the formal educational preparation required to provide students with an understanding of modern technology. Compounding this situation is the realization that there are few inservice programs or opportunities for certified mathematics and science teachers to update or broaden their skills and backgrounds. Dr. Scott Thomson, Executive Director of the

NASSP, clearly articulated our position regarding this dilemma by stating that teachers of math and science need opportunities to upgrade their understanding of the rapidly changing technologies and their use in industry, for it is at the elementary and secondary levels of a youth's education that both competence and academic self image take root.

The

We feel that a reversal of this downward trend in math and science instruction is essential if our great nation is to remain competitive in a world of rapidly changing industrial and technological advancements. key to such a reversal is the classroom teacher. Yet there is evidence that there is a severe and growing shortage of mathematics and physical science teachers in the nations secondary schools. In a survey including 44 states in 1980, Dr. Hurd revealed that 28 states had a shortage in mathematics, and in 16 states the situation was listed as critical. 1981-82, 27 states reported a critical shortage of physics teachers and 15 more states reported a shortage. Although Rhode Island, at the present time, does not appear to have a shortage in these areas, I have personally noted very few teacher applications in the math and physical science disciplines for my school district.

For

Additionally, the decline in student teachers in the math and science areas, which I have witnessed in recent years, tends to substantiate in Rhode Island the results of a ten-year survey (1971-1980) of 600 colleges

and universities with teacher training programs.

This study revealed a

77 percent decline in the number of secondary school mathematics teachers

being trained and a 65 percent decline in science teachers. More critical was the fact that of those trained to teach mathematics or science, a decreasing number to into teaching, choosing business or industry instead. This unfortunate reality is primarily the result of the economic wage differentials between school districts and industry.

In the past few years, I have spoken to an increasing number of teachers who have contemplated or actually made the transition from teaching to industry based solely upon economics. I have also witnessed the elimination of the Future Teachers Club at my school due to declining student interest.

In a recent survey of my senior class of 250 students, only 33 students indicated an intention of pursuing post-secondary education in the fields of mathematics or science and none of these students planned to teach.

It would seem apparent then that we must establish local, regional and national goals and policies which will focus upon the reconstruction of science and mathematics education. Together, the RIASP and the NASSP endorse national legislation to inspire new blood into our math and science classrooms. Such legislation must assist school districts in providing training and retaining of the present elementary and secondary teachers of math and science. It must enable universities and colleges to provide services to experienced teachers which broaden their perspectives and the application of math and science knowledge, and strengthen their teaching skills. It must enable school districts to upgrade and modernize their curriculum and provide the flexibility for the purchase of appropriate equipment, including laboratory equipment. As you know, the NASSP has worked with the supports Rep. Carl Perkins' bill, H.R. 1310, which provides for these potential solutions.

Finally, we feel that national initiatives must stimulate stronger

relationships between business and schools, via tax incentives which allow wchool and industry officials plenty of latitude in finding ways to cooperate. Our school and industry officials must be allowed to pursue the most appropriate line of cooperation which would allow teachers to learn the latest applied uses of technology. By placing teachers in a competitive income bracket, the likelihood of their leaving the school for purely financial considerations would be lessened. Once again, we have worked with and supported Senator John Glenn's bill, S-290, which would make this initiative possible.

In conclusion, we urge swift enactment of a new program to assist our schools in the areas of math and science, and pledge to work with you to achieve these ends. Hopefully, such a program will prevent a majority of high school graduates from becoming members of one of the fastest growing minority groups in the United States, the scientific and technological

illiterates.

I thank you for the opportunity to share our views about how our schools can be of assistance in solving this national crisis.

I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Gainey, and I enjoyed our conversation in Washington just a couple of weeks ago,

too.

Mr. GAINEY. Thank you.

Senator PELL. Now, if Mr. Froberg, the executive secretary for the Rhode Island Association of School Superintendents would take the mike.

Mr. FROBERG. Senator Pell, we thank you very much for extending to us the invitation to participate in this hearing. I am accompanied today by Myron Francis, superintendent of our association. On his behalf, I am submitting a statement for the record in addition to my own.

Senator PELL. It will be printed as if read.

Mr. FROBERG. I also am submitting for the record an article that appeared in yesterday's Providence Journal, "The United States Schools Fail to Meet Future's Challenge." I thought there were some areas in that article that might be helpful to you and your committee in the deliberation of this bill.

Senator PELL. I would also ask that there be inserted in the record the article in the current Business Week, March 28, which has an excellent article on the same subject. It was drawn to my attention by Mr. Carlotti.

Mr. FROBERG. Before I continue, I would like to take a minute to thank you, Senator Pell, for your support, interest, and continued leadership in sponsoring and supporting legislation that has been so beneficial not only to Rhode Island, but to our entire Nation.

There are two Rhode Islanders in particular who represented us in Congress who have stamped their mark in Federal educational activities: the first, a man who was a close friend, the late John Fogarty, was a leader in the House of Representatives in education for the handicapped.

Senator PELL. And the record should show that his nephew testified here earlier this morning on behalf of the governor. So the tradition goes from generation to generation.

Mr. FROBERG. Yes. His activities in the area of the handicapped, Public Law 874 in vocational education, as well as others.

The second is yourself, Senator Pell. Legislation you have sponsored has provided an educational opportunity for an untold number of postsecondary students, who otherwise may have not had the opportunity to continue their education. Your continued assistance-insistence for adequate funding for general education, special education, vocational education, adult education, and postsecondary education has been consistent.

This act, S. 530, is an example. We are most grateful.

The technological revolution, as you know, is upon us. By 1990 one-half of our Nation's gross national product will be generated by high tech industries with five out of six high growth jobs found in computer related fields. This will undoubted place a strain on our supply of additional scientists and engineers.

As you are aware, student enrollment in these fields is nowhere near the level that is needed. Although there is a variety of explanations for this, one observation is that a predominant factor is there has been a long term systemic problem in our precollege science and math education. While teachers are both qualified and

dedicated, a surprisingly large number lack the opportunities to review new developments and technologies so necessary in sparking enthusiasm in the subject area in these students.

A shortage of teachers in these areas also exists because the salaries offered in private industry far outweigh those in education, resulting in fewer young people going into the profession. A reduction in our school population with a resulting reduction in staff demonstrates the need for retraining teachers in these technological areas.

Another factor is that some methods of improving instruction in math, science, and computer technology have associated costs. Like other public agencies, schools have been caught up in the squeeze of rising prices and operating costs and decreasing revenues. At present, according to the Advisory Counsel on Intergovernmental Relations, 46 States have laws eliminating taxes. But since 1977, 29 States have passed new laws that limit both expenditures and taxes; for example, proposition 13 in California or Two and a half in Massachusetts.

These laws render public agencies less able to respond to inflation and extraordinary cost increases. Schools currently spend 80 to 85 percent of their budget on employees' salaries and benefits, and thus have only limited funds to cover new training for employees or new facilities and equipment, such as science labs, science equipment, and computer related equipment.

With the foregoing in mind, I turn to S. 530. We have some concerns. $400 million is the authorization with 65 percent being allocated for elementary, secondary, and vocational education. This would mean a total of $260 million in the area of elementary and secondary schools. $260 million is simply not enough to help 16,000 school districts improve their instruction in math, science, computer technology, vocational education, and foreign languages, as well as develop an adequate pool of qualified teachers.

Spread evenly across the country, $260 million would amount to about $5 per student; certainly not enough to sustain the broad national effort. We believe it is seriously underfunded.

Senator PELL. Will you please pass that message to President Reagan.

Mr. FROBERG. Another concern is the 50-50 matching provisions. With limited resources available, together with the previously mentioned expenditure limitations in many States and school districts, it may be extremely difficult to raise the matching requirement. It may result in the affluent districts getting the funds.

The districts unable to obtain matching funds-and those are usually the ones that need it the most-will be unable to benefit from this act.

Our parent organization, the American Association of School Administrators, feels that Congress could help us a great deal by directing the National Institute of Education to conduct a series of studies on the math and science area so we can develop our information base. But AASA suggests that the NIE studies be funded from the regular NIE appropriation and not from such acts as S. 530 or similar legislation.

NIE should provide information to determine where teacher shortages are and how severe they are. The impression of AASA is