Archived Information

#### 

#### Mathematics and Science Initiative Concept Paper

# Background

The quality of mathematics and science achievement of students in
America has been a major area of concern for the last fifty years. Over
that time, the federal government launched and participated in a variety
of attempts to promote mathematics and science education. Arguably the
most illustrious and significant of these occurred after the Soviet
Union launched *Sputnik* in 1957. As a response to the Soviet Union's
demonstration of superior technological capability, within 12 years of
*Sputnik*, America had upgraded its mathematics and science education
program, launched satellites, seen its own astronauts orbit the Earth,
and landed the first man on the Moon.

It was not until the mid-1980s that the Department of Education
recognized the need to reach more students and teachers and began the
Eisenhower Professional Development program, followed by the Eisenhower
Regional Consortia and the Eisenhower Clearinghouse. The National
Science Foundation, meanwhile, worked to broaden the focus of
mathematics and science education from a focus on an elite group of
students to a focus on all students. NSF made substantial investments in
curriculum development, preservice and inservice teacher education, the
informal science infrastructure, and uses of technology to enhance K-12
instruction and create systemic reform. In FY 2002, NSF and the
Department of Education created the Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Program, which began funding partnerships across agencies and
institutions to strengthen instruction and improve student learning in
mathematics and science.

As federal agencies focused on programmatic efforts, reports from *A
Nation at Risk*[^1] through the Glenn Commission's *Before It's Too
Late*[^2] studied mathematics and science instruction---sometimes as the
sole focus, sometimes in a broader context---and offered a variety of
observations and recommendations that were rarely sanguine, usually
urgent in tone, and which served to focus attention on this area.

While K-12 education in the United States has achieved some small scale
successes (*e.g.*, in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Texas;[^3] in North
Carolina;[^4] and by the *First in the World Consortium*, based in
Naperville, IL[^5]), it has also faced significant ongoing
disappointments (*e.g.*, flat NAEP[^6] and TIMSS[^7] results, ongoing
shortages of teachers well-prepared in mathematics and science[^8], and,
since the 1980s, decreasing numbers of college graduates with majors in
physical, computer, and earth sciences and in mathematics and
engineering, albeit with an overall increase in the numbers in
biological and agricultural sciences, as well as the social and
behavioral sciences.[^9]). Despite a variety of efforts, there are some
important areas where little progress has been made, such as our
inability to dramatically improve student achievement in groups---other
than females---who have historically been underrepresented in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pipeline[^10].
While there has recently been some grounds for hope that progress is
being made in achievement in urban districts, it will require very
significant progress to close all the relevant gaps.[^11]

Achievement scores for U.S. students usually fall at or below
international averages and have done so for three international
comparative assessments of science and mathematics (one of which was
repeated---making four comparisons)[^12], the scientific literacy of our
young people does not meet levels needed to participate fully as
productive citizens in the 21^st^ Century. The pathway to STEM jobs in
is not full of people determined to become professionals in these areas,
nor is the composition of those remaining on the pathway representative
of the group that began the journey.

## Where Do We Go From Here?

Taken together, these efforts suggest three overarching points that
demand our attention:

-   There are still many unanswered questions about how to improve
    mathematics and science achievement for all students that need
    answers immediately.

-   We need to significantly scale up our successes.

-   We need to learn what we can from our failures and from the problems
    that continue to plague us.

The report *Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change,* also
known as the Hart-Rudman Commission Report, released months before the
attacks of September 11, reminds us how critical it is to develop a new
generation of citizens who have the understanding and skills in the STEM
areas to create new strategies and technologies to keep America safe and
prosperous.[^13] The ability to inspire a new generation of scientists,
mathematicians, engineers, and technicians starts in our nation's
schools. To call attention to the need to improve mathematics and
science instruction across the country, the Administration is launching
a major new five-year Mathematics and Science Initiative to improve
mathematics and science achievement. The Initiative will focus on three
main goals:

1.  **Conducting a broad-based public engagement campaign that draws
    attention to the need for mathematics and science education in our
    nation's schools.** Students need to envision where a career in STEM
    can take them, and to understand that they must prepare now for such
    opportunities. Parents need to know what children should be studying
    to prepare them for success in a world that requires the ability to
    understand and apply knowledge of mathematics and science. And the
    public must realize that advances in technology and productivity,
    necessary for the U.S. to remain competitive in the global economy,
    depend on [all]{.underline} students learning more mathematics and
    science than is currently required, but also on increasing the
    number of students who extend their mathematical knowledge beyond
    algebra so they may proceed to more advanced scientific and
    technical subjects.

> The Initiative will work with the business community and professional
> organizations of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers (formal and
> informal), as well as educators, to: (a) sponsor events that excite
> students and parents about careers in the STEM areas; (b) bring these
> professionals into schools to work with students and teachers to
> improve student learning; and (c) send teachers and students to work
> with STEM professionals as interns, summer or part-time employees, and
> consultants at the scientific job site. Businesses and federal
> departments and mission agencies will be involved with educators in
> providing STEM examples, developing the messages, leveraging the
> dissemination efforts, and coordinating their programs and materials
> with state standards and initiatives in mathematics and science.

2.  **Initiating a major campaign to recruit, prepare, train, and retain
    teachers with strong backgrounds in mathematics and science.** The
    campaign will seek to accomplish three objectives: increase the
    number of new entrants to the teaching profession who have a strong
    background in mathematics and science, strengthen the mathematics
    and science knowledge of current and future teachers, and retain
    significantly more of those current teachers who have strong
    backgrounds in mathematics and science and are effective instructors
    in those subject areas. Pursuit of the first objective will promote
    promising alternative routes in the states to recruit such teachers,
    in addition to strengthening the traditional routes to teacher
    preparation. Existing federal programs in the U.S. Department of
    Education (ED), such as Transition to Teaching[^14] and Troops to
    Teachers,[^15] will have a special focus on bringing highly
    qualified recent college graduates and mid-career professionals with
    strong subject matter background in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics into teaching. It will also focus on
    working with colleges of arts and sciences in institutions of higher
    education, as well as teacher training programs, to ensure that
    tomorrow's K-12 mathematics and science teachers have the high
    levels of content knowledge so needed for the 21^st^ Century.

The second objective will focus on providing current teachers with
effective professional development programs that develop their content
knowledge and show evidence of boosting student achievement. The third
objective to retain highly qualified teachers in our classrooms will
encourage establishing incentives and improved working conditions
superior to those currently in common use.

3.  **Developing a major academic research base to improve our knowledge
    of what boosts student learning in mathematics and science in the
    classroom**. Teachers need to know what programs and strategies are
    effective in improving student achievement in mathematics and
    science. A rigorous research agenda, as mandated in the No Child
    Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, will be undertaken to specify the
    learning processes that are essential for success in a wide range of
    learners, to identify the effective instructional strategies that
    capitalize on knowledge about learning in mathematics and science,
    and to effectively transmit that information to the teachers who
    need it.[^16] Several areas of inquiry have been identified to
    develop a scientifically rigorous research base of practical value.
    Research foci described in this Initiative aim to: identify
    workforce requirements and citizenship needs related to STEM,
    understand student learning in mathematics and sciences, explain the
    dynamics of successful interventions, and develop and apply valid
    assessment tools to measure progress of students and programs.

Our history is one of successes and failures, of ongoing problems as
well as accomplishments. Sometimes our focus has been both clear and
strong. At other times federal attention to mathematics and science
education has lost focus and waned, particularly where elementary and
secondary education are concerned. What follows attempts to make
constructive use of our history. We understand that there may not be any
major break-throughs to be found and that we must be modest ourselves in
the face of the modest impact that has been accomplished through earlier
efforts, energy, and expended resources. Nevertheless, we seek to
provide resources to support the high demands and rigorous assessments
of the *No Child Left Behind Act*. These include a requirement that by
2005, all children will be taught by highly qualified teachers, who
demonstrate subject matter knowledge for each course they teach.
Further, there are four basic principles to *No Child Left Behind*:
Accountability, Local control and flexibility, Greater parental choice,
and Research-based practice. These principles require that:

-   States create their own standards for what a child should know and
    learn for all grades. Standards must be developed in math and
    reading immediately. Standards must also be developed for science by
    the 2005-06 school year.

-   With standards in place, states must test every student\'s progress
    toward those standards by using tests that are aligned with the
    standards. Beginning in the 2002-03 school year, schools must
    administer tests in each of three grade spans: grades 3-5, grades
    6-9, and grades 10-12 in all schools. Beginning in the 2005-06
    school year, tests must be administered every year in grades 3
    through 8 in math and reading. Beginning in the 2007-08 school year,
    science achievement must also be tested.

-   Each state, school district, and school will be expected to make
    adequate yearly progress toward meeting state standards. This
    progress will be measured for all students by sorting test results
    for students who are economically disadvantaged, from racial or
    ethnic minority groups, have disabilities, or have limited English
    proficiency.

-   School and district performance will be publicly reported in
    district and state report cards. Individual school results will be
    on the district report cards.

-   If the district or school continually fails to make adequate
    progress toward the standards, then they will be held
    accountable.[^17]

This initiative is both a national and a federal initiative. The Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the U. S. Departments of
Education (ED) and Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), as well as other federal departments and
agencies involved in education and workforce development, will continue
to collaborate to promote this Initiative. Clearly there is a need to
add coherence to the wide variety of federal efforts in STEM education.
The combined efforts should add up to an impact on mathematics and
science learning without the pieces losing their appropriateness to the
mission of their home agency or department. At the same time, these
efforts must be coordinated with the many projects and initiatives
underway in the professional, corporate, and foundation communities, as
well as in national, state and local education organizations. Once the
programs become coordinated and known across the nation, they will be
effective in achieving their goals, and in ensuring a workforce and
citizenry that can take America successfully to the next century.

Section I: The Need To Increase Public Awareness of the Vital Importance
of Mathematics and Science Education

Our nation's education system is failing to equip our children with the
essential STEM skills required in an increasingly competitive global
economy. Nearly three-quarters of our nation's 4^th^ and 8^th^ graders
and nearly four-fifths of our 12^th^ graders are scoring at levels below
"proficient" in mathematics and science for their grades.[^18]
International mathematics and science assessments demonstrate that as
U.S. students progress through their educations they score progressively
worse than do students in the rest of the developed world. Furthermore,
national and international benchmarks confirm that minority students and
students from low-income families perform particularly poorly in
relation to other U.S. and international students. The overall problem
of comparatively low rankings by U.S. students on international
comparisons was noted at least as long ago as 1983, when the National
Commission on Excellence in Education reported that "International
comparisons of student achievement, completed a decade ago, reveal that
on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and,
in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven
times."[^19] More recently, the National Research Council's Mathematics
Learning Study Committee reported:

> One area in which the research evidence is consistent and compelling
> concerns weaknesses in the mathematical performance of U.S. students.
> State, national, and international assessments conducted over the past
> 30 years indicate that, although U.S. students may not fare badly when
> asked to perform straightforward computational procedures, they tend
> to have a limited understanding of basic mathematical concepts. They
> are also notably deficient in their ability to apply mathematical
> skills to solve even simple problems. Although performance in
> mathematics is generally low, there are signs from national
> assessments that it has been improving over the last decade. In a
> number of schools and states, students' mathematics performance is
> among the best in the world. The evidence suggests, however, that many
> students are still not being given the educational opportunities they
> need to achieve at high levels.[^20]

In light of poor U.S. student performance in mathematics and science, a
national campaign is needed to inform parents, students, educators, and
the general public about the importance of mathematics and science
learning in our changing society. Strengthened science and mathematics
education would contribute to our nation's prosperity by spurring
economic growth and generating a more highly skilled workforce. It would
also afford greater opportunities for students to pursue postsecondary
education and training or to enter higher-wage careers. It would also
contribute to democracy's ongoing need for an educated citizenry.

This campaign will also confront negative public perceptions regarding
mathematics and science, especially the misconceptions that only "nerds"
need to study mathematics and science and that it is acceptable for
adults to say that "I was never any good at mathematics." Parents will
learn that while they may not have needed a high-level mathematics and
science background to be successful, their children will. The Initiative
will enlist the aid of state and local education agencies, businesses,
professional organizations, religious, and non-profit organizations to
promote STEM awareness.

### Poor U.S. Student Achievement in Mathematics and Science

-   ***One out of every three students in 4^th^, 8^th^, and 12^th^ grade
    performs at the lowest level on the National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics assessment.*** While trends
    over the past 10 years show that students have improved their
    mathematical skills, the proportion of students scoring at the
    "below basic" level is still 31 percent for 4^th^ graders; 34
    percent for 8^th^ graders; and 35 percent for 12^th^ graders. A
    large majority of students score at the two lowest levels, "basic"
    and "below basic."[^21]

-   ***A substantial achievement gap between white students and both
    black and Hispanic students persists in mathematics across a 10-year
    span despite achievement gains for all three groups. In science a
    similar gap persists across a 4-year span, but with minor changes in
    overall achievement levels.*** The U.S. Department of Education's
    report *The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2000* revealed that
    while white, black, and Hispanic students at grades 4 and 8 made
    gains on the NAEP since 1990, the large gaps between these
    subgroups\' performance have remained relatively unchanged. In the
    2000 assessment, white students, in all three grades, had higher
    scores, on average, than black or Hispanic students, and the
    differences in scores were substantial. For example, white fourth
    graders scored 236, on average, in 2000 compared to 205 for black
    students and 212 for Hispanic students. In eighth grade the
    comparable numbers were 286 compared to 247 and 253. These large
    gaps between subgroups\' performance have remained relatively
    unchanged since 1990. White students had higher scores in 2000 than
    in 1990 at grade 12, when no significant difference in scores was
    found for black or Hispanic students.[^22] In fact, black and
    Hispanic 12^th^ graders demonstrate a similar set of mathematics
    skills as white 8^th^ graders in the NAEP, and only 3 percent of
    minority students score at the proficient level in mathematics. One
    exception is that when U.S. eighth graders' 1995 TIMSS and 1999
    TIMSS-R scores are compared, Black students showed a significant
    gain in mathematics (but not in science)[^23]. In science, NAEP
    results showed only a few, modest changes between the 1996 results
    and those of 2000 (this science assessment was first administered to
    nationally representative samples of fourth-, eighth-, and
    twelfth-grade students in 1996). There were no significant
    differences at grade 4; at grade 8, the average score for American
    Indian students declined; and at grade 12, the average score for
    white students declined. Across all three grades in 2000, white
    students had higher scores, on average, than black or Hispanic
    students. The large gaps between subgroups\' performance have
    remained relatively unchanged since 1996.[^24]

-   ***8^th^ graders in the U.S. are outperformed in mathematics and
    science by students in almost all industrialized nations, except
    Italy and New Zealand.*** The 1999 Third International Mathematics
    and Science Study--Repeat (TIMSS-R) reports that U.S. students score
    significantly lower than 8^th^ graders in 14 countries. Singapore
    students score the highest in mathematics while students from
    Chinese Taipei score the highest in science.[^25] Recent analyses of
    NAEP items, which show that NAEP mathematics standards are lower in
    comparison to exams given in Singapore. For example, NAEP
    mathematics items for 8^th^ graders match those given to 5^th^
    graders in the Asian city-state.[^26]

#### Mathematics and Science as Spurs to Economic Growth and Competitiveness

-   ***Science and mathematics are key drivers in an economy that relies
    heavily on emerging technologies.*** New technologies facilitate the
    nation's standard of living by making workers more productive. As
    noted by The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching
    for the 21^st^ Century (Glenn Commission), from 1996 to 2000,
    national productivity increased, on average, by 2.6 percent per
    year. If we could maintain that rate---all other things being
    equal---the nation's standard of living would double approximately
    every 25 years.[^27] Recent evidence suggests that improved
    productivity in the computer-producing sector and the effect of
    computer technology on workers together account for much of the
    recent acceleration in U.S. labor productivity.[^28] The first wave
    of technology has enabled the country to do traditional jobs with
    fewer workers, but it has also increased the number of jobs in new
    fields that need science, technology, engineering and mathematics
    workers.

-   ***Other nations have stepped up their efforts in creating a
    well-trained workforce in science and technology, often competing
    with U.S. workers.*** The Glenn Commission also put us on notice
    about specific examples of other nations' efforts to upgrade their
    workforces through enhanced scientific and technological education.
    Singapore, for example, reputedly has the most technologically
    intensive workforce in the world. Israel now produces more
    technology-based startups than anywhere outside Silicon Valley; its
    high-tech exports account for a quarter of global sales. Drawing on
    a young, skilled, and well-educated workforce, Ireland now produces
    60 percent of all PC business-application software sold in
    Europe.[^29]

-   ***Many of today's fastest growing jobs require a solid mathematics
    or science background.*** Of the 20 fastest-growing occupations
    projected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) through 2010,
    15 of them require substantial mathematics or science preparation.
    Most of the fastest-growing occupational areas will reflect
    continued growth in computer technology---a field that imports
    talent in order to stay competitive---and health services. The
    fastest-growing jobs in mathematics and science fields will increase
    by nearly 6 million in 2010.[^30] While the number of young adults
    18- to 24-years old will grow by 3 million over this same decade, 56
    percent of these adults will be minority students who are
    underrepresented in higher level mathematics and science classes in
    high school and college.[^31] Increased numbers of H 1 (b) visas
    have been the nation's response to shortages in highly skilled
    workers, but when the shortages reach the millions, that solution is
    no longer viable. Without a considerable investment of time and
    energy in improving America's K-12 educational system in science and
    mathematics, American companies will find no alternative but to go
    overseas to countries that have better skilled workforces.

### Greater Opportunities to Attend College and Enter High Wage Professions for Students of Mathematics and Science

### *Students of all income levels who take rigorous mathematics and science courses in high school are more likely to go to college, and among low-income students (students in the bottom third of the income distribution), the difference is particularly dramatic.* Students from low-income families who took Algebra I and geometry were almost three times as likely to attend college as those who did not. While 71 percent of low-income students who took algebra I and geometry went to college, only 27 percent of low-income students who did not take algebra I and geometry went on to college. The differences are also dramatic among students from middle- and high-income families: 94 percent of students from high-income families, and 84 percent of students from middle-income families who took algebra I and geometry went on to college, while 60 percent of students from high-income families and 44 percent of students from middle-income families who did not take algebra I and geometry still went on to college.[^32] This study demonstrates how critical it is for teachers to have high expectations for their students and to ensure that all students take these courses and succeed.

-   ***The earnings of young adults with at least a bachelor's degree
    increased over the past 20 years relative to their counterparts who
    have less education***. Adults ages 25-34 with at least a bachelor's
    degree have higher median earnings than those who have less
    education. In 1980, male college graduates earned 19 percent more
    than those who completed only high school or a General Education
    Development Certificate (GED). By 2000, the earnings difference was
    60 percent. The gap in the last 20 years has widened for females as
    well. In 1980, female college graduates earned 52 percent more than
    those who completed only high school or a GED. By 2000, the earnings
    difference was 95 percent. The earnings gap is even wider between
    college graduates and those whose highest education level was grades
    9-11. In 1980, males whose highest education level was grades 9-11
    earned almost 50 percent less than male college graduates. By 2000,
    the earnings difference was 87 percent. In 1980, females whose
    highest education level was grades 9-11 earned almost 90 percent
    less than female college graduates. By 2000, the earnings difference
    was 125 percent. [^33]

-   ***Many of today's occupations require solid math skills.***
    Economists Richard Murnane and Frank Levy constructed a rough
    equivalence between basic workplace requirements and NAEP scores.
    These workplace requirements were based on employer data on tests
    given to candidates applying for new frontline jobs. For example, an
    applicant for a production associate's job at a modern automobile
    plant would have to score roughly 300 points or higher on the NAEP
    math test to meet company proficiency requirements. However, almost
    half of all 17-year-olds cannot do math at that level and lack the
    skills necessary to earn a middle-class paycheck.[^34] Firms are
    hiring based on applicant knowledge of basic math skills.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***Students with higher-level mathematics skills earn more.*** Even
    among students who only earned a high school diploma, those with
    highest-level mathematics skills earned more than double (108
    percent more) than those with the weakest skills.[^35]

-   ***Scientists and engineers earn higher salaries and are employed at
    very high rates.*** The median annual salary of scientists and
    engineers in 1997 was \$52,000 for bachelor's degree holders and
    \$59,000 for master's recipients. By comparison, the median annual
    salary of individuals employed in non-science and engineering fields
    in 1997 was \$40,000 for bachelor's degree holders; \$50,000 for
    master's recipients. The unemployment rate was 1.5 percent for all
    workers in science and engineering occupations in 1997, while the
    national unemployment rate was 4.8 percent. [^36]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***In the computer science field, jobs will outpace the number of
    related degrees earned by new college graduates in the U.S.*** The
    U.S. Department of Labor estimates that postsecondary institutions
    will have to produce nearly four times as many graduates in computer
    science as they do now to meet the labor demand by 2008. In 1998,
    29,345 college graduates received a bachelor's degree in computer
    science.[^37] To mitigate the shortage of skilled workers in the
    U.S., the H1-B visa was established in 1990 to permit
    employer-sponsored foreign workers with a college degree or higher
    to work in the United States for a renewable three-year term.
    Subsequent legislation raised the ceiling on the number of
    international workers allowed under the visa program based on
    increased labor market demands.[^38] In 1999, the limit of 115,000
    workers was reached in June of that year.

### Student and Public Perception of Mathematics and Science

-   ***Public opinion calls for better science education in schools.***
    Ninety-three percent of Americans say students need stronger
    education in science to be prepared for the new inventions,
    discoveries, and technologies that increased investment will likely
    bring. In fact, 85 percent agreed that improving pre-college science
    education in their state should be one of their governor\'s top
    priorities.[^39]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***College students wish they had a stronger pre-college mathematics
    and science education.*** Forty percent of college students say they
    wish they\'d had a stronger pre-college science and mathematics
    education. Seventy percent believe science and mathematics education
    should be strengthened for the next generation of students.[^40]

-   ***The need for higher-level STEM skills and understanding will only
    grow.*** At least one source cited by the Glenn Commission believes
    that some 60 percent of new jobs in the early 21^st^ century will
    require their holders to have skills currently mastered by only 20
    percent of those in the workforce.[^41]

#### Section II: Recruit, prepare, and retain teachers with strong mathematics and science backgrounds

#### 

There is a serious shortage of effective teachers of mathematics and
science who meet the current definition in the No Child Left Behind Act
of "highly qualified."[^42] While many of the current teachers of
science and mathematics completed the work required for certification at
the time of their entry into the profession, they must now complete the
coursework, major, or demonstration of knowledge to show that they will
meet the current definition. Research suggests that mathematics and
science teachers who have strong content knowledge in the area they
teach have a positive impact on student learning.[^43] Research also
indicates that teacher quality is the single most important factor in
school quality.[^44]

As states and local districts have searched for solutions to meet the
need for mathematics and science teachers with strong content knowledge,
they developed a variety of options. Some states and local districts
worked with the their colleges and universities to recruit and prepare
more teachers in shortage areas. States have also required that
principals not place teachers in classes for which they are not
certified and required principals to send letters to parents where that
occurs. In addition, states and local districts have created alternative
certification programs (ACP) that bring professionals from other fields
into teaching. In many cases, this provided teachers who had strong
backgrounds in either mathematics or science. In testimony to the
**House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning** on May 13,
1999, Emily Feistritzer stated "**The National Center for Education
Information (NCEI) has been polling the state departments of education
annually since 1983 regarding teacher education and certification. We
have found a rapid development of alternative routes at the state level.
By 1998, 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, report having some
type of alternative teacher certification program. It is estimated that
more than 80,000 persons have been licensed through these programs.
Thousands more are being licensed to teach who are participating in
college alternative teacher preparation programs."**[^45]

Other options to create alternative routes into teaching have been
explored as well. For example, Teach for America (TFA) recruited majors
in content areas and, when they are assigned to secondary schools, made
the assignments compatible with their majors teach in under-resourced
urban and rural schools. These young people from prestigious colleges
and universities attended summer training and promised to teach for two
years.[^46] New options are being created in states such as Louisiana to
allow candidates who complete approved recruitment programs or who pass
tests from entities such as the American Board for Certification of
Teacher Excellence, to move directly into teaching as fully certified
teachers.[^47] While all of these options exist, the common need is to
provide every child with a teacher who is highly qualified in the
knowledge and skills of the content area taught.

The goals of this Initiative are to improve the quality of mathematics
and science teachers entering the profession, increase content knowledge
and teaching skills of current teachers of mathematics and science, and
establish mechanisms to retain highly qualified teachers of mathematics
and science in K-12 schools. A report issued in 2001 by the American
Mathematics Society, the Mathematics Association of America, and The
Conference Board of Mathematics Sciences points out that there is an
important role for university mathematics departments in actively
supporting teacher education.[^48]

The Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program authorized under Title
II of *The No Child Left Behind Act* will bring together state education
agencies, colleges of arts and sciences and of engineering, local school
districts, and community-based organizations to focus on effective
practices that can be replicated across the country. The program will
fund a variety of activities including in-depth training of pre-service
and in-service teachers in mathematics and science, the identification
and use of rigorously researched mathematics and science curricula and
distance learning programs, and incentives to recruit and retain college
graduates with degrees in the STEM areas. In FY 2003, NSF received
\$126.67 million and ED \$101 million for the program.

**The Need for Mathematics and Science Teachers**

-   ***Projections show a need for over 2 million new teachers in this
    decade,***[^49] ***of which 240,000 will be middle and high school
    mathematics and science specialists.***[^50] These numbers may
    actually be an underestimate. The ED report *Predicting the Need for
    Newly Hired Teachers in the United States to 2008-09*, provides
    three scenarios on which to base projected need for teachers for
    population growth. The scenario resulting in the estimated need for
    2.2 million teachers was the most conservative, assuming a constant
    need for teachers over the period 1998-99 through 2008-09. A second
    scenario is predicated on the assumption that pupil/teacher ratios
    will not change, but that enrollment will increase. The latest
    projections by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center
    for Education Statistics (NCES) show the total K-12 enrollment
    increasing slowly from 52,902,000 in fall, 2000, to 53,397,000 in
    fall, 2005, and then decreasing to 53,026,000 in fall, 2011. The
    projection for fall, 2008, is 53,125,000.[^51] These figures support
    the assumption of a modest increase in student enrollment. This
    lends support to this second scenario, which projects a need for 2.4
    million new teachers. The third scenario assumes both increasing
    enrollment and decreasing pupil/teacher ratios. Its projection is
    for a need for some 2.7 million teachers by 2008-09. Budget and
    other factors could and will affect the outcome and help determine
    the eventual need, but that need is substantial. For middle school
    mathematics and science specialists, proportionate increases would
    result in the need for either some 260,000 or for over 290,000 new
    teachers.

-   ***State-level reports on staffing needs indicate high levels of
    need for mathematics and science teachers in over three fourths of
    the states issuing such reports.*** Of the 39 states reporting
    teacher shortages for the National Association of State Boards of
    Education's 2002 issues brief on state incentives in recruiting
    teachers, 31 reported a shortage of mathematics teachers and 30
    reported a shortage of science teachers. The mean level of need was
    3.77 on a 4-point scale, where a rating of 4 was described as "great
    need and a rating of 3 was described as "moderate need."[^52]

**Current State of Teacher Quality**

-   ***Teacher quality linked to student value-added mathematics
    performance.*** Researchers used data from two Tennessee districts
    to identify the "effectiveness" of teachers, based on the average
    annual performance of students in their classes. When students were
    assigned to three highly effective teachers in a row, these students
    scored at the 83^rd^ percentile in mathematics at the end of 5^th^
    grade. However, when students were assigned to three ineffective
    teachers in a row, they scored at the 29^th^ percentile in
    mathematics.[^53]

-   ***A sizeable number of mathematics and science teachers do not have
    a major or minor in their field, especially those who teach in
    high-poverty and high-minority schools, despite research that
    indicates the importance of teachers' subject-matter knowledge to
    student outcomes.*** The percentage of mathematics teachers without
    a major or minor in mathematics has remained high for middle school
    teachers. In 1999-2000, a majority of middle school mathematics
    teachers (51.5 percent), and a large percentage of middle school
    science teachers (40 percent) lacked either a major or minor in
    their field. These figures are virtually identical to those of
    1993-94 of 50.3 percent and 39.2 percent, respectively. High school
    mathematics and science teachers are better prepared than are middle
    school teachers, although the share of high school teachers who lack
    adequate preparation has risen since 1993-1994. For example, in
    1999-2000, 14.5 percent of high school mathematics teachers and 11.2
    percent of high school science teachers lacked a major or minor in
    their field as compared to 11.6 percent and 7.6 percent respectively
    in 1993-94.[^54]

-   ***On average, mathematics or science teachers at all levels scored
    lower on the mathematics section of the SAT compared to mathematics
    or science majors not interested in teaching.*** As a group,
    teachers of mathematics or science scored 557 on the mathematics
    section of the SAT, below the average score of 593 for mathematics
    or science majors who do not go into the teaching profession.[^55]
    Mathematics teachers at all levels scored 568 on the mathematics
    section of the SAT, whereas mathematics majors not going into the
    teaching profession scored 624.[^56] In addition, only 21 percent of
    mathematics majors go into the teaching profession and teach
    mathematics, and a much smaller proportion (8 percent) of
    mathematics majors become teachers of a subject other than
    mathematics. In other words, the vast majority of mathematics majors
    (71 percent) choose not to go into the teaching profession.[^57]

####### Licensing Requirements

-   ***Several states do not require secondary teachers to take a
    licensing examination in their subject, and a few do not require
    teachers to take any licensing examination*.** Although 44 states
    require candidates for secondary licenses to take some kind of
    licensing examination, only 29 require them to take tests in the
    subject area they will teach. [^58] The main teacher certification
    examinations, the Praxis and National Evaluation Systems, cover
    content that can be found in a broad high school curriculum. Only a
    few questions go beyond calculus or address concepts typically
    learned in the first two years of college.

-   ***Many states allow prospective mathematics teachers with
    relatively low scores on licensing examinations to become
    teachers.*** Of the 29 states that use the Praxis I exam, a basic
    skills test, most states set their minimum cut scores in mathematics
    around the 20th-40th percentile range.[^59] Virginia is the only
    state that sets its minimum score at the 50^th^ percentile. Of the
    5,000 Virginia teacher candidates who took the PRAXIS I, 35 percent
    failed the mathematics portion. In areas of short supply, states may
    still require candidates to take the test but will waive the
    requirement for minimum performance.

-   ***There is agreement on the need for teachers of mathematics to
    have a stronger mathematics background.*** Specific teacher
    knowledge about elementary, middle, or secondary school mathematics
    that has been shown to enhance the effectiveness of instruction
    should be demonstrated by teacher candidates, either by
    college-level coursework or examination. In addition, the training
    of mathematics teachers should include practica on the use and
    delivery of mathematics curricula and lessons that are
    representative of those widely used in the nation, or in the state
    in which the teacher is being trained.

**Teacher Salaries**

-   ***Beginning teacher salaries have continued to improve, with an
    average annual salary of \$29,000 in 2000-01; however, new college
    graduates are receiving offers exceeding those made to beginning
    teachers by \$10,000 or more per year in other fields.***[^60]
    Although the pay gap narrowed in the early 1990's, it began to widen
    again after 1996. While beginning teacher salaries increased by 4
    percent in 2000-01, salary offers to other new college graduates
    increased by 7 percent. Further, the average teacher salary
    continues to fall well below the average salaries of other
    professional occupations. For example, while mid-level accountants
    earned an average of \$52,664; computer system analysts, an average
    of \$71,155; and engineers, an average \$74,920; teachers averaged
    \$43,250 in 2001.[^61]

-   ***Teacher salaries vary slightly by college major.*** Compared to
    teachers who majored in general elementary education, teachers with
    more specialized majors generally received a very slightly higher
    salary. Mathematics majors earned 2.4 percent more than general
    elementary education majors. However, teachers who majored in
    education with an emphasis on physical education earned 4.9 percent
    more; music majors earned 4.0 percent more; and education majors
    with an emphasis on vocational education earned 3.0 percent
    more.[^62]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***College graduates who majored in math or science received
    considerably higher starting salaries than those who majored in
    education, and the salary differentials grow over time.*** The
    average starting salary for an education major was \$20,443 in 1994;
    the starting salary for those who majored in mathematical/physical
    sciences was 27 percent higher (\$25,958); in computer science it
    was 44 percent higher (\$29,428); and in engineering/architecture it
    was 57.6 percent higher (\$32,217). After three years, the salary
    differentials increased by a much larger extent. The 1997 salary of
    those who majored in education was \$24,543; whereas the salary for
    engineering/architecture majors was 74.9 percent higher (\$42,931)
    and computer science majors was 81.8 percent higher (\$44,624).
    [^63] [^64] [^65]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ***One of the ways that states and school districts are attempting
    to attract both new and experienced employees (both teachers and
    those changing careers into teaching) is through the use of
    differential pay and other incentives***. While there is little
    research yet completed on the effectiveness of incentives, there are
    many being used. These include targeted salary increases (in a
    variety of states), bonuses (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and
    South Carolina), housing incentives (Baltimore, Santa Fe, Seattle,
    California, Connecticut, Mississippi), tuition assistance (many
    states), and tax assistance (California, Maryland)[^66]. States,
    districts, and others are evaluating the effectiveness of incentives
    and pay differentials. Nevertheless, the evaluations and research
    under way should prove helpful. As a document prepared for the
    American Association of School Administrators (AASA) on financial
    incentives notes:

> One of the reasons policymakers have been somewhat cautious about
> creating financial incentives targeted specifically to hard-to-staff
> schools is that they are not sure how effective differentiated-pay
> systems are. Because incentive programs are fairly new and limited
> data are available to gauge their usefulness, this strategy is largely
> untested. Moreover, some argue, it is not clear whether teachers will
> respond in predictable ways to monetary incentives because good
> teachers are drawn to the profession by teaching's intrinsic
> rewards---in other words, "the best teachers aren't in it for the
> money."[^67]
>
> One well-studied program that has been effective in increasing the
> state's supply of mathematics and science teachers is the North
> Carolina Teaching Fellows program.[^68] Upon acceptance of the
> program's scholarship, each student agrees to teach for four years
> following graduation from college in one of North Carolina's public
> schools or United States Government schools in North Carolina. While
> this is viewed as payback for the financial assistance tendered, it
> also provides an element of stability where each teacher may stay in
> one place long enough to build bonds with students, staff, and
> community.
>
> ***Salaries are an important factor in efforts to retain experienced
> teachers.*** A study of schools in Texas found that salaries do matter
> in the battle to retain teachers. Longitudinal data from 1976 to 1996
> on public school teachers in the state suggest, "Minority teachers
> tend to display a greater sensitivity to pay and working conditions,
> especially in high-risk districts." The authors argue that teacher
> pay, more than an increase in aides and support staff or a decrease in
> student/teacher ratio, holds the most promise for teacher
> retention.[^69] The AASA report argues, "...money clearly matters...if
> salary is viewed as just one of many factors that employees weigh....
> Salary matters less when other characteristics of the workplace are
> personally or professionally satisfying. When they are not satisfying
> or the work itself is significantly more demanding, salary matters
> more and can be the tipping point that determines whether teachers
> stay or leave."[^70]

-   ***Mathematics and science teachers with high ACT scores are
    choosing to leave teaching at higher rates than those teaching in
    other fields***. A study of public school teachers in Missouri found
    that for both men and women, the attrition of math and science
    teachers who had high ACT scores is higher than the attrition of
    teachers in other fields. Additionally, among women, math and
    science teachers are much less sensitive to pay differences than
    elementary teachers, meaning that larger pay increases will be
    necessary to keep math and science teachers from leaving the
    profession.[^71]

**Lack of Rigor in K-12 Mathematics Coursework**

-   ***U.S. mathematics coursework lacks the rigor of our higher-scoring
    competitors.*** One study estimates that "hard problems" on NAEP
    8^th^ grade assessment are equivalent to 5^th^ grade questions on
    Singapore mathematics assessments.[^72] However, very little
    research has been directed towards identifying the necessary content
    that must be introduced and learned at each grade level to ensure
    success at the next level.

-   ***U.S. schools are much more likely to allow calculators in the
    early grades than schools in highest mathematics achieving
    countries.*** Singapore, Korea, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and Hong Kong
    all score high on international mathematics exams and each restricts
    or prohibits calculator use in the elementary grades until mastery
    has been demonstrated.[^73] In addition, fourth graders who used
    calculators more frequently in their classrooms had lower scores on
    the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress in
    Mathematics.[^74] According to the Public Agenda's 1997 survey,
    "seventy-three percent of teachers want students to memorize
    multiplication tables and do mathematics by hand before using
    calculators. Eighty-six percent of the public shares this
    view."[^75]

####### Professional Development

-   ***When professional development is focused on academic content and
    curriculum that is aligned with standards-based reform, teaching
    practice and student achievement are likely to improve.*** Cohen and
    Hill[^76] "compared the effects of teacher participation in
    professional development specifically targeted to a mathematics
    education reform initiative in California to teacher participation
    in special topics and issues workshops that were not linked to the
    content of the mathematics initiative (*e.g.*, workshops in
    techniques for cooperative learning). The more time teachers spent
    in targeted training on the framework and curriculum of the
    mathematics reform, the more their classroom practice changed in
    ways that were consistent with the mathematics reform, and the more
    they learned about the content and standards for that reform.
    Teachers who participated in special topics and issues workshops
    showed no change in their classroom practice or knowledge related to
    the reform. Teachers who participated in the focused training and
    whose classroom practice moved towards incorporating the framework
    of the new mathematics initiative had students who scored higher on
    a test of the mathematics concepts imparted by the new curriculum.
    This study and others suggest that when professional development is
    focused on academic content and curriculum that is aligned with
    standards-based reform, both teaching practice and student
    achievement are likely to improve."

-   ***While science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
    faculty in institutions of higher education (IHEs) have the content
    knowledge that is needed, they may not be aware of the new demands
    on K-12 teachers or know how to convey that information to teachers
    in a usable form.*** The National Research Council's study
    *Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,
    Engineering, and Technology*, found that STEM faculty not only are
    often unaware of changes and developments in K-12 STEM education,
    they also are not prepared to teach K-12 teachers about teaching at
    the elementary or the secondary levels.[^77]

**Section III: Developing A Comprehensive Research Framework On
Mathematics And Science Learning And Assessment**

The goal of raising student achievement lies at the very center of the
NCLB Act. The research portion of the mathematics and science Initiative
is designed to establish a foundation of scientifically based knowledge
upon which efforts to improve student achievement levels in mathematics
and the sciences may be based. Consistent with the aims of NCLB, this
research will generate knowledge needed to help students develop
mathematical and scientific proficiency. Research in support of this
Initiative must generate scientific knowledge that describes how all
students can best learn mathematics and science across different grade
levels. .

The 1990's saw multiple efforts to reform mathematics education in order
to improve students' performance and to narrow the achievement gaps.
Many of these reform efforts have been criticized, however, for both
their instructional approaches and the content of the curricula. Critics
have charged, for example, that many of the reforms have de-emphasized
learning basic mathematics facts and mastery of standard algorithms,
encouraged inappropriate dependence on calculators, and relied too
heavily on student-directed, discovery learning strategies. Proponents
of the reforms counter that traditional approaches over-emphasize
memorization of basic mathematics facts and procedures to the neglect of
children's conceptual understanding of mathematics. At issue,
fundamentally, are what constitutes mathematics proficiency and which
teaching methods support student achievement of this proficiency. While
there has been much debate, very little empirical research has been
conducted to determine if one approach or another or some combination of
approaches leads to improved mathematics achievement in general---or to
improved algebra performance in particular---across ethnic, racial, and
socioeconomic groups in our country.

While not aimed exclusively at mathematics and Science learning,
research in the cognitive sciences has provided a steadily growing
knowledge base over the past couple of decades on how learning in
general takes place. Much of this research was summarized in the
National Research Council report, *How People Learn.*[^78] Insights that
emerged from this work suggest:

1.  Taking student preconceptions into account when teaching a
    particular body of content.

2.  Addressing both factual knowledge and an organizing framework to
    facilitate retrieval of knowledge and its application.

3.  Encouraging a meta-cognitive approach that helps students take
    control of their own learning by defining learning goals and
    monitoring their own progress.

**Lack of Sufficient Research on What Works in Mathematics and Science**

***Coordinated and sustained investments in the improvement of
mathematics education have been inadequate.*** Although educational
research has provided some important insights into student learning,
teacher development, and teaching strategies and technologies that
enhance achievement in mathematics, the research has lacked a convergent
knowledge base that can support systemic reform. The limited use of
educational research and development (R&D) for improving practice can be
attributed in part to under-investment in R&D and the consequent
fragmentation of the current research effort in reading, mathematics and
science.[^79]

Two recent national reports call for heightened research attention to
the area of mathematics learning and learning difficulties. In 2001, the
National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences
published *Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics*.[^80]
Comparing remediation in mathematics to that in reading, the NRC
committee pointed out that there are few supplementary interventions and
little targeted enrichment in mathematics that can help students
overcome specific difficulties. Furthermore, they noted that after a
certain point, reading requires little in the way of explicit
instruction, while the learning of new and unfamiliar topics in
mathematics continues to require assistance from teachers and textbooks.
The committee also emphasized the crucial importance of school-based
instruction for math, given that children are likely to spend little
time voluntarily exercising mathematics skills outside the classroom. In
March 2002, the Rand Mathematics Study Panel, supported by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), US Department of Education,
distributed a draft report for comment. This report, *Mathematical
Proficiency for All Students: Toward a Strategic Research and
Development Program in Mathematics Education*,[^81] also emphasized the
need for substantial research to develop an empirical base of evidence
upon which new interventions can be based. It also called for research
on their effectiveness once new interventions are designed and
implemented. The Rand report cites previous research efforts in
mathematics education as fragmented, disconnected from problems of
practice, and non-cumulative. In a call for well-conceived
interventions, the report states that efforts at improving mathematics
education often proceed without adequate evidence and independent of
theory about promising courses of action.

**Improve the Research of Mathematics and Science Education**

The research portion of the Mathematics and Science Initiative is
designed to establish a foundation of scientific evidence upon which
efforts to improve student achievement levels in mathematics and the
sciences may be based. Undoubtedly, a comprehensive framework for
research on mathematics and science learning and assessment will require
collaborative efforts among federal agencies, foundations, universities,
and the private sector.

The following list includes several important research domains that have
been identified as priority areas in order to achieve the objectives of
this initiative. ED, NSF, and the National Institute Of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD), NIH currently fund research in many of these
areas.

***Cognitive foundations of mathematics and science learning***

Basic knowledge of how people acquire, process, and apply scientific and
mathematical knowledge is fundamental to the development of effective
educational practice. Research that produces scientifically credible
findings about student cognition, motivation, and development in
mathematics and sciences will provide a foundation of knowledge to
inform educational practice and will fulfill part of the mandate of the
NCLB Act. Research in this area will focus on identifying the cognitive
and motivational processes that under gird the acquisition and
maintenance of proficiency in mathematics and the sciences. Federal
research programs, such as NSF\'s programs in Developmental and Learning
Sciences and Cognitive Neuroscience and ED\'s Cognition and Student
Learning program support research in this area.

***Identify effective interventions in mathematics and science
education***

Research that investigates specific teaching methods and curriculum
materials will help identify the most effective instructional
approaches. Effective instruction requires teaching methods and
instructional materials that are appropriate to the ability and maturity
of the students. Work in this area will identify the instructional
conditions under which students from varying abilities and backgrounds
learn mathematics and science. Based on available evidence, key areas
crucial for supporting mathematics and science education include
approaches to instruction and curricular content and format. A primary
goal of ED\'s research agenda is to provide schools with scientific
evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in mathematics and
science by supporting systematic research on the effectiveness of
educational interventions. ED, NICHD, and NSF have engaged in a
collaborative research program that supports research examining the
conditions under which evidence-based educational interventions in
mathematics and the sciences succeed when applied on a large scale.

***Identify effective models for training mathematics and science
teachers***

Research in this area will examine the effectiveness of different models
of selection, training, and professional development of mathematics and
science teachers. Appropriate targets for research include the effects
of different routes of entry into teaching, the different skills and
abilities that are required to teach mathematics and science at
different levels and for different types of students; the form and
duration of pre-professional coursework that is optimal for different
types of teaching; the role of induction experiences, field work, and
ongoing professional development in developing effective teachers; the
effects of differentiated staffing on the effectiveness of instruction
at different levels of K-12 education; and mechanisms for teacher
recruitment and retention. This research area is central to the mission
of the Department of Education.

***Develop and evaluate technologies that can advance and extend student
learning***

Mathematics and science learning are areas in which learning
applications that allow students to go beyond the restrictions of their
classroom and teacher need to be expanded and evaluated. Because many
areas of mathematics and science learning require students to be engaged
in ways that are difficult to arrange in traditional classroom
instruction, this area of work will focus on ways to deliver
individualized instruction that is sensitive to student's abilities,
levels, and approaches to learning. In addition, the impact of
innovations such as on-line homework and distance education need to be
evaluated more thoroughly.

***Develop reliable and valid assessments of mathematics and science
learning***

Carefully developed assessment tools are required to judge the progress
of students, schools, and the nation, in achieving higher levels of
proficiency in mathematics and science. Building on knowledge of the
foundations of mathematical and scientific competence, research on
assessment will develop and test the technical adequacy (*i.e.*,
psychometric properties) and practical utility (*e.g.*, instructional
applications) of tests designed to assess proficiency levels in
mathematics and science education. ED is supporting research that
addresses this need.

***Understand how to organize schools and design instructional
policies***

Work in this area will examine how the organization of schools in the
form of instructional leadership, staff involvement, school and class
size, scheduling of opportunities for learning; parental and community
support; and accountability systems within schools affect student
outcomes. Research will also investigate the effects of different
district- and state-level policies such as alignment of standards and
accountability systems and different forms of performance compensation.
ED recognizes the importance of studies addressing this need.

***Understand student disabilities that hinder mathematics and science
learning***

Learning disabilities now account for more than half of all students
enrolled in special education. NICHD supports research that explores the
cognitive, perceptual, behavioral, genetic, hormonal, and
neurobiological mechanisms that are influential in the expression of
mathematical learning abilities and learning disabilities, predictors of
disabilities, and the development of preventive and treatment approaches
to ameliorate mathematics-related learning disabilities.

***Identify the competencies essential for a workforce well trained in
mathematics and the sciences***

Much mathematics and science education is based on assumptions about
what students need to know that are drawn from professional consensus.
These assumptions are then incorporated in standards documents such as
those created by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Another route to setting standards and expectations is empirically
derived, based on an analysis of the competences that are required to
perform mathematical and scientific tasks as they are encountered in the
world of work. This aspect of the Mathematics and Science Initiative
research goal will identify the areas of mathematical and scientific
knowledge required for professional competence in a variety of areas. It
will also identify specific content knowledge and skills needed to work
in professions designated as "high-need." In addition, research in this
area will examine equity of educational access and investigate ways of
improving the diversity of the workforce and professions that rely on
mathematical and scientific skills.

Furthermore, research will help determine the kinds of mathematics and
science skills needed by individuals who, after being in the workforce,
make career changes that require more detailed knowledge of these
domains.

A comprehensive research program on mathematics and science learning
will require support from foundations, universities, and the private
sector in addition to federal agencies. One goal of the mathematics and
science Initiative is to develop strategies for more effective
collaborative efforts and information sharing across these entities.

## Section IV: Action Plan

In order to sustain a national initiative to improve the quality of
student achievement in mathematics and science, the Department and its
partners must create an integrative, coherent, long-term strategy.
Working with other entities concerned about the quality of mathematics
and science achievement, the Administration will focus the myriad of
activities currently underway on solutions for the problems identified
with the quality of teaching and learning. In addition, the Initiative
will engage organizations across America to develop the motivation and
perseverance of students in the pursuit of study and careers in
mathematics, science, engineering and technology.

#### 

#### Planning the Initiative

-   Working with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
    (OSTP), ED, NSF, NIH, and NASA conducted an initial forum with other
    cabinet departments and mission agencies to discuss the Initiative
    and determine current activities underway in each entity that could
    be aligned to the Initiative.

-   The Department has met with representatives of a cross section of
    education groups, business/professional groups, informal science
    groups, universities, business/higher education forums, and
    community-based organizations to discuss the Initiative and
    determine current activities underway in each entity that could be
    aligned to the Initiative.

-   Participants from the Secretary's Summit on Mathematics on February
    6, 2003, have met in a follow-up session held March 13, 2003. They
    broke into several small groups and worked on one of the three goal
    areas of the initiative. Each group completed a needs assessment and
    began the planning that will result in an integrative, coherent
    long-term strategy and a set of action plans for each of the goals.

-   A second follow-up meeting is planned for May 6, 2003. The groups
    working in each goal area will make use of the notes and needs
    assessments from the March 13 meeting and the syntheses/preliminary
    plans developed by planning teams to draft plans.

### Initial Initiative Activities

-   In the winter of 2003, the Initiative held the first of a series of
    seminars/forums with researchers and promising practice
    practitioners to discuss the current state of research in
    mathematics and science education and provide opportunities for
    educators applying scientifically rigorous research-based practices
    to share their programs.

-   The Education Department staff has worked to integrate the
    Mathematics-Science Initiative with other NCLB education efforts to
    improve the quality of teacher preparation and teacher development:

    -   The Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program will inform the
        Initiative and be informed by the research findings on effective
        professional development strategies

    -   Teacher quality efforts will build on dissemination of research
        findings on effective practices in mathematics and science
        education to states and districts

    -   STEM professionals will develop consensus on what should be
        included in the pre-service course work and in-service
        professional development for teachers of mathematics and science

    -   Organizations engaged in mathematics and science research and
        education will assist in the development of specifications and
        recommendations for state assessment development efforts

**Long-Term Initiative Activities**

The impact of the Initiative will depend upon the creation and
dissemination of definitive strategies that can be implemented at
schools across America to improve the quality of teaching and learning
of mathematics and science.

####### *Increasing Public Engagement in Mathematics and Science Education*

-   The Education Department will fund the establishment of a national
    center to create state scholars programs and engage the business
    community in each state to encourage young people to enroll in a
    rigorous high school course of study, including at least three years
    of mathematics and three years of science.

-   A team made up of representatives of education groups,
    business/professional groups, informal science groups, universities,
    business/higher education forums, and community-based organizations
    will develop and disseminate a series of messages for students,
    parents, and the public about the need for students to study
    mathematics and science for improved decision making as well as
    careers in STEM fields.

##### 

###### *Improving Teaching and Learning in Mathematics and Science*

###### 

-   To improve future rounds of applications for funding for the
    Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program (MSP), ED and NSF
    trained university and school district partners about the
    requirements and expectations of the grant program and hoped to
    stimulate the development of high-quality projects.

-   With the feedback to initial applicants, as well as outreach to
    educate the community, future rounds of MSP grants should result in
    higher quality proposals that can serve to identify best practices
    in mathematics and science education.

###### 

-   The Administration will convene university presidents; deans of
    colleges of education, of arts and sciences, and of engineering;
    chief state school officers; and school district superintendents to
    initiate conversations regarding collaboration in the improvement of
    mathematics and science education.

-   The Administration will support through Fund for the Improvement of
    Education grants that focus on the content and pedagogy needed by
    teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools to ensure that
    students develop the foundation knowledge and skills for success in
    mathematics and science.

-   A PreK-20 team will identify strategies to increase the mathematics
    and science pipeline from Pre-Kindergarten through post-doctoral
    studies. The professionals who teach at each level must communicate
    to ensure that early experiences establish the foundation for later
    learning. This will enable universities and school districts to
    influence the preparation of new teachers as well as the
    professional development of current teachers at every level.

-   Parents and students, as well as teachers, will learn about the
    relationship between early course-taking decisions and later career
    opportunities.

##### 

##### *Expanding the Research Agenda in Mathematics and Science Education*

-   Phase I of the research component will focus on developing a
    synthesis of available evidence to inform the effort to improve
    student achievement in mathematics and the sciences. These
    activities will provide guidance for immediate efforts to raise
    student achievement and identify specific knowledge gaps in research
    that supports the improvement of student achievement in mathematics
    and science. Phase I activities will include meta-analytic and
    comprehensive reviews of research and programs meant to support the
    national effort to improve student achievement in mathematics and
    the sciences.

-   Phase II will focus on the systematic development of a
    comprehensive, coordinated, interagency research agenda that will
    develop a foundation of scientific knowledge needed to improve
    student achievement in mathematics and science and the assessment of
    current research knowledge. This endeavor will include the efforts
    of foundations, universities, the private sector, and federal
    agencies and result in the initiation of new programs of research
    designed to produce an evidentiary foundation to improve student
    achievement in mathematics and the sciences.

##### *Action Plans*

-   From May 6, to June 30, 2003, working teams will develop formal
    action plans in each of the three goal areas.

### Performance Measures

The ultimate purpose of this Initiative is to increase the achievement
of students in mathematics and science as stated in the ED Strategic
Plan for 2002-2007.

## ENDNOTES

[^1]: National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. *A Nation at
    Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform*. Washington, DC: GPO

[^2]: The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
    the 21^st^ Century. September 2000. *Before It's Too Late.*
    Washington, DC: GPO

[^3]: Achieve, Inc. 2002. *Three Paths, One Destination: Standards-Based
    Reform in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Texas*. Washington, DC:
    Author.

[^4]: Grissmer, D.W., Ann Flanagan, Jennifer Kawata, and Stephanie
    Williamson. 2000. *Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP
    Scores Tell Us*. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

[^5]: See www.1stintheworld.org/. For detailed comparisons between the
    Consortium and various nations that participated in TIMSS, download
    *Achieving Excellence II: A Report of Initial Findings of First in
    the World Eighth-Grade Performance from the Third International
    Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat*. April 2001.
    www.ncrel.org/re/ae2/findings.htm.

[^6]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education 2002.* Washington, DC:
    GPO

[^7]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education 2002.* Washington, DC:
    GPO

[^8]: National Association of State Boards of Education. October 2002.
    "State incentive programs for recruiting teachers: Are they
    effective in reducing shortages. *Issues in Brief*. Alexandria, VA:
    NASBE.

[^9]: The situation depends on perspective. According to National
    Science Foundation. 2002. *Science and Engineering Indicators -
    2002*. Arlington, VA: NSB 02-01, "The number of overall S&E
    bachelor's degrees increased in the past two decades and leveled off
    in the late 1990s. However, the composite rise represents divergent
    trends in various fields. Biological and agricultural sciences are
    the only fields that show continuous increases in the number of
    degrees earned throughout the 1990s. Trends in biological sciences
    show a long, slow decline in the number of degrees earned in the
    1980s but indicate a reversal of this trend in the early 1990s,
    which continued throughout the decade. The number of degrees earned
    in psychology increased in the 1990s but leveled off in 1997. In all
    other S&E fields, the number of degrees earned was either stable or
    declined. For two decades, students earned a relatively stable
    number of degrees in the physical sciences and mathematics, with
    slight declines in mathematics in the past few years. The number of
    degrees earned in computer sciences peaked in 1986, declined until
    the early 1990s, and then fluctuated in that decade, with a slight
    increase in 1997--98. The number of degrees earned in social
    sciences strongly increased in the 1980s, peaked in 1993, and then
    declined and leveled off. The number of engineering degrees earned
    peaked in 1986, declined sharply until 1990, fluctuated within that
    decade, and declined again in 1998."

[^10]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. April 2002. *NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress:
    Three Decades of Student Performance*. Washington, DC: GPO, pp.
    34-40.

[^11]: Council of the Great City Schools. March 2003. *Beating the Odds:
    A City-by-City Analysis of Student Performance and Achievement Gaps
    on State Assessments, Results from the 2001-2002 School Year*.
    Washington, DC: Author.

[^12]: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.
    September 1992. *International Education Comparisons*. Washington,
    DC: GPO, pp. 22-23. See also U.S. Department of Education, National
    Center for Education Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education
    2002.* Washington, DC: GPO, p. 150. U.S. Department of Education,
    National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of
    Education 2002.* Washington, DC: GPO, p. 150.

[^13]: U.S. Commission on National Security/21^st^ Century. February 15,
    2001. *Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change*.
    Washington, DC: GPO, Chapter II, pp. 30-46.

[^14]: See Website www.ed.gov/offices/OII/portfolio/transition.html

[^15]: See Website www.ed.gov/offices/OII/portfolio/troops.html

[^16]: See Website www.nochildleftbehind.gov/

[^17]: See Website www.nochildleftbehind.gov/next/overview/index.html

[^18]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education 2002.* Washington, DC:
    GPO, p. 138 and 145.

[^19]: National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. *A Nation
    at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform*. Washington, DC:
    GPO, p. 8.

[^20]: National Research Council. 2001. *Adding It Up: Helping Children
    Learn Mathematics*. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, p. 4.

[^21]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education 2002.* Washington, DC:
    GPO, p. 138.

[^22]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2001. *The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2000.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, pp. 58-68.

[^23]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. December 2000. *Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of
    International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from
    a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999*. Washington, DC: GPO, p. 39.

[^24]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Nation's Report Card: Science Highlights
    2000.* Washington, DC: GPO, p. 8.

[^25]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education 2002.* Washington, DC:
    GPO, p. 150.

[^26]: The Center for Education Reform. September 24, 2001. News Alert.
    *NAEP Mathematics Standards Weak.* Washington, DC: The Center for
    Education Reform. Download from edreform.com/press/2001/NAEP.htm.

[^27]: The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
    the 21^st^ Century. September 2000. *Before It's Too Late.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, p. 12.

[^28]: Whelan, Karl. February 2000. Paper for the Federal Reserve Board,
    Division of Research and Statistics. *Computers, Obsolescence, and
    Productivity.* Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board, p. 26.

[^29]: The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
    the 21^st^ Century. September 2000. *Before It's Too Late.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, p. 12.

[^30]: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2000.
    *Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2002-03 Edition.* Washington, DC:
    GPO. Table 3.

[^31]: U. S. Census Bureau;
    [www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary](http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary)

[^32]: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary,
    Planning and Evaluation Service. 1997. White paper. *Mathematics
    Equals Opportunity.* Washington, DC: GPO, p. 6.

[^33]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *The Condition of Education 2002.* Washington, DC:
    GPO, p. 66. NCES #2002-025.

[^34]: Murnane, Richard J. and Frank Levy. 1996. *Teaching the New Basic
    Skills.* New York: Martin Kessler Books, pp. 34-35.

[^35]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 1999. *Literacy in the Labor Force: Results from the
    National Adult Literacy Survey.* Washington, DC: GPO, p. 126.
    Publication #1999-740.

[^36]: National Science Board. 2000. *Science and Engineering Indicators
    -- 2000.* Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, p. 3-2.
    NSB-00-1.

[^37]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *Digest of Education Statistics, 2001.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, Table 255.

[^38]: The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
    the 21^st^ Century. September 2000. *Before It's Too Late.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, p. 12-13.

[^39]: Bayer Corporation. July 11, 2000. Press release. *The Bayer Facts
    of Science Education VI: Americans' Views on Science, Technology,
    Education and the Future.* Pittsburgh, Penn.

[^40]: Bayer Corporation. May 21, 2002. Press release. *The Bayer Facts
    of Science Education VIII: College Students Look Ahead.* Pittsburgh,
    Penn.

[^41]: The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
    the 21^st^ Century. September 2000. *Before It's Too Late.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, p. 13, citing an interview with Richard W. Judy
    of the Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, April 19, 2000, cited by
    Milton Goldberg and Susan L. Traiman, "Why BUSINESS backs Education
    Standards," in Diane Ravitch, ed., *Brookings Papers on Education
    Policy*, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2000.

[^42]: No Child Left Behind Act. 2001. Section 9101(23). Download from
    www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/pg107.html#sec9101.

[^43]: Whitehurst, Grover J. March 5, 2002. Paper for the White House
    Conference on Preparing Tomorrow\'s Teachers. *Research on Teacher
    Preparation and Professional Development.* Available at Website:
    www.ed.gov/inits/preparingteachersconference/whitehurst.html.

[^44]: Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. 1998. "Teachers,
    Schools, and Academic Achievement." *Review of Economics and
    Statistics* (forthcoming). Available at
    edpro.stanford.edu/eah/papers/basic.july2002.PDF.

[^45]: (Download from
    edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/106th/pet/teacher51399/feistritzer.htm.)

[^46]: See www.teachforamerica.org/about/.

[^47]: The Louisiana State Department of Education states "New alternate
    pathways to certification allow individuals with bachelor\'s degrees
    not in education to obtain professional teaching certificates. The
    three alternate certification tracks are: Practitioner Teacher,
    Master\'s Degree Alternative, and Non-Master\'s Certification-Only."
    See www.teachlouisiana.net/pages.asp?PageName=certification_center.

[^48]: Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences, 2001. *The
    Mathematical Education of Teachers*. Issues in Mathematics Education
    Series, Vol. 11. Providence, RI: American Mathematics Society, pp.
    8-9.

[^49]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 1999. *Predicting the Need for Newly Hired Teachers in
    the United States to 2008-09*. Download from
    nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999026.pdf, p. 9 and Table 7, p. 35.

[^50]: The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
    the 21^st^ Century. September 2000. *Before It's Too Late.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, p. 29.

[^51]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2001. *Projections of Education Statistics to 2011*.
    Washington, DC: GPO, Table 1.

[^52]: National Association of State Boards of Education. October 2002.
    "State incentive programs for recruiting teachers: Are they
    effective in reducing shortages. *Issues in Brief*. Alexandria, VA:
    NASBE.

[^53]: Sanders, W. and J. Rivers, 1996. *Cumulative and Residual Effects
    of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement*. Knoxville,
    Tenn.: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment
    Center.

[^54]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2002. *Qualifications of the Public School Teacher
    Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987-88 to
    1999-2000*. Washington, DC: GPO, Tables B-11 and B-12.

[^55]: Ibid.

[^56]: Ibid.

[^57]: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary,
    Policy and Program Studies Service. June 14, 2002. *Internal
    Analyses of Baccalaureate and Beyond 1993:1997.*

[^58]: The Education Trust, Inc. 1999. *Not Good Enough: A Content
    Analysis of Teacher Licensing Examinations.*

[^59]: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.
    2002. *Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge*. Washington,
    DC.

[^60]: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. 2002. *Survey and
    Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends.* Washington, DC: American
    Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

[^61]: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. 2002. *Survey and
    Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends.* Washington, DC: American
    Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

[^62]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. 1996. *The Patterns of Teacher Compensation.* GPO:
    Washington, DC, p. 39.

[^63]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. May 2001. *From Bachelor's Degree to Work: Major Field
    of Study and Employment Outcomes of 1992-93 Bachelor's Degree
    Recipients Who Did Not Enroll in Graduate Education by 1997.* NCES
    2001-165.

[^64]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. June 1999. *Life After College: A Descriptive Summary of
    1992-93 Bachelor's Degree Recipients in 1997.* NCES 1999-155.

[^65]: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education
    Statistics. August 1996. *A Descriptive Summary of 1992-93
    Bachelor's Degree Recipients 1 Year Later.* NCES 96-158.

[^66]: Prince, Cynthia D. (2002). *Higher Pay in Hard-to-Staff Schools:
    The Case for Financial Incentives*. Arlington, VA: American
    Association of School Administrators.

[^67]: Prince, Cynthia D. (2002). *Higher Pay in Hard-to-Staff Schools:
    The Case for Financial Incentives*. Arlington, VA: American
    Association of School Administrators, p. 3.

[^68]: Meyer, Lori. October 2002. "State Incentive Programs for
    Recruiting Teachers: Are They Effective in Reducing Shortages?"
    *Issues in Brief*. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State
    Boards of Education.

[^69]: Kirby, et al. (1999). *Staffing At-Risk School Districts in
    Texas: Problems and Prospects*. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
    www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1083.

[^70]: Prince, Cynthia D. (2002). *Higher Pay in Hard-to-Staff Schools:
    The Case for Financial Incentives*. Arlington, VA: American
    Association of School Administrators, p. 4.

[^71]: Podgursky, Michael, Ryan Monroe, and Donald Watson. 2002.
    *Teacher Mobility, Pay, and Academic Quality*. Presented at Society
    of Labor Economists Annual Meetings, May 3-4, 2002. Baltimore, MD.
    gsbwww.uchicago.edu/labor/podgursky.pdf

[^72]: The Center for Education Reform. September 24, 2001. "Testimony
    of John Hoven at the National Assessment Governing Board on the
    draft 2004 Mathematics Framework for NAEP." Washington, DC.

[^73]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 1999. *TIMMS-R Benchmarking Study.* Washington, DC: GPO.

[^74]: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
    Statistics. 2001. *The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2000.*
    Washington, DC: GPO, p. 160.

[^75]: Public Agenda. 1997. *Given the Circumstances: Teachers Talk
    about Public Education Today.* New York, NY: Public Agenda.

[^76]: Cohen, David K. & Heather C. Hill. 2000. Instructional policy and
    classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California.
    *Teachers College Record*, 102 (*2*), 294-343.

[^77]: National Research Council. 1999. *Transforming Undergraduate
    Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology*.
    Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also available at
    www.nap.edu/catalog/6453.html. Reported in National Research
    Council. 2000. *Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and
    Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium*. Washington, DC:
    National Academy Press. Also available at
    www.nap.edu/catalog/9832.mtml.

[^78]: National Research Council. 2000. *How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
    Experience and School*. Committee on Development in the Science of
    Learning, John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking,
    editors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[^79]: National Research Council. 1999. *How People Learn: Bridging
    Research and Practice*. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also
    available at www.nap.edu/.

[^80]: National Research Council. 2001. *Adding It Up: Helping Children
    Learn Mathematics*. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also
    available at www.nap.edu/.

[^81]: Rand Mathematics Study Panel. March 2002. *Mathematical
    Proficiency for All Students: Toward a Strategic Research and
    Development Program in Mathematics Education*. This report is
    available at www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/.