CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING MATH/SCIENCE EDUCATION PROPOSALS

• The proposal should be sufficiently comprehensive to include improvement of the quality of instruction in the fields of math, science, communication skills, foreign language, new technologies, guidance, and counseling.

• The proposal should provide for the planning and implementation of programs at the local level.

• The proposal should provide for local evaluation of the progress of program developed by funds from the proposal which requires participation and input from the school board, parents, teachers, appropriate bargaining agents, business, industry, and community.

• The proposal should establish participation requirements for local school districts which voluntarily participate in the program.

• The proposal should not advocate differential pay for any subject matter

area.

• The proposal must provide for administration under the Department of Education.

• The proposal must provide for sex equity and equal access to programs.

The proposal must provide for a research component to provide for improvement in teacher training methods, utilization of equipment, and classroom delivery methods and systems.

• The proposal must provide funds for the higher education community to jointly participate with local education agencies in preparation of the necessary number of qualified teachers to meet the need.

The proposal's federal dollars for the programs must be directed to the local education agency for program delivery.

• The proposal's funding authorization level must be of sufficient quantity to provide a reasonable expectation of success on a national level.

• The proposal should require that the current level of expenditure for educational programs should not be reduced as a result of funding for the new program.

Senator PELL I thank all of you very much indeed for being here. There are about 10 different bills in the Senate alone, not counting the House, focusing on this problem. The Hart bill, the ADEA, which Mr. Coleman mentioned, calls for an expenditure of $22 billion, I believe, obviously, I would like to see the expenditures be more than the $400 million that is in our bill.

But the bill that Senator Stafford and I have worked together on is basically what we see as being possible of passage. As you know, a $2.2 billion bill has not the tiniest chance of passage in the Congress at this time with the administration as it is.

Perhaps what we should do is make our bill $400 million, have the sum spelled out for this coming year, and then open ended for the future years when there might be a different administration. This is one of the thoughts that is going through our minds. But what we have to work with in politics is the art of the possible, and this is what we are seeking to focus on.

In connection with the formula of distribution, Ms. Kenyon, I know, feels it should be done just on the basis of population. Mr. McElroy feels that you should crank into it the very successful title I formula where you try to find need. I am just interested if you had any reaction to Mr. McElroy's statement, Ms. Kenyon?

MS KENYON. Well, I do, Senator, because I see the need absolutely across the spectrum-I see it in both title I schools and the need just as severe to upgrade-particularly on the elementary level, to upgrade science and math in all the other schools.

Senator PELL I think this is one of those conundrums that we are going to have to work with and hope to come out with something reasonably fair.

In connection with the stipends for teachers that you mentioned, that is included in the Dodd bill, which I am a cosponsor of, and we hope to crank in, the elements of that into this bill. Senator Dodd is a member of the committee and the subcommittee, and for that reason, we hope to blend them before we are through. But I agree with your point and we will do our best in that regard.

When it comes to matching funds, Ms. Kenyon, you mentioned that and others have mentioned that. The present formula is 50-50. Many States have some objections to that, even though the 50 percent for the local share would be in kind. And again this may be changed to a 60-40 or 75-25. I am not yet sure. And again, there are so many questions of this sort you have to handle it kind of delicately to see what formula will go through and what formula will either avoid a Presidential veto, or if there is a veto, we will have enough support behind to overcome it.

While for political effect you can introduce a bill, I think that is a little dishonest unless you really think there is an opportunity of trying to get it through and passed in the end.

Sister Andre, in connection with the points you raised, I think section 7 of the bill answers some of the points with regard to being able to provide help, provisions for help to local nonpublic schools

I would agree, too, with what was said earlier, that $260 million for the teacher training and retraining is simply not enough. But this is a lot more than the administration bill, which is $50 million. You may remember that the President in the state of the Union

message talked about the need, but then to resolve it, he is going to put on the bandaid of only $50 million.

Maybe our bill is just a huge bandaid, but at least it is a bigger bandaid. And it would move us down the road in this regard.

As far as support goes for the bill, I would say some kind of approach, some kind of legislation along this line will pass the Congress. It is really a question of how much and timing, I would say. And actually also I am reminded here that our bill has already 20 cosponsors which gives it a certain force and substance, meaning it will probably be the vehicle upon which the others, hopefully, will ride. And when I say, "our bill," I mean Senator Stafford's and my bill, S. 530.

Now, there is one question I would be interested in any comments from any of you: Do you think we should focus more on the high school level or more on the elementary and general school level? And I realize some of you have touched on this, but I would be interested in any further comments that any of you might have. Ms. Kenyon first.

Ms. KENYON. Senator, I see the need at the elementary level for a new curriculum and new inservice training of teachers, but at the secondary level, I see a severe need to upgrade our lab equipment.

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I feel the same way. I am very hardpressed to say where the moneys ought to go. I think that a lot of emphasis needs to be placed on long-range planning. You see, we have floated in and out of support for a number of education programs, particularly science and math. But there has been little continuity. If I look at the issue from a continuity point of view, long term needs, I may imply that the greatest emphasis ought to be in the elementary level.

But what about the large number of people at the secondary level right now who have a tremendous need? I think somehow we have to address both needs, but a lot of focus has to be on a longterm plan that is going to address the kinds of skill needs that our young people are going to have in the next century.

Senator PELL. Thank you. I think Sister Andre wanted to say something there. Could you pass her the mike?

Sister ANDRE. I would just like to make a comment that I think right at this moment, from my perspective, anyway, it would seem that the elementary level is the place to put our best efforts because it is at that level that enthusiasm is developed for future planning.

And I think that if we can develop enthusiasm for the areas of math and science by retraining teachers and helping them in their efforts to upgrade themselves, I think this would be a very positive place to put our efforts.

Senator PELL. As I mentioned earlier, Alexander Pope's old couplet, "As the twig is bent, the tree doth grow." And I think there is a great deal in that.

Mr. MCELROY. Senator, I think we would contend that all students should get more math and science, and I think that now we have to determine whether we are going for the quick fix or we are going for the long term, long pull in terms of overall educational excellence.

Therefore, I do not have a problem; I agree with Sister Andre; I think we should put our emphasis, our major emphasis in an area that is almost totally left out of the national debate on this issue, and that is the elementary and the junior high grades.

You know, John Dewey said that one of the most important things we have to do in terms of educating children is to deal with the scientific habits of mind. And so we are not interested-I am not interested in a vocational program that really says that we are going to the interest and the focus of national legislation should be only on educating future mathematicians and scientists.

Our position should be that all children at all levels of education should have an opportunity to deal with the scientific and the mathematical ability that is necessary to compete in the world, regardless of the vocation chosen. And so for that reason I think we want to focus our attention on the earlier grades.

There have been studies, Senator-and I do not have them with me but I am certain that we could share them with you; you probably have them already-that show that in the very early grades, there is tremendous interest, especially in the fourth and eighth grades-there is a tremendous interest among kids in science and mathematics. And that interest drops off by the time the children are in the 10th and the 11th grades.

Now, if seems to me that if we can do something to focus our attention on some of the research, for example, why is the student so interested in the fourth grade, and let us take some of that research to show us why he is so interested and then capitalize on it so that we can hold their interest through the high school and through the period of time they are picking their vocation.

So I would hope that through all of this national debate that we would be able to focus some attention and a great deal of attention on the elementary and the junior high area and ages.

Senator PELL. I think that

Mr. GAINEY. Yes, Senator, I wanted to concur with what everyone has said. I think, though, we have to look at this issue from two perspectives, the long range and the short range. The long range, certainly, we have to develop programs and instruction that begin with the elementary and continue through junior high and senior high.

However, the reality of the situation is today we need the preparation for the students who are going to be exiting the secondary level into the postsecondary level. So I think we are looking at it from two perspectives. I do not think we can look at the Band-Aid approach and tuck it away, but we have to look down the road.

Senator PELL. In connection with that downward course in math, I always sort of wondered if one of the reasons might not be the fact that we went for the new math in the seventies and then left the new math and went back to the old math. Am I right in this worry? I would like to ask any of you who are professional teachers your view on this.

Mr. GAINEY. All right. I would like to respond to that. I think it was an infusion that did not carry with it a lot of the emphasis that we place here. We had existing teachers who were handed a new approach to a problem they had been dealing with for years. without the proper type of inservice.

And in terms of the new technologies of today, I think that we have to constantly upgrade the professional staff in the application of these new technologies.

Senator PELL. My question is a little different, and maybe I am wrong. First tell me if I am wrong. My belief is that we went to the new math with the children of the seventies, and then after 10 years of it found out that it really was not much good and we have gone back to teaching the old math.

Is that correct?

Mr. GAINEY. Maybe my response was not clear. I do not know exactly what the research says in this area, but my feeling on it is the fact that we gave teachers on board a new vehicle to deliver and we did not properly give them the inservice training in the modern math. I am talking about people on board.

Senator PELL. Excuse me. That was not my question. My question

Mr. MCELROY. The answer is yes, we have gone back to-

Senator PELL. Yes. All right. We have gone back. Then, if that is so, might not that account in part for the deterioration in math because of this 10 year hiatus as we were fooling around with another kind of math?

Mr. MCELROY. I am going to plead ignorant; I was a social studies teacher. [Laughter.]

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I think that that answer is partially correct. But I think the greatest problem rests with the fact that we have not had any meaningful long range planning in our schools for too long. Now, somehow modern math became an instant solution to a very serious problem, and we focused on modern math as the vehicle to do that without ever coming to grips with what it really meant.

What do we really want to accomplish through this so-called modern math? We have found that it was not a panacea. Now we are moving back to more traditional approaches to teaching math. And we find ourselves 20 or 30 years behind in terms of skill development on the parts of the practitioners and the kinds of skills that young people are leaving as they enter the world of work.

But I think the fundamental problem is being—having blinders on and not doing an adequate job of educational planning.

Senator PELL. Good. I thank you. And I would thank all of you for taking the time to come here and wish you well and look forward to receiving your suggestions. And as I said, any one of them that is specific in nature, we will go over and then we will have to reach a judgment determination as to what is most likely to fly, to

pass.

I wish you all well, and thank you for being with us today.

Now, we have, I see, that President Newman and President Sweet of the University of Rhode Island and Rhode Island College, respectively, are here with us. And maybe they would come forward for a few moments.

I thank both of you for being here. I apologize for having started ahead as we did, but we had no choice because we have votes coming up this afternoon on the social security legislation, and I have to leave in about 10 minutes. Any statements that are full length will be inserted in the record as if read.