Post by gatordog on Dec 13, 2010 11:34:35 GMT -5
some commentary on recently released survey reports. From www.laboratoryequipment.com/blog-average-isnt-good-enough-121310.aspx?et_cid=839182&et_rid=54651529&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fblog-average-isnt-good-enough-121310.aspx
Average Isn't Good Enough
December 13, 2010
Tim Studt
Editor in Chief
Two related reports were issued last week that point to the state of the U.S. educational system and its effects on the future competitiveness of the U.S. The first report was the OECD's 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that ranks the reading, math, and science capabilities of students in the OECD's 34 member countries and 41 partner countries. The second report is the ITIF's (International Technology & Innovation Foundation's) “Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
The 2009 PISA report is the fourth edition in this series of reports (2001, 2003, 2006, and 2009) and ranks the U.S. 7 points above the OECD average in reading, 9 points below the OECD average in math, and 1 point above the OECD average in science. For comparison, Shanghai is 63 points above the OECD average in reading, 104 points above in math, and 74 points above in science. Korea is similarly 46 points above in reading, 50 points above in math, and 37 points above in science. Finland is 43 points above in reading, 45 points above in math, and 53 points above in science. The U.S. ranks 17th overall and its reading scores actually fell by 5 points since the first 2001 report—math and science had small 1- and 4-point gains. (The biggest change over the 2001-to-2009 report scores was +20 points by Qatar in reading).
An interesting statistic is that only Luxembourg spends more per student—the U.S. spends about $100,000/student from age 6 to 15, meaning that 16 countries spend less per student than the U.S. does and get better PISA results from their spending (Luxembourg is 38th in the overall reading rankings).
In the other report, the ITIF states that it's time for a new approach to STEM education. While the best universities for key industries like computer science and electrical engineering are in the U.S., we're still not able to produce enough STEM workers. As the report states, creating more STEM students provides the fuel needed to power an S&T-driven U.S. economy. This report states that instead of having a “some STEM for all” paradigm, they propose changing it to a “all STEM for some” strategy. This approach would actively recruit those students who are most interested in and capable of doing well in STEM and providing them with the educational experience they need to succeed and to grow the U.S. innovation economy.
So, what's the practical take on both of these reports? In the OECD report, we find that the emerging nations are currently educating their children to a much higher level than that in the U.S. and that those levels haven't seemed to change much over decade-long intervals. In the ITIF report, the educational system would help create more STEM-savvy students. Unfortunately, even if the ITIF proposal was the only one out there and if it got government support, it would take a relatively long time to successfully implement (10 plus years).
So are we destined to see more of the same in the future...ever increasing gaps between the educational capabilities of emerging nations and our advanced economies? According to the data and proposals made by these reports, I would say yes for at least another decade. Some advances are being made, but they're still on a scale far less than that of those emerging economies and those economies have a head start on changing their educational infrastructures. The U.S. has a strong university infrastructure and competition from foreign academia generally serves to infuse innovative changes in U.S. academia.
The COMPETES act for doubling the NSF, NIST, and DOE Office of Science R&D budgets would help to build the U.S.'s physical science infrastructure in the same way that the life science infrastructure was enhanced ten years ago with the NIH budget doubling program. This would be the best short-term fix for enhancing innovation. But some reasonable large-scale program still needs to be created that will enhance the pre-college educational infrastructure to fix and enhance the U.S.'s long-term. The only organization capable of doing that is the federal government and that doesn't appear to be on their agenda right now.
Average Isn't Good Enough
December 13, 2010
Tim Studt
Editor in Chief
Two related reports were issued last week that point to the state of the U.S. educational system and its effects on the future competitiveness of the U.S. The first report was the OECD's 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that ranks the reading, math, and science capabilities of students in the OECD's 34 member countries and 41 partner countries. The second report is the ITIF's (International Technology & Innovation Foundation's) “Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
The 2009 PISA report is the fourth edition in this series of reports (2001, 2003, 2006, and 2009) and ranks the U.S. 7 points above the OECD average in reading, 9 points below the OECD average in math, and 1 point above the OECD average in science. For comparison, Shanghai is 63 points above the OECD average in reading, 104 points above in math, and 74 points above in science. Korea is similarly 46 points above in reading, 50 points above in math, and 37 points above in science. Finland is 43 points above in reading, 45 points above in math, and 53 points above in science. The U.S. ranks 17th overall and its reading scores actually fell by 5 points since the first 2001 report—math and science had small 1- and 4-point gains. (The biggest change over the 2001-to-2009 report scores was +20 points by Qatar in reading).
An interesting statistic is that only Luxembourg spends more per student—the U.S. spends about $100,000/student from age 6 to 15, meaning that 16 countries spend less per student than the U.S. does and get better PISA results from their spending (Luxembourg is 38th in the overall reading rankings).
In the other report, the ITIF states that it's time for a new approach to STEM education. While the best universities for key industries like computer science and electrical engineering are in the U.S., we're still not able to produce enough STEM workers. As the report states, creating more STEM students provides the fuel needed to power an S&T-driven U.S. economy. This report states that instead of having a “some STEM for all” paradigm, they propose changing it to a “all STEM for some” strategy. This approach would actively recruit those students who are most interested in and capable of doing well in STEM and providing them with the educational experience they need to succeed and to grow the U.S. innovation economy.
So, what's the practical take on both of these reports? In the OECD report, we find that the emerging nations are currently educating their children to a much higher level than that in the U.S. and that those levels haven't seemed to change much over decade-long intervals. In the ITIF report, the educational system would help create more STEM-savvy students. Unfortunately, even if the ITIF proposal was the only one out there and if it got government support, it would take a relatively long time to successfully implement (10 plus years).
So are we destined to see more of the same in the future...ever increasing gaps between the educational capabilities of emerging nations and our advanced economies? According to the data and proposals made by these reports, I would say yes for at least another decade. Some advances are being made, but they're still on a scale far less than that of those emerging economies and those economies have a head start on changing their educational infrastructures. The U.S. has a strong university infrastructure and competition from foreign academia generally serves to infuse innovative changes in U.S. academia.
The COMPETES act for doubling the NSF, NIST, and DOE Office of Science R&D budgets would help to build the U.S.'s physical science infrastructure in the same way that the life science infrastructure was enhanced ten years ago with the NIH budget doubling program. This would be the best short-term fix for enhancing innovation. But some reasonable large-scale program still needs to be created that will enhance the pre-college educational infrastructure to fix and enhance the U.S.'s long-term. The only organization capable of doing that is the federal government and that doesn't appear to be on their agenda right now.
