that the shortage of qualified teachers is not evenly distributed. NIE scholars should also work with industry and the Pentagon to identify the skills required for future workers and military personnel and what proportion of the population will need these skills so that we will not waste resources teaching students the wrong skills.

Also, NIE should develop a knowledge base about computers because the computer seems to be driving the revolution in math and science. For example, we should determine how to use computers best as an instructional tool and for which students.

Millions of dollars are being invested in computers when all the experts agree that we do not know how to use computers best for all students and for all courses. Computers are a fact of life, but the manfacturers have not invested much in educational software because they are not sure of a return on their investment.

If schools are to select the right machines and software to meet student needs to answer these tough questions, we will have to discuss them for years to come. It is also observed that S. 530 provides little or no funds for the administration and evaluation by the State departments of education. Again, with limited resources available at the State level, some funds should be available for these purposes.

We also have a concern relative to the distribution of funds. We understand clearly the allocation of money based on the numbers of schoolchildren in the district, but we just are not fully knowledgeable as to what is meant by the size of the proposed program in terms of the number of students to be served and the number of grade levels involved in the program.

We also have some concerns as to the regulations that may develop from this particular act. So often regulations deter the effectiveness of the intent of the act; we hope that this does not occur. While not a Federal responsibility, we urge the States to reexamine their teacher certification requirements so as to better utilize persons in our industries with technological expertise.

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to be present today, and we wish you well in this very much needed legislation.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Froberg and the article referred to follow:]

STATEMENT OF BURTON FROBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Burton Froberg, Executive Director of the Rhode Island School Superintendents' Association. I am here today representing the Rhode Island School Superintendents' Association of school superintendents in Rhode Island. I am accompanied by Myron Francis, Superintendent of Schools of East Providence and President of

the Association.

I am pleased to be here representing RISSA today because assuring adequate financial assistance to States in order to strengthen instruction in mathematics, science, computer education, foreign languages, and vocational education is essential for the nation's security and economic future.

Before continuing 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 and is so beneficial not only to Rhode Island but the entire nation. There are two Rhode Islanders in particular who represented us in Congress who stamped their mark in Federal Education 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, Public Law 874, Vocational Education and others. The second, is yourself Senator Pell. Legislation you have sponsored has provided an education opportunity for an untold number of post-secondary students who otherwise may not have had an opportunity to continue their education. Your continued insistance for adequate funding for general education, special education, vocational education, adult education and post-secondary education has been consistant. This Act S530 is an example. We are most grateful.

The "technological revolution" as you know, is upon us. By 1990, of our nation's GNP will be generated by high-tech industries with 5 out of 6 high growth jobs categories found in computer-related fields. This undoubtedly will place a strain on our supply of mathematicians, scientists and engineers.

It

has been stated that over the next decade the demand for scientists and engineers is expected to increase by over 40%.

--

As you are aware, student enrollment in these fields is no where near the level that is needed. Although there is a variety of explanations for this, one observation is that a predominant factor is a long-term systemic problem in our precollege science / math education. While teachers are both qualified and dedicated, a surprisingly large number lack the opportunity to review new developments and technology so necessary in sparking enthusiasm of the subject area in their students. A shortage of teachers in these areas also exist 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 which the schools are not in a good position to pay. Schools, like other public agencies have been caught in the squeeze between rising prices and operating costs and decreasing revenues. At present, according to the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, 46 states have laws limiting taxes, but since 1977, 29 states have passed new laws that limit both expenditures and taxes (for example Proposition 13 in California). These laws render public agencies less able to respond to inflation and extraordinary cost increases. Schools currently spend 80-85 per cent of their budget on employee 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 S530. We have some

concerns.

$400 million is the authorization with 65% being allocated

for Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education. This would mean a total of $260 million for this area. 260 million dollars is simply not enough to help 16,000 school districts improve their instruction of math, science, computer technology, vocational education and foreign language as well as develop an adequate pool of qualified teachers. Spread evenly across the country $260 million would amount to about $5.00 per student, certainly not enough to sustain a broad national effort. We believe it to be seriously underfunded.

Another concern is the 50-50 matching provision. 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, who are usually the ones with the most need, unable to benefit from this Act.

Our parent organization, AASA, feel that Congress could help us a great deal by directing the National Institute of Education, NIE, to conduct a series of studies on the math and science area so we can develop our information base but AASA suggests that such NIE studies be funded from the regular NIE appropriation and not from S530 or similar legislation. NIE should provide information to determine where teacher shortages are and how severe they are. The impression of AASA is that the shortage of qualified teachers is not evenly distributed. NIE scholars should also work with industry and the Pentagon to identify the skills required for future workers and military personnel and what porportion of the population will need those skills, so that we will not waste resources teaching students the wrong skills. Also, NIE should help develop our knowledge base about computers, because the computer seems to be driving the revolution in math and science. For example, we should determine how to use computers best as an instructional tool and for which students. Millions of dollars are being invested in computers when all the experts agree that we do not know how to use computers best for all students and for all courses. Computers are a fact of life but the manufacturers have not invested much in educational software courseware cause they are not sure of a return on their investment.

If schools are to select the right machines and coursework to meet student needs the answer to tough questions will have to be de

veloped.

It is also observed that S530 provides little or no funds for the administration and evaluation by the State Departments of Education. Again with limited resources available at the State level some funds should be made available for these purposes.

We also have a concern relative to the distribution of funds by the State Agency. We understand (A) distribution in the number of children in the district but are concerned with the provision (B) the size of the proposed program in terms of the number of students to be served and the number of grade levels involved in the program.

The regulations that may result for the implementation of this Act are also a concern. So often regulations deter the effectiveness of the intent of the Act. We hope that does not occur.

While not a Federal responsibility, we urge the States reexamine teacher certification requirements so as to better utilize persons in our industries with technological expertise.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and again express to you our sincere appreciation for your continued efforts to enhance the educational opportunities for our society.