H. G. Wells compared human history to a race between education and catastrophe. I think he made a good point. And when you look at how fast this math and science legislation is moving, you would think catastrophe was going to win the race unless we get a bill

enacted right away.

There is a need for immediate action to close the math, science, and high technology skills gap. It is the key to our most pressing economic problems today unemployment, dislocated workers, low productivity, and lack of competitiveness in world markets. It is something that we have neglected too long. We are paying the price and we will pay a higher price in the future if we continue

now,

to neglect it.

It is encouraging to see the consensus in Congress that math-science education is a high priority. We all want an effective Federal initiative to support what the States, local education agencies and private industry are doing. I commend the Subcommittee and my colleagues here for your commitment and efforts. I appreciate the opportunity to be a participant in the dialogue.

In a couple of weeks, I will be introducing the Math-ScienceHigh Technology Skills Act of 1983. Since I am on the Budget and Appropriations Committees, and not on the authorizing committee, I do not often introduce legislation to authorize education programs. But my work on the funding Committees, and on the Governmental Affairs Committee, gives me a great deal of interest in directing our resources adequately and effectively to national priorities. There are two contributions I hope to make to the dialogue on this issue by having a bill: One is to offer a large framework we can use to identify where and how we can bring about the changes needed to improve math, science, and technological skills. Secondly,

I would like to offer some mechanism we can use in our grants to the States to see that the Federal funds are targetted directly to the problem.

My bill is not the only "comprehensive" piece of legislation being offered. Many of my colleagues have offered a package of legislation to deal with the critical teacher shortage, the need

-2

for curriculum improvement and research.

But we must adopt a

program that takes into account all the points of intervention

and how we allocate our resources to them. We have to look at how

the pieces fit together, and how our existing and new education programs will work together for better math, science, and technological training.

Our problem is not only a shortage of qualified math and science teachers at the secondary level. Elementary teachers and postsecondary teachers in other fields need assistance in upgrading their math and science skills and understanding of technology.

--- There is not only a need to raise student achievement in math and science. Students must be taught how new technologies will affect their lives and work.

Efforts to improve math and science education are not enough. We are facing a tremendous gap in workers with mid-level technical skills. That calls for fully using the vocational education system we have in place for training and retraining in these skills.

We have a lot of experience in education to show the need for

a comprehensive approach.

You cannot improve education for handicapped children unless you provide access to the buildings and the facilities.

Our emphasis on basic math and reading skills is yielding some good results in terms of test scores. But tests also show kids are learning how to multiply but not when to multiply to solve a problem. Basic skills intruction must be matched with development of the so-called "higher order" skills analysis and decision-making. Our efforts to provide access to education have to include being sure we are giving children access to a quality education. This is not to say we should abandon any of these worthwhile initiatives, or shift our emphasis in the opposite direction. It just points out the need to avoid a near-sighted approach when looking at education. 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 incentive to State and

local education agencies, to colleges of education, to industry must

-3

be to develop a well-balanced and integrated system that really prepares young people for the technological society in which they will live and work.

The 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 we are directing to education, versus health or defense, in terms of what the needs are in each area. We also have to look at a big national priority like math, science, and technology research and education and 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, the States and private industry, as well as the part each plays in the overall solution. Within the

big priority are the various programs we have got in place, or will enact, to address it. But it all has to fit together to be effective. It will not contain additional

My bill will not be all-inclusive.

tax incentives for business and industry to participate or to donate equipment. It will not authorize a new, direct Federal scholarship or loan forgiveness programs. These are potentially effective ways of addressing parts of the problem. The cost-benefit of these proposals should be considered as well. But every form of grant, entitlement, and tax deduction is a form of spending. We have to

consider the "cost" of these proposals in terms of what we can

afford and what will have the most impact, as part of the comprehensive approach.

The second feature of the legislation I will introduce is the targetting 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 really address it. There is not a quick-fix, short-range solution.

Teachers do not get recruited and trained over night.

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.

We cannot repeat what we did after Sputnik went up on a crash program and then abandon it.

put

-4

So we are going to need a way to justify the Federal spending we commit to the math and science initiative now and in the future. And the only way to justify Federal spending is to have a valid national priority, which we do, and show that the Federal dollars are zeroed in on the problem in an effective way. Just because we need a comprehensive approach, to all the interventions necessary, doesn't mean we can take a single shot or a shot-gun approach.

We are going to need to look at ways this legislation can do several crucial things:

Each Federal dollar has to lever State, local and private resources to our highest national priorities in math and science education and high technology training.

The Federal initiative must not stifle what the States and the private sector are already doing, nor can we burden them with a rigid, inflexible program.

The Federal dollars must carry with them some responsibility for the recipients to meet the national needs and gaps in what the States are doing.

If we ignore this type of targetting and accountability, we will be sitting here a few years from now faced with the same complaints I heard when I walked the State of Florida in 1970 and have concerned the American people throughout the 1970's:

Congress is wasteful. Congress throws money at problems. Federal programs discourage State, local and private initiative, even hinder it, with the strings, paperwork, and regulations that tell you how to dot every "i" and cross every "t". I believe the way to strike the balance between targetting the

money to the problem without rigid restrictions is to give the States a lot of flexibility together with a lot of responsibility for use of 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. These include teacher recruitment and retention, teacher training, curriculum improvement, industry needs for workers,

-5

access to math and science careers for women and minorities.

The

States will have the flexibility to target the Federal funds to

their greatest need areas through the institutions most effectively

able to address the problem. And the States will have the responsibility

for showing how Federal funds are being used to address the overall

goals.

Under my bill, all the institutions that are a critical part of the answer to our math-science-high tech skills needs will be

included

-

the program.

from the planning stage through the participation in

This includes the States 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 60% of the funds must go here and 25% there and 10% some where else, my bill would hold the States accountable for directing the funds according to the greatest need areas, whether it's recruiting teachers or improving curriculum. The State would also have to justify its activities and grants according to the involvement 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 said, I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the dialogue on this critical issue. I look forward to working closely with the Subcommittee and my colleagues here to develop a sound Federal initiative, an appropriate Federal initiative to play its part in the national goal.

21-390 0- 83 - 3