ABSTRACT: The education industry is critical to US national security and economic
well-being. Our assessment of the industry produced mixed results with positives in
educational opportunities and numbers of students attending college, and negatives in
comparative international test results, gaps in minority student achievement, and rising
costs. Significant opportunities and challenges still exist, especially in the areas of
teacher certification, recruitment, retention; evolving “No Child Left Behind” legislation;
math, science, engineering achievement; accommodation of shifts in demographics and
equal access to quality education; and preparing our education system to meet the
changing demands of a growing global economy through collaborative efforts.
Lt Col Badar A1 Baram, Oman
LTC Donna Alberto, USA
LTC John Collins, USA
Ms. Theresa M. Conte, Marine Corps
CDR Scott Dueker, USN
CDR John Funk, USN
CDR James Hopkins, USN
Lt Col Cory Lyman, ANG
LTC Jeffrey Mello, USA
Lt Col Michelle C. Miller Peck, USAF
Mr. Joseph Riehl, Dept, of Justice
Ms. Dorothy Rudik, Dept, of the Anny
Lt Col Nonnan Schaefer, USAF
Capt Tan Eng Seng, Royal Malaysian Navy, Malaysia
Lt Col Roger Vincent, USAF
Lt Col Louis Zuccarello, USAF
Dr. Francis A’Hearn, faculty
Professor William Mayall, faculty
COL Mark McGuire, USA, faculty
Report Documentation Page
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE
3. DATES COVERED
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University
Fort McNair Washigton, DC 20319-5062
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF
18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE S AR
unclassified unclassified unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
US Department of Education, Washington, DC
US House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Maryland State Department of Education, Baltimore, MD
Montgomery County Schools, Rockville, MD
Potomac Job Corps Center, Washington, DC
Thomas Jefferson High School, Alexandria, VA
Mountain View School, Centreville, VA
Focus Hope, Detroit, MI
General Motors University, Detroit, MI
Boston Latin School, Boston, MA
Harvard University, Boston, MA
Minuteman Science-Technology High School, Lexington, MA
Chelsea School, Chelsea, MA
Northern Essex Community College, Haverhill, MA
Boston Renaissance Charter School, Boston, MA
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA
Raytheon Corporation, Waltham, MA
American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ
Association of American Publishers
Council of Great City Schools, Washington, DC
World Bank, Washington, DC
Home School Legal Defense Association, Purcellville, VA
Department of Defense Education Activity, Arlington, VA
Congressional Sub-Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC
Department for Education and Skills, London, England
Teacher Training Agency, London, England
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London, England
The British Museum, London, England
Tiffin Girls’ School, Surrey, England
Enfield County School, Enfield, England
Heidelberg High School, Heidelberg, Gennany
Baden-Wurttemberg Schools, Stuttgart, Germany
Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt, Gennany
Goethe Gymnasium, Frankfurt, Gennany
Education is a cornerstone industry that impacts all other industries and directly
impacts our national security. Well-educated and skilled citizens are our most important
assets because they are essential to the United States maintaining its global competitive
advantage, strong economy, and critical national security.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a broad assessment of the US education
industry as it relates to our future national security and competitive advantage in the
global economy. Our methodology was to use tours and discussions with subject matter
experts from various domains (foreign and domestic), lectures, and literature searches to
identify findings, deduce conclusions, and make policy recommendations. The paper is
structured by defining the education industry, assessing its current condition, analyzing
its challenges and outlook for the future, examining the government’s goals and roles,
making policy recommendations toward improvement, and providing the results of
individual research on selected industry topics. As an adjunct to the study, selected
individuals examined the e-textbook industry for the Department of Defense Education
THE INDUSTRY DEFINED:
Is education actually an industry? If we define an industry as an organization, or
series of organizations, whose purpose is to employ a process to produce a viable product
of some measurable cost and benefit to society, then education meets this definition.
More precisely, “education is to the state and local governments what defense is to the
federal government. Military organizations are a business and are managed like a
business, except that they have no profit objectives. Schools are exactly the same.” 1
Education in America consists of many public and private organizations
(traditional academic, transitional, and workplace) employing various teaching/learning
techniques to produce an educated citizenry and competent workforce to sustain our
national security and global economic advantage. However, obtaining the benefits of
education does not come without considerable costs to its many constituents (students,
parents, teachers, community, corporations, and government) in the form of public and
private funds, opportunity costs, and externality costs.
The simplest way to define the education industry is by type and size. By type, it
breaks down into the three broad categories of traditional academic institutions,
transitional non-academic institutions, and corporate education and training institutions.
By size, it’s defined in terms of distribution of funds, facilities, and populations by sector
(public vs. private).
Traditional academic institutions consist of primary, secondary, and post-secondary
schools (aka K-12 and higher education institutions) including standard, charter, and
magnet schools, as well as junior/ community colleges and four-year universities. Their
primary focus is on academic/ college-prep work for professional careers. Transitional
institutions are made up of vocational/technical schools, “school-to-work,”
apprenticeship, and job training programs designed to teach trades for a skilled labor
workforce. Corporate training and education institutions are usually contained within
individual companies with specifically designed programs for every level of employees,
from assembly-line workers to middle managers to senior executives.
The current size of the education industry is formidable. In 2001, all public primary,
secondary, and post-secondary education consumed $780 billion or 7.7% of the GDP,
and of that amount, public K-12 education was $463 billion, or 4.6% of the GDP. 2 “If all
of the government budgets (federal, state, and local) were consolidated into a single
package, the second largest taxpayer expense would be the public school system, which
costs far more than the entire defense budget, or the interest on the national debt, or
Medicare.” 3 In 2001-02, there were 98,000 public schools of all levels (94K elementary
and secondary; 4K post-secondary), while private post-secondary schools numbered only
7,000 (elementary and secondary numbers unavailable). 4 Projected total enrollment in
educational institutions at all levels for 2004 was 71 million students (61M in public
schools vs. 10M in private; 48M in public K-12 vs. 6M in private; 13M in public post¬
secondary vs. 4M in private), with only 3.4 million teachers in the K-12 category (3M
public vs. 0.4M private). 5
This industry is too large and varied to cover adequately within the scope of this
study, so the focus of this paper is on traditional academic primary and secondary (K-12)
public education. As the largest category by all measures, with the most problems and
most governmental influence, successful K-12 public education is the key to our security.
The current condition of education in the United States is a mixed picture. Multiple
agencies and organizations with a stake in the US education system have studied its
effectiveness and produced many valid concerns about the current state of education in
America. Research by the Gates Foundation suggests that only two in three ninth graders
will ultimately be awarded a high school diploma. 6 Their data for Black and Hispanic
students indicate that only about 50 percent in these racial groups earn a diploma and
fewer than 20 percent who graduate are adequately prepared for college. 7
In November 2004, Representative John Boehner made remarks prior to the
Congressional hearing on “Transforming the Federal Role in Education For The 21 st
Century”. He stated “Nearly 70 percent of inner city and rural fourth graders cannot
read at the basic level; low income students lag behind their counterparts by an average
of 20 percentile points on national assessment tests, and one-third of all incoming college
freshmen enroll in a remedial reading, writing, or mathematics class.” 8 In January 2005,
Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings indicated that "40 percent of students entering
four-year colleges and universities require some remedial education.” 9 Given statistics
such as these, concerns for the US education system are warranted.
International comparisons generate other concerns about America’s education system.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), comprised of 30
industrialized nations, conducts assessments of students internationally and reported the
following data from testing 15 year old students in 2003.
“U.S. performance in mathematics literacy and problem-solving was lower
than the average for OECD countries. U.S. scores were roughly the same
as they were in 2000, whereas some other countries improved their
performance and moved ahead of the United States in the rankings.
Roughly two-thirds of OECD countries [or 20 nations] outperformed the
United States. The United States had more students at the lowest levels of
performance and fewer students at the highest levels than the OECD
average percentages.” 10
While there are critics of the methods used to assess student learning from country to
country, the findings nevertheless generate important discussions about the
competitiveness and preparedness of US students compared to their international peers. 11
On a positive note, in 1999, 28 percent of adults, ages 18 to 24, in the United States were
enrolled full time or part time in higher education, which topped Canada, the United
Kingdom, Italy, and Germany.
In spite of concerns in the literature, there are a number of organizations and
individuals who are optimistic about the current status of the US education system. US
investment in education, for instance, has been considerable. From 1990 to 2001,
expenditures on public education nearly doubled (from approximately 208 to 400 billion
in annual funding). One study indicated that the number of Americans with a high
school degree increased from 52 percent in 1970 to 85 percent in 2003. 14 During the
same period, from 1970 to 2003, those with a college degree jumped from 11 to 27
percent. 15 The number of “status drop-outs” (defined as individuals aged 16-24 years old
who are not enrolled in school and who have not completed a high school program)
steadily declined from 15% in 1970 to 10.7% in 2001. 16 Data from the National Center
for Education Statistics show that the number of actual high school drop outs in 2000-
2001 was approximately 4.6 percent. 17 Meanwhile, the number of students nationally
who “left high school with the skills and qualifications necessary to attend college
increased from 25% in 1991 to 34% in 2002.” 18 These data show positive trends in
educating America’s youth.
Much of what is working well in the US education system was summarized by J. E.
Bowsher who observed, “Students are taking more challenging courses. The number of
students taking Advanced Placement examinations has increased dramatically, and the
drop-out rate has been reduced. The United States leads the world in the number of
college-age students who attend institutions of higher education. About 25 percent
receive a college degree, which is also higher than most countries.” 19
Two areas of the education system require special focus. These include: 1) the
wellness of urban and inner city schools, and 2) the overall efficacy of the US education
system when viewed demographically. To address the first concern, 65 of the Nation’s
largest urban public school systems have formed a coalition called The Council of Great
City Schools. Their March 2003 report indicated clear progress in the area of
mathematics and reading. The report states that approximately “86.5% of all grades tested
in the Great City Schools showed gains in math scores. Some 43.9% of all grades tested
in the Great City Schools improved their math scores faster than other schools in their
states.”' In reading, “Approximately 71.5% of all grades tested in the Great City
Schools showed gains in reading scores. Some 46.7% of all grades tested in the Great
City Schools improved their reading scores faster than their states.” This said, the report
notes that “Trend lines are not the same from one city to another. Not all grades have
improved at the same rates. Not all gaps are closing. But the data indicate progress.”'
The second topic of special concern is demographics. The education gap between
races in America is significant. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research reported that
there is a wide disparity in the graduation rates of white and minority students. “In the
class of 2002, about 78% of white students graduated from high school with a regular
diploma, compared to 56% of African-American students and 52% of Hispanic students.
There is also a large difference among racial and ethnic groups in the percentage of
students who leave high school eligible for college admission. About 40% of white
students, 23% of African-American students, and 20% of Hispanic students who started
public high school graduated college-ready in 2002.”
The amount of research and energy that is being dedicated to identify and resolve
education problems is heartening; the direction of US education is generally encouraging.
The charge to US policymakers and educators is to remain engaged and to support efforts
toward the progress and improvement of education. The Nation’s combined efforts to
improve education will yield far-reaching benefits if successful. By the same token,
failure will result in detrimental societal consequences.
The education industry currently faces significant challenges. These
challenges include teacher recruiting and retention, teacher quality and
certification, a shortage of math and science degree majors/graduates and
successful implementation of the “No Child Left Behind” Act. Chief among
these challenges is solving the shortage of qualified teachers in America’s
classrooms. In fact, “...nearly 25 percent of new teachers leave the vocation
within two years, and 40 percent of new teachers leave within five years.” The
qualified teacher shortage is widely recognized. In the forthcoming decade,
estimates place the teacher shortage at 2.2 million. 24
In addition to sufficient numbers of teachers, quality teachers are required to provide
effective education to our youth. School reform efforts must focus on improving teacher
quality in concert with increasing overall teacher numbers.
Unfortunately in order to meet these new demands, many states have
lowered standards and hired teachers with marginal qualification. More
than 30 percent of newly hired teachers lack full certification when they
enter the profession, more than 11 percent enter the classroom without a
license, and more than one-quarter of public school teachers are teaching
subjects out of their field.
To compound these issues, the United States is experiencing a significant shortage of
qualified teachers particularly in the areas of math, science, and technology. These
critical teacher demand areas currently do not compete well with other available job
opportunities in these specialties, especially with respect to salary. This in turn
negatively impacts the quality and quantity of math and science graduates that our nation
produces. Focusing specific emphasis on math, science, and technology Newt Gingrich,
former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, points to the Hart-Rudman
Commission findings “that the second greatest threat to American national security is the
failure of math and science education...What makes the Hart-Rudman Commission
warning about math and science education particularly ominous is that it came eighteen
years after the Reagan administration published A Nation at Risk.”
Effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act poses another
challenge for the US education industry. Issues contributing to the NCLB
implementation challenge are effective testing, state set performance standards, and
funding. The major goal of NCLB is that all children will be proficient in reading and
math by 2014. In order to measure progress towards achieving this goal, the NCLB Act
requires annual testing of students in reading and math in grades three through eight.
Unfortunately, 70 percent of year-to-year changes in test scores for all grade levels are
due to random variation. Differences in the student body from year-to-year, combined
with statistical errors in the tests themselves make it impossible to know if the students
are making real gains (or losses) or whether the changes are merely random noise."
The second challenge to implementation of NCLB is that standards and curriculum
are set by each state. There is concern that NCLB will force schools to teach to the tests
and states will narrow their curriculum to focus on reading, math, and science. In states
where there seems to be an increase in students meeting the standards, there does not
seem to be a correlating increase in high school completion or college attendance. A
study of the Texas school system found that as scores on the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills improved, dropout rates increased. It is inferred from this study that, as
the poorer performing students drop out, the ratio of high performing students to poor
performing students increases, making it easier to meet the standards."
Opponents believe that NCLB is increasing the cost of elementary and secondary
public education without providing adequate Lederal funds to pay for these requirements.
They contend that under NCLB, the current administration has “left behind 4.6 million
children by failing to provide adequate resources for the Title I program...” to the sum of
$26 billion. 29 Supporters counter that there is sufficient funding. They cite two different
studies; one by Accountability Works (a non-profit organization), and the other by the
General Accountability Office (GAO). The Accountability Works study identifies that,
according to the Department of Education (DOE), states have returned $124 million of
elementary and secondary funds to the federal government and another $2.1 billion has
not been spent. In addition, the DOE also shows that, as of the beginning of 2004, $1.9
billion of Title I funding over the last four years has also not been spent. The GAO study
calculated projected costs for increased testing requirements. They found that, based
upon their calculations, appropriated funding to date is well within the cost range
The US education industry must develop solutions to the challenges outlined above if
it is to meet the Nation’s future national security needs. If the US education industry fails
to take the necessary actions to implement and adapt NCLB standards and initiatives,
recruit and retain a highly qualified teacher workforce, and develop and increase
production of domestic science and engineering graduates, the industry’s ability to satisfy
future national security resource requirements will not be sufficient.
The short term (2005-2010) outlook for the education industry is promising. NCLB
legislation, combined with a renewed awareness of the importance of improving
education in light of global competitiveness, has created an environment conducive to
addressing education challenges. There is popular demand for higher standards and
improvement in student performance. Ninety-one percent of Americans support
requiring schools to set and meet annual academic progress goals, requiring states to have
highly qualified teachers in every classroom, and requiring schools to give parents an
annual progress report on academic achievement. Both the President and Congress
have acknowledged the qualified teacher shortage and are attempting to address it
through a variety of initiatives under the “Quality Teacher In Every Classroom”
provisions of NCLB. Educators at the state and local level are recognizing the need for
increased salaries, greater administrative support, and teacher mentoring programs as a
means to recruit and retain teachers. According to a recent American Collegiate Testing
report, the continued decline in the number of US citizens enrolling in science and
engineering programs is likely to continue in the short tenn. However, new initiatives
from both government and private industry intended to spark interest in science, math,
and technology combined with efforts to recruit highly qualified science and math
teachers are proving critical to addressing this problem.
The long tenn outlook for education is far more uncertain. The US economy will
continue to demand a more educated, technically-oriented workforce to remain a world
leader. Technology will continue to increase in importance, placing workforce demands
on all sectors of the education industry. The lack of qualified teachers looms as one of
the biggest long term challenges facing the education industry. The Hart-Rudman
Commission estimates that the US will require as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the
next decade, with more than 240,000 of those positions being newly qualified math and
science teachers. 33 The world’s premier science and engineering workforce will continue
to shrink due to retirements, reductions in foreign-born graduates who remain in the US,
and decreasing numbers of US-born science and engineering graduates.
Changing demographics will place additional stress on the industry. The continued
increases in immigration and fertility rates of minorities will require renewed efforts to
successfully meet the educational needs of this growing part of the US population in the
decades ahead. 34 In addition, US industry will play a much larger role in education by
sponsoring and funding initiatives for elementary through higher education systems to
further develop the workforce required to maintain its standing in the global marketplace.
Demographic trends in the US signal a shrinking white majority while the Hispanic
population is quickly expanding. By the year 2050, America’s Hispanic population will
increase from its present 13 percent to 24 percent. The Black and Asian populations,
which made up nearly 17 percent of the US population in 2000, is also growing.
According to Census Bureau projections these groups will grow to 22 percent of the
population by 2050. ~ Put another way, the white population, which in 2000 made up
about 70 percent of the population, will comprise only 50 percent of the US population
by the year 2050. If the education gap described above is not corrected, the resulting
mismatch between demographic growth and academic perfonnance could have
staggering social and economic consequences.
There are a variety of political and social factors that will impact the education
industry’s short and long tenn outlooks. The continued push for standards-based
educational refonn and associated funding through the NCLB legislation will continue to
be the primary political issue in the short term. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings
has stated her commitment to enforce NCLB legislation with greater flexibility in the
years ahead. Despite this added flexibility, the Utah legislature has passed legislation
declaring that state laws be given priority over federal provisions. The National
Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, has filed a lawsuit charging
the federal government with providing too little funding. 36 The ability of the
administration and Congress to address these legal challenges will determine the success
of standards-based reform. Within the Congress, debate will continue to focus on the
adequacy of funding for NCLB. As previously noted, critics have already claimed that
the President and Congress have “left behind 4.6 million children by failing to provide
enough resources” to the sum of $26 billion. 37 However, if properly implemented with
flexibility and adaptability, NCLB will improve performance over the long term. In
addition, action is required to recruit and retain qualified teachers. Improved
compensation, effective mentoring programs, and administrative and professional support
are critical to meeting future workforce requirements. The industry must intensify efforts
to develop a robust science and engineering pipeline to replace significant losses in the
workforce. Generating student interest in science and engineering during all phases of
elementary and secondary education, increasing minority participation and achievement,
and recruiting and retaining a highly qualified math and science teaching corps, are
essential elements to maintaining US prowess in science and engineering.
Changing demographics will fundamentally change the scope of efforts required to
successfully educate the US population as a whole. All sectors of the education industry
must play a role in meeting this challenge. Alternative elementary and secondary
schools, community colleges, corporate education and job training programs must
recognize the needs of a very diverse population and produce a workforce that satisfies
growing demands at a variety of skill levels. Private industry must make investments in
education that promote creation of a technically proficient labor force that excels within
an increasingly competitive global marketplace. As the US Commission on National
Security for the 21 st Century warns, if the nation does not take action now
“.. .complacency with our current achievement of national wealth and international power
will put all of this at risk.” 38
GOVERNMENT GOALS AND ROLE:
Each level of government (Federal, state, and local) has a role in education, but state
and local governments play the largest role. For Academic Year 2002-2003, government
funding for elementary and secondary schooling was as follows:
*Other is comprised of private funding.
The relatively small Federal role is derived from the US Constitution’s Tenth
Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 40
Because the Constitution does not discuss education, the states have historically taken the
dominant role. This is appropriate, because state and local control of education allows
each locality to meet any unique educational needs and allows for regional differences in
educational content and delivery. Although the United States education system is
primarily funded and run at the state and local levels, the Federal Government does have
a role. Because an educated population is vital to national security and prosperity, the
Federal government has a vested interest in ensuring that state and local governments are
adequately educating their students. The Federal Government exercises its oversight in
three ways: requiring states to establish standards and measure student performance,
comparing educational performance between States, and funding various educational
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires states to establish student
performance standards and then measure them to ensure each student is learning at the
expected level. This will identify poorly performing students and schools, allowing the
state and local governments to provide assistance. Although NCLB requires the states to
set student performance standards, there is a risk that some states will set exceptionally
low standards and then claim educational success. By comparing student performance
between states, the Federal government identifies relatively poorly perfonning states.
This creates public pressure for states to improve. The Federal government does this via
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nationally representative and
continuing assessment of student performance in various subject areas. NAEP does not
provide scores for individuals or schools, but offers results regarding subject-matter
achievement, instructional experiences, and school environment for populations of
students and subgroups of those populations. NAEP reports infonnation for the nation,
geographical regions, and the states. It includes students drawn from both public and
nonpublic schools, and reports results for student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12. 41
Federal funding grants include: Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the
Disadvantaged, Title II - Improving Teacher Quality and Educational Technology, Title
III - English Language Acquisition Program, Title IV - Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and
Title V - Innovative Programs. 42 Although the amount of Federal funding is relatively
small, it serves to encourage the states to implement NCLB and participate in NAEP.
States have the option of refusing to establish and measure student performance
standards, but then they lose Federal funding. This option serves as an incentive for the
states to comply with the Federal government educational goals and objectives under the
NCLB Act. The Federal government must continue to remain involved in education.
Although state and local governments will remain dominant, only the Federal
government can address issues of national interest. For example, the shortage of college
students pursuing math, science and engineering degrees is a national security issue.
Therefore it is a Federal concern, not simply a state concern. Possible Federal solutions
include college loan grants to math and science students and encouraging the states to do
a better job teaching math and science in (K-12). This goal could be met by financially
rewarding states that raise math and science standards or provide higher pay for math and
The state role in education is to establish standards and measure student performance,
measure school and school district perfonnance, provide general curriculum guidance to
local governments, establish teacher qualifications, and establish funding distribution
between school districts. One area where states could drive improvement in education is
teacher certification. Certification should be portable between states. Today, when
teachers move, they must recertify in each state. This requirement takes time and limits
the supply of teachers. While a required Federal certification would probably be resisted
by the states, each state can identify other states from which it is willing to accept teacher
certifications as many do now. It is possible that NCLB requirements for highly qualified
teachers will result in a convergence of state teaching certification standards which would
facilitate reciprocal certification agreements between states.
Some states have expressed dissatisfaction with NCLB, due mainly to the
requirement to measure student perfonnance. Recently, eight school districts in
Michigan, Texas, and Vermont have joined with the National Education Association to
sue the US DOE over NCLB. States feel NCLB is an unfunded mandate, pointing to the
cost of administering and preparing students for the tests. 43 States are spending funds to
teach their students to meet standards that have been established by the states. But
educating students is the job of the states, not the Federal government. Asserting that
NCLB is an unwarranted federal mandate, Utah recently passed a law ordering state
officials to ignore provisions of NCLB that conflict with Utah's education goals or that
require state financing. 44 According to the DOE, “There is no federal mandate except
this: NCLB asks that children read and do math at grade level, and all students have
opportunities for success. This is the goal of public education.” 45
Local government’s role in education will remain as the primary service deliverer.
The local level establishes detailed curricula, hires and fires teachers, runs the school
systems, interfaces with students and parents, and educates students. The recent
emphasis on measuring student and school performance will only help the local level to
better identify students, schools and teachers that need additional assistance.
While the US education system is managed primarily at the state and local levels,
both the British and German systems are much more centralized with significant national
control. In Great Britain, students are taught using a single, national curriculum,
resulting in minimal disruption to students who change school districts. In Germany,
students are tested after completing their fourth year of education and are then placed into
one of three different education tracks, depending on their test scores. Neither of these
approaches to education is feasible in the United States because education is primarily a
state and local concern.
There are, however, areas of education in England that merit consideration. One area
is the Teacher Training Agency (TTA). The TTA takes an active role in all aspects of
training England’s teachers. The TTA works with colleges to develop a standardized
education curriculum, monitors teachers during their first year on the job, and provides
access to standardized curricula and lesson plans for every subject taught in Britain’s
public schools. While following the English model would clearly cross states’ rights in
America, DOE could create a web-based, central data bank of standardized lesson plans,
providing teachers with a starting point from which to build. DOE could also create an
incentive for teachers to gain national certification by offering a federally funded bonus
for teachers who complete certification. Finally, DOE could offer an additional incentive
to those nationally certified teachers who are willing to mentor teachers who are either
new to the profession or struggling in the classroom.
The current division of responsibility in the US between the Federal, state and local
governments is appropriate. Despite some state and local government complaints, the
Federal government needs to continue to insist that states establish student perfonnance
standards and then measure student performance against those standards. It is only
through rigorous education quality assurance methods that the Nation can ensure its
children are adequately educated.
The ability of our education industry to provide a qualitatively superior workforce
directly impacts our nation’s industrial base, economy, and national security. Through
the implementation of the following policy recommendations, the major challenges can
be overcome and the industry can produce the type of people needed to maintain national
security and global economic competitiveness.
First, the federal government needs to be flexible and adaptive in working with state
and local authorities in implementing NCLB. Many states have expressed dissatisfaction
with NCLB for reasons including inadequate funding for implementation, disregard for
states’ efforts before NCLB, and the methodology for measuring progress in student
performance. The DOE should be flexible enough to provide full funding to states that
can demonstrate that they are meeting the intent of NCLB provisions in terms of raising
student achievement through standards and accountability.
Second, provide financial incentives for pursuing the teaching profession. The
federal government should enact legislation that provides financial incentives for college
graduates and other professionals entering the teaching profession.
Third, the federal government should provide funding to states and local school
systems to establish mentorship programs for new teachers. One of the reasons young
teachers leave the teaching profession is that they lack the support and guidance they
need as new teachers. States should establish mentorship programs that pay experienced
teachers to serve as mentors to new teachers.
Last, the entire education industry led by the Federal government needs to launch a
national campaign to address the emerging crisis in the science and engineering
workforce. This effort must be led by the President who should direct DOE to work with
states, science foundations, and the corporate sector to develop a national plan for
attracting more students into the science and engineering career fields. There are many
corporations beginning to work with states and local school systems in innovative
projects and competitions. A national plan would enable best practices to be shared and
would coordinate the many piecemeal efforts that are happening around the country.
Ultimately, collaborative action is needed at all levels to ensure the US workforce is
capable of maintaining competitive advantage. While education is largely a state and
locally run industry, the Federal government must play a leading role in bringing together
all of the stakeholders to collectively address the industry’s major challenges and secure
our nation’s future for the generations to come.
ESSAYS ON MAJOR ISSUES:
EDUCATION CHALLENGES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Phase III Report of the United States (US) Commission on National Security for
the 21 st Century (also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission) concluded that “the U.S.
need for the highest quality human capital in science, mathematics, and engineering is not
being met.” 46 It goes on to say that US global influence depends on its reputation for
excellence in these areas and that it must remain at the cutting edge of science and
technology to sustain its current world leadership. 47 Federal Reserve Chainnan Alan
Greenspan recently testified before Congress about the importance of science education
to US economic vitality and homeland security. The Council on Competitiveness,
composed of industry, university, and labor leaders, has determined that “a well-educated
and technically-trained workforce is essential to a nation’s competitiveness.” 49
Therefore, it is critical that the US education industry address these challenges to the
nation’s future in science and engineering.
There are a number of reasons for the need to increase production of highly educated
US science and engineering graduates. First, the scientists and engineers of the baby-
boom generation are beginning to retire. More than half of the scientists and engineers in
the current workforce are older than 40. 50 The US enjoyed an extremely high level of
science and engineering expertise during the second half of the 20 th century: world-class
scientists emigrated from Europe to the US; third-world war, instability, and poverty
drove many foreign students to the US for graduate education and careers in science and
engineering; and the US committed vast amounts of resources to educating and
developing a superior science and engineering workforce to meet the challenges of the
Cold War and information age. 51
Second, the number of foreign students attending US universities to study science and
engineering is declining. Growing global competition for scientific and engineering
talent is increasing as other nations continue to develop more sophisticated science and
technology capabilities. Those foreign students that come here for their education are
returning to their home-country workforces instead of gaining US citizenship and joining
the US workforce, as had been the trend in the past.
A third reason to increase the number of US-born science and engineering graduates
is the security implications of relying on a foreign-born workforce to fill sensitive science
and engineering positions in a post-9/11 environment. 54 National security implications
for DoD-sponsored research at US universities and workforce requirements at DoD and
security-related federal agencies point to the need for more US-born scientists and
engineers to fill the gap. 55
The National Science Foundation, in its 2004 Science and Engineering Indicators
Report, confirmed that the US is facing a “science pipeline” crisis because it is not
producing enough scientists and engineers. 56 A recent ACT policy report entitled
“Maintaining a Strong Engineering Workforce” showed a drop in the percentage of high
school seniors planning to study engineering from 9% in 1992 to 6% in 2002. 67 National
Science Foundation reports show a decrease, from 1994 to 2001, in the number of US
citizens that enrolled in science and engineering graduate programs by as much as 20% in
certain fields. Based on current trends, the number of young Americans pursuing
science and engineering degrees and careers will not meet the requirements of the 21 st
In order to find meaningful solutions to the science and engineering education
problem, it is important to clearly identify the causes for the production shortfalls. One
of the reasons young Americans are not pursuing science and engineering careers is the
more enticing payoffs found in other career fields. In addition, the long and arduous
preparation demanded in science and engineering education both stifles interest and
causes many to change majors or pursue other careers upon graduation. 60 Less than half
of those intending to major in science and engineering complete their degree within 5
years, with underrepresented minorities dropping out of these majors at an even higher
Another important reason for the lack of interest in science and engineering and the
failure to develop the skills necessary to pursue advanced education in the field is the
lack of highly qualified science teachers in US K-12 education systems. The creation of
a healthy science pipeline must begin in the early elementary years and a key component
to success is highly trained, effective teachers. 62
The lack of qualified science and math teachers has resulted in teaching loads and
class sizes that exceed optimum levels. This leads to insufficient preparation time, lack
of hands-on science activities, and having to utilize teachers who are ill prepared or not
specifically qualified to teach science and math. 64 Over 34% of public school math
teachers and almost 40% of science teachers lack even an academic minor in their
primary teaching fields. 65 Further, these factors hinder the ability to foster interest in the
sciences and generate the enthusiasm, exposure, and mentorship required to produce
more scientists and engineers. The Hart-Rudman Commission estimated that the US
requires more than 240,000 new qualified math and science teachers in grades K-12 over
the next decade to fix the problem. 66 A continued shortage in the quantity and quality of
science and math teachers will lead to a failure to produce the required number of highly
qualified science and engineering students, graduates, and the next generation of science
and math teachers.
A prevailing problem that contributes to the previously mentioned causes of science
and engineering education deficiencies is a lack of resources. Although the federal
government provides significant resources to graduate education programs through
fellowships and research grants, support to the other sectors of public education has come
primarily from states, localities, and institutions of higher education. 68 States and local
school districts often do not have the resources to provide the necessary programs and
teachers required to promote high quality science and math education from elementary
school through high school. 69
Experts in the field have proposed numerous solutions to increase the production of
well-educated scientists and engineers. Interest in science and engineering must be
fostered beginning early in elementary school and then reinforced throughout middle
school and high school.
For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) sponsors one
program that is making a difference. FIRST is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is
to excite young people about science and technology by involving professional mentors
with high school students. 70 A recent robotics competition tapped into a local brain trust
of engineers at Patuxant River Naval Air Station and area businesses to assist students
with their projects and “light a fire in these kids that technology, math, and science are
good.” 71 Another recent competition demonstrates the potential of these types of
programs. Eight national teams of students from kindergarten through 12 th grade
participated and earned prizes for developing new technologies that could be used in the
future. ~ Called ExploraVision, it is designed to encourage students to discover and learn
science through investigation and hands-on experience.
Massachusetts has instituted changes that require engineering to be included as part of
the K-12 curriculum. 74 The hope is that making infonnation understandable through
practical applications will produce a new generation of students who will love math and
science. 75 Intel Corporation’s Science Talent Search, America’s oldest and most
prestigious science competition, also relies on practical applications to increase student
interest. 76 It is part of the Intel Innovation in Education initiative that seeks to improve
the quality of math, science, and engineering education by providing commitments of
time, programs and resources. 77 The talent search “challenges students to go beyond
what they learn in the classroom and develop skills and confidence that will last them a
Another part of the solution to improve science and engineering education is to
provide incentives to increase interest in pursuing study in these fields. The Hart-
Rudman report goes so far as proposing programs that provide students summer jobs or
internships at companies and foundations that provide endowments. Another proposal
suggests paying students at the high school level for taking advanced math and science
courses. This compensation could come in the form of direct payment or scholarship
money to apply towards college tuition.
Magnet schools provide another means to increase student interest in science and
engineering, cultivate that interest, and provide the challenges and quality education
needed to produce future scientists and engineers. One such magnet school, Thomas
Jefferson High School in Fairfax County, Virginia, provides an innovative, specialized
learning environment for students interested in an intensive, challenging program focused
on math, science, and technology. The school is a result of a partnership between
businesses and schools and attracts some of the finest students in the state. Students must
have high ability, aptitude, and genuine interest in math, science, or technology.
Highly competitive magnet schools like this offer the best hope for maintaining and
developing a superior science and engineering workforce by feeding the nation’s college
and university science and engineering programs with the best and brightest.
As discussed earlier, a lack of minority group science and engineering graduates is a
critical problem. One way to increase the success of minority students in science and
math is to engage educators, parents, and the students themselves. Parents must
emphasize that education and academic success, coupled with hard work, are key to
overcoming adversity. Educators must communicate high expectations. Students must
have a strong support system at school that motivates them to work hard. 8 ’
The Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
recruits and nurtures minority students who excel in math, science, and engineering by
using these strategies. The program has become one of the nation’s leading producers of
minority graduates who go on to careers in science and technical fields. 84 Programs such
as this must be utilized and expanded to increase minority participation and contributions
to science and engineering.
The lack of highly qualified K-12 science and math teachers must be addressed if the
US is to have any hope of meeting future science and engineering needs. There are a
number of viable solutions proposed in the Hart-Rudman and National Science Board
reports. First, compensation for math and science teachers must be increased to meet
what equivalently educated professionals make in the private sector. 85 One option is
increased Federal and state funding targeted at teachers’ salaries. Another option is a
merit pay system in which math and science teachers are paid more than others in lower
demand subject areas that require fewer credentials and subject matter expertise. A third
option is to establish public-private and community-wide partnerships that li nk
universities and businesses with local school districts and provide endowments for higher
teacher salaries in math and science. 86
Recruiting and retention is another area that requires creative and flexible solutions.
Fellowships to education certification programs, loan repayment reductions or
cancellation options, and “signing bonuses” for entry-level science and engineering
graduates are all positive actions that would increase teacher recruitment. To foster
retention, math, science, and engineering teachers must be considered an integral part of
the scientific and engineering professions. New efforts must be undertaken to improve
infrastructure support, teacher preparation programs, classroom training and mentorship,
and professional development. Administrative support and resources must ensure a
disciplined and safe environment that restores professional status to teachers. 89
Undergraduate institutions must develop and support teacher preparation by integrating
faculty and curricula from schools of science and engineering with schools of
education. 90 Bayer Material Science’s “Making Science Make Sense” initiative sponsors
university programs that partner scientists and engineers with college students who are
studying education. 91
There are a number of initiatives in the classroom training, mentorship, and
professional development areas that need to be shared and expanded. Establishing
partnerships with universities and industry to bring science and engineering professionals
into the K-12 education system as mentors and advisors would certainly help struggling
math and science teachers to improve their command of the subject and apply innovative
ways to teach it. 92 The Mathematics and Science Partnership program authorized in the
No Child Left Behind Act works to ensure that school districts implement professional
development programs for math and science teachers. 93 According to the National
Science Board, the Eisenhower Program run by the DOE to meet professional
development needs of science and math teachers is a program that works and should be
expanded. In addition, summer institutes, professional enrichment sabbaticals, and
distance learning are innovative ways to meet this need. 94
Immigration of foreign-born scientists, engineers and students combined with
substantial US investment in science and engineering education in the past created the
world’s premier science and engineering workforce. That workforce is shrinking due to
retirements, reductions in foreign-bom graduates who remain in the US, and decreasing
numbers of US-born science and engineering graduates. With the threat of a dwindling
science and engineering workforce in the 21 st century, the US education industry must
meet the challenge to provide a sufficient number of science and engineering graduates
for the future. Generating student interest in science and engineering during all phases of
elementary and secondary education, increasing minority participation and achievement,
and recruiting and retaining a highly qualified math and science teaching corps, are
essential elements to maintaining US prowess in science and engineering. As the US
Commission on National Security for the 21 st Century warns, if the nation does not take
action now “...complacency with our current achievement of national wealth and
international power will put all of this at risk.” 95
AUTHOR: Lt Col Lou Zuccarello, USAF
NDEA 2006:MQRE THAN DEFENSE EDUCATION?
American prosperity is inextricably tied to our ability to ride the technology wave.
Our technological innovations defeated the Evil Empire and birthed the information age
that has enabled us to excel as the lone Super Power in an increasingly connected world.
The state of America’s science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) expertise
should therefore be closely monitored to ensure our ability to capitalize on the
innovations of the future. The mediocre results in international student tests, the pending
STEM worker shortage created and masked by an aging workforce, and the lack of
interest by America’s youth, while recognized by experts in the government, academia
and industry as a pending crisis, has not caught the attention of the American public at
large. The last time a STEM crisis of this magnitude was brewing, the Sputnik launch
provided the shock needed to pass the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA
1958). The NDEA 1958 formed the education foundation that has fueled our success. A
similar systems approach should be developed to reverse the current crisis.
In response to the Soviet Sputnik launch, Congress legislated a full range of STEM
“pipeline-filling” mechanisms to develop the skills essential for national defense. 96
These “pipeline-filling” mechanisms included incentives for K-12 schools, universities,
STEM students, and STEM teachers. The effort was not only meant to provide the
needed STEM workforce but also increase the supply of STEM teachers required to
perpetuate the system.
“In less than a decade, American science education underwent a complete
reformulation. Government money flowed in three critical directions: (1) to curriculum
design groups; (2) to summer institutes for teacher training; and (3) to local school
districts for the exclusive purchase of new curriculum material and equipment for
science.” Its greatest achievement, however, was providing the education foundation to
win the Space Race.
“The NDEA sparked a half-century of remarkable innovation and wealth creation -
and it may help explain why approximately 60 percent of the CEOs of the Fortune 100
have science or engineering degrees.” Recruiting America’s finest minds was possible
because America took a systems approach with NDEA 1958 to encourage the
development of the STEM workforce required.
A new NDEA for 2006 could be the solution to the shortage. The call for the NDEA
2006 has been widespread. From academia, a letter from the President of the Association
of American Universities urged the Secretary of Defense to give high priority to defense
basic research and education programs in the FY06 budget request." He recognized the
importance of the NDEA 1958 and concluded that "(it) is once again time to inspire the
next generation of students and scholars to pursue these security-related fields." 100
The American Electronics Association seconded the call. They recognized a major
factor in our competitiveness; the technically skilled workforce created by “educating
American youth in math and science and by welcoming, not shunning, highly-skilled
talent from around the world.” 101 Our competitiveness was ensured by the innovation
that fuels our economy. ~ The call has also been heard in the halls of Congress. In
recognition of the importance of the STEM workforce to national security, the Emerging
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee created a “science, mathematics and research for
transfonnation (scholarship) to enhance training recruitment and retention of talented
individuals who possess unique national security-related technical skills.” The
Department of Defense has also recognized the pressures on our STEM workforce by
supporting a re-invigorated NDEA for 2006. The National Defense Industrial Association
(NDIA) has even laid out a strategy for success.
The association hosted a conference in late 2004 to develop the Industry Position on
Critical Workforce Skills. 104 Their position included support for a reinvigorated National
Defense Education Act in 2006 and presented a STEM ‘pipeline filling’ strategy. 105 The
NDIA strategy provided the mechanisms necessary for a systems engineering approach to
the fill the pipeline. These mechanisms include programs to excite, attract, educate and
assist, recruit, and retain the STEM workforce. The initiatives to excite and attract form
the foundation for this strategy.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has already implemented several programs that
mimic the excite initiatives. The DoD Education Activity has adopted a hands-on
learning experience program provided by the Materials World Modules (MWM). The
MWM program uses materials science as a framework to teach science, math, technology
and society, employing a systems engineering approach in contrast to compartmentalized
traditional methods. 106 The pedagogy of MWM is summed up by inquiry through
design . 107 “This approach unites the abstract, quantitative methods of scientific inquiry
with the concrete methods of technological design, helping students develop and integrate
these complementary skills in a unique way.”
All branches of the Armed Forces have invested in programs to strengthen America’s
STEM foundation. The most ambitious is the Naval Research - Science and Technology
for America’s Readiness (N-STAR) programs, which not only are designed to excite, but
also attract students to STEM. The N-STAR programs include the Virginia
Demonstration Project. 109 The project is designed to attract students to engineering
programs by exposing them “early to the joys of creation through design, discovery
through research and invention through hands-on experimentation.” 110 The demo project
will “culminate in a two week-long summer academic camp which will feature
involvement in hands-on projects directed at solving problems of Navy interest and visits
to the Center’s facilities.” 111 The Navy expects this program to expand nationwide with
the NDEA 2006 by FY11. ~ These programs are an investment in the future “to
maintain our technological edge and prepare for our future defense needs.”
The Department of Defense excite and attract programs are aimed to prevent the
looming STEM crisis. The initiatives supported provide a new curriculum approach
coupled with access to state-of-the-art government laboratory facilities, key attributes to
the NDEA 1958. While supported by DoD with funding starting at $10 million in FY06
and ramping to $62 million in FY11, 114 an integrated interagency approach to the NDEA
2006 has yet to be programmed. The National Science Federation expects a 12.4%
reduction in STEM related programs to include an especially troubling $60M cut in the
FY06 NSF Math and Science Partnerships. 115 The DOE funding looks more promising
with a $90M increase in Math and Science Partnerships, but these funds are earmarked
by the Administration “for competitive grants solely to math initiatives at the secondary
level as part of the new High School Initiative”, part of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). 116
The need for experiential hands-on STEM education essential in the eyes of DoD has not
yet been adopted across all agencies.
If the government cannot develop a coherent interagency plan to strengthen the
STEM workforce, how can we expect general public support without a Sputnik-like
shock? The NDIA, once again, has provided an answer. To eliminate the STEM crisis
without a shock, a public infonnation campaign is required. NDIA recommends the
launch of a “national public awareness/media campaign (TV show, commercials) around
the importance of STEM/ foreign language education and avocation and the benefits of a
national security career.” 117 Such a campaign would require an integrated nationwide
approach designed to improve the image of the STEM workforce and educate the
common citizen about the benefit this workforce provides to the nation beyond national
The awareness campaign must also focus on the beneficial externalities provided by
innovation, which are enjoyed by more than the defense establishment. Industry,
therefore, has a vested interest in the health of the STEM workforce. While this is key to
the NDIA strategy, STEM initiatives sponsored by industry are sadly lacking. This was
reinforced by a visit to Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. This
high school was founded to lure high technology companies to the area. While numerous
companies have partnered with the school, the partnership only provides mentorship
opportunities and does not include any funding. Industry financial sponsorship does not
support the anti-crisis rhetoric.
To make the NDEA 2006 a reality, the nation must be convinced that the upcoming
STEM workforce crisis is not merely a military problem. A joint military, industry, and
academic information campaign could accomplish this monumental task with the right
champion. The DoD, however, is not the appropriate choice. The excite and attract
initiatives are fundamental to not only the military, but the nation at large. To identify the
right champion, we should look to the past. The NDEA 1958 was successful because it
was championed at the highest levels. President Eisenhower mandated the previous
effort and today’s effort without the benefit of a shock requires at least the same level of
support. The current administration, however, has its ‘political’ education capital
invested in NCLB. Unless the NDEA 2006 strategy can be integrated into and take
advantage of NCLB, further financing for an additional major education initiative is
simply asking too much.
With an information campaign focused on the economic benefits, enlisting an
industrial champion might possibly succeed. An industry championed education revival
could easily convince the public of the economic need for the NDEA 2006. However,
CEOs expect someone else to pay for the beneficial externalities of education and
technology. Without further incentives, expecting them to risk their companies’ valuable
profits is also asking too much.
The reality of the NDEA 2006 remains grounded in DoD’s desire to minimize the
impact of the upcoming crisis on national security and the STEM defense workforce.
The current funding and policies are aimed at filling positions critical to the DoD even as
national security STEM capabilities have been increasingly privatized. Only when the
NDEA 2006 is championed by the President, like the previous act, can we expect the
integrated government, industry, and academic approach required for national success.
Until then, we can only hope that the next shock is as benevolent as Sputnik.
AUTHOR: Lt Col Roger Vincent, USAF
MUSIC AND ARTS EDUCATION IN OUR SCHOOLS
“Live - from Pitt Stadium - the Pitt Band!” I can still hear those words echo through
the stadium as thousands of fans cheer. The rush of adrenaline and surge of pride I felt
every time I heard those words will be with me forever. Moments like that were made
possible for me because I was fortunate enough to grow up in a school district that placed
value in music and arts education from the beginning. It saddens me to think that the
children of today may not have the same opportunity.
My opinion on the subject of music and arts education in our schools is obviously a
biased one. My personal experience with music education has been an enriching one.
That said, I will endeavor to persuade the reader, via infonnation, research and statistics,
to support my assertion that music and arts education are vital components of every
student’s overall education and should not be removed from the curriculum.
The educators of today are faced with external pressures on the system, the magnitude
of which has never been experienced previously. Parents of today’s students are typically
both working full time and have very little time to be involved with the schools. No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation is requiring yearly increases to test scores in core
areas of the curriculum. Although music and arts education are considered core
curriculum areas by NCLB, there are currently no assessments required. Because
progress is not being measured, music and arts education has dropped in priority. In the
midst of all of these changes, our technology-based society is introducing new subject
areas necessary for students to succeed in today’s computer-driven world. All of these
factors combine to strain budgets and create competition for equal time in the curriculum.
Increasingly, schools are making the decision to decrease or eliminate music and arts
education from the curriculum. According to U.S. Representative Danny K. Davis
(Illinois) “Local budget cuts are depriving approximately 30 million students of an
education that includes music. It is not only at the local level that is forcing schools to
abandon music education, but the lack of federal funding as well”. Noted educational
researchers Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland caution against justifying music and art
education based upon its side effects in other subjects. They remind us, “It is high time
to state the right arguments for the arts in our schools and to begin to gather the right kind
of evidence for those arguments. The best hope for the arts in our schools is to justify
them by what the arts can do that other subjects cannot do as well, or cannot do at all”. 119
The National Association for Music Education (MENC) is an association of music
teachers and individuals in music-related educational work. MENC provides a base of
support for music education by bringing critical issues in music education to Capitol Hill
and a variety of other national educational forums. MENC has grouped the benefits of
music education into four categories: success in society, success in school, success in
developing intelligence and success in life. 120
• Success in Society
The overall goal of education is “to prepare students for the working world, for
their roles and responsibilities as citizens in a democracy, and to prepare them for
life in an increasingly interdependent and culturally diverse world”. ~ Music
and art education prepares students to be responsible members of society in many
ways. First, the study of the music and art of different cultures gives students an
appreciation for both the similarities and the differences between themselves and
citizens of other parts of the world. Second, students involved in music and the
arts are less likely to engage in substance abuse. The Texas Commission on Drug
and Alcohol Abuse reported, “Secondary students who participated in band or
orchestra reported the lowest lifetime and current use of all substances (alcohol,
tobacco, illicit drugs)”. “ Such a positive impact on students cannot be ignored
when one is attempting to produce productive members of society. Next, there
is an economic benefit to society. Nationally, nonprofit arts institutions generate
$37 billion in economic activity and pay $3.4 billion in federal taxes each year,
create jobs and encourage tourism. “ Without continued support of music and
arts education, institutions such as these will suffer. Finally, studies report that
the arts nurture skills important to social interaction such as “empathy,
collaboration, and tolerance for others”.
• Success in School
There exists a plethora of statistical evidence linking music and arts education to
success in other subject areas. These findings span socio-economic strata and
continue to improve the longer a student participates in music and arts education.
The U.S. Department of Education collected data on over 25,000 secondary
school students and found that students highly involved in instrumental music in
middle and high school show “significantly higher levels of mathematics
proficiency by grade 12”. " Students involved in music performance score 57
points higher on verbal and 41 points higher on math on the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT). Students taking music appreciation scored 63 points higher on verbal
and 44 points higher on the math.
• Success in Developing Intelligence
Traits developed during music education, particularly musical performance are
instrumental in developing intelligence. Musicians are making continuous
decisions on tempo, tone, style, rhythm, phrasing and feeling throughout a
performance. This decision making trains “the brain to become incredibly good
at organizing and conducting numerous activities at once. Dedicated practice of
this orchestration can have a great payoff for lifelong attentional skills,
intelligence and an ability for self-knowledge and expression”. 127 The most
frequently recognized skill developed through music is spatial-temporal
reasoning. Spatial-temporal reasoning is “the ability to flip or rotate or turn
images in your head through sequential steps of problem-solving”. These skills
are particularly useful to architects and engineers. The University of California
(Irvine) conducted a study of preschoolers, which showed that, after eight months
of keyboard lessons, spatial reasoning IQ scores increased 46%.
• Success in Life
Music and art education offer some less measurable benefits that are more
psychological than physiological. The pride, self-esteem and sense of
accomplishment that results from participating in music and the arts are just a few
of the intangible benefits. The self-discipline and persistence required to learn,
practice and perform translate to life-long study and work habits. “Creating and
performing music promotes self-expression and provides self-gratification while
giving pleasure to others. In medicine, increasing published reports demonstrate
that music has a healing effect on patients”. Music also has the power to bring
people together. It has often been called a universal language. It can be a means
of communication and understanding across cultures. During the Cold War, rock
and roll music broadcast over the Voice of America radio station brought the
ideas of freedom and democracy to the youth of the Soviet Union. Daniel Carp,
Chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak Company said “Music is one way for
young people to connect with themselves, but it is also a bridge for connecting
with others. Through music, we can introduce children to the richness and
1 t 'y
diversity of the human family and to the myriad rhythms of life”.
The House of Representatives passed a Concurrent Resolution on 1 March 2005 that
said music instruction “is an important component of a well-rounded academic
curriculum and should be available to every student in every school”. 133 Congressional
support, in addition to the inclusion of music and arts education in NCLB as part of the
core curriculum are essential to the continuing struggle to keep music and arts in our
schools. The pressures on the education system will not go away - in fact they are likely
to increase. Justification for music and art education in our schools will continue to be
necessary. The value of developing the whole child and the benefits music and arts
education provide far outweigh the costs. Those of us who know first hand the difference
music and arts can make have a responsibility to secure that opportunity for all children.
AUTHOR: Ms. Theresa Conte
1 Jack E. Bowsher, Fix Schools Firsts (Maryland: Aspen Publications, 2001), 24-5.
2 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, Table 29. Total
expenditures of educational institutions related to the gross domestic product, by level of institution:
Selected years, 1929-30 to 2001-02, <http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/> (November 2003).
3 Bowsher, Fix Schools Firsts 19.
4 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, Table 5. Educational
institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 1980-81 to 2001-02,
<http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/> (September 2003).
5 Ibid, Tables 3 and 4.
6 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Education Program Fact Sheet, February 2005,
< http://gatesfoiindation.org/Education/RelatedInfo/EducationFactSheet-021201.htm > (28 April 2005).
8 Jon Kyi, Republican Policy Committee, Funding the No Child Left Behind Act: How Much is Enough ?,
15 November 2004, < http://kyl.senate.gov/ > (April 2, 2005).
9 Margaret Spellings, US Secretary of Education, on the 2005 Advanced Placement Results, January 2005,
< http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/01/012520Q5.html > (27 April 2005).
10 Rodger W. Bybee, and Elizabeth Stage, “No Country Left Behind,” Issues in Science and Technology
Online, < http://www.issues.org/issues/21.2/bybee.html >, Vol. 21, Iss. 2 (Winter 2005), 69-75.
11 Gerald W. Bracey, “International Comparisons: Less Than Meets the Eye?” Phi Delta Kappan, Feb 2004.
Vol. 85, Iss. 6 (Feb 2004), 477-478.
12 National Center for Education Statistics, International Education Indicators,
< http://nces.ed. gov/surveys/international/IntlIndicators/index.asp?SectionNumber=4&SubSectionNumber=
l&IndicatorNumber=6 > (27 April 2005).
13 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, Table 156. Revenues for
public elementary’ and secondary’ schools, < http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dtl56.asp >
(28 April 2005)/
14 United States Census Bureau, Table 212: Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1960 to
2003, < http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/educ.pdf > (28 April 2005).
16 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, Table 107. Percent of high
school dropouts, < http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dtlQ7.asp> (28 April 2005).
17 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003, Table 104. Public high
school graduates and dropouts, < http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dtl04.asp> (26 April
18 Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Public High School
Graduation and College-Readiness Rates: 1991-20, < http://www.manhattan-
institute.org/html/ewp Q8.htm > (26 April 2005).
19 Jack E. Bowsher, Fix Schools First, (Maryland: Aspen Publications, 2001), 36.
20 The Council of Great City Schools, Beating the Odds: III, March 2003,
< http://www.cgcs.org/reports/beat the oddsIIl.html > (30 April 2005).
2 ‘ Ibid -
22 Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Public High School
Graduation and College-Readiness Rates: 1991-2002, < http://www.manhattan-
institute.org/html/ewp Q8.htm > (30 April 2005).
23 Kathleen T. Jorissen, “Retaining Alternate Route Teachers: The Power of Professional
Integration in Teacher Preparation and Induction,” The High School Journal\
(Oct/Nov 2002), 46.
24 Yearbook 2001: The state of America’s children, (Washington, D.C.: Children’s Defense
Fund, 2001), 66.
25 Jerry Aldridge and Renitta Goldman, Current Issues and Trends in Education, (Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
Pearson Education Company, 2002), 20.
26 Newt Gingrich, Winning the Future, A 21 st Century’ Contract with America, (Washington, D.C.: Regency
Publishing, Inc., 2005), 143.
27 John Boehner, “Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: A Progress Report,” House Education and
The Workforce Committee Fact Sheet. 10 October 2003, Online, (2 April 2005).
28 Derek Furr, “Leave No Child Behind?” Education Week. 31 October 2001, < http://www.edweek.org>
(2 April 2005).
29 Byron L. Dorgan, “Republicans Leave Behind Children and Families During the 108 th Congress,”
Democratic Policy Committee, 7 October 2004, Online, (2 April 2005).
30 Jon Kyi, “Funding the No Child Left Behind Act: How Much is Enough?” Republican Policy
Committee, 15 November 2004, Online, (2 April 2005).
31 John Boehner, “Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: A Progress Report”.
32 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and
Engineering Workforce and National Security, Defense Horizons, April 2004, 4.
33 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, (Washington DC: United States Commission on National
Security/21 st Century, January 31, 2001), 39.
34 Samuel P. Huntington, “The Hispanic Challenge,” Foreign Policy, Mar/Apr 2004, 30.
35 United States Census Bureau, Table la. Projected Population of the United States, by Race and
Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050, <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf> (30
36 “Spellings Test,” Washington Post, 23 April 2005, A18.
37 Byron L. Dorgan, “Republicans Leave Behind Children and Families During the 108 th Congress”,
Democratic Policy Committee, 7 October 2004, Online, Internet, (2 April 2005).
38 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, 30.
39 US Department of Education, “Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary”, 2 Feb 2004,
<http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget05/summary/edlite-appendix3.html> (27 Apr 2005).
40 Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified 15 December 1791.
41 National Center for Education Statistics, “NAEP Overview,”
< http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/ >, 25 May 2005.
42 US Department of Education, “No Child Left Behind - A Toolkit for Teachers”, May 2004, 13-14.
43 “Districts and Teachers’ Union Sue Over Bush Law”, The New York Times, 21 April 2005.
44 Sam Dillion, “Utah Vote Rejects Parts of Education Law,” The New York Times, 20 April 2005.
45 US Department of Education, “No Child Left Behind - A Toolkit for Teachers”, 3.
46 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security’: Imperative for Change (Washington DC: United States Commission on National
Security/21 st Century, January 31, 2001), 30.
48 Gregory S. Babe, “The Secret to a Healthy Science Pipeline Should Be Elementary,” Machine Design, 17
February 2005, Vol. 77, Iss. 4, 211.
49 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and
Engineering Workforce and National Security, Defense Horizons, April 2004, 3.
51 Newt Gingrich, Winning the Future: A 21 st Century Contract With America (Washington DC: Regency
Publishing, Inc., 10 January 2005), 146.
52 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and
Engineering Workforce and National Security, p. 1.
53 Fiona M. Goodchild, “The Pipeline: Still Leaking”, American Scientist, Mar/Apr 2004, Vol. 92, Iss. 2,
84 National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential
(Washington DC: National Science Foundation, August 14, 2003), p. 21.
55 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and
Engineering Workforce and National Security, p. 5.
56 Gregory S. Babe, “The Secret to a Healthy Science Pipeline Should Be Elementary,” p. 211.
57 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and
Engineering Workforce and National Security, 4.
59 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and
Engineering Workforce and National Security, 4.
61 National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential, p. 18.
62 Gregory S. Babe, “The Secret to a Healthy Science Pipeline Should Be Elementary,” p. 211.
65 Ibid., 39.
National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America's Potential, 17.
70 Theola Labbe, “Engineering Contest Challenges Students to Build Robot, Skills; Solving Problems
Together as Team,” The Washington Post, February 24, 2002, T.01.
7 ‘ Ibid -
72 Tal Barak, “Competition Inspires Students To Be Innovative,” Education Week, June 23, 2004, Online.
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/06/23/41 inventions.h23 .html .
74 Mark Clayton, “Engineering A Livelier Way To Study Science,” The Christian Science Monitor,
February 20, 2001, 14.
76 M2 Presswire, “INTEL: Intel Honors the Next Generation of Scientists,” Coventry, January 29, 2003,
79 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, 44.
81 Thomas Jefferson High School For Science and Technology, Information for Applicants (Fairfax, VA:
Fairfax County Public Schools), 4.
83 Ibid., 45.
84 Ibid., 46.
85 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, 44.
87 National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential, 32.
89 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, 45.
90 National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential, p. 32.
91 Gregory S. Babe, “The Secret to a Healthy Science Pipeline Should Be Elementary,” 211.
92 Fiona M. Goodchild, “The Pipeline: Still Leaking,” 112.
93 The White House, “Strengthening Higher Education for a Successful Workforce,” March 23, 2005,
Online, www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education/ .
94 National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential, 42.
95 The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century, Road Map for
National Security: Imperative for Change, 30.
96 William P. Butz, Terrence K. Kelly, David M. Adamson, Gabrielle A. Bloom, Donna Fossum, and Mihal
E. Gross, “Will the Scientific and Technology Workforce Meet the Requirements of the Federal
Government?” RAND Science and Technology,
< http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND MG 118.pdf >, 71.
97 Ibid., 74.
98 “Innovate America,” National Innovation Initiative Report: Thriving in a world of challenge and change .
Council on Competitiveness, Dec 04, <http://www.compete.org/pdf/NII_Final_Report.pdf>
99 “AAU and NASULGC Urge Increased Funding For Defense Research and Education in FY06,” AAU
CFR Weekly Wrap-Up , The Association of American Universities,
101 “Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challenge for Science and Technology in the United States,”
AeA, Advancing the Business of Technology , < www.aeanet.org >, Feb 2005, 23.
103 “U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) Holds Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Science and
Technology Budget,” Veritude: Strategic Human Resources, LexisNexis, Copyright 2005 Congressional
Quarterly, Inc. All Rights Reserved. FDCH Political Transcripts. 9 Mar 05 Wednesday.
104 “Industry Position on Critical Workforce Skills: Quick-Look Report.” National Defense Industrial
Association, As presented to Dr. Sega, Director, Defense Research and Engineering, 31 Aug 04.
105 Ibid., Slide 27.
106 “Program Philosophy,” Materials World Modules^ Northwestern University,
< http://materialsworldmodules.org/aboutmwm/programphilosophy.htm >, Feb 2005.
107 “Pedagogy,” Materials World Modules, Northwestern University,
< http://materialsworldmodules.org/aboutmwm/pedagogy.htm >. Feb 2005.
109 Robert L. Stiegler and Eugene F. Brown, “Virginia Demonstration Project Management Plan,” Naval
Research - Science and Technology’ for America’s Readiness, Rev 012605,
<http://www.me.vt.edu/eugenebrown/VDPManagementPlanRev012605%20_3_.pdT> 5 Jan 2005.
110 Ibid., 1.
112 Ibid., 6.
114 “National Defense Education Act,” RDT&E Budget Item Justification Sheet, Feb 05.
115 “Administration FY2006 Budget Request Contains Cuts to Science and Math Education Programs at
NSF,” NSTA Legislative Update, National Science Teachers Association, 14 Feb 2005.
117 “Summary of Workshop Results: Breakout Session Summary,” Workshop on National Security
Workforce Challenges and Solutions, National Defense Industry Association, 22 Dec 2004, Slide 25.
118 International Music Products Association, (Spring 2002),
< http://www.menc.org/information/advocate/facts.html >, 31 March 2005, 1.
119 Ellen Winner and Lois Hetland, “Does Studying the Arts Enhance Academic Achievement?”,
Education Week, (1 November 2000), <http://www.edweek.org>, 24 February 2005, 3.
120 MENC - The National Association for Music Association, “Music Education Facts and Figures”,
(Spring 2002), < http://www.menc.org/information/advocate/facts.html >, 31 March 2005, 1.
121 NASBE: National Association of State Boards of Education, Lori Meyer, Project Director, “The
Complete Curriculum: Ensuring a Place for the Arts and Foreign Language in America’s Schools”, Study
Group on the Lost Curriculum, (Winter 2004), < http://www.supportmusic.com/public/browse.php2soc ,>.
31 March 2005,1.
I2 ~ Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report. Reported in Houston Chronicle, January 1998,
123 American Arts Alliance Fact Sheet, (October 1996),
< http://www.menc.org/information/advocate/facts.html >, 31 March 2005, 2.
124 Richard J. Deasy and Lauren Stevenson, “The Arts: Critical Links to Student Success”, (16 May 2002),
< http://www.aep-arts.org >, 31 March 2005,1.
125 James S. Catterall, Richard Chapleau, and John Iwanaga, “Involvement in the Arts and Human
Development: General Involvement and Intensive Involvement in Music and Theater Arts”, ( Los Angeles,
CA: The Imagination Project at UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, 1999), 2.
126 College Bound Seniors National Report: Profile of SAT Program Test Takers, (Princeton, NJ: The
College Entrance Examination Board, 2001), 2.
127 John J. Ratey, MD, A User’s Guide to the Brain , (New York: Pantheon Books, 2001), 4.
128 Mary Ann Zehr, “’Mozart Effect’ Goes Only So Far, Study Says”, Education Week, (27 September
2000), < http://www.edweek.org> , 24 February 2005, 1.
129 Debra Viadero, “Research Notes: Music and Math”, Education Week, (14 April 1999),
http://www.edweek.org >, 24 February 2005, 1.
130 Rauscher, Shaw, Levine, Ky and Wright, “Music and Spatial Task Performance: A Causal
Relationship”, (Irvine, CA: University of California - Irvine, 1994), 5.
Resolution 45, 1 March 2005.
MENC, “Music Education Facts and Figures’
1 US House of Representatives, Congressional
“AAU and NASULGC Urge Increased Funding For Defense Research and Education in
FY06.” AAU CFR Weekly Wrap-Up. The Association of American Universities.
Accessed Apr 05. <http://www.aau.edu/publications/WR. 11.5.04,pdf>
“Administration FY2006 Budget Request Contains Cuts to Science and Math Education
Programs at NSF.” NSTA Legislative Update. National Science Teachers Association.
14 Feb 05. Accessed Mar 05.
Aldridge, Jerry and Renitta Goldman. Current Issues and Trends in Education. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, Pearson Education Company, 2002.
Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified 15 December
American Arts Alliance Fact Sheet. (October 1996): 2pp. Online. Internet. 31 March
Anonymous, (2005). “Alternative Teacher Certification”, Education Week, Research
Center. 2005 Editorial Projects in Education. Internet. Online, www.edweek.org accessed
March 23, 2005.
Babe, Gregory S. “The Secret to a Healthy Science Pipeline Should Be Elementary.”
Machine Design. 17 February 2005, Vol. 77, Iss. 4.
Barak, Tal. “Competition Inspires Students To Be Innovative.” Education Week. June
23, 2004. Online, www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/06/23/41inventions.h23.html .
Bassett, Patrick F. (2003). “Searching for Great Teachers”, Education Week, February 26,
2003, Volume 22, Issue 24, Pages 26,28. Internet. Online, www.edweek.org accessed
February 24, 2005.
Blair, Julie (2001). “New Organization Aims to Develop Tests for Teachers”, Education
Week, October 17, 2001, Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 1,16. Internet. Online.
www.edweek.org accessed February 24, 2005.
Blair, Julie (2001). “Critics Question Federal Funding of Teacher Test”, Education Week,
October 8, 2003, Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 1,17. Internet. Online, www.edweek.org
accessed February 24, 2005.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Education Program Fact Sheet, February 2005,
< http://gatesfoundation.org/Education/RelatedInfo/EducationFactSheet-021201 .htm > (28
Boehner, John. “Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: A Progress Report.”
House Education and the Workforce Committee Fact Sheet. October 10, 2003.
Online. Internet. April 2, 2005.
Bowsher, Jack E. Fix Schools First. Maryland: Aspen Publications, 2001.
Bracey, Gerald W. “International Comparisons: Less Than Meets the Eye?” Phi Delta
Kappan, Feb 2004. Vol. 85, Iss. 6 (Feb 2004), 477-478.
Bybee, Rodger W. and Elizabeth Stage. “No Country Left Behind,” Issues in Science
and Technology Online, < http://www.issues.Org/issues/21.2/bybee.html >, Vol. 21, Iss. 2
(Winter 2005), 69-75.
Butz, William P., Terrence K. Kelly, David M. Adamson, Gabrielle A. Bloom, Donna
Fossum, and Mihal E. Gross. “Will the Scientific and Technology Workforce Meet the
Requirements of the Federal Government?” RAND Science and Technology. Accessed
Feb 05. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG118.pdlN
Catterall, James S., Richard Chapleau, and John Iwanaga. “Involvement in the Arts and
Human Development: General Involvement and Intensive Involvement in Music and
Theater Arts.” Los Angeles, CA: The Imagination Project at UCLA Graduate School of
Education and Information Studies, 1999.
Clayton, Mark. “Engineering A Livelier Way To Study Science.” The Christian Science
Monitor. February 20, 2001.
College Bound Seniors National Report: Profile of SAT Program Test Takers.
Princeton, NJ: The College Entrance Examination Board, 2001.
Darling-Hammond, Linda (2000). “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review
of State Policy Evidence”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, January 1, 2000, Volume
8, Number 1, ISSN 1068-2341. Internet. Online, www.epaa.asu.edu accessed March 13,
DeArmond, Michael and Goldhaber, Dan (2003). “The Back Office - A Neglected Side
of Teacher Quality”, Education Week, February 9, 2005, Volume 24, Issue 22, Pages 31-
32. Internet. Online, www.edweek.org accessed March 23, 2005.
Deasy, Richard J. and Lauren Stevenson. “The Arts: Critical Links to Student Success”.
(16 May 2002): 3pp. Online. Internet. 31 March 2005.
Dillion, Sam. “Utah Vote Rejects Parts of Education Law.” The New York Times. 20
“Districts and Teachers’ Union Sue Over Bush Law”. The New York Times. 21 April
Dorgan, Byron L. “Republicans Leave Behind Children and Families During the 108 th
Congress.” Democratic Policy Committee. October 7, 2004. Online. Internet.
April 2, 2005.
Dobbs, Michael (2004). “Montana’s Top Teacher Not Good Enough; No Child Left
Behind Law Confounds States; US Officials Says It’s Misunderstood”, The Washington
Post, March 14, 2004, Page A.07. Internet. Proquest accessed March 17, 2005.
Fu, Jennifer (2005). “New Recruiting Efforts by Teach for America Yield Record
Applicants”, Education Week, March 16, 2005, Volume 24, Issue 27, Page 9. Internet.
Online, www.edweek.org accessed March 16, 2005.
Gingrich, Newt. Winning the Future, A 21 st Century Contract with America.
Washington, D.C.: Regency Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Goodchild, Fiona M. “The Pipeline: Still Leaking”. American Scientist. Mar/Apr 2004.
Vol. 92, Iss. 2.
Greene, Jay P. and Marcus A. Winters, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,
Public High School Graduation and College-Readiness Rates: 1991-2002,
< http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp Q8.htm > (26 April 2005).
Hrabowski III, Freeman A. “Raising Minority Achievement in Science and Math.”
Educational Leadership. Dec/Jan 2003. Vol. 60, Iss. 4.
Huntington, Samuel P. “The Hispanic Challenge,” Foreign Policy , Mar/Apr 2004.
“Industry Position on Critical Workforce Skills.” National Defense Industrial
Association. As presented to Dr. Sega, Director, Defense Research and Engineering. 31
Aug 04. Accessed Jan 05. <http://proceedings.ndia.org/4340/swallow.pdlV
“Innovate America.” National Innovation Initiative Report: Thriving in a world of
challenge and change. Council on Competitiveness. Dec 04. Accessed Mar 05. <
Jackson, Dr. Shirley Ann. President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “The Perfect
Storm.” Speech to the National Society of Black Engineers Dallas, Texas. 17 Mar 04.
Jacobson, Linda (2005). “Federal Officials Say N.D., Utah Teachers ‘Qualified’ After
All”, Education Week, March 9, 2005, Volume 24, Issue 26, Page 20. Internet. Online.
www.edweek.org accessed March 9, 2005.
Jorissen, Kathleen T. “Retaining Alternate Route Teachers: The Power of Professional
Integration in Teacher Preparation and Induction.” The High School Journal
Keller, Bess (2003). “Teacher Quality Might Be More Elusive Than Cited”, Education
Week, November 12, 2003, Volume 23, Issue 11, Page 10. Internet. Proquest, accessed
February 24, 2005.
Kyi, Jon. Republican Policy Committee, Funding the No Child Left Behind Act: How
Much is Enough?, 15 November 2004, < http://kvl.senate.gov/ > (April 2, 2005).
Labbe, Theola. “Engineering Contest Challenges Students to Build Robot, Skills;
Solving Problems Together as Team.” The Washington Post. February 24, 2002.
“Losing the Competitive Advantage? The Challenge for Science and Technology in the
United States.” AeA, Advancing the Business of Technology. Feb 05. p23. Accessed Apr
M2 Presswire. “INTEL: Intel Honors the Next Generation of Scientists.” Coventry.
January 29, 2003.
Marshall, Michael L., Caffey, Timothy, Saalfeld, Fred E., and Colwell, Rita R., “The
Science and Engineering Workforce and National Security,” Defense Horizons , April
Maryland Department of Education Website. Internet. Online, www.msde.state.md.us
accessed April 3, 2005.
Materials World Modules. Northwestern University. Accessed Apr 05.
MENC - The National Association for Music Association. “Music Education Facts and
Figures”. (Spring 2002): 7pp. Online. Internet. 31 March 2005.
Moe, Terry M. (2005). “No Teacher Left Behind”, The Wall Street Journal, January 13,
2005, Page A. 12. Internet. Proquest accessed March 17, 2005.
NASBE: National Association of State Boards of Education. Lori Meyer, Project
Director. “The Complete Curriculum: Ensuring a Place for the Arts and Foreign
Language in America’s Schools”. Study Group on the Lost Curriculum, Winter 2004.
National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003,
< http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/ > (28 April 2005).
National Center for Education Statistics, International Education Indicators,
< hUp://nccs.cd.gov/survcys/intcrnational/lntl I ndicators/indcx.asp?ScctionNumbcr=4&Su
bSectionNumber= 1 &IndicatorNumber=6 > (27 April 2005).
National Center for Education Statistics, “NAEP Overview,”
< http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/ >, (25 May 2005).
“National Defense Education Act.” RDT&E Budget Item Justification Sheet. Feb 05.
Accessed Apr 05.
National Science Board. The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s
Potential. Washington DC: National Science Foundation, August 14, 2003.
Ratey, John J., MD. A User’s Guide to the Brain . New York: Pantheon Books, 2001.
Rauscher, Shaw, Levine, Ky and Wright, “Music and Spatial Task Performance: A
Causal Relationship”. Irvine, CA: University of California - Irvine, 1994.
“Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change.” The Phase III Report of the
U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. 15 Feb 01. Accessed Mar 05.
Ruark, Jennifer (2003) “Improving Education by Valuing Teachers as Professionals”.
The Chronicles of Higher Education, May 2, 2003, Volume 49, Issue 34, Page A22.
Internet. Online, www.chronicle.com accessed March, 2005.
Schroeder, Ken. “Women and Minorities”. The Education Digest. December 2002. Vol.
68, Iss. 4.
Spellings, Margaret. US Secretary of Education, on the 2005 Advanced Placement
Results, January 2005, < http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/01/012520Q5.html >
(27 April 2005).
“Spellings Test,” Washington Post , April 23, 2005.
Stiegler, Robert L. and Eugene F. Brown. “Virginia Demonstration Project Management
Plan.” Naval Research - Science and Technology for America’s Readiness. Rev 012605.
5 Jan 05. Accessed Mar 05.
“Summary of Workshop Results: Breakout Session Summary.” Workshop on National
Security Workforce Challenges and Solutions. National Defense Industry Association.
22 Dec 04. Accessed Jan 05.
Swallow, Edward. Chair, NDIA Space Division &Chair, Industry Study on Critical
Workforce Issues, supporting Dr. Ron Sega, Director of Defense Research and
Engineering. “Space Policy and Architecture Conference: Space Industrial Base Panel.”
Accessed Apr 05. <http://proceedings.ndia.org/4340/swallow.pdfN
“Teacher Retention, How The Courage to Teach responds to the challenge of keeping and
sustaining our public school teachers,” School Information System,
< http://www.schoolinfosvstem.org/pdf/102004/ctt retention.pdfN . 20 March 2005.
“Teacher Retention Strategies,” Nobscot Corporation,
< http://www.nobscot.com/about/teacher retention strategies.cfm >. 20 March 2005.
Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report. Reported in Houston Chronicle,
The Council of Great City Schools, Beating the Odds: III, March 2003,
< http://www.cgcs.org/reports/beat the oddsIII.html > (30 April 2005).
“The Defense Science Board 2001 Summer Study on Defense Science and Technology.”
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
Washington D.C. 20301-3140. May 02. Accessed Mar 05.
The Phase III Report of the United States Commission on National Security/21 st Century,
Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change (Washington DC: United States
Commission on National Security/21 st Century, January 31, 2001).
The White House. “Strengthening Higher Education for a Successful Workforce.” March
23, 2005. Online, www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education/.
Thomas Jefferson High School For Science and Technology. Information for Applicants.
Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Public Schools.
United States Census Bureau, Table la. Projected Population of the United States, by
Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to 2050,
<http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdffi (30 April 2005).
United States Census Bureau, Table 212: Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic
Origin: 1960 to 2003, < http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/educ.pdffi (28
US Department of Education. “Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary”. 2 Feb 2004.
27 Apr 2005.
US Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind - A Toolkit for Teachers”. May
US Department of Education. The Secretary’s Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality
(2004). “Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher’s Challenge, 2004”. Washington, D.C.
US House of Representatives. Congressional Resolution 45. 1 March 2005.
“U.S. Senator John Comyn (R-TX) Holds Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense
Science and Technology Budget.” Veritude: Strategic Human Resources. LexisNexis.
Copyright 2005 Congressional Quarterly, Inc. All Rights Reserved. FDCH Political
Transcripts. 9 Mar 05 Wednesday, http://www6.lexisnexis.com/
publisher/EndUser? Action=UserDisplavFullDocument&orgId= 1727&topicId= 10000061
Usdan, Michael D. (2004). “Teaching Commissions, Then and Now”, Education Week,
March 31, 2004, Volume 23, Issue 29, Page 36. Internet. Online, www.edweek.org
accessed February 24, 2005.
Viadero, Debra. “Research Notes: Music and Math”. Education Week. (14 April
1999): 3pp. Online. Internet. 24 February 2005.
Winner, Ellen and Lois Hetland. “Does Studying the Arts Enhance Academic
Achievement?”. Education Week. (1 November 2000): 4pp. Online. Internet. 24
Wise, Arthur E. (2003). “What’s Wrong With Teacher Certification?”, Education Week,
April 9, 2003, Volume 22, Issue 30, Pages 42,56. Internet. Online, www.edweek.org
accessed February 24, 2005.
Yearbook 2001: The state of America’s children. Washington, D.C.: Children’s Defense
Zehr, Mary Ann. “’Mozart Effect’ Goes Only So Far, Study Says”. Education Week.
(27 September 2000): 3pp. Online. Internet. 24 February 2005.