Search

The report provides a portrait of science and engineering (S&E) higher education in the United States, including trends over time and comparisons with other nations. S&E fields, as defined in this report, include astronomy, chemistry, physics, atmospheric sciences, earth sciences, ocean sciences, mathematics and statistics, computer sciences, agricultural sciences, biological sciences, psychology, social sciences, and engineering. At the doctoral level, the medical and health sciences are included under S&E because the doctoral-level data correspond to the doctor's-research/scholarship degree level, which includes research-focused degrees. The report is divided into four main sections. The first section provides an overview of the U.S. higher education system, with special emphasis on several types of institutions, and on distance and online education. This section also provides information on sources of aid for undergraduate and graduate S&E education, with a focus on the federal government's role. The second section looks at trends over time in S&E degree awards at the undergraduate and graduate levels, highlighting patterns by field. The third section focuses on the demographic attributes of S&E degree recipients, including sex and race and ethnicity. It examines trends by degree level and field. The final section focuses on international S&E higher education. This section provides data on students on temporary visas who study or earn degrees in the United States. It also benchmarks the United States with other nations in terms of S&E degrees awarded.

This document contains all of the Minnesota kindergarten academic standards in the content areas of Arts, English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. For each content area there is a short overview followed by a coding diagram of how the standards are organized and displayed. This document is adapted from the official versions of the Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards (http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/StanCurri/K-12AcademicStandards/index.htm).

The "Foundations" (English/language arts, mathematics, social emotional skills, approaches to play and learning, science, social studies, creative arts, and physical health and growth) are Indiana's early learning development framework and are aligned to the 2014 Indiana Academic Standards. This framework provides core elements that children should achieve from birth to age five in order to be ready for future success. By outlining specific topics and indicators in each of these content areas, the "Foundations" support teachers, parents, caregivers, and other professional personnel as they develop appropriate experiences for young children. This core document was developed for use in all types of early childhood programs. Additional, the 2015 revision of the "Foundations" address two special populations, Dual Language Learners and Exceptional Learners. Understanding the developmental progression gives early educators the ability to individualize instruction and experiences to advance each child's development and learning. Appended to the report are: (1) ISTAR-KR/2015 Early Learning Foundations Alignment Study; and (2) Classroom Planning Matrix. A glossary of terms is also included.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute monitored the evolution of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) through two public drafts, on both of which reviewers provided extensive feedback and recommendations for improvement. This third Fordham Review of the (NGSS) is the product of a nine member team that includes practicing scientists and mathematicians, a distinguished engineer, and an historian/philosopher of science. All are experienced teachers of science and/or mathematics. The final NGSS standards incorporate a number of changes from earlier drafts. Reviewers identify and discuss them, recognizing changes that they find laudable (such as the new, introductory, grade-level "storylines") as well as those they find disquieting (primarily a further reduction of substantive science content). Then, using substantially the same criteria and scoring metrics as were applied earlier to reviews of state science standards, they grade the NGSS. The purpose here--and in state-specific comparisons that will follow--is to provide for state-level officials and science educators useful information as they consider adopting the NGSS and/or otherwise strengthening the science standards that are in poor repair in so many places. [This review was written with Douglas Buttrey, Ursula Goodenough, Noretta Koertge, Lawrence Lerner, Martha Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz. Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee. For "Commentary & Feedback on Draft 1 of the Next Generation Science Standards", see ED598747. For Draft II, see ED598748. For a related report, see ED524696. The General Electric Foundation provided additional support for this review.]

No one is satisfied with science education in the U.S. today. One need only look at Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data to see what a mediocre job is being done of imparting a solid science education to the average American student. There are multiple reasons for this failure, not least the poor preparation of too many teachers whose job it is to teach this critical subject. One key explanation is the poor quality of academic expectations and standards themselves. In science--perhaps even more than other subjects--states must honor their responsibility to set forth, explicitly and rigorously, the skills and content that schools are expected to impart and students are expected to learn at every grade level. Such standards need to be clear, meaty, challenging, well prioritized, and--perhaps most importantly--teachable. These are, the expectations that should be used by practitioners to inform curriculum, textbook, and teacher preparation, that become the basis for state and local assessments, and that inform--or should inform--classroom-level planning and instruction. Done right, state K-12 science expectations set a firm foundation upon which the rest of science education across the state will be constructed. Particularly for teachers who may lack the content-specific expertise themselves, state standards will direct their planning, inform their instruction, and set a clear bar for student content mastery at each grade level. Because getting this right is vital, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has been reviewing state science standards since 1998. In the most recent review, published just a year ago, expert reviewers determined that the clarity, content, and rigor of most state K-12 science standards was mediocre to awful. They assigned grades of C or worse to three quarters of the states. While the first draft of the the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) that was reviewed by Fordham experts found that much was promising. The commentary by the reviewers of the first draft determined that "the NGSS authors have much to do to ensure that the final draft is a true leap forward in science education." This second review and commentary report asks the following question: To what extent has NGSS draft 2.0 rectified the shortcomings scrutinized by the first review, and are we significantly closer to a set of K-12 science standards that even states with strong standards of their own would do well to adopt? The conclusion of the review of NGSS 2.0 is that if draft 2.0 were to become the final version of NGSS, only states with exceptionally weak science standards of their own would likely benefit from replacing them with these "next-generation" standards. This report urges NGSS drafters and overseers to take as much time as necessary to make the final version come out right. Reviewers stated that the present draft is problematic in more ways than it is strong. [This report was written with Douglas Buttrey, Ursula Goodenough, Noretta Koertge, Lawrence S. Lerner, Martha Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz. Math Feedback was provided by William Schmidt and W. Stephen Wilson. Foreword was written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee. Funding for this review is from the General Electric Foundation. For Draft I of the Next Generation Science Standards, see ED598747. For the related 2011 review, see ED524696.]

In May, Achieve unveiled and solicited comments on the first draft of the Next Generation Science Standards, the product of months of work by a team of writers on behalf of twenty-six states. This review by Fordham provides commentary, feedback, and constructive advice. The following four suggestions are offered by Fordham reviewers for those who will be revising this draft: (1) Rewrite every standard to eliminate the "Practices" statements where they are empty, distracting, or not seriously assessable. Use Practices statements only when they have real content, and be clear in the text on how they are to be accomplished by the student "and how such accomplishment is to be assessed"; (2) Bring into the revision process a few "independent", highly qualified scientists, i.e., individuals not previously involved with the drafting process, to check every standard in their special disciplines for errors and ambiguities (including assessment challenges), and to recommend corrections for any that they find; (3) For the indispensable parts of natural science that are mathematical and require the use of mathematics, get one or more consultants who are well-versed in "both the science and its component mathematics", and who also know the CCSS-M, to revise the relevant standards so that they are properly aligned; and (4) Put the next version of the standards themselves (with clarifications and other explanations as needed) into a single, clear, fully searchable document that can be read and used by state and district science specialists and by classroom teachers. Reviewers found the intricately interlocked web pages that were navigated (again and unfortunately, no longer online) are, in their way, beautiful. They noted that they may be appropriate accompaniments to a new standards release. But they do not lend themselves to application in the critical, final stages of curriculum design and classroom instruction at the district and school levels. The science basics in the underlying NRC Framework were sound, as is a good deal of the science evident in this first draft of NGSS. The reviewers concluded that careful revision, with close attention to necessary but missing science, with elimination of content gaps and correction of mostly minor errors, with meticulous alignment to CCSS-M, and with honest expansion of the well-intended but unworkable "omnibus" standards, can yield a quality product, at least as good as the far-too-few outstanding versions that individual states have produced on their own. [This review was written with Lawrence S. Lerner, John Lynch, Martha Schwartz, Richard Schwartz, and W. Stephen Wilson. Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Kathleen Porter-Magee. For the 2011 review, see ED524696.]

What will they learn? That is the simple question the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) asks in this report. The authors do so by exploring the state of general education, those courses designed to give college students a firm grounding in the areas of knowledge they will use for a lifetime. Specifically, the authors evaluate whether 100 major institutions require seven key subjects: English composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics, and science. What they found is alarming. Even as students need broad-based skills and knowledge to succeed in the global marketplace, colleges and universities are failing to deliver. Topics like U.S. government or history, literature, mathematics, and economics have become mere options on far too many campuses. Not surprisingly, students are graduating with great gaps in their knowledge--and employers are noticing. If not remedied, this will have significant consequences for U.S. competitiveness and innovation. That is why ACTA is issuing this report. Their assessment cuts through the verbiage in college catalogs and shows what really matters: what the students will be expected to learn. Especially in this era of rising tuition and uncertain economic prospects, the authors hope their findings will help parents and students vote with their wallets and motivate trustees and alumni to demand more of their institutions. A list of colleges is appended. (Contains 26 endnotes.)

This report provides empirical proof of a disturbing trend in higher education. Over the last several decades colleges and universities have substituted so-called "distribution requirements" for a solid core curriculum. Distribution requirements enable students freely to choose their general education courses, the courses outside their specialization. A core curriculum, by contrast, limits the general education options to a small number of select offerings designed to provide a broad foundation in the arts and sciences--the mark of an educated person. "The Hollow Core," based on a 50-college study by ACTA senior consultant Barry Latzer, proves that even the most prestigious higher education institutions--the Ivy League, the Seven Sisters, and some of the leading state universities--are no longer requiring those subjects that every educated man and woman ought to be studying: composition, U.S. government or American history, economics, foreign language, literature, mathematics and natural or physical science. The assigned "grades" for each college--based on the number of core subjects required--provide a handy way of comparing general education programs. The overall results of this investigation are alarming, and will, the author hopes, trigger a long-overdue reexamination of general education in the United States. Nearly half of the surveyed institutions require two or fewer core subjects out of the seven. Indeed, 24 percent of the colleges received an F for requiring only one course or none at all. These include such well-known schools as Colgate, Cornell, Penn State, Vassar and the University of Wisconsin. Appended are: (1) Identifying Core Courses; (2) The Big Ten; (3) The Big Eight; (4) The Ivy League; (5) The Seven Sisters; and (6) Additional Colleges and Universities. (Contains 7 tables.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the William and Karen Tell Foundation.]

During fall 1974, the University of Maryland at College Park evaluated its research programs as part of the decennial accreditation process. Data were collected on a comparison group of 35 state universities in order to place the Maryland activities in a national context. Most of the data presented in this report extend over a 10-year period, 1965 to l974. During this period, federal support for scientific research reached a peak and then declined; all the universities had an opportunity to expand their research programs. Four kinds of indicators for scientific research were used: National Science Foundation grants, publications in frequently-cited journals (in mathematics, physics, and chemistry), prestige of graduate programs, and members of advisory panels that review applications for research grants. For social sciences and humanities, other fellowships and grants awarded were also included. General information is given for the 35 universities on number of doctoral degrees granted, faculty compensation and state support, library resources, prestige of graduate programs, and total federal funding. The highest ranking universities are then cited for each of these areas: mathematics, physical sciences, an engineering; life sciences; and behavioral and social sciences, and humanities. (LBH)

This publication of the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides basic information and brief descriptions of experimental projects supported by NSF's Division of Science Education Development and Research in the areas of science, mathematics and engineering. The projects are grouped under their principal discipline. Indices are arranged by level of education - precollege, higher education, continuing education - and project director and are provided at the beginning of this publication. (GA)

Detailed findings are presented from the National Science Foundation's 1981 Survey of Scientific and Engineering Personnel Employed at Universities and Colleges. Information on characteristics of scientists and engineers employed by approximately 2,200 higher education institutions and data from 19 university-administered federally-funded research and development centers are presented. This year's tables include 2-year trend tables (1980 and 1981) showing the number of women and men employed part time as scientists and engineers in higher education institutions. These data are displayed by science and/or engineering (S/E) field. The national total of 333,000 scientists and engineers employed by academic institutions includes an estimate amounting to 19 percent of the total to account for nonresponding institutions. These data calculated by estimation are identified accordingly. Information is provided on trends in employment of scientists and engineers in higher education institutions; faculty by field, employment status, institutional control, educational attainment, type of institution, and sex; institutional rankings by status and full-time equivalents; the top 100 doctorate-granting institutions, January 1980 and January 1981; geographic data; full-time equivalents (1980 and 1981); male and female faculty by part-time and full-time status, field of study, type of institution, and institutional ranking. Summaries are presented by type of institutions (degrees offered, public/private) for the specific kinds of engineers and scientists (physical, environmental, mathematical, life scientists, social scientists, and psychologists). A sample questionnaire and instructions are appended. (SW)

Results of the 1981 Survey of Earned Doctorates, which is conducted by five federal agencies, are summarized. About 95 percent of the annual cohort of recipients of the Ph.D. and similar doctorates respond to the survey questionnaire. The database also includes some information on nonrespondents obtained from public sources; recipients of first-professional degrees (e.g., M.D.'s) are not included. Highlights are as follows: annual science and engineering (S/E) doctorate production increased over 2 percent to 17,600 between 1980 and 1981; S/E doctorates accounted for about 56 percent of all doctorates in 1981, approximately the level that has prevailed since 1973; decreases in doctorate production occurred in engineering and the physical sciences (both are down almost 30 percent over the decade), while psychology and the life sciences generally increased; the annual number of both U.S. and foreign S/E doctorate recipients generally declined over the 1971-1981 period, but the 13 percent decrease for U.S. citizens was almost twice as great as that for non-U.S. citizens; minority group members received about one-tenth of the S/E doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens and permanent residents in 1981; the sex composition of the new S/E doctorate recipients changed over the last 10 years, with the proportion of women increasing from 10 percent in 1971 to 23 percent in 1981; the majority of doctorates undertake employment following graduation but the loci of job opportunities have been changing; the proportion of S/E doctorates entering employment in academia fell from 60 percent in 1971 to 43 percent in 1981, while employment in nonacademic institutions, excluding government, grew from 25 to 40 percent. (SW)

Doctorate holders who received their degrees in science or other fields between 1930 and 1972 and who held jobs in the sciences and engineering (S/E) were surveyed. Findings include the following: employment of doctorates in S/E activities continued to grow between 1979 and 1981 at the same rate since 1975, about 5 percent per year, reaching a total of 314,000 in 1981; this growth in job opportunities was about equal to the growth in available supply; declines in S/E utilization rate (i.e., the number employed in S/E activities per 100 Ph.D. scientists and engineers in the labor force) were particularly notable in the mathematical and social sciences over the 1973-1981 period; S/E job opportunities for Ph.D. computer, life, and environmental scientists and engineers remained strong; although representing only 3 percent of the total, computer sciences outpaced all other doctoral S/E employment between 1979 and 1981, growing at an average annual rate of 16 percent; job opportunities continued to shift from educational institutions and government to business/industry; although 55 percent of all doctoral S/E employment was at educational institutions, the demand in academia continued to increase at a below-average rate; and minorities and women continued to increase their share of the doctoral population. (SW)

One aim of this report is to show and emphasize that in the computational approaches to most of today's pressing and challenging scientific and technological problems, the mathematical aspects cannot and should not be considered in isolation. Following an introductory chapter, chapter 2 discusses a number of typical problems leading to computational modeling from the viewpoint of the scientific or engineering discipline in which they arise. Areas considered include: hydrodynamic systems; chemical systems and combustion; plasma physics; particle physics; condensed-matter physics; geophysical applications; meteorology; astrophysics; structural mechanics; nondestructive testing and tomographic reconstruction; mathematical models in the biological sciences; and electronic components. Chapter 3 examines several of the problems from the viewpoint of the computational and mathematical difficulties that arise in connection with them. These difficulties include larger numbers of degrees of freedom, different time or length scales, or singularities of various types. Chapter 4 focuses on the numerical algorithms involved in the computations, such as various discretization methods, continuation approaches, and splitting techniques. Increased support for computational modeling and applied mathematics, computing facilities, and for education and manpower development in these areas is recommended. (JN)

This volume provides comparative trend data for faculty salaries in public and private colleges and universities, based on two surveys, one of public and the other of private senior colleges and universities. For those institutions (223 public and 345 private) participating in both 1991-92 and 1994-95 surveys, trend data are provided. For each discipline, a summary article provides a definition of the discipline and information on average salaries by rank, including "new assistant professor" and the faculty mix percentage. Comparisons are made between the two study years and with the consumer price index. Appended to each article are a list of all 41 disciplines surveyed and lists of public and private institutions participating in the specific discipline focused on in the summary article. Data and summary articles are provided for the following disciplines/major fields: geography; geology; history (general); home economics; library science; mathematics; multi/interdisciplinary studies; music (general); nursing (registered nurse training); philosophy and religion; physical sciences; physics (general); political science (general); protective services; psychology; reading teacher education; sociology; special education (general); speech pathology and audiology; teacher education; and visual and performing arts. (DB)

This volume contains comparative data for faculty salaries in public and private colleges and universities based on two surveys of institutions conducted in 1990-91 and 1993-94 respectively. Data in this report are from 306 institutions that provided data for both years. Data are provided for the following disciplines: Geography; Geology; History; Home Economics; Library Science; Mathematics; Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies; Music; Nursing (Registered Nurse Training); Philosophy and Religion; Physical Sciences; Physics; Political Science; Protective Services; Psychology; Reading Teacher Education; Sociology; Special Education; Speech Pathology and Audiology; Teacher Education; and Visual and Performing Arts. In addition to listing the average salaries in the 21 individual academic disciplines/major field for both public and private participating institutions by rank, comparisons are made in each of the disciplines between the two public surveys and the two private surveys for each of the two study years and with the Consumer Price Index of changes in cost-of-living. Appendixes list all disciplines and participating institutions. (JB)