- Home
- Commentaries and Reports
- SUMMARY OF THE “AMERICA COMPETES ACT”
SUMMARY OF THE “AMERICA COMPETES ACT”
- By United States Senate
- Published 04/24/2007
- Commentaries and Reports
-
Rating:
United States Senate
View all articles by United States SenateSUMMARY OF THE “AMERICA COMPETES ACT”
The “America COMPETES Act” is a bipartisan legislative response to recommendations contained in the National Academies’ “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report and the Council on Competitiveness’ “Innovate America” report. The bill is similar to the “National Competitiveness Investment Act” that Senators Frist, Reid, Stevens, Inouye, Domenici, Bingaman, Enzi, Kennedy, Ensign, Lieberman, Alexander, Mikulski, Hutchison, and others introduced in September 2006. Several sections of the bill are derived from proposals contained in the “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006” (S.2802), approved without opposition by the Senate Commerce Committee, and the “Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Through Energy Act of 2006” (S.2197) approved without opposition by the Senate Energy Committee last year. Accordingly, the America COMPETES Act focuses on three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States’ innovation in the 21st Century: (1) increasing research investment, (2) strengthening educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school, and (3) developing an innovation infrastructure. More specifically, the America COMPETES Act would:
Increase Research Investment by:
• Doubling funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) from approximately $5.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2006 to $11.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2011.
• Setting the Department of Energy’s Office of Science on track to double in funding over ten years, increasing from $3.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2011.
• Establishing the Innovation Acceleration Research Program to direct federal agencies funding research in science and technology to set as a goal dedicating approximately 8% of their Research and Development (R&D) budgets toward high-risk frontier research.
• Authorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from approximately $703 million in Fiscal Year 2008 to approximately $937 million in Fiscal Year 2011 and requiring NIST to set aside no less than 8 percent of its annual funding for high-risk, high-reward innovation acceleration research.
• Directing NASA to increase funding for basic research and fully participate in interagency activities to foster competitiveness and innovation, using the full extent of existing budget authority.
• Coordinating ocean and atmospheric research and education at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies to promote U.S. leadership in these important fields.
Strengthen Educational Opportunities in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Critical Foreign Languages by:
• Authorizing competitive grants to States to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and the Armed Forces, and grants to support the establishment or improvement of statewide P-16 education longitudinal data systems.
• Strengthening the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at the National Laboratories and by increasing support for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at NSF.
• Expanding the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at NSF to recruit and train individuals to become math and science teachers in high- need local educational agencies.
• Assisting States in establishing or expanding statewide specialty schools in math and science that students from across the state would be eligible to attend and providing expert assistance in teaching from National Laboratories’ staff at those schools.
• Facilitating the expansion of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs by increasing the number of teachers prepared to teach AP/IB and pre-AP/IB math, science, and foreign language courses in high need schools, thereby increasing the number of courses available and students who take and pass AP and IB exams.
• Developing and implementing programs for bachelor’s degrees in math, science, engineering, and critical foreign languages with concurrent teaching credentials and part-time master’s in education programs for math, science, and critical foreign language teachers to enhance both content knowledge and teaching skills.
• Creating partnerships between National Laboratories and local high-need high schools to establish centers of excellence in math and science education.
• Expanding existing NSF graduate research fellowship and traineeship programs, requiring NSF to work with institutions of higher education to facilitate the development of professional science master’s degree programs, and expanding NSF’s science, mathematics, engineering and technology talent program.
• Providing Math Now grants to improve math instruction in the elementary and middle grades and provide targeted help to struggling students so that all students can master grade-level mathematics standards.
• Expanding programs to increase the number of students from elementary school through postsecondary education who study critical foreign languages and become proficient.
Develop an Innovation Infrastructure by:
• Establishing a President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation and competitiveness in the public and private sectors.
• Requiring the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify forms of risk that create barriers to innovation.
Increase Research Investment by:
• Doubling funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) from approximately $5.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2006 to $11.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2011.
• Setting the Department of Energy’s Office of Science on track to double in funding over ten years, increasing from $3.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2011.
• Establishing the Innovation Acceleration Research Program to direct federal agencies funding research in science and technology to set as a goal dedicating approximately 8% of their Research and Development (R&D) budgets toward high-risk frontier research.
• Authorizing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from approximately $703 million in Fiscal Year 2008 to approximately $937 million in Fiscal Year 2011 and requiring NIST to set aside no less than 8 percent of its annual funding for high-risk, high-reward innovation acceleration research.
• Directing NASA to increase funding for basic research and fully participate in interagency activities to foster competitiveness and innovation, using the full extent of existing budget authority.
• Coordinating ocean and atmospheric research and education at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies to promote U.S. leadership in these important fields.
Strengthen Educational Opportunities in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Critical Foreign Languages by:
• Authorizing competitive grants to States to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed for success in postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and the Armed Forces, and grants to support the establishment or improvement of statewide P-16 education longitudinal data systems.
• Strengthening the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at the National Laboratories and by increasing support for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at NSF.
• Expanding the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at NSF to recruit and train individuals to become math and science teachers in high- need local educational agencies.
• Assisting States in establishing or expanding statewide specialty schools in math and science that students from across the state would be eligible to attend and providing expert assistance in teaching from National Laboratories’ staff at those schools.
• Facilitating the expansion of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs by increasing the number of teachers prepared to teach AP/IB and pre-AP/IB math, science, and foreign language courses in high need schools, thereby increasing the number of courses available and students who take and pass AP and IB exams.
• Developing and implementing programs for bachelor’s degrees in math, science, engineering, and critical foreign languages with concurrent teaching credentials and part-time master’s in education programs for math, science, and critical foreign language teachers to enhance both content knowledge and teaching skills.
• Creating partnerships between National Laboratories and local high-need high schools to establish centers of excellence in math and science education.
• Expanding existing NSF graduate research fellowship and traineeship programs, requiring NSF to work with institutions of higher education to facilitate the development of professional science master’s degree programs, and expanding NSF’s science, mathematics, engineering and technology talent program.
• Providing Math Now grants to improve math instruction in the elementary and middle grades and provide targeted help to struggling students so that all students can master grade-level mathematics standards.
• Expanding programs to increase the number of students from elementary school through postsecondary education who study critical foreign languages and become proficient.
Develop an Innovation Infrastructure by:
• Establishing a President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation and competitiveness in the public and private sectors.
• Requiring the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify forms of risk that create barriers to innovation.
Spread The Word
Related Articles
Comments
Comment #1 (Posted by Dr.Wes Perusek)
Rating:
As long as we continue to " downplay technology" we will persist in ignoring a central focus needed to renew all of K-16 education and especially now, STEM education.This was the major point of the NSB Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science,Technology, Engineering back on Sept.12, 1983---24 years ago! To quote that report:
" Appropriate instruction in technology should be integrated into the curriculum for grades K-12.Doing so will serve to strengthen the teaching of science, mathematics and computer literacy. This will require a major emphasis on the development of new teaching materials and on the training of teachers to enable them to handle technological concepts."
One year later, the Exxon Education Foundation hosted a meeting of educators in New York chaired by the late Dr.Paul DeHart Hurd at Stanford. Reflecting on the NSB report, this team noted the two major findings of the NSB Commission report:
1) "Science education must be modified to include a substantial technological component.
2) "Scientific and technological literacy" should be established as one of the primary academic goals of K-12 education for all students."
"These two recommendations stand in marked contrast to the approach to science education supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and accepted by the education community from 1950 until about 1980. During that period, attention was focused almost exclusively on the educational needs of students aspiring to scientific and engineering careeers, and technology was deliberately downplayed."
In 2007 we are seeing the consequences of that "deliberate downplaying" and now teams and consortia across the nation are attempting to address STEM. This cannot be done by ignoring, or "downplaying technology." as in the past.
Consequently, it is much more, far more than the "S&M" of STEM 'for all students.'
Recommended language change: "Strengthening the skills of thousands of mathematics, science and technology teachers....." will make all the difference. Attending to the recommendations 24 years ago will hasten the process. Recognizing that technology is older than science is important. Recognizing that technology and science are partners, not distant relatives is important. Recognizing and setting about to correct this problem is important for the entire nation's education system and for all young people.
Still in 2007, only 14 states are reported to include Standards for Technological Literacy in state standards. Dugger, Wm., The Status of Technology Education in the United States, Technology Teacher, Reston,VA, ITEA, September, 2007.
Comment #2 (Posted by an unknown user)
Rating:
no facts, just propaganda
Comment #3 (Posted by mthomas)
Rating:
Money and R&D go hand and hand, but who gets the funds should be evaluated on what major future impacts new disruptive technology can have on mankind whether it is corporate America or the average citizen trying to make a difference.
Here is my technology, which I feel could put the US light years ahead of the rest of the world.
http://nlspropulsion.net
others need to start thinking out of the box defying the norms.
Comment #4 (Posted by kcreason)
Rating:
Good start but needed more concrete information (link to NSF site where implementing regulations and programs will be announced, for example, time line for implementation, whether or not this is actually FUNDED now, names/emails of key personnel in charge of implementation, etc.)
Comment #5 (Posted by anonymous)
Rating:
America Competes: A View from the Battleground
America Competes seems to be a valiant effort to make the Unites States a leader in research activities. The ideas presented in the legislation seem wonderful from the outside looking in. However, from the inside looking out, it is all smoke and mirrors. I am a classroom teacher and I am on the battleground daily fighting this same fight Congress is trying to win, attempting to help secure America’s future as a world leader.
As a science teacher, it is encouraging that the America Competes legislation proposes doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation and increasing funding for agencies such as NASA. It is further enlightening that the legislation has a focus on strengthening the skills of teachers in math and science through improving pre-service training and continuing education opportunities. Yet, still I do not feel these measures are attacking the problem. Only one component of the legislation provides direct funding to schools for instruction. America Competes suggests providing grants to improve math instruction in elementary and middle grades. A grant implies that schools will have to apply for the funds. Shouldn’t the money be readily accessible to and directed to those schools in need of the money.
In order for America to be competitive, the workforce must be well educated. Therefore, instruction at primary, secondary and postsecondary institutions must be improved. The overall focus of the legislation is science, individual learn the most about science at these institutions, not other agencies. These are the places the money needs to go to, the front lines of the battleground. As a teacher, I am forced to sometimes buy my own materials for lab activities, because of a limited department budget or to do without. Each time students are not given the opportunity to do science, they are disadvantaged and their innovation is further limited. Innovation starts with understanding basic science content knowledge and skills. If this base is absent, innovation will not be possible. Partnerships between National laboratories and high schools are valuable and provide outstanding learning opportunities, but these opportunities are limited to those students in the vicinity of these establishments. What about the students who are not fortunate enough to live in areas surrounding these establishments? How will they be enriched?
The only way we can win this war is by putting the revenue in the front lines of the battleground. More funding needs to be directed to direct instruction. Whether it be teacher salaries, classroom supplies, facility upgrades or lab equipment, this is where the money needs to be. Increasing support of instruction and thereby improving our educational system is our best weapon to win the competition war.
Comment #6 (Posted by Anil Banrjee)
Rating:
The “America Competes Act” focuses on three critical areas to maintain America’s edge on global economy and innovations in science and technology. The Act provides research investments in many areas to improve science and mathematics education. I liked the increased research investments in professional development of in-service science and mathematics teachers through summer institutes, and the Noyce Teacher scholarship program for recruiting pre-service science and mathematics teachers. A large number of out-of field teachers teach science and mathematics at high schools in many states including Georgia. I think there is a critical need to recruit teachers having an undergraduate degree in the area they teach. The Noyce teacher scholarship program is expected to motivate science and math majors to become teachers. The other closely related area mentioned in this act is to develop programs for bachelor’s degree in science and math content areas with concurrent teaching credentials. Many universities, like the Columbus State University in Georgia offer such programs linking content and pedagogy. One example is the BA chemistry and education program in which students do major in both chemistry and secondary science education. Another innovative possibility could be to offer an independent Bachelor’s degree in a science content area, and at the same time offer pedagogical courses related to the teaching in the content areas. This approach would allow more flexibility to teach and or go to industry. Another innovative thinking in this Act is to create centers of excellence in science and mathematics education through partnership between National Laboratories and school districts. The Act also requires the National Science Academies to conduct research to identify the barriers in innovation. I know good research already exists in this area including some of the recommendations made by the National Research Council in the document: “National Science Education Standards”. In my opinion, the greatest impediment to innovations is the concept of mediocrity and to continue to do the things in the routine usual ways. The “No child left behind Act” is an example and we have good evidence to say the Act basically has been translated to the concept “Teach to Test”. Another example is inquiry teaching. While lots of lectures are being given on science inquiry, we do not have much hard experimental evidence on the effects of sustainable inquiry teaching and learning in classrooms at the high school level. My own research on inquiry teaching in Texas and Georgia identified many areas of hurdles and struggles and the most important barrier is the lack of support from school administration. I strongly recommend that the National Academy of Sciences should initiate studies to make some classrooms totally inquiry learning format for the full academic year and to collect data to see the effect of inquiry teaching.
Comment #7 (Posted by PB in CA)
Rating:
As someone proposing the type of frontier research ( STEM education ) COMPETES directs the agencies to spend 8% of their budgets on, let me raise an issue nobody is thinking about yet. Suppose breakthrough paradigm shifts emerge -- is there any concerted plan to make sure that the economic benefits are enjoyed by U.S. workers before the know-how spreads abroad to competitor nations? This is the so-called "lead-time benefit" question. If the taxpayers money is going to the top-rung U.S. universities, since these researchers are highly international, it is dubious how the new know-how will not spread globally in an eyeblink. NSF still insists results be published (and project abstracts put out on the open web), as if anything creative we American taxpayers underwrite is a gift, free of charge, to our global competitors. The U.S. taxpayers are not so generous, especially the ones career-disrupted by lower-cost workers abroad. The military can do R&D under wraps, so why not the civilian sector?
It's surprising that such a basic element of strategy is being overlooked. The American taxpayer is at risk of getting ripped off bigtime by aggressive competitors in Asia and Europe, unless champions of Competitiveness in Congress wake up to the "lead time benefit" issue. Time is of the essence.
Comment #8 (Posted by Saeed U. Din)
Rating:
Not specific to the article rather the Intiative and Enact that very urgent and a very encouraging one.
