Good morning. I am pleased to join President Wefald in providing a short introduction to this important topic. The recent report of the National Science Foundation entitled, "Shaping the Future: New Expectations in Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education," describes a rapidly changing world and economy, articulates concerns over the rising costs and financial constraints of higher education, and examines the current state of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. The report provides a number of specific recommendations to accomplish a rather ambitious goal, which is for all American undergraduates to attain a higher level of competence in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. As a prelude to the overview of the report that Robert Watson and Mel George will provide, let me briefly describe five things we have begun to initiate at the system level in Kansas relative to the recommendations contained in the NSF report. I suspect that you will find similarieis with intiatives that you are fimiliar with in your own states. I will also identify those areas where I think our efforts to improve undergraduate education must be sustained and expanded in order to achieve the goals outlined in the NSF report.

First, the Board of Regents adopted VISION 2020 as its "strategy to improve the alignment of institutional priorities, resources and activities with the new realities and expectations facing the Regents universities within their approved missions." The primary goal of VISION 2020 is to improve the learning environment at a time of diminished resources and increased expectations. Five specific areas were targeted for change with curriculum and instruction being the first of these. Faculty time, talent, development, support, and rewards comprised the second and third areas. Changes in campus operations, support processes, and financing were also included as a part of the strategy. Last month, the Board conducted a lengthy policy discussion on the implementation of VISION 2020 and reaffirmed its support for this important initiative. The preceding month, the universities documented their progress on VISION 2020. With few exceptions, they reported on changes already underway that will improve undergraduate teaching and learning. Kansas State University, for example, has taken the lead on a new approach to maximizing faculty time and talent, has developed an academic success program for students at risk, and is actively engaged in training faculty on the use of instructional technology. However, the universities also acknowledged that progress on some VISION 2020 initiatives has been slow and that in some cases the institutions have not stretched themselves enough to respond to the challenges of the 21st century.

Secondly, since the time the National Science Board issued the 1986 "Neal Report" on undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education, all of the Regents universities have developed plans for assessing student learning outcomes in the areas of basic skills, general education, and each undergraduate major. The most recent of these plans to be approved by the Board was the one developed by Pittsburg State University, which provides evidence that the results from assessments have been used to stimulate instructional and curricular changes similar to those advocated by the "Shaping the Future" report. But I must hasten to add that it took us 10 years to accomplish this. We must intensify and accelerate our future efforts to improve undergraduate education if we are serious about achieving the goals enumerated in the NSF report.

A third activity that I would like to mention is the continued participation of the Regents system in the Eisenhower Professional Development grant program. This federal program is designed to improve the instructional skills of K-12 teachers in mathematics and the physical and biological sciences. The program also seeks to increase access of historically underserved and under represented groups to mathematics and science education and to foster linkages between higher education institutions and local schools and school districts. Within recent years, the Board staff has reshaped our approach to the program to encourage multiyear proposals, greater use of instructional technologies and distance education, and to make the review process more representative of all Kansas higher education. A total of $407,103 was awarded to nine projects through the Eisenhower program in 1997. Many of the projects reflect new partnerships and the use of new technologies to reach greater numbers of K-12 teachers. We have also noticed an increase in the number of proposals that include preservice teacher education majors as a part their projects. Yet, once again, there is more to be done in this area. Much of the evaluative data from the these projects indicate high levels of teacher satisfaction with the Eisenhower professional development activities, but we have precious little hard data on whether or not the grant projects actually improve student learning in the classroom.

The fourth item related to this topic is a new cycle of program review approved by the Board last September. Stated generally, program review is intended to improve the quality of the academic programs offered by the Regents universities. Beginning in 1998 and continuing for the next eight years, every academic program at each of the Regents universities will be reviewed at least one time. Each campus will provide the Board with a summary of its annual review and program by program recommendations. This process provides faculty, academic departments, and the universities one of the best opportunities possible to act upon the findings and recommendations of the NSF report.

Finally, I need to mention the potential impact that Qualified Admissions is likely to have on the future of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Beginning in the year 2001, and for the first time in the history of Kansas public higher education, students seeking admission to the Regents universities will be required to do more than just graduate from high school with a C average. One of the ways they will be able to gain entrance into the universities is by completing the 14 unit Precollege Curriculum approved by the Board in October of 1996. The Precollege Curriculum requires students to complete at least three units of high school mathematics, including Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, and three units of science including at least one unit of either chemistry or physics. Two of the three science units may include application courses in biology or chemistry or Principles of Technology. Many school officials have indicated that they already see the impact of these requirements on students’ curricular choices and that the higher expectations have caused ninth graders to become more serious about their academic endeavors as they are the first ones who will be subject to the new requirements.

These initial reactions notwithstanding, we have a long way to go. For example, only 51 percent of Kansas high school graduates going on to postsecondary education completed a college preparatory curriculum last year despite the fact that 78 percent of all high school graduates stated their intent to pursue some form of postsecondary education. To date, less than a third of the accredited Kansas high schools have submitted a list of their courses intended to meet the new Qualified Admissions Precollege Curriculum requirements. According to a recent study conducted by the Public Agenda, a nonprofit opinion research group based in New York City, 76 percent of the college professors and 63 percent of the employers surveyed said a high school diploma did not guarantee that graduates possess basic skills. The same study showed that a majority of teachers, parents, and students hold almost the exact opposite opinion. Given the performance of American eighth graders in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), I would have to agree with the college professors and employers. The average American score in mathematics in the TIMSS study was below the international average and the average science score was below that of 16 other nations. Although Kansas students did not participate in the international study, the findings underscore the challenges cited in the NSF report.

These five system level activities that I have described embrace many of the changes advocated by the NSF report. But the Regents system needs to do more to improve undergraduate education. VISION 2020 and the new cycle of program review provides us with a framework for sustaining and expanding our efforts. For example, the Board has already asked the universities to fold their assessment plans into their respective campus curriculum and instruction initiatives. The universities can also expand their institution specific performance indicators to include measures of progress more closely related to undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. I am sure that you will be discussing other ways in which we can collectively improve the undergraduate learning environment. We look forward to hearing the results of your proceedings over the next two days and any further recommendations you can make that will help us achieve the goals articulated in "Shaping the Future."