Separate Measures Are Aimed At Boosting Competitiveness
The omnibus bills include efforts to increase the content knowledge of prospective math and science teachers, provide professional development for teachers in those subjects, and define what students should know to do well in college and the workplace in all subjects.
鈥淲e can only succeed in the international global economy if we are competitive and if we innovate,鈥� Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during the House鈥檚 debate on the three bills that made up its competitiveness package. 鈥淲e cannot innovate without the investment in education, the investment in science and technology.鈥�
As part of that package, the House on April 24 approved the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act by a vote of 389-22. The House also approved a science and technology bill that day, and a bill to provide loans to small technology businesses the next day. Both those bills passed by large margins.
The Senate passed its bill, 88-8, on April 25.
鈥淭he American Competes Act is the best way to keep more of the jobs of the 21st century right here in America and the best way to ensure that our children have the skills to keep America at the forefront of innovations and discovery,鈥� Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate minority leader.
A White House statement expressed concern about the number of new programs proposed in the Senate bill, but it did not threaten a veto. The two chambers鈥� bills would have to be reconciled before Congress could send a measure to President Bush.
Supporters of the bill said that the Senate took a comprehensive approach to solving the problem because the stakes are high.
鈥淲e are at risk of losing our brainpower advantage,鈥� Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a co-author of the bill, said. 鈥淚f we lose our brainpower advantage, we lose 鈥� our standard of living.鈥�
鈥淔ederal investment in the basic sciences and research has long been a critical component of America鈥檚 competitive dominance globally,鈥� said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Last week鈥檚 action followed more than two years of bipartisan work in both houses that responded to a 2005 report from a panel of business leaders convened by the National Academies. In 鈥淩ising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,鈥� the panel warned that the United States鈥� economy would suffer if it failed to improve the scientific and technological skills of its workforce. (鈥淧anel Urges U.S. Push to Raise Math, Science Achievement,鈥� Oct. 19, 2005.)
In the K-12 section of that report, the business leaders set goals of recruiting 10,000 of the nation鈥檚 best college students to teach mathematics and science; improving the math and science skills of the 250,000 teachers already teaching those subjects; and doubling the number of students taking Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses.
Congress鈥� attempt to address the K-12 goals, as well as the broader scientific and technological issues addressed in the report, faltered last year. While the bills passed last week by the House and the Senate share many goals, they take different approaches to meeting them.
The Senate bill would establish several new programs in various federal agencies, while the House legislation focuses more on expanding existing programs, mostly within the National Science Foundation.
Both the House and the Senate bills would do more to attract new teachers to the profession and provide more in-service training to veteran educators who need to improve their expertise in various science subjects, said Gerald F. Wheeler, the executive director of the 56,000-member National Science Teachers Association.
10,000 New Teachers
The House bill sets a goal of luring 10,000 new math and science teachers annually. One mechanism for doing so is an expansion of the existing Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, administered by the NSF, which provides $10,000 annual scholarships to college students who agree to become math and science teachers.
The bill would increase the number of years of scholarship funding students could receive from two to three years. Students would be expected to teach for up to six years to receive that maximum funding, but could reduce the commitment by agreeing to work in 鈥渉igh need鈥� schools. Scholarships would be converted to loans for awardees who did not fulfill teaching commitments. The Noyce program awards funding to colleges and universities, which then select students for scholarships, according to an description from the NSF.
The increased monetary incentives would at least offer a carrot for students considering other, better-paying math- and science-related jobs, Mr. Wheeler said.
鈥淲e have a hard time competing with corporate America, but this will help get the attention of [prospective] teachers,鈥� he said.
Mr. Wheeler also supports a provision in the House bill that would provide competitive financial awards to establish stronger links between universities鈥� academic departments in math and science and their teacher-training programs. Many math and science experts say too few students majoring in those subjects consider becoming teachers; too few aspiring teachers, meanwhile, take advantage of strong academic courses offered by math and science departments.
鈥淣owhere do those two conversations come together,鈥� Mr. Wheeler said.
Some postsecondary institutions, however, such as the UTeach program at the University of Texas at Austin, have drawn praise from federal officials for bridging the faculty divide and producing math and science teachers with strong content knowledge. Mr. Wheeler believes the House legislation would allow more universities to make similar efforts.
Both chambers鈥� bills would establish new programs to encourage math and science teachers to pursue master鈥檚 degrees in those subjects, with the idea that advanced training would provide them with greater subject-matter expertise.
The Senate bill would create competitive grants for states to ensure their standards are linked to higher education and workforce skills.
In an April 23 statement, White House officials voiced numerous concerns about the Senate competitiveness proposal鈥攑articularly its creation of new programs at the U.S. departments of Commerce and Energy and at the NSF.
Administration officials estimate that the Senate bill would cost $61 billion over four years, which they say is $9 billion more than the four-year price tag for President Bush鈥檚 proposed American Competitiveness Initiative, also aimed at improving math and science education.
Scot Montrey, a spokesman for Sen. Alexander, put the legislation鈥檚 cost at $60 billion, but said the measure included only $16 billion in spending on new programs.
The Senate bill 鈥渆xpands many existing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs that have not been proven effective and creates new STEM education programs that overlap with existing federal programs,鈥� the White House said in the statement.
A soon-to-be-released, congressionally mandated report, part of a review being led by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, will show that many federal math and science programs in teacher training and other areas have failed to produce results, the White House said.
鈥楬ard Part鈥� Ahead
The bills passed last week would create the new programs. The next big step, assuming a final version of the legislation is signed into law, would be for Congress to pass appropriations bills to pay for them.
With the budget for domestic spending austere, Congress will struggle to find the money to support the programs that eventually emerge in the competitiveness bill, Sen. McConnell said.
鈥淭he hard part, obviously, is going to be providing the funds to carry out the programs in this bill to meet these authorization targets we have set,鈥� he said.
Still, advocates for the advancement of science and technology lauded Congress鈥� action as a good first step in addressing the needs in their fields.
鈥淭hese bills are the best possible start to addressing the competitiveness challenge,鈥� said James Brown, a co-chairman of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Coalition, a Washington-based advocacy group. 鈥淚t鈥檚 an excellent deal, when you consider all the constraints out there.鈥�
