Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

-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.

My bill will not be all-inclusive.

It will not contain additional

tax incentives for business and industry to participate or to donate

equipment.

It will not authorize a new, direct Federal scholarship

[blocks in formation]

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

[merged small][ocr errors]

We cannot repeat what we did after Sputnik went up

put

on a crash program and then abandon it.

-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

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

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

from the planning stage through the participation in

the program.

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 O - 83 - 3

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator CHILES. Yes, sir.

Senator STAFFORD. In seriousness, we can assure you that this subcommittee will review very carefully what you have said and the bill that you will be introducing, and we do intend to come up with a bill at the subcommittee level that combines the best features of all of the legislation that is placed in front of us.

So, we are very grateful to you for helping us this morning at a very busy time for all of us.

Senator CHILES. Well, I know this subcommittee has a great deal of expertise and I am sure that you are going to produce a bill that will be sound and beneficial to the problem that we are trying to address.

Senator PELL. It would help us, too, if you got the main points of your bill to us as quickly as possible so we can crank it in.

Senator CHILES. All right, sir.
Senator PELL. I would

also add that we very much appreciate the role you play in the Congress both in the Budget and in the Appropriations Committee. So, to get it enacted, we appreciate your position, and afterwards, to make it alive and fleshed out, we appreciate your position.

Senator CHILES. Thank you.
Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Senator.

Now, we will resume the panel that was interrupted for Senator Chiles. Gentlemen, our apologies for the interruption. This is a morning of interruptions for all of us. We are going to have a vote on an important treaty in about 7 minutes, which particularly will involve my colleague, Senator Pell, since he is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

We will have to stand down during that period long enough for this Senator to get over to the floor, vote, and get back here. So, I will apologize in advance for that second interruption, and without anything further, I guess the bell system was explained.

Senator PELL. It was. It would be nice if we could finish the panel before you had to leave for the vote.

Senator STAFFORD. We will try, but that seems a little doubtful. In any event, Dr. Rutherford, our apologies, and we will start with you again. We understand that staff has advised you that there is a 5-minute limit, if that is agreeable, gentlemen. We never do have enough time to do justice to statements.

Your full statements will be in the record and any material you wish to have included along with them. That stop-and-go thing is something Senator Pell and I see every morning trying to get to work. It just seems like the lights we are looking at take 5 minutes to change.

Anyway, Dr. Rutherford

Dr. RUTHERFORD. The first point is really to commend the notion that Congress is at work; I think that is good. It is important that you report out a bill and get it through the process this year. Generally speaking, the emphasis of the bills seems to me to be the correct one.

My second point is, however, that as I look at those bills, I find them, in fact, to be insufficient, incomplete and not to have the characteristics that Senator Chiles just described. There still is not yet enough thought in them. There are things missing. The magnitude is not yet up to the nature of the task we have before us.

As much as we might like to reform American education with a few cents here and there, in fact it is going to take a very large investment.

The bills are not complete; they leave out children; they leave out talent identification. There is not enough emphasis on research; not enough emphasis on the searching out of minority children; not enough on modernization and on curriculum development.

But it is a first step, and I think if it is recognized that what Congress is up to this year is getting something started in this area, with this recognition that we do not have before us a comprehensive plan, then I think we are moving in the right direction and can look to the future.

Then I would like to turn, in that regard, to the third point, which has to do with the problem of mobilizing resources and managing them. Most of the bills really adopt the plans we have had before. There is talk about the Department of Education and about the National Science Foundation, and how they can coordinate their efforts with 50 States and 15,000 school districts and with libraries and colleges and universities.

That is one of the things about our country; it is very difficult to organize ourselves, to form a direction, to have coherence, and to stick with something long enough to get the job done.

In that regard, then, I would like to offer merely suggestions of the direction that the discussion might take over the next year or so, and the thought that we look for other kinds of solutions to the resource problem and the management problem. Let me offer two examples.

One, I am referring to under the name of the Corporation for Educational Assistance, an agency or an entity to be modeled some thing after the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or the MAC that got New York on its feet, or perhaps the World Bank; that is, the notion of a place where we accrue the capital that it would take to make an investment in the recapitalization of the educational system to bring about the kind of change that is needed in teaching and learning.

Such an organization, headed by a strong team of people from business, labor, education and science, operated by a CEO of the equivalent of our best people in business and education, would do some of the things that Senator Chiles mentioned.

They would have money available for grants and for loans to States. The States, therefore, instead of having to deal with block grants, which generally are directionless, could, in fact, design programs that would be comprehensive, deal with the problem of teacher salaries, deal with the length of the school year, deal with the curriculum, or whatever was important in that State.

The Corporation for Educational Assistance could provide, then, the additional capital funds that are necessary to carry out an authentic and sophisticated State plan. The money for this fund might very well come from an annual appropriation from the Congress, the issuance of interest-paying bonds, contributions from the private sector that would qualify for special tax credits, and rev

« AnteriorContinuar »