A Report to the Nation from The National Commission 

on Mathematics and Science Teaching

for the 21st Century

Before It’s Too Late
Contents 

■ Letter of Transmittal 2

■ Commission Members 3

■ Foreword by the Chairman, John Glenn 4

■ Executive Summary 7

Before It’s Too Late

■ The Problem: Our Students’ Performance in 

Mathematics and Science is Unacceptable 10

■ The Time to Act is Now 16

■ Toward a Solution:We Must Place Better Teaching 

at the Center of Mathematics and Science Education 18

■ What Happens in Most Classes 20

■ What Could Happen:We Need to Capture

a Vision of High-Quality Teaching 22

■ Three Goals 24

■ What Can You Do? 38

■ Estimate of Costs 42

■ Endnotes 43

■ Charter 46

■ Acknowledgments 47
Before It’s Too Late

A Report to the Nation from the National Commission 

on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century
Richard W. Riley

Secretary of Education

U.S.Department of Education

Washington,DC 20202

Dear Secretary Riley:

On July 20, 1999—the 30th anniversary of the first landing on the moon—you announced the appointment of the 

25-member National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. In your charge to the

Commission and its eight ex officio members, you asked us to investigate and report on the quality of mathematics

and science teaching in the nation, directing us to consider ways of improving recruitment, preparation, retention,

and professional growth for mathematics and science teachers in K–12 classrooms nationwide. You reminded us that,

three decades after a historic achievement, “we need to set the stage for advancement in mathematics and science for

the next thirty years.”

It has been my privilege to chair the Commission, and I am pleased to report to you, on behalf of its members, that

we have completed our work. With this letter, we transmit to you our report, Before It’s Too Late, which summarizes

our findings. It presents to both the Department of Education and the American people a set of ambitious goals for

improving mathematics and science teaching and specific action strategies for achieving each of them.

We trust that we have been faithful to your charge. As we have listened to the presentations of scholars,

deliberated over the studies of outstanding researchers, and attended to the experience of dedicated administrators

and teachers, we have learned much. Our assumptions have been called into question. Our individual views have

been tempered by the perspectives of colleagues whose judgment we have come to respect, even in disagreement.

As we have sought to understand today’s problems in mathematics and science education, we have also worked to

uphold a constant vision of high-quality teaching as the irreducible minimum for creating tomorrow’s solutions. 

We believe that the issues and concerns raised in our report can be understood, addressed by, and potentially unite

policymakers, teachers, the business community, parents, students, and private citizens alike. The goals and action

strategies we suggest may be seen by some as too great a reach, by some as not bold enough. We are convinced,

however, that if they are ignored, our children and our nation will soon pay the high price that always

accompanies apathy.

Each member of the Commission, through this letter, expresses appreciation for your leadership in having brought

this diverse group together to examine an issue that has pivotal significance for our country as we embark on a new

century and millennium. It is our collective and earnest hope that you will continue that leadership by encouraging

widespread discussion of our views and suggestions, and by urging appropriate action based on our findings 

and recommendations. 

Finally, we offer our profound thanks for having provided us with this opportunity to serve our country—and our

children—as members of this Commission.

Respectfully,

John Glenn, Commission Chairman

Letter of Transmittal

2

September 27, 2000
3

Commission Members

Bruce Alberts President, National Academy of Sciences

Rita R. Colwell Director, National Science Foundation

Daniel S. Goldin Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Neal Lane

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy,

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Bill Richardson

U.S. Secretary of Energy

Rodney E. Slater U.S. Secretary of Transportation

Jerome F. Smith, Jr. Chancellor for Education and Professional Development,

U.S. Department of Defense

Ex Officio

Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education

John Glenn

Commission Chairman

Deborah Loewenberg Ball

Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Mathematics Education 

and Teacher Education, University of Michigan

Craig R. Barrett President and CEO, Intel Corporation

Diane J. Briars

Mathematics Director, Pittsburgh Public Schools

Cynthia Moore Chestnut

State Representative, Florida

Sandra Feldman President, American Federation of Teachers

James E. Geringer Governor, Wyoming

Javier Gonzalez

Mathematics Teacher, Pioneer High School (CA)

Jerilyn Grignon

Technology Instructor, Menominee Indian Junior High School (WI)

Jeffrey Himmelstein 

Adjunct Professor of Biology, William Patterson University (NJ)

Rush Holt

U.S. Representative, New Jersey

James B. Hunt Jr. Governor, North Carolina

James M. Jeffords U.S. Senator, Vermont

Anne Jolly

Science Teacher/Professional Development Coordinator,

Cranford Burns Middle School (AL)

Nancy Keenan Superintendent of Public Instruction,

Montana Office of Public Instruction

Edward M. Kennedy U.S. Senator, Massachusetts

Paul Kimmelman

Superintendent, West Northfield School District No. 31 (IL)

William E. Kirwan President, The Ohio State University

Maria Alicia Lopez-Freeman Executive Director, California Science Project 

Iris T. Metts Superintendent, Prince George’s County Public Schools (MD)

Walter E. Massey President, Morehouse College

Connie Morella

U.S. Representative, Maryland

Edward B. Rust, Jr. Chairman and CEO, State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Company

Chang-Lin Tien University Professor and NEC Distinguished 

Professor of Engineering, University of California Berkeley

Dennis Van Roekel Secretary-Treasurer, National Education Association
This report makes only

a few straightforward

points, but it makes

them urgently and

insistently.

First, at the daybreak of this new century

and millennium, the Commission is

convinced that the future well-being of our

nation and people depends not just on how

well we educate our children generally, 

but on how well we educate them in

mathematics and science specifically.

From mathematics and the sciences will

come the products, services, standard of

living, and economic and military security

that will sustain us at home and around

the world. From them will come the

technological creativity American

companies need to compete effectively in

the global marketplace. “Globalization”

has occurred. Economic theories of a few

years ago are now a reality. Goods,

services, ideas, communication, businesses,

industries, finance, investment, and

jobs—the good jobs—are increasingly 

the competitive currency of the international marketplace.

Among the first things Americans watch

every morning on TV is the global

marketplace at work. The quotes not only

from Wall Street itself, but also from the

Nikkei, Hang Seng, and Hong Kong

exchanges, followed in turn by those of

Frankfurt, Zurich, and London—along

with reports on the status of the yen,

peso, and Euro—all reflect investment flows of hundreds of billions in 

assets around the world. Times have

changed. In an integrated, global

economy, whose key components are

increasingly knit together in an

interdependent system of relationships,

will our children be able to compete?

Beyond the world of global finance,

mathematics and science will also supply

the core forms of knowledge that the next

generation of innovators, producers, and

workers in every country will need if they

are to solve the unforeseen problems and

dream the dreams that will define

America’s future.

Second, it is abundantly clear from the

evidence already at hand that we are not

doing the job that we should do—or can

do—in teaching our children to understand

and use ideas from these fields. Our

children are falling behind; they are simply

not “world-class learners” when it comes

to mathematics and science.

The Third International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS) tested the

students of 41 nations. Children in the

United States were among the leaders in

the fourth-grade assessment, but by high

school graduation they were almost last.

Here at home, the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress basically substantiates our students’ poor performance.

In short, our children are losing the

ability to respond not just to the challenges

already presented by the 21st century but

to its potential as well. We are failing to

capture the interest of our youth for

scientific and mathematical ideas. We are

not instructing them to the level of

John Glenn, Commission Chairman 

Foreword

4
competence they will need to live their

lives and work at their jobs productively.

Perhaps worst of all, we are not challenging

their imaginations deeply enough.

Third, after an extensive, in-depth

review of what is happening in our

classrooms, the Commission has concluded

that the most powerful instrument for

change, and therefore the place to begin,

lies at the very core of education—with

teaching itself.

The teaching pool in mathematics and

science is inadequate to meet our current

needs; many classes in these subjects are

taught by unqualified and underqualified

teachers. Our inability to attract and keep

good teachers grows. As a result, newer,

technologically oriented industries are

having trouble finding enough qualified

employees from among those teachers’

students. Worse, creativity atrophies and

innovation suffers.

We are of one mind in our belief that the

way to interest children in mathematics

and science is through teachers who are

not only enthusiastic about their subjects,

but who are also steeped in their

disciplines and who have the professional

training—as teachers—to teach those

subjects well. Nor is this teacher training

simply a matter of preparation; it depends

just as much—or even more—on sustained,

high-quality professional development.

Fourth, we believe that committing

ourselves to reach three specific goals can

go far in bringing about the basic changes

we need. These goals go directly to issues

of quality, quantity, and an enabling work

environment for teachers of mathematics

and science. For each goal, we offer

specific action strategies for achieving that

particular goal, ideas on who should

implement them, and how. Specifically,

we offer suggestions on how to:

■ Establish an ongoing system to

improve the quality of mathematics

and science teaching in grades K–12;

■ Increase significantly the number 

of mathematics and science teachers

and improve the quality of their

preparation; and

■ Improve the working environment 

and make the teaching profession 

more attractive for K–12 mathematics

and science teachers.

The goals we set before the American

people in this report will not be easily

attained, nor will the action strategies we

offer be readily implemented. Most other

nations have a national education system

that can change direction more rapidly

than our K–12 system, which is operated

by nearly 16,000 independent school

boards. Even when the majority of board

members are firmly dedicated to good

education, it is still a difficult job to change

direction when needed.

5
The task to which we call the American

people is therefore not an easy one.

Nor will our goals be met at bargainbasement rates. But we believe we have a

well-focused view of the needs facing our

country and its youth, and that we have

identified the right starting points for

preparing them to meet their future. 

We are just as strongly convinced that 

the downstream cost of not turning this

problem around will be exponentially

higher than the cost of beginning to 

solve it now. 

But rising to great challenges is a part of

our national character—not only in such

arduous deeds as breaking the bonds of the

planet itself, but in the daily work of

equipping each new generation to meet

new responsibilities. The last time we

turned a century, our schools rose to the

challenge of educating the nation’s youth

to meet the demands of an industrializing

economy. We succeeded in the equally

formidable task of integrating millions 

of immigrants from around the world 

into a dynamic culture without precedent 

in history.

Now history presents us with a yet more

pressing demand. We are being called

upon to capitalize on the changes wrought

by two great revolutions: rapid economic

globalization on the one hand and the

expansion of information-based

technologies on the other. In this light, 

we can take heart from American history’s

most profound lesson: Our ability, as a

people, to uncover the liberating

opportunities concealed within daunting

tasks is what defines the American genius. 

In the end, then, the message of this

report is a simple one. The time has come

to move from the information and analysis

we have gathered to the resolution we

need. We are summoned to answer a stark

question. As our children move toward the

day when their decisions will be the ones

shaping a new America, will they be

equipped with the mathematical and

scientific tools needed to meet those

challenges and capitalize on those

opportunities?

These are our children, and the choice is

ours. We know what we have to do; the

time is now—before it’s too late.

* * * * *

The Commission sincerely appreciates the

confidence that Secretary Richard W. Riley

placed in us, and hopes that our report is a

worthy and useful product in guiding our

nation’s students to world-class performance. 

Special thanks are due to our Executive

Director, Linda P. Rosen, whose lifelong

experience in mathematics education was vital

to our work, and whose direction of the labors

of the Commission through long hours on a

day-in, day-out, yearlong basis was exemplary

and crucial to our work.

6
In an age now driven by the 

relentless necessity of scientific 

and technological advance,

the current preparation that students in

the United States receive in mathematics

and science is, in a word, unacceptable. 

Recent reports of the performance of our

country’s students from both the Third

International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) and the National

Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) echo a dismal message of

lackluster performance, now three decades

old; it’s time the nation heeded it—before

it’s too late.

Four important and enduring reasons

underscore the need for our children to

achieve competency in mathematics and

science: (1) the rapid pace of change in

both the increasingly interdependent

global economy and in the American

workplace demands widespread

mathematics- and science-related

knowledge and abilities; (2) our citizens

need both mathematics and science 

for their everyday decision-making;

(3) mathematics and science are

inextricably linked to the nation’s security

interests; and (4) the deeper, intrinsic

value of mathematical and scientific

knowledge shapes and defines our common

life, history, and culture. Mathematics 

and science are primary sources of 

lifelong learning and the progress of 

our civilization.

Beyond the disturbing news that our

young people are not performing well

enough in mathematics and science to take

firm command of their own futures, five

major factors have begun to coalesce that

make this a particularly

opportune time to focus on

strengthening mathematics and

science education: (1) reform

efforts have sharply focused the

attention of the American

people on education as a public

issue; (2) the nation now has a

surplus of resources to invest in education;

(3) a coming demographic shift in the

teaching force—two thirds of which will be

retiring in the next decade—offers an

unparalleled chance to plan for and make

changes at the core of education itself; 

(4) our schools can now put to work what

educators have learned in the past

generation about curriculum, high

standards, effective teaching, assessment,

and how children learn; and (5) the rising

generation of college graduates is once

again showing an interest in teaching as a

profession. The nation must capitalize on

the convergence of these factors to improve

mathematics and science teaching in the

United States. We need to act now,

before it’s too late.

The primary message of this report holds

that America’s students must improve

their performance in mathematics and

science if they are to succeed in today’s

world and if the United States is to stay

competitive in an integrated global

economy. The Report’s second message

points in the direction of a solution: 

the most direct route to improving

mathematics and science achievement for

all students is better mathematics and

science teaching.

Evidence of the positive effect of better

teaching is unequivocal; indeed, the most

7

Executive Summary
consistent and powerful predictors of

student achievement in mathematics and

science are full teaching certification and a

college major in the field being taught. 

Better mathematics and science teaching

is therefore grounded, first of all, in

improving the quality of teacher

preparation and in making continuing

professional education available for all

teachers. A closer look at the teaching

that goes on in mathematics and science

classrooms today puts the performance 

of U.S. students on national and international assessments in sharper focus. 

The basic teaching style in too many

mathematics and science classes today

remains essentially what it was two

generations ago. By contrast, teaching

innovation and higher student

performance are well documented in other

countries, where students’ improvements

are anchored to an insistence on strong

professional development for teachers.

What could be happening in U.S.

mathematics and science classrooms is

markedly different. The report names an

extensive set of characteristics of “highquality teaching.” When they are focused

through the lens of exemplary teacher 

preparation and an integrated system of

professional development, an enormous

potential for empowering teachers and

improving instruction is apparent.

The pressing national need for highquality teaching described in this report,

therefore, demands a vigorous, national

response that unifies the efforts of all

stakeholders in mathematics and science

education. To that end, three wideranging, intertwined goals focus the

report’s call for action at local, state, 

and federal levels. As an aid to implementation, each goal is accompanied by a

coordinated set of well-funded action

strategies that identify key stakeholders

who should take the lead in implementing

each strategy. The estimated annual cost

to achieve these action strategies is over $5

billion. These funds and other resources

will come from a diversified set of sources,

including all levels of government, higher

education, business and industry,

professional education associations and

teachers’ unions, community groups, and

the citizenry. The goals and action

strategies set forth in the report are as

follows:

Goal 1: Establish an ongoing system to

improve the quality of mathematics and

science teaching in grades K–12.

Seven interdependent action strategies are

offered to implement this system: (1) each

state must immediately undertake a full

needs assessment to determine what

teachers require, both in their schools and

their professional lives, if they are to

routinely deliver high-quality teaching; 

(2) Summer Institutes must be established

to address the professional development

8
needs identified; (3) building- and districtlevel Inquiry Groups can provide venues

for teachers to engage in common study to

enrich their subject knowledge and

teaching skills; (4) Leadership Training is

needed to prepare facilitators for the

Summer Institutes and Inquiry Groups; 

(5) a dedicated Internet Portal must be

available to teachers so they can make use

of and contribute to an ever-expanding

knowledge base about mathematics and

science teaching; (6) a nongovernmental

Coordinating Council is needed to bring

together the above initiatives and those

that follow to assess accomplishments; 

and (7) all states and local districts should

initiate reward and incentive programs,

both to support exemplary professional

development that results in higher student

achievement and to increase the

attractiveness of teaching as a profession.

Goal 2: Increase significantly the number

of mathematics and science teachers and

improve the quality of their preparation.

Three action strategies are offered for this

goal: (1) a direct strategy that identifies

exemplary models of teacher preparation

whose success can be widely replicated; 

(2) an overarching strategy of finding ways

to attract additional qualified candidates

into teaching from among high school and

college students, recent college graduates,

and people at mid-career; and (3) creating

15 competitively selected Mathematics and

Science Teaching Academies to annually

train 3,000 Academy Fellows, who will be

nationally recruited for a one-year,

intensive course on effective teaching

methods in mathematics or science. 

Goal 3: Improve the working environment

and make the teaching profession more

attractive for K–12 mathematics and

science teachers. Four action strategies

address this goal: (1) focused induction

programs are required to help acclimate

beginning mathematics and science

teachers to the profession, create formal

mentoring relationships, and introduce

teachers to Inquiry Groups;

(2) district/business partnerships are

needed to provide support for a broad

range of efforts that can help create

professional working environments for

teachers. These efforts can enhance

teaching by providing materials, facilities,

equipment, and mentor stipends; 

(3) incentives—whether in the form of cash

awards, salary increases, support for

further education, or community-wide

recognition—are needed to encourage

deserving mathematics and science

teachers to remain in teaching

and improve their skills; and

(4) salaries of all teachers must be made

more competitive, but especially for

mathematics and science teachers, whose

combined preparation and skills command

high wages in the private sector.

The report concludes by challenging 

all Americans directly to take personal

responsibility for expressing their views 

on mathematics and science education to

policy- and decision-makers, and to take

the initiative to implement the report’s

action strategies in their own communities. 

9
the nation’s governors gathered in

Charlottesville, Virginia, to set ambitious

goals for our schools. Among the challenges the governors issued was this one: 

“By the Year 2000, United States students

will be first in the world in mathematics

and science achievement.” 1

A goal like that might be tough, Americans thought, but it was reachable. 

But our effort since has not matched 

our rhetoric. Results from the Third

International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) show U.S. students devastatingly far from this goal by the time

they finish high school. 

In an age now driven by the relentless

necessity of scientific and technological

advance, the preparation our students

receive in mathematics and science is, 

in a word, unacceptable. Despite our good

intentions, their learning is too often

superficial. Students’ grasp of science as a

process of discovery, and of mathematics 

as the language of scientific reasoning, 

is often formulaic, fragile, or absent

altogether. And perhaps most alarming 

of all, as recent assessments seem to show,

the longer our children study these crucial

disciplines, the less favorably they compare

with their peers in other countries. 

The Recycled Message of 

TIMSS and NAEP:

Our Students Are Losing Ground

America has heard news like this before.

In 1957, the sudden appearance of Sputnik

galvanized a massive national effort to win

the space race and improve mathematics

and science education. We knew we had to

“catch up with the Russians.” With a burst

of single-minded intensity, we more than

caught up: in 12 years we achieved the

moon. But we did not duplicate or sustain

that intensity, a lesson we have heard

three times over from international

assessments of science and mathematics

achievement conducted since the 1960s.

The unmistakable message is that our

students’ performance relative to their

peers in other countries—our competitors

all—is disappointedly unchanged. Their

students have consistently scored higher

than U.S. students.2 Indicators from those

three assessments and those conducted

here at home corroborate the point.

TIMSS Results: The Third International

Mathematics and Science Study assessed

the performance of students from 41

countries in 1995. U.S. fourth-graders

scored above the international average in

mathematics and science; eighth-graders

scored slightly above the international

average in science and slightly below the

international average in mathematics.

However, among 20 nations assessed in

advanced mathematics and physics

(students were not assessed from all 

Our Students’ Performance in Mathematics 

and Science is Unacceptable

The Problem 

10

TIMSS Results*

Nations with average scores

HIGHER than the U.S.

Nations with average scores

EQUIVALENT to the U.S.

Nations with average scores

LOWER than the U.S.

*When participation of the United States is

included, the total number of participating

countries is 26, 41, 21 at the 4th grade,

8th grade, and the 12th grade respectively.

MATHEMATICS

25 PARTICIPATING

NATIONS

20 PARTICIPATING

NATIONS

7

4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade

6

12

20

13

14

7

4

2

40 PARTICIPATING

NATIONS

SCIENCE

25 PARTICIPATING

NATIONS

20 PARTICIPATING

NATIONS

1

4th Grade 8th Grade 12th Grade

5

19

9

16

11

15

7

2

40 PARTICIPATING

NATIONS

Eleven Septembers ago,

with the heady horizon

of a new millennium

within sight,
11

countries for all grades), none scored

significantly lower than the United States

in advanced mathematics, and only one

scored lower in physics.3 In a phrase, our

mathematics and science students are not

“world class.”

NAEP Results: The National Assessment 

of Educational Progress (NAEP, the

“Nation’s Report Card”) periodically

reports student achievement in science 

and mathematics using four categories: 

“Below Basic,” “Basic,” “Proficient,” and

“Advanced.” On the 1996 NAEP, less than

one-third of all U.S. students in grades 

4, 8, and 12 performed at or above the

“Proficient” achievement level in

mathematics and science, where

"Proficient" represents solid academic

performance for each grade assessed.

Perhaps even more alarming, more than

one-third of U.S. students scored below the

“Basic” level in these subjects, which

means they lack mastery of the

prerequisite knowledge and skills needed

for “Proficient” at each grade. While U.S.

students do, indeed, learn more each year

they are in school, they are performing less

well in twelfth grade than in the fourth

and eighth grades, compared to the

standards of proficiency for those grade

levels. Despite some improvements in

NAEP mathematics scores since the 1970s,

our students’ performance in science

and mathematics has remained at disappointing levels for nearly 30 years.4

In sum, whether we look at comparisons

of our young people to those of other

nations or look simply at the progress our

students are making at home,5 the nation

keeps getting the same dismal message

about mathematics and science

achievement: our students are losing

ground. It’s time we heeded it.

But heeding the bad news has to involve

something other than wringing our hands

and raising a polite rallying cry for

improvement. The issues raised by

TIMSS, NAEP, and state performance data

are deeply entrenched. They cannot be

papered over. Only a well-conceived

strategy, grounded in data and sustained

over time, can possibly overcome the status

quo. The majority of states report

assessment data for both mathematics and

science; but proficiency levels in both

subjects are often too incomplete to paint a

useful portrait for determining

accountability. This is especially true in

science, where only 16 states report

proficiency levels. Thus, a crucial first step

in creating greater accountability is for

state education agencies to supply to the

public complete, user-friendly, reporting on

student performance, school-by-school.

6

As it stands, only 12 state education

agencies provide parent information on

their Web site guides to student

assessment; that is 38 states too few.

Why Does It Matter?

Four important and enduring reasons

underscore the need for our children to

achieve competency in mathematics and

science: (1) the demands of our changing

Science Results Reported in “What Do Students

Know?”: Results for 4th , 8th & 12th Grade Students,

National Center for Educational Statistics,

www.nagb.ort/pubs/students/nation.html

NAEP 1996 Mathematics: Report Card for 

The Nation and the States, Washington D.C.:

National Center for Educational Statistics,

February 1997, p. 59

Advanced

Proficient 

Basic

Below Basic

NAEP Performance Results Science Math Science Math Science Math

8th Grade

38%

43%

32%

38%

36%

53%

33%

36%

39%

38%

43%

31%

26%

3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 2%

19% 26%

20% 18%

14%

4th Grade 12th Grade
economy and workplace, (2) our

democracy’s continuing need for a highly

educated citizenry, (3) the vital links of

mathematics and science to the nation’s

national security interests, and (4) the

deeper value of mathematical and 

scientific knowledge. The demands of our changing 

economy and workplace A Changing Economy

: Science and

mathematics exert the most visible

influence on the economy through their

most rapidly changing offspring—new

technologies. ■ New technologies are the relentless

drivers behind the nation’s standard of

living. Since 1996, national

productivity (i.e., output per worker

hour) has increased, on average, by

2.6% per year, a rate that doubles the

standard of living roughly every 25

years.

7 Such productivity gains are

unsustainable without a workforce

sufficiently educated in the sciences

and mathematics. 

■ The technology-driven economy of the

21st century will add about 20 million

jobs to the American economy by

2008—if we can only educate our

young people to fill them.

8

■ Jobs in both the health sciences and

computer industries requiring science

and mathematics skills will increase by

5.6 million by 2008. The 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 demand.

9

■ Bureau of Labor Statistics projections

for 1998-2008 revealed that more than

two-thirds of the 30 occupational

categories expected to have the fastest

growth—most of them high-tech—

already had hourly earnings above the

national median; 11 of those job

categories were in the top earnings

quartile of $16.25/hour and up.10

■ Finance, trade, industrial production,

communications, and asset ownership

are becoming increasingly integrated

on a global basis. So are capabilities in

science and technology. 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 its global sales, and the country

boasts 135 engineers per 10,000

citizens—twice the U.S. ratio.

Drawing on a young, skilled, and welleducated workforce, Ireland now

produces 60% of all PC businessapplication software sold in Europe.

The common denominator of these

advances abroad is education—a “raw

material” far easier to acquire than

lumber or iron ore.11

■ Ironically, the U.S. higher education

system itself contributes mightily to

the rapid advances by equipping the

12
13

workforces of our competitors. The

Department of Education has reported

that, for 1995-96, nonresident aliens

received 34.6% of all bachelor’s and

44% of all master’s degrees in

engineering, mathematics, and

information science. These students

are out-competing young Americans

for university spots and are returning

to their native lands to expand

technical capacity there.12

A Changing Workplace: New scientific

discoveries not only add to basic

knowledge, they also transform jobs, the

lives of families, and the shape of public

issues. The mathematical and scientific

preparation of each new generation—

beginning with the one now in school—has

become the precondition not just to

progress but to the future itself, as the

links among economy, technologies, 

and education tighten in a rapidly

changing workplace. 

■ “Knowledge work” is replacing lowend, low-wage jobs. In 1950, 80% of

jobs were classified as “unskilled”;

now, an estimated 85% of all jobs are

classified as “skilled.”13 A telling

example is found in machine tooling.

The operators of today’s computernumerically-controlled (CNC)

manufacturing technology now need

sophisticated skills, commonly

including computer programming and

knowledge of calculus.14

■ Many American companies now have

to import the computing talent they

need to stay competitive. Two years

ago the Congress had to pass special

legislation to permit the entry of

computer workers, in rapidly

escalating numbers, from abroad. 

The so-called “H-1B Visa Bills”

progressively raised the ceiling to

permit the entry of some 300,000

temporary, non-immigrant, skilled

computer workers between 1998

and 2002.

■ Training Magazine reports that

approximately $62.5 billion was spent

by businesses on training in 1999.15

Much of these funds are spent on

upgrading basic employee skills, many

of which should have been acquired 

at school. In too many contexts, 

the nation is paying twice to equip 

its workforce.

■ Among the scarier statistics recently

reported by a Midwest think tank is

this one: 60% of all new jobs in the

early 21st century will require skills

that are possessed by only 20% of the

current workforce.16
Our democracy

’s need for

an educated citizenry

It is not just the role that mathematics,

science, and technology play in the

changing economy and workplace that

matters. Mathematics and science have

become so pervasive in daily life that we

tend to overlook them. Literacy in these

areas affects the ability to understand

weather and stock reports, develop a

personal financial plan, or understand a

doctor’s advice. Taking advantage of

mathematical and scientific information

does not generally require an expert’s

grasp of those disciplines. But it does

require a distinctive approach to analyzing

information. We all have to be able to

make accurate observations, develop

conjectures, and test hypotheses—in short,

we have to be familiar with a scientific

approach. 

Examples of science-related issues with

far-reaching implications for public and

private life that require the understanding

of an informed citizenry are present

everywhere: ■ In biology: Cloning of organisms, the

selective genetic manipulation of

human reproduction, and the use of

DNA as courtroom evidence;

■ In health: The development of new

drugs, chemical and biological

terrorism, the effect of agricultural

herbicides and pesticides on the food

chain, whether to take nutritional

supplements, or even calculating the

nutritional value of a week’s groceries;

■ In computer science: Issues of data

encryption, maintaining computer

privacy, the conduct of e-commerce; and

■ In meteorology and earth science:

Global warming, the ozone layer, and

hurricane and earthquake research.

The list is endless, but the point is a

simple one. No citizen of America can

participate intelligently in his or her

community or, indeed, conduct many

mundane tasks, without being familiar

with how science affects his daily life and

how mathematics shapes her world. The vital links of mathematics and 

science to our national security interests

The warp of our nation’s security interests

and the woof of mathematics and science

are closely woven. It was the pure science

of nuclear physics that first gave rise to,

then continued to support, the nation’s

nuclear deterrent throughout the last half

century. Nuclear science—put to sea in

nuclear submarines—has also formed the

second pillar of our strategic defense

system. Long-range bombers, the third

pillar, became possible only with advances

in aeronautical science. 

Mathematics and science today supply

the architecture that gives structure and

strength to the development of new

weapons, from long-range missiles to the

B-2 (“Stealth”) bomber. Science and

mathematics continuously enhance our

armed forces’ ability to protect the nation,

whether in the form of vaccinations

against chemical and biological agents, or

night-vision goggles for combat troops, or

the Global Positioning Satellite system

(GPS) that can pinpoint the location of

virtually any object on the planet. An

invisible web of sophisticated satellite

communications technology connects our

military forces in the global defense arena,

14
where U.S. troops must respond quickly

and operate for indefinite periods. On the

ground, the modern equipment and

weaponry that our troops are now called

on to use in battle require mathematical

and scientific skills, particularly computerbased learning. Finally, the sophisticated

mathematics of encryption supports and

protects our diplomatic and military

communications around the world, as well

as those of American corporations. The deeper value of mathematical 

and scientific knowledge

The wealth of knowledge that mathematics

and science impart for understanding the

world has such breadth that it is easy to

overlook the dimension of depth. But

teaching our children these subjects is

important at a more profound level than

that of their practical benefits. Above all,

mathematics and science impart three

qualities that define our human world and

enable us to meet its challenges. ■ First, mathematics and the sciences

bring order, harmony, and balance to

our lives. They have great explanatory

power. They teach us that our world 

is not capricious but predictable, i.e., 

that it contains pattern and logic,

which can be used in the service of

humankind. The analytical tools of

mathematics and the investigative

skills of a scientific approach are 

also foundational skills for lifelong

learning, in other words, for creating

progress itself.

■ Second, science and mathematics 

continually shape and reshape our

history and culture, giving rise to new

ideas and inventions. It was early

astronomy that formed the knowledge

base of ancient Near Eastern

civilizations. The physics of Newton

made the Industrial Revolution

possible. In our own time, the pure

science of information theory has

yielded not only computers but 

also an incredibly useful global

communications system. 

■ Third, as science and mathematics

provide human beings with powerful

tools for understanding and

continually reshaping the physical

world itself, they teach us again 

and again that Nature’s secrets can 

be unlocked—in short, that the new 

is possible. 

Not the Last Word

Despite the pervasiveness of mathematics

and science in our lives, the sad reality is

that our nation continues to renege on its

“By the Year 2000...” promise. Our schools

are not producing graduates with the kinds

of skills our economy needs to remain on

the competitive cutting edge. In consequence, we are bequeathing failure to

our children. As they try to meet the

challenge with the longest-range

implications of all—securing their own 

and America’s place in the world—they

need to command the disciplines that they

are only indifferently mastering today.

If this were all that could be said, then

the future would be bleak indeed. But it 

is not. Some important factors have 

begun to coalesce, each adding to the

others’ momentum.

15
We believe that wisdom applies to the task

of strengthening and improving the quality

of mathematics and science teaching and

learning in America. Fortunately, an

unusual confluence of factors has created

an unprecedented—perhaps once-in-alifetime—opportunity for making progress.

Five things seem to be happening at once.

■ First, two decades of experience in

education reform demonstrate that

tinkering around the edges will not

suffice. Happily, education reform now

has the focused attention of the

American people. Not long ago, when

asked to name the top problems facing

the nation, Americans ranked

education well down on the list. Today,

in poll after poll, it is number one. 

That kind of concern, focused through

the lens of a well-crafted agenda, offers

an opportunity to generate real energy.

But that opportunity will not 

last forever.

■ Second, America now has the

abundance of resources it needs to

address the issue of mathematics and

science education powerfully. We are

still in the midst of the longest

economic expansion in our history.

Thanks in part to a half-century of

investment in science and technology,

there may be a trillion-plus-dollar

surplus at hand to invest in our people.

■ Third, the U.S. teaching force is about

to go through a massive reshuffling.

Over the next decade, our schools will

replace two-thirds of their teachers,

whether by retirement, attrition, or job

changes. This immense demographic

shift in our schools presents us with an

unparalleled chance to plan—to inject

new energy into mathematics and

science teaching in the form of new

recruitment, training, and supportive

structures that can strengthen

teaching at all grade levels. This we

must do, before we are forced to play

yet another game of educational 

catch-up.

■ Fourth, we have learned much in the

past generation about what works in

mathematics and science education—

about rigorous curriculum, high

standards,17 effective teaching methods,

challenging assessments, and how

young people learn.18 In several states,

school districts, and schools, innovative

approaches are being attempted.

Many are promising. We need to build

on these approaches and extend them

with new research. We now have the

chance to bring this knowledge

together in a mathematics and science

education effort that will serve as a

powerful tool for change. Ignored

research is worthless; unused tools can

only rust.

The Time to Act is Now

16

An ancient Chinese proverb

says,“The best time to plant

a tree is twenty years ago;

the second best time 

is today.”
■ Finally, many more able college

students are expressing an interest in

teaching. The success of such

programs as Teach for America and

AmeriCorps, and the national

resurgence in volunteerism,

demonstrate that the long dormant

idealism of a former generation has

been reawakened. According to a

recent poll, 10% of young Americans

say they want to teach in our schools—

double the number who said so 

in 1982.19

Now,The Glimpse of a Greater Challenge

At the beginning of the 20th century, 

schools in our country underwent profound

changes as they adapted teaching and

curricula to the demands of industrialization and the needs of a growing

population. At the beginning of the 21st

century we look to an even greater challenge. Our schools, and the teachers who

imbue them with life, must find ways to

produce higher levels of proficiency in

mathematics and science in all their

students. The American people must do

this because our world and our times

require it. If we do not plant this tree

today, we will surely have to do so

tomorrow, next month, or next year—

at a higher price. 

17
The two core premises of

this report are simply

stated and they

undergird every change

we recommend:

(1) Now, more than ever, America’s

students must improve their performance

in mathematics and science. That is the

burden of the case presented thus far.

(2) The second premise points in the

direction of a solution: The most direct

route to improving mathematics and

science achievement for all students is

better mathematics and science teaching.

In other words, better teaching is the

lever for change.

To call for higher student achievement

and high-quality teaching as the most

direct route to change seems obvious on

the surface, but recent educational reform

recommendations have not been

sufficiently guided by this clear linkage.

Now, before it’s too late, is the time to

head this guidance.

The evidence for the effect of better

teaching is unequivocal.20 The most

consistent and most powerful predictors 

of higher student achievement in

mathematics and science are: (a) full

certification of the teacher and (b) a

college major in the field being taught.21

Conversely, the strongest predictors of

lower student achievement are new

teachers who are uncertified, or who hold

less than a minor in their teaching field. 

The difference better teaching makes is

often dramatic. The National Commission

on Teaching and America’s Future

reported in 1996, for example, that

licensing examination scores and teaching

experience accounted for 43% of the 

gains in mathematics test scores in the

early grades.22

The difference better teaching makes for

students is paralleled by what can also

happen for teachers. A focused professional development experience led by

qualified teachers, mentors, and colleagues

is the indispensable foundation for

competence and high-quality teaching. 

As school gets under way in the fall of

2000, many underprepared and out-of-field

teachers will take charge of mathematics

and science classrooms. They, as well as

their better-prepared and more knowledgeable colleagues, must have access to

ways to continually improve their teaching.

Only a tailored system of professional

development provides that access.

Thus, if we are to create the kind of

mathematics and science education

America needs, we have to start rebuilding

at education’s very foundation—teaching

itself.

23 For this reason, the three goals in

this report—and the action strategies that

accompany them—point in a new direction.

But before turning to specific remedies,

we need to know more about what is

happening now in America’s mathematics

and science classrooms—and what should

take its place.

We Must Place Better Teaching at the Center 

of Mathematics and Science

Toward a Solution

18

WHO IS A MATH 

OR SCIENCE TEACHER?

All teachers, grades K–12,

who provide instruction in

mathematics or science 

for some part of the school

day are math or science

teachers. The elementary

school generalist, the high

school teacher specializing

in physics, as well as the

drama teacher who may be

assigned to a single

geometry class, are all

persons whose teaching

quality is of interest—

and of consequence—

to the nation.

WHAT IS PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT?

When this report uses the

term “professional

development,” it means a

planned, collaborative,

educational process of

continuous improvement 

for teachers that helps

them do five things:

(1) deepen their knowledge

of the subject(s) they are

teaching; (2) sharpen their

teaching skills in the

classroom; (3) keep up 

with developments in their

fields, and in education

generally; (4) generate and

contribute new knowledge

to the profession; and 

(5) increase their ability to

monitor students’ work, so

they can provide

constructive feedback to

students and appropriately

redirect their own teaching.
The Need for Professional Development

To say that improving the quality of

teaching yields better student performance

in science and mathematics makes sense,

and some states have taken this wisdom to

heart.24 But in many more places, nearly

the reverse is true. There, the knowledge

base and arsenal of teachers’ skills must 

be replenished:

■ More than one in four high school

mathematics teachers and nearly one

in five high school science teachers

lack even a minor in their main

teaching field.25

■ More than 12% of all new hires enter

the classroom without any formal

training; another 14% start work

without meeting the teaching

standards of their states.26

■ About 56% of high school students

taking physical science are taught 

by out-of-field teachers, as are 27% of

those taking mathematics. These

percentages are much greater in highpoverty areas. Among schools with the

highest minority enrollments, for

example, students have less than a

50% chance of getting a science or

mathematics teacher who holds both 

a license and a degree in the field

being taught.27

Thus, when the dismissal bell rings each

day, untold thousands of American

students depart for home having been

taught by mathematics and science

teachers ill-equipped for the job. Far too

many are inexperienced beginners, with

little or no training, and little or no

mentoring by qualified colleagues.

Astonishingly, in no other profession is so

much of such ultimate worth entrusted to

people with such uneven qualifications. 

19

SHORT-TERM SOLUTION

CREATES 

LONG-TERM PROBLEM

The most common solution

to the shortage of qualified

mathematics and science

teachers is to assign those

classes to out-of-field

teachers. But merely being

able to keep one chapter

ahead of the students in an

algebra or environmental

science text does not a

mathematics or science

teacher make.

Predictably, underqualified

teachers are most

prevalent in urban schools.

A recent survey taken

among 40 large urban

schools, for instance,

showed that more than

90% of them had an

immediate need for a

certified mathematics or

science teacher.

28
Despite the dramatic

transformations

throughout our 

society over the last

half-century,

teaching methods in mathematics and

science classes have remained virtually

unchanged. Classroom practice has still

hardly begun to capitalize on the many

dimensions of the learning process.

A videotape study of eighth-grade

mathematics classes in the United States

reveals that the basic teaching style in

American mathematics classrooms remains

essentially what it was two generations

ago. The approach used for the lessons 

was numbingly predictable: (1) a review 

of previous material and homework,

(2) a problem illustration by the teacher,

(3) drill on low-level procedures that

imitate those demonstrated by the teacher,

(4) supervised seat work by students,

often in isolation, (5) checking of seatwork

problems, and (6) assignment of

homework. In not one of 81 videotaped

U.S. classes did students construct a

mathematical proof.29

In Japan, by contrast, closely supervised,

collaborative work among students is the

norm. Teachers begin by presenting

students with a mathematics problem

employing principles they have not yet

learned. They then work alone or in small

groups to devise a solution. After a few

minutes, students are called on to present

their answers; the whole class works

through the problems and solutions,

uncovering the related mathematical

concepts and reasoning. The students

learn through reasoned discovery, not

lecture alone.

Not incidentally, this approach is a

natural outgrowth of the teaching culture

in Japan, which accords teachers not only

abundant time for preparation, but also for

collaborative lesson planning. Fully 99% of

all elementary teachers and 50% of all

middle school teachers participate in lesson

study groups that meet for two to five

hours per week. The debilitating

professional isolation of U.S. teachers

stands in stark contrast to this pattern. 

A core conclusion from the videotape

research: “The key to long-term

improvement [in teaching] is to figure out

how to generate, accumulate, and share

professional knowledge.”30

Instructional patterns in the United

States do not yield much better results

when it comes to the sciences. Tests of

scientific knowledge and classroom

observation indicate that most science

students spend much of their time learning

definitions, or the labels that apply to

natural phenomena and scientific

processes. In other words, much science

instruction in our schools parallels what

happens in a badly taught history unit on

the Civil War, in which students learn

nothing but the names of the generals 

and the dates of the battles. Seldom are

students asked to master the “big” 

concepts that make science so powerful

and fascinating.31

20

What Happens in Most Classes
If the core of mathematics and science 

is about inquiry, then too many of today’s

mathematics and science classrooms come

up short. Student are crippled by content

limited to the “What?” They get only a

little bit about the “How?” (or “How

else?”) and not nearly enough about the

“Why?” Missing almost entirely is “Why

should I care?” It is hard to imagine that

students in these classes are gaining the

conceptual and problem-solving skills they

need to function effectively as workers 

and citizens in today’s world—a world that

increasingly depends on mathematics

and science.

21
What kind of instruction

in mathematics and

science can justifiably 

be called “highquality teaching?”

■ A core premise of high-quality teaching

is that the ability to teach, contrary to

myth, is not “something you’re born

with”; it can be learned and refined

over time. Specific teaching skills—for

example, the ability to distinguish

between what is most important for

students to learn and what is hardest

for them to understand—can only be

acquired through training, mentoring,

collaboration with peers, and practice.

■ High-quality teaching requires that

teachers have a deep knowledge of

subject matter. For this there is 

no substitute. 

■ In high-quality teaching, the process 

of inquiry, not merely “giving

instruction,” is the very heart of what

teachers do. Inquiry not only tests

what students know, it presses

students to put what they know to the

test. It uses “hands on” approaches to

learning, in which students participate

in activities, exercises, and real-life

situations to both learn and apply

lesson content. It teaches students not

only what to learn but how to learn.

■ High-quality teaching not only

encourages students to learn, it 

insists they learn.

■ High-quality teaching, especially in the

sciences, focuses on the skills of

observation, information gathering,

sorting, classifying, predicting, 

and testing. A good science or

mathematics teacher encourages

students to try new possibilities, 

to venture possible explanations, 

and to follow them to their 

logical conclusions.

■ High-quality teaching fosters healthy

skepticism. It encourages students to

submit their work to questioning by

others, to pull things apart and put

them back together, and to reflect on

how conclusions were reached. 

■ High-quality teaching allows for,

recognizes, and builds on differences in

the learning styles and abilities of

students. It has the deepest respect

for students as persons; it corrects

without squelching; it builds on

strengths rather than trying to stamp

out weaknesses.

■ High-quality teaching is grounded in a

careful and thorough alignment of

curriculum, assessment, and high

standards for student learning. 

■ To keep its edge, high-quality teaching

must be continually reshaped by the

institutional structures that support it,

i.e., by professional development,

continuing education, the effective

use of technology, and recognition 

and rewards.

■ Finally, the effectiveness of highquality teaching can be evaluated by

the performance and achievement of

the students who receive it. 

We Need To Capture A Vision Of High-Quality Teaching

22

What Could Happen
Why isn’t high-quality teaching universal?

For teachers to deliver high-quality

teaching, they must be empowered to

do so. Generating this kind of teaching

means that school boards, administrators,

parents, and policymakers must be willing

to stand up for teachers as the primary

drivers of student achievement. Teachers

must be given the time they need within

the school day to keep up with new

developments in their fields, teaching aids,

materials, and technology. Teachers must

be encouraged to contribute knowledge

back to their disciplines. They need the

time and feedback necessary to reflect on

their teaching, so they can get better at it.

Teacher empowerment also means

according teachers the respect they deserve

for their judgments about learning,

rewarding their professionalism, and yes,

paying them what they are worth.

These concerns are addressed by the goals

that follow.

23
national response that unifies the efforts

of all stakeholders in mathematics and

science education. To that end, three

wide-ranging but intertwined goals focus

our call for action at the local, state, and

federal levels. Achieving these goals will

involve the sustained efforts of legislators

and other decision-makers, the business

community, higher education, school

boards and administrators, teachers, 

and parents. An intense, serious

commitment to achieve these goals,

through a coordinated set of well-funded

action strategies, is needed immediately.

All together, the action strategies for

achieving these goals nationally will cost

more than $5 billion annually. Strategy by

strategy, the financial responsibility must

be shouldered by the governments and

institutions best equipped to do so,

whether at the federal, state, or local

levels, by business and industry, or by

higher education. The agenda laid out

here details concrete steps that all

Americans can take. The most important

point to keep in focus is that the funds

invested in mathematics and science

education today can purchase a lifetime of

leverage on the future of American school

children and the nation as a whole. 

Clearly, the cost of achieving these goals

will create a noticeable line item in

education budgets at every level. (An

estimate of the costs associated with the

first year of implementation of the goals

concludes this report.) At the same time,

however, the nation's balance sheet now

shows a considerable surplus and the cost

of delay is higher still. Those funds must

therefore be put to work now, when and

where they can most usefully equip our

young people, and through them the

nation itself, for the new century's

challenges. 

GOAL 1: Establish an ongoing system to

improve the quality of mathematics and

science teaching in grades K–12.

If high-quality teaching is the leverage

point for improving mathematics and

science education, and if professional

development is a prerequisite for a wellqualified and effective teaching force, then

teachers need a focused support system

and enough time to grow as professionals.

Sadly and short-sightedly, however,

professional development is too often

treated not as a necessity but as a luxury

item on the school budget. Many people

erroneously believe that teachers are not

working unless they are standing in front

of a classroom. In fact, preparation time,

individual study time, as well as time for

peer contact and joint lesson planning, are

vital sources of both competence and

nourishment for all teachers. 

But teachers are granted precious little

time for any of these activities. Equally

rare are extended periods of time set aside

Three Goals

24

WHAT IS A PROFESSIONAL?

A professional “professes”

the values associated with a

particular occupation, and

has acquired the special core

of knowledge and skills

needed to serve others

effectively through that

occupation. If professionals

do not maintain and expand

their knowledge and skills,

they will atrophy.

We have the resources and

insights to build an even

stronger base of professional

knowledge about mathematics and science

teaching. Where that is not

available, it has to be

developed.

SCALING UP

Several states and school

districts already provide

excellent instruction in

mathematics and science.

Their students' test scores

provide evidence of highquality teaching. But occasional oases of excellence

are not enough to meet the

nation's needs. That means

scaling up our efforts to

match our aspirations. Our

perspective must be

nationwide and we must

intensify our efforts

immediately: not next week,

or next year, but now. Our

aim can be no less than

equipping every K-12 student

in every school with an

excellent education in

mathematics and science.

The three strategic goals 

of this report are therefore 

just as urgent as they are

visionary.

The estimated costs that

accompany the Action

Strategies proposed here

remind us that we will get

only what we are willing to

pay for.

The pressing national

need for high-quality

teaching described in this

report demands a vigorous,
■ Some selected states will

begin their needs

assessments immediately.

States should first establish

criteria and protocols for

conducting their needs

assessment, then go on to

identify and analyze state

certification and recertification

requirements. Once procedures and systems have

been established and tested in

these initial states, what is

learned can be widely

disseminated to all states.

■ Governors, state legislatures,

and state boards of education

in each of the remaining

states (thence districts) must

work together quickly to

allocate the federal, state,

and local funds and staff

needed to develop and

oversee a similar assessment of the professional

development needs of

mathematics and science

teachers.

■ Two- and four-year colleges

and universities, using their

mathematics, science, and

education faculties, can 

assist school districts and

others in planning and

implementing needs

assessments.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Who Will Make Them Happen and How?

25

for teachers to have challenging

educational experiences of their own. In

consequence, much-needed study and

preparation time is routinely sacrificed to

in-service events that are no more

substantive than a broad-brush overview of

this semester’s teaching fad. High-quality

professional development ought to be the

lifeblood of American teaching; instead, it

is used only to provide the occasional,

anemic transfusion.

Everyone connected with and touched by

the U.S. education system is responsible

for changing the character of professional

development and its impact. Teachers

need to take responsibility for their 

own professionalism as they practice

mathematics and science teaching 

and work to improve their knowledge 

and teaching skills. Principals, superintendents and school boards must make

sure teachers have the time and resources

they need to prepare and collaborate.

Teacher preparation institutions, state

departments of education, and the federal

government all have a substantive policy

role in enabling teachers, schools, and

districts to realize improved teaching via

professional development. The support of

businesses, which stand squarely to benefit

from improvements made in the quality 

of mathematics and science teaching, is

also crucial to enriching the quality of

professional development. Professional

associations and their members can make

their own important contributions 

through workshops, clinics, and new

curricular initiatives.

The place to begin improving mathematics and science teaching is with a

system that promotes high-quality

professional development opportunities for

all teachers. Such opportunities should

build upon one another and reinforce

accountability. The system must be

rooted, first of all, in a clear determination

of the professional development needs of

teachers in every school and school district.

That determination must be followed by 

an immediate response to the most

pressing needs; a sustained response 

with the necessary leadership, resources, 

tools and time; and a continuing

system that recognizes and rewards

schools that demonstrate improved 

student achievement. 

Despite progress in some states and

districts, there remains an urgent need for

wide-scale self-examination, strategic

planning, and rapid implementation of a

system of professional development

tailored to the needs of those who provide

instruction in science and mathematics,

K–12. Action strategies for implementing

such a system are outlined below; each is

accompanied by concrete suggestions on

how the work can be done and who 

can do it. 

Action Strategies: What Needs to Happen

Needs Assessment: Each state must

quickly undertake a full assessment of the

professional development needs, district by

district, of its mathematics and science

teachers, K–12. As many stakeholders as

possible must be involved in this self-
■ As with the needs

assessments, selected states

will establish protocols and

evaluation criteria for

Summer Institutes, working

in concert with state boards

of education. The lessons

learned from these

experiences will be widely

disseminated to other states

to inform their efforts.

■ Governors, state legislatures,

state boards of education,

and districts in each of the

remaining states must work

together quickly, allocating

funds and staff, to develop

and oversee a series of

Summer Institutes

addressing the most pressing

professional development

needs of mathematics and

science teachers.

■ Federal, state, and local

professional development

funds must be allocated to

this coordinated purpose—

rather than in the diffuse 

way that is currently all too

common. Teachers should

be compensated for their

participation in the 

Summer Institutes.

■ Institutions of higher

education and professional

associations are well

positioned to assist in

planning, hosting,

conducting, and evaluating

Summer Institutes.

SUMMER INSTITUTES

Who Will Make Them Happen and How? evaluation—teachers, administrators,

parents, school boards, businesses, twoand four-year institutions of higher

education, professional associations, and

others. In addition to seeking to upgrade

content knowledge and teaching skills,

statewide needs assessments must 

also determine: 

(1) whether schools offer a full complement

of mathematics and science courses;

(2) whether the quality of curricula, texts,

and assessments strongly supports highquality teaching and learning; (3) whether

the necessary materials and resources (e.g.,

laboratories and equipment) are readily

available; (4) whether teachers are adept in

using technology; and (5) whether teacher

certification and recertification guidelines

are sufficiently ambitious. As a result,

school districts will have a complete

snapshot of the status of their science 

and mathematics teaching corps, enabling 

the ready identification of professional

development tasks that must be 

targeted first.

Based on what is learned from these

needs assessments, each state, with district

input, must move immediately to

implement a system of professional

development, designed to address the

short- and long-term needs of its

mathematics and science teachers. To put

this in perspective, collectively the states

must plan to quickly reach the 1.7 million

teachers nationwide who provide

instruction in science and mathematics. 

Summer Institutes: In the near term, twoweek Summer Institutes will address the

most pressing problems, such as providing

opportunities for upgrading content

knowledge for out-of-field teachers,

conducting subject-based workshops for all

science and mathematics teachers,

integrating technology into the teaching of

mathematics and science, introducing new

teaching methods, and improving skills for

teaching specific subject matter by grade.

Over the long term, states are urged to

tailor their Institutes to teachers’

identified needs and to make regular

Institute attendance a critical component

of teacher recertification, with the purpose

of continually increasing teachers’ science

and mathematics knowledge base. In

many locations, the powerful technology of

distance learning can open Summer

Institutes to a statewide teacher audience.

Inquiry Groups: However well they may

have been prepared to teach, and whatever

knowledge they may have gained in

Summer Institutes, all teachers need

continuing, collegial contact, peer

26
INQUIRY GROUPS

Who Will Make Them Happen and How?

LEADERSHIP TRAINING

Who Will Make it Happen and How?

reinforcement and input from experts to

sharpen their skills and deepen their

subject knowledge. Building- and districtlevel Inquiry Groups are envisioned as

communities of learning. They will

provide a specific venue for teachers to

share ideas, gain the benefit of one

another’s teaching experience, engage in

common study to enrich their subject

knowledge, learn more about technology,

and design ways to incorporate local, state,

and national educational developments

(e.g., subject-matter learning standards)

into their teaching. While critically

important during the school year, Inquiry

Groups must also continue through the

summer, enabling teachers to explore some

issues without the pressing responsibility

of daily student contact. For districts

moving to 11-month salary schedules, full

participation in an Inquiry Group ought 

to be an integral part of every teacher’s

responsibilities when school is not

in session. 

Time for in-depth study through

regular work with peer Inquiry Groups 

is a teacher’s most valuable professional

resource. It must be considered sacrosanct.

Perhaps most important, these groups

can be a rich source of new knowledge

about teaching itself, generated from the

field. Such groups can readily take

advantage of local resources (e.g.,

businesses, museums, laboratories), other

Inquiry Groups from neighboring districts,

and faculty from nearby two- and

four-year higher education institutions.

Inquiry Groups could also be networked

electronically, via distance learning

technology, for wider sharing of

information, instruction, and resources.

Leadership Training: Summer Institutes

and Inquiry Groups must be facilitated by

teachers who are current with the most

effective teaching methods in their

disciplines, who have shown demonstrable

results of higher student achievement in

mathematics and science, and who are

adept in the use of technology for teaching

and learning. Although there are many

such teachers, the demand far outpaces

the supply. To remedy this, many more

potential leaders must be identified and

trained. 

Internet Portal: High-quality

mathematics and science teaching

requires not only access to technology

(especially the Internet) but also regular

training in how to use it effectively. An

Internet Portal, i.e., an interactive,

conversational Web resource dedicated to

science and mathematics instruction,

would provide links to an ever-expanding

knowledge base that would be invaluable

in supporting high-quality professional

development. 

The Portal, functioning as a “virtual

resource center” and updated frequently,

would provide hyper-links to form a “onestop-shopping” learning network. It

would also codify what is already available

on the Web elsewhere, while providing a

framework for new entries over time.

Among the activities and resources

envisioned for the Portal are:

27

■ Districts must establish

conditions that promote and

support continuing learning

communities among science

and mathematics teachers in

each school, focusing on

teaching quality. Doing so

will demand a reallocation of

teacher time and professional

development funds to focus

on discipline-based efforts.

■ Policies must be enacted by

school boards, and rigorously

enforced by school

administrators, to ensure that

this reallocation occurs.

■ Access to a variety of Webbased resources—through

an Internet Portal dedicated

to mathematics and science

teaching—must be readily

available to all Inquiry Group

participants.

■ Parent organizations have a

watchdog and advocacy role

to play in ensuring that

Inquiry Groups have the

means and opportunity

to succeed.

■ Appropriate agencies within

the federal government must

provide the funding needed

to train cadres of facilitators

and help them, thereafter, to

keep abreast of new insights

and research in science and

mathematics teaching.

■ These trained leaders should

work in their respective

districts and states to

organize and facilitate

Summer Institutes and

Inquiry Groups. They should

also be proactive in helping

colleagues develop their

Internet and research skills.
■ Appropriate federal agencies,

especially the National

Science Foundation, must

scale up current efforts to

create a digital library that

will serve as the foundation

for an Internet Portal.

■ States must provide search

engines keyed to their

respective state standards

and curriculum frameworks

for more tailored use of the

information in the Portal.

■ Businesses, particularly those

in information management,

have a crucial role to play in

contributing to and sustaining

the Internet Portal.

■ Curriculum and software

developers, publishers, and

academics should collaborate

with teachers in generating

the resources and tools

offered via the Portal.

■ Local school boards must

make it a matter of policy

that mathematics and

science teachers have

access to, and training 

in how to use, the 

Internet Portal.

THE INTERNET PORTAL

Who Will Make It Happen and How? ■ An online professional journal that

encourages mathematics and science

teachers to engage in publishable

research and to share new teaching

strategies with colleagues, both

nationwide and internationally; 

■ User-friendly access to the growing

number of Web sites with real-time

data and experiences to support highquality teaching and learning;

■ A dedicated database for mathematics

and science teachers, containing

teaching ideas, lesson plans, student

work, and other resources; 

■ An interactive, online resource for

conversations, meetings, and idea

sharing; 

■ An outlet to distance-learning courses

in science and math for K–12 students

and their teachers; and 

■ Interactive video, both for observing

good teachers and critiquing teachers’

own teaching, for mentoring, and for

online instruction.

Coordinating Council for Mathematics 

and Science Teaching: Implementing and

sustaining the initiatives described above,

as well as several of those that follow in

subsequent goals, require special attention

from a nongovernmental organization. A

Coordinating Council for Mathematics and

Science Teaching will serve primarily as a

collaborative body. It will function as a

broker and matchmaker, bringing together

groups that have a stake in mathematics

and science education. The Council will

also monitor state and local progress on

needs assessments, Summer Institutes,

Leadership Training, and other initiatives,

and make such information widely

available. In addition, the Council will

take a special interest in creating

opportunities for states and localities to

collaborate in implementing the goals 

and strategies offered in this report,

particularly those related to the

professional development needs of

mathematics and science teachers. 

Key activities for the Council in this 

arena include: 

■ Encouraging state needs assessments

and collecting and publishing data on

mathematics and science teaching that

emerge from the assessments;

■ Helping schools and school districts

consider ways to align their

professional development system with

state curricula, teaching guidelines,

performance standards, and

assessment frameworks;

28
■ Financial support for the

Council must come from a

diversified funding stream,

including the federal and

state governments,

businesses, and foundations.

■ Where appropriate, the

Council will partner with

existing groups to provide 

the necessary services 

and motivation to states 

and districts.

■ Institutions of higher

education will support the

Council’s mission by

providing the training venues

and the human resources

needed to enact Councilbrokered activities.

■ U.S. corporations and

businesses, which have a

stake in improving

mathematics and science

education, should provide

significant funds, over several

years, to support rewards

and recognition programs in

those states and districts 

that have implemented a

system of high-quality

professional development

and assessment.

■ It makes sense to gradually

move rewards and

recognition programs under

the umbrella of state and

local education agencies,

although a strong business

presence is needed to keep

school-business relationships

viable and to impart to the

public the importance of 

the business stake in

mathematics and science

education.

COORDINATING COUNCIL

Who Will Make It Happen and How?

REWARDS PROGRAMS

Who Will Make Them Happen and How?

■ Disseminating models for

restructuring the school day and

teachers’ responsibilities to provide

sufficient time to support a system of

ongoing professional development; 

■ Collecting and disseminating research

on improving mathematics and science

teaching; developing databases

relevant to teaching; identifying

and promoting “best practices” in

mathematics and science teaching;

facilitating nationwide communication

among teachers; and

■ Measuring progress and making the

results of implementing these action

strategies widely known to the public.

Rewards Programs: Just as we do our

children a profound disservice when we fail

to reward their effort, or worse, promote

them beyond their merit, so do we cheat

their teachers when we fail to recognize

their success, or worse, reward them for

mediocre performance. To increase the

attractiveness of the professional

development system, and to make clear

that continual improvement in teaching

methods is highly valued, all states and

local districts must institute a program of

recognition and rewards to deserving

schools and teachers. Schools with

exemplary professional development

systems, and those that, most importantly,

show improvement on rigorous

assessments of student achievement in

mathematics and science, must be

recognized with monetary rewards for

their teachers and other staff, and through

well-publicized, showcase events. Such

programs must speak directly to the

bedrock issue of the accountability of 

our schools—and especially of teachers—

for the performance of students.

GOAL 2: Increase significantly the

number of mathematics and science

teachers and improve the quality 

of their preparation.

The demand for teachers generally, and

for certified and fully qualified

mathematics and science teachers

specifically, is far outpacing the supply.

The most recent data available (1993-94)

on nationwide vacancies indicate that 20%

of the slots—about 6,500 individuals—were

filled by uncertified teachers. A more

recent survey indicates that the problem is

not diminishing. The National Science

Teachers Association has reported that

48% of all middle schools and 61% of all

high schools responding reported difficulty

in finding qualified science teachers.32 In

urban areas the problem intensifies: 95%

of urban districts report an immediate

need for high school science and

mathematics teachers, while 80% report a

need for middle school science and

mathematics teachers.33 These estimated

shortages are likely to grow with the

impending retirement of almost two-thirds

of the current teaching force. The quality

of instruction in mathematics and science

will be compromised unless the pipeline of

qualified teachers expands significantly.

An estimated 240,000 middle and high

school mathematics and science teachers

will be needed over the next 10 years.34

Of this total, nearly 70% will be newcomers to the profession. The negative

29
■ An appropriate federal

agency, working with an 

array of highly respected

professionals, will move

quickly to set the criteria and

process for identifying

exemplary programs.

■ This agency will also move,

in a very timely fashion, to

facilitate the identification

process for new and

redesignated models.

■ Federal funds should be 

made available to the

identified institutions for their

use in supporting promising

students to study science

and mathematics teaching.

EXEMPLARY MODELS

Who Will Make Them Happen and How?

impact of the teacher shortage is

compounded by the diffuse and therefore

uneven quality of the education delivered

by teacher preparation institutions. The

sad fact is that many teacher preparation

programs do not build an adequate

knowledge base in their graduates. An

aggressive recruitment program, therefore,

must be accompanied by an equally

aggressive, and simultaneous, effort to

improve teacher preparation.35

To deal with these issues, two fundamental tasks must be accomplished: 

(1) identify exemplary models of teacher

preparation that can be widely replicated,

and (2) find ways to attract large numbers

of qualified candidates into teaching (e.g.,

persons in mid-career seeking new

challenges). We must train these

individuals to high standards and provide

them with the resources they need,

throughout their careers, to meet the

certification requirements and demands 

of high-quality teaching. Once employed,

these new teachers can both contribute 

to and learn from Inquiry Groups that 

are part of a well-conceived professional

development strategy in their

respective schools. 

The first step in such a strategy,

however, must be a preparation program

that imparts a deep understanding of

content, teaches prospective teachers many

ways to motivate young minds, especially

with the appropriate use of technology,

and instills a knowledge of—and basic

skills in using—effective teaching methods

in the discipline. 

Action Strategies: What Needs to Happen

Exemplary Models: Identifying exemplary

programs of teacher preparation around

the country, and finding ways to encourage

others to multiply their success, are basic

to reaching Goal 2. To identify successful

approaches and expand the pool of

exemplary institutions and well-prepared

new teachers, rigorous criteria are needed

beyond those already used by credentialing

and accrediting bodies. (Better-targeted

performance criteria are indicated for

teacher preparation institutions if for no

other reason than the less-than-successful

teaching generated by many of their

graduates.) Designation as an exemplary

program must be highly selective, a mark

of prestige; nonetheless, there should 

be no artificial limit on the number of

institutions accorded that status. 

Each group of exemplary programs will

keep its status for five years, at which time

they will undergo a new review. Once

identified, faculty at institutions with

exemplary programs will need to

collaborate with colleagues at other higher

education institutions to increase the

number of programs that can meet the

exemplary criteria in subsequent years. In

addition, designation as “Exemplary”

should be required to qualify two- and

four-year institutions to receive the federal

funds needed to support full-tuition fouryear scholarships. These new scholarships

can entice high school students to become

mathematics and science teachers and

increase the number of undergraduates

who can benefit from high-quality teacher 

preparation. When fully operational, more

30

The Right Measurements

Middle and High School Mathematics

and Science positions filled during the

1993-94 school year.

Non-Certified Returning 

and Transferring Teachers

Certified New Teachers

Certified Returning and

Transferring Teachers

7.3% 2,300

13.2% 4,200

26% 8,300

53.5% 17,000

31,800 Total

Non-Certified New Teachers

U.S. Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics,

Schools and Staffing Survey (1993-94);

and unpublished data.
■ The federal government must

support an aggressive,

national outreach, media

campaign to attract young

people to teaching careers in

mathematics and science.

■ Those in frequent and close

contact with the academic

progress of such students—

parents, school counselors,

principals, teachers,

professors—must build on

the campaign with

encouragement and guidance

for these prospective

teachers. The Coordinating

Council will disseminate

materials and information in

support of the campaign and

stimulate recruitment

strategies for mid-career and

recent college graduates.

■ Through appropriate federal

agencies, funds will be

available to support the

different scholarship and loan

programs.

■ Appropriate federal agencies

will administer the financial

aid aspects of the programs.

RECRUITMENT

Who Will Make It Happen and How?

than 1,500 scholarships will be available

yearly to high-achieving students who are

attracted and committed to math and

science teaching as a career.

Teacher Recruitment: Once we can identify

the kinds of teacher preparation programs

that are most effective, and have a

mechanism in place to increase the

number of such programs, we can give full

attention to an ambitious program to

recruit students to enter the corps of

mathematics and science teachers.

Incentive-based strategies offer the most

promise for attracting individuals capable

of high-quality teaching, drawing from at

least three groups of potential candidates:

■ To address the pressing needs created

by teacher shortages in mathematics

and science, recent college graduates

and persons at mid-career with

baccalaureate (or higher) degrees in

mathematics or science will be invited

to compete for 3,000 prestigious, oneyear, paid fellowships that lead to

certification as mathematics and

science teachers.36 At the end of their

training, Fellows will agree to be

employed for five years, to teach in

districts with math and science teacher

shortages.37

■ To attract college students, a federally

funded loan program, based on

financial need, is required to target

those considering mathematics and

science teaching as a career. These

loans will be forgiven, contingent upon

the students’ agreement to teach for

five years in districts with shortages of

mathematics and science teachers.

The number of available loans can be

adjusted annually to reflect the

demand; 6000 loans are appropriate

for current shortages of qualified

teachers.

■ Although high school seniors typically

explore various career options, many

are open to the idea of teaching. To

attract this group, 1500 scholars will

be competitively chosen to attend one

of the exemplary preparation

institutions on a full-tuition

scholarship. In return, these students

must agree to teach for five years in

areas with teacher shortages. 

Mathematics and Science Teaching

Academies: An entirely new kind of

research- and school-based preparation

program must be created to provide a year

of teacher education for those with

scientific and mathematical content

knowledge. Specifically, 15 Mathematics

and Science Teaching Academies must be

competitively selected, one in each of the

10 federal regions, with 5 more

strategically located. No new brick-andmortar infrastructure is envisioned.

Rather, each Academy will build on

existing institutions and bring them

together into a new kind of relationship.

Each Academy will ideally comprise an

administrative consortium of at least one

institution of higher education (including

two-year colleges), neighboring school

districts, business partners, members of

31
■ Academies must be

established through a

competitive grant process

administered by appropriate

federal agencies and

supported by federal funding.

■ Higher education institutions

will take the lead in the

administration of the

Academies. Members of the

faculty from science,

mathematics, and education

departments will have

substantive roles.

■ Nearby school districts must

provide internships for 

Fellows during their year of

training, and districts with a

demonstrated shortage 

will hire Fellows upon their

completion of the Academy’s

program.

■ Districts must also develop

and implement induction

programs for new mathematics and science teachers,

including involvement in their

Inquiry Groups.

MATHEMATICS and SCIENCE

TEACHING ACADEMIES

Who Will Make Them Happen and How?

the Eisenhower Math and Science

Consortia, and perhaps others. The

permanent staff at each Academy will be

kept small, supplemented with visiting

scholars on sabbatical.

Three thousand competitively selected

Academy Fellows with degrees in

mathematics and science will be identified

from among recent college graduates and

persons at mid-career who are seeking a

new challenge in life. Fellows will be

appointed annually to receive a one-year,

intensive course in effective teaching

methods in mathematics or science; each

will receive a $30,000 stipend for the year.

Training for all Fellows must include

school-based internships that involve

supervised teaching. 

After an intense high-quality preparation

program, these individuals will be ideal job

candidates for school districts suffering

from mathematics and science teacher

shortages in middle and high schools.

Federal funds, up to $10,000 per Fellow,

will be available to the districts that hire

Fellows at the conclusion of their course of

study, with two provisos: that the funds be

locally matched, and that a district-wide

induction program be created for as many

new mathematics and science teachers as

possible. It is worth pointing out that

districts that already have established

Inquiry Groups will benefit greatly from

the newly minted knowledge that Fellows

bring to their posts, just as Fellows will

benefit from sharing experiences with

seasoned veterans.

Once established, all the Academies 

will work collaboratively to share

knowledge and experience. Similarly, 

the Academies and exemplary

undergraduate teacher preparation

programs will work collaboratively to 

share lessons learned in their quest for

high-quality preparation for teaching.

GOAL 3: Improve the working

environment and make the teaching

profession more attractive for K–12

mathematics and science teachers.

Our society frequently refuses to

recognize the professional status of

teachers, ranking them below doctors,

lawyers, and clergy. Many Americans

think “anyone can be a teacher” and that

little expertise is required. And because

teachers are not fully appreciated for the

special knowledge and skills required to do

their jobs, they are vulnerable to public

attack.38 This widespread attitude is 

simply wrongheaded. 

The low esteem teachers experience is

only one source of the disappointment they

feel, however. The lack of positive regard

for teachers is compounded when efforts to

recruit new members to the teaching

profession fail to solve the staffing

problems of schools. Turnover in the

nation’s teaching force is high—about 14%

overall in 1994-95, with somewhat higher

rates among mathematics and science

teachers.39 The top reason mathematics

and science teachers leave teaching is

“dissatisfaction” with their working

environment, a factor cited far more often

among mathematics and science teachers

32
■ State leaders, school 

board members, local

superintendents, and

principals must act with

determination, realign

priorities, and take the policy

initiatives needed to develop

the induction programs that

can foster professionalism

across the continuum of

teaching experience.

■ Professional associations have

a powerful role to play in

creating and offering model

professional development and

induction programs, as well as

model mentoring programs.

■ The Coordinating Council 

must provide a forum for

sharing information about

existing and new model

induction programs and

reporting on the effectiveness

of such programs, especially

regarding issues of retention

and teaching quality.

■ The American Federation of

Teachers and the National

Education Association have an

enormous stake in

professionalizing teaching.

Superintendents and

principals need to be able to

count on union members to

support efforts to develop

induction programs aimed at

improving the quality of

mathematics and science

education in grades K–12.

INDUCTION PROGRAMS

Who Will Make Them Happen and How? than others (40% vs. 29%).40 The specific

causes given for their unhappiness make a

long list, but chief among them are these

professional issues: lack of leadership and

respect from principals, lack of classroom

autonomy, lack of respect from students,

poor support from administrators, overly

large classes, and poorly equipped

classrooms and laboratories.41 But by far,

the number one reason for dissatisfaction

among mathematics and science teachers is

“poor salary”—cited by 66% of those who

leave their jobs.42 This issue is examined

separately at the conclusion of the report.

The professional environment of too

many mathematics and science teachers

contains too many of these negative

factors. Their effect is to drive more and

more teachers out of the profession, which

leads to stop-gap strategies such as out-offield teaching and temporary certification,

which in turn deprofessionalize teaching

even more—a vicious circle. 

Energetic and sustained steps are needed

to break out of this downward spiral.

State education agencies, school districts,

and schools must move immediately and

aggressively to make mathematics and

science teaching more attractive.43 And,

they must have the widespread support of

local businesses and the public. 

Not all these “dissatisfactions” can be

remedied at once, but it is possible to

launch a turnaround that will foster better

teaching. Three action strategies are

suggested here. First, beginning teachers,

especially, need help in acclimating to the

challenges and opportunities of teaching.

Second, some business/school district

partnerships have already proven

themselves uniquely capable of the kind of

collaboration that fosters high-quality

teaching and makes the profession more

attractive. More of these vital partnerships

are needed. Third, veteran teachers who

demonstrate improvement and who

regularly seek new challenges should be

encouraged to stay in the classroom and

rewarded for their efforts. The following

action strategies are accompanied by

concrete suggestions on how the work can

be done and who can do it.

Action Strategies: What Needs to Happen

Induction Programs: A first step is to set

up special “induction” programs for new

teachers, especially in districts that may

not be able to hire Academy Fellows. This

kind of program is routine throughout the

business world as a means of easing new

people into the workplace, imparting the

“company culture,” fostering employee

loyalty, and acknowledging leadership and

excellence in seasoned veterans. Such

programs can also create formal mentoring

relationships, including participation in

Inquiry Groups, that focus on transmitting

not only content matter but also vital

knowledge and skills related to teaching

itself. Other induction strategies include:

■ Frequent, formal interaction with 

master teachers, including class

observations and teaching critiques.

Several states and districts have

already launched such programs;

■ Policies that ensure that new teachers

do not inherit the most demanding

teaching schedules and most

challenging students;

33
■ Business/district partnerships

must focus on mechanisms

for sharing knowledge,

expertise, and resources.

Together, they must define

the best match between the

needs and capabilities of the

two partners.

■ The Coordinating Council,

working with groups such as

the National Alliance of

Business and the Business

Coalition for Education

Reform, must provide models

of existing partnerships and

encourage the development

of new ones.

■ Both businesses and school

districts must assign a highlevel staff person as a liaison

with responsibility for

maintaining and improving

the partnership, coordinating

the assignment of business

personnel to the schools and

vice versa, and developing

appropriate activities.

BUSINESS/SCHOOL 

DISTRICT PARTNERSHIPS

Who Will Make Them Happen and How?

■ Policies aimed at focusing a new

teacher’s time and energy on teaching,

e.g., by excluding or limiting

extracurricular duties; and

■ Policies that ensure instruction in the

use of technology in general, including

participation in the existing highquality programs designed for this

purpose, and in the use of the

mathematics and science teaching

Portal in particular.

Business/District Partnerships: Many

businesses already serve their local

communities in extraordinary ways. 

These enlightened companies are needed

as models for others who can expand,

rejuvenate, or establish new partnerships

that will help strengthen professionalism

in mathematics and science teaching.

Acting with states, districts, and other

stakeholders, business/district partnerships

can take several steps to encourage

teachers to stay in the classroom,

continually sharpen their skills, optimize

working conditions, and encourage

widespread public support for mathematics

and science education. Some of these

steps—but not all—involve commitments

of funds; all of them do involve business

commitments of time and talent. Among

the specific roles business/district

partnerships can play are the following:

■ Business/district partnerships can

collaborate to provide facilities,

materials, equipment, scholarship

support, and other resources to

enhance the learning environment in

K–12 mathematics and science

classrooms, and to support students

preparing to become mathematics and

science teachers. For example, a local

business could stock a science

laboratory or train teachers in the use

of the Internet Portal;

■ Partnerships can provide or help to

generate community grants and

incentives to schools that restructure

time and personnel responsibilities for

mathematics and science teachers,

thereby enabling them to focus their

energies on collaboration and highquality teaching; 

■ Partnerships can help schools and

school districts sustain induction

programs for all teachers of

mathematics and science, K-12. They

might, for example, help raise funds to

pay annual stipends to mentors. 

Local businesses might also offer new

teachers and mentors opportunities for

field-based learning experiences that

can enhance teaching;

■ Such partnerships can establish and

run paid summer internship programs

within companies for interested

teachers, both as a means of expanding

their skills and of enhancing their

incomes; 

■ Business/district partnerships can

develop “release time” programs that

make employees available to act as

mentors or to assist mathematics and

science teachers in other ways—

without loss of seniority or benefits.

Similarly, business partners can work

with colleges and universities to

34
■ All members of the local

education community

(principals, administrators,

school boards, parents, civic

leaders, etc.) must provide

recognition to teachers

whose students show 

higher achievement on highquality measures.

■ To encourage excellent

teachers to remain in the

classroom, school districts

must create new salary

structures that recognize

added responsibilities and

achievements.

CAREER-LONG INCENTIVES

Who Will Make Them Happen and How? significantly reduce the number of 

out-of-field mathematics and science

teachers by helping to retrain

unqualified teachers, or by releasing

qualified employees to work in 

schools; and

■ Business/district partnerships can

serve as advocates for additional

teachers to go through the advanced

certification process of the National

Board for Professional Teaching

Standards and support the costs of

participation.

But a caveat is in order here. As vitally

important as the participation of the

business community is in improving

mathematics and science education, the

long-term responsibility for public

education remains with the public. The

proper role of American business and

business/district partnerships lies in

helping to “jump-start” initiatives called

for here, not in financing them

indefinitely. Equally important is the

pragmatic realization that some districts

do not have a business base nearby. The

needs of business-poor districts in rural

and inner-city areas are just as urgent as

those where businesses are prominent;

therefore, states, school organization

advocacy groups (e.g., PTAs and PTOs),

and other voluntary associations must step

into the breach to ensure that differences

between districts are not deepened. 

Career-long Incentives: All groups with a

stake in mathematics and science

education must provide incentives for

deserving mathematics and science

teachers to remain in teaching and

improve their skills. These incentives 

must be directly tied to accountability

measures for teachers that take student

performance seriously as a criterion of

high-quality teaching and teachers’

professional competence. 

Mathematics and science teachers, like

other professionals, ought to be fully able

to advance through a series of career

stages that reflect both their intellectual

and professional growth; teachers who

demonstrate improvement in their

teaching must be appropriately

acknowledged.44

Often, the only opportunity for teachers

to advance is to leave the classroom and

take a position in school administration.

In fact, achieving the goal of high-quality

teaching demands that good teachers be

able to flourish in the classroom. That can

only happen when teachers have an openended opportunity to improve their

teaching and be recognized for their

accomplishments. Today, almost all

teachers are paid on the basis of years of

35
experience and number of education units

and degrees earned. More progressive

salary structures—tied to increased levels

of teacher responsibility and to jobperformance criteria—are needed.

Teachers also need to know that they are

valued. When appropriate, civic

organizations ought to demonstrate the

community’s appreciation to hard-working,

highly accomplished teachers. 

Teacher Pay:The Litmus Test

Teachers in this country are scandalously

underpaid, a fact that invariably affects the

quality of teaching in our nation’s

classrooms. The fact is, many teachers

experience their jobs as exercises in irony:

they are expected to have high-quality

qualifications and skills, but they are

neither accorded professional status nor

rewarded with a professional’s salary.

Creating high-quality teaching in

mathematics and science education

demands both. 

What Teachers Earn: The National Center

for Education Statistics reports that, on

average, teachers earn 29% less than other

workers with a baccalaureate degree

($35,048 per year compared to $49,362 per

year in 1997), a differential that has nearly

quadrupled during the economic expansion

of the 1990s. The demands of the economy

and workplace are widening this gap.

Given that the national average starting

salary for teachers is $25,735,45 the

teaching profession is nowhere near being

a financially competitive option for most

young people who leave college with

backgrounds in mathematics and science.

In fact, baccalaureate degree earners in

these fields can earn twice as much in

private industry as in teaching.46 Making

sure that teaching mathematics and

science has appeal as a career option is

directly linked to the potential for

meaningful salary growth. It is hard to

escape the conclusion that without better

pay for mathematics and science teachers,

the high-quality teaching needed in these

fields will be very difficult to sustain.

One powerful litmus test of how serious

we are about providing high-quality

mathematics and science teaching is what

we are willing to pay good mathematics

and science teachers. That is not really so

much a financial test as it is a policy one,

not so much a matter of the pocketbook as

one of political will. And that statement,

in the end, leads to this final point.

Taking Personal Responsibility

This report has laid out a coordinated set

of tasks for the key stakeholders in

mathematics and science education. But

the story is not yet complete. We therefore

put this challenge directly to the American

people: if you have found our case persuasive, it is up to you to take responsibility for achieving these goals.

Realistically, neither paying mathematics

and science teachers what they are worth,

nor any other issue raised in this report, is

a problem that will be solved by “someone

else.” It is this nation’s citizens and

taxpayers whose priorities and principles

should be honored in public policy,

including—and in this context especially—

in decisions about what teachers are paid. 

36

THE VITAL ROLE OF LOCAL

SCHOOL BOARDS

Local school boards,

because they are the

decision-making body

closest to the classroom,

play a central role in

setting a new course. It is

they who have the ultimate

responsibility to bring highquality teaching in mathematics and science to our

schools. It is their job

(within some stateimposed guidelines) to set

local instructional priorities

and policy, to determine

budgets, and to set salary

scales.

Perhaps most important of

all, it is school boards that

are accountable—to

citizens, parents, and

taxpayers alike—for the

education our children

receive. Whether elected

or appointed, school board

members serve at the

sufferance of the public.

But to be accountable,

school boards must be held

accountable. They must be

called on to interpret their

actions and justify their

decisions. And in America,

making them responsive is

the people’s job.
So we put this agenda squarely before you: ■ If you don’t know how well children in

your local schools are performing 

in mathematics and science on

challenging state and district

assessments, find out. How do their

scores stack up against those of

children in neighboring schools? 

Then decide if they are learning 

what they need to know to “hit the

future running.” 

■ If you are unaware of what

mathematics and science teachers are

paid where your children attend

school, find out. Then decide what

steps you will take to bring teacher

salaries up to the professional level

that reflects the value you, as parents

and as taxpayers, put on their work

and their performance.

■ If you believe that out-of-field

teaching, temporary certificates, and

high turnover among mathematics and

science teachers are unacceptable

outcomes of current policies, and if you

believe that high-quality teaching is

the right direction to take, then

declare yourself. It is up to you to 

put an end the former and ensure 

the latter.

■ If you want your voice to be heard, call

your child’s principal, your school

board representative, your local school

superintendent. Call and write your

representatives in state government.

Contact the local chapters of the

professional teachers’ organizations

whose members teach your children

subjects such as arithmetic, biology,

and algebra. Ask them: “What is being

done here to attract more teachers into

mathematics and science teaching?”

“How many teachers here are teaching

out-of-field?” “What are mathematics

and science teachers paid here and

why?” “What is the status of

professional development in math and

science instruction here?” “What do

you need?” “How can I help?”

High-quality teaching in mathematics

and science cannot be bought on the 

cheap. But it comes back—ten-, twenty-, 

a hundredfold—to the nation, the

community, and especially to our own

children, in the form of a better prepared

workforce, a more productive economy,

and a more creative people. 

The time to find out what you can do and

to whom you should speak is now. Go to

the meetings; get involved. Only when

those who sit in the seat of power

understand the public’s priorities can they

act in the citizens’ interest. And only 

you can declare that interest. 

This Commission has done what it can

do. It has studied the problem and it here

offers the American people three goals. 

We believe they can be achieved, and we

have offered ideas on how. Whether they

are achieved is still to be decided. We

know that it is not enough to call for

change. In a democracy, the people create

real change, not commissions. 

As the Chinese proverb says, the time to

plant the tree is now—before it’s too late.

37
38

What Can You Do?

Every American has a stake in mathematics and science teaching for the 21st Century. Parents,teachers,

administrators,school board members, higher education institutions,state political leaders, and business leaders

have particularly critical roles to play in ensuring success. To improve student achievement in mathematics and

science, everyone involved must first ask themselves several hard questions and then must take action.

The Commission targeted the seven stakeholder groups below. For each group,several questions are posed to direct

attention to critical issues. A checklist of important steps is then provided to define a comprehensive plan for raising

K-12 mathematics and science student achievement in states, districts and schools.

❑ Develop a common vision, with input from the

community, for promoting a high level of student

achievement in mathematics and science.

❑ Use accurate data to develop policies that will

improve mathematics and science teaching.

❑ Commit funding to ensure that all mathematics

and science teachers have ongoing collaborative

opportunities to improve their skills and

knowledge.

❑ Set a target date for hiring only fully certified

teachers of mathematics and science and put in

place the policies and programs necessary to

meet the target.

❑ Aggressively recruit high-quality mathematics and

science teachers from a nationwide pool,

including those certified through alternative

pathways (e.g., by offering signing bonuses or

giving salary credit for all previous experience).

❑ Provide competitive salaries to attract and retain

the best-qualified mathematics and science

teachers.

❑ Establish induction programs to ensure that new

mathematics and science teachers receive the

support necessary to be effective.

❑ Develop mathematics and science teacher leaders

who facilitate the continuous learning of their

colleagues.

❑ Provide administrators and teachers with

electronic and other forms of access to an everexpanding knowledge base about mathematics

and science teaching.

School Board and Superintendent Team

■ Do your district's mathematics and science achievement levels compare favorably to achievement 

levels in neighboring districts, states and other countries?

■ How many individuals assigned to teach mathematics and science in your district have a major 

or minor in these fields?

■ Does your district teacher salary schedule compare favorably to that of neighboring districts?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:
❑ Actively seek new knowledge about teaching in your

discipline, work with your peers on a continuing basis

to improve your skills, and take full advantage of the

professional development opportunities offered by

your district and state.

❑ Actively work to improve your knowledge and skills

to incorporate educational technology into your

learning and teaching.

❑ Communicate to parents the specific standards that

students are to meet at each grade level and update

parents on their child's progress in meeting these

standards.

❑ Regularly work with colleagues to compare the

achievement level of your students against the

standards in your district and state, identify areas 

for improvement, set goals, and make plans for

achieving these goals.

❑ Actively share your knowledge and experience 

with new teachers.

Teachers

■ Are your student's mathematics and science achievement levels on state and classroom assessments 

at an acceptably high level? 

■ Are you actively seeking to deepen your content knowledge?

■ Are you actively seeking to learn new teaching methods for diverse student learners?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:

❑ Provide your teachers with significant professional

development opportunities to improve their

teaching year-round including in-depth study

through Inquiry Groups with peers, mentors and

outside experts and through Summer Institutes.

❑ Ensure that teachers and other school staff have

electronic and other forms of access to the everexpanding knowledge base about mathematics

and science teaching.

❑ Ensure that new mathematics and science teachers

have frequent interaction with mentor teachers,

participate in Inquiry Groups, and have reasonable

teaching loads.

❑ Should you have no option but to assign an out-offield teacher, be certain that a mentor and other

ongoing support is available.

❑ Ensure that opportunities to pursue careers in

mathematics and science teaching are emphasized

for students in your school.

Principals

■ Are you satisfied that the science and mathematics preparation that your students receive is adequate 

preparation for the next level of schooling? 

■ Are the new teachers that you hire adequately prepared?

■ Are your teachers provided with sufficient time to work together to improve teaching and student learning?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:

39
40

Parents

■ Do the mathematics and science achievement levels at your child’s school compare favorably 

to achievement levels in neighboring schools?

■ Do your child's teachers have the necessary background to teach the courses to which they are assigned?

■ How does the teacher salary schedule in your school district compare to that of neighboring districts?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:

❑ Learn about the mathematics and science

standards that children are required to meet in

your state and get a clear picture of how well your

child's school is doing in meeting these standards.

❑ Support the principal's efforts at your child's school

to hire well-qualified teachers and to provide them

with opportunities to continually improve 

their skills.

❑ Support increased funding for programs that

support quality mathematics and science teaching.

❑ Identify the critical professional development needs of

the individuals teaching mathematics and science

through a district-by-district assessment.

❑ Develop policies and dedicate funding, based on

identified needs, to upgrade content knowledge and

improve the skills for all those teaching mathematics

and science, K-12.

❑ Establish and implement a professional development

model that addresses the specific needs of

mathematics and science teachers and their students

through Summer Institutes and Inquiry Groups.

❑ Establish and enforce high standards for 

mathematics and science teachers for initial 

and continuing certification.

❑ Develop career-long incentives and rewards for

effective mathematics and science teachers that

encourage them to remain in teaching and to

continually upgrade their skills.

❑ Establish alternative pathways to teacher 

certification that encourage recent college graduates

and people with degrees in mathematics and science

to pursue teaching.

State Leadership

■ Do your state’s mathematics and science achievement levels compare favorably to achievement 

levels in neighboring states?

■ How many out-of-field teachers are assigned to teach mathematics and science across your state?

■ How do certification requirements for K-12 mathematics and science teachers in your state compare 

to those of neighboring states and national standards?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:
41

What Can You Do?

❑ Work to increase the supply and quality of incoming

mathematics and science teachers by advocating 

for policies, programs and investments that will 

make the teaching profession a more attractive

career option.

❑ "Lend" qualified employees to act as part- or full-time

teachers in local schools, without incurring loss of

pay or benefits.

❑ Actively participate in reward and incentive

programs that recognize excellence in mathematics

and science teaching in local schools as measured by

improved student achievement.

❑ Provide support for National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards certification.

❑ Make regular contributions of time, materials 

and resources to enhance instruction in 

mathematics and science education in local schools.

Business

■ Does your business encourage its employees to work as advocates in the schools, with the goal 

of achieving high-quality mathematics and science education?

■ Do your corporate philanthropic priorities help students and educators meet higher standards 

in mathematics and science?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:

❑ Work closely with area schools to identify existing

and future needs for highly qualified K-12

mathematics and science teachers.

❑ Ensure that your program meets criteria for

exemplary math and science teacher preparation

and actively contribute to the knowledge base in

support of these criteria.

❑ Collaborate with area school districts to ensure a

quality induction process for new mathematics and

science teachers.

❑ Emphasize recruitment strategies and provide

incentives for eligible students to become science

and mathematics teachers.

❑ Evaluate and track teacher performance following

graduation and use this information to improve 

your mathematics and science teacher preparation

programs.

Higher Education Institutions

■ How do your graduates perform as mathematics and science teachers after graduation? How does their 

performance compare to those from other programs?

■ What portion of your mathematics and science education graduates teach and for how long?

■ Do your graduates report that your program prepared them for successful teaching? Are schools 

that hire your graduates satisfied with the quality of their instruction?

If your answers to any of these questions are at all disquieting, the following checklist can inform efforts 

to promote higher student achievement:
1 There are 56 units nationwide -- states, territories and Washington, D.C.

2 Current authorizing legislation for the Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants (ESEA,IIB) 

requires that each participating Local Education Agency match every two dollars of federal funding 

with one dollar of its own resources. Such local resources can come from other federal programs 

or from non-federal sources. The same ratio is used here for those Strategies in which it is 

most appropriate.

3 First year, one time cost.

4 First year, one time cost for 15,000 leaders.

5 One-fifth of the math/science teaching force (340,000 per year)

6 All K-12 math/science teachers (1.7 million)

7 Scholarships offered (1,500/year)

8 Loans offered (6,000/year)

9 Stipends and operating expenses (3,000 Fellow/year)

10 Beginning in second year, an additional $30,000,000 needed for induction programs

Prepared by the U.S. Department of Education Budget Office

Estimate of Costs in First Year 

Action Strategy Federal State/Local1Business Public/Private

Goal 1 Needs Assessment2,3 $15,340,000 $7,660,000

Summer Institutes2,5 $1,214,000,000 $606,060,000

Inquiry Groups2,6 $1,574,950,000 $786,300,000

Leadership Training4 $112,000,000

Internet Portal $50,000,000

Coordinating Council $4,000,000

Rewards Program $500,000,000

Goal 2 Scholarships (Exemplary Models)7 $18,000,000

Loan Forgiveness8 $36,000,000

Academies/Fellows9,10 $120,000,000

Goal 3 Induction/Partnerships/Incentives/Salaries To be determined locally

Sub Total: $3,140,290,000 $1,400,020,000 $500,000,000 $4,000,000

Total: $5,044,310,000

September 2000

2
43

Endnotes 1

Report of the National Education Goals Panel, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1989. 

2

T. Husen, International Study of Student Achievement in Mathematics, New York: Wiley, 1967, and C. C. McKnight, et al., The

Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School Mathematics from an International Perspective, Champaign, Ill.: Stipes, 1987, as

cited in James W. Stigler and James Hiebert, The Teaching Gap, New York: The Free Press, 1999, p. 5. 

3

David Kearns and James Harvey, A Legacy of Learning, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000, pp. 29-30. In

general science, American fourth-grade students ranked third among 26 nations; by eighth grade they were seventeenth among

41 nations; and by twelfth grade they were tied for eighteenth among 20 nations. In general, the mathematics pattern is

similar. American students were twelfth among 26 nations in fourth grade, twenty-eighth among 41 nations in eighth grade;

and twelfth-graders were tied for eighteenth among 20 nations. (Students were not assessed from the same number of nations

in all grades.) See also the U.S. Department of Education, National Digest of Education Statistics, 1999, Washington, D.C.:

National Center for Education Statistics, 1999.

4

Kearns and Harvey, op. cit., p. 27. 

5

Although recent news about the rise in the average mathematics score on the SAT and the corresponding broadening of the

student population taking the test is welcome, U.S. students remain behind the average performance level in mathematics

attained more than 30 years ago. See The Washington Post, August 31, 2000, p. 1.

6

Under Title I legislation that becomes effective in the spring of 2001, states are required to annually disseminate information,

school by school, on student performance in reading and math. Anticipating the requirement, all but two states are currently

posting at least some mathematics assessment data on the State Education Agency’s (SEA) Web site; 35 states provide

assessment data by specific grade levels and 32 states report mathematics proficiency levels. In science, reporting is spottier.

Thirty-one states report assessment data; 21 states provide science assessment data by specific grade levels; but only 16 states

report science proficiency levels. For parents, SEA Web addresses can be readily obtained with a phone call to their local school

district. Information on state assessment data provided by Westat, Inc., unpublished tabulations compiled from SEA 

Web sites, Rockville, Md., Sept. 8, 2000.

7

The Wall Street Journal, “Technology Spurs Economic Expansion,” January 31, 2000.

8

U.S. Department of Labor, “20 Million Jobs: January 1993-November 1999,” A Report by the Council of Economic Advisers

and the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, December 3, 1999, downloaded from

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/public/media/reports/20mill/main.htm, March 13, 2000, as cited in Milton Goldberg and Susan L.

Traiman, “Why Business Backs Education Standards,” in Diane Ravitch, ed., Brookings Papers on Education Policy, Washington,

D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2000 (forthcoming).

9

Ibid.

10Ibid.

11Workforce Economics, National Alliance of Business, Occasional Report, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 9-11.

12Ibid., p. 10.

13Philip R. Day and Robert H. McCabe, “Remedial Education: A Social and Economic Imperative,” AACC Issue Paper,

Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges, 1997.

14Interview with Robert Gardner, Director of Public Relations, Association for Manufacturing Technology, June 20, 2000, as

cited in Goldberg and Traiman, loc. cit. 

15Training Magazine, Annual Report, Minneapolis: Bil Communications, Vol. 36, No. 10 (1999), downloaded from

http://www.trainingsupersite.com.

16Interview with Richard W. Judy, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, April 19, 2000, as cited in Goldberg and Traiman, loc. cit.

17The vision of high-quality teaching in K–12 mathematics and science is expanded on and operationally defined in three

reports that are currently guiding standards-based science and mathematics education: (1) American Association for the

Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; (2) National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, Va: NCTM, 2000; and (3) National Research

Council, National Science Education Standards, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
18National Research Council, How Young People Learn, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

19Higher Education Research Institute, The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall, 1998, Los Angeles: University of

California at Los Angeles, 1999. 

20Linda Darling-Hammond, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future, New York: National Commission on Teaching and

America’s Future, 1996, Executive Summary.

21Linda Darling-Hammond, “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence,” Teaching Quality

Policy Briefs, Number 2 (December, 1999), Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Teaching, downloaded from

http://www.depts.washington/edu/ctpmail.

22Linda Darling-Hammond, Supply, Demand, and Quality in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Briefing for the National

Commission on Mathematics and Science Education for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C., September, 1999. 

23National Research Council, Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium,

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.

24Examples of two states that have produced impressive results by focusing on better teaching are Texas and North Carolina.

In Texas, a study of grades 1–11 found that teachers’ subject-matter expertise accounted for 40% of the difference on

achievement tests. Disparities between white and minority students were almost entirely accounted for by the qualifications of

their teachers. In North Carolina, students entered the 1990s near the bottom of the NAEP rankings in mathematics. After

the State boosted minimum salaries, used scholarship programs to recruit more able students to teaching, invested in better

teacher education curricula, created professional development academies, instituted mentoring programs for entering teachers,

and created incentives for teachers to be certified by the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, North Carolina

students now score well above the NAEP averages. See “Who Should Teach?” Education Week, January 13, 2000. 

25Linda Darling-Hammond, “Supply, Demand, and Quality in Mathematics and Science Teaching.”

26Ibid.

27Ibid.

28Richard M. Ingersoll, “Turnover Among Mathematics and Science Teachers in the U.S.,” Study Paper prepared for the

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C., September, 1999; and

Urban Teacher Collaborative, The Urban Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand and Supply in the Great City Schools, Washington,

D.C.: Council of Great City Schools, January, 2000.

29Steve Olson, “Candid Camera,” TEACHER MAGAZINE on the WEB, May/June, 1999. Videotape, “Eighth-Grade Mathematics

Lessons: United States, Japan, and Germany,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1999, produced by 

Nanette Seago.

30James W. Stigler, Briefing for the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century,

Washington, D.C., September, 1999, pp. 23 and 19 of the transcript.

31Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Indicators of Science

and Mathematics Education, 1995, Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, 1996.

32National Science Teachers Association Reports, “Survey Indicates High Teacher Turnover, Job Dissatisfaction,” Arlington, Va.:

National Science Teachers Association, 2000, downloaded from http://www.nsta.org/reports/00jun2.asp.

33The Urban Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand in the Great City Schools, 2000, Washington, D.C.: Council of Great City Schools,

2000, pp. 9-11. 

34Estimates based on projected fall 1999 counts of teachers and proportions from the U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993-94; and Fast Response Survey, “Teacher Survey on

Professional Development and Training.”

35National Research Council, op. cit.

44
45

Endnotes

36Emily C. Feistritzer and David T. Chester. Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 1998-99. Washington,

D.C.: National Center for Education Information, p. 6, downloaded from http://www.ncei.com/Alt-Teacher-Cert.htm.

Alternative routes for preparing and licensing science and mathematics teachers provide ways to attract large numbers of

highly educated and life-experienced adults who have the talent and enthusiasm to teach.

37Susan Sclafani, “Comparisons of Alternative Certification Program, Teach for America, and Certified Teachers in the

Houston Independent School District,” Briefing for the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the

21st Century, Washington, D.C., May, 2000. The Houston Independent School district has found that the students of teachers

certified through the Alternative Certification Program performed just as well as, or better than, students of teachers trained

through traditional teacher preparation programs. Also, the retention rate of the alternatively certified teachers five years

later was significantly higher.

38James W. Stigler and James Hiebert, The Teaching Gap, New York: The Free Press, 1999, pp. 170-71.

39Richard M. Ingersoll, loc. cit., p.5.

40Ibid., Figure 4, p.7. 

41Ibid., Table 1, p.6.

42Ibid.

43The Commission recognizes that the action steps recommended here could—and should—be made for all teachers, not just

teachers of mathematics and science. But the need for improving the professional environment of mathematics and science

teachers is particularly acute because of their shortage, and because of the salaries degree holders in these fields can command

in the private sector.

44Adam Urbanski and Roger Erskine, “School Reform, TURN, and Teacher Compensation,” Phi Delta Kappan, January, 2000,

pp. 367-70. The Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN), composed of local school districts and the local affiliates of the AFT

and the NEA, is a labor/management collaboration that rewards teachers who obtain certification by the National Board of

Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Participating teachers receive support for NBPTS fees or are granted special

standing as mentors or lead teachers. Nine TURN locals provide bonuses, salary supplements for certification, or additional

pay for teachers who act as mentors. In addition, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education has identified 15 States

and 20 districts that offer financial rewards to teachers who obtain NBPTS certification. Teachers are generally provided with

one-time rewards ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, and annual salary supplements ranging from $500 to $10,000 per year or

from 1% to 12% of their base salary per year (see http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/teachercomp/reform/nbtpspay.thm).

45Steven Greenhouse, “Teachers’ Pay: Adding Up the Impact of Raising Salaries,” The New York Times, August 9, 1999.

46Ann Bradley, “High Tech Fields Luring Teachers from Education,” Education Week, January 19, 2000. Indeed, the average

annual teacher salary is only “a fraction of the annual bonus received by many thirty-somethings on Wall Street.”

Greenhouse, loc. cit. 
46

AUTHORITY

The National Commission on Mathematics and Science

Teaching for the 21st Century, (Commission) is established

by the Secretary of Education and is governed by the

provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

(P. L. 92-463, as amended; 5 U.S.C.A. Appendix 2).

PURPOSE AND FUNCTIONS

The Office of the Under Secretary serves as the principal

advisor to the Secretary by directing, coordinating, and

recommending Department policy. Therefore, the

Commission has been established in this office for the

purpose of: (1) reviewing the current state of American K12 mathematics and science education with a focus on the

challenges of teacher recruitment, preparation, retention,

and professional growth and (2) articulating the steps

needed to strengthen the classroom practice of math and

science teachers. The Commission would produce a report

describing specific action steps that federal, state, and local

policymakers can take to address math and science teacher

supply and quality issues.

STRUCTURE

The Commission will be composed of not more than

twenty-five members. Members shall be appointed from,

but not limited to, the following groups: current or recent

members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, State

Legislators, Chief State School Officers, Nobel laureates,

CEOs, teachers, University presidents, principals, parents,

students, public representatives, and other distinguished

leaders in the fields of mathematics and science. Ex officio,

non-voting members, of the Commission, include the

Secretary of Education or his designee, the Secretary of

Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of

Transportation, the NASA Administrator, the Director of

the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Director of

the National Science Foundation, and the President of the

National Academy of Sciences.

Members shall be appointed by the Secretary for the

duration of the Commission. Any vacancy in the

Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in

the same manner as the original appointment. The

Secretary shall designate a member of the Commission to

serve as the chairperson.

The Under Secretary names the Designated Federal

Official (DFO) to the Commission.

MEETINGS

The Commission shall meet at the call of the

Chairperson, with the concurrence of the Designated

Federal Official or designee who is present at all

meetings. The Commission shall meet at least four

times, or more frequently, as may be necessary to carry

out the Commission’s responsibilities. Meetings are

open to the public except as may be determined

otherwise by the Under Secretary in accordance with

Section 10(d) of the FACA. Adequate public notification

will be given in advance of each meeting. Meetings will

be conducted and records of the proceedings kept, as

required by applicable laws.

A quorum of the Commission consists of a majority of

the authorized members. 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST

Members will serve without compensation. However,

members may each receive reimbursement for travel

expenses incident to attending Commission meetings,

including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by

the Federal travel regulations. Funds will be provided by

the Department of Education to administer the

Commission. The estimated annual person-years of staff

support is: two (2) FTE. An estimated budget of $800,000

over two fiscal years has been allotted for this Commission.

REPORTS

Not later than September 30, 2000, the Commission shall

submit a report to the Secretary that contains a detailed

statement of the findings and conclusions resulting 

from the study, together with the Commission’s

recommendations. The Secretary will then submit the

report to the President and Congress together with the

recommendations of the Commission.

TERMINATION

The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on

which the Commission submits its report to the Secretary.

The Commission is hereby chartered in accordance with

Section 14(b) of FACA. This charter expires two years from

the date of filing.

APPROVED:

August 12, 1999

Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education

Establishment date: March 23, 1999

Filing date: April 6, 1999

Charter
The Commission wishes to express its deep gratitude to the many individuals and

organizations without whose work our own labors would have been far more difficult 

and far less productive. 

We owe, first, an enduring debt to the Commission staff. Under the able leadership of

Executive Director Linda P. Rosen, they worked long hours to organize and manage our

several meetings, keep the flow of communication moving, prepare extensive and

invaluable briefing books, handle travel and logistical arrangements, and attend faithfully

to the myriad details that are never noticed because they are never left undone. Beyond

all these very necessary tasks, however, the staff ably contributed in substantive ways to

our discussions and our final report. Thanks are due to John M. Luczak, Nancy

Hawthorne Mumaw, Jamila A. Rattler, Jan Solomon, Rebekah Song, and Emmett L.

Wright for their excellent work.

Bruce O. Boston of Wordsmith, Inc., served as the eloquent writer/editor of Before It’s

Too Late, building on earlier substantive work by Steve Olson and Amy Kaslow. 

RCW Communications Design, Inc., created the report’s layout and design and ably

guided it through the production process.

A number of individuals provided support to the members and ex officio members of the

Commission, attending meetings in their stead when necessary and contributing to the

Commission’s discussions. Our thanks are due them for helping to keep lines of

communication open. They were: V.J. Ajarwal, Arthur Bienenstock, Brian Branton, Laura

Chow, Kelley S. Coyner, Kate Dickens, Carlene Ellis, Peter Faletra, Karen Garr, Alice Gill,

Ken Griffin, Susan Hattan, Kathy Havens, Jay Labov, Frank Owens, Danica Petroshius,

Joan Rothenberg, Richard Stoddard, Lisa Towne, and Judith Sunley. Also deserving

thanks are Edward T. Esty and Judy Wurtzel, whose advice and counsel were of great

assistance. And, the extra hands offered by Anthony Ashton, Seth Fenton, and Wendy

Goldstein were invaluable in expediting the work.

The Commission’s deliberations were greatly informed by the wisdom of many experts.

These stimulating views were shared with us through commissioned papers and

presentations. Commissioned paper authors included Richard Ingersoll; Edward Britton,

Senta Raizen, Lynn Paine, and Mary Ann Huntley; Beatriz Chu Clewell and Laurie B.

Forcier; as well as Brian Lord and Barbara Miller. Presenters included Dennis Bartels,

Barnett Berry, Barbara Blumenthal, Barbara Cervone, Cindy Chapman, Susan Collins,

Linda Darling-Hammond, Richard Elmore, William Firestone, Thomas Gillett, Gary Hart,

Janice Jackson, Carolyn Kelley, Michael Lach, Donald Langenberg, Michal Lomask, Susan

Loucks-Horsley, Iris Metts, Tom Payzant, Susan Sclafani, Nanette Seago, Gail Shroyer,

Elliot Solloway, James W. Stigler, Uri Treisman, John Vaille, and Suzanne Wilson.

Finally, our thanks are due to Battelle, the Disney Learning Partnership, and Texas

Instruments, who provided considerable support to the Commission’s work; and Jennifer

House and Lillian Israel of the Association for Computing Machinery for organizing an

engaging and informative demonstration of learning technology for us. 

Acknowledgments 

47
September 2000

The text of this document is in the public domain. Feel free to

photocopy or reprint this document.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Fax: 301-470-1244

E-mail: edpubs@inet.ed.gov

You may also order toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS).

If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-

5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 

1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:

www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

This report is also available on the Commission's Web site at:

www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats,

such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For

more information, please contact the Department's Alternate

Format Center at 202-205-8113.

For more information, please contact us at:

U.S. Department of Education

The National Commission on Mathematics and Science 

Teaching for the 21st Century

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20202-8200

E-mail: america_counts@ed.gov

Telephone: 1-877-220-9684

NOTICE:

This document contains examples of programs created by public

and private organizations. They are provided for the reader's

information and their inclusion is not intended as an

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education.