Revitalizing STEM Education for U.S. Competitiveness

1. STEM Education and U. S. Competitiveness February 23, 2010 John WinnChief Program OfficerNational Math and Science Initiative

2. Pre-Independence • 1903 Airplane • 1908 Model T • 1926 Rocket • 1927 Television • 1958 Integrated Circuit • 1975 Microsoft • 1975 First Cell Phone Call • 1983 PC • 1984 Dell • 1985 Genetic Engineering • 1995 Ebay • 1998 Google • 1752 Lightning Rod • 1776 Submarine • 1794 Cotton Gin • 1797 Interchangeable Parts • 1807 Steamboat • 1836 Revolver • 1859 Oil Well • 1860 Repeating Rifle • 1876 Telephone • 1879 Incandescent Light Bulb • 1902 Air Conditioning For the last 200 years, math and science have been the dynamic force behind the U.S. economy – from the cotton gin to the telegraph to the incandescent light bulb to synthetic fabrics to miracle drugs to the microchip. When America led the world in math and science – fueled by an education system that made education accessible to every child – America moved forward. 2

3. Going to School Every morning, 55 million U.S. children head off to 124,110 schools. • The huge majority—86%—attend public schools. • Just 7.7 million students attend the nation’s 28,384 private schools. • More than 6 million other students aren’t enrolled—they’re too young, home-schooled, or have dropped out. 3

4. Consider These Recent Alarm Signals in Education Percentage of American students at or above the proficient level in math • The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) figures showed that fewer than four out of 10 fourth- and eighth-graders are proficient in mathematics. The NAEP results showed fourth graders had made no gains since the last time the math test was administered in 2007. • A report by the American College Test (ACT) in 2009 found that only 42 percent of the U.S. high school graduates it tested were ready for college level math.

5. Our Students Are Falling Behind in Science • Only 29 percent of American fourth grade students • A third of eighth grade students; • And barely 18 percent of twelfth grade students perform at or above the proficient level in science. 5

6. Math Science 2000 2003 2000 2003 Rank Country Rank Country Finland Korea Netherlands Liechtenstein Japan Canada Belgium Switzerland Australia New Zealand Czech Rep Iceland Denmark France Sweden UK Austria Germany Ireland Norway Luxembourg Poland Hungary Spain Latvia Russia Portugal Italy Greece Mexico Brazil Finland Japan Korea Liechtenstein Australia Netherlands Czech Rep New Zealand Canada UK Switzerland France Belgium Sweden Ireland Hungary Germany Poland Iceland Austria Russia Latvia Spain Italy Norway Luxembourg Greece Denmark Portugal Mexico Brazil USA USA U.S. Students Lagging in Math and Science Difficult to compete in an increasingly “flat” world – especially if our students underperform in math and science 6 Source: NCES Digest of Educational Statistics, 2005; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2003

7. The Rewards of Education Incomes tend to rise with more years of school & more degrees 7

8. Consider These Recent Alarm Signals in Education • A report issued by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in December 2008 confirmed that other countries are outpacing the U.S. in providing access to college. Every state received a failing grade for college affordability except for California, which earned a “C” because of its community college system. • The number of American engineers and physical scientists graduating has declined by 20 percent. The number of U.S. citizens receiving PhD’s in engineering has declined by 34 percent and the number receiving bachelor’s degrees in engineering has declined by 18 percent. Two-thirds of the students receiving PhD’s in engineering in U.S. universities are non-U.S. citizens.

9. Math and Science Can Change the World—Again • This generation has an overwhelming desire to improve many aspects of our life. We need to do a better job of linking their desire to change the world to math and science.  • Today’s young people are concerned about health care, energy security, our environment and the global food crisis. • -- Each of these issues will ultimately be addressed through technology produced by mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. 9

10. Math and Science Can Change the World—Again • The younger generation is by far the largest user of technology, but as one educator put it: “They are like the city kid who loves an egg sandwich but has no idea where the egg came from.” —We need America’s youth to understand that the IPODS, MP3 players, and video games that have become indispensible to their everyday lives are produced by mathematicians and scientists and engineers. • For the younger generation to actualize the change that they want to produce, they must first recognize that the new literacy of the 21st century includes math and science. 10

11. Cultural Attitudes Are Out of Date • To Increase the talent pool in math and science, we must increase the number of girls and women in STEM fields. • To Increase the number of women in STEM fields, we must address cultural issues to change attitudes. • - Old think: Math and science aren’t hip. • +New think: Math and Science are futuristic careers. • - Old think: Girls can’t do math. • +New think: Girls can succeed with math and science. 11

12. OECD: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results In response to the need for cross-nationally comparable evidence on student performance OECD launched PISA in 1997. It aims to provide a new basis for policy dialogue and for collaboration in defining and implementing educational goals, in innovative ways that reflect judgments about the skills that are relevant to adult life. Results of the three-yearly PISA surveys reveal wide differences in the performance of education systems in terms of the learning outcomes achieved by students. This report uses recent economic modeling to relate cognitive skills – as measured by PISA and other international instruments – to economic growth. The relationship indicates that relatively small improvements in the skills of a nation’s labor force can have very large impacts on future well-being. There is uncertainty in these projections as there is in all projections. 12

13. PISA – Modest Goal A modest goal of having all OECD countries boost their average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years – which is less than the most rapidly improving education system in the OECD, Poland, achieved between 2000 and 2006 alone – implies an aggregate gain of OECD GDP of USD 115 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010 (as evaluated at the start of reform in terms of real present value of future improvements in GDP). 13

14. PISA – Aggressive Goal Other aggressive goals, such as bringing all students to a level of minimal proficiency for the OECD (i.e. reaching a PISA score of 400), would imply aggregate GDP increases of close to USD 200 trillion according to historical growth relationships. 14

15. PISA Results 15

16. The National Math & Science Initiative: A New Solution for the 21st Century NMSI presents a vision for strengthening and expanding the STEM talent base in the U.S. NMSI is an innovative organization that is actively transforming the way young people think of themselves in relation to science, technology, mathematics, engineering, society, and their future. 16

17. NMSI – A Bold Approach SCALE UP INC Identify effective programs and take them to national scale through: Public private partnerships Faithful replication of essential elements Performance management Collection and use of data to improve program outcomes Planned scaling and sustaining of programs after initial funding period 17

18. NMSI– Impact • Develop a growing pipeline of young, empowered, and talented students and teachers prepared for and excited about entering the world of engineering, technology, and science. • Create a new army of Americans prepared for college and prepared to lead industries and bring innovation into both R&D and management. • Forever eradicate the cultural assumption that we can’t produce STEM education programs of equal interest to all young people. 18

19. Challenges • The STEM crisis has been around for decades with little real progress. • Reforming STEM education requires a comprehensive approach requiring the alignment of many initiatives. • Private support has been largely local and fragmented with few significant results to show. • Funders are reluctant to enter on a national scale. • Science achievement is not a priority for state assessment systems. • Too few highly qualified math and science teachers are being produced in teacher preparation programs. • The tension between federal and state and state • and local control impacts serious large scale • coordination. • Fragmented and narrowly focused federal funding • programs hinder large scale reform. • The education has little experience and knowledge of how to successfully scale and sustain effective programs. 19

20. Positive Developments • President Obama has made STEM Education a priority in his Educate to Innovate Initiative • There have been two STEM related • White House events since • November 2009 and formed the • President’s Council of Advisors on • Science and Technology • STEM Education is the only priority component of the Race To The Top Grant awards • The $650 million Investment in Innovation grant program emphasizes STEM education • The National Math and Science Initiative was formed in 2007 and now sponsors programs in 19 universities and six states 20

21. Partnerships are Abounding 21

22. STEM Policy Basics • Federal and State policies must focus squarely on supporting and incentivizing improved student achievement in STEM fields • Policies should encourage and leverage value added by nonprofit, foundation, and corporate involvement • There should be greater accountability for results in student achievement through strong data collection and evaluation • There should be targeted support for the expansion of producing high quality STEM teachers with strong content mastery • There should be corporate incentives for investment in all aspects of STEM education, research and development • Policy and programs should emphasize scaling of strategies proven effective • Federal agencies should be required to participated in a coordinated national agenda to improve STEM education 22

23. National Impact: STEM policy advocacy • STEM initiatives must be a real priority • Being active in national association agendas • Demand accountability for results • Learn about and promote scaling of effective programs • Join in consortium support for identifying and scaling effective programs NOW 23

24. State Impact: • Advocate for strong statewide initiatives • Participate in public private initiatives • Get state chambers to focus on strategies • to improve STEM education in the state • Develop STEM coalitions with other • businesses in the state • Seek STEM education hearings in the state legislature • Offer concrete solutions for statewide STEM initiatives • Partner with higher education systems to produce more highly qualified STEM teachers and bringing research to the marketplace 24

25. Local Impact: • Advocate for strong STEM education initiatives including access to accelerated math and science courses • Partner with local schools to support out of school STEM learning activities • Encourage employees with STEM knowledge to mentor students • Offer job shadowing activities reinforcing how math, science and technology are used in the workplace • Provide incentives to STEM teachers for performance of students • Provide local workforce need data to school boards and propose goals for improving STEM proficiency in K-12 • Become active in promoting evaluation of local efforts and advocate for more effective action where needed 25

26. For more information, please contact: The National Math and Science Initiative 325 North Saint Paul Street Suite 2900 Dallas, Texas 75201 214.665.2500 214.665.2525 (fax) nationalmathandscience.org 26