Imagens das páginas


nication technologies in behalf of better science and mathematics educa-
tion; and
research and development in science education.

[ocr errors]

Teacher Preparation

How science and mathematics teachers go about their work and with what resources may change in the future, but nothing on the horizon even suggests that their role will be diminished. Thus, it is urgent that some legislation be passed in this Congress so that we can begin to deal with the problem of helping the teachers upgrade their subject-matter knowledge and their ability to teach it.

Viewed in the long run, however, there are, I believe, several shortcomings in proposed legislation that remain to be dealt with. Some of these are:

[ocr errors]

The aggregate authorization in most proposed bills, whether matched
or not by state agencies and private sources, is small compared to
the magnitude of the need. A few weeks of summer study once every
decade or so is not enough to bring teachers up-to-date and keep them
there. The cost of seeing to it that all of the unprepared, the poorly
prepared, and the formerly prepared teachers of science and mathematics
are brought up to standard, and then that they all receive additional
training periodically, is many times higher than the sum total of what
is now being proposed.

o Many of the proposals call for state and private matching of funds.

This is a reasonable idea conceptually, but it is clumsy in operation
and it favors the wealthy states and those that have a profitable indus-
trial base. It is as important for the teachers in the poor states,
perhaps even more so than in the wealthy ones, to receive intensive
and periodic training.

o Proposed legislation does not distinguish between two related, but

quite different dimensions of the problem: (1) the recognition and
advanced training for the very best teachers, and (2) the general up-
grading of the entire science and mathematics faculty in individual
schools. For the former teachers, NSF institutes of the kind that
used to be held in the nation's greatest research universities and
in which the participating teachers were selected in a national compe-
tition and paid stipends, are especially effective. They bring to the
teacher the prestige of NSF, the satisfaction of having been select-
ed on the grounds of merit, and the reward of attending great institu-
tions, however far they might be from one's residence. But to improve
the quality of science and mathematics instruction in a given school
requires that all teachers of those subjects receive full attention.
This can be accomplished best through the kind of instruction that
is operated through the states and local school districts as part of
a systematic multi-year plan, with the Department of Education serving
as the major funding agency.

[ocr errors]

The proposals are not facing up to questions of effectiveness and effi


ciency. If we are really to serve the continuing education needs of
our teachers, year after year, we must develop an electronic capability
to supplement and implement traditional study opportunities. This
is to say we should now invest in a system for delivering teacher educa-
tion to the teacher at his school or home that uses video tapes, audio
tapes, computer programs, and the like. Such devices will make it
possible for teachers to stay up-to-date in content and techniqu.
through personal study and, if necessary, demonstrate this through
periodic external examinations. Such a modern system could have associ-
ated with it periodic university study and experience in industry and
science museums. To accomplish this, it would be necessary to invest
not only in the delivery system, but also in the creation of effective
teacher training materials. There needs to be, therefore, legislation
authorizing grants to universities, science museums, and scientific
societies to provide these materials.

Mobilizing Resources

Like it or not, it will cost billions of dollars to restore vitality to the nation's science education enterprise. Proposed Federal legislation calls for only a few hundred million. Some States are making investments, but many are not, and many in fact are reducing educational expenditures. Where, then, are the funds to come from to do the job, and how can the job be managed?

The management question comes up because there are so many players in the game.

On the Federal side there are several agencies (the Department of Education and NSF are the most prominent, but not alone) and several Congressional committees that have a legitimate interest in helping to upgrade science education. After that, we are dealing with 50 states, many of which divide the responsibility in smaller regional units, and some 15,000 separate school districts presided over by independent school boards. Private business and industry vary greatly from place to place in what they are doing to assist education. The foundations, public libraries and science museums, colleges and universities, numbering in the thousands, have a part to play in science education, as have the nation's scientific, mathematics, and engineering societies. How, then, are we to marshal resources and achieve national purposes, given such dispersion of authority?

As a start in finding an approach that acknowledges the capital investment character of the problem, the need for Federal leadership, and the crucial reality of State and local implementation, I would like to suggest that congress consider creating what I will refer to here as the Corporation for Educational Assistance. This, or some such organization, might have the following features:

[ocr errors]

It would be quasi-governmental, modeled after such predecessors as
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation instituted by President Hoover,
the Municipal Assistance Corporation which provided a mechanism to
get New York City back on its feet, and the World Bank. It would be
conceived of as a stable, Federally backed financial agency prepared
to help the States design and implement hard-headed plans for strength-
ening science education.


[ocr errors]

Like such organizations, and perhaps also the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, CEA would serve purposes defined by Congress, but would
be managed by a board of trustees made up of distinguished leaders
from business, labor, education, and science. It would be headed by
a chairman and a CEO equivalent to the most distinguished business,
financial, and educational institutions in the United States.

[ocr errors]


It would itself be capitalized with funds from several sources.
might include:

- a fixed annual appropriation from Congress,

the issuance of interest-paying bonds,

contributions from the private sector that would qualify for special tax credits,

revenue from an ear-marked tax on electronic arcade games. (This alone might provide something like several hundred million dollars a year, and would not be onerous.)

[ocr errors]

The Corporation would review plans to improve science and mathematics
education of the individual States, regions, and cities. The emphasis
would be on long-term planning by the States and would necessarily
take into account local circumstances, financial and educational. The
Corporation for Educational Assistance, through its lending authority,
could help provide States with improvement capital.

Since the focus of CEA would be long-term investment and making capital
available, the functions of other Federal and state agencies could
continue unabated. The NSF would still fund R&D, meric teacher fellow-
ships, science museums, and the like; the Department of Education would
provide funds for the development of national television programming
for children, teacher training institutes, dissemination, etc.; the
NIH would underwrite the development of instructional materials relating
to health, and so forth.

The second idea I would like to present to you has to do with the quality and availability of continuing teacher education. The nation's teachers, as has already been suggested, and the nation's children need to have available a modern system for learning. Such a system would have several elements, including:

a dedicated satellite (EDSAT), available for 24 hours a day exclusively to serve the educational needs of all of our students and teachers.

a combination of land stations and cable connections that would link every school and college to EDSAT.

the development in many different universities, schoolrooms, televi


sion stations, museums, laboratories, etc., of instructional programs and materials for science teachers and their students, and eventually for students and teachers of all subjects.

In addition to program material to supplement science and mathematics teaching at all grade levels, EDSAT could transmit such unusual fare as daily science news for the classroom, ideas for student activities, math competitions, special events, etc. All broadcasts could be automatically video-taped on the premises (day or night) and used by teachers and students in accordance with their own individual situations and preferences. Needless to say, material could be made available in this way to colleges, homes, libraries, and museums.


computer capability in every school. One or two computers per school
will not do, nor will the computer be of much use, however many
there if there is not good software to use with them, or if
the teachers are not trained to use them effectively. Any effort
to modernize schools technologically must include plans for producing
computer materials for training the teachers, as well as for chil-.

Under present circumstances some of these things will be done in some places, but, viewed nationally, progress will certainly be hit or miss, unsystematic, and unnecessarily expensive. The Federal government should consider assigning NASA the responsibility for designing, launching, and maintaining this national educational communications system. The costs and responsibility for the development of materials themselves could be lodged in other agencies, such as the Department of Education and NSF. The management of "EDSAT PLUS". could be modeled after COMSAT, or made the responsibility of an Education Communications Authority.

purpose, in any case, would be to set as a national goal the technological modernization of teaching, and to set up an agency to build a nationwide system of communications linking the schools and colleges of America to each other, to the scientists, engineers, and mathematicians of our nation, and to the most creative producers of science learning materials.


These two ideas--a Corporation for Educational Assistance and EDSAT-have not been worked out in detail. I present them to this Committee because I believe that eventually we must look to such mechanisms as ways to mobilize our financial and intellectual resources in behalf of the scientific learning of our young people.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Dr. Rutherford.
Mr. Aldridge, we would be glad to hear you.

Mr. ALDRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I would like to begin by noting that the data which has documented this crisis has come from only two sources, principally from the National Science Teachers Association, and second from Howe and Gerlovich of Iowa State. None of that data came from the National Science Foundation.

I am saying this because one of the serious problems we had was spending 3 years convincing the Congress that we had a crisis because the National Center of Education Statistics had not provided documentation, and neither had the Science Resource Studies Group at the National Science Foundation.

With that, I would like to cite some of the more recent results of our studies, but not repeat most of the statistics which you have all heard so frequently.

There clearly is a catastrophic drop in the number of people prepared to teach science and mathematics in the secondary schools. În addition, there are at this time large numbers of unqualified teachers in the classrooms-something like 30 percent of the teachers in science and math classes.

We know that a substantial number of these are reassignments from social sciences, physical education, home economics, and so forth-reassignments because of surpluses in those areas and the inability of schools to employ qualified people because of the shortages.

We also know that in this present school year, something like 640,000 children were not able to take a science or math course because the classes were not scheduled in order to schedule courses other than science or math for those surplus teachers; we have evidence of that.

We know that among the 17 million children in grades 8 to 12 this school year, 6.3 million are not taking any science at all, and 6.4 million are not taking any math.

One of the more serious problems that we recognize and we feel is not adequately addressed in the legislation that we have seen is the matter of outdated courses and course content.

What we have today in the schools was designed originally for those persons who would become scientists and engineers. It now is outdated and obsolete even for that audience. It has not served at all those 95 percent of the population who do not intend to become scientists or engineers. So, something important needs to be done in this regard.

We recognize the fact that there is a local responsibility for the delivery of education, and we recognize the State responsibility in preparation of teachers, and we recognize that the Federal responsibility comes in only when we face such a crisis as we now see.

Nevertheless, you have an agency in the Federal Government which has a mission to support science education at all levels. Almost as a direct consequence of the negligence of that agency, we face the present situation; that agency is the National Science Foundation.

The constituency of the board that offers policy for that agency is almost entirely made up of people who are research scientists or

« AnteriorContinuar »