Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education - Article Example

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action The article, “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action”, is a qualitative study conducted by Jeffrey. J. Kuenzi (2008), who is a specialist in education policy. This was prepared in 2008, as a report for the US Congressional Research Service for the perusal of the members and committees of the Congress. The relevance of this report is rooted in the fact that United States is not developing enough skill resources in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics though the country is placed in number one position in the world regarding scientific and technological growth. The first section of the article has been set apart to make an in depth study of the STEM education situation in the US utilizing all the data available from previous studies. The second section comprises of a detailed review of the existing federal programs in this context, with a focus on a few selected programs. The third and final section has dealt with the legislative options being considered by federal authority to implement remedial measures. The article introduces the topic by saying that many studies had found the country lacking in sufficient numbers of students, qualified teachers and skilled practitioners in STEM sectors. In the article, the gravity of this situation is described using relevant figures and the measures taken by government to rectify this problem are also analyzed. It is pointed out that in a recent international assessment, carried out among 15-year old students, “the US ranked 28th in math literacy, and 24th in science literacy (Kuenzi, 2008, p.1).” The article also has suggested that this has to be understood in the backdrop of “many US math and science teachers lack(ing) an undergraduate major or minor in those fields” (Kuenzi, 2008, p.1). It is specifically noted in this article that “US ranks 20th among all nations in the proportion of 24-year olds who earn degrees in natural science or engineering (Kuenzi, 2008, p.2).” The legislations introduced in the 110th Congress based on previous study reports have been thoroughly scrutinized by Kuenzi’s article. The purpose of the report is stated as “to put these legislative proposals into a useful context” (Kuenzi, 2008, p.3). Describing the three levels of excellence set by National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), namely, basic, proficient and advanced, it is revealed by the article of Kuenzi that the percentage of 4th and 8th grade students, who reached proficient level in math, has been very low. It is also shown that less than one-third of 4th and 8th grade students and less than one-fifth of 12th grade students reach up to or above proficient level in science. Quoting the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the article has revealed a few brighter aspects also in the horizon of US education. It is argued that according to the NAEP study, the 4th grade, 8th grade students of US have outscored the international averages in math and science proficiency but it has also been admitted that, in terms of comparison with other countries, the position of US 4th grade students has come down. All the same it is pointed out that the position of US 8th grade students have gone slightly up when compared to students of other countries. But the article does not explain the reason for this. The student performance figures compiled by Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has also been examined to show that according to 2003 statistics, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year old students in US is well behind many other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. As a next step, the article has moved on to analyze the skill-levels of STEM teachers in the US. In the beginning of this section, a previous study has been quoted to stress that if a teacher of math or science had a major in the subject taught, that would have a positive effect on the student achievement. Based on the data of a 1999-2000 school year survey, it is elicited that many of the teachers who taught middle school math and science, “lacked an undergraduate or graduate major or minor in the subject they taught (Kuenzi, 2008, p.10). Also it is found that “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” (Kuenzi, 2008, p.10). The better profile of high school teachers showed by these figures is left unexplained. After this brief summary of the teacher skill levels, the article has drawn attention to the stagnation in STEM degrees awarded during 1960 and 2000 as compared to degrees in all fields. But it is also pointed out that at doctoral level, the STEM degrees amounted to one-third of all degrees awarded. The article has not tried to explain why this variation has happened in the broader context. Moving on to another aspect of this topic, the article has made a comparison of US degrees awarded to US students and foreign students. It has quoted the National Science Foundation Survey of 2003 to show that foreign students earned one-third of all doctoral degrees and especially, these degrees were concentrated in STEM fields. The international postsecondary educational attainment data made available in this article has also revealed some facts which are contradictory to the general picture painted by this article so far. United States, according to this data, has one of the highest rates of postsecondary educational attainment. Also it is stated that according to OECD data, (comparing data from, 30 OECD nations and 13 other nations) US and Norway compete for the first position for postsecondary educational attainment at the tertiary-type A level. The article has listed the federal programs that promote STEM education, which were devised based on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study. The four main types of assistance provided by the programs instituted after this study came out are listed as “ financial support for students and scholars, institutional support to improve educational quality, support for teacher and faculty development and institutional physical infrastructure support” (Kuenzi, 2008, p.20). The article has scrutinized the Academic Competitive Council (formed in 2005 as a step to rectify the situation) study figures also to find that 105 STEM education programs altogether spent $ 3 billion in FY2006. The article then moves on to discuss the government initiatives in this regard. Stronger coordination among federal STEM education programs, and more effective practices in STEM education, being the major suggestions put forth by the GAO and ACC studies, this article also has suggested, (quoted those studies) that further validations and replications were needed to frame relevant policies and programs. The major federal STEM programs specifically analyzed by this article has been, the NIH Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, NSF graduate Research Fellowships and ED Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talents Grant, which are strictly meant for US citizens and permanent US residents and also the NSF Mathematics and Science Partnerships, NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates, and ED Mathematics and Science Partnerships. The article of Kuenzi, before it makes its conclusions, has listed five areas in which the previous studies had focused their recommendations. They are, “improving elementary and secondary participation 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” (Kuenzi, 2008, p.27). The article has elaborately quoted the suggestions made by National Academy of Science which include, increasing the number of STEM students and teachers, strengthening their skills, increasing STEM bachelor’s degree attainment, launching new scholarship programs and ensuring that these scholarships go to US citizens alone. Towards conclusion, the Kuenzi article has discussed the major acts passed by 109th and 110th Congresses which have helped to improve STEM scenario in the country and which can bring about further positive change. These acts are, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act (2005), The National Defense Authorization Act (2006), The Deficit Reduction Act (2005) and The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Act (America COMPETE Act 2007). The various provisions of each act with respect to betterment of STEM fields are discussed elaborately. The article by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi thus has provided a comprehensive outlook on the topic, its background and its future. But the major drawback of this article is that it is unable to look into or explain the social causes that have brought about the decline of STEM fields in US. Apart from the fact that teachers are generally not up to the mark, it is possible that several other social factors like the better job prospects of management studies, communication studies, economics etc. could have imparted these fields a brighter prospect and thereby lessened the interest in STEM fields. Also, the phenomenon of the world viewing US as a higher education destination and the liberalized immigration opportunities might have created a more competitive atmosphere inside the nation. Apart from providing scholarships and grants, it is only by incorporating such social factors into the policies, that the STEM fields in US could be improved. References  Kuenzi, J.J. (2008) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative action, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, Retrieved February 20 2010 from http://www.loc.gov/index.html Read More