Serial No. 106-94


Printed for the use of the Committee on Education

and the Workforce

Table of Contents

Opening Statement of Mr. Michael N. Castle, Chairman Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Education and the Workforce Committee, Representative from the state of Delaware. *

Opening Statement of Mr. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Membe, Subcommittee of Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Representative from the state of Michigan. *

Statement of Carlene Ellis, Vice President for Education, Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA *

Statement of Tony Lee, Senior Director, Worldwide Markets, Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA. *

Statement of Jason Bertsch, Deputy Director of Policy, Empower America, Washington, D.C. *

Statement of David H. Winston, Senior Vice President, Fabrizio, Mclaughlin & Associate, Alexandria, VA *

Statement of Jeffery Chin, Computer Literacy Teacher, Elliott Alternative Education Center, Modesto, CA; On Behalf Of The National Education Association *

Appendix A-the written statement of Mr. Michael N. Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Education and the Workforce Committee, Representative from the state of Delaware. *

Appendix B-the written statement of Mr. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee of Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Representative from the state of Michigan. *

Appendix C-the written statement of Carlene Ellis, Vice President For Education, Intel Corporation, Folsom, California. *

Appendix D-the written statement of Tony Lee, Senior Director, Worldwide Markets, Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, California. *

Appendix E-the written Statement of Jason Bertsch, Deputy Director Of Policy, Empower America, Washington, D.C. *

Appendix F-the written statement of David H. Winston, Senior Vice President, Fabrizio, Mclaughlin & Associate, Alexandria, VA. *

Table of Indexes *



Wednesday, March 8, 2000


House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families,

Committee on Education and the Workforce,

Washington, D.C.







The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:09 p.m., in Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michale N. Castle presiding.

Present: Representatives Castle, Petri, Hilleary, Isakson, Kildee, and Wu.

Staff Present: Linda Castleman, Office Manager; Cindy Herrle, Professional Staff Member; Dan Lara, Press Secretary; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; D'Arcy Philps, Professional Staff Member; Michael Reynard, Media Assistant; Kevin Talley, Staff Director; Bailey Wood, Legislative Assistant; June Harris, Education Coordinator; Alex Nock, Legislative Associate/Education; and Roxana Folescu, Staff Assistant/Education.

Mr. Castle. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families will come to order. We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on the role of technology in America's schools. Under Committee Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and the ranking minority member, Mr. Kildee of the Subcommittee. This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner and to help members keep to their schedules.

Let me just tell you about one scheduling problem right now. There is going to be votes at 2 o'clock. So, we will have to interrupt it at that point.

If other members have statements they are certainly welcome to submit them in writing. And with that, I 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. And without objection, that is so ordered.



I would like to take this opportunity to formally extend a welcome to today's hearing to everybody here in the room on an issue that is of not only importance to all of us but of increasingly and dramatically growing importance to all of us: The use of technology to expand and improve educational opportunities for our children.

Over the past year, this Subcommittee has held several hearings on this important topic. And we have heard witnesses describe innovative State and local efforts to integrate technology into the classroom. In one such instance, the Capitol School district, in my State of Delaware has partnered with industry and used Federal Technology Innovation challenge grants to provide students with the technology to extend learning beyond the traditional school day and help parents stay involved in their child's education.

More importantly, as determined by the University of Delaware, participating students significantly improved their scores on the Stanford 9 achievement tests in both reading and math by 24 and 16.1 percentile points respectively.

Today, we will focus more specifically on the role that industry can and must play if we are to be successful in helping all schools gain access to technology and use it to raise student achievement. We will also examine other issues related to education technology, including the best way to protect children and schools from inappropriate material on the Internet, through Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the program which houses the majority of Federal education technology programs. I think we can all agree we have made great strides in helping schools obtain computers and connecting them to the Internet. But we can also agree that we need to do more than simply place the computer in the classroom.

A recent survey released by ``Education Week'' shows that training plays a critical role in how teachers use educational software and websites or digital content. Teachers who have more technology training are more likely to use digital content in their classrooms, are better prepared to use it, and rely on it more heavily than teachers with less training. For these reasons, we must help our teachers appreciate the benefits of education technology and teach them to integrate it into their lesson plans.

We must also abandon traditional professional development programs which, typically involve a day or two of in-service training, in favor of programs that deliver high quality, ongoing opportunities for training in education technology. The ``Education Week'' survey also shows that teachers struggle to find high quality software and websites to use for their classes and many are overwhelmed by the literally hundreds of thousands of products that are offered in this ever-expanding market. We must help our educators to identify the programs and products that best suit their needs.

Finally, to make sure these investments in computers, professional development and digital content pay off, we must ensure that our schools have the tools to evaluate the success or failure of their efforts in the area where it matters most: The academic improvement of their students.

Given our efforts to reauthorize the Title III programs in the coming weeks, this discussion is especially timely and it is my hope that we can draw from today's hearing to strengthen our Federal programs and make education technology a reality for all children.

Again, I thank you for your attendance today, particularly the witnesses who have taken the time to prepare and to be here. I will now yield to the ranking member, Mr. Kildee, for any opening statement that he may wish to make.


See Appendix A for the written statement of Mr. Michael N. Castle, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Education and the Workforce Committee, Representative from the state of Delaware.

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



I want to join you in thanking the witnesses here today. Both of us are looking forward to your testimony. Technology in our classrooms and increasing its access to disadvantaged children is an essential component in raising the educational achievement of our nation's students. Most States and school districts, with help from both the public and private sectors, have made good efforts to increase access to technology, especially emerging technologies. Unfortunately, the digital divide or the separation between the technology haves and the technology have-nots still continue to plague our nation. As a matter of fact, they plague my own congressional district.

I have schools in my district that are the latest state-of-the-art in everything including technology and I have other school districts where it is tough to get a telephone line spread to another classroom. It is just extremes within the same congressional district.

So, clearly one of our priorities in the reauthorization of Title III must be to help with the effort to close the digital divide.

No better example of technology's impact on student achievement is evidenced by last year's long-term study of West Virginia's basic skills computer education program which you will hear about today. This study showed that technology was an important factor in helping students make significant gains in basic educational skills. More importantly, the study found that West Virginia's technology program made its biggest impact on the neediest children and rural children without computers at home.

These disadvantaged children showed the largest gains in student achievement and the study found that the educational technology resources provided in the schools was a major factor in accomplishing this.

In our efforts to evaluate current Federal technology initiatives we should not lose sight of the fact that simply placing technology in our classrooms is not enough. Both our new teachers and our veteran teachers must have the knowledge and skills to integrate technology into every day instruction and teaching. Pre-service training and professional development in this area is critical to technology having a positive impact on student achievement. This is certainly evidenced in West Virginia.

Lastly, I believe we need to take a critical look at our existing Title III programs. However, in this critical examination we should not back away from targeting technology funding for disadvantaged students. It is too important that we work to close, Mr. Chairman, not to exacerbate that digital divide.

And, again, I thank you very much for arranging for this hearing today.


See Appendix B for the written statement of Mr. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee of Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Representative from the state of Michigan.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. We appreciate your statement and interest in this as always.

Let me try to explain the process for a moment. I am going to turn to Congressman Wu to introduce, I believe, Carlene Ellis. But before we get to that, as you probably know but I just want to reiterate it, you each will have five minutes in which to speak. You have before you little lights that sometimes work, sometimes don't work. Hopefully they will work today. It will be green for four minutes, yellow for one minute and red. Nothing too dramatic happens when it becomes red except that we hope at that point you are thinking about closing as rapidly as you can.

Your statements will all be part of the record. You don't have to worry about requesting that or whether they will be or not, they will be. And that is not insignificant because it becomes part of the record and the staff gets it and everyone analyzes it and that kind of thing. And you are welcome to proceed as you choose. You can read from your statement or you can speak independently of it or whatever it may be, as long as you can do it within five minutes.

We will go in order. We will start with Ms. Ellis and after Mr. Wu introduces her I will introduce the other witnesses and we will go right down the line, and then when you are all done the members who are here or who come in during the time of questioning may each also take five minutes and that is the question and answer period. And I will alert you that we try to get as many questions as we can so, you know, if we are going to get Q&A into five minutes, we need to have relatively brief answers here.

So, I hope you all understood that to be the format before and it works out well from your point of view. And with that, let me turn to the distinguished Congressman, Mr. Wu.

Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kildee, members of the Committee, I would like to introduce Carlene Ellis, Corporate Vice President for Worldwide Education at Intel Corporation. And Intel is the leading private sector employer in the State of Oregon and, indeed, there are more Intel employees, I believe, in the State of Oregon than in any other State and Carlene is a leader at Intel.

After graduating with a mathematics degree from the University of Georgia and doing postgraduate work at several other institutions, she started out at Fairchild Cameron Instruments, one of the mother ships of modern American technology and then moved on to Intel, rising through the ranks of sales and human resources. And after spending 19 years at Intel, we all know that Carlene stays there as a labor of love, rather than having to work.

And the work that she does do at Intel is something that I think we can all love because Intel has been a leader in public/private partnerships and in putting technology into the classroom in our State. But Intel does not just dump a computer on the desk top in schools, Intel donates parts and encourages students to learn to put computers together, to refurbish them, and at the back end, after the computer is on the desk Intel is now working through the Teacher to the Future program to incorporate technology comprehensively into curricula across the country and innovating in public/private partnerships in our State and elsewhere throughout the Northwest.

Carlene, welcome to Washington and we look forward to your testimony.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Congressman Wu.

I will go through the others first and then we will get back to your testimony.

The others will be a little briefer. Mr. Tony Lee is the Senior Director of Worldwide Markets for Apple Computers, Inc., as you can see by the instrument in front of him. Mr. Lee is responsible for education and creative professional and consumer solutions marketing. For the past ten years he has held various positions at Apple, including business development, new product development, as well as being involved with Apple's United Kingdom Offices.


Mr. Jason Bertsch is Director of Policy for Empower America. He focuses energies on research, publications and lobbying efforts in the areas of education reform and technology issues. Prior to Empower America, he was managing editor of the publication, ``The Public Interest'' and was also an aide to Senator Sam Nunn as well as short stint with Congressional Quarterly.


Mr. David H. Winston is Senior Vice President with Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, FMA, in Alexandria, Virginia. At FMA he is responsible for international strategic consulting and marketing research. Prior to his current position he was Director of Planning for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Recently he was named to the Federal Web-Based Education Commission. Mr. Winston has also held positions with the Heritage Foundation, the Republican National Committee, and the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees.

And, Mr. David Chin is a Computer Literacy Teacher with Elliott Alternative Education Center in Modesto, California. For the past 19 years, Mr. Chin, has been a classroom teacher as well as being active with his local and State teacher organizations. Being a classroom teacher, you are more important than all of us and everybody else out there. We appreciate all that our teachers do in America.

And with that, we go back to the beginning and we start with Carlene Ellis. We welcome you here and look forward to your testimony.




Ms. Ellis. Well, thank you. I am glad to be here this afternoon. David, thank you, for that most generous introduction. It is a labor of love.


Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee and members of the Committee, Intel is deeply vested in education and education reform. I am not going to go straight off the text we gave you. You can read it. It is very illustrative of our efforts.

But what I want to do is take it from the top why we, Intel, Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel and Carlene Ellis are here. I have been a computer geek for 30 years. I majored in math and science when there were no women in the classes except me. I have done what I loved and I got paid to do what I loved and it makes it pretty easy to be here today.

I am also the mother of a 20-year old daughter at the University of Arizona, who despite scoring in the top percentile in math is doing nothing with it. I am also the mother of a 14-year old son, who hates living with math geniuses. So, that is kind of my household, my view of education. My kids have been in public school since day one. And their education is going to determine their future. So, it is that simple to me.

Intel, specifically is very interested in math, science, engineering and technology education and we are very interested in that from kindergarten forward. Technology is becoming a basic survival skill set. If you have any doubt about that just get out of Washington into the business life today and understand what skills are required to get a job. I sit on the John Glenn Commission with Craig Barrett, and we are saying loud and clear as hard as we can say it: This is a survival skill and this is a national emergency for the United States to worry about the skills of children in K-through-12.

So, our program is called Innovation in Education. If you think of it as a three-legged stool, the seat of the stool is all about innovating in education to get a better answer for the student. Craig and I feel very strongly there is only one measure of success: Student performance. And we can dodge that ball as long as we want to dodge it, but the students have to do better.

I didn't even know until I took this job in February of 1999, that U.S. children ranked bottom in the world in math and science education. I had no clue. I majored in math. I have kids in school. That is the best-kept secret I can imagine. I think that is wrong. The minute the U.S. sees a problem we can fix the problem. We got to get people to see that issue. It is a huge issue.

The first leg of our stool is all about teacher development. I am going to spend my time on that. It is called Intel Teach the Future. Second leg of our three-legged stool is about coming in to the communities with a program we announced February 28th, called, Intel Computer Clubhouse Network. We are going to spend $20 million over five years implementing 100 computer clubhouses around the world in partnership with MIT Media Lab, Boston Museum of Science, HP, and Covad Communications.

The third leg of our stool is science competitions. When I came through school I am old enough to have seen Sputnik. When I came through school, living 90 miles North of Cape Canaveral, in Jacksonville, Florida, I was convinced that the world was going to come to an end because the Russians had launched Sputnik. So, my brother went to the Air Force Academy, I went to the University of Georgia, our parents had never gone to college. We saw education as our way up and out. Certainly it has worked.

Our third leg is science competitions. We think the kids that are doing math and science, the tough stuff, competing for awards are not recognized. We are going to recognize them. Science Talent Search starts tonight in Washington, D.C., and we will beginning a week long affair of science competitions in recognition for the top 40 senior and high school scientists in the United States. In May, in Detroit, Michigan, starts the Intel Science and Engineering Fair, which touches, and listen to this number, a million students around the world in science competitions.

Now, I wasn't too good at science fairs but these kids come up with some pretty good stuff. So, that will be in May.

So, let me go back to what we are here today to talk about, Intel Teach the Future.

Intel Teach the Future was announced January the 19th. A $100 million program over three years to train a half a billion teachers in how to integrate technology into their classroom. Not use this laptop or this laptop to do word documents, but use this device, which is with me 24-hours a day, to improve teaching and learning. It has got to be in the classroom. The students have got to be touching it and most importantly the teacher has got to be comfortable using it.

Mobile technology and E-mail have transformed the way business is done over the last 15 years. The Internet is the greatest technological revolution to have occurred since I began as a computer programmer in 1968. You can't miss those two facts. There is only one problem. We have got to get teachers comfortable using the technology to teach.

By the way, don't spend a lot of money on the kids getting comfortable. I can bring any three-year old in here and they can run this device. They don't have much trouble with that. But the teacher teaching a 5-year old in kindergarten can be very comfortable with this technology. And, by the way, they will have a lot more fun teaching and the kids will have a lot more fun learning.

So, our program begins this summer with 80-hour summer institutes to train teachers on how to use the technology, navigate the technology, do lesson plans, use the Net as the great research tool it is, and to get them comfortable where they are going to go back into their PC connected classroom and do a great job for their kids.

In closing, Craig used this quote in January and I think it is a great one "we are a technology company but this is what we believe computers aren't magic, teachers are.'' All we have to do is help them get there.

Thank you.


See Appendix C for the written statement of Carlene Ellis, Vice President For Education, Intel Corporation, Folsom, California.

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Ms. Ellis, we appreciate that.

I will turn to Mr. Lee next.



Mr. Lee. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee, members of the Committee, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to testify before you today.

I want to talk to you today about systemic change. When you are looking at legislation, while technology access certainly is an issue I echo the Chairman's statements that great strides are being made there but in terms of your legislation, look towards where you can get systemic change. The world is different. The classrooms of today are different. The kids are different. I echo Ms. Ellis's comments about the ability for young children to be able to use technology today. But how do you impact and drive systemic change into the U.S. education environment?

We believe that the focus needs to be around professional development. Apple has had many years working in this field; over 20 years of supplying services, and technology into the educational environment. Indeed, we have had a research program that went for over 13 years called the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow which is the seminal work in this referred to by many companies and the Government around how technology impacts teaching and learning. And the fundamental thing we found is that teachers have to be extremely comfortable in using the technology. It is not necessarily a question solely of technology access.

If we look at the latest research we see only 20 percent of today's teachers in the classroom are comfortable integrating technology into their lesson plans. That must be the focus or your legislation.

If you do that, you get a phenomenon of technology integration. Once technology is integrated into teachers' lessons plans, extraordinary things happen. And again, we have many instances of that from many states documented in Apples Classroom of Technology Research.

But when I say that the world is different let me give you two examples. As Ms. Ellis says, both of us use laptops. It is the world of today, how we drive most of our activities. I would suggest that both of us are relatively uncomfortable with paper-based documents. This is the environment where our children will be working in.

We recently came from a very large education conference, the Florida Education Technology Conference. And the whole environment was wireless. There were 100 teachers walking around with I-books, all of them connected to the Internet and you could see the excitement as lights went on in their heads, as they understood this concept of technology integration. All of a sudden what happens when the classroom is completely mobile, two or three kids move over to one area, they have a couple of computers, they are connected to the Internet safely and they can start to work collaboratively and then using concepts like desktop movies, they can show their work to their peers and then by publishing on the Internet to their families, starting to get that connection as well.

By integrating technology firmly into the classroom, you will fundamentally change the way education is driven and you will significantly increase effectiveness. And by doing that, focusing your efforts around how teachers are trained, we fundamentally believe is the most important thing you could be doing today.

In closing, the Federal Government's role in education is critical. Apple strongly supports the technology provisions as an integral part of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And we believe that the focus for the Federal Government level should be no technology integration through professional development.

Thank you very much.


See Appendix D for the written statement of Tony Lee, Senior Director, Worldwide Markets, Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, California.

Mr. Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

We will go to Mr. Bertsch next.



Mr. Bertsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee for inviting Empower America to testify today. Technology and education and the deepening relationship between the two is one of our organization's primary interests. We echo everything that has been said so far. Just as computers and the Internet have fundamentally reshaped the way we do business, they will also soon reshape education. Today I want to address two particular questions related to Title III and maybe get into the more general things in the question and answer.

First, what is wrong with Title III and, second, how can it be improved? As you know, it is a relatively new part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The two biggest programs were first authorized in 1995. Since that time, the Federal Government has dramatically increased its spending on these programs. This year it will spend even more, $768 million on Title III. That is 21 times the size of the Intel Program. It is a lot of money. An even larger investment has been made through the e-rate program which will put over $2 billion during 2000 into wiring our public schools for the Internet.

These investments are largely responsible for the rapid growth of computers in our classrooms. This is a real accomplishment. I think you should be commended for it. But it is not cause for celebration. Why? Because we are not yet producing results either in teacher preparation or in student achievement. A recent report by Gary Chapman, Director of the 21st Century Project, the LBJ School of Public Affairs, found that the vast majority of U.S. K-through-12 teachers are novice or even completely inexperienced Internet and computer users. Another recent survey found that only 20 percent of American teachers feel well-prepared to use their new computer applications and know how to integrate them into their classrooms.

As far as student achievement goes, I will echo what Ms. Ellis said, that technology is not doing much good so far. In some cases it might be doing some harm. SAT scores, both math and verbal, are stagnant during the 1990s, and down sharply since 1960. Most disturbing of all, again to echo what was said before, in comparison to children from other industrialized nations on math and science tests, we are at the bottom of the barrel.

This is a shame not only because we are wasting resources, but because we know that technology, when used correctly, makes a positive impact on schools, on teachers, and on children. When considering Title III reauthorization then the truly critical issue is less one of inequity than of effectiveness. Do teachers know how to utilize or even operate their high-tech tools? Who is actually teaching technology to whom? Teachers to students or students to teachers? This might be called the digital generational divide. We actually think that might be more important than the traditional digital divide.

We have two basic recommendations. First, we propose consolidation of six of the seven Title III programs. This competitive grant, this new computer grant program should favor applicants that propose ways to combine high standards in teaching and technology and that focus on practical ways of integrating technology into the classroom.

In addition about 5 percent of this new consolidated program should be set aside for rigorous study of the grants and the lessons learned from the study should be collected and published in the best practices guide available on the Web.

Second, with the one remaining program, the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Congress should aim to promote innovation and encourage States to focus the money on areas that are under-served. States should be encouraged to use the Challenge Fund money in coordination with the new competitive grant winners to make sure that we are using our computers intelligently.

Moreover, Congress should require States that receive funds under the Challenge Fund to show results in terms of parental satisfaction and other ways.

Empower America believes that the Federal Government's role should be limited, focused and vigorous, not scatter-shot. Better, more productive use of technology, not just more, should be the Federal Government's goal.

That said, I think it is important to put things in perspective. During the next several years, the Federal Government will be massively outspent by private financiers. The education industry, the K-through-12 market and other areas have recently attracted interest and lots of money from America's leading businessmen and venture capitalists. A recent report from Merrill Lynch declared that the education industry represents, in our opinion, the final frontier in private participation in public programs. Compared to other sectors that have been the subject of massive reform, the education industry represents the largest market opportunity for private sector involvement since health care in the 1970s.'' In other words, they are going to spend a ton of money in the education industry.

For Congress, I believe this is both good and bad news. It is good news because it means that you will have a lot of help preparing kids for the high-tech 21st Century. It is bad news or maybe it is just daunting because it means Congress will face private sector standards. How big a dent on math scores did the Education Department's $50 million make compared to Intel's? Are your efforts redundant? Who is spending their money on technology training more wisely and effectively; Congress or some young entrepreneur in Silicon Valley? If the latter, why not sunset the Government program?

These questions in Empower America's view are inevitable and the stuff of which free enterprise and healthy limited Government are made.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.


See Appendix E for the written Statement of Jason Bertsch, Deputy Director Of Policy, Empower America, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Bertsch.

We will turn to Mr. Winston next.



Mr. Winston. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here today, not so much to make recommendations about a course of action, but to describe the complexities of the Information Age in yet another of American life: The development of our children. I grew up in New York City and it is true that it is a place where you grow up quickly. As a kid, I was exposed to many positive things about the city, such as music and arts, but I was also well aware of the negative side of New York such as crime and drugs at a young age.

The Internet makes growing up in New York City look like growing up in Small Town, America, 25 years ago. There is virtually nothing that cannot be found on the Internet. From news to sports to the arts to libraries to how to build a nuclear bomb to hate groups to travel information to pornography to medical information to communication with millions of people, it is all behind that screen at your desk; a new digital window the world.

The opportunities are boundless and they have created the greatest economic boom the world has ever seen and will continue for the foreseeable future.

For adults, the Internet has become a new business tool, as well as an educational and entertainment outlet. But because it requires different skills and a different mindset, some adults embrace this new technology better than others. Unlike many adults, children do not view the Internet as a strange new technology that must be mastered. If TV defined the baby boomer generation, then computers and the Internet are the communications medium that defines this generation.

Having grown up with technology, today's children use the Internet intuitively. But the Internet, while being a vast resource, presents new problems as well. It is a window on the world, the entire world. It does not make value judgments about the information it brings to your desktop or your child's. That judgment is left to you or your child. Complicating the picture is the fact that many children are significantly better at using new information and Internet technologies than their parents or teachers.

In the research that I have done, this knowledge gap between parents and children, teachers and their students can be significant and it is often a source of friction. Frequently the technology skills of adults are different from children. Parents and teachers are good at applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, data bases, and the like; tools for businesses. Children are masters of the Web, getting on-line and communicating and they don't understand why their skills are not respected more. They are also better at playing games. While that many sound silly, games are generally where the cutting edge of technology is found. Children today are as comfortable on a PC platform as the Sony play station and Nintendo 64 or Sega. They use these different technologies like their parents used the telephone. Put more simply, adults tend to use technology to accomplish tasks and solve problems, and children tend to use technology as an avenue for satisfying their curiosity, a key motivation for learning.

Tech-talk has become a part of this generation's vernacular much as slang was once a part of ours. Kids today talk about the Net in everyday conversation, they exchange Web addresses like we used to trade baseball cards and in the process rapidly pick up complex skills, specifically around the communications elements of this technology.

This puts them generally well ahead of their parents and teachers. Unfortunately and more importantly, it often puts them well ahead of their own value system. These kids have developed skills that have vast philosophical implications. Their ability to access information is unparalleled. The range of activities they can perform is enormous. They can use the Internet to access information for a great science project or hack into company's websites. They can learn about diverse cultures around the world or the philosophical construct of hate groups. They can see breaking news or they can see an unparalleled amount of sex.

They can do all this but do they have the maturity to choose the right path? For parents, this has been a frightening and difficult development. It is hard enough to develop values in our children given today's world, but with the vast array of material that is on-line that many parents find objectionable for their children, they are now demanding solutions.

Today, too many children's technology skills have outpaced their value systems; clearly society is going to have to help children build value systems at a younger age.

How do we guide children in the use of the Internet when their skill set is simply better than their teachers and their parents? Kids at the age of 11 or 12 have very advanced hacking skills. For many, blowing by blocking software is an easy task. In fact, for some it is the digital equivalent of sneaking a cigarette or a can of beer. Their parents and schools may never know.

How do we create broad-based solutions where schools are so different across America? My son's school, for example, prefers to emphasize an honor system with Internet use. It gives students rules to follow but does not use blocking software. By using this approach they help children develop their own value systems based on honor and trust. Other schools may want to institute blocking software because they believe it is the right solution for their particular school, because of class size or ease of access or because parents want it.

All of this points to the need for individual schools, working with parents, to develop policies of how best to integrate this technology into both children's lives and into our school systems. What they need is flexibility to develop the right approach and the time to implement this approach.

Blocking software will likely be an integral part of many schools’ overall policies and they will need resources and skills to implement this software. But blocking software is only a tool that gains time. It will not resolve the value development problem.

However, for many schools they desperately need the luxury of time that the blocking software will provide. They need flexibility in how to use resources to help them. They need solutions that are appropriate for their specific school and situation. They need solutions that make them responsive to the concerns of parents. Finally, they need solutions to give students the ability to explore their curiosity, expand their horizons, excite their imagination, and develop their values.

Thank you.


See Appendix F for the written statement of David H. Winston, Senior Vice President, Fabrizio, Mclaughlin & Associate, Alexandria, VA.

Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Winston.

We will turn now to Mr. Chin.



Mr. Chin. Chairman Castle and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today about the critical importance of technology in the classroom. Educational technology is a crucial element of a quality education. Technology in the classroom, both enhances the educational experience and prepares students for employment in an economy growing increasingly dependent on technology.

In the classroom, students who have daily access to cutting edge technology perform better academically. Studies have found students who use technology in the classroom show more enthusiasm, have higher attendance rates, develop better writing skills and display a greater capacity to communicate effectively about complex problems. These studies confirm what I have seen first-hand in my classroom and the classrooms of my colleagues. Educational technology helps bring an excitement to the classroom, complementing our work by allowing students to see hands-on practical applications for math, science, and the broad range of curriculum topics.

The use of educational technology also reaches beyond the classroom to ensure that students are ready to compete in a global economy. Today's students will face a job market in which most, if not all, employment opportunities will require at least a basic technological competence. Computer literacy will often be a determining factor in employability for a wide-range of jobs, including those outside the traditional technology fields. Even today's fast-food jobs require rudimentary computer skills.

Learning technology skills, like other basic skills, should begin in elementary school. All young students should have the opportunity to acquire a foundation of skills and understanding upon which more sophisticated skills can be built. Given the importance of technological skills to students' future success, we should consider this foundation as important as fostering basic reading, and math skills in the early grades.

For example, elementary school students in my district now use word processors to create stories and use basic graphics programs to produce illustrations. Students also make new friends and learn about life in other parts of the country through E-mail pen-pals. Digital cameras allow students to provide a glimpse of their world to other students around the globe by posting their pictures on school Web pages. The Internet has allowed teachers to take students on virtual field trips to places thousands of miles away without leaving the classroom.

Ensuring that all our students have the opportunity to develop the necessary technological skills requires a strong commitment at the Federal, State and local levels. First, we must ensure that every student in every school in every community has access to the most up-to-date technology relevant to the curriculum. Supplying computer hardware and software to classrooms, however, will be inadequate absent an investment in professional development and training for educators.

Finally, we must ensure that we do not seek to incorporate technology into the classroom without understanding how the technology fits into the existing curriculum. While we have made remarkable progress in recent years in increasing classroom access to technology, significant gaps remain. Recent studies show that nearly every school has a connection to the Internet. The e-rate program has certainly been instrumental in increasing access to the Internet across the country.

This does not mean, however, that every classroom has Internet access or up-to-date hardware and software. The digital divide that exists along racial and economic lines continues to impact many schools and students. For example, while 74 percent of classrooms in low-poverty schools are connected to the Internet, only 39 percent of schools in high-poverty schools have Internet access.

The lack of access to technology in schools and at home translates into a widening gap for minorities and women in technology careers. Many older schools lack the infrastructure, including electrical wiring and power, to support educational technology or Internet access.

A soon to be released NEA study of school modernization needs found that States face more than a $53 billion in cost to make schools technology-ready.

Even those classrooms that have access to technology may have obsolete hardware or out-of-date software. In my own school, I see on a daily basis the impact of inadequate technology. I teach in one of two computer literacy labs at Elliott Center. One class has access to a modern computer lab with the newest computers and Internet access. My class, however, must use 10-year old hardware with obsolete software and no Internet connection.

While students in the first class are learning to use the most up-to-date technology and are developing the skills they will need to enter the work force, my students are using out-of-date hardware and software with little similarity to newer technologies. They will likely have to relearn technology skills when seeking employment.

For many students, particularly minorities or those from low-income households, schools offer the only opportunity to access technology. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure that students not only have access to computers, but that they have access to the newest computers and to software comparable to that which they will encounter in the work force.

Providing computers, software and Internet connections is just the first step to ensuring all students access to technology. Quality professional development and ongoing technical assistance for teachers is an essential element of any education technology initiative.

Even in areas where technology is available, software, hardware and Internet connections often go unused because teachers lack the skills and knowledge necessary to integrate them into their daily classroom activities.

Teachers often express frustration that the lack of available training makes it difficult to take full advantage of the wide-range of educational technology. Finally, we must ensure that we are providing and training teachers to use hardware and software that furthers the goals of the curriculum. My colleagues and I are excited about using technology to enhance our lessons, but we cannot incorporate technology without understanding how it fits into the curriculum. Technology is an important tool in today's educational environment, but it should supplement, not supplant, the role of the teacher in deciding how best to teach the curriculum.

Teachers should play an integral part in choosing which technologies work best for their students in their schools and classrooms. Maximizing the use of technology in the classroom requires this buy-in from teachers.

Finally, technology is a critical element of quality education. We must ensure that all students have access to the latest technology and that all teachers receive training that enables an effective integration of technology into the curriculum. We must modernize schools to enable use of the latest technology. We must provide funding for teacher technology training programs and for ongoing technical assistance.

In addition, continued funding for the e-rate program is necessary to ensure that all classrooms have access to the exciting resources and tools available on the Internet. Finally, any program to increase access to technology in schools must take into consideration the input and expertise of teachers, themselves, in determining what technologies will work best in their classrooms.

I thank you for the opportunity to let me speak with you today and I will be happy to answer any questions.


See Appendix G for the written statement of Jeffery Chin, Computer Literacy Teacher, Elliott Alternative Education Center, Modesto, California; on behalf of the National Education Association.

Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chin. That was very enlightening, very exciting in some ways, and I think of great relevance to what we are doing.

I just want to make the point that I think all of us up here consider technology to be a significant potential enhancement to education in this country. This is not a political issue. I don't think that this divides between Republicans and Democrats. And we are very concerned about how we do that, how do we incorporate it into the laws that a couple of you addressed, and what do we do to make sure that we are not hurting you in any way in terms of what you are able to do, at the same time enhancing what we have to do, which is to help our kids, at least as far as education is concerned, and technology in general. And I think you made some extremely valid points with respect to that.

Unfortunately, we are limited in our time here, and I would like to ask Ms. Ellis a question first. Maybe this reflects upon my complete opposite achievement levels in math and science than yours. This is the kind of question I almost wish I had asked you before to make sure I knew the answer before I have you saying it publicly, because I think math and science are extraordinarily important. But with the advent of computers, is there less need for particularly math and maybe science to some degree, or are math and science skills needed in order to better utilize the computers? In other words, this enhances the math and the science, and without it, you will never really be able to process as well as you could with it. I would be interested in the incorporation of the technology and computers and the math and science if you could share that with us.

Ms. Ellis. Yes. Let me just give you my personal opinion on this. What I think math and science teaches you through elementary school, high school and college, is it really teaches you how to think in many, many ways. The problem-solving skills and the inquiry-based learning approaches that occur in a great science curriculum and in a great math curriculum, which allows the learner to struggle and kind of get the wrong answer before they get the right answer, those two skill sets are critical for workers in business. So I do not see that as anything that goes away, because we automate the way something happens.

As far as basic computing skills, pardon me, but computers are not really that smart. They know how to add, you know, basically, and from adding, they get to subtract, multiply and divide. So, you know, the thinking skill sets that are still required to write a whole lot of code that runs the computers of today, despite all of our best inventions, that is not going away.

So I don't know what you would say, Tom, Mr. Lee, but I don't see that changing. I think we need the basic skill sets of math and science moving forward.

Mr. Castle. Okay. Let me turn to Mr. Lee on a slightly different subject. He and I had a chance to talk a little before the hearing, and we talked a little bit about, and Mr. Bertsch mentioned this and others alluded to it, in fact, you all alluded to it in some way or another, but the lack of understanding sometimes amongst those of, shall we say, a different generation and the very young kids, to understand technology in general, the use of computers more specifically, and particularly with respect to education, which is our concern in this Subcommittee. Obviously, teachers and administrators, in terms of what their needs may be, as Mr. Chin has testified to, in schools, hardware, software, ability to teach or whatever it may be. We talk about the digital divide, which is an economic issue, but there is a generational digital divide too, and it is extreme. It is absolutely right. I think Ms. Ellis said that, somebody said that a 3-year-old can probably run a computer better than those of us who are a heck of a lot older, and that is a heck of a problem when you have a 45-year-old teacher and you have a group of 15-year-olds who know that computer inside out, can find anything on the Internet they want, or whatever it may be. I am worried about closing that generational divide if we can, and maybe that is just something that has to happen culturally and societal, and there is nothing we in Congress can do. But if we have teachers out there who have that responsibility to use computers to help in their teaching, it seems to me that we do have to take some steps in that direction.

I would be interested in your comments on that. I know you sort of agree with the hypothesis of what I am stating, but I would be interested in any solutions or ways we could be looking at doing this better than we do now.

Mr. Lee. I believe this comes back to the element, which I think was the one consistent element across all of our testimonies, which is about professional development and comfort levels. I will take you back 25 years when my uncle got his first VCR, and he certainly could not program it. When I went to visit I was shocked by this piece of technology there. And it was exactly the same phenomena. My 7-year-old nephew came in and was the one who sat down and programmed the VCR.

Now, things have moved on a lot in that space. It is not just about computers, it is a technology thing. However, it is not just to do with science and math. My degree is in physics. I believe this issue goes across all aspects of learning, and certainly all aspects of teaching. What we see is and this is based again on significant amounts of research which Apple has done with a number of schools in multiple states over many, many years. When we see teachers becoming comfortable implementing the technology, comfortable using the technology, they go through a series of phases. They first of all, start to understand it, then they start to be comfortable with it. Then they start to adapt their own lesson plans to incorporate it, and then they start to change the way they teach. And that is when you start to see the significant change in performance, in teaching and learning today.

And it is that comfort level which is fundamentally important. I do not see this as a generational issue. I have seen many, many people, say, taking one of our new iMacs, for example, getting to know how it works very, very quickly. Most of the people who use iMacs are on the Internet within an hour. It is not the technology any more. It is about becoming comfortable with integrating it into your life.

Apple has an environment called the Apple Learning Interchange. One of our metrics for measuring how successful we are in terms of technology integration in the classroom is how many people are collaborating using the Apple Learning Interchange, and I think we are up to 30,000 teachers who regularly log on and can collaborate with other teachers about learning.

In this case I think the technology has reached a level where it is relatively easy to learn to use these tools to help you communicate, to help you teach and to help you learn. It is a matter of giving access to the teacher, the tools they need and the time they need and the funding they need to actually get over that hurdle, and then I believe the rest takes care of itself.

Mr. Castle So your message is that any of us can learn who perhaps have not learned before with the present technology, which is there. It is no longer such that we are unable to learn, and if we pay attention to it, we could, and then we can help the kids.

Mr. Lee. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I am not giving you any excuses. That is what I am saying.

Mr. Castle. I needed one, but I appreciate that. My time is up, unfortunately, because I have a lot of things I could ask all of you, but let me turn to Mr. Kildee now.

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of, or perhaps the weakest link in educational technology seems to be the professional development of our teachers. If we were to, Mr. Chin, give a grade level to the professional development of our teachers in this educational technology, would they get a B or less? In general, are we doing well in the professional development of our teachers?

Mr. Chin. In general, as far as professional development, probably a D, maybe a C- or barely passing, because professional development has not been a priority. It has been a priority up to this point to put the machines in the classroom, and unfortunately, it probably should have been the other way around, that we should have trained the teachers and made sure they were comfortable with this equipment and showed them how to integrate it into their curriculum before. However, I am sure when you are facing your constituency and you are talking about spending millions of dollars to help kids or millions of dollars to help those teachers, well, you are always going to get the kids first. And the kids are first. And so the machines are there. The hardware is there. The software is in place. However, many times the machines just sit because teachers don't know how to use it, don't know how to incorporate it into their technology, and so it is not as though we are getting a failing grade, but we are barely passing, because there are those teachers who or those school districts where teachers are getting the development, they are learning it themselves, and they are incorporating into the teachers, they are sharing it in their teaching, they are sharing it with the other teachers. However, with adequate funding and a priority given to staff development now that we have the machines in place, before the machines become obsolete, if we can get the funding to do the training, the teachers can start incorporating that into their curriculum.

Mr. Kildee. Taking your response with Mr. Lee's, who is assuring the Chairman he could learn.

Mr. Chin. It is never too late.

Mr. Kildee. What must we do, what can we do in pre-service training and then in-service training? I think maybe both of you could comment on that, because we have teachers already out there in the classroom who would like to know this more, but if you could, both of you. How about in-service training?

Mr. Lee. Certainly. Both of those elements are critical. That's exactly right. From a pre-service perspective, we need to start to work to educate our new teachers about the environment they will be working in. And in hand with that, we need to be working with our existing teachers to free up the time and give them the materials and the reason to actually drive to do this integration. Both of those things must happen, with the main focus being, preparing our children for the environment which they are going to be in within 5 to 10 years time. It is all about trying to get ahead of the curve, and understand the environment which we are preparing our children for.

And absolutely part of that strong message is working with our teaching training in institutions, colleges of education, to help them understand the environment that teachers will be teaching in within a few years time.

Mr. Chin. And I will just add to that too, in order to provide the funding to put the hardware in the teachers' hands so they have it, so they can be taught how to use it, and not just the machines that are put in the classroom, but how they can use the equipment to further enhance their teaching, and doing the training, the in-service training while they are on the job can be done.

Mr. Kildee. If you could help us on Title III where we attempt to address this problem. Should Title III be rewritten, authorization language, and also funded better so we can do both pre-service and in-service training? Would Title III help us address this problem?

Mr. Chin. Yes, it will, and I think Mr. Lee made a good point when he talked about how getting on board with the educational institutions now that are doing the teacher preparation program, that we can start tailoring the instruction for teachers_pre-teachers on how to incorporate this into their teaching as well as with teachers on-board now, then it will be a better mix.

Mr. Kildee. You know, just thinking, I taught Latin, and that is not taught much any more. I bought for my children, when they were very young, an Apple, and thank God, one is at Harvard now doing his master's; the other is at University of Michigan_

Mr. Lee. I couldn't possibly comment.


Mr. Castle. And it is all because of Apple?

Mr. Kildee. Good genes of the mother too.

But I can actually see in teaching language, I mean there is no subject in which the technology, computer technology could not be helpful. I cannot think of a subject. I can imagine myself using that in language teaching as very helpful.

Mr. Lee. Again, if I may, there is one very good example we found is teaching Spanish, although this absolutely applies to teaching English as a second language in a college of higher education. It is an immersive environment, and the way the teacher is doing this is by using video streaming of Spanish soap opera, and then the language tuition comes in whereby the children in this case the are being asked to produce their own Spanish soap opera and produce their own movies, using Desktop Movies. And they started out with a couple of talking heads, but they get engaged, and that is the fundamental issue around learning is using this technology to get the children engaged. And now the kids are scripting, you know, complex Spanish soap operas and producing video, and streaming them out for their parents to see. That is what education is all about.

Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank the witness. I believe a vote is coming on soon.

Mr. Castle. We have, I think, three votes coming up. We have 15 minutes before that vote needs to occur. I'm going to turn to Mr. Isakson now. I don't know how much further we can go beyond that. We may have to come back. That vote is going to take about 30 minutes though because of the fact it is three of them, before we can come back.

But let me just say that Mr. Isakson is a very significant member here with respect to all of this, because he is a member, I think the co-chair actually, of the Web-based Commission with Senator Bob Kerry and others, which is looking to identify high-quality software and help close the digital divide, so he is very involved with this issue, as he has been in education back in Georgia, so we are pleased to have him here. Mr. Isakson.

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to serve with Mr. Winston on that Commission as well.

First of all I would like to ask Ms. Ellis and Mr. Lee a question, and in thinking about your answer, you need to forget about the loyalties to those who sign your paycheck and the products they produce.


And you have to put yourself in the role of public education that has got a tough decision to make in terms of the cost of doing what Mr. Chin wants to do, and that is have everybody having the highest and the best technology. And my question is this: if you had to make a recommendation to public education today as to the infrastructure to support technology in the classroom, and you went one way or another, would you go hard-wire or would you go wireless?

Ms. Ellis. The question is hard-wired versus wireless?

Mr. Isakson. Yes. And let me tell you by giving you a little bit more information. Remember, you are making a recommendation under the goal of 100 percent accessibility to hardware and software. You are talking about universal access. You are talking about the state-of-the-art technology, but you are also talking about it in the context of a classroom and students, and the teachers and their training, and you are talking about an institution that there is not enough money, unlike businesses like mine before I came to Congress, where I bought a lot of stuff that was out of date before I could install it. Education cannot afford to do that. You are dealing with a consumer that desperately needs to make the right decision each way.

Given that, if it was hard-wire or wireless, given the longevity of the need that investment must last, which would you recommend?

Ms. Ellis. Well, again this is Carlene Ellis's opinion. Given no bounds on money, I would go wireless and mobile.

Mr. Isakson. Okay. But given the boundaries of public education, that is the context of the question. Your answer may have answered what I…

Ms. Ellis. I think is it more important to put the technology in the classroom wired and glued to the desk, than not have it there at all? Yes.

Mr. Isakson. Okay. Mr. Lee?

Mr. Lee. The answer for us is definitely wireless. The reason, and there are multiple ones. The top two reasons and the first which is very much focused around the digital divide. Some of the more well-funded establishments can certainly put in wired infrastructure, and can afford to do that. And E-rate has allowed that to happen and had gotten the necessary electrical infrastructure to make the whole thing work and connect these classrooms to the Internet. In less well-funded schools, that is not possible. E-rate may give them the funding to bring the cabling in, but the classrooms simply do not have the electrical infrastructure to actually make the rest of the connection work. That funding is not being effectively used. In addition, a lot of these environments, if you start to put cabling, you have to worry about things like asbestos and a whole range of other issues which are fundamental to the infrastructure in these schools. Wireless gets around all of that.

The second reason is pedological, that when you give access both to teachers and schools and children to information and make it available wherever they are, whether they are out in a home, in any environment, when they are out on a field trip, and allow them to collaborate wirelessly, the whole engagement around learning changes. So I would certainly say wireless for fiscal reasons, and I would also say wireless for pedological reasons.

Mr. Isakson. Not to avoid our other three panelists, but I have a second question, because you all represent the private sector, and we have all these issues we are dealing with on the digital divide. I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Hypothetically, if our teachers were in fact trained and were user friendly with technology and integrating it in the classroom, which we hope to improve with Title III, and hypothetically, if every child who can play Sega and everything else when they get to first grade anyway, also is user friendly with the Internet, and you had basically a public education system that was up to speed from the standpoint of instruction and integration, meaning you had answered the wireless question and everything else, I have a feeling that the computer; your industry would be giving a lot of the stuff public education is having to buy from them today to them because they would have 100 percent utility and would want those students to become friendly with their products so they later bought other hardware and software. Is that a fair assumption? I won't say you said this, but it just seems to me…

Ms. Ellis. I am sure it would go back very fast.

Mr. Isakson. I am sure it would so, I am a University of Georgia graduate, so I will stick up for you, since you went there too, but I guess really I will just make a statement, because we do have to go to vote, for you all to think about.

Public education in the United States of America and, forget about the federal role for a second, which is relatively small as a percentage of funding public education. There is not enough money to buy every product that Intel or Apple make or Microsoft or any of the hundreds of thousands of people. And in business, I made all those mistakes, where I bought too many things, because the vendors were really in control of me. I wasn't in control of the vendors. Public education, to me, is at an extreme disadvantage in the technology world right now because I think they are at the mercy of the vendors, per se. And I don't put vendors in a negative term. So I am on this mission to try and get the word out. If we can get all our kids using technology for academic pursuit and improvement, and all our teachers integrated in the classroom, we can maybe become more in control than the vendors and bring down the cost of what we are having to buy in order to keep ourselves contemporary so Dr. Chin has, or Mr. Chin or Dr., which ever it is, has what he wants. Is that a totally outlandish idea?

Ms. Ellis. Well, I think; are you Johnny Isakson?

Mr. Isakson. Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Ellis. I know you.


Ms. Ellis. No, I do.

Mr. Isakson. I am in big trouble now. I have to go vote. Excuse me.


Ms. Ellis. No. I am Jim Ware's sister-in-law.

Mr. Isakson. You have got to be kidding?

Ms. Ellis. No. I knew you would be shocked.

Mr. Isakson. You know too much.

Ms. Ellis. Yeah.


Mr. Castle. Does anybody here have any confession to make?


Ms. Ellis. A couple of points to you. Number one, the cost of computing, not to Intel's benefit, bottom-line wise has come down dramatically in the last two to three years. You can buy a highly functioning computer for 7, $800. I do not see anything to change that downward trend. We got to get the wireless and the network infrastructure to come down comparatively, and then I think you are right. I think as ubiquity occurs, the cost of the devices, per se, is really not going to be the issue.

Mr. Lee. I absolutely echo that. If government does its part by putting that infrastructure in, then everything in terms of the industry is totally driving in that direction. Costs of our systems have done nothing but decrease over the last 20 years. We do not see that stopping.

Mr. Isakson. Thank you, and it is a pleasure to see you, Ms. Ellis. I will talk to you outside.

Ms. Ellis. All right.


Mr. Castle. Mr. Wu had a couple of brief; we are getting close on our time to go for our vote, but Mr. Wu has been very accommodating. We would like to give him whatever time he can put these questions in.

Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have two questions that may or may not be amendable to quick answers, and if you all would prefer to get back in writing, you know, this is not a one-day issue for any of us. We will just work with you in the long term.

The first question is: one of the troubling phenomena that one sees, and I guess I would like to aim this at Mr. Chin and Ms. Ellis, is the drop-off in math and science scores and participation among young women, girls in grades 6, 7, 8. It seems that girls track through the early grades, and even excel in the early grades, but then there is a drop-off. And I would really like to try to get my arms around that particular phenomenon, you know, what causes it? What can we do to try to address that? There is a program in Oregon that tries to address that. I don't know how successful they are.

Ms. Ellis. You want me to go first? I think it is a significant problem, and frankly, as I said, from my background, I don't see it getting better. The numbers are not getting better. Women in engineering degrees are flat to down. Engineering degrees are down dramatically over the last 12 years. And the computer gaming business of dropping bombs and shooting guns and knocking blood out, frankly, never appealed to my daughter, and I cannot imagine that it is going to appeal to others. So I am concerned.

Intel, we are doing a lot of work, we are doing a lot of research. We have girls programs, teenage programs, but the drop-off between fourth and eighth grade is huge.

I think there are a couple of issues. The elementary school teachers teaching don't know math, don't know science, and don't love either one. It is an exception where there is an elementary school teacher that got into elementary teaching out of love for math and science. My children have had a couple that were fabulous. All the rest avoided it like the plague. That is a problem. That is a real problem. That role model is set very early.

Secondly, somehow girls are coming through school thinking only weird people do math and science, including my daughter, which is quite a story. So there is something systemic genetically here going on, in my mind, to make it not cool. Now, I don't think it is just a women's issue though. I think engineering degrees are going down across the board, so I think it is a systemic thing.

Mr. Wu. I apologize, but apparently the time has become so tight, that we really have to scuttle along to go make this vote. But if I may just lay out this one, the broadband issue. We have a hard enough time wiring schools for just straight Internet access. We are beginning in some other places to look at broadband access from the classroom. If you all have any comments, materials on that, I would very much look forward to receiving it. They will keep this vote open for the chairman, but not for me, so we had better hurry along.

Mr. Castle. They might keep it open for the Chairman of the Committee, but not the Subcommittee. They won't keep it open for a second for me.

Let me thank Mr. Wu very much for shortening his time a little bit. He is very interested in these issues, and we appreciate his attendance.

The good news is that we are not going to come back. While there are other members who may have wanted to come back, they are on their own_they were not here. So this will bring it all to a close. I would normally come down and thank you all personally. I won't have time to do that. We are going to hit the ground running here. But I do want to thank you. What you have had to say today is of extraordinary importance. These hearings that we are having on this subject, will help shape future policy as far as this Subcommittee is concerned, and just hearing what you have to say I think helps us all in our thinking when we go back home. So I do thank you very much, and with that, we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:18 p.m. the Subcommittee adjourned.]