STATEMENT OF HON. LAWTON CHILES, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Senator CHILES. Thank you; I appreciate it. I am sorry that I was a minute late. Mr. Chairman, H. G. Wells compared human history to the race between education and a catastrophe, and I think he made a good point. When you look at how fast this math and science legislation is moving, you would think that catastrophe is going to win the race unless we get the bill enacted right away. I think there certainly is a need for immediate action to close the math, science, and high technology skills gap. It is the key to one of our most pressing economic problems today-unemployment, dislocated workers, low productivity, and lack of competitiveness in world markets. It is certainly something that we have neglected too long, and we are paying a price now and we will pay a higher price if we continue to neglect it. I think it is encouraging to see the consensus in Congress that math and science education is a high priority. We all want an effective Federal initiative to support what the State and local educational agencies and the private industry are doing. I certainly commend your subcommittee and my colleagues here for your commitment and efforts, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the dialog. In a couple of weeks, I am going to be introducing my bill on this subject. Since I am on the Budget and Appropriations Committees and not on the authorizing committees, I very seldom introduce legislation to authorize education programs. But from my work on the funding committees and on the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have a great deal of interest in trying to see how we direct our resources adequately and effectively to national priorities. There are two contributions that I hope to make to the dialog on the issues by having a bill. One is to offer a large framework that we can use to identify how we bring about the changes needed to improve math, science, and technical skills; second, to try to offer some mechanisms that we can use in our grants to States to see that the funds are targeted to the problem. I will have to say, Mr. Chairman, that seeing the number of bills and seeing the speed with which this sort of thing is working, I just implore your subcommittee and us in the Congress to see that we come up with a good approach and not one just because we finally discovered this problem. We all seem to have sort of discovered it and everybody wants to say they are doing something about it; I certainly do. I am very concerned that we are going to spend a lot of money before it is over and I want to spend it in an effective way. Senator STAFFORD. Senator, I could respond by saying that we are going to consider all of the bills that are introduced. We hope you will get yours in as soon as possible so we can have it in front of us. Senator CHILES. We will. Senator STAFFORD. I am being a little facetious maybe when I say that in view of your position on the Appropriations Committee and the fact that Senator Domenici, who preceded you, is chairman of the Budget Committee, we hope some aspects of your bill and his bill both will be part of the final product. [Laughter.] Senator CHILES. Well, I am on the Budget Committee, too, and so I hear what you are saying. Senator STAFFORD. We have a double reason, then. Senator CHILES. Yes, and Pete now serves on the Appropriations Committee as well. Well, my bill is not the only comprehensive piece of legislation that is being offered, and many of our colleagues have offered packages of legislation to deal with the shortage. But I think that we have to adopt a program that takes into account all of the points of intervention and how we allocate our resources to them. I think we have to look at how those pieces fit together and how all of the education programs work together for better math, science, and technological training. As you know, our problem is not only a shortage of qualified math and science teachers at the secondary level. The elementary teachers and postsecondary teachers in other fields need assistance in upgrading their math and science skills and understandings of technology. Not only do we need to raise our students' achievement in math and science; we need to get into the whole area of how the new technologies are going to affect their lives and work. So, efforts to just improve math and science are not enough. We are facing that tremendous gap of workers in the midlevel technical skills. Of course, that calls for fully using our vocational education system that we have in place for retraining in these skills. We have a lot of experience in education to show the need for a comprehensive approach. We know, for example, that you cannot improve education for handicapped children unless you can get them into the buildings. Our emphasis on basic math and reading skills is yielding some good results in test scores. It is interesting to see that the tests also show that the kids are learning how to multiply, but not when they should be multiplying. So, basic skills instruction has got to be matched with development of the so-called higher order of skills in analysis and decisionmaking. Our efforts to provide access to education have to include being sure that we are giving children access to quality education. That is not to say that we should abandon any of the worthwhile initiatives or shift our emphasis in the opposite direction, but it does point out the need to avoid a nearsighted approach. I think the type of improvements we are seeking here have to do with teacher training, with curriculum development, with research, with vocational education, and even with the overall quality of education and school improvement. So, our initiative to State and local education agencies, to colleges of education, and to industry seems to be to develop a balanced, well-coordinated and integrated system that prepares young people for the technological society in which they live and work. That need for a comprehensive approach is related to how we work on the Federal budget. We have to look at how much of our resources are directed to education versus health or defense in terms of the needs for each area. But we also have to look at the big national priority, like math, science, technology, and research in education, to see what portion of our resources should be and can be directed there. Within the big priority are the detailed needs of the various institutions and State and private industry, as well as the part each plays in the overall solution. Within the big priority are the various programs we have in place or will enact to address it. All of it, of course, we are trying to fit together to be effective. The bill that I am introducing is not all-inclusive; it does not contain additional tax incentives for business or industry to participate or donate equipment. It will not authorize a new direct Federal scholarship or loan forgiveness program. Those are potentially effective ways of addressing parts of the problem. The cost-benefit effect of those proposals, I think, has to be considered as well. But every form of grant entitlement and tax deduction is a form of spending, and we have to consider the cost of those proposals in terms of what we can afford and what will have the most impact as part of the comprehensive program. The second feature of the legislation I am going to introduce is the targeting and accountability mechanisms. The problem we are dealing with is a big one; it will take a lot of dollars at every level of Government and private industry over the years to address it. So, it is not a quick-fix or short-range solution. Teachers do not get recruited and trained overnight. As Dr. Rutherford and others have pointed out, it takes a long time for curriculum changes and new teaching methods to work their way into the classroom. But at the same time, we cannot repeat what we did after Sputnik went up--put on a crash program and then abandon it. So, I think we are going to need a way to justify the Federal spending that we commit to math and science now and in the future. The only way to justify this Federal spending is to have a valid national priority, which we do, and to show that the Federal dollars are zeroed into the program in an effective way. Because we need a comprehensive approach to all the interventions necessary does not mean that we can take a single-shot or shotgun approach. I think we are going to have to look at ways that this legislation can do several crucial things. Each Federal dollar needs to lever State, local and private resources to our highest national priorities in math, science, education and high-technology training. The Federal initiative, at the same time, must not stifle what the States and the private sector are already doing, nor can we burden them with a rigid, inflexible program. Many of the States are moving out on this, as you know, Mr. Chairman. My State of Florida is considering this in their new legislative session, and they have got a big package of what they are going to do in the State. So, we are not the only ones who have sort of awakened to the problem; the States are out there working on it, too. So, the Federal dollars need to carry with them some responsibility for the recipients to meet those national needs and gaps and what the States are doing. If we ignore this type of targeting and accountability, we will be sitting here a few years from now faced with the same complaints that I heard when I was running for the first time in the 1970s: Congress is wasteful; Congress throws money at problems; Federal programs discourage State, local and private initiative, and even hinder it, with the strings, the paperwork and the regulations that tell you how to dot every "I" and cross every "T.” I think the way to strike a balance between targeting the money to the problem without rigid restrictions is to give the States a lot of flexibility, and at the same time give them a lot of responsibility in how to use the Federal funds. The bill I will be introducing will contain a process for the States to plan how they are addressing and will address five or six national priorities. Those include teacher recruitment and retention, teacher training, curriculum improvement, industry needs for workers, access to math and science careers for women and minorities. The States would have the flexibility to target the Federal funds to their greatest need areas through the institutions that are most effective to address the problem. And then the States would have the responsibility for showing how the Federal funds were being used to address those overall goals. Under my bill, all the institutions that are a critical part of the answer to our math, science and high-tech skills problem would be included from the planning stage through the participation in the program. That includes the State themselves, local education agencies, community colleges, colleges of education, voc ed, private industry, public interest groups, and teachers. But rather than tying the hands of the States, saying that 60 percent of the funds must go here and 25 percent or 10 percent somewhere else, the approach that I would make would be to hold the States accountable for directing the funds according to the greatest need areas, whether it is recruiting in that particular State or improving curriculum. The States would also have to justify their activities in grants according to the involvement and capabilities of the types of institutions selected. All the eligible institutions would have a say in the development of the plan and, of course, there are incentives built in for the institutions and private industry to work together. As I say, I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the dialogue on this critical issue. I certainly look forward to working closely with the subcommittee and my colleagues to develop a sound Federal initiative and the appropriate Federal initiative to play its part in the national goal, including the part that we will have to play in the budget and/or Appropriations Committee when we come up with that particular plan. [The prepared statement of Senator Chiles follows:] |