Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action

Congressional research reportMar 21, 2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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

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 28th in math literacy and 24th in

science literacy. Moreover, the U.S. ranks 20th 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 109th 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 110th 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.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STEM Education in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Elementary and Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Assessments of Math and Science Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

U.S. Students Compared to Students in Other Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Math and Science Teacher Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Postsecondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

STEM Degrees Awarded in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

U.S. Degrees Awarded to Foreign Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

International Postsecondary Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

International Comparisons in STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Federal Programs that Promote STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Government Accountability Office Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Academic Competitiveness Council Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Program Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Description of Selected Federal STEM Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards . . . . . . . 23

NSF Graduate Research Fellowships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

NSF Mathematics and Science Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

ED Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants . . . . . . 26

ED Mathematics and Science Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Recommendations to Improve Federal STEM Education Policy . . . . . . . . 27

Legislation Action on STEM Education Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Major Legislative Actions in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

The America COMPETES Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Education Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Figures

Figure 1. NAEP Math Scores, Selected Years: 1990-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. STEM Degrees Awarded, 1970-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3. Tertiary Education by Country, 1980 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 4. Federal STEM Education Funding FY2006, by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . 21

List of Tables

Table 1. TIMSS Scores by Grade and Country/Jurisdiction, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 2. PISA Math and Science Scores, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 3. Teachers Lacking a Major or Minor in Subject Taught, 1999-2000 . . . 11

Table 4. Degrees Conferred by Level and Field of Study, 2002-2003 . . . . . . . . 13

Table 5. Field of Study, by Selected Region and Country, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

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

28th in math literacy and 24th 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, postsecondary 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

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 21st 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.

CRS-2

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, agencyreported 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 110th 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

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114, October 2005.

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].

U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council,

Washington, D.C., 2007, p. 11.

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].

U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council,

Washington, D.C., 2007, p. 3.

CRS-3

Competitiveness Initiative.7 Among the report’s many recommendations, five are

targeted at improving STEM education. These five recommendations seek to

increase the supply of new STEM teachers, improve the skills of current STEM

teachers, enlarge the pre-collegiate pipeline, increase postsecondary degree

attainment, and enhance support for graduate and early-career research.

The purpose of this report is to put these legislative proposals into a useful

context. The first section analyzes data from various sources to build a more

thorough understanding of the status of STEM education in the United States. The

second section looks at the federal role in promoting STEM education, providing a

broad overview of nearly all of the programs in federal agencies and a detailed look

at a few selected programs. Finally, the third section discusses legislative options

currently being considered to improve STEM education. This discussion focuses

primarily on the proposals that have seen congressional action to date.

STEM Education in the United States

Elementary and Secondary Education

Assessments of Math and Science Knowledge. National-level

assessment of U.S. students’ knowledge of math and science is a relatively recent

phenomenon, and assessments in other countries that provide for international

comparisons are even more recent. Yet the limited information available thus far is

beginning to reveal results that concern many individuals interested in the U.S.

educational system and the economy’s future competitiveness. The most recent

assessments show improvement in U.S. pupils’ knowledge of math and science;

however, the large majority still fail to reach adequate levels of proficiency.

Moreover, when compared to other nations, the achievement of U.S. students is seen

by many as inconsistent with the nation’s role as a world leader in scientific

innovation.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally

representative, continuing assessment of elementary and secondary students’ math

and science knowledge. Since 1969, NAEP has assessed students from both public

and nonpublic schools at grades 4, 8, and 12. Students’ performance on the

assessment is measured on a 0-500 scale, and beginning in 1990 has been reported

in terms of the percentages of students attaining three achievement levels: basic,

proficient, and advanced.8

Proficient is the level identified by the National Assessment Governing Board

as the degree of academic achievement that all students should reach, and “represents

Office of Science and Technology Policy, Domestic Policy Council, American

Competitiveness Initiative — Leading the World In Innovation, February 2006.

For more information on NAEP and other assessments, see CRS Report RL31407,

Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA Title I-A Requirements Under the No Child

Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.

CRS-4

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 4th and 8th 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.

Figure 1. NAEP Math Scores, Selected Years: 1990-2005

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 1990 1992 1996 2000 2005

4th Grade

8th Grade

At Basic

12th Grade

Proficient or Above

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report

Card, various years.

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/].

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s

Report Card: Mathematics 2005, (NCES 2006-453), October 2005, p. 3.

CRS-5

The results among 12th grade students are mixed. Although the percent scoring

at the basic level is higher among these students than among 4th and 8th 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 4th, 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 4th grade students, and 45 countries participated in assessments of their 8th 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 4th 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

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].

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.

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).

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.

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.

CRS-6

outscored students in 13 of the 24 countries participating in the math assessment in

2003. In science, U.S. students outperformed students in 16 of the 24 countries.

Among the 10 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

member states participating in the 2003 TIMSS, U.S. 4th grade students ranked fourth

in math and tied for second in science.

U.S. 8th grade pupils also outscored the international average. Among 8th grade

students, the international average on the 2003 TIMSS was 466 in math and 473 in

science. The average score for U.S. students was 504 in math and 527 in science.

Among the 44 countries participating in the 8th grade assessments in 2003, U.S.

students outscored students in 25 countries in math and 32 countries in science.

Twelve OECD countries participated in the 8th grade TIMSS in 2003 — five

outscored the United States in math and three outscored the United States in science.

TIMSS previously assessed students at grade 4 in 1995 and grade 8 in 1995 and

1999. Although there was no measurable difference between U.S. 4th graders’

average scores in 1995 and 2003, the standing of the United States declined relative

to that of the 14 other countries participating in both math and science assessments.

In math, U.S. 4th graders outperformed students in nine of these countries in 1995,

on average, compared to six countries in 2003. In science, U.S. 4th graders

outperformed students in 13 of these countries in 1995, on average, compared to

eight countries in 2003.

Among 8th graders, U.S. scores increased on both the math and science

assessments between 1995 and 2003. The increase in scores translated into a higher

ranking of the United States relative to other countries. In math, 12 of the 21

participating countries outscored U.S. 8th graders in 1995, while seven did so in 2003.

In science, 15 of the 21 participating countries outscored U.S. 8th graders in 1995,

while 10 did so in 2003. Table 1 displays the 2003 TIMSS math and science scores

of 4th and 8th grade students by country (scores in bold are higher than the U.S.

score).

Table 1. TIMSS Scores by Grade and Country/Jurisdiction, 2003

International Average

United States

United Kingdom

Tunisia

Sweden

South Africa

Slovenia

Slovak Republic

Singapore

Serbia

Scotland

Saudi Arabia

4th Grade

Math

Science

495

489

518

536

531

540

339

314

—

479

490

—

594

565

—

490

502

—

8th Grade

Math

Science

466

473

504

527

—

410

404

499

524

264

244

493

520

517

508

605

578

477

468

498

512

332

398

CRS-7

Russian Federation

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

4th Grade

Math

Science

526

532

—

358

332

—

451

466

493

520

525

540

347

304

504

496

—

512

534

—

532

536

—

565

543

503

516

—

389

414

—

530

529

575

542

—

510

480

564

551

—

518

551

—

499

521

456

437

8th Grade

Math

Science

514

508

475

470

378

377

390

435

461

494

520

536

387

396

460

472

510

508

435

449

502

519

433

393

512

508

589

558

424

475

570

552

484

491

496

488

411

453

411

420

529

543

586

556

276

255

531

552

406

421

459

441

585

571

387

413

476

479

366

365

516

537

401

438

505

527

478

461

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.

2004.

CRS-8

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an OECDdeveloped 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).

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.

CRS-9

Table 2. PISA Math and Science Scores, 2003

2003

OECD Average

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

Non-OECD Countries

Uruguay

United Kingdom

Tunisia

Thailand

Serbia and Montenegro

Russian Federation

Macao SAR

Liechtenstein

Latvia

Indonesia

Hong Kong SAR

Math

500

483

423

527

509

485

498

466

490

495

524

538

385

493

542

534

466

503

515

490

445

503

511

544

514

517

533

529

506

524

Science

500

491

434

513

506

487

495

468

498

484

521

524

405

483

538

548

487

505

495

503

481

502

511

548

475

523

519

509

491

525

422

508

359

417

437

468

527

536

483

360

550

438

518

385

429

436

489

525

489

395

540

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, International

Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving, NCES 2005-003, Dec. 2004.

CRS-10

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.

Michael B. Allen, Eight Questions on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research

Say?, Education Commission of the States, July 2003.

The sample is drawn from the Department of Education Common Core of Data, which

contains virtually every school in the country.

U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, 2004, NCES 2005-025,

October 2005, Table 67.

CRS analysis of Schools and Staffing Survey data, March 29, 2006.

U.S. Department of Education, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce,

May 2002, Tables B-11 and B-12.

CRS-11

Table 3. Teachers Lacking a Major or Minor in Subject Taught,

1999-2000

English

Foreign language

Mathematics

Science

Social science

ESL/bilingual education

Arts and music

Physical/health education

Middle School

44.8%

27.2%

51.5%

40.0%

29.6%

57.6%

6.8%

12.6%

High School

13.3%

28.3%

14.5%

11.2%

10.5%

59.4%

6.1%

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 2.5

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, 92,640

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.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of

Education Statistics, 2004, NCES 2005-025, October 2005, Table 169.

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.

CRS-12

associate degrees and 224,911 baccalaureate degrees were awarded in STEM fields,

compared to 102,157 and 293,545, respectively, in business. However, nearly twice

as many master’s degrees were granted in business (127,545) as in STEM (65,897),

and an even larger number of master’s degrees were awarded in education (147,448).

At the doctoral level, STEM plays a larger role. Doctoral degrees awarded in STEM

fields account for more than one-third of all degrees awarded at this level. Education

is the only field in which more doctoral degrees (6,835) were awarded than in the

largest three STEM fields — biology, engineering, and the physical sciences (5,003,

5,333, and 3,858, respectively).

Specialization within STEM fields also varies by academic level. Engineering

was among the most common STEM specialties at all levels of study in 2002-2003.

Biology was a common specialization at the baccalaureate and doctoral levels, but

not at the master’s level. Computer science was common at all but the doctoral level.

Physical sciences was a common specialization only at the doctoral level.

Figure 2 displays the trends in STEM degrees awarded over the last three

decades (excluding associate degrees). The solid line represents the number of

STEM degrees awarded as a proportion of the total number of degrees awarded in all

fields of study. The flat line indicates that the ratio of STEM degrees to all degrees

awarded has historically hovered at around 17%. The bars represent the number of

degrees awarded in each STEM sub-field as a proportion of all STEM degrees

awarded. The top two segments of each bar reveal a consistent decline, since 1970,

in the number of degrees awarded in math and the physical sciences. The bottom

segment of each bar shows a history of fluctuation in the number of degrees awarded

in biology over the last 30 years. The middle two segments in the figure represent

the proportion of degrees awarded in engineering and computer science. The figure

reveals a steady decline in the proportion of STEM degrees awarded in engineering

since 1980, and a steady increase in computer science degrees (except for a

contraction that occurred in the late 1980s following a rapid expansion in the early

1980s).

CRS-13

Table 4. Degrees Conferred by Level and Field of Study, 2002-2003

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

Associate

632,912

92,640

14.6%

1,496

46,089

42,133

732

2,190

540,272

102,157

11,199

896

1,176

216,814

804

1,784

5,422

316

199,704

Baccalaureate

1,348,503

224,911

16.7%

60,072

57,439

76,967

12,493

17,940

1,123,592

293,545

105,790

53,670

23,530

40,221

18,270

78,613

115,488

27,730

366,735

Master’s

512,645

65,897

12.9%

6,990

19,503

30,669

3,626

5,109

446,748

127,545

147,448

7,413

4,558

3,312

6,677

17,123

12,109

2,525

118,038

Doctoral

46,024

16,017

34.8%

5,003

816

5,333

1,007

3,858

30,007

1,251

6,835

1,246

1,228

1,983

4,831

2,989

861

8,705

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2004, NCES 2005-025, Oct. 2005, Table 249-252..

Total

2,540,084

399,465

15.7%

73,561

123,847

155,102

17,858

29,097

2,140,619

524,498

271,272

63,225

30,492

260,425

27,734

102,351

136,008

31,432

693,182

CRS-14

Figure 2. STEM Degrees Awarded, 1970-2003

CRS-15

U.S. Degrees Awarded to Foreign Students. The increased presence of

foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs and in the scientific

workforce has been and continues to be of concern to some in the scientific

community. Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering

programs has not kept pace with that of foreign students in these programs.

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF) Survey of Earned Doctorates,

foreign students earned one-third of all doctoral degrees awarded in 2003.

Doctoral degrees awarded to foreign students were concentrated in STEM fields.

The NSF reports that foreign students earned “more than half of those [awarded] in

engineering, 44% of those in mathematics and computer science, and 35% of those

in the physical sciences.”25 Many of these degree recipients remain in the United

States to work. The same NSF report indicates that 53% of those who earned a

doctorate in 1993 remained in the U.S. as of 1997, and 61% of the 1998 cohort were

still working in the United States in 2003. In addition to the number of foreign

students in graduate science and engineering programs, a significant number of

university faculty in the scientific disciplines are foreign, and foreign doctorates are

employed in large numbers by industry.26

International Postsecondary Educational Attainment. The United

States has one of the highest rates of postsecondary educational attainment in the

world. In 2003, the most recent academic year for which international data are

available, 38% of the U.S. population aged 25-64 held a postsecondary degree — 9%

at the tertiary-type B (vocational level) and 29% at the tertiary-type A (university

level) or above. The OECD compiled comparison data from 30 OECD member

states and 13 other nations. Three countries (Canada, Israel, and the Russian

Federation) had larger shares at the two tertiary levels combined; however, all three

had lower rates at the tertiary-type A level. At the tertiary-type A level, only one

country (Norway) had a rate as high as the United States. The average for OECD

member states was 16% at tertiary-type A and 8% at tertiary-type B.27

China and India were not included in the OECD data. Reliable information on

postsecondary educational attainment is very difficult to obtain for these countries.

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, (NSB 06-1).

Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, January 2006, p. O-15.

For more information on issues related to foreign students and foreign technical workers,

see the following: CRS Report 97-746, Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S.

Institutions and the Labor Force, by Christine M. Matthews; CRS Report RL31973,

Programs Funded by the H-1B Visa Education and Training Fee and Labor Market

Conditions for Information Technology (IT) Workers, by Linda Levine; and CRS Report

RL30498, Immigration: Legislative Issues on Nonimmigrant Professional Specialty (H-1B)

Workers, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance, OECD

Indicators 2005, Paris, France, September 2005. The OECD compiles annual data from

national labor force surveys on educational attainment for the 30 OECD member countries,

as well as 13 non-OECD countries that participate in the World Education Indicators (WEI)

program. More information on sources and methods can be found at [http://www.oecd.org/

dataoecd/36/39/35324864.pdf].

CRS-16

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.

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].

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].

CRS-17

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.

CRS-18

International Comparisons in STEM Education. The NSF has compiled

data for many countries on the share of first university degrees awarded in STEM

fields.30 According to these data, the United States has one of the lowest rates of

STEM to non-STEM degree production in the world. In 2002, STEM degrees

accounted for 16.8% of all first university degrees awarded in the United States (the

same NCES figure reported at the outset of this section). The international average

for the ratio of STEM to non-STEM degrees was 26.4% in 2002. Table 5 displays

the field of first university degrees for regions and countries that award more than

200,000 university degrees annually. Among these nations, only Brazil awards a

smaller share (15.5%) of STEM degrees than the United States. By contrast, the

world leaders in the proportion of STEM degrees awarded are Japan (64.0%) and

China (52.1%). Although the U.S. ranks near the bottom in the proportion of STEM

degrees, it ranks third (behind Japan and China) in the absolute number of STEM

degrees awarded.

Table 5. Field of Study, by Selected Region and Country, 2002

(or the Most Recent Year Available)

Region/Country

All Regions

Asia

China

India

Japan

South Korea

Middle East

Europe

France

Spain

United Kingdom

Central/Eastern Europe

Russia

North/Central America

Mexico

United States

South America

Brazil

All Fields

9,057,193

3,224,593

929,598

750,000

548,897

239,793

445,488

2,682,448

309,009

211,979

282,380

1,176,898

554,814

1,827,226

321,799

1,305,730

543,805

395,988

STEM Fields

Percent STEM

2,395,238

26.4%

1,073,369

33.3%

484,704

52.1%

176,036

23.5%

351,299

64.0%

97,307

40.6%

104,974

23.6%

713,274

26.6%

83,984

27.2%

55,418

26.1%

72,810

25.8%

319,188

27.1%

183,729

33.1%

341,526

18.7%

80,315

25.0%

219,175

16.8%

96,724

17.8%

61,281

15.5%

Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006, Volume 1,

Arlington, VA, NSB 06-01, January 2006, Table 2-37.

First university degrees are those designated Level 5A by the International Standard

Classification of Education (ISCED 97), and usually require less than five years to complete.

More information on this classification and the ISCED is available at [http://www.unesco.

org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm].

CRS-19

Federal Programs that Promote STEM Education

Government Accountability Office Study

According to a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey of 13

federal civilian agencies, in FY2004 there were 207 federal education programs

designed to increase the number of students studying in STEM fields and/or improve

the quality of STEM education.31 About $2.8 billion was appropriated for these

programs that year, and about 71% ($2 billion) of those funds supported 99 programs

in two agencies. In 2004, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received $998

million that funded 51 programs, and the National Science Foundation (NSF)

received $997 million that funded 48 programs. Seven of the 13 agencies had more

than five STEM-related education programs. In addition to the NIH and NSF, only

three other agencies received more than $100 million for STEM-related education

programs. In FY2004, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

received $231 million that funded five programs, the Department of Education (ED)

received $221 million that funded four programs, and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) received $121 million that funded 21 programs.

The GAO study found that most of the 207 programs had multiple goals,

provided multiple types of assistance, and were targeted at multiple groups. The

analysis identified six major program goals, four main types of assistance, and 11

target groups. The findings revealed that federal STEM education programs are

heavily geared toward attracting college graduates into pursuing careers in STEM

fields by providing financial assistance at the graduate and postdoctoral levels.

Moreover, improving K-12 teacher education in STEM areas was the least frequent

of the major goals, improving infrastructure was the least frequent of the main types

of assistance, and elementary and secondary students were the least frequent group

targeted by federal STEM education programs.32

The major goals of these programs were found by GAO to be the following (the

number of programs with this goal is shown in parentheses):

attract and prepare students at all educational levels to pursue

coursework in STEM areas (114),

attract students to pursue STEM postsecondary degrees (two-year

through Ph.D.) and postdoctoral appointments (137),

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114, October 2005. The GAO study

does not include programs in the Department of Defense because the department decided

not to participate. Other programs were omitted from the report for various reasons;

typically because they did not meet the GAO criteria for a STEM-related educational

program (according to an April 26, 2006 conversation with the report’s lead author, Tim

Hall).

Attrition rates among college students majoring in STEM fields combined with the growth

of foreign students in U.S. graduate STEM programs suggest that pre-college STEM

education may be a major source of the nation’s difficulty in this area.

CRS-20

provide growth and research opportunities for college and graduate

students in STEM fields (103),

attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields (131),

improve teacher education in STEM areas (73), and

improve or expand the capacity of institutions to promote STEM

fields (90).

The four main types of assistance provided by these programs were as follows

(the number of programs providing this service is shown in parentheses):

financial support for students or scholars (131),

institutional support to improve educational quality (76),

support for teacher and faculty development (84), and

institutional physical infrastructure support (27).

The 11 target groups served by these programs were the following (the number

of programs targeting them is shown in parentheses):

elementary school students (28),

middle school students (34),

high school students (53),

two-year college students (58),

four-year college students (96),

graduate students (100),

postdoctoral scholars (70),

elementary school teachers (39),

secondary school teachers (50),

college faculty or instructional staff (79), and

institutions (82).

Academic Competitiveness Council Study

The Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) was created by the Deficit

Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). Section 401A(a)(2)(B) of the act charged the

ACC with conducting a year-long study to

(i) identify all federal programs with a mathematics or science focus;

(ii) identify the target populations being served by such programs;

(iii) determine the effectiveness of such programs;

(iv) identify areas of overlap or duplication in such programs; and

(v) recommend ways to efficiently integrate and coordinate such programs.

CRS-21

The ACC found 105 STEM education programs that were appropriated just over

$3 billion in FY2006.33 The authors of the ACC report attributed the difference

between the number of programs found by the GAO and ACC inventories to have

occurred for three reasons:

First, programmatic changes occurred between the time of the GAO study and

the time of the ACC effort. Second, the ACC program inventory and GAO

report used different definitions and guidelines for program inclusion.

Specifically, the ACC effort included all federal agencies that supported STEM

education programs while the GAO report did not. Lastly, differences in the

program inventories arose because the GAO report was based solely on

agency-reported data, whereas the ACC program inventory was also verified by

the Office of Management and Budget.34

According to the ACC inventory, three agencies account for nearly 80% of all

federal STEM education spending in FY2006. Figure 4 displays total federal

spending for that year by agency. According to the ACC, 29% ($924 million) of total

federal STEM funds went to NSF, 27% ($855 million) went to NIH (through the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)), and 23% ($706 million) went to

ED.

Figure 4. Federal STEM Education Funding

FY2006, by Agency

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic

Competitiveness Council, Washington, D.C., 2007

U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council,

Washington, D.C., 2007, at [http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/acc-math

science/index.html].

U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council,

Washington, D.C., 2007, p. 11.

CRS-22

Apart from these differences, both the GAO and ACC studies came to similar

findings and conclusions about the state of the federal effort to promote STEM

education. Both found that federal STEM education programs had multiple goals,

provided multiple types of assistance, and were targeted at multiple groups. Both

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.35 The ACC report

states that these programs

support activities in a wide variety of areas, including STEM curriculum

development; teacher professional development, recruitment, and retention;

institutional support (including programs to strengthen the educational

capabilities of minority-serving or similar institutions); mentoring; student

financial assistance; outreach and recognition to motivate interest in or continued

work in STEM fields; and research aimed at improving STEM education.36

Like the GAO results, the ACC study found that much of the federal effort in

this area comes through NSF and NIH support for graduate and post-doctoral study

in the form of fellowships to improve the nation’s research capacity. The ACC

identified 27 federally funded STEM graduate and post-doctoral fellowship and

traineeship programs with a total funding of $1.46 billion in FY2006, which is 47%

of the total FY2006 federal funding in STEM education. The ACC found an

additional 43 STEM programs in nine agencies primarily focused on improving

undergraduate education that received 30% ($943 million) of the total FY2006 funds.

The remaining 23% of federal STEM education funds went to 24 K-12 programs

($574 million) and 11 STEM “informal education and outreach” programs ($137

million).37

Program Effectiveness. The ACC study went beyond the scope of the GAO

study in one key area: the ACC was asked to evaluative the effectiveness of federal

STEM education programs. Due to the short time frame allotted to the study, the

ACC could not conduct its own evaluations and, instead, had to solicit examples of

evaluations from the agencies administering the programs. After a review of the

examples submitted, the ACC concluded that “there is a general dearth of evidence

of effective practices and activities in STEM education.”38

In particular, the report states that, “Of the 115 examples submitted: 10

evaluations were scientifically rigorous evaluations that produced preliminary

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].

Ibid.

Ibid, pp. 21-29.

U.S. Department of Education, Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council,

Washington, D.C., 2007, p. 3.

CRS-23

findings about a program or project’s impact on education outcomes.”39 Of the ten

evaluations that were considered to be “scientifically rigorous,” only three had been

completed, were found to have a “meaningful positive impact,” and had published

results in academic journals. The report’s critique continued by stating that, “even

these well-designed studies with seemingly positive impacts would require additional

replication and validation before they could be useful” in determining what policies

and programs to promote.40

Description of Selected Federal STEM Programs

The GAO and ACC reports did not provide much detail on specific federal

STEM programs.41 This section describes the major federal STEM education

programs including the kinds of activities they support and how they operate at the

federal, state, and/or local levels. These are the largest STEM education programs

administered by the agencies with the largest STEM education budgets, including

NIH, NSF, and ED.

NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards. First

funded in 1975, the Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (KNRSA)

constitute the large majority of HHS/NIH’s spending on STEM education.42 Most

of these funds are used to support the Kirschstein Training Grants that provide

graduate and postdoctoral fellowships in health-related fields. About 15-20% of the

funds support the Kirschstein Postdoctoral Fellowships and Kirschstein Predoctoral

Fellowships. The Training Grants are awarded to institutions to develop or enhance

research training opportunities for individuals, selected by the institution, who are

training for careers in specified areas of interest to the institution or principal

investigator. The Fellowship Grants are awarded directly to individuals from various

organizations within the NIH (e.g., the National Institute on Aging) to support the

particular research interests of the individual receiving the award.

Kirschstein Award applicants must be U.S. citizens or nationals, or permanent

resident aliens of the United States — individuals on temporary or student visas are

not eligible. Predoctoral trainees must have received a baccalaureate degree by the

starting date of their appointment, and must be training at the postbaccalaureate level

and be enrolled in a program leading to a Ph.D. in science or in an equivalent

research doctoral degree program. Health-profession students who wish to interrupt

their studies for a year or more to engage in full-time research training before

completing their professional degrees are also eligible. Postdoctoral trainees must

have received, as of the beginning date of their appointment, a Ph.D., M.D., or

comparable doctoral degree from an accredited domestic or foreign institution.

Ibid, p. 26.

Ibid, p. 28.

Appendix III of the GAO report provides very brief descriptions of programs funded at

$10 million or more and the ACC report briefly describes the five largest programs in its

inventory.

More information on the NRSA program is available at [http://grants.nih.gov/

training/nrsa.htm].

CRS-24

Institutional grants are made for a five-year period. Trainee appointments are

normally made in 12-month increments, although short-term (two- to three-month)

awards are available. No individual trainee may receive more than five years of

aggregate Kirschstein support at the predoctoral level or three years of support at the

postdoctoral level, including any combination of support from institutional training

grants and individual fellowship awards. The annual stipend for predoctoral trainees

in 2005 was about $12,000, and the postdoctoral stipend was between $20,000 and

$32,000 (depending on years of experience).

In FY2004, Training Grants were awarded to 293 institutions in all but six

states. A total of 2,356 grants were awarded, which funded nearly 9,000 predoctoral

fellowships and nearly 5,500 postdoctoral fellowships. The Fellowship Grant

programs supported around 2,500 pre- and postdoctoral students in 2004. The large

majority of the Training Grants were awarded through the National Institute of

General Medical Sciences.

NSF Graduate Research Fellowships. The NSF Graduate Research

Fellowships is the largest of that agency’s STEM education programs. These

fellowships also represent one of the longest-running federal STEM programs

(enacted in 1952). The purpose of this program is to increase the size and diversity

of the U.S. workforce in science and engineering. The program provides three years

of support to approximately 1,000 graduate students annually in STEM disciplines

who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees, with additional focus

on women in engineering and computer and information sciences. In 2006, 907

awards were given to graduate students studying in nine major fields at 150

instituions.

Applicants must be U.S. citizens or nationals, or permanent resident aliens of

the United States; must have completed no more than twelve months of full-time

graduate study at the time of their application; and must be pursuing an advanced

degree in a STEM field supported by the National Science Foundation.43 The

fellows’ affiliated institution receives a $40,500 award — $30,000 for a 12-month

stipend and $10,500 for an annual cost-of-education allowance. These awards are

for a maximum of three years and usable over a five-year period, and provide a

one-time $1,000 International Research Travel Allowance. All discipline-based

review panels, made up of professors, researchers, and others respected in their

fields, convene for three days each year to read and evaluate applications in their

areas of expertise. In 2005, there were 29 such panels made up of more than 500

experts.

NSF Mathematics and Science Partnerships. The Mathematics and

Science Partnerships program is among the NSF’s largest STEM education programs.

Since its inception in 2002, this program has awarded grants that support four types

of projects (the number of awards is shown in parentheses):

A list of NSF-supported fields of study can be found at [http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/

2005/nsf05601/nsf05601.htm#study].

CRS-25

Comprehensive Partnership projects (12) to implement change in

mathematics and science education across the K-12 continuum;

Targeted Partnership projects (28) to improve K-12 student

achievement in a narrower grade range or disciplinary focus in

mathematics and/or science;

Institute Partnership projects (8) to focus on improving middle and

high school mathematics and science through the development of

school-based intellectual leaders and master teachers; and

Research, Evaluation & Technical Assistance projects (22) to build

research, evaluation, and infrastructure capacity for the MSP.

One of the Comprehensive Partnership projects is between the Baltimore

County Public Schools (BCPS) and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County

(UMBC). The two main goals of the UMBC-BCPS STEM Partnership are to (1)

facilitate the implementation, testing, refinement, and dissemination of promising

practices for improving STEM student achievement, and (2) improve teacher quality

and retention in selected high-need elementary, middle, and high schools in

Baltimore County Public Schools. Centered on creating and evaluating

performance-based pre-service (internship) teacher education programs and

sustainable professional development programs for teachers and administrators, the

project is designed to increase K-12 student achievement in STEM areas by

increasing teacher and administrator knowledge. Ongoing assessments of student

work and the differentiation of instruction based upon these assessments serve to

evaluate and refine instruction, curricula and assessments, professional development

programs, administrative leadership strategies, and directions for overall school

improvement in STEM areas. UMBC and BCPS collaboration is facilitated by the

creation of the Center for Excellence in STEM Education, where UMBC faculty and

BCPS teachers and administrators develop projects to serve the needs of the BCPS

district and the university. At the center, faculty and teachers work together to

simultaneously improve the university’s STEM and teacher education departments

and the teaching and learning culture in the BCPS.

One of the Targeted Partnership grants supports the Promoting Reflective

Inquiry in Mathematics Education Partnership, which includes Black Hills State

University, Technology and Innovations in Education (TIE) of the Black Hills

Special Services Cooperative, and the Rapid City School District in South Dakota.

The overall goal of the partnership is aimed at improving achievement in

mathematics for all students in Rapid City schools, with a particular goal of reducing

the achievement gap between Native American and non-Native American students.

The project seeks to improve the professional capacity and sustain the quality of

K-12 in-service teachers of mathematics in the Rapid City School District, and

student teachers of mathematics from Black Hills State University in order to provide

effective, inquiry-based mathematics instruction. Objectives include reducing the

number of high school students taking non-college preparatory mathematics,

increasing the number of students taking upper level mathematics, and increasing

student performance on college entrance exams. To accomplish these goals, the

project provides 100 hours of professional development in combination with

content-based workshops at the district level, and building-based activities involving

modeling of effective lessons, peer mentoring and coaching, and lesson study.

Mathematics education and discipline faculty from Black Hills State University are

CRS-26

involved in district-wide professional development activities. A cadre of

building-based Mathematics Lead Teachers convenes learning teams composed of

mathematics teachers, mathematics student teachers, school counselors, and building

administrators to identify key issues in mathematics curriculum and instruction.

NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates. The Research

Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program is the largest of the NSF STEM

education programs that supports active research participation by undergraduate

students. REU projects involve students in research through two avenues. REU

Sites are based on independent proposals to initiate and conduct projects that engage

a number of students in research. REU Supplements are requested for ongoing

NSF-funded research projects or are included as a component of proposals for new

or renewal NSF grants or cooperative agreements. REU projects may be based in a

single discipline or academic department, or on interdisciplinary or multi-department

research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme. Undergraduate student

participants in either Sites or Supplements must be citizens or permanent residents

of the United States or its possessions. Students apply directly to REU Sites (rather

that to the NSF) to participate in the program.

One of the grantees under this program is the REU Site in Microbiology at the

University of Iowa. The goals of this project are to (1) recruit and select bright

students, including women, individuals with diverse backgrounds with respect to

geographic origin and ethnicity, and students from non-Ph.D.-granting institutions

where research possibilities are limited; (2) involve students in basic, experimental

research in microbiology; (3) expose students to a broad range of bioscience research;

(4) develop each student’s critical-thinking skills; and (5) develop each student’s

ability to record, analyze, and present scientific information. The student participants

are integrated into faculty research programs and expected to perform like beginning

graduate students. Informal faculty-student discussions and weekly seminars

supplement laboratory research. Weekly informal lunches, two picnics, and a

banquet facilitate social and scientific interactions. At the end of each summer’s

program, the students prepare oral presentations to be given at a Summer Program

Symposium. Each student also prepares a written research report under the guidance

of a mentor.

ED Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants. The

establishment of the Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART)

Grants through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) nearly doubled the

STEM education effort under ED. In its first year of funding, FY2006, the SMART

Grants accounted for over half of ED’s STEM education spending. The SMART

Grant provides up to $4,000 for each of the third and fourth years of undergraduate

study and is in addition to the student’s Pell Grant award.

To be eligible to receive a SMART Grant a student must be a citizen, eligible

to receive a Pell Grant, have a 3.0 cumulative grade point average, and enrolled as

a full-time third or fourth year student in a science-related baccalaureate degree

program.

ED Mathematics and Science Partnerships. Prior to creation of the

SMART Grants, the Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) program was the

CRS-27

ED’s largest STEM program. The MSP is intended to increase the academic

achievement of students in mathematics and science by enhancing the content

knowledge and teaching skills of classroom teachers. These partnerships — between

state education agencies, high-need school districts, and STEM faculty in institutions

of higher education — are supported by state-administered formula grants and carried

out in collaboration with the NSF-MSP program. Partnerships must use their grants

for one or more of several specific activities. Among them are the following:

professional development to improve math and science teachers’

subject knowledge;

activities to promote strong teaching skills among these teachers and

teacher educators;

math and science summer workshops or institutes with academicyear followup;

recruitment of math, science, and engineering majors to teaching

jobs through signing and performance incentives, stipends for

alternative certification, and scholarships for advanced course work;

development and redesign of more rigorous, standards-aligned math

and science curricula;

distance-learning programs for math and science teachers;

and opportunities for math and science teachers to have contact with

working mathematicians, scientists, and engineers.

A review of projects funded in FY2004 revealed that most grantees focus on

math (as opposed to science) instruction in middle schools, and provide professional

development to roughly 46 teachers over a period of about 21 months.44 The survey

found that most projects link content to state standards, and that algebra, geometry,

and problem-solving are the top three math topics addressed by professional

development activities. Most projects administer content knowledge tests to

teachers, conduct observations, and make pre-and post-test comparisons. About half

of the projects develop their own tests for teachers, and most rely on state tests of

academic achievement to measure student knowledge.

Recommendations to Improve Federal STEM

Education Policy

Many prominent reports from the scientific community have received serious

consideration and their recommendations have been incorporated into legislative

proposals that have ultimately gained passage. These recommendations concern

every aspect of the educational pipeline. All of the recent reports issuing STEM

education policy recommendations focus on five areas: improving elementary and

secondary preparation in math and science, recruiting new elementary and secondary

math and science teachers, retooling current math and science teachers, increasing

the number of undergraduate STEM degrees awarded, and supporting graduate and

early-career research.

Analysts at the Brookings Institution conducted a survey of 266 winning MSP projects

from 41 states. Results of the survey are available at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/mathsci/

proposalreview.doc].

CRS-28

As mentioned at the outset of this report, one report that has been of particular

influence in the STEM debate is from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) —

Rising Above the Gathering Storm. This influence is perhaps due to the clear targets

and concrete programs laid out in the report. The NAS report’s five

recommendations to improve STEM education are to

quadruple middle- and high-school math and science course-taking

by 2010,

recruit 10,000 new math and science teachers per year,

strengthen the skills of 250,000 current math and science teachers,

increase the number of STEM baccalaureate degrees awarded, and

support graduate and early-career research in STEM fields.

To enlarge the pipeline of future STEM degree recipients, NAS sets a goal of

quadrupling the number of middle and high school students taking Advanced

Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) math or science courses, from the

current 1.1 million to 4.5 million by 2010. NAS further sets a goal of increasing the

number of students who pass either the AP or IB tests to 700,000 by 2010. To

enlarge the pipeline, NAS also supports the expansion of programs such as statewide

specialty high schools for STEM immersion and inquiry-based learning through

laboratory experience, summer internships, and other research opportunities.

To recruit 10,000 new STEM teachers, NAS advocates the creation of a

competitive grant program to award merit-based scholarships to obtain a four-year

STEM degree in conjunction with certification as a K-12 mathematics or science

teacher. These $10,000 to $20,000 awards could be used only for educational

expenses and would require a five-year service commitment. An additional $10,000

annual bonus would be awarded to participating teachers in underserved schools in

inner cities and rural areas. In further support of this scholarship program, NAS

recommends that five-year, $1 million matching grants be awarded to postsecondary

institutions to encourage the creation of programs that integrate the obtainment of a

STEM bachelor’s degree with teacher certification.

NAS proposes four approaches to achieving the goal of strengthening the skills

of 250,000 current STEM teachers. First, NAS proposes that matching grants be

awarded to support the establishment of state and regional summer institutes for

STEM teachers modeled after the Merck Institute for Science Education. Second,

NAS proposes that additional grants go to postsecondary institutions that support

STEM master’s degree programs for current STEM teachers (with or without STEM

bachelor’s degrees) modeled after the University of Pennsylvania Science Teachers

Institute. Third, NAS proposes that programs be created to train current teachers to

provide AP, IB, and pre-AP or pre-IB instruction modeled after the Advanced

Placement Initiative and the Laying the Foundation programs. Fourth, NAS proposes

the creation of a national panel to collect, evaluate, and develop rigorous K-12 STEM

curricula modeled after Project Lead the Way.

To increase STEM bachelor’s degree attainment, NAS proposes providing

25,000 new scholarships each year. These Undergraduate Scholar Awards in

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (USA-STEM) would be

distributed to each state in proportion with its population, and awarded to students

CRS-29

based on competitive national exams. The $20,000 scholarships could only go to

U.S. citizens, and could only be used for the payment of tuition and fees in pursuit

of a STEM degree at a U.S. postsecondary institution.

To increase graduate study in areas of national need, including STEM, NAS

proposes the creation of 5,000 new fellowships each year to U.S. citizens pursuing

doctoral degrees. The fellowships would be administered by the National Science

Foundation, which would also draw on the advice of several federal agencies in

determining the areas of need. An annual stipend of $30,000 would be accompanied

by an additional $20,000 annually to cover the cost of tuition and fees. These

fellowships would also be portable, so that students could choose to study at a

particular institution without the influence of faculty research grants.

Legislation Action on STEM Education Policy

In recent years, several pieces of legislation have been introduced with the

purpose of improving STEM education in the United States. As has been noted,

many of the proposals in these bills have been influenced by the recommendations

of several reports recently issued by leading academic, scientific, and business

organizations.45 These recommendations, particularly those from the business

community, are not limited to the educational system. This report does not discuss

these non-educational policy recommendations (e.g., immigration policies that affect

the supply of foreign workers to fill U.S. demand in STEM occupations or policies

designed to incent private-sector research and development). Rather, this concluding

section reviews proposals that have gained passage in the 109th and 110th Congresses

that seek to improve the various STEM education outcomes discussed at the outset

of this report.

Major Legislative Actions in the 109th Congress

Three bills containing STEM education-related proposals were passed in the

109 Congress and signed into law. The National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-155) directed the Administrator

to develop, expand, and evaluate educational outreach programs in science and space

that serve elementary and secondary schools. The National Defense Authorization

Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-163) made permanent the Science, Mathematics and Research

for Transformation pilot program initiated by the Defense Act of 2005 to address

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 21st 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.

CRS-30

deficiencies of scientists and engineers in the national security workforce. The

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) established the Academic

Competitiveness Grants and the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain

Talent Grants programs, which supplement Pell Grants for students studying

mathematics, technology, engineering, critical foreign languages, and physical, life,

and computer sciences. The act also established the Academic Competitiveness

Council, chaired by the Secretary of Education and charged with identifying and

evaluating all federal STEM programs, and recommending reforms to improve

program integration and coordination. The Council released the findings of its study

in May 2007 (discussed earlier in this report).

The America COMPETES Act

The 110th Congress passed the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully

Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (known as the

America COMPETES Act) which was signed into law on August 9, 2007 (P.L. 11069). The act expands existing STEM education programs and establishes several

new programs under the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Education

(ED), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). A brief discussion of the major

provisions of the act follows.

Department of Energy. Title V of the act establishes several STEM

education programs under the DOE. In an effort to draw middle and secondary

school students into the STEM educational pipeline, the act creates (1) a pilot

program that awards grants to states to help establish or expand statewide Specialty

Schools for Mathematics and Science and (2) a program to provide internships to

support Experiential-Based Learning Opportunities for middle and high-school

students at the national labs, with priority given to students from high-needs schools.

To improve K-12 teaching, the act creates (1) a program to establish a Center of

Excellence in each national laboratory region in order to develop and disseminate

best practices in STEM education and (2) a program to support Summer Institutes at

the national labs and partner universities in order to improve the STEM content

knowledge of current teachers. To encourage the pursuit of STEM fields among

advanced students and young scholars, the act creates (1) grants to promote the

establishment of Talent Expansion academic programs in nuclear and hydrocarbon

studies, (2) PACE Graduate Fellowships for those studying a “mission area of the

Department,” and (3) Early Career Awards for new STEM research scientists. The

act also appoints a new Director for STEM Education at the Department who would

coordinate DOE education activities and serve as an interagency liaison for K-12

STEM education.

Education Department. Title VI of the act authorizes several new grant

programs in ED to enhance STEM education. Subtitle A authorizes three new

programs to improve K-12 teaching: (1) a Baccalaureate Degrees program that

encourages STEM majors to concurrently obtain teaching certification, (2) a Master’s

Degrees program to upgrade the skills of current teachers through two to three years

of part-time study or to support one-year programs to bring STEM professionals into

teaching, and (3) a program to increase the number of Advanced Placement and

International Baccalaureate teachers by 70,000. Subtitle B establishes three new

programs specifically directed at improving students’ math achievement. These

CRS-31

programs award competitive grants to LEAs (through states) and include the Math

Now program to improve math instruction at elementary schools with low math

performance, the Summer Term Education program to provide additional instruction

in high-need LEAs, and the Secondary School program that funds the hiring of math

coaches. Subtitle D authorizes a new competitive state grant program to improve the

Alignment of Secondary School Graduation Requirements with postsecondary and

workforce demands and develop P-16 Data Systems. Subtitle E provides

Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants for high-poverty elementary and

secondary schools in each state.

National Science Foundation. Title VII of the act seeks to double spending

on NSF STEM education programs in seven years. Most of these funds are directed

at a number of existing STEM education programs at NSF. These programs include

the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program that recruits and trains math and

science teachers, the Math and Science Education Partnerships program, the STEM

Talent Expansion program to increase the number of students receiving associate or

baccalaureate degrees, the Advanced Technological Education program to promote

improvement in the education of science and engineering technicians at the

undergraduate and secondary school levels, the Graduate Research Fellowship

program that provides three years of support for graduate study in STEM fields

leading to research-based master’s or doctoral degrees, and the Integrative Graduate

Education and Research Traineeship program that supports collaborative research

that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. The act amends the MSP program

to add a new Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program that provides additional

professional development to STEM teachers in high-need schools and amends the

Noyce Scholarship program to add a new Teaching Fellowships program that

provides salary supplements. The act further creates a Laboratory Science Pilot

program to award grants to improve laboratories at the secondary school level and

a program to award grants to institutions of higher education to develop Professional

Science Master’s Degree programs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.