math wherever they exist-must be carefully crafted so that we are not criticized by one interest group as trying to do too much with too little, or doing too little too late. As members of this subcommittee, we will be asked by some interest groups to enact an omnibus bill; others will ask for targeting of our efforts. Some will insist on upgrading the competencies of current teachers rather than train new ones. Some will insist that out inadequacies in math and science is a result of insufficient offerings in schools and colleges, while others will say that we need only to make the content more relevant to current conditions. Shall we replace obsolet equipment, or consider alternate delivery systems such as joint programs among schools and cooperative programs between schools and industry? With seven major initiatives addressing our math and science needs already introduced in the Senate (and six major initiatives in the House), and with at least two more major math and science initiatives expected to be introduced shortly, we are going to have numerous options to choose from-some of which will be politically acceptable and others that will be considered politically limited, purely from the standpoint of budgetary requirements alone. We are, in short, going to be asked to limit the funding for our math and science initiative or initiatives, and if we limit our effort too severely we are going to end up passing legislation that represents no more that a token effort, neither "macro" nor "micro.' There are other approaches to resolving our math and science problems that are under discussion, but yet to be introduced. As I stated earlier, there are many options open to us as Members in addressing the inadequacies of math and science teachers as well as the content of instructional programs in our schools. And our task of sorting out and selecting those options is formidable. We need to proceed carefully and deliberately, and to begin modestly by enacting a bill, such as S. 530, and using it as the basic foundation for building upon in the future as we learn and understand more about this multifaceted problem. PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DODD Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity, as a member of this subcommittee, to participate in these proceedings. I commend you for the excellent job you have done in chairing these important hearings on the Education for Economic Security Act. By now most everyone has read the statistics and reports proclaiming a national crisis in quality science and mathematics education. And I am certain that each of you is aware that the present generation of Americans has been dubbed as being scientifically and technically illiterate. This comes at a time when the need for science and mathematics skills are becoming increasingly more important throughout the world. A prime example of the need for adequate science and mathematics knowledge and skills is emphasized by the new technology revolution. At the same time that many reports proclaim that America's economic future will depend upon the success of high technology industries, other reports project a shortage of adequately trained people to fill the positions created by the new technology revolution. These predicted shortages are truly sadly ironic when 12 million Americans are looking for work. Without increased knowledge and skills in science and mathematics, a significant number of positions in high technology industries will remain vacant and a lot of good people who are seeking jobs will continue to be unemployed and underemployed. I do not pretend to know all the right questions, answers, or solutions to the Nation's science and mathematics dilemma. In my judgment, however, there are a number of issues which must be addressed. Among these are: teacher competency, adequate equipment and instrumentation for faculty and students, and new science and mathematics curriculum development. These issues have been addressed in a bill which I am proud to have cosponsored, S. 530, the Education for Economic Security Act, introduced by Senators Pell, Stafford, and Cranston. This comprehensive legislation provides financial assistance to State and local education agencies to increase student knowledge and skills in science, mathematics, and foreign languages, and to foster better employment-based vocational education. In addition, the concerns of a bill I introduced to provide qualified science and mathematics teachers in secondary schools are addressed in the Pell, Stafford, and Cranston legislation. My bill, S. 401, the National Science and Mathematics Teachers Development Act, provides for workshops and other continuing education programs for secondary school science and mathematics teachers. These programs would be federally financed by grants to institutions of higher education to help upgrade the competency, substantive knowledge, communication skills, and teaching strategies. The combined provisions of S. 401 and S. 530, in my opinion, are a practical and balanced attempt to solve the Nation's educational problems. These bills provide the means to insure that every student has access to the comprehensive knowledge and skills required by the high-technology revolution. Senator STAFFORD. The Chair is exceedingly happy to recognize a very distinguished and able Member of the Senate who is also chairman of the Budget Committee and, I am very happy to say, a member of the other committee that I have the privilege of chairing, the Environment and Public Works Committee. I know, Senator Domenici, that your interest in education is profound, and I am honored, as is the subcommittee, that you have found the time in your schedule to be here with us this morning and I welcome your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to be here. I do not know if you know, Mr. Chairman, that I am a math teacher dropout. My first job in life was teaching math. Senator STAFFORD. I should have met you about 50 years ago. [Laughter.] Senator DOMENICI. That was a long time ago when I started, but I did not leave because I did not love it. I was challenged by somebody to go to law school, and I did. From what I can tell, the problems I saw then in math and science have continued with one interruption for 8 or 10 years postSputnik, when the United States decided to get with it and place a special emphasis on math, science, and engineering education. I was rather amazed, in seeking information from experts nationally and in my State, to have them stress how that post-Sputnik program had worked, but we had not found the ability to continue it in our school systems. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. The first two or three pages of it are redundant to your excellent statement of the problem, so I will not read them. I will merely tell you that I was in the city of Los Alamos about 10 days before I introduced the bill that I will talk about here today, and I was still wondering whether the National Government ought to be involved in this area. I ran into one of my best friends in the scientific community, and after all the heady budget talk and macroeconomic talk, he cornered me and said, "You know, all that sounds very good and it is all very important, but I hope you understand that if the United States does not get its act together with reference to math, science, engineering, and physics, and instill in our young people a desire to pursue those fields, and, in particular, find some way to stimulate good people to be math and science teachers, an awful lot of what you are talking about in terms of the American economy is not going to come into fruition, because our competitors in the world will beat us-in particular, Japan and Germany and a few others. He suggested quite firmly that we had better get with it. Hearing that, along with 50 or 60 other experts in my State describing the serious nature of the problem, I concluded, No. 1, Mr. Chairman, that you are right on track in pursuing this effort with the introduction of your bill and holding these hearings today. I know that the legislation which is going to eventually emerge from your committee will borrow good ideas from several science and math bills which have already been introduced. I want to just suggest that any Federal legislation should do at least the following: It should encourage existing science and math teachers to stay in education rather than leaving for other positions. S. 248, the bill that I introduced with some cosponsors, addresses this issue through a teacher award program administered by the National Science Foundation. Second, I think we must create incentives for more individuals to become science and math teachers. We propose a merit scholarship program for students studying to become math and science teachers. I believe this is unique among the Senate bills in this way. The House bill also contains a provision in this regard. Third, we should allow States and local agencies great flexibility in the use of the money. Each State and each school district has unique problems. S. 248 deliberately builds on a chapter 2 block grant to promote flexibility and ease of administration." Fourth, I think whatever bill you produce must bring the science and research communities and the education community and the private sector together to work on improving math and science education. There are many exciting things in existence by way of new technology and innovation that obviously are not being used. Somehow or another, we have to find some way to get those kinds of things into the school systems. We attempt to do that by funneling the Federal effort through both the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education and by encouraging States to establish commissions or advisory councils with members from the scientific community, education, and private industry. While their name is the Commission on Excellence, it does not matter what they are called; we hope they serve the purpose of setting goals for the sovereign States in terms of excellence in these particular disciplines. Fifth, we have to concentrate resources on those areas of greatest need. I know this is controversial, but no matter how much we would like it, billions of dollars simply are not available for this effort. More could be done to improve the quality of higher education, foreign language instruction, and certainly vocational education. But perhaps it would be best to address these issues in separate legislation. For the present, in this vehicle it would be best to concentrate on directing resources into improving the quality of science and math in our elementary and secondary schools. I introduced S. 248 with these goals in mind. There are undoubtedly many other approaches and good ideas that would be effective. I hope that the committee will carefully consider the provisions in S. 248, particularly the merit scholarship program. It might very well be from what I have learned that the merit scholarship program in S. 248 has to be strengthened and we might have to spend considerably more money in that regard. S. 248 has been introduced, and I have had many conversations with parents, principals, teachers, and administrators on how the bill could be strengthened. With the permission of the chairman, I will submit a list of suggestions for the record that I determined in these talks and conversations. Many of my colleagues have asked how I, as Budget Committee chairman, could propose funding a new Federal program, and I will just answer the question briefly. It is my opinion that we are moving not only into an economic recovery period, but certainly we are moving into some kind of transition with reference to our basic industry, our economic strengths, and how we are going to employ our people. I do not think we know how all that is going to come out, but I think we do know that crucial to that transition and to the building blocks for this recovery is that we maintain preeminence in the development of high technology and leadership in science, research, math, and physics. This type of legislation will help sustain a long-term recovery, and I think you have already expressed that clearly and I will not repeat it. No Senator is worried more about the effect of large deficits than I am, but I must say that there are things we must do in spite of that that have long-term recovery in mind and whose ulti mate goal is prosperity and recovery. In this instance, I think we have to spend some money to make sure that that happens. I want to close by just telling you, Mr. Chairman, that a couple of days ago I had a young boy in my office from a small rural school. He was up here as a Westinghouse science finalist, one of the 40 in the Nation, and I said, "Sit down for a while and let us talk." He is a senior in high school. I tried to find out what enthused him hecause all he could talk about was physics and research and wanting to go to MIT or Cal Tech. I found that the two things that kept him involved in science studies the first sounds very simple, but the science fairs that we have in the United States and that involve the rural schools first stimulated him. He has been a winner in that for 7 consecutive years. Then he was quick to add that his teachers were interesting, stimulating and worked hard. Even though he was in a little rural school, he had taken every math and science course around, and I was astounded to find that they had one course beyond trigonometry in that school. They had 2 years of physics; they had 2 years of chemistry and 2 years of biology. So, I do not think we ought to be critical. Teachers and students are really trying out there, but the basic facts are startling in terms of deficiencies, in terms of teachers leaving, and in terms of turning off young students at 10, 11, or 12 years of age who do not want to have anything to do with math or science. So, Mr. Chairman, the challenge is serious and significant, and I am very hopeful that with your commitment and dedication, you will put together the best of all the ideas. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a long-standing and difficult problem of whether you use the National Science Foundation as it was used in the post-Sputnik scientific and math effort, or whether you go the route of the Department of Education. I am hopeful you will find some reasonable compromise, but I do believe the National Science Foundation has to be intimately involved. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Senator. The subcommittee certainly appreciates your appearance; I do, especially, as Chairman. I can assure you that in considering this problem, we are going to borrow from all of the good ideas that come across from the witnesses, and I can see that some excellent ones are in your proposal. They will be seriously considered. You mentioned the Sputnik era, which reminded me of a story from that time. I was then in Vermont State government, and I remember one of the jokes that circulated at that time was about a teacher who asked her class in the sixth grade to count from 1 to 10. One little girl, whose father worked for our space effort at the time-we had not then gotten anything in the air to rival Sputnik-said she could do it. So, the teacher said, "Go ahead," and she said, "ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, oh hell." [Laughter.] Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Senator. |