National Advocacy for STEM

University of Massachusetts > STEM > National Advocacy for STEM

COMPETITIVENESS:
FEDERAL FUNDING EQUAL TO STEM K-12 GOALS?

There are probably few issues that draw more enthusiasts and worriers in U.S. political and industry circles than the word "competitiveness." Particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, government, business and education leaders are examining the policy frameworks that are needed to underpin strong U.S. biotechnology enterprises. One of the key issues, again, is the pipeline.

The Academic Competitiveness Council (May 2007) looked at federal funding of STEM education, an approximately $3.1 billion in FY 2006, based on a study required by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. These funds cover kindergarten through postgraduate education and outreach. Approximately $2.4 billion went to undergraduate and graduate programs (77% of total funding).

Among its many findings, the Council reported that half of higher education programs funded in this way were aimed at strengthening research capacity rather than broadly improving the nation's education system. The Council also cites a lack of evidence-based policy or best practices; it is no wonder the fight to fund professional development adequately may be expected to falter. Witness the struggle on Capitol Hill to fund a key Department of Education program.

In mid-June, the Triangle Coalition reported that the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education would authorize a second year of level funding only for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title II Part B, the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program at the Department of Education for $182 million. On the Senate side, the spending markup contained a meager $1.8 million increase to $184 million, effectively flat as well.

The Math and Science Partnerships are the only dedicated source of federal funding for STEM teacher professional development. This program, created in the 2002 NCLB Act, provides block grants for states to distribute to partnerships of local education agencies (LEAs) and college and universities for the improvement of STEM instruction and student achievement. Since the passage of the NCLB in 2002, MSP has been authorized at a level of $450 million annually, but actual funding has never approached the authorized level.

Few would disagree that federal policy formation in the STEM fields is critical to increasing the talent pipeline. This work tends to focus on students who major in STEM and who complete college. It also focuses on those who choose to train in the STEM fields. (See letter from the Triangle Coalition to the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees, http://trianglecoalition.blogspot.com/2007/06/encourage-appropriations-committee-to.html)

The sense of urgency is heightened when looking at indicators of interest in biology concentrators at the undergraduate level. In Massachusetts, a pattern emerges that is reflected nationwide: The number of Massachusetts students planning to major in biological sciences dropped from 2,273 (of 59,000 test takers) in 1999 to a low point of 1,744 in 2003. It increased to 2,086 in 2006. The data shows a slight increase in the number of males planning to study biological sciences. In Massachusetts, the numbers of students going in to health and related science is simply holding steady: 5,190 in 2006.

An assumption that the U.S. will always be a world leader in science and technology is not borne out by the evidence: The challenges that face the nation are well documented in a report by the National Academy of Sciences.  It sets some ambitious STEM goals: It includes recommendations for federal level appropriations to support research but also a concerted focus on workforce issues. Its recommendations are based on a careful assessment of need:  It calls for annual recruitment of 10,000 science and mathematics teachers through four-year scholarships. These would be merit-based scholarships of up to $20,000 each year for four years for qualified educational expenses, including tuition and fees, and subsequently requiring five years of service in K-12 grades.

The American Competitiveness Act, HR 5358, "Science and Math Education for Competitiveness Act", arises out of these concerns.  Among its many provisions, it calls for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to carry out funding programs in undergraduate education and a report to Congress on the results of the use of the "broader societal" impacts criterion as specified in the legislation.

To echo President Kennedy's advice, "...I have spoken about a new frontier. This is not a partisan term. It refers instead to this Nation's place in history, to the fact that we stand on the edge of a new era, filled with crises and opportunity, an era to be characterized by achievement and challenge. It is an era which calls for action for the best efforts of those who would test the unknown..." If we inspire our children to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics, we will fill the pipeline, we will test the unknown and we will continue to dominate in creativity and economic development.  If we are able to do this, we can do anything. We certainly must try.

The PDF files on this page require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.