting in Cairo, Egypt in 2008. 
 

 
Also in 2008 he began working with at-risk graduate students in the Extended Honors Program at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in collaboration with the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) and the National Society of Black Physicists.  Oluseyi lectured physics and cosmology to UCT students in 2008 and 2009.  In 2010, he lectured and mentored students in the SAAO/UCT Astronomy Winter School. 
 
During 2010 and 2011, Oluseyi played a central role in establishing the African Astronomical Society (AfAS), the first continent-wide organization of African astronomy professionals.  He was a participant in the IAU-sponsored meeting of the Interim Leadership Group for forming the AfAS, and subsequently served as the Interim President of the AfAS until its official launch in April 2011. 
 
In May 2011, Oluseyi conducted a 6-city tour of South Africa as a Speaker & Specialist for the U.S. State Department.  During his visit he visited dozens of schools, museums and science centers, working with thousands of students, and a multitude of teachers, education administrators, and researchers.  In fall 2011 Oluseyi and professors at the University of Johannesburg won a grant from the U.S. State Department to found a Hands-On Universe branch in Soweto, South Africa. 
 
Oluseyi plans to return to South Africa to work with UCT students including leading observational research projects at the SAAO observatories in Sutherland.  Oluseyi also has ongoing research programs in collaboration with SAAO and University of Johannesburg scientists.
 
In January 2007 Dr. Oluseyi was invited to join the Department of Physics & Space Sciences at the Florida Institute of Technology.  He has since established a large research group that studies solar variability using space-based instruments, studies Galactic structure and stellar properties using periodic variable stars as probes, and is measuring the characteristics of extrasolar planetary systems using data from the LINEAR and KELT surveys and meter-class telescopes in North America and Chile.  He is a member of the Variables & Transients science collaboration for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope.  Oluseyi recently founded the first observational astronomy consortium consisting primarily of minority-serving colleges and universities.
 

 
Dr. Oluseyi has won several honors including selection as a TED Global Fellow (2012), as a Speaker & Specialist for the U.S.  State Department, Outstanding Technical Innovation and Best Paper at the NSBE Aerospace Conference (2010), NASA Earth/Sun Science New Investigator fellow (2006), the 2006 Technical Achiever of the Year in Physics by the National Technical Association, selection as the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation Astrophysics Research Fellow (2003-2005), and as an E. O. Lawrence Astrophysics Research Fellow (2001-2004), and winner of the NSBP Distinguished Dissertation award (2002).
 

 

National Alliance of Black School Educators Endorses Physics First March 16, 2012

Posted by admin in : History, Policy and Education (HPE) , 4comments

Position Statement of the National Alliance of Black School Educators
Approved by the Board of Directors, March 1, 2012

Physics is a gateway course for post-secondary study in science, medicine, and engineering, as well as an essential component in the formation of students’ scientific literacy. Physics classes hone thinking skills. An understanding of physics leads to a better understanding of other science disciplines. Physics classes help polish the skills needed to score well on the SAT and ACT. College recruiters recognize the value of taking high school physics. College success for virtually all science, computing, engineering, and premedical majors depends in part on passing physics. The job market for people with skills in physics is strong. Knowledge of physics is helpful for understanding the arts, politics, history, and culture.

Currently only 25% of Black and Hispanic high school students take any course in physics1. Thus many do not even get to the gateway. The availability of physics as a course for high school students is not equitably distributed throughout the United States. While some schools provide physics for all who wish to take it, a more common scenario, particularly for urban schools, is limited availability2. The existence of policies that restrict science opportunities for secondary students results in diminished outcomes in terms of scientific proficiency, and lack of diversity in the STEM professions.

In July 2011 the National Academy of Sciences released a framework for next generation of science standards. The framework consists of number of elements in three dimensions: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2) crosscutting concepts, and (3) disciplinary core ideas in science. It describes how they should be developed across grades K-12, and it is designed so that students continually expand upon and improve their knowledge and abilities throughout their school years. To support learning, all three dimensions need to be integrated into standards, curricula, instruction, and assessment. The framework includes core ideas for the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences since these are the disciplines typically included in science education in K-12 schools.

The idea of building up an integrated picture of science phenomena resonates very well with the principles of Physics First, the curricular strategy that sequences high school sciences courses beginning with physics in the 9th or 10th grade, chemistry in 10th or 11th grade, culminating with biology and earth science in the 12th; while developing proficiency in mathematics and computing in lock-step over the entire 4 years3. Physics First means more students will have the formal opportunity to learn physics and thus pass through the gateway to higher achievement and prosperity.

A first course in physics need not be overly saddled with advanced mathematics. The emphasis should be focused on conceptual understanding rather than mathematical manipulation. In fact conceptual understanding of physics need not wait until high school. Even middle school students can profit from a conceptual physics course. Conceptual understanding of physics taps into students’ natural curiosities of how and why the world works around them. That conceptual understanding is what will improve performance in later courses in other disciplines. As mathematical maturity is further developed, students can revisit the advanced mathematical expression of physics.

Given all the positive benefits, it is imperative that all students have the opportunity to formally learn physics in their secondary school settings. The National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE) therefore resolves:

• That all students should be afforded the opportunity to formally learn physics in their secondary school, starting no later than in the middle grades
• That Physics First, as a curricular strategy, should be implemented in all high schools
• That all NABSE members, especially those charged with STEM teaching, apprise themselves of all the issues surrounding Physics First and work collaboratively to build policy, curricula and lesson plans that will well-position our students for the 21st century.
• That NABSE will work with all our partners and fellow stakeholders to offer workshops, in-service training and in-service support that will help teachers at all stages of their careers develop, implement and teach in Physics First sequences effectively.

———————————————-
1. Compared to 41% of White students and 52% of Asian students. Source: Susan White & Casey Langer Tesfaye, Under-Represented Minorities in High School Physics: Results from the 2008-09 Nationwide Survey of High School Physics Teachers, American Institute of Physics, March 2011
2. Angela M. Kelly, Keith Sheppard, Secondary school physics availability in an urban setting: Issues related to academic achievement and course offerings, American Journal of Physics, October 2009, Volume 77, Issue 10, pp. 902
3. American Association of Physics Teachers [AAPT]. Statement on Physics First. Retrieved from http://www.aapt.org/Resources/policy/physicsfirst.cfm, 2002

IAU Office of Astronomy Development Stakeholder’s Workshop – Day 3 December 17, 2011

Posted by International.Chair in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

by Dr. Jarita Holbrook
Tuesday December 15, 2011

The morning began with two presentations about funding. One was given by Ravi Sheth about International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy; the other by Ernst van Groningen about International Science Programme of Uppsala University, Sweden. Dr. van Groningen’s presentation included a framework much like a spreadsheet of things to think about and include before writing a request for funding that I thought was particularly useful. His talk can be seen at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/19135075 starting at about 15 minutes into the broadcast. The rest of the morning was dedicated to two talks by popular vote: one by Pedru Russo and Valerio Ribeiro about Evaluation Metrics, the other by Carolina Govender about Evaluation & Planning focusing on having evaluation at every step of project planning. The first talk starts at about five minutes into the stream and the second about twenty one minutes into the stream.

The unique activity of the workshop was the Unconference Topics. Over the workshop there was a place for participants to write down topics that they wanted to discuss that they thought were important. Then the participants voted on each topic, those that received the most votes won. There were five popular topics:
1. Citizen Science,
2. Mobile Planetaria,
3. Distance Education,
4. Managing Volunteers, and
5. Evidence for economic development resulting from astronomy.

I joined the last group. After much discussion we determined there were four steps that OAD should take
A. The OAD should host a webpage where links to previous reports can be accessed. For example, it is possible to get actual amounts that governments spend on astronomy, as well as organizations such as NASA in the USA produce annual reports by state of the impact of NASA funding.
B. OAD should analyze the metrics and evaluation methods used in these existing reports and
C. determine if we need to develop new metrics to suit OAD goals or simply use existing ones.
D. OAD should develop a team of people that can then go to astronomy facilities and assess the economic impact of each. Why would such a team be important? As with all forms of evaluation and assessment associated with projects, the funders want to know where their money went and that positive things have come out of their investment. I would like to know who benefits from astronomy dollars and how this breaks down demographically by gender and ethnicity. To do this OAD will have to partner with more than just astronomers.

My thoughts about the workshop are positive. It brought together stakeholders who were primarily interested in
1. Educating the public about astronomy,
2. Attracting young people to become astronomers, and
3. Increasing the number of university level astronomy classes and programs worldwide.

As a result, most of the attendees were astronomers. For the next workshop, I would like to see stakeholders from the towns nearest observatories, from government offices responsible for development, from the United Nations Development Program, and perhaps indigenous rights groups. The point of the workshop was to help shape the breadth and scope of the new Office of Astronomy for Development, it would be interesting to get input from these development stakeholders.

IAU Office of Astronomy Development Stakeholder’s Workshop – Day 2 December 14, 2011

Posted by International.Chair in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

by Dr. Jarita Holbrook
Tuesday December 14, 2011

The IAU Office of Astronomy for Development (OAD) has three established task forces. Tuesday December 13th, the workshop participants were assigned to task forces and met for the morning session. The goal was to brainstorm new ideas at the intersection of astronomy and development, but also to consider how to implement the published OAD Strategic Plan.

In the afternoon we had breakout sessions by regions. The divisions were Africa and the Middle East, Latin America, Asia Pacific, North America, and Europe. In these breakout sessions we were to examine our regional strengths and regional needs. North America consisted of representatives from the United States and Canada. Mexico joined the Latin America group.

As with other places worldwide North America has underserved populations that we would like to help such as First Nations/Native Americans, underrepresented groups, inner city underclass, etc. There were two tiers of needs, the first was to do things that astronomers normally do but reach these underserved communities. That is astronomy education and astronomy outreach, there are already many programs and networks to do these but these need to be extended to these communities. The second need was to consider social justice, cultural awareness, and egalitarian science in the context of astronomy for development.

This area was a fairly new way of thinking for astronomers and specific strategies, methods, actions and activities are left for the future. Unlike other parts of the world, North America is rich in resources including in plain old cash!

There are over 300 volunteers registered through the OAD website, few of these are from North America. Thus, there is a need to recruit volunteers. The North American group did not discuss WHERE an OAD node office should be located instead we focused on the issues discussed above.

OAD Workshop Participants Silvia Torres-Peimbert (Mexico), Postdoc Linda Strubbe (USA), and Graduate Student and NSBP Member Deatrick Foster (USA)