Is the U.S. on “a losing path” when it comes to maintaining our competitive edge in the global economy? Norman Augustine – former Lockheed Martin CEO and chairman of a National Academiescommittee on 21st century competitiveness – thinks so. In congressional testimony more than two years ago, Augustine warned of the long-term economic ramifications of dwindling scientific and technological competencies among today’s students and tomorrow’s workers.
Since Augustine and his impressive committee of CEOs, Nobel Laureates, and university presidents sounded the alarm with their report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, America’s prognosis has not improved. In fact, recent data confirm the validity of their concern. Results from the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), released last week, show many industrialized nations surging ahead of the U.S. in math and science.
The 2006 PISA focused primarily on science literacy, measuring students’ ability to use scientific knowledge to reason and draw conclusions. Students were also tested in math and reading. Fifteen-year-olds in 30 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries representing the world’s richest nations took part; 27 non-OECD jurisdictions also participated.
In science, American students performed below the OECD average of 500, with an average score of 489; 16 OECD countries and six non-OECD jurisdictions did better than the U.S. In math, results were particularly dismal: American students posted an average score of 474, well below the OECD average of 498. Students in 23 OECD countries and eight non-OECD jurisdictions outscored American adolescents.
American reading results were thrown out this year due to a printing error. North Carolina contractor RTI International bungled tests; errors in final exam booklets also escaped reviewers at the National Center for Education Statistics. This mishap represents the first time ever that a country’s scores were excluded because of a major testing misprint – an embarrassment for all involved.
Reaction to American performance was one of collective concern. A coalition of education and business groups, including the Alliance for Excellent Education and the Business Roundtable co-hosted a briefing on PISA results to call for action. Their joint statement (.pdf) decried the fact that “other countries are rapidly catching up to or overtaking us” in the area of high-level math and science competencies.
How can we ensure American students have the requisite skills to compete for jobs in the global marketplace? U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings (who called PISA results “disappointing”) indicated measures such as President Bush’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel (tasked with revamping math instruction) will help counteract our slide to the bottom.
Sure, improving classroom instruction is a good start. But we must also make it easier for qualified, mid-career science and math professionals to transition into teaching, expanding our talent pool in key areas of instructional deficit. We ought to simplify a lateral entry certification process that, according to NCEA Director Lindalyn Kakadelis, “is so fraught with bureaucratic red tape that a chemist with a doctorate cannot teach high school chemistry without first taking ‘education courses.’”
Implementing widespread differentiated teacher pay schedules would also help. School systems need the flexibility and autonomy to compensate highly specialized math and science teachers appropriately. In a 2004 Heartland Institute article, the late economics professor John T. Wenders lamented our arcane compensation system in which “PE teachers are paid the same as physics teachers.”
Teachers also ought to be paid based on merit rather than just on credentials and seniority. Fortunately, growth models – data systems that track student performance over time with a particular teacher – provide school districts with an objective way to measure teaching efficacy. On Friday, the federal government announced that all qualified states may begin piloting growth model programs, making merit-based systems eminently more feasible.
This economic storm is still gathering. If we fail to act, it will soon be upon us. But we can rise above it – if we work diligently to train and nurture the scientific and mathematical talents of the next generation. Our future prosperity depends upon it.