[Paleopsych] Business Roundtable: Tapping America's Potential
checker at panix.com
Sun Sep 25 20:03:47 UTC 2005
Actually, there are only five articles. Google <"polite totalitarianism">
and then <anarcho-tyranny> for more.
Business Roundtable: Tapping America's Potential: The Education for Innovation
[This is much more explicitly fascistic than the statement of Education
Secretary Spellings just sent. She did, however, endorse the goal of this
report, to double the number of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) graduates by 2015, as "doable." Of course, the degrees could
simply be awarded like high school diplomas are to those who show up (which is
80% of life, according to Woody Allen). Or, free tuition and other expenses,
plus a stipend, could be paid only to these majors. I had to look up the
figures. There are 1.2 million undergraduate degrees awarded every year in the
U.S. now. The report calls for a doubling of STEM graduates from 0.2 to 0.4
million. It would be quite a shift.
[This report goes back to July, and I thought that that would be the end of it.
I was wrong, as is seen from the new commission on higher education that
Spellings created yesterday. Now I have vague memories of this Business
Roundtable as a product of Kennedy's New Frontier, the subject of probably the
best know of Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures, "The Fascist New Frontier."
They seem to have disappeared sometime during the Reagan years, at least from
casual public view. Now they are back.
[The whole problem with such national goals is that the economy is a system, a
process. Products emerge from this process, to be sure, but it is the process
that is the subject of law, not the products. There are the number of annual
STEM graduates that there are now is because of students looking a job
prospects, how much the jobs will pay, how rewarding they are, and what
continued employment prospects will be. The salaries depend on how consumers
value the products which STEM graduates help produce.
[Capitalism means control, not by capitalists, but by consumers. If consumers
value learning yoga techniques more than having better designed chairs, then
yoga instructors will make more than ergonomic engineers. (This is not an exact
statement, but you get the idea.) If the Business Roundtable's goal do come
about, which would take some doing, then the salaries of STEM graduates would
fall, since the annual supply of new entrants would double. Future students
would shift to other majors. And STEM graduates would not be employed in STEM
jobs. Some will wind up as yoga instructors.
[The plan is fascistic--using the word to describe an economy with private
ownership of the means of production but with government control--because of
these very national goals. It is a national goal to be competitive with other
countries. Yoga instruction is not exported and therefore does not contribute
to any national goal. It has individual but not collective value. By contrast,
ergonomic chairs can be exported and so has a collective value, as well as an
[Both yoga and ergonomic chairs promote well-being.
[It could be, however, that the rules governing the economy do not reward STEMs
as well as they ought to. My uncle, George Forman, invented the reversible
pitch propeller, an invention iirc that was used until the end of the propeller
era. He got a bonus of $25. That's the agreement he had with his employer, you
say. But these laws--process now, not product--can be modified.
[I can expound on this but would prefer for now just to send an article that
has influenced me enormously, Rutledge Vining, "On the problem of recognizing
and diagnosing faultiness in the observed performance of an economic system,"
Journal of Law and Economics 5 (1962): 165-184, as a PDF only. If someone will
scan it and turn it to txt, that would be most excellent! He was one of my
[Expect to see more of this as the new "civic" generation continues to roll
into place. The generational change has little to do with Republicans or
To double the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
graduates by 2015.
1. A Letter to Leaders Who Care about America's Future
2. A Statement by...
5. From Rhetoric to Action
7. Why Education Reform Is Necessary but Insufficient
TAPPING AMERICA'S POTENTIAL
The Education for Innovation Initiative
To Leaders Who Care about America's Future:
Fifteen of our country's most prominent business organizations have joined
together to express our deep concern about the United States' ability to
sustain its scientific and technological superiority through this decade and
beyond. To maintain our country's competitiveness in the 21st century, we must
cultivate the skilled scientists and engineers needed to create tomorrow's
Our goal is to double the number of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics graduates with bachelor's degrees by 2015.1
The United States is in a fierce contest with other nations to remain the
world's scientific leader. But other countries are demonstrating a greater
commitment to building their brainpower. Consider these facts:
Increasing international competition: By 2010, if current trends continue, more
than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be living in
Asia.2 South Korea, with one-sixth of our population, graduates as many
engineers as the United States.3 Increasing reliance on and reduced
availability of foreign talent to work in the United States: More than 50
percent of all engineering doctoral degrees awarded by U.S. engineering
colleges are to foreign nationals.4 However, security concerns in the United
States are reducing the number of foreign students, while competition for this
talent from other countries and the opportunity to return to their home
countries to work is increasing. Alarming domestic trends: The number of
engineering degrees awarded in the United States is down 20 percent from the
peak year of 1985.5 Although U.S. fourth graders score well against
international competition, they fall near the bottom or dead last by 12th grade
in mathematics and science, respectively.6 Tapping America's Potential: The
Education for Innovation Initiative Our organizations feel strongly that the
United States must respond to this challenge as energetically as we did to the
Soviet Union's launching of Sputnik in the 1950s. To remain the technological
leader in the 21st century, we must establish and achieve an ambitious goal: We
must double today's science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates
with bachelor's degrees by 2015.
Current federal education reform programs, such as No Child Left Behind, and
state efforts to redesign high schools provide a foundation that we can build
on. However, to sustain American competitiveness in science and engineering, we
need a focused, long-term, comprehensive initiative by the public and private
1. Build public support for making improvement in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics performance a national priority. 2. Motivate U.S.
students and adults, using a variety of incentives, to study and enter science,
technology, engineering and mathematics careers, with a special effort geared
to those in currently underrepresented groups. 3. Upgrade K-12 mathematics and
science teaching to foster higher student achievement, including differentiated
pay scales for mathematics and science teachers. 4. Reform visa and immigration
policies to enable the United States to attract and retain the best and
brightest science, technology, math and engineering students from around the
world to study for advanced degrees and stay to work in the United States. 5.
Boost and sustain funding for basic research, especially in the physical
sciences and engineering. The recommendations above and the statement, "Tapping
America's Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative," that follows
echo the alarm expressed by numerous prestigious public and private groups
about the need to inspire, recruit and train a larger domestic pool of
technical talent. This is so vital for the security and continued prosperity of
our country that we can no longer delay action.
We are calling on business leaders to unite with government officials at all
levels--national, state and local--to create the momentum needed to achieve
this goal. We are committed to providing the leadership and sustained effort
needed to help the American people realize the dimensions of the problem and
the urgent need for solutions.
William T. Archey, President & CEO, AeA
Brian K. Fitzgerald, Executive Director, Business-Higher Education Forum
John J. Castellani, President, Business Roundtable
Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President, Council on Competitiveness
Bruce Mehlman, Executive Director, Computer Systems Policy Project
Harris N. Miller, President, Information Technology Association of America
Rhett Dawson, President, Information Technology Industry Council
Roger Campos, President & CEO, Minority Business RoundTable
John Engler, President, National Association of Manufacturers
Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr., President & CEO, National Defense Industrial
George M. Scalise, President, Semiconductor Industry Association
Ken Wasch, President, Software & Information Industry Association
Lezlee Westine, President & CEO, TechNet
Matthew J. Flanigan, President, Telecommunications Industry Association
Thomas J. Donohue, President & CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
A Statement by ...
AeA, Business Roundtable, Business-Higher Education Forum, Computer Systems
Policy Project, Council on Competitiveness, Information Technology Association
of America, Information Technology Industry Council, Minority Business
RoundTable, National Association of Manufacturers, National Defense Industrial
Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, Software & Information
Industry Association, TechNet, Telecommunications Industry Association, and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Almost 50 years ago, the Soviet Union shocked Americans by launching Sputnik,
the first Earth orbit satellite. The U.S. response was immediate and dramatic.
Less than a year later, President Eisenhower signed into law the National
Defense Education Act, a major part of the effort to restore America's
Today, our nation faces a more serious, if less visible, challenge. One of the
pillars of American economic prosperity--our scientific and technological
superiority--is beginning to atrophy even as other nations are developing their
own human capital.
If we wait for a dramatic event--a 21st-century version of Sputnik--it will be
too late. There may be no attack, no moment of epiphany, no catastrophe that
will suddenly demonstrate the threat. Rather, there will be a slow withering, a
gradual decline, a widening gap between a complacent America and countries with
the drive, commitment and vision to take our place.
History is replete with examples of world economies that once were dominant but
declined because of myopic, self-determined choices.
The United States is at such a critical point in our own history.
Virtually every major respected organization representing business, research
and education, as well as government science and statistics agencies and
commissions,8 has extensively documented the critical situation in U.S.
science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The indicators range from
measurable declines in U.S. innovation, such as patents and scientific
articles, to soaring numbers of students in Asia majoring in these fields, to
U.S. students' lagging interest and measured performance in math and science.
China not only graduates four times as many engineers as the United States,9
but it also offers lucrative tax breaks to attract companies to conduct
research and development (R&D) in the country.10
oInterest in engineering:
Out of the 1.1 million high school seniors in the United States who took a
college entrance exam in 2002, just under 6 percent indicated plans to pursue a
degree in engineering--nearly a 33 percent decrease in interest from the
On a recent international assessment of 15-year-olds' math problem-solving
skills, the United States had the smallest percentage of top performers and the
largest percentage of low performers compared to the other participating
developed countries.12 This is not surprising when nearly 70 percent of middle
school students are assigned to teachers who have neither a major nor
certification in mathematics.13
oInvestment in basic research:
In the United States, since 1970, funding for basic research in the physical
sciences has declined by half (from 0.093 percent to 0.046 percent) as a
percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP).14 For most of the 20th century,
the American education system provided a substantial part of the talent and
proficiency needed to sustain and improve our way of life. In addition, many
foreign scientists were attracted to pursue research in the United States by
the American scientific enterprise's top-notch facilities and financial
support, and by their own desire to escape totalitarian regimes and live in a
Today, however, as the U.S. economy becomes even more reliant on workers with
greater knowledge and technological expertise, the domestic supply of qualified
workers is not keeping up with the skill demands. Employers are increasingly
interested in hiring people who not only can execute well but also can create
the next wave of innovation. One economist estimates that "trailing other
developed countries on education measures may reduce U.S. economic growth by as
much as a half percentage point a year."15 All projections suggest that the
discrepancy between supply and demand of domestic talent will grow more
pronounced. In the face of the declining interest and proficiency of Americans
in science, math and engineering, American industry has become increasingly
dependent--some would say overly dependent--on foreign nationals to fill the
demand for talent in a variety of fields that require strong backgrounds in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
A number of developments--including heightened security after September 11,
growing competition from other countries for the same foreign talent and the
technological capacity for foreign talent to work in their home countries--have
underscored the need for greater scientific and technological self-sufficiency
in our country. The United States has always welcomed the best and brightest
from other countries to study and work here, and we should continue to do so.
We cannot and should not, however, rely so heavily on foreign talent to fill
critical positions in teaching, research and industry.
From Rhetoric to Action
A remarkable consensus emerges from the recommendations in recent reports and
statements about what the United States must do to maintain its pre-eminence in
science and engineering and to prepare its future workforce for the
high-skilled jobs created by a growing U.S. economy. The CEOs, university
presidents, members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, governors, Nobel
Laureates, scientists, mathematicians, researchers and educators on different
prestigious commissions and panels all agree that the United States risks a
declining standard of living if America postpones taking aggressive, strategic
The sense of urgency among those who see the problem at home and increased
competition from abroad provides a catalyst for action. Those who have studied
or experienced this challenge must provide leadership to build a broader
understanding of what is at stake, as well as provide support to undertake a
Although numerous policy initiatives and programs are under way, none matches
the coordinated vision, concentrated energy, attention and investment that
emerged from the shock Americans faced when the Soviet Union beat the United
States into space with Sputnik in 1957. We need a 21st-century version of the
post-Sputnik national commitment to strengthen science, technology, engineering
and math education. We need a public/private partnership to promote, fund and
execute a new National Education for Innovation Initiative. It must be broader
than the 1958 National Defense Education Act because federal legislation is
only one component of a larger, more comprehensive agenda.
Tapping America's Potential: The Education of Innovation Initiative The federal
government must play a critical role in this endeavor. We understand that
states and local communities determine most of the funding and governance of
our public education system. We know that the private sector can and must do
more. Nevertheless, this is a national problem that demands national leadership
and a sense of national purpose to create the impetus for crucial state, local,
private and individual action.
We firmly believe that the federal government can maintain fiscal discipline
and restrain discretionary spending while also making "smart investments" to
secure our nation's future. It will require making hard choices, but the
resources can be found if the national interest drives decisions. We recognize
that we will have to make our case to the American people to build the
political support for moving this issue to the top of the national agenda.
Why Education Reform Is Necessary but Insufficient
The United States spends more than $455 billion annually for elementary and
secondary education.16 There is disagreement over whether the amount is enough
and whether it is well-spent, but there is no argument that resources and
reform must work in tandem to produce acceptable results.
Past national and state efforts to improve U.S. math and science achievement
clearly demonstrate that they cannot be isolated from the need to improve the
overall quality and results of the entire U.S. education system, pre-K through
16. That is why the business community supports high-quality early childhood
education; implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act; the Action Agenda
for Improving America's High Schools, adopted at the 2005 National Education
Summit on High Schools;17 the moral and economic imperative to address the
reality that close to a third of teenagers drop out before they graduate from
high school;18 expansion of charter schools; and greater access to and
completion of higher education. The current local, state and national focus
that No Child Left Behind has brought to closing the achievement gap between
majority and minority students was long overdue and is beginning to pay off.19
These education reform initiatives represent significant progress. However,
they must be supplemented by the recommendations in this paper because of four
unique challenges that science, technology, engineering and math improvement
1. Depletion of the teacher talent pool by the private sector: College
graduates who major in math and science can earn far more as private sector
employees than as teachers.20 Higher-aptitude students also find performance-
based compensation in the private sector more appealing than the traditional
teacher salary schedule based on years of experience and degrees.21
2. Cyclical employment trends: Labor supply in these fields is particularly
sensitive to changes in the economy. Growth and decline in the number of annual
majors in science and engineering closely track with hiring and layoff cycles;
the supply of graduates typically lags behind the pace of economic recovery. To
counter the impact of these trends on students' choices of majors, high school
and college students need better information about the wide range of
opportunities that science, technology, engineering and math degrees open up to
3. Government security needs: U.S. government agencies and firms that handle
sensitive national security research and development must hire qualified
American citizens, a requirement that presents a further demand for domestic
4. Baby boom retirement: More than 50 percent of the current science and
engineering workforce is approaching retirement. It must be replaced by a
larger pool of new talent from a more diverse population. Tapping America's
Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative
From the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century's report in 2001 to
the Business' Higher Education Forum's report in 2005, we identified a core set
of recommendations in a dozen recent reports that we can begin to initiate,
even in this tight budget year. The recommendations may need to begin
However, to reach our goal of doubling the number of science, technology,
engineering and math graduates by 2015, we must focus as quickly as possible in
the years ahead on five critical areas that affect the choices made by students
now in the pipeline. (For each action proposed within the five areas, we
identify in parentheses who has primary responsibility.)
1. Build public support for making science, technology, engineering and math
improvement a national priority. Launch a campaign to help parents, students,
employees and community leaders understand why math and science are so
important to individual success and national prosperity. (Business) Expand the
State Scholars Initiative to encourage students to take rigorous core academic
courses in high school and provide role models and other real world examples of
the work that engineers and scientists do.23 (Business)
2. Motivate U.S. students and adults to study and enter science, technology,
engineering and mathematics careers, with a special effort geared to those in
currently underrepresented groups. Create more scholarships and
loan-forgiveness programs for students who pursue two-year, four-year and
graduate degrees in science, technology, math and engineering (including
students who plan to teach math and science, particularly in high-poverty
schools). Build on existing programs such as Science, Mathematics and Research
for Transformation (SMART) at the Department of Defense;24 the Science and
Technology Scholarship Program (STSP) at NASA;25 Robert Noyce Scholarships at
the National Science Foundation (NSF);26 and federal loan forgiveness programs
that provide up to $17,500 for secondary math and science teachers. Supplement
Pell Grants for eligible students who successfully complete core academic
courses in high school.27 (Federal, State, Business) July 2005 Increase the
retention rate of undergraduates in science, technology, engineering and math
majors by expanding programs such as NSF's Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP Tech Talent)28 and by offering
programs such as the Professional Science Masters that encourage college
graduates to pursue fields outside of academia that combine science and/or math
with industry needs.29 Encourage private sector involvement in consortia of
industries and universities that establish clear metrics to increase the number
of graduates. (Higher Education, Business, Federal, State) Eliminate the
security clearance backlog that discourages many talented U.S.
citizens--graduating students and adults--from entering key national security
science, technology, engineering and math careers by providing an expedited
clearance process. (Federal) Establish prestigious fellowships for exceptional
recent college graduates or those at mid-career that lead to certification and
a five-year commitment to teach math or science in schools with high-poverty
populations.30 (Federal, State, Business) Create opportunities for
high-achieving math and science students, such as advanced courses, math or
science immersion experiences, corporate internships, charter schools, local
magnet programs and regional/state magnet schools. (State, Business) Adopt
curricula that include rigorous content as well as real world engineering and
science experiences so that students learn what it means to do this work, what
it takes to get there, and how exciting these fields are. (District, Business)
3. Upgrade K-12 math and science teaching to foster higher student achievement.
Promote market- and performance-based compensation and incentive packages to
attract and retain effective math and science teachers. Provide the flexibility
for high school teachers, retirees and other qualified professionals to teach
these subjects part time.31 Resources in No Child Left Behind that can be used
to develop alternative teacher compensation systems and the proposed federal
teacher incentive program are particularly crucial for helping to address
shortages of math and science teachers. (Business, District, State, Federal)
Tapping America's Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative Support
cost-effective professional development and other technical assistance to fill
gaps in teachers' content knowledge and prepare them to teach the content
effectively. Promote and strengthen use of existing resources in federal
education laboratories, regional technical assistance centers, No Child Left
Behind, and focused Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) to support best
practices, with a priority on those who teach math in schools that are not
making "adequate yearly progress" (AYP). (State, District, Higher Education,
Federal, Business) Include incentives in the Higher Education Act and in state
policies for colleges and universities to produce more math, science and
engineering majors and to strengthen preparation programs for prospective math
and science teachers. (Federal, State, Higher Education) Strengthen and enforce
the highly qualified teacher provisions in No Child Left Behind for math and
science teachers to ensure that they have the requisite knowledge in the
subjects they are assigned to teach. (Federal, State) Launch a "Math Next"
initiative as a logical next step to the U.S. Department of Education's focus
on Reading First. (Federal, State) Provide high-quality online alternatives and
postsecondary options for students in any middle school or high school that
does not offer advanced math and science courses. (State) 4. Reform visa and
immigration policies to enable the United States to attract and retain the best
and brightest science, technology, math and engineering students from around
the world to study for advanced degrees and stay to work in the United States.
Provide an expedited process to obtain permanent residence for foreign students
who receive advanced degrees in these fields at U.S. universities. (Federal)
Ensure a timely process for foreign students who want to study science,
technology, engineering and math fields at U.S. universities to obtain the
necessary visas by clearing Department of Homeland Security requirements.
(Federal) 5. Boost and sustain funding for basic research, especially in the
physical sciences and engineering. Reverse declines in the federal share of
total R&D spending, particularly for basic research in the physical sciences
and engineering at the NSF, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), U.S. Department of Defense basic research programs,32 and U.S.
Department of Energy Office of Science, by adding a minimum of 7 percent per
year to enable research to keep up with growth and inflation.33 (Federal) As a
first step, all of the federal Cabinet secretaries with a stake in this
issue--Defense, Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, Labor and
Energy--should convene to map out how they can best mobilize to address the
problem. To succeed, a strategic approach to the reauthorizations of relevant
federal programs, a governmentwide focus across federal and state agencies,
dynamic public-private partnerships, the frequent use of the bully pulpit, and
vigorous private sector leadership and investment will be required. All of
these efforts should be driven by a commitment to inspire and educate a new
generation of mathematically and scientifically adept Americans.
This statement focuses on actions that can be initiated this year. Is this
enough to solve the problem? Absolutely not. Clearly, a successful national
Education for Innovation Initiative will need a comprehensive, long-term plan
developed in partnership with the states. However, we must begin moving forward
Business leaders are united around this agenda. We will work with the
administration, members of Congress, governors, educators, colleges and
universities, and member companies to identify specific legislative,
regulatory, programmatic and corporate philanthropic vehicles to adopt these
recommendations. We will provide the leadership needed to help the American
public realize the dimensions of the problem and the urgent need to implement
We must not disregard our history nor forget who we are. We are the people who
pioneered in the air, built the first mass production assembly line, discovered
vaccines for polio, harnessed the power of the atom, first set foot on the
moon, and developed the best private and public biomedical research enterprise
in the world. We are still that same people, still equal to the challenge if
only we resolve to meet it.
As World War II was drawing to a close, Congress approved the GI Bill, which
provided billions of dollars in education and training benefits to nearly 10
million veterans between 1944 and 1956. Perhaps no greater investment in human
capital has been made in American history. The return to American taxpayers on
that investment has been incalculable.
This generation now faces an entirely new challenge, both at home and abroad.
Any number of countries in Asia and Europe are educating and training their
citizens and competing with--and, in several cases, beginning to surpass--the
United States for talent to develop new technologies, new cures, new frontiers.
If we take our scientific and technological supremacy for granted, we risk
losing it. What we are lacking at the moment is not so much the wherewithal to
meet the challenge, but the will. Together, we must ensure that U.S. students
and workers have the grounding in math and science that they need to succeed
and that mathematicians, scientists and engineers do not become an endangered
species in the United States.
1. The baseline for the goal is taken from the most recent data (2001) in
National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004: 2001
bachelors degrees earned by U.S. citizens/ permanent residents:
o14,048 in physical sciences
o4,001 in earth, atmospheric and ocean sciences
o63,528 in biological sciences
o11,256 in math
o34,502 in computer sciences
o17,986 in agricultural sciences
o55,003 in engineering
Therefore, the goal is 400,000 bachelor's degrees earned by U.S.
citizens/permanent residents by 2015.
2. Prediction by Richard E. Smalley, Gene and Norman Hackerman Professor of
Chemistry and Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Rice University, in a
PowerPoint presentation, "Nanotechnology, the S&T Workforce, Energy, and
Prosperity," to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST), March 3, 2003. Available at http://cohesion. rice.edu/NaturalSciences/
Smalley/emplibrary/PCAST% 20March%203,%202003.ppt# 432,8,Slide8.
3. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004. Volume 2,
Appendix Table 2-34.
4. Ibid. Appendix Table 2-28.
5. Ibid. Appendix Table 2-22.
6. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Fourth- and eighth-grade
results are available at http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2005/2005005.pdf.
Twelfth-grade results are available at http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs98/98049.pdf.
7. Enacted in 1958 and funded initially for $115,300,000, the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA) provided support to all levels of education, public and
private, in the United States. Its primary focus was on the advancement of
student knowledge in mathematics, science and modern foreign languages.
Institutions of higher education were provided with 90 percent of capital funds
to use for low-interest loans to students. K-12 teachers educated with NDEA
support were later able to get part of their loan forgiven for each year of
teaching (5-7 years, forgiveness for amounts of 50-100 percent). NDEA also gave
general support for improvements to elementary and secondary education, with
statutory prohibitions against federal control or influence over curriculum,
pedagogy, administration or personnel at any educational institution. Many
individuals in the STEM workforce--those in their 50s and 60s today--cite NDEA
as a major source of support for their postsecondary degrees.
8. A partial listing includes: Business-Higher Education Forum, A Commitment to
America's Future: Responding to the Crisis in Mathematics and Science
Education, February 2005; AEA, Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challenge
for Science and Technology in the United States, February 2005; Task Force on
the Future of American Innovation, The Knowledge Economy: Is the United States
Losing Its Competitive Edge? February 16, 2005; Council on Competitiveness,
Innovate America, National Innovation Initiative Report: Thriving in a World of
Challenge and Change, December 2004; Learning for the Future: Changing the
Culture of Math and Science Education to Ensure a Competitive Workforce,
Statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic
Development, 2003; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST), Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment, 2002; Building Engineering &
Science Tapping America's Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative
Talent, The Quiet Crisis: Falling Short in Producing American Scientific and
Technical Talent, September 2002; Phase III Report of the U.S. Commission
National Security/21st Century (The Hart-Rudman Commission), Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, March 15, 2001; National Commission
on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (Glenn Commission),
Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the The National Commission
on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (Glenn Commission),
September 27, 2000.
9. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004. Appendix
10. Matthew Kazmierczak, Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challenge for
Science and Technology in the United States (Washington, DC: AEA, 2005).
11. Richard J. Noeth et al., Maintaining a Strong Engineering Workforce: ACT
Policy Report (Iowa City: ACT, Inc., 2003). Available at
12. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving:
2003 PISA Results from the U.S. Perspective (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
13. Ibid, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of
Out-of-Field Teaching 1987-88 to 1999-2000--Statistical Analysis Report. Table
14. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Report XXX: Research
and Development FY 06, Chapter Two, "Historical Trends in Federal R&D."
Available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ 06pch2.htm.
15. June Kronholz, "Economic Time Bomb: U.S. Teens Are Among the Worst at
Math," The Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2004.
16. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School
Year 2002-03 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, May 2005).
Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/ 2005353.pdf.
17. The Agenda for Action released at the 2005 National Education Summit on
High Schools calls on governors and business and education leaders to develop a
comprehensive plan for their states to restore value to the high school diploma
to ensure graduates are college- and work-ready, redesign the American high
school, give high school students the excellent teachers and principals they
need, hold high schools and colleges accountable for student success, and
streamline educational governance. Available at
http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/ 2005Summit?OpenForm and http://www.nga.org.
18. Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, Public High School Graduation and
College Readiness Rates: 1991-2002 (New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research, February 2005); Christopher B. Swanson, Who Graduates? Who Doesn't? A
Statistical Portrait of Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001
(Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2004); Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington et al.,
The Hidden Crisis in the High School Dropout Problems of Young Adults in the
U.S.: Recent Trends in Overall School Dropout Rates and Gender Differences in
Dropout Behavior (Washington, DC: Business Roundtable, February 2003).
Available at http://www. businessroundtable.org.
19. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) long-term trend
assessment scores released on July 14, 2005, show gains among 9year-olds in
reading, as well as a closing of the achievement gap in reading for African
American and Hispanic students. The NAEP data also show significant improvement
and a closing of the achievement gap in mathematics among 9- and 13-year-olds.
20. National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), Higher Pay for Math, Science
and Other Shortage Subjects (Washington, DC: NCTQ).
21. Carolyn Hoxby, "Changing the Profession," Education Next, Hoover
Institution, 2001. Available at http://www.educationnext.org/2001sp/57.html.
22. For example, there is a high economic return for an engineering degree even
if a graduate works in a non- engineering field. From Neeta P. Fogg, Paul E.
Harrington and Thomas F. Harrington, College Majors Handbook with Real Career
Paths and Payoffs: The Actual Jobs, Earnings, and Trends for Graduates of Sixty
College Majors, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: JIST Publishing, 2004).
23. The State Scholars Initiative is a business-led effort that focuses on
preparing high school students for college and careers through rigorous
coursework. The Initiative is currently offered in 14 states. Available at
24. The Department of Defense Science, Mathematics and Research for
Transformation (SMART) Scholarship provides financial assistance to students
pursuing degrees in science, math and engineering fields in return for a
commitment to work for the Defense Department. Available at
25. The Science and Technology Scholarship Program (STSP) is currently being
developed by NASA. The scholarship-forservice program will provide scholarship
and internship opportunities to undergraduate students pursuing degrees in
engineering, mathematics, computer science and physical/life sciences. Students
will compete for scholarship awards of up to $20,000 per year in exchange for a
commitment to work full time at a NASA Center or one of its affiliates upon
graduation. Available at
26. The Robert Noyce Scholarship Program at NSF provides funds to institutions
of higher education to support scholarships, stipends and programs for talented
science, technology, engineering and mathematics majors and professionals to
become K-12 math and science teachers in high-need K-12 schools. Available at
27. Signed into law on October 30, 2004, by President Bush, the
Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act (P.L. 108-409) authorizes up to $17,500 in loan
forgiveness to eligible, highly qualified teachers in special education,
secondary math or secondary science. Available at http://www.ifap.ed.gov/
28. The goal of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent
Expansion Program (STEP), created by the Tech Talent legislation, is to
increase the number of students--U.S. citizens or permanent
residents--receiving associate's or bachelor's degrees in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. Available at
29. The Professional Science Master's is a degree in science or mathematics for
students interested in a wider variety of career options than provided by
current graduate programs in the two subjects. Available at
30. The National Commission on Mathematics and Science report, Before It's Too
Late: A Report to the Nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and
Science Teaching for the 21st Century, identifies goals for improving
mathematics and science teaching. Available at
31. The Teaching Commission's report, Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action,
identifies the need to differentiate compensation and develop incentives to
recruit and retain teachers in shortage fields. Available at
http://www.theteaching commission.org/publications/ FINAL_Report.pdf.
32. The specific Department of Defense programs are 6.1 and 6.2.
33. The federal effort in research must keep pace with the overall growth of
the economy, not fall, as it has outside of biomedical research. The 7 percent
is based on 3 percent (real GDP growth) plus 4 percent (NIH and higher
education price index), which equals 7 percent.
The Business Roundtable
1717 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-5610
More information about the paleopsych