LEARNING FOR THE FUTUREedtechpolicy.org/ArchivedWebsites/report_scientists.pdf · of the Committee for Economic Development. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87186-147-X

LEARNING FOR THE FUTUREChanging the Culture of Math and Science

Education To Ensure a Competitive Workforce

A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development

LEARN

ING

FOR

THE

FUTU

RE:Changing

the Culture of M

ath and Science Education to Ensure a Com

petitive Workforce

CED

A SHARED FUTUREREDUCING GLOBAL POVERTY

A Statement by the Research and Policy Committeeof the Committee for Economic Development

LEARNING FOR THE FUTUREChanging the Culture of Math and Science

Education to Ensure a Competitive Workforce

A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Learning for the future : changing the culture of math & science education to ensurea competitive workforce : a statement on national policy / by the Research and Policy Committeeof the Committee for Economic Development.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87186-147-X 1. Mathematics—Study and teaching—United States. 2. Science—Study andteaching—United States. I. Committee for EconomicDevelopment. Research and Policy Committee.

QA13.L39 2003510'.71'073—dc21

2003043432

First printing in bound-book form: 2003Paperback: $15.00Printed in the United States of AmericaDesign: Rowe Design Group

COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT261 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016(212) 688-2063

2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 296-5860

www.ced.org

iii

CONTENTS

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CED STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY v

PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1Findings 1Recommendations 3

CHAPTER 1: THE NEED TO IMPROVE MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION 5The Importance of Science and Engineering: Growth, Citizenship, and Mobility 5A Focus on Math and Science Education 7

CHAPTER 2: CHALLENGES IN K-12 MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION 10K-12 Student Achievement in Math and Science: A National Perspective 10K-12 Student Achievement in Math and Science: A State Perspective 13K-12 Student Achievement in Math and Science: An International Perspective 16What Might Account for Uneven Performance in K-12 Math and Science? 18

CHAPTER 3: UNDERGRADUATE AND LABOR MARKET ISSUES 23Reductions in the Number of Undergraduates in Science and Engineering 23Implications for the Professional Technical Labor Market 27The Impact of Foreign-Born Students and Workers 29

CHAPTER 4: CHANGING THE CULTURE OF K-16 MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATIONAND INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS 30

CHALLENGE ONE: Increasing Student Interest in Math and Science to Maintain the Pipeline 31Ensuring Widespread Scientific and Quantitative Literacy 31Increasing the Number of Students Completing Degrees in Mathematics, Science and Engineering Fields 33Increasing the Interest and Success of Women and Minorities in Math and Science 34

CHALLENGE TWO: Demonstrating the Wonder of Discovery While Helping Students to Master Rigorous Content 35Improving Math and Science Teacher Education 36Providing Opportunities for Teachers to Work With Those in the Technical Labor Force 37Expanding Effective Professional Development Programs 38Promoting Local Experimentation in Math and Science Education 40Promoting Science Education in the Era of No Child Left Behind 41

CHALLENGE THREE: Acknowledging the Professionalism of Teachers 42Compensating Teachers to Promote Quality in the Math and Science Teaching Force 42Establishing Alternative Paths to Certification 43

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 45

iv

ENDNOTES 46

MEMORANDUM OF COMMENT, RESERVATION, OR DISSENT 50

OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 51

The Committee for Economic Develop-ment is an independent research and policyorganization of some 250 business leadersand educators. CED is nonprofit, nonparti-san, and nonpolitical. Its purpose is to pro-pose policies that bring about steady eco-nomic growth at high employment andreasonably stable prices, increased productiv-ity and living standards, greater and moreequal opportunity for every citizen, and animproved quality of life for all.

All CED policy recommendations musthave the approval of trustees on the Researchand Policy Committee. This committee is di-rected under the bylaws, which emphasizethat “all research is to be thoroughly objec-tive in character, and the approach in eachinstance is to be from the standpoint of thegeneral welfare and not from that of anyspecial political or economic group.” Thecommittee is aided by a Research AdvisoryBoard of leading social scientists and by asmall permanent professional staff.

The Research and Policy Committee doesnot attempt to pass judgment on any pend-

ing specific legislative proposals; its purpose isto urge careful consideration of the objectivesset forth in this statement and of the best meansof accomplishing those objectives.

Each statement is preceded by extensivediscussions, meetings, and exchange of memo-randa. The research is undertaken by a sub-committee, assisted by advisors chosen for theircompetence in the field under study.

The full Research and Policy Committeeparticipates in the drafting of recommenda-tions. Likewise, the trustees on the draftingsubcommittee vote to approve or disapprove apolicy statement, and they share with theResearch and Policy Committee the privilegeof submitting individual comments for publi-cation.

The recommendations presented herein arethose of the trustee members of the Research andPolicy Committee and the responsible subcom-mittee. They are not necessarily endorsed by othertrustees or by nontrustee subcommittee members,advisors, contributors, staff members, or othersassociated with CED.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CED STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY

v

vi

RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE

Co-ChairmenPATRICK W. GROSSFounder and Senior AdvisorAmerican Management Systems, Inc.BRUCE K. MACLAURYPresident EmeritusThe Brookings Institution

Vice ChairmenIAN ARNOFRetired ChairmanBank One, Louisiana, N.A.CLIFTON R. WHARTON, JR.Former Chairman and Chief Executive

OfficerTIAA-CREF

REX D. ADAMSProfessor of Business AdministrationThe Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityALAN BELZERRetired President and Chief Operating

OfficerAlliedSignal Inc.PETER A. BENOLIELChairman, Executive CommitteeQuaker Chemical CorporationROY J. BOSTOCKChairman Emeritus, Executive CommitteeBcom3 Group, Inc.FLETCHER L. BYROMPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMICASU CorporationDONALD R. CALDWELLChairman and Chief Executive OfficerCross Atlantic Capital PartnersJOHN B. CAVEPrincipalAvenir Group, Inc.CAROLYN CHINChairmanCommtouch/C3 PartnersA. W. CLAUSENRetired Chairman and Chief Executive

OfficerBankAmerica CorporationJOHN L. CLENDENINRetired ChairmanBellSouth Corporation

GEORGE H. CONRADESChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAkamai Technologies, Inc.RONALD R. DAVENPORTChairman of the BoardSheridan Broadcasting CorporationJOHN DIEBOLDChairmanJohn Diebold IncorporatedFRANK P. DOYLERetired Executive Vice PresidentGeneral ElectricT.J. DERMOT DUNPHYChairmanKildare Enterprises, LLCCHRISTOPHER D. EARLManaging DirectorPerseus Capital, LLCW. D. EBERLEChairmanManchester Associates, Ltd.EDMUND B. FITZGERALDManaging DirectorWoodmont AssociatesHARRY L. FREEMANChairThe Mark Twain InstituteBARBARA B. GROGANPresidentWestern Industrial ContractorsRICHARD W. HANSELMANChairmanHealth Net Inc.RODERICK M. HILLSChairmanHills Enterprises, Ltd.MATINA S. HORNERExecutive Vice PresidentTIAA-CREFH.V. JONESManaging DirectorKorn/Ferry InternationalEDWARD A. KANGASChairman and Chief Executive Officer,

RetiredDeloitte Touche TohmatsuJOSEPH E. KASPUTYSChairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerGlobal Insight, Inc.CHARLES E.M. KOLBPresidentCommittee for Economic Development

CHARLES R. LEEChairmanVerizon CommunicationsALONZO L. MCDONALDChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAvenir Group, Inc.NICHOLAS G. MOOREChairman EmeritusPricewaterhouseCoopersSTEFFEN E. PALKOVice Chairman and PresidentXTO Energy Inc.CAROL J. PARRYPresidentCorporate Social Responsibility

AssociatesVICTOR A. PELSONSenior AdvisorUBS Warburg LLCPETER G. PETERSONChairmanThe Blackstone GroupNED REGANPresidentBaruch CollegeJAMES Q. RIORDANChairmanQuentin Partners Co.LANDON H. ROWLANDChairmanJanus Capital GroupGEORGE RUPPPresidentInternational Rescue CommitteeROCCO C. SICILIANOBeverly Hills, CaliforniaMATTHEW J. STOVERPresidentLKM VenturesARNOLD R. WEBERPresident EmeritusNorthwestern UniversityJOSH S. WESTONHonorary ChairmanAutomatic Data Processing, Inc.DOLORES D. WHARTONFormer Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Fund for Corporate Initiatives, Inc.MARTIN B. ZIMMERMANGroup Vice President, Corporate AffairsFord Motor Company

*Voted to approve the policy statement but submitted memorandum of comment, reservation, or dissent. See page 50.

*

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE SUPPLY OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS

Co-Chairs

CHRISTOPHER D. EARLManaging DirectorPerseus Capital, LLCSHIRLEY ANN JACKSONPresidentRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Trustees

ROBERT B. CHESSChairmanInhale Therapeutic Systems, Inc.CAROLYN CHINChairmanCommtouch/C3 PartnersDAVID M. COTEPresident and Chief Executive OfficerHoneywell International, Inc.THOMAS M. CULLIGANExecutive Vice PresidentRaytheon CompanyChief Executive OfficerRaytheon InternationalJOHN DIEBOLDChairmanThe Diebold InstituteLINDA M. DISTLERATHVice PresidentMerck & Co., Inc.IRWIN DORROSPresidentDorros AssociatesE. GORDON GEEChancellorVanderbilt University

JEROME GROSSMANSenior FellowJohn F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityMATT NIMETZPartnerCross Atlantic Partners, Inc.STEFFEN PALKOVice Chairman and PresidentXTO Energy, Inc.JERRY PARROTTVice President,

Corporate CommunicationsHuman Genome Sciences, Inc.GEORGE RUPPPresidentInternational Rescue CommitteeMICHAEL SEARSSenior Vice President and

Chief Financial OfficerThe Boeing CompanyRUTH SIMMONSPresidentBrown UniversityJAMES THOMSONPresident and Chief Executive OfficerRANDHERMINE WARRENPresidentHermine Warren Associates, Inc.JOSH S. WESTONHonorary ChairmanAutomatic Data ProcessingKURT YEAGERPresident and Chief Executive OfficerElectric Power Research Institute

Ex-Officio Members

PATRICK W. GROSSFounder and Chairman,

Executive CommitteeAmerican Management Systems, Inc.CHARLES E.M. KOLBPresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentBRUCE K. MACLAURYPresident EmeritusThe Brookings Institution

Guest

CARLO PARRAVANOExecutive DirectorMerck Institute for Science Education

Advisor

LINDA ROSENEducation Policy Advisor

Project Directors

EVERETT EHRLICHSenior Vice President and Director of

ResearchCommittee for Economic DevelopmentJEFF LOESELResearch AssociateCommittee for Economic Development

vii

viii

Continued innovation and growth in oureconomy depend substantially on the qualityand size of the professional technical laborforce. The increasing complexity of daily lifealso requires a citizenry that is scientificallyliterate. Improving the quality of math andscience education in America is a critical firststep toward both of those goals. Inspiringwidespread student interest in math andscience can also be a way to address the needfor diversity in the technical labor force. Inthis report, we document the importance ofquality math and science education to theeconomy, society, and to individual entrantsinto the labor force.

Learning for the Future: Changing the Cultureof Math and Science Education to Ensure a Com-petitive Workforce builds on a long history ofCED reports on education and labor marketissues. CED last examined math and scienceeducation directly in Connecting Students toa Changing World: A Technology Strategy forImproving Mathematics and Science Education(1995). More recent reports on educationpolicy include Measuring What Matters: UsingAssessment and Accountability to Improve StudentLearning (2001) and Preschool for All: Investingin a Productive and Just Society (2002). Otherrecent reports on the requirement for a well-qualified technical labor force includeAmerica’s Basic Research: Prosperity ThroughDiscovery (1998) and Reforming Immigration:Helping Meet America’s Need for a SkilledWorkforce (2001).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe would like to thank the dedicated

group of CED Trustees, special guests, andadvisors who comprised CED’s Subcommit-tee on the Supply of Scientists and Engineers(see page vii). Special thanks go to thesubcommittee’s co-chairs Christopher D.Earl, Managing Director of Perseus Capital,LLC, and Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, Presidentof Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, for theirleadership and guidance. We are also in-debted to Jeff Loesel, CED Research Associ-ate and Project Director. Thanks are alsodue to Everett Ehrlich, CED’s Senior VicePresident and Director of Research, andLinda Rosen, education policy advisor, fortheir substantial contributions to the project.

Patrick W. Gross, Co-ChairResearch and Policy CommitteeFounder and Senior AdvisorAmerican Management Systems, Inc.

Bruce K. MacLaury, Co-ChairResearch and Policy CommitteePresident EmeritusThe Brookings Institution

PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT

Improving the math and science skills ofour young people is an important steptowards maintaining innovation-led economicgrowth in the coming decades. While produc-ing a more scientifically proficient citizenry,widespread math and science achievementwill also widen the pipeline of scientists andengineers who drive innovation.

This report investigates the challenges confronting math and science educationfrom the perspective of culture change. The culture surrounding math and scienceachievement is often negative: students whosucceed in these fields are often dismissed bytheir peers, while a culture of low expecta-tions burdens other groups, perpetuatingtheir underrepresentation in the professionaltechnical labor force. To address these issues,CED calls for the implementation of a strate-gic plan that will increase student “demand”for and achievement in mathematics and sci-ence. CED believes that all stakeholders inmath and science education policy, includingstate and local governments, school districts,and business, must be proactive in addressingthe problems of math and science education.

FINDINGS

K-12 Math and Science Education

1. Most national measures of K-12 studentachievement in math and science yieldgenerally disappointing results, despitesome small positive signs.

2. States that have adopted standards-basedassessment for promotion or graduationhave seen scores and proficiency levelsclimb. These examples show that reform ispossible.

3. The international performance ofAmerica’s youngsters remains consistentlymediocre. Though fourth graders performwell in both math and science in interna-tional comparisons, American twelfthgraders finish towards, or at, the bottom of these surveys.

4. Student interest in math and science top-ics has declined. Fewer children respondpositively on surveys to such basic state-ments as “I like math.” This trend is especially prevalent among high schoolseniors.

5. Challenging courses are not readily avail-able for some students, while others maybe discouraged from taking them.Minority students also face differentialexpectations, and often lack the supportand encouragement to succeed in higher-level courses.

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6. Teachers in math and science courses areoften teaching out-of-field. Almost a thirdof high school math classes are taught byteachers who do not have a major orminor in mathematics. In biology, it is 45percent and in the life sciences the num-ber reaches 60 percent. For middle schoolstudents, especially those in underprivi-leged areas, the problem is yet worse.

7. Teacher retention is a serious problem,especially among math and science teach-ers; this problem will become more critical as baby boomer teachers nearretirement age. Of new math and scienceteachers, about a third will leave the fieldwithin their first three years. This turnoveris expensive and leads to other staffingproblems.

Undergraduate and Labor Market Issues

1. The percentage of college students seek-ing degrees in science and engineeringcontinues to fall. Aside from a gain in thebiological sciences, all other science andengineering disciplines have seen anabsolute decline in the number of degreesconferred annually since 1985.

2. While women and minorities haveincreased their participation in scienceand engineering, they are still proportion-ally underrepresented. Women andminorities do not participate in scienceand engineering at the postsecondary levelat a rate equal to that of white men, andmany high achieving women and minori-ties have intentionally directed themselvesaway from these fields. Accordingly, theirparticipation in the professional technicallabor force is disproportionately low.

3. The expansion of the economy and theretirement of the baby boomers will leavea gap in professional technical labor market. Projections suggest that a strongeconomic expansion will create approxi-mately 2.1 million jobs in these fields overthe next decade, with a total of 2.7 millionjob openings, including retirements.

4. Both the private and public sector will faceproblems if the pipeline for scientists andengineers is not widened. The private sector employs three-quarters of the pro-fessional technical workforce and will drivethe expansion of the economy. The publicsector, which often struggles to competefor talent with the private sector, will needto replace retiring scientists and engineers,while being constrained by the fact thatmany public sector jobs must be held byAmerican citizens.

5. There will also be a continuing need formath and science teachers. Many districtsalready face shortages (leading to theproblem of out-of-field teachers), whileenrollment is expected to continue toexpand. Two hundred thousand additionalsecondary math and science teachers willbe needed in the next decade.

6. Foreign workers are not a long-term solu-tion to labor market shortages. Nationalsecurity concerns will likely limit the num-ber of H1-B visas allowed, and previousincreases in the visa limits are unlikely tobe renewed. As other economies continueto develop, they will be better able toretain talented young people who havestudied in the United States.

2

LEARNING FOR THE FUTURE

RECOMMENDATIONSImproving the culture of math and

science, in CED’s view, requires addressingthree challenges aimed at changing the culture of math and science education.

CHALLENGE ONE: Increasing Student Interest in Math and Science to Sustain the Pipeline

1. Local school districts should review theiradopted curricula to ensure that they adequately engage students, promoteactive learning, and align to state and local standards of student performanceand knowledge.

2. Businesses should collaborate with schooldistricts to develop enhancements to thedistrict-adopted math and science curricu-la that integrate state-of-the-art applica-tions of mathematical and scientific princi-ples into the classroom setting and providean insight into the work scientists andengineers perform every day.

3. Business should provide financial andlogistical support to extracurricular mathand science activities, as well as the timeand talents of their employees, to enrichthe learning experiences of students.Educators should organize student groupsto participate in such activities, if they donot already exist, and work to integratebusiness support into these programs.

4. Colleges and universities should pay closeattention to the number of graduates theyyield each year when evaluating the effec-tiveness of their science and engineeringprograms. Experienced professors shouldbe assigned to introductory classes, amongtheir teaching responsibilities. Gradingpolicies should be monitored in STEM(science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics) classes for accuracy and fair-ness, to ensure alignment with otherdepartment courses in the institution.*Additionally, articulation between highereducation and K-12 should be increased tobetter prepare students for the rigors ofhigher education.

5. Scientifically-based businesses should collaborate with institutions of higher education to highlight the professionalopportunities that are available to thosewith a background in STEM fields.

6. Programs with proven effectiveness to sup-port high achievement among traditionallyunderrepresented groups of students in K-12 STEM courses should be replicated;businesses must redouble their efforts toprovide support to traditionally under-represented groups of undergraduate students in the STEM pipeline.

CHALLENGE TWO: Demonstrating the Wonder ofDiscovery While Helping Students to Master Rigorous Content

1. Colleges and universities that educatefuture and current teachers must ensurethat their courses of study emphasize acquisition of content knowledge, anunderstanding of the place of that knowl-edge in society, as well as the pedagogicaltraining to deliver that knowledge to stu-dents of all backgrounds and abilities.

2. Businesses should partner with localschool districts to establish programs that provide scientists and engineers asresources for schools. These forumsshould facilitate direct contact betweenteachers and scientists and engineers, andas appropriate, direct contact between scientists and students.

3

Executive Summary

*See memorandum by PETER A. BENOLIEL (page 50).

3. Businesses, colleges and universities, andschool districts should jointly developeffective programs to provide summerexperiences for teachers. Businessesshould create mechanisms within theirfirms that allow the fruitful participationof teacher/interns in their work.

4. Business, higher education, and K-12 school districts should collaborate to pro-vide staff development to enrich andexpand teacher knowledge and talent.

5. Local school districts should be encour-aged to seek innovative and promisingsolutions to improve math and scienceteaching and learning.

6. The scientifically-based business communi-ty should expand efforts to work with stategovernments and boards of education inthe ongoing process of reviewing andrevising state standards for science education.

CHALLENGE THREE: Acknowledging the Professionalism of Teachers

1. State governments should work with localschool districts to increase starting teachersalaries to better reflect local labor marketconditions. The salary structure shouldtake note of the many highly remunerativeopportunities open to skilled math and science graduates apart from teaching.

2. State governments and boards of educa-tion should implement high quality programs for teacher certification of professional scientists, mathematicians, or engineers who seek to enter teaching.

3. State governments should partner together to develop systems of license andpension reciprocity.

4


A skilled workforce is crucial to a growingeconomy. America’s rising standard of livingdepends upon invention and innovation, driven by fresh ideas created by enterprisingscientists and engineers. But American col-leges and universities are not now graduatingenough scientists and engineers to meet theexpected needs of our future economicgrowth.

The issue is not solely one of producingthe next generation of Nobel Prize winners.The increasing complexity of civil discoursein the 21st century — issues from cloning tohomeland security — requires that all citizensattain scientific proficiency. Moreover, thenation’s level of scientific proficiency willbecome more important as women and peo-ple of color, who generally score lower thantheir white counterparts on math and scienceassessments, form a growing percentage ofthe labor force.

CED has often stressed the importance of these labor market factors. Our recentreport, Basic Research: Prosperity ThroughDiscovery, discussed the roles of both the public and private sectors in the innovationprocess.1 In that Policy Statement, we notedthe pivotal role of technological workers andexpressed concerns as to whether the econo-my was supplying scientists and engineers insufficient numbers. Specifically, CED recom-mended that the nation embrace “highachievement standards at the national levelin all core academic subjects, with particularemphasis on mathematics and science,” andthat the nation’s schools, particularly its mid-dle and high schools, “attract and continu-

ously support better-qualified math and science teachers.”2 CED also cited the needfor “substantial investment in infrastructureimprovements” and recommended that “businesses, universities, and schools worktogether to place more professional scientists and engineers in the classroom...”3

CED’s report, Reforming Immigration:Helping to Meet America’s Need for a SkilledWorkforce, noted that the shortage of theseskilled workers was so pronounced that immi-gration policy would have to be managed totake this shortage into account. That report’sfirst and most pressing finding was that “themarkets for skilled workers have been verytight in recent years, and the demand forskilled workers will grow rapidly.” 4 Althoughthere has been a temporary abatement of thisproblem due to the slowing economy, theproblem is sure to reemerge when strong economic growth resumes.

But immigration is not a solution to theproblem of long-term shortages of skilledworkers in the American economy; there isno substitute for an indigenous supply of scientists and engineers in a competitiveeconomy.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING:GROWTH, CITIZENSHIP, AND MOBILITY

While science and technology have alwaysplayed a central role in our nation’s develop-ment, the public attention given to them has

5

Chapter 1

THE NEED TO IMPROVE MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

come in cycles. The launch of Sputnik fivedecades ago led the United States to give sci-ence and engineering a greater emphasis,culminating in the success of the ApolloProgram. Part of that emphasis wasincreased funding for efforts in math andscience at all levels.

The explosion in the fields of science andengineering helped to fuel America’s post-wargrowth. The greater supply of scientists andengineers allowed technology to move forward dramatically, and was a major contrib-utor to advances in computer engineering,microelectronics, health research, materialsscience, and other disciplines. But morerecently, that attention has waned.Paradoxically, much of the decreased popularenthusiasm for science and engineeringoccurred just as the Internet was enteringpopular use. Perhaps this was due to theremarkably sophisticated technology thatmade the Internet appear effortless; perhapsit was due to the fortunes that apparentlycould be made through financial engineeringand business prowess during the technologybubble. But as we will argue in later chapters,some of this decrease in interest reflects alarger deterioration in the culture of mathand science education, at both the K-12 andpostsecondary level.

An understanding of science and mathe-matics remains at the core of our economyand society. The driving force behind eco-nomic growth is technological innovation.Absent a long history of technologicalchange, our country would be a nation of arti-sans and mule drivers, with a commensuratestandard of living. Technological innovationallows workers to become more productive bygiving them improved tools and skills, whichin turn increases our income and well-being.The nation’s science and engineering workersplay important roles in this process. First, theyare a source of new ideas, the driving forcebehind invention. Second, they are a meansof disseminating those ideas, either as they

learn about new innovations and adapt themto their organizations, or as they move fromfirm to firm, taking their knowledge andexperience with them.

When we think about the prospects forgrowth in the years ahead, we think of themin technological terms — new wonders frommicroprocessors and information technology,advances in biotechnology and their applica-tion not only to health but to industrialprocesses, materials science, energy produc-tion and environmental management, andmany others. Indeed, as other nations in theworld economy gain advantage as low-costmanufacturers, America’s global economicposition will evermore depend on our com-mand of science and technology as a meansto add value to production and to developoriginal goods and services. Thus, the econo-my fundamentally depends on a scientificallyskilled workforce.

But beyond the economy’s needs, scientificawareness is an important aspect of moderncitizenship and an increasingly significantpart of daily life. Doctrines of “creationism”crowd current scientific teaching out of class-rooms; biological advances, from geneticengineering in agriculture to medical break-throughs, require a public discussion of safety,risk, and ethics; concerns about privacy andsecurity accompany the information revolu-tion; man-made global climate change threat-ens the way of life of many on the planet overthe long-term. All of these issues require athorough public discussion, but such a discus-sion can only take place among an informedcitizenry. (And this “scientific proficiency”should not be confused with “computer literacy.” An accompanying box describes the difference.)

Science and technology employments areimportant for a third reason — they providean important avenue for social mobility.Diverse ethnic and immigrant groups haveembraced scientific education as a means tocontribute to American culture and to

6


improve the social and economic standing oftheir families. Technical workers trained inthe post-Sputnik rush were often the first people in their families to go to college —scientific training was an important route totheir economic betterment. Math and science education have historically con-tributed to the meritocratic society Americaaspires to. Moreover, as the majority popula-tion grows more slowly than people of color,the nation’s corps of scientists and engineerswill progressively need to be drawn from thislatter, more diverse, group. This is all themore important when the aging of the mathand science workforce is observed. Many gov-ernment agencies rely on technical work-forces that are close to retirement age. Thesame may be said of the nation’s schoolteach-ers. The cohort that entered teaching as theBaby Boom graduated from college in the1970s is now reaching the age and level ofservice that will allow them to retire. It is notclear how the hundreds of thousands ofteachers who are somehow involved in mathand science education throughout the K-12 system will be replaced, particularly with thehigh turnover rates already experienced inthis field.

A FOCUS ON MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

A variety of factors determine our society’sscientific proficiency. In recent years, manyyoung people, the “best and brightest,” havebeen attracted to careers in finance or otherbusiness activities, eschewing options in mathand science that failed to capture their inter-est. For this reason, CED has chosen to focuson the factor it views most important in thelong term — the quality of math and scienceeducation in both K-12 and postsecondaryeducation. All of the functions of science insociety — the availability of skilled workers,the competence of scientific “citizenship,”and the availability of science and math as atool for mobility — are drawn from this common well.

The K-12 system is entrusted with buildingscience and mathematics competence in ouryoung people. It must capture and maintaintheir interest in these subjects, and teachthem not only the “facts” of science, but theunderlying concepts of scientific inquiry,experimentation, and empiricism. Moreover,the K-12 system is responsible for producing agroup of young people who will be interested

7

The Need to Improve Math and Science Education

The increased use of computers in the classroom is an important step in improving themath and science skills of young students. This knowledge is essential, as most jobs in thecurrent (and future) economy (will) require the use of a computer at some level, andnumerous studies show that students who use computers regularly in the classroom scorebetter on proficiency tests. However, a students’ proficiency with a computer should not bemistaken for a basic understanding of the scientific principles behind the computation orthe computer. CED warned of this problem in our 1995 report, Connecting Students to aChanging World: A Technology Strategy for Improving Mathematics and Science Education, remind-ing people that “our support for technology should not be equated with adulation.Technology has meaning and purpose only in the way it is used by people.” The ability touse a computer is not a substitute for a knowledge base in math and science that will ulti-mately help the student to understand weather patterns, instructions from a doctor, or todetermine which long distance calling plan will save the most money.

“COMPUTER LITERACY” IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR MATH AND SCIENCE PROFICIENCY

in pursuing math, science, and engineeringcoursework in their undergraduate careers.

The postsecondary system is charged withproducing these highly skilled workers, butalso has great bearing on the K-12 system. Itproduces the teachers who will staff the K-12system. It sets expectations for math and science education that compel a response bythe K-12 system. And it offers students a pathto careers in science and engineering, whichin turn creates interest among young people.Thus, neither the K-12 nor the postsecondarysegments can be seen in isolation; together,they comprise a continuous “system” thatdetermines the long-term supply of ournation’s scientifically skilled workforce.

Many organizations have examined thissystem and recommended ways to improve it.An accompanying box summarizes a few ofthese efforts. Their common theme has beenthe shortage of resources going to math andscience education, or, the “supply side” of theequation.

CED supports these efforts and theirpoint of view. Improving the nation’s math and science education will take moreresources, and more well-spent resources. Weshould be concerned about the costs andquality of the math and science educationinfrastructure, about the costs and quality ofprofessional development for math and sci-ence teachers, and about the overall level ofcompensation for teachers. Moreover, themanner in which these resources are broughtto bear could often be improved as well.

But these are all about the supply of mathand science education. CED also believes thatimproving the nation’s math and science edu-cation will require change on the demand sideas well, that is, the way our nation’s youngpeople regard these disciplines. Too often,they are dismissed as too hard, too inaccessi-ble, too elitist, too boring, or too unfashion-able. In turn, the young people who doexpress interest in these subjects are, in manyschools, disdained by their peers. Stereotypes

in popular culture persist in portraying scien-tists as unfashionable, absent-minded,obsessed, or socially backward. Despite bestintentions, the education system can rein-force these views, by presenting math and sci-ence as “hard” compared to other subjectsand rationing good grades in those topics.

This Policy Statement will emphasize waysto link both “supply” and “demand” side poli-cies together to change the culture of mathand science in the education system and insociety. By culture change, we mean the waystudents, teachers at all levels, educators at all levels, and the business community thinkabout math and science education.

Culture change cannot be mandated ordecreed. Instead, it is the product of a broadrange of actions by a diverse set of actors. As aresult, CED’s report is aimed at several audi-ences. Business leaders have the ability to workwith school systems to provide resources andexpertise otherwise unavailable; many busi-nesses, as discussed throughout our recom-mendations, do so already. State governments,now charged with directing efforts to measureschool performance and hold individual sys-tems accountable, have an obvious role. So dolocal governments, which define the roles andexpectations of the teachers they employ.

Our recommendations also affect teachersthemselves. The recommendations sometimescall for changes in the way teaching is struc-tured or what occurs in classrooms. These recommendations, however, are not intendedto be critical of the teaching profession.America’s teachers are undervalued; few ifany people enter teaching for reasons otherthan a commitment to the job. Our recom-mendations, ultimately, are designed to giveteachers the tools and environment that willlet them do their jobs as they prepare thenext generation of our nation’s young peoplefor the challenges of a complex technologicalsociety.

CED’s effort and perspective are meant asa complement to the efforts that have pre-

8


ceded it, and are in no way meant to detractfrom those previous efforts’ importance. In this report, we examine issues such asteacher compensation and accreditation thathave been examined before, but with an eyeto how they might make mathematics andscience more appealing to young people. We identify emerging issues that mightdirectly affect the way both young peopleand society at large perceive math and science. In either event, our focus is onimproving the nation’s math and scienceeducation, as measured by the overall levelof math and science competence in societyas well as the number of skilled workers theschool system produces.

Moreover, we offer our recommendationswhile being aware that in classrooms, school

districts, and institutions of higher learningaround the country, people are now strug-gling to address these issues. Businessesalready have undertaken innovative programsto bring their unique abilities and resourcesto local school districts; school districts andsystems are already experimenting with freshways to train teachers of math and science; allof these groups have come together to offerexciting programs that complement school,or that redefine school itself. Our mission, inlarge part, is to support these experiments,help to scale them up, and to encourage thebusiness community to be a fully-fledged part-ner in these efforts.

9

The Need to Improve Math and Science Education

A number of reports have been written over the years that highlight certain aspects ofthe problems facing math and science education and its workforce implications. Here arethe conclusions of a few prominent reports.

Building Engineering & Science Talent (BEST), The Quiet Crisis (2002)

Following up on the report Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science,Engineering, and Technology (2000), this report investigates the problem of the underrepresen-tation of minority groups in the technical labor force. The Quiet Crisis calls for increasedrecruitment of teachers, an increase in federal investment in education and other strategiesto promote inclusiveness in the professional technical labor force.

Educational Testing Service, Meeting the Need (2002)

Meeting the Need outlines the problems facing the technical labor force, finding part ofthe solution in the preK-12 math and science education spectrum. A special emphasis is alsoplaced on the achievement levels of underrepresented minorities and efforts to recruit theminto the technical labor force.

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, the“Glenn Commission,” Before It’s Too Late (2000)

Improving the quality of the math and science teaching force is the focus of this report.Emphasizing better preparation and professional development for teachers and a more competitive wage structure, the report sought to attract more teachers into the field, as well as retain them, while providing mechanisms to provide for continued growth and development.

A REVIEW OF OTHER REPORTS ON MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION AND THE TECHNICAL LABOR FORCE

There is continuing concern about theneed to improve student achievement inmath and science. Indeed, the very title of the2002 federal legislation for K-12 education —No Child Left Behind — captures theurgency felt by policymakers and the publicto place a new emphasis on quality publiceducation. But the title also suggests a funda-mental truth: averages and generalities, whileilluminating, can obscure important facts thatmay point to solutions.

The data presented in this chapter shouldbe familiar to those who work in the field ofmath and science education.† While the pic-ture of K-12 math and science education inAmerica is bleak in many ways, there are areasin which we are beginning to see someencouraging signs. Accordingly, this chapterwill present both a general and specific lookat math and science education. It will providedata about student achievement and othermeasures and offer some possible explana-tions for disappointing levels of student performance.

K-12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN MATH AND SCIENCE: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) — known as the “Nation’sReport Card” — measures student proficiencyin mathematics and science. NAEP has two

components. The first, developed in the early1970s and called “long-term trend NAEP,” isdesigned to measure progress over time. Thesecond, developed in the early 1990s andcalled “main NAEP,” measures current curric-ula and reflects the latest assessment method-ology. While results from the two componentscan not be directly compared, together theyprovide a rich database of information on stu-dent achievement nationwide.

The U.S. Department of Education admin-isters NAEP to a representative sample ofAmerican students at ages 9, 13, and 17 — corresponding to fourth, eighth, and twelfthgrade — about every four years. Long-termNAEP (measuring long-term progress) isreported by age whereas main NAEP (measuring proficiency) is reported by grade level. The two components generallyare not given in the same year.

Long-Term Trend NAEP ResultsThe long-term math assessment measures

students’ knowledge of basic facts and basicmeasurement formulas, ability to carry outnumerical procedures, and ability to applymathematics to skills of daily life.5 The scienceassessment focuses on students’ ability to conduct inquiries and solve problems andtheir knowledge of science content.6

The most recent long-term mathematicsand science NAEP assessment was adminis-tered in 1999. Results show that math and science scores have followed similar trajecto-ries: declines in the 1970s, increases in the1980s and early 1990s, followed by a levelingoff for the remainder of the 1990s. Students

10

Chapter 2

CHALLENGES IN K-12 MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

† References to “math and science education” throughout thisreport reflect ideas that are applicable to science, technolo-gy, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, courses at large.

in all age groups showed improvement inmathematics, with the 9-year-old cohort mak-ing the greatest strides. Results for sciencevaried with age; 9-year-old students showedimprovement in science scores, yet the scoresof their 13-year-old ‘siblings’ were unchangedover time and the scores of their 17-year-old‘siblings’ decreased. (See Figures 1 and 2 for the results.)

Analysis of long-term NAEP also yieldsinformation about a persistent achievementgap between minority and white students.Black students continue to achieve at lowerlevels in mathematics than their white coun-terparts, although the gap is narrowing. The gap between Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic students narrowed for 13- and 17-year-olds, but not for 9-year-olds. In sci-ence, the 9- and 13-year-old black studentsnarrowed the gap with their white peers,

whereas the gap between Hispanic and white,non-Hispanic students was unchanged.

Analysis by gender yielded some promisingresults: in 1999, males and females performedat comparable levels in math for the first timesince the long-term testing began. Although13- and 17-year-old males outperformedfemales in science, the gap among the olderstudents also narrowed for the first time. Maleand female 9-year-old scores in science werestatistically comparable.7

Thus, while there are important generalconcerns about student performance in mathand science, long-term NAEP results containsome positive news as well.

Main NAEP Proficiency LevelsTo establish what students should know,

main NAEP defined proficiency levels andthen tested to see whether they were being

11

Challenges in K-12 Math and Science Education

Figure 1

Long-Term NAEP Scores forMathematics, 1973-1999

320

300

280

260

240

220

200 ___________________________________________________________

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1999Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Academic Performance,NCES 2000-469 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, August 2000), Figure 1.1.

● ● ●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

■

▲

■

▲

304

266

219

307

273

230

308

276

232

Age 17

Age 13

Age 9

●

■

▲

Figure 2

Long-Term NAEP Scores for Science, 1970-1999

320

300

280

260

240

220

200 ___________________________________________________________

1970 1973 1977 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1999Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Academic Performance,NCES 2000-469 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, August 2000), Figure 1.1.

●● ●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■

▲

●

■ ■

▲

●

■

▲

● ●

■

▲

■

▲

■

▲ ▲

305

255

225

295

256

229

Age 17

Age 13

Age 9

●

■

▲

achieved. The most recent administration ofmain NAEP, in 2000, found that 74 percent offourth graders, 72 percent of eighth graders,and 83 percent of twelfth graders scored at‘basic’ (the minimum standard of achieve-ment) or ‘below basic’ in math. In science, 71 percent of fourth graders, 68 percent ofeighth graders and 81 percent of twelfthgraders scored ‘basic’ or ‘below basic.’ (SeeFigures 3 and 4.) Such levels of understand-ing, as defined in Table 1, will certainly notsupport success for these students in theirnext higher math or science course, or forusing math and science skills in their futurework lives.

Equally disappointing, the science assess-ment in 2000 showed that substantial gapsbetween the performance of white and blackstudents, as well as between white andHispanic students, remain at all three gradelevels. Fourth and eighth grade males contin-ue to outperform their female peers in sci-ence. (It should be noted that the fourthgrade data regarding gender disparities areinconsistent, as the main NAEP assessmentdemonstrates an increase in the gap from the

last assessment, while the long-term NAEPscores show a decrease.)

But there is some reason for optimismfrom the 2000 results on main NAEP. Mathstudents in fourth, eighth and twelfth gradehad higher average scores in 2000 than in1990. Indeed, fourth and eighth grade stu-


Figure 3

NAEP Mathematics Achievement Levels by Grade – 2000

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000, NCES 2001-517 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, August 2001), Figure 2.2. Numbers do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

35%Grade

12 48% 14% 2%

34%Grade

8 38% 22% 5%

31%Grade

4 43% 23% 3%

12

Table 1

Achievement Level Policy Definitions

Advanced: Superior performance.

Proficient: Solid academic performance for eachgrade assessed. Students reaching thislevel have demonstrated competencyover challenging subject matter,including subject-matter knowledge,application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skillsappropriate to the subject matter.

Basic: Partial mastery of prerequisite knowl-edge and skills that are fundamentalfor proficient work at each grade.

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, The NAEPMathematics Achievement Levels, (August 2002), available at <http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieve.asp>.Accessed April 2, 2003.

Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced

dents demonstrated consistent progress inmath through the decade whereas twelfthgrade students improved between 1990 and1996, but lost ground between 1996 and2000. Science results are less promising,although between 1996 and 2000, the per-centage of eighth graders performing at the‘basic’ level decreased with a correspondingincrease in the percentage performing at proficient or advanced.

K-12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT INMATH AND SCIENCE: A STATEPERSPECTIVE

For states that choose to participate, repre-sentative samples of students take the mainNAEP test, so that an analysis is available on astate-by-state basis. In the two tables of mathresults that follow, the proficiency levels ofstudents in fourth and eighth grade are pre-sented in bands for each state and comparedto national scores. Put together in this man-ner, one can clearly see the uneven perfor-mance across states. (See Figures 5 and 6.)

Since education remains the responsibilityof the state, results on state-administeredassessments are illuminating. Indeed, in our2000 report, Measuring What Matters, CEDargued for a system of assessment andaccountability as part of a larger program forimproving education in America.8 Relevantresults from California, Massachusetts, andVirginia are briefly described below.

• The Class of 2004 must pass the CaliforniaHigh School Exit Exam to receive diplomas. After taking the test in theirsophomore year, 52 percent passed themathematics portion.9 (Students have six additional opportunities to pass theassessment.) Analyzing the data forracial/ethnic groups show that “black andHispanic students had the highest rate offailure this year [for math, reading, andwriting], with only 28 percent of black stu-dents and 30 percent of Hispanic studentspassing. On the other hand, 70 percent ofAsian students and 65 percent of white students passed the test.”10

13


Figure 4

NAEP Science Achievement Levels by Grade – 2000

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Science Highlights 2000, NCES 2002-452 (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2002), p. 2. Numbers do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

47%Grade

12 34% 16% 2%

39%Grade

8 29% 28% 4%

34%Grade

4 37% 26% 4%


14


ConnecticutIndiana†

Massachusetts Minnesota†

Idaho†

Illinois†

Iowa†

Kansas†

Maine†

MarylandMichigan†

MissouriMontana†

NATIONNebraska

New York†

North CarolinaNorth Dakota

Ohio†

Oregon†

Rhode IslandTexasUtah

Vermont†

VirginiaWyoming

AlabamaArizona

ArkansasCalifornia†

District of ColumbiaGeorgiaHawaii

KentuckyLouisiana

MississippiNevada

New MexicoOklahoma

South CarolinaTennessee

West Virginia

ConnecticutIndiana†

MassachusettsMinnesota†

Idaho†

Illinois†

Iowa†

Kansas†

Maine†

MarylandMichigan†

MissouriMontana†

NATIONNebraskaNew York†

North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio†

Oregon†

Rhode IslandTexasUtahVermont†

VirginiaWyoming

AlabamaArizonaArkansasCalifornia†

District of ColumbiaGeorgiaHawaiiKentuckyLouisianaMississippiNevadaNew MexicoOklahomaSouth CarolinaTennesseeWest Virginia


23 45 29 322 48 28

21 45 30

HIGHER THAN NATION

3

22 44 31 3

29 49 20

NOT DIFFERENT FROM NATION

3

134 44 20 222 50 26 2

25 46 27 326 50 22 2

39 39 20 228 43 26 3

28 49 22 227 48 23 2

33 42 22 233 43 22 2

33 45 20 224 48 25 3

25 50 23 227 48 24 233 44 21 333 44 21 223 50 25 230 46 22 2

27 44 24 427 47 23 227 48 23 2

43 13 138 14 1

19 5 117 1

116 1

43 43 13 155 36 939 44 1540 39 11 1

31 53 16 1 40 42 16

49 1

43 43 13 1

LOWER THAN NATION

42 242 15

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent Basic and below Basic Percent Proficient and Advanced

4448

7642

4540 43

41 13

▲

1

40

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000, NCES 2001-517 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education, August 2001), Figure 2.10.† Indicates that the jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.▲ Percentage is between 0.0 and 0.5.NOTE: Numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Figure 5

Mathematics Achievement Level Results by State at Grade 4 Public Schools: 2000

2 40 42 17 1

1732

15


SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000, NCES 2001-517 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education, August 2001), Figure 2.11.† Indicates that the jurisdiction did not meet one or more of the guidelines for school participation.NOTE: Numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Connecticut Indiana†Kansas†Maine†

Massachusetts Minnesota†

Montana†Nebraska

North Carolina North Dakota

Ohio Oregon †Vermont†

Idaho†Illinois†

Maryland Michigan†NATION

New York†Rhode Island

TexasUtah

VirginiaWyoming

AlabamaArizona†Arkansas

California†District of Columbia

GeorgiaHawaii

KentuckyLouisiana

MississippiNevada

MissouriNew Mexico

OklahomaSouth Carolina

TennesseeWest Virginia

ConnecticutIndiana†Kansas†Maine†MassachusettsMinnesota†Montana†NebraskaNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOregon †Vermont†

Idaho†Illinois†MarylandMichigan†NATIONNew York†Rhode IslandTexasUtahVirginiaWyoming

AlabamaArizona†ArkansasCalifornia†District of ColumbiaGeorgiaHawaiiKentuckyLouisianaMississippiNevadaMissouriNew MexicoOklahomaSouth CarolinaTennesseeWest Virginia


28 38 2824 45 26

23 43 30

HIGHER THAN NATION

5

24 44 26 624 43 27 5

20 4020 43 32

4

76

26 43 26 530 40 24 6

23 46 27 425 45 26 5

29 40 26 625 43 26 6

630 41 24 535 38 21 5

32 42 22 435 41 20 4

32 44 22 332 42 23 333 21 5

30 45 21 4

48 36 14 2

37 16 314 2

42 31

12

42 39 1750 36 12

36 46 17 2 45 37 1547 36 15

38 44 16

38 41 16 348 1

LOWER THAN NATION

33 1348 334 15

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent Basic and below Basic Percent Proficient and Advanced

774548

375259 33

3618

11

21

36

2

6

NOT DIFFERENT FROM NATION

42

5 1

2

2

17

7

33

Figure 6

Mathematics Achievement Level Results by State at Grade 8 Public Schools: 2000

33 45 19

29 44 24 34136

2322

435

32

• Public school students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 took the MassachusettsComprehensive Assessment System(MCAS) in the spring of 2002. MCASresults have risen steadily over the fiveyears that the system has been in place.This year, in grade 10, the percentage ofstudents reaching the ‘proficient’ and‘advanced’ level in mathematics (asdefined by the state) increased 20 points,while 25 percent ‘failed’ the test. Studentsin grades 4 and 6 improved slightly, buteighth graders worsened a bit over previ-ous administrations of the assessment.Racial/ethnic analysis of 2002 mathemat-ics results, when compared to 2001 results,yielded improved performance for“[black] students in grades 6 and 8, Asianstudents in grades 4, 6, and 10, Hispanicstudents in grade 6, Native American stu-dents in grade 4, and for white students ingrades 4 and 6.”11

• Before graduation, Virginia requires students to pass a series of assessments,called the Standards of Learning (SOL).In the 2002 administration of end-of-course assessments:

– The percentage of students passing theAlgebra I test rose to 78 percent, com-pared with pass rates of 74 percent in2001 and 40 percent in 1998.

– Achievement on the Algebra II test alsoincreased in 2002. Seventy-seven per-cent of the students who took theAlgebra II test passed, compared with74 percent in 2001 and 31 percent in1998.

– The percentage of students passing thegeometry test rose to 76 percent in2002, compared with pass rates of 73percent in 2001 and 52 percent in 1998.

– Students achieved pass rates of 83 per-cent on the biology test, 70 percent inearth science, and 78 percent in chem-istry in contrast to 2001 pass rates of 81

percent in biology, 73 percent in earthscience, and 74 percent in chemistry.12

The data presented for California,Massachusetts and Virginia demonstrate thesuccess of a focused response to the problemof poor student achievement and can providea model for other states. It is critical, however,that state assessments are of high quality,especially with the requirements of No ChildLeft Behind. In fact, Massachusetts is one of ahandful of states to improve student perfor-mance on their own assessments, while simultaneously improving on NAEP.

K-12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN MATH AND SCIENCE: ANINTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

International comparisons of student success in math and science are intended toreflect how successfully a nation educates itsyouth. But they also reveal the prospects forthe skilled labor force 20 or 30 years hence.

Limits of International ComparisonsAlthough international comparisons help

shed light on the relative strengths of educa-tion systems worldwide, their results must beinterpreted in light of their inevitable short-comings. These studies have made greatstrides over the years to standardize the testsand procedures across all nations, but perfectstandardization is impossible. There may beproblems with the cohort selected, especiallyamong older students. While a significantmajority of U.S. students attend schoolthrough twelfth grade, in a number of othercountries, students have chosen a path totechnical schools or apprenticeships by thatage and therefore, are not included in thepool of students being assessed.

Nonetheless, the results of these compar-isons are valuable. A better understanding ofthe characteristics of the educational systemsin those nations that consistently score wellcan and should inform U.S. policy.

16


TIMSSThe first comparative study of student

achievement in math worldwide — known asthe First International Math Study (FIMS) —occurred in the 1960s; the second occurredin the 1980s (SIMS). The most comprehen-sive study of international student perfor-mance in math and science — the ThirdInternational Mathematics and Science Study— was administered in 1995 (TIMSS) and1999 (TIMSS-Repeat). U.S. students have con-sistently performed disappointingly, scoringonly at the average level or less in these inter-national comparisons. Certainly, the U.S. hasled and helped usher in a global revolution inscientific learning and discovery. Thus, oureducation system has produced sufficientmathematical and scientific talent to fuel thisrevolution. But, other nations, recognizingmath and science education as the key to eco-nomic health and improvement in the way oflife, have been putting more emphasis onmath and science education than the U.S.

TIMSS assessed students essentially atthree grade levels — fourth, eighth andtwelfth — and involved 41 countries. (Not allcountries participated at all three levels.) U.S.fourth graders scored only slightly above theinternational average in math and near thetop in science. Eighth graders were onlyslightly above the international average in science and below the average in math. ButAmerican twelfth graders scored at the verybottom of the international ratings. More trou-bling, the twelfth grade sample did notinclude the nations of southeast Asia, whichare often pointed to as countries that havemade great strides in increasing the scientificliteracy of their populations and the capabili-ties of their labor forces.

In other words, the longer American stu-dents stayed in school and studied these disci-plines, the less favorably they compared withstudents in other countries. From TIMSS, wealso learned that “…mathematics and sciencecurricula in U.S. high schools lack coherence,

depth, and continuity; they cover too manytopics in a superficial way.”13 U.S. researchersinvolved in the TIMSS study assessed ourmath curriculum, in comparison to othercountries, as “a mile wide and an inch deep.”The rigor and pace of U.S. courses is similarlysuspect. And, “topics on the general knowl-edge (TIMSS) twelfth grade mathematicsassessment were covered by the ninth gradein the U.S., but by seventh grade in mostother countries. In the general (TIMSS) science assessment, topics in the U.S. werecovered by the eleventh grade, but by ninthgrade in other countries.”14

TIMSS-RThirty-eight nations participated in

TIMSS-R in 1999, which focused only oneighth grade math and science.† The studycontains a significant amount of data, onlysome of which has been made public to date.Among its findings were:

• U.S. eighth graders exceeded the interna-tional average in math and science,echoing the earlier TIMSS results at thisgrade level.

• Eighth grade performance in 1995 and1999 showed no change. This was true innearly all of the 23 nations that participat-ed in both studies.

• The performance of U.S. eighth graders in1999 was lower relative to other nationsthan the performance had been of thesame cohort of students four years earlierin TIMSS. That is, students in othernations learned more mathematics and science in the intervening years between1995 and 1999 than did U.S. students.

• U.S. students were less likely than theirinternational peers to be taught by ateacher who had earned a bachelor’s or

17


† There were important differences between the TIMSS and TIMSS-R participants. Several Europeancountries did not join TIMSS-R, while many develop-ing countries did. The highest scoring TIMSS nationsdid, however, participate in TIMSS-R.

master’s degree in math. But U.S. studentswere as likely as their international peersto be taught by a teacher with a major inbiology, chemistry, or science education.

• There was no gender difference in themath achievement scores of U.S. male andfemale students, whereas eighth grademales outperformed eighth grade girls inscience.15

• Preliminary analysis of videotapes ofeighth grade math classrooms in sevencountries, including the U.S., showsimportant differences in the way thatlessons were structured and how contentwas presented to and worked on by students. The other six nations surveyedoutperformed the U.S. on TIMSS.16

Another portion of TIMSS-R, known as thebenchmarking study, had 27 states, districtsand consortia of districts in the U.S. voluntari-ly participate in the TIMSS-R assessment.Once again, greater detail yielded importantresults. Some localities, such as NapervilleSchool District #203 and the First in theWorld Consortium, both in Illinois, kept pacewith the top-performing nations, despite thelackluster national performance. And otherU.S. districts, recognizing the high probabilityof poor results, still chose to participate sothat they would be armed with data to guidetheir improvement efforts.17

PISAAnother study, the Program for Inter-

national Student Assessment (PISA), orga-nized by the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) andconducted in 2000, examines the test resultsof 15-year-olds (approximately 10th grade) inOECD countries. This survey found that U.S.students perform at a level equivalent to theinternational mean in math and science literacy. The study, which included readingproficiency, also found that more nations outpace U.S. students in math and scienceproficiency than do so in reading.18

WHAT MIGHT ACCOUNT FORUNEVEN PERFORMANCE IN K-12MATH AND SCIENCE?

In a nation that produced a Barbie dollwho complained about the difficulty of learn-ing mathematics and ridicules math and sci-ence in the comic pages, it is small wonderthat there is a culture of acceptance and evenexpectation about low performance in thesefields. There are many possible explanationsfor this perspective.

Disinterested Students

Students who are not interested in a topicwill not seek to excel in it. According to a student survey accompanying the main NAEPassessment, 70 percent of fourth gradersresponded positively to the statement “I likemath,” but only 47 percent of twelfth gradersreplied in the affirmative. Students who enjoymath performed better on the assessment, atall levels.19

There has also been a decrease in interestover time among twelfth graders, or thosewho will most immediately choose to pursuescience or engineering degrees in college. In 1990, a majority of twelfth graders had afavorable opinion of math. This numberdeclined in each of the next three assess-ments, with the fall between 1996 and 2000coming at a statistically significant level.Similarly unsettling is the trend in studentattitudes with regards to the usefulness ofmathematics. Only 61 percent of twelfthgraders in 2000 agreed with the statementthat “math is useful for solving problems,”down from 73 percent in 1990.20 The ramifi-cations of this change are not entirely clear,but greater numbers of students may be lessinclined to consider science or engineeringdegrees in college as a result.

Media perceptions of scientists and engi-neers may be partly to blame. A report pub-lished by the Congressional Commission on

18


the Advancement of Women and Minoritiesin Science, Engineering, and TechnologicalDevelopment argued that media images of scientists, even in the context of the technology boom, played a significant nega-tive role in forming children’s attitudestowards math and science.21

The disinterest of American students con-trasts sharply with that of their peers world-wide. The Brown Center on Education Policysurveyed American high school studentsstudying abroad and their international coun-terparts studying in America, to identify anyattitudinal differences towards math. Surveyresults from both groups showed studentsabroad value math more than American students. While 37 percent of American stu-dents studying abroad responded that stu-dents in their host country valued math more(against 25 percent saying that it was valuedmore in America), 45 percent of internationalstudents agreed with the proposition thatmath was valued more in their home country. Only 14 percent of international studentsstudying in the U.S. felt that math was valuedmore by American students.22

The cultural context of this data is also aconsideration. In an international survey ofstudents in 37 countries, Japanese studentsranked 36th in regard to “students’ interestin and enjoyment of math,” a trend demon-strated by other high achieving countries aswell.23 But even though they do not “enjoy”math, Japanese students still rank at the topin international assessments. A possibleexplanation is that Japanese students havebeen imbued with a sense of the importanceof mathematics to their daily lives, as suggest-ed by the Brown Center study mentionedabove. Current reform efforts in Japan areattempting to increase the lackluster studentinterest in math and science by making thecurriculum more interactive, in a mannersimilar to that prescribed for Americanschools in this report.24

Low ExpectationsA national sample of fourth and eighth

grade teachers was recently polled about the mathematics and science topics their students were expected to master, amongother things.25 The results suggest that expec-tations are low. Fourth grade teachers, forexample, expect their students to master basic operations with two- and three-digitnumbers. But a third of these teachers expectthat less than half of their students would beable to compare fractions with like and unlikedenominators. This attitude is mirroredamong eighth grade math teachers. High percentages of teachers expect students tomaster the “basics of middle school,” such assolutions of one-step linear equations or cal-culation of means and medians, but the per-centages fall significantly with more complexmiddle school content such as convertingfrom one unit of measure to another. Sciencefared no better. Among the eighth grade sci-ence teachers queried, for example, one infive thought that none of their students wouldknow the general form, function, and loca-tion of the major organ systems of humans.

Differential expectations take many forms.Research has shown that teachers pose moreroutine math questions to their female stu-dents than their male students.26 Similarly,teachers give less time for low achievers torespond to questions than to high achievers.They criticize low achievers more often forfailure and dole out praise for success withless frequency.

A corollary to low expectations is the beliefthat some classes are only for a talented few.The Council of Great City Schools,† in collab-

19


† The Council of Great City Schools is comprised of onehundred urban districts, of more than 16,800 districtsnationwide, serves 23 percent of the nation’s students,including 40 percent of American minority studentsand 30 percent of those who are disadvantaged eco-nomically.

oration with the Manpower DemonstrationResearch Center, recently released case stud-ies of three urban districts. Faculty in thesedistricts acknowledged a tendency to reducetheir achievement expectations of minorityand low-income students in the lower grades.At the high school level, these same studentswere underrepresented in college preparatoryand/or Advanced Placement (AP) courses.Indeed, schools with very high minorityenrollment offered such coursesinfrequently.27 This lack of availability presentsa significant obstacle for continued advance-ment in math and science courses.28

Teaching Knowledge and MethodsThere is a growing body of research sup-

porting the relationship between teachingquality and higher student achievement.29

Not surprisingly, students of highly qualifiedteachers have significant learning advantages.In this case, ‘highly qualified’ is defined asteachers having an undergraduate major orminor in the field in which they are assignedto teach.

A study by the Center for the Study ofTeaching found that two factors were mostconsistently and powerfully linked with stu-dent success — teaching certification and acollege major in the field being taught.30

Main NAEP, administered in 2000 in mathe-matics, found that a teacher with an under-graduate degree in mathematics educationled to an increase of 6 points for both fourthand eighth graders.31 Results for the 2000main NAEP in science were similar; there is a statistically significant difference in the science achievement of eighth gradersbetween those taught by instructors with undergraduate degrees in science and thosewho were not.32

These differences are of greater concernwhen considered in the light of a recent study— Qualifications of the Public School TeacherWorkforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching in1987-88 to 1999-2000 — that reports that 69percent of middle school students enrolled in

math are taught by teachers who neithermajored in math in college nor are certifiedto teach math at that level.33 About 60 percentof middle school students enrolled in biologyor life sciences find themselves taught byteachers who are similarly ‘out-of-field.’ Thesame report noted that 93 percent of middleschool students enrolled in physical scienceare taught by ‘out-of-field’ teachers.

The situation in high school is only a littlebetter. At least 60 percent of high school stu-dents enrolled in physical science — includ-ing chemistry, geology/earth/space science,and physics — have teachers without a majoror certification in the subject taught. Forty-five percent of high school students enrolledin biology or life science and about 30 per-cent of those enrolled in math have ‘out-of-field’ teachers.34

This problem is even worse for predomi-nantly minority and poor schools: more than70 percent of middle-grade math classes aretaught by teachers who lack even a collegeminor in the field.35 In fact, a 2000 surveyreported that more than 90 percent of 40large urban schools that responded to the survey had an immediate need for a certifiedmath or science teacher.36

Elementary school teachers are drawn toteaching careers for many reasons, but anaffinity for math and science is not often oneof them. Despite good intentions, the qualityof instruction in these two disciplines is oftenlacking. Many middle school teachers have K-8 certification; that is, they earned onlythree or six undergraduate credits in mathand/or science, which is an inadequateknowledge base for the content slated formiddle school math and science courses.

Problems with the CurriculumThree recent reports have acknowledged

the poor quality of curricular materials as one of the problems confronting math andscience education. Project 2061, organized by the American Association for theAdvancement of Science, reviewed middle

20


grade math and science textbooks againsttheir own benchmarks for quality textbooks.The results were dismal: only a few math text-books scored at an acceptable level, while noscience textbooks gained Project 2061’s impri-matur.37

The National Research Council’s reporton math education, Adding It Up: HelpingChildren Learn Mathematics, (a companionreport on science is forthcoming) points to the need for an interactive curriculum,instead of the current “shallow” curriculumthat emphasizes “the execution of pencil-and-paper skills…through demonstrations…followed by repeated practice.”38

Research conducted by William Schmidt,the U.S. National Coordinator for TIMSS,demonstrated that the top achieving countrieshave coherent, focused and demanding cur-ricula, whereas the U.S. curriculum is disorga-nized and focused too long on basic skills.39

Aging of the Teaching ForceLike many sectors of the labor force,

significant numbers of teachers are nearing

retirement. Recent estimates suggest that two-thirds of the K-12 teaching force willretire or otherwise leave the profession in thenext ten years.40 Yet, 53 million young peopleare enrolled in elementary and secondaryschools in this country, the most ever. Thispopulation growth trend will not abate soon.Experts predict that by 2020, there will be 55million young people (aged 5-17) in America,with the growth rate continuing throughoutthis century.41

Among math and science teachers, thenumber of those nationwide over the age of50 continued to rise through the 1990s. (SeeFigure 7.) Connecticut had the largest per-centage, with 44 percent of math and scienceteachers over age 50 in 2000. Only NewJersey, among the 27 states reporting data,showed a decrease in this measure.42 Hence,even as more teachers will be needed tomatch the population growth, more teacherswill be eligible for retirement. The challengehas greater impact than ‘just a shortage,’since fewer experienced teachers will be avail-able to mentor newcomers to the profession.

21


Figure 7

Percentage of Math and Science Teachers over the Age of 50, 1990-2000

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% 1990 1994 1998 2000

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 2001 (Washington, D.C.:Council of Chief State School Officers, 2001), p. 83.

■ Math ■ Biology ■ Chemistry ■ Physics

Retention of Qualified TeachersAt the same time, 18 of the 27 states

reported an increase in the percentage ofteachers under the age of 30. While youngpeople entering the teaching profession isheartening, other data demonstrates thattheir professional tenure may be limited.

By the time new math and science teach-ers have been in the profession for threeyears, a third of them have left the field. Twoyears later, another 13 percent of the initialgroup has left the profession.43 (See Figure 8.)Although this revolving door may slow some-what with the current downturn in the econo-my, there is no reason to believe that thechange will be permanent. Thus, the annualinflux of new teachers replaces those retiring,but makes little impact on the shortage ofqualified teachers. Much of the teaching bur-den is then left to inexperienced teachers.

Moreover, such turnover is expensive.Estimates for the losses absorbed by Texasdue to teacher turnover (where the 15.5 per-cent rate of annual turnover is slightly higherthan the national average) are conservativelyestimated at $329 million annually for teach-ers in all fields. More complex models thatinclude factors such as the additional trainingand learning curve setback yield losses as highas $2.1 billion a year.44

The challenge of retention is not limitedto new and nearly retired teachers, however.Research suggests that the turnover rateamong teachers is higher than among manyother professions. Teachers cite “job dissatis-faction” in significant numbers as a main rea-son for leaving the field. Two-thirds identifylow salaries as the source of the dissatisfac-

tion; other factors included a lack of adminis-trative support, student discipline problemsand a lack of student motivation. For mathand science teachers, salary and student motivation are the key factors in dissatisfac-tion, with twice as many citing student motiva-tion as a problem, as compared to the generalpopulation of teachers.45

New levels of student interest cannot bemandated, nor an end to the flow of teachersfrom the classroom decreed. We believe, how-ever, that a well-conceived and implementedplan of action, taking into account these data,has great potential for positive impact.

22


Figure 7Figure 8

Cumulative Attrition for Beginning Teachers

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

SOURCE: Richard M. Ingersoll, “The Teacher Shortage: ACase of Wrong Diagnosis and Wrong Prescription,” NASSPBulletin, vol. 86, no. 631 (2002), pp. 16-31.

After 1 yr. 14%

24%

After 3 yrs. 33%

40%

After 5 yrs. 46%

The important role of K-12 education increating a scientifically literate society cannotbe overstated. Equally important in maintain-ing the pipeline for scientists and engineersis education at the undergraduate level. Theeconomy’s continued expansion requires aninfusion of science and engineering talent,including that of trained scientists and engi-neers as well as the improvement of technicalskills throughout the workforce, and thatinfusion will have to come from America’scolleges and universities.

While the total number of bachelor’sdegrees conferred in the United Statesincreased over the past 20 years, most areasof science and engineering saw a decline.The proportional decline in the UnitedStates far outpaced that of our internationalcompetitors, who continue to emphasizemath and science skills as an integral part ofeducation.

Currently, American firms are scramblingabroad to find talent, and will soon be facedwith a new wave of retirements as the babyboomers, educated during the post-Sputnikrise in interest in science and engineering,exit the labor force. The most desirable tech-nical jobs that are being created are goodjobs, with relatively high salaries. Without theproper science and engineering training, alarge percentage of young people, especiallywomen and underrepresented minorities,will miss out on a major component of theopportunity America offers. Though under-graduate and labor market issues could easilyfill chapters of their own, we address them

here together to demonstrate our beliefthese areas are interrelated and that signalsin one market can have an important impacton the other.

REDUCTIONS IN THE NUMBEROF UNDERGRADUATES INSCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

After the launch of Sputnik and within thecontext of the Cold War, the federal govern-ment instituted an array of programs toincrease the number of graduates withdegrees in science and engineering fields.This influx of talent helped fuel the econom-ic growth that the United States experiencedduring the latter half of the 20th century.However, that cohort of scientists and engi-neers will be retiring soon. Our colleges anduniversities are not producing enough scien-tists and engineers to meet the additionallabor needs of an increasingly technologicalsociety.

During the period 1985-2000, the numberof bachelor’s degrees conferred in most sci-ence and engineering fields stagnated or fell,despite the general growth in the number ofbachelor’s degrees awarded annually. Thelone exception has been strong increases inthe biological sciences, particularly in bio-medical fields. Yet despite the dramaticgrowth in biology degrees over the past fif-teen years, it still comprises a smaller share ofall degrees granted than it did in 1975 (7.1percent).46 Otherwise, all other fields of sci-ence and engineering have failed to keep up

23

Chapter 3

UNDERGRADUATE AND LABOR MARKET ISSUES

with the general growth in the number ofbachelor’s degrees awarded each year. For thefields of engineering and mathematics, theselosses are significant. (See Table 2.)

Newly released data show that the field ofcomputer science, however, may be making acomeback. After peaking with over 42,000bachelor’s degrees conferred in 1986, com-puter science suffered a steady decline. By1992, that number fell to 24,958, a range itmaintained until the late 1990s; then, aftersmaller increases in 1997 and 1998, the num-ber of bachelor’s degrees conferred in com-puter science increased almost 35 percentbetween 1998 and 2000. It is too early to callthis increase a “trend,” nor is similar growthreflected in any of the other sciences.However, this could be an example of signal-

ing between the labor market and undergrad-uate students who are choosing a field ofstudy, as well as the costly lag that accompa-nies such a reaction to employment trends.Providing students with a better sense offuture trends, such as those discussed below,would allow for improved synchronizationbetween the two markets. It should also benoted that men outnumbered women in the2000 undergraduate cohort by more thantwo-to-one, a ratio that has increased since1986.

Minorities and Women in Science and Engineering

The total number of bachelor’s degreesgranted to minority students has beenincreasing throughout the past 25 years.47

24


Table 2

Earned Bachelor’s Degrees by Field, 1985-2000% of all Degrees

1985 2000 % Change 1985 2000

All Bachelor’s Degrees, All Fields 990,877 1,253,121 26% 100% 100%Total Science & Engineering* 207,240 210,434 2% 20.9% 16.8%

Natural Sciences 75,158 101,775 35% 7.6% 8.1%Biological and Agricultural 51,312 83,148 62% 5.2% 6.6%Earth/atmospheric/ocean Sciences 7,576 4,047 -47% 0.8% 0.3%Physical Sciences 16,270 14,580 -10% 1.6% 1.2%

Chemistry 10,701 10,390 -3% 1.1% 0.8%Physics 4,111 3,362 -18% 0.4% 0.3%

Mathematics and Computer Sciences 54,510 49,123 -10% 5.5% 3.9%Mathematics 15,389 11,735 -24% 1.6% 0.9%Computer Science 39,121 37,388 -4% 3.9% 3.0%

Engineering, All 77,572 59,536 -23% 7.8% 4.8%Chemical 8,941 6,219 -30% 0.9% 0.5%Civil 9,730 9,596 -1% 1.0% 0.8%Electrical 23,668 17,672 -25% 2.4% 1.4%Industrial 4,009 3,937 -2% 0.4% 0.3%Mechanical 17,200 13,109 -24% 1.7% 1.0%

Engineering Technologies 20,476 14,825** -28% 2.1% 1.2%

* = Does not include social and behavioral sciences.**=1998SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2000 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation,2002); data for “Engineering technologies” from National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators: 2002, NSB 02-01(Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2002), Appendix Table 2-16.

Many of these students are the first in theirfamily to attend college. This matriculation isa success that should be built upon withencouragement to pursue careers in scienceand engineering.

Currently, high achieving minority andfemale students tend to move away fromopportunities in science and engineering.Citing poor teaching in previous math andscience courses, a lack of support and a lackof confidence in their ability to succeed in sci-ence and engineering, black and Hispanicstudents with high grade point averages andSAT scores typically do not pursue degrees inscience and engineering.48 Women, whilereaching similar levels of achievement in secondary school as men, also shy away fromscience and engineering fields in their under-graduate work.

Some progress, albeit uneven, is beingmade. According to the National ActionCouncil for Minorities in Engineering(NACME), the enrollment of minorities intoengineering was at its highest level ever in2001; more than 15,000 minority first-year stu-dents enrolled as engineering majors, eclips-ing the previous standard set in 1992.49

However, the NACME report also noted that,as a portion of the total freshman classenrolling in engineering majors, the proportion of minorities fell from its 2000 levels.50

The long-term trend (starting from 1971)shows an increased participation of blacks inscience and engineering, though it has slowedover the past decade. The percentage of first-year black students intending to major in sci-ence and engineering fields, as a proportionof all first year students intending to major inscience and engineering, increased fromroughly 6 percent in 1971 to 11.7 percent in1988.51 The proportion has remained slightlybelow that figure since then, coming in at11.5 percent in 2000.

Hispanic students, meanwhile, have madesignificant gains in this area. During the last

three decades, the proportion of incomingfirst year Hispanic students intending tomajor in science and engineering fieldsincreased fourteen-fold. Yet, Hispanic stu-dents represent only 7.1 percent of theincoming class in 2000, compared to the 17.4 percent of the total population of 18- to24-year-olds that is of Hispanic origin.52

The number of women selecting majors in science and engineering (including behav-ioral sciences) has increased over time,although the rate of growth also slowed inthe 1990s.53

While improving enrollment data is a necessary first step, success depends on anincrease in the number of degrees actuallyconferred. Overall, less than 40 percent ofstudents who enter college planning to majorin science or engineering graduates with adegree in that field within six years. Forunderrepresented minorities, less than one-quarter of entering science and engineeringstudents do so.54 Women also move out of science and engineering fields at an aboveaverage level.

Possible Explanations for the Decline inTotal Science and Engineering Degrees

Many of the reasons for this decline wereexplored in Chapter 2. It is no surprise thatstudents, with only a mediocre mastery ofmath and science in middle and high school,shy away from math- and science-dependentmajors in college. They are not drawn tothese majors and do not think of themselvesas adept in the necessary knowledge andskills to succeed. Among those who do goforward, there is a new set of obstacles. Theobstacles can be formidable since, by theirsophomore year, a third of students intent onmajoring in science and engineering havedropped out of those fields.55

One problem may arise from the gradingpolicies of science and engineering depart-ments. It is well documented that science andengineering faculty members grade their

25


students more critically than their colleaguesin the humanities. In part this reflects poorpreparation: students receive low scores incollege because they do not have the toolsand knowledge to succeed in undergraduatecourses. Faculty should not inflate grades tomake students feel better; they do have anobligation, however, to encourage and helpstudents seek remediation. Large numbers offailing students should not be viewed as anacceptable outcome.

Comparing grades in different depart-ments at seven colleges, researchers RichardSabot and John Wakemann-Linn found “lowscoring” departments award a third fewer “A”sthan “high scoring” departments, and “lowscoring” departments are twice as likely togive grades below a “B-,” with some 40 per-cent of grades falling in that second catego-ry.56 Chemistry and math are among the “lowscoring” departments, while no science orengineering departments appear on the“high scoring” list.

Researchers at Duke University performeda similar study during the 1998-1999 schoolyear. This study found that the difference inthe mean grade given by Duke faculty wasalmost a half a letter grade, from an averageof 3.54 in humanities to 3.05 in the naturalsciences and math.57

Students’ low grades in science and engi-neering courses can have an impact on theirfuture course choice. The Duke Universitystudy found that these grade differentialscould lead to as much as a 50 percent reduc-tion in the number of elective courses stu-dents take in the natural sciences or math.58

Thus, students who may have the potential tobecome successful scientists and engineersare being driven away prematurely.

Equally problematic is the quality of theinstruction and nature of the curriculum inintroductory courses. Students who intendedto major in science and engineering oftenpoint to the quality of instruction in their

first classes as reasons for leaving.59 A recentstudy by the National Research Councilfound that most faculty members who teachundergraduate courses have received littletraining in classroom instruction or grad-ing.60

The vertical structure of the science andengineering curriculum also creates draw-backs for those who are undecided as to amajor. Since many departments view thesecourses simply as content-heavy prerequisitesfor advanced classes, they often turn into “lita-nies of facts,” with little connection to thebroader scientific context or other fields ofstudy.61 Instead of acting as a “pull” into sci-ence and engineering departments, theseclasses then become a filter, with faculty focus-ing on those who show obvious potential andinterest in science and engineering, insteadof attempting to increase student interestacross the board.

International ComparisonsMany nations currently produce a higher

proportion of science and engineeringundergraduates than the United States. Andwhile these nations increase the number oftheir scientists and engineers, the number inthe United States continues to decline. (SeeFigures 9 and 10.)

Putting the data presented in these two figures in context demonstrates the dramaticdecline the United States has seen in its cre-ation of science and engineering majors.While the United States still has one of thehighest rates of total first university degreesamong its 24-year-old population (currentlyover 35 percent), that is no longer a uniqueadvantage, in which increased numbers ofstudents pursuing degrees would allowspillover into science and engineering. InFigure 9, the U.S. is fourteenth in the shareof the population receiving science and engi-neering degrees; in 1975, it was third. Figure10 illustrates the rapidity of this decline.

26


IMPLICATIONS FOR THEPROFESSIONAL TECHNICALLABOR MARKET

Currently, our colleges and universities arestruggling to meet the needs of the domesticeconomy for technically skilled workers.

Expanding the Labor Force to Meet theNeeds of a Dynamic Economy

During the expansions of the 1980s and1990s, the number of science and engineer-ing jobs increased 159 percent.62 That growthled employers to scramble to hire science andengineering talent.

As a strong U.S. economy reemerges,strong job growth in science and engineeringfields is expected to occur. In general, jobgrowth is expected to be around 15 percent,whereas the expected growth for scientistsand engineers is about 47 percent, or the creation of 2.1 million new jobs.63 By way ofcomparison, in 1999 the private sectoremployed over 1.5 million scientists and engi-neers who held bachelor’s degrees.64 Thus,the need for an additional 2 million scientistsand engineers is significant. Although a largepercentage of these new jobs will be in thecomputer sciences, other sectors will experi-ence job growth, as well as confronting the

27


Figure 9

First University Degrees in NaturalSciences and Engineering as Percentageof 24-year-old Population, 1999*

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

*In some cases, 1998SOURCE: National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, NSB 02-01 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 2002), Appendix Table 2-18.

United KingdomFinland

South KoreaFranceTaiwan

JapanNorwaySwedenCanada

NetherlandsGermany

IrelandSpain

United StatesSwitzerland

ItalyBelgiumMexico

Figure 10

Percentage Change in First UniversityDegrees in Science and EngineeringDegrees Awarded in Selected Countries,1985-1995

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-8Sweden Germany Italy Australia* Japan Canada United

States

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics,International Education Indicators: A Time Series Perspective, 1985-1995, NCES 2000-021 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2000), Tables 15.1 and 15.4.*Australia, science-change from 1993 to 1995; Australia, engineering-change from 1987-1995.

■ Science Degrees ■ Engineering Degrees

retirements of those who went into scienceand engineering in the Sputnik era. Over thenext 10 years, the percentage of scientistsand engineers that have reached retirementage will triple.65 The pressing need toincrease the pipeline of scientists and engi-neers is clear. (See Table 3.)

A sizable number of jobs for scientists andengineers are in the public sector. It isincreasingly difficult, however, for the publicsector to compete with the private section inattracting the best talent. A further complica-tion is that a significant portion of these posi-tions must be filled by native-born employ-ees, for reasons of security.

Finally, the shortage of qualified elemen-tary and secondary math and science teachersis already in a crisis stage. Over the nextdecade, though, there will be some 200,000job openings for secondary science and math-ematics teachers. (This includes both retire-ments and new positions.)66

The importance of trained scientists andengineers across these varied sectors showsthe reliance that our economy has on thesefields for growth, and the necessity of ensur-ing an adequate supply of them.

The so-called PhD “glut” might lead someto question these projections. Indeed, thenumber of PhDs in some fields seeking academic positions now outnumbers the avail-able tenure-track positions, forcing individu-als to spend years in post-doctorate positionsthat do little to further their career.67 Onecontributing factor could be a lack of infor-mation about the technical labor market. Asurvey of PhD candidates found that “univer-sity faculty do not promote non-academiccareers for PhDs.”68 If provided better infor-mation regarding the career possibilities inscience and engineering fields in the publicor private sectors, many of these PhD candi-dates could explore careers outside of acade-mia. In fact, better information about thetechnical labor market should be available tobachelor’s and master’s candidates as well.

Aside from the jobs specifically meant forscience and engineering majors, “knowledgejobs” that require some math and scienceskills will also increase faster than the average.According to recent estimates from theBureau of Labor Statistics, all seven categoriesof jobs that require a postsecondary degreewill expand at above-average rates over thenext 10 years.69

28


Table 3

Total Science and Engineering Jobs, 2000 and 2010 (projected)Total

2000 2010 New Openings

All Science and Engineering 4,296 6,412 2,116 2,717Scientists 2,831 4,809 1,978 2,285

Life Scientists 184 218 34 93Computer and Mathemetics 2,408 4,308 1,900 2,068

Computer Science 2,318 4,213 1,895 2,032Mathematics 89 95 5 26

Physical Scientists 239 283 44 124Engineers 1,465 1,603 138 432

NOTE: Totals do not include Social Sciences. In Thousands of Jobs. Numbers do not sum due to rounding.SOURCE: Daniel E. Hecker, “Occupational employment projections to 2010,” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 124, no.11, November 2001,pp. 57-84.

Technical Jobs as a Source of Economicand Social Mobility

Growing economies almost always createnew jobs, but a significant portion of the jobgrowth often occurs in low-wage industries.This is not true in the expansion of the tech-nical labor force. Most of the new positionscreated for scientists and engineers will be inthe highest quartile of annual earnings.70 Thecurrent scarcity has helped keep wages highfor those with professional technical skills. Asthe market begins to tighten again, thesewages will likely see a further spike.

The availability of a good job is a powerfulincentive for students to seek degrees in science and engineering. For underprivilegedstudents, this opportunity is a way to escapepoverty or otherwise improve their socioeco-nomic status.

THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN-BORNSTUDENTS AND WORKERS

Immigration and foreign workers haveallowed the United States to avoid con-fronting its problems in the professional tech-nical labor market. The influx of studentsinto our colleges and universities has keptenrollment strong, while the use of specialimmigrant visas has helped plug holes in thelabor market that have resulted from the lackof qualified domestic workers in these areas.

Foreign Students in Science and Engineering

The last half of the 20th century witnesseda dramatic increase in the number of foreignstudents studying at American universities.Though the percentage of foreign scienceand engineering students at the undergradu-ate level has remained relatively low, foreignstudents have begun to dominate graduateenrollment. Although graduate education atlarge lies outside the realm of this Policy

Statement, these trends deserve mention.Almost 50 percent of engineering doctoratedegrees conferred by American universities in engineering in 1998-9 went to foreign-bornstudents. For mathematics/computer scienceand the natural sciences, the rate of foreignenrollment is more than one-third.71 Similartrends exist at the master’s levels.

Foreign Workers in the Technical Labor Market

During the labor shortage of the late1990s, high-tech firms lobbied Congress toexpand the number of H1-B visas approvedeach year, citing a lack of qualified domesticcandidates for the open positions. Inresponse, Congress expanded the limits onseveral occasions. The expanded limits aredue to expire soon and are unlikely to berenewed in the current economic and politi-cal climate, despite a warning from the scien-tific community of the necessity of maintain-ing a flow of foreign scientists and engineersinto the country.72 Unless steps are taken nowto increase the number of native-born scien-tists and engineers, American companies willbe unable to sustain innovation-led growth inthe near future. Some fear that firms willinevitably take their research efforts abroad,where the talent is plentiful.

Even those foreigners who were educatedin the U.S. and qualify for extended visas areshowing a lower propensity to stay in thiscountry. The new global economy is makingit possible for people to return to their coun-try of origin for employment. Instead of a“brain drain” overseas, there is a system of“brain circulation” as workers leverage theirskills and contacts worldwide.73 This arrange-ment increases the instability in the domesticlabor market and increases the quality of ourforeign competition. And as their home coun-tries continue to improve their own technicalstanding, this trend will persist.

29


Improving the math and science perfor-mance of America’s students and drawingthem into careers in science and engineeringrequires a culture change. This change inmath and science education will involve all ofthe stakeholders in education — from statesand local school districts, to higher educa-tion, to business.

Although the need to improve studentachievement in math and science is not new,the nature of the debate has changed. TheNo Child Left Behind Act, passed in early2002, requires states to implement a system ofstandards-based assessments in reading andmathematics, with assessments at selectedgrade levels beginning in the 2002-2003school year, and in all grades 3-8 by 2005-2006.† These assessments must be aligned tostate standards; hence the standards must besufficiently rigorous to guide real progress.After two years, all schools and school districtswill be held accountable for all major studentgroups making “adequate yearly progress”toward being “proficient” against the stateacademic standards. The analogous effort inscience comes later: states are not required tohave high quality science standards in placeuntil 2005-2006, with tests beginning in 2007-2008 at selected grade levels.

As part of the effort to improve studentscores, the No Child Left Behind Act alsoauthorized programs to improve professionaldevelopment. One such program is the

Math/Science Partnership Program, which is considered in more detail later in this chapter.

The movement to define high standards,to make schools accountable for low scores,and to improve data collection on individualstudent performance is not new. Nationalstandards in mathematics and science havebeen available since 1989 and 1995, respec-tively. Most states have also developed theirown standards in math and science. Anincreasing number of states are using thesestandards to establish exit exams for highschool graduates, as seen in the examples ofCalifornia, Massachusetts, and Virginia inChapter 2. Some states are also administeringassessments at select grade levels along the K-12 continuum to identify and remediateweaknesses. States that have adopted suchprograms have shown a measure of successand should be considered models for otherstates and programs.

Although changes made at the federal and state levels are encouraging, continuedvigilance by all stakeholders is required.Education policy is largely a state responsi-bility, performed by local school districts.Colleges and universities often develop curricular materials and prepare the nextgeneration of teachers and scientists, mathe-maticians, and engineers. In the end, businessis the ultimate consumer of the labor forceprepared by the education system. Thus, eachgroup must play a role in reform.

This chapter presents recommendationsfor all stakeholders to improve math and

30

Chapter 4

CHANGING THE CULTURE OF K-16 MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION AND INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS

† Before the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, federalmandates required systems of assessment only for schoolsthat accepted federal Title I funds.

science education and increase the supply ofscientists and engineers. To reflect the inter-related roles of the different stakeholders, wedescribe three Challenges that must beaddressed to change the culture of math andscience education:

• Increasing student interest in math and science to maintain the pipeline

• Demonstrating the wonder of discovery whilehelping students to master rigorous content

• Acknowledging the professionalism of teachers

The first two Challenges focus on the“demand” side of math and science educa-tion, which CED believes will ultimately bethe most important lever to encourage morestudents to succeed in math and science atthe elementary and secondary level, and topursue a career in science and engineeringafter they have entered college.

The third Challenge addresses the “supply” side of math and science education.Stoking a child’s interest in math and sciencerequires excellent teaching, yet many schooldistricts lack enough qualified math and science teachers.

Action on all of these fronts is critical tothe success of a reform program, althoughchange in any one area would be a positivestep. The active participation of business inpartnership with local schools will greatly aidprogress in these areas.

CHALLENGE ONE: INCREASING STUDENT INTERESTIN MATH AND SCIENCE TO MAINTAIN THE PIPELINE

One of the important goals of math andscience education reform is to increase students’ excitement for math and science,thus increasing the likelihood of a relatedcareer choice.

Excitement for math and science will befueled by intriguing subject matter, the

presence of knowledgeable and enthusiasticadults, and a wide array of opportunities thatreward a mastery of math and science. ThisChallenge addresses those goals.

Ensuring Widespread Scientific andQuantitative Literacy

Efforts to actively engage students in learning math and science will likely be mostsuccessful in promoting and sustaining theirinterest and ensuring that each child attainsscientific and quantitative literacy.

Reconsidering the K-12 CurriculaLocal school districts should review their

adopted curricula to ensure that they adequately engage students, promote activelearning, and align to state and local standards of student performance and knowledge.

Math and science hold limitless potentialfor a fertile imagination. Science program-ming has been a staple of children’s enter-tainment for generations, from “Mr. Wizard”to “Bill Nye, the Science Guy.” Field trips tothe local science museum or zoo are oftenthe most anticipated of the year.

Unfortunately, textbooks and curriculumplans often fail to capture the student’s imagi-nation in a similar manner. Curricula basedupon the memorization and recitation offacts will not stimulate an active mind. Givena basic understanding of a topic area and thewatchful, guiding eye of a knowledgeableteacher, students have the ability to make discoveries; this path to learning should beencouraged.

Assisting School Districts with Curriculum Enhancement

Businesses should collaborate with schooldistricts to develop enhancements to the district-adopted math and science curriculathat integrate state-of-the-art applications ofmathematical and scientific principles into theclassroom setting and provide an insight into

31

Changing the Culture of K-16 Math and Science Education and Increasing the Supply of Scientists and Engineers

the work scientists and engineers performevery day.

Among the most important assets thatindustry brings to its partnership with schoolsis its content knowledge. Scientists and engi-neers who work in state-of-the-art environ-ments possess skills and knowledge not alwayscaptured in the curriculum.

The import of knowledge from local firmscould have an impact on learning in a num-ber of areas. Certainly, there is a need for astandard curricula that ensures coverage of all the basic skills and ideas needed to under-stand math and science. This information,though, often lacks a practical context.Business has the ability to add to the curricu-lum in a way that supplements the informa-tion and makes the models more concrete byusing true-life examples that children canunderstand. (See text box, “ExxonMobil’sScience Ambassadors Program.”)

Promoting Extracurricular Math and Science Activities

Business should provide financial andlogistical support to extracurricular math and

science activities, as well as the time and tal-ents of their employees, to enrich the learn-ing experiences of students. Educators shouldorganize student groups to participate in suchactivities, if they do not already exist, andwork to integrate business support into theseprograms.

The classroom alone is not always suffi-cient to meet the needs of inquisitive stu-dents. Extracurricular math- and science-based activities can provide an outlet for achild’s imagination and desire to learn moreabout the scientific world. Potential programsrange from local science fairs to nationalcompetitions, such as For Inspiration andRecognition of Science and Technology, orFIRST (see accompanying text box).Programs like these can be good for studentsand business alike.

The students who participate in these pro-grams often come away with a variety of posi-tive experiences. A fulfilling extracurricularactivity can spark a long-term interest in sci-ence and engineering. An important addition-al effect of these programs is learning prob-lem-solving skills, especially in a team environ-

32


ExxonMobil sponsors a range of programs aimed at improving math and science educa-tion throughout the country, spending more than $13 million annually. One such program isthe Science Ambassadors Program, created in conjunction with schools around Houston,Texas. This program encourages employees to participate as Science Ambassadors in activitiesthat promote math and science education, such as judging science fairs or participating incareer day events.

The larger effort helps concentrate corporate outreach efforts where they are most need-ed by the partner districts. Specific programs under this umbrella include providing class-room materials, providing teacher training based on school district needs, and opportunitiesfor field trips to ExxonMobil facilities and on-the-job shadowing. Grants are also made avail-able to participating schools.

A corporate Education Advisory Board administers the programs, with representativescalled District Ambassadors selected to work with each school district individually. The desig-nation of specific contacts for a district helps to maintain a dialogue as to the specific goals ofthe program and the effectiveness of previous efforts.

SOURCE: The Council for Corporate and School Partnerships, Guiding Principles for Business and School Partnerships,(September 2002), available at <http://www.nabe.org/documents/GP.pdf>. Accessed March 17, 2003.

EXXONMOBIL’S SCIENCE AMBASSADORS PROGRAM

ment, a skill that is increasingly valuable in themarketplace. Finally, there is the benefit ofincreased self-esteem for the students.Students that have successfully completedthese programs gain the confidence thatcomes with building a robot or successfullyexplaining a science fair project to a judge.

Employers and employee volunteers alsogain from the experience of participating inthese programs. Volunteers cite the excite-ment of working with the young children as ameans of reenergizing themselves and theirwork. The creative thinking employed by thestudents can help spur the mentors’ own cre-ativity. And frequently, by “managing” teamsin development, mentors gain real-life man-agement training that is not often available tojunior staff members at a firm. The experi-ence at X-Rite, a high tech firm in Grandville,

MI demonstrates these principles well.Employees who worked with FIRST teams feltthey could work better in a team environmentafter the experience, and found that itstretched their own skills as well. Manage-ment reported that “walls” between depart-ments also fell as employees learned to com-municate better.74

Increasing the Number of StudentsCompleting Degrees in Mathematics,Science and Engineering Fields

Over the next 10 years, job growth in sci-ence and engineering fields will outpace thatof most other sectors. But unlike some othersectors, in which labor can move in or outwith ease, entry into the professional techni-cal labor market is the culmination of a

33


Inventor Dean Kamen founded the FIRST program almost 15 years ago. His goal was toinspire children to become more involved in math and science by providing them with aninteractive and challenging opportunity to explore the world of math and science.

The FIRST program is based around an annual robotics competition. Teams are givensix weeks to work with a standardized set of materials to build a robot that can accomplisha specified set of tasks. Teams then participate in a series of competitions, cumulating in achampionship event, held at the EPCOT Center at Walt Disney World, attracting morethan 20,000 participants.

Every FIRST team is based upon the tripartite relationship between the participatingschools, mentors, and sponsors. Working with practicing engineers, scientists, and technol-ogists provides a unique opportunity for students and raises the bar for their performance.It also provides businesses with an opportunity for community outreach and provides a tal-ent base for recruitment into internship and other programs.

The goals of FIRST go beyond simply teaching the students to build a robot. The struc-ture of the program also encourages teamwork and developing strategies for problem solv-ing. These skills will be more valuable to students in their future studies than the simplelessons of technology.

The success of FIRST has also led to a spin-off competition for children aged 9 to 14.The FIRST LEGO League was created in coalition with the LEGO Company and providesyounger children similar opportunities to work with simpler robots. Often members of aFIRST team will assist in mentoring their younger cohorts at a school in their district.

SOURCE: www.usfirst.org

FIRST: FOR INSPIRATION AND RECOGNITION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

process that takes many years, beginningwhen students receive their very first lessonsin math and science. Currently, many of thesestudents are being lost at the undergraduatelevel, a problem that must be addressed.

Reforming Undergraduate Curriculum to Improve the Perception of Science andEngineering Fields

Colleges and universities should pay closeattention to the number of graduates theyyield each year when evaluating the effective-ness of their science and engineering pro-grams.

Experienced professors should be assignedto introductory classes, among their teachingresponsibilities. Classes taught by inexperi-enced teaching assistants or novice faculty,while more cost effective, can work againstefforts to increase the number of majors inthe department.

Grading policies should be monitored inSTEM (science, technology, engineering, andmathematics) classes for accuracy and fair-ness, to ensure alignment with other depart-ments in the institution.

Additionally, articulation between highereducation and K-12 should be increased tobetter prepare students for the rigors of high-er education. Addressing this gap will helpensure that students enter college preparedto face the rigor of university-level scienceand engineering courses.

Finally, meaningful laboratory explorationshould be an integral part of science coursework. These lab experiences areengaging and challenge students to thinkindependently.

Making Professional Technical CareersVisible to Students

Scientifically-based businesses should col-laborate with institutions of higher education

to highlight the professional opportunitiesthat are available to those with a backgroundin STEM fields. Businesses should also offerinternships to undergraduate STEM majors.

Internship opportunities can provide aunique application of classroom lessons notforeseen by the student. By working in suchan environment, students can also gain a bet-ter appreciation of the lessons they havelearned in the classroom.

Often times, students who work with amentor will seek later employment at thefirm. And firms that make these efforts animportant part of their community outreachprogram will have an advantage in laterrecruitment.

Increasing the Interest and Success of Women and Minorities in Math and Science

Widespread implementation of the follow-ing recommendations must take into accountthe emerging demographics of this country.Around three-fifths of the professional techni-cal workforce is comprised of white males, yetthey comprise only 40 percent of the labormarket at large. To meet future employmentneeds, greater efforts must be made to ensurethat female and minority students have theopportunity and enter science and engineer-ing fields.

Improving Minority Performance in K-12 Math and Science

Programs with proven effectiveness to support high achievement among traditionallyunderrepresented groups of students in K-12 STEM courses should be replicated.Disaggregated assessment data for all groupsof students must be used to identify areas ofcontent deficiency and immediate remedia-tion must be undertaken. Business leaders

34


should partner with educators to ensure thatthe collection of such data and remediation isongoing and timely. The business communityshould call on state and federal governmentsto provide the necessary support for thisprocess of assessment, accountability, andaction.

Before more minority students enter thefields of science and engineering, their per-formance in the classroom must be improved.This will require breaking them out of a cul-ture that often expects little from them acade-mically and discourages their pursuits in mathand science.

Federal Title I programs, part of theElementary and Secondary Education Act(the predecessor to the No Child LeftBehind Act, which continued Title I), targetchildren living in poverty, of which a dispro-portionate number are minority. Title I pro-vides funds for schools to assist them inimproving student performance. Programsundertaken using Title I funds should bereviewed, so that the lessons learned fromthem can be applied to new, as well as on-going, efforts in this field.

Increasing the Number of Underrepresented Undergraduates in Science and Engineering Fields

Businesses must redouble their efforts toprovide support to traditionally underrepre-sented groups of undergraduate and graduatestudents in STEM fields. They should encour-age higher education institutions to activelyrecruit STEM majors among minority andfemale students, with practices such are schol-arships, mentoring programs and faculty out-reach. Business must also provide a significantnumber of internships for minority andfemale students and encourage their minorityemployees to mentor students.

Reaching minority students who have anaffinity for math and science must become apriority of both institutes of higher learningand employers in science and engineeringfields. (See text box, “Berkeley Foundationfor Opportunities in InformationTechnology.”)

Minority students who do persist in scienceand engineering fields cite their relationshipwith a mentor in their field as having moreinfluence on their decision to enter scienceand engineering than their parents, friends,or teachers.75

CHALLENGE TWO: DEMONSTRATING THE WONDEROF DISCOVERY WHILE HELPINGSTUDENTS TO MASTER RIGOROUS CONTENT

CED strongly supports the nationwidemovement towards standards and account-ability. To make these reforms successful,teachers must have the knowledge and skillsthey need. Teacher preparation and ongoingprofessional development opportunities,therefore, must be revitalized so that everyclassroom is graced with a caring, highlycompetent teacher.

This Challenge focuses on the knowledgeand skills that teachers can bring to the classroom to make math and science subjectsmore engaging to their students, withoutcompromising the level of rigor.Recommendations to address this issueinclude reforming teacher education, provid-ing more opportunities for teachers to workwith those in the technical labor force,increasing the effectiveness of professionaldevelopment, and encouraging local experi-mentation in math and science education.

35


Improving Math and Science Teacher Education

Colleges and universities that educatefuture and current teachers must ensure thattheir courses of study emphasize acquisitionof content knowledge, an understanding ofthe place of that knowledge in society, as wellas the pedagogical training to deliver thatknowledge to students of all backgrounds andabilities. Higher education must track the suc-cess of their graduates in teaching careers (asmeasured by student performance andteacher retention), so that their own courseofferings can be continually improved asneeded. Colleges and universities should tailor summer courses in mathematics, sci-ence and engineering to the content needs ofcurrent teachers, and, with school districts,

actively seek their enrollment and successfulcompletion.

The undergraduate education a teacherreceives is important. It provides prospectiveteachers with the pedagogical and psychologi-cal tools to teach and nurture young studentson their path to knowledge. However, contentknowledge is also important for a teacher atall levels, although the problem is exacerbat-ed for prospective elementary teachers whoare called upon to teach an array of subjects.This is especially true in math and science.

Effective teacher training should also besupplemented by building feedback into theprogram. Tracking the performance of gradu-ates can help determine the success of indi-vidual teachers in the field, as well as inform-ing the program regarding areas for improve-ment.

36


The Berkeley Foundation for Opportunities in Information Technology (BFOIT) wascreated to address the problem of minority underrepresentation in science and engineer-ing. The program is open only to minorities, and in the past year worked with studentswho are black, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian. Females outnumbered males in theprogram by a margin of almost two-to-one.

Organized by the Industrial Advisory Board of the electrical engineering and computerscience department at the University of California at Berkeley, BFOIT operates with thephilosophy that students have a number of options available to them, and their choices areoften affected by specific events at key points in their academic life.

BFOIT runs the IT Leadership Program (ITLP), which consists of a summer institutein connection with year-long outreach efforts. The summer institute is an intensive two-week program that provides the participants the opportunity to work with some basic com-puter programming and web page design. While the time constraints of the program limitwhat can be taught, it does provide students with a taste of computer science that they can-not find at their local schools. During the rest of the year, the participants in the ITLPmeet for presentations and discussions led by technology experts, academics, and civicleaders that address relevant global and local issues involving technology. Additional eventsinclude museum visits, conferences, and other activities.

BFOIT and ITLP are sponsored by a number of high-tech firms that provide bothfinancial and logistical support. These firms also provide employees to present the eventsdescribed above and work with the program facilitators.

SOURCE: Susan McLester, “Working Toward Diversity,” Technology & Learning, vol. 22, no. 3 (2001); www.bfoit.org.

BERKELEY FOUNDATION FOR OPPORTUNITIES IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Tailoring summer class offerings to cur-rent teachers can allow graduates to extendtheir professional training and ensure thattheir knowledge of content and pedagogystays up-to-date.

Focusing these classes towards currentteachers can also be a way by which to addressthe dilemma of out-of-field teachers who havebeen assigned to teach math and scienceclasses without the necessary knowledge base.

Providing Opportunities for Teachers to Work With Those in the Technical Labor Force

Math and science teachers and practicingscientists and engineers both have importantknowledge and experiences that can be gain-fully shared. This connection is rarely madeas professional and logistical barriers separatethem. Improving the opportunities for com-munication between these individuals is animportant step for improving math and sci-ence instruction.

Providing a Forum for Teachers to Work With Other Scientists and Engineers

Businesses should partner with localschool districts to establish programs that provide scientists and engineers as resourcesfor schools. These forums should facilitatedirect contact between teachers and scientistsand engineers, and as appropriate, direct contact between scientists and students.Employers should actively encourage theiremployees’ participation, making clear that itis a highly valued professional responsibility.Businesses should also practice greater stewardship over local areas that lack anabundance of scientifically-based firms by providing web portals or other manners of assistance.

Creating relationships between math andscience teachers and scientists and engineerswill be an important step towards improving

math and science education. Scientists andengineers will provide teachers ready accessto cutting edge information about theirfields. The key concept is partnership; neitherbusiness groups, nor educators, have all ofthe answers, but they share responsibility forimplementing the solution.

The example of ChevronTexaco is instruc-tive. Through the East Bay (San Francisco)Partnership Program, ChevonTexaco providesemployees as resources to schools, to assistwith filling gaps in need areas such as math,science, and literacy. ChevronTexaco encour-ages its employees to participate in the pro-gram by making available up to four paidhours a month to spend working on the program.76

Providing Summer Experiences for Math and Science Teachers

Businesses, colleges and universities, andschool districts should jointly develop effec-tive programs to provide summer experiencesfor teachers. Businesses should create mecha-nisms within their firms that allow the fruitfulparticipation of teacher/interns in their work.These efforts can include hosting programmeetings, offering technical and financialassistance, supporting employee efforts to par-ticipate in these programs, or any otherneeds, as determined in consultation withpartner organizations.

Programs that provide pre- and in-serviceteachers the opportunity to work in researchsettings could allow teachers to stay in frontof changes in their field that might affecttheir students and deepen their own under-standing of the topic. The ability to continueor assist with research can also deepen ateacher’s own interest in the subject area.

A good example of such a program is theMaryland Educators’ Summer ResearchProgram (MESRP, profiled in more detail inthe accompanying text box). MESRP placeseducators in positions at academic, govern-ment, and industrial labs. Participants are

37


expected to complete original research andwork in teams to develop curriculum modulesbased upon their experiences. The experi-ence promotes a better understanding of theteacher’s role in inquiry-based explorationand “hands on” science, as well as providingteachers with the “credibility and experienceneeded to incorporate current content andauthentic data into science and mathematicscurriculum.”77 The success of that program,and ones like it, depends on the successfulpartnership between business, higher educa-tion, schools, and teachers.

Expanding Effective ProfessionalDevelopment Programs

Business, higher education, and K-12school districts should collaborate to providestaff development to enrich and expandteacher knowledge and talent. Teachers’meaningful participation in these programsshould be expected as part of their careerpath and should be valued.

Research has shown that few professionaldevelopment programs are of high quality.One-day ‘wonder’ workshops proliferate, tak-

38


The Maryland Educators’ Summer Research Program (MESRP) was formed in 1999 toexpand upon the efforts of two previous programs. MESRP offers summer research oppor-tunities for both pre-service and in-service teachers to work in academic, government, andindustrial lab environments.

The goal of the internship is to provide teachers with authentic research experiences.The “hands-on” nature of the program is designed to help teachers appreciate the value ofinteractive experiences in learning science. Each intern is provided with a mentor at thework site that directs his or her research during the six- to twelve-week program. Mentorsare expected to design projects that can be completed in that time, while also providingvalue to the host firm. If possible, pre-service and in-service teachers are paired together ata site, so that the in-service teacher can serve as an additional mentor.

In order to promote the research experience as part of a continuing developmentprocess, participants in the MESRP are expected to continue in year-round outreach expe-riences. The most prominent of those is the Classroom Implementation Project (CIP). Thedevelopment of CIP modules is an attempt to bring the unique experience a teacher hadduring their time in the field back into the classroom. The modules are designed so thatthey can be distributed to other educators in Maryland for their own use.

MESRP also includes assessment as a goal of the program. Candidates are surveyedbefore and after their participation in the program to evaluate its impact. Areas of focusinclude classroom practice, teaching strategy, and changes in attitudes and perceptions ofmath and science. These surveys will be ongoing in a participant’s career, in an attempt tomeasure the lasting impact of the experience.

So far, the program has met with great success and it has been sought as a model forexpansion on a larger scale. Organizers hope that the positive responses seen in the initialevaluations mean that the program can have a significant and lasting impact on math andscience education policies.

SOURCE: Sherry McCall Ross and Katherine Denniston, The Maryland Educators’ Summer Research Program, (April 2002),available at <http://k12s.phast.umass.edu/stemtec/pathways/Proceedings/Papers/Ross-p.doc>. Accessed March 17, 2003.

THE MARYLAND EDUCATORS’ SUMMER RESEARCH PROGRAM

ing teachers out of the classroom for some-thing of little value. Making the time avail-able is not enough; effective professionaldevelopment requires a comprehensiveapproach that includes follow-up andaccountability.

Over the past few years, the HoustonIndependent School District (HISD) hasreviewed and reformed its professional devel-opment system. The burden of planning pro-fessional development activities has shifted toindividual schools, allowing the programs tobe more focused on areas of need. The newapproach also involved a move away fromone-day sessions to a more continuous devel-

opment program that includes “study groups,online training, partnerships with local uni-versities, summer workshops, and trainingthough lead teachers.”78

Since it is locally-managed, the Houstonprogram can be adapted as needed, enablingtargeted follow up learning opportunitiesand discussion keyed to individual district orschool concerns.

Scientifically-based businesses can play arole as partners in effective teacher develop-ment, such as the Merck Institute for ScienceEducation, as seen in the accompanying textbox.

39


The Merck Institute for Science Education (MISE) was created in 1993 by Merck &Co., Inc. to direct the company’s efforts in K-12 math and science education reform. Basedin Rahway, New Jersey, MISE has established a long-term education partnership with several school districts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This partnership focuses on theprofessional development of teachers, helping them improve their science knowledge and strengthen their teaching skills. In addition, MISE supports organizations and sciencecenters whose mission is to stimulate students’ interest in the study of math and science.

To accomplish its goals, the Institute works with

• teachers, to align curriculum and teaching strategies with state and national standards;

• parents, to engage families in science and math activities at school and further investigation at home;

• business leaders, to provide a model of a business/education partnership for othercorporations to emulate; and

• employees and community members, to support volunteer activity in the schools.

MISE also provides and maintains two science Resource Centers—one in Rahway andthe other in West Point, Pennsylvania. These Centers house curriculum modules, books,and periodicals that focus on mathematics and science teaching. Teachers use the Centersto expand their “teaching repertoire,” while districts use the materials to inform their cur-riculum choices.

To evaluate the impact of its partnership with the school districts, MISE has contractedwith the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) at the University ofPennsylvania to conduct annual assessments of its work. Factors considered in the evalua-tion include “student performance and course selection; the quality of professional development; and changes in classroom teaching, school culture and district policy.” MISEthen uses the CPRE findings to adjust its own work.

SOURCE: www.mise.org; MISE, personal correspondence.

MISE: THE MERCK INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

As part of the No Child Left Behind Act,the Department of Education and theNational Science Foundation have estab-lished the Math/Science Partnership pro-gram. The former provides funds that will beavailable through state departments of educa-tion, whereas the latter is available through anational competition. A key feature of bothprograms is the need for partnerships — asdescribed throughout this report — amongthe various education stakeholders. For thefirst time, this federal legislation requireshigher education institutions to partner withschool districts. Other partners, such as busi-ness and nonprofit organizations, are encour-aged to participate as well. All of the afore-mentioned groups must take full advantageof this opportunity.

Promoting Local Experimentation in Math and Science Education

Local school districts should be encour-aged to seek innovative and promisingapproaches to improve math and scienceteaching and learning. Local businesses andstate governments and departments of educa-tion should encourage and contribute to thedevelopment and execution of these plans.State governments should also provide fundsto schools to scale up programs that havedemonstrated success. A fear of change orfailure should not impede new programs that have potential for success, just as manybusinesses have transformed themselvesthrough process-oriented “continuousimprovement.” Like businesses, however, alleducational innovations should be regularlyevaluated for effectiveness and modified asindicated by the results of the evaluation.

Possibilities abound for forward thinkingeducators and administrators to implementinnovative plans to improve math and scienceeducation. “Magnet” schools, or schools thatfocus on specific subject areas, provide stu-dents with a dedicated interest in math and

science the opportunity to focus their acade-mic energies in that area. Magnet schoolsteach all of the other core subjects, teach allcore subjects, but have special expertise, facil-ities and depth of course offerings in specificdisciplines. In this manner, magnet schoolsdevelop scientific thinking skills in studentsthat will give them an advantage at the under-graduate level. (The formation of charterschools can have a similar impact. For anexample, see the text box, “High TechHigh.”) For elementary schools, dedicatedpractitioners — expert teachers who movebetween classes to teach only the math or science lesson — could ease the burden onteachers by providing an expert source ofknowledge. The use of an expert teacher inthis manner allows all teachers to teach totheir strengths and improves the quality ofthe content presented to students.

Promoting Science Education in theEra of No Child Left Behind

As mentioned in the introduction to thischapter, federally mandated assessments formath are scheduled to begin during the 2002-2003 school year, with assessments for sciencebeginning in 2007-2008. The five-year lag mayhave an unintended negative consequence:increased attention and resources focused onmath and reading could come at the expenseof science teaching and learning. This couldseriously compromise the knowledge base ofa significant number of American youngstersat a critical point in their scientific education.In order to prevent this outcome, statesshould work proactively to ensure that scienceeducation is not neglected in the quest toachieve high marks in reading and math.

The scientifically-based business communi-ty should expand efforts to work with stategovernments and boards of education in theongoing process of reviewing and revisingstate standards for science education. Thebusiness community should advocate that

40


science teaching and learning occupy aprominent place in education. We urge thefederal government to provide grants to statesthat seek to develop and/or revise sciencestandards and assessments that reflect ambi-tious learning goals for students. States andlocal school districts should monitor theamount of classroom time dedicated to sci-ence instruction. States that currently conductscience assessments should publicize theresults in a manner similar to that requiredfor reading and math under the No ChildLeft Behind Act. Moreover, business candescribe the STEM knowledge and skills thatnew entrants to the workforce must possess,with an eye towards influencing the standards

and assessments that are emerging by federalrequirement.

Prior to the passage of No Child LeftBehind, 46 states had a set of science stan-dards in place, and 33 provided some kind ofscience assessment.79 In some cases, thesestandards and assessments will need to berevised to meet the demands of the new poli-cy, as well as other educational and workplaceneeds. The business community can assist inrevising the science standards. As the ultimateconsumers of the students that schools pro-duce, business can help link standards with anunderstanding of the skill sets necessary forsuccess in the labor market. When Delawareundertook a reform of their educational

41


Located on a decommissioned Navy base in San Diego, the Gary and Jerri-Ann JacobsHigh Tech High Charter School provides a unique opportunity for students to learn mathand science. The philosophy is based on three principles: personalization, adult-world con-nection, and a common intellectual mission.

High Tech High offers students a more interactive, project-based curriculum. Studentswork independently or on teams on approved projects that help them apply the conceptslearned in class and expand their understanding. Teachers guide students through theirprojects, though the responsibility for learning is mostly on the student. That is a rein-forcement of the “adult world” emphasis of the school, which includes a business casualdress code and working environment that has the appearance similar to that of an office ofa high-tech firm. Additionally, industry experts are brought in for “power lunches” with thestudents, while older students also have the opportunity to intern at local companies forpart of the school day.

Professional development is also an important part of the day at High Tech High. Eachmorning starts off with a staff meeting that allows a discussion of pertinent issues, such asmethods of assessing the success of project-based learning and finding overlaps in the cur-riculum.

High Tech High owes part of its existence to the work of local high-tech companies.Representatives of 40 local companies came up with the idea of a technology-based highschool as a strategy to address their own labor needs. Many of the firms continue to con-tribute to the school through grants, employee volunteers, and by participating on theschool’s board of directors. Their continued support will be crucial as High Tech Highexpands, adding facilities for sixth through eight graders.

SOURCE: Lawrence Hardy, “High Tech High” American School Board Journal, vol. 188, no. 7 (2001); Amy Poftak, “HighTech High: An Education Startup,” Technology & Learning, vol. 22, no. 3 (2001); www.hightechhigh.org.

HIGH TECH HIGH

system under the “New Directions” program,the business community played a key role instandards reform by identifying the skills stu-dents would need in the workplace and help-ing translate that information into academic standards.80

Florida exemplifies a state that hasimproved its science standards, even beforethe passage of the No Child Left Behind Act.In March 2003, fifth-, eight-, and tenth-graders were tested on their science knowl-edge, as part of the Florida ComprehensiveAssessment Test (FCAT), for the first time.The exam is formatted to demonstrate howwell a student understands science by requir-ing eight- and tenth-graders to provide writ-ten explanations of their responses, alongsidemultiple-choice questions. The new FCAT for-mat has forced schools to reevaluate how theyteach science, and many schools haveresponded by increasing the quantity andquality of the laboratory experiences for students.81

CHALLENGE THREE: ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROFESSIONALISM OF TEACHERS

Teachers prepare the workforce of tomor-row in an economy that increasingly favorshigh levels of skill. Making math and scienceeducation effective requires developing thehighest quality teaching force possible.

This Challenge promotes the view ofteaching as a valued profession by looking atissues of compensation and certification. Therecommendations call for competitive teachersalaries, the establishment of alternative pathsto certification, and the development of systems of license and pension reciprocity for teachers.

Many of these reforms have been pro-posed before and many people are working topromote reform in these areas. We encourage

their efforts and present some of their recom-mendations here again for the purpose ofrestating the case for these importantreforms.

Compensating Teachers to PromoteQuality in the Math and ScienceTeaching Force

State governments should work with localschool districts to increase starting teachersalaries to better reflect local labor marketconditions. The salary structure should takenote of the many highly remunerative oppor-tunities open to skilled math and sciencegraduates apart from teaching. New salaryscales should be viewed as an investment inthe schools, similar to other capital improve-ments. Accordingly, state governments shouldensure that there is adequate funding forthese increases.

The recent actions by the schools in NewYork City are a good example. In the summerof 2002, facing a severe shortage of qualifiedteachers similar to that seen in many urbandistricts, New York City increased the startingsalary for teachers from $31,910 to $39,000.This increase appeared to help offset theshortage that the school district expected,while also improving the quality of the teach-ers the program recruited. Certified teachersfilled more than 90 percent of the 8000-plusopenings the district faced for the 2002-2003school year, compared to a rate of about halfof the teachers hired the previous year. (Thenumber for 2002 includes those trainedunder an alternative certification program ini-tiated along with the pay increases, thoughparticipants are expected to receive their mas-ter’s degrees within five years to become fullycertified.)82 The experience in New Yorkdemonstrates that qualified candidates arewilling to teach, if it is made economically fea-sible for them. It will be instructive to followthis cohort of teachers to see if they remain inthe field, as recruitment without retention isof little help.

42


Establishing Alternative Paths to Certification

State governments and boards of educa-tion should implement high quality programsfor teacher certification of professional scien-tists, mathematicians, or engineers who seekto enter teaching. Business can inform thedevelopment of these programs by providingtechnical assistance and helping to ensurethat the programs meet the needs of mid- orpost-career workers. Firms can also promoteteaching as an option for post-employmentworkers who still desire to be active. Federal,state, and local funds should be used to pro-vide stipends for participants in these pro-grams, thus offsetting income forfeited dur-ing the period of training. Schools that hireteachers from these programs should providesupport and mentoring to assist the newly cer-tified teachers in their transition to the class-room. Experienced teachers should berecruited to serve as mentors to new facultyand mentoring should be recognized by theschool administrations.

Alternative certification programs can helpto broaden the pipeline of entrants into theteaching labor market. They also recognizethe fact that most modern workers pursuemultiple careers during their time in thelabor force. Yet quality and rigor cannot becompromised in such programs. They shouldinclude the necessary pedagogical and psychological information to help practicingscientists transmit their content knowledge toyoung minds.

Programs that offer alternative certifica-tion also have the advantage of drawing amore diverse group of candidates than tradi-tional education programs. A review of alter-native certification programs demonstratesthat the graduates of these programs aremore likely to be minority, female, and olderthan those who emerge from the traditionalsystem. They also bring practical and work-place experience to supplement their content

knowledge. Finally, the retention rates forthese programs is similar to that of tradition-ally-prepared teachers, and the alternativelycertified teachers plan to stay in the field justas long as the average teacher.83

School districts in Houston, Chicago, andNew York have developed alternative certifica-tion programs over the past few years toaddress their respective teacher shortages.Additionally, the federal government sponsorsTroops-to-Teachers, a program for retired mil-itary personnel, as well as the Teach forAmerica program. These programs have seensome success and bode well for states thatseek to develop similar programs. Reportscommissioned by the National Commissionon Mathematics and Science Teaching for the21st Century and the National ResearchCouncil provide outlines of what effectivealternative certification programs could looklike.84

Allowing for License and Pension Reciprocity

State governments should partner togetherto develop systems of license reciprocity. Butwe warn that the integrity of the licensesshould not be compromised; partner statesshould review their standards, so that all statesmeet similar standards of licensure.

State pension programs should create poli-cies that provide additional incentives forexperienced teachers to continue working innew locales. To compensate for the potentialpension costs to new districts, assets equal tothe previous school system’s benefit obliga-tion to the teacher should be transferredwhen teachers move between states.

Business can help implement license andpension reciprocity for teachers by sharingrelevant experiences. Ongoing technical assis-tance from business partners would be highlyvalued.

The geographic movement of teachersexacerbates the problems of turnover in theteaching force. Quite often, teachers are

43


forced to move due to family obligations orchanging personal circumstances. While thesequalified, previously licensed teachers wouldbe interested in positions in their new loca-tion, the burden of recertification can serveas a deterrent, especially if other opportuni-ties exist in the area.

The portability of pensions is also a con-cern for teachers moving between states.Some states or localities require experiencedteachers to start over in the new system, orface benefit penalties that endanger previous-ly accumulated pension rights.85 This problemstrikes hardest at the most experienced teach-ers, meaning that a valuable cache of knowl-edge and experience goes unused in the newstate.

Educators have been voicing these con-cerns for a number of years and someprogress is being made. The Mid-AtlanticRegional Teachers Project, a consortium ofstates that includes Virginia, Maryland,Delaware, and Pennsylvania, as well as theDistrict of Columbia, have developed a pro-posal to extend license reciprocity for begin-ning educators. The similarity in licensurerequirements between the states and theDistrict makes the adoption of this policy pos-sible. Programs for license reciprocity formore experienced teachers and plans forpension reciprocity within the consortium arealso under development.86

44


The challenges confronting math and sci-ence education in the United States and theresulting implications for the labor force arecritical. Numerous groups have addressed thisproblem in a series of valuable reports. In thisPolicy Statement, CED has reframed the issueby looking at the culture that affects mathand science education, and, in particular, the“demand” side of education — increasing student interest in math and science.

We have outlined three areas for action, allinterdependent, yet each important on itsown. Increasing student interest in math and science to maintain the pipeline focuses on waysto improve the way students view math andscience disciplines. Demonstrating the wonder ofdiscovery while helping students to master rigorouscontent offers programs to help teachers rein-force student interest and success in mathand science. Acknowledging the professionalismof teachers considers problems facing theteacher labor market. In all of these areas, wehave provided examples of programs that

demonstrate the recommendations and attitudes embodied in this report. Many ofthese programs involve a partnership betweenbusiness and education providers. Weapplaud the efforts of businesses that haveinvolved themselves with these programs andencourage others to join them.

This report has articulated a vision for therole of business in math and science educa-tion, as an advocate, advisor and partner. Theinvolvement of business partners is the firststep in a larger strategy to improve math andscience education and maintain the pipelineinto science and engineering fields. This is acommitment that all business people, bothinside and out of the scientific establishment,should consider.

The perils facing math and science educa-tion in America have been foretold fordecades. It is now time to act, as businesspeo-ple and academics, leaders and citizens tosolve these problems.

45

Chapter 5

CONCLUSION

1. Committee for Economic Development, America’sBasic Research: Prosperity Through Discovery (New York,NY: Committee for Economic Development, 1998).

2. Committee for Economic Development, America’sBasic Research, p. 41.

3. Committee for Economic Development, America’sBasic Research, p. 42.

4. Committee for Economic Development, ReformingImmigration: Helping Meet America’s Need for a SkilledWorkforce (New York, NY: Committee for EconomicDevelopment, 2001), p. ix.

5. National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1999Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of AcademicPerformance, NCES 2000-469 (Washington, D.C.: U. S.Department of Education, August 2000), Figure 1.1.

6. National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1999Trends in Academic Progress, Figure 1.1.

7. National Center for Education Statistics, “NationalAssessment Shows Encouraging Trends inMathematics Performance” (press release,Washington, D.C., August 24, 2000).

8. Committee for Economic Development, MeasuringWhat Matters: Using Assessment and Accountability toImprove Student Learning (Washington, D.C.:Committee for Economic Development, 2001).

9. California Department of Education, “CaliforniaDepartment of Education Corrects Statewide PassRates for High School Exit Exam” (press release,Sacramento, CA, October 9, 2002).

10. Associated Press, “More than 50 percent of studentsfail high-stakes graduation test,” San Jose MercuryNews, October 1, 2002.

11. Massachusetts Department of Education, Spring 2002MCAS Tests: Summary of State Results (Malden, MA:Massachusetts Department of Education, 2002).

12. Virginia Department of Education, “2002Achievement Strong on Graduation-Linked SOLTests” (press release, Richmond, VA, October 8,2002).

13. National Science Board, Preparing Our Children: Mathand Science Education in the National Interest, NSB 99-31 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, March 1999), p. 15.

14. National Science Board, Preparing Our Children, p. 15.

15. Gary W. Phillips, “Pursuing Excellence: Comparisonsof International Eighth-Grade Mathematics andScience Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995and 1999” (briefing prepared for the release ofPursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S.Perspective, 1995 and 1999, Washington, D.C.,December 5, 2000).

16. National Center for Education Statistics. TeachingMathematics in Seven Countries, NCES 2003-013(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,March 2003).

17. National Center for Education Statistics, PursuingExcellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-GradeMathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S.Perspective, 1995 and 1999, NCES 2001-028(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,December 2000).

18. National Center for Education Statistics, Outcomes ofLearning: Results from the 2000 Program for InternationalStudent Assessment of 15-Year-Olds in Reading,Mathematics, and Science Literacy, NCES 2002-115(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,December 2001), pp. 25-26.

19. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’sReport Card: Mathematics 2000, NCES 2001-517(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,August 2001), Table B.87.

20. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’sReport Card: Mathematics 2000, Table B.87

21. Congressional Commission on the Advancement ofWomen and Minorities in Science, Engineering, andTechnology Development, Land of Plenty: Diversity asAmerica’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering andTechnology (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, September 2000), pp. 59-65.

22. Tom Loveless, How Well Are American StudentsLearning? (Washington, D.C.: Brown Center Reporton American Education, September 2002), pp. 19-20.

23. Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, “North Wind Bows toRising Sun” Education Week, vol. 22, no. 4 (2002), p. 31; Ina V.S. Mills, Michael O. Martin, Albert E.Beaton, and others, Mathematics and Science

46

ENDNOTES

Achievement in the Final Year of Secondary School: IEA’sThird International Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS) ( Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study ofTesting, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, 1998),Table 4.8.

24. Manzo, “North Wind Bows to Rising Sun.”

25. Christopher Barnes, What Do Teachers Teach? A Surveyof America’s Fourth and Eighth Grade Teachers, ResearchPaper No. 28 (New York, NY: Center for CivicInnovation at the Manhattan Institute, September2002).

26. J. Becker, “Differential treatment of females andmales in mathematics class,” Journal for Research inMathematics Education, vol. 12, no. 1 (1981), pp. 40-53.

27. Council of Great City Schools with ManpowerDemonstration Research Center, Foundations ForSuccess: Case Studies of How Urban School SystemsImprove Student Achievement (Washington, D.C.:Council of Great City Schools, 2002).

28. National Research Council, Learning andUnderstanding: Improving Advanced Study ofMathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002),p. 48.

29. Studies that focus on math and science, include, butare not limited to, Dan D.Goldhaber, and Dominic J.Brewer, “Why Don’t Schools and Teachers Seem toMatter? Assessing the Impact of Unobservables onEducation,” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 32, no. 3(1997), pp. 505-523; Dan D. Goldhaber and DominicJ. Brewer, “Does Teacher Certification Matter? HighSchool Certification State and StudentAchievement,” Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, vol. 22 no. 2 (2000), pp. 129-145; and D. H.Monk, “Subject Area Preparation of SecondaryMathematics and Science Teachers and StudentAchievement,” Economics of Education Review, vol. 13,no. 2 (1994), pp. 125-145.

30. Linda Darling-Hammond, Teacher Quality and StudentAchievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence,Document R-99-1 (Seattle, WA: Center for the Studyof Teaching and Policy, December 1999).

31. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’sReport Card: Mathematics 2000, Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

32. National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’sReport Card: Science Highlights 2000, NCES 2002-452(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,November 2002), p. 11.

33. National Center for Education Statistics,Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce:Prevalence of Out-of-field Teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000,NCES 2002-603 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Education, May 2002).

34. National Center for Education Statistics,Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce.

35. Craig D. Jerald, All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-of-field Teaching (Washington, D.C.: TheEducation Trust, August 2002), p. 7.

36. Urban Teacher Collaborative, The Urban TeacherChallenge: Teacher Demand and Supply in the Great CitySchools (Washington, D.C.: Council of Great CitySchools, 2000).

37. American Association for the Advancement ofScience, Project 2061, “Few Middle School MathTextbooks Will Help Students Learn, Says AAAS’Project 2061 Evaluation” (press release, Washington,D.C., January 22, 1999); American Association forthe Advancement of Science, Project 2061, “HeavyTextbooks Light on Learning: Not One MiddleGrades Science Text Rated Satisfactory by AAAS’sProject 2061” (press release, Washington, D.C.,September 28, 1999).

38. National Research Council, Adding It Up: HelpingChildren Learn Mathematics (Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press, 2001), p. 4.

39. William H. Schmidt, Curtis C. McKnight, Richard T.Houang, and others, Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum and Learning (SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001).

40. National Commission on Mathematics and ScienceTeaching for the 21st Century, Before It’s Too Late(September 2000), p. 16.

41. National Center for Education Statistics, Projections ofEducation Statistics to 2012, NCES 2002-030(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,October, 2002), Table l; U.S. Census Bureau,Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5-Year AgeGroups, Race, and Hispanic Origin with Special AgeCategories: Middle Series, 2016 to 2020, (January 13,2000), available at <http://www.census.gov/popula-tion/projections/nation/summary/np-t4-e.pdf>.Accessed April 10, 2003.

42. Council of Chief State School Officers, StateIndicators of Science and Mathematics Education: 2001(Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers, 2001), Table 32.

43. Richard M. Ingersoll, “The Teacher Shortage: A Caseof Wrong Diagnosis and Wrong Prescription,” NASSPBulletin, vol. 86, no. 631 (2002), pp. 16-31.

44. Texas Center for Education Research, “The Costs ofTeacher Turnover” (background paper prepared forthe Texas State Board for Educator Certification,Austin, TX, November 2000), p. 16, available at<http://www.tasb.org/tcer/publications/teacher_turnover_full.doc>. Accessed March 17, 2003.

45. Richard M. Ingersoll, “Turnover AmongMathematics and Science Teachers in the U.S.”(background paper prepared for the NationalCommission on Mathematics and Science Teachingfor the 21st Century, Washington, D.C., February2000), p. 7, available at <http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/Ingersollp.doc>. Accessed March 17,2003.

47

Endnotes

46. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, NSB 02-01 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 2002), Table A2-16.

47. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest ofEducational Statistics: 2001, NCES 2002-130(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,April 2002), Table 268.

48. American Association for the Advancement of Science, In Pursuit of A Diverse Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce (Washington,D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001).

49. National Action Council for Minorities inEngineering, “NACME Reports Record MinorityEngineering Enrollments and New Challenges”(press release, New York, NY, September 17, 2002).

50. National Action Council for Minorities inEngineering, “NACME Reports Record MinorityEngineering Enrollments and New Challenges.”

51. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, Table A2-12.

52. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of theUnited States: 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Departmentof Commerce, 2002), Table 15.


54. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, Figure 2-9.

55. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, Figure 2-9 and p. 2-19.

56. Richard Sabot and John Wakemann-Linn, “GradeInflation and Course Choice,” Journal of EconomicPerspectives, vol. 5, no. 1 (1991), Table 2.

57. Valen E. Johnson, “An A Is an A Is an A…AndThat’s The Problem,” New York Times, April 14, 2002,p. 14.

58. Valen E. Johnson, “An A Is an A Is an A,” p. 14.

59. National Research Council, TransformingUndergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,Engineering, and Technology (Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press, 1999), p. 15.

60. National Research Council, Evaluating and ImprovingUndergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics (Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press, 2000), p. 14.

61. National Research Council, TransformingUndergraduate Education, p. 26.

62. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, p. 3-6.

63. Daniel E. Hecker, “Occupational employment projections to 2010,” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 124,no. 11 (2001), pp. 57-84.


65. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, p. 3-31.

66. National Research Council, Attracting PhDs to K-12Education (Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress, 2002), p. 11.

67. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy ofEngineering, and Institute of Medicine, Enhancingthe Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000),p. 14.

68. National Research Council, Attracting Science andMathematics PhDs to Secondary School Teaching(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000),p. 4.

69. Hecker, “Occupational employment projections to2010.”

70. Hecker, “Occupational employment projections to2010.”

71. National Science Board, Science and EngineeringIndicators: 2002, Figure 2-20.

72. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine,“Current Visa Restrictions Interfere with U.S.Science and Engineering Contributions toImportant National Needs” (press release,Washington, D.C., December 13, 2002).

73. National Science Foundation, International Mobilityof Scientists and Engineers to the United States, NSF 98-316 (Arlington, VA: National ScienceFoundation, 1998).

74. Emily M. Smith, “teamwork with the next genera-tion,” Mechanical Engineering, June 2002 (online),available at <http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/june02/features/feat_toc.html>.Accessed March 17, 2003.

75. Educational Testing Service, Meeting the Need forScientists, Engineers, and an Educated Citizenry in aTechnological Society (Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Service, 2002), p. 24.

76. Council for Corporate and School Partnerships,Guiding Principles for Business and School Partnerships,(September 2002), pp. 22-23, available at<http://www.nabe.org/documents/GP.pdf>.Accessed March 17, 2003.

77. Sherry McCall Ross and Katherine Denniston, TheMaryland Educators’ Summer Research Program, (April2002), available at <http://k12s.phast.umass.edu/stemtec/pathways/Proceedings/Papers/Ross-p.doc>. Accessed March 17, 2003.

78. Council of Great City Schools, Foundations forSuccess, pp. 86-87.

48


79. Council of Chief State School Officers, Key StateEducation Policies on K-12 Education: 2000(Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers, 2000), Tables 13 and 27.

80. Business Coalition for Education Reform, From theBoardroom to the Blackboard: The Business Role inImproving Education in Delaware, p. 1, accessible at <http://www.bcer.org/projres/Blackb.pdf>.Accessed April 10, 2003.

81. Denise-Marie Balona, “Experiments help studentsprepare for science FCAT,” Orlando Sentinel,December 3, 2002, p. A1.

82. Abby Goodnough, “Shortage Ends as City LuresNew Teachers,” New York Times, August 23, 2002, p. A1.

83. Beatriz Chu Clewell and Laurie B. Forcier,“Increasing the Number of Mathematics and

Science Teachers: A Review of Teacher RecruitmentPrograms” (background paper prepared for theNational Commission on Mathematics and ScienceTeaching for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.,March 2000), p. 18, available at <http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/ClewellForcier.pdf>.Accessed March 17, 2003.

84. National Commission on Mathematics and ScienceTeaching for the 21st Century, Before It’s Too Late;National Research Council, Attracting PhDs to K-12Education.

85. Julia E. Koppich, Investing in Teaching (Washington,D.C.: National Alliance of Business, 2001), pp. 35-36.

86. Julie Blair, “Regional Teaching License Pushed for2003,” Education Week, vol. 22, no. 10 (2002), pp. 19-20.

49

Endnotes

Page 3, PETER A. BENOLIEL

While I agree that grading policies shouldbe in “alignment with other departments inthe institution,” I suspect that STEM policiesmore accurately reflect needed outcomesthan those in other departments, which tendto be more lax and permissive.

50


MEMORANDUM OF COMMENT, RESERVATION, OR DISSENT

OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

For 60 years, the Committee for EconomicDevelopment has been a respected influenceon the formation of business and publicpolicy. CED is devoted to these two objectives:

To develop, through objective research andinformed discussion, findings and recommenda-tions for private and public policy that will contrib-ute to preserving and strengthening our free society,achieving steady economic growth at high employ-ment and reasonably stable prices, increasing pro-ductivity and living standards, providing greaterand more equal opportunity for every citizen, andimproving the quality of life for all.

To bring about increasing understanding bypresent and future leaders in business, government,and education, and among concerned citizens, of theimportance of these objectives and the ways in whichthey can be achieved.

CED’s work is supported by private volun-tary contributions from business and industry,

51

foundations, and individuals. It is independent,nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonpolitical.

Through this business-academic partner-ship, CED endeavors to develop policy state-ments and other research materials thatcommend themselves as guides to public andbusiness policy; that can be used as texts incollege economics and political science coursesand in management training courses; thatwill be considered and discussed by newspaperand magazine editors, columnists, and com-mentators; and that are distributed abroad topromote better understanding of the Ameri-can economic system.

CED believes that by enabling businessleaders to demonstrate constructively their con-cern for the general welfare, it is helping busi-ness to earn and maintain the national andcommunity respect essential to the successfulfunctioning of the free enterprise capitalistsystem.

*Life Trustee

ChairmanROY J. BOSTOCK, Chairman Emeritus,Executive CommitteeBcom3 Group, Inc.

Vice ChairmenGEORGE H. CONRADES, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAkamai Technologies, Inc.JAMES A. JOHNSON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerJohnson Capital PartnersARTHUR F. RYAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaFREDERICK W. TELLING, Vice President Corporate

Strategic Planning and Policy DivisionPfizer Inc.

REX D. ADAMS, Professor of Business AdministrationThe Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityPAUL A. ALLAIRE, Retired ChairmanXerox CorporationCOUNTESS MARIA BEATRICE ARCOAAC American Asset CorporationIAN ARNOF, Retired ChairmanBank One, Louisiana, N.A.MERRILL J. BATEMAN, PresidentBringham Young UniversityJAMES S. BEARD, PresidentCaterpillar Financial Services Corp.HENRY P. BECTON, JR., President and

General ManagerWGBH Educational FoundationTHOMAS D. BELL, JR., President and Chief

Executive OfficerCousins PropertiesALAN BELZER, Retired President and Chief

Operating OfficerAlliedSignal Inc.PETER A. BENOLIEL, Chairman, Executive

CommitteeQuaker Chemical CorporationMELVYN E. BERGSTEIN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerDiamond Cluster International, Inc.DEREK BOK, President EmeritusHarvard UniversityNational Chair, Common CauseLEE C. BOLINGER, PresidentColumbia UniversityROY J. BOSTOCK, Chairman Emeritus,Executive CommitteeBcom3 Group, Inc.JACK O. BOVENDER, JR., Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerHealth Care of America

CED BOARD OF TRUSTEES

JOHN BRADEMAS, President EmeritusNew York UniversityJOSEPH BRANDON, Chairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerGeneral RE CorporationWILLIAM E. BROCK, ChairmanBridges LearningSystems, Inc.THOMAS J. BUCKHOLTZ, Executive Vice PresidentBeyond Insight CorporationMICHAEL BUNGEY, Chief Executive OfficerCordiant Communications GroupTONY BUZZELLI, Deputy Managing PartnerDeloitte & Touche LLPFLETCHER L. BYROM, President and Chief

Executive OfficerMICASU CorporationDONALD R. CALDWELL, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerCross Atlantic Capital PartnersDARALD W. CALLAHAN, Executive Vice PresidentChevronTexaco CorporationDAVID A. CAPUTO, PresidentPace UniversityFRANK C. CARLUCCI, Chairman EmeritusThe Carlyle GroupJOHN B. CAVE, PrincipalAvenir Group, Inc.RAYMOND G. CHAMBERS, Chairman of the BoardAmelior FoundationROBERT CHESS, ChairmanInhale Therapeutic Systems, Inc.MICHAEL CHESSER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerUnited WaterCAROLYN CHIN, ChairmanCommtouch/C3 PartnersJOHN L. CLENDENIN, Retired ChairmanBellSouth CorporationFERDINAND COLLOREDO-MANSFELD, Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerCabot Properties, Inc.GEORGE H. CONRADES, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAkamai Technologies, Inc.JAMES P. CORCORAN, ConsultantDAVID M. COTE, President and Chief Executive OfficerHoneywell International Inc.STEPHEN A. CRANE, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerStirling Cooke Brown Holdings LimitedW. BOWMAN CUTTER, Managing DirectorWarburg PincusPAUL DANOS, DeanThe Amos Tuck School of BusinessDartmouth CollegeRONALD R. DAVENPORT, Chairman of the BoardSheridan Broadcasting CorporationJOHN T. DEE, Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerVolume Services AmericaJOHN J. DEGIOIA, PresidentGeorgetown University

*

*

*Life Trustee

ROBERT M. DEVLIN, Former Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer

American General CorporationJOHN DIEBOLD, ChairmanJohn Diebold IncorporatedSAM DIPIAZZA, Global Chief ExecutivePricewaterhouseCoopersLINDA M. DISTLERATH, Vice President,

Global Health PolicyMerck & Co., Inc.IRWIN DORROS, PresidentDorros AssociatesFRANK P. DOYLE, Retired Executive Vice PresidentGeneral Electric CompanyPHILIP DUKE, Executive Vice President, RetiredLockheed Martin CorporationFRANK DUNN, President and Chief Executive OfficerNortel NetworksT. J. DERMOT DUNPHY, ChairmanKildare Enterprises, LLCCHRISTOPHER D. EARL, Managing DirectorPerseus Capital, LLCW. D. EBERLE, ChairmanManchester Associates, Ltd.ROBERT A. ESSNER, President and

Chief Executive OfficerWyethDIANA FARRELL, DirectorMcKinsey Global InstituteG. STEVEN FARRIS, President, Chief Executive

Officer and Chief Operating OfficerApache CorporationKATHLEEN FELDSTEIN, PresidentEconomics Studies, Inc.E. JAMES FERLAND, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerPublic Service Enterprise Group Inc.EDMUND B. FITZGERALD, Managing DirectorWoodmont AssociatesHARRY L. FREEMAN, ChairThe Mark Twain InstituteMITCHELL S. FROMSTEIN, Chairman EmeritusManpower Inc.PAMELA B. GANN, PresidentClaremont McKenna CollegeJOSEPH GANTZ, PartnerGG Capital, LLCE. GORDON GEE, ChancellorVanderbilt UniversityTHOMAS P. GERRITY, Dean EmeritusThe Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaFREDERICK W. GLUCK, Of CounselMcKinsey & Company, Inc.CAROL R. GOLDBERG, PresidentThe AvCar Group, Ltd.ALFRED G. GOLDSTEIN, President and Chief

Executive OfficerAG AssociatesJOSEPH T. GORMAN, Retired ChairmanTRW Inc.RICHARD A. GRASSO, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerNew York Stock Exchange, Inc.

EARL G. GRAVES, SR., Publisher and ChiefExecutive Officer

Black Enterprise MagazineWILLIAM H. GRAY, III, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThe College FundGERALD GREENWALD, ChairmanGreenbriar EquityBARBARA B. GROGAN, PresidentWestern Industrial ContractorsPATRICK W. GROSS, Founder and Senior AdvisorAmerican Management Systems, Inc.JEROME H. GROSSMAN, Senior FellowJohn F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityRONALD GRZYWINSKI, ChairmanShorebank CorporationJUDITH H. HAMILTON, Former President and Chief

Executive OfficerClassroom ConnectWILLIAM A. HASELTINE, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerHuman Genome Sciences, Inc.WILLIAM F. HECHT, Chairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerPPL CorporationWILLIAM HENDERSONFormer Postmaster GeneralRICHARD H. HERSH, PresidentTrinity CollegeJOSEPH D. HICKS, Retired President and Chief

Executive OfficerSiecor CorporationHEATHER HIGGINS, PresidentRandolph FoundationRODERICK M. HILLS, ChairmanHills Enterprises, Ltd.HAYNE HIPP, President and Chief Executive OfficerThe Liberty CorporationDEBORAH C. HOPKINS, Chief Corporate Strategy

OfficerCitigroup, Inc.PAUL M. HORN, Senior Vice President, ResearchIBM CorporationMATINA S. HORNER, Executive Vice PresidentTIAA-CREFPHILIP K. HOWARD, Vice ChairmanCovington & BurlingROBERT J. HURST, Vice ChairmanThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, PresidentRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteWILLIAM C. JENNINGS, ChairmanUS Interactive, Inc.JEFFREY A. JOERRES, President and Chief

Executive OfficerManpower Inc.JAMES A. JOHNSON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerPerseus LLCL. OAKLEY JOHNSON, Senior Vice President,

Corporate AffairsAmerican International GroupROBERT M. JOHNSON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBowne & Co., Inc.

*

*

*Life Trustee

VAN E. JOLISSAINT, Corporate Economist, RetiredDaimlerChrysler CorporationH.V. JONES, Managing DirectorKorn/Ferry InternationalPRES KABACOFF, President and Co-ChairmanHistoric Restoration, Inc.EDWARD A. KANGAS, Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer, RetiredDeloitte Touche TohmatsuJOSEPH E. KASPUTYS, Chairman, President

and Chief Executive OfficerGlobal Insight, Inc.WILLIAM E. KIRWAN, ChancellorUniversity System of MarylandTHOMAS J. KLUTZNICK, PresidentThomas J. Klutznick CompanyCHARLES F. KNIGHT, ChairmanEmerson Electric Co.CHARLES E.M. KOLB, PresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentC. JOSEPH LABONTE, ChairmanThe Vantage GroupBENJAMIN LADNER, PresidentAmerican UniversityKURT M. LANDGRAF, President and Chief

Executive OfficerEducational Testing ServiceROBERT W. LANE, Chairman and Chief Executive

OfficerDeere & CompanyW. MARK LANIER, PartnerThe Lanier Law Firm, P.C.CHARLES R. LEE, ChairmanVerizon CommunicationsWILLIAM W. LEWIS, Director EmeritusMcKinsey Global InstituteMcKinsey & Company, Inc.IRA A. LIPMAN, Chairman of the Board and PresidentGuardsmark, Inc.BRUCE K. MACLAURY, President EmeritusThe Brookings InstitutionCOLETTE MAHONEY, President EmeritusMarymount Manhattan CollegeEDWARD A. MALLOY, PresidentUniversity of Notre DameELLEN R. MARRAM, PartnerNorth Castle PartnersT. ALLAN MCARTOR, ChairmanAirbus Industrie of North America, Inc.ALONZO L. MCDONALD, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAvenir Group, Inc.EUGENE R. MCGRATH, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.DAVID E. MCKINNEY, PresidentThe Metropolitan Museum of ArtDEBORAH HICKS MIDANEK, PrincipalGlass & Associates, Inc.HARVEY R. MILLER, Managing DirectorGreenhill & Co., LLCALFRED T. MOCKETT, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerAmerican Management Systems, Inc.

NICHOLAS G. MOORE, Senior AdvisorBechtel CorporationDIANA S. NATALICIO, PresidentThe University of Texas at El PasoMARILYN CARLSON NELSON, Chairman, President

and Chief Executive OfficerCarlson Companies, Inc.MATTHEW NIMETZ, PartnerGeneral Atlantic PartnersTHOMAS H. O’BRIEN, Chairman of the Executive

CommitteePNC Financial Services Group, Inc.DEAN R. O’HARE, Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer, RetiredChubb CorporationRONALD L. OLSON, PartnerMunger, Tolles & OlsonROBERT J. O'TOOLE, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerA.O. Smith CorporationSTEFFEN E. PALKO, Vice Chairman and PresidentXTO Energy Inc.SANDRA PANEM, PartnerCross Atlantic Partners, Inc.JERRY PARROTT, Vice President, Corporate

CommunicationsHuman Genome Sciences, Inc.CAROL J. PARRY, PresidentCorporate Social Responsibility AssociatesVICTOR A. PELSON, Senior AdvisorUBS Warburg LLCDONALD K. PETERSON, President and Chief

Executive OfficerAvaya Inc.PETER G. PETERSON, ChairmanThe Blackstone GroupTODD E. PETZEL, PresidentAzimuth Alternative Asset Management LLPRAYMOND PLANK, ChairmanApache CorporationARNOLD B. POLLARD, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Chief Executive GroupHUGH B. PRICE, PresidentNational Urban LeagueGEORGE A. RANNEY, JR., President and Chief

Executive OfficerChicago Metropolis 2020NED REGAN, PresidentBaruch CollegeJAMES Q. RIORDAN, ChairmanQuentin Partners Co.E. B. ROBINSON, JR., Chairman EmeritusDeposit Guaranty CorporationJAMES D. ROBINSON, III, General Partner and FounderRRE VenturesROY ROMERFormer Governor of ColoradoSuperintendent, Los Angeles Unified School DistrictDANIEL ROSE, ChairmanRose Associates, Inc.HOWARD M. ROSENKRANTZ, Chief Executive OfficerGrey Flannel AuctionsLANDON H. ROWLAND, ChairmanJanus Capital Group Inc.

*Life Trustee

NEIL L. RUDENSTINE, Chair, ArtStor Advisory BoardThe Andrew Mellon FoundationGEORGE RUPP, PresidentInternational Rescue CommitteeEDWARD B. RUST, JR., Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerState Farm Insurance CompaniesARTHUR F. RYAN, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Prudential Insurance Company of AmericaMARGUERITE W. SALLEE, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBrown SchoolsSTEPHEN W. SANGER, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerGeneral Mills, Inc.BERTRAM L. SCOTT, PresidentTIAA-CREF Life Insurance CompanyMICHAEL M. SEARS, Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial OfficerThe Boeing CompanyJOHN E. SEXTON, PresidentNew York UniversityDONNA SHALALA, PresidentUniversity of MiamiJUDITH SHAPIRO, PresidentBarnard CollegeWALTER H. SHORENSTEIN, Chairman of the BoardThe Shorenstein CompanyGEORGE P. SHULTZ, Distinguished FellowThe Hoover InstitutionStanford UniversityJOHN C. SICILIANO, Director, Global Institutional

ServicesDimensional Fund AdvisorsRUTH J. SIMMONS, PresidentBrown UniversityFREDERICK W. SMITH, Chairman, President and

Chief Executive OfficerFederal Express CorporationJOHN F. SMITH, JR., ChairmanGeneral Motors CorporationDAVID A. SPINA, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerState Street CorporationALAN G. SPOON, Managing General PartnerPolaris VenturesSTEPHEN STAMAS, ChairmanThe American AssemblyPAULA STERN, PresidentThe Stern Group, Inc.DONALD M. STEWART, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThe Chicago Community TrustROGER W. STONE, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBox USA Group, Inc.MATTHEW J. STOVER, PresidentLKM VenturesLAWRENCE SUMMERS, PresidentHarvard UniversityRICHARD J. SWIFT, Chairman, President and Chief

Executive OfficerFoster Wheeler CorporationRICHARD F. SYRON, President and Chief

Executive OfficerThermo Electron Corporation

HENRY TANG, ChairmanCommittee of 100FREDERICK W. TELLING, Vice President Corporate

Strategic Planning and Policy DivisionPfizer Inc.JAMES A. THOMSON, President and Chief

Executive OfficerRANDCHANG-LIN TIEN, NEC Distinguished Professor of

Engineering EmeritusUniversity of California, BerkeleyTHOMAS J. TIERNEY, FounderThe Bridgespan GroupSTOKLEY P. TOWLES, PartnerBrown Brothers Harriman & Co.STEPHEN JOEL TRACHTENBERG, PresidentThe George Washington UniversityTALLMAN TRASK, III, Executive Vice PresidentDuke UniversityJAMES L. VINCENT, Chairman, RetiredBiogen, Inc.FRANK VOGL, PresidentVogl CommunicationsDONALD C. WAITE, III, DirectorMcKinsey & Company, Inc.HERMINE WARREN, PresidentHermine Warren Associates, Inc.ARNOLD R. WEBER, President EmeritusNorthwestern UniversityJOSH S. WESTON, Honorary ChairmanAutomatic Data Processing, Inc.CLIFTON R. WHARTON, JR., Former Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerTIAA-CREFDOLORES D. WHARTON, Former Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerThe Fund for Corporate Initiatives, Inc.RICHARD WHEELER, Chief Executive OfficerInContext Data Systems, Inc.MICHAEL W. WICKHAM, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerRoadway Express, Inc.HAROLD M. WILLIAMS, President EmeritusThe J. Paul Getty TrustL. R. WILSON, ChairmanNortel Networks CorporationLINDA SMITH WILSON, President EmeritaRadcliffe CollegeMARGARET S. WILSON, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerScarbroughsJACOB J. WORENKLEIN, Global Head of Project

& Sectorial FinanceSociete GeneraleKURT E. YEAGER, President and Chief Executive

OfficerElectric Power Research InstituteRONALD L. ZARELLA, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBausch & Lomb, Inc.MARTIN B. ZIMMERMAN, Vice President,

Corporate AffairsFord Motor CompanyEDWARD ZORE, President and Chief Executive

OfficerThe Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

*

RAY C. ADAM, Retired ChairmanNL IndustriesROBERT O. ANDERSON, Retired ChairmanHondo Oil & Gas CompanyROY L. ASHLos Angeles, CaliforniaSANFORD S. ATWOOD, President EmeritusEmory UniversityROBERT H. B. BALDWIN, Retired ChairmanMorgan Stanley Group Inc.GEORGE F. BENNETT, Chairman EmeritusState Street Investment TrustHAROLD H. BENNETTSalt Lake City, UtahJACK F. BENNETT, Retired Senior Vice PresidentExxon CorporationHOWARD W. BLAUVELTKeswick, VirginiaMARVIN BOWERDelray Beach, FloridaALAN S. BOYDLady Lake, FloridaANDREW F. BRIMMER, PresidentBrimmer & Company, Inc.PHILIP CALDWELL, Retired ChairmanFord Motor CompanyHUGH M. CHAPMAN, Retired ChairmanNationsBank SouthE. H. CLARK, JR., Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerThe Friendship GroupA.W. CLAUSEN, Retired Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerBankAmerica CorporationDOUGLAS D. DANFORTHExecutive AssociatesJOHN H. DANIELS, Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerArcher-Daniels Midland Co.RALPH P. DAVIDSONWashington, D.C.ALFRED C. DECRANE, JR., Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerTexaco, Inc.ROBERT R. DOCKSON, Chairman EmeritusCalFed, Inc.LYLE EVERINGHAM, Retired ChairmanThe Kroger Co.THOMAS J. EYERMAN, Retired PartnerSkidmore, Owings & MerrillDON C. FRISBEE, Chairman EmeritusPacifiCorpRICHARD L. GELB, Chairman EmeritusBristol-Myers Squibb CompanyW. H. KROME GEORGE, Retired ChairmanALCOAWALTER B. GERKEN, Retired Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerPacific Life Insurance Company

CED HONORARY TRUSTEES

LINCOLN GORDON, Guest ScholarThe Brookings InstitutionJOHN D. GRAY, Chairman EmeritusHartmarx CorporationRICHARD W. HANSELMAN, ChairmanHealth Net Inc.ROBERT S. HATFIELD, Retired ChairmanThe Continental Group, Inc.ARTHUR HAUSPURG, Member, Board of TrusteesConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.PHILIP M. HAWLEY, Retired Chairman of the BoardCarter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.ROBERT C. HOLLAND, Senior FellowThe Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaLEON C. HOLT, JR., Retired Vice ChairmanAir Products and Chemicals, Inc.SOL HURWITZ, Retired PresidentCommittee for Economic DevelopmentGEORGE F. JAMESPonte Vedra Beach, FloridaDAVID KEARNS, Chairman EmeritusNew American SchoolsGEORGE M. KELLER, Retired Chairman of the BoardChevron CorporationFRANKLIN A. LINDSAY, Retired ChairmanItek CorporationROBERT W. LUNDEEN, Retired ChairmanThe Dow Chemical CompanyRICHARD B. MADDEN, Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerPotlatch CorporationAUGUSTINE R. MARUSILake Wales, FloridaWILLIAM F. MAY, Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerStatue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.OSCAR G. MAYER, Retired ChairmanOscar Mayer & Co.GEORGE C. MCGHEE, Former U.S. Ambassador

and Under Secretary of StateJOHN F. MCGILLICUDDY, Retired Chairman

and Chief Executive OfficerChemical Banking CorporationJAMES W. MCKEE, JR., Retired ChairmanCPC International, Inc.CHAMPNEY A. MCNAIR, Retired Vice ChairmanTrust Company of GeorgiaJ. W. MCSWINEY, Retired Chairman of the BoardThe Mead CorporationROBERT E. MERCER, Retired ChairmanThe Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.RUBEN F. METTLER, Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerTRW Inc.LEE L. MORGAN, Former Chairman of the BoardCaterpillar, Inc.ROBERT R. NATHAN, ChairmanNathan Associates, Inc.

J. WILSON NEWMAN, Retired ChairmanDun & Bradstreet CorporationJAMES J. O’CONNOR, Former Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerUnicom CorporationLEIF H. OLSEN, PresidentLHO GROUPNORMA PACE, PresidentPaper Analytics AssociatesCHARLES W. PARRY, Retired ChairmanALCOAWILLIAM R. PEARCE, DirectorAmerican Express Mutual FundsJOHN H. PERKINS, Former PresidentContinental Illinois National Bank and Trust CompanyRUDOLPH A. PETERSON, President and Chief

Executive Officer EmeritusBankAmerica CorporationDEAN P. PHYPERSNew Canaan, ConnecticutEDMUND T. PRATT, JR., Retired Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerPfizer Inc.ROBERT M. PRICE, Former Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerControl Data CorporationJAMES J. RENIERRenier & AssociatesIAN M. ROLLAND, Former Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerLincoln National CorporationAXEL G. ROSIN, Retired ChairmanBook-of-the-Month Club, Inc.WILLIAM M. ROTHPrinceton, New Jersey

WILLIAM RUDERWilliam Ruder IncorporatedRALPH S. SAUL, Former Chairman of the BoardCIGNA CompaniesGEORGE A. SCHAEFER, Retired Chairman of the BoardCaterpillar, Inc.ROBERT G. SCHWARTZNew York, New YorkMARK SHEPHERD, JR., Retired ChairmanTexas Instruments, Inc.ROCCO C. SICILIANOBeverly Hills, CaliforniaELMER B. STAATS, Former Controller

General of the United StatesFRANK STANTON, Former PresidentCBS, Inc.EDGAR B. STERN, JR., Chairman of the BoardRoyal Street CorporationALEXANDER L. STOTTFairfield, ConnecticutWAYNE E. THOMPSON, Past ChairmanMerritt Peralta Medical CenterTHOMAS A. VANDERSLICETAV AssociatesSIDNEY J. WEINBERG, JR., Senior DirectorThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.ROBERT C. WINTERS, Chairman EmeritusPrudential Insurance Company of AmericaRICHARD D. WOOD, DirectorEli Lilly and CompanyCHARLES J. ZWICKCoral Gables, Florida

CED RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD

RALPH D. CHRISTYJ. Thomas Clark ProfessorDepartment of Agricultural, Resource,

and Managerial EconomicsCornell University

ALAIN C. ENTHOVENMarriner S. Eccles Professor of Public

and Private ManagementStanford UniversityGraduate School of Business

BENJAMIN M. FRIEDMANWilliam Joseph Maier Professor of

Political EconomyHarvard University

ROBERT W. HAHNResident ScholarAmerican Enterprise Institute

HELEN F. LADDProfessor of Public Policy Studies

and EconomicsSanford Institute of Public PolicyDuke University

ROBERT LITANVice President, Director of Economic

StudiesThe Brookings Institution

WILLIAM D. NORDHAUSSterling Professor of EconomicsCowles FoundationYale University

RUDOLPH G. PENNERSenior FellowThe Urban Institute

CECILIA E. ROUSEProfessor of Economics and

Public AffairsWoodrow Wilson SchoolPrinceton University

JOHN P. WHITELecturer in Public PolicyJohn F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard University

CED PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

CHARLES E.M. KOLBPresident

ResearchEVERETT M. EHRLICHSenior Vice President and

Director of Research

VAN DOORN OOMSSenior Fellow

JANET HANSENVice President and Director

of Education Studies

ELLIOT SCHWARTZVice President and Director

of Economic Studies

MELISSA GESELLResearch Associate

DAVID KAMINResearch Associate

JEFF LOESELResearch Associate

NORA LOVRIENResearch Associate

Advisor on InternationalEconomic PolicyISAIAH FRANKWilliam L. Clayton Professor

of International EconomicsThe Johns Hopkins University

Communications/Government RelationsMICHAEL J. PETROVice President and Director of Business and Government Policy

and Chief of Staff

MORGAN BROMANDirector of Communications

CHRIS DREIBELBISBusiness and Government Policy

Associate

CHRISTINE RYANProgram Director

ROBIN SAMERSAssistant Director of Communications

DevelopmentMARTHA E. HOULEVice President for Development and

Secretary of the Board of Trustees

CAROLINA LOPEZManager, Development

NICHOLE REMMERTDevelopment Associate

RICHARD M. RODERODirector of Development

Finance and AdministrationLAURIE LEEChief Financial Officer and Vice President

of Finance and Administration

GLORIA Y. CALHOUNOffice Manager

HOOJU CHOIDatabase Administrator

SHARON A. FOWKESExecutive Assistant to the President

JEFFREY SKINNERSenior Accountant/Grants Administrator

RACQUEL TUPAZSenior Accountant/Financial Reporting

AMANDA TURNEROffice Manager

PATRICE WILLIAMSReceptionist

*Statements issued in association with CED counterpart organizations in foreign countries.

STATEMENTS ON NATIONAL POLICY ISSUED BY THECOMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS:

Exploding Deficits, Declining Growth: The Federal Budget and the Aging of America (2003)Justice for Hire: Improving Judicial Selection (2002)A Shared Future: Reducing Global Poverty (2002)A New Vision for Health Care: A Leadership Role for Business (2002)Preschool For All: Investing In a Productive and Just Society (2002)From Protest to Progress: Addressing Labor and Environmental Conditions Through Freer Trade (2001)The Digital Economy: Promoting Competition, Innovation, and Opportunity (2001)Reforming Immigration: Helping Meet America's Need for a Skilled Workforce (2001)Measuring What Matters: Using Assessment and Accountability to Improve Student Learning (2001)Improving Global Financial Stability (2000)The Case for Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China (2000)Welfare Reform and Beyond: Making Work Work (2000)Breaking the Litigation Habit: Economic Incentives for Legal Reform (2000)New Opportunities for Older Workers (1999)Investing in the People's Business: A Business Proposal for Campaign Finance Reform (1999)The Employer’s Role in Linking School and Work (1998)Employer Roles in Linking School and Work: Lessons from Four Urban Communities (1998)America’s Basic Research: Prosperity Through Discovery (1998)Modernizing Government Regulation: The Need For Action (1998)U.S. Economic Policy Toward The Asia-Pacific Region (1997)Connecting Inner-City Youth To The World of Work (1997)Fixing Social Security (1997)Growth With Opportunity (1997)American Workers and Economic Change (1996)Connecting Students to a Changing World: A Technology Strategy for Improving Mathematics and

Science Education (1995)Cut Spending First: Tax Cuts Should Be Deferred to Ensure a Balanced Budget (1995)Rebuilding Inner-City Communities: A New Approach to the Nation’s Urban Crisis (1995)Who Will Pay For Your Retirement? The Looming Crisis (1995)Putting Learning First: Governing and Managing the Schools for High Achievement (1994)Prescription for Progress: The Uruguay Round in the New Global Economy (1994)*From Promise to Progress: Towards a New Stage in U.S.-Japan Economic Relations (1994)U.S. Trade Policy Beyond The Uruguay Round (1994)In Our Best Interest: NAFTA and the New American Economy (1993)What Price Clean Air? A Market Approach to Energy and Environmental Policy (1993)Why Child Care Matters: Preparing Young Children For A More Productive America (1993)

Restoring Prosperity: Budget Choices for Economic Growth (1992)The United States in the New Global Economy: A Rallier of Nations (1992)The Economy and National Defense: Adjusting to Cutbacks in the Post-Cold War Era (1991)Politics, Tax Cuts and the Peace Dividend (1991)The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision for Child Development and Education (1991)Foreign Investment in the United States: What Does It Signal? (1990)An America That Works: The Life-Cycle Approach to a Competitive Work Force (1990)Breaking New Ground in U.S. Trade Policy (1990)Battling America’s Budget Deficits (1989)*Strengthening U.S.-Japan Economic Relations (1989)Who Should Be Liable? A Guide to Policy for Dealing with Risk (1989)Investing in America’s Future: Challenges and Opportunities for Public Sector Economic

Policies (1988)Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged (1987)Finance and Third World Economic Growth (1987)Reforming Health Care: A Market Prescription (1987)Work and Change: Labor Market Adjustment Policies in a Competitive World (1987)Leadership for Dynamic State Economies (1986)Investing in Our Children: Business and the Public Schools (1985)Fighting Federal Deficits: The Time for Hard Choices (1985)Strategy for U.S. Industrial Competitiveness (1984)Productivity Policy: Key to the Nation’s Economic Future (1983)Energy Prices and Public Policy (1982)Public Private Partnership: An Opportunity for Urban Communities (1982)Reforming Retirement Policies (1981)Transnational Corporations and Developing Countries: New Policies for a Changing

World Economy (1981)Stimulating Technological Progress (1980)Redefining Government’s Role in the Market System (1979)Jobs for the Hard to Employ: New Directions for a Public-Private Partnership (1978)

CE Circulo de EmpresariosMadrid, Spain

CEAL Consejo Empresario de America LatinaBuenos Aires, Argentina

CEDA Committee for Economic Development of AustraliaSydney, Australia

CIRD China Institute for Reform and DevelopmentHainan, People’s Republic of China

EVA Centre for Finnish Business and Policy StudiesHelsinki, Finland

FAE Forum de Administradores de EmpresasLisbon, Portugal

IDEP Institut de l’EntrepriseParis, France

IW Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft KoelnCologne, Germany

Keizai DoyukaiTokyo, Japan

SMO Stichting Maatschappij en OndernemingThe Netherlands

SNS Studieförbundet Naringsliv och SamhälleStockholm, Sweden

CED COUNTERPART ORGANIZATIONS

Close relations exist between the Committee for Economic Development and inde-pendent, nonpolitical research organizations in other countries. Such counterpartgroups are composed of business executives and scholars and have objectives similarto those of CED, which they pursue by similarly objective methods. CED cooperateswith these organizations on research and study projects of common interest to thevarious countries concerned. This program has resulted in a number of joint policystatements involving such international matters as energy, assistance to developingcountries, and the reduction of nontariff barriers to trade.

Committee for Economic Development

2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 700Washington, D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 296-5860Fax: (202) 223-0776

261 Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 688-2063

Fax: (212) 758-9068

www.ced.org

Documents

LEARNING FOR THE FUTUREedtechpolicy.org/ArchivedWebsites/report_scientists.pdf · of the Committee for Economic Development. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87186-147-X