Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA449469: Education"

See other formats


EDUCATION 


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 

Form Approved 

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 

2005 N/A 

3. DATES COVERED 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Education 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

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 

REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 
NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

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 

34 


Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 





PLACES VISITED: 


Domestic: 

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 

International: 

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 



INTRODUCTION: 


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 
Activity (DODEA). 

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 


1 



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. 

CURRENT CONDITION: 

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 


2 



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 

12 ^ 

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 

21 

improved at the same rates. Not all gaps are closing. But the data indicate progress.”' 


3 



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 

22 

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. 

CHALLENGES: 

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 

25 

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 


4 



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 

26 

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 

28 

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 
anticipated. 30 

OUTLOOK: 

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. 


5 



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 


6 



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: 



Spending (billions) 

Percent 

Federal 

39.2 

8.1 

State 

221.7 

46.0 

Local 

178.3 

37.0 

Other* 

42.8 

8.9 

Total 

482.0 



*Other is comprised of private funding. 


7 



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 
programs. 

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 
science teachers. 


8 



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 


9 



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. 

CONCLUSION: 

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. 


10 



ESSAYS ON MAJOR ISSUES: 


EDUCATION CHALLENGES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 
INTRODUCTION 

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 

AO 

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. 

DISCUSSION 

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 

53 ' 

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 


11 



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 

59 

century. 

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 
rate. 61 

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 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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. 


12 



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 
lifetime.” 78 

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 

80 

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 

82 

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 ’ 


13 



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 

87 

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 


14 



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? 

INTRODUCTION 

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. 

DISCUSSION 

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 


15 



Q O 

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 

108 

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 


16 



to the Center’s facilities.” 111 The Navy expects this program to expand nationwide with 

112 

the NDEA 2006 by FY11. ~ These programs are an investment in the future “to 

113 

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 
defense. 

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. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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 


17 



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 
INTRODUCTION 

“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 


18 



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, 

124 

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 

126 

and 44 points higher on the math. 


19 



• 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 

130 

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”. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

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 


20 



ENDNOTES 


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). 

7 Ibid. 

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). 

15 Ibid. 

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 
2005). 

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. 


21 


















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 
April 2005). 

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. 

47 Ibid. 

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. 

50 Ibid. 

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, 


112 . 

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. 

58 Ibid. 


22 





59 Michael L. Marshall, Timothy Caffey, Fred E. Saalfeld, and Rita R. Colwell, “The Science and 
Engineering Workforce and National Security, 4. 

60 Ibid. 

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. 

63 Ibid. 

64 Ibid. 

65 Ibid., 39. 

66 Ibid. 

Ibid., 40. 


67 


National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America's Potential, 17. 

69 Ibid. 

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 . 

73 Ibid. 

74 Mark Clayton, “Engineering A Livelier Way To Study Science,” The Christian Science Monitor, 
February 20, 2001, 14. 

75 Ibid. 

76 M2 Presswire, “INTEL: Intel Honors the Next Generation of Scientists,” Coventry, January 29, 2003, 

1 . 


77 Ibid. 

78 Ibid. 

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. 

80 Ibid. 

81 Thomas Jefferson High School For Science and Technology, Information for Applicants (Fairfax, VA: 
Fairfax County Public Schools), 4. 

82 Ibid. 

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. 

86 Ibid. 

87 National Science Board, The Science and Engineering Workforce Realizing America’s Potential, 32. 

88 Ibid. 

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> 


23 







99 “AAU and NASULGC Urge Increased Funding For Defense Research and Education in FY06,” AAU 
CFR Weekly Wrap-Up , The Association of American Universities, 

<http://www.aau.edu/publications/WR. 11.5.04.pdf> 

100 Ibid. 

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. 

102 Ibid. 

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. 

108 Ibid. 

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. 

111 Ibid. 

112 Ibid., 6. 

113 Ibid. 

114 “National Defense Education Act,” RDT&E Budget Item Justification Sheet, Feb 05. 
<http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/budgetJustification/pdfs/rdtande/OSD_BA_(All)/OSD%20BAl.p 
df> 


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. 
<http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2005_02_14_legupdate.htm> 

116 Ibid. 

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. 
<http://proceedings.ndia.org/534E/Summary_of_Workshop.pdf> 

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, 


2 . 

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. 


24 














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. 

6 . 

Resolution 45, 1 March 2005. 


MENC, “Music Education Facts and Figures’ 
! Ibid. 

1 US House of Representatives, Congressional 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

“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. 

<http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2005_02_14_legupdate.htm> 


25 





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 
1791. 

American Arts Alliance Fact Sheet. (October 1996): 2pp. Online. Internet. 31 March 
2005. 

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 

April 2005). 

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. 


26 









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, 
2005. 

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 
April 2005. 

“Districts and Teachers’ Union Sue Over Bush Law”. The New York Times. 21 April 
2005. 

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. 


27 






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. < 
http://www.compete.org/pdf/NII_Final_Report.pdf> 

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 
Oct/Nov 2002. 

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). 


28 








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 
05. <www.aeanet.org> 

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 

2004. 

Maryland Department of Education Website. Internet. Online, www.msde.state.md.us 
accessed April 3, 2005. 

Materials World Modules. Northwestern University. Accessed Apr 05. 
<http://materialsworldmodules.org/aboutmwm/history.htm> 

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. 

<http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/budgetjustification/pdfs/rdtande/OS 
D_BA_(A11)/OSD%20BA1 .pdf> 


29 









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. 
<http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdlN 

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. 

<http://www.me.vt.edu/eugenebrown/VDPManagementPlanRev012605%20_3_.pdf> 

“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. 

<http://proceedings.ndia.org/534E/Summary_of_Workshop.pdf> 

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. 


30 








“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, 
January 1998. 

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. 
<http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/sandt.pdf> 

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 
April 2005). 

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. 

US Department of Education. “No Child Left Behind - A Toolkit for Teachers”. May 
2004. 

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. 


31 







“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 

4&docId=l:264773949&start= 13 


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 
February 2005. 

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 
Fund, 2001. 

Zehr, Mary Ann. “’Mozart Effect’ Goes Only So Far, Study Says”. Education Week. 
(27 September 2000): 3pp. Online. Internet. 24 February 2005. 


32