Order Code RL33434
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background,
Federal Policy, and Legislative Action
Updated March 21, 2008
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
STEM Education: Federal Policy and Legislative Action - A Review, Essays (high school) of United States Philosophy
An overview of stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education in the united states, focusing on background, federal policy, and legislative action. The concerns about the insufficient number of students, teachers, and practitioners in stem areas, and the results of international assessments such as pisa. It also examines the goals, types of assistance, and target groups of federal stem education programs, and highlights the need for stronger coordination. The document concludes by discussing recent reports and their recommendations for improving stem education.
Typology: Essays (high school)
2010/2011
1 / 34
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download STEM Education: Federal Policy and Legislative Action - A Review and more Essays (high school) United States Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!
Order Code RL
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background,
Federal Policy, and Legislative Action
Updated March 21, 2008
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi Specialist in Education Policy Domestic Social Policy Division
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action
Summary
There is growing concern that the United States is not preparing a sufficient
number of students, teachers, and practitioners in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). A large majority of secondary school
students fail to reach proficiency in math and science, and many are taught by
teachers lacking adequate subject matter knowledge.
When compared to other nations, the math and science achievement of U.S.
pupils and the rate of STEM degree attainment appear inconsistent with a nation
considered the world leader in scientific innovation. In a recent international
assessment of 15-year-old students, the U.S. ranked 28 th^ in math literacy and 24th^ in
science literacy. Moreover, the U.S. ranks 20 th^ among all nations in the proportion
of 24-year-olds who earn degrees in natural science or engineering.
A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 207 distinct
federal STEM education programs were appropriated nearly $3 billion in FY2004.
Nearly three-quarters of those funds and nearly half of the STEM programs were in
two agencies: the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Still, the study concluded that these programs are highly decentralized and require
better coordination. Though uncovering many fewer individual programs, a 2007
inventory compiled by the American Competitiveness Council also put the federal
STEM effort at $3 billion and concurred with many of the GAO findings regarding
decentralization and coordination.
STEM education (and competitiveness) issues have received a lot of attention
in recent years. Several high-profile proposals were forwarded by the academic and
business communities. In February of 2006, the President released the American
Competitiveness Initiative. During the 109 th^ Congress, three somewhat modest
STEM education programs were passed and signed into law. Finally, in the spring
and summer of 2007, some of the major STEM education legislative proposals were
combined into the America Competes Act of 2007, passed by the 110 th^ Congress and
signed by the President on August 9, 2007.
This report provides the background and context to understand these legislative
developments. The report first presents data on the state of STEM education in the
United States. It then examines the federal role in promoting STEM education. The
report concludes with a discussion of the legislative actions recently taken to address
federal STEM education policy.
1 In 2005 and early 2006, at least six major reports were released by highly respected U.S.
academic, scientific, and business organizations on the need to improve science and
mathematics education: The Education Commission of the States, Keeping America
Competitive: Five Strategies To Improve Mathematics and Science Education , July 2005;
The Association of American Universities, National Defense Education and Innovation
Initiative, Meeting America’s Economic and Security Challenges in the 21 st^ Century ,
January 2006; The National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for
a Brighter Economic Future , February 2006; The National Summit on Competitiveness,
Statement of the National Summit on Competitiveness: Investing in U.S. Innovation ,
December 2005; The Business Roundtable, Tapping America’s Potential: The Education
for Innovation Initiative , July 2005; the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Waiting for Sputnik , 2005.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education:
Background, Federal Policy, and
Legislative Action
Introduction
There is growing concern that the United States is not preparing a sufficient
number of students, teachers, and professionals in the areas of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 1 Although the most recent National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results show improvement in U.S.
pupils’ knowledge of math and science, the large majority of students still fail to
reach adequate levels of proficiency. When compared to other nations, the
achievement of U.S. pupils appears inconsistent with the nation’s role as a world
leader in scientific innovation. For example, among the 40 countries participating
in the 2003 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the U.S. ranked
28 th^ in math literacy and 24 th^ in science literacy.
Some attribute poor student performance to an inadequate supply of qualified
teachers. This appears to be the case with respect to subject-matter knowledge:
many U.S. math and science teachers lack an undergraduate major or minor in those
fields — as many as half of those teaching in middle school math. Indeed, post-
secondary degrees in math and physical science have steadily decreased in recent
decades as a proportion of all STEM degrees awarded. Although degrees in some
STEM fields (particularly biology and computer science) have increased in recent
decades, the overall proportion of STEM degrees awarded in the United States has
historically remained at about 17% of all postsecondary degrees awarded.
Meanwhile, many other nations have seen rapid growth in postsecondary educational
2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Programs and Related Trends , GAO-06-114, October 2005.
3 The ACC was created by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) and charged
with conducting a year-long study to identify all federal STEM education programs. U.S.
Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council , Washington,
D.C., 2007 [http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/acc-mathscience/index.html].
4 U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council ,
Washington, D.C., 2007, p. 11.
5 These points were reiterated by Cornelia M. Ashby, Director of GAO’s Education,
Workforce, and Income Security Team. Her testimony can be found on the GAO website
at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06702t.pdf].
6 U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council ,
Washington, D.C., 2007, p. 3.
attainment — with particularly high growth in the number of STEM degrees
awarded. According to the National Science Foundation, the United States currently
ranks 20th^ among all nations in the proportion of 24-year-olds who earn degrees in
natural science or engineering. Once a leader in STEM education, the United States
is now far behind many countries on several measures.
What has been the federal role in promoting STEM education? A study by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 207 distinct federal STEM
education programs that were appropriated nearly $3 billion in FY2004.^2 A more
recent study by the newly established Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC)
found 105 STEM education programs that were appropriated just over $3 billion in
FY2006.^3 The ACC report attributed the difference between the number of programs
found by the two inventories to (1) programmatic changes, (2) differing definitions
of what constitutes a “program,” and (3) GAO’s reliance on unverified, agency-
reported data. 4 Apart from these differences, both reports came to similar
conclusions. Both found that federal STEM education programs had multiple goals,
provided multiple types of assistance, and were targeted at multiple groups, but that
the bulk of this effort supports graduate and post-doctoral study in the form of
fellowships to improve the nation’s research capacity. Both studies concluded that
the federal effort is highly decentralized and could benefit from stronger
coordination, while noting that the creation of the National Science and Technology
Council in 1993 was a step in the right direction. 5 The ACC study also contained an
evaluative portion and concluded that “there is a general dearth of evidence of
effective practices and activities in STEM education.”^6
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the 110 th^ Congress that
would support STEM education in the United States. Many of the proposals in these
bills have been influenced by the recommendations of several reports recently issued
by the scientific, business, and policy-making communities. Of particular influence
has been a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Rising Above
the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic
Future — also known as the “Augustine” report. Many of the recommendations
appearing in the NAS report are also contained in the Administration’s American
9 The National Assessment Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan group created by
Congress in 1988 to set policy for the NAEP. More information on the board and NAEP
achievement levels can be found at [http://www.nagb.org/].
10 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s
Report Card: Mathematics 2005 , (NCES 2006-453), October 2005, p. 3.
solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter.” In contrast, the board states that
“Basic denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for
proficient work at a given grade.”^9
The most recent NAEP administration occurred in 2005. Figure 1 displays the
available results from the NAEP math tests administered between 1990 and 2005.
Although the proportion of 4 th^ and 8 th^ grade students achieving the proficient level
or above has been increasing each year, overall math performance in these grades has
been quite low. The percentage performing at the basic level has not improved in 15
years. About two in five students continue to achieve only partial mastery of math.
In 2005, only about one-third of 4th^ and 8th^ grade students performed at the proficient
level in math — 36% and 30%, respectively.^10 The remainder of students —
approximately 20% of 4th^ graders and just over 30% of 8th^ graders — scored below
the basic level.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card , various years.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 1990 1992 1996 2000 2005 4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade At Basic Proficient or Above
Figure 1. NAEP Math Scores, Selected Years: 1990-
11 The 2005 mathematics framework for grade 12 introduced changes from the previous
framework in order to reflect adjustments in curricular emphases and to ensure an
appropriate balance of content. For further information on these changes, go to
[http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_grade12_2005/s0413.asp].
12 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s
Report Card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006-466) May 2006, Figures 4, 14, and 24.
13 More information on the development of this assessment can be found in archived CRS
Report 86-683, Comparison of the Achievement of American Elementary and Secondary
Pupils with Those Abroad — The Examinations Sponsored by the International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) , by Wayne C. Riddle (available on
request).
14 Performance on the 1995 TIMSS assessment was normalized on a scale in which the
average was set at 500 and the standard deviation at 100. Each country was weighted so that
its students contributed equally to the mean and standard deviation of the scale. To provide
trend estimates, subsequent TIMSS assessments are pegged to the 1995 average.
15 All the TIMSS results in this report were taken from, Patrick Gonzales, Juan Carlos
Guzmán, Lisette Partelow, Erin Pahlke, Leslie Jocelyn, David Kastberg, and Trevor
Williams, Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005 — 005), December 2004.
The results among 12 th^ grade students are mixed. Although the percent scoring
at the basic level is higher among these students than among 4 th^ and 8 th^ grade
students, the percent scoring proficient or above is smaller. Moreover, the results
from recent years indicate that these percentages are in decline. [Note: changes in the
testing instrument may account for much if not all of this drop.^11 ]
Similarly low levels of achievement have been found with regard to knowledge
of science. Less than one-third of 4th^ and 8th^ grade students and less than one-fifth
of 12th^ grade students score at or above proficient in science. In 2005, the percentage
of 4 th^ , 8th^ , and 12th^ grade students scoring proficient or above was 29%, 29%, and
18%, respectively; compared to 27%, 30%, and 18% in 2000 and 28%, 29%, and
21% in 1996.^12
U.S. Students Compared to Students in Other Nations. Another
relatively recent development in the area of academic assessment has been the effort
by a number of nations to produce reliable cross-national comparison data. 13 The
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assesses
achievement in these subjects at grades 4 and 8 among students in several countries
around the world. TIMSS has been administered to 4th^ grade students on two
occasions (1995 and 2003) and to 8th^ grade students on three occasions (1995, 1999,
and 2003). In the latest administration, 25 countries participated in assessments of
their 4 th^ grade students, and 45 countries participated in assessments of their 8 th^ grade
students. Unlike NAEP, TIMSS results are reported only in terms of numerical
scores, not achievement levels.
U.S. 4th^ grade pupils outscored the international average on the most recent
TIMSS assessment.^14 The international average score for all countries participating
in the 2003 4 th^ grade TIMSS was 495 in math and 489 in science.^15 The average
score for U.S. students was 518 in math and 536 in science. U.S. 4th^ grade students
4 th^ Grade 8 th^ Grade
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 , NCES 2005-005, Dec.
16 Like the TIMSS, PISA results are normalized on a scale with 500 as the average score,
and results are not reported in terms of achievement levels. In 2003, PISA assessments were
administered in just over 40 countries.
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an OECD-
developed effort to measure, among other things, mathematical and scientific literacy
among students 15 years of age, that is, roughly at the end of their compulsory
education. 16 In 2003, U.S. students scored an average of 483 on math literacy —
behind 23 of the 29 OECD member states that participated and behind four of the 11
non-OECD countries. The average U.S. student scored 491 on science literacy —
behind 19 of the 29 OECD countries and behind three of the 11 non-OECD
countries. Table 2 displays the 2003 PISA scores on math and science literacy by
country (scores in bold are higher than the U.S. score).
17 Michael B. Allen, Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research
Say? , Education Commission of the States, July 2003.
18 The sample is drawn from the Department of Education Common Core of Data, which
contains virtually every school in the country.
19 U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, 2004 , NCES 2005-025,
October 2005, Table 67.
20 CRS analysis of Schools and Staffing Survey data, March 29, 2006.
21 U.S. Department of Education, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce ,
May 2002, Tables B-11 and B-12.
Math and Science Teacher Quality
Many observers look to the nation’s teaching force as a source of national
shortcomings in student math and science achievement. A recent review of the
research on teacher quality conducted over the last 20 years revealed that, among
those who teach math and science, having a major in the subject taught has a
significant positive impact on student achievement.^17 Unfortunately, many U.S. math
and science teachers lack this credential. The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)
is the only nationally representative survey that collects detailed data on teachers’
preparation and subject assignments.^18 The most recent administration of the survey
for which public data are available took place during the 1999-2000 school year.
That year, there were just under 3 million teachers in U.S. schools, about evenly split
between the elementary and secondary levels. Among the nation’s 1.4 million public
secondary school teachers, 13.7% reported math as their main teaching assignment
and 11.4% reported science as their main teaching assignment. 19
Nearly all public secondary school math and science teachers held at least a
baccalaureate degree (99.7%), and most had some form of state teaching certification
(86.2%) at the time of the survey. 20 However, many of those who taught middle
school (classified as grades 5-8) math and science lacked an undergraduate or
graduate major or minor in the subject they taught. Among middle-school teachers,
51.5% of those who taught math and 40.0% of those who taught science did not have
a major or minor in these subjects. By contrast, few of those who taught high school
(classified as grades 9-12) math or science lacked an undergraduate or graduate major
or minor in that subject. Among high school teachers, 14.5% of those who taught
math and 11.2% of those who taught science did not have a major or minor in these
subjects.^21 Table 3 displays these statistics for teachers in eight subject areas.
22 Through various “completions” surveys of postsecondary institutions administered
annually since 1960, ED enumerates the number of degrees earned in each field during the
previous academic year.
23 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of
Education Statistics, 2004 , NCES 2005-025, October 2005, Table 169.
24 Includes Ph.D., Ed.D., and comparable degrees at the doctoral level, but excludes
first-professional degrees, such as M.D., D.D.S., and law degrees.
Table 3. Teachers Lacking a Major or Minor in Subject Taught, 1999-
Middle School High School English 44.8% 13.3% Foreign language 27.2% 28.3% Mathematics 51.5% 14.5% Science 40.0% 11.2% Social science 29.6% 10.5% ESL/bilingual education 57.6% 59.4% Arts and music 6.8% 6.1% Physical/health education 12.6% 9.5%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 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, May 2002.
Given the link between teachers’ undergraduate majors and student achievement
in math and science, these data appear to comport with some of the NAEP findings
discussed earlier. Recall that those assessments revealed that only about one-third
of 4th^ and 8th^ grade students performed at the proficient or higher level in math and
science. On the other hand, at the high school level, the data seem to diverge. While
four-fifths of math and science teachers at this level have a major in the subject, only
two-fifths of high school students scored proficient or above on the NAEP in those
subjects.
Postsecondary Education
STEM Degrees Awarded in the United States. The number of students
attaining STEM postsecondary degrees in the U.S. more than doubled between 1960
and 2000; however, as a proportion of degrees in all fields, STEM degree awards
have stagnated during this period. 22 In the 2002-2003 academic year, more than 2.
million degrees were awarded by postsecondary institutions in the United States. 23
That year, just under 16% (399,465) of all degrees were conferred in STEM fields;
all STEM degrees comprised 14.6% of associate degrees, 16.7% of baccalaureate
degrees, 12.9% of master’s degrees, and 34.8% of doctoral degrees.^24 Table 4
displays the distribution of degrees granted by academic level and field of study.
At the associate and baccalaureate levels, the number of STEM degrees awarded
was roughly equivalent to the number awarded in business. In 2002-2003, 92,
CRS-
Table 4. Degrees Conferred by Level and Field of Study, 2002-
Associate
Baccalaureate
Master’s
Doctoral
Total
All fields
STEM fields, total
STEM, percentage of all fields
Biological and biomedical sciences
Computer and information sciences
Engineering and engineering technologies
Mathematics and statistics
Physical sciences and science technologies
Non-STEM fields, total
Business
Education
English language and literature/letters
Foreign languages and area studies
Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities
Philosophy, theology, and religious studies/vocations
Psychology
Social sciences
History
Other
Source:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Digest of Education Statistics, 2004
, NCES 2005-025, Oct. 2005, Table 249-252.
- Introduction
- STEM Education in the United States
- Elementary and Secondary Education
- Assessments of Math and Science Knowledge
- U.S. Students Compared to Students in Other Nations
- Math and Science Teacher Quality
- Postsecondary Education
- STEM Degrees Awarded in the United States
- U.S. Degrees Awarded to Foreign Students
- International Postsecondary Educational Attainment
- International Comparisons in STEM Education
- Elementary and Secondary Education
- Federal Programs that Promote STEM Education
- Government Accountability Office Study
- Academic Competitiveness Council Study
- Program Effectiveness
- Description of Selected Federal STEM Programs
- NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards
- NSF Graduate Research Fellowships
- NSF Mathematics and Science Partnerships
- NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates
- ED Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants
- ED Mathematics and Science Partnerships
- Recommendations to Improve Federal STEM Education Policy
- Legislation Action on STEM Education Policy
- Major Legislative Actions in the 109 th Congress
- The America COMPETES Act
- Department of Energy
- Education Department
- National Science Foundation
- Figure 1. NAEP Math Scores, Selected Years: 1990-2005 List of Figures
- Figure 2. STEM Degrees Awarded, 1970-2003
- Figure 3. Tertiary Education by Country, 1980 and
- Figure 4. Federal STEM Education Funding FY2006, by Agency
- Table 1. TIMSS Scores by Grade and Country/Jurisdiction, List of Tables
- Table 2. PISA Math and Science Scores,
- Table 3. Teachers Lacking a Major or Minor in Subject Taught, 1999-2000
- Table 4. Degrees Conferred by Level and Field of Study, 2002-2003
- Table 5. Field of Study, by Selected Region and Country,
- Russian Federation Math Science Math Science
- Romania — —
- Philippines
- Palestinian National Authority — —
- Norway
- New Zealand
- Netherlands
- Morocco
- Moldova, Republic of
- Malaysia — —
- Macedonia, Republic of — —
- Lithuania
- Lebanon — —
- Latvia
- Korea, Republic of — —
- Jordan — —
- Japan
- Italy
- Israel — —
- Iran, Islamic Republic of
- Indonesia — —
- Hungary
- Hong Kong SAR
- Ghana — —
- Estonia — —
- Egypt — —
- Cyprus
- Chinese Taipei
- Chile — —
- Bulgaria — —
- Botswana — —
- Belgium-Flemish
- Bahrain — —
- Australia
- Armenia
- Table 2. PISA Math and Science Scores,
- OECD Average Math Science
- United States
- Turkey
- Switzerland
- Sweden
- Spain
- Slovak Republic
- Portugal
- Poland
- Norway
- New Zealand
- Netherlands
- Mexico
- Luxembourg
- Korea, Republic of
- Japan
- Italy
- Ireland
- Iceland
- Hungary
- Greece
- Germany
- France
- Finland
- Denmark
- Czech Republic
- Canada
- Belgium
- Austria
- Australia
- Uruguay Non-OECD Countries
- United Kingdom
- Tunisia
- Thailand
- Serbia and Montenegro
- Russian Federation
- Macao SAR
- Liechtenstein
- Latvia
- Indonesia
- Hong Kong SAR
- Figure 2. STEM Degrees Awarded, 1970-
28 The World Bank, Constructing Knowledge Societies: new challenges for tertiary
education , Washington, D.C., October 2002. Available at [http://siteresources.worldbank
.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/
ConstructingKnowledgeSocieties.pdf].
29 Unlike the OECD data, which are based on labor-force surveys of households and
individuals, the CID data are based on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) census and survey data of the entire population.
Documentation describing methodology as well as data files for the CID data is available
at [http://www.cid.harvard.edu/ciddata/ciddata.html].
The World Bank estimates that, in 1998, tertiary enrollment of the population
between 18 and 24 years old was 6% in China and 8% in India, up from 1.7% and
5.2%, respectively, in 1980. 28 Based on measures constructed by faculty at the
Center for International Development (CID), the National Science Foundation (NSF)
has generated an estimate of the distribution of the world’s population that possesses
a tertiary education. 29 The NSF estimates that the number of people in the world who
had a tertiary education more than doubled from 73 million in 1980 to 194 million
in 2000. Moreover, the two fastest-growing countries were China and India. China
housed 5.4% of the world’s tertiary degree holders in 1980, and India had 4.1%; by
2000, the share in these countries was 10.5% and 7.7%, respectively. Indeed, as
Figure 3 indicates, China and India were the only countries to substantially increase
their share of the world’s tertiary degree-holders during that period.
Figure 3. Tertiary Education by Country, 1980 and 2000
Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, Volume 1 , Arlington, VA, NSB 06-01, Jan. 2006.