Cover Image

PAPERBACK
$59.95



View/Hide Left Panel

ties.11 Others were the committee and analyst at other organizations who have gone before us producing reports focusing on the topics discussed in this report. There are too many to mention here, but they are cited throughout the report and range from individual scholars to the Glenn Commission on K–12 education, the Council on Competitiveness, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the National Science Board, and other National Academies committees. Such work and the reaction to it once published were invaluable to the committee’s deliberations.

The committee decided to provide a “box” in each chapter containing alternative points of view as captured in a review of existing reports, studies, reviewer comments, and informal consultations with experts and policy-makers.

The committee examined numerous case studies to gain a better understanding of which policies had the most potential to influence national prosperity. For example, many of the recommendations on K–12 and higher education rely on extrapolating successful state or local programs to the national level. The committee also reviewed existing federal programs for higher education and research policy that work well in one place and could potentially be applicable to other parts of the federal infrastructure. The committee also studied other nations’ experiences in implementing policy changes to encourage innovation.

FOCUS GROUPS

The focus groups (Appendix C) convened experts in five broad areas—K–12 education, higher education, science and technology research policy, innovation and workforce issues, and homeland security. Group members were asked to identify ways the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century.

Their contributions were compiled with the results of the literature search and with recommendations gathered during committee interviews. More than 150 concrete recommendations and implementation steps were identified and discussed at a weekend focus group session in Washington, DC. Each focus group, following its own discussions, presented its top three proposed recommendations to the committee members and to other focus-group participants.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The committee itself met over that same weekend and then in weekly conference calls. Using the focus-group recommendations as a starting point,

11

NAS/NAE/IOM. Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement