7 sion stations, museums, laboratories, etc., of instructional programs computer capability in every school. One or two computers per school 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. The 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. 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 benefit from research science. There was a science education directorate in that agency at one time; that has been eliminated by the administration. Funding has dropped to something like 2 percent of its total level. When we look at the various bills that have been introduced in the last session of Congress and in the more recent session, the one that seems to hold the most promise from our standpoint is H.R. 1310, just passed in the House. It received overwhelming approval, something like a two-to-one margin even by the minority party in the House. We believe that it addresses most of the problems, and addresses them adequately, as a start. We have some concerns about the block grant program. We also have serious concerns about lodging any kind of research or development effort at the National Institute of Education until some resolution occurs in regard to the idealogues and the problems you are very familiar with, Mr. Chair man. We believe very strongly that NSF has the capability of linking the scientists and the science education people and the teachers in a cooperative way to produce quality products in course materials and course development, and we believe that they can offer the kinds of training programs for teachers that will spend Federal money most efficiently. So, we would strongly support those components of H.R. 1310. In summary, what we are recommending is that the Senate, as quickly as possible, put together some kind of appropriate companion measure to H.R. 1310, get it out of this committee onto some kind of a fast track, and get legislation approved so that by the fall, both the Department of Education and the NSF can have programs up and ready to run. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Aldridge follows:] TESTIMONY ΤΟ THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HUMANITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE U.S. SENATE IN REGARD TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL, PRESENTED BY: ROBERT E. YAGER NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION WITH: BILL G. ALDRIDGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR March 8, 1983 ROBERT E. YAGER Robert Yager was prepared as a high school teacher of science-graduating from the University of Northern Iowa in 1950 with a biology major and a teaching certificate. He taught science in grades 7-12 before entering graduate school at the University of Iowa. He earned an M.S. (1953) and a Ph.D. (1957) in plant physiology/biochemistry. After earning the doctorate, Dr. Yager decided against a life as a researcher in physiology and opted for a career in science education while retaining close ties with the active research team in physiology at the University of Iowa. Dr. Yager created one of the largest and most productive science education centers in the U.S. He has advised nearly 100 Ph.D. candidates, authored over 200 research reports, directed over 100 NSF, OE, and various Foundation research, development, and training projects. He has been active professionally having served on numerous boards, commissions, and panels; he has been the president of the Iowa Academy of Science, the School Science and Mathematics Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, and the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Currently he serves as the President of the National Science Teachers Association, the world's largest science education society with over 40,000 members and subscribers. |