"The President's call for more math and science students is not being heeded by his party's leaders in Congress. They are cutting over $10 billion from student aide while refusing to fully fund No Child Left Behind. Something doesn't add up"

Jim Clyburn points out a contradiction between the expressed desires of the President and the actual actions of Congressional leaders from his party. The President is actively encouraging more students to pursue math and science, a call reflective of national interests in maintaining economic competitiveness, technological advancement, and innovation. These fields are critical not only for individual prosperity but also for the country’s future in the global landscape, and the President’s rhetoric situates math and science education as a high priority.

Nonetheless, Clyburn highlights that while these calls are publicly pronounced, the policy decisions made by Congressional leaders seem to undermine this goal. Specifically, he notes a significant reduction in student aide funding, over $10 billion, and an ongoing failure to provide the promised, necessary resources for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative. The cuts to student aid directly threaten the accessibility and affordability of higher education for many capable students, especially those from low- and middle-income backgrounds who might otherwise contribute to the fields of math or science. Similarly, underfunding NCLB undermines systemic improvement and accountability in public schools, which are often the starting point for interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines.

The underlying suggestion of Clyburn’s statement is that actions speak louder than words. Political leaders must align their legislative actions and spending priorities with their public pronouncements if genuine progress is to be achieved. By saying “something doesn’t add up,” he uses a mathematical metaphor to subtly but effectively draw attention to this inconsistency. While advocating for greater educational achievement in STEM, leadership cannot simultaneously reduce the tools, financial support and educational program funding, necessary to achieve these very objectives. The result is a policy disconnect that calls into question either the seriousness of the commitment or the efficacy of leadership’s approach to education reform.