Serial No. 106-125


Printed for the use of the Committee on Education

and the Workforce

































The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William F. Goodling [chairman of the committee], presiding.

Present: Representatives Goodling, Petri, Roukema, Ballenger, McKeon, Castle, Greenwood, Norwood, Schaffer, Deal, Ehlers, Tancredo, Fletcher, Kildee, Owens, Roemer, Scott, Woolsey, Fattah, Kind, Ford, Wu, and Holt.

Staff present: Becky Campoverde, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Planning and Communications; Linda Castleman, Office Manager; Rob Green, Workforce Policy Coordinator; Dan Lara, Press Secretary; Sally Lovejoy, Education Policy Coordinator; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Maria Miller, Staff Assistant; D'Arcy Philps, Professional Staff Member; Michael Reynard, Media Assistant; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Linda Stevens, Legislative Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Rich Strombres, Professional Staff Member; Bob Sweet, Professional Staff Member; Kent Talbert, Education Policy Counsel; Kevin Talley, Chief of Staff; Holli Traud, Legislative Assistant; Gail Weiss, Minority Staff Director; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Cedric R. Hendricks, Minority Deputy Counsel; June Harris, Minority Education Coordinator; Marshall Grigsby, Minority Senior Legislative Associate/Education; Mary Ellen Ardouny, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Roxana Folescu, Minority Staff Assistant/Education.



Chairman Goodling. We're holding the hearing today to hear testimony on H.R. 4272 and the National and Economic Importance of Improved Math and Science Education. I'm eager to hear from Chairman Greenspan and other witnesses today, so I'm going to limit the opening statements to the chairman, the ranking member, and a designee from each side.

Therefore, if other members have statements, they will be included in the record. And with that, I would ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to allow members' statements and other documents referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered.

First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Greenspan for what will be his first appearance before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I believe. The members of this committee are pleased to have this opportunity to hear Dr. Greenspan's views and insights with respect to math and science education and how this issue is intricately linked to the future prosperity of the nation.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Greenspan for his able leadership as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System since 1987.

It's no secret that U.S. students, as compared to students around the world, have not made the grade in math and science. However, I am convinced that most of the public does not realize the crisis we are facing as a world power if we do not take the necessary action.

A report released last month on the long-term trend, The National Assessment of Educational Progress, shows that math and science scores over the past 30 years have remained relatively stagnant.

Many schools in this nation have recognized the problem and are working hard to address this problem. In addition, new state and local academic standards are also challenging schools and students alike to achieve high rates of success in all academic areas, including math and science. At the same time, today's economy is demanding far more of workers in the areas of math and science as well as technology. As a result, more and more employers are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to find employees qualified to fill high-paying jobs.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce has worked hard to address these challenges. First and foremost, we have worked to make federal education programs more flexible so that schools have the ability to direct sizeable funds toward addressing their most pressing needs, such as raising math and science achievement.

For example, as part of the Teacher Empowerment Act, we combined several current federal education programs into a single grant directly to schools. And with these funds, schools have the flexibility to focus more resources toward improving their math and science education program. Other schools have found it a challenge to find qualified math and science teachers in this competitive employment market.

To address this, some schools are offering signing bonuses, merit pay, student loan forgiveness, and other benefits to attract and retain the best and brightest teachers. Funds from the Teacher Empowerment Act are also flexible enough to support these efforts. In addition to improving math and science programs, we have reformed federal technology programs.

The ``Tech-For-Success Act'' streamlines the maze of current elementary and secondary technology programs into a single grant providing over $760 million for education technology. With these funds, schools have the flexibility to carry out a wide variety of initiatives suited to their needs.

For example, they may wish to use funds to integrate technology in the classroom, develop technology-enhanced curricula, create communications networks between teachers, or acquire technology for use in the classroom.

The critical need to address the math and science and technology deficit in the nation is highlighted by the current push to extend and increase H-1B visas. The fact is employers have to rely more and more on foreign workers to fill high-paying, high-skilled jobs.

While raising the cap on the number of visas is a short-term solution, education must be our long-term end. And to this end, the Committee on Education and the Workforce recently passed H.R. 4402, the Training and Education for American Workers Act of 2000. Among other things, this legislation directs 25 percent of the fees collected through H-1B visa applications to a new student loan forgiveness program to attract more math and science and reading teachers.

And I'd like to commend the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Ehlers, for his efforts to improve math and science education. Representative Ehlers serves as the vice chair on the Committee on Science and is a member of our committee. In these two capacities, he is in a unique position and has been tireless in advocating the need for better math and science education programs.

I will now yield to Mr. Holt until the ranking member arrives.



Mr. Holt. Thank you, Chairman Goodling. I would like to thank you for holding a hearing on this important topic and Mr. Ehlers for his work on this. And I would comment that we're delighted to have Dr. Greenspan here with us and I think it is fully appropriate that he be here at the Committee on Education because of his work as an educator. But also, more important, because of the importance of these educational subjects for the sorts of things that he talks about at other committee hearings.

And I'm delighted to have my old friend, Dr. Lederman, here, as well as two more recent friends, Diane Briars and Craig Barrett, who are members with me on the John Glenn National Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics and Science.

We're fortunate to live in an exciting and prosperous time and the Internet is bridging gaps between continents and generations; and our cars have more computer power than the Apollo spacecraft; and the awesome accomplishments in biotechnology hold out promise for fighting diseases and improving our lives in many ways. And we look at these changes with awe.

But we can't afford to let these opportunities pass us by. Success in this information age depends, not just on how well we educate our children, generally, but on how well we educate them in science and mathematics, specifically. The time has come, I believe, for a new major effort to improve science and mathematics education.

Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, major steps were taken in the U.S. to improve the resources going into science. The goal was to produce a superior technical workforce. This produced a generation of scientists and engineers who have contributed greatly to our economic and technical accomplishments in recent decades.

I am a product of that Sputnik revolution and have spent several decades in the world of teaching and physics research before coming to represent the people of central New Jersey here in Congress. But now as a policymaker, I see some shortcomings of our earlier revolution and in science and mathematics education.

The push for improving public competence in science and mathematics should not be just for reasons of economics, national security, and democracy, as if that's not compelling enough. It should also be for personal well-being. Mathematics and science bring order, harmony, and balance to our lives. They teach us that our world is intelligible and not capricious, they give us the skill for life-long learning, for creating progress itself.

From the evidence that we currently have at hand, it's clear that we're not providing this quality education in mathematics and science to our students as we would like. I'm proud to be one of the four Members of Congress serving on the National Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics and Science, chaired by former Senator and former astronaut John Glenn_I always hesitate when I say that because with John Glenn, you never know whether he's a former astronaut or whether he might do it again_but chaired by John Glenn and including leaders from industry, academia, and professional education organizations. The Glenn Commission, as it has come to be known, is working to improve the presence and the quality of math and science education. And in its report, to be released next week, the Glenn Commission identifies teaching as the most powerful instrument for reform, and thus, the place to begin.

The Glenn Commission calls for major changes throughout the teaching profession, the scientific professions, and the institutions that produce our teachers, and the society that supports them. Our country must devote attention to the quantity, quality, and professional work environment for teachers of math and science.

There are two very important principles that are critical to success in this effort, and I would like to highlight those. First, everyone can learn science; and second, excellent teaching can be learned. We need, in the next two years, 2.2 million new teachers. Most teachers, including all elementary school teachers, will be called on to teach science. Many will feel inadequate to teach it.

And there's a reason why. The post-Sputnik push elevated scientists as an elite. It conveyed the message that science and mathematics is only for trained experts. It also suggested that schoolteachers could not possibly master the intricacies of the fields well enough to be truly competent. This attitude, coupled with a sense that teachers are born to the job and either have the knack or not, has resulted in many teachers and, hence, many students, not getting the education they need and deserve. We must change this attitude by significantly increasing the number of teachers qualified to teach math and science and by changing the environment of professional development to create an ongoing system of improvement.

To do this, we must identify and replicate teacher preparation programs that meet rigorous criteria for excellence and recruit promising students to those programs. We must establish mentoring programs and a national clearinghouse for effective professional development programs. And we must recruit bright and promising new teachers into the field through such things as loan forgiveness, transition to teaching programs, and scholarships.

And we must establish partnerships with industry and business where our teachers can participate in fellowships and take that knowledge back to the classrooms. By no means are these the only things we need to do. It's also important that we address the achievement gap between white and minority students; between boys and girls. Representative Woolsey, on this committee, has been a leader in that effort.

However, if we're going to make a difference in the education and lives of our citizens, it's imperative that we start making changes in the way we teach math and science. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses and I look forward to working with this committee and making such improvements in math and science education.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Thank you. We will put the clock on for the last two opening statements from up here. I know that this may not be as interesting as what will happen in Prague, meaning our part, not your part. I now recognize Mr. Ehlers.



Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I will submit my written statement and just make a few comments. What we are addressing here today is a major national problem. The United States has been the leader in creating the techno-economic boom that we're enjoying which has resulted from the research expenditures of the past 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years, coming to fruit in this nation.

We started the boom, we're enjoying boom but we are not producing enough workers to maintain the boom in this nation. And that is the problem we face today. As evidence, the Committee and Congress are continually asked to increase the number of H-1B visas granted so that we can import workers from other countries.

As further evidence, if you visit graduate schools of science and engineering in this nation today, you'll find that over half of the graduate students are from other countries. Our students are not able to compete with them for entry into our graduate programs.

I offer as further evidence, the jobs that are open today in American industry for people with a scientific, technical engineering, we have 365,000 unfilled jobs in this job; simply do not have the people to fill those jobs who'll meet the qualifications. Some people think that I'm on a crusade here because I'm a scientist. That's not it.

I'm doing this because this is a major national problem and I believe my scientific background and my position on this committee and the Science Committee make me the logical person to pursue and lead in finding solutions to this problem. Apparently, the speaker agrees, because he has specifically asked me to work on this problem and see what we can do to solve it.

I'm delighted with the panel we have before us today: Dr. Greenspan, of course, has a long history in economics and has also served my good friend many years ago, Jerry Ford, who I believe gave you your start in government. But you've served the nation so well for so many years. But also you demonstrate your remarkably good understanding of the problem that we're discussing today.

We have other distinguished panelists. I'm very pleased my good friend Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winner in physics, also has joined us today. In his retirement, so-called, he is devoting much of his time to improving math-science education in this country, just as I am. Also, thanks to the others on the panel that are here to testify with their specific expertise.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, we face a major national problem. We have to define what the appropriate federal role is in settling that problem and also work out, as best we can, a way in which we can address this problem.

Thank you, I yield back.


Chairman Goodling. Thank you. We have an unusual occasion this morning. I understand Mr. Roemer is going to speak for Mr. Clay. That is different.

Mr. Roemer. I will try to fill, ably, in his shoes, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, too. I'd ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be entered into the record. And I would only thank Mr. Goodling for holding this hearing today and trying to bring the nation's attention to a very important issue.

I want to thank Mr. Ehlers, who has had, how many, 13, 14, 15 hearings on this subject, between education and science, and has worked very hard on this subject.

And I want to thank Dr. Greenspan for his presence here today. I'm not only downright excited to have you here, I'm rationally exuberant to have your presence here to address the topic of education, which I think is the most important subject to our nation, to our parents, to our students, and to our workers.

I have heard you testify many times, Dr. Greenspan. And you've talked about the importance of low interest rates, low employment rates, and low inflation. We can have all those indicators firmly in place. But if we don't have a qualified workforce, qualified teachers, good math and science programs, those great indicators aren't going to be great for long.

And so for you to take time out of your busy schedule and come in here and help us rivet the nation's attention on the importance of math and science to eighth graders and to 48-year-olds, whether it's an eighth grader trying to learn algebra, whether it's a 48-year-old trying to relearn geometry to work a computer on an assembly line so that they stay in their job and we can compete with China.

With the trade pact having passed the other day in the Senate, these are very important issues for us. This is our competitive advantage over other nations_is our workforce and our student force. So thank you for your time and thank you for your testimony ahead of time and I look forward to the good ideas that you'll bring forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. Thank you. I have submitted Mr. Clay's opening statement for the record.


Chairman Goodling. I'm recognizing Congresswoman Roukema, who wants to say thank you for coming. She has to go and do some of your other bidding on the Banking Committee. Congressman Roukema.



Mrs. Roukema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've just said everything that I intended to say, but no, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate this opportunity. And Chairman Greenspan, as a member not only of this committee but also the Banking Committee, where we've worked closely together and putting our financial house in order and have dealt with rational_irrational exuberance. Or was it rational or irrational? Whatever the day may be.

But I do want to say that, unfortunately, I cannot stay for your testimony. I have a subcommittee hearing of my own at 10 o'clock but I want to really extend my appreciation to you and certainly to Mr. Ehlers and the chairman for having this hearing. And particularly for the fact that, creatively, I don't ever remember your testifying before this committee.

But creatively, they understand, by your appearance here, that this is an essential component of the economy_the economy that we want to keep going with good jobs at good wages_now and in the future. And in addition, integrating us, even more so, in the global economy. So, Chairman Greenspan, I appreciate and will look forward to your advice and counsel. And certainly, I can pledge to Mr. Ehlers and to the chairman and to you, Mr. Chairman of the_Chairman Greenspan, that I will do everything possible to help expedite the passage and implementation of this legislation. It's long overdue.

Thank you and excuse me. But I must leave now. Good luck in Prague.

Chairman Goodling. I will merely indicate to the members up here that we will enforce the five-minute question and answer period, which includes the question and the answer. And your time is unlimited, Mr. Chairman.



Dr. Greenspan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the kind remarks of you and your colleagues. I'm especially pleased to be here this morning to discuss improving mathematics and science education in our elementary and secondary schools.

In this regard, I am conveying my own views, not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve.

We are in a period, especially in this country, of rapid innovation that is yielding dramatic changes in the way goods and services are produced and in the ways they are delivered to final users. These innovations are markedly elevating the skill levels that will be needed if our increasingly sophisticated capital stock is to function effectively in the years ahead.

Such considerations are an important element in the ongoing dialogue that our nation's leaders in business; labor; education; and public policy must have if we, together, are to be successful in meeting the rising demand for skilled workers. Success in this area will, in turn, allow us to realize the potential that advances in science and technology have to enhance living standards for a large majority of Americans.

The pressures we face today are not unlike those of a century ago when our education system successfully responded to the multiplying needs brought about by a marked acceleration in technological innovation. As those advances put new demands on workers interacting with an increasingly more stock of productive capital, high school education proliferated enabling students to read manuals, manipulate numbers, and understand formula.

Students were, thus, accorded the skills necessary to staff the newly developed assembly lines in factories and rapidly expanding transportation systems whose mechanical and automotive jobs required a widening array of cognitive skills. For those who sought education beyond high school, land grant colleges sprang up as states reacted to the increased skills required by industry and especially agriculture, the dominant occupation, a century ago.

By today's standard, the required share of so-called intellectual workers in our labor force was, then, still small. But the technological innovations of the latter part of the 19th Century began to bring an increasing conceptualization of our Gross Domestic Product. That is, a greater emphasis on value-added stemming from new ideas and concepts as distinct from material inputs and demanding physical labor.

The proportion of our workforce that created value through intellectual endeavors rather than predominantly through manual labor, began a century-long climb. In 1900, only 1 of every 10 workers was in a professional, technical, or managerial occupation. By 1970, that proportion had doubled; and today, those jobs account for nearly a third of our workforce.

Moreover, this simple statistic, undoubtedly, understates the ongoing increase in the analytic content of work because there also seems to have been a marked increase in the need for conceptual skills and jobs that a decade or so ago would have been easily characterized as fully manual labor.

Indeed, the proliferation of information technologies throughout the economy in recent years has likely accelerated the shift in the skill requirements of many occupations away from routine work and toward non-routine, interactive, and analytical tasks. Another signal of the ongoing rise in demand for conceptual skills in recent years has been the increase in relative wages for college-educated workers.

During the 1980s and much of the 1990s, as demand for skilled workers outpaced the supply, the gap between the wages of the college-educated and those with a high school diploma or less, widened considerably. More recently, as labor markets tightened, that gap has leveled off. Real wages have picked up for workers with less than a college education.

But evidence of high-skills premium for workers with college degrees remains, not just for high-tech workers, but across a broad range of occupations. Innovation boosts output per hour and the freed pull of workers seek to exploit other opportunities. Their success is evidenced by the dramatic decline in the unemployment rate since 1992. The capital invested in any endeavor needs human interaction in order to function.

But the new jobs that have been created by the surge in innovation require that the workers who fill them use more of their intellectual potential. This process of stretching toward our human intellectual capacity is not likely to end anytime soon. Indeed, the dramatic in the demand for on-the-job technical training and the major expansion of the role of our community colleges in teaching the skills required to address our newer technologies, are persuasive evidence that the pressures for increased learning are ongoing.

At the same time that we have been witnessing these substantial increases in the demand for human input, we see little evidence that the general level of human intelligence has changed much. Indeed, has changed, at all, over the centuries. Fortunately, human beings exhibit a pronounced ability to stretch their intellectual capabilities when called upon.

Hence, while the intellectual output of humans, they appear to have an upper limit, that limit seems to be sufficiently flexible to assuage most concerns. Nonetheless, in today's economy, it is becoming evident that a significant upgrading or activation of under-utilized intellectual skills will be necessary to effectively engage the newer technologies. Expanding the number of individuals prepared to use a good or proportion of their intellectual capacity means, among other things, that are elementary and secondary students must broaden their skills and mathematics and related sciences.

In my experience, competency in mathematics, both in numerical manipulation and understanding its conceptual foundations, enhances a person's ability to handle the more ambiguous and qualitative relationships that dominate our day-to-day decision-making. The study of science, of course, also advances problem-solving skills.

Early success in problem solving clearly enhances the self-esteem of young people and encourages them to engage in ever more complex reasoning. We all tend to gravitate toward those activities that we do best. This is a self-reinforcing process in which early success promotes further effort in a self-perpetuating direction. This is true of playing Little League baseball or the piano, as well as doing math.

If we are to improve the scientific reasoning skills of our young people, we need to encourage a deeper interaction with numbers and their manipulation to a point at which students are confident and proud of their level of skills. In many instances, an outcome they may not have anticipated. One is lead to wonder whether the early sharpening of intellectual rigor that occurs when young students struggle to negotiate the complexities of doing multiplication and division the old-fashioned way is not without enduring value. A superficial understanding that does not stretch a child's intellectual capacity, in my experience, cannot galvanize an enhanced, reality-based sense of self-esteem.

In this regard, it is discouraging that so many students who clearly demonstrate impressive verbal or other conceptual skills find mathematical procedures intimidating. According to a recent survey of student attitudes towards math, conducted by the Department of Education, fewer than half of the high school seniors surveyed, said that they liked mathematics; a proportion similar to the proportion who felt that they were good at it. Even more disturbing, these proportions were lower than those in the surveys conducted in 1990.

Some research indicates that such math anxiety has a negative effect on mathematics performance and that strategies for increasing student's confidence in their mathematical abilities, are likely to have additional benefits in terms of achievement. If we can enhance their self-esteem and provide them with a strong curriculum and effective teaching, students may well find themselves rising to a level of analytic capability beyond their previous vision.

There is clearly work to be done. For as you know and have stated, the international comparisons of student achievement in mathematics and science that were conducted in 1995 suggested our fourth graders were among the highest rated around the world. But our eighth and 12th graders fell short of their peers in other countries. These comparisons heightened the debate about the quality of education that students are exposed to between the fourth and 12th grades and raised concerns about the prospects for a continuing shortfall of American-educated skilled technicians.

To be sure, substantial reforms in math and science education had been underway for some time prior to the 1995 study and have continued since.

It is encouraging that the latest results on trends and academic progress from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, some show improvement in both subjects. Perhaps, that improvement will show up in a narrowing of the gap between our students and those abroad when the results of a follow-up survey of international comparisons are released later this year.

Nonetheless, with the conceptual demands on our workers continuing to rise, substantial, further progress needs to be made in raising the analytic competency of our graduating high school seniors. Addressing this issue is crucial for our nation. It is, obviously, just a matter of time before the bulk of our workforce will require a much higher level of problem-solving skills than is currently evident.

And while we have been fortunate to attract so many skilled young people to our shores, we must, nonetheless, strive to increase math and science achievement so that our students can take advantage of the considerable opportunities that will exist in tomorrow's labor market. And that way, we can realize the potential of technological change for bringing substantial and lasting benefits to our economy.

As a final point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress that even with the increasing intellectual specialization so necessary if we are able to move to an ever-higher degree of specialization in our overall economy, we also need to ensure that all students have a broad knowledge of the world, at large.

Major technological advances are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. Many academics argue, I believe rightly, that significant exposure to a liberal education, music, literature, and the arts, broadens intellectual awareness, enhancing the ability to reach across disciplines to forge new ideas.

Thus, while we may strengthen math and science education to address the requirements of the newer technologies that we see on the horizon, we should not lose sight of the advantages of a liberal education. I do not doubt that many of our most innovative and successful .com entrepreneurs are exceptionally, but narrowly, technically focused and educated.

But if technology is to fit into a broader society of complex, democratic institutions such as ours, it is important that all participants have an adequate awareness of its structure and values. For it is the latter that we, as a people, endeavor to achieve. But technologies are only a means to that end.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.


Chairman Goodling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would remind the members, first of all, that we have another outstanding panel when we're finished with Dr. Greenspan and would request that you make your questions as short as possible so that Dr. Greenspan has an opportunity to answer them within the time limit.

Mr. Ehlers, I believe you are first on the list here.

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin any questions, I would just like to ask that the 75 to 100 letters of support on this particular business and letters of professional associations be submitted for the record.

Refer to the Appendix for Letters of Support

Mr. Ehlers. Chairman Greenspan, I deeply appreciate your coming here, and I also deeply appreciate your testimony. It's very perceptive and very much to the point. I appreciate your comments relating this revolution to the one approximately a century ago. This is not something new to our nation but I think it is also important to recognize that they are at least two distinct differences. The one is that revolution that we are having today is proceeding much more rapidly than the previous one, giving us less time to adapt to it.

The second difference is that the knowledge needed today is so much greater than it was 100 years ago. Back then; there were already algebra teachers who did not have high-paying jobs attracting them out of the field. Today, we need more than just algebra; we need a good deal of science, as well. I believe your point is so important and needs to be recognized by everyone here. It is exactly on point but the problem is worse than it was 100 years ago and demands much more of our attention.

The other comment I would make is, I deeply appreciate your reference to liberal education. I left the University of California and went to teach at Calvin College, a four-year liberal arts college because I felt a liberal education was so important. But I also had a number of battles with my colleagues there who, because I was convinced that physics, which I taught, as part of the liberal arts.

Moreover, they seemed to think it was perfectly all right to be well educated in vanities, literature, and music. But it was also perfectly acceptable for them to be totally ignorant of science and I pointed out to them that I thought it was an educated person today if they expected me to know the works of Shakespeare. I had a perfect right to expect them to know something about the three laws of thermo-dynamics and spent a good deal of time trying to educate them on that.

Those are the comments. I really have very little questions, because you covered the field so well and said it so well. But I'd be happy to give you time to respond to my comments, if you wish.

Dr. Greenspan. No, I must say, Congressman, I certainly agree with you in the designation of the period that we went through a century ago, as being interesting but not exactly parallel to the needs that we express today. Because remember, then, the vast majority of our population lived on farms. And that we had very many intelligent young people who spent virtually all of their day in activities, which did not stretch their intellectual capacity in any way whatsoever.

And as a consequence of that, there was a very substantial loss of a great deal of potential value. And that, obviously, is virtually the opposite problem that we're having today in the sense that, as I indicated in my remarks and I think the evidence is unfortunately too persuasive, that intellectual capacity has not evidently changed as far back in human history as we know. And there must, therefore, be some aggregative limit.

The fact, of course, what few people, I think, realize and it's the most important thing in education of which I'm aware, is that they have far greater capacity to do the types of analytical work that, in many cases, they find intimidating. I note too many people who are extraordinarily intelligent who; when they have to deal with a simple algebraic equation, blank out. And that leads into the simple problems such as when you get an instruction book on how to put together a VCR or something like that, which we're all required to do unless we have relatives, that same degree of intimidation spills over.

So it's not just simply what one does in the workforce, it's really one's ability, I think, in just overall activity and a much sharper willingness to deal with what is intimidating about math. Meaning that there is no out, two plus two equals four. It always has and it always will.

There is no way to get outside of that conclusion. And the absolutism of certain types of aspects of reality, in my judgment, are important for us to understand if we're to move to the next step and the next step after that. And that goes just as well with reading an instruction booklet on how to put together a VCR.

Chairman Goodling. I'm reminded that I've said many times what I'll miss most when I leave here is I won't be able to yell out the door and say, ``Greg, will you get in here and fix this darn computer so I can get my work done.''

Mr. Roemer has a question. I'm calling these in the manner in which they arrived, according to the list that I've been given. Mr. Roemer.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Greenspan, once again thank you for your testimony, which is very helpful. But even more importantly, thank you for your time today and your help in explaining to the American people why education is such a critically important issue to our economy, to our workers, to our students.

I have one question. We have a lot of great teachers in America today. But we have some that are trained in phys. ed. that are being asked to teach physics. We need to come up with some new ideas, some bold, creative ways of attracting the best and brightest, whether they be in mid-career at 45 or 55 years old into teaching; or whether they be 18 years old and going into; devoting their life to a teaching career.

Do you have any ideas, you know, as you sit there before us, as to ways that we can try to accomplish these two pretty challenging tasks?

Dr. Greenspan. Congressman, I don't profess to have any significant background in the more detailed aspects of teaching. I obviously, like any observer, am aware of the fact that there are innumerable people very late in life who would just as soon retire from what they're doing and go teach somewhere.

And I think that if we can find ways to enhance that, it would be most helpful. I do think, as has been often discussed, that we ought to lower the barriers between what is an education degree and what is a technical degree because, ultimately, as I remember seeing in an article once, that Albert Einstein would not be qualified to be a high school physics teacher.

It is sort of absurd that we do that. I think the reason is that in my judgment, and I must emphasize that I don't profess to have any real knowledge of the profession in the way that I would like to, the distinction between learning how to teach in the abstract and knowing the subject matter, they're intertwined in a manner which you cannot unwind.

I believe one best learns how to teach by resurrecting how you learned something in the first place. Because if you cannot do that, I don't believe that you can essentially convey, objectively, the step-by-step process by which knowledge accretes from one level of complexity to another. Therefore, I do not deny that there are very important lessons in knowing what students’ need and how they react which you cannot get without some access to the whole history of our education and what we have learned from it.

But I do think if we can find a way to break down that barrier a little more, we probably will find that a number of the 48-year-old people whom you refer to who probably would find teaching in a high school on something which they've done all their life, very exciting. And I think we might find that a goodly part of the shortfalls that we see in our skilled levels of people who are capable of teaching, I think would change a lot.

Mr. Roemer. Well, I thank you for that insight. And to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time to answer the question.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Petri.

Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony on this important subject. And I just wondered if you have any advice to us as a committee or representing the federal government as to what sort of strategy we could productively employ to deal with this problem which everyone acknowledges, given the record of the last 20 years of federal involvement in local K-12 education.

Would benign neglect be the answer, or looking for a silver bullet and posting it on all of the schools? Or allowing, maybe, the need, the market, the growth of technology to provide us with ways to multiply the talents of very good teachers through the Web and Internet to the home-schooled and to schools all across the country that wanted to take advantage of it?

I am just curious if you have any ideas, how we can be helpful rather, than throwing money at the problem and making it worse in the process.

Dr. Greenspan. Yeah, I mean, as I said before, I do not profess to have the experience or the knowledge that would appropriately address that question. I can only give you some of my random judgments on it, which may not stand up to considerable scrutiny.

I did, for example, find interesting, in one of the national news magazines this week, which was arguing that exposing very young people to computers is not a good idea. I think, but I could not tell from the content of the article, that the issue is one that is really at the cutting edge of all of the major problems that people argue about in the education fraternity. And that's the question of sequence by which children learn.

I'm aware that we have all of these difficult discussions over the years and so-called new math or old math. And I find them, frankly, somewhat sterile. But there is a very interesting one which I don't think we've confronted which I'm personally aware of, and I don't know whether or not you can generalize on it. However, when you start out with a blank sheet, unless you get a conceptual framework however primitive, in your head to understand reality, I do not think you have a way to go beyond that.

In other words, there are certain views I have heard of, though I do not know whether they are generally held, that you somehow can take a child with a blank screen, throw them into the midst of all sorts of things, and say ``learn.'' Well, that is not going to happen. I mean, they will struggle and they will get awkward constructs. And the human brain develops and something will happen.

But it's far better to have somebody input an initial conceptual framework, initial ideas, maybe even initial values and, then, what happens is, that as life experience goes on, the child begins to question whether the individual aspect of what they believe changes.

And it's been my experience over the now, too many decades, that it's a continuing a process all of one's life. And I think the issue, for example, just exposing everyone to all this all-tech stuff at the beginning, prevents the initial structure from being set in motion. I always thought that as boring and as deadly and, in today's world, is unnecessary, as it was to learn long division.

It is crucial because what it does is, it forces a child to focus on very concrete issues, and knowing arithmetic is gradually built upon; from that, you go to algebra and geometry and then, on to calculus and differential equations. And they all just basically build up step-by-step. And if you don't understand an earlier step, you cannot, by definition, understand the step above it.

So I think that we have to be careful about giving young students too many crutches in the beginning. I am glad I had to, because I was brought up in an education where I did not have a calculator; I had a pencil and a pad, and I had to think. And now, I guess, I wouldn't want to have an exam in long division without a calculator in front of me. I'm not sure I'd know how to do it.

But the point of the issue is, it's not that. It's the conceptual process which you go through which I think is important.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Holt.

Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Greenspan, I was pleased with a number of aspects of your testimony. Your endorsement of the liberal arts, I think, is good and I would concur with my colleague, Mr. Ehlers, that science belongs with the liberal arts as a necessary part of the enlightening and liberating education.

I was also pleased to hear you draw attention to the problem we face where people who are otherwise very intelligent, even brilliant, will steer clear of science and math. And I think that's not just a loss for them. It's a tragedy for our society.

But the specific question I have for you, perhaps it's a general question, has to do with investment, which is something that you seem to know more about than I do_ investments specifically in teaching and how society makes that investment, and perhaps you'd like to make some comparisons, international or with other societies. How does that fit in with our national investment needs?

Dr. Greenspan. Well, there is no such thing as either a human capital by itself or physical capital in an industrial society. That is, they interact of necessity. We have not yet achieved, and I suspect we never shall, a robot production system where everybody goes on vacation and these robots know what to do and turn out all of our goods and services. That's never going to happen. There's always going to be this interaction. Moreover, so that the level of innovation implies a general knowledge of people who are interacting with it or know how to make the system function. It's all well and good to have a synergy of laser and fiber optic technologies and one can look with awe at the things that that has done to communications capabilities in this country.

But unless you have a very large number of people at every different stage who have sufficient technical capability to interact with the system and, indeed, when it goes down, to be able to put it back up fairly quickly, a system won't work. And, indeed, I would suspect that a goodly part of the international differences that we have had over the generations is that Americans have largely been able to put things back together.

I mean, when I was younger, the obvious advantage that we had with the rest of the world is most everybody knew what to do with a car and could fix it. And I think that the number of people who are sort of mechanics or mechanically inclined was a major factor in World War II. I think the skill of the American armed forces really, to a large extent, reflected the culture before the war, which was an interaction with the technology of the time. And I think that that principle has not changed at all.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Castle.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Goodling. And Chairman Greenspan, I appreciate your being here today. I also appreciate at the end of your earlier discussion, embracing a liberal arts education of which I'm pleased to have been a part of. And I also even would condone Mr. Holt's suggestion that science be a requirement of that. But I would hope you'd stop short of embracing Mr. Ehlers' requirement of physics being a part of that. I might still be in college today.

I have a long-term question that you've already been answering and maybe you've already exhausted that. And then I have a shorter-term question. I was fascinated by your discussion of what education is today and the need for a construct, a structure, in which kids would learn and maybe they just rush into the high tech too soon.

And you also indicated that you don't have a sophisticated background in the methodologies of teaching, et cetera. But I just wanted to make sure, because you are so insightful, that we have exhausted all of your thinking about the educational longer-term aspects. If you have any brilliant thoughts about when to start in math and science or anything else about the teaching of math and science or any of those kinds of requirements that we have not yet touched on or you have not touched on, I wanted to hear about.

Dr. Greenspan. What's the next question, Congressman?

Mr. Castle. I figured that would be short. I want to ask the next one now because I know when you start answering, I may not be able to ask another question. But you had spoken in the past about the importance of embracing, and this is a shorter-term problem that we have in this country today, an economics problem more than education, about the importance of embracing immigration as one way to address our workforce needs, particularly in the high-tech industry.

It seems to me that the workforce shortage has become more critical in recent months. And given the Bureau of Labor Statistics projection on future demand, the situation is only likely to intensify.

How critical, in your mind, is an increase in the number of visas to highly skilled foreign workers to our overall competitiveness? And what happens if Congress does not pass the legislation that is pending right now to increase the capital in the H-1B visas this year?

Dr. Greenspan. Well, as you know, Congressman, I've always supported an increase in the number of technical people in this country to effectively help us man what is a very substantial acceleration in our technological base. But we have to be careful, because the ability to do that goes up and down. It's not wholly in our control, which is the reason why, as I think the chairman indicated earlier, that it is crucial that we make certain that we bring the American education level and the American student skill level up to a point that we do not need to revert to external sources of skilled labor to man our domestic technological infrastructure.

I think that's crucial for a very long term, and you won't mention short term, but the issue is really a symptom of the longer-term issue that I think confronts us.

Mr. Castle. Well, I agree completely with your answer. I mean, obviously, long-term, that is what you are talking about. I think you've laid out that need very well today. My concern is also short-term, as well, from an economic aspect in terms of what we have to do. I am looking for all the input we can get on that.

Dr. Greenspan. You know, I fully agree with you, Congressman. I think that the need to make certain that we have adequate skills to maintain this system is very clear and I do not want to get too much into the technicalities of H-1B versus general immigration and the question as to whether or not the wage levels are reflected. These are all legitimate questions. However, the bottom line is that we need to make certain that we have the level of human skills or, we're going to find that this extraordinary expansion that we're experiencing is going to have difficulty maintaining itself.

Mr. Castle. Back to my first question, and we have about less than a minute left here. But I asked you for specific educational thoughts you might have. Are there any cultural thoughts you might have? Why do young people in America today, seem to recoil from math and science? And what can we do to engage their interest? Can we flash on the screen how much electrical engineers earn? How some of the Intel engineers might be earning compared to other people? What can we do to awaken this?

Dr. Greenspan. I don't think it's an American characteristic. I think it's a human characteristic. That is, we all have trouble as we grow up in running into the fact that they are certain things in life are, as I have indicated before, absolute. Numbers are the physical laws with which we deal or which we're all remotely conscious of. And there is a human characteristic that we don't like to make mistakes.

And the way you can make far more mistakes in something such as a software algorithm, for example, you can write a thousand lines and the comma is wrong in line 452 and the program doesn't work. There are very difficult, I guess, general psychological problems that people have about that rigidity of focus. And it's tough to get over it. And we all have it, to a greater or lesser extent.

I'm merely saying that it is crucial that we do. And that most of the people who have sort of math anxiety would find that if they really got involved and all of sudden said, oh, my God, I can do this, it has remarkable effects on the capacity to do so. And I don't know enough to know how one goes about getting people to do that. But I don't think that's an American phenomenon at all. I think it's human.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Wu.

Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Greenspan, I have only question and it's only tangentially related to education. It really has more to do with productivity and the adoption of technology. I was just exposed to some thinking a little ways back that the adoption of steam technology, the adoption of electric motors, the internal combustion engine, that those new technologies, it really took 25, 50 years, a much longer period of time than I had previously thought to fully adopt those technologies, to fully take advantage of the productivity increases which those new technologies could_did bring into the industrial economy.

And on that comparative basis, if you're familiar with this body of work at all, with the adoption the information systems to which we have access today, I mean, arguably, we've had computers for a long. But, arguably, depending on whether you look back to the Apple II or the IBM PC, maybe it's just been a little while that desktop computers have been available to a wide spectrum of the population and the economy.

Where would you guess we are on the productivity curve? I mean, are we in a position where we have a lot more run-up in productivity? That is the_both the first and second derivatives_will be positive for awhile, at least, the first derivative for awhile or beginning, middle, end of that run-up in productivity from this latest change in the technology.

Dr. Greenspan. Well, I mean, factually, second derivative is still positive, if you want to put it that way. It's the most important question that we are confronted with. It is what economists and technicians call the ``S curve," which is the so-called pattern of how technology evolves. The reason why it takes a very long time is that when you have a fundamental innovation, such as electricity, which largely displaced steam power, it takes a considerable period of time before all elements in your capital infrastructure turn over and get retired.

I mean, for example, originally the electric motor was put in place to merely replicate the structure that steam had set up over the generations earlier. And the productivity improvements were very small. And you may recall that we also used gravity to a very significant extent, so that the buildings that we constructed for manufacturing purposes in the 1850s, 1870s alike, were all tall and thin, because we had used gravity as a major means by which you could move materials.

But the electric motor, as such, did not need that and, indeed, was not efficiently in that way. And you then find that as electricity comes up, you get those one-story, 28-acre plants in which you have just tilted the whole structure horizontally because you no longer needed the gravitational pull. And that took a very long number of years. I mean we did not really fully electrify this country until the '30s.

The result of that is that it depends on the nature of the technology. If it's a profoundly broad technology like electricity, it takes a long time because it requires the full turnover of your capital stock, which means buildings are changed; the whole structure of the way you function. Indeed, the workforce changes. And it is fairly evident that the existing computer, telecommunications technologies we're going through now, which is fundamentally altering access to information, which is crucial to the decision-making process.

And the whole notion of how decisions are made, that is going to take a very long time to fully filter through the system. I don't know where in the curve we are. Nevertheless, clearly, we still have a good way to go. Initially, as you may recall, the impact of bringing computers on screen probably, actually, lowered productivity in the short-run because people spent more time trying to learn it.

Chairman Goodling. Dr. Norwood.

Mr. Norwood. Thank you, Chairman Goodling. Dr. Greenspan, I'm like everybody else, I'm very delighted that you're here, particularly because you are a professional educator. I think your remarks could be very meaningful to this committee. I must say that if being able to put a VCR is a function of intelligence, I have no business asking you any questions.

However, I have concluded that it is a function of interest in patience therefore, I will ask one question. And I want most of this time, really, to be spent by your answer rather than my question. Your testimony, I think, was right on target. You laid out where we need to be and laid out where some of our problems are. You stated more than one time we need to make sure, in this country that we have the human skills.

I'm interested, though, how, in your judgment, we might improve our educational system in order to obtain those skills, because we aren't where we need to be and I don't think anybody in this room believes we are. What might we do to help? That answer, I hope, will include a little bit about business involvement and what might we do to make sure that the next generation does have the human skills.

Dr. Greenspan. Well, Congressman, as I listen to some of my colleagues and others in the education and/or related professions, there is this big dispute now about whether we need more competition in the system or whether we need to go to bringing retired people back into the workforce_specifically in teaching forums_and that gets into a lot of complexities with the existing structure of our educational system, with which I'm not familiar.

And consequently, I'm too familiar with the fact that whenever you promulgate an idea, it invariably has unintended consequences. And I'm too familiar with that process so that I hesitate to try to even suggest things, because I know really don't know enough about the subject matter to be helpful in that regard.

I know what should be done, I know what I'd like to see happen, I know in general how people learn and how they move into ever higher technical skill levels. However, I am not as cognizant of all the whole infrastructure of education has evolved over the generations or generations which I think one really has to understand fully to be able to make usable recommendations rather than just throwing ideas which have no practical significance.

Mr. Norwood. Well, could you give me your thoughts, perhaps, on whether in finding the solution or the problem, you're turning to the 1,600 boards of educations across the country or should we centralize all knowledge in Washington and try to expand it that way? And, again, should business be involved, in some way, in helping us to produce that human skill you refer to?

Dr. Greenspan. My inclination, basically, is that for most people at the end of the day, there is no alternative but for parents to be in charge of the child's education. I grant you they may not be the best to do it in a lot of individual cases, but it's hard for me to envisage how to break that tie.

In other words, there is an obligation on the part of parents to see their children get education. Indeed, it may be the only really important obligation. If we don't endeavor to enhance that process, in my personal judgment, I want to emphasize that it's clearly a personal view, I think we will have more difficulty achieving what we need to achieve at the end of the day.

Mr. Norwood. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. It seems to me, no matter what a board of education does or what the Department Education does, that if you don't have the support at home, it's sort of like you can't make a horse drink. I mean, you can't force a horse to do that and you can't force a child to learn. But I agree with you, totally, that the parents have to be the source of where that learning begins.

Dr. Greenspan. Yeah, I know that in my teaching experience, I didn't care what the teacher said. However, when my mother says, you have to do your homework, it had a very remarkable effect on whether I had lunch the next day.

Mr. Norwood. I experienced the same thing. It works, too. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Kind.

Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank Dr. Greenspan for your time and testimony here today. And I would also like to commend you for your role in_your part of the stewardship of this economy that we've witnessed now in recent years. It really has been incredible.

And I, too, appreciate your comments in regards to the importance of a liberal arts education and the role of parents in your child's education. We know that is the number one determinant of how well a child's going to succeed in the classroom is how much involved the parents are in their own children's educational upbringing; it's very important.

But, obviously, we've seen an incredible phenomenon occur with our economy, you know, with the investment of technology which is increasing worker productivity, creating this new economy that we have that's kept inflation at bay, which has made your job a little bit easier to do as a consequence. The next real challenge that we face is how do we continue this economic growth and fill the growth needs of this new economy.

But also, how do we expand the economic opportunities to more people throughout the country? And I think you would agree that a lot of it does start with the earlier education levels, because the next most important determinant of how well these kids are going to succeed in school is the quality of the teacher in the classroom.

So I'd be interested your comments of the correlation of how important it is for us policymakers, at least, in the education, fail to do everything we can to help with the professional development; to ensure that we've got quality teachers in the classroom, especially those who are proficient in the use of technology?

As Mr. Holt indicated earlier, we do face a huge challenge and an opportunity in the next 10 years with 2.2 million teachers going into retirement. The challenge is to replace them. The opportunity is to replace them with good, quality people in the classroom. And I, for one, happen t believe we can be doing more to assist local school districts in the professional of teachers.

And also, with the integration of technology in classroom curriculum. There's a recent nationwide study that show that, roughly, only 20 percent of the teachers in the current workforce feel that they have sufficient knowledge in how to use technology in teaching the kids. So there are some areas that I think more needs to be done in. And I think this does have an important effect in being able to meet the future growth needs that the new economy is going to bring. And I'd be interested to hear your comments.

Dr. Greenspan. Well, I do not want to profess greater insights than I indeed have. The only thing that has struck me about the problem which I think is very interesting is, an extraordinarily large number of teachers who will be retiring and it's, you know, it's the baby boom generation of teachers that we're looking at.

I do think that as life expectancy continues to increase and, more importantly, the quality of life, beyond the minimal retirement age, that there are more and more people out there with very considerable experience in areas which high school students should find exceptionally useful. And I think that we have an untapped resource out there of people who not only have the technical knowledge to impart to students or a little brushing up on algebra, perhaps, but they understand life better.

I mean, they have been through it. They understand the problems that children have, they understand how one addresses them, and they note enough mistakes by the time they are that age to try to communicate to the kids what not to do. And so it struck me, and I'm sure there are lots of reasons why it's difficult because every new idea and every idea I run into, especially with the Federal Reserve, I've always got a long list of reasons why such an idea is a terrible idea. However, it is important, because you have to go through each one of them and make sure they get their oats.

Therefore, I am not saying that I know for sure that success is always one of the things that have struck me. I would suspect that it is a more recent issue largely because of the longevity issue that is now clear.

Mr. Kind. Do you think enough is being done with policymakers to close the digital divide and provide the technological opportunities for our children in the classroom?

Dr. Greenspan. I frankly do not know, Congressman. I think it is a very important issue, for obvious reasons, but I just do not know the facts.

Mr. Kind. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Goodling. We have six people to call on yet and Dr. Greenspan has eight minutes. But there will be plenty of time for the second panel for everybody to ask questions.

The next person is Congressman Tancredo.

Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Greenspan, you spent a good deal of time studying and identifying the structural problems in our economy and providing remedies therefore. Could you apply that same process or the same logic, the same analysis to the structural problems that beset us in the area of education? I know you responded to Dr. Norwood in a way that indicated a reluctance to do so. However, if you were looking at this in the context of any other aspect of the economy, and observing a process based on a very old industrial model, where you gather everybody together in a brick and mortar facility for six hours a day and children come in, met by adults 184 days a year, and that's the process. That is what we now describe as the education process. Of course, it has very little to do with education; it is, in fact, just a process. Do you think that is adequate? Do you think that is the process that will take us to the point where you want us to be, where we all want us to be, in a short time?

Dr. Greenspan. Well, Congressman, I think we are all aware of the fact that, whereas a generation or two ago, students could graduate from high school or college and believe that they had enough education to carry them through their lives' work. Indeed, that was generally the case. Fifty, 80 years ago, a high school education was all one needed until one retired.

Today, we find a very major increase in the number of people who are going back to school, to a large extent, community colleges or even universities, to learn and are finding that education is a life-long experience, and that's new. Now whether or not you can fit into the existing structure the new environment is something I'm not knowledgeable enough about to judge, but I do know that there has been and will continue to be a fundamental change in the educational process, which essentially means that because the technologies are continuously changing, you cannot stop your education. It is a life-long experience, and you have to continuously update your state of knowledge.

In that sense, that is with the newer technologies. Now, exactly the increased rapidity of innovation, that is what has been done to our educational processes. However, the infrastructure adjustments required to make that work, I don't know. Obviously, they are working today; the community college expansion has been very formidable, a major factor in that regard. I do not have anything to add as to what might conceivably enhance that capability.


Mr. Goodling. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say_I just wanted to say that your mere presence today to these problems with the relationship between education and our economy, so I want to thank you for your presence today.

You mentioned the importance of the issuance of the visas to businesses' to grow and prosper. This growth and prosperity doesn't happen in a vacuum; it happens in the context of global competitiveness, and I just wanted to know if you had any views on our ability to compete if we lose our technological advantage through research or the high level of education in our workforce if we slack on our investments in education.

Dr. Greenspan. Again, let me just say a necessary condition for making our R&D and all other innovations as applied as into our capital structure, unless the human element is continuously upgraded to interface with that structure, it's going to work less efficiently. Fortunately, it is a two-way street.

In other words, we have found that as the technology increases, there are a surprisingly large number of jobs which required high skills 15 years ago which can now be done with fewer skills and that has been very helpful in enabling us to enhance the output from our existing labor force even when the skill increases were not there.

However, if you look at the inextricable rise in the proportion of the gross domestic product, which is conceptual value added as distinct from physical inputs of either labor or materials, there is no question that we're going to need an ever increasingly skilled conceptual-related workforce. We have no alternative.

Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And if we fail to make those investments to create that workforce, what happens to our competitive advantages relative to other countries?

Dr. Greenspan. I think it self-evidently declines.

Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Out of respect for my colleagues, I yield back.

Chairman Goodling. Congresswoman Woolsey.

Ms. Woolsey. I didn't think I'd have the opportunity and the honor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. I saw you were drinking. That is why I called on you.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you for reading my mind.

Dr. Greenspan, thank you for being here. And you say that you're rambling. I say that your words are very meaningful to all of us, and thank you for sharing them with us.

I've introduced_now I'm going to talk about me_I've introduced a bill that funds a program in elementary and secondary schools to encourage more girls to study and get degrees in math, science, engineering, and technology in general. This bill is called Go, Girl. And it has the support of Intel and other major corporations in this nation.

And it comes because of girls earning only 7 percent of the engineering degrees, girls and young women in our colleges. Young women are earning only 36 percent of the math degrees, 31 percent of the graduate science degrees, and only 8 percent of the Ph.D.s in physics.

And my question is, can we meet the demands of our needs for intellectual workers in this high tech society and economy we have unless we fully engage 50 percent of our population, our females?

Dr. Greenspan. I think not, Congresswoman. I think that one of the extraordinary hangovers from our past is the presumption that women are not supposed to be involved in math and sciences; that it is a male domain. It makes no sense; it is a very clear deprivation of intellectual resources. My impression is the reason it exists is that the intimidation, math anxiety issue that seems to be increasingly, at least in my experience, a problem with women, and it has nothing to do with IQ, intellectual capacity, or anything. It is a cultural issue, and I agree with you. Unless we have significantly increase the proportion of math and science degrees, both at the college and at the doctoral level, I think we are misusing resources. As you know, there has been a huge increase in college enrollment by women; indeed, far more than men, but they have not yet moved into the hard science curricula. I think that is probably the major source of technical capabilities in this country.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Fattah. If you can stay another minute, we are going to have to go vote; if you can take Mr. Fattah's question.

Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the front page of the Bond Buyer this week on Monday's edition, there was a story about a phenomenon taking place in what was indicated to be in some 46 states now, litigation around the question of disparities in poor people's expenditures. For instance, in New York City, some $50,000 less is being spent on the education of children inside the city than in the neighboring suburbs. And the fact that this is now moving and having an impact on the capital borrowing capabilities because of the weight of the litigation. I just wondered if you'd make a small comment on that.

And secondly, a broader comment, if you would, on the larger question. In terms of monetary policy, we have the Federal Reserve. And we have regulations and an infrastructure that sets some national parameters for how things are to be handled in terms of the flow of capital.

In education, as you note, the country's been built on this notion of local control. And much of the emphasis is on local autonomy and I just wondered whether or not, given the import we place on monetary and other issues, whether or not education might be something that needs to have a greater level of involvement in terms of a national imperative?

Thank you.

Dr. Greenspan. First, let me say that I am very impressed that you read the Bond Buyer.

Mr. Fattah. I try to keep track of that.

Dr. Greenspan. I can assure you the proportion of members of this House, that do, approaches zero. However, you are the exception.

First of all, let me just say that what I said about women and the failure of proportions of degrees goes with minorities as well. I think this is where major improvements can be made and you can just substitute everything I have said about women for all minorities in this society.

There is a distinction between central banking and education in the sense that one of the things which make this economy so extraordinary is we have a single currency. We all deal with the dollar. Once you have a single currency, then are no regional money markets. There used to be when we had lack of communication.

However, there is a single financial market in this country and interest rates are arbitraged between Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, whereas, 50 years ago, it was like they were not quite. Therefore, you need a central focus for monetary policy. There is no alternative because there is no alternative to having a single currency for the total system.

Education is, debatably, both ways. In other words, I am not going to get involved in the complexities of how much central, how much local. I do not know enough to make that judgment. But there is a principle here which I do think makes the application of a central bank, on the one hand, an educational system; on the other, not quite applicable in that regard.

Mr. Fattah. Thank you. Comment on the question of the litigation around equity and school finances and its impact on the capital markets related to the Bond Buyer.

Dr. Greenspan. I do not know enough about that to give you a good judgment off the top of my head. If you would like, I will answer that in writing, if you would prefer.

Mr. Fattah. Thank you.

Dr. Greenspan. I will be glad to do that.

Chairman Goodling. Unfortunately, we have a vote at this time. For the second panel, we will get back as quickly as we can. I think it's only vote and I encourage everyone there is a second panel, a very important, to please come back as quickly as possible.

Again, I thank you for giving us so much of your time. I was reminded when you said that it is a stepping-stone in a one-room school. My first four steps were outstanding. Then, we got to fifth grade and World War II came so, we many substitutes coming in and out, that I missed the fifth, sixth, and seventh step. Then, I got a grade eight step but I missed fifth, sixth, and seventh. I guess that is why I am a computer illiterate, I suppose; I am not sure. I have to have some excuse.

Thank you very much.

Dr. Greenspan. Thank you.




Chairman Goodling. If the panel will take your seats. As I indicated, we have a very distinguished panel and, hopefully, members will be coming in. Dr. Lederman, Nobel Laureate and resident scholar of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, is an internationally renowned high-energy physicist. He is founder and chairman of the Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science, which is active in professional development of primary school teachers.

I love to hear that. I have said so many times, the elementary teachers are expected to teach all subjects and, in many instances, have had just a smattering of courses in high school and none in college mathematics and science.

In 1990, he was elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organization in the United States.

Dr. William Haseltine is chief executive officer of Human Genome, a company founded in 1992. It is a company with the mission to develop products to prevent, treat, and cure disease based on its leadership in the discovery and understanding of human genes.

Dr. Diane Bunce is chair of the chemical education division at the American Chemical Society and an Associate Professor of Chemistry at the Catholic University of America. Where is Ms. Woolsey? I just wanted to make sure that she gets to greet the two ladies, who are very active in science and math.

Dr. Diane Briars is the assistant director for mathematics at the Unit of Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pittsburgh Public Schools and is a member of the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, headed by Senator John Glenn.

Dr. Craig Barrett is president of the Intel Corporation. He received his Ph.D. in material science from Stanford University. Currently, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Education to serve on the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.

We welcome all of you and we will begin, starting on my left, going to the right, Dr. Lederman.



Dr. Lederman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Glenn Commission was mentioned several times today. The Glenn Commission, perhaps the title of the commission report is enough, "Before It's Too Late", which is an ominous title. This may seem like excessive rhetoric but if it is, it's been repeated countless times in countless reports of bipartisan commissions, panels, committees; most eloquently, perhaps, by the 1983 report of the National Commission on Educational Excellence under President Reagan's secretary of education.

The latter report was called A Nation at Risk. Again, the title tells the story. Today, in the year 2000, I believe we are still a nation at risk. Why congressional action? I am firm believer in local control and implementation of educational practices. However, we are in a war on ignorance and in a war, we need some sort of guiding strategy; a kind of cerebral cortex; a general staff that recognizes the national peril of a failed educational system.

I believe we must raise the priority of science literacy so that our high school graduates are as science savvy as they are street savvy. For example, could we have survived as a nation if our national defense were left as a responsibility to localities? Minnesota, protect us against those Canadians; Texas, you watch Mexico; California, watch the Far East; New Jersey, oh, never mind New Jersey.

We need the leadership of this Congress to recognize the role of science in the 21st century. We are exploiting technology based on scientific understanding is changing the way we live, think, and behave. If you are even slightly bewildered by the pace of technology, let me assure you that you ain't seen nothing yet.

As an example, progress in quantum science can possibly increase computer speeds by as much as 1 billion times, with unimaginable consequences. We now know that all technologies are beneficial and some may have serious or be unintended dangers. Decisions to control the deployment of new devices for maximum long-term benefit to the nation must have popular consensus. Our environment, our health, our economic prospects, our national defense, the foods we eat, the air we breathe, even our genetic futures, will depend on how wisely we apply the technologies that become available.

To do this, we need a population of scientists; yes, of course, but also of citizens, of workers, of administrators, of policymakers, yes, of Congressmen who can grasp the science way of thinking. Citizens must also be protected from people who will sell them astrology and fortune telling and pyramid magic and peach pit cancer cures and alien encounters and so on.

In contrast to this information-based society, we have a population that is incredibly ignorant of how science works. Our schools are not yet, responding to the need for a seamless K-12 science education. We have 16,000 independent school boards, but the incredible changes in society brought about by the scientific revolution demand some coherence that only a federal role can provide.

Can it work? To affect the kind of changes that we need to create, a science-literate population is not easy, or it would have been done. The key, of course, is with the teachers. New techniques of science teaching based on cognition science, so-called hands-on techniques, are having very exciting results. Here, research indicates that the engaging, relevant, and meaningful situations so typical of high-quality math and science instruction create the best conditions for acquiring language and other humanistic disciplines.

Children trained in the hands-on inquiry methods not only learn science but because of the play components, they experience the joy of all learning. They even do better in reading skills. I've seen their teacher in one of our inner city schools in Chicago bring her class to instant attention by threatening them, "If you kids do not settle down, we won't do science".

Teacher training; raising the economic and the social status of teachers, raising the consciousness of the school boards and parents and local legislators and the media. In short, involving every facet of a society is what it will take. It will take a new ethic of continuous professional development; not a one-shot workshop, but continuous scheduled collegial work to build content knowledge and ease of relating the excitement and benefits of science thinking to their students.

Reform requires will, leadership, and resources. However, we know that it can be done. We know of schools where the natural curiosity of children is kept alive and nurtured, where teachers are well-trained and full of enthusiasms where the community around the school is involved and where the students understand that science is more the art of asking questions than of answering them.

I sincerely thank the committee for the opportunity to offer testimony on this important legislation. I salute the foresight of Representative Ehlers in drafting and introducing these bills which are crucial steps forward in ensuring that our country has the human capital needed to sustain us our prosperity in the coming decades. I commend Chairman Goodling for holding this hearing to bring needed attention to the issue of science, math, technology, and engineering education.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Chairman Goodling. Go ahead.



Mr. Haseltine. Chairman Goodling, Congressman Ehlers, and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to provide my perspective on the importance of strengthening our nation's K-12 science, math, engineering, and technology education. I would also like to express my support for your legislation in the National Science Education Enhancement Act, H.R. 4272, as an important step toward achieving these national education goals. I request that the full text of my remarks be entered into the record.

My name is William Haseltine. I am a scientist for 17 years. I was a professor at Harvard University, Harvard Medical School. I now serve as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Human Genome Sciences. Our company is a pioneer in the use of the new science of genomics, the study of all human genes, to develop new pharmaceuticals.

Our mission is to treat and cure disease by bringing new gene-based products to patients around the world. We believe that genomic-based drugs will enable people to live longer and healthier lives by, eventually, limiting the demand for medical services, genomic-based drugs have the potential to lower the total cost of health care.

The extraordinary surge of technological innovation that developed over the past decade has become the basis of our nation's economic future and provides us with a unique competitive edge in the global marketplace. However, the biotechnology and other technology-based industries will need a strong U.S., knowledge-based society.

U.S. companies cannot continue to rely on importing skilled labor. We need, one day, to fill the vast majority of our high-tech jobs with Americans. It is, therefore, essential that we, as a nation, invest strongly in our children's education. Ensuring our children have a strong understanding of science, math, engineering, and technology beginning at the earliest stages will guarantee their effective participation in all aspects of our economy.

We all know, and I know personally, the importance of strong educational leaders. It is the great science teachers in our elementary schools; it is great science teachers in our high schools that led most of my colleagues and me, to take up a professional career as a scientist. I cannot over-emphasize the importance in early education of scientific training.

Taking our company, Human Genome Sciences, as an example, although biology and medicine are obviously essential to our endeavors, expertise in chemistry, physics, math, and computer sciences are all needed to maintain and to advance our cutting edge capabilities. Increasingly, advances in all fields will be interrelated. I foresee a time at which the advances in biology will keep pace and be inspired by advances in material sciences; just as my field of genomics has been inspired by advances in computer technology.

Our workforce in the company currently numbers about 600. Fifty-two percent are women, 40 percent are minorities, and 14 percent are foreign-born. Well over 100 of our employees have Ph.D. degrees. Many others have more general science and math backgrounds.

I would like to highlight that employees without graduate degrees perform many vital functions within our company admirably. Many of our employees majored in science at the undergraduate level. Although we employ research scientists, technicians, and physicians with advanced science degrees to develop products, a basic understanding of science and math is also essential for our lawyers, our statisticians, our clinical research staff, our computer scientists, and business and financial experts, as well as the administrative and service personnel.

In our legal team alone, for example, we have nine Ph.D.s and two individuals with Master of Science degrees in a department consisting of 22 people. The level of U.S. basic science and math education has not been adequate to meet the growing demand for employees with technical background. HGS has been unable to meet all its requirements locally. This explains why, fully, 14 percent of our workforce consists of foreign nationals working in the U.S. on visas.

Just last year, a period of restricted availability of some visas threatened to curtail our recruitment in many specialized areas. Recruitment is a key challenge that must be met of HGS if HGS is to maintain its leadership in the burgeoning genomics industry. We do not have the luxury of waiting to expand. I believe the challenges HGS has in recruiting significantly qualified staff are also experienced by other high technology industries.

Where do we go from? Certainly, we need to bolster the K-12 level of science, math, engineering, and technology education. At HGS we are actively involved in a number of programs in which college students come to learn and work in our facilities for course credit. We would be very interested in participating in some of the innovative programs your legislation envisions.

For example, we may be willing to use HGS employees and facilities for technological training for K-12 students, teachers. For this reason, I strongly endorse the three bills that comprise your National Science Education Acts of 2000. Strengthening early science education will inspire more of our citizens to recognize technical opportunities.

In the meantime, it is essential that visa quotas are generous enough for us to meet our recruitment needs with non-citizen scientific experts.

In concluding, I would like to observe that strengthening K-12 science and technical education is not only wise policy; it is also doing the right thing. By expanding opportunity in this way, we can help all Americans benefit from the scientific and technical revolutions now taking place. Excellent scientific and technical education is an essential prerequisite for America to reap these rich rewards.

Thank you.



Chairman Goodling. Thank you very much. Dr. Bunce.



Dr. Bunce. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon. My name is Dr. Diane Bunce and I am the Associate Professor of Chemistry at the Catholic University of America and the Chair of the American Chemical Society of Chemical Education. I'm pleased to appear before you today as part of this prestigious panel to discuss ACS' perspective on the National Science Education Acts and, in particular, H.R. 4272, the National Science Education Enhancement Act.

The American Chemical Society is a non-profit scientific and educational organization that represents 161,000 chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest scientific society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public understanding of science, and brings its expertise to bear on state and national matters.

We are also recognized as a world leader in fostering science education. The ACS strongly supports the National Science Education Act. Collectively, these bills address one of ACS' top priorities and one of the nation's most critical, long-term challenges, improving science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at the K-12 level.

This comprehensive proposal represents a major step forward in improving federal efforts to raise student achievement in science and mathematics. Although the states play the lead role in funding education, ACS believes that the federal government must strengthen its role and long-standing efforts to improve the quality of science and mathematics education across the nation.

Apparently, the American people agree. According to a recent Gallup poll supported by the Bayer Corporation, almost 90 percent of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports state and local efforts to strengthen science education. ACS supports H.R. 4272, although it is late in the session, we urge the committee to work to advance this legislation to the House floor.

In particular, we agree that improving the quality of K-12 science and mathematics teachers is the key to raising student achievements in these subjects. We strongly support the effort to improve teacher quality and retention through mentoring by providing adequate support for the use of technology and hands-on materials and by increasing the federal investment in long-term, sustained, content-based professional development through the proposed summer professional development institutes.

We also believe the attempt to coordinate and strengthen efforts by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education is crucial for effective federal policy in this area. ACS supports enhancing professional development to ensure that science teachers have access to programs that allow them to expand their science knowledge base through methods of inquiry.

Empirical evidence, clearly, shows that quality teachers have a major impact on student learning. The society has long supported increased funding for in-service training for science and mathematics teachers that is intensive, long-term, content-based, and aligned with national and/or state standards. The type of training that the Eisenhower program is designed to support, research shows is most effective.

Therefore, we are pleased with the emphasis in this legislation on content-based, professional development programs of longer duration. ACS supports strong funding for the summer professional development institutes and applauds the focus on higher education institutions, which generally support teacher-training programs of longer duration and emphasize content knowledge.

We recommend that the summer institutes be, at least, three to four week, multi-year programs. We also recommend linking the summer institutes to university degree programs and developing short-term workshops during the school year affiliated with the institutes. The workshops would build teacher confidence for involvement in the long-term programs in earning college credit for participating in the summer institutes to further motivate teacher participation.

At the same time that we are assisting teachers in enhancing their knowledge base, we must put in place mechanisms to retain good, quality science and mathematics teachers. New teachers need encouragement, assistance from teachers who have more content knowledge and pedagogical experience.

To that end, ACS supports the developing of mentoring programs for K-12 teacher as a means of improving teacher quality and retention. Mentoring activities could be particularly useful as a resource for new teachers who lack adequate science knowledge and need encouragement. Mentors could also assist teachers in integrating science with other subjects, especially mathematics and reading.

We also recommend that the mentoring activities be linked with the Master Teacher program proposed in H.R. 4271, given their overlapping goals.

Finally, ACS supports the provision of after-school science day care as an innovative approach to teach science. Many members of the ACS are, informally, involved in the science program of their local schools through ACS outreach programs, the Chemistry Olympiad and National Chemistry Week. Programs such as these provide opportunities for both school and community-based out-of-classroom science experience for the whole family.

Thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the American Chemical Society on the very important issue of science education. We look forward to assisting you and the committee in the future. I will be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.


Chairman Goodling. Dr. Briars.



Dr. Briars. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the National Science Education Enhancement Act. You have already heard from Dr. Greenspan and others the urgent, critical need to improve mathematics and science education. I am going to address what it will take to achieve this improvement.

My comments are based on work in the Pittsburgh Public Schools that has resulted in significant increases in mathematics achievement. First, increases in mathematics achievement in the Pittsburgh Public Schools over the past four years offer clear evidence that such increases can be achieved on a large scale.

For example, at the elementary level, our fourth grader's performance on the rigorous new standards reference examination, increased significantly for 1996 to 1999. My written testimony contains figures, which show both the rigor of the examination and the level of increase. It is important to note that that particular examination assesses skills, concepts, and problem solving as called for by Dr. Greenspan.

Most importantly, the substantially gains occurred in schools that had been some of our lowest achieving schools, schools with high poverty and high minority populations. Minority students in schools that had strong implementation of our new program outperformed both white and African-American students in schools that insisted on maintaining a traditional program. These students also performed as well as or almost as well as white students in their same school.

These increases in achievement were not limited to one or two schools but occurred in schools throughout the district involving students from all socio-economic groups. So, what does it take to achieve that? What it requires is a coherent plan which includes high expectations for students and teachers; rigorous challenging curricula and assessment; ongoing support to improve mathematics and science teaching; and strong system-wide commitment to improving mathematics and science achievement for all students.

In particular, teachers are the keys to increasing mathematics and science achievement and I am very pleased that the proposed legislation focuses efforts on improving teaching. What we have found is that the most effective professional development involves the following things. First, professional development sessions that involve both content and pedagogy and that are directly linked to the actual teaching in the classroom. We actually use the instructional materials we want teachers to teach to analyze content; expand their content knowledge; and look at what it will take to help children learn that content.

Second, we have a substantial component that is in-class support by expert resource teachers. This support is for both experienced as well as new teachers. This has been one of the features that most changes teacher's practice as they teach, they can see another way to do and get help in doing it themselves.

Finally, schools that have made the most success have also provided time for teachers to meet together on a regular basis; analyze and evaluate their teaching; talk about their students' learning; what worked, what didn't work, and what needs to happen next. This kind of model is, in fact, a very expensive model. It requires resources what school districts normally have available.

For example, Pittsburgh has had an additional $750,000 per year for the past four years from the National Science Foundation to support its mathematics professional development program. This is in addition to the approximately $170,000 of Eisenhower funds that is annually allocated for mathematics. Even with this funding, we cannot support all the teachers and principals who are requesting frequent in-class support from resource teachers.

I should note that National Science Foundation funding is not available to all districts; it is competitive money. What is needed are resources that would come to schools on a regular basis, that are part of their regular allocation. Eisenhower is a great model. The problem is, it is not funded at a sufficient level to provide the support that is needed for all teachers.

Finally, our Pittsburgh experience demonstrates that you can get significant increases in a relatively short period, two to three years. However, we are also finding that the most substantial increases are occurring with students who have been in rigorous programs since they entered kindergarten.

So, the true impact of these kinds of reform efforts will not be achieved until the long term. At a national level, we will not see reform until every student has the opportunity to participate in high-quality programs. In short, improving mathematics and science teaching and, hence, student learning, means that each and every mathematics teacher in the United States must have access to and be involved in high-quality, sustained professional development.

This admittedly is an expensive proposition. However, as we heard from Dr. Greenspan this morning, failing to act now to address this issue will be even more costly in terms of the futures of our children and our country.

Thank you very much.


Chairman Goodling. Congressman Wu will introduce our next panelist.

Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome Dr. Craig Barrett from Intel Corporation. Dr. Barrett is an almost constituent. We have three very important areas of common interest. One is that although the numbers in front of me say there are 12,000 Intel employees in Oregon, there are published sources that say 14,775. I hope the latter is correct and more Intel employees are always welcome, Dr. Barrett. There are terrific_Intel is basically Oregon's largest private industrial employer.

Secondly, we share an academic interest. Dr. Barrett achieved something to which I merely aspired_and that's a professorship at Stanford. He achieved_he first received his bachelor's degree, master's degree, and then Ph.D. at Stanford. And then became a professor there, and then, after a period of time, for whatever set of reasons, went on to a corporation that couldn't have been that large at the time_a corporation named Intel_in 1974.

And don't worry, Dr. Barrett, I said the same thing to Coach Walsh after winning three Super Bowls, I came up to him and said, ``boy, those two years you had at Stanford were really terrific. You did a really terrific job there.''

And finally, Dr. Barrett and this entire committee share a commitment to education. Dr. Barrett is one of those who understands that you don't just put a computer on top of a desk and expect people to teach. It's something that needs to be integrated into the curriculum. He was appointed by Secretary Riley to the Glenn Commission and I believe that Carlene Ellis is, sometimes, your designee to that committee and she has testified before this committee, which she was able to renew an old acquaintanceship with Representative Norwood.

As I recall, they found each other 30 years after leaving Georgia. And you, Dr. Barrett, and I first met at the Intel Science Awards and a mutual interest in that project. I grew up knowing that as the Westinghouse Awards and it's appropriate that it's a change in eras and a change in name and a change in sponsors.

And outside of those three areas, I have to say one further thing. And that is, for both my former law firm and my now current congressional staff, I've always said two things: we want to give retail service like Nordstrom and we want to recreate ourselves to fit the new paradigm the way that Intel always is creating itself.

So with all those things said, welcome, Dr. Barrett, and we look forward to your remarks.

Chairman Goodling. I hope Dr. Barrett that you were not too intimidated by that very brief introduction and that you would be able to testify.



Dr. Barrett. I have not the faintest idea of what I can say after that wonderful introduction. Thank you, Congressman Wu and Chairman Goodling. It is a pleasure to be here and testify for this committee on the behalf of Intel Corporation.

We are a leading manufacture of computing networking communication products. We have approximately 83,000 employees around the world. We are adding approximately 1,000 a month; some of them will be in Oregon, I am sure, Congressman Wu.

As the head of Intel, I am extremely concerned by the declining numbers of American students excelling in math and science. I am sure you have reviewed the TIMMS study at length in this committee; it gives us cause for alarm. Our U.S. students perform poorly compared to the industrialized counterparts around the world. The real sad truth is the longer that they stay in our K-12 education system, the worse they do compared to their international counterparts.

We believe that the educational system here in the U.S. is in crisis and we need to help. We know that the technology that we manufacture can be a tool to aid in that process. However, it is only a tool and it needs to be put in the hands of a person with skills that know how to harness that potential.

What I would like to do, briefly, is to describe some of the programs we are involved with in the education system, K-12, to try to improve it here in the United States. We have launched a program called the Intel Innovation and Education Initiative. It is targeted at both students and teachers to give them the tools they need to excel. Our goal is to improve math, science, and engineering and technology education.

We want to change how teachers teach, how students learn, by taking advantage of these new technologies. Our initiative is really based on a three-pronged approach. First, we want to reward excellence through science competitions; secondly, we want to provide the benefits of technology to students in underserved areas; and third, we want to implement a professional development program for teachers. I would like to say, just brief, words about each of those three programs.

The first one we sponsored, probably two of the best-known science competitions in the world, is the old Westinghouse Science Talent Search, which is now the Intel Science Talent Search and something called the International Science and Engineering Fair. These are both based on inquiry-based study and student-directed learning to allow students to develop skills they need to solve a multitude of problems.

Intel's Science Talent Search, which is considered a Junior Nobel Prize in the United States, is probably our country's most prestigious science competition. This year's winning projects range from encrypting a message in a DNA strand to the extension of a 1919 mathematical theory to a molecular virology contribution to AIDS research. I should probably point out that the last two winners of this competition had been females who have done exceptionally well. One of them was only 15 years of age.

The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair is the world's largest pre-collegiate science competition. We have students from over 40 countries and typically about 1,500 finalists that come to the United States in that Fair each year.

The second program is the Intel Computer Clubhouse Network. This is designed to provide youngsters in underserved areas with access to technology. These computer clubhouses teach more than just how to surf the Web. Our model really involves rich content, mentors, and powerful software to give these youngsters the tools not just to learn how to use computers, but to learn how to use computers in areas of their interest which they can, then, use to pursue careers in this general area of technologies that go forward.

We do this in conjunction with the Boston Museum of Science and MIT's media lab. Our intent is to move from our current 15 computer clubhouses in operation today to over 100 over the next three years. We are funding that 20 million dollar program. Over the next five years, we anticipate this will affect 50,000 children here in the United States.

These two programs, I think, really provide a contrast in the utilization of technology. The computer clubhouses focus on children in underserved areas who are in danger of really falling through the cracks in the educational system. While the science competition, really focus on students who do sophisticated research outside of the normal educational area.

However, I think it is important to be pragmatic, that most of our students learn in classrooms and this is where the bulk of our effort has to be focused. We must ensure that our teachers have adequate training that they need enable to educate children effectively in this new economy. You can ask yourself why focus on professional development. I think the answer is relatively simple.

Only about a third or less of public school teachers feel prepared or comfortable using technology in the classroom. I can understand that. It is very embarrassing when a 10-year-old knows a lot more about the technology that you are attempting to use than you do. We cannot expect teachers to utilize computers fully unless the teachers are equipped to understand the technology. We need to give them every opportunity to utilize technologies as a tool to improve learning in the classroom.

The goal here is not to have teachers use computers all the time. The goal is really to have teachers use computers effectively. Teachers are what is magic in the system; the computers are just tools. We think the professional development can give teachers the confidence they require to apply technology in their classroom.

If you look at the issue of professional development, we think that is, the most critical aspect in solving the math and science problem in our schools today. Over the past three years, we have developed and, then, started to implement a program to help teachers integrate technology in the curriculum. This focuses on inquiry-based learning in the classroom, not just in math and science but also in all subjects.

It began with a program that we refer to as the ACE program, and that acronym is really Applying Computers in Education. We developed that in conjunction with the Institute for Computer Technology. During the implementation of this program, we have discovered some interesting aspects. First, the program was designed by teachers to be used by teachers. We think this is relatively important. It seems to be intuitively obvious.

It moves beyond basic computer literacy into how to use the technology; when and where to use the technology in current lesson plans; and how to create assessment tools to make sure that you are using the technology effectively. The program, we think, has been very successful. The pilot study started a year or so ago with 3,200 teachers in the United States. This year, we will be training 40,000 teachers.

The teachers in the first year's program were surveyed nine months later; that is one school year after participating in the study. Over 80 percent of them said, that computers improved the learning process in their institutions and over 80 percent said that students' learning was enhanced using this technology.

Building on that success, over the next three years, we intend to train 400,000 around the world. We are doing this in conjunction with Microsoft and others. This will be approximately a half a billion-dollar investment from the companies who are sponsoring this. We have a very, very simple philosophy here. That is, unless we can train the teachers to effectively use this capability to enhance the educational process, we will not see any improvement. So the whole concept of teacher training, we think is, perhaps, the most important issue here.

I just wanted to briefly describe what Intel has been doing as a private corporation to try to help in this educational process. I would be remiss if I did not make a few suggestions of what I thought the Federal Government could do by having the opportunity to speak to you today.

I think the basic issue involves recruiting, training, rewarding teachers, and especially, teachers who are in the math and science area. Moreover, if you wanted a few specific proposals, one would be in the area of attracting new people into this field; we might immediately start to forgive student loans for math and science teachers.

As someone who's involved in the high-tech area and is trying to hire as many skilled people as possible at the salaries that we can afford to pay, we need to provide incentives teachers or our young people to go into the teaching profession and forgiving student loans is one way to do that.

Secondly, I think we need to focus on meritocracy system in rewarding teachers for improving scores of students in math and science and think that should be done based on a joint federal/state and industry funding effort.

Third, I think this concept of training teachers, professional development for teachers, which many of my counterparts have mentioned this morning is key to success. Something like a two-week training program for math and science teachers as well as all elementary school teachers; that is, K-8, I think is extremely important. Quite often, students, if they turned off by math and science by the eighth grade, it does not make any difference what you do in the high school. That child is already lost.

So having a program to provide a two-week training program, professional development program, how to effectively use technology, when to use technology, best-known practices for teaching math and science, and paying teachers for attending these sort of training programs; assuming they pass the course, I think, would be very appropriate.

I think the federal government collaborating with the states, collaborating with industry can be very effective in solving these programs. However, I think we need to focus on the three issues that I have mentioned: recruiting new teachers into the system, rewarding teachers for outstanding performance, and continuing the area of professional development.

Thank you.


Chairman Goodling. Thank you. Dr. Briars, 40 years ago, I supervised student teachers for the Pennsylvania State University in Heron Hill Junior High School and Kerrick, I believe, High School up in Mt. Washington.


Dr. Haseltine, you forgot to mention one group when you were talking about those in need. As far as mathematics is concerned, I become very disturbed. When I get to the cashier and I have already mentally computed what I owe and what change I should get from the money that I give and, then, have to stand there three minutes while they play with the cash register, trying to determine whether I'm correct or whether I'm not correct.

One question, two-part question, probably primarily to Dr. Lederman and Dr. Bunce and Dr. Briars. I mentioned earlier, my concern about elementary teachers. My question is are potential teachers coming in to teach at training institutions better prepared in math and science than they have been in the past. Are they much better prepared in math and science when they leave those institutions of higher learning before they go into that classroom so that we don't wait until they get a math teacher or science teacher in junior high school in order to try to turn youngsters on? That is about six, eight years too late, I suppose.

I do not know which one wants to start.

Dr. Bunce. I can start from that from the university point of view. The numbers of people coming in are still small and the competition with higher paying jobs is very intense. So we will find more people going into, let us say, chemistry majors or pre-med or engineering rather than going into the teaching of science and math.

However, one of the things the states have done is to require that the teaching degree become a degree in a particular content area so that you can no longer get a degree in education in most states; you get a degree in chemistry/secondary school education. Then, they are taking the chemistry courses that the chemistry majors are plus they are also taking the biology courses that the biology majors are taking.

So I think we have done a lot with beefing up the education at the university level for training teachers but we still have a problem attracting them.

Chairman Goodling. How about the elementary?

Dr. Bunce. The elementary situation is about the same; especially the elementary school teachers. Most of them attracted to teaching because they want to teach the other subjects. They do not necessarily want to teach science or math for the most part. However, they realize they are going to have to. Then, they start to get panicky when they take the courses at the university level to equip them to do that.

It takes a lot of time and effort on the university professor's parts to calm them down and to convince them that they are capable of learning science. So it is a microcosm and in anticipation of what they are going to be doing with their own students. If we can't get across to them that they're capable of learning science, they're probably never going to be able of convincing their own students that they're capable of learning science.

Chairman Goodling. Whichever.

Dr. Briars. With respect to elementary teachers, there are a couple of factors going on now. One is that, in fact, curriculum now is becoming more rigorous and challenging. Meaning that, topics we used to teach in middle school and high school are introduced in elementary school. There is substantial emphasis on building algebraic thinking. So exposing kids to early some fundamental algebra concepts, more geometry, statistics that is in the elementary programs, that is being required of our children. Many of our elementary teachers are still not comfortable with those topics.

Second, we find that elementary teachers may come in with rote knowledge of arithmetic but they don't have the deep conceptual understanding they need to, in fact, help children learn and understand the mathematics content they need so that the children can learn and have understanding instead of just learning rules.

Therefore, a major challenge we're finding is, in fact, working with teachers as they teach to help them increase their understanding of what they may be able to do by rote. One of the implications that has for us, is that we have found that we need to continue the professional development throughout the school and directly tie it to lessons that teachers teach.

So if I'm teaching multiplication, I need to really have a deep understanding of why zero times any number is always zero; it's not just enough to know it. I have to understand it and say. You know, that's going to be hard for kids: how might we teach that to children? What kind of experiences would they need to help them make sense?

Chairman Goodling. Dr. Lederman.

Dr. Lederman. Relevant to that is the work that we're doing in the Chicago public schools where, as an intervention, we've been training, teaching primary school teachers, mostly K-6 and some K-8 math and science in a program which evolved to be a three-year program with at least 250 contact hours. Therefore, it is a hard program. It takes a minimum, we think, of three years of contact with these teachers intensively.

It is not a silver bullet. It is hard work to bring these teachers to the level where they can teach in first, second, and third grade science with confidence and style using these new techniques. They are not so new anymore of hands-on inquiry methods, experiments, exposing these kids to the real world of how to think about the world in which they live.

It is a hard program, but it is enormously successful if you stick to it. The metrics on the performance of the children in statewide, standardized tests is phenomenal and state pressure is now getting us to go East St. Louis and other cities in Chicago and expand this effort. I think that, in part, we engaged in this program because we felt that the teacher training progress was so slow. We just did not feel that we could wait and abandon all the children that would experience these teachers teaching for the next 10, 15 years.

Therefore, teacher professional development is not an easy job. It is not a short workshop. It is hard work, continuous work for a long time. It is expensive, too.

Chairman Goodling. Yes.

Dr. Bunce. Dr. Greenspan said something about people thinking back to teach the way they were taught. That is one of the things we have to undo in teacher training. Because the way they were taught, was rote memorization and the teacher is not standing in front of 25 students that think exactly alike. They are standing in front of, at least, six distinct groups of learning and they have to have in their repertoire different ways of attacking the same content.

That is what the teacher training sessions; the professional training does for them. They are not even going to know they need it until they are on the job.

Chairman Goodling. Thank you. Mr. Ford was next but Mr. Owens, you are after Mr. Ford.

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate you and Mr. Ehlers for assembling this most distinguished and profound panel_the best we've had all year and I want to thank them for coming. I have two questions.

One is, we're going to have legislation related to H-1B, the increasing the quota for professional workers brought in from outside. And there are some people who say we should raise it above 200,000 per year. And others say we should just take the cap off completely and allow as many foreign workers in the high-tech and information technology areas as want to come in to come in.

My first question is, I think you said, Mr. Lederman, we need our own and we should educate our own. And one of my colleagues the other said, well, why not? Why can't we not bother with it and let the education systems of the other industrialized nations or even Third World nations_English-speaking nations like India_are doing very well in terms of bringing us products or who will do well in information technology? Why not let the rest of the world supply us with high-tech and information workers? That's my first question.

The second question relates to the fact that we are primarily focused here on the quality of teaching and the improvement in teaching. But can you separate it out in your endeavors, Mr. Haseltine, Mr. Barrett? Do you ever separate out the staff and staff development from the facilities and the working conditions? We lose so many teachers, certainly of science because they don't have any labs in junior high schools in my district and there are very poor labs in the high schools. So lab equipment, computers hooked to the Internet, they can step out of that school system and go to work for some place where they have a comfortable environment to work in, an environment with the proper equipment, and the proper supplies, et cetera.

The National Education Associations says that we need about $320 billion to bring our infrastructure for public schools up to date where it can take care of the present enrollment_$320 billion is needed, facilities. Do we have the capacity, really, to provide the kind of brain power, mobilization, and education without dealing with the facilities problem at the same time we deal with the mentoring and the various changes in curriculum and other things that you mention? Mr. Haseltine.

Dr. Haseltine. I would like to address, at least, several parts of that very interesting question. The first issue you asked is about the H-1B visas we need for employees. We simply do not train enough; our economy has speeded ahead enormously. We cannot fill our jobs without those. I don't know if the right number 200,000 or more but I can tell you that without that, my own company cannot continue to prosper and do the work that we need to do.

Mr. Owens. You're going to need them indefinitely or on an emergency basis?

Dr. Haseltine. I foresee the need for a very long time until our educational system and the types of reforms that we are talking about here take hold. As you have heard from Dr. Briars, it takes a very long time, starting in K going right on through university. Those changes are needed and will take a long time before they take hold. I do not know if it's permanent but we need those immigrants now to fuel our economy.

You asked another question, why don't we just rely on foreign countries. I think one of the topics that has not been discussed here is the importance for general citizenship of scientific education. I spent many years at Harvard teaching non-scientist undergraduates science in our general education and our core curriculum.

Why did I do that? It is my fervent belief that a good citizen that makes decisions on complex issues, both for his society, for himself, and for his family, needs a scientific education. Let us take my own field of genomics. Whether we like it or not, we will make decisions on how much knowledge we need to know about our genes, about our parents' genes, and how to approach this complex new medicine.

That will not be only in the field of biology and medicine; it will be in many fields. We need an educated citizenship that helps guide our country to the right decisions. We cannot avoid that. It is not only for our economy but this scientific education is important and it is for our citizenship. Therefore, it is our responsibility to do this.

Now in terms of infrastructure, I can tell you how, being educated as a scientist, the most important key of a science, to teach science, to both people who will be scientists and as a citizens, is not to do it through theory but to do it through observation. The most powerful lesson you learn as a scientist is to observe nature and, then, try to understand it. That is best done through laboratories and laboratories need facilities.

I don't know if the number you quoted, $320 billion is the right number, but I can tell you my own experience as I look at the types of educational facilities that are available versus what could be available, that number doesn't seem unreasonable.

Mr. Owens. Mr. Barrett.

Dr. Barrett. I would echo both of those comments. I think the answer to the first question is very pragmatic. It senses pure economics. We, in the United States, have the choice to either import foreign labor or export jobs and having the job in the United States in this particular area of high-tech, raises the standard of living here. Therefore, either we are going to import foreign workers or we are going to export jobs.

Companies like mine have no choice but to do that. Increasingly, we are exporting jobs because of the shortage of labor here, a very simple response to the second question of whether 300 billion is the right number for infrastructure development. I would second the issue on inquiry-based learning as being very, very important.

But I would also suggest that the teacher is, perhaps, the most important aspect of the learning process; even more so than the surrounding and I would, if I were prioritizing my expenditure of funds, I would probably prioritize more for teacher training, professional development, and rewarding teachers for a job well done. Then, I would worry about the modernization of classrooms.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make several comments and get a few reactions. First, to raise an issue that has not been raised here about the H-1Bs in response to Mr. Owens. There's another aspect to importing scientists which is not there and that's the reason we should expand our own and that is, is we're robbing some of the least developed countries of their best minds and, therefore, condemning them to continuation of poverty, lack of expertise, lack of manufacturing, and so forth. If we really are serious about helping Third World countries, we should not be stealing their best talent.

Let me just summarize a couple of things. I said in comments earlier, that we face a national problem. Dr. Barrett has extended that; said we would face a national crisis, I think, indeed, is true. The crisis is not so much that we are not producing enough scientists and engineers, although that is part of it. The real crisis is that we are not producing the educated citizenry that you just referred to, Dr. Haseltine, in two ways.

Workplace readiness, which is, of course, what Dr. Haseltine and Dr. Barrett are worried about for the companies. It is not just getting scientists and engineers but technicians, technically trained people. Even the clerical people have to have some technical knowledge to deal with that. That means general education for the public.

But the second aspect, and that's one I'm very concerned about, is the one you mentioned, Dr. Haseltine, the decisions that are made in our society, either individually or collectively, we need a trained citizenry. We are simply not doing that now. In terms of Mr. Greenspan's comments, we are in the middle of another revolution. The question is, can we meet it, because the changes have to be made so rapidly.

I personally believe, and I think if we are in support of the bills, I believe these bills are a good start. We have been very careful not to intrude on the prerogatives of the local schools or the state educational agencies. We are simply offering assistance to them and in the area you have identified as the most urgent. That is, professional training, in two ways.

Both existing teachers through professional development and incoming teachers through, not in the bill that is before this committee but before Ways and Means, stimulating and providing incentives for them, for the future teachers, to learn more about math and science as they're going through their college university training experiences.

In addition, the bill that is before this committee adds something else. Dr. Barrett, your corporation has done marvelous things in this area. So has IBM, so have some governmental agencies such as NASA. How are the classroom teachers going to know about that? That is one of my biggest concerns. How can they review it?

And this bill will provide for the Eisenhower Clearinghouse to have all of that information online so a teacher can go online, read evaluations of your program, other programs, and decide what's best for them, for their school, for their children, whether it's a minor program, a one-day lesson, or whether it's a summer institute offered by Intel.

I appreciate, very much, the testimony that offered. I do not know if any of you would like to react to the comments, I have just made. I would just make one additional comment, Mr. Chairman. You sent out a press release a week or two ago commenting on the national test scores. And as you noted in there, we're not doing what we should do in reading, we're not doing what we should do in some other areas, particularly mathematics. The worst scores of all, as your release pointed out, were in science. We seem to be doing better in improving mathematics education in our elementary schools, where the biggest problem is, by the way. We are not doing well, at all, in improving their science education.

Are there any comments in the little time I have remaining? Dr. Barrett, you wanted to say something.

Dr. Barrett. I would just second the issue of making information available to teachers. I think there is an immense amount of best-known practices, best-known methods, and wonderful success stories. Moreover, one of the issues is to be able to disseminate that information to the online teacher and whether it is through the clearinghouse.

An additional part of our program is, in fact, to create a Web portal. This involves taking the learning and the experiences of these 400,000 teachers that we're training and how they use that technology, put that all online, free of charge, back to the other two and a half million teachers here or the millions of teachers around the world for immediate access. I think that has to be an integral part of any solution.

Mr. Ehlers. Let me just clarify. The clearinghouse will provide links to your portal and everyone else's, Dr. Barrett. Dr. Briars.

Dr. Briars. Thinking about the specific professional development summer institutes and the mentors provided, one of the things I would urge this committee to do is, with respect to summer institutes; think about being a little bit more flexible. It proposes to be two weeks, which is 60 hours.

Sometimes, the 60 hours more effective. At least, we find in our program it is more effective; we get more teachers if we do 30 hours in the summer and the other 30 hours are an integral part of what is going on during the year. The content focus needs to combine with the pedagogical focus and how students learn.

We find that some teachers have great content knowledge but that does not necessarily mean they are great teachers in helping kids learn. Those linkages really do need emphasized. Clearly, you do not want pedagogy without content; I am not suggesting that. You want those things to be integrally linked. Therefore, in descriptions that should come out.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Ford.

Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much has already been asked but I would ask, if I could for one moment, Ms. Briars if she wouldn't mind to, also, sort of elaborate a little bit on_forgive me if I've been out of the room_but I'd like to hear just a little bit about your prime program.

And two, you answered a little bit about the professional development programs. We've had, if you can imagine discussions here about the Eisenhower program and just as a teacher and as one who interacts often with students and those who are on the frontlines everyday in our school system.

How has that program functioned, because it's been widely criticized here by some in the Congress and even some in the education community here? So I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

Dr. Briars. The Eisenhower funds have provided continuous professional development; they are used in Pittsburgh. In fact, we started our demonstration teacher model with Eisenhower funds. Unfortunately, given the limited number of funds, we got one person to work with 1,000 teachers.

Mr. Ford. One person working with 1,000 teachers?

Dr. Briars. We actually focused that person on our middle schools to try to get some effect. She worked with 1,000 teachers. It is an expensive model but it gets real results. Currently, with the additional National Science Foundation support that we have had that we use in conjunction with our Eisenhower money, I now have 10 demonstration teachers; seven at the elementary level; two at middle; and one at high school.

I am still getting more requests. I have more requests than I can fill. Models that provide in-class supports and release time are expensive because they involve salary dollars. They are a way to jumpstart the system. I think it is important to note a couple of things.

One is, that the kind of effort we need may not be indefinitely. It really is a jump-start to get the system up to speed. Second, Pittsburgh has been advantaged and fortunate to get National Science Foundation dollars, which are competitive dollars. Not every district can do that.

Every district does need a program like the one we have and the Eisenhower model is a great model. They are just is not enough funding in it. If I got four times the amount of money I got through Eisenhower than my regular allocation, I would have never needed additional funds. That would have been sufficient to, at least, operate at the level I am operating now.

Mr. Ford. Yes, doctor.

Dr. Bunce. The difference between the Eisenhower money and the National Science Foundation money is that school districts that have an idea of it, have not quite worked out all the kinks; can do it with Eisenhower money; see how it works on a local level; and, then, refine. Then, go after national competition with National Science Foundation money, which are bigger bucks.

Mr. Ford. Um-hmm.

Dr. Bunce. The problem is, that even the local incentives right now cost more than they did when the Eisenhower money was first appropriated. Eisenhower money is, almost anybody who has, can put together a short proposal, can go after it and can use it right in there school district. It funds many of the local initiatives that never would see the light of day.

Some of those initiatives probably die a natural death and probably should. Then, a new initiative takes their place. By the time you get to the National Science Foundation, you are into national competition. You really cannot do that if you have not started out with Eisenhower money. So both are really needed in order to get everybody involved and, then, to keep the pressure on the quality of those programs for the teachers.

Mr. Ford. Last question for Ms. Briars. The impact, you think that_you believe that overcrowded classrooms and the run-down facilities. What impact does that have on your ability to retain teachers or teacher retention?

Dr. Briars. Facilities and teaching conditions have a great deal to do with, in fact, both retaining teachers but also whether teachers can do their work. If you have textbooks that are 20 years old, it is hard to teach current science with outdated materials. If you have 30 kids in a classroom at first grade, it is much more difficult to do hands-on kind of exploration and be monitoring the learning of every child in your classroom. It is much easier to do that when you have 15 or 20 students in your classroom.

That is a particular issue with the lower grades. It is a particular issue when you have a challenging population, high poverty areas, and rural areas. Those are real issues. The infrastructure noted before is extremely critical. And I think what's being underscored is the need for a substantial investment, right now, in teacher training and facilities and tools for teachers to get the whole system up to where it needs to be or we're not going to provide the kind of workers that are needed.

Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of the panelists, Dr. Lederman, certainly; Dr. Haseltine, Dr. Barrett, as well.

Chairman Goodling. One of the reasons, of course, in the Teacher Empowerment Act is that we combine funds so that there would be a much larger pot. We have a little problem down here. We keep enacting new programs and new programs but the pot of money is the same and, then, you try to spread the pot of money out over all the programs and we end up having very little in any. In the Teacher Empowerment Act, we tried to combine and say, you know, where the emphasis should be. Mr. Schaffer.

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the panel for being here today. I have been fascinated with your testimony and am certainly impressed with your devotion and dedication to education in America and to the children who are there to gain by it.

My enthusiasm for a federal solution where science education is concerned, is probably a little less enthusiastic than others here in Congress. I think, frankly, this is the wrong level of government to look to for a truly workable answer. I think that the discussion hearings, the debate about science education is one I care for deeply. Science teachers surround me in my family.

My father and mother and my wife, who has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and science education is very important at the Schaffer household and others in the family as well. This is a topic we discuss quite often and my concern about science education is no less genuine than everyone here.

I do think that the answer is probably local and more dispersed than the federal government is capable of providing. Having said that, I just have an observation and that is, of the science teachers I know and the people in science that are friends and family, four years seems to be a magic number of teaching.

Students graduate from college with an emphasis in science, perhaps, a teaching certificate and their enthusiastic for four years. I do not know what is magical about the four years. I have my suspicions. I think it's that teacher gets married, maybe has kids, and they start being confronted with the reality that my wife, who has a science degree, makes lots of money. The teacher, who is teaching science, is still on the union wage scale and cannot seem to earn a decent enough living to care of their family.

The teachers I know who seem to last longer, who exceed that altruistic enthusiasm that leaves them in the classroom, I think they all want to stay there. That is there preference and their love and what they like to do for the rest of their lives. But the ones I know who stay seem to be able to stay in the classroom because they usually have a spouse who's generating more income so they can afford to teach science and excel at it.

Now maybe, I am wrong about that. As I say, it is just an observation; not a particularly scientific one but it entails many people. I have also helped start two public schools, an alternative school, a charter school and the science teacher and curriculum. The science curriculum has always been the centerpiece of both of these schools.

There are certain rules that I think make it difficult to effectively hire the right professionals to render a suitable treatment of the science curriculum. We hired, in the first school, we hired a college biology teacher to teach fourth grade science. This was the teacher's dream. She had her Ph.D.; she had been in science for a long time, great college professor.

She is frustrated that the students coming into college were not prepared to be in her classroom. Her dream was always to go back to elementary and do this herself. When she heard about her school, she called us, said, I want to teach there. This is a match made in heaven and I have to do it. We hired her. It lasted a year because she lacked the pedagogy to deliver the content and we fired her.

It was kind of something we agreed. The point is if she had gone to a regular public school, she would still be there. They could not have got rid of her because of the rules they deal with that we abandon when we set up our school. I'm curious, Dr. Briars, does the best science teacher in your management structure receive better compensation, better pay raises, better financial and professional rewards than the worst science teacher in your organization?

Dr. Briars. Okay, we have two points. One is, it is possible to remove the worst science teacher or the worst mathematics teacher even in public education.

Mr. Schaffer. You have to prove due cause.

Dr. Briars. It requires documentation and due process. Right.

Mr. Schaffer. Yeah, which I am familiar with which is linear.

Dr. Briars. Right. Right. Unless you do it when someone is a new teacher. I mean, the first two years before their tenure but it is possible and we do that.

No, in our system, we do not have; I mean, we have a salary schedule and all the teachers with similar experience are going to receive the same salary except there is, in fact, provisions in our district for kind of additional pay for advanced degrees. We are also supporting teachers who are going for national board certification. In fact, those teachers will receive an extra $2,000 every year. That is what we have made as provisions in our current system to reward teachers who, in fact, meet the rigorous standards of national board certification.

Mr. Schaffer. What does a first-year student out of college, who teaches, maybe has a concentration of physics, what are they making in your district?

Dr. Briars. $33-$34,000 a year.

Mr. Schaffer. What would the same person, Dr. Barrett, make in your organization?

Dr. Barrett. Via salary or stock options? Probably double that.

Mr. Schaffer. I am just curious. Do you hire teachers? Do you find science teachers that apply for jobs in your organization? Do you hire them?

Dr. Barrett. Yes. We also hire them as, we have a major program to hire them, summer interns, if you will, to come and work for nine weeks with us as well. I could not agree with you more. I think the magic of four years may have to do with stock options or compensation. I think it is the whole issue of meritocracy and recognition for performance, which probably frustrates people more than anything in the system does, or lack of that.

Dr. Briars. There is another reason for four years. And that is, in fact, that teachers burnout because, in fact, traditionally teaching has been defined as only spending time in front of kids. Yet, we really know that that is not true. Teaching is planning; is reflecting on kids' learning; is time to meet with other colleagues; is time to learn to use the Internet; and continuing one's education.

That is why part of what needs to happen when we talk about professional development is recognizing that time away from students spent thinking about teaching and learning is an important part of teachers regular work. I think we need to figure out a way to acknowledge that. If teachers had more time to do that, we find that there is less burnout. I am not alone in this; I am not frustrated. I have some time to teach more effectively.

Dr. Barrett. I just want to throw one brief statistic out. In the Silicon Valley, there are a group of companies do hire 125, 150 teachers each summer. The interesting thing is bringing those teachers into the industrial environment for the summer. You might think that they would be tempted to leave the teaching environment. In fact, the retention rate for those teachers participating in that program is four times better than it is for the average teacher.

So I think that there's a sense of people coming out of teaching into the industrial environment for a short period of time, exercising some skills, seeing how things can be done, and, then, taking that learning back into the educational process which eliminates some of the burnout and, perhaps, give some greater job satisfaction and leads to longer tenure.

Chairman Goodling. I would give an illustration of what I indicated a little earlier, how we proliferate programs and, then, reduce the amount and, then, hope that somebody in the school district that knows how to write grants or two, five, or six people trying to write. Just under the Department of Education, they're math and science programs but keep in mind, then, of course, we have math and science programs duplicating these programs coming out of other agencies and other departments, too.

They have the Eisenhower professional development national activities; the Eisenhower professional development state grants, the Eisenhower regional mathematics and science education. They have technology for education, literacy challenge fund, education local innovation challenge fund, education regional consortia, leadership activities; pre-service teacher training and technology; community-based technology; star schools; telecommunications demonstration project for mathematics; minority science improvement; upward bound math and science; and learning anytime, anywhere partnership.

It takes a good staff of grant writers to try to keep up with what is available but it reduces the amount of money because, of course, they keep spreading the same amount or even a billion over many, many programs.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. I, too, commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having such a distinguished panel and certainly appreciate you busy men and women coming to enlighten the committee.

There is no question that it's real crisis that we have in our country as it relates to education. It is the way it has always been, I guess, and it is the way it is always going to be. I don't know when they decided to make salaries, you know, some guys said that the bricklayers should make the 50,000 and the teacher at that time was making 25,000. I mean, how, why, I don't know. I wasn't there.

But I was a teacher and I know that during the summer I did make more money than what I did during the entire year. As a matter of fact, I made as much during the summer in the job that I did as I made for the entire year. So we've got a kind of mixed-up system, somehow. And it becomes more and more of a crisis at this time because we find that science and technology is so important. And as it's been indicated, it's difficult.

But I don't think it's any different in education and, you know, my colleague, Mr. Schaffer, said, well, does this great teacher get more than this mediocre teacher? Well, does good policemen get anymore than the other policemen? And does the good doctor at a general hospital that are on staff get anymore than the other? Usually, no. It's not very much different. Now the doctor could leave.

There are promotions but I don't think it's any different in education than in most things. We have staffers; some of are very good, some are not. Some make the same. So that's just like, well, I don't want to get into congressmen. That's a no-brainer. And we're talking about big brains.

I just think that we really have to rethink education; we have to rethink the inequities; we have to rethink the fact that I do think that it's a national interest. We have people who feel that education should not have anything to do with us as a nation and it should only be back in the village or the town or in that place. I think it's a national defense issue, as a matter of fact.

If we don't have people who are able and education, even democracy fails. So I just don't understand this move to even, you know, eliminate the Department of Education; just take education off the national level and let's all deal with it around the corner or in the basement and down the street.

But that's another philosophy. I do think that there_you mentioned, Dr. Barrett, there were two ways to go about work employment. You said that we either import workers, you know, the H-1Bs, or we export jobs. Now there's actually a third phenomena that may creep up and it could be that we don't import workers because they may want to stay where they are.

I was in Ireland, I was in the north of Ireland during the marching season but I came down to Dublin on the way home. And they had a person at the airport that, you know, was talking to American citizens of Irish descent who left Ireland to come to the United States to work to entice them to come back to Ireland, that they would better what they were doing in the United States, to work for the new booming Irish economy in the same kind of thing.

So my notion is that the option you didn't mention is that it could be the Irish Intel company in Ireland where the jobs are created in Ireland. The Irish potential H-1B doesn't come to do H-1B and stays there in Ireland. And, then, there's an entirely new company that will not give us a worker coming here nor will we or the company be exporting the job because it would be another company.

And so I think that that's a danger that's potential and I guess it just gets back to the fact that it's the whole question of inadequate education and the whole question of how do we fund education, how do we equalize education. You know we still fund education like they did in the days of the sheriff in Nottingham. You know, if you had three chickens, you gave three eggs up. And if you only had one chicken, you only had one egg and the number of eggs you had, therefore, depended on how strong your community was.

And education, as you know, is funded the same way, based on that particular community's ability to fund education, which is think is absolutely wrong because you don't have to, once again, be a rocket scientist to know where are the inequities of education.

I think Jonathan Kozol, in his writings, has talked about that. So having said all that, I'm trying to think of a question, I don't have a question. But if anyone would like to respond, I'd certainly be glad to hear it.

Dr. Barrett. Being the biggest investor in Ireland and one of the largest employers, I could comment on that. It is interesting to note that after 150 years of Ireland being an exporter of people, they have a wonderful education system there and if you wanted to work in the high-tech field in Ireland, up until the last 10 years, you left the country.

They have turned around being an exporter of Irish citizens to being an importer of Irish citizens in the last few years. I would second your notion here that, in fact, almost regardless of what we do as a country, you are going to see pockets of the new economy blossom in other areas. Ireland is, perhaps, a wonderful example in Europe.

If you look at what is going on in India today, the Indian government educational institution, etc. have taken the pledge to be their software leader of the world in the next decade. They have the educating power and the workforce, I think, to accomplish that with that sort of national motive.

That will be an issue where it will not be in whether Microsoft or Intel wants to compete for that worker. That worker will be gainfully employed in India, probably for Indian companies; perhaps, for multi-nationals there.

Chairman Goodling. Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although we can disagree and we often do about the proper role of the federal government in this issue, in the whole area of education, I think, few of us would argue with the fact that the role for the federal government not in dispute is research and dissemination of research findings.

Whether you need a Department of Education in order to accomplish that singular task is another question. Nonetheless, that role is something we all, I think, at least I think we can say we all, agree upon. That is where my interest lies, that is where my questions to the heart of.

In terms of what you have discussed so far regarding the development of teacher training programs, this indicates to me that although there is certainly work going on in that environment and we do fund various aspects of it. I wonder if anyone on the panel is aware of any research activity designed to use or to determine the extent to which technology is used in the delivery of education and not just in the preparation of teachers for the same process. That is to say, as one of the panelists indicated, a teacher in front of a class of students; that is the traditional way we think of delivery systems.

But I'm asking if anyone knows and I notice that part of Mr. Lederman's testimony was that progress in our most exotic edge of quantum science can quite possibly increase computer speeds by as much as one billion times with unimaginable consequences. Therefore, what I'm wondering, is it possible that some of those unimaginable consequences might actually be a change in the delivery system, a way of using technology to actually communicate with children, with students, I should say, not just children, that does not fit the model that you've just described?

You know, it just does not fit what we are doing right now, a teacher in front of the classroom. Any research whatsoever going on, to the best of your knowledge, or should it be any member of the panel into this particular area? I will start with Mr. Lederman first because I referenced his testimony.

Dr. Lederman. I don not think we want quantum computers in the classroom. That is kind of a mismatch but there is a lot going on. I mean, in fact, in our training, as I mentioned in the Chicago Public schools, are a very important component of that is teaching. We discovered closet computers; they were never unpacked. Delivered to the school but not unpacked because the teachers did not know what was in that box and was insecure about how to use it.

So training teachers in the use of computers and in the use of computers exactly for what you say for transmitting, enriching, embellishing lessons all the way from kindergarten through high school. There are many, many things happening now. You know, the trumpeting of technology to improve education goes back to Thomas Edison when he invented the motion picture machine he said, in 10 years we won't need books. That prediction has been constant for the last 100 years or so.

However, there are new technologies now. For example, I am very interested in teaching middle school kids about atoms. I think atoms are very important. They are the basis of chemistry and biology; they should know about atoms, which are hard to visualize and they are many people who say atoms are too abstract for these kids. With computers and simulation and imaging, you can show kids and you can have kids move atoms around. You can have kids with the mouse moves the electron from here to there and the force of moving that electron is transmitted to the hand of the kid.

Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Lederman, let me, because our time is running out. I understand the developments, well I don't understand all of the developments in that area, however, I'm glad to hear of them and that was what your original testimony, most of you came to.

But you're still talking about a situation where a teacher is necessary to be there in front of, hopefully, no more than 15 to 20 students as has been alluded to here, as the mechanism for transmitting this information, using a computer, using the information technology that you have.

I am wondering whether we have thought about going beyond that. That is really my question.

Dr. Bunce. There has been a whole move towards distance learning at the university level and it has not caught on quite as quickly as people had anticipated. In order for something like that, where you're relying on technology to do the delivery and you're moving people back and forth, you have to build in the human characteristics, things that we know about human nature. Things that we know, for instance, if people are not_

Mr. Tancredo. Things we know about teacher's unions. You have to build that in.

Dr. Bunce. Well, when people are not feeling confident about learning anything, they are going to work better with a coach. If you are going to learn how to swim, it is hard to do that long distance by watching a computer. You have to get into the pool with a coach. What you are finding right now as we experience the growing pains of utilizing this technology, are hybrid programs where we deliver as much as we can and distance learning through the computer. We bring people together or we have assignments and we have that human touch or we have chat rooms or we have a real time interaction through the computer.

What you are talking about is happening. It is in its infancy; not all the bugs have been worked out of it yet.

Mr. Tancredo. Should that be an area for us to invest? Is that something, I mean, as I mentioned earlier, that's, to me, a perfectly acceptable federal_

Dr. Bunce. Right, well, that seems to me, fits in perfectly with the idea of this bill because what the bill says is that there would be money available or opportunities available on the national level for people to fund innovative things they cannot do on their own in their local area. However, with the added help of the national government could put together pilot projects, be tested; evaluated; and, then, duplicated.

Mr. Tancredo. Do we need more specificity in the legislation, do you think, in order to direct it in that area?

Dr. Bunce. No, it is going to go that way naturally. For instance, just rural education, you cannot move the teachers to one locale because of snowstorms or because they have to travel 400 miles to get there. It is happening, you will never stop it, not with the way, technology is advancing. So I do not think it needs to be specified. Actually that is more in keeping with what I understand to be the nature of your comments. We could specify very little and rely on innovative minds using the technology, as it develops to come up with these applications.

Mr. Tancredo. Good. Thank you.

Chairman Goodling. Dr. Barrett, I realize you have a plane to catch. We will have our last interrogator. I always like to preface when we call on her with a comment or two. She has heard this one.

Ms. Woolsey. As long as you are not using my time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Goodling. I had the opportunity to visit Gettysburg High School recently where they were teaching a course, an advanced calculus and physics combined course, where the two instructors were prepared to teach the course in two summer institutes. They had to attend both summer institutes. Both of them are women. Sixty percent of all the students in that class were women. I would just like to mention that as I call on Congresswoman Woolsey.

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, and I'm assuming you didn't use up any of my time, Mr. Chairman, with your introduction.

Thank you, panel, you've been wonderful. I wouldn't have left even if I voted and had to come back. You've really been informative. Thank you. And I want to talk about girls and women because if you agree with Dr. Greenspan that we're not going to be able to meet the demands of our high-tech economy unless we have more intellectual workers and we're going to have to have the young girls and women in our society become more interested in science, math, and technology, then, there's some things I want to you ask.

But, first, I want to enter into the record a letter that was signed by Apple Computer, Auto Disk, Compaq, Hewlett Packard, Intel (Dr. Barrett), Microsoft, and Motorola, supporting my Go, Girl legislation and expressing, in particular, I quote from the letter ``we are letting a valuable national resource go untapped by not bringing more women into technology careers'' and on and on and going to say they strongly support federal initiatives that strike at the root of this issue in the formative years and support our Go, Girl legislation.

Refer to Appendix J for letter mentioned above.

Ms. Woolsey. So with that as my preface, and may I ask unanimous consent to enter that into the record, my letter? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What, in your programs, you've each talked about different programs. Maybe we could start with Intel, Dr. Barrett, and do you make an extra effort to bring girls and young women into your programs? And if so, how? If not, why not?

Dr. Barrett. Well, the answer is very simply, yes, we do. We attempt to sponsor scholarships and fellowships for women in science and technology in much the way we look at other minorities in that area and women are a minority in that technical field.

We do focus on trying to attract females into the technology arena. I have to point out, the disappointing issue here is if you look at the enrollment of females in engineering over the last decade, it is going in the wrong direction in U.S. universities.

Ms. Woolsey. That's right. So let me just say about Go, Girl. What it's about is starting in the fourth grade mentoring young girls. And these two Doctor Dianes, both of you, would be perfect mentors to show young girls what a career is so they would stay interested, get beyond that place where they drop out of science, math, and engineering interest.

Dr. Haseltine. I reinforce your concern about education of all of our citizens, especially women and making sure they have access. You may be interested to know, in our company, 52 percent of our employees are women; half of our Ph.D.s are women; and 40 percent of our employees are minority. We are doing well; we are doing better than most companies. I think that it is a testimony to the attraction of this area, this exciting area of modern biotechnology, that we are able to attract that.

However, I think that we must draw upon all segments of our society; women, as well as minorities. We now have a diversity of minorities to attract to these exciting areas. It is a path for upward mobility; it is a path toward good citizenship. I think that I commend, certainly, these programs and other programs to encourage all of our citizens, especially women and minorities, to enter these wonderful careers.

Ms. Woolsey. And add to that, encouraging women to be teacher. Yes, doctor.

Dr. Bunce. I teach the nursing students at Catholic University and I once asked them if it made any difference to them that they had a woman teacher instead of a male teacher for chemistry. They said, well, with a male teacher, he will sympathizes with you when you are having trouble. A woman teacher will empathize and then kick you to keep you going.

I think that that's what we've been afraid to do with teaching both women and minorities, that is to offer the sympathy or empathize rather and, then, keep them going and convincing them that it's important that they stay with an issue that is difficult sometimes.

Ms. Woolsey. Right. Good, thank you. Anybody else? Yes, doctor.

Dr. Lederman. Well, just to cheer you, we have a charter school in Chicago that just started this year for women in high school, science and math school, magnet school for women just to encourage that and we got a huge set of applications for that.

Ms. Woolsey. Good.

Dr. Lederman. So there is some cheerful note there.

Ms. Woolsey. Good. We could use more of that.

Dr. Briars. Just a couple of things in terms of work that's going on in our district. One of the things we do on a regularly basis is we disaggregate our achievement data, both looking at various racial ethnic groups but also gender. With our new programs, we are not finding gender differences as the children are going through the grades.

Ms. Woolsey. Good.

Dr. Briars. We are monitoring that very closely. Another major piece we are finding is in terms of encouraging young women to stay in mathematics and science. It is just public perception and, in fact, family perception.

Ms. Woolsey. Right.

Dr. Briars. That those old views are still there.

Ms. Woolsey. Right.

Dr. Briars. We are actively working to overcome that.

Ms. Woolsey. And Go, Girl, my legislation, also works with the parents because the parents need to be partners with their children as they make these decisions that are a little different. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Chairman Goodling. I don't know when we've had such a distinguished panel before us. Dr. Greenspan, Dr. Lederman, Dr. Haseltine, Dr. Bunce, Dr. Briars, Dr. Barrett. We do thank you very much, not only for your testimony and responses but also for your patience, because I always worry, when there is a second panel, how many I will keep here and how disinterested you might get sitting out there.

So thank you very much. We do appreciate it.

The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]