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 tas Leen statel that over the next decade the demand for scientis's and engineers is expected to increase by over 401. As you are aware, student enrollment in these fielis is where near the level that is needed. Although there is a varlery of explanations for this, che observation is that a prejomnant factor is --- a long-term systemic problem in our precollege science / math education. While teachers are both qualified and delicated, a surprisingly large number lack the upportwhity to review new developments and technology so necessary in sparking enthusiasm of the subject area in their students. A s' stage of teachers in these areas also exist because the saaries offered in private industry far outweigh those in educatan resulting in fewer young people quing into the profession. A reduction in our school population with a resulting reduction in staff demonstrates the need for retraining teachers in these nical areas. Another factor is that some methods of improving instruction in math, science and computer technology have associated custs which the schools are not in a good position to pay. Schools, *.ke other public agencies have been caught in the squeeze be*ween rising prices and operating custs and decreasing revenues. At present, according to the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, 46 states have laws limiting taxes, but since ``, 29 states have passed new laws that limit both expeniitures and taxes (for example Proposition 13 in California). These laws renier public agencies less able to respond to inflation and extraordinary cost increases. Scholis currently spend 60-65 per cent of their budget on employee salaries and benefits, ard thus have only limited funds to cover new training for enpi yees or new facilities and equipment such as science labs, science ej-ipment and computer related equipment. With the foregoing in mini I turn to 5530. We have s $400 million is the Authorization with 6.k teing aligcatei 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. us Our parent organization, AASA, feel that Congress could help 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. are to select the right machines and coursework to meet lent nee is the answer to tough questions will have to be de 1. It is also served that $530 provides little or no funds for the airinistration and evaluation by the State Departments f Fiucation. Again with limited resources available at the State funds should be male 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 provisinb, the size of the proposed program in terms of the number of students to be served and the number of grade levels involved le program. The regulations that may result for the img lerentation of *his Act are a.sc a concern. So often regulations deter the effectiveness of the intent of the Act. We hope that does not occur. while not a Feteral res; nsibility, we urge the States reexam.ne teacher certification requirements so as to better utilize pera na in our industries with technological expertise. We thank you for the up¡ rtunity to appear before you today ari ajain express to you our sincere appreciation for your cont..ed efforts to enhance the educational opportunities for our .ey. Even students at top-notch schools such as Manhattan's Stuyvesant High School must make do with out-of-date equipment. LOW-TECH EDUCATION THREATENS The U.S. must act to reverse the slide into technological illiteracy American science education is in miserable shape. So miserable, in fact, that its failings threaten to undermine both domestic employment and the nation's economic standing in the world. A steady supply of engineers and scientists is crit ical if high technology is to play a larger role in the U. S. industrial base. Americans will also need an unprecedented understanding of science if they are to live, work, and vote in a world that is increasingly dependent on science. The quality of scientific and technical education in the U. S. has been slipping since the brief surge of attention in the decade that followed the 1957 launch of Sputnik. During the politically volatile boom years of the late 1960s, schools shifted their focus from achievement to social relevance, and federal funding for science education waned. The public programs of the 1970s drained school coffers further, while property-tax revolts in many states whittled their traditional financial base to almost nothing. "Our mistake was in thinking it was all over athe day we got to the moon," says F. James Rutherford, chief education officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). e Today, only 6% of U. S. college stu dents are enrolled in engineering pro SYECHNOLOGY grams, compared with 21% in Japan. And for every hour that an American child spends in school, a Soviet or Japanese child spends two and one-third hours. Warns Education Secretary Ter rel H. Bell: "If we don't do more to strengthen our education program and have a more rigorous and demanding curriculum, we're going to start losing out to competitors abroad who are making that commitment." Years of indifference Not only will high school graduating classes drop to half their present size by 1990, but also far fewer of the graduates will have taken science courses. Less than one-third of U. S. high schools now require enough math and science courses to qualify their students for entry into an engineering college. And scores on college entrance exams in math and science have declined steadily for 20 years. "The projections are awful; I'm scared to death about the [small] number of technical people that are going to be available," says Thomas A. Vanderslice, president of GTE Corp. Leaders throughout industry, educa tion, and government fear the U. S. will continue to feel the punishing effects of years of indifference if sweeping changes are not made in the education system. Their concern is prompting a reexamination of that system, from the elementary schools to the universities. Everyone is looking for curriculums that teach students not only the computational skills of science and math but also the reasoning skills on which they are based. Few students now receive such schooling. As a result, "the Ameri can general public is technologically illit erate," says Michael I. Yarymovych, Rockwell International Corp.'s vice-presi dent for advanced systems development. To combat that dangerous technologi cal illiteracy, educators are stressing the need for all students to be given a gen eral knowledge of science. "We need to provide nonscientific, nontechnical peo ple with some understanding of science and technology," says David S. Saxon, president of the University of California "Science is really a part of the liberal arts, and we ought to be educating peo ple more broadly in this context." Technological illiteracy and profes sional shortages have their roots in the earliest school grades. "Some 20 or 30 years ago there was a great glamour attached to going into the scien feeling that you were working for a |