SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 1970-79 525 



initiative for using NSF projects come from local areas. The Moudy 

 group stated: 



Our members were unanimous that neither the Congress nor the XSF should 

 attempt to dictate what is taught and where, and that neither should attempt to 

 censor materials. 



CONLAN AND THE ISIS PROGRAM 



Meanwhile, Congressman Conlan was not idle. In a statement 

 before the Symington subcommittee in July, he charged that irregulari- 

 ties has accompanied the award of grants to Florida State University, 

 totaling $3-3 million, for ISIS (Individualized Science Instructional 

 System). Conlan s campaign quickly assumed national proportions. In 

 a letter circulated by the thousands throughout the Nation, addressed 

 to "Dear Concerned American", Conlan commented, on his congres- 

 sional letterhead: 



The battle I led to end the Federal funding of MACOS began when the Heritage 

 Foundation, a non-profit research organization, published the facts concerning this 

 shocking program. That battle was largely won recently in Congress. * * * 



However, the war against Federal intervention in our schools has only just begun. * 

 The education of our Nation's children is far too important to be left in the 

 hands of government bureaucrats. Please send your tax deductible contribution today. 



Conlan's charges on ISIS prompted Symington to ask for another GAO 

 report. When the GAO reported on January 12, 1976, a number of 

 management mistakes were ascribed to NSF. On the same day, Dr. 

 Stever wrote Symington to outline the steps NSF was taking to comply 

 with the Moudy report through improvement of internal administra- 

 tive procedures, such as the participation of school administrators, 

 teachers, parents, and other lay persons in project evaluation. 



GAO REPORT ON ISIS 



The GAO Report on ISIS disturbed Symington. Upon its receipt, 

 he wrote a tough letter to Dr. Stever, demanding an early explanation: 



Based on my examination of the GAO Report and preliminary subcommittee 

 staff analysis, I am forced to conclude that representations given to the subcommittee 

 by Foundation staff concerning the evaluation of ISIS and the report of the Science 

 Curriculum Review Team (May 1975) are not entirely accurate. * * * I am greatly 

 concerned about the findings of the GAO Report and will want to discuss with you 

 steps to preclude the kinds of mistakes which apparently took place in the manage- 

 ment of this project. 



Dr. Stever immediately responded on January 19, 1976: 



The conclusions in the report and your letter are indeed most disturbing, so 

 much so that I have conferred in a special executive session with the National Science 

 Board and with the other Presidential appointees at the Foundation. First, I want to 

 assure you that we at the National Science Foundation are determined to improve 



3S-120 0-79-36 



