SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
THE STATE OF SCIENCE, MATH, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (SMET) IN AMERICA, PART I
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 1:05 p.m., in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. Without objection, the Chair is given permission to recess the Committee during votes today.
Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Riley and Director Lane for being here today to participate in this oversight hearing on the status of science, math, engineering, and technology education in America.
With this hearing, the Science Committee is getting a comprehensive review of science and math education in America from the pre-kindergarten through the postgraduate levels.
This review will involve a series of hearings and meetings over the course of the remainder of the 105th Congress, covering in more detail, many of the issues we will touch upon today.
Education, in general, and science, math, engineering, and technology education, in particular, is perhaps the most critical factor in enabling us as a Nation to ensure our national security and to improve our standard of living.
In the post-Cold War era, national security is defined in part by our country's ability to compete economically in international markets. As the world marketplace expands and trade barriers disappear, Americans will continue to face increasing competition from overseas.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
American industry will need to continue to increase productivity in order to preserve and expand its share of markets. Business and industry already know that the best way to do this is by having an adequate supply of well-educated, highly-technologically-skilled workers.
But it is the education which our young people receive today preparing for them for the jobs of tomorrow. Recent studies on the subject offer mixed reviews.
The Third Annual Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS, for short, a part of which compared math and science performance among 8th grade students in the United States and 41 other industrialized nations, revealed that students in the United States were performing at levels equal to or below their foreign counterparts.
The average is not good enough, and it's certainly a far cry from being first in the world in math and science by the Year 2000, a goal set by the Nation's Governors, as well as the previous and present administrations.
While other studies are more encouraging, clearly, we need to do a better job. America's high technology industries are finding it difficult to fill high-paying jobs because of the dearth of skilled employees.
It is very disturbing that a robust economy, along with our scientific and technological innovativeness that produced many new high tech industries, but those industries may be retarded in their growth for lack of a scientifically literate workforce here in this country.
Education experts, researchers, and practitioners have made solid recommendations regarding how to improve science and math education, how to pique the interest of our young people in these areas, and how to create a nation which is scientifically literate.
Many of these recommendations have been realized in ongoing federal and state programs. They include, but are not limited to, learning with technology, reforming education through systemic programs, changing the way science and math are taught, and reforming the processes by which we educate future teachers.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are currently over 750 federal education programs. Most of these programs are housed in the Department of Education and in the National Science Foundation.
Secretary Riley and Director Lane have graciously agreed to appear today to discuss their respective agencies' efforts in math and science education.
This discussion will help the Committee to gain a better understanding of much of the federal effort in science and math education, including the reform of science and math education and the use of educational technologies.
We will also seek information about coordination of programs, allocation of resources, and the President's new initiatives in science and math education, such as wiring schools to the Internet and national testing.
I welcome both Secretary Riley and Director Lane to begin this important discussion by describing the science, math, engineering, and technology education programs in their agencies, and I look forward to their testimony.
Before recognizing Secretary Riley, let me recognize Mr. Brown of California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses to today's hearing on science education.
It's been 7 years since the Secretary of Education and the National Science Foundation Director last appeared at a Congressional hearing together. Those were the seven mean years, I guess.
The last joint appearance of a Secretary and Director followed shortly after the Education Summit which has been already referred to. This Summit called for a goal of U.S. student achievement in science and math to be first in the world by the Year 2000.
This is a daunting goal which was widely seen as totally unrealistic. On the other hand, setting a high goal dramatized the importance for the Nation's future of improving student performance in science and math.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It also spurred wide-ranging education reform activity. However, the Year 2000 is coming fast, and results are decidedly mixed at this point.
We've heard already of the recent international assessment of student performance in science and math, and the results, while giving somewhat of a mixed message, are not nearly as good as we might like to have.
The federal role in K-12 education is limited, but the government can act as a catalyst. We hope that it will make wise use of our relatively small investment.
This afternoon, we hope to learn how the Department of Education and NSF, the federal agencies with the most responsibility, are working together to improve science and math education.
In particular, we ask the Secretary and the Director to describe the nature and extent of program, planning, and collaboration between their two agencies and with other federal agencies which fund science and math education programs.
We're also interested in hearing about what has been accomplished thus far under the two agencies' formal collaboration agreements, and ask for our witnesses' views on the current prospects for achieving widespread reform of science and math education.
I believe the Committee has reinforced the importance we place on close cooperation between the two agencies by inviting both of you to be here this afternoon.
We are hoping for an effective federal effort to improve student performance in science and math throughout the Nation.
I'm personally grateful that you're both here, and I look forward to your presentations.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, other opening statements will be inserted in the record at this point.
[The opening statements of Mrs. Morella, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Capps, Mr. Lampson and Ms. Hooley follow:]
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Insert offset folios 1-24
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the full statements of both Secretary Riley and Director Lane will appear in the record at the proper point by their testimony.
First, I would like to thank Secretary Riley for coming here, and both of you for rescheduling your appearances. Last week, the HUD/VA appropriation bill was on the Floor and most of us were over participating in that debate, so I appreciate your flexibility.
Secretary Riley, you're first up. Please summarize what you want to say, and we appreciate, again, your being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. RILEY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so much, and Congressman Brown, and other members of the Committee.
It's quite an honor for me to be here, and to be with Dr. Neal Lane, the respected Director of the National Science Foundation.
I am involved in some research myself today as this is my first day with bifocals. So, if I get totally offtrack, just know that I can't quite see what I'm reading.
[Laughter.]
Mr. RILEY. The fact is that in this information age, it's very clear that our Nation's economic future absolutely depends on the ability of our workers to be proficient in math and science and technology.
The growth of high tech industry has been a powerful boost to our economy. However, the Technology Association recently reported that about 190,000 high tech jobs are going unfilled.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is because companies simply can't find applicants with the needed skills in these areas. The demand for educated, skilled workers will continue to grow.
The National Skills Standards Board recently recommended some form of advanced mathematics proficiency in 11 of the 12 industry sectors that they studied.
Now, the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study that you referred to, Mr. Chairman, confirms, I think, that our students are not learning the more advanced mathematics necessary for the new economy.
TIMSS shows that our elementary school students are generally learning the basics of mathematics, scoring well about the international average in the 4th grade. I think that's very, very important that we did very, very well in the 4th grade.
However, by the 8th grade, U.S. students score slightly below the international average, as was pointed out. While our students tend to study and re-study arithmetic up through the 8th and 9th grades, students in higher performing nations are generally tackling algebra and geometry in those same grades.
The science test was interesting also. The 4th grade, again being very good. We were second only to Korea in the batch that was second of the countries.
However, again in the 8th grade, even though we were above average in science, we were just barely above average in science, and barely below average in math in the 8th grade. Fourth grade was very much better.
We're beginning to make progress, I think, and much more needs to be done. Many school districts and States are working hard to strengthen math, science, and technology education, aided by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education. Most States have developed rigorous math standards, and some States are aligning their assessments and teacher preparation to those standards.
The Department's Eisenhower Professional Development Program provides flexible formula funding to States and school districts to help teachers teach to high standards. Goals 2000 and Title I are also helping students to reach high standards in math.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, these efforts are beginning to pay off. The math achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, has risen slightly for all three grades measured, 4th, 8th, and 12th, since 1990, but it is moving in the right direction.
While this is encouraging, we must pick up the pace of improvement, and that's why the President has proposed a voluntary national test in the 4th grade for reading and the 8th grade for math.
We've not had a clear picture of what students should know and be able to do in these subjects. Voluntary national tests will give us that clear understanding and show us what world class standards really look like.
The math test will also help ensure that students master the rigorous math that they need by the 8th grade to take the higher level math and science courses that are the gateways to college and to good careers.
The tests will also allow parents and teachers and communities to know for the first time if their students have mastered math at a world class level, no matter where they live in this country.
Now, I think it's interesting to think about it, that in 1999, when the tests are first administered, students in Raleigh, in Ann Arbor, in Louisville, and elsewhere in America, all over, will know exactly how they as students are doing compared to students in Germany and Korea and the rest of the world.
While the math test will be important, it must be part of a broader national effort, and that's why the President has asked me to join with the Director Neal Lane to convene an interagency working group to develop an action strategy for improving math and science achievement.
We have done so. I'm pleased to say that after meeting with 11 other agencies and reviewing current federal activities, the working group will soon complete that strategy. The strategy will include three key areas:
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One, giving teachers the skills and knowledge to teach challenging mathematics content effectively.
Two, helping schools to put high standards into action in the classroom.
Three, building public understanding of and support for challenging math standards.
In all of these areas, the strategy will describe specific steps that the two agencies will take together to achieve these aims. The strategy will also combine the two agencies' strengths.
It will allow those involved in the Department programs, the chance to accelerate their efforts by drawing on NSF's more targeted programs.
Let me give you just a couple of examples: Title I, our largest elementary and secondary program, provides funds to States and school districts by formula to help educationally disadvantaged students, especially those in high poverty schools.
Almost half of the nine million students participating in Title I receive math instruction through the program. Historically, much of that instruction has been remedial and not linked to high standards.
We began to change that with the reauthorization of Title I in 1994, which emphasized holding Title I students to the same high standards as other students.
Given the NSF's emphasis on high quality math and science education for all students, it is natural for the Foundation to work with us in this area. Together we will provide incentives for States and school districts to upgrade math instruction in Title I schools.
To launch this effort, our two agencies will bring together state and local Title I leaders with the leaders of the Foundation's state, urban, and rural systemic initiatives.
This will set the stage for more coordinated efforts. Another example concerns curriculum.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, the U.S. Department of Education does not get involved in curriculum decisions. But we can provide information that helps educators to learn more about instruction methods and materials.
Based on a request from Congress, we have convened an expert panel to review and identify exemplary or promising curriculum materials in math. The panel includes NSF representatives. We will work together to ensure that all schools have access to this information.
You also asked me to speak today about the President's technology initiatives. Our surveys show that 65 percent of all schools currently have access to the Internet.
This number has risen by 15 percent each of the past 3 years. However, only 14 percent of the classrooms have access, and only 1 out of every 5 teachers is using advanced telecommunications for teaching.
In more than half of the schools in the Nation, teachers must learn about technology on their own.
One of the President's highest priorities is to increase access to computers and high quality software, and to make sure that teachers have the training to use them.
He's offered two important initiatives to help us reach that goal. First, our Technology Literacy Challenge Fund is a 5-year, $2 billion effort, and we're pleased that all 50 States applied for and were approved for the first round of funding this year.
Second, our Technology Challenge Innovation Grants helped create—excuse me, is——
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Secretary, why don't you please complete your testimony.
I'm going to ask Mr. Ehlers to preside while I go over and vote, and that way there will be less of a pregnant pause.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RILEY. Good. All right, sir.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We'll change that. We are getting to the end of this bill, so why don't you complete your testimony.
There will be two votes and then we'll all come back.
Mr. RILEY. Fine. You want me to go ahead and finish?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Yes, please finish.
Mr. RILEY. Second—the first was the fund, and second, Technology Challenge Innovation Grants which help create cutting-edge ways to use technology to enhance learning.
This program has brought out an unprecedented response. We expect to award a third round of grants shortly.
The total of these would be some $500 million.
Finally, let me say one word about the E-rate, which will give some schools and libraries up to 90 percent discounts—the average is around 60 percent—on telecommunications services. This is a very important measure that has recently been passed, and I can talk about it further if you're interested in it.
We think it's going to impact significantly, the use of technology in the classroom and the library.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, pictures from Mars routinely fill our newspapers, and we marvel and rejoice at this triumph of American science and technology.
I would submit to all of you, though, that the greater challenge to us is really to make sure that our young people are getting the education that they will need to keep this country on the cutting edge in the 21st Century.
We've got to expect all of our students to reach challenging standards of learning. We must ask our teachers to improve the way they teach, and integrate technology into the curriculum.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It won't be easy; it won't happen overnight, but we can do it. And I'm proud of the partnership that we at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation have, and we'll make an important contribution working together in that effort.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:]
Insert offset folios 25-32
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. The Committee will stand recessed until after the second vote, which should be in about 15 minutes time.
Would the members kindly return to the hearing room promptly so that we can hear Director Lane's testimony, and then put both of them on the pan with questions.
The Committee is recessed.
Mr. RILEY. Thank you.
[Brief Recess.]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order.
Dr. Lane?
STATEMENT OF NEAL LANE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. LANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank you for convening this hearing, and I'm very pleased to be here with Secretary Riley, a long time champion of education and a good friend and colleague.
Mr. Chairman, I share your view that education in the global sense is one of the most important things that the National Science Foundation does.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And more specifically, the science, math, and technology education of young people today is absolutely central to the future of our Nation.
The most recent results from international comparisons have framed the challenge that lies before us. The good news is that when teachers are adequately trained, when hands-on curricula are available, and when expectations are high, our students match the best and the brightest of any nation.
The not-so-good news, however, is that we still have a long way to go to prepare students for the workplace of the 21st Century.
Reforms are slow to take hold in many areas, and many efforts have yet to achieve the critical mass needed for sustained success.
Reforming K through 12 science, math, and technology education to make it fit the knowledge and skill demands of the 21st Century is not a simple matter.
Several years ago, we realized that attacking the many problems we face could not be done in a course by course, grade by grade, curriculum by curriculum approach.
We changed our strategy to look at the problems that are inherent in the educational system as a whole and to look for ways to leverage our relatively small resources to make a difference on a larger scale.
As a result, NSF has been a leader and as a federal partner in improving K-12 science and math education.
Through systemic reform patients, NSF promotes sustained, intensive reform that focuses on substantive change, not only in the classroom but in the school system, including some of the most troubled school systems in the Nation.
Inherent in the concept of systemic reform is the belief that all children can and should learn rigorous science, math, engineering and technology.
When our children have well-trained teachers, when they have hands-on opportunities and high standards for achievement, they can and they do succeed.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The numbers almost speak for themselves. Our systemic change efforts have focused on the state educational structure, regional education needs, urban schools and local systemic reform activities.
In the school years 1996 and 1997 alone, NSF's 59 systemic initiatives reached 56,000 teachers serving almost 8 million students in nearly 13,000 schools in 38 States.
Perhaps a more impressive achievement is that our support for systemic reform, approximately $115 million of the NSF budget in the current fiscal year, is being matched by over $520 million from other public and private sources.
The key to our success has been our partnerships with businesses, foundations, and federal, state and local governments. This would not be possible were it not for the complementary nature of NSF and the Department's programs.
The Miami Dade County Urban Systemic Initiative, for example, is a very good example of NSF and Department of Education cooperation through the use of the Department's Eisenhower funds.
It provides professional development every year to about 4,000 teachers and administrators, which equals over 50 percent of the school-based instructional and administrative personnel in the district.
At nearly every grade level, student scores on the mathematics section of the Stanford Achievement Test have increased, and these increases have been improved upon each year of the initiative.
There are consistent increases in enrollment and completion of higher level mathematics and science classes among all ethnic groups.
In the second year of the initiative, there was a 26 percent increase in the number of Hispanic students passing the advanced placement exam in physics, and a 34 percent increase in those passing the advanced placement exam in biology.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Similarly, NSF is promoting reform efforts at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This past year, for example, as part of our program to better prepare undergraduates and graduates for the changing challenges of the 21st Century, we awarded the recognition awards for the integration of research and education. These were designed to stimulate new thinking at colleges and universities on how to better link research with education.
Our successes rely on solid coordination with our other federal partners.
As you know, NSF's positive working relationship with the Department of Education is coordinated through a 1992 memorandum of understanding.
In a recent joint endeavor, the Department of Education and the NSF established a working group to improve mathematics and science education.
Not surprising, the soon-to-be-released working group's actual strategy recommends teacher training, high standards, and top quality curricular materials.
Cooperation between the Department of Education and NSF in science, math and engineering technology education respects the different missions and the approaches of the respective agencies.
The bulk of the Department's funds are distributed to state and local educational agencies based on their meeting eligibility requirements for broad programs.
By contrast, the National Science Foundation's projects result from innovative proposals from individuals or organizations that survive the test of rigorous competitive merit review process.
These differences can be used effectively as the two agencies cooperate and coordinate their activities.
NSF's competitive processes can provide the spark that state and local educational agencies may require to initiate change.
Likewise, the Department's capabilities for getting information into the hands of teachers, parents, school administrators, and the public, can help NSF get its message about science, math, and engineering technology education to a much broader audience.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To close, let me stress that our society has become highly dependent on science, engineering and technology for its well being. Science policies become public policy. Through innovative, systemic approaches to education and training, the National Science Foundation and the other agencies have together pushed the frontier of U.S. education.
We share the goal of ensuring that all students achieve proficiency in science and mathematics. By continually striving for the highest standards, we hope to spark the catalytic and systemic changes needed to best prepare Americans of all ages for the challenges of the 21st Century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to your questions and to hearing the Committee's views on this important matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lane follows:]
Insert offset folios 33-39
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Dr. Lane.
The Chair will announce that he will enforce the 5-minute rule in Committee members asking questions, and if there is enough interest, we will have a second round of questions.
The Chair will also announce that he will recognize members, one on each side of the aisle, in the order in which they appeared after the break for the vote, since a lot of the people were not here before the break for the vote.
So, Secretary Riley and Director Lane, knowing that the Federal Government does not have any role in the development of curriculum in elementary and secondary education, my guess is that where we can do the best is in providing programs for the better training of math and science teachers.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How do you think the Federal Government can best deal with the training issue of math and science teachers in elementary and secondary schools?
Mr. RILEY. Of course our Eisenhower program is directed in that direction dealing with professional development of teachers, primarily math and science.
And our technology programs emphasize the importance of teachers being able to teach with technology, students learn with technology, that's a very important leg of the stool. It makes that work.
We, of course, do not, as I indicated in my remarks, deal with telling States and school districts what their curriculum should be. However, we do respond to questions and needs, and share research that we have gleaned from NSF with them in a very effective, I think, dissemination opportunity that we have.
We connect up with all the States and all the school districts and deal with them, of course, in things like Eisenhower and Title I and Goals 2000 and other things, all of whom, all of those programs, all of which can involve efforts to help teachers teach better and students learn better in math and science.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How do you avoid imposing unfunded mandates on school districts in this process?
Mr. RILEY. Well, if you look at our efforts, we have, since I've been Secretary, we've cut regulations more than 50 percent. We work at it all the time. We developed criteria for reasonableness in terms of regulations.
We went through all of the regulations in the Education Department and there were lots of them, and analyzed this criteria against them, and is it necessary, does it protect some important federal investment or matter that we should be regulating.
And then the fact is a lot of other federal departments have taken our criteria and are using them also to analyze regulations.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We're very careful about that. Goals 2000, for example, when it was passed, it has language in there that it cannot in any way be a mandate on the States or local school districts in terms of spending.
We are working hard at that, Mr. Chairman, and I think if we do, we can impact it.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Many kids, my sons included, view the Internet as an entertainment medium rather than as a research tool.
What types of programs, in terms of teacher training, is the Department working on to prevent teachers from being sucked into the trap by their students of using the Internet as entertainment rather than as a reference tool?
Mr. RILEY. Well, the fact that it's such a good entertainment tool makes it clear that it also can be a very good teaching tool.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Kids being kids, however, are more partial to the former than the latter. I think we've got to concede that point.
Mr. RILEY. Unfortunately that's true, but I think it does reveal, though, the engaging part of technology if it's handled properly.
And most of those issues, as you well know, are really state and local issues. We try to build in the flexibility in our programs to make sure that innovation and creation, on the part of state and local decisionmakers and educators is there.
We respect that fully. I'm sure NSF deals probably more directly with research in those areas, but we are very respectful of the state and local responsibility, and we try to give them the flexibility to exercise that.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you.
My time has expired. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Rivers.
Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Having spent a considerable portion of my adult life on a local school board, I have some great interest in this issue.
But the thing that seemed to come up again and again and again, as we tried to evaluate science education, particularly in elementary schools, were two factors.
One is that, for the most part, elementary teachers are generalists and who are not trained specifically in science issues, and equally important, many elementary teachers have very little preparation time.
And the value of science education or the quality of science education often times reflects the ability that the teacher has to put into preparing for it.
Now I know that these are not issues that you grapple with in either of your day to day work, but I'm very curious to know whether that would appear to be a correct assessment to you, and whether there is anything at this level that can be done to ultimately help local districts impact on those problems?
Mr. RILEY. Well, I think both of those observations are right and again in many ways, that's not bad, but it's just a fact.
In terms of time, I think that's a constant problem in education. I don't know if you've read Sizer's book, Horace's Compromise. The compromise was that he was a teacher not in science but English in high school and how little time he had to spend with each student and with each essay and so forth. And it was really just almost a tragedy to read that out. And you see that all across the spectrum.
One thing that we're finding, and the TIMSS test has helped us with that, and that is that in our focus, in terms of 8th grade math, for example, the TIMSS study showed that we had some 32 or 33 topics in our general textbooks and so forth in 8th grade math.
The Japanese, Koreans, others who were doing better, had like seven, eight or nine, and they would have more time then to dig deeper into less topics. And I think that is probably a direction that we need to move.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think your statement reflects that.
Mr. LANE. Ms. Rivers, could I add a comment?
We found through our systemic efforts, we have a statewide systemic initiative, urban/rural systemic initiatives, those are all competitive processes, so we only fund those proposals that come from States' urban areas, rural areas that commit resources, including time, to be sure that the reform efforts that are proposed can be done.
And so in that way I think that's what I really meant by catalytic. I think in that way, NSF is able to catalyze change at the school level, district level, system level so that at least initially the Administration can see what value is really added by allowing a few teachers to have a little extra time to spend more time on science, math education preparation and delivery of education, to high standards, inquiry-based hands-on learning, which is what we found coming out of those efforts.
And once they see the value of that, it gives them a little extra ammunition to reallocate within the system, so that what's learned from one or two examples can be spread throughout the larger system.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, several comments and then a few questions.
I had noticed most of the discussion in the testimony related to math education. I think it's very important to keep both math and science at the forefront because they are so interrelated, learning one well helps understand the other.
And in addition to that, as a number of studies have shown, that science education in the early elementary grades is a great assistance in teaching the other subjects other than science and mathematics.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And that's something that's not often realized.
I've been involved in this for many, many years, have taught at various times from 1st grade through graduate school, and I've concluded, in terms of elementary and secondary education, the most important single factor for the success of the student is the active interest and involvement of the parents.
The second most important is having a good, well-trained teacher.
Third most important is having a good hands-on curriculum.
Now all of those are important, but that's the ranking I would give them. And I happen to believe the greatest challenge to successful science education in the future is in the elementary grades.
I think we've maintained reasonably good standards in higher education. High school is mixed but it still is able to do a good job on teaching the science majors. But the elementary school is where we have to do the work in order to ensure we have a really well-trained work force.
Now the questions.
First of all, they're addressed to both of you.
First of all, do you agree with my analysis in this simplistic, quickly stated manner?
Second, is the Education Department or National Science Foundation doing anything directly on the issue of involving and interesting parents?
I'm aware that both of your agencies have done well with teacher training and with curriculum development, but I'm wondering if anything has been happening with increasing the interests and involvement of the parents?
Next question, what is the status of developing good, well-trained teachers in elementary schools, well-trained in science and math?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And third, secondary education, how many teachers, science and math teachers are truly trained in their field?
And I just haven't seen the statistics on that for some time.
I recall two interesting statistics which I think are related.
Number one, 50 percent of all Americans are unable to tell a questioner how long it takes the earth to complete one orbit around the sun, in spite of the fact that has been defined to be 1 year ever since Copernicus came on the scene. Half of the public can't answer that.
Also interestingly half of the teachers of the physical sciences in the junior and senior high schools do not have a major in science or mathematics.
Now those factors may or may not be related but I'd appreciate it if you could comment on my statements and answer those specific questions.
Mr. RILEY. Neal, let me mention the parents' part and then I'm sure you can elaborate on some of the other.
One of our chief—first of all, I agree generally with your premise. Certainly science education is extremely important. Math and science are related and normally a student who does poorly in math will do poorly in science and vice versa.
But science is extremely important and it involves the basics of reading and basic math of course, so it's a very important subject. And we recognize that, and it was one of the TIMSS measures as we talked about.
The parent part, I think you make a very good point. And I don't care if you're talking about math and science or reading and writing, or whatever. Education is absolutely dependent on family support and active involvement with children, with their children for it to work best.
Also community support, schools and children can sense a community that supports their school and supports education.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And those factors research shows us a very, very important. And we have a partnership for family involvement in education.
When we first started it, when we were first here, we had 45 organizations to belong to it, and now we have over 3,000. And it has a network with a lot of private companies, education groups, religious groups, some 37 religious groups representing all sectors of religion from the Catholics and the Jews. United Methodist is what I am. The Evangelicals and so forth.
All of these groups, all of them realize, in a non-controversial way, the importance of their families being involved in their children's education wherever they're in school, and whether it's math and science, or whatever.
So I think you're exactly right about that, and we do everything we can and it's a very exciting to see that happening around the country.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. EHLERS. I'll be happy to forego my second round if you'll let them answer the rest of my questions.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Dr. Lane?
Mr. LANE. I'll comment briefly.
We have an informal education program at NSF that reaches all ages through support of museums and through other kinds of programs in addition to our investment in the schools directly.
We have a special initiative now that's aimed at getting parents more involved in education of children through special materials that are developed in the area of informal education.
We also work with local community organizations, it's really a broader approach to systemic change in education.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another thing I would say is that while I don't know what fraction of secondary teachers are trained in their field, I can say that one of our goals in our systemic reform of undergraduate education is to try to address the problem that we have long had in this Nation in not giving sufficient attention to the quality of teacher education.
And part of that problem is the lack of communication across the campus where the school of education hardly had any interaction at all with the school of arts and sciences. Now we're seeing well, not success yet, except in isolated places, but certainly we're encouraging more interaction across those gaps and barriers in the university.
Education of teachers should be the responsibility of the entire campus, not just one school. So we expect, with those kind of efforts, that we will at least be able to improve the situation. It is currently still not as good as it should be.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Capps.
Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have one question that I will direct to both of you, with your permission, and it goes like this.
That as I travel through my district, which is the 22nd District of California, and talked to the people who are involved in scientific experimentation and businesses using new technologies, they sometimes complain that they can't make appointments, they can't hire people who are trained to do that kind of work, which is a problematic thing for them to tell me.
I've spent 32 years at the University of California, and I was under the assumption that we were training people to work in those industries.
The question goes like this.
As we move into the 21st Century, which requires a high degree of sophistication in terms of scientific training, we also face the challenge of bringing the general level of scientific knowledge and understanding up to par so people are at least aware of where we live and what the challenges are.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And the question would be this.
How do we do all of that at the same time in public education? That is, train for specialty occupations and at the same time make sure that the general understanding of where science is and what it can do for the society is understood.
That level of understanding is something that gets conveyed, you know, to everybody in the school system.
Mr. LANE. Perhaps I could pick a couple of points and then turn to the Secretary.
On the question of general understanding, I don't think there's any silver bullet for that. All of these efforts that NSF and the Department is making that are focused on science and math education is with the thought in mind that we're really educating for the future, and it's a very different kind of future than we have thought about before.
It's going to be highly technological because science and technology molds our lives and we want to make sure that it's used for good and not for ill.
So that's one reason I think science and math education, technology education is so very important, and why our investment is substantial in that direction.
The second thing I would say is it's also very important not to lose sight of the continuum of education, not just elementary and secondary and then universities and colleges. Let's not forget the 2-year colleges, the community colleges, that play a really important role in two ways.
Sometimes that's the last education that a person will get, sometimes it's a step way to a university or college education. We really have to bring the whole quality of technical education up in the country.
That's where technicians come from and NSF has a rather substantial advanced technology education program that reaches partners with a thousand businesses and with a large number of community colleges, over 450, to try to do what we're doing in universities and colleges, raise the level of expectation and the inclusiveness of these schools and link them more directly with colleges and universities.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, lower the barriers, remove the gaps, because we really have a continuum of education and some people can fall through the gaps, I'm afraid, if we don't look at the whole thing.
Mr. RILEY. The work we are doing together, between Education and NSF, one of three subjects that we are really working on a strategy for deals with this public understanding of the importance of math and science, and the very questions you are talking about.
So we are developing further strategies to deal with that.
The career education, about 75 percent of your high school students do not go on to 4-year colleges at graduation. That is the important 75 percent which really falls into areas like the School-to-Work Program, Tech Prep, and other things that are really preparing them and connecting them up with community colleges that Dr. Lane was talking about, and also the technical colleges, and whatever.
I think an awful lot is being done. The real answer to the question I think is in the word ''standards'' from kindergarten forward, raising those standards and making sure every child reaches certain levels before they move on, and doing it in a careful way and assessing them to those high standards.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I would like to thank the Secretary and the Director for spending some time with us this afternoon. I appreciate that, as all of us do.
Congressman Ehlers mentioned motivation. Most of us visit campuses from time to time, and visit young people at elementary schools, and so forth, and I know when I visit those schools, as soon as I mention I am on the Space Subcommittee, the interest of those young people rises immediately. They seem to be extremely interested in space today, especially if you look at the movies that are out this summer like ''Contact'' and ''Men In Black.'' Obviously that is what is getting young people's attention.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Maybe we can take advantage of this attention. I would hope that you take advantage of some of the federal agencies such as NASA, and NOAA, and so forth, that are involved in that type of technology that young people seem to be extremely interested in, and to motivate these kids to get interested in physics, and science, and technology that would someday help themselves and help us move forward in exploring the last frontier of space.
So with that, how much time do you spend with that? Do you get field trips, or encourage field trips? Do you help fund that? Videos? Movies? Internet, and so forth and so on?
Maybe you would just like to expand on that.
Mr. LANE. At the press I could give a couple of examples. You mentioned the movie ''Contact.'' I would like to point out that, while I have not seen the film, I understand that one of the bad guys is the Director of the National Science Foundation.
[Laughter.]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Also, one of the aliens is the Speaker of the House.
[Laughter.]
Mr. CALVERT. I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LANE. The point you make is a very important one: What is it that motivates young people to want to learn science?
There is no question about space, the final frontier. It grabbed all of us when we were kids, and it grabs us as adults, and it will always continue to be.
But I would also mention areas like the Antarctic. For example, ''Live from the Antarctic'' is a program that we did from the NSF facilities down there that really interested a lot of young kids because it is not quite outer space, but it seems like it.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also support activities having to do with undersea exploration and undersea laboratories, and that has got a certain mystery to it.
I think these things that have mystery and romance, excitement, a sense of adventure, that is really the American way. That has always excited Americans, and will continue to do so.
So we try to tap into those with our programs, and of course cooperate with other agencies like NASA, and I think the Working Group the Secretary just talked about that is not just for the NSF and the Department of Education but for the federal strategies of making sure that all of the investments of all of the agencies really support one another and make the whole greater than the parts.
Mr. RILEY. We see in many, many ways the kind of excitement that you are talking about. I think, in fairness to NASA and the Department of Defense, they really are into education.
We see interaction in many ways. We see astronauts in educational facilities talking to students, and exciting them really about space exploration and so forth. I have seen that myself in a number of schools.
Even back in my own school at Greenville High School in South Carolina we went back to school with a NASA person who had been in space, and it was very hard for me to get their attention. They were all focused in on him.
But it is very true, and you do see a lot of that happening, and I am very pleased with it.
The Teachers of the Year, by the way, the 50 of them, go down to Alabama to the Space School down there and spend a period of time, and that is a very interesting connection, too. That is a very intense program that they have in Alabama, and I think they are going down there this week.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CALVERT. Well, I just wanted to share my excitement with the Space Program, and I am sure it is shared by all of us here. We are very proud of it, and if we can take advantage of it, so much the better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield briefly to Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Ranking Member very much for his kindness, and I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.
Because the Secretary of Education is here—and, Dr. Lane, we miss you in Houston—I wanted to mention something about technology very quickly.
That is, that we have a student in the audience from the De Bakey High School for Health Professions who entered a contest with 20,000 entries. She is from Houston, and she won.
Now the question had to do with involvement in politics and involvement in government, so I wanted to make sure that we acknowledged Erin Scott, who wrote the winning entry to say why we should vote and participate. Simply, she said. We must not sit idle and not participate in voting; we must act because the decisions of our government should be made by We the People.
She is here with her mother, her sister, and her brother.
Erin, would you just let everyone see you.
[Erin Scott stands.]
[Applause.]
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. On behalf of the Committee, I certainly would like to congratulate Erin. I know that one of the reasons you won was because of your family involvement in your education, which is one of the things that we are interested in.
[The essay referred to follows:]
Insert offset folios 40-43
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his kindness. And because you said that, let me acknowledge Marilyn Scott, her mom, Ryland, and Ryanne, her sister. Ryland is her brother, and Ryanne is her sister. They are all here today, as well. This is true family involvement.
[Applause.]
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their kindness.
I yield back to the Ranking Member.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes and 20 seconds left.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. He has some in the bank with me. I have some that I own.
Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I will be relatively brief.
I want to address a question to Dr. Lane. I have before me, Dr. Lane, the Biannual Report to Congress of the Committee on Equal Opportunities In Science and Engineering, which was established under a mandate from Congress about 17 years ago.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Report suffers from a paucity of numerical data with regard to what is happening. I do not know whether that was deliberate or not, but it has a number of recommendations in it that relate to the subject of this hearing, of course.
It has recommendations to prepare specific plans and programs with regard to the development of minorities in science and engineering and mathematics, and it challenges the NSF to exemplify the goals that Congress has set with regard to minorities in science, mathematics and engineering by recommending that they should continue efforts to hire more NSF program officers from groups traditionally under-represented, and ensure that NSF's pool of reviewers and panelists are inclusive of the total population of scientists and engineers.
I am reading from the 1995 Report, and of course these reports come out periodically. They also reference the 1992 Report.
Now I am not going to ask you to report to me or this Committee on the numerical achievements in this regard, but I am asking to ask you that, in accordance with the recommendation of this Report by a Committee created 17 years ago by this Committee—I presume we were responsible for the legislation—if we were to ask you for a report that would show the progress that you are making in some of these areas over the years, year-by-year, would you be able to provide that information?
Mr. LANE. Yes, indeed, Mr. Brown. We would be happy to provide that. This is the Committee for Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering Report?
Mr. BROWN of California. Yes. That's correct.
Mr. LANE. We would be delighted to provide that data.
Mr. BROWN of California. We will send you a written request for that information, then, so that we can pore over it and see how well you are doing.
Then if you want to get even, you can ask the Committee how well it is doing, and we will provide you with that information, and it will not be impressive.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter.]
Mr. LANE. Thank you, sir.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We are doing fine.
[Laughter.]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Part of the problem is one of general complacency, I would suggest. This is probably the most important subject of any hearing taking place on Capitol Hill today, and yet we have got a few representatives of the specialty press. I do not think there is anyone here from the popular, or general press, and it is not going to be reported.
We have two very important people here talking about a very important subject and it elicits a muffled yawn. So that is a part of the problem.
Second, I would say to Mr. Capps as he travels the 22nd District of California, the same thing I say to my business people when I travel the 23rd District of New York. They moan and groan about students not being prepared.
And I say in response: How many of your employees are serving on school boards trying to change the curriculum?
How many of your employees are advisers to Science Clubs, or Explorer Posts?
How many of your employees are serving as resources to teachers in the school?
And the answer is: Not very many.
So I think the private sector, the industry people, have to step up to the plate and recognize they have got a responsibility.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, I think it is a fact—and I want to follow up on Dr. Ehlers' comments—half of the teachers teaching science in the elementary schools are not certified to teach science.
Is it any wonder that our students are not doing exceptionally well in the science disciplines?
And you say, well why is that?
Well, one of the reasons is the typical kid graduates from school today and may be outstanding in science and math disciplines, entertaining a career in education, but says, humph! I've got about $15- or $20,000 to pay back in student loans.
This Fortune 500 Company is offering me twice what I can get if I go to the classroom. Therefore, I am going to follow the dollar.
So I say that in lobbying for something I have had authorized for a number of years, but you guys have never seen fit to be supportive of, and that is the NOYY Scholarship Program, so we get the bright students in science and math disciplines, and we give them stipends for their junior and senior year of college, and in return we require them to teach a couple of years in the classroom.
So I would urge you to revisit that program. We authorize it. Be enthusiastic in supporting funding of it.
Which brings me to my main question. The recent TIMSS Video Study of 8th grade math teaching methods in Japan, Germany, and the United States, found that efforts to change the teaching of math in the United States has had little effect.
They recommended longer-term training with more of the work occurring in the classroom.
Have your agencies rethought any of your programs in the light of that study, Mr. Secretary?
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RILEY. Absolutely. And I do not think you were here earlier when I started talking about TIMSS in my opening statement, Congressman, but it is just very, very interesting to look at some of those study results.
TIMSS was more than just a test. It was really an analysis. They had videos of teachers in Japan and in America teaching well, and videos of teachers who were not teaching well.
So the difference then, in the 4th grade test in math and science, which was very positive in this country—in science we were next only to Korea in categories; math, well above average; in the 8th grade, as I indicated, we were just below average in math, and just above average in science.
So something happens between 4th and 8th grade, and I think we can really glean a lot of information from that. And we are doing that. We are looking at what is that difference, and how we can then center more in on, as the young people go on into middle school, having higher expectations of them, taking algebra and geometry before they finish the 8th grade.
One hundred percent of Japanese students finish algebra and have a lot of geometry before they finish 8th grade. Twenty percent of our students do.
That is one reason we are requesting an 8th grade voluntary test in math for all students in American that would include algebra and some geometry which we think would have a very solid effect.
Mr. LANE. Mr. Boehlert, may I comment?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure. My all means. I would hope you would.
Mr. LANE. I did mention a bit earlier that our systemic reform efforts, which are cooperative agreements based on the competitive peer review process, with States and urban areas and rural areas, do focus on teacher enhancement.
They also focus on getting enough time of the teachers in the classrooms, and for master teachers to interact with other teachers. We know that pays off. It is one way NSF can catalyze change in the district.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second program I would mention is something we call ''The Collaboratives for Excellence In Teacher Preparation.''
This program does provide explicitly some scholarship funds to get some people into the K-12 system, university people into the K-12 system, to spend some time there.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Would you mind saying for the record how much, because I think we will find it is embarrassingly small.
Mr. LANE. I can submit it for the record, but I do not have the number.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I would not expect you to. But we are talking about petty cash here. But it is a good program, and I want to encourage you.
Let me get back to Secretary Riley.
What specifically are you doing about teacher training?
I mean, we are getting some good people in the classroom in the science and math disciplines, but not nearly enough.
Mr. RILEY. Well, actually we are going to need over 2 million new teachers over the next 10 years. A lot of teachers are phasing out, and there is growth of enrollment. Math and science will be a very important part of that.
Our Eisenhower program, which does deal with professional development of teachers, emphasizing primarily math and science, I think is a very effective program and it is widely used throughout the country in every school district and every State.
You are right. You really cannot have enough. We are looking also at Title 5 of the Higher Education Act that are now in the process of reauthorizing, and we are working with the Education Committee now on that.
We are recommending some very significant changes in Title 5. It will call for some of the interesting things you are referring to in identifying exemplary teacher colleges and having them partner up with other teacher colleges to incorporate kind of a clinical approach similar to the way you teach doctors working with master teachers in the math and science area.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those are some of the very interesting things that we will be recommending under Title 5.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Just one last thing, Mr. Chairman.
Are you two meeting regularly? The two of you?
Mr. RILEY. We meet periodically. Our staffs meet constantly.
Mr. BOEHLERT. But you do meet periodically?
Mr. RILEY. Absolutely.
Mr. BOEHLERT. More than once a year?
Mr. RILEY. I would say more than once a year, certainly. Our staffs meet constantly, and we communicate with each other frequently.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, that is a significant improvement. You will recall a few years back when we actually introduced the Secretary of Education to the Director of the National Science Foundation in this Committee.
[Laughter.]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Where is the photographer when we really need it?
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. But I am encouraged by the fact that Dr. Lane and Secretary Riley are meeting, and their staffs are meeting on a regular basis, and I would encourage it.
There is nothing, let me repeat, or there are few things going on today on this Hill that are more important than the discussion of this subject.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to join in welcoming our distinguished experts here today to the Committee.
Dr. Lane, my wife and I just went to see ''Contact'' and I can tell you, you are not the bad guy in ''Contact.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROEMER. You have done a great job here today.
Secretary Riley, as a member of the Education Committee, it is always a privilege to listen to you tell us about what we need to do and about how we need to work together to tackle the most important problem for the country. That is, continuing to come up with new ideas to have our schools perform better.
So thank you for your time, again, today.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Roemer, would you yield to me just for a brief comment?
Mr. ROEMER. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to include in the record at the point where Erin Scott was introduced a copy of her essay that won the prize?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection
Mr. BROWN of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Roemer.
Mr. ROEMER. Your are welcome, Mr. Brown.
As we talked a little bit about Mr. Boehlert's question, and Secretary Riley you said we are going to require 2 million new teachers in the next 10 years, I just read a report where we also will need even more people trained in science in the next century; that a growing number of jobs in the economy are going to require people to be trained in computer-related fields, technology related fields, repair-related fields, software related fields.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It seems to me that this hearing is exceedingly important not only in how we recruit and we re-train teachers and train teachers for those 2 million jobs, but also how we make sure that an adequate number of students are going to be interested in, and excited about, and well trained in science and math to then perform in this new economy that we are going to be creating in the next century.
With respect to the President's initiative at the White House where we're trying to find ways to get children more interested in science at earlier and earlier levels of school, even before the 4th grade when we're testing them, what have we learned from the President's initiative at the White House, and what kinds of things might we begin to perk that interest earlier and earlier in children's development?
Second, I have businesses in my district, one of which is Bayer, which has a very, very innovative program where they go out into the schools and their scientists serve as mentors to the local high schools and middle schools for their science fair projects.
They have a program where they put together—and Mr. Calvert was talking about exciting programs. They have things that blow up and explode, that don't harm the school or the children, and create blue and green smoke, and then they explain what kinds of compounds and so forth created this, and how the explosion took place.
What kinds of things can we get our businesses to do to follow this same example that Bayer is doing? If a big corporation like Bayer is doing it, how can they share their knowledge by not having small businesses recreate the wheel?
What can they do to foster other companies to get involved in this?
Mr. RILEY. I think the whole idea of getting young people engaged in learning is really what you're talking about, Congressman. It's the magic, the secret of teaching and learning.
I think the use of technology by teachers who are adequately taught how to teach with technology and to teach to high standards—you and I have talked a lot about standards. Of course, that's something I'm very interested in and so is the President.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If a young person, beginning with kindergarten or earlier, really is into this idea of learning to high standards, they then develop a great love for learning, all the way through their educational process.
I think the hope I have is that with some of these innovative ways of helping new teachers get tied into mastery of teaching experience, tied into the use of technology where young people can literally get engaged on their own with technology and interactivity, involving their input and receipt of information, I think that is an exciting future in education if we handle it right.
I think we're doing everything we can to help States and local schools in that regard.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ROEMER. Could I just have Dr. Lane answer one question for me?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 people at 5 minutes apiece.
Mr. ROEMER. Dr. Lane, could you answer the question for me?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Just to finish that, though, you will answer that question in writing, Dr. Lane?
Mr. LANE. Yes, sir.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Real quickly—and I won't try to take my entire 5 minutes—I have a—this is very interesting subject.
I have three children, and my own observation from a layman's perspective is that they all three learn at different levels and they learn in different ways.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the things that I think—you know, there are various opinions as to what role the Federal Government should play in education, but I think there's a general consensus that in terms of research and trying to find out, you know, how kids do learn and how we can help them learn better, and how kids differ, I think that's important.
I just wanted to ask, how much of your science and math education budgets are going to education research, in other words, about cognitive type things, and how kids learn?
Mr. RILEY. I think I can be right quick on that. It's not a large portion of our budget at all.
Of course, we lean heavily on the work of NSF. It's like four-tenths of one percent of our budget that actually goes into research itself.
So much of our money is flow-through money, putting into practice, supporting state and local efforts to do things, often using research that NSF has come up with.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Dr. Lane?
Mr. LANE. The amount of money we put directly into research on pedagogy research on education is about $25 million.
But we, through many of our programs, emphasize the integration of research in science, mathematics, engineering, with education.
And so through our Centers Programs, Engineering Research Centers, Science and Technology Centers, and other kinds of grant programs, we provide funding to get the scientists and engineers out of the laboratory into the K-12 school from time to time.
It's anecdotal, but I know from my own experience in the classrooms in those areas, one person coming over from a scientific research laboratory once a week for an hour can have a tremendous impact as a very valuable resource for the school teacher, and very stimulating for the students as well.
I think for businesses and industry at large, there's much more opportunity for this kind of outreach and interaction. I think the Internet will provide a sharing of information, a forum for good practices to be shared, and the agencies can spread that information as well.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think it's extremely powerful. We have a huge resource out there of educated scientists and engineers, only a tiny fraction of which are in the K-12 classroom at any time at all.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I'm well aware of that. I think that in my home town, we have something like 1,100 people who have advanced degrees who could be very constructive.
I must say, though, many times the teachers unions are not particularly helpful in terms of allowing those people to cooperate and participate in the way that perhaps they might.
I want to get back to another issue you mentioned, Dr. Lane, about technology of the Internet, the Worldwide Web and so forth.
Congressman Bartlett and I participated at noon in a ceremony that was sponsored by some private sector companies that are working with trying to come up with new ways to make the Web and the Internet more friendly to school children.
In other words, I think we all want our kids to have access to the Web, but there are certain things that are out there that really aren't appropriate for kids. I'm not certain that they're appropriate for adults.
But are either of you familiar with some of those efforts? It's been a failed attempt, in my view, to try and sort of fence things out.
This group is sort of taking a different view and they're trying to fence things in, and they're working with educational advisors. This looks like it may actually work for the schools so that we will have more availability and parents and teachers will be less likely to try and keep kids off the Web.
Are you familiar with that, and can you comment?
Mr. LANE. I'm not familiar, Mr. Gutknecht, with that precise program. But there are a number of groups and individuals trying to do that. I think the idea is, if you get quality, useful information available and accessible in a reasonably friendly way, it will sort of naturally push all the junk out of the way—not all of the junk, but a lot of the junk.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Much of our focus at NSF is on ensuring that we support the research necessary to make the Web deliver in that way, less anarchy, a little more organization, a little friendlier environment. We have an initiative called Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence that's a very broad initiative, but in short, it simply means raising the whole level of technology, information technology a quantum level forward, and making it more available, not just to scientists and engineers—certainly that, because that's our responsibility, but also to teachers and to students, so that they can find the quality information that meets the standards of the system or the school, and that spark the excitement of the young people in the classroom.
So, definitely this is a way that we think our programs could be more effective in making the future of the Net and the Worldwide Web more useful in a positive way to education.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let me say that the Secretary has to leave here at 3:40 to go to the White House. So the Chair's gavel will be quite heavy when the 5 minutes is up.
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson?
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for calling the hearing. I want to welcome our distinguished panelists.
My questions will be relatively simplistic. I represent four school districts and one very large urban school district called the Dallas Independent School District.
I go into schools very often. It might not be scientific, but it's not a surprise to me that we get a gap in the 4th, 5th, 6th grades, of the 5th, 6th, and 7th grades going to the 8th, because attention spans begin to broaden.
What does bother me is that we do have a number of teachers that are not comfortable with the technology, and don't possess a lot of the technique to make learning exciting for our students.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't know if there are programs, weekend colleges or whatever, that are being recommended, but it really does concern me that the personality of those schools differ according to its leadership within that school, regardless of the school district.
That leadership determines what teachers will remain there, which ones that possess their type of philosophy and which ones do not. I think that's a reality.
My concern is, what do we do about it? We do have—it takes almost a special technique to address some of the uniqueness of the inner city schools.
Some of the schools who need the most guidance are the schools that have the weakest teachers.
Mr. RILEY. Well, your point is exactly what we are attempting to deal with in the Technology Literacy Challenge Grants.
That was funded at like a $200 million level this year, and we are recommending, and the President's balanced budget proposal is $425 million, which is a significant increase.
That money goes down to States by formula, and then the States, of course, develop plans to find the best use of that money. It has to be in the technology area.
We are finding and are very pleased with the fact that an awful lot of the States are putting those funds to teacher development, into the use of technology. That is a very proper use for it.
Also, Title I, you see some Title I funds that are being used for that purpose. Certainly, Eisenhower programs, the Teacher Professional Development Program itself, can also be used for that purpose.
We try to have the local people have the flexibility so your folks in Dallas would have certain federal funds coming down that they could use for that important purpose.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman—is it from Maryland or is it from Hawaii, Ms. Morella?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. MORELLA. I went off to Hawaii.
Actually, speaking of education, this came from the Sex Equity Coordinator in Hawaii on behalf of an amendment that I had offered to the Vocational Education Bill.
At any rate, I've got to talk fast because I only have 5 minutes. Welcome, Secretary Riley and Dr. Lane. We're delighted to have you both together.
I'm very pleased to hear about the Interagency Working Committee which, according to your testimony has been working and will be presenting a strategy when? Give me a date. When will the strategy be completed?
Mr. LANE. I think we expect it by the end of the month. I think it's coming very soon.
Mrs. MORELLA. Will share it with this Committee?
Mr. RILEY. Oh, yes, I'm sure of that.
Mrs. MORELLA. In the Telecommunications bill, an amendment that we offered on the House side that was also passed on the Senate side, and Ms. Lofgren was very involved in it, and I was involved in it, for affordable access to the Internet for schools and libraries and rural communities is going to be implemented by the FCC.
It was approved and I think that's important. I want to point out several things:
I have introduced legislation to require that funding for teacher training programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act include technology training. There will be no money involved, just the concept that it should include technology training. Would you agree that that's a good idea?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RILEY. Absolutely. I think good decisionmakers would probably do that anyhow in today's world. It's just becoming more and more important every month.
Mrs. MORELLA. This is just to make sure that those who may not be in that category will also know that this is something that Congress is asking for.
Second, I have also introduced legislation that would allow for two competitive grants, one K-12 and one for higher education. This would be through the Department of Education dealing with, again, teaching teachers how to teach technology.
I would imagine that you would think that would be a good piece of legislation, too, right?
Mr. RILEY. Well, certainly we think that is a priority item. I think in the previous question, I talked about the various programs where we do put that as an option and a priority.
I think any effort made by the Congress to show that it's a priority for this country, I think would be well served.
Mrs. MORELLA. I think it would not overlap with the Technology Literacy Challenge Grants that you talked about, but it would be something that would focus, again, on teaching teachers to teach.
So often, the second grader knows more than the teacher. The kindergartner may, in some instances, too, but the second grader does. It's part of our generation.
Dr. Lane, I had the opportunity to launch a program in Montgomery County, Maryland, that was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, teaching teachers, again, new methods for math and science in the schools.
I went to some of their workshops, and I learned a great deal from them, too. They are excellent. I want you to know that, and I hope that you will continue to be very supportive of that concept of recognizing how important the teacher is in education.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I guess, beyond that, since my time is not up yet, I would ask you, is there anything you think we need to know as a result of your appearing before us and our interest in education and our interest in technology?
Mr. LANE. I think our view is that technology, information technology is definitely here to stay. It's going to be a very important part of education. It's a tool like other tools.
It has its critics who say, well, we had the movies, we had the TV and did they really revolutionize technology? And now we have the computer.
I think it is really true that information technology today is a very different kind of interactive tool that is going to be powerful.
But in itself, it's not the solution to education. It takes people, smart people, common sense, hard work, and so it's all the more important that programs that enable the teachers to learn how to teach technology so they're comfortable with, and no having to spend a good bit of their time mucking around with the wires and the books, is extremely important.
Mrs. MORELLA. I mean, I even did a higher education financing program in Montgomery County, Maryland. When the question was, where can you find out more about scholarships, it was on the Internet, you know, so that all kinds of information is very accessible.
Final point—and I know I didn't give you a chance to respond, Secretary Riley—is, I care very much about getting more women, girls and women involved in technology.
Mr. RILEY. Right.
Mrs. MORELLA. They must not feel that they are cut off because of any lack of gray matter. On the contrary, I think that those who do get involved are really serious.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope that you are both moving, continuing to move in that direction.
Mr. LANE. Absolutely. Under the Technology For All Americans, it's one of our greatest challenges, to ensure that it is completely inclusive and is not a barrier, but, in fact——
Mrs. MORELLA. An invitation.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the gentlelady from Maryland, let me share—she mentioned technology for teachers. What we did a couple of years in North Carolina, we have now required that every teacher in the process of recertification, because they all do it, technology is a part of that before going back to the classroom.
I think that's an easy way to do it at the state level. We use state and federal funds for that, and it has worked very well.
We're giving them until about the Year 2000 and if they aren't, then they won't be in the classroom anymore. They'll be ready, I can assure you.
Mr. Secretary, let me thank you and Dr. Lane for being here. There are a couple of things I have, and I will try to put it all in one question, so that I can use my time as efficiently as possible.
On Monday evening of this week, I had a chance—someone mentioned earlier about getting companies involved—to speak at what was called a GE College that General Electric has put together with—I think Houston was involved, the States of Ohio, New York, North Carolina, and a couple of other States, where they partner with the school.
They pay for a school and coordinate and hook it up with the principal and with the corporation. And they're going in that school, not only working on dropout prevention, they're working in math, science, and a variety of reading and other areas.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But they only identify one school. I think that's working well, and you may want to touch on some of those other programs like that. I think that's how you get the employees.
But as you well know, the National Assessment of Education Progress has recently released their numbers across the country. I hope you will expound on that just as it relates to what we're talking about today in math and science.
The record achievement we've seen over the last several years in that area—because if you talk about getting more minorities and women involved in this whole area of science, technology, etc., you must do it early on.
We have to make available to them, the opportunities in the science areas. The first one they've got to have available for them is algebra.
You know, so many times we've used that in the schools across this country as a filter rather than a pump primer.
Now, in our State we tried to work in that area and I think it's shown some results. But I think we have to encourage it, and use the tools of the NSF where we had a grant, a large grant at the state level, as you remember. Over the last few years we used that it's worked well.
I hope you will comment on that and also the final part of that is, how that will relate to standards that you and the President talked about. I drafted some legislation in support of that, because I do believe that standards of excellence are where we need to go, not mandated, but voluntary as we have in NSF.
In that regard, we've had encouragement from such diverse groups as the American Legion to the Chief State School Offices, and that gives you a pretty good span of groups.
I hope you'll talk about that and how we can do more to help with greater student achievement as we reach across those lines from staff development because if we're going to improve, we have to have more resources. This is the third part of it.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the retraining of teachers and staff development, we've got a great staff out there, but everything is changing so rapidly.
What we did last year and 5 years ago, we have to do other things to help those teachers stay on the cutting edge, and I hope you'll talk about that. Thank you.
Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Congressman. Certainly the Eisenhower Program really is geared to that, specifically, and I think proper funding of that and proper directing and proper use of it is very, very important.
Your first point, talking about GE and private industry involved, the Technology Challenge Grants, I talked some about the Challenge Funds. The Challenge Grants, as you know, being a former superintendent, do invite innovative use and partnering of combinations of private industry, two or three school districts, maybe a museum, a library, and so forth, in a network of technology.
While the number of grants is not too large, the number of partners is enormous, when you figure how the leverage works. So that program—and we're requesting $75 million in this current budget for that, and it has worked enormously well to encourage the kind of thing you're talking about.
The NAEP, and I mentioned some of that earlier, certainly indicates that in 4th, 8th and 12th grade in math, we have made steady progress upward.
So I do think that some of the things like standards, like attention to quality at all levels, starting very early, as you point out, and staying right with it, standards every year, strict assessment, follow through with all of that, technology being interwoven really is making a difference.
And as you know, education does not go abruptly upward or down, but if you can have steady progress upward, that is very positive.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There've been a lot of good things said here today and I won't repeat them except to agree that this is probably the most important hearing going on the Hill today, because the future of education, especially in math and science, for American children is the key to the Nation's success.
And, as we've noted, we can do better.
There are two things I wanted to focus in on, not to duplicate what's already been done today.
The first is a question for the Secretary on something that I had an opportunity to mention to you briefly just a few weeks ago, and wonder if you've had any time to ponder the possibilities.
There's a program called ''Mathematics Engineering and Science Achievement,'' the acronym is MESA, that basically has grown since 1970 around the country, not really with any help from the Federal Government to speak of.
And this has been operating in my district, along with a number of others around the United States. And I recently I had the opportunity to review the statistics, now that it's been in operation since 1970, and there is good data to look at.
The children who enter the program, 80 percent of their parents have not completed high school and they are in the lowest income levels in my community.
The good news is if they've been in the MESA program for an average of 3 years, 98 percent of the MESA seniors enroll in college.
And if you look at the achievement rates for these kids, and I've actually met with these kids, it's really phenomenal with physics grades higher than average, advanced math completion scores higher than average.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And one thing, just to summarize, among those who are pursuing higher education, 70 percent of the MESA seniors want to do a major that is math-based in college.
So we have some terrific outcomes here, and I'm wondering if there is a way that we might spread this program, this heavily leverages private funding along with universities, and if you had any comment, Secretary Riley, I'd be honored to hear it.
Mr. RILEY. Well, and I appreciate you sending me some information on the MESA program and some charts and whatever. And I think our staffs are working on——
Ms. LOFGREN. That's correct.
Mr. RILEY. Getting some more detail on that, and it is very impressive.
Some of the things I note that they use though are like mentors, tutors which of course something we're emphasizing in our reading program.
Ms. LOFGREN. Involve families as well.
Mr. RILEY. And school to work, and some of the things that are out there that they are putting together in this program which we support all the parts of it, but we'll be very interested to see all that.
And I'll assure you when we get all that put together, we'll use our sources to disseminate it and see if we can study it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I will follow up with you and the final question for Dr. Lane is this.
Technology can be both the object of instruction and the vehicle for instruction and I remember the last Congress in Ms. Morella's Subcommittee, I suggested that the government ought to either devise or fund somebody to devise fractiles for fourth graders.
But I think an impediment is the cost of software, and I'm someone who believes in protecting intellectual property, but I'm interested if we've looked at hiring someone to develop instructional programs that would be distributed free to any teacher in any school over the Internet that would avoid the cost of software or the issues that have been addressed by others in the statements as a distribution method.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would note that in my own community, advanced courses in high school are now being offered on the Internet when there's not a big enough group, for example, Russian history or something of that nature.
But whether an NSF grant might allow for something like that to be developed. I think there's great opportunity there but perhaps I'm wrong.
Do you have a comment?
Mr. LANE. Well certainly some of our efforts, in general, we're not a software house and we don't have a program just to develop software for education purposes or anything else. But we do have a program to support curriculum development, and that program, as well as our technology program certainly includes the software side of the ledger.
So it's a modest investment, but our role we believe is to support those teachers and researchers who have new ideas about how to reach, through this technology, how to reach the kids in the classroom and help the teachers, and all these ideas won't work.
But our job is to support some of those bold ideas and get them out there, and then I think some of that information will be free where some of it will go into the market. And at that point, we're not further involved.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Dr. Lane, welcome.
Just a couple comments, and I'll try to be brief. I know it's been a long hearing, but it's been a very informative one.
As a parent of four children, I've been very concerned about just how we fund public education in general. In Pennsylvania, where I represent 67 suburban communities around the City of Pittsburgh, my district has the wealthiest community in that county and the poorest and everything in between.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was recently at a high school in my district, Duquesne High School, where when we replaced our computer equipment in our office, we donated the equipment to that high school because it didn't have any computers.
Just 10 miles down the road, at another school district in my district, computers in every classroom, built-in swimming pool, television studio, astro turf football field. It's just shocking to me the disparities and then we wonder how some kids seem to do well and some kids don't.
Is the Federal Government playing any role in helping to encourage or coordinate private sector efforts to donate equipment?
When you think about what's going on in computers, you buy these new systems and a year later, something faster and bigger comes out and people are replacing computer equipment everyday.
We've got school districts throughout this country with no hardware, with no equipment. And what are we doing, if anything, to facilitate that type of a program where we encourage the private sector to donate their equipment.
And second, just to delve into a little bit on top of what Ms. Lofgren said about the role of technology and learning, do you have programs in either of your agencies that are determining the best use of computers and other educational technologies?
I mean, should we be putting our resources into wiring every school room into the Internet, or should we be spending more money helping to develop educational software?
We hear from so many people that what's out there is terrible and that, you know, maybe we should be putting more resources to piggyback onto what Zoe said into developing new educational software or encouraging the private sector to do that.
I just wonder if you could comment on some of those issues?
Mr. LANE. I can make just a couple of quick comments.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have no program directly working with the private sector on donation of equipment but we, ourselves as an agency, donate equipment to the schools.
In the current calendar year, I guess we've donated equipment worth about $450,000.
But as important as the donation of equipment is, is the time donated by members of our staff. Because it doesn't help if a box arrives, especially a used box, where maybe there's no longer a manual with it, or without all the cords. So we really encourage our employees and they are very happy to oblige to spend some time volunteering in the classrooms to help the teachers who don't understand the technology very well to use it. And we find a very friendly reception there.
We also encourage the universities and colleges we support to do exactly the same thing. Most of the equipment we buy from research contracts is deeded to the universities. We don't retain the title to that equipment. So we encourage the schools to get the equipment out. But as important, to be willing to go out as individuals and help teach the teachers and their young people how to use this technology.
Mr. RILEY. Congressman, there is some consideration now, and I think it's in the budget process, of Federal Government equipment, computer equipment of the agencies being used in education, and I'll get my staff to give you any information on that so you can take a look at it if you are especially interested.
The tax equity issue has always been a problem in education where it's built on property tax, it very clearly is inequitable. That is a state court issue it was determined many years ago, and so you do see cases in over half the States now that are going up on that issue.
I think you make a great point though, and that is the importance of having technology in the classroom and have the teacher able and capable of handling that because some students don't have it in their homes.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And some people who are saying perhaps you don't need as much technology in the classroom. If you look and see, most of them have computers in their home often times, and it is very much an important equity issue, I think, to have in all the schools, all the schools, this enormous capacity of the computer that each child can have everything available in the Library of Congress or Harvard Library right there in their school.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me again welcome the Secretary and Dr. Lane.
I want all children to, and I appreciate this emphasis on science, math, engineering and technology, and I'd like to focus on those in the primary and secondary schools in particular.
And that is, let me make a qualifying statement or at least an including statement, and say that I would like to see all of America's children having the access to the Internet and certainly technology at its highest level.
Let me, however, speak pointedly as I watch the professionals in the area of science, math, and technology that we can currently see in 1997 and we certainly see an uneven representation of women and minorities in particular focused on inner city schools.
Because usually, as you see youngsters who have the opportunity, they may be at your Andover or your Philips Exeter or somebody else's private school and they happen to be an African American, Hispanic, who got into these particular schools.
Let's talk about the rawness of either rural schools, southern Mississippi, Georgia, urban centers in Texas, Harlem, New York, etc.
My question is, are there special considerations in this apprehensive atmosphere of color blindness and anti-affirmative action. Do we realize that we do have a need to expose those kinds of programs and opportunities to those children.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary Riley, recognizing your interest in letting the local jurisdiction sort of work on it, if you both can answer that as to what the NSF is doing and as well what the Department of Education is doing to not hide from the inequity of who's in the profession, who's not, who's teaching and who's not, who's being exposed and who is accepting exposure.
Lastly, if you would answer the question, the National Science Foundation, Dr. Lane, have you thought about asking your labs in the colleges and universities, once they get through with their equipment, to donate them to local schools.
And Secretary Riley, have you apprised our schools of the Executive Order 12999 which lets schools know, particularly inner city schools, about that?
I had an amendment in this Committee, and I thank the Committee for joining me in it to provide more access and donated equipment out of our National Labs.
But I would appreciate your answer, and I thank you very much, and I am restraining myself from asking about the political science investigation of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Lane. I'll get that in writing.
Thank you.
Mr. RILEY. Let me comment on your question of unevenness, which I think is a burden that all of us carry. I certainly do, and the President does.
A number of our programs do deal with the equity issue. Title I is the best example. That of course is our largest program. And if you pull Title I funds out of the American education system, what you see now as some unevenness would be dramatically more ''uneven.''
So I think that it is very clear that, while the large decision-making is on most of those issues on the state and local responsibility, and that is part of the way our education system works.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certainly we do all we can to emphasize and encourage an incentive to bring about equity in every sense of the word.
I remember when I first came here the winners of the various States of the Science Awards were all white men, young people, high school students.
I think you are beginning to see that change some. Certainly when I ask young classes in the 4th and 5th grade, what are you interested in? What is your favorite subject? I see these young black girls raise their hand, young black boys, young white girls raise their hand, it really interests me quite a bit in seeing the change that is coming about.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. We need more money.
Dr. Lane?
Mr. LANE. In the case of NSF, our Systemic Initiatives are really focused—particularly urban and rural Systemic Initiatives—are really focused on those cities and those parts of the country with a very large population below the poverty level, and the areas with large minority populations.
That includes the technology component, but of course it is much broader than that. It is the whole system that we are addressing.
I would also mention a specific program we have called ''Comprehensive Partnerships for Math and Science achievement,'' which then focuses on particular districts in schools with large minority populations to ensure that teacher enhancement and career development takes place in those schools.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about equipment? Donating equipment from your labs, or your——
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. LANE. We do encourage that.
Mr. RILEY. We have already responded to the Executive Order. Also we have donated computers to schools. As you know, those are directed toward the Empowerment Zones. We have already done that.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all members of the Committee will have 1 week in which to direct written questions to both witnesses today, and we would like to ask the witnesses to respond fairly promptly so that we can close the hearing record and send it off to the Government Printing Office for printing.
So without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank both Secretary Riley and Director Lane for coming today. I do believe that this is the beginning of an initiative that will probably have more impact than perhaps any other single hearing that the Congress will have during this year in terms of making our economy more competitive in the next century.
The Science Committee certainly intends to be a leader in encouraging better math and science education in a way that is not intrusive of States' rights, local school district rights', and parental rights. I think we are all on board to try to achieve that goal, and I think we have had a very good start today.
So if there is no further business to come before the Committee, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., Wednesday, July 23, 1997, the Committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]