STATEMENTS OF DAVID SWEET, PRESIDENT, RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE; AND FRANK NEWMAN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND Mr SWEET Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your constant support of education at all levels, and particularly in my case, for higher education. I am David Sweet, president of Rhode Island College, and I do want to thank you for the opportunity to speak about S. 530. Let me tell you that the educational professionals at the college inform me that given the current curriculum in most secondary schools, the critical problem, at least here in the Northeast in relation to math, science, technology, and foreign languages instruction in the school is more one of quality rather than one of quantity That is to say, from contacts between our education faculty and school administrators in the region, we have concluded that there are enough teachers in these fields to serve the numbers of students currently enrolled in these crucial fields. We know, however, that if the secondary school curriculum is changed to require more students to take more math, more science, more foreign languages, then there will be a shortage of teachers in these fields, and that we recognize too that among the problems being addressed by this legislation is the need to increase the number of people who have received education in math, science, foreign language, and technology. Our second major concern, however, relates to the quality of instruction in the schools in these critical areas, and it is that that I wish to address. As the subcommittee is no doubt aware, a key to the quality of instruction offered in these fields-and in all other fields, particularly at the secondary level-is the amount and the quality of academic discipline based instruction that the teachers in these subjects have received from the institutions of higher edu cation. This in turn is too often a function of State certification requirements. It is not simply a function of State certification-of the graduation requirements imposed by institutions which prepare teachers. At Rhode Island College, for example, a student cannot receive a degree in a teacher education program unless she or he has completed an academic discipline based major. But to become certified to teach in a subject here in Rhode Island, an individual at present need complete only 18 hours of college level instruction in that subJect This means any 18 hours, not even 18 upper division hours of instruction. All the person needs to do to be certified is to take 18 hours of essentially introductory courses. These courses may even be taken at different institutions and not be part of any coherent program It is unrealistic to expect that every secondary schoolteachers in one of these crucial areas will have completed an academic major in college before she or he is permitted to instruct in the subject in high school. But it is my conviction that the proposed legislation does offer an opportunity to address the problem of teachers with inadequate preparation to teach in these crucial subjects. Specially, I would urge the subcommittee to incorporate into the legislation provisions which would make the funds to be appropriated under the legislation available only to States which require that a teacher complete a coherent 24 semester hours of work in the subject taught in a certificate program which has been approved and is offered by the faculties in the respective disciplines in the institutions of higher education having teacher education programs in each State. In my judgment, some such provision as this is essential if the Nation is to deal meaningfully with the problem of instruction in the critical subjects covered by this proposed legislation being of fered by teachers who are not adequately prepared to teach in these subjects. The funds available under legislation can be used to assist these teachers obtain the required upgrading. But it is very important that the legislation require that such upgrading occur in order for a State to be qualified to receive the funds. In particular, it is not merely enough to offer teachers the opportunity to receive additional preparation if they choose to take it; all too often only those least in need of additional preparation come forward voluntarily. It is important that all teachers be required to have at least this minimum level of preparation. And, moreover, it is also desirable that provision be made to require that teachers continually upgrade their preparation, given the rapidity with which new knowledge emerges in all disciplines, but particularly in the disciplines covered by this legislation. Thank you, Senator. Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, President Sweet. Mr. NEWMAN. Senator Pell, I thank you for the opportunity to come, and I recognize your time limits. Since the people ahead of me have had the opportunity to comment at length on elementary and secondary concerns, I would like to just, in the short time that is available, talk only about the impact of your legislation and the legislation that others have introduced in the Senate on universities themselves. And as I understand, there is some possibility that many of these may be put together in some sort of an omnibus bill. And let me just very quickly comment on just a few points. We have just recently put a report together for our board and I have included in the testimony a copy of that report. [Note: In the interests of economy the report referred to was retained in the files of the committee.] [The prepared statement of Mr. Newman follows:] STATEMENT OF FRANK NEWMAN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND I appreciate the opportunity to testify with regard to the "Education for Economic Security Act. It is an important bill. It is hard, in fact, to overestimate its importance in light of two concerns of our times. One is that, as is now suddenly apparent to the national consciousness, it makes no sense to turn our collective backs on the educational system of the country when it is so clear that a sound educational system is central to economic growth. The other is that it would be foolish to assume that the only answer is the status quo, that every program of the past is appropriate for the future. There is a new, insistent demand for improvement in education, both elementary and secondary and higher education. The driving force is the recognition that in the current world, our economic growth and prosperity is dependent on the new knowledge and well-educated graduates that are the products of a first class educational system. There are other powerful reasons to be concerned about quality in education, not the least of which is the essentiality of education to the functioning of a free society. But it is because of our current deep-seated concern for the economy - for new jobs, for our ability to compete internationally, for a growth in the GNP and consequently in tax revenues - that the people of this country are now awake to the urgency of the support of education. As I know that others of my colleagues plan to speak at length about the impact of the bill on elementary and secondary education, I will concentrate on the problems facing universities and what steps will help them perform better. I do not mean to imply that these two parts of the education system can be considered as separate. There are intimate linkages between higher education and elementary and secondary education. Neither can be effective if the other is not. I understand as well, that many of the other proposals now before the Congress that deal with this subject may likely be included in this bill, so I have taken the liberty of addressing the subject somewhat more broadly. At the University of Rhode Island, we have recently, at the request of the Board of Governors, examined these issues in some depth. The resulting report is entitled The Edge of Excellence. The description it contains of the changes going on in the economy of Rhode Island and New England provide further background for the trends you have described in the bill and in your statements. I have included a copy with my testimony and will not repeat the information it provides. I would appreciate the opportunity to comment on a few of the conclusions. First - if one studies the interaction between universities and economic development, it is quickly apparent that the parameter that is critical is quality. It is not enough to mount programs in computer science or pharmacology, or to build buildings or enroll more students in engineering or chemistry. What apparently matters is the sheer quality of the university - how well educated are its graduates, how skilled its researchers in creating breakthroughs, how willing and effective its faculty in outreach to the other segments of education and to industry. To quote The Edge of Excellence, "the difference between academic programs that are reasonably good and those that are truly first-rate is hard to measure, but very real." The issue, therefore, is how to improve the quality of the University not narrowly, not just the technical programs but the fundamental quality of the University. It would be easier if it were only a matter of the Computer Science Department, but it is not. Second - the universities must continue to change and at an accelerating rate. In many ways, universities are timeless, the custodians for society of the past But in other ways, they must be dynamic. The report cites a series of the profound and pervasive changes that are transforming the university - new disciplines, new equipment, new ideas even in old disciplines. Central, therefore, to any programs of support is that they must not only help to improve quality, but help to encourage change where it is needed. Again, this is not an easy task. Third- in every aspect of our efforts, we must encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. Our graduates must be encouraged to develop the capacity and willingness to take risk, or there will be too few new start-ups, which economists and policymakers now belatedly recognize as the key factor in both technological advantage and new job formation. But the entrepreneurial spirit is central to the success of the university as well. Our faculty, as researchers and as teachers, must be encouraged and aided in reaching out to new ideas. The trend of the times. with shrinking budgets and declining enrollments, is just the opposite. It is to pull in and to conserve, to wait things out. Nothing could be more dangerous to the results you seek than a timidness of spirit. The form of assistance, throfire, mu ́t be such as to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit within the higher education community and in its graduates. With these three conclusions as background, I would like to make the following suggestions: 1. While not a part of this bill, the adequate funding of the |