NSB-10-33
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS:
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
May 5, 2010
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Steven C. Beering, Chairman, President Emeritus, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Patricia D. Galloway, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Ocer, Pegasus Global Holdings, Inc., Cle Elum, Washington
Mark R. Abbott, Dean and Professor, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Dan E. Arvizu, Director and Chief Executive, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado
Barry C. Barish,
*
Director, Global Design Eort for International Linear Collider, Linde Professor of Physics, Emeritus,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Camilla P. Benbow, Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development, Peabody College of
Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Ray M. Bowen, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University, College Station
John T. Bruer, President, e James S.McDonnell Foundation, Saint Louis, Missouri
G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
France A. Córdova, President, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Kelvin K. Droegemeier, Vice President for Research, Regents’ Professor of Meteorology and Weathernews Chair
Emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Norman
José-Marie Griths, Dean and Professor, School of Information and Library Science; Director of Biomedical
Informatics, TraCS Institute, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Esin Gulari, Dean of Engineering and Science, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
Elizabeth Homan,
*
Executive Vice President and Provost, Iowa State University, Ames
Louis J. Lanzerotti, Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, Center for Solar Terrestrial Research, Department of
Physics, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark
Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Ocer, Executive Publisher, Science, American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Washington, DC
G.P. “Bud” Peterson, President, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Douglas D. Randall, Professor and omas Jeerson Fellow, University of Missouri, Columbia
Arthur K. Reilly, Senior Director, Strategic Technology Policy, Cisco Systems, Inc., Ocean, New Jersey
Diane L. Souvaine, Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
Jon C. Strauss, Interim Dean, Edward E. Whitacre Jr. College of Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Kathryn D. Sullivan, Director, Battelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy, John Glenn School of
Public Aairs, Ohio State University, Columbus
omas N. Taylor, Roy A.Roberts Distinguished Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Curator
of Paleobotany in the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, e University of Kansas, Lawrence
Richard F. ompson, Keck Professor of Psychology and Biological Sciences, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles
Member ex ocio: Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia
Craig R. Robinson, Acting Executive Ocer, National Science Board and National Science Board Oce Director,
Arlington, Virginia
Committee on Education and Human Resources
John T. Bruer,
†
Chairman
Camilla P. Benbow,
†
Lead, ad hoc Task Group on STEM Innovators
Dan E. Arvizu
Barry C. Barish
*
G. Wayne Clough
José-Marie Griths
†
Elizabeth Homan
*
Louis J. Lanzerotti
†
Alan I. Leshner
Douglas D. Randall
Diane L. Souvaine
†
Kathryn D. Sullivan
omas N. Taylor
Steven C. Beering, ex ocio
Patricia D. Galloway, ex ocio
Arden L. Bement, Jr., ex ocio
Matthew B. Wilson, STEM Innovators Sta Lead
*
Board Consultant
†
ad hoc Task Group on STEM Innovators
ii
CONTENTS
Memorandum ......................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................vi
Process for Producing the Report
........................................................................................vii
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................1
Introduction
.........................................................................................................................5
Rationale ..............................................................................................................................7
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................15
Conclusion
.........................................................................................................................26
Endnotes
............................................................................................................................27
Appendix I: Charge to the NSB Committee on Education and Human Resources, Expert
Panel Discussion on Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators
..........................35
Appendix II: STEM Innovators Expert Panel Participants
.................................................39
Appendix III: STEM Innovators Expert Panel Agenda ......................................................41
iii
Steven C. Beering
Chairman
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230 (703) 292-7000 http://www.nsf.gov/nsb email: nationalsciencebr[email protected]v
May 5, 2010
MEMORANDUM FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
SUBJECT: Preparing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing our
Nation’s Human Capital
Scientic and technological innovation continues to play an essential role in catalyzing the creation
of new industries, spawning job growth, and improving the quality of life in the United States and
throughout the world. Innovation relies, in part, on individuals possessing the knowledge, skills,
creativity, and foresight to forge new paths. e National Science Board (Board) is pleased to present
its recommendations on how to support the identication and development of talented young men
and women who have the potential to become our Country’s next generation of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) innovators.
e Board embarked on this detailed study for two mutually reinforcing reasons:
1. e long-term prosperity of our Nation will increasingly rely on talented and motivated
individuals who will comprise the vanguard of scientic and technological innovation; and
2. Every student in America deserves the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential.
is report contains a series of policy actions, a research agenda, and three key recommendations
detailing how our Nation might foster the identication and development of future STEM
innovators. is report draws on the ndings from an expert panel discussion held at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) on August 23-25, 2009, and a 2-year examination of the issue by
the Board with the support of expert sta from the NSF Directorate for Education and Human
Resources and the U.S. Department of Education.
e Board rmly believes that the recommendations set forth in this report will help ensure a legacy
of continued prosperity and will engender a renewed aspiration towards equity and excellence in U.S.
STEM education.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
e National Science Board (Board) appreciates the numerous individuals who contributed to the
work of the Board’s Committee on Education and Human Resources and the ad hoc Task Group on
STEM Innovators. A list of distinguished panelists and discussants who participated in the August
2009 expert panel discussion and provided signicant input into the development of the report is
provided in Appendix II.
We are particularly indebted to Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Acting Deputy Director of the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the following NSF sta members in the Directorate for Education
and Human Resources for assistance in planning the expert panel discussion and/or providing
input during the development of the report: Drs. Myles Boylan, Alphonse DeSena, Janice Earle,
Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Ping Ge, James E. Hamos, Karen Oates, Ginger Holmes Rowell, and Larry E.
Suter. e Board would like to acknowledge the eorts of Ms. Patricia Johnson, U.S. Department of
Education, for assistance in planning the expert panel discussion, serving as a panelist, and reviewing
several drafts of the report. e Board would like to thank several external experts who provided a
critical reading of the report draft: Drs. Linda E. Brody, Carolyn M. Callahan, Nancy Green, Sidney
Moon, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Sally M. Reis, Nancy M. Robinson, and Mark Saul.
e National Science Board Oce (NSBO) provided essential support to the work of the Task
Group on STEM Innovators. Especially deserving of recognition are: Dr. Matthew Wilson, AAAS
Science and Technology Policy Fellow and NSBO sta lead for the STEM Innovators project, for his
thoughtful and diligent work throughout the duration of this initiative; Mses. Jennie Moehlmann
and Jean Pomeroy, for policy guidance and critical review of numerous drafts of the report;
Ms. Jennifer Richards, for editorial support throughout the drafting process; Mses. Betty Wong,
Pamela McKinley, and Kyscha Slater-Williams, for providing administrative support for the expert
panel discussion; and Mses. Ann Ferrante and Kelly DuBose for editorial and publishing assistance.
Lastly, Dr. Craig R. Robinson, Acting Executive Ocer of the Board and Board Oce Director,
provided essential guidance and support throughout the duration of the project.
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE REPORT
e National Science Board (Board) has long been concerned with the state of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the United States. In October 2007, the Board
asserted in its National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Education System (STEM Action Plan, NSB-07-114) that the Nation
must enhance its “ability to produce a numerate and scientically and technologically literate
society and to increase and improve the STEM education workforce.” In that report and others
(e.g., e Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential, NSB-03-69), the Board
acknowledged that the United States has become increasingly dependent on importing STEM talent
from other countries, rather than expanding the STEM pipeline from our own domestic talent pool.
In this report, the Board addresses the educational needs of our Nation’s most talented and motivated
students, who have the potential to become high-achieving members of the U.S. STEM workforce,
or STEM innovators. STEM “innovators” are dened as those individuals who have developed
the expertise to become leading STEM professionals and perhaps the creators of signicant
breakthroughs or advances in scientic and technological understanding. To this end, this
report addresses talent identication and development of children and young adults, and provides
recommendations that should ultimately enhance the innovation capacity of our Nation.
To produce this report, the Board charged the Committee on Education and Human Resources to
form an ad hoc Task Group on STEM Innovators in August 2008 (see Appendix I). e ad hoc Task
Group was directed to identify strategies for increasing the number of future STEM innovators and
synthesize recommendations for how the National Science Foundation (NSF), and possibly other
Federal entities, might engage in fostering the development of these individuals. is report and the
recommendations set forth herein are based on the ndings from an expert panel discussion held
on August 23-25, 2009 (see Appendix III), and a 2-year examination of the issue by the ad hoc Task
Group with the support of experts from the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources
and the U.S. Department of Education.
vii
8
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
1
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 17, 1944, in the midst of World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote
a letter to Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Oce for Scientic Research and Development. In that
letter, President Roosevelt posed the question:
Can an eective program be proposed for discovering and developing scientic talent in
American youth so that the continuing future of scientic research in this country may be
assured on a level comparable to what has been done during the war?
1
In Science–e Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush oered his answer to this question. In his response,
Bush called for the renewal of our scientic talent through the U.S. education system. He wrote:
e responsibility for the creation of new scientic knowledge rests on that small body
of men and women who understand the fundamental laws of nature and are skilled in
the techniques of scientic research. While there will always be the rare individual who
will rise to the top without benet of formal education and training, he is the exception
and even he might make a more notable contribution if he had the benet of the best
education we have to oer.
2
A little more than a decade later, mobilized by the Soviet’s successful launch of Sputnik, the United
States embarked on a collective, coordinated, and sustained eort to recruit and educate the “best
and brightest” who subsequently would form a new generation of leaders and innovators in science
and engineering. is eort resulted in unprecedented scientic and technological progress, leading
to the creation of new enterprises, new jobs, and the betterment of the national standard of living.
At the root of this progress was a substantial investment in research and development, along with
a nationwide focus on excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education and talent development. Regrettably, by the 1970s, this national sense of urgency had
diminished, and complacency soon supplanted the ideal of excellence in education. Today, faced
with growing international competition, the cost of inaction continues to grow at an intensifying
pace.
e National Science Board (Board) rmly believes that to ensure the long-term prosperity of our
Nation, we must renew our collective commitment to excellence in education and the development
of scientic talent. Currently, far too many of America’s best and brightest young men and women
go unrecognized and underdeveloped, and, thus, fail to reach their full potential. is represents a
loss for both the individual and society. e Nation needs “STEM innovators”—those individuals
who have developed the expertise to become leading STEM professionals and perhaps the creators
of signicant breakthroughs or advances in scientic and technological understanding. A key
component of innovation is the development of new products, services, and processes essential
to the Nation’s international leadership. Just as in generations past, there are talented students
from every demographic and from every part of our Country who with hard work and with the
proper opportunities will form the next generation of STEM innovators. e vital importance of
innovation to the U.S. economy led the Board to embark on a 2-year exploration of this issue.
2
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
Our analyses of research and demographic data, as well as our consultation with a wide range of
experts, practitioners, policy-makers, and STEM innovators, led us to identify three major areas
where focused attention is essential. First, while there are some examples of high-impact educational
policies and practices that are eective in enabling tomorrow’s potential STEM innovators to thrive,
many more are needed. Second, a commitment to equity and diversity, and analyses of demographic
trends, lead to the conclusion that new, ambitious eorts to cast a wide net in seeking and inspiring
tomorrow’s STEM leaders are critical. Finally, it is clear that when the learning environment is
infused with high expectations and a commitment to excellence, the potential for future innovators
to ourish is great.
To identify and develop the next generation of STEM innovators, the Board makes three
keystone recommendations. Each recommendation contains several policy actions for the National
Science Foundation (NSF), other Federal entities, and the Nation. Additionally, for each keystone
recommendation, the Board proposes a research agenda for NSF that will ensure the policy actions
are supported by the best available research. e keystone recommendations and a summary of the
policy actions are listed below. e ndings and research agenda can be found in the main body of
the report (pp. 15-25).
Keystone Recommendations:
I. Provide opportunities for excellence. We cannot assume that our Nation’s most talented
students will succeed on their own. Instead, we must oer coordinated, proactive, sustained formal
and informal interventions to develop their abilities. Students should learn at a pace, depth, and
breadth commensurate with their talents and interests and in a fashion that elicits engagement,
intellectual curiosity, and creative problem solving—essential skills for future innovation.
To achieve this goal, the Board proposes the following policy actions:
A. Encourage states and/or local education agencies to adopt consistent and appropriate policies
on dierentiated instruction, curriculum acceleration, and enrichment, and to recognize the
achievement levels of students moving or transitioning to dierent schools.
B. Increase access to and quality of college-level, dual enrollment, and other accelerated coursework,
as well as high-quality enrichment programs.
C. Support rigorous, research-based STEM preparation for teachers, particularly general education
teachers, who have the most contact with potential STEM innovators at young ages.
D. Provide Federal support to formal and informal programs that have a proven record of
accomplishment in stimulating potential STEM innovators.
E. Leverage NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion to encourage large-scale, sustained partnerships among
higher education institutions, museums, industry, content developers and providers, research
laboratories and centers, and elementary, middle, and high schools to deploy the Nation’s science
assets in ways that engage tomorrow’s STEM innovators.
3
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
F. Create NSF programs that oer portable, merit-based scholarships for talented middle and high
school students to participate in challenging enrichment activities.
G. Increase the technological capabilities and network infrastructure in rural and low-income areas,
and expand cyber-learning opportunities.
H. Create a national database of formal and informal education opportunities for highly talented
students, and publicize and promote such opportunities nationally to parents, education
professionals, and content and resource providers.
II. Cast a wide net to identify all types of talents and to nurture potential in all demographics of
students. To this end, we must develop and implement appropriate talent assessments at multiple
grade levels and prepare educators to recognize potential, particularly among those individuals who
have not been given adequate opportunities to transform their potential into academic achievement.
To achieve this goal, the Board proposes the following policy actions:
A. Improve pervasiveness and vertical coherence of existing talent assessment systems.
B. Expand existing talent assessment tests and identication strategies to the three primary abilities
(quantitative/mathematical, verbal, and spatial) so that spatial talent is not neglected.
C. Increase access to appropriate above-level tests and student identication mechanisms, especially
in economically disadvantaged urban and rural areas.
D. Encourage pre-service education and professional development for education professionals
(including teachers, principals, and counselors) in the area of talent identication and
development.
E. Encourage pediatricians and early childhood educators, especially Head Start teachers, to become
knowledgeable about early signs of talent and the need for its nurturance.
III. Foster a supportive ecosystem that nurtures and celebrates excellence and innovative thinking.
Parents/guardians, education professionals, peers, and students themselves must work together to
create a culture that expects excellence, encourages creativity, and rewards the successes of all students
regardless of their race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or geographical locale.
To achieve this goal, the Board proposes the following policy actions:
A. Create a national campaign aimed at increasing the appreciation of academic excellence and
transforming stereotypes towards potential STEM innovators.
B. Encourage the creation of positive school environments that foster excellence by providing
professional development opportunities for teachers, principals, counselors, and other key school
sta.
4
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
C. Support the expansion of computing and communications infrastructure in elementary, middle,
and high schools to foster peer-to-peer connections and collaborations, and direct connections
with the scientic research community.
D. Hold schools, and perhaps districts and states, accountable for the performance of the very top
students at each grade.
E. Have NSF, in partnership with the Institute of Education Sciences, hold a high-level conference
to bring together researchers in the learning sciences, other scientists, education school
administrators, current teachers and principals, and teacher professional associations to discuss
teacher preparation and pedagogical best practices aimed at fostering innovative thinking in
children and in young adults.
e United States is faced with a clear and profound choice between action and complacency. e
Board rmly believes that a coherent, proactive, and sustained eort to identify and develop our
Nation’s STEM innovators will help drive future economic prosperity and improve the quality of life
for all. Likewise, providing opportunities for all young men and women to reach their potential will
serve the dual American ideals of equity and excellence in education. e decisive action taken years
ago in the wake of Sputnik created a legacy guaranteeing that today’s generation would live in a more
prosperous and secure society than that of their predecessors. It is our collective responsibility today
to do the same, and ensure that future generations reap the benets of our choice to act. We believe
that the recommendations set forth in this report represent one step of many towards continuing this
legacy.
5
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
INTRODUCTION
In 1957, under the shadow cast by the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the United States
embarked on a coordinated, decade-long eort to recruit and educate the “best and brightest” who
subsequently would form a new generation of leaders and innovators in science and engineering
(S&E). is endeavor ushered in a new era of unprecedented scientic and technological
advancement in the Nation, leading to the creation of new industries and job opportunities,
improvements in national security, and enhancements in our quality of life. At the root of this
progress was a nationwide focus on excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education and talent development, along with a substantial investment in research and
development (R&D). By the 1970s, however, this national sense of urgency and commitment
to excellence in STEM education had lapsed into complacency. In 1983, the landmark report, A
Nation at Risk, noted that “the ideal of academic excellence as the primary goal of schooling seems to
be fading across the board in American education.”
3
In 2005, nearly a quarter century after A Nation
at Risk, the alarm once again was sounded over the looming challenge to U.S. pre-eminence in
science and technology (S&T) in the National Academies’ seminal report, Rising Above the Gathering
Storm.
4
is report posited that in the 21st century, educated, talented, motivated people and their
ideas are paramount to creating the innovations that will sustain America’s prosperity.
5
Finally, in
2009, the Administration’s Strategy for American Innovation argued for investing in the building
blocks of innovation, promoting competitive markets, and catalyzing breakthroughs for our Nation’s
priorities.
A critical facet of America’s historical advantage in S&T innovation has been the ability to attract,
develop, and retain talented individuals from abroad. Indeed, over the past few decades, many
STEM elds in the United States have become increasingly dependent on foreign-born talent.
However, global competition for STEM talent is growing as many countries increase their R&D
capacity and improve their own STEM education systems. In light of this, it remains essential that
the Nation not only continue to attract STEM talent from abroad, but also renew and redouble its
eorts to identify and develop domestic human capital as well.
e Board’s 2-year examination of this issue made clear one fundamental reality: the
U.S. education system too frequently fails to identify and develop our most talented
and motivated students who will become the next generation of innovators.
Whether this group of students has access to appropriate resources seems to be an
accident of birth—whether they are a part of a supportive and knowledgeable family
or are residing in a community that has programs and opportunities available to them.
ere are students in every demographic and in every school district in the United
States with enormous potential to become our future STEM leaders and to dene the
leading edge of scientic discovery and technological innovation. Some of our Nation’s
most talented students—perhaps through sheer individual will, good fortune, and
circumstance—rise through the educational system and become leading contributors
to the scientic workforce. Regrettably, far too many of our most able students are
neither discovered nor developed, particularly those who have not had adequate
access to educational resources, have not been inspired to pursue STEM, or who have
e possibility
of reaching one’s
potential should
not be met with
ambivalence, left to
chance, or limited to
those with nancial
means. Rather,
the opportunity
for excellence is
a fundamental
American value and
should be aorded
to all.
6
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
faced numerous other barriers to achievement. e possibility of reaching one’s potential should
not be met with ambivalence, left to chance, or limited to those with nancial means. Rather, the
opportunity for excellence is a fundamental American value and should be aorded to all.
Although many past and current educational reforms have focused on the vital goal of raising the
general performance of all students, far fewer have focused on raising the ceiling of achievement for
our Nation’s most talented and motivated students. e Board asserts that educational opportunity
is not a zero-sum game: true equity means we must address the needs of all students. Mutually
reinforcing results can be realized when we improve general educational performance as well as
identify and stimulate potential leaders in STEM whose creativity and ideas can benet all. e
critical goal of increasing STEM prociency and general scientic literacy does not compete with,
but rather complements, today’s renewed clarion call for excellence. e needed focus on excellent
STEM instruction that will inspire and excite those who might pursue STEM careers is crucial for
all learners.
Today, on the 60
th
anniversary of the National Science Foundation, the United States is confronted
with a clear choice between action and complacency. e Board rmly believes that a coherent,
proactive, sustained eort to identify and develop our Nation’s future STEM innovators will help
drive future economic prosperity, improve the quality of life for all, and ensure both equity and
excellence in education.
STEM “innovators” are dened in this report as those individuals who have developed the expertise
to become leading STEM professionals and perhaps the creators of signicant breakthroughs or
advances in scientic and technological understanding. Historical examples include Edison, Ford,
Fleming, Pasteur, Einstein, and Curie. is report alternately refers to the children and young
adults who have the most potential to become STEM innovators as “talented and motivated” or
“high-ability” or “gifted.”
6
eir capabilities often include mathematical and spatial abilities
7
alone
or in combination with verbal aptitude, along with other factors such as creativity, leadership,
self-motivation, and a diligent work ethic. In an increasingly technological society, innovation is
frequently an interdisciplinary endeavor and many traditional non-STEM elds require scientic,
spatial, and quantitative talents.
7
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
RATIONALE
Two sets of fundamental national values and needs underlie the ndings and recommendations
proered in this report. e rst set relates to the national need for the entire Country to reap the
full rewards of science and technology and their application. America has beneted tremendously
over the past 60 years from its investments in developing the world’s top scientic enterprise.
Increased eorts in a variety of areas, including development of our human capital, will be required
to maintain America’s international position in S&T as other countries have recognized this
accomplishment and seek to emulate it. e second set relates to the American value reected in
providing equal opportunities for all students to reach their full potential and thrive in modern
society. Serving the needs of all students, including high-ability students, will help achieve our
Country’s aspiration for true equality of educational opportunity and will facilitate the development
of the innovators of tomorrow who can lead the way forward. Our combined actions today towards
meeting these two values and needs will serve as our legacy to the next generation.
Developing Future STEM Innovators: An Economic Imperative
e identication and development of our Nation’s human capital are vital to creating new jobs,
improving our quality of life, and maintaining our position as a global leader in S&T. In 1945, in
the immediate aftermath of World War II, and long before “innovation” became commonplace in
our collective vernacular, the necessity of progress in STEM elds was emerging. In Science–e
Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush wrote:
Our hope is that there will be full employment, and that the production of goods and
services will serve to raise our standard of living…Surely we will not get there by standing
still…ere must be a stream of new scientic knowledge to turn the wheels of private and
public enterprise.
8
Since then, and with increasing frequency over the past decade, a variety of prominent
government and private organizations have warned against “standing still” and forcefully
articulated the importance of innovation and talent development to the U.S. economy.
Indeed, the innovations that spawn high-technology industries will create new employment
opportunities at a rate that exceeds traditional manufacturing industries.
9
A full 65 years
since the publication of Science–e Endless Frontier, and as the world recovers from a global
economic downturn, the unmistakable link between the prescient words of Vannevar Bush in
1945 and those of the Administration in 2010 engenders a renewed poignancy:
In our increasingly interconnected and globally competitive world economy, unleashing
innovation is an essential component of a comprehensive economic strategy. As global
competition erodes the return to traditional practices, the key to developing more jobs and
more prosperity will be to create and deploy new products and processes.
10
Innovation is the complex process of introducing novel ideas into use or practice in order to develop
cutting-edge breakthroughs in emergent elds (e.g., energy sustainability, personalized medicine)
as well as novel solutions to age-old problems (e.g., the need for clean and abundant water).
Innovation requires highly able, determined, and creative leaders and thinkers. We are now living in
8
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
what the Council on Competitiveness calls the “conceptual economy,” where competitive advantage
and value creation rely on “insight, imagination, and ingenuity.”
11
So, where will we nd our future
STEM innovators? Longitudinal data show that intellectually talented individuals who can be
identied at an early age (and then supported in their learning) generate a disproportionate number
of Fortune 500 patents, peer-reviewed STEM publications, and other creative achievements, and
comprise a disproportionate number of tenured academic faculty at top universities.
12
Clearly then,
a critical challenge in this “conceptual economy” is to discover and then develop the next generation
of innovators who will help create the “products and processes” that will fuel our future economic
prosperity.
Is the United States meeting this challenge in a world where international competition is
accelerating? Although the United States remains among the leaders in key metrics of innovation
and R&D investment, there may be cause for concern. Distressingly, students in other countries are
outperforming even our highest-achieving students. In the 2006 Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) test, U.S. 15-year-olds in the 90th percentile (our top students) scored below
their peers in 29 countries on mathematics literacy, and below 12 countries on science literacy.
13
Similarly, 6 percent of America’s eighth graders reached the advanced benchmark in mathematics on
the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
14
ough this marks an
above average score, the performance of U.S. students fell well behind several key competitors. For
example, 40 percent of eighth graders from the Republic of Korea and Singapore, and 45 percent of
eighth graders from Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) reached the advanced benchmark in mathematics.
15
Some worrisome indicators are also present beyond K-12 within the higher education system and
STEM workforce. ere has been an ongoing debate among experts whether there are indeed
deciencies in the U.S. STEM pipeline that inevitably will lead to a future workforce shortage in
at least some S&E elds. Critically, even if the overall supply of U.S. citizens entering the STEM
pipeline is equal to the demand (or even exceeds demand in some elds), there is evidence that top
U.S. students, who have a disproportionate potential to become future innovators, are eschewing
careers in S&E. A 2002 analysis showed that between 1992 and 2000, the number of the highest-
achieving students intending to enter graduate study in an S&E eld declined 8 percent overall, with
particularly steep declines in engineering (25 percent) and mathematics (19 percent).
16
Similarly,
a more recent report provided evidence that, between the 1990s and mid-2000s, there was a sharp
decline in the number of highest-achieving U.S. high school graduates enrolling in or completing a
STEM major in college.
17
While the percentage of top U.S. students entering many S&E elds has
declined in recent years, many of these same elds have become increasingly reliant on foreign-born
talent.
18
For example:
• Compared to their U.S. counterparts, undergraduate students in foreign countries chose natural
science and engineering (NS&E) disciplines as their primary eld of study at considerably higher
rates. According to the most recent data, 25 percent of undergraduates in the European Union,
47 percent in China, and 38 percent in South Korea chose an NS&E major, compared to only
16 percent of U.S. undergraduates.
19
• is trend continues further along the STEM pipeline: 33 percent of all U.S. STEM doctoral
students in U.S. universities are foreign students on temporary visas, and 57 percent of U.S.
postdoctoral fellows in STEM elds hold temporary visas.
20
9
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
• Foreign-born doctoral degree holders constitute an increasing share of the S&E workforce. In
2003, foreign-born doctorate holders represented about half of the workforce in engineering and
computer science, and 37 percent and 43 percent of the workers in the physical sciences and
mathematics, respectively.
21
Attracting and retaining foreign-born talent remains an essential pillar of our Nation’s STEM
enterprise. As global demand for STEM talent surges, we cannot reliably expect that the best and
brightest from abroad will remain in the United States and continue to be a sucient source of
talent. It is essential that we develop our own domestic human capital as well. Ideally, foreign talent
should augment a robust domestic STEM talent pipeline, not compensate for its deciencies.
Our Nation’s success in developing future STEM innovators rests squarely on the capacity of
our education system to identify and nurture ability. is ability can manifest itself in a variety
of ways, across many dierent developmental stages. In the United States, assessments of verbal
and mathematical aptitude are well-established and widely used. Yet, a talent highly valuable for
developing STEM excellence—spatial ability—is not measured and hence missed. Recent research
indicates that current mathematics and verbal talent assessments would miss 70 percent of students
scoring in the top 1 percent of spatial ability.
22
Individuals with such talents constitute a lost
resource for creating future STEM innovation, since 90 percent of STEM doctorate holders scored
in the top quartile of spatial ability during adolescence.
23
As discussed in the next section, another
unrealized resource is young men and women from lower-income backgrounds and minorities
traditionally underrepresented in STEM. Underrepresented minorities are disproportionately absent
from the current STEM workforce but comprise the fastest growing college-aged population in the
United States.
24
Similarly, though our Country has made laudable strides in narrowing the gender
gap in STEM participation, women are still underrepresented in elds such as engineering, computer
science, and the physical sciences.
25
While the need for future STEM leaders and visionaries is great, our Nation sits atop an untapped
talent gold mine. We are faced, therefore, with a clear and profound choice between action and
complacency. We believe the choice is as simple as it is vital: Securing our Nation’s continued
economic prosperity will require the proactive identication and development of talented young men
and women from all demographics with all types of STEM-related abilities who have the potential to
become our next generation of STEM innovators.
In light of the economic importance of scientic and technological innovation, increasing global
competition, and our dependence on foreign-born talent, we must reawaken a national expectation
of excellence. e 2005 Business Roundtable report, Tapping America’s Potential: e Education for
Innovation Initiative, eectively enunciates this point:
One of the pillars of American economic prosperity—our scientic and technological
superiority—is beginning to atrophy even as other nations are developing their own
human capital. If we wait for a dramatic event—a 21st-century version of Sputnik—it
will be too late. ere may be no attack, no moment of epiphany, no catastrophe that
will suddenly demonstrate the threat. Rather, there will be a slow withering, a gradual
decline, a widening gap between a complacent America and countries with the drive,
commitment and vision to take our place.
26
10
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
Our continued economic prosperity will depend on a skilled workforce, particularly at the leading
edge of science and technology, where a diverse legion of creative, motivated and innovative
individuals is essential. Changing course is a long-term proposition. It requires signicant foresight
and early intervention. Although mastery of a STEM discipline requires over a decade of intensive
study after high school, the interest (or disinterest) in STEM germinates early in K-12, maybe even
in early childhood. Likewise, no matter how talented the individual, realization of this potential may
not occur on its own. Development of our Country’s human capital requires the identication and
development of all types of STEM-related talents, the encouragement of intellectual ambition, an
anticipation of excellence rather than simply competency, and the sustained nurturing of the creative
spark. America can create, through its educational system, the next generation of preeminent
scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs when it focuses its collective will on that critical
goal. As a society, we will reap the benets for decades to come.
Opportunity for Excellence: A Fundamental Value
Equality in educational opportunity means that all students fundamentally deserve the chance to
succeed in reaching their highest potential. When disparities in academic achievement exist among
populations, we have marshaled our collective will in an eort to narrow these gaps. As a result of
these eorts, the U.S. education system has experienced some notable improvements. Nonetheless,
too many students in America are not achieving even at modest levels, and great disparities
continue to exist in the quality of education aorded to students around the Nation. Eorts to
raise the educational achievement for all students must not only be continued in earnest, but
accelerated. However, to reach true equality of opportunity, and to ensure that potential does not go
unrealized, we must not overlook the educational needs of our Nation’s most talented and motivated
students. Too often, U.S. students with tremendous potential to become our future innovators go
unrecognized and undeveloped. e dual goals of raising the oor of base-level performance and
elevating the ceiling for achievement are not mutually exclusive. e Board believes that both equity
and excellence are not only possible and mutually reinforcing, but necessary to achieve the American
ideal as eloquently articulated 65 years ago in Science–e Endless Frontier:
We think it is much the best plan, in this constitutional Republic, that opportunity be held
out to all kinds and conditions of men [and women] whereby they can better themselves.
is is the American way, this is the way the United States has become what it is. We
think it is very important that circumstances be such that there be no ceilings, other than
ability itself, to intellectual ambition. We think it very important that...if he [and she]
has what it takes, the sky is the limit.
27
Unfortunately, individuals with a high level of ability and determination frequently lack the
opportunities needed to reach their potential. ere are examples of successful programs
and interventions aimed at advanced learners. Many of today’s top scientists, inventors, and
entrepreneurs participated in one or more of these programs at some point in their academic
development.
28
Indeed, data show that a high density of advanced pre-collegiate learning
opportunities among mathematically talented youth has been linked to subsequent accomplishments
in STEM.
29
Yet the scale of these programs is often small, and access to these programs is frequently
limited. More often than not, across the education ecosystem, we see a patchwork of individual,
often ad hoc provisions implemented and funded at the local level; these approaches have been
instrumental for many of today’s STEM innovators and should continue. In addition, a coherent,
11
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
long-term, state- or Nation-wide plan to develop the next generation of leaders in
STEM is also needed. Our Nation has too often left to chance the fate of those
with exceptional talent rather than ensuring widespread, systematic, and appropriate
opportunities to ourish.
Historically and by law, states and local education agencies (LEAs) are the primary
source of support for talented learners and often represent the only source of support.
Not surprisingly then, the funding and education policies among the states and even
districts within the same state vary considerably. e National Association for Gifted
Children’s (NAGC) State of the States in Gifted Education report describes the situation
for gifted and talented education at the state and local levels.
30
In 2008-2009, out of
the 45 states that fully responded to the NAGC survey:
• 32 states required school districts to provide some services for gifted and talented
students. Of these 32 states, only 6 reported fully funding these services.
• 12 states provided no funds to support gifted education.
• Among the 14 states that reported both funding levels and numbers of identied gifted students,
the yearly allocation per child ranged from less than 2 dollars to approximately 760 dollars.
• 11 states required districts to accept gifted identication decisions from other districts in the
same state.
• Most high-ability children were placed in the general classroom where the majority of teachers
have little or no specialized training in working with gifted children.
• Only ve states required all teachers to have pre-service training in gifted and talented education.
Only ve states required annual professional development for teachers in specialized gifted and
talented programs.
• 21 states reported that they neither monitor nor audit local programs for talented students.
Meanwhile, support from the Federal Government at the elementary, middle, and high school levels
for our high-ability youth is minimal. A single program at the Department of Education, the Jacob
K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program, is specically dedicated to supporting
talented students. Even this program is routinely targeted for elimination due to Federal budgetary
considerations.
31
e National Science Foundation (NSF) has a few general STEM education
programs that could potentially support research in this area, such as Discovery Research K-12 and
Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering. However, NSF currently does not
have any programs or initiatives specically dedicated to the direct support of, or research into, our
Nation’s future innovators at the K-12 level.
32
In the absence of a coordinated plan and consistent
opportunities for young men and women across the entire Country, talented students may slip
through the cracks or face bureaucratic, institutional, societal, and/or other hurdles that stymie their
progress and suppress intellectual ambition.
33
Our Nation has too
often left to chance
the fate of those
with exceptional
talent rather than
ensuring widespread,
systematic, and
appropriate
opportunities to
ourish.
12
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
Findings from the 2007 Achievement Trap report suggest that educators, policy-makers and even
parents erroneously assume that high-achieving young men and women will continue to achieve
at high levels on their own and do not need additional support.
34
However, an analysis of the
performance of high-achieving students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
paints a dierent picture. Whereas the scores of students in the tenth percentile (low achievers)
have seen signicant improvements over the past decade, test scores for students in the ninetieth
percentile (high achievers) have, at best, experienced modest gains and, at worst, stagnated.
35
e
situation for highly talented and motivated students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and
underrepresented minorities is especially alarming. Although high achievers can be found in every
geographic area and every race/ethnicity,
36
data from Achievement Trap show that talented students
from lower-income levels are underrepresented and lose ground at virtually every stage along the
educational continuum.
37
For example:
• Approximately 3.4 million children rank in the top quartile academically and come from
households with incomes below the national median. At every educational level they fare worse
in terms of academic outcomes compared to their higher-income counterparts. us, these
students represent a potentially signicant source of underdeveloped talent.
• Disparities begin early: In rst grade, 72 percent of students in the top quarter of their class
come from higher-income families, compared to only 28 percent of lower-income students.
According to the authors of Achievement Trap, this disparity means, “200,000 or more children
from lower-income backgrounds appear to be lost each year from the ranks of high achievers
before their formal education ever begins.”
38
• Lower-income students fall out of the top quartile during elementary and high school at
signicantly higher rates than their higher-income peers.
• Lower-income students are considerably less likely than higher-income students to rise into
the top quartile during elementary and high school, attend the most selective colleges, nish a
baccalaureate degree, or go on to complete a graduate degree.
Likewise, achievement gaps between white or Asian/Pacic Islander students and minorities
traditionally underrepresented in STEM exist at all levels, including signicant gaps among the
highest-performing students. For example, a recent analysis of both NAEP and state assessment
data shows that large achievement gaps in mathematics performance continue to persist between
white and underrepresented minority high achievers.
39
Moreover, extremely low percentages
of minority students reach the advanced level on NAEP. In 2007, only 0.8 percent of African
American students and 1.5 percent of Hispanic students reached the advanced level on the fourth
grade NAEP mathematics exam. Similarly, only 0.9 percent of African American students and 1.8
percent of Hispanic students reached the advanced level on the eighth grade NAEP mathematics
exam. In comparison, 7.6 percent and 9.4 percent of white students reached the advanced level in
mathematics in fourth and eighth grade, respectively.
40
ese and other data underscore a systematic
lack of opportunities and support for underrepresented minority students, inadequate teaching, and
an absence of both real-life, hands-on experiences with STEM materials and positive role models of
STEM professionals.
41
13
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
Talented underrepresented minorities also face signicant inequities that contribute
to the achievement gap at the high end of academic performance. For instance,
African American, Hispanic and American Indian/Native Alaskan students are
underrepresented in gifted and talented programs in K-12, attain lower SAT scores, are
less likely to take advanced mathematics courses or Advanced Placement (AP) exams,
attend less prestigious higher education institutions, and are less likely to graduate
with a degree compared to whites and Asians/Pacic Islanders.
42
Consequently,
many of our most talented and determined lower-income students and minority
students traditionally underrepresented in STEM are never identied or given an
equal opportunity to realize their enormous potential, and, therefore, constitute a
considerable source of untapped talent.
e attitudes of educators, policy-makers, parents, students’ peers, and even students
themselves toward excellence can act as facilitators of, or form considerable barriers
to, academic achievement. Our society almost universally applauds certain areas of
talent—sports in particular, and to a lesser extent music and the arts. In contrast,
intellectual talent often generates attitudes ranging from ambivalence to outright
hostility.
44
A 2008 survey revealed that 86 percent of teachers said that to attain
the American ideals of justice and equality, it was important to focus equally on all
students, regardless of their backgrounds or achievement levels. Nevertheless, only
23 percent of teachers indicated that academically advanced students were a priority
at their school. Similarly, 73 percent of teachers surveyed agreed that “too often,
the brightest students are bored and under-challenged in school” and are not given
sucient opportunities to thrive.
45
Moreover, the vast majority of general education
teachers receive little or no training on pedagogical best practices for talented
learners.
46
Consequently, most teachers make only minor and irregular modications
to the regular classroom curriculum to serve the academic needs of these students.
47
With the proper attention from teachers and administrators, these students could
access a component of the learning support infrastructure vital to achievement.
An unsupportive or negative learning ecosystem can undermine self-ecacy—that is, beliefs about
one’s capabilities to learn or perform at designated levels. Women, for example, are underrepresented
in the engineering profession, and female engineering undergraduates experience high attrition
rates.
48
Low self-ecacy of aspiring female engineers correlates with a perceived lack of inclusion in
engineering classrooms, possibly due to negative attitudes of peers and faculty, and could be partly to
blame for this phenomenon.
49
Some evidence exists that the low participation of underrepresented
minorities in gifted education programs is caused in part by the diminished expectations of
educators, due to negative and stereotypic views regarding the academic ability of these students.
50
e resulting lack of diversity then may lead underrepresented minority students who do participate
in gifted programs to feel isolated and not part of the classroom experience. As a result, they may
withdraw from classroom activities and hide their abilities from teachers and peers.
51
Similarly, misconceptions regarding intelligence may form additional barriers to achievement. Some
research indicates that, to a certain extent, ability and intelligence are malleable—that is, rather than
being a xed trait, some abilities potentially can be developed over time with hard work and the
proper support. Nevertheless, many students and teachers believe that intelligence is a xed trait,
and this belief can hinder a student’s motivation and ability to learn and improve. is mindset can
“If you win the NCAA
championship, you
come to the White
House. Well, if you’re
a young person and
you’ve produced the best
experiment or design,
the best hardware or
software, you ought
to be recognized for
that achievement, too.
Scientists and engineers
ought to stand side by
side with athletes and
entertainers as role
models.”
Barack Obama,
U.S. President
November 23, 2009
43
14
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
have particularly pernicious eects on the learning and achievement of women and underrepresented
minorities.
52
Critically, the belief in xed intelligence can create a fear of failure within a student,
yet innovation requires risk taking and outside-of-the-box thinking. Even studies of geniuses and
landmark creative accomplishments demonstrate that talent alone is insucient, and sustained,
diligent training and practice are indispensable.
53
Further compounding the issue, talented students from many demographics may face a social
stigma that too often accompanies academic success. In particular, African American and Hispanic
students in public schools sometimes experience anti-intellectual social pressure from peers, which
negatively impacts performance.
54
High-ability Hispanic students also may face linguistic barriers
that hinder academic achievement, and tend to have lower academic aspirations compared to higher-
income, white students even when they possess the requisite ability and training.
55
Because women
and underrepresented minorities are disproportionately absent from many STEM disciplines, and
Hispanics in particular are the largest growing college-aged population,
56
identifying and supporting
these students are vital to both the concept of equity and ensuring a robust, diverse workforce for
the future. Creating a society and culture whose institutions, especially schools, value and reward
academic excellence represents a national responsibility.
15
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
RECOMMENDATIONS
e innovation continuum, from identication and development of talented and creative individuals
through the education system, to a STEM career, and then to major scientic breakthroughs or to
the creation of a novel product, is both vast and complex. Even with unlimited time and resources,
the Board would be hard-pressed to address every facet of the innovation process. erefore, we
have chosen to focus on the human capital component, especially early in the education system,
where we feel much of our domestic talent goes unrecognized and undeveloped. us, the following
recommendations are not exhaustive and not intended to be the nal word on the subject.
ough we are focused on identifying and developing future innovators in STEM, several of our
recommendations could benet all students.
57
is is by design. Similarly, many ndings and
techniques found eective for the general population of students may prove useful for high-ability
students. e Board recognizes that excellence is an objective that all U.S. students should endeavor
to attain. Other recommendations we propose clearly reect our nding that talented students
have some learning needs that are distinct from those of the general population. Ultimately, our
hope is that the needs of our future STEM innovators increasingly will become part of the
national education discourse among the public and policy-makers alike. We encourage others
to join our call for a renewed commitment to both equity and excellence for all students, so
that potential is never squandered, intellectual ambition need not hide, and creative ability
blossoms.
In this section, we outline three broad keystone recommendations based on the ndings from the
expert panel discussion hosted by the Board in August 2009 (see Appendix III) and the Board’s
2-year study of this issue. Contained within each keystone recommendation are multiple specic
policy actions for NSF, the Federal Government, and/or the Nation. Following the policy actions,
we propose a research agenda for each keystone recommendation. ough a substantial body
of research and considerable discussion with experts informs our policy recommendations, much
remains unknown. NSF, through its broad investments in STEM education, the learning sciences,
workforce development, and STEM research, is well positioned to facilitate both a nuanced
examination of human capital development and a high-level survey of the entire innovation
ecosystem. ese research ndings will inform policy-making in critical areas, such as identifying
future innovators and improving teaching eectiveness, to maximize long-term returns on our
investment.
I: Provide Opportunities for Excellence
Improve the access to and availability of eective K-12 formal and informal education programs and
interventions to meet the needs of future STEM innovators.
Findings
Inconsistent eorts and resources have been expended to support our Nation’s most talented and
determined students. As a result, their educational needs often go unmet. Experience shows that
without a widespread, equitable, and coherent support system, a full realization of potential is
unlikely. Policy-makers have made notable eorts over the past decade to implement standards
16
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
and accountability in the U.S. education system (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB)). Unfortunately, these standards have not mandated increases in—or even the
measurement of—advanced levels of educational performance. Regardless of the rigor of
standards, schools have become focused on getting children across the basic prociency
threshold.
58
Currently, there are no “standards of excellence” to which schools are held.
ere are many individual successful programs available for talented and motivated
students interested in STEM.
59
However, many of the existing opportunities are
limited in scope and access, or suer from a lack of resources. In America, it should
be possible, even essential, to elevate the achievement of low-performing at-risk groups
while simultaneously lifting the ceiling of achievement for our future innovators.
Consistent, coherent, and coordinated opportunities that challenge and inspire high-
potential students both in and out of the classroom are needed. e Board believes the
following ndings inform and support the policy actions and research agenda proposed
below.
• Talented, motivated students tend to master curriculum content at a rapid rate and often have
mastered 40 to 50 percent of grade-level content before entering each grade.
60
is hunger
for new information and further learning can quickly atrophy into boredom if not satised.
61
Increased classroom “time on task” is an idea that is gaining popularity among policy-makers,
but time on task is squandered if it is spent on a subject that a student has already mastered.
erefore, these students require classroom content and pacing suitable to their individual
learning styles, interests, and abilities.
62
• Research shows that curriculum acceleration, or accelerative learning, is one of the most eective
interventions for high-ability individuals.
63
Acceleration is an intervention that moves students
through a standard school curriculum faster, or at younger ages, than typical without necessarily
requiring the development of specialized curricula. e level and pace of a curriculum is
synchronized to the intellectual readiness, emotional maturity, and motivation of the student.
Research shows that, by-and-large, those students permitted to accelerate not only achieve more
but also are happier than those who are not.
64
• Accelerative learning generally costs very little, but requires school administrative exibility,
particularly for younger students who are more likely to be denied this opportunity by states
and LEAs.
65
Similarly, due to bureaucratic hurdles and/or state and local policies, the ability
and prior achievement level of students moving or transitioning (e.g., moving from elementary
to middle school) to dierent schools are sometimes ignored, forcing these students to retake
coursework they already have mastered.
• In the STEM areas, all students, including the most talented, should have the opportunity to
experience inquiry-based learning, peer collaboration, open-ended, real-world problem solving,
hands-on training, and interactions with practicing scientists, engineers and other experts.
66
Currently, many of the opportunities for these activities materialize in the form of informal,
out-of-school enrichment activities (e.g., summer camps, competitions, science museum visits,
Math Circles), rather than as an integrated ingredient of a STEM curriculum. Out-of-school
In America, it should
be possible, even
essential, to elevate
the achievement of
low-performing at-
risk groups while
simultaneously
lifting the ceiling of
achievement for our
future innovators.
17
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
enrichment is extremely valuable, particularly to inspire interest in STEM, but insucient by
itself. Students spend the vast majority of their time in the regular, formal classroom.
67
Formal
and informal education are mutually reinforcing and are most eective when synchronized.
68
• Formal and informal enrichment programs are limited in their prevalence and persistence,
particularly for students in poorly funded locales.
69
When combined with acceleration,
enrichment is especially powerful and should be included.
70
Emerging technologies can be
instrumental in providing schools access to meaningfully enriching STEM resources. rough
the Internet students can connect to formal and informal learning opportunities and STEM
experts, gain interactive access to world-renowned museum collections and a vast array of digital
STEM content, and participate in virtual laboratories.
• Early exposure to STEM is particularly important, since interest in STEM often begins to
blossom in elementary school, and early exposure to science can strongly inuence future career
plans.
71
• Engineering is a eld critical to innovation, and exposure to engineering activities (e.g., robotics
and invention competitions) can spark further interest in STEM. However, exposure to
engineering at the pre-collegiate level is exceedingly rare.
• Some students who show potential for high achievement are not prepared for advanced content
because they have not had access to appropriate resources or have not been challenged by their
learning environment. One way to address this issue is through special “bridge” programming.
Bridge programs can help elevate student achievement to a level commensurate with individual
potential, improve condence, and enable students to engage in classroom activities at the level
of their high-achieving peers so they can fully benet from the experience.
72
Policy Actions
A. Encourage states and/or local education agencies to adopt consistent and appropriate policies
on dierentiated instruction, curriculum acceleration, and enrichment, and to recognize
the achievement levels of students moving or transitioning to dierent schools. States and
LEAs should examine ways to remove bureaucratic or policy-related barriers and increase
administrative exibility so as to allow students—beginning in early grades—to proceed at a pace
that matches their individual ability and interest.
73
B. Increase access to and quality of college-level, dual enrollment, and other accelerated coursework
(e.g., Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes), as well as high-quality
enrichment programs. Particular attention should be given to increasing the participation and
success of underrepresented and low-income groups in these classes.
C. Support rigorous, research-based STEM preparation for teachers, particularly general education
teachers, who have the most contact with potential STEM innovators at young ages. Attention
should be given to training teachers in the most eective methods of teaching STEM content,
including hands-on and unstructured problem solving and inquiry-based learning.
18
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
D. Provide Federal support to formal and informal programs that have a proven record of
accomplishment in stimulating potential STEM innovators. ese should include formal
education programs that use innovative teaching methods or employ inquiry-based learning, and
informal programs, such as robotics and invention competitions, Math Circles, hands-on “lab
days”, mentoring opportunities, and science fairs. Attention also should be given to programs
that satisfy one or more of the following:
• Provide “bridge” experiences for students with high potential who have not had consistent
past opportunities for achievement;
• Have proven eective in promoting diversity, or reducing the achievement gaps at the “high
end” of academic performance based on race/ethnicity, gender, and/or income level;
• Have demonstrated success in lowering the attrition rate at the high school to higher
education transition point.
E. Leverage NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion to encourage large-scale, sustained partnerships among
higher education institutions, museums, industry, content developers and providers, research
laboratories and centers, and elementary, middle, and high schools to deploy the Nation’s science
assets in ways that engage tomorrow’s STEM innovators. Particular attention should be given to
mentoring opportunities for students in K-12 and partnerships that engage students and teachers
in K-12 in entrepreneurial, innovative environments.
F. Create NSF programs that oer portable, merit-based scholarships for talented middle and high
school students to participate in challenging enrichment activities, such as summer programs,
Math Circles, hands-on research experiences, and competitions. e scholarship criteria should
emphasize identifying students who possess high potential but who have not had consistent prior
opportunities to demonstrate academic excellence.
G. Increase the technological capabilities and network infrastructure in rural and low-income areas,
and expand cyber-learning opportunities. Some examples of these opportunities include access
to digital resources, remote connections with STEM experts, the creation of online learning
communities, and virtual laboratories.
H. Create a national database of formal and informal education opportunities for highly talented
students, and publicize and promote such opportunities nationally to parents, education
professionals, and content and resource providers.
Research Agenda
Rigorous evaluation data regarding existing educational services and their outcomes are frequently
lacking. erefore, a key component of a research agenda must be a candid analysis of which
educational and enrichment interventions work (and how well, for whom, and under what
conditions) and which do not, in the short-run and long-term. In a climate where education
resources are scarce, it is essential to provide policy-makers with empirical evaluation data to aid
their funding decisions. Moreover, evaluation data are equally important for educators and parents
who bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that talented children and young adults are given
19
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
worthwhile opportunities to cultivate their abilities. Some outcome evaluations are available, but
few are eective in providing the education community with the generalizable knowledge needed
to build better interventions. Although programmatic knowledge—that is, specic information
applicable only to a particular intervention—is an important component of evaluation, there is
a need for generalizable knowledge, which can be used across programs and perhaps even across
disciplines. We recommend the following four priorities for the research agenda:
1. Examine NSF’s current Broader Impacts Criterion relative to STEM education for highly talented
and motivated K-12 students. Serving highly talented and motivated individuals in K-12 and
beyond should be a means for satisfying this criterion. Higher education institutions are well
suited for this role and should be encouraged to do so.
2. Provide support for independent external evaluations on the short- and long-term outcomes of
Federal, state, and local programs focused on high-ability individuals or groups. Evaluations
should be designed such that data generated are generalizable to a broad array of programs,
thus increasing the knowledge base of best practices. Emphasis should be given to studying the
impact of these programs on the three criteria listed under “Policy Action D” above.
3. Investigate the scalability and replicability of successful programs and best practices.
4. Support research on designing novel, innovative methods for developing talents. In addition,
researchers should explore eective means for implementing these techniques in education
schools, and teacher preparation and professional development programs.
II: Cast a Wide Net
Improve the identication of potential STEM innovators—especially among underrepresented
populations—by augmenting teacher training and using talent assessments that 1) span the entire K-12
continuum, 2) reect the multiple domains of ability (e.g., verbal, mathematical, spatial), 3) have sucient
range at the top to distinguish high from extremely high ability, and 4) are appropriately matched to the
background, education history, and prior achievement history of the individual.
Findings
e abilities of large numbers of potential future STEM innovators currently go unrecognized and
are underdeveloped. ough cognitive ability is only one of many attributes of a future innovator,
it is important. Identifying this ability as early as possible is critical for developing an appropriate
educational intervention. Abilities may develop at dierent rates for dierent individuals, so
educators must diligently seek out potential throughout the entire educational continuum.
Identication of the most talented students, whether their talents are verbal, mathematical, or spatial,
is improved by the use of above-level tests—that is, tests designed for older students—as part of
the suite of identication activities. When age-appropriate tests are used, both high- and extremely
high-ability students are not distinguishable in the test results. Above-level testing provides vital
information that allows for a better tailoring of educational experiences. Likewise, educators
require the training and experience to recognize talented students and facilitate their entry into the
appropriate programs or interventions.
20
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
Research shows that high ability is present across all demographics. Yet, underrepresented minorities
and students from low-income backgrounds are disproportionately absent from gifted classrooms
and drop out of the “high achieving” category during elementary and high school at alarming rates.
74
Increased global competition for talent and shifting racial/ethnic demographics in the United States
underscore the importance of casting a wider net to capture all forms of STEM-related talents, in
all of the places it can be found. e policy actions and research agenda below are supported by the
following ndings:
• Talent is not a binary phenomenon (i.e., “you have it or you don’t”). Research shows that ability
is dynamic, can be developed over time with proper training, and the developmental process
can occur at dierent paces for dierent people.
75
Assessments must be given early and often
throughout K-12 rather than a single test administered at a single or just a few developmental
stages.
• Identication and development go hand-in-hand. To properly identify and assess students with
high potential, interest and talent in STEM should be developed at an early age. Opportunities
for educational development in STEM can unmask or improve general or domain-specic
cognitive abilities and critical non-cognitive abilities, such as persistence, creativity, and
leadership. As these abilities are developed, identication mechanisms improve.
• Verbal and quantitative/mathematical skills are two of the most commonly understood and
assessed abilities. Numerous tests for these skills are deployed to identify children whose
performance is well beyond that of the typical child. Talent searches are widespread in seventh
and eighth grade but less well developed at younger ages.
• Future achievement in STEM is linked to the pattern of abilities present in an individual. For
example, mathematical and spatial ability alone or in combination have been associated with
STEM expertise and are predictive of a future career in S&E.
76
• Spatially talented students may not t the classic model of what parents, the public, and even
educators think of as “gifted.” Rather than excelling in a typical classroom, these individuals
might actively engage in vocational or career training classes or in projects outside of school
where they can perform hands-on activities in three dimensions. ese students may gravitate
to engineering classes if oered early in the curriculum. Individuals with spatial abilities are
routinely overlooked because these abilities are rarely measured and, if they are, the results often
are not given the proper attention. is is an untapped pool of talent critical for our highly
technological society.
77
• Opportunities for achievement and success have not been aorded equally to all talented individuals
or groups. Results from any testing, whether it is on-level or above-level, need to be considered in
light of the backgrounds of the students taking the test and their prior opportunities to learn and
achieve.
78
A student may not appear exceptional if his or her performance is compared to national
norms. However, if individual context, such as being an English language learner, being the rst in his
or her family to graduate from college or even high school, coming from a low-income background
and/or an environment lacking intellectual stimulation is considered, his or her performance may
stand out and be indicative of high potential.
21
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
• Teachers often act as “gatekeepers” to gifted classrooms and resources.
79
However, they
frequently receive inadequate or no training on how to identify and develop students with high
potential.
80
e most talented students or students with the highest potential may not always be
the “best students” with the highest grades, or the most well behaved students.
Policy Actions
A. Improve pervasiveness and vertical coherence of existing talent assessment systems.
• Rather than administer a single assessment at a single developmental stage or grade level,
provide multiple above-level tests throughout the K-12 continuum.
• Encourage schools to improve vertical coherence by tracking the progress of students
identied as having high ability beginning in kindergarten all the way through to completion
of high school and beyond. It should be a category for which schools are monitored for
making progress or adequate yearly progress if this concept is continued in Federal laws.
B. Expand existing talent assessment tests and identication strategies to the three primary abilities
(quantitative/mathematical, verbal, and spatial) so that spatial talent is not neglected. Talent
searches should routinely measure spatial ability.
C. Increase access to appropriate above-level tests and student identication mechanisms, especially
in economically disadvantaged urban and rural areas. ese tests should use standards that are
representative of the local norms and account for the prior learning opportunities of the students
assessed.
D. Encourage pre-service education and professional development for education professionals
(including teachers, principals, and counselors) in the area of STEM talent identication and
development. Education schools and other teacher preparation programs should emphasize
teacher preparation in all areas of identication, including spatial ability recognition and the
identication of talented underrepresented minorities. Teacher training and professional
development must rely on the best available research in these areas and should be aligned with
evidence of improvements in student identication and outcomes.
E. Encourage pediatricians and early childhood educators, especially Head Start teachers, to become
knowledgeable about early signs of talent and the need for its nurturance.
Research Agenda
Much is still unknown about the various forms of ability and their relationship to future innovation.
Put simply: How do we best identify individuals who have the potential for future creative
and innovative accomplishments in the STEM elds? Clearly, cognitive ability matters, as do
non-cognitive factors such as motivation, hard work, and the learning ecosystem (discussed in
Recommendation III). However, if the ultimate goal is subsequent sustained innovation, researchers
must investigate whether there are other crucial characteristics that are currently overlooked. A
properly formed research program will answer this question and elucidate the characteristics that
dene a future innovator. From this research, development of identication paradigms may be
22
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
possible, encompassing a mosaic of cognitive and non-cognitive attributes that can help facilitate
the discovery of more potential future innovators at an early age. Similarly, this research could shed
new light on the role of spatial ability in STEM innovation. Finally, research should emphasize
understanding how individual context (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, age, locale)
can alter the eectiveness of an identication strategy. We recommend the following three priorities
for the research agenda:
1. Support research into identifying the cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics of future STEM
innovators. Essential research questions include: What are the relative contributions of cognitive
factors, such as domain-specic abilities (e.g., quantitative/mathematical, verbal, spatial), and
non-cognitive attributes (e.g., motivation, leadership, resilience, creativity)? Is there a pattern
of attributes unique to future STEM innovators, and how can schools teach creativity and
innovative thinking?
2. Examine means for developing proper wide-scale assessment systems of all forms of abilities,
particularly spatial ability and other overlooked talents (i.e., develop a research-based set of talent
identication “best practices”).
3. Investigate the optimal strategies to identify underrepresented individuals or groups that have
the potential to become future STEM innovators. Particular attention should be given to
examining the obstacles to identifying individuals with high potential and developing methods
for overcoming them.
III: Foster a Supportive Ecosystem
Enhance the learning infrastructure support system for students by improving educator preparation and
encouraging a culture that values academic excellence and innovation in families, local communities,
schools, and the Nation.
Findings
Most learning occurs in a social context or ecosystem. is learning ecosystem includes teachers,
principals and school administrators, guidance counselors, families, peers, neighborhoods, and a
variety of other persons or factors that can assist or thwart academic development. e general
attitude of these individuals and groups towards academic excellence can decidedly inuence
the learning ecosystem. Portions of our society often regard early intellectual achievement with
ambivalence, and in some cases, outright hostility. is was not always the case. Equity in education
is an empty concept without excellence. To ensure that our Nation continues to thrive in an
increasingly competitive global economy, we must renew our eorts to create learning environments
that nurture and celebrate intellectual achievement. e following ndings support the policy
actions and research agenda proposed below:
• Intellectually talented children and young adults can readily detect ambivalence, low
expectations, or other negative attitudes within their learning ecosystem. Worse yet, sometimes
these students face outright hostility. is often results in adverse consequences, such as poor
self-ecacy, loss of motivation, and intellectual regression.
81
23
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
• We should honor all of the gifts of our students, including academic talent, artistic
abilities, inventiveness, and athletic accomplishments. In light of our Country’s
needs at both the national and regional/local levels, encouraging the pursuit of
STEM careers by our talented students is particularly essential.
• Teachers are one of the most critical elements in the learning ecosystem. ey
must be well prepared and enthusiastic—characteristics that are necessary for
the education of all students, not just the most talented. However, to teach
potential STEM innovators, eective teachers must possess both exceptional
subject content mastery and special pedagogical preparation for working with such
students. Currently, most teachers receive very little preparation for working with
or identifying talented students.
82
Research shows that teachers who are provided
with this experience display a more positive attitude towards working with these
students, are better skilled at identifying talent, and are more eective educators
than those who do not receive such training.
83
• Lack of administrative support, administrative or bureaucratic hurdles, and the absence of
a positive school culture can discourage intellectual achievement, and in some cases, lead to
students demonstrating regressive, oppositional behavior towards formal education.
84
Low
expectations for some students, a lack of school leadership and teacher understanding of student
potential and talent, and other negative attitudes and assumptions adversely aect the availability
of programs and services for students advanced in the STEM areas. ese factors also generate a
lack of coherence and vertical alignment in the programming and interventions that do exist.
• Parents/guardians have the primary opportunity to instill in their children an expectation of
excellence and a strong work ethic. Aversion or fear of certain subjects, such as mathematics
(e.g., “math phobia”), is readily passed from teachers to students.
85
It is also likely that these
anxieties are passed from parents/guardians to children. Parents/guardians can support future
STEM innovators if they display a positive attitude towards learning and discovery to their
children at the earliest ages. For instance, it should be just as unacceptable to be poor at math as
it would be to be poor at reading.
• Motivation, achievement, and creativity are inuenced by peer interactions. Connections with
motivated, like-minded, and highly able peers can help foster a positive learning ecosystem and
can be highly arming.
86
Absence of this connection or peer hostility can quickly stie early
intellectual ambition. e Internet enables students to connect to both peers and learning
opportunities unbounded by geography.
• Talent development serves both national and regional/local interests. However, resources to
support this endeavor are predominantly derived from state and local agencies and possibly other
funding sources, such as nonprot entities.
Policy Actions
A. Create a national campaign aimed at increasing the appreciation of academic excellence and
transforming stereotypes towards potential STEM innovators. e campaign should focus on
individuals and groups involved in generating a positive learning support ecosystem, including
To ensure that our
Nation continues
to thrive in an
increasingly
competitive global
economy, we must
renew our eorts
to create a learning
environment that
nurtures and
celebrates intellectual
achievement.
24
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
educators, scientists and other STEM professionals, policy-makers, and the media. e media
is critical to developing a culture that values STEM excellence. Learning opportunities should
be available for parents/guardians about the importance of developing their children’s abilities
at the earliest ages, supporting their children’s academic achievement and creative endeavors,
and fostering a family culture that expects excellence. Prior STEM communication eorts, such
as the National Academy of Engineering’s 2008 report, Changing the Conversation: Messages
for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering, could provide a useful blueprint for this
campaign.
87
B. Encourage the creation of positive school environments that foster excellence by providing
professional development opportunities for teachers, principals, counselors, and other key school
sta.
• For teachers, provide professional development in STEM instructional practices shown to
improve achievement, creativity, and motivation among talented students.
• For principals and other administrators, provide professional development opportunities
aimed at strengthening the leadership skills necessary to cultivate a supportive learning
ecosystem for both teachers and all students.
• For counselors and other key school sta, provide professional development aimed at
understanding the educational needs of talented students from diverse backgrounds and with
diverse interests.
Attention should be given to professional development aimed at transforming negative attitudes
and mindsets of educators and students regarding abilities and intelligence, and reversing
underachievement in students with high potential.
C. Support the expansion of computing and communications infrastructure in elementary, middle,
and high schools to foster peer-to-peer connections and collaborations, and direct connections
with the scientic research community.
D. Hold schools, and perhaps districts and states, accountable for the performance of the very
top students at each grade. Progress should be monitored for the top 10 percent and top
1 percent of students in each school using assessments that can adequately measure their
performance (i.e., assessments must have an appropriately “high ceiling” to measure the full
range of performance).
88
Schools and districts that demonstrate progress (e.g., increased student
achievement, closing of achievement gaps at the “high end”) should be rewarded. Conversely,
sanctions should apply if these students are not making progress consistent with their talents and
potential, just as it applies for other subgroups of students. We measure what is valued and their
performance should be valued as well.
E. Have NSF, in partnership with the Institute of Education Sciences, hold a high-level conference
to bring together researchers in the learning sciences, other scientists, education school
administrators, current teachers and principals, and teacher professional associations to discuss
teacher preparation and pedagogical best practices aimed at fostering innovative thinking in
children and in young adults.
25
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
Research Agenda
Much work remains to understand fully the role of the learning support ecosystem and its
relationship to future innovation. Individual ability and pattern of ability are clearly important as
we describe above,
89
yet the development of an innovator does not take place in a vacuum. Instead,
innovation occurs within a social context. A supportive learning environment can certainly enhance
academic achievement, but more research is required to understand the characteristics of an eective
ecosystem that can produce future leaders in STEM. Ability is present across all demographics,
and educational opportunities and social context are likely contributors to achievement dierences
at the high end. erefore, it is also vital to analyze specic contextual group indicators, such as
cultural identity, gender, and socioeconomic status, that may have a disproportionate impact on
underrepresented populations in STEM. We recommend the following three priorities for the
research agenda:
1. Support research focused on identifying the characteristics of a learning ecosystem that facilitates
near-term academic achievement and long-term production of innovation. Cross-cultural studies
might be especially useful.
2. Investigate the individual contributions of, and the interplay between, the cognitive and
non-cognitive attributes of an individual, and the learning ecosystem, in leading to future
development of STEM innovators.
3. Study the impacts of self-perception, cultural identity, and external pressures (e.g., perceptions,
stereotypes) on learning and future innovative achievement in STEM. Examine methods to
overcome obstacles associated with these factors.
26
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
CONCLUSION
In November 1944, as World War II drew to a close, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote in a
letter to Vannevar Bush:
New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision,
boldness, and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more
fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.
90
Today, in the midst of another war and economic struggle, the National Science Board rmly
believes that to secure our Nation’s long-term prosperity we must identify and develop the talented
young men and women who will become the next generation of STEM innovators. is endeavor
begins with educational opportunities: the opportunity to achieve to the best of one’s ability, the
opportunity to think creatively, and the opportunity for the engagement and excitement that STEM
provides. e rewards for our collective commitment will be numerous. e Board cannot improve
upon the eloquent words of Vannevar Bush in his response to President Roosevelt:
e pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation. Science oers a largely unexplored
hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for his task. e rewards of such exploration
both for the Nation and the individual are great. Scientic progress is one essential key to
our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living,
and to our cultural progress.
91
e Board rmly believes that the recommendations set forth in this report will help to ensure a
legacy of continued prosperity for the United States, and engender a renewed sense of excellence in
our education system, beneting generations to come.
27
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
ENDNOTES
1
Roosevelt, F. D. (1945). President Roosevelt’s letter. In V. Bush, Science–the endless frontier. A report to the President
on a program for postwar scientic research (p. 4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce.
2
Bush, V. (1945). Science–the endless frontier. A report to the President on a program for postwar scientic research (p. 23).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce.
3
e National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: e imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
4
National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a
brighter economic future. Washington, DC: e National Academies Press.
5
Ibid. See Chapter 7: “What actions should America take in science and engineering higher education to remain
prosperous in the 21st century?” pp. 162-181. Also, see the issue brief, “Attracting the most able US students to science
and engineering,” pp. 325-341.
6
e STEM Innovators report is not primarily focused on what is classically thought of as “gifted and talented”
(G&T), though the G&T scholarly community and research compendium have informed the present project. e
Board recognizes that within the G&T scholarly community, the terms “gifts” or “gifted” and “talents” are not used
interchangeably. However, for simplicity, the Board has elected to group these terms together.
7
Lohman, D. F. (1994). Spatial ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of intelligence (p. 1000). New York,
NY: Macmillan Press. In this chapter, the author denes spatial ability as, “the ability to generate, retain, retrieve, and
transform well-structured visual images.” Note: In the present report, spatial ability includes mechanical reasoning.
8
Bush, V. (1945). Science–the endless frontier. A report to the President on a program for postwar scientic research (p. 18).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce.
9
National Science Board. (2010). Industry, technology, and the global marketplace. In Science and engineering
indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf.
10
Executive Oce of the President. (2010). A strategy for American innovation: Driving towards sustainable growth and
quality jobs (p. 4). Washington, DC: Oce of Science and Technology Policy, National Economic Council. Retrieved
from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/les/microsites/20090920-innovation-whitepaper.pdf.
11
Council on Competitiveness. (2007). Competitive index: Where America stands (p. 10). Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from: http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Competitiveness_Index_Where_America_Stands_
March_2007.pdf.
12
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: uncovering
antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.
13
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P. J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of
U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context (NCES 2008–016) (pp. 44,
49). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf. Note: e rank number represents the
combination of OECD and non-OECD jurisdictions.
14
Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007:
Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001
Revised) (p. 16). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf.
28
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
15
Ibid.
16
Zumeta, W., & Raveling, J. (2002). e best and brightest: Is there a problem here? (pp. 4-6). Washington, DC:
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Retrieved from: http://www.cpst.org/BBIssues.pdf. In this
analysis, “highest achievers” refers to U.S. citizens scoring over a 750 on the GRE quantitative scale. e authors caution
that these data are limited because “they are based on individuals’ responses on the GRE registration questionnaire as to
their intended eld of graduate study, not on their actual enrollment behavior.” (See p. 4).
17
Lowell, B. L., Salzman, H., Bernstein, H. H., & Henderson, E. (2009). Steady as she goes? ree generations of
students through the science and engineering pipeline. Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the Association for Public
Policy Analysis and Management Washington, DC on November 7, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.heldrich.rutgers.
edu/uploadedFiles/Publications/STEM_Paper_Final.pdf. In this report, for the high school-to-college transition point,
“highest performers” refers to high school students scoring in the top quintile of the SAT or ACT (pp. 9-10). e data
showing a decline in the numbers of highest-achieving students enrolling in a STEM major or completing college with
a STEM degree are shown in Figure 1 (p. 17). According to the data, there was a 14.9 percent decline between the
1992/97 cohort and the 2000/05 cohort. For further discussion regarding the high school-to-college transition point, see
pp. 16-20.
18
National Science Board. (2003). e science and engineering workforce – realizing America’s potential (NSB-03-69).
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf.
19
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010: Appendix tables (pp. 128-130). Arlington,
VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/at02.pdf. See Table 2-35,
“First university degrees, by selected region and country/economy: 2006 or most recent year.”
20
National Science Board. (2010). Higher education in science and engineering. In Science and engineering indicators
2010 (chapter 2, pp. 25, 31). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf.
21
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering labor force. In Science and engineering indicators 2010
(chapter 3, p. 52). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Note: Foreign-born workforce data for 2003 are
located in Table 3-24. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf.
22
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of
cumulative psychological knowledge solidies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.
23
Ibid.
24
For a discussion on college-age demographics, see: National Science Board. (2010). Higher education in science and
engineering. In Science and engineering indicators 2010 (chapter 2, p. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf. Also, see: Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2008).
Projections of education statistics to 2017 (NCES 2008-078). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008078.pdf.
25
National Science Board. (2010). Higher education in science and engineering. In Science and engineering indicators
2010 (chapter 2, p. 24). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf. Also, see Appendix Table 2-28.
26
Business Roundtable. (2008). Tapping America’s potential: e education for innovation initiative (p. 5). Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/
ad/71.pdf.
27
Bush, V. (1945). Science–the endless frontier. A report to the President on a program for postwar scientic research.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce. Quote originates from the Vannevar Bush Committee on
Discovery and Development of Scientic Talent, p. 25.
29
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
28
For example, seven Intel Science Talent Search nalists have been awarded the Nobel Prize, two have earned the Fields
Medal, and 30 have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. For more awards and honors of Intel Science
Talent Search nalists, see: Society for Science & e Public. Alumni honors. http://www.societyforscience.org/sts/alumni.
29
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102 [In Press].
30
e Council of the State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & e National Association for Gifted Children.
(2010). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2008-2009. Washington, DC: Author.
Methodology note: 47 out of 50 states responded to the 2008-2009 questionnaire. Of those, the responses of 45 states
were considered complete.
31
U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Summary – May 7, 2009. http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget10/summary/edlite-section4.html.
32
Some NSF programs, such as the Graduate Research Fellowships Program and NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics, provide support for talented individuals at the undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral
levels.
33
Reis, S. M., Hébert, T. P., Díaz, E. I., Maxeld, L. R., & Ratley, M. E. (1995). Case studies of talented students who
achieve and underachieve in an urban high school (RM95120). Storrs, CT: e National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm95120/rm95120.pdf.
34
Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio, J. J. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-
achieving students from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved from: http://
www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/jkc.pdf.
35
Loveless, T. (2008). Analysis of NAEP data. In A. Duet, S. Farkas, & T. Loveless (Eds.), High-achieving students in
the era of NCLB (pp. 13-48). Washington, DC: omas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from:
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/20080618_high_achievers_part1.pdf.
36
Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio, J. J. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-
achieving students from lower-income families (p. 11). Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved from:
http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/jkc.pdf.
37
Ibid. For a discussion of the authors’ methodology, refer to p. 8. For a graphical representation of the educational
disparities among high achievers, see p. 6.
38
Ibid., p. 12.
39
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! e growing excellence gap in K-12 education.
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Education. Retrieved
from: https://www.iub.edu/~ceep/Gap/excellence/ExcellenceGapBrief.pdf. is report examines the achievement gap—or
what the authors call the “excellence gap”—based on gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and English language
prociency. For data analysis purposes, whether the achievement gap at the high end is widening, stable, or narrowing
depends on how the top cohort is dened. For example, gaps among those reaching the “advanced” level in mathematics
on the NAEP are generally widening, while gaps among those reaching the 90th percentile in mathematics on the NAEP
are generally stable and in some cases narrowing. However, even if these gaps are narrowing, the authors point out that
the rate of advancement of the underserved groups is so slow that it would require several decades to close them. See pp.
4-13 for a discussion on NAEP national data, and pp. 13-15 for NAEP state data. See pp. 15-18 for a discussion on the
use of prociency level cut-points (e.g., below basic, basic, procient, advanced) compared to the use of percentiles (e.g.,
90th percentile).
40
Ibid., p. 6.
30
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
41
See the following four references for an examination of the issue of educational achievement gaps: 1) Reardon,
S. (2008). Dierential growth in the black-white achievement gap during elementary school among high- and low-scoring
students (Working Paper 2008-7). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, Stanford
University. Retrieved from: http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/docman/dierential-growth-in-the-black-
white-achievement-gap-reardon/download.html. 2) Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2009). Harming the best: How
schools aect the black-white achievement gap. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 366-393. 3) Donovan,
M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Research Council. Committee
on Minority Representation in Special Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 4) Gándara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino
high-achievers. Princeton, NJ: Policy Evaluation and Research Center, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from:
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICFRAGFUT.pdf.
42
See the following three references regarding the underrepresentation of African American, Hispanic, and Indian/
Native Alaskan students in gifted classrooms, AP classes, and achievement gaps at the “high end.”: 1) Gándara,
P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high-achievers. Princeton, NJ: Policy Evaluation and
Research Center, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICFRAGFUT.pdf.
2) Learning Point Associates. (2004). All students reaching the top: Strategies for closing academic achievement gaps.
Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://www.ncrel.org/gap/studies/
allstudents.pdf. 3) Homan, K., & Llagas, C. (2003). Status and trends in the education of blacks (NCES 2003–034).
Project Ocer: T. D. Snyder. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003034.pdf.
43
e White House, Oce of the Press Secretary. (2009). Remarks by the President on the ‘educate to innovate’ campaign.
Speech given by U.S. President, Barack Obama, on November 23, 2009. Retrieved from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-oce/remarks-president-education-innovate-campaign.
44
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential
students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249-292.
45
Farkas, S., & Duet, A. (2008). Results from a national teacher survey. In S. Farkas, A. Duet, & T. Loveless (Eds.),
High-achieving students in the era of NCLB (pp. 49-82). Washington, DC: omas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved
from: http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/20080618_high_achievers_part2.pdf.
46
For a discussion on teacher training and talented students, see: e Council of the State Directors of Programs for
the Gifted & e National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). State of the states in gifted education: National policy
and practice data 2008-2009 (pp. 38-41). Washington, DC: Author. Also, see: Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L.,
Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results
of a national survey of classroom teachers (RM93102). Storrs, CT: e National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm93102/rm93102.pdf.
47
Archambault, F. X., Jr., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular
classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers (RM93102). Storrs, CT: e
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm93102/rm93102.pdf. Sixty-one percent of approximately 7300 randomly
selected third and fourth grade teachers in public and private schools in the United States reported that they had never
had any training in teaching gifted students.
48
National Science Board. (2007). Moving forward to improve engineering education (NSB-07-122). Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122.pdf.
49
Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self-ecacy: a multi-
year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-ecacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 1-12.
50
Ford D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted
education: recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74, 289-306.
51
Ibid.
31
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
52
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. Paper prepared for the Carnegie-IAS Commission
on Mathematics and Science Education. http://www.opportunityequation.org/resources/commissioned-papers/dweck/. is
online article contains an excellent summary of original, scholarly research examining the theory of malleable intelligence
and the eect of mindsets on math and science achievement.
53
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Homan, R. R. (Eds.). (2006). e Cambridge handbook of expertise
and expert performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54
Fryer, R. G. (2006). “Acting white,” the social price paid by the best and brightest minority students. Education
Next, Winter 2006, 53-59.
55
Gándara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high-achievers. Princeton, NJ: Policy
Evaluation and Research Center, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from:
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICFRAGFUT.pdf.
56
Data on Hispanic college-aged student population growth were obtained from the following two sources: 1) National
Science Board. (2010). Higher education in science and engineering. In Science and engineering indicators 2010.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf.
2) Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2008). Projections of education statistics to 2017 (NCES 2008-078). National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008078.pdf.
57
Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 50, 11-25. is paper describes the results of a federally funded demonstration project, Project Breakthrough,
and provides evidence that rigorous curricular content originally developed for gifted children can increase the
achievement of all students and improve the attitudes and expectations of teachers.
58
Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). Left behind by design: Prociency counts and test-based accountability
(Working Paper No. 13293). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13293.pdf.
59
Some existing programs include: Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth, Illinois Math and Science
Academy, Duke Talent Identication Program, Northwestern Center for Talent Development, the FIRST Robotics
competition, Math Circles, National Lab Day, and Intel Science Talent Search.
60
Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J. M., & Purcell, J. H. (1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement
test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123-129.
61
Ibid.
62
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest
students. Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin and Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and
Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from: http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/ND_v1.pdf.
63
For examples of acceleration interventions, see the following: Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration
National Work Group. (2009). Appendix A: Denitions of acceleration interventions. In Guidelines for developing an
academic acceleration policy (pp. 12-14). Iowa City, IA: Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration, Belin-Blank
Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from:
http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/resources/policy_guidelines/Acceleration%20Guidelines.pdf.
64
Swiatek, M. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Nonacademic correlates of satisfaction with accelerative programs. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 699-723.
65
For a general discussion of acceleration and its costs and benets, see: Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. U.
M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin and
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved
from: http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/ND_v1.pdf. e assertion that states and LEAs often deny
32
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
younger students the opportunity for educational acceleration is supported by the following: e Council of the State
Directors of Programs for the Gifted & e National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). State of the states in gifted
education: National policy and practice data 2008-2009. Washington, DC: Author.
66
For a discussion of inquiry-based learning and teaching, see: Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry
and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Committee on the Development of an
Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientic Inquiry, National Research Council. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press. For a discussion on inquiry-based learning, talent identication and development, and
the role of the learning ecosystem in fostering achievement, see: Brandwein, P. F. (1995). Science talent in the young
expressed within ecologies of achievement (RBDM 9510). Storrs, CT: e National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9510/rbdm9510.pdf.
For evidence that rigorous, inquiry-based curricula originally developed for gifted children can increase the achievement
of all students, see: Swanson, J. D. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11-25.
67
For data regarding in-school services provided to talented students and the eects of these services, see the following
three references: 1) e Council of the State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & e National Association for
Gifted Children. (2010). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2008-2009 (pp. 35-38).
Washington, DC: Author. 2) Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E.
J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading uency, comprehension, and
attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. e Elementary School Journal, 108, 3-24. 3) Gavin, M. K., Casa, T.
M., Adelson, J. L., Carroll, S. R., & Shefeld, L. J. (2009). e impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of
mathematically promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 188-202.
68
“Informal Education” refers to a variety of interventions that occur outside of the primary, in-class curriculum. e
denition includes, but is not limited to, structured, accelerative summer classes, distance education programs, STEM
talent competitions, science fairs, museum visits, and out-of-school laboratory experiences. Informal, in this context,
does not necessarily mean “unstructured.”
69
For a discussion on the disparities that exist among students based on income and race/ethnicity, see: 1) Wyner, J. S.,
Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio, J. J. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students
from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.civicenterprises.
net/pdfs/jkc.pdf. 2) Reardon, S. (2008). Dierential growth in the black-white achievement gap during elementary school
among high- and low-scoring students (Working Paper 2008-7). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy
& Practice, Stanford University. Retrieved from: http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/docman/dierential-
growth-in-the-black-white-achievement-gap-reardon/download.html.
70
For a discussion of enrichment and enrichment in combination with acceleration, see the following three references:
1) Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007). Using planned
enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading uency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading:
An evidence-based study. e Elementary School Journal, 108, 3-24. 2) Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L.,
Carroll, S. R., & Shefeld, L. J. (2009). e impact of advanced curriculum on the achievement of mathematically
promising elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 188-202. 3) National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
(2008). Foundations for success: e nal report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/nal-report.pdf.
71
Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312,
1143-1144.
72
Lohman, D. F. (2005). Identifying academically talented minority students (RM05216). Storrs, CT: e National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut. Retrieved from:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm05216/rm05216.pdf.
73
For a denitive analysis of the research on acceleration, see: Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration.
In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest
students (Vol. 2, pp. 13-22). Iowa City, IA: e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for
Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from: http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/
33
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
nation_deceived/ND_v2.pdf. For a recent examination of the long-term eects of acceleration, enrichment, and other
learning opportunities on the achievement of talented students, see: Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J.
H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM
educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 [In Press]. For detailed examples
of acceleration policy in practice, see: Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration National Work Group. (2009).
Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Iowa City, IA: Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration,
Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa. Retrieved from: http://www.
accelerationinstitute.org/resources/policy_guidelines/Acceleration%20Guidelines.pdf.
74
For a discussion on the achievement gaps and other educational disparities present among various student sub-groups,
see the following three references: 1) Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & DiIulio, J. J. (2007). Achievement trap: How
America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke
Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/jkc.pdf. 2) Reardon, S. (2008). Dierential growth in
the black-white achievement gap during elementary school among high- and low-scoring students (Working Paper 2008-7).
Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, Stanford University. Retrieved from: http://www.
stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/docman/dierential-growth-in-the-black-white-achievement-gap-reardon/download.
html. 3) Gándara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high-achievers. Princeton, NJ: Policy
Evaluation and Research Center, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from:
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICFRAGFUT.pdf.
75
For a discussion on talent development, see: Renzulli, J. S. (2005). e three-ring conception of giftedness: A
developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (2nd Ed.) (pp. 217-245). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press. Also, see: Bloom, B. S. (1985).
Developing talent in young people. New York, NY: Ballantine.
76
Super, D. E., & Bachrach, P. B. (1957). Scientic careers and vocational development theory. New York, NY: Bureau
of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. For a recent review of multiple longitudinal studies of regarding
the role of mathematical and spatial abilities in the development of STEM expertise, see: Wai, J., Lubinski, D., &
Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge
solidies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.
77
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of
cumulative psychological knowledge solidies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.
78
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identication of academically gifted
minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333-360.
79
For a discussion on teachers as “gatekeepers,” see: Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for
culturally diverse gifted students: from decit to dynamic thinking. eory Into Practice, 42, 217-225.
80
For a discussion on how inadequate teacher training hinders the identication of talented underrepresented
minorities, see: Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: from
decit to dynamic thinking. eory Into Practice, 42, 217-225. For a general discussion about the training requirements
for teachers in gifted & talented education, see: e Council of the State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & e
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data
2008-2009 (pp. 38-41). Washington, DC: Author.
81
Grantham, T. C., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Beyond self-concept and self-esteem for African American students:
Improving racial identity improves achievement. e High School Journal, 87, 18-29.
82
e Council of the State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & e National Association for Gifted Children.
(2010). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2008-2009 (pp. 38-41). Washington, DC:
Author.
83
For a discussion on how teacher training and experience working with talented students can improve the identication
of talented underrepresented minorities, see: Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally
diverse gifted students: from decit to dynamic thinking. eory Into Practice, 42, 217-225. For a review of the
34
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
literature concerning the factors that inuence the attitudes of educators towards talented students, see: Bégin, J., &
Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and blueprints for future
research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 161-179.
84
Grantham, T. C., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Beyond self-concept and self-esteem for African American students:
Improving racial identity improves achievement. e High School Journal, 87, 18-29.
85
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety aects girls’
math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 1860-1863.
86
Bleske-Rechek, A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations:
Advanced Placement’s role in developing exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217-224.
87
National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding
of engineering. National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
88
Progress data of the high-achieving cohort should be appropriately disaggregated.
89
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and
sciences. Psychological Science, 18, 948-952.
90
Roosevelt, F. D. (1945). President Roosevelt’s letter. In V. Bush, Science–the endless frontier. A report to the President
on a program for postwar scientic research (p. 4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce.
91
Bush, V. (1945). Letter of transmittal. In Science–the endless frontier. A report to the President on a program for postwar
scientic research (p. 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce.
35
Appendix I: Charge to the NSB Committee on Education and Human Resources
APPENDIX I
NSB-08-82
August 13, 2008
Revised February 4, 2010
CHARGE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES EXPERT PANEL
DISCUSSION ON PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
1
Purpose
e National Science Board (Board) Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEH) is
charged to undertake a study to fulll the goal articulated in the Board’s National Science Board
National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) Education System (NSB-07-114) to enhance “the Nation’s ability to produce
a numerate and scientically and technologically literate society and to increase and improve the
STEM education workforce.” In approving its STEM Action Plan, the Board recognized that
“Strategies for producing the next generation of innovators are not explicitly addressed in this action
plan and will require subsequent study.”
An ad hoc Task Group of CEH will lead the study whose purpose will be to identify strategies for
increasing the number of STEM innovators in the next generation, and to develop recommendations
for how the National Science Foundation, and possibly other Federal entities, might engage in
fostering the development of the next generation of STEM innovators and in conducting rigorous
research to better understand this process. As part of its eort, the Board will sponsor a two-
day expert panel discussion on this topic and produce a white paper from this expert group with
recommendations for consideration by the Board.
Statutory Basis
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD (42 U.S.C. Section 1863) SEC. 4(j) (2) e Board shall render to
the President and to the Congress reports on specic, individual policy matters related to science and
engineering and education in science and engineering, as the Board, the President, or the Congress
determines the need for such reports.
Link to National or NSF Policy Objective
e Nation needs both nancial resources and STEM talent to drive our highly technological and
knowledge-based economy. e Board has argued in a number of its recent policy reports that the
United States is too dependent on importing STEM talent from other countries, rather than
1
“Innovators” are being dened here as those individuals who have developed the expertise to become leading STEM
professionals, and might even have become the creators of signicant breakthroughs or advances in scientic and
technological understanding - some of which may have completely changed research elds and/or might be patentable,
for example.
36
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
nurturing a sucient pool of this talent through our own educational system.
2
Other organizations
and entities have also addressed issues related to STEM innovators, including the recent report of
the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
3
e President’s American Competitiveness Initiative,
the America COMPETES Act legislation, and the National Academies report, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, all recognize the importance of STEM talent to our economy. It would be
appropriate for NSF, with a mission that encompasses both the development of STEM excellence
(e.g., the NSF Graduate Fellowships) and equity (e.g., the Math and Science Partnerships program)
to take a lead toward enabling our Nation to make headway on the dual objectives of global
economic competitiveness and educational equity in STEM and to develop a road map for how
schools, organizations outside of schools, and universities can challenge talented students during
their scientically formative years—adolescence and early adulthood—and recommend a research
program to rigorously study their eectiveness.
Topics for Study
An expert panel discussion would involve a range of goals, such as:
• Identifying strategies for nurturing the talents of those individuals in adolescence and early
adulthood who are likely to become the next generation of high-level STEM professionals and
innovators.
• Exploring the possible existence of pools of potential talent in our society that currently are
overlooked, under-developed, and under-utilized, but who could become a source of adults
productive in STEM and who could fuel innovation in this country.
• Creating a research agenda on eective means for nurturing and developing the STEM talent in
youth and early adulthood in order to accelerate the STEM productivity and creativity of such
individuals over their careers.
• Suggesting and encouraging development of policies that could help ensure a strong pipeline of
STEM talent and nurture innovation in the STEM workforce.
Logistics
e National Science Board Oce will be the focal point for providing all aspects of Board support
for this Board activity; coordinating NSF, the involvement of other agencies and institutions; and
utilizing contractual or NSB Oce sta resources to support events in connection with this Board-
sponsored activity.
An agenda and a comprehensive list of potential participants for the two-day expert panel discussion
will be developed with input from Board Members, NSF management, and other knowledgeable
sources in the broader STEM research and education community.
2
Recent Board policy reports addressing this subject include the Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI)
2008, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy (NSB-08-3), the
Companion to SEI 2006, America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger Foundation; the Companion to SEI 2004, An
Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force (NSB-04-7), Moving Forward to Improve Engineer-
ing Education (NSB-07-122), and e Science and Engineering Workforce—Realizing America’s Potential (NSB-04-69).
3
Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, March 2008, Department of Education.
37
Appendix I: Charge to the NSB Committee on Education and Human Resources
CEH leadership
NSB/CEH will recommend full Board approval of the appointment of an ad hoc Task Group of
CEH to provide oversight for, and actively engage in, this activity, on behalf of the CEH Committee
with membership including: Drs. Camilla Benbow, John Bruer, José-Marie Griths, Louis
Lanzerotti, and Diane Souvaine.
Product
e nal output from this activity will be a concise set of Board-approved recommendations to NSF
(and perhaps to other Federal entities), informed by a white paper capturing the results of the expert
panel discussion and reecting input from NSF and other agency expert sta, written background
materials addressing these issues, and comments from interested communities on initial, Board-
approved draft recommendations.
Schedule
A nal, concise report will be submitted to the Board for approval and publication by summer 2010.
Audience
In addition to the President, Congress, and NSF:
• Federal agencies involved in STEM education
• State and local organizations and individuals involved or interested in STEM education
• Educational and professional organizations with interests in STEM education
• Employers of STEM-educated workers
38
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
39
Appendix II: STEM Innovators Expert Panel Participants
APPENDIX II
Expert Panel Discussion Participants (August 23-25, 2009)
e Honorable Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education (Keynote Address)
National Science Board Members (in alphabetical order)
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation and NSB Member ex ocio
Dr. Camilla P. Benbow, Member; Patricia and Rodes Hart Dean of Education and Human Development,
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
Dr. John T. Bruer, Member & Chairman of the Committee on Education and Human Resources; President,
e James S. McDonnell Foundation
Dr. Patricia D. Galloway, Vice Chairman, National Science Board; Chief Executive Ocer, Pegasus Global
Holdings, Inc., Cle Elum, Washington
Dr. José-Marie Griths, Member; Dean and Professor, School of Information and Library Science;
Director of Biomedical Informatics, TraCS Institute, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill
Dr. Louis J. Lanzerotti, Member; Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, Center for Solar Terrestrial
Research, Department of Physics, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Dr. Douglas D. Randall, Member; Professor and omas Jeerson Fellow, University of Missouri, Columbia
Dr. Diane L. Souvaine, Member; Department Chair and Professor of Computer Science, Tufts University
Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan, Member; Director, Battelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy,
John Glenn School of Public Aairs, Ohio State University, Columbus
Dr. Craig R. Robinson, Acting Executive Ocer, National Science Board and National Science Board Oce
Director
Panelists/discussants (in alphabetical order)
Dr. Michael J. Cima, Professor of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Director,
Lemelson-MIT Invention and Innovation Center
Dr. Nicholas Colangelo, Director, e Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted
Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa
Dr. Diane C. DiEuliis, Assistant Director, Life Sciences, Oce of Science and Technology Policy
Ms. Patricia Johnson, Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program,
U.S. Department of Education
Mr. Dean Kamen, President, DEKA Research & Development
Dr. Ken Kotovsky, Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies in Psychology,
Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. David F. Lohman, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Iowa
Dr. David Lubinski, Professor of Psychology, Peabody College; Co-Director, Study of Mathematically
Precocious Youth
Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Deputy Director (acting), National Science Foundation
Dr. Stephanie Pace Marshall, Founding President of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy and
founding President of the National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics,
Science and Technology
Ms. Zipporah A. Miller, Associate Executive Director, Professional Programs and Conferences, National
Science Teachers Association
40
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
Dr. Arthur P. Molella, Director, Lemelson Center for Invention and Innovation, National Museum of
American History, Smithsonian
Dr. Diana G. Oblinger, President and Chief Executive Ocer, Educause
Dr. Diana Rhoten, Program Director, Knowledge Institutions; Research Director, Digital Media and
Learning, Social Science Research Council
Dr. Ann Robinson, Professor of Education and founding Director of the Center for Gifted Education,
University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 2008-2009 President, National Association for Gifted Children
Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University
Dr. R. Keith Sawyer, Associate Professor, Department of Education, Washington University
Dr. Larisa V. Shavinina, Professor of Project Management & Innovation, Department of Administrative
Sciences, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO), Canada
Dr. Sally Goetz Shuler, Executive Director, National Science Resource Center
Dr. Rena F. Subotnik, Director, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education, American Psychological
Association
Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Director, Center for Gifted Education, e College of William and Mary
Dr. Jo Anne Vasquez, Vice President and Program Director Teacher & Curriculum Initiatives, Helios
Education Foundation
Dr. Frank C. Worrell, Professor, University of California Berkeley; Faculty Director, Academic Talent
Development Program; Director of Research and Development, California College Preparatory Academy
Mr. Joshua Wyner, Senior Vice President (Policy), National Consortium for College Completion
Dr. Lea Ybarra, Executive Director, Center for Talented Youth, Johns Hopkins University
Student Lunch Panel (in alphabetical order)
Richard Li, River Hill High School, Howard County, Maryland, Class of 2010
Elena Perry, Richard Montgomery High School, Montgomery County, Maryland, Class of 2010
Andrew Das Sarma, Montgomery Blair High School, Montgomery County, Maryland, Class of 2011
Louis Wasserman, University of Chicago, Class of 2012
Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross, Environmental Fellow, Harvard University
Additional online resources relating to the August 23-25, 2009 expert panel discussion can be found at
the following URL: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/2009/0824/index.jsp
41
Appendix III: STEM Innovators Expert Panel Agenda
APPENDIX III
NSB/CEH-09-06
August 25, 2009
EXPERT PANEL DISCUSSION ON PREPARING THE
NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
FINAL AGENDA
Sunday, August 23
6:00 – 8:30 Welcome Discussion & Dinner
Dan & Brad’s restaurant, Arlington VA
~6:45-7:15 Overview: What is the State of the Field?
Summary of gifted and talented education, innovation, creative thinking,
learning sciences and the current state of our educational system with regard
to these topics
Presenter: Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska, Director, Center for Gifted
Education, e College of William and Mary
7:15-7:30 Reaction: Dr. Rena Subotnik, Director, Center for Psychology in Schools
and Education, American Psychological Association
7:30-8:30 Discussion
Monday, August 24
8:00 Welcome
Dr. Patricia D. Galloway, Vice Chairman, National Science Board
Dr. John T. Bruer, Chairman, Committee on Education and Human
Resources (CEH), STEM Innovators Task Group,
National Science Board
Dr. Camilla P. Benbow, Lead, STEM Innovators Task Group,
Committee on Education and Human Resources,
National Science Board
8:15 Board Process and Participant Introductions
8:20 – 3:00 Session I: Characterization and Development of Future STEM
Innovators
8:20-9:50 Cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics of an innovator
Guiding questions: What are some of the dening characteristics of an
innovator and potential future innovators? How important are attributes
such as ability, interest, determination, and inquisitiveness? How can theories
42
PREPARING THE NEX T GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
of cognition, motivation, and other non-cognitive factors be applied to
educational practices for fostering innovation? What do research on inquiry
in science education and theories of intelligence and innovation add to the
discussion? What research needs to be done to determine the most eective
means (both cognitive and non-cognitive) for identifying STEM talent in
youth and early adulthood? What are the implications for policy?
Moderator: Dr. Camilla P. Benbow
Panelists:
• Dr. David Lubinski, Professor of Psychology, Peabody College; Co-
Director, Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth
• Dr. R. Keith Sawyer, Associate Professor, Department of Education,
Washington University
• Dr. Larisa V. Shavinina, Professor of Project Management &
Innovation at the Department of Administrative Sciences, Université
du Québec en Outaouais (UQO), Canada
9:50 Break
10:00 -12:00 Developing STEM innovators through the education system
Guiding questions: Once we understand the characteristics of a potential
innovator, how do we 1) initiate the innovation process and 2) develop a
possible STEM innovator in order to increase the likelihood of productivity
over an entire career? What kinds of schools or formal learning settings
are best for motivating students to become STEM innovators? How can
we expand the kinds of opportunities that have promising evidence on
eectiveness to broader populations of students? How do we raise the ceiling
of potential for the exceptionally gifted and/or motivated student? How
can we best anticipate future learning environments? Why do talent losses
occur at critical transition points in the educational system? How can higher
education best partner with other institutional components of the innovation
life cycle? What are the policy implications?
Moderator: Dr. Diane L. Souvaine
Panelists:
• Dr. Nicholas Colangelo, Director, e Connie Belin & Jacqueline
N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development, University of Iowa
• Dr. Stephanie Pace Marshall, founding President of the Illinois
Mathematics and Science Academy and founding President of
the National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of
Mathematics, Science and Technology
• Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein, Professor of Physiology,
Michigan State University
• Dr. Lea Ybarra, Executive Director, Center for Talented Youth,
Johns Hopkins University
43
Appendix III: STEM Innovators Expert Panel Agenda
12:00 Lunch: Perspective from current and former students
*Lunch will be provided to invited panelists and discussants only*
Guiding questions: What has been your experience in the education system?
Do/did you feel suciently challenged? Are you aware of and encouraged by
your school to take advantage of enrichment opportunities, such as laboratory
research partnerships, summer programs, or other opportunities such as
accelerated learning? What was the most important factor in seeding your
interest in the STEM disciplines? What was the biggest challenge you faced
or what was the most signicant negative force in terms of your education?
How would you change it? What helped transform your creative potential
into reality? What hinders it?
Moderator: Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan
Panelists:
Introduction: Dr. Carol Blackburn, Johns Hopkins University
• Richard Li, River Hill High School, Class of 2010
• Elena Perry, Richard Montgomery High School, Class of 2010
• Andrew Das Sarma, Montgomery Blair High School,
Montgomery County, Maryland, Class of 2011
• Louis Wasserman, University of Chicago, Class of 2012
• Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross, Environmental Fellow, Harvard
University
1:15-3:15 Informal learning, cyber-learning and innovative education
Guiding questions: What kinds of informal learning settings are eective for
motivating students to develop the skills needed tobecome a potentialSTEM
innovator? How can we expand the kinds of opportunities that have
promising evidence on eectiveness to more andbroader populations of
high-potentialstudents? How can new technologies be harnessed toserve the
development and possibly enhanceproductivity of future STEM innovators?
How can these emerging technologies be used to foster collaboration,
enhance networking across multiple disciplines, and generate improvements
in both informal and traditional learningenvironments that might nurture
STEM innovation potential? What are the policy implications?
Moderator: Dr. José-Marie Griths
Panelists:
• Dr. Arthur P. Molella, Director, Lemelson Center for Invention and
Innovation, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian
• Dr. Diana G. Oblinger, President and CEO of EDUCAUSE
• Dr. Diana Rhoten, Program Director, Knowledge Institutions;
Research Director, Digital Media and Learning, Social Science
Research Council
3:15 Break
3:30 – 5:30 Session II: Identifying and Nurturing Under-developed STEM Talent
44
PREPARING THE NEX T GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
Identifying under-developed pools of STEM talent and the community
role in fostering achievement
Guiding questions: How can we best identify and nurture pools of potential
STEM talent in our society that currently are overlooked, under-developed,
and under-utilized, but could become a source of adults productive in STEM
and could fuel innovation in this country? What role does the community
(parents, teachers, local businesses) play in nurturing, supporting and
motivating students? Do ethnically or geographically distinct subgroups of
students learn dierently? What role does cultural background play in talent
development? What are the policy implications?
Moderator: Dr. Louis J. Lanzerotti
Panelists:
• Dr. Rena F. Subotnik, Director, Center for Psychology in Schools
and Education, American Psychological Association
• Dr. David F. Lohman, Professor of Educational Psychology,
University of Iowa
• Dr. Frank C. Worrell, Professor, UC Berkeley. Faculty Director,
Academic Talent Development Program, Director of Research and
Development, California College Preparatory Academy
• Mr. Joshua Wyner, Senior Vice President (Policy),
National Consortium for College Completion
5:30 Dinner on your own
Tuesday, August 25
8:00 – 8:30 Keynote Address
Introduction: Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, NSF
Keynote Address: e Honorable Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of
Education
8:30 – 10:30 Session III: e Products of Innovation
e innovation ecology and entrepreneurship
Guiding questions: ere are many factors external to the individual
involved with innovation. Innovations do not occur in a vacuum, and an
innovation can change its own environment. What does the research say
about innovation as a product of individuals or a product of groups? How
would the collaborative process factor in the learning processes associated
with innovation? What can we learn from industry and business regarding
innovation and entrepreneurship that would be helpful in improving formal
and informal learning environments? How can lessons learned from these
groups improve policy-making?
Moderator: Dr. John T. Bruer
45
Appendix III: STEM Innovators Expert Panel Agenda
Panelists:
• Dr. Michael J. Cima, Sumitomo Electric Industries Professor
of Engineering, MIT; Director, Lemelson-MIT Invention and
Innovation Center
• Mr. Dean Kamen, President, Deka Research & Development
• Dr. Kenneth Kotovsky, Professor and Director of Undergraduate
Studies in Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
10:30 Break
10:45 – 12:45 Session IV: Perspectives on Government Education Programs and Policy
Existing government education programs, program assessment and
eective policy design and implementation
Guiding questions: What are we currently doing for innovators in terms
of programs and policies? What types of policy recommendations are ideal
in terms of implementation? Can state/local government education policy
inform Federal Government policy recommendations? How do we dene
success in STEM education (e.g., PISA scores, other metrics) and how does
STEM education success in the U.S. compare internationally? What can we
learn from successful international STEM education systems, particularly
with regard to high-ability students?
Moderator: Dr. Camilla P. Benbow
Panelists:
• Dr. Diane C. DiEuliis, Assistant Director, Life Sciences, OSTP
• Ms. Patricia Johnson, U.S. Department of Education, Javits Gifted
and Talented Students Education Program
• Dr. Cora B. Marrett, Deputy Director (acting), NSF
12:45 Adjourn
Additional Discussion Participants
• Ms. Zipporah A. Miller, Associate Executive Director, Professional
Programs and Conferences, National Science Teachers Association
• Dr. Ann Robinson, Professor of Education, founding Director of the
Center for Gifted Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock;
2008-2009 President, National Association for Gifted Children
• Dr. Sally Goetz Shuler, Executive Director, National Science
Resource Center
• Dr. Jo Anne Vasquez, Vice President and Program Director Teacher
& Curriculum Initiatives, Helios Education Foundation
46
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
47
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
COVER IMAGE CREDITS
1) ese miniature gears, developed by researchers at AT&T Bell Laboratories, are about the size of a human hair and
are driven by air forced through their ports. Micromechanics is one of the emerging technologies supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF).
Credit: AT&T Bell Labs
2) A West Virginia University electrical engineering graduate research assistant explains the use of molecular beam
epitaxy for the growth of nanostructures to a physics undergraduate. e equipment was upgraded using funding
from the NSF EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Simulate Competitive Research) activity, provided through West
Virginia EPSCoR during a previous Research Infrastructure Improvement grant. e research being performed was
funded by NSF.
Credit: West Virginia University - WVNano (Date of image: 2004)
3) Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727; England) made revolutionary advances in mathematics, optics, dynamics,
thermodynamics, acoustics and celestial mechanics. In addition to several other important advances in analytic
geometry, his mathematical works include the Binomial eorem, his eponymous numeric method, the idea of polar
coordinates, and power series for exponential and trigonometric functions. His equation ex = ∑ xk / k! has been
called the most important series in mathematics.
4) A composite of scanning electron microscope images showing biological force microscopy, developed by NSF-
funded researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia State University.
Credit: Dr. Steven Lower, University of Maryland; and Dr. Michael Hochella, Virginia Tech
48
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION OF STEM INNOVATORS
5) A molecular model of esperamicin A1, an enediyne. Enediynes are naturally occurring molecules—commonly
called biological warheads—for their ability to bind to and split tumor’s DNA backbones. Computations were
performed on the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) SGI Origin2000 supercomputer,
purchased primarily with funds from NSF.
Credit: Images by Steven Feldgus; simulation completed using computational resources provided by the NCSA
[Structure comes from Kumar, R. A., Ikemoto, N., & Portel, D. J. (1997). J. Mol. Biol, 265, 173-186.]
6) Leonhard Euler (1707-1783; Switzerland) made decisive contributions in all areas of mathematics; he gave the world
modern trigonometry. Along with Lagrange, he pioneered the calculus of variations. He was the most prolic
mathematician in history and the best algorist. Some of Euler’s greatest formulae can be combined into curious-
looking formulae for π: π2 = -log2(-1) = 6 ∏p∈Prime(1-p-2)-1/2.
7) Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar (1887-1920; India) was a self-taught prodigy who lived in a country distant from
his mathematical peers, and suered from poverty and malnutrition. Despite these limitations, Ramanujan is
considered one of the greatest geniuses ever and produced 4000 theorems or conjectures in number theory, algebra,
and combinatorics. Because of its fast convergence, an odd-looking formula of Ramanujan is often used to calculate
π: 99
2
/ π = √8 ∑k=0,∞ (4k! (1103+26390 k) / (k!4 3964k)).
8) A technician at Texas Instruments processes wafers containing computer microchips. e Maricopa Advanced
Technology Education Center (MATEC) eects change in technician education through the creation of
competency-based curricula, diverse and eective professional development programs, and replicable workforce
development models. MATEC is funded in part by a grant from NSF’s Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
program.
Credit: Photo from ATE Centers Impact 2008-2010, http://www.atecenters.org (Date of image: 2009)
9) A model of downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota, is prepared for testing in the boundary layer wind tunnel at the
University of Minnesota’s St. Anthony Falls Laboratory (SAFL). e test will study the eects of wind on structures,
including stress on windows, heat loss due to leaks and poor air conditioning and ventilation system performance,
as well as the eects of wind on pedestrians. Support for the design and construction of the wind tunnel was made
through an NSF grant.
Credit: Courtesy Pat Swanson, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota
10) is numerical simulation is part of a series depicting orbiting black holes and represents the rst time that three-
quarters of a full orbit has been computed. e simulations show the merger of two black holes and the ripples in
space-time—known as gravitational waves—that are born of the merger. ese simulations were created on the
NCSA Itanium Linux Cluster (It) by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert
Einstein Institute) in Potsdam, Germany, and visualized by Werner Benger of the Albert Einstein Institute (AEI) and
the Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum in Berlin. NSF support was used for this project.
Credit: Simulations by Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-AEI); visualization by
Werner Benger, Zuse Institute, Berlin and AEI. e computations were performed on NCSA’s It.
11) e image represents an artist’s conception of the antennas for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA). e
construction and operation of ALMA will be funded through a joint agreement between NSF and the European
Southern Observatory. NSF will execute the project through the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).
ALMA will be an array of 64, 12-meter radio antennas that will work together as one telescope to study millimeter
and sub-millimeter wavelength light from space. ese wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, which cross
the critical boundary between infrared and microwave radiation, hold the key to understanding such processes as
planet and star formation, the formation of early galaxies and galaxy clusters and the detection of organic and other
molecules in space.
49
Identifying and Developing our Nation’s Human Capital
12) is image of wind turbines contrasts the past—a wind pump used to draw water from farm wells for cattle, and
the future—modern wind turbines. e wind turbines are part of the Cedar Creek wind farm in Colorado. e
farm includes more than 250 turbines and generates roughly 300 megawatts of energy. As wind energy grows in
importance, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) are studying how wind turbines
and farms interact with the atmosphere, and how their output can be better predicted and managed.
Credit: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (Date of image: unknown)
Cover Design by James J. Caras, Design and Publishing Section,
Information Dissemination Branch, National Science Foundation
National Science Board Recent Publications
Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (volume 1, NSB-10-01; volume 2, NSB-10-01A)
Building a Sustainable Energy Future: U.S. Actions for an Effective Energy Economy
Transformation (NSB-09-55)
Investing in the Future: NSF Cost Sharing Policies for a Robust Federal Research
Enterprise (NSB-09-20)
A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System (NSB-07-114)
Obtaining the Board Report
e report is available electronically at: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033/
Paper copies of the report can be ordered by submitting a web-based order form at:
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/orderpub.jsp or contacting NSF Publications at: 703-292-7827
Other options for obtaining the document: TTY: 800-281-8749; FIRS: 800-877-8339
For special orders or additional information, contact the National Science Board Office:
N[email protected] or 703-292-7000.
