There's a Way Forward for STEM Education, But is There Sufficient Will? (September 27, 2010)

Three reports totalling just under 300 pages have landed on President Obama's desk since May, two this month urging a revitalisation of the teaching of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics from K-12 and beyond.

1. PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS: Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
        From the US' National Science Board (May 2010)

2.  PREPARE AND INSPIRE: K-12 EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATH (STEM) FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
        From the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

3. RISING ABOVE the GATHERING STORM, REVISITED: Rapidly Approaching Category 5
        From The National Academies: Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine

In many respects the findings and recommendations are as valid for Australia as they are for the United States: There is an urgent and immediate need for a long-term concerted effort to improve the teaching and support for the teachers to produce the scientifically literate workforce the nation needs, and that means unless everyone—elected officials, scientists, the private sector, and the public—pays more proactive attention to the matter.

TFW reported earlier on the recommendations by PCAST to remedy what it describes as "[T]oo many American students conclude early in their education that STEM subjects are boring, too difficult, or unwelcoming, leaving them ill-prepared to meet the challenges that will face their generation, their country, and the world." Those recommendations include a new federal agency to promote digital learning, higher salaries for the cream of the nation's teaching corps, and the creation of 1000 STEM-focused schools.

No sooner had PCAST made its report public that the naysayers launched.

Grover "Russ" Whitehurst, current director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, and former head of the Department of Education's (ED's) research arm, the Institute for Education Sciences, during the Bush Administration, responded to PCAST's Co-chair Eric Lander's claim that "the vast majority of what we are talking about will not require new money because it is either already something that could be covered under existing authorities and appropriations, or under existing appropriations with new authorities." with, that's wishful thinking: "PCAST has some useful recommendations in the abstract, but they are not grounded in the realities of politics, legislation, or how federal agencies operate," and continued: "The program to pay [$15,000 per annum] bonuses to [22,000] master science teachers would require specific congressional authorization". Furthermore, "The funding that PCAST mentions is from something in the Administration's 2011 budget, which is unlikely to be funded at anything like the requested levels. STEM schools would certainly require a new authorization and appropriation. The 21st century after-school program is a formula-funded grant that is to be used by statute to improve student performance in the core academic subjects. I don't see any authority in legislation to allow ED to focus it on STEM."

Finally Dr. Whitehurst told Science he is also sceptical that the Obama Administration has sufficient political capital to achieve major structural changes, in particular a $200-million-a-year entity to promote new educational technologies and digital learning materials. "An Advanced Research Projects Agency–Education seems like a good idea, but it, too, would have to be authorized and funded if it is to have the scale to address the goals articulated in PCAST. ARPA–ED can't exist unless Congress wants it and wants to spend real money on it."

________________________

Camilla Benbow, who led a National Science Board panel that prepared the report and recommendation on "Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators" points out that "Talent development takes a lot of hard work," and most education reformers "have been focused on trying to bring up the mean," whereas her panel in contrast concentrates on "increasing the top level of achievement by focusing on excellence as well as equity."  Put simply the panels recommendations include portable, merit-based scholarships for middle- and high-school students along the lines of NSF's graduate research fellowships. "We don't want talent to be dependent on who your parents are, or where you were born."

Once again the lack of catering to the really gifted is at least as prevalent in Australia as it is in the United States. Certainly there is no indication of concern on the part of the Chief Scientist or those who make up the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, let alone our parliamentarians.

__________________________

"Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited" examines how well the recommendations of the 2005 report by the National Academies have been implemented.

In the view of Charles Vest, president of the National Academy of Engineering and co-author of the report: "There is support for research but it is unstable, and these investments only make sense if they are sustained for the long haul," and while the report credits US lawmakers with implementing several of the 2005 recommendations, including the creation of Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy(ARPA-E), an organization to fund high-risk energy research within the US Department of Energy, it notes that several recommendations including strengthening primary and high school education — were not implemented or not promptly financed.

And in the view of the report's authors the competitiveness of the United States has worsened and: "In spite of the efforts of both those in government and the private sector, the outlook for America to compete for quality jobs has further deteriorated over the past five years." Indeed Nature reports that at the media briefing the chairman of the 17 member panel, Norman Augustine, said: "Many of us were concerned that the US might be losing ground, and indeed we are."

On the other hand Jerry Marschke, an economist at the State University of New York at Albany who studies the science and technology workforce told  Nature "The way they wrap up their policy recommendations, they're trying to scare people," but he does agree that the general message of the report is correct: long-term investment in science and education will help to improve living standards and create better-paying jobs because skilled and educated workers with access to technology can be more productive.

Nature's report concluded with this plea from chairman Augustine: "This is for our children. If we can't do it for them the Lord help us."