NCES Report On American Competitiveness

On Tuesday, August 14, the National Center for Education Statistics released a report comparing education systems in the United States to other “Group of 8 (G-8)” countries. Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2006 is intended to show how American education stacks up against other economically developed countries, as a sign of where the U.S. stands in global competitiveness. Just one week after the president signed H.R. 2272 into law (P.L. 110-69), this report helps to frame the debate on American Competitiveness by pinpointing how the country has fallen behind its competitors.

The report compares data gathered from three primary sources: the Indicators of National Education Systems (INES) project, conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); the 2003 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2003), also conducted by the OECD; and the 2003 trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2003), conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). These studies look at data in the U.S. as well as Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the other G-8 countries.
The data shows that, in many cases, the U.S. still leads other nations. At a time when the number of people seeking higher education outside their own borders has swelled to 2.7 million in 2004, the year examined in the NCES study, about two-thirds were enrolled in the G-8 countries. Of those students, 22% were enrolled in the United States, followed by 11% in the United Kingdom. However, given the large enrollment of American colleges and universities, the U.S. has one of the smallest proportions of foreigners in its mix of students, with foreign students making up just 3%. The United Kingdom leads this category with 16% of their total enrollment, with Canada, France and Germany also finishing ahead of the U.S. with 11%. The U.S. also continues to spend more money per capita on higher education (and education generally) than its European peers and Japan, spending a total of $24,100 per person on higher education and a total of $37,500 on education over all in 2003. Over all, the U.S. spends about 7% of its gross domestic product on education, with 2.9% going to higher education. None of the other countries that submitted budgetary information spent more than 1.4% of its GDP on higher education.
Statistics related to educational attainment, however, are where the U.S. begins to lag behind other G-8 nations. In the U.S., 39% of citizens in the 25-64 age group have a college degree, trailing both Canada (45%) and the Russian Federation (55%). Data regarding the number of Americans entering scientific disciplines also seemed somewhat disappointing, a fact that drove Congress to pass H.R. 2272, which authorizes funding for programs designed to recruit more effective math and science teachers. Only 17% of “first university degrees” awarded in the United States in 2004 were in science, mathematics and engineering related fields, putting the U.S. near the back of the pack compared other G-8 countries. The growing concern over American competitiveness finally pushed Congress into actions. Following the President’s 2006 State of the Union address, Congressional leaders began work on legislation that would encourage more young Americans to enter into career fields dealing with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as well as recruit more qualified teachers in those same subjects. H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act, is intended for those very purposes. The bill:
• Authorizes $33 billion over the next three years to support 25,000 new math and science teachers through professional development and graduate education assistance;
• Authorizes grants to support baccalaureate degrees in math and science with concurrent teacher certification, and establishes a public-private partnership with the business community to identify high-needs fields;
• Reauthorizes the National Science Foundation at $22 billion from fiscal 2008 to 2010, spread over several grant programs intended to encourage more students to teach math and science, as well as grants for college and graduate student science research;
• Authorizes $2.7 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology from fiscal 2008 through 2010, including funding for the institute’s laboratories;
• Authorizes $372 million from fiscal 2008 through 2010 to establish the Technology Innovation Program, intended to help turn cutting-edge research into commercially viable products;
• Authorizes almost $17 billion for the Energy Department from fiscal 2008 through 2010; and
• Establishes a new cutting-edge energy research agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy.
Lawmakers are hoping that once the programs are fully implemented, future studies will show the U.S. leading in more categories regarding global competitiveness.
You can view a copy of the report at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007006.pdf.
Resources:
Doug Lederman, “Matching Up to the Group of 8,” Inside Higher Ed, August 15, 2007.
Author: SAS