The State of Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (SMET) Education in America, Part IV

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS

 Page 1       TOP OF DOC

SCIENCE, MATH, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY (SMET) EDUCATION IN AMERICA, PART IV
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will come to order. Before beginning today's hearing, I think it is only proper that the Committee pay a tribute to one of our members, the late Honorable Walter Capps, who passed away suddenly last night while arriving at Dulles Airport to participate in the session of Congress. Congressman Capps was first elected to Congress in 1996 and only served on this Committee for less than 10 months before his very untimely passing. I can say that, in all of the dealings that I had with Mr. Capps as Chairman of this Committee, I found him to be one of the most principled people that I've ever worked with in public service and one thing that I will never forget that he told me was after one of our bipartisan sessions in working to advance the cause of science nationally where Republicans and Democrats got together. He, apparently, was invited to participate in the meeting by people on his side of the aisle who were a bit less bipartisan than he. And he said, after all of the cooperation and working to achieve a common goal, he could not, in good conscience, go and participate in a meeting which was designed to go in exactly the opposite direction. And I think that this really speaks legions of the character of this man. He was a valued member of the Committee. The country will miss him, the Committee will miss him, and I will miss him.
    And now, to get to the business of today's hearing. Today the Committee is meeting for our fourth hearing on Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology, SMET, Education in America as part of a comprehensive review which will extend throughout this Congress. Our last hearing, held on October 8, concerned the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS. The result of that study raised serious questions about our Nation's K-12 science and math education programs when compared to those of our international competitors.

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Just last week, we read a similar unsatisfactory result from a nationwide study performed by the Congressionally-created National Assessment Governing Board. Today's hearing will focus on federal agency efforts in K-12 science and math education and how these multiple programs could be improved. I would like to welcome our witnesses and look forward to their testimony on this subject.
    As many of you know, earlier this year, Speaker Gingrich and I commissioned Science Vice-Chair Vern Ehlers to develop a sensible, coherent, long-range Congressional science and technology policy, including a review of our Nation's science and math education programs. In conducting that study, I now turn the gavel over to Vice-Chairman Ehlers and look forward to working with him as he continues his study. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. EHLERS (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your attendance and opening these meetings. I would also like to begin my statement by paying tribute to Walter Capps. I had a similar experience to that of Mr. Sensenbrenner at the hearing—pardon me, the retreat we had in Hershey, Pennsylvania and had the opportunity to spend some time with him. He was a very fine gentleman, intellectual, thoughtful, devout in his religious beliefs, and a real asset to the Congress and we will all miss him. We will miss him in ways that we can't yet begin to imagine and we all pray for his wife and his children in this time of sorrow.
    Continuing with the formal opening statement, today's hearing continues the Science Committee's focus on the state of science and math education in the United States and it picks up where a hearing held last summer left off. At that hearing, we heard from the Director of the National Science Foundation and the Secretary of the Department of Education. Both agencies are involved in important activities in math and science education but the success of these two agencies have had, in terms of coordinating their efforts, is still unclear to me.
    We have invited today's witnesses who represent other agencies and national organizations involved in science and math education in the hope that they can provide us with an understanding of what their organizations' priorities in the math and science education arena are and how or whether they coordinate with each other.

 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Some might wonder why we would want to examine science and math education at the federal level when so much that is done in the education realm takes place locally, in districts, counties and States. I believe, however, that the limited federal role makes coordination at this level that much more important.
    Furthermore, the sequential nature of science and math instruction requires coordination of curricula nationwide so that students do not suffer from transfers from one school to another, as often happens in today's mobile society. At our most recent hearing on K-12 science and math education, witnesses told us about the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS, which compared our students' level of math and science understanding in the 4th and 8th grades to that of students from 40 other countries. The results were, in short, that American students in the 4th grade do well in math and science but, by the 8th grade, are about average, at best, compared to other nations. Average is not good enough. The foreign state—students in the study will someday be leaders and workers in the global economy against whom our children must be prepared to compete.
    As sobering as the news from the TIMSS study was, the witnesses offered compelling testimony about potential changes, systemic changes, we can make to improve our students' performance in science and math. In particular, Dr. William Schmidt, a Coordinator of TIMSS, made a strong case for the need for a national consensus on our expectations for our students. In the absence of such a consensus, we seem to have developed a so-called mile wide, inch deep curricula in which our students learn very little about a great number of subjects. Encouraging such a national consensus seems to me to be one example of how those working at the national level can have an important influence on K-12 education. I am sure this morning we will learn from our witnesses more about that topic and how we can help in the federal level to solve some of the problems of math science education. I look forward to the testimony of the panelists on this and many other aspects of math science education.

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Before we begin, I must swear you in according to Committee practice. I ask you all to stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
    Mr. GABRIEL. I do.
    Mr. SHAW. I do.
    Mr. AMBACH. I do.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. I do.
    Mr. EHLERS. Let the record show that all of them answered in the affirmative.
    We have a statement from the Minority side, as well. I'm sorry.
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman and the Chairman of this Subcommittee and, on behalf of Ranking Member Brown, I would like to, as well, offer my deepest condolences to the family of the Honorable Congressman Walter Capps whom I have come to know during his tenure here in Congress as a Member of the 105th Congress. We will deeply miss Congressman Capps who exuded in his life the spirit of civility and friendship and intellect. He loved this Science Committee and, in fact, as a Professor of Religious Studies, found a great deal of satisfaction in intertwining the philosophies of science and religion. Interestingly enough, Walter Capps was able to achieve the unachievable because he was the first Democrat to be elected from the Santa Barbara area since World War II. As a youngster, if you will, of 63, he ran a very vigorous campaign in 1994 and in 1996. In fact, he overcame extreme odds when he was seriously injured in the spring of 1996 during the midst of his campaign and, yet, came back after rehabilitation to win a great victory.
    The only thing that you would note of Walter Capps is that he would most often tend to stray away from raising wedge issues in any debate. He looked at issues plainly and simply. He was a real champion of the National Endowments for the Arts but had a fine understanding of the value and importance of science and technology.

 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And so, on behalf of certainly the Democrats of this Committee, but personally, for Walter and myself used to enjoy our times on the Floor and chatting about the future of this Nation, I certainly offer my deepest sympathy to his family, his children, his wife and might I close by simply saying, in reference to comments made by the President of the United States, he indicated that Congressman Capps represented a rare soul, someone able to fuse intense spirituality with a devotion to his community and country. He brought constant values, a rare perspective, and a sense of moral grounding that public life too often lacks and we will sorely miss him. God bless you, Walter.
    I do have an opening statement which I will, at this time, present, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses to today's hearing on federal efforts to improve science education in the Nation's schools.
    This hearing is one of a series which is looking at various aspects of current efforts to reform K through 12 science and math education. We've learned much about the nature of the shortcomings in curricula materials and teaching practices now in use that have resulted in unsatisfactory outcomes for student learning. I've enjoyed being, this past week, at Ryan Elementary School in my district delivering to that school their first computers. It was, however, brought to my attention how important it is to train those students and teachers on the best utilization of those computers and how you would mix and match science and math skills to allow those students to get the best utilization of such technology. Additionally, however, to discover a process with good prospects for the success for reforming the 15,000 school systems across the Nation is far from straightforward. Many national, state and local science and math reform efforts are underway but progress has been uneven and slow.
    Today we will explore what role federal programs have in improving science and math education. In particular, we will consider whether the federal efforts are effectively prioritized and coordinated to achieve the greatest benefit. There is no doubt that the federal role in K through 12 education is limited and that the federal resources are small—are but a small fraction of the national investment in K through 12 education. But the Federal Government can be a catalyst for constructive change in our schools. If it is relatively small education investment, it is wisely directed. School budgets are tight and meager resources are available for such things as supporting experimentation with new curricula materials or training teachers on how to implement science standards in the classroom. The federal science and math education programs can provide an important supplement that can have an influence on reform efforts out of proportion to the size of the investment.

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In addition to providing financial resources, the Federal Government can bring to bear the scientific talent available in federal laboratories and it is an important resource for supportive teachers, many of whom are unprepared to teach science and math subjects.
    This morning we hope to learn how the Administration is working to ensure that the federal agencies that are the most responsibility for science and math education are working together to bring about necessary education reforms. We are interested in the nature and extent of program planning and collaboration among the agencies and in former mechanisms involved. We also encourage the view of the non-government witnesses and whether the priorities of the federal education programs are appropriate and well-matched to the needs of those who are working day-by-day to effect an education reform. Recommendations are sought on how to ensure an effective federal effort to improve student performance in science and math throughout the Nation.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses today and I look forward to our discussion. I also ask the Chairman to allow me to submit an additional statement. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to submit an additional statement that expands further on my comments and I'd also offer my apologies if I depart from the hearing. There is a resolution on the Floor of the House honoring the Honorable Walter Capps which I would like to participate in. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. EHLERS. I thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee for her opening statement. Without objection, unanimous consent will grant you the ability to add your statement and I also share in your beautiful comment about Walter Capps. Thank you for offering that.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    Insert offset folios 106-108

    Mr. EHLERS. Without objection, opening statements of other members will be entered into the record if submitted in writing. And we will now proceed to the hearing. I will briefly explain the ground rules.

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    First of all, you should be aware that the House is in session. The proceedings of this hearing can be interrupted at any time by votes on the Floor. I don't anticipate any for the first 45 minutes or an hour but after that we may face numerous interruptions.
    The other ground rule of importance is that each panelist is limited to a 5-minute statement, regardless of the lengthy written statement, that will, without objection, be automatically entered into the record, and we ask you to keep your written—your oral summary to 5 minutes or less. Following that, there will be 5-minute question times allocated to each member of the Committee who happens to be present at that time and wishes to ask questions and, if there is sufficient time, we could consider a second round of questions.
    Having said that, we turn to our first witness, Dr. Clifford Gabriel, Acting Associate Director, Science Division of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It's good to see you again after just a week in the same room for a different purpose and we welcome you and look forward to your comments. Dr. Gabriel.
TESTIMONY OF CLIFFORD GABRIEL, ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, SCIENCE DIVISION, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
    Mr. GABRIEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify on the federal role of K through 12 science education. I'd like to share with the Committee OSTP's perspective on the distinct roles of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education as the lead agencies for K through 12 science education as well as on the work of the National Science and Technology Council of the NSTC, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology or PCAST.
    At the outset, I'd like to echo the sentiments of Secretary Riley and Director Lane when they testified this summer to kick off the Committee's deliberations. They stress that the federal role is catalytic. Even though federal funding levels for K through 12 education are modest compared to that of States and localities, agency programs extend across the Nation and catalyze local reform efforts. In an attempt to leverage these agency programs, the President created an interagency working group on improving math and science education. This working group, led by the Department and NSF, builds under ongoing collaboration and examines how federal agencies are helping the conditions under which students, parents, teachers, schools, and communities can aspire to higher academic achievement.

 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The need for this working group became clear in light of a fork in 8th-grade math findings from the TIMSS third math and science—for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study or TIMSS. Based on the TIMSS results, the working group is developing an action strategy around the key areas of improving teaching, increasing the availability of high-quality materials, and illustrating the effective uses of technology in the classroom, and strengthening public awareness of the importance of challenging mathematics as a gateway to higher learning for the 21st Century workplace.
    Within this overall concern for excellence in the learning environment, we are also focussing on the educational challenges and opportunities presented by the growing number of minorities in America's classrooms. Today, the science and engineering workforce hardly reflects the face of America but, by the Year 2010, about half of America's school-age population will be from minority groups. Therefore, increasing minority participation in the science and engineering workforce will be essential. And this will require drawing on and developing talent at all stages of education.
    New learning technologies also have much potential to improve math and science education generally. OSTP would like to strengthen research on learning technologies while taking stock of agency portfolios in this vital area. Another interagency working group on learning technology, R and D, consisting of the Departments of Defense and Education and the National Science Foundation, was created this summer to identify programs, projects, test beds, and other activities centered on technological tools that facilitate learning. This working group is reviewing both the priorities of federal sponsorship of federal learning technology R and D and the methods for ensuring the most efficient use of these funds. When the review is complete, OSTP will have a better sense of how these three agencies allocate their educational technology dollars and how, through research and evaluation, we can offer successful applications across subjects, grade levels, and school systems.

 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The PCAST is also playing a major role in providing independent advice to the President on issues concerning K through 12 science and math education. In particular, you will hear from PCAST member David Shaw about his panels efforts on educational technology. Since the release of the Educational Technology Report this summer, the PCAST has established a new panel on education to capitalize on the strong recommendations and findings in the Shaw report and other interagency and administrative—administration reports on children. This new panel which is chaired by David Hamburg, who is the President Emeritus of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, is developing recommendations on education and human resource activities beyond—that extend beyond schools to research on learning.
    With all this existing activity, what is the future role of OSTP in science and math education? Through our deliberations with these working groups, the participating agencies are learning to deal with their different ways of doing business. For example, NSF is an independent agency with emphasis on science, math, and engineering education while the Department of Education has a much broader mandate. Agencies such as Defense, NASA, Energy, Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture use their special talents on more focussed educational programs. It is clear we need to do a better job in coordinating and raising the visibility of those agencies' programs and projects.
    Therefore, as part of the reorganization of the National Science and Technology Council, OSTP will likely create an interagency working group on science education. The agencies need a forum to exchange on what each other has learned from their past experience. The NSTC interagency working group will benefit from the action strategy developed by the Department of Education NSF working group and from other materials developed by PCAST and other NSTC groups.
    In conclusion, OSTP sees the federal agencies, beyond their individual missions and specialized workforces, as partners in reexamining their programs, in translating policies into practice, and in helping to prepare Americans for the 21st Century citizenship. Therefore, the agencies must coordinate scarce resources, draw wisely on the lessons learned elsewhere, and share the experience they marshall to promote educational excellence for all. Thank you very much.

 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gabriel follows:]
    Insert offset folios 109-113

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Dr. Gabriel. I appreciate your comments. Next, Dr. David Shaw, who is the Chair of the Panel on Educational Technology of the President's Committee on—of Advisors on Science and Technology. That's not really his day job. But I was a little worried you might not be able to make here in view of your day job and what's happened on Wall Street in the past few days. But we're happy to see you here and look forward to your comments, Dr. Shaw.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID SHAW, CHAIRMAN, PANEL ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
    Mr. SHAW. First of all, is this working? There we go. First of all, I'd like to thank you for offering me the opportunity to testify once again before this Committee. The last time I testified before the House Science Committee was about 2 years ago, just a few months after I'd begun to serve as Chairman of the Panel on Educational Technology, which, as Dr. Gabriel said, was one of the working groups of PCAST, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.
     Since that time, the panel has submitted its final report to the President, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to discuss one of its recommendations that seems especially relevant to the subject matter of this hearing and, in particular, to the last element of its charter, which poses the question of whether adequate research is currently being conducted in the appropriate areas and at the appropriate levels to support significant improvements in the quality of science, math, engineering, and technology education in the United States.
    In a word, my answer to that question is no, and, in the time remaining to me, I'd like to quickly summarize PCAST's recommendations and, in some cases, my own views on the type of research that's most critically needed at this point, the level of federal funding that will be necessary to carry out this research, and some of the criteria that might be used to decide which federal agency or agencies should be responsible for administering this research and how that research should be coordinated.

 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    At this point, I'm less worried about the funding available for basic research in cognitive science and under—other underlying learning related disciplines than for large-scale, rigorous, well-controlled empirical research that's aimed at figuring out which actual educational approaches are, in fact, most effective in practice. In its report to the President, PCAST recommended a major increase in funding for projects in the latter category, which can themselves be divided into two subcategories. First, the panel recommended funding a fairly large number of independent, early-stage research projects, each at a relatively modest funding level.
    The goal of these first-stage projects would be to explore alternative educational approaches and generate promising hypotheses for later testing. Research projects in the second category would subject these hypotheses to rigorous, empirical testing using well-designed, scientifically controlled experiments involving a large enough number of students in a large enough number of actual classrooms to generate statistically significant results.
    What I'm describing here is actually nothing new. It's essentially the same approach as the one we use in biomedical research, for example, where we first try to identify a number of compounds that seem promising as potential drugs based on laboratory tests and animal experimentation—excuse me, then do some testing with a limited number of human subjects and, for the much smaller number of compounds that still look promising, move on the phase III clinical trials involving a large number of patients who are randomly assigned to receive either the new drug or the current standard best treatment. Then we analyze the results using statistical techniques to see whether the compound, in fact, works better than the best known standard therapy.
    Now, the problem is that in the field of education, we've never done anything even remotely comparable to large-scale clinical trials. What tends to happen instead is that a group of educators come up with an idea like the New Math, for example, and if it sounds reasonable on theoretical grounds, and if it achieves a certain level of popularity within the educational community, we jump in with both feet without ever performing the sort of large-scale, scientific experiments that would be necessary to answer the question of whether this theoretical approach actually works in practice. Now, to be fair, there's no way the educational community could launch a large-scale experimental program given the tiny fraction of our education budget that's currently allocated to research.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    By way of comparison, about 23 percent of the Nation's expenditures for prescription and non-prescription medications goes into pharmaceutical research, while the fraction of our Nation's public K through 12 education budget that's spent to determine what actually works in the classroom is less than one-tenth of one percent.
     That's over 230 times as small in percentage terms. Funding for the government's main educational research agency dropped by a factor of five in constant dollars between 1973 and 1986 and it still accounts for a relatively insignificant portion of the Education Department's budget.
    To address this problem, PCAST recommended that an amount equal to at least one-half of one percent of our Nation's K through 12 educational expenditures be set aside for educational research. At current spending levels, that amounts to about $1.5 billion a year but I'd be surprised it that didn't buy us at least a 5 percent improvement in cost/benefit ratio. And if I'm right, an investment of $1.5 billion a year could save us at least $15 billion a year by avoiding wasteful spending on grossly suboptimal educational practices. Or, alternatively, we could spend the same amount we're spending now but get more than $13 billion per year of additional benefit in the form of improved educational outcomes.
    Because no one State, municipality, or private firm could hope to capture more than a small fraction of the benefits associated with the significant advance in our understanding of how best to educate K through 12 students, PCAST concluded that this funding will have to be provided largely at the federal level in order to avoid a systematic underinvestment relative to the level that would be optimal for the Nation as a whole.
    Although PCAST's Educational Technology Panel didn't specify which federal agency or agencies should oversee the funding and administration of this research, we've since organized a second working group, the PCAST Education Panel, as Dr. Gabriel said, which is chaired by Dr. David Hamburg and which is currently in the process of formulating recommendations for the implementation of the educational research recommendations made by the Educational Technology Panel, among other things.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Although it's still too soon to predict the final recommendations of the Education Panel, I think we've reached an informal consensus on at least a few points. First, it seems clear that the sort of research program envisioned by the Educational Technology Panel would, by its very nature, require extensive central coordination, either by a single entity or through some sort of coordinated multi-agency or virtual agency approach with provisions for strong, autonomous central leadership and an independently administered funding base.
    Second, to the extent that any existing federal agency does play a major role in these activities, I believe there's a sense that it should have a strong historical track record of administering rigorous experimental research consistent with the highest possible scientific standards, independent of political influence or other compromising factors, and that it should be capable of reaching beyond the current educational research establishment to cultivate the involvement of highly qualified individuals trained in other scientific, mathematical, and engineering disciplines.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shaw follows:]
    Insert offset folios 114-134

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much for your testimony. You offered some very stimulating proposals and I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions on that. Mr. Ambach.
TESTIMONY OF GORDON AMBACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

    Mr. AMBACH. Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Roemer, Congressman Luther, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. May I, on behalf of the witnesses, add our voices of sorrow and condolences at the loss of your wonderful colleague, Congressman Walter Capps. Our sympathy to his family as well.

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I'd like to begin, Congressman Ehlers, by repeating a couple of the opening comments that you made because it's important, I think, for me to give the perspective of our States and localities on the issue that brings us together this morning. First, you noted the special case for the federal role in mathematics and science. And second, you noted the concern about the limit of the federal role in its total spending for elementary and secondary education and why it is so important with that limited role to assure that it is well-coordinated and very well-targeted. We agree completely with those points.
    And I'd like to say something else about the state and local perspective here. We are not fearful of the Federal Government's involvement in mathematics and science education and we haven't been for years. We're not fearful about categorical programs or targeted programs in this area. As my previous colleagues have indicated, there is an essential role of critical mass of funding for efforts in the area of mathematics and science that none of the States separately can assemble nor the local districts.
    And there is a very critical issue of the talent of this country in mathematics and science, that the Federal Government can help them marshall the separate States and localities cannot. We have strongly supported the development of voluntary standards in mathematics and in science. We have very strongly supported testing, the NAEP testing that you referred to and the international testing, such as TIMSS.
    Incidentally, I represent the United States and the IEA and negotiated the TIMSS arrangements back in 1989 so that we would have a three-level study of that purpose. We very strongly support curriculum development, research, professional development in science and mathematics that is supported by the Federal Government, and so this is not a case of where we believe we have to be worried about a federal intervention. Rather, it is a case of making sure that we get the greatest effectiveness of the expenditures that are made.
    I've provided in my statement a prospective of the important purposes for federal spending. They are not new. They have been in place for many, many years. Several of them go back to the National Defense Education Act in 1958. Over these past 40 years, we have seen efforts which deal with focussing on spending for standards and for assessments in science and math. We've had expenditures in research and development. We've had expenditures in professional development, and we've had expenditures dealing with technologies. The issue is whether there's the right balance among them. The issue is whether they are, in fact, well-coordinated. But I think those four central points of intervention on standards and assessments, on R and D, just as has been referred to by Mr. Shaw, on professional development, and on the use of technologies are the four key leverage points to focus on.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now the concern that you have with respect to coordination, I think, should be divided in two parts. One of them and one part is to be concerned about those agencies which, in fact, have the largest role in mathematics and science education. And, clearly, this is NSF and it's the Department of Education. It is, I believe, the Department of Defense with the Department of Defense schools and with the vast research capacity in education and training that the Department of Defense has. It is with the NASA. It is with the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Education. Those are really the most important. It's also with the labs, I believe, that you have with environmental—or the Energy Department.
    There are lots of other agencies which then have smaller programs. Those programs need to be continually reviewed on the criteria as to whether they provide a unique role which uses their central mission and their resources, for example, their talents or their collections or their particular research that can help with education. But, these have to be examined sort of one by one to see whether they meet a particular local or regional need that is coupled with the central mission of that agency.
    The core of attention on coordination, however, has to come back to the agencies with the largest sums that are available for this purpose. Incidentally, in reviewing the Department of Education's function, it is not just looking at Eisenhower funding for professional development or the regional—or the research activities. But it is also looking through other programs, such as the programs for individuals with disabilities, such as the title I program, where there are large sums of money which are used for purposes of mathematics and science. And they tend to go uncounted in the scorecard as to what the Federal Government may have by way of total resource. It complicates the issue of coordination but it is a very important aspect of examination.
    Now, how do I size up the current targets, the current priorities? In this way. It's our view that the four leverage points, that I've cited before, continue to be the major places where we should focus the federal effort. In each of them, there is, in my judgment, an underfunding. Just exactly what to do by way of scale-up is not crystal clear but certainly there needs to be an additional direction and here, I believe, the key agencies are the NSF and the Department of Education on assuring that there is a connection between assessments and standards for all of the States and the localities.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    They have standards. We've got a volume that we have produced as a council which indicates the developments. But the assessments are not closely connected. Therefore, accountability is not easily measured. And, furthermore, the issue of student and teacher motivation is not dealt with as effectively as it should be. Programs like the SSI, programs of other natures in NSF, can help by way of making this connection on standards and assessments. Secondly, on the R and D or curriculum development function, since Dr. Shaw has just spoken to that, I will not dwell on it. I'd like to turn to the professional development and then something on technology. The professional development aspect here is absolutely critical. We have something on the order of 460,000 mathematics and science teachers at the secondary level, that's grade 7 up through 12.
    Figure a 5 percent turnover rate per year, you're talking about a very substantial number for turnover. Figure that you have a 17 percent enrollment in elementary and secondary education between now and 2005, you can just add 17 percent to that 460 to start with. And then add to that the problem of qualifications. About 10 percent of those in the secondary level are not meeting state certification. They're in there on temporaries. About 35 percent of those teaching science and mathematics in the middle schools are not fully certified, largely because they transfer from a general common branch elementary certificate to meet or to deal with math and science.
    And, so, we're looking at something on the order of probably 300,000 to 325,000 persons in mathematics and science to be brought into teaching in the specialty areas between now and 2005. This is a very major challenge and especially on the question of serving our population which is substantially changing and especially on the issue of recruiting persons of minority background to come into mathematics and science. That is a very major area. The Department of Education, in my judgment, must have lead on that. The NSF does have substantial responsibility, I think, in promoting, to a certain extent, that the lead is with the Department of Education.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, a comment about technologies. Here, there has been new development at the federal level which is extremely important. It wasn't focused on mathematics and science but the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and now the FCC rule which are in place for that Act are enabling some $2.25 billion of discounting per year for the support of telecommunications and expansion of learning technologies in our schools and libraries. This is the most significant critical mass new development for technologies and telecommunications that our schools have had. We're in the process of getting that geared up. It clicks in on January 1 of this year.
    Couple that with the increases in the technology challenge literacy grants—literacy challenge grant program which is being expanded in this year's appropriation. You have an addition in the capacity to deliver education through telecommunications and technology. The critical issue, I think, in math and science is how we work through the development of the software and the materials and the teaching techniques in using these technologies for mathematics and science. The simulations that can be done in terms of using technologies to replace what is very costly lab work that students do is important. The simulations, scenario development and so on and so forth that can go on in the schools in this area is very important. That will require a very substantial investment in R and D coupled with these expansions of resources in telecommunication and technology.
    So, in sum, members of the Committee, the Federal Government has been on the right track with the four key areas of intervention that I've cited. It has, over the years, funded them more or less. It funded professional development much more substantially in 1958 and the 1960s than it does now and we should be returning to that level of commitment. But the four are right—on the coordination, it's got to be strengthened, there's no question about it from our state perspective. But I wanted to finish by way of saying that my own experience, as a Commissioner of Education in the State of New York for more than—and a Deputy for more than 20 years, if you want to get coordination, you go to the point of service delivery and you work backwards because that's where it is critical. You have to go to the school or go to the school district or to the State, wherever the service is delivered, and at that stage require that, as a condition of receiving funds from one federal agency or the other, the State or the locality is demonstrating that, in fact, they are coordinating those resources in an effective plan, and, furthermore, at this stage, they are coordinating them toward the standards which they have established for their students.

 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, that has an effect coming back to the federal level to force the agencies here to better couple their efforts. But you could build in to your legislation this important aspect of coordination at the point of service delivery. That's where it is really critical. And I would just urge this Committee give attention and to the agencies and the Office of Science and Technology as to how to improve that. Thank you very kindly for the opportunity to be with you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ambach follows:]
    Insert offset folios 135-137

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Ambach. And next we turn to Dr. James Rutherford. We have crossed paths before several times over the years and you may be pleased to know that when I was still in the classroom teaching college students after a few years, I discovered my efforts were largely for naught. I discovered I was teaching people who were illiterate in the scientific sense, were not even Aristotelian. They were pre-Aristotelian and so I ended up using Harvard project physics in the college classroom and I taught it a mile deep and an inch wide and I think achieved some success using that program. We're looking forward to hearing your comments.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES RUTHERFORD, CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE

    Mr. RUTHERFORD. Well, thank you, Mr. Ehlers, and the rest of the Committee members. And I appreciate the good word on Harvard project physics. You know, it's an example of the difficulty we have in this country of sustaining efforts, and there's a course that's going out of print, even though in some respects it's still ahead of its time. And one of the things it did, by the way, is in testing the program it used random selection of schools, and was very scientific.

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Well, sir, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and respond to your questions. Let me say that I enthusiastically endorse what the previous speakers have said. I think they've hit on the right points here, and that it would provide you with the kinds of guidance that the Committee's working for.
    As I understand what you're up to, it's to look downstream some distance. It's not just what better programs can we fund next year or the year after, what opportunities we have, but how can we do well in the next 40 years? Remember, it was 40 years ago that Sputnik initiated an enormous effort in this country to reform science and mathematics and engineering education.
    While my paper has some suggestions in it, just let me enumerate them. One is the importance of persistence of Federal Government staying in this effort and insisting that the agencies that want to participate in improving science and mathematics education have to come to Congress with long-term plans. If they can't think they out that way, don't bother to fund them. It just doesn't add up to have lots of agencies doing lots of little things, on again, off again.
    Second, I think we learned that during the 1960's, actually before that, there was dramatized that scientific health of the Nation depends, of course, on science literacy, on people who can get past Aristotelian thinking and deal with the kinds of logic and information and insights that are necessary for our days. That means that the federal programs that come seeking authorization should somehow or other demonstrate how it is that what they're up to is supporting in some fashion or another the science education of all students, science and mathematics education, not a handful. And we've heard already how the demographics may be making that more difficult. It's also making it more urgent.
    Third, in your TIMSS testimony it was pointed out that one of the problems in America was that there seemed to not be a consensus on what people need to know in science and mathematics. I think that's just wrong. I think we have a strong consensus in the scientific community and among educators who are paying attention, but the word hasn't got out yet into many of the agencies and the projects around the country.

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Science for All Americans was published in 1989. It took 3 years. It involved thousands of scientists and science teachers of all sorts. Benchmarks for Science Literacy came out 4 years later. National Science Standards are all in accord. So we know pretty clearly where it is we're headed in science literacy. So, stepping back, I would say what that means is that the federal agencies that claim to want to contribute somehow to the improvement of science education have to show that they are familiar with this consensus and have somehow or other decided to build on it, and instead of funding more people to go out and try to find out some still new consensus. Incidentally, the consensus was arrived at pretty much free of government support even. So one has the option of noting that this came from the scientific and mathematical communities.
    Next, systemic reform, I won't add to that, except to say that's an important step forward. It's a complicated system out there. It has all those people, all those parts, and you can't just deal with one part or another. Fortunately, NSF and the Department of Education are moving strongly in that direction, and I would say, therefore, that the other agencies ought to be required, when they come for authorization for science education programs, to indicate how it is they are going to link to the systemic efforts, put the burden on the agencies to come with a plan that they have vetted within NSF/Department of Education. In that way, it will reduce the effort, it seems to me, to formally have commissions and committees and constantly year after year trying to coordinate lots of agencies.
    The matter of scale is already come up, and Gordon has pointed that out, and how frightening it is. You might have added to your numbers the high school. Elementary teachers these days are expected to teach science and mathematics, not just arithmetic. They are not prepared to do so. Add another million people with all the turnover who need to have substantial new training—so that—we have to look at the whole question of scale, and that's where technology comes in because in the future we may have to exploit technologies, not just for the children in our schools, but to make it possible to reach large numbers of teachers in modern ways.

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, on the coordination thing, I would just say that I would emphasize that the point of service is where coordination can occur and can be required by the way the funding laws and rules are made up here. The other side of coordination is Congress itself. To the degree that the authorization committees require the individual agencies to come with plans that demonstrate a long-term view, a connection to what's going on in the Department of Education and NSF, that recognizes what the consensus is on what all young people should be learning in science and mathematics. So that degree, Congress is itself setting up a force field that helps get the vectors pointed, more or less, in the same direction.
    Finally, in doing that, if I were asked among the four things mentioned by Gordon, all of which are necessary, the one role that is, it seems to me, overwhelmingly predominant and that we can deal with is R&D, because there is no other source of resources that can generate the knowledge we need in the long run to improve such a complicated system.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rutherford follows:]
    Insert offset folios 138-156

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Dr. Rutherford.
    We'll enter the question phase at this point. I want to thank all of you for stimulating testimony.
    I will start with Dr. Shaw because I want each of you to comment on some aspects of that. You stated that we need much more money put into research and development or investigation of educational technology and techniques. And you talked about $1.5 billion investment which would likely result in $15 billion in savings. That sounds like a pretty good investment.
    The difficulty you often get into in government—this is an example of that—is the $1.5 billion investment is federal money, but $15 billion in savings is state and local, by and large. And so if we do this, and since we're not increasing the budget appreciably, that means we're taking $1.5 billion away from other federal programs.

 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I appreciate your suggestion; I think it's badly needed. I don't know about the amount. I'd have to investigate that independently. But I'm curious for the response of the other three individuals at the table. If we were to increase federal support of research and development to the tune of $1.5 billion, even assuming that we could get a 50/50 match out of state and local, out of the money they save, that brings it down to $750 million, but we're still cutting a lot of programs.
    What would be the reaction of the educational community at large to something of that sort, where we're basically cutting existing federal programs by $750 million? We'll start with Dr. Gabriel to give the others a chance to think.
    Mr. GABRIEL. Thank you for the opportunity to go first.
    Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I'm sure you appreciate that.
    Mr. GABRIEL. OSTP in general is really very supportive of the recommendation that came out of PCAST. We are looking forward to the subsequent and follow-on work that David Hamburg's panel is putting together right now to put some meat on the bones basically as far as how this is going to be implemented. I don't think there's any consensus within the staff anyway of what that number should be. Certainly I think probably the order of magnitude is about right, but I wouldn't go too much further with that.
    I don't think you're going to find those resources floating around in other agencies that you could actually pull them all together and come up with the appropriate amount. So I think we're going to have to have a combination of merging some of those funds as well as, hopefully, some new dollars that could be coming into the budget, hopefully through happier, better revenue-generating times, since this is a long-term program, and hopefully we'll be looking past some of the existing constraints that we have right now with the federal budget.
    So I think with that approach you're going to minimize the backlash, if you will, of going in and robbing other educational programs to support this R&D activity.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. EHLERS. So you're basically hoping for a better economy and more——
    Mr. GABRIEL. Well, again, I think it's going to have to be a combination of things. That's a lot of money——
    Mr. EHLERS. Yes.
    Mr. GABRIEL. And you're going to, hopefully, be identifying inefficiencies, perhaps pooling some of those resources, and hopefully growing at an appropriate rate over the years to develop a program that will do what PCAST had laid out.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Mr. Ambach?
    Mr. AMBACH. I think it's important to look at this recommendation not only as a short-term, next-year budget recommendation, but as a longer-term recommendation. I'm, frankly, not prepared to say whether if you took it as a zero-sum game and traded off this billion and a half, next year's budget against another billion and a half, that I could give you a fairly informed judgment at this stage.
    I do think that it's extraordinarily important to think about increased investment in this area and, in fact, in the overall area of mathematics and science, for the reason that it is, in fact, the skills and the knowledge of our working force which is our major asset, and it doesn't matter whether you're looking at high-tech companies or whether you're looking at banks or insurance companies or other industries in the United States, the issue of capacity of our workforce of our population is absolutely critical.
    And when we're talking about investments, it is a matter of thinking about investments in human capital as well as investments in bricks and mortar and machinery, and so on. The educational systems had not tended to think this way. They've tended to think that R&D or investments in this area are just current expenditures, and they're not expenditures which are really designed for long-term investment or expenditures for long-term capital development.

 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think it would be intriguing, and I would tell you that, on behalf of the States that I represent, I'd be delighted to enter into a conversation about seeing how on the ground you could establish some relationships, as this recommendation asserts, that you would get a return of 15 or 12 or whatever the billions might be down track. They may be right. It seems to me it's something that needs kind of a good test at looking at some operational systems, like a state system or a couple of large city systems, rather than having just assertions that these would be the gains, to see whether, in fact, we could get some fairly substantial evidence that they would be.
    That being done, then I think you're in a position to be able to take a case out for a shared expenditure of R&D between States, localities, and the Federal Government and the private sector, and, in fact, a willingness then of perhaps trading off on what kinds of expenditures you've got right now on the federal side or expenditures that you've got on the state side.
    So I'm reluctant to say, yes, put in this piece and take out the professional development piece, or some other slice of some other agency's budget. I'm afraid that doesn't help you much in terms of the immediate appropriations issues or even next year, but I certainly would very positively look at some design, further design work with States and localities to see if we could find a way that we'd establish a real case here for a net gain and work out a longer-term financing strategy.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Rutherford?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. I'm sorry. When I heard the number 1.5 billion, I was sort of reminded of a story of James Conant, who when he discovered the high schools, remember he was interested in reform, and he recommended that all high schools should be 600 students, and they were generally smaller in those years. And somebody said, ''Well, Dr. Conant, why 600? Why not some other number? Why do you say that?'' He said, ''Oh, I don't know.'' He said, ''All I know is that once I say a number, I get more attention.''

 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [Laughter.]
    Mr. EHLERS. He did know, though, Jim. He did know.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. He did know.
    Mr. EHLERS. Yes, because you needed 100 kids in a graduating class. That was the old theory. Excuse me.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes, right. But the notion—I think the number to be to get your attention and our attention, I think if we had that amount of money next year, we wouldn't quite know what to do with it yet. In the education community we have to build now a culture that pays attention to knowledge and its importance and the significance, and I don't think that's where we are.
    What we need is an aggressive program that will gradually be finding out how to identify good researchers, how to know good research when you see it, how to make sense out of it, how to get people to pay attention to it, and that is—puts us, I think, in the 10-to-15-year range to build an enterprise.
    When I was Assistant Director at NASAF, I actually started in the directorate, the Division on Research. There wasn't one up until that time, and the proposition was the same: We have to build a knowledge base.
    Incidentally, out of the work of NSF and NIE, the old NIE, came, I think, the impetus for the development of cognitive science based on trying to find out how people learn particular kinds of knowledge and skills, and it's paid off.
    So I worry less about the number than that we get a start and look ahead and ramp up to build a culture in education that reveres and knows how to use good research.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. One quick question before we go to the next questioner. Mr. Ambach, Dr. Rutherford, you both—Mr. Ambach, you talked about persons who might object to federal control but would seem to accept it in math/science. Dr. Rutherford, you said we already have consensus here, and I'm wondering if both of you agree that we do have a consensus, that if we would somehow suggest, as a Congress, that this consensus be implemented in the area of math/science, do you think that is doable or would we have strong objectives from the same people who object to any attempts at federal definition of what should or should not be in elementary and secondary school curriculum? In other words, is there something about math/science that these people would say, ''Well, that's okay; it's not ideological; we're not going to worry about it, if you specify that, but we do worry if you specify things in social studies or history or things of that sort.''?

 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. AMBACH. Well, I think there's a greater consensus around mathematics and science than you would find, let's say, in literature or in history, and a greater acceptance of the idea of having voluntary national standards or a kind of curriculum which would be shared.
    The fact of the matter is that if you examine the standards among the States and the local school districts, and look to see how different or how alike they are, you will find that they are much more similar than they are different, and they are similar because they are, in fact, tracking voluntary national standards in mathematics and science that have been developed.
    But you made the point earlier—getting consensus on a statement of standards is not the difficult part. Putting it into place is the difficult part, and that requires an agreement not just among those who write the standards, tend to be policymakers, but an agreement on the teachers' parts and on the administrators' parts, on school board members' parts, right through 100,000 schools and 15,000 systems. Then, in fact, these are the directions that we should take and then move in to train or retrain the personnel to do it, having the materials which are aligned.
    And I would come back to a principal leverage point for the Federal Government—having assessment systems which actually match onto those standards, so that they drive the motivation and they drive the practice toward achieving the standards. I think those are the major concerns, but that's very doable. It really is, and I do not believe that you find, or will find, an extensive resistance to that kind of approach across the country. It's happening, but it's not happening fast enough.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Rutherford, do you have anything to add?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. No, I would agree with that statement.

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much.
    Next we'll turn to Ms. Jackson Lee for any questions that she might have.
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much.
    This has always been a topic that raises constant inquiry, and I don't know if we have come to the kind of solutions we'd like to see. One of the things that I'd like to offer, and would hope that the government would do, is to follow through with what we commit to. For example, this past session I have passed legislation out of the Science Committee that would do two things: one, encourage or require NASA to provide local schools with its computer resources that are no longer utilized by NASA, and as well, to provide our local schools with laboratory equipment and create partnerships between our national labs and their local surrounding school districts for equipment that might be useful, in order to give children sort of a hands-on contact with what science means. Children like trinkets and they like objects, and so those things are particularly interesting, and I hope that we can follow through and act on the authority that has been given to our agencies by Congress. So many pieces of legislation have been passed along those lines.
    I would be interested in the question and the comment I believe Dr. Shaw acknowledged, the concern and importance of making sure science and math are accessible to minorities—or was it Dr. Ambach—a very important issue, as well as young girls.
    And my question is along the lines of Dr. Rutherford's proposition that coordination may not be as important as effective programs, but he talks about agreed-to science and math standards. I will paraphrase that by saying, what kind of effective programs and why less need for coordination, and how do we reach those hard-to-reach populations with respect to math and science? Where do we go as it relates to the government activities?
    And that will be my questions. If you all would answer them, I would appreciate it.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. GABRIEL. Shall I go first? This is something that we are very concerned about as well. I think that there are several points of access to this issue. One is the way in which we support our HBCU institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges. Certainly institutional support provided through the departments like the Department of Agriculture have been very instrumental in building the institutional capacity of those institutions to produce, you know, this country's vast majority of scientists and engineers.
    Other programs like the NSF's Alliance for Minority Participation Program that actually links higher—colleges that have excellent programs in generating math and science teachers with non-minority institutions in an attempt to try to grow the number of minority math and science teachers is another example of a good program. I heard it was estimated that 1 in 5 of the baccalaureate degree holders, minority baccalaureate degree holders, have been influenced by this program in some way. So that's, I guess, an example of real success.
    The President has a new initiative that is just getting established, where he's proposing to provide 35,000—scholarships to 35,000 teachers. That would be targeted to high poverty areas, and then this would also be linked to the Department of Education's Lighthouse Program that would be basically transferring programmatic experience from institutions of higher learning that have very good minority programs to those that don't try to expand the degree of minority participation in the NST workforce. I think there's some really good examples out there, and this is something that we need to continuously emphasize.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, Ms. Jackson Lee was called out to take an important phone call. So we'll suspend until she returns.
    We'll turn next to, I believe, Ms. Rivers. Representative Rivers was next. We'll turn to you for any questions you might have.
    Ms. RIVERS. Thank you. I have two. One is a question of clarification. Given the statements that Mr. Ambach just made about that we're coming to consensus on the idea that there would be standards and assessments that would follow the standards, given the fairly bruising battle we had on the Floor of the House about 10 days ago on the issue of national testing, I'm wondering if the consensus is perhaps developing outside of the Congress. I guess it appears to be a very inflamed issue here, and I'm just wondering where you think the consensus is developing, at what level.

 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. AMBACH. I think it's very important to draw a distinction between the debate about whether there should be a national individual student test and the question of whether there should be overall standards for mathematics or standards for science. In my opinion, the debate which is going on now here in both the House and the Senate on the question of whether there should be a national test is separate from the question of whether there should be standards.
    Why do I think that? We have, for 30-plus years, been testing for mathematics and science on a national basis through the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and I think I can say flatly that has raised practically no controversies within the Congress as to whether there should be testing in those areas. Indeed, the frameworks or the sets of content which have been tested under NAEP have been in place for quite some time, and those have not been contested.
    My organization happened to have the contact with the NAGB, with the National Assessment Governing Board, back in the late eighties and then in the early nineties, to develop the content for NAEP, and we did so, first in mathematics and then sciences. In mathematics, in particular, that content has changed a bit, but it's still basically in place.
    Ms. RIVERS. Do you think—
    Mr. AMBACH. So it's not the question of the content of that testing. It's the issue of whether there should be a transformation of that testing, which you know is sampling, and is only reported on an aggregated basis, state and national, into a new form of separate, individual student tests.
    Ms. RIVERS. Do you think that there is a chance that the inflamed rhetoric around the individual testing can spell over into this kind of assessment?
    Mr. AMBACH. Yes, it could. I hope it does not, because I think it would be a very great shame if we did not continue to have a significant system of national assessment of educational progress, as was pointed out by Congressman Ehlers in your original comment in reference to the TIMSS, to international mathematics and science study. We do not have measures of what are the performances of American students unless we have international studies. We do not have measures from one State to the next unless we have national studies. And so I hope that those do not get eroded, and I repeat, I think they are two separated issues; they can wash back and forth on each other, but let's hope we don't lose the concept of testing for science and math.

 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. RIVERS. On a different topic altogether, but one that I'm very interested in, having served on a local school board for a very long time, is there can be goals; there can be standards. Unless teaching staff knows how to actually move students ahead to meet those standards, they're largely irrelevant.
    Given that so many K-6 teachers are generalists and may or may not have background in these areas, how are we going to move our teaching staff, our national teaching staff, forward, so that we can make progress on these goals?
    Mr. AMBACH. Was that particularly addressed to me?
    Ms. RIVERS. To whomever. I think there's lots of room for everybody to answer on that one.
    Mr. AMBACH. If I might connect that question with the question that Congresswoman Jackson Lee posed at an earlier time, I think that the answers are similar. Your earlier question I think went to the heart of the most critical problem that we have in science and mathematics learning, and that is the qualification of the teaching staff. And this is a particularly severe problem where there are high concentrations of students of minority background, particularly a problem in our major urban cities, where the turnover rate of teaching is higher than it is in other places, and where the attractiveness of taking the teaching positions in the first place is not as strong as it is in other places.
    My top priority, to address what you have expressed and the question expressed at an earlier point, is on professional development. It is on very direct training and assistance to the staff, the elementary school staff and the specialists in mathematics and science at the secondary level. That does not get us all the way to where we'd like to have the brass ring in terms of totally new science or math programs, but there are certain ways in which we have to make incremental changes, and we know we can do a lot better in teaching and in learning in many of our schools than we can now with the existent standards and with the existent curriculum.

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now we're talking about very large investments here, and they should not be completely investments thrown onto the Federal Government, but I believe that the Federal Government has demonstrated before, particularly in the NDEA and other programs, a strong commitment to this kind of training. Probably the most successful federal program in professional development came out of NDEA. It was the summer institutes. It was the places where the teachers could go for 6 or 8 weeks and really get immersed in the subjects and be regenerated in doing that. We're talking substantial sums of money for teachers, but it's going to take that kind of level in order to really get at these core issues that both of you are addressing.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Ms. Jackson Lee has returned, but does have to leave again shortly. I just wanted to give her an opportunity. If anyone else wishes to respond to the question she asked or if you have any closing questions or comments—Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll just listen to their brief answers to my question. I won't ask any more questions.
    Mr. SHAW. Yes, I would like to briefly address the question of the effect of—really it ties together your question and Mr. Ehlers' question, which has to do with the question of, what happens to minorities in all of this? And this is something that the PCAST Panel on Educational Technology looked at very seriously. We initially expected to see much larger differences based on socioeconomic status and race and ethnicity than we found. When we dug a little deeper, the reason we found was very clearly attributable to title 1. And so this again gets into the question that Congressman Ehlers raised on: What would be the effect if we took $1.5 billion, for example, out of title 1 and moved it into educational research? And the effect very clearly is that we would be widening a gap which I think in the long run would translate into an increasing disparity in incomes and net worth, and that of course would be very undesirable socially.

 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    One thing that I want to just use as a quick segue to throw in is one clarification, which is that I think that Dr. Rutherford is absolutely right; we couldn't use $1.5 billion a year if we had it right now to do this kind of research. What we're really thinking about is, our guess is, 5 to 7 years as opposed to ten to fifteen, but maybe that's a little too ambitious. It's not clear.
    The main thing is that we'll have to plan now if we're going to ramp up to that level, but I think we should acknowledge the fact that you raised, Congressman Ehlers, which is this would represent a net transfer of course from the state budgets to the federal budget, and at a time when we're attempting to do the opposite, and I think in many cases for good reason, that bears close examination.
    But I think the reason for that really is that, although I personally believe that a great many things should be transferred to the private sector or to state or local government, where there's a strong economic externality that essentially creates a free-rider problem, it's important to pull those things out and do them at the highest level of taxing authority. So that's the rationale here.
    And the hope is that this will actually turn out overwhelming to be a very positive investment, resulting in more economic competitiveness, higher incomes, greater tax revenues, either from income, or if we change the whole tax system, from sales taxes, so that this is something we would expect to see pay for itself, but it would, in fact, involve a reallocation of budgetary responsibility.
    Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Rutherford?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. I would like to comment a little bit on the technology question you raised, but first on the minority issue, say that I agree that we need to focus on places, and the places are the cities and the very rural areas, because if we can reach the teachers there, we will begin to reach the students, the young people who are there.

 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    On the technology side, I just think that getting machinery into the schools is going to be the easy part. We'll do that. The schools will be wired in one way or another. I'm not at all convinced that it will change much, unless there are provisions from various sources—the States, the Federal Government, local: No. 1, teacher preparation, they really have to know how to use new technologies. No. 2, they have to be maintained. It takes a lot of effort and resources to keep sophisticated technological systems going, and very few school systems have the capability of doing that or the money.
    Perhaps most important of all, we have to provide funds—and I would say this is where R&D comes in—to learn how to integrate the new technologies into the curriculum and to the organization and school that fundamentally recasts the operation of the school itself. I note that we didn't do that with radio; we didn't do it movies; we didn't do it with VCRs. For the most part, the technologies have been highly-praised add-ons that didn't the job. Now we have a new chance, and we ought to really go at it in some way other than being satisfied with getting machinery there.
    Mr. SHAW. Absolutely right.
    Mr. EHLERS. I thank all of you, and I do want to just comment and make it totally clear on the record that I did not suggest taking the $1.5 billion out of title 1.
    [Laughter.]
    That would be the last place I would want to take it from, but it does illustrate the dilemma.
    Next we have Representative Eddie Bernice-Johnson.
    Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the witnesses. This is a subject that certainly gets my attention. Back in the early seventies, I carried legislation at the state level to encourage programs to involve more minorities and women in outside areas, and I'm sure—I'm sure there's been some improvement, but I do wonder.

 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I recently had a congregation of high school students in one of the largest public districts in the country in Dallas, and one of the main themes that those students that were beyond minorities and women were pleading for were more prepared teachers. They felt that they were lagging behind in these areas and didn't have the access to learn it. They didn't feel they were challenged well. They didn't feel that they had the proper equipment, and were very concerned that they would be graduating from high school unequipped to compete at higher education levels in these areas. I happen to agree with them, but I'm wondering if you could help me or join me in trying to address what we need to do.
    I am very concerned. One of the reasons why there is a lot of concern about testing as it relates to my opinion is that these same students said most of their time was spent on learning on teachers could project to be content of various tests that they had to take, and they felt it was very superficial, and with the lack of a lot of principles, they simply learned techniques of taking tests. They had great resentment to that.
    Just last weekend, I met with students and parents as we attempted to get volunteers to help wire the schools for Internet, and parents were expressing the same concern; that their students, their children, came home to study, to do well on tests that they had to take to move along in their grades. While I believe in benchmarks—and I don't know if there's any other way to determine where we are—I wonder if this is a wise use of student or teachers' time, and what does it reflect? Does it reflect a lack of confidence among our teachers in getting the information over to students? And what do we have to do? What do we need to do? I consider it critical, because I believe that we are going to be losing the edge with our students if we don't give immediate attention. Do we start our education movement our here to educate our State and local governance education boards? I know that the second answer is going to be more money into, wisely spent.
    Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to work with you as we address this; as we address all of science and more attention to it, but could you comment—I know you have, I've read much of your testimony—but do you consider it urgent, and where do you think we are?

 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. EHLERS. Anyone wish to answer? Mr. Ambach.
    Mr. AMBACH. I'm going to try to address two major issues that you've raised. The first one, the most important one, the qualifications of teachers in mathematics and science, and I think we have to be very blunt and very direct about this. The fact of the matter is that the area of teaching in which there is the highest competition for personnel or talent in fields outside of education is in mathematics and science. If you are a graduate from college and you're in the computer sciences or if you're a graduate and you're in physics, you're a graduate and you're in mathematics, the odds of choosing to go into teaching in elementary and secondary schools are very slim, because the potentials for career advancement, salaries, etc. are so much greater in fields outside of education that that's where you go.
    And we have a very severe problem. It has always been my opinion that we probably have to pay additional salaries to those in mathematics and science in order to attract them to the field; to be competitive with the rest of the marketplace. Right now, where these salaries are just even all the way across the board—and I realize this is an extremely difficult issue for the teaching force and for everyone interested in the teaching profession, but if we want to attract talent in teaching mathematics and science, we're simply going to have to make it much more appealing to be there.
    Incidentally, we keep comparing ourselves with the Japanese on all sorts of things. Do you realize that the Japanese teachers' salary is pegged to the engineers salary in Japan. I mean, that's fundamentally what they decided to do post World War II, was to establish that teachers' salaries—and this is right across the board—are, in effect, pegged to the salaries of engineers and persons who are with that technical capacity. So, that's one point.
    The other point I would make with respect to the testing issue, teaching to test, and so on. Nothing wrong with teaching to the test if the test is really effective; if the test is really measuring what it is that we want students to know and be able to do; in complicated ways in problem solving and doing experimentation in sciences and so on. The difficulty is that we're riding, at this point, with many, many tests which, in fact, are done on the basis of getting objectivity, short answers, easy scoring, and so on, and so forth. And that is, in fact, not advancing what we want to have toward the standards which—I think we spoke to earlier—are coming into place in effective ways, but it is matching the assessments that are appropriate to those standards that is a very major issue and one on which I think the Federal Government has a major role to contribute in terms of assisting the States and assisting the localities in improving those assessments matched to the standards.

 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I would just observe on this testing issue—since it's received so much comment—I do believe you're correct the Congress—those who are opposed to the National Testing program is, perhaps, in some cases because it might portend national standards, but the real reason for most of them—and you can see from the discussion of Ms. Bernice Johnson and myself that it's also bipartisan—there is already so much testing going on, so much time consumed, do we really need another test? Particularly, since, as you say, you've worked on one that is ready nationwide. Michigan has their own, the Michigan Educational Assessment program. They've put in a second statewide test, and there's a terrific furor about all the time wasted, and it may die of its own weight. And, so that's really the concern as Bill Goodling has said, ''Do we really need to take more of the students' time to tell them that the school is failing them?'' There's just a feeling that there's enough testing going on.
    The next is Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is such an important topic this morning. It's such an important topic for the country, and I'm pleased that you're all here.
    I wonder if you might talk a little bit more about technology—and I apologize if this is something you talked about earlier—but just to the state of technology; where we are across the country. I've been in middle Michigan working very hard on a number of issues dealing with technology: the wiring and getting computers in the schools, and I totally agree with you that the real issue is to make sure the computer isn't a coat rack; that it's, in fact, an integral part of the curriculum in the classroom, and that there's much to be done in professional development and teacher development, supporting teachers—and teachers want that, by the way. I have a science education advisor group working with me, and that's the number one thing that they're asking for.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But as we take a snapshot of the country, can you tell us, even though wiring isn't everything and computers aren't everything, we still have to have those in order to be able to do the next step, and I'm wondering what your assessment is as to where we are in the efforts to nationally connect the schools and at least get the hardware in the schools?
    Mr. SHAW. Well, if I can address that? We're certainly moving forward. There's a lot of progress being made even since the time we delivered the report of the educational technology panel to the President which was just in March of this year. The big issue is, of course, that although, as you say, we need connectivity, and we need modern computers—and those are important not just in their own sake but also to stimulate the software industry to develop software for platforms that still exist, because, actually, the majority of the ones out there in the schools right now, nobody's developing software for, because they're obsolete. And there are various problems, volunteer efforts won't do the whole thing, especially in inner cities and some rural areas.
    There are a number of other issues there, but I think the more serious problem, actually, is going to be the coat rack problem as you put it, and as several people on this panel have said, I think the most crucial area and the harder area is going to be developing content and pedagogy that's appropriate for the use of technology, and as Dr. Rutherford said, viewing this as a problem of systemically changing the way we educate to integrate technology rather than simply adding technology and hoping that it fits in somewhere.
    Now, that leads to the next area which is professional development which is extremely crucial. We have plenty of examples of teachers not using computers and not having any idea what to do at the Internet when they arrive. That's going to be critical, and, in fact, at this point, we're spending about 15 percent of our educational technology budget on professional development when there's a rough consensus in the field that 30 percent is a reasonable target. So, we're spending too much on hardware; not enough on maintenance; not enough on professional development.

 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But the final area which I think is most crucial and in most danger of creating a backlash is that we can't even do professional development; we can't teach teachers how to use technology until we actually know how to use technology in the classrooms, and I think in the next few years, there's no problem, because the right thing to do is let a 1,000 flowers bloom; try a lot of experiments; generate good hypotheses, but in the long run, if we don't do systematic large scale research, we may go to tremendous expense to the teach the teachers to do the wrong things with technology on those computers, and the whole experiment will be viewed as a failure. So, that's my biggest concern.
    Ms. STABENOW. As we look at professional development, we have at least a couple of pieces. One, is the current teacher in the classroom, and the other is how we are teaching teachers to teach. And I'm wondering on the university end, in our colleges of education, what you see—at this point, do you see the university structure making the necessary changes in terms of the new teachers coming online, if you will, knowing the kinds of things they need to or is this also a piece of the struggle, at this point, in terms of our universities and colleges of education?
    Mr. SHAW. It's the major piece of the struggle. The faculties in many of the education schools and colleges are not adequately prepared to teach about technology and part of it, again, is we don't know how to use technology, but both on the preservice and the inservice side, we have some major gaps in our ability to teach teachers how to teach using technology.
    Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
    Mr. AMBACH. May I add a couple of comments about this on your question of, what's the overall picture here? If you step back and look at the big picture, I would say that we're quite rapidly now moving from a stage where the technologies have almost always been simple add-ons here or there or the other place within the classroom, to a stage where the technologies will be relied upon for purposes of a large portion of the instruction and learning; that is, develop a critical mass of such extent that, in fact, nobody can ignore it. And we're sort of in between right now. You will find some school systems which have moved to the extent where there is really very substantial penetration at the technologies all the way through. This is not to argue that it's being used in the high state of the art, but there are certain fundamentals just plain getting to know how to use these technologies and being on the Internet and accessing information and communicating and what not, which we don't take to be high end or high performance skills or capacities, but they're absolutely critical to do business in the world today. And most places in most schools, you don't have that kind of equipment, but price is down. I referred, I think before you came into the hearing to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the discounting which will make a substantial difference on availability of the equipment. Now, in my view, it will take the time of getting up to critical mass of availability before you can actually begin to use and rely on the technology to the effect that you can't afford to be without it. And it's that point where the issue of the research which has been described on how to increase the performance level of using the technology is really going to be very critical to kick in. But up to this point, it's still basically kind of an addition. You don't have kids carrying their laptops back and forth in school. They've got 20 pounds of books on their backs. Just watch them going in; elementary schools and high schools, middle schools; 20 pounds of books in the knapsack. Now, the day isn't too far off, in my view, before that's going to be a laptop or some kind of a powerbook or what not that goes back and forth instead of all those other things. That is going to very substantially change what happens, and it's because of that day coming that it's so critical to do the research on what are the teaching techniques and the limits of the use of the technologies.

 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. GABRIEL. There's one more issue that I think that we've overlooked—and I certainly echo the sentiment that the wiring is going to be the easy part—but it's the issue of access and making sure that our rural areas and urban areas and poorer school districts have access to technology; have access to teachers and support to use this technology effectively, and when it does come online, I think that's critical, and we have to make sure that our programs support that even access across the spectrum of American society.
    Ms. STABENOW. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just one more comment, just more of a plug, I guess. There are various pieces coming together; it's not a unified strategy, certainly, but the E-Rate, it helped. There are other things that helped; the volunteer net day efforts help stimulate the community. In the new tax bill that was just passed, we have an enhanced tax cut now for businesses that donate equipment, computer equipment or software, that is 2-years old or less in enhanced tax credit that's just part of the new tax bill that a number of us worked on which is an important—another piece, and, today, if anyone's interested, in HC-5 this afternoon from 1 pm to 2 pm, there's a non-profit organization called the Lazareth Foundation from Maryland that's going to be demonstrating how they take used computer equipment and, essentially, upgrade it to 286s, 386s, you know, 486 upgrade, and work with folks to, then, take that equipment back to schools. And so there are a number of hopeful private efforts where volunteers and non-profit groups and so on are working. We just need to create a comprehensive strategy where that all plugs in, and we create the infrastructure needed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. EHLERS. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Mr. Nethercutt, do you have any questions?
    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to be late to the hearing, gentlemen. I had another hearing just downstairs, and I have an interest in this issue. I'll just be very brief.

 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I just had occasion out in Washington State, the Fifth Congressional District that I represent there, to meet with a number of business executives, and, frankly, I haven't had a chance to read your testimony, and maybe you already touched on this, but they were, I think, lamenting the problem that they are unable to get good engineers out of our colleges. They just aren't available, and they have to go overseas and otherwise—and in other ways to try to meet their demands.
    So, just as a comment, we, in our district, have a number of universities that we're going to have a summit and, sort of, a forum, and talk about business needs v. educational output, and hope that there will be an incentive created among the student populations at universities to, perhaps, turn to engineering and science and math and technology to try to meet the business needs that are there. Do you see—generally, do you see any—have any suggestions about what the business community may do in order to encourage people to turn to math and science and some of the subjects on which you folks are focused?
    Mr. EHLERS. Anyone wish to—Dr. Rutherford.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. Yes. I might add that we know pretty well how to do that. From time to time, business gets serious, and they offer incentives. Now, in a full labor market when there are lots of opportunities available, people can move in a variety of directions. So, to the degree that industry wants engineers—it isn't, incidentally, we don't know how to produce good engineers; this country does a superb job of that—but it has to do with the market, so part of the answer, I think, to them is make the jobs more attractive; see that gets out so the young people coming along, trying to decide, say, between anthropology and engineering, might choose the latter. I don't think there's a lot that the school, the universities can do to control the pipeline and how many people come into it and out of it.
    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Sir, may I just follow up and ask you, do you sense in anywhere in the universities that you've had any dealings with that they actively, for one reason or another, recruit foreign students to come to those universities and become educated in those disciplines?

 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. RUTHERFORD. Oh, I think they do, surely.
    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Do you think that may contribute to the lack of focus on domestic engineering opportunities, for example, encouraging students here or do you think they're doing enough in other words to recruit American students?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD. I think—I'm not sure, I'm not an authority on this—I think they're quite different problems. It probably works to the advantage of our country to, in fact, attract people from around the world to attend our universities including engineering. That doesn't relieve us of the necessity to make engineering, particularly engineering these days, an attractive profession by providing the right kinds of scholarships, incentives for good jobs. One thing that's always worked very well is when business—and many still do—provide opportunities for advance degrees. Get your bachelor's degree; come to work for us, and over the next 2 years we're going to support your advanced training. That's a real incentive.
    Mr. EHLERS. If I may, just give a response based on my experience. I find what you asked about is particularly true at the graduate level, and in most of the sciences when you go to the universities, you'll find, roughly, 50 percent of the students are from other nations.
    Dr. Gabriel.
    Mr. GABRIEL. As far as training engineers at the undergraduate level, I think it is a pipeline issue, but I think the major part of the problem occurs very far back in the pipeline in terms of making sure that when our high school graduates reach college, that they're prepared to handle more difficult mathematics that's required in pursuing an education degree. So, I think that it's a pretty big cycle here, so I think the colleges do have a big role and that is in teacher preparation to make sure that they're producing the proper level of math literacy in our high school graduates.

 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. AMBACH. There is one, if I might, just one other suggestion on what businesses can do at the elementary and secondary education level. It's not a short term, but it's a longer term strategy, and that is to be certain that students are informed about the possibility of placements, and this has an immense affect on motivation of students in terms of whether they can expect that undertaking a rigorous program in science and mathematics toward a career in engineering, in science and mathematics, will have a payload. And it's a very important way for the business community to provide encouragement.
    As you may know, the National Association of Business, NAB, has been organizing on a nationwide basis one effort which is somewhat connected with this and that is to have businesses be paying much more attention to transcripts for students as they graduate from high school and putting a pressure on there to make certain that the student understands the business is going to look at the student transcript and, therefore, the student motivation should be higher toward preparing for careers like engineering. That's a very key longer term strategy that can be pursued.
    Mr. NETHERCUTT. You'll—if I can have just one more question, Mr. Chairman—you're familiar with the Eisenhower funds?
    Mr. AMBACH. Yes.
    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Do you support the segregation—continuation of segregation of those funds as a separate item as opposed to throwing them in with other education funds which would enhance teaching for math and science in high school?
    Mr. AMBACH. Yes, sir. I do and very strongly. I commented earlier about the importance of targeted efforts here, and I realize that there is, in effect, a collision course. Block granting for more general assistance of federal aid which has certain values to it, and is advocated in a certain way, runs counter to the issue of attempting to try to make sure that there is a federal role with limited resources that get very specifically targeted on all the things we've been talking about this morning. If there is to be work on standards and assessments in science and math and professional development in science and math and R&D efforts in science and math, it will not happen if you block grants. We know that; we saw it happen in the 1980's when things went to block grants on title VI, for example, and it got completely dissipated. It lost its energy; it lost its enthusiasm; it lost its advocacy, and we just saw a decline in what went into mathematics and science. As I point out, these are conflicting values, but I strongly believe that in the area of mathematics and science, if we're to accomplish some of the ambitions that have been expressed here, there's got to be targeted money.

 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you.
    Mr. EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired, and all time has expired. We want to thank all of you very much for your attendance. We're very grateful we weren't interrupted by votes and that we were able to complete our work so that you will enjoy a leisurely lunch even though I won't. But we certainly thank you for the insight that you've provided; the information that you've given us and particularly from different perspectives you have, it's been one of our better hearings, and I certainly appreciate your time and the effort that you've put into this effort. Thank you very much. With that, we stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]