Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 52–61 | Cite as

International Student Achievement Comparisons and US STEM Workforce Development

  • Larry E. SuterEmail author
  • Gregory Camilli
Article

Abstract

Comparisons of US student achievement to other countries, conducted since the 1960s, have received extensive media coverage in the USA. Policy studies have cited these comparisons as evidence that the quality of US educational performance in mathematics and science requires federal intervention. Policy makers have been particularly concerned that the US economy would be impacted by inadequate student achievement levels especially in technology-related industries. This paper explores evidence about whether policy makers react to the citations of international student achievement rankings by changing funding levels for educational research and whether the studies have motivated the nation’s educators to support a trend toward common educational standards.

Keywords

Shortages in science workforce International achievement comparisons Funding for science education Standards 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Achieve, The Education Trust, & The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2004). Ready or not: creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: American Diploma Project.Google Scholar
  2. Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to know. Paris: United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, C. C., Huelskamp, R. M., & Woodall, T. D. (1993). Perspectives on education in America: an annotated briefing. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(5), 259–265 267-291, 293-297, 299-307, 309-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conley, D. (2014). The common core state standards: Insight into their development and purpose. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C. https://www.inflexion.org/ccss-development-andpurpose.
  5. Dossey, J. A., & Wu, M. L. (2012). Implications of International Studies for National and Local. In A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K.-S. Leung (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 1009–1042). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fiske, E. B. (1982). Reagan record in Education. New York Times, 39.Google Scholar
  7. Guthrie, J. W., & Springer, M. G. (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did “Wrong” reasoning result in “Right” results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanushek, E. A. (2016). Education and the nation’s future. In G. P. Schltz (Ed.), Blueprint for America (pp. 89–108). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hechinger, F. W. (1967). The U.S. gets low marks in math. New York Times, pp. 1, 12.Google Scholar
  10. Komatsu, H., & Rappeleye, J. (2017). A new global policy regime founded on invalid statistics? Hanushek, Woessmann, PISA, and economic growth. Comparative Education, 53(2), 166–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Reports, 35 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35.
  12. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill: Boston College.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, J. A. (1991). Report questioning ‘Crisis’ in education triggers an uproar. Education Week.Google Scholar
  14. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Google Scholar
  15. National Academies of Science. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. National Academies of Science. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm. Revisited. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  18. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center and CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Common Core state standards. Washington, D.C.: NGA Center and CCSSO. Accessed 30 Aug 2017 from http://www.corestandards.org.
  19. National Science Board. (2001). A history of highlights 1950–2000. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation Retrieved from: https://nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2000/nsb00215/nsb00215.pdf.Google Scholar
  20. National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2016). FY 2017 Budget Request to Congress. NSF Budget Requests and Appropriations by Account: FY 2000-FY 2017. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2017/index.jsp. Accessed 20 Aug 2017.
  23. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2018). 2019 Budget Request to Congress. https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2019/index.jsp.
  24. Nelson, D. (2002). Using TIMSS to inform policy and practice at the local level. Graduate School of Education: CPRE Policy Briefs University of Pennsylvania.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NGA & CCSSO. (n.d.). Public License. Downloaded 5–6-2018 from http://www.corestandards.org/public-license/.
  26. NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S, Students receive a world-class education. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association.Google Scholar
  27. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2007). Economic survey of the United States 2007. Paris: OECD publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Ravitch, D. (1990). Education in the 1980’s: a concern for ‘Quality’. Education Week, 9(16), 48 Retrieved from http://www.rfwp.com/.Google Scholar
  31. Salzman, H., & Lowell, L. (2008). Making the grade. Nature, 453, 28–30 Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453028a.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims, v. 1: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher 41(8), 294–308.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. A., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shepard, L. A., Penuel, W. R., & Pelligrino, J. W. (2013). Using learning and motivation theories to coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, E. (2010). Do we need more scientists? A long-term view of patterns of participation in UK undergraduate science programmes. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(3), 281–298.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.502886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the pieces together: Systemic school reform (CPRE Policy Brief, RB-06-4/91). New Brunswick: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  38. Stedman, L. C. (1994). The Sandia report and U.S. achievement: an assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 87(3), 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suter, L. E. (1993). Indicators of Science & Mathematics Education 1992. Arlington: Publisher: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Suter, L. E. (Ed.). (1996). Indicators of Mathematics and Science Education: 1996. Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Tamim, A. (2007). Education at risk: fallout from a flawed report. Edutopia, retrieved 10-1-2017 from https://www.edutopia.org/landmark-education-report-nation-risk.
  42. Tietelbaum, M. S. (2014). Falling behind? Boom, bust, and the global race for scientific talent. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Department of Education. (2008). A nation accountable: twenty-five years after a nation at risk. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Whitman, D. (2015a.) The surprising roots of the common core: How conservatives gave rise to ‘Obamacore’. Washington, D.C.: Brown Center on Education Policy. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Surprising-Conservative-Roots-of-the-Common-Core_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2018.
  45. Whitman, D. (2015b). The GOP doesn’t want to leave any child behind—just the Obama programs that might help them. Hechinger ReportGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganWoodstockUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations