Professor Robert Boyer to President Bush regarding his view on strengthening America’s education system

PLAS P- su 614 W. 32nd St. Austin, Texas 78705 3 February 1990 President George Bush The White House Washington, D.C. Dear President Bush: I applaud your focus, in your recent State of the Union Address, on math and science education. I believe that it is within your power (and that of the congress) to greatly raise America's performance in math and science without increasing federal spending. In my view, the problem we have is simply one of leadership. Outside of America, it is recognized that (practically) everyone can do math and must do math. I recommend that you simply find legislative methods for requiring math excellence. Here is an example of what I have in mind: Just as federal law requires of most colleges and universities that they follow certain practices (e.g., in areas of racial discrimination) to be eligible for any federal aid, federal law could be changed to require that every college include four years of high school mathematics as a condition of admission. If this requirement were phased in over a few years, it could easily be accommodated by the school systems and the students. Practically any college bound student can get through four years of mathematics, but all too many people (especially women) unnecessarily drop out of math for what can only be called dumb reasons. Other examples of federal law that would have enormously good effects, at no cost to the federal government, would be to require that: Every high school teacher of math or science must have an undergraduate major in math or science. Every high school must offer calculus as an option. Every university must require a course in calculus as a condition of graduation. The basic reason that these requirements would be ultimately cost free is that we have no need of more classes overall, just different classes. And because we do not need more classes, we do not need more teachers, just different teachers. No doubt there may be problems with any particular suggestion that I have made, but I hope you get my point: without spending any more money, we could do a whole lot better in math and science if we simply insisted upon it, expected it, and required it. Achieving the realization that we can do it is 90% of the battle. 2 Let there be no doubt, however, that there will be massive opposition to an attempt to implement any such requirement, and the reason is very simple. Math is hard work, math is painful! At least for most people. Becoming good at math is like becoming good at long distance running. Most people are capable of being pretty good at long distance running: just put in several hours a day, six miles a day. But even though most people could be good at long distance running, it would be incredibly difficult to force people to do it. The difference between math and long distance running is that math is essential to the future of our nation as a leading economic power. Either we get better in math, or our standard of living is going to continue to decline. One final strategic selling point that you should bear in mind. Currently, American business spends more on math education than does the state and federal government combined. If the law required much higher math standards from the schools, a major savings for industry would accrue. Sincerely yours, NHAze Robert S. Boyer P.S. For purposes of identification only, I mention that I am a professor of computer sciences and mathematics at the University of Texas at Austin. The opinions I have expressed are not intended to represent the University.