One can certainly make the case, as many have, that China’s days as an economic powerhouse are numbered for several reasons. But there are a few indisputable facts that still remain, aside from China’s education prowess and achievements (especially as compared to our own): The Chinese economy is the second largest in the world, and as one economic respondent to the prognosticators of China’s collapse put it:
[W]hile China’s economy may slow to less than the 8-10 percent growth it normally averages, a real collapse, to growth rates of 2 percent or 3 percent, or less, is highly unlikely. For one, China’s state and private companies may be getting too easy credit from state banks, but that does not mean these businesses are actually unproductive, like some of the Thai and Indonesian companies caught up in the 1997 Asian finance crisis. The truly unproductive Chinese state-owned and state-linked enterprises were closed down more than a decade ago.…
Meanwhile:
Chinese companies alone, nearly all of them state-owned, occupied 73 of the top 500 slots in Fortune’s 2012 ranking of the largest companies in the world by sales. China’s score has steadily risen on the Global Competitiveness Index; the World Economic Forum’s ranking of nations’ international economic competitiveness. And several Chinese companies, such as Huawei, have come to dominate global markets like telecommunications.56
As of this writing, China’s economic growth rate has, indeed, slowed, to between 7.4 and 7.5 percent. The United States is stuck at about 2.8 percent growth, on average, over the past few years with very little prospect of the optimists’ hope that we reach an annual three percent growth by the end 2014.57 As for their education condition, education expert Chester E. Finn, Jr., said this after seeing China’s international rankings in reading, math, and science: “Wow, I’m kind of stunned.…I’ve seen how relentless the Chinese are at accomplishing goals, and if they can do this in Shanghai in 2009, they can do it in 10 cities in 2019, and in 50 cities by 2029.”58 In all my travels throughout America, and having visited hundreds of schools, I have never heard an American education official look at a successful system in America and say without a doubt that we can replicate such success in fifty cities (too often, I do hear reasons why isolated examples of success are not replicable). It is my proposal and theory, however, that we can replicate success. I certainly know we must.
With over $600 billion a year invested in public elementary and secondary education,59 Americans spend more than any other developed nation on its K-12 school students.60 But we are falling behind too many of those other nations—investing money in programs that add little or no value and not appropriately educating our youth. Why do other countries, particularly Asian countries in the STEM fields, continually beat us? The reasons are myriad…but, I’m convinced the solutions are not. I have the privilege to see how rigorous programs in STEM education can transform not only students’ minds, but our educational landscape as well—from theory to action. We just need to take what we know works to scale.
It is in the STEM fields where that need is most urgent. That is where the growth and opportunities are. It is also where our international counterparts are most seriously beating us. But do not just take my word for it. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow has pointed out that half the economic growth in America since World War II has come from advances in science and technology.61 Susan Hockfield, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), made two key points on this recently: Asking, “What can we do, together, to restart America’s job-creation machine?” she said,
I believe the answer lies in retooling the engine that has driven wave after wave of economic growth since the end of World War II: America’s innovation system.…Our innovation system comes to life from the spark of scientific discovery and invention — but the kind of innovation that drives real economic growth goes beyond a cool idea or an incremental improvement on an old practice or product. We’re driving for innovations that produce big new ideas, based in science or technology, that can be transformed into market-ready products. Innovations that can create new markets — sometimes even new industries — and that create a future different from, and better than, the present.62
She also warned us about our ability to deliver on those innovations: “If we want to make U.S. jobs, we can’t just make ideas here — we have to make the products here. Unfortunately, no amount of innovation will be enough if we ship all of our manufacturing abroad. America remains the world’s second-largest manufacturer, but with so many nations copying our innovation model, we must stake our bets on the kind of advanced manufacturing the future demands.”63 This statement, alone, haunts me as I digest all that has gone wrong with the city of Detroit, once known not only as the automobile manufacturing capital of the world but once even as the “Capital of the 20th Century.” Today it is, literally, bankrupt. I believe, however, if Detroit’s bankruptcy is to be overcome, it will be overcome by innovation and growth such as what GM has done to turn itself around from bankruptcy, and not simply because of government investment.64 In fact, speaking of his company’s resurgence, former GM CEO Dan Akerson responded to a congressional delegation, “no, we’re fine,” when asked if Washington should provide more help.65
Others, from industry, have weighed in on the importance of STEM as well. Fred Smith, the Founder and Chairman of FedEx has stated, “I personally think that the federal government—and you’re talking to a liberal arts major here—should restrict its funding of higher-education grants and loans to science, math, and engineering because that’s where most of the value added comes.”66 Rodney C. Adkins, a senior vice president at IBM has written, “When I graduated from college [circa 1978], about 40% of the world’s scientists and engineers resided in the U.S. Today that number has shrunk to about 15%.”67 Antonio Perez, chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak put it this way: “The American economy has always depended on innovation, and in a knowledge-based society, there can be no real innovation without an educational emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math. This is especially important to create a workforce that can succeed in today’s rapidly changing economy.”68
I could go on and on with a list of quotes along these lines. But, there is a reason dozens of corporate leaders in America, from companies as diverse as Chevron, Lockheed Martin, Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly, GE, and Facebook have formed Change the Equation, a “CEO-led initiative that is mobilizing the business community to improve the quality of science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning in the United States.”69 This is a critically important organization helping sound the clarion call and proposing solutions to our STEM education problems in America. Change the Equation, led by Linda Rosen, recently endorsed four high quality and nationally scalable organizations: Project Lead The Way, Gilstart Summer Camp, ST Math, and Ten80 Student Racing Challenge. We ignore its work at our peril. I encourage every reader of this book to check out its website.
But, for now, to highlight as simply as possible the economic challenge and opportunity we face with STEM education, let me go to a recent report from PCAST. The report is essential reading. “Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. education system drove much of our Nation’s economic growth and prosperity,” the Council states.70 Obvious enough. And if not obvious enough, it states what I have been trying to highlight in this chapter: “Despite our historical record of achievement, the United States now lags behind other nations in STEM education at the elementary and secondary levels. Over the past several decades, a variety of indicators have made clear that we are failing to educate many of our young people to compete in an increasingly high-tech global economy and to contribute to national goals.”71
STEM is where the growth is needed and STEM is where our economic growth is. As the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rebecca Blank, posited when she was working in the Department of Commerce, “STEM workers earn a premium of 25 percent over other workers and have only a 5.5 percent unemployment rate.”72 These numbers are backed up
by other reports, including a recent one by the National Governors’ Association, which further pointed out that while the 5.5 percent unemployment rate applied to STEM workers, it hit ten percent at the same time for non-STEM workers.73 In fact, the chances of one being unemployed in a STEM field are exceedingly rare as STEM job postings actually outnumber unemployed people.74
William Bennett and David Wilezol point out why this is; and while it may say something good about interest in some of the humanities and liberal arts fields, the basic realities of the economy tell a different tale: “Too many students gravitate toward majors in which they gain few skills or for which there is little workplace demand.”75 I will later go into some of the reasons why there is a crisis in our major fields of studies, but first it is worth pointing out that while total college enrollment has risen some fifty percent since 1985, in fields such as math and statistics the numbers have hardly moved, from 15,009 college graduates in those fields in 1985 to 15,496 in 2009.76 And in the fields of “microbiology, chemical engineering, and computer science, we graduated more students in those fields in 1985 than we do today.”77 Finally, more students graduate with college degrees in the visual and performing arts than in “computer science, math, and chemical engineering combined.”78 If paying off student debt, raising a family, or just supporting oneself is a concern of college students, this statistic should close the discussion: of the top twenty majors with the highest midcareer salaries, “all but one (economics) are STEM disciplines.”79 And I would include economics in the STEM category.
Let me provide some starker statistics to highlight the broken pipeline to the foregone possibilities, the missed American Dream if you will: Engineering degrees constitute about 4.7 percent of bachelors degrees awarded each year, and that is down from seven and eight percent in those fields two and three decades ago, which was already a pretty small percentage.80 Computer science degrees constitute less than three percent of bachelors degrees, never having risen above five percent in the last forty years.81 Biology? 3.7 percent.82 Chemistry? Less than one percent.83 Math? Just over one percent.84 But the fields of psychology, art and performance, and education each routinely more than double the percentages of computer science degrees we award each year. We graduate four hundred percent more art and performance students from college each year than we do computer scientists—and five hundred percent more art and performance students than math students.
Meanwhile, a closer look at STEM readiness and preparedness in our students and workforce shows what it can mean for the country’s growth as a whole.
The National Governors’ Association report makes a point worth quoting at length:
According to the Milken Institute’s Best-Performing Cities 2010, “A rich innovation pipeline plays a pivotal role in a region’s industrial development, commercialization, competitiveness, and ability to sustain long-term growth.” The STEM workforce is a powerful component of this innovation pipeline. STEM occupations employ individuals who create ideas and applications that become commercialized and yield additional jobs. STEM fields overwhelmingly dominate other fields in generating new patents, including those that enter the marketplace. For example, during 1998–2003, scientists and engineers (S&E) applied for nearly 10 times more patents and commercialized almost eight times more patents than applicants from all other fields.
STEM workers also contribute to the creation of innovation hubs—areas that usually include technology centers and research parks—that are important sources of economic activity. STEM workers are often found in high concentrations in these areas. In addition, research universities and other postsecondary institutions typically are nearby, providing new supplies of STEM graduates and opportunities for collaboration. Innovation hubs can spawn clusters of associated businesses and suppliers in both STEM and non-STEM fields while also rapidly growing jobs.85
And, as the U.S. Department of Commerce tells us, “The greatest advancements in our society from medicine to mechanics have come from the minds of those interested in or studied in the areas of STEM. Although still relatively small in number, the STEM workforce has an outsized impact on a nation’s competitiveness, economic growth, and overall standard of living.”86
What would raising our proficiency in math and science mean to the economy and growth of America? Various studies show a variety of results, but all reach the same conclusion: More growth. A lot more. According to a report by the National Governors’ Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc., “If the United States raised students’ math and science to globally competitive levels over the next two decades, its GDP would be an additional 36 percent higher 75 years from now.”87 More recently, McKinsey & Co. found that, “At the K–12 level, enhancing classroom instruction, turning around underperforming high schools, and introducing digital learning tools can boost student achievement. These initiatives could raise GDP by as much as $265 billion by 2020—and achieve a dramatic “liftoff” effect by 2030, adding as much as $1.7 trillion to annual GDP.” That is greater than our current national budget deficit. Add the concept of reforming our teacher workforce by just five to seven percent, and we have not only erased our budgetary concerns, we will put America back into budget surpluses.
I know the excuses – students in the United States are more creative, better problem-solvers than students from other nations who excel in rote learning and test-taking. So in 2012, PISA tested problem-solving for the first time. How did we do? We scored about average, still behind Korea, China, and other nations. Then there is the excuse that other countries are vastly different than ours, culturally and in a great many other ways. So, compare Canada. As Standford’s Eric Hanushek, Harvard’s Paul Peterson, and University of Munich’s Ludger Woessmann recently pointed out in their book Endangering Prosperity, while the United States falls below most industrialized countries in international comparisons of mathematics achievement and proficiency of its 15-year-olds, it is beaten handily by Canada which is ranked 10th in the world (the United States is ranked 32nd). But Canada is not that culturally different from the United States: “the two countries share a common language, a common heritage, and a common border.”88 As Hanushek points out elsewhere, “Canada also has an influx of immigrants; they have strong unions; it’s a federalist system.”89 But look at what it would mean for our economy if we could simply achieve what Canada achieves in its level of educational performance by 2025, giving us a little more than a decade to get there: “The average annual income of every worker in the United States over the next 80 years would be 20 percent higher.…the gains from a faster-growing economy over the lifetime of somebody born today would amount to five times our current GDP [some $77 trillion]…enough to resolve the projected U.S. debt crisis.”90
Let me explain some of this from a personal standpoint. I’m often asked why science, technology, engineering and math are the only words used to create the acronym, and when Project Lead The Way (PLTW), the STEM organization I am proud to lead, will change STEM to STEAM, STREAM or STEMM—incorporating art, reading or music into the acronym. This misses the fundamental point. Our societal, economic, and education problems are not anywhere near or about adding to acronyms, but instead adding to the relevancy of learning. Our solutions are about showing students how technical concepts relate to real-world situations and providing them with hands-on projects and problems that help them apply concepts in ever-new and changing contexts. It’s about nurturing students’ curiosity and helping them develop creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, and collaboration skills. STEM isn’t simply the subjects in the acronym. It’s an engaging and exciting way of teaching and learning. Or should be. And can be.
On a recent flight to a speaking engagement in California, I had a conversation with the person sitting next to me. She asked me what I did, and when I told her, she remarked, “Oh, you’re one of those.” When I asked what she did, she explained that she was the creative director for an advertising agency, and the
world of STEM seems to disregard, even dismiss, the arts. Moments later, she began working on her MacBook Pro, loaded with state-of-the-art software. So my question to her was “Who do you think made that laptop and developed the software for artists and creators like you?” STEM fields are at the core of everything we do. STEM connects to everything, whether it is the arts, music, sports or agriculture.
Look no further than the materials and technology artists use: computers and graphics, paint, a canvas. Computer scientists develop the graphics technology, chemists work to ensure the right chemical composition to create vibrant colors, and engineers design a stronger canvas that absorbs the right amount of paint. Furthermore, the same creativity that inspires beautiful works of art is the same creativity that has led to some of the world’s highest-performing, usable and visually appealing inventions. For instance, the Corvette Stingray, the 2014 North American Car of the Year, is an engineering marvel and one of the top-performing automobiles on the market. But, it’s also aesthetically appealing. The same could be said for your new lightweight running shoes, your single-serving coffee maker, or the acoustically designed facilities for your community’s symphony orchestra. These are all examples of engineering and the arts working together, and they all resulted from the same design process engineers use to build the world’s most advanced fighter jets, develop new energy solutions, and create targeted therapies for chronic diseases.
One Nation Under-Taught Page 3
